An Israeli perspective of Arab dhimmi racism and its impact on the post Shoah guilty European bias which hates the continued existence of Jews; as expressed through classic church/new Israel replacement theology; Romans 10:12–13 – “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Tawhid & Nicene “Monotheism”, both theology creed belief systems violate both the first and second Sinai commandments. A fundamental distinction separates the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov from either Yishmael or Esav – only Israel accepts the local tribal god of Israel. Universal monotheism unilaterally declares prophets sent to all nations and Goyim grafted on to the chosen Cohen inheritance.
Today Israelis stand and remember “Yom Ha-Shoah”. We Israelis renew the post Shoah oath “Never Again”. We remember the ping-ball custom, practiced by both European and Arab societies, to arbitrarily “solve” their racist “Jewish Problem” throughout the Ages – “Never Again”. The Nazi ‘inferior race’, Arab racism denies Jewish equal rights to achieve כוח ריבוני-Political Independents as an Independent Jewish State in the Middle East. Pre-war White Papers coupled with post war British forced encampments of Jewish refugee survivors, returned to Germany or Cyprus – further amplifies the Israeli post Shoah oath of “NEVER AGAIN” which Yom HaShoah remembers. Both European and Arab/Muslim ‘good name’ reputations shattered with the ’48 forced expulsions of Jews from Arab countries, combined with all Arab states refusal to repatriate their refugee on par with how Israel repatriates Jewish refugee populations. Not a single Arab country has agreed to accept Gazan refugee populations who want to leave destroy Gaza and become “citizens” in other countries. Diplomacy among nations classically entails cutting a political alliance. Such a political alliance stands upon mutually shared trust and interests. The UN spectacularly fails in building on ‘trust’; UN Resolution 1701 serves as a strong proof long before UNWRA joined Hamas on Oct 7th 2023.
The capacity for Jewish self-defense and political independence – defines modern Zionism. Israel “recaptured” Samaria from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War. After 1948 “Palestine” ceased to exist. Jordan, named its illegal – according to the UN condemnation – “occupation” of its “West Bank”; only Pakistan and Britain recognized the Jordanian nationalization of its “West Bank”. Never once from 1948 – 67 did Jordan validate a “Palestine” of its illegally occupied “West Bank”. The UN did not pass a single resolution titled “Condemnation of Jordan,” it refused to recognize the annexation. Even Yasser Arafat’s PLO Charter did not view Jordan’s illegal occupation of its ’48 “West Bank” as “occupied Palestine”. In international law, non‑recognition of an annexation is the mechanism for declaring it invalid. No different from the UN rejection of Indonesia’s ‘East Timor’, Turkey’s ‘Northern Cyprus’, Russia’s ‘Crimea’. The PLO Charter of 1964 likewise did not view Egyptian rule over Gaza as “occupied Palestinian territory”. The collective UN position was unmistakably that Jordan had no sovereignty over the West Bank; but starting with the purposely vague language of 242 “territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict”, perfectly clarified by 2334 the UN declares sovereignty to Palestine; despite the cold hard fact that Israel – not a protectorate mandate territory and that Arab Israeli wars determine its borders! Therefore, the post‑1967 terminology is a political invention, not a continuation of pre‑1967 legal reality.
But post ’67, BBC propaganda screamed “occupied Palestinian territories” – inclusive of both Samaria and Gaza! Britain had no mandate, and therefore no legal claim to make this condemnation of Israel. The same equally applies to the UN through its 242 “all States” propaganda; which serve as the foundation for UN condemnations of Israeli “illegal” settlements of “Palestinian lands”; UN 2334 and the UN open recognition of the “Palestinian State” – proof of propaganda. Never in all human recorded history has their ever existed a “land of Palestine” – not under Ottoman or Arab empires.
The characterization of land as “occupied Palestinian territories” by both the UN and BBC and French propaganda evokes strong reactions, particularly among those who view this language as delegitimizing Israel’s claims, primarily based upon the 1923 British establishment of Trans-Jordan bordering “Israel” at the Jordan river. The application and interpretation of resolutions, such as UN Resolution 242, initiated to “international claims”/”competing narratives” by foreign outside States regarding “land rights and statehood” with a pro Arab bias which fundamentally rejects dhimmi Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East post the 1917 Balfour Declaration which served as the basis for the League division of Lebanon and Syria awarded to France and Palestine, Trans-Jordan awarded to Britain – based upon the secret accords known today as Sykes-Picot.
No Israeli-Palestinian “conflict” exists in reality because post the declaration of Jewish national Independence in 1948 the UN “protectorate” over “Palestine” ceased to exist. No different than this mandate ceased to exist as a “British mandate territory” officially ended after it turned that “mandate territory” back to the UN in 1948. From that moment on the British Crown had no more say in the determination of Israeli Independence than it does to determine the Capital of Austin Texas. This equally applies to the post WWII established UN.
Post-1948, no separate national entity represented as “Palestine” in international law or governance, particularly under Jordanian control of its illegally occupied West Bank and Egyptian control of Gaza – until 1967. The phrase “recaptured” to describe Israel’s actions during the 1967 Six-Day War reflects a perspective that emphasizes a historical and religious connection to the land. This contrasts with views that describe the action as an occupation of land that was already controlled by Jordan — which the UN itself condemned as illegal in 1950.
UN Resolution 242 and consecutive resolutions employed as Foreign State imperialism propaganda rhetoric which seeks peace. War the result of all British two state solutions! India/Pakistan, Iraq\Kuwait, and two Koreas and two Vietnams glaring examples of ‘great power’ foreign national interests imposed upon “conquered” lands. Great Power international “diplomacy” – the British labelled as “maintaining the balance of power” – which suited British [לאו דווקא] strategic interests.
The UN’s later recognition of a Palestinian state a further attempt to rewrite historical claims and narratives that do not acknowledge the complexities of sovereignty and self-determination in the context of this region. The framing of successful Israel national Independence by media outlets – such as the BBC and other organizations – have promoted wars not peace. Shalom requires “trust”, peace simply a propaganda “label” of rhetoric. The success of Allied propaganda during WWI which unilaterally declared the Germans as “the Hun barbarians at the gates” produced profound effects on public perception. Critics argue – propaganda rhetoric language that injects “occupation”, aligns with Arab narratives which switched the term Nakba from Arab disastrous military defeat unto Arab stateless Palestinian refugees. No Arab country has yet to end or terminate the refugee status which UNWRA promotes and serves this particular political foreign ‘Great Power States’ imperialist agendas.
Propaganda that Israel repeatedly violates “international law”, simply another gross example of UN Great Power manipulations expressed through BBC and MSM propaganda arms of foreign states attempts to ‘control the narrative’ through words. Israel as an independent nation – its international borders determined through wars and the diplomacy its establishes with regional state powers. Neither the Parliament of London or any other distant foreign power determines where Israel establishes its Capital much less its international borders with other nation states which share common borders.
From 1948-67 no recognized sovereign “Palestine” in international law. Jordan and Egypt did not treat their respective areas as “Palestine,” and the UN did not recognize their sovereignty there. Therefore, the later phrase “occupied Palestinian territories” — not a continuation of pre‑1967 legal language, but a post‑1967 political construction.
UN SC 242 (1967) inserts the phrase “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” not “all the territories” and not “Palestinian territories”; UN SC 2334 (2016) morphs into “occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem,” and labels Israeli settlements there as having “no legal validity.” This effectively retrofits a Palestinian sovereignty claim onto areas that, pre‑1967, had no recognized Palestinian state and no recognized Jordanian/Egyptian sovereignty either. 2334 and the UN’s recognition of “Palestine” as a non‑member observer state (2012) represent a political re‑narration, not a neutral continuation of Mandate‑era law.
Post‑1967 BBC usage of “occupied Palestinian territories” mirrors the UN’s later terminology, not the earlier legal reality. Britain, having ended its Mandate in 1948, has no legal standing to define Israel’s borders or capital, yet its media and diplomacy still act as if they are arbiters of legitimacy; a continuation of Great Power narrative control—the same mentality that carved up the region under Sykes–Picot and Mandate arrangements. Language like “occupation,” “illegal settlements,” “Palestinian territories” is not neutral description; it’s weaponized vocabulary that encodes a particular political and historical judgment.
The Abraham Accords invalidates European Middle East politics. In strict legal terms, the Middle East and North African conflict, while acknowledging both terrorist violence with its consequential suffering consequence domino-effect/impact, in strict legal terms, this ongoing-conflict most basically pits Israel against neighboring Arab states rather than Arab nationalist Palestinian nationalist movements. While the Romans renamed Judea unto Palestine, the Roman empire long since dead. The Arab empire uprooted the Roman empire – hook, line, and sinker. Therefore 19th Century French maps sold to the ‘sick man of Europe’, as empty as the deceased Ottoman empire. No different from the dead League of Nations “Palestine mandate”, and the dead British, French, Nazi, and USSR communist empires; their world order no long exists – even the flies not interested in the dry bones of their corps. The League of Nations, and how much more so the post WWII UN have no power to create pre‑existing sovereign “Palestine”. Despite the UN or Britain\French propaganda, continuous retroactive attempts to resurrect – like Jesus on the 3rd day – this dead Roman corpse from its grave.
UNRWA and its permanent Arab refugee status of both ’48 and ’67 Arabs who sought to complete the Nazi Shoah by throwing the Jews into the Sea, such propaganda rhetoric – employed as a deliberate political tool, not a humanitarian necessity—sustaining statelessness to maintain a grievance narrative whose evil intent exploded on Oct 7th 2023 when UNWRA officials participated together with Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists in the massacre of 1200 or more Israelis; coupled with the Red Cross refusal to visit for some two years the captured Israeli hostages held under barbaric conditions. The League “Palestine Mandate” stood upon the foundation of the Balfour Declaration. Post ’67 UN declarations changed the goal-posts. Immediately after the declaration of Israeli Independence, the UN had no protectorate over “Palestine”; anymore than did Britain after it returned the League mandate back to the UN.
The post‑Shoah European narrative toward Israel reflects a convergence of Arab dhimmi attitudes toward Jews, Christian supersessionist theology, and Great Power political interests. This convergence has produced a persistent bias that frames Jewish sovereignty as an anomaly to be corrected rather than a legitimate expression of national self‑determination. The language of “occupation,” “illegal settlements,” and “Palestinian territories” is not a continuation of pre‑1967 legal reality but a political vocabulary constructed after the Six‑Day War, retroactively projecting sovereignty onto a territory that—between 1948 and 1967—neither Jordan nor Egypt treated as “Palestine,” and which the UN itself refused to recognize as belonging to either state.
The Abraham Accords further expose the obsolescence of European frameworks, demonstrating that regional peace emerges from regional actors—not from external powers imposing narratives rooted in outdated colonial assumptions. The UN’s and European states’ continued use of “occupied Palestinian territories” reflects not legal continuity but political reinvention, shaped by post‑colonial guilt, theological inheritance, and geopolitical interests.
Power politics affects which situations are pursued and how strongly. The UN does not repeatedly condemn Turkey’s acquisition of Cyprus, or Russia’s nationalization of Crimea. Its continued employment of “West Bank” in fact supports the illegal Jordanian nationalization of Samaria. Therefore, the swarm of UN condemnations of Israeli “illegal occupation of Palestinian territory” – wholly invalid.
The weakness of the UN system proves itself to exist as but a fig leaf which conceals ‘great power imperialism’. ‘West Bank’ treated as a geographic descriptor tied to current diplomatic frameworks, simply UN legal jargon propaganda which raises red-flags concerning the “neutrality” of the UN; placed on par with the corrupt UNWRA post Oct 7th 2023 and the failure of the Red Cross to visit the captured Israeli hostages for the entire two years torture.
Selective enforcement ⇒ the UN’s determinations – wholly invalid; starting with the Korean War which directly violated the US Constitution and directly led to the Vietnam War – totally invalidates the UN as a legal body. These fundamental, most basic contradictions, not minor or petty “debates”. But rather the Institutional failure and total collapse of the UN legal doctrine. The combination of selective enforcement, bloc politics, and evolving terminology undermines the perceived neutrality of UN determinations – among Israeli has destroyed all “trust” and we equate the UN on par with the dead League of Nations.
This idea that “A rule can remain legally valid even if applied inconsistently” serves as a despicable example of “Do as I say but not as I do”. In legal practice the UN treats “West Bank” as a current operational/geographic term that recognizes a Palestinian state! This blatant hypocrisy – “contradictions + political bias ⇒ total collapse of UN legal doctrine, Israelis view as part of the Yom HaShoah “NEVER AGAIN” oath that perpetuated the “Jewish Problem” Nazi “Final Solution”. No UN condemnations ever over Nassers and other Arab leaders repeated attempts to throw the Jews into the Sea.
Legal forums often dismiss Israeli self-determination “outright”. What else is new? Starting with the famous 3 No’s Arab state absolutely reject the “claims” made by Zionist Crusaders that dhimmi Jews share equal rights to achieve Independent self-determination in the Middle East; even in a land about the size of the State of New Jersey! UN post ’67 politics reflects a NT ‘nation divided against itself cannot stand’ Roman imperialism; especially as viewed from the perspective that the Apostle Paul served as Rabban Gamliel’s agent provocateur injected into Xtian circles to undermine the influence of this false messiah notion by declaring circumcision null and void – similar to Reform Judaism. And travelling to Rome and declaring JeZeus as Lord savior son of God when polytheistic Roman theology recognized Caesar as the son of God!