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.

Not of Abraham: A Primer on Talmudic Judaism (Part 1)

Recent Israeli History

Many argue that Hillel’s response, particularly in support of Israel, essential for maintaining a sense of security and solidarity for Jewish students, especially in the face of increasing anti-Semitic rhetoric or violence. From this perspective, this strong expression of support for Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism and attacks, such as the one on October 7th, which resulted in the deaths of over 1200 Israelis. For these students, Hillel’s position provides a clear affirmation of Israel’s right to protect its citizens, and a sense of unity for Jewish students who may feel threatened or targeted during times of heightened conflict.

Important to bear in mind that Jewish support for Israel following the Ham-ass surprise attack on Oct 7th, does not equally mean that American Jews hate dhimmi Arabs refugee populations fighting a war against Israel in Gaza. Following the Dec 7th 1941 Japanese surprise attack, Americans fully supported carpet bombing of Japanese cities!

After the horrific attack on October 7th, 2023, in which over 1,200 Israelis were killed by Hamas, many Jewish students and communities in the U.S. expressed unwavering support for Israel’s right to defend itself. This support, rooted in a basic human instinct to stand behind one’s community in the face of violence. Just as Americans rallied around the U.S. government’s response after Pearl Harbor, Jewish Americans naturally feel a strong sense of solidarity with Israel as it defends itself against national terrorism that has explicitly called for its destruction, and engaged in violent pogroms.

For Jewish students, especially those on college campuses, where tensions run high and anti-Semitic rhetoric has dramatically increased during the Oct 7th Abomination war, Hillel’s position of support for Israel provides a sense of security to g’lut Jewry. Acknowledgment of the pain and trauma their community has faced, not just in the present conflict, but through history, especially considering the Holocaust and centuries of persecution. Jewish students struggle to maintain our sense of pride and solidarity with our cultural and religious identity in a time when we feel under attack or isolated.

Jewish support for Israel’s right to defend itself does not, and should not, imply hatred or animosity toward Arab populations, including Palestinians. In fact, many Jewish Americans—like people of all backgrounds—condemn the violence and loss of life that occurs on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Supporting Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism and violence doesn’t mean condoning or justifying all actions taken in the name of self-defence, and it doesn’t equate to a blanket hatred of Palestinians or Arabs. Support for Israel’s self-defence in the face of violence doesn’t equate to rejecting the humanity of Palestinians or dismissing their suffering.

As of now, there isn’t any official statement from Hillel International specifically endorsing or opposing the Trump administration’s stance on a mass population transfer of Gazans to Arab countries. Hillel, as an organization, primarily focuses on supporting Jewish students, promoting Jewish identity, and fostering dialogue within the Jewish community on campuses, rather than explicitly endorsing particular political positions on such complex international issues.

The idea of population transfer draws on historical events such as the mass displacement of ethnic Germans after World War II and the population exchanges that took place during the partition of British India in 1947. After World War II, millions of ethnic Germans, forcibly relocated from areas in Eastern Europe, particularly from regions in Prussia (modern-day Poland and Russia) and Czechoslovakia, as part of the post-war settlement. These population transfers, justified by some as a way to prevent future conflict between ethnic Germans and the newly established states, and to punish the German population for the role of Nazi Germany in the war.

The partition of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947, largely based on religious identity, with Muslims migrating to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs migrating to India. These precedents shape and determine ”international law”. The Geneva Conventions compare to a pius Baptist preacher who declares the end of days; on par with British and French UN Security Council Resolution 242. After the 7 year war England’s empire expanded to include Canadian territory gained by the surrender of France in that war.

Both Britain and France declared their “neutrality” prior to the expected Arab total victory in 1967. The UN 242 document most definitely not “neutral”. The term “territories occupied” in UN Resolution 242 indeed specifically refers to areas Israel occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War, not to the territories occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967.

After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza (Egypt’s control), territories that had been part of the Mandate for Palestine. Jordan never intended to establish a Palestinian state in these areas; instead, it annexed the West Bank in 1950, calling it the “West Bank” (a name that has no historical association with a separate Palestinian state). This Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) was widely condemned in the international community, and the West Bank was never recognized as part of a sovereign Palestinian entity. Thus, from a legal and historical perspective, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) under Jordanian occupation was not a Palestinian state or entity—it was simply territory occupied by Jordan, which did not alter the fact that Palestine as an independent state never existed. Hence revisionist history to refer to the “occupied Palestinian State”.

In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank and renamed it the “West Bank” — a term that had no historical or political ties to a Palestinian national identity. The annexation was largely an extension of Jordanian control over the area, and at no point did Jordan declare the creation of a Palestinian state in these territories. The Palestinian identity and call for a Palestinian state would come later and was largely driven by political movements in the 1960s.

From both a legal and historical standpoint, the West Bank (and East Jerusalem) under Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967 was not Palestinian land in the sense that we understand the notion of a sovereign Palestinian state today. It was part of Jordan’s territorial claims, not a Palestinian state. In fact, Jordan’s control was widely condemned by the international community, and its annexation of the West Bank was not recognized except by England and Pakistan within the UN!

The claim that the West Bank and Gaza were part of a Palestinian state under Jordanian or Egyptian control is a modern reinterpretation of the past that doesn’t align with the historical realities of those territories. The West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967, and there was no Palestinian state in those areas, nor was there any attempt by Jordan to create one.

This revisionist narrative, which often refers to these territories as being part of an “occupied Palestinian state”, overlooks the fact that Palestine as a sovereign entity never existed before 1967. The name “Palestine” itself historically referred to the broader region, and after 1948, Palestinians had no independent state—whether in the West Bank or Gaza.

The West Bank and East Jerusalem under Jordanian control were never part of a Palestinian state. The territory was simply occupied by Jordan, and the Palestinian nationalist movement only began to take shape after 1967, particularly after the Six-Day War when Israel captured these areas. To refer to them as part of an “occupied Palestinian state” is historically inaccurate and a form of revisionism that distorts the legal and political facts of the time.

Israel’s re-capture of Samaria (the West Bank) in 1967 should be seen as a legitimate act, much like other historical territorial changes. Britain originally separated Transjordan from the rest of Mandatory Palestine at the Jordan River, implying that Samaria was always part of the Jewish homeland. Israel took Samaria (West Bank) in 1967 after Jordan attacked Israel during the Six-Day War. Israel argues that this was a defensive war, making its control legitimate under the principle of defensive conquest (self-defense in war).

UN Charter Article 2(4), acquiring territory through war is generally considered illegitimate, utterly bogus. Both Russia and Poland “occupy” Prussia. This contradicts the idea that “acquiring territory by war is always illegitimate.” Selective Enforcement of International Law, the reality is that power, not law, dictates what is accepted. China annexed Tibet by force in 1950, and despite global protests, Tibet remains under Chinese control with no serious consequences. Russia took Crimea in 2014, violating Ukraine’s sovereignty, but because Russia has military power and geopolitical leverage, Crimea remains under Russian control. Yet, when Israel wins a defensive war and takes Samaria (historically part of the Jewish homeland), the world suddenly screams about “occupation.” Why?

The Arab world and Muslim-majority nations lobby heavily against Israel, ensuring that the UN and other global bodies treat Israel’s territorial claims differently than, say, Russia’s or China’s. Many post-colonial nations view Israel as a Western-backed state, making them reflexively oppose its territorial claims, even if they are historically justified. If Israel had the same geopolitical muscle as Russia or China, it could annex Samaria and no one would stop it. The lesson from history is clear: international law is only enforced when convenient.

The term Palestine was essentially a European cartographic imposition on Ottoman Greater Syria. The Ottomans themselves didn’t use Palestine as an official administrative unit but instead governed the area through sanjaks and vilayets, like the Sanjak of Jerusalem, which was directly administered by Istanbul. European mapmakers, influenced by classical and biblical references, conveniently labeled the region Palestine—a subtle yet deliberate act of revisionist history, which later played into the hands of Arab interests to establish a Palestinian state carved out of the heart of Israel. The push for a Palestinian state, became a strategic move to challenge Israel’s sovereignty, rather than an organic, centuries-old national movement. Arafat’s propaganda foists the lie that the Palestinian people originated from the ancient Philistine Greeks!

Many European countries, particularly former colonial powers like Britain and France, see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of their own history of colonialism and decolonization. The Palestinian cause, often framed as an anti-colonial struggle, similar to Algeria’s fight against France or India’s fight for independence from Britain. This perspective resonates with European political movements, especially on the left.

During the Cold War, leftist and socialist movements across Europe often aligned with the Palestinian cause, viewing Israel as an extension of Western imperialism and the Palestinians as a revolutionary liberation movement. This ideological legacy still influences European political parties and activism today. European countries have significant economic ties with the Arab world, particularly in energy (oil and gas imports) and trade. Supporting the Palestinian cause—or at least taking a stance critical of Israel—helps maintain favorable diplomatic and economic relationships with Arab nations.

Many Europeans see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily through the lens of human rights and humanitarian issues. Reports of civilian casualties, displacement, and settlement expansion drive sympathy for the Palestinian cause, independent of Holocaust-related factors. With growing Muslim populations in European countries, politicians and activists, increasingly attentive to the concerns of these communities. Many European Muslims have direct ties to the Middle East and see the Palestinian issue as a priority, influencing European political discourse.

Bilad al-Sham (Greater Syria) did not permit land ownership to Arabs only Turk Muslims. Christian Arabs strong historical and religious ties to the land has nothing to do with Arab domination of Turkish Greater Syria!

The 1834 Peasants’ Revolt against Egyptian rule (Muhammad Ali’s forces) showed that local Arabs were willing to fight for their land, even before modern nationalism. But that Arab revolt collapsed in total defeat. The Ottoman censuses from the 19th Century show a land almost devoid of population centers. Only when Jewish settlements brought jobs did Arabs move to British Palestine. The 1911 Filastin newspaper, shaped by European maps revisionist history, closed after publication of the Balfour Declaration.

The term Palestine did not originate from “European mapmakers”. The Romans introduced Syria Palaestina after crushing the Bar Kokhba revolt of 135 CE., meant to suppress Jewish identity and memory in the region by renaming the province after the ancient Philistines. This Roman renaming has lasting historical consequences, and sometimes mistakenly attributed to modern European mapmakers, but its origins – firmly rooted in Roman imperialism.

The UN partition plan (Resolution 181) originally proposed a Jewish state, and a pre-state Judea, later recognized as a sovereign nation in 1949; however the UN to this day does not recognize Israel as a country in the Middle East. Israel forced to join the EU in order to head any UN committee. However the assumption that 181 continues to shape Israeli history after the Independence War victory and establishment of the state of Israel – utter revisionist history.

The Britain’s two-state UN partition plan (Resolution 181) originally proposed a Jewish state, and a pre-state Judea, later recognized as a sovereign nation in 1949; however the UN to this day does not recognize Israel as a country in the Middle East. Israel forced to participate, “as if its existed” as part of the EU, in order to as a UN committee head. However the assumption that the defeated British UN 181 Resolution continues to shape Israeli history after the Independence War victory and establishment of the state of Israel – utter revisionist history. Israel’s non-permanent membership in certain UN committees or a specific instance where it held leadership positions through diplomatic efforts, it’s important to differentiate that Israel’s influence is a product of various geopolitical realities and alliances rather than simply joining the EU. It has a complex diplomatic strategy involving multiple international frameworks.

In the light of British and French imperialism in the 1956 War where these empires sought to dominate the Middle East by seizing control of the Suez Canal, the intensions of EU imperialism today stands under this corrupt shadow UN Resolution 242. The distinction that “occupied territories” refers specifically to the Samaria (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza, and not the 1950 UN Condemned illegal Jordanian seizure re-named by Jordan as ‘west bank’. Areas captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, consequent to Jordan’s invasion of Israel. Samaria does not inherently refer to a non-existent Palestinian state, all Arab countries rejected UN Resolution 181. That resolution became null and void in 1947. This distinction, crucial in understanding both the legal and political dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in the context of historical terminology.

The dynamics of imperialism, Cold War geopolitics, and the shifting balance of power in the region indeed play a critical role in understanding the aftermath of the Six-Day War and the resulting international agreements like UN Resolution 242 revisionist history. In the 1956 War, UN intervention – forced a ceasefire, which effectively marked the end of British and French dominance in the Middle East, exposed their diminished global power, and radically altered the balance of international power in the region. Based upon this model, the UN has sought to impose cease fires in each and every Arab Israeli war with the imperialist objective to maintain the political pawn like status of Israel, as existed in the 1956 war. All the many UN condemnations of Israel foist the revisionist history narrative that Israel lost its 1948 War of Independence and remains to this day a UN protectorate territory, the ward of the international community of nations.

During the 1967 War, LBJ tied down in Vietnam. Unlike the Eisenhower government in ’56, Johnson’s government in ’67 permitted Britain and France a dominant hand to write UNSC Resolution 242. Clearly these diminished European powers profited and sought to re-impose Europe’s traditional dominance over ‘’the sick man of Europe’’. Both England and France stuck in the hallucination that they dictate the borders of Middle Eastern states just as they did following WWI. Hence UN Resolution 242 qualifies as British and French revisionist history.

The vagueness of the language in UN Resolution 242, particularly the use of the term “territories occupied” instead of “the territories illegally occupied by Jordan”, gave Arab states the leverage to demand total Israeli withdrawal from Samaria. Jordan’s West Bank and Egypt’s Gaza, both ceased to exist following their total defeat and surrender. Britain and France as already mentioned, had a significant hand in drafting and influencing the resolution. Their involvement an attempt to reassert their diminished political role in the Middle East. Resolution 242, by calling for territorial withdrawal but not specifying the extent of that withdrawal, or Jordan’s illegal annexation of Samaria following the 1948 war, a way to placate the defeated Arab states. As if either “neutral” Britain or France had fought that war and therefore had the right to dictate terms for Israel’s surrender.

The Arab war strategy, largely based upon Hồ Chí Minh’s ”Peoples’ War” strategy. Employed successfully against both the French and American invaders of Vietnam. Arabs with their alliance with the third world non allied nations enjoys a vast majority in the General Assembly of the UN. This strategy emphasizes asymmetrical warfare, using political, diplomatic, and psychological tactics to weaken the enemy and garner international support. In the case of the Arab states, this approach focuses on political warfare rather than directly head-on military engagements with the IDF. Waging a battle for global public opinion through international diplomacy; historically primarily within the framework of the United Nations. Hence, Arab states strategic strategy conducts political warfare as their primary weapon to cause the defeat and destruction of the Jewish state, just as did Hồ Chí Minh’s ”Peoples’ War’ strategy defeated the more powerful armies of France and the US.

One key element of this strategy, the use of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council to push narratives of the brutal victimization for the Palestinian by Nazi Israel; and portray Israel as brutal barbaric aggressor. Arab revisionist history changed the meaning of Nakba away from the disgraceful failure of 5 Arab Armies to throw the Jews into the Sea in 1948. Nakba now framed to decry the plight and criminal war crimes Israel inflicts upon the Palestinian people. This revisionist history ignores the plain fact that the KGB and Egyptian born Arafat did not embrace the slogan of Palestine, not till 1964. Prior to this opportunistic switch, Arabs condemned the Balfour Declaration which serves as the foundation of Herzl’s political Zionism.

Hence the one key element Arab political warfare strategy, the use of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council to push a narrative of the cruel victimization for the Palestinian “equal rights to self determination”. This propaganda rhetoric ignores the rejection by all Arab states UN Resolution 181 which called for a two-state division of the British mandate of Palestine. Post the multiple Arab military defeats, Arab propaganda now pretends that Israel rejects UN 181, as if 2025 exists in the shadow of 1947. Palestinian propaganda seeks their own internationally supported “Balfour Declaration”.

By using the UN as a tool for political warfare, the Arab states seek to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and isolate it on the world stage, leveraging their political and economic influence within the broader international system to weaken Israel’s position. Their continuous condemnation of Israel by screaming “International Law” serves as their abra-cadabra 2025 magical Balfour Declaration. This form of “soft power”—using diplomacy and international forums to achieve political goals—a central part of the Arab strategy in all Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Arab rejection of Jewish equal rights to self determination stems from the root of their hatred and condemnation of the 1917 Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations post WWI awarded the Palestine Mandate to Britain. Hence Arab strategy endeavors to foist UN recognition of Palestine as their Balfour Declaration. The difference between then and now, Britain defeated ‘the sick man of Europe’ in WWI, while the UN exist only as a political puppet of the interests of Great Powers which control and dominate the UN narratives which continually condemns Zionism as a racist entity. The UN Apartheid refuses to acknowledge that Israel a part of the community of nations in the Middle East.

The Arab alliance with South Africa, to slander Israel in the UN, ICJ and ICC, their accusation of genocide in Gaza, a blood libel, which produced the fruits of pogroms across the US and Europe. A prime example of the Arab strategy of political warfare through the corrupt UN puppet; utterly disgraced by the corruption of both UNWRA and UNIFIL. UNWRA’s active participation in the Ham-ass surprise attack on Israel has totally discredited the 4th leg of the Quartet dominance of the balance of power in the Middle East. Another example of Arab soft-power, the anti-Jewish university protests/pogroms. Notice the total lack of European condemnation of this antisemitic violence. The apple never falls far from the tree. European guilt of the Shoah stands upon 2000+ years of Jewish cruel oppression and violence by church oppression. The EU revisionist history now down-plays the dominance of the church in shaping European cultures and customs.

Arab soft-power tactics, the way in which political movements, in particular those supporting Palestinian causes, crossed the line into hate speech and violence after Oct 7th; targeting Jewish individuals not involved in the political or military aspects of the conflict at all. While the Arab states have traditionally used diplomatic channels (such as the UN and international organizations) to advance their narratives and goals, specifically the increasing globalization of the Palestinian cause, in which protests and advocacy perverted platforms to promote not only Palestinian rights but also to delegitimize Israel and Jews globally.

Europeans now project their Shoah guilt and barbarity by condemning Israel as a Nazi regime who must become extinct like Nazi Germany. European political elites—in their desire to distance themselves from their own antisemitic barbaric history—have sought to demonstrate total solidarity the Palestinian cause-as has Ireland. The deeply ingrained history of barbaric antisemitism in Europe, makes it easier for moral cowards to downplay or rationalize actions or protests that target Jews, especially when political movements actively involved.

The increased violence and hatred directed against Jewish communities never condemned by the UN. The UN tolerates, even justifies Arab political agendas, Ham-ass terrorism against Israel and supports violent pogroms against Jewish university students thousands of miles away from the war. Anti-Zionism a controversial political stance; antisemitism—which targets Jewish individuals based on their identity, culture, or religion—a completely separate and dangerous issue denounced unequivocally by all moral Human Beings. Israeli foreign policy therefore strives to permanently diminish the influence of the EU, UN ICJ and ICC within the entire Middle East. The current Gaza war, as an attempt by the EU, UN ICJ and ICC to humiliate Jews in general and Israel in particular.

In conclusion, the intersection of Arab soft power, antisemitism, and international politics, fraught with tensions. Protests advocating for Palestinian rights utterly forbidden to devolve into violent, discriminatory actions against Jews, whether Israeli or non-Israeli. European political elites must confront their own historical legacy and stop using their guilt over the Holocaust as an excuse to support movements that veer into antisemitism. Legitimate political criticism of Israel, one thing, but hate—directed at Jews as a people or a nation—something else entirely.