UN Resolution 242, the Suez Crisis, and European diplomacy underscores a deep-rooted frustration with the historical and current role of Europe in the Middle East. For many Israelis, it’s not just about specific policies or actions—it’s about the broader political narrative in which Israel’s legitimacy and security, constantly questioned or undermined through EU diplomacy.

Whether or not Israel should break relations with European countries, a complex issue with serious implications. Israel’s global alliances simply crucial to its diplomatic and economic interests, and maintaining relationships with key European powers remains important. However, a valid essential Jewish concern, the European attitudes toward Israel too often reflect a legacy of imperialism or a one-sided approach, from forced ghetto imprisonment for 3 Centuries, to pogroms, to blood libels, to taxation without representation etc.  All these memory scares easily compounded every time the EU, Britain, and Russian diplomacy tilts in favor of hostile Arab states who adamantly refuse to recognize Jewish equality in self determination, this history European criminal behavior toward Jews fails to adequately acknowledge Israel’s security needs and right to exist.

The struggle for Israel’s sovereignty in a region full of external influences—including European powers, Arab states, and global organizations—remains one of the defining elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, specifically the strategic Arab policies to internationalize war in the Middle East. Whether Israel decides to break off relations with specific countries, such as Ireland, or continue to engage diplomatically, its primary focus will remain on securing its right to exist, ensuring its security, and maintaining Jewish state rule from Jerusalem.

Israel’s security and sovereignty from the moment Israel declared independence in 1948, has faced harsh external pressures, both from Arab states and international NGO’s and European imperialism, all of which seek to impose Israeli territorial and political concessions to Arabs who, like Hamas refuse, to recognize the Jewish state with Jerusalem as its Capital. The idea of a divided Jerusalem as repugnant as a divided Berlin.  The European Union and individual European states, at times, have pushed for Israeli concessions on issues such as settlements and Jerusalem, often siding with Palestinian demands in ways that Israel views as both insane and discriminatory.  Post Shoah the sanity of Europeans, always a concern of deep suspicion.

The fear that Israel once again finds itself trapped & caught in the historical cycle of European barbarism, imperialism; that the international community undermines the legitimacy Jews – a core grievance that burns deep for many Israelis. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) basically determined the borders and political structure of the Middle East States.  The legacy of this abusive colonialism has permanently shaped attitudes as well as international borders across the Middle East. Many Israelis see the European attitude toward Israel as rooted in this imperialist barbaric and racist legacy, where European powers sought to impose ‘Final Solutions’ without understanding the consequences that the extermination of the Jewish people utterly implodes the good name reputations of the European people for ever after.  This abstract idea – known as ‘Fear of Heaven’.  Remains to this day an idea totally alien to both Europeans and Arabs.  

Breaking diplomatic relations with British and key EU countries, like as initiated with Ireland, would certainly make a dramatic slap in the face. Such a bold move would emphasize the isolation Israel feels toward key European players, potentially harming economic and political ties. However, it would also – express Israel’s deep seated frustrations, with the perceived anti-Israel bias in European diplomacy and its longstanding grievances with European interference in the Middle East, which began with both the Churchill and Chamberlain White Paper betrayal of the Jewish people.

Relations with Britain, France, and Rome, historically complex.  The memory of the Inquisition and forced expulsions stands in stark contrast with European horror and indignation of a mass Gazan population transfer post Oct 7th. First World European empires, once major colonial powers with interests across the world and specifically in the Middle East.  The post ’48 Jewish state often forced to navigate a delicate balance between maintaining diplomatic relations and protecting its sovereignty and security interests. Israel’s frustration with European nations often stems from the perception that they would betray Israel’s security concerns at the drop of a hat. Europe often sides with Palestinian narratives, especially in the context of UN resolutions and EU policies.  The Obama UN decree of 2334 makes Jerusalem forever suspicious that Europeans long for the day to plunge a dagger into Israel’s back.

Ireland’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly its support for resolutions that criticize Israel’s actions, seen by many Israelis as beyond simply biased and unfair. This, along with growing European support for Palestinian positions, has contributed to Israel’s increasing sense of alienation from European countries who forever stand under the shadow of the Shoah.

The Suez Crisis serves as a powerful example. The 8 year old nation, treated as a political pawn by England and France. Israel found itself in an exceptionally weak position, manipulated by Britain and France into a broader imperialist agenda that ultimately undermined Israel’s sovereignty and long-term interests in the region.  The ’56 war introduced “Land for Peace”.  This event, often viewed as a moment of reckoning for European imperialism in the Middle East. The Suez Crisis symbolized the end of European powers’ dominance in the region and the rise of the United States and Soviet Union as the primary international players. Britain and France—which had both previously held colonial dominance in the region—collaborated with Israel to invade Egypt and secure the canal. However, the intervention met strong opposition from both the United States and the Soviet Union; leading to a ceasefire and a subsequent embarrassment for the European powers, who were forced to withdraw.  The ’56 War set the stage for the UN 242 demand for Israel to cede re-captured territory in a war initiated by Jordan!

The Suez Crisis (also known as the Second Arab-Israeli War), a clear example of European imperial powers, and their repeated attempts to assert their dominance & control over the Suez Canal and other regional matters, with a military intervention designed to bring down Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had nationalized the canal.  The aftermath of the Suez Crisis also marked a turning point for Israel. While the event, seen as a failure for European powers, it also revealed a vulnerability in Israel’s geopolitical strategy: its reliance on former colonial powers like Britain and France, who had their own imperial interests in the region, fully willing and prepared to undermine Israel’s long-term security strategic interests. This greatly contributed to Israel’s wariness toward European diplomatic engagement and its sense that European policies toward the Middle East, utterly narcissistic,  simply influenced by historical baggage and global power visions of empires, rather than by making a fair assessment of the new state of Israel’s needs or security.

When it comes to UN Resolution 242, Israel’s interpretation and response also central to the interpretation of this narrative. Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Six-Day War, calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the war, in exchange for peace with neighboring Arab states.  It promotes the Arab war agenda of internationalizing the conflict through the UN; it fails to address the Israeli re-capture of Jerusalem.  Israel’s frustration with this resolution also emphasizes the hostile fact that the Security Council – great powers – failed to demand that Arab states of the Middle East recognize the Israeli basic requirement – to recognize Israeli self-determination and united Jerusalem as the Israeli Capital.

Furthermore, that Middle East and African voting blocks invalidate Israel as a nation within the Middle East community of nations.   UN 242 does not adequately guarantee Israeli security, recognition of its right to exist as a sovereign state, or Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.. The European Union, supports these hostile, pro-Arab resolutions, viewing them as a means to bring about a negotiated peace which favors the strategic interests of European imperialism and Arab internationalization of war in the Middle East. Israel perceives this imbalanced stance which fails to recognize the security challenges these multiple wars, by neighboring states and non-state actors threaten the existence of the Jewish state.

Many Israelis view European diplomacy through the lens of colonial history, especially the Sykes-Picot Agreement that carved up the Middle East and laid the groundwork for many of the region’s modern political challenges and border wars – like the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.  The EU refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, coupled with the demands to dismantle post ’67 Israel, burns within the hearts of Israelis.  There’s a persistent feeling that European powers, their repeated attempts to “solve” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, smells a lot like the Nazi ‘Final Solution’.  This permanent scar tissue within the Jewish soul, totally overlooked in the deep-rooted complexities of the region, including Israel’s right to security and to exist as a Jewish state, which the Palestinian claim of Right to Return totally undermines.  The EU prioritization of the plight of Arab ’48 refugees which ignores the forced expulsion of Jews from Arab countries.  The corrupt UNWRA that perpetuates Arab refugee status and refuses to demand that the 22 Arab countries repatriate their refugee populations like Israel did the ’48 Jewish refugees!

Diplomatic relations with European powers, especially Britain, France, and Germany – these countries exert significant economic and political partnerships.  Israeli navy, for example, has bought multiple German submarines.  Severing diplomatic relations with them could lead to isolation at a time when global diplomacy, increasingly interconnected. However, the frustration with European diplomatic stances—particularly on issues like settlements, Jerusalem, and Palestinian statehood—does fuel a deep sense of alienation; the shadow of the Shoah and the betrayal of Europe never forgotten nor forgiven. The idea of breaking relations could serve as a form of protest, a way to challenge what Israel perceives as an unjust or biased approach to its security and sovereignty by European powers.

This lingering sense of betrayal, the misalignment of European policies means that the sense of distrust remains complex, with deep-seated frustration over past actions. The apple doesn’t fall far from the Tree. The historical context of European diplomacy in the region, especially with respect to the Suez Crisis and Israel’s post-1948 sovereignty struggles, continues to shape the Israeli view of European involvement in the Middle East. The shifting dynamics of global power—where the U.S. and, more recently, Russia and China have become dominant players—means that Israel may increasingly look beyond Europe for support.

In considering whether Israel should sever diplomatic relations with key European nations, the move would indeed carry significant weight—symbolically and practically.  This issue defined the political theatre of Israeli politics in the 50s which pitted Ben Gurion against Menachem Begin. While European relations remain vital for Israel’s global positioning, the act of breaking relations would signal a deep frustration and an expression of Israel’s commitment to defend its sovereignty and legitimacy against what it perceives as biased international pressures. Such a decision would not only reflect the disillusionment with European policies but also potentially shift Israel’s diplomatic orientation toward more neutral or supportive powers, including the U.S., Russia, and China.

Ultimately, Israel’s security, its right to exist, and its identity as a Jewish state remain at the core of its diplomatic concerns. The complexities of its relationship with European powers reflect the broader challenges of navigating a region rife with historical grievances, imperial legacies, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this context, Israel will likely continue to weigh its strategic interests carefully, balancing the necessity of maintaining global alliances with the imperative of safeguarding its sovereignty and security.

The historical weight of Europe’s involvement in the Middle East—particularly its legacy of colonialism, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the aftermath of the Holocaust—remains deeply embedded in Israel’s diplomatic psyche. This ongoing tension between Israel’s historical experiences and the current European stance quite unlikely to dissipate without significant changes in how European diplomacy engages with Israel, the Middle East and Israel’s unique fundamental requirement that the UN recognize Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of nations.

UNSC 242 shares about as much with EU neutrality and desires to restore peace in the Middle East, as EU’s refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in UN 242, a denial of reality, akin to pretending a nuclear Israel doesn’t exist. It infantilizes Israeli sovereignty and keeps Europe locked in a colonial-era mindset, where they think they still get to decide Middle East borders.

A diplomatic game of denial — but only one side is expected to play fair. Israel’s policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear capability — widely understood but never officially acknowledged — mirrors the West’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s de facto victory and the political outcomes of 1967, especially regarding Jerusalem. Just as Israel says, “We won’t confirm or deny,” so too do Britain and France say, “We won’t accept what happened, even though we all know it did.”

The omission of Jerusalem’s status from 242 is glaring. Britain and France deliberately avoided affirming Israel’s sovereignty over East Jerusalem, even after the 1967 unification of the city — again signaling a non-neutral tilt against Israeli political and historical claims.

The Infamous “Withdrawal from Territories” Clause. UN 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict,” not “all the territories.” The ambiguity was intentional, and different powers have since interpreted it differently — Britain and France used this to pressure Israel diplomatically, without actually ensuring peace from the Arab side.

Britain had exited Palestine in 1948 with a deep sense of resentment toward the Zionist movement. France, after the Algerian War, pivoted toward Arab states and saw the Middle East as a strategic chessboard to regain relevance. The resolution was shaped by Lord Caradon (UK) and French diplomats, whose countries had long-standing ties to Arab regimes, especially after the loss of colonial holdings. Supporting Arab causes post-decolonization became a way to maintain influence.

UN Resolution 242, drafted largely by Britain and France, was never a neutral document. It was a political compromise crafted in the shadow of their imperial interests, Cold War alignments, and long-standing pro-Arab policy biases — not an impartial framework for peace.

Why, based upon the UN Apartheid racism against Israel, does Israel and the US support disbanding the UN organization?

Just as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre on April 13, 1919, led by British Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, a pivotal event in India’s struggle for independence. So too Chamberlain’s 2nd White Paper which destroyed the obligations Britain agreed to upon its acceptance of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, equally destroyed the “British mandate from Heaven” to rule the League of Nations dividing Ottoman Greater Syrian into a spoils of war divided between the French and the British.

Effectively, Britain sided with Arab nationalist demands at the expense of Jewish self-determination, attempting to appease Arab opposition in the lead-up to World War II. This cowardly betrayal of Britain’s legal and moral obligations under the Mandate, particularly as Jews faced genocide in Nazi-occupied Europe. British rule in India, maintained throughout the history of its Imperial rule, with brutality – rather than legitimacy; the 1939 White Paper demonstrated that Britain’s rule in Palestine equally dictated by political expediency, rather than its Mandate obligations.

Both events eroded British credibility and accelerated nationalist movements—in India’s case, leading to the Quit India Movement (1942), and in Palestine’s case, leading to the Jewish armed resistance (Irgun, Lehi, and Haganah) against British rule. Britain’s colonial rule collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions and betrayals, leading to the rise of independent nation-states where imperial promises had once shaped policy.

Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, after the expiration of the British Mandate for Palestine; in other words – before Britain returned the Mandate back to the UN. Britain introduced what became known as UN General Assembly Resolution 181. 181 came in the context of rising tensions between Jews and Arabs in the region, and the Irgun blowing up the King David Hotel, while Britain clung to its League of Nations Mandate.

Arab states universally opposed the British GA Resolution 181. November 29, 1947, made before England surrendered the mandate back to the UN. All Arab and Muslim countries before Camp David and the Trump Abraham Accords, because their anti-Jewish racism does not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state, in what they consider as a territorial Arab political monopoly. Post ’67, UN Resolution 242 called for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and affirmed the need for all states in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

Resolution 242, often interpreted as part of a framework, promoted by the Quartet Powers, a two-state solution, where Israel would give up land in exchange for peace with its Arab neighbours. However, the wording of the resolution, purposely & deliberately ambiguous. Israel must withdraw from all the occupied territories or just some? It failed to address the 1948 to 1967 illegal Jordanian occupation of Samaria, according to the UN condemnation of Jordan’s annexation as illegal in 1950. Jordan renamed Jewish Samaria, as the West Bank; all Jews in East Jerusalem systematically wiped out. Jewish grave-stones employed in building buildings. And historic synagogues in Old City Jerusalem, blown up and demolished.

The UN post ’67 insistence of referring to Samaria as “the West Bank”, supports the Arab propaganda that Israel illegally occupies Samaria. It ignores the fact that Britain separated as the Arab portion of the Palestine Mandate – Trans-Jordan. It equally ignores that Britain established the border between Arab Trans-Jordan/Palestine at the Jordan river.

UN 242 supports the Arab voting block political rhetoric (meaning their lies) which argues that Israel’s presence as a viable state in the Middle East, illegitimate until a peace agreement, reached with the Palestinians. Despite the Oslo Accords, Arab states insist that the Jewish state remains invalid in the Middle East.proving the lie to their political rhetoric which makes the legality of Israel as a Jewish state in the Middle East dependent upon the Will of the Palestinian people. Despite the fact that the KGB and Yasser Arafat did not embrace the political propaganda opportunism of referring to the Arabs within the borders of ’48 Israel as “Palestinian”, not till 1964.

The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre also directly compares to the Oct 7th Hamas surprise attack pogrom which slaughtered some 1300 Israelis and stole over 240 Israeli hostages, almost a third have died in Hamas underground Dungeons. Attempts by the UN, ICC, ICJ and the South African ‘Blood Libel’ which condemns Israel of Genocide of Gaza Palestinians, a betrayal as significant as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. The absolute disgrace of the Red Cross/Double Cross to visit the Israeli prisoners of war – beyond unacceptable.

Israel disputes the idea that these re-captured territories, in any manner, “illegally occupied” by Israel. Based upon the British separating Mandate Palestine from Trans-Jordan at the Jordan river. Israel has proposed various arrangements for peace, though these have always been rejected by ”Palestinian leaders”; since when does a non country determine UN policies? Mandate Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. Never in all Human History has there existed a Palestinian State.

The dominance of both Britain and France has significantly collapsed, since Israeli Irgun resistence forced Britain to return the Mandate back to the UN. Especially after their imperialist defeat in the 1956 War, opposed by both the US and the USSR. UN policies: Specifically, the structure of the General Assembly—where alliances and voting blocs dominate all GA Resolution outcomes—politically motivated rather than based strictly on international law. Yet UN propaganda continually condemns Israel as a rogue state who ignores, defies, and abuses “inter-national law”.

The UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status in 2012, a significant move towards recognizing Palestine as a state. The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state in 2012 by the UN General Assembly, interpreted by Israel, as a symbolic victory for Palestinian self-determination; it undermined Israeli legitimacy. UN revisionist history, by treating Israel – as if it lost its 1948 Independence War – and therefore the disputed territory remains part of a pre-1948 protectorate ward mandate territory of the UN; as if Israel never won its National Independence as a nation within the Middle East. As if the UN has the authority to determine the international borders of Israel. As if UN 242 functions as a Chapter VII dictate rather than a Chapter VI suggestion. The UN GA policy which permits nations who do not recognize and have no diplomatic relations with some other nation, yet permits – the right to condemn the nation they do not recognize through GA popular votes – a horrid abuse of the Charter of the UN.

Palestine remains excluded as a full UN member. Specifically the GA contrasts with the SC due to the power of the US veto. Some countries, particularly those aligned with the Palestinian & Arab voting block, argue that Israel’s presence in the region utterly illegitimate until a lasting peace agreement – reached with the Palestinians! This political rhetoric conceals the racism of Arab states and their absolute refusal to validate the Balfour right, of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East, as established by the League of Nations. Since when should a non State over ride peace treaties with Arab states and countries? This has led the Arab block and the African non aligned nations, and other sympathetic Arab block allied states like Cuba and countries in South America, to impose an Apartheid restriction upon the recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

The GA’s granting of non-member observer status to Palestine in 2012, clearly seen as a symbolic move to advance Palestinian recognition at Israel’s expense. The preceding condemnations of Israel’s “illegal occupation” of Palestinian territory served as the foundation by which the UN GA later recognized the Palestinian State. This General Assembly imperialist stance, it reflects a broader international sentiment grossly antisemitic, and perversely more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, particularly in the context of long-standing propaganda which condemns the Israeli occupation of “illegally occupied Palestinian territories”, spewed across the International press. The Nazi claim: if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth! Despite the hard cold fact that Mandate Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. That no Palestine State ever existed in all Human History.

The UN justifies Israel’s exclusion from the Middle Eastern bloc regional group system; based upon the shallow excuse, where the UN demands that states in a bloc must voluntarily accept new members. Since Arab League and Muslim-majority nations oppose Israel’s inclusion, Israel forced to temporarily join the EU voting block. This Apartheid racism speaks to the ongoing tensions between Israel and many Arab states and non-aligned nations. Israel’s diplomatic and strategic interests have often led it to navigate these divides, with no other choice but to alignwith Western powers to avoid the UN Apartheid isolation. Despite Arab propaganda which refers to the Zionist entity as a Crusader State!

The modern push for Palestinian statehood, most essentially rooted in the aftermath of Israel’s establishment and the subsequent conflicts. Particularly after the 1948 and 1967 wars, which reshaped territorial control in the region, which Arab leaders originally referred to as the Nakba. The UN General Assembly’s stance on Palestine reflects broader international political trends, where many countries view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of colonialism, self-determination, and human rights. Which totally disregards essential historical and legal realities; such as the fact that Palestine quite simply never existed as a sovereign state before 1948. Instead, Roman revisionist history which renamed Judea unto Palestine after the Bar Kokhba revolt of 135 CE, this European baptism of defeated Judea unto Palestine, existed as merely a conquered part of successive empires. From the Ottoman Empire to the British Mandate, and Egypt, and Jordanian rule till the June 1967 surrender to Israel.

Israel’s diplomatic challenges at the UN, including forced to join the EU bloc rather than the Middle Eastern bloc, underscores the persistent Apartheid hostility which it faces within this “neutral” organization. Many Arab and Muslim-majority countries refuse to recognize Israel, which in turn impacts its ability to participate fully in regional diplomatic frameworks. This also reflects the broader geopolitical struggle where Israel often relies it US (and not European) alliances to counterbalance Arab and Muslim States international opposition.

Particularly in forums like the UN where automatic majorities, such as the 22 Arab countries and some 120+ NAM, non aligned third World African States + Russia, China, almost totally approve of and support the Palestinian propaganda Arab political warfare narratives and agendas. Arab political warfare prioritizes its strength and dominance in the UN. Its highly influenced and shaped by Hồ Chí Minh’s ‘Peoples’ War’ strategy which prioritized promotion of internal Civil War inside Israeli society, rather than direct military conflicts with the superior IDF military power.

This racial bigotry against the Jewish State, specifically the right to self determination of Jews based upon the Balfour Declaration defines Herzl’s Zionism, the UN has absolutely refused to address as a UN debasement of Israel’s membership in the UN. No other nation forced to join other outside regional blocks, as the Arab countries and their allies have forced Israel to join the EU regional block.

The unique “treatment” Israel has received within the UN system, particularly regarding its regional representation. No other nation, systematically excluded from its natural regional bloc in the way Israel forced to endure. The fact that Israel, as a matter of necessity, forced to join the EU bloc rather than the Middle Eastern bloc speaks volumes about the level of Apartheid hostility it faces within the UN framework.

The issue of Jewish self-determination, as articulated through the Balfour Declaration, which the League of Nations both accepted and later reinforced, by the League of Nations Mandate, absolutely overlooked or outright dismissed in international discourse. The UN’s failure to address the systemic bias against Israel—where a “democracy of hostile states, automatic majority in the General Assembly” subject Israel gross disproportionate pogrom like UN condemnation attacks.

This UN scrutiny and condemnation—stands in stark contrast to its handling of other international conflicts. The automatic majority in the General Assembly that consistently votes against Israel, often led by the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, who outright abandon the UN diplomacy, whenever an Israeli Representative addresses the UN, has turned UN institutions into a battleground for delegitimizing the Jewish state’s right to exist and govern itself.

While the UN preaches self-determination as a universal principle, its selective application of this right—which unilaterally endorses Palestinian self-determination, while absolutely ignoring, even actively undermining Jewish self-determination—reveals a deeper political and ideological UN rot. The UN refusal to acknowledge Israel’s exclusion from its natural regional bloc, represents an absolute abuse of the UN Charter. This gross Apartheid racism further highlights the double standards at play. This disgrace of international abuse of power, has led many to question whether the UN remains a neutral arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or if it has become an institution that legitimizes political racism against Israel under the guise of international diplomacy. The disgraceful examples of UN Resolution: Zionism is Racism, UNWRA and UNIFIL serve as strong evidence to these facts on the ground.

The UN attributes this to the regional group system, where Block states must voluntarily accept new members; similar to how all EU states must mutually agree before permitting additional members. The Arab League and Muslim-majority nations oppose Israel’s inclusion, making it impossible for Israel to join the Middle Eastern bloc. No other country faces such exclusion, and the UN’s failure to address this systemic abuse, results in Israel’s diplomatic marginalization.

The General Assembly’s 2012 decision, framed as the shining picture, which reflects global support for Palestinian self-determination. The UN argues that it does not determine Israel’s borders but rather acknowledges international legal frameworks, such as UNSC Resolution 242, as a basis for negotiation. Despite UN 242 being a Chapter VI and not a Chapter VII resolution! This move, a politically feeble excuse rather than legal acknowledgment of UN Apartheid policies against Israel. This UN racism bypasses Israel’s sovereignty and rewards Palestinian leadership, despite its Gaza’s refusal to recognize the Oslo Accords and Israel as a Jewish state. Yet because the Arafat signed the Oslo Accords, the ICC declares it has judicial jurisdiction over Gaza – and by extension Israel. Despite the cold facts that Hamas won the independent Gazan elections and expelled the PA from Gaza. The ICC insists that Hamas Gaza remains under the PA! Just another example of the revisionist history practiced by “international law”.

The UN disproportionately promotes Palestinian self-determination while dismissing Jewish self-determination, particularly in its refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people’s historical connection to the land, and specifically to Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. UNRWA perpetuates the Palestinian refugee crisis by treating Palestinians differently from other refugee populations, yet refuses to denounce the Arabs states refusal to repatriate their Arab refugee populations and give them citizenship in those Arab countries. UNIFIL has failed to prevent Hezbollah’s military build-up on the Lebanon/Israel border. This shows a lot more than simply a lack of neutrality. The US often blocks anti-Israel resolutions, but the General Assembly’s automatic majority continues to pass one-sided measures, demonstrating an imbalance in how this biased voting block despises the “Zionist Entity”. Passage of the Zionism is Racism, GA Resolution 3379. The UN, long ago hijacked by Arab terrorists through their automatic anti-Israel majority. Has transformed the UN into an arena for political warfare rather than genuine peace efforts.

The language of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, because the League based this Mandate upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the entire idea of an Arab Palestinian narrative that has high-jacked the UN – utterly and completely absurd. The language of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate indeed reflects the commitments Britain agreed to in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. British support to establish a “national home for the Jewish people” in “Palestine”.

The modern Arab Palestinian national identity, developed particularly after the establishment of Israel in 1948, and subsequent KGB and Arafat’s establishment of the PLO in 1964. This revisionist history propaganda narrative emphasizes the displacement “Palestinian People”, and their right to self-determination; such rhetoric totally sweeps under the rug the original 1948 Arab disgrace! The failure and defeat of 5 Arab Armies to throw the Jews into the Sea.

The UN’s increasing emphasis on Arab-“Palestinian” rights and statehood, represents a gross perversion of the original intent of the “Palestinian” Mandate written by the League of Nation. All later UN resolutions, interpreted as supporting Arab-Palestinian narratives; which undermine the legitimacy of Israel’s claims based on historical and legal precedents. The original Mandate and its commitments, they compare to the Written Constitution of the “Palestinian” Jewish State.

The interplay between the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate, and the post 1948 and 1967 Arab military defeats, Arab political warfare has sought to reshape this Palestinian Mandate Constitution unto an Arab-Palestinian identity revisionist history comparable to Holocaust Denial in its scope. The Mandate laid a foundation for Jewish self-determination, the emergence of a Palestinian propaganda lies has perverted Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East unto a totally distorted notion of Arab “Palestinian” rights of return, and Arab Palestinians as the original native inhabitants, descendants of the Philistines, forcibly displaced by barbaric Jews from their native homelands. Despite the fact that Muhammad did not live till the 7th Century CE.