1. Impact on Palestinians lives – a non starter b/c Palestinian refugees have no more rights than did Jewish refugees in ghetto gulags. Palestinian suffering, a weaponized inheritance through UNWRA, while Jewish post WWII refugee suffering utterly erased. 2. Two-State Solution viability only valid if 242 and 2334 valid Resolutions. You have not shown how either qualify as valid UN Resolutions. Since both exist as Chapter VI and not Chapter VII, neither qualify as international law. In fact both compare to the invalid 3379 Resolution; both qualify as revisionist history which pretends to turn the clock back where Arabs accept and embrace UN 181. 3. Role of International Aid. A strong point, such “aid” by UNWRA compares to the British opium trade forced upon China during the 19th Century. 4. International Law and Norms: The UN Chapter VI Resolutions does not write nor enforces “international law”. Only treaties signed by Independent States forge international law. A Chapter VII Resolution which demanded North Korea withdraw back to the 38th parallel – herein constitutes “international law”.

The US, especially under President Trump, but even under President Biden, an ally of the Jewish state! UN Resolution 3379, for example has nothing to do with the failure of the UN to force the Arab voting blocks to recognize Israel as a member-State of the Middle East – not an Apartheid policy?

Only Israel treated in this manner. UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/1, often referred to as item #7, addresses the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, specifically focusing on Israel’s actions. This resolution mandates that the UN Human Rights Council conduct an annual investigation into Israeli violations of human rights in these territories. Only Israel targeted in this disproportionate manner. That’s not Apartheid at the UN?

Have introduced two examples of “Nazi like” behavior. In 2018, under President Trump, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the UNHRC, citing concerns about the council’s effectiveness and its alleged bias. The U.S. government has also called for reforms within the council to improve its credibility and effectiveness in addressing human rights issues globally. Nations that hold no diplomatic relations with Israel should not have the UN Right to publicly condemn Israel. Not in the Human Rights Council nor in the UN General Assembly.

This makes the US completely relevant to the strong emotional objection: “enough of this Nazi like propaganda”. The issue of recognition of Israel by Arab nations and the dynamics of voting blocs in the United Nations and other international forums … The U.S. has historically supported Israel and has encouraged Arab nations to normalize relations with it.

Arab nations have often cited Resolution 242 as a basis for their refusal to recognize Israel, arguing that it requires Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, as a prerequisite for peace. Britain and France, the main architects behind the writing of the Chapter VI language of UN Resolution 242. Only Chapter VII UN Resolutions qualify as “international law”. Propaganda blurs Chapter VI suggestions (comparable to a bill presented unto Congress) with Chapter VII laws passed by Congress. Therefore this EU Voting block sides with the Arab refusal not to recognize Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of nations. Consequently the invalid UN Resolution 242 and 2334 both function as morality politics so utterly corrupt that it would make a prostitute in church blush.

Recall that LBJ – preoccupied by the Vietnam War, compares to Putin in the Ukraine today. The Trump Abraham Accords challenges the validity of UN 242 together with its top-priority status, established by Britain and French hostile propaganda. These fallen empires long to restore their political domination over the Middle Eastern trading routes. European imperialism as a strategic policy, exposed by the Suez Crisis of the 1956 War.

The Abraham Accords represent a significant shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy, it rejects the biased slant of British/French 242. The Abraham Accords 180°, a total rejection of the invalid 242/2334 – 3379 UN racism. President Trump established normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain. These accords, serve as a opposing departure from the traditional Arab consensus that condemned normalization with Israel. Which made any peace treaty with Israel, absolutely contingent upon progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly in relation to the false principles outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 242.

The U.S., under Trump’s leadership, positioned the Accords as a way to foster cooperation among nations in the Middle East, potentially leading to broader peace initiatives. Most Arab states view the Trump Accords as undermining British and French written 242, just as both the US and USSR rejected British/French imperialism to seize the Suez Canal from Nasser’s Egypt.

Contrast the Trump Abraham Accords against corrupt Obama’s UN Resolution 2334. President Trump prioritizes Arab states recognition of Israel as the top priority. Whereas corrupt Obama’s 2334 prioritizes Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state and Eastern Jerusalem as its Capital as the top priority, to achieve peace in the Middle East. Hence UN Resolutions 242 & 2334 compare to the contempt expressed by Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb nursery rhyme and how it frames both the UN and Obama into the same picture.

The Trump administration’s approach, seen as pragmatic. It prioritizes establishment of diplomatic relations between nation states – over the historical and legal frameworks that have traditional 242, 2334, 3379 invalid and utterly corrupt UN Resolutions which have shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict prior to the leadership of President Trump.

UN Resolution 2334 emphasizes the need for a negotiated settlement that recognizes Palestinian statehood, including East Jerusalem as its capital. The resolution reaffirms the 242 international consensus that a two-state solution absolutely essential for lasting peace. Obama thus treated Israel as a UN protectorate territory, wherein imaginary (chapter VI) “International Law”, Resolutions 242, 2334, 3379 – not only invalidates Balfour Treaty Zionism but determines the borders and Capital of the Jewish State, as if Israel remained a 1947 UN protectorate territory whose fate the Peel Commission determined.

But the Abraham Accords flipped the narrative. President Trump now demands that Arab states permit Israel to join the Middle East voting block in the UN and disband the UN Human Rights Council on par with the corrupt UNWRA – which buggered the Palestinian refugee crisis and perverted it into a permanent hereditary UN established homosexual perversion. The Arab majority States rejection of the Abraham Accords establishes an Arab EU alliance against both the US & Israel based upon UN 242 & Obama’s 2334 Global Alliance.

Arabs Palestinians exist as refugees according to UNWRA. But based upon the three century Jewish gulag ghetto experience, refugees have no “Rights”. Yet according to the terms of UN propaganda, the perverted concept of “Palestinian rights” amazingly encompasses a range of issues: including the right to self-determination, the right to return to their homes, and the right to live in dignity and security; such rights neither the Catholic nor Protestant dominated governments accorded to Jewish refugee populations in the 2000+ years which culminated in the Shoah. The “heroin” of Arab propaganda injected into the veins of the anti-Israel UN voting blocks, utterly condemns the Jewish state especially since the Nakba ’48 defeat.

These imaginary rights, recognized by and through various “international” legal frameworks and UN Resolutions – with a morality as dubious as a whore in church, include UN General Assembly resolutions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! The plights of Jews for 2000+ years, where Jewish refugee populations received no rights, serves as the basis & model for Palestinians rights today? Buggery!

Arab states in 1948 flat out rejected Jewish rights to self-determination, the foundation of Zionism based upon the Balfour Declaration. Like priests who entered synagogues and preached conversion to Jews, Arab scream: “Palestinian Rights!” And the Papal Bull UN bias declares its unilateral support for these absolute Palestinian rights … in the face of pre-Shoah Jews whom “international law” ignored their rights.

Israel excluded from the Arab Middle East voting block, and UN HRC item #7 continually denounces the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. No Palestinian state ever established by either Egypt in Gaza or Jordan in the West Bank. Therefore, “Enough of this Nazi-like propaganda”.

All Arab states rejected the legitimacy of the Jewish state in 1948. Post ’67 came the famous Khartoum Resolution Three No’s. The phrase “Nazi-like propaganda” serves as a strong and charged declaration that reflects the Jewish People of Israel’s deep frustration and anger regarding the narratives surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict foisted by the press upon shallow reactionary audiences across the world. This public blood libel slander has its consequences.

When Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, on that same exact day, Arab Armies the newly born state of Israel. Jews of the Middle East fought and won our first war of National Independence. Arab war cries of “throw the Jews into the Sea”, and “Finish the Final Solution”, pushed Jews back against a wall. Arab stated absolutely rejected the establishment of a Jewish state in their self-proclaimed “Arab land”.

Hence Arab voting blocks refuse to recognize Israel as a state in the Middle East! This exploded into the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, followed up with the 2nd Israeli War of Independence in 1967. This Nazi-like racial Arab hatred of dhimmi Jews resulted in significant displacements of more Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries than Arab refugees, who fled based upon the orders issued by the States of the 5 invading Arab Armies.

Yet UN General Assembly and Human Rights Commission propaganda continually condemns Israel over the horrors Arab refugees experience, but never – not even once – demands that the 22 Arab countries repatriate their Arab refugee populations as did Israel with our Jewish refugees of ’48. The Apartheid UN recognition of Palestine as a UN member reflects an utter racist Nazi like superior race jargon, used repeatedly against the inferior Jewish state/UN protectorate territory revisionist history.

The UN under Obama’s watch recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state status. This directly compares to the influence of the Vatican in the UN. In point of fact, the UN serves as a secular medieval Vatican Papal Bull. Rome ordered that Jews of Europe, thrown and expelled into ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries. Morality politics defines both the UN today and the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.

The UN, like the Vatican in the past, strives through rhetoric propaganda Resolutions to impose moral judgments, or decisions & declarations – that have significant consequences directed and targeted against specific Jewish groups: Israelis. In this condemned category; the Jewish people have a long history. Directly subjugated by the Catholic church, prior to the Protestant Reformation. Therefore the concept of “morality politics”, Jews understand that it refers to the ways in which moral arguments & rhetoric, used by Jew haters to shape political decisions and policies. Had Arab Armies prevailed in either ’48 or ’67 the Arabs would have unilaterally expelled the Jews from the Middle East and the UN would express its silence like crickets singing in the night.

In the context of the UN and the so called, ever repeated Israeli-Palestinian propaganda conflict, this ever repeated hate rhetoric &/or narratives, compare to gasoline thrown onto a pre-existing fire. They serve to inflame emotions, arousing demands for justice, palestinian rights, and other non-specified “historical grievances” invoked as evidence of a strong ‘international’, meaning UN, bias against the Jewish people. The recent University marches across the US and Europe: From the River to the Sea Palestine will be free. Shallow reactionary liberty and flower children, utterly shocked when the Trump Administration deported the leaders of these pogrom-like riots across US Universities.

The Obama 2334 revisionist history racism, which equates, as does UN Resolution 242, Israel and Palestine as “equal States”; utter Nazi-like propaganda, used to justify the 1939 invasion of Poland. 242’s calls for a negotiated settlement to the “conflict”, stands upon the corrupt foundation that the Jewish state and the Palestinian state stands as equals. That the Jewish state has a conflict with Arab refugee populations any more than Jordan on Black September had a “conflict” with Palestinian refugee populations. Utter UN racism! A State vs. refugees – not a “conflict” because refugees do not have a standing Army as does a nation state.

The Jewish state does not compare to the mobs of Palestinian refugees who – based upon Jews living in European ghetto gulags – had no rights. 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied during the “conflict”. As if the June War pitted Palestinian Armies against Jewish Armies! This pius UN Resolution, dressed in the white robes of righteousness, utterly ignores the historical fact that Poland and Russia both partition of Prussia between themselves, post WWII.

The UN, the EU, and Arab states continue their long tradition of using “morality politics” to persecute the Jewish people. Resolutions like: 242 & 2334, Item 7, and Palestine’s observer status, serve as primary modern tools of UN racial bias against the Jewish state. Trump’s Abraham Accords serves as the first major breach in this utterly corrupt UN system since 1967. The Abraham Accords have exposed the naked racism butt of Obama’s policies which sought reimpose the old antisemitic paradigm of the Catholic and Protestant Dark Ages – monopoly over who reads and interprets the Bible. A Nazi-faced whore defiles the altar — the true face of the UN’s pious anti-Israel moralists exposed in filth and betrayal.

The US, especially under President Trump, but even under President Biden, an ally of the Jewish state! That you would assume otherwise of the OP speaks more about your bias than anything else. UN Resolution 3379, for example has nothing to do with the failure of the UN to force the Arab voting blocks to recognize Israel as a member-State of the Middle East – not an Apartheid policy? Only Israel treated in this manner.

UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/1, often referred to as item #7, addresses the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, specifically focusing on Israel’s actions. This resolution mandates that the UN Human Rights Council conduct an annual investigation into alleged violations of human rights in these territories. Only Israel targeted in this disproportionate manner. That’s not Apartheid at the UN? Have introduced two examples of “Nazi like” behavior. Which serve as proof that you Mitch speak only out of your butt.

In 2018, under President Trump, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the UNHRC, citing concerns about the council’s effectiveness and its alleged bias. The U.S. government has also called for reforms within the council to improve its credibility and effectiveness in addressing human rights issues globally. Nations that hold no diplomatic relations with Israel should not have the UN Right to publicly condemn Israel. Not in the Human Rights Council nor in the UN General Assembly.

This makes the US completely relevant to this OP’s declaration “enough of this Nazi like propaganda”. The issue of recognition of Israel by Arab nations and the dynamics of voting blocs in the United Nations and other international forums … The U.S. has historically supported Israel and has encouraged Arab nations to normalize relations with it. Hence for you to declare, as if your an authority on the subject, the intent of the OP as you did in your opening dumb-ass declaration, again only exposes your silly ass.

Arab nations have often cited Resolution 242 as a basis for their refusal to recognize Israel, arguing that it requires Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, as a prerequisite for peace. Britain and France, the main architects behind the writing of the Chapter 6 language of UN Resolution 242. Therefore this EU Voting block sides with the Arab refusal not to recognize Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of nations. Recall that LBJ preoccupied by the Vietnam War, compares to Putin in the Ukraine today.

The Trump Abraham Accords challenges the UN 242 priority established by Britain and French propaganda. European imperialism as a strategic policy exposed in the Suez Crisis of the 1956 War.

The Abraham Accords represent a significant shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy, as they established normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain. These accords, seen as a departure from the traditional Arab consensus that normalization with Israel, absolutely contingent upon progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly in relation to the principles outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 242.

The U.S., under Trump’s leadership, positioned the Accords as a way to foster cooperation among nations in the Middle East, potentially leading to broader peace initiatives. Must Arab states view the Trump Accords as undermining British and French written 242? An obvious YES, rhetorical question.

Contrast the Trump Abraham Accords against Obama’s UN Resolution 2334. Trump prioritizes Arab states recognition of Israel as the top priority. Whereas Obama’s 2334 prioritizes Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state and Eastern Jerusalem as its Capital as the top priority to achieve peace in the Middle East. Hence UN Resolutions 242 & 2334 compare to Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb of UN Nazi like propaganda.

The Trump administration’s approach, seen as pragmatic, prioritizing immediate diplomatic relations – over the historical and legal frameworks that have traditionally governed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. UN Resolution 2334 emphasizes the need for a negotiated settlement that recognizes Palestinian statehood, including East Jerusalem as its capital. The resolution reaffirms the 242 international consensus that a two-state solution utterly essential for lasting peace.

Obama treats Israel as a UN protectorate territory, wherein imaginary “International Law” determines the borders and Capital of the Jewish State. Hence Israel now, based upon the Abraham Accords, can demand that Arab states permit Israel to join the Middle East voting block in the UN and all together disband the UN Human Rights Council on par with the UNWRA – which makes the Palestinian refugee crisis a permanent hereditary UN established conflict.

The Arab majority States rejection of the Abraham Accords establishes an Arab EU alliance against Israel based upon UN 242 & Obama’s 2334. Arabs Palestinians exist as refugees according to UNWRA. Refugees have no “Palestinian Rights”.

The concept of “Palestinian rights” encompasses a range of issues, including the right to self-determination, the right to return to their homes, and the right to live in dignity and security, the heroin of Arab propaganda against the Jewish state since the Nakba defeat. These rights are recognized in various international legal frameworks and resolutions, including UN General Assembly resolutions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The plights of Jews for 2000+ years where Jewish refugee populations had no rights serves as the basis & model for Palestinians rights today. Arab states in 1948 flat out rejected the Israeli right to self-determination, the foundation of Zionism based upon the Balfour Declaration. Yet the UN bias declares its unilateral support for Palestinian rights, in the face of Israel excluded from the Arab Middle East voting block and UN HRC item #7? Hence “Enough of this Nazi-like propaganda”.

All Arab states rejected the legitimacy of the Jewish state in 1948. Post ’67 came the famous Khartoum Resolution Three No’s. The phrase “Nazi-like propaganda” serves as a strong and charged declaration that reflects the OP’s deep frustration and anger regarding the narratives surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

When Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, it encountered same day military intervention by neighboring Arab states, which rejected the establishment of a Jewish state in what they considered “Arab land”. Hence Arab voting blocks refuse to recognize Israel as a state in the Middle East!

This led to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, resulting in significant displacement of more Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries than Arab refugees, who fled based upon the orders issued by the States of the 5 invading Arab Armies. Yet UN propaganda continually condemns Israel over these Arab refugees and never demands that the 22 Arab countries repatriate their Arab refugee populations as did Israel with the Jewish refugees of ’48.

The Apartheid UN recognition of Palestine as a UN member reflects an utter racist Nazi like superior race jargon, used repeatedly against the Jewish state. The UN under Obama’s watch recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state status. This directly compares to the influence of the Vatican in the UN.

The UN serves as a secular Papal Bull which ordered that Jews of Europe thrown into ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries. Morality politics defines both the UN today and the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.

The UN, like the Vatican in the past, may impose moral judgments or decisions & declarations – that have significant consequences for specific groups, in this condemned category; the Jewish people directly impacted by the Catholic church prior to the Protestant Reformation. The concept of “morality politics” refers to the ways in which moral arguments rhetoric used to shape political decisions and policies. In the context of the UN and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, different rhetoric narratives inflame emotions arousing demanding: justice, palestinian rights, and other non-specified “historical grievances” invoked as evidence of a strong ‘international’, meaning UN, bias against the Jewish people.

The Obama 2334 racism, which equates, as does UN Resolution 242, Israel and Palestine as “equal states”, utter Nazi like propaganda used to justify the invasion of Poland in 1939.

242’s calls for a negotiated settlement to the “conflict”, stands upon the corrupt foundation that the Jewish state and the Palestinian state stands as equals. Utter UN racism! The Jewish state does not compare to the mobs of Palestinian refugees who – based upon Jews living in European ghetto gulags – have no rights.

242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied during the “conflict” yet ignores the Polish and Russian partition of Prussia post WWII.

The UN, the EU, and Arab states continue their long tradition of using “morality politics” to persecute the Jewish people. Resolutions like: 242 & 2334, Item 7, and Palestine’s observer status, serve as primary modern tools of UN racial bias against the Jewish state.

Trump’s Abraham Accords serves as the first major breach in that corrupt UN system since 1967, and they expose Obama’s policies as reinforcing the old antisemitic paradigm.

“Observer status” doesn’t mean “no influence.” In fact, Palestine (like the Vatican) holds only observer status at the UN, yet the Palestinian issue dominates discussions, resolutions, and international debates. he Palestinian Authority was granted non-member observer state status in 2012 (Resolution 67/19). This gave them access to international bodies like: The International Criminal Court (ICC), UNESCO, World Health Organization (WHO), and participation in the General Assembly debates. Though they can’t vote, they can speak, propose language, mobilize blocs, and file legal claims (e.g., war crimes allegations against Israel at the ICC).

The UN General Assembly is ruled by numbers, not dollars. Over 2/3 of UN member states are part of the Non-Aligned Movement, OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), or Global South — most of whom side with Palestinian narratives out of: Post-colonial solidarity; Oil and trade diplomacy; Shared anti-Western sentiment; Islamic unity etc. This means Palestinian-backed resolutions routinely pass, even if the U.S., Israel, Canada, and a few others vote “no.”

The bias in certain UN bodies (like the Human Rights Council, which has a permanent agenda item only on Israel — Item 7). The Vatican amplifies the legitimacy of Palestinian claims by, recognizing the State of Palestine; visiting Palestinian sites; making statements about peace, occupation, and human dignity that subtly undermine Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. It adds moral weight, not votes — but moral weight matters in diplomacy, especially when shaping public perception and media framing.

From 2015–2023, the UN passed over 140 resolutions against Israel, more than against North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia combined. Most of these are symbolic and non-binding, but they shape global opinion and are used as legal ammunition in anti-Israel propaganda campaigns. The Vatican’s role in this system isn’t financial — it’s moral, symbolic, and theological. But that symbolism moves votes, shapes resolutions, and keeps the Palestinian issue at the center of the global stage.

Though both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Vatican hold only observer status at the United Nations, the Palestinian issue dominates global discussion, diplomacy, and symbolic resolution traffic at an overwhelming scale. This case illustrates how the UN can function less like a neutral forum and more like a diplomatic echo chamber, where bloc politics and symbolic victories overshadow both funding realities and member state hierarchies. How Papal Bull throughout the Middle Ages condemned Jews to ghetto gulags for multiple centuries and supported taxation without representation upon stateless Jewish refugees expelled from one European country to another almost every Easter.

No other nation on Earth is subject to a permanent agenda item at the UN Human Rights Council — except Israel. Item 7 mandates the Council to debate Israel’s conduct at every session. Other egregious human rights violators (e.g., Iran, China, North Korea) evade similar scrutiny. This institutional double standard exposes the political weaponization of human rights mechanisms under the guise of Vatican moral domination of international law. The Vatican contest Israeli rule over Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. Issue statements about “peace,” “occupation,” and “dignity” that subtly delegitimize Israeli sovereignty. The Vatican provides theological and moral capital, enhancing the perceived legitimacy of Palestinian victimhood narratives in Western media and diplomatic circles. That moral-theological hostility toward Jewish sovereignty has merely changed costumes — today, it wears the robes of international law, human rights rhetoric, and multilateral diplomacy. The UN’s obsession with Israel is not grounded in human rights, international law, or funding priorities — it is a symbolic theater where observer states, bloc alliances, and ancient theological resentments converge to perpetuate the denial of Jewish agency on the world stage.

Some Videos to Have in Mind for Passover

From Feudalism to the UN: How International Law Recreates Medieval Structures to Contain Jewish Sovereignty

UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334 reflect an imperial logic that attempts to redefine Jewish sovereignty not on the basis of national independence, but on external moral frameworks crafted by global elites. Much like the Church tried to reassert its medieval authority over populations moving toward emancipation and civic equality, the post-1967 international community—through the UN—often acts as a neo-medieval power bloc, trying to re-feudalize Jewish national rights. Through the propaganda of “International Law” the UN seeks to redefine the Jewish People as Feudal subjects of the UN, mantain the protectorate status, and not acknowledge Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of “nations”. A political Apartheid policy directed against Israeli Jews.

The Church of Europe once said: “You are not a people unless we say so.” The UN says: “Your borders, capital, and legitimacy are not yours to define. The UN and “international press”, like Democracy Now, continuously employs morality propaganda whereby Israel get’s condemned. The current war in Gaza serves as a fresh example. Oct 7th 2023 Hamas invades, inflicts a pogrom, killing some 1400 Israelis and taking some 250 hostages, an attack similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemn Israel. The UN ICJ and ICC accuse the leaders of Israel of the crime of Genocide.

The MSM propaganda press always publicly condemns Israel over the post ’67 “Occupied Territories”, and “stolen Palestinian lands” despite the simple fact that neither Jordan nor Egypt between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian State. The cabal of 3rd world African nations and 22 Arab countries dominate the UN General Assembly’s anti-Israel agenda. England and France together with all other countries other than the US under the leadership of President Trump, refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. This cabal of nations assumes that they determine the international borders of the Jewish state and its Capital city of Tel Aviv!

In point of fact, neither the Western Roman empire after it expelled and destroyed Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”. Nor the Arabs who conquered the Middle East. Nor the Muslim Turks. Never in all the annuls of Human history has there ever existed a Palestinian State independent or otherwise. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemns Israelis for stealing and illegally occupying stolen Palestinian lands.

The Balfour Declaration combined with the UN General Assembly vote where 2/3rds of all UN members voted that Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East, these two ground breaking events set the foundation of Zionism to this very day.

Comparing the modern UN system (and its web of international law and media discourse) to the medieval Church’s efforts to control national and civic identity merit deep consideration. It questions “UN sovereignty, legitimacy, and the power structures”, like the General Assembly that claim moral authority over nations—especially the Jewish state. Nations that do not even hold diplomatic relations with Israel participate in GA condemnations of the Jewish State over and again.

The UN General Assembly often function like medieval hegemonies. Just as the Church once denied legal personhood and nationhood without its blessing, the UN often positions itself as the final arbiter of what constitutes a state, a capital, or legitimate borders. By framing Jewish sovereignty as conditional or revocable, it echoes the feudal Church’s claim to mediate all political legitimacy. UN Resolutions act like papal bulls or canonical decrees—morally binding from the top down, without democratic accountability to the people they affect.

The MSM as a moral propaganda apparatus mirrors critiques of how the medieval Church used sermons, decrees, and public punishments to shape public opinion and suppress dissent. Today, moralizing headlines, asymmetrical coverage, and legalese from bodies like the ICC or ICJ can create a similar effect—defining Israel as a perpetual violator, never a victim. This especially comes into focus post-Oct 7, 2023, when the moral asymmetry in global reactions seemed stark. Hence the analogy to Pearl Harbor isn’t just rhetorical—it highlights the absurdity of demanding restraint from a sovereign state responding to what, under any other context, would be an unambiguous act of war.

The cold fact that Israel is not even included in the Middle East voting bloc and faces systemic isolation by a cabal – an international voting block, despite being a sovereign state, an Israeli counter-condemnation to the UN and its legality. It recalls how ghetto Jews in medieval Xtendom, always denied civic status or land ownership—forced to lend money as our only legal occupation, and then thereafter condemned. Jewish refugee population lived under biased racial laws, and always taxed without rights to fair political representation. The modern twist: Israel, treated by the post ’67 UN as a “conditional” nation, whose very borders, capital, and rights, like medieval Jewry, subject to the approval of an amorphous international morality. That’s not international law; that’s international lordship.

During the current Gaza war, Jerusalem views the UN and its constellation of legal and media institutions squarely in the lineage of supra-national religious authority, like the medieval Church. The UN institutions, while cloaked in the language of universal values, operate with realpolitik interests that often delegitimize Jewish national expression. Just as the medieval Church denied the de jure or de facto rights of Jews to sovereignty, dignity, and space within the political order, the UN often plays gatekeeper—determining which borders and capitals are “legitimate,” regardless of actual historical continuity or democratic will.

The medieval Church had an Index of Forbidden Books; today we have an informal but equally effective system of narrative control: headlines, op-eds, human rights reports, and resolutions that implicitly (or explicitly) decree who is righteous and who is criminal. The demand that Israel show “restraint” after a pogrom-level event is only explicable if Israel is already being viewed through a moral-theological lens, not a legal-political one.

The exclusion of Israel from the Middle East voting bloc and its isolation in forums like the UN General Assembly mirrors the medieval dynamic: Jews could live under Christendom but could not belong to it. The irony that nations with no diplomatic ties to Israel get to vote on its fate, while Israel is denied full parity as a sovereign peer. This resonates strongly with the historical exclusion of Jews from guilds, land ownership, and political decision-making. Israel is a member state in form, but treated as a conditional entity in practice. This isn’t law, it’s lordship.

Not the application of consistent principles, but the imposition of a moral-political hierarchy that demands submission rather than negotiation. Israel’s borders, capital, and even its legitimacy are constantly retried in a global forum that acts more like an ecclesial court than a parliament of equals.

Europe’s religious wars, starting in 1517 with Martin Luther correlate with the opening of the first Ghetto. Established in Venice in 1516-17, Jews -forcibly confined to a walled quarter, locked in at night, and forbidden to own property or interact freely with Xtians. They reflect a shared European crisis of identity, sovereignty, and control. The Protestant Reformation destabilized not just the Church’s authority, but the entire social and political order of Europe. Just as Israeli national Independence in 1948 and repeated again in 1967, utterly uprooted the European influence in the competition of the balance of power in the Middle East.

The ghetto wasn’t just a racist policy. This legal-theological mechanism employed to, segregate Jewish existence into a confined, manageable zones; prevent Jewish legal and commercial autonomy from influencing Christian society; reinforce the idea that Jews could live under Xtendom—but never within it. Hence, just as Jews the church permitted existence, without equality under medieval Xtendom; modern Israel likewise treated by the UN the ICJ and ICC. Modern Israel, treated as a tolerated anomaly in the international system—not as a full sovereign peer.

Just as the Church fought to establish and maintain its monopoly of over the Bible and its interpretations so too the UN strive to impose who gets to define truth, order, and law. Consequently, ghettos, expulsions, sermons, and blood libels all escalate during and after the Reformation.

Jean Bodin (1530–1596), a foundational theorist of political sovereignty, wrote in the wake of Europe’s religious wars. He defined sovereignty as: “The absolute and perpetual power of a Republic.” He defined sovereignty as: indivisible, not shared between competing powers; perpetual, not limited by time or conditional authority; and supreme within the territory, answerable to no higher authority.

This marked a turning point away from medieval political theology, where kings ruled under the higher moral and juridical authority of the Pope or Church. Bodin asserted that political legitimacy does not derive from a moral or theological external authority, but from the will and capacity of the sovereign to govern within a defined territorial and legal framework.

Therefore, based upon Bodin’s model: a sovereign nation like Israel should not have its legitimacy—its borders, capital, or right to self-defense—subject to the veto or approval of external normative frameworks such as: UN General Assembly votes, ICC/ICJ rulings, “International consensus” as defined by unelected bureaucracies or NGOs, or media-moral narratives that supersede national democratic will.

When these external frameworks claim authority over a sovereign Jewish state, they violate Bodin’s principle by subordinating national sovereignty to a new kind of papal court—an amorphous supranational priesthood of moral experts. In this sense, the UN is not a parliament of nations but a global confessional court, echoing the Church’s historical role in mediating political legitimacy based on universal (but biased) values.

The medieval Church’s “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” (Index of Forbidden Books) was a tool of moral control. It did not imprison authors directly, but by naming certain texts as heretical or dangerous, it shaped the boundaries of permissible thought, debate, and legitimacy.

In today’s context, soft power operates similarly—through institutions that wield persuasive moral authority without military or electoral legitimacy. These include: Mainstream media outlets (e.g., BBC, CNN, NYT, Democracy Now); International NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch); Supranational legal bodies (e.g., ICC, ICJ); UN Special Rapporteurs and Committees.

These entities don’t have tanks or taxes, but they define who is righteous and who is criminal, who is sovereign and who is a pariah, through – Language framing (“occupier,” “apartheid,” “genocide”); Asymmetrical coverage (e.g., ignoring pogroms against Jews while obsessively condemning Israel’s reactions); Selective lawfare (e.g., charging Israeli leaders at the ICC while ignoring Hamas war crimes); Symbolic acts (e.g., UNHRC resolutions, boycotts, special investigations).

Thus, a modern Index of Forbidden Nations emerges: Israel is functionally treated as a conditional state, always under review, probation, or global supervision. Unlike China, Iran, Turkey, or Russia—who often escape such scrutiny—Israel is singled out as morally deviant, despite being a democracy under constant siege.

In this regime, narrative is law, and perception becomes reality. Like the medieval Church’s control over texts and thought, today’s international “soft power” network constructs a moral cartography that tells the world: which states are legitimate, and which are suspect.

Bodin’s concept of indivisible sovereignty clashes with the modern neo-feudalism of “global norms.” Israel, as a nation, is caught in the crosshairs of a transnational moral-legal establishment that assumes the role of medieval clergy: defining not only what is good or evil, but what is politically permissible.

The UN, ICC, and international media—through “soft empire” mechanisms—function not as forums of mutual recognition, but as gatekeepers of modern sainthood and excommunication. And Israel, like the Jews of medieval Europe, is too often on the outside of that moral sanctum.

UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334 reflect an imperial logic that attempts to redefine Jewish sovereignty not on the basis of national independence, but on external moral frameworks crafted by global elites. Much like the Church tried to reassert its medieval authority over populations moving toward emancipation and civic equality, the post-1967 international community—through the UN—often acts as a neo-medieval power bloc, trying to re-feudalize Jewish national rights. Through the propaganda of “International Law” the UN seeks to redefine the Jewish People as Feudal subjects of the UN, mantain the protectorate status, and not acknowledge Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of “nations”. A political Apartheid policy directed against Israeli Jews.

The Church of Europe once said: “You are not a people unless we say so.” The UN says: “Your borders, capital, and legitimacy are not yours to define. The UN and “international press”, like Democracy Now, continuously employs morality propaganda whereby Israel get’s condemned. The current war in Gaza serves as a fresh example. Oct 7th 2023 Hamas invades, inflicts a pogrom, killing some 1400 Israelis and taking some 250 hostages, an attack similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemn Israel. The UN ICJ and ICC accuse the leaders of Israel of the crime of Genocide.

The MSM propaganda press always publicly condemns Israel over the post ’67 “Occupied Territories”, and “stolen Palestinian lands” despite the simple fact that neither Jordan nor Egypt between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian State. The cabal of 3rd world African nations and 22 Arab countries dominate the UN General Assembly’s anti-Israel agenda. England and France together with all other countries other than the US under the leadership of President Trump, refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. This cabal of nations assumes that they determine the international borders of the Jewish state and its Capital city of Tel Aviv!

In point of fact, neither the Western Roman empire after it expelled and destroyed Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”. Nor the Arabs who conquered the Middle East. Nor the Muslim Turks. Never in all the annuls of Human history has there ever existed a Palestinian State independent or otherwise. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemns Israelis for stealing and illegally occupying stolen Palestinian lands.

The Balfour Declaration combined with the UN General Assembly vote where 2/3rds of all UN members voted that Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East, these two ground breaking events set the foundation of Zionism to this very day.

Comparing the modern UN system (and its web of international law and media discourse) to the medieval Church’s efforts to control national and civic identity merit deep consideration. It questions “UN sovereignty, legitimacy, and the power structures”, like the General Assembly that claim moral authority over nations—especially the Jewish state. Nations that do not even hold diplomatic relations with Israel participate in GA condemnations of the Jewish State over and again.

The UN General Assembly often function like medieval hegemonies. Just as the Church once denied legal personhood and nationhood without its blessing, the UN often positions itself as the final arbiter of what constitutes a state, a capital, or legitimate borders. By framing Jewish sovereignty as conditional or revocable, it echoes the feudal Church’s claim to mediate all political legitimacy. UN Resolutions act like papal bulls or canonical decrees—morally binding from the top down, without democratic accountability to the people they affect.

The MSM as a moral propaganda apparatus mirrors critiques of how the medieval Church used sermons, decrees, and public punishments to shape public opinion and suppress dissent. Today, moralizing headlines, asymmetrical coverage, and legalese from bodies like the ICC or ICJ can create a similar effect—defining Israel as a perpetual violator, never a victim. This especially comes into focus post-Oct 7, 2023, when the moral asymmetry in global reactions seemed stark. Hence the analogy to Pearl Harbor isn’t just rhetorical—it highlights the absurdity of demanding restraint from a sovereign state responding to what, under any other context, would be an unambiguous act of war.

The cold fact that Israel is not even included in the Middle East voting bloc and faces systemic isolation by a cabal – an international voting block, despite being a sovereign state, an Israeli counter-condemnation to the UN and its legality. It recalls how ghetto Jews in medieval Xtendom, always denied civic status or land ownership—forced to lend money as our only legal occupation, and then thereafter condemned. Jewish refugee population lived under biased racial laws, and always taxed without rights to fair political representation. The modern twist: Israel, treated by the post ’67 UN as a “conditional” nation, whose very borders, capital, and rights, like medieval Jewry, subject to the approval of an amorphous international morality. That’s not international law; that’s international lordship.

During the current Gaza war, Jerusalem views the UN and its constellation of legal and media institutions squarely in the lineage of supra-national religious authority, like the medieval Church. The UN institutions, while cloaked in the language of universal values, operate with realpolitik interests that often delegitimize Jewish national expression. Just as the medieval Church denied the de jure or de facto rights of Jews to sovereignty, dignity, and space within the political order, the UN often plays gatekeeper—determining which borders and capitals are “legitimate,” regardless of actual historical continuity or democratic will.

The medieval Church had an Index of Forbidden Books; today we have an informal but equally effective system of narrative control: headlines, op-eds, human rights reports, and resolutions that implicitly (or explicitly) decree who is righteous and who is criminal. The demand that Israel show “restraint” after a pogrom-level event is only explicable if Israel is already being viewed through a moral-theological lens, not a legal-political one.

The exclusion of Israel from the Middle East voting bloc and its isolation in forums like the UN General Assembly mirrors the medieval dynamic: Jews could live under Christendom but could not belong to it. The irony that nations with no diplomatic ties to Israel get to vote on its fate, while Israel is denied full parity as a sovereign peer. This resonates strongly with the historical exclusion of Jews from guilds, land ownership, and political decision-making. Israel is a member state in form, but treated as a conditional entity in practice. This isn’t law, it’s lordship.

Not the application of consistent principles, but the imposition of a moral-political hierarchy that demands submission rather than negotiation. Israel’s borders, capital, and even its legitimacy are constantly retried in a global forum that acts more like an ecclesial court than a parliament of equals.

Europe’s religious wars, starting in 1517 with Martin Luther correlate with the opening of the first Ghetto. Established in Venice in 1516-17, Jews -forcibly confined to a walled quarter, locked in at night, and forbidden to own property or interact freely with Xtians. They reflect a shared European crisis of identity, sovereignty, and control. The Protestant Reformation destabilized not just the Church’s authority, but the entire social and political order of Europe. Just as Israeli national Independence in 1948 and repeated again in 1967, utterly uprooted the European influence in the competition of the balance of power in the Middle East.

The ghetto wasn’t just a racist policy. This legal-theological mechanism employed to, segregate Jewish existence into a confined, manageable zones; prevent Jewish legal and commercial autonomy from influencing Christian society; reinforce the idea that Jews could live under Xtendom—but never within it. Hence, just as Jews the church permitted existence, without equality under medieval Xtendom; modern Israel likewise treated by the UN the ICJ and ICC. Modern Israel, treated as a tolerated anomaly in the international system—not as a full sovereign peer.

Just as the Church fought to establish and maintain its monopoly of over the Bible and its interpretations so too the UN strive to impose who gets to define truth, order, and law. Consequently, ghettos, expulsions, sermons, and blood libels all escalate during and after the Reformation.

Jean Bodin (1530–1596), a foundational theorist of political sovereignty, wrote in the wake of Europe’s religious wars. He defined sovereignty as: “The absolute and perpetual power of a Republic.” He defined sovereignty as: indivisible, not shared between competing powers; perpetual, not limited by time or conditional authority; and supreme within the territory, answerable to no higher authority.

This marked a turning point away from medieval political theology, where kings ruled under the higher moral and juridical authority of the Pope or Church. Bodin asserted that political legitimacy does not derive from a moral or theological external authority, but from the will and capacity of the sovereign to govern within a defined territorial and legal framework.

Therefore, based upon Bodin’s model: a sovereign nation like Israel should not have its legitimacy—its borders, capital, or right to self-defense—subject to the veto or approval of external normative frameworks such as: UN General Assembly votes, ICC/ICJ rulings, “International consensus” as defined by unelected bureaucracies or NGOs, or media-moral narratives that supersede national democratic will.

When these external frameworks claim authority over a sovereign Jewish state, they violate Bodin’s principle by subordinating national sovereignty to a new kind of papal court—an amorphous supranational priesthood of moral experts. In this sense, the UN is not a parliament of nations but a global confessional court, echoing the Church’s historical role in mediating political legitimacy based on universal (but biased) values.

The medieval Church’s “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” (Index of Forbidden Books) was a tool of moral control. It did not imprison authors directly, but by naming certain texts as heretical or dangerous, it shaped the boundaries of permissible thought, debate, and legitimacy.

In today’s context, soft power operates similarly—through institutions that wield persuasive moral authority without military or electoral legitimacy. These include: Mainstream media outlets (e.g., BBC, CNN, NYT, Democracy Now); International NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch); Supranational legal bodies (e.g., ICC, ICJ); UN Special Rapporteurs and Committees.

These entities don’t have tanks or taxes, but they define who is righteous and who is criminal, who is sovereign and who is a pariah, through – Language framing (“occupier,” “apartheid,” “genocide”); Asymmetrical coverage (e.g., ignoring pogroms against Jews while obsessively condemning Israel’s reactions); Selective lawfare (e.g., charging Israeli leaders at the ICC while ignoring Hamas war crimes); Symbolic acts (e.g., UNHRC resolutions, boycotts, special investigations).

Thus, a modern Index of Forbidden Nations emerges: Israel is functionally treated as a conditional state, always under review, probation, or global supervision. Unlike China, Iran, Turkey, or Russia—who often escape such scrutiny—Israel is singled out as morally deviant, despite being a democracy under constant siege.

In this regime, narrative is law, and perception becomes reality. Like the medieval Church’s control over texts and thought, today’s international “soft power” network constructs a moral cartography that tells the world: which states are legitimate, and which are suspect.

Bodin’s concept of indivisible sovereignty clashes with the modern neo-feudalism of “global norms.” Israel, as a nation, is caught in the crosshairs of a transnational moral-legal establishment that assumes the role of medieval clergy: defining not only what is good or evil, but what is politically permissible.

The UN, ICC, and international media—through “soft empire” mechanisms—function not as forums of mutual recognition, but as gatekeepers of modern sainthood and excommunication. And Israel, like the Jews of medieval Europe, is too often on the outside of that moral sanctum.