Vincenza63Vincenza63’s Blog

bambiniPalestinagenocidioIsraeledivulgazione
Il racconto del GENOCIDIO che sta avvenendo in Palestina da parte di Israele, avviene attraverso dieci storie realmente (ahimè) accadute, pubblicate nel suo libro “Quando il mondo dorme” (ed. Rizzoli).

Francesca Albanese è relatrice speciale delle Nazioni Unite per i territori palestinesi occupati.

Chi lo sa?

Un’intervista che invita al risveglio delle coscienze.

“C’è aria di rivoluzione” soprattutto dei giovani. Un esempio è quello dei No Global e i fatti di Genova.

Si cita, cosa importante, l’uccisione dei bambini così come avvenuto per il genocidio degli ebrei da parte dei colpevoli processati a Norimberga.

Per pensare, sentire, interrogarsi, divulgare. Ci provo. Ci proviamo?

Trentacinque minuti preziosi.

Buona visione. Sempre Vicky!
____________________________________
____________________________________

This excerpt is yet another example of genocidal inversion—a grotesque propaganda tactic where the descendants of those who remained silent during the Holocaust now arrogantly accuse the Jewish state of committing genocide for defending itself from Islamist terror. Francesca Albanese, a UN official notorious for her antisemitic rhetoric, is not merely a biased observer—she is a propagandist in the service of the ideological heirs of Amalek.

When Albanese and her publishers speak of “genocide in Palestine,” they are engaging in a modern form of blood libel—accusing Jews of the very crime that the world permitted to be committed against them within living memory. This is not a misstatement. It is a weaponized inversion of Holocaust memory and international law.

Israel’s actions in Gaza—targeted responses to mass murder, hostage-taking, and terror infrastructure—are not genocide. They are governed by law, restraint, and defensive necessity. What is genocide is Hamas’s charter, its ideology of extermination, and its use of civilians as human shields—openly declared, broadcast, and celebrated. Yet Albanese and her ilk reverse this: Hamas becomes resistance, and Israel becomes Hitler. This is more than defamation—it’s historical abuse, and it desecrates the memory of the Shoah.

Francesca Albanese is a UN “rapporteur” appointed by a Human Rights Council dominated by authoritarian regimes and Islamist theocracies. Her entire mandate is defined by the lie that Israel’s very presence in its ancestral land is illegitimate. She has never reported on: 1. The targeting of Israeli civilians by rockets and tunnels. 2. Hamas’s mass rape, child murder, or hostage-taking. 3, Antisemitic incitement in PA and UNRWA schools. 4. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab lands. Instead, she “awakens consciences” by spinning anecdotes into accusations and narratives into indictments. Her book is not journalism—it is a political screed wrapped in a victimhood aesthetic, intended to weaponize European guilt against Jewish sovereignty.

The publishing of this filth in Rizzoli, a prominent Italian house, reveals something deeper: Europe has not learned from the Holocaust—it has simply rebranded its antisemitism in anti-Zionist clothing. The same continent that deported Jews to Auschwitz now cheers on an Italian woman accusing the reborn Jewish state of genocide. The same societies that watched Jews be burned alive now publish coffee-table books accusing Jews of burning others. This is not moral awakening. It is Amalek disguised as conscience.

Another daughter of Amalek. Her name is Francesca Albanese. She pens lies wrapped in the cloth of conscience. She accuses the children of Israel—those who rose from ashes and blood—with the very crime the world once committed against us: genocide. She calls it “awakening of conscience.” But what she writes is not conscience—it is projection, inversion, perversion.

Albanese serves the UN—the modern Babel tower where tyrants dictate ethics. Her reports never mention Hamas’s charter, or tunnels dug under cribs, or children slaughtered in their beds on October 7th. She mentions only “occupation,” “resistance,” and “youth revolution.” Amalek always cloaks murder in slogans.

Her book is published by Rizzoli—Italy, once again—where Jews were rounded up and sent east. Now they publish a “witness” accusing the descendants of survivors of becoming Nazis. This is not conscience. It is cowardice. It is complicity. It is blood libel in hardcover. But we remember. And we name. Albanese: Daughter of Amalek. Rizzoli: Publisher of profanation. The world may sleep. But Am Yisrael Chai, and we do not forget.

Peace and Justice Post

Peace and Justice Post·sudhan.wordpress.com

UN rapporteur accuses Israel of ‘one of cruelest genocides’ in modern history; urges arms embargo, global disengagement

Francesca Albanese says Gaza has become laboratory for Israeli weapons, calling on states to suspend all trade, investment with Israel Beyza Binnur Donmez, AA.COM

Francesca Albanese’s latest statement represents not only a grotesque distortion of international law but a dangerous escalation of antisemitic propaganda masquerading as human rights discourse. Her accusation that Israel is committing “one of the cruelest genocides in modern history” is both morally obscene and legally baseless. It weaponizes Holocaust language to invert the identity of the victim and attacker, portraying the only Jewish state — recovering from the largest mass slaughter of Jews since 1945 — as a genocidal regime.

Albanese abuses the legal definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention (1948), which requires specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. There is no credible evidence that Israel seeks the extermination of Palestinians as a people. Rather, Israel is responding to the October 7th massacre — a genocidal pogrom by Hamas, whose charter explicitly calls for the annihilation of Jews. Civilian casualties in Gaza are a tragic consequence of urban warfare against an enemy embedding itself in hospitals, mosques, and UNRWA schools — not a genocidal campaign.

Albanese’s claim that Gaza is a “laboratory for Israeli weapons” echoes classic antisemitic tropes of Jews as cold, inhuman schemers profiting off the suffering of others. This is blood libel dressed in bureaucratic language — she implies Jews test bombs on civilians for profit. This is dehumanization, not human rights analysis.

Economic Warfare Disguised as Humanitarian Concern… The call for mass boycotts and divestment, backed by a blacklist of 48 companies, goes far beyond proportional or constructive criticism. It mirrors the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, which has deep roots in antisemitic ideology — targeting Israeli academia, business, and even cultural institutions simply for existing. “One people enriched, one people erased” — This line is not legal analysis. It’s Marxist-infused antisemitic agitprop.

Open Advocacy of Lawfare and Collective Punishment… By urging states and companies to abstain from all economic contact with Israel, Albanese pushes for collective punishment of the entire Israeli population — a civilian population that includes Jews, Arabs, Druze, and more — for the defensive actions of its army. She advocates for a total embargo that would harm civilians, including Israeli hospitals, universities, and even joint Arab-Jewish institutions.

Hypocrisy and Double Standards… Albanese’s selective obsession with Israel — ignoring far deadlier conflicts such as Syria, Yemen, Sudan, or Chinese genocide against Uyghurs — is damning. Not once has she used this language against Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who target civilians by design. Why does she never accuse Hamas of genocide, despite its charter and deliberate attacks on Jews?

Echoes of Classic Antisemitic Structures… Albanese’s narrative construction borrows from historic antisemitic patterns — Blood libel: Jews as killers of innocents; Economic conspiracy: Jews profit from war and suffering; World control narrative: A Jewish state as a global puppet-master; Deicide parallel: The state of Israel as the ultimate villain deserving erasure.

Israeli Mockery Is Justified… Israel’s mocking response isn’t diplomatic theater — it’s moral survival. When the UN Human Rights Council becomes a platform for blood libel, ridicule becomes the only sane response. Albanese deserves to be dismissed from her post. Her rhetoric doesn’t just undermine the UN’s credibility — it legitimizes antisemitic hatred, fuels terror, and threatens Jews worldwide.

Here’s a list of antisemitic tropes, falsehoods, and ideological tactics employed by Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur, particularly in her July 2025 statement accusing Israel of genocide. This exposes both her rhetorical devices and the historical antisemitic patterns she recycles under the guise of human rights advocacy.

1. Blood Libel 2.0 – “Gaza as a Laboratory”… “Israel is weaponizing Gaza as a testing ground… unleashing 85,000 tons of explosives… Gaza is a laboratory for the Israeli military-industrial complex.” The charge that Jews deliberately harm civilians, particularly children, for their own sinister gain — a modern twist on the medieval blood libel. She accuses Jews of inhuman experimentation on others. This mirrors Nazi propaganda about Jewish doctors and moneylenders conducting immoral experiments.

2. “Jews Profit From Genocide” – Economic Conspiracy Myth… “Arms companies have turned near-record profits… One people enriched, one people erased.” Antisemitic Code: The idea that Jews become wealthy through the suffering of others — i.e., war profiteers who orchestrate violence to line their pockets. This echoes both Nazi-era and Soviet propaganda about “Jewish capitalists” controlling war and international finance.

3. “Global Jewish Control” – The Protocols Narrative… She names 48 companies and demands universal disengagement, calling for economic, diplomatic, and academic isolation of Israel and all its affiliates. The mass targeting of unrelated institutions — banks, tech firms, universities — insinuates a global network of control run through Israel. Protocols of Zion 2.0: This plays into the “Elders of Zion” narrative: that Jews manipulate global structures behind the scenes.

4. Moral Inversion – Holocaust Abuse… “One of the cruelest genocides in modern history”. She accuses the Jewish people — survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants — of becoming the new Nazis. IHRA working definition of antisemitism explicitly includes “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

5. Denying Jewish Right to Self-Defense… Calls for total arms embargo, suspension of trade, and collective economic punishment. No similar treatment is recommended for Syria, China, Russia, Iran, or Turkey, despite mass atrocities far worse than anything claimed in Gaza. Applying uniquely harsh treatment only to the Jewish state, and denying it the right to defend itself from literal genocide (Hamas), is discriminatory.

6. Collective Guilt – Targeting All Israelis… “Economy of occupation… One people enriched”. Reducing all Israelis to a single guilty class — war profiteers, colonizers, criminals — erases the humanity and diversity of Israeli society. This mimics how antisemites historically blamed all Jews for financial manipulation, war, or alleged crimes of a few.

7. Silencing Jewish Grief – No Mention of October 7th… Nowhere in her speech or report is there acknowledgement of the rape, slaughter, torture, and kidnapping of 1,200 Jews on October 7, 2023. This is the classic antisemitic strategy of denying Jews empathy, pain, or victimhood. Antisemitism often begins with the refusal to see Jews as legitimate victims, and instead paints them only as oppressors.

8. “They Don’t Understand International Law” – Jews as Lawless… “They think international law is there to make excuses.” The suggestion that Israel (and by extension Jews) exploit or corrupt the law for their own ends. This echoes the stereotype that Jews manipulate legal, financial, or religious systems for personal or communal advantage.

9. BDS as “Resistance” – Economic Warfare Framed as Morality… “All corporate entities must immediately sever ties with Israel… civil society must push for boycotts, divestment, sanctions…”. The goal is not just to oppose policies, but to choke the Jewish state into dissolution — an antisemitic political goal masked as progressive. As per the IHRA definition, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” is antisemitic. BDS campaigns regularly cross this line.

10. Performative Lawfare – UN Abuse as Platform for Demonization… “I conducted a case-by-case legal analysis… in some cases, complicity in genocide.”. Her pseudo-legal crusade against Israel isn’t about rights. It’s about building a narrative for delegitimization. Lawfare becomes antisemitic when it selectively targets Jews or the Jewish state while ignoring greater or equal crimes elsewhere.

In 2014 she wrote that America is “subjugated by the Jewish lobby” — a classic antisemitic claim of Jewish control over foreign policy. She has never condemned Hamas by name, nor has she acknowledged the Jewish right to self-defense. Her framing erases Israel’s Arab citizens, Mizrahi Jews, and refugees from Arab lands, flattening them all into “white colonizers.”

“The Coward’s Gospel: Whitewashing Murder with the Blood of Euphemism”

There is a certain genre of writing that slithers across the digital page like a snake oil sermon—pleading for “nuance” as it dances delicately around the corpses of Jewish victims, terrified of naming the hatred that slaughtered them. Its voice is falsely measured, its tone falsely mournful, but its substance is craven. It is the literature of moral cowardice, and it is everywhere.

It starts with a funeral dirge and ends with a shrug. A young Jewish couple—Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim—are shot dead outside their workplace. The shooter, Elias Rodriguez, calls it an “armed demonstration,” parroting the genocidal slogans of the so-called “resistance.” And what do the scribes of cowardice offer us in response? Not moral clarity. Not a defense of human decency. No. They offer us a footnote: “Let’s not rush to call this antisemitism.”

This is not journalism. It is ideological laundering. It is moral whiteface over a rotting corpse. And the authors—desperate to keep their seats at the progressive table—spend 2,000 words saying: “Sure, they were murdered, but let’s understand the context.”

Context? What context justifies vigilante execution based on political beliefs? What context sanctifies bullets fired into the bodies of civilians on a street in Washington D.C.? There is no context. There is no justification. There is only the grotesque arrogance of those who believe their political narrative entitles them to weigh Jewish blood on a scale of abstract virtue.

Let us be clear: if you murder someone because they are connected to Israel, that is antisemitism. If you dehumanize Jews by calling them “agents of genocide” and then rationalize their murder, you are not offering analysis—you are baptizing hatred in the language of human rights.

This new cowardice wears a keffiyeh and quotes Foucault. It will never say, “Kill the Jews,” but it will endlessly repeat that “resistance is justified.” It will not light the match, but it will describe the fire as a “necessary disruption.” It will not pull the trigger, but it will weep over the shooter’s manifesto while wondering aloud if maybe—just maybe—those embassy workers were complicit in a global Zionist crime.

These are not critics of Israel. They are accessories to blood libel. They coo about humanitarian law while acting as defense attorneys for ideological murder. They offer sympathy with a sneer. “We condemn the violence,” they say—always followed by a sermon about Gaza. They never do that when other people are killed. No one says, “This Black man didn’t deserve to be lynched, but we must understand the economic desperation of the Klan.”

Their cowardice lies in the omission, in the strategic equivocation, in the moral sleight of hand. “Supporting genocide is not a capital crime,” they write, as if this is a courageous insight. As if the dead need a lecture on criminal code. As if the reader should spend more time questioning the victims’ beliefs than condemning their execution.

And so they posture: bravely punching Nazis in tweets, but flinching when asked to name a modern form of antisemitism that doesn’t fit their prefab categories. Their solidarity is selective. Their outrage is conditional. Their conscience is a weather vane spinning in the storm of social capital.

This is not nuance. This is surrender. This is the failure of the moral imagination to defend Jews without apology, without preface, and without reducing their murder to a footnote in someone else’s liberation narrative.

History will remember the loud monsters. But it will also remember the quiet cowards. The ones who buried their integrity beneath a mountain of disclaimers. The ones who refused to name the hatred that stared them in the face. The ones who saw murder and reached for a thesaurus instead of a spine.

We remember Yaron and Sarah. Not as footnotes, not as liabilities in someone else’s spreadsheet of injustice. But as human beings—murdered for who they were, and erased again by those too timid to tell the truth.

Shame on every coward who could not say: this was antisemitism.

mosckerr

Project Esther In Action: The Aftermath of the DC Jewish Museum Shootings

Richard Silverstein—a writer known for his polemical takes against Israeli policy, but whose latest rhetoric not only crosses ethical lines, it legitimizes political assassination as a form of “armed resistance.”

Let’s be clear: two Jews were murdered—embassy staff—in the U.S. capital, at a professional event. The killer shouted “Free Palestine” as he pulled the trigger. Yet rather than condemn this act as antisemitic terror, Silverstein justifies it, cloaking it in the language of “resistance,” “morality,” and “spectacle.”

This isn’t journalism. It’s apologetics for bloodshed. He reinterprets the murder of Jews not as antisemitism, not as terrorism, but as legitimate protest theater—on par with waving a sign or holding a sit-in. This is the same sleight of hand Hamas uses when they label suicide bombers “martyrs” or fire rockets from schools to spark PR sympathy.

And he knows exactly what he’s doing. When he says this wasn’t antisemitic because “he didn’t mention Jews,” it echoes the same denialism that once claimed the Shoah “wasn’t about Jews, it was about power.” That logic is rot. Just as attacking black people while shouting “segregation now” is racist, killing Israeli Jews while screaming “Free Palestine” is antisemitic. It’s not complex. It’s not nuanced. It’s murder.

Silverstein’s piece vomits the term “genocide” as casually as a TikTok slogan. He uses it not to describe systematic extermination—but to invert reality, weaponizing it against the very Jews who are trying to survive a genocidal assault. What Hamas began on October 7, 2023—rape, beheadings, burning civilians alive—he cannot name, because to do so would unravel his moral fantasy. Instead, he sanitizes killers and demonizes survivors.

This is the spiritual equivalent of a pigpen, an unholy desecration of both Tikun Olam and any genuine pursuit of justice. “Tikun Olam” does not mean sanctifying terrorism. “Resistance” does not mean slaughtering diplomats. And invoking God’s name while excusing political murder? That’s not protest. That’s Avodah Zarah—idolatry in its purest form: the worship of ideology above truth, violence above law, and hate above life.

To be blunt: Silverstein isn’t opposing genocide—he’s midwifing one. By justifying murder of Jews in the name of “morality,” he hands intellectual cover to future killers. And wraps his bile in spiritual garb, hoping no one notices the blood pooling underneath.

But we notice.

And we remember.

mosckerr

Israeli Embassy Staff Murdered in Gaza Genocide Attack

What can be the alternatives to UNRWA now that Israel has banned this UN terrorist organization?

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) encounters significant failures, it dragged its feet to access Israeli hostages and detainees stolen and held in Gaza. The Red Cross, tasked with visiting prisoners of war and detainees to ensure humane treatment, give the lame excuse that Hamas has blocked access to visit these prisoners of war. Yet the UN ignores this war-crime.

Critics of international organizations like UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, and UNRWA also behave with hostile biases against Israel. Actions, statements, or resolutions perceived as partial or politically motivated fuel these perceptions. Israel and its supporters often point to voting records at the United Nations and related agencies, noting obvious bias distortion of UN condemnations against Israel alone. This consistency reinforces the belief in UN racism against Israel. For example, UNICEF, WHO, and UNDP sometimes face criticism for highlighting Palestinian issues in ways that, some argue, do not sufficiently address Israeli security concerns or broader conflict contexts.

Member states with diverse political interests shape the policies and statements of UN agencies, many of which do not have diplomatic relations with the Jewish State. The influence of the African unaligned nations in the GA leads to distorted UNGA condemnations of Israel. The UN charter which currently permits a plurality of nations in the UNGA to condemn Israel, as if this GA vote accomplishes the rhetoric of democracy; furthermore it gives the impression that the UNGA functions as a world government rather than a neutral entity..

Israel absolutely rejects UNGA Resolutions which pervert political crises into something that more resembles a vote for a beauty contest. Still Israel more prepared to collaborate with NGOs like World Vision, CARE, and Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), which often deliver humanitarian assistance without direct involvement in political dynamics affecting UN bodies. Israel works and trusts these NGOs for medical aid, emergency response, and specific humanitarian projects that sidestep politically charged areas.

European nations commonly support international calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories such as UNSCR 242; the so-called “West Bank” ceased to exist immediately after the Jordan defeat in the June War.

In 1950 the UN condemned Jordan’s annexation of Samaria as illegal. Israel views 242 as both ignoring this prior UN condemnation of Jordan and also disregarding its security needs. European countries frequently support UN General Assembly and other resolutions critical of Israeli “settlement policies and occupation”; Israel does not occupy land within its own borders, and the UN does not determine the international borders of the Jewish state.

Coupled by the blatant fact that the UN ignores the British settlement of Northern Ireland. Such two-tier UN behavior contribute to Israel’s perception of extreme European anti-Semitic bias. Israel maintains selective engagement with European nations, particularly in areas of mutual interest like technology and trade, while it maintains extreme skepticism concerning politically sensitive collaboration with Europe post Blood Libels, 3 century illegal ghettos, unilateral expulsion of Jewish communities, taxation without representation, pogroms and Shoah.

Israel holds diplomatic and economic relationships with European countries, in the shadow of the Shoah, the systematic slaughter of 75% European Jewry in less than 3 years. The impact of UNSCR 242 and related European stances further arouses the suspicions of Israelis who strongly suspect European bias against its security needs.

Historical events such as the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 and the 1956 Suez Crisis affect how Israel perceives European involvement. European powers’ actions in those periods reflect strategies wherein European Capitals prioritized their economic and strategic interests over regional stability. This legacy fosters the belief that Britain and France in particular, that they seek control and in the specific of the 1956 War, used 8 year old Israel as a political pawn. The outcome of the 1967 Six-Day War radically shifted the regional power balance in the region, it challenges European influence. Britain and France immediately responded with UNSCR 242. Prior to the outbreak of that war, Paris betrayed its alliance with Israel.

European policies often align with hostile international anti-Israel alliances. The support and advocate for Israeli withdrawals that echoes historical imperial power dynamics. The events of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and Suez Crisis shape, how Israel and other Middle Eastern nations view European nations as self-interested players ready to manipulate regional dynamics stands on the premise: fool me once shame on you. The 1967 war, where Israel emerged as a dominant military power, reinforces strong Israeli doubts concerning European motives and their reliability as allies. In the ’73 War Europe once again declared itself neutral! These historical legacies continue influencing Israeli-European relations and limit cooperation in politically and security-sensitive areas.

European and British diplomacy often navigates a complex landscape when addressing Israeli suspicions of potential betrayal, particularly in light of historical events such as Charles de Gaulle’s policies leading up to the Six-Day War. However Jerusalem perceives European public affirmations of Israel’s right to security and legitimacy as a state as little more than political rhetoric. No Security Council ruling which recognizes Israel as a State in the Middle East since the founding of the UN.

The two-state solution would treat Israel on par with defeated Nazi Germany post WWII. Israel categorically rejects a forced Jewish population transfer of Israelis in Samaria like as done to Germans living in Poland and the Czech Republic. The transfer of Prussia to Poland/Samaria to Palestine an utter abomination. Strong bilateral relations in areas like technology, defence, and trade Jerusalem perceives as tactical rather than strategic. At a whim European Capitals could negate these bilateral relations.

Affirmations of Israel’s right to defend itself lasts only as long as Arabs stand in the shadow of victory. Europe always strives to prevent Israel forcing an unconditional surrender upon warring Arab states. The strong demands and condemnation of Israel concerning the war in Gaza stand as solid proof. Current European governments always fall within the general rule: The Apple does not fall far from the Tree. Suggesting that underlying biases against Israel continue to influence contemporary diplomatic actions.

European leaders have issued formal apologies for the atrocities committed during the Holocaust, acknowledging the historical injustices faced by Jews in Europe. These statements aim to demonstrate a recognition of the past and a commitment to preventing similar horrors in the future.

Promoting Holocaust education and remembrance initiatives across Europe reflects a commitment to ensuring that society remembers the history of Jewish persecution. Countries hold memorial events, support museums and educational programs, and integrate Holocaust studies into school curricula, signaling a societal shift toward understanding and honoring Jewish history.

Israel responds that the EU and Britain did nothing to prevent the UNRWA Nazi vilification of Jews in UNRWA schools in Gaza and Samaria! The anti-Semitism in France today in many ways resembles the period of the Dreyfus Affair! Belgium holds public anti-Semitic national parades! These developments raise questions about the effectiveness of European initiatives aimed at fostering understanding and support for Jewish communities, leading to skepticism about the true depth of commitment to combating anti-Semitism in the present day.

mosckerr

Netanyahu has a Brutally Honest Message for Jews around the WORLD

Fixing France. How to Repair a Broken Republic. Nabila Ramdani. Review.

What can be the alternatives to UNRWA now that Israel has banned this UN terrorist organization?

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) encounters significant failures, it dragged its feet to access Israeli hostages and detainees stolen and held in Gaza. The Red Cross, tasked with visiting prisoners of war and detainees to ensure humane treatment, give the lame excuse that Hamas has blocked access to visit these prisoners of war. Yet the UN ignores this war-crime.

Critics of international organizations like UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, and UNRWA also behave with hostile biases against Israel. Actions, statements, or resolutions perceived as partial or politically motivated fuel these perceptions. Israel and its supporters often point to voting records at the United Nations and related agencies, noting obvious bias distortion of UN condemnations against Israel alone. This consistency reinforces the belief in UN racism against Israel. For example, UNICEF, WHO, and UNDP sometimes face criticism for highlighting Palestinian issues in ways that, some argue, do not sufficiently address Israeli security concerns or broader conflict contexts.

Member states with diverse political interests shape the policies and statements of UN agencies, many of which do not have diplomatic relations with the Jewish State. The influence of the African unaligned nations in the GA leads to distorted UNGA condemnations of Israel. The UN charter which currently permits a plurality of nations in the UNGA to condemn Israel, as if this GA vote accomplishes the rhetoric of democracy; furthermore it gives the impression that the UNGA functions as a world government rather than a neutral entity..

Israel absolutely rejects UNGA Resolutions which pervert political crises into something that more resembles a vote for a beauty contest. Still Israel more prepared to collaborate with NGOs like World Vision, CARE, and Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), which often deliver humanitarian assistance without direct involvement in political dynamics affecting UN bodies. Israel works and trusts these NGOs for medical aid, emergency response, and specific humanitarian projects that sidestep politically charged areas.

European nations commonly support international calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories such as UNSCR 242; the so-called “West Bank” ceased to exist immediately after the Jordan defeat in the June War.

In 1950 the UN condemned Jordan’s annexation of Samaria as illegal. Israel views 242 as both ignoring this prior UN condemnation of Jordan and also disregarding its security needs. European countries frequently support UN General Assembly and other resolutions critical of Israeli “settlement policies and occupation”; Israel does not occupy land within its own borders, and the UN does not determine the international borders of the Jewish state.

Coupled by the blatant fact that the UN ignores the British settlement of Northern Ireland. Such two-tier UN behavior contribute to Israel’s perception of extreme European anti-Semitic bias. Israel maintains selective engagement with European nations, particularly in areas of mutual interest like technology and trade, while it maintains extreme skepticism concerning politically sensitive collaboration with Europe post Blood Libels, 3 century illegal ghettos, unilateral expulsion of Jewish communities, taxation without representation, pogroms and Shoah.

Israel holds diplomatic and economic relationships with European countries, in the shadow of the Shoah, the systematic slaughter of 75% European Jewry in less than 3 years. The impact of UNSCR 242 and related European stances further arouses the suspicions of Israelis who strongly suspect European bias against its security needs.

Historical events such as the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 and the 1956 Suez Crisis affect how Israel perceives European involvement. European powers’ actions in those periods reflect strategies wherein European Capitals prioritized their economic and strategic interests over regional stability. This legacy fosters the belief that Britain and France in particular, that they seek control and in the specific of the 1956 War, used 8 year old Israel as a political pawn. The outcome of the 1967 Six-Day War radically shifted the regional power balance in the region, it challenges European influence. Britain and France immediately responded with UNSCR 242. Prior to the outbreak of that war, Paris betrayed its alliance with Israel.

European policies often align with hostile international anti-Israel alliances. The support and advocate for Israeli withdrawals that echoes historical imperial power dynamics. The events of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and Suez Crisis shape, how Israel and other Middle Eastern nations view European nations as self-interested players ready to manipulate regional dynamics stands on the premise: fool me once shame on you. The 1967 war, where Israel emerged as a dominant military power, reinforces strong Israeli doubts concerning European motives and their reliability as allies. In the ’73 War Europe once again declared itself neutral! These historical legacies continue influencing Israeli-European relations and limit cooperation in politically and security-sensitive areas.

European and British diplomacy often navigates a complex landscape when addressing Israeli suspicions of potential betrayal, particularly in light of historical events such as Charles de Gaulle’s policies leading up to the Six-Day War. However Jerusalem perceives European public affirmations of Israel’s right to security and legitimacy as a state as little more than political rhetoric. No Security Council ruling which recognizes Israel as a State in the Middle East since the founding of the UN.

The two-state solution would treat Israel on par with defeated Nazi Germany post WWII. Israel categorically rejects a forced Jewish population transfer of Israelis in Samaria like as done to Germans living in Poland and the Czech Republic. The transfer of Prussia to Poland/Samaria to Palestine an utter abomination. Strong bilateral relations in areas like technology, defence, and trade Jerusalem perceives as tactical rather than strategic. At a whim European Capitals could negate these bilateral relations.

Affirmations of Israel’s right to defend itself lasts only as long as Arabs stand in the shadow of victory. Europe always strives to prevent Israel forcing an unconditional surrender upon warring Arab states. The strong demands and condemnation of Israel concerning the war in Gaza stand as solid proof. Current European governments always fall within the general rule: The Apple does not fall far from the Tree. Suggesting that underlying biases against Israel continue to influence contemporary diplomatic actions.

European leaders have issued formal apologies for the atrocities committed during the Holocaust, acknowledging the historical injustices faced by Jews in Europe. These statements aim to demonstrate a recognition of the past and a commitment to preventing similar horrors in the future.

Promoting Holocaust education and remembrance initiatives across Europe reflects a commitment to ensuring that society remembers the history of Jewish persecution. Countries hold memorial events, support museums and educational programs, and integrate Holocaust studies into school curricula, signaling a societal shift toward understanding and honoring Jewish history.

Israel responds that the EU and Britain did nothing to prevent the UNRWA Nazi vilification of Jews in UNRWA schools in Gaza and Samaria! The anti-Semitism in France today in many ways resembles the period of the Dreyfus Affair! Belgium holds public anti-Semitic national parades! These developments raise questions about the effectiveness of European initiatives aimed at fostering understanding and support for Jewish communities, leading to skepticism about the true depth of commitment to combating anti-Semitism in the present day.

Meeting with the American Jewish Committee

In the mid-20th century, American antisemitism reached a dangerous peak. Imagine a time when headlines blared messages like “Let’s Take America Away From the Jews!” and “Jewish CARTHAGE Must Be Destroyed if Free America Is To Survive!” It was a dark period, with roughly 50 antisemitic demonstrations a week—including rallies at Madison Square Garden—spreading hate on the streets of New York City.

Enter the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which decided to tackle this rising tide of bigotry head-on. They launched a groundbreaking media campaign called “Confronting Hate 1937-1952.” Spearheaded by advertising executive Richard Rothschild, the AJC partnered with a diverse array of individuals: artists, writers, political leaders, women’s groups, church organizations, and even celebrities like Frank Sinatra and Judy Garland. Together, they formed an unlikely alliance against hate.

Rothschild and his team produced graphic posters, newspaper ads, pamphlets, and even comic books. Yes, comic books! One of them, titled “They Got the Blame,” chronicled the history of scapegoating. It was like fighting hate with ink and imagination.

The campaign didn’t just stick to traditional channels. It infiltrated the public consciousness in unexpected ways. Imagine seeing powerful anti-hate messages while flipping through your morning paper or attending a church service. The AJC was everywhere, reminding people that unity and understanding were essential for a healthy democracy.

Instead of merely reacting, the AJC proactively used art, media, and education to dismantle stereotypes. They understood that combating hate required more than just facts—it needed emotional engagement. The fight against antisemitism wasn’t won overnight. It took sustained effort, creativity, and unwavering commitment.

Fast-forward to today, failure to mount a robust campaign against hate – a glaring issue in the face of “NOT IN OUR NAME” kapoism.