The ecstasy of success! Israel has just managed to insert their socialist, Marxist puppet as the new Prime Minister of the UK. Fully entrenched, Keir was consumed by the Zionists to submit to their mandate in return for his undying support for Israel. His wife, a Jewish woman, helped to persuade him while Michael Bloomberg announced that Israel would work behind the scenes to assure their newest colony adhered to their agenda and protocols. Which includes the World Economic Forum et al. King Charles agreed to the coup.
Marin le Pen is also a Jewish, Israeli proponent who just won the election displacing Macron – a Jewish, Zionist proponent. Jewish sympathizer and secular, Olaf Scholz, a socialist Marxist, remains at the helm of Germany while Italy’s Meloni who pledged conservative values as a candidate immediately swung hard to port once in office – pro-Zionism. Thus Europe’s elections have secured the EU as fully colonized under the Israeli flag.
The point of replacing Jewish Zionist puppets with new Zionist puppets was simply the deceptive tactic of double bait and switch. The old stalwarts had been outed as destroying Europe, while the new stalwarts will submit to the propagandizing of a new face in politics – to bridge the hatred of the old stalwarts by the people. Another illusion.
In the vein of deception, Zionists post ridiculous denunciations of Israel’s conquests by noting how small the thin blue line of boundaries extend within the dominance of the Muslim Empire. Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia – Take Notice. Because the End Game of this European & American colonization is to expand ever more throughout The Gulf. You are – NEXT!
Given the rise of antisemitism across Europe, the sentiment had to be quelled quickly. Quashed. Tactics altered. How that plays in Trump’s cabinet has yet to be revealed. But a Zion influence will rightly reveal if America has a chance. So far, Trump is playing his poker hand. It is imperative to appear neutral knowing divisions can destroy an entire campaign in a matter of hours. Note – DeSantis.
The Middle East will need to reconvene their alliances – most specifically – Qatar and Saudi Arabia. While Jordan long ago bent the knee to the Zionists, it is unclear whether Egypt’s Sisi replacing the vast majority of his cabinet overnight is a pro-Israel stance or not. Given Israel’s agenda for Egypt is to obliterate their revenue from the Suez Canal, while forcing them to accept an additional 2 million refugees – one would think the government was keen to this agenda and the vast corrupted end game therein. But then the sledge hammer of blackmail can wield a heavy blow.
Given every western/Zionist war is about reshuffling the Land boundaries and confiscating the resources – one would think the entire Middle East would be on heightened alert. For Israel Is A Mighty Deceiver. Secularism is their throne. It is everything the Bible warns us to see and understand. It has become a secular statehood of nonbelievers asserting God’s covenant –
Created in 1949 by secularist, Ben Gurion, The Mossad was created not as a security agency, but as a global destabilizer. Gurion realized that the way to gain control was through fear initiated thru ‘terrorism’. The same psychological terror that was used on Epstein Island on children… The same psychological terror that fanned Pandemics.
The Mossad infiltrates other countries through their sub-agencies; ISIS, al Qaeda, el Nusra, Boko Haram, etc… Razing death and mutilation throughout every African and Middle East country deemed inferior. They attack only civilians. They attack those who are indefensible – children especially given their death elicits agony in adults. Like The Protocols, Zions created the ‘Yinon Plan’ and the ‘Clean Break’: This policy document was written in 1996 by Richard Perle and the study group ‘A New Israeli Strategy Towards 2000’. It was written for Netanyahu.
“Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states. The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must
- become an imperial regional power, and
- must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states.
“Aside from a divided Iraq and a full absorption of Jordan, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.” American Free Press.
Richard Perle served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs under Reagan and Chairman of Defense Policy Advisory Committee under George Bush. It was Perle who told Bush that the Saddam Hussein regime possessed weapons of mass destruction. A neoconservative hawk, Perle has been involved with the Jewish Institute For National Security in America (JINSA), The Project for A new American Century founded by Kagan and Bill Kristol, Center For Security Policy – anti-Muslim.
Perle worked in conjunction with Zionist, Jacob Wolfowitz, a White House career politician working for Israel via Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama. In 1978, Wolfowitz was investigated by the FBI for providing intelligence to an Israeli government official while he was still an employee at ACDA. He was accused of handing over a classified document, via an AIPAC intermediary, which detailed the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government.
Wolfowitz was appointed by Schulz who worked with Soviet Zions, helped to abolish the gold standard, advocated for the pardoning of Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, supported the creation of Climate Agendas, a member of the Israel Democracy Institute and Bohemian Grove.
Ronald Reagan:
The extent to which America became an intertwined colony of the secular Israel – subjected to the Israeli Califate of global dominion, via the Mossad chaos and destabilization agenda is a vast network of US politicians, and NGO’s whose power escalated considerably under Reagan. Which explains the corrupted advisory groups that always claim they are Reaganites… Reagan was a staunch Jew supporter. During the mid-1970s Reagan had a weekly column in the Jewish Press newspaper, he supported Israel’s war against Palestine,
His closest Jewish advisor was Theodore E. Cummings of Los Angeles. Cummings served in the Reagan inner circle. During the presidential campaign in 1980 LA businessman Albert Spiegel headed the Jewish Coalition for Reagan. Additional figures with access to Reagan were Max Fisher, Maxwell Rabb, George Klein, Gordon Zacks, and Jacob Stein.
Neo-conservative Jewish intellectuals, such as Eugene V. Rostow, Max Kempelman, Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz were active in the Reagan election campaign and many became influential in the Reagan Administration.
In 1981, the Mossad/Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. The anti-Jewish sentiment required the Cleanup Crew and propaganda outlets to resecure their support of Israel – the destroyer. Reagan’s response was to help Israel expand its illegal settlements into Gaza and the West Bank – including Jerusalem.
Our Government is inextricably chained to Israel. We have assisted in the creation of ‘terrorism’ to achieve Israel’s Yinon Agenda. And we have assisted Israel’s genocide of Palestine – as well as unfounded wars across the Middle East in order to destabilize and invoke chaos. Israel is the founder not just of secularism across the globe, but Terrorist Organizations – all while claiming Islam as the threat. The Common Enemy Doctrine Espoused by Bush when the Mossad laid the bombs for 9-11.
Post ’48 Israel and dhimmi Arab refugee populations exist as but pawns on the political chess board of the Great Nation imperialist States domination of the Middle East, cut up into Spheres of Influence among these Great Powers. Propaganda which declares the conflict between Israel and Balestininas, just straight up propaganda. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East represents the loss of great power status of England France Russia and even the United State domination of the balance of power among the States of the Middle East.
Utterly moronic stupidity on the order of UN Resolution 242 which first coined “Occupied Territories” based upon the corrupt premise that it violates “international law” to acquire land through War. The absolute narishkeit of this Great Power Security Council imperialism/avoda zarah abomination, likewise compares to UN Resolution 3379: Zionism is Racism!
Judea and Samaria the inheritance of the Jewish people. The pejorative word “settlement” promotes Great Power Security Council imperialism in the Middle East. Aimed to force an Israeli surrender similar to the Nazi surrender following its defeat in WWII. There, the great powers forced a mass population transfer of Germans from Prussia and caused Poland to acquire land through War!!! Prussia the heart of the 2nd Germanic empire prior to WWI. How many times has the Alsace Lorraine switched from French to German and back again to France consequent to the spoils of War?
Contrast the stark differences between the g’lut ghetto Jews from the Israelis. Chag Tishah B’Av celebrates the destruction of the Av tumah avoda zarah of king Shlomo’s assimilation and intermarriages. (The two Torah negative commandments which defines the 2nd Sinai commandment – not to whoreship other Gods.) Whooooooooop rejoice over the destruction of king Shlomo’s Av tumah Catholic like Cathedral/Temple. On this day Israelis rededicate holy to HaShem our pursuit to restore and re-establish Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms across the country in the pursuit of justice. Justice: judicial imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews.
The construction of the First and Second Temples never actually commanded by HaShem in the Torah, contrary to the traditional understanding. The Temple constructions represented an abomination of assimilation and intermarriage; exposing “avoda zarah” (foreign worship). Meaning, bnai brit abandonment of Torah established culture and customs in favor of embracing and following Goyim cultures and customs ie assimilation.
The Temples construction, therefore akin to “Catholic Cathedrals”; foreign-influenced places of worship that betrayed authentic Jewish faith: the pursuit of judicial common law justice through Sanhedrin courtrooms. The Second Commandment absolutely rejects the vanity of man attempting to believe in Gods. Such a pursuit simply beyond the scope of the Human mind to grasp. Goyim avoda zarah by contrast prioritized through dogmatism and theological creeds defines belief systems such as the Nicene Creed or the Mohammedan belief in one God.
Therefore, the repeated destruction of these Temples on the 9th of Av, from the post Shoah Israeli perspective, viewed as a most positive event. Celebrations of Chag 9th of Av eliminates this violation of the Second Commandment, and the “Av tumah” (impurity) associated with them.
Rather than the g’lut curse of mourning the Temples’ destruction, this post-Holocaust Israeli view celebrates the 9th of Av as a necessary step to restore the Jewish people’s proper spiritual priority and path of faith, as dictated by the prophet Nathan’s words to King David. This spiritual path emphasizes the pursuit of true justice, as exemplified by King David’s failure to stand trial before a Capital Crimes Sanhedrin courtroom over the matter of Bathsheba’s first husband.
Mourning the 9th of Av: This view emphasizes the historical tragedies the result of av tumah avoda zarah, that led to the destruction of the Temple(s), such as the assimilation and intermarriage which define the corrupt reign of King Solomon. Which resulted in a permanent Civil War between the divided kingdoms of Yechuda vs. Israel.
This post Shoah perspective views false messiah theologies which require that the messiah rebuilds the Temple as absolute tumah avoda zarah. Such tumah rabbinic “theology” copies the new testament false idea of messiah, much like king Shlomo copied the cultures and customs of Goyim civilizations which construct Huge and ruinously costly Cathedrals throughout the annals of recorded history. Emulating the customs of foreign, non-Jewish civilizations, a flagrant violation of the Jewish faith.
Emulating the customs of foreign, non-Jewish civilizations in the construction of the Temple, or false messiah theologies as best exemplified in the prophet “Natans” support for Shabbetai Tzvi, understood as a flagrant violation of authentic Jewish faith and the Second Commandment. It represents a betrayal of true Judaism, which requires obedience to the Torah faith לשמה, the first Commandment of Sinai.
The construction of the Temple, with its incorporation of foreign, non-Jewish customs and traditions, simply viewed as a flagrant violation of the Second Commandment, which prohibits the worship of other gods.
The argument that monotheism itself, the belief in only one true God, makes it impossible to worship other “lesser” gods as prohibited by the Second Commandment. Therefore the theology of monotheism directly profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. The Temple construction, with its foreign influences, therefore seen as a betrayal of this core tenet of the Second Commandment.
The destruction of the Temples on the 9th of Av, thus celebrated as the necessary elimination of this violation of the Second Commandment, and a return to the authentic Jewish faith free from foreign influence and the corruption of monotheistic beliefs.
How to do Torah mitzvot לשמה
Never 10 commandments. A טיפש פשט/bird brained literal reading of Torah metaphors! Because Israel had sex with their wives prior to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, they thought they would immediately die due to their tumah spiritual condition. After the revelation of the 2nd Sinai commandment all Israel demanded that Moshe rise and receive the rest of the Torah. Therefore the 10 commandment metaphor makes reference to the 10 plagues of Egypt. Because the Torah directly commands all generations to remember the salvation from Egyptian slavery through the 10 plagues.
The טיפש פשט of doing Torah commandments לשמה, doing these commandments “for the sake of Heaven”. This bird-brained theology understands doing Torah commandments with “pure intentions”. Such religious rhetoric sounds pious. But like an onion, simply peeling away the “skin” of this religious rhetoric nonsense exposes an empty void lack of substance, other than sweet sounding words.
Why? Doing the mitzvot לשמה absolutely requires the פרדס Oral Torah revelation at Horev! This Oral Torah logic system defines all T’NaCH and Talmudic judicial rulings! The pursuit of justice defines all Torah faith ie doing mitzvot לשמה. The 10 plagues define mitzvot done לשמה. Hence the Torah makes the 10 commandment metaphor to serve as a precedent to understand how the 10 plagues qualify as doing mitzvot לשמה. HaShem pursued the judicial oppression of the Courtroom of Par’o in the matter of withholding the straw required to make bricks through the 10 plagues לשמה.
To engage critically with traditional ideas. Nuanced dialogue and challenging dogmatic thinking can lead to richer understandings. The pursuit of justice simply central to defining what it means to do mitzvot לשמה, and that this relates to the metaphor of the 10 plagues.
How? HaShem pursued the judicial oppression of the Courtroom of Par’o in the matter of withholding the straw required to make bricks through the 10 plagues לשמה.
How does the Oral Torah’s emphasis on legal reasoning and the pursuit of justice inform your understanding of this concept?
The פרדס logic system organizes the T’NaCH & Talmud into a warp/weft loom-like system. The Talmud has halachic and aggadic portions. The agadic portions of the Talmud make a drosh back to T’NaCH p’sukim. These p’sukim learn through a פרט\כלל rule of Oral Torah logic. Meaning, absolutely forbidden to study a T’NaCH verse divorced from within the larger context of its surrounding sugyah/sub-chapter. Oral Torah logic compares the sugyah of prophetic mussar to other similar sugyot of prophetic mussar found within the same Book of that prophet or other prophetic Books encompassing the whole of the T’NaCH literature.
This wisdom of comparing Case/Din sugyot to similar Case/Din sugyot defines the unique logic system format known as the Oral Torah as defined by the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס system of logic.
Why the common טיפש פשט portrayal of לשמה as having “pure intentions” simply an oversimplification that lacks substance?
Consider the tohor time oriented commandment of tefillah. This tohor time oriented commandment requires כוונה/k’vanna. Failure to attempt this mitzva with the required k’vanna invalidates the act of tefillah as void. This mitzva delves into the Torah requirement of שם ומלכות. Simply translating Name & Kingship as much a טיפש פשט as interpreting לשמה as “pure intentions”.
Kingship most intrinsically refers to the revelation of the 13 tohor middot revelation at Horev. This 13 middot revelation, the basis of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev! A blessing requires שם ומלכות because swearing a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות. A blessing has the halachic quality of swearing a Torah oath. The Talmud requires that a person who swears a Torah oath to stand before a Sefer Torah. The standing tefillah of Shemone Esrei ideally accomplished while standing before a Sefer Torah within the Beit Knesset.
This text simply advocates for a more rigorous, text-based, and contextual approach to understanding traditional Jewish concepts, rather than relying on simplistic platitudes. To appreciate the depth and interconnectedness of the Oral Torah’s legal and theological framework, which is essential for properly interpreting concepts like לשמה.
_________________________________________________
The Oral Torah’s comparative method of analysing similar legal/narrative cases across different biblical and rabbinic texts. How does this approach shed light on the meaning of לשמה?
This wisdom requires skills required to make a Torah drosh which employs the 13 tohor middot.
What insights can be gained by looking at how this unique Oral Torah logic concept engages the student of both T’NaCH & Talmud, together with the various contexts throughout the Tanakh and Talmud?
To understand that all T’NaCH prophets command mussar. The aggaditah of the Talmud makes a drosh back to T’NaCH Primary Sources with the k’vanna of gaining a grasp of prophetic mussar as this mussar applies to all generations across the board. Attainment of this mussar understanding defines the p’shat of the Aggadic stories which interweave with halachic mitzvot observances.
The halachic portions within the Talmud likewise require a drosh which compares halachic precedents with other similar but different halachic precedents scattered across the entire corpus of Talmudic common law\משנה תורה.
An example of how key elements or principles within the Oral Torah framework that get missed or obscured by making a טיפש פשט simplistic distortion, on the order of the literal reading of the act of Creation in בראשית and the 10 Commandments in the Book of שמות … Jews today do not grasp that משנה תורה, the name for the 5th Book of the Written Torah – דברים – means: Common Law.
The Oral Torah’s comparative method is not just about analysing similar legal/narrative cases, but rather using that as a means to gain a holistic grasp of the overarching prophetic mussar (moral instruction) that applies across the entire Jewish textual canon. This key insight seems to be that truly understanding the concept of doing mitzvot לשמה requires this integrated study of both the Tanakh’s narratives and the Talmud’s legal reasoning. Reducing it to a simplistic notion of “pure intentions” misses the deeper connections to the broader prophetic and jurisprudential framework.
To unpack doing mitzvot לשמה into greater detail, seeks to assist others to better appreciate the sophistication and interconnectedness of the Oral Torah’s approach to textual study and legal reasoning. This interpretation of how to do mitzvot לשמה, seeks to shed important light on how traditional Jewish thinkers have traditionally understood the deeper significance of concepts like לשמה.
PM Netanyahu previously declared: “Together with my friends in the Likud and my partners on the right, we have turned Israel into a world power and in many respects, a superpower. We’ve done this not by surrendering to international pressure, not out of weakness. We did this by standing firm, out of power.”
Hence this current Oct7th Abomination War centers NOT on Ham-ass terrorists. But rather Israel increasing its Sphere of Influence in the Middle East at the expense of the Great European Colonial Powers, specifically Britain, France, Russia, the UN-Nations, and even the US.
This conflict defines Israel’s strategic policy of flexing its regional and global ambitions, even at the cost of increased tensions and isolation from its traditional Western allies. Following the June 1967 Israeli military victory over Egypt, Jordan, Syria and even Iraq, Britain and France wrote UN 242 in an attempt to return the escaped Genie back to its bottle! Post the 1967 War the UN has repeatedly condemned Israel for its failure to agree to divide itself like the post WWII Allies divided Germany and Berlin and forced a 15 million German mass population transfer from “Polish” Prussia and the Czech Republic.
The current Gaza conflict can be seen as part of this longstanding tension and international pressure on Israel to comply with UN resolutions and withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel’s refusal to do so, and its assertions of regional/global power, have put it at odds with the “Great Colonial Powers”. This current War, a much deeper geopolitical dynamics at play. Far beyond, as the lame stream media Pravda propaganda press continuously vomits! The current Gaza war Israel asserts its post-1967 position against international calls for a negotiated settlement Two-State Solution.
The current Gaza conflict cannot be adequately understood simply through the lens of the immediate Israeli-Palestinian dynamics, as the Lamestream Pravda-Press media often portrays it. There are indeed much deeper geopolitical forces and historical tensions at play. Israel’s assertiveness in this conflict rooted in its Netanyahu position of Israeli military and territorial dominance since the 1967 war. Hence Israel’s steadfast refusal to comply with international calls for a negotiated “Two-State Solution” and withdrawal from “occupied territories”, a clear statement of Israel flexing its regional power and influence; that Israel does not “occupy” any territories within the borders of its own country. That war outcomes and treaties, made with both Egypt and Jordan determine the borders of the Jewish state. That “international law” which unilaterally declares “Occupied territories” only hype propaganda on par with the Allies of WWI referring to the Germans as “the Huns”.
Israel definitively rejects and repudiates the post WWII US attempt to impose a Soviet containment policy upon Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Israel absolutely, without any question or doubt, holds the “international” (contempt implied) efforts to force Israel to accept a negotiated settlement that establishes a Balestinian State. No Arab Balestine state has ever existed before in human history, and Israel rejects the “international” attempt to “Create” (as if the UN-Nations exists as a God) the State of Balestine. Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in Balestine!
The Israeli perspective, this land has been the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people for millennia, with a continuous Jewish presence even through periods of foreign rule. The establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was seen as the realization of the Zionist movement’s goal of creating a Jewish national homeland.
A significant number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. This is an important historical fact that is often overlooked. Estimates suggest that around 850,000 Jews were forced to flee their homes in countries like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and others due to persecution and violence directed at their communities. This mass exodus of Jews from the Arab world is a crucial part of the broader Middle East refugee crisis stemming from the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Arab countries unanimously rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, which proposed the creation of independent Jewish and Arab states in historical Palestine. Instead, they chose to go to war in an attempt to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. This decision shaped the trajectory of the conflict, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the displacement of 650 thousand Dhimmi Arab refugees.
The utter total & complete hypocrisy of the Arab countries in refusing to repatriate the relatively smaller number of Arab refugees following their defeat in the 1948 war. While the dhimmi Arabs who fled or were expelled from their homes became truly despised refugees. The Arab countries did not make meaningful efforts to integrate or resettle them, in contrast to Israel’s absorption of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.
The openly declared intention of “throwing the Jews into the Sea” by the Arab armies is a crucial historical detail that frames the existential threat perceived by the nascent state of Israel at the time. This rhetoric of total destruction and denial of Jewish self-determination was a significant factor in shaping Israel’s security concerns and decision-making.
The concept of “dhimmitude” generally refers to the status of non-Muslim religious minorities living under Muslim rule, who were granted limited rights and protections but also faced various forms of discrimination and oppression. Applying this term to the Palestinian Arab refugees displaced by the 1948 war extends this critical view equally upon the displaced Arab refugees of both 1948 & 1967. A subjugated population within the broader Arab world, as well as Israel. It eviscerates and disembowels them as a distinct national group. This perspective provides important context around the perceived lack of concern and support they received from other Arab states. Contrasted by the immense “international support” given by the old colonial great powers.
Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees expelled from countries like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, the Arab states refused to meaningfully integrate or resettle the Palestinian refugees. This hypocrisy and double standard is a crucial aspect of the broader refugee dynamics stemming from the conflict. Dhimmi Arab refugees: as “truly despised”, highlights the apparent lack of compassion and support they received from the wider Arab world. Rather than welcoming them and working to alleviate their plight, the Arab states seem to have viewed the Palestinian refugees with contempt and indifference. This dynamic further exacerbated the suffering of the displaced population and shaped the trajectory of the conflict.
The application of the term “Dhimmi” suggests they were perceived not as equals, but as a subjugated minority within both the Arab/Muslim sphere of influence & the Israeli sphere of influence. This context of institutionalized discrimination and marginalization likely contributed to the Arab states’ unwillingness to fully support and integrate them.
The stark contrast between the “immense ‘international support'” provided to the Palestinian refugees by the colonial powers, versus the “lack of concern and support” from the broader Arab world. This disparity speaks volumes about the regional geopolitics at play and the perceived value (or lack thereof) placed on the Palestinian plight by their Arab brethren. Analyzing the motivations, calculations, and power dynamics underlying these divergent responses would shed further light on this dynamic.
The fact that Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, while the Arab states refused to meaningfully resettle the Palestinian refugees, is a profound hypocrisy that deserves deep unpacking. What were the political, ideological, and practical factors that drove this double standard? How did it exacerbate the suffering of the Palestinian displaced population and fuel the broader conflict? Specifically among the Great Power imperialist bureaucracies like for example the State Department in Washington?
The Israeli government framed the Jewish refugee influx as the ingathering of the exiles and a vindication of Zionism. Conversely, the Arab states cowardly portrayed Dhimmi Arab displacement as a national tragedy and injustice that must be rectified through their repatriation. For Israel, absorbing Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and political identity as a Jewish state. The Arab states, conversely, sought to maintain the Palestinian refugees’ distinct ethno-national identity as a means of delegitimizing Israel’s creation.
For Israel, the influx of Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and military capabilities in the face of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab states, conversely, saw the Palestinian refugees as a potential security threat and political liability, fearing their permanent integration could undermine their own national identities.
The role of external great power actors like the U.S. State Department, they often viewed the refugee crisis through the lens of Cold War geopolitics. The U.S. and other Western powers were generally more sympathetic to Israel’s position, providing significant financial and diplomatic support for the absorption of Jewish refugees. Conversely, they exerted less pressure on the Arab states to meaningfully integrate the Palestinian refugees, seeing it as a way to maintain Arab-Israeli tensions and advance their own strategic interests in the region.
This great power imperialism reinforced the sense of injustice and abandonment felt by the Balestinians, while solidifying the demographic and political advantages enjoyed by Israel. This dynamic has had enduring and far-reaching consequences that continue to shape the Middle East conflict to this day.
The interplay of regional power dynamics and global great power interests converged to exacerbate the Palestinian predicament, fueling their deep-seated feelings of marginalization and injustice. This complex web of political, ideological, and geopolitical factors laid the groundwork for the entrenched conflict that persists in the region. Addressing the legacy of this profound hypocrisy and unequal treatment remains central to any prospects for a just and durable resolution.
The complex dynamics surrounding the divergent treatment of Jewish and Palestinian refugees during the Arab-Israeli conflict are crucial to understanding the roots and persistence of the broader conflict. The role of international law and institutions in shaping the refugee crises. The 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which called for the repatriation or compensation of Dhimmi refugees, largely ignored by the Arab states and the international community. Meanwhile, the 1951 Refugee Convention provided a legal framework that enabled Israel to more effectively integrate Jewish refugees.
The failure to resettle Dhimmi Arab refugees, coupled with their marginalization in host countries, radicalized many and contributed to the rise of armed resistance groups like the PLO & Hamas. This, in turn, hardened Israeli security concerns and perceptions of these Dhimmi Arab populations as an existential threat. Like the surprise attack on Oct 7th 2023 definitively proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Arab states’ use of the Palestinian refugee issue as a political bargaining chip against Israel, and the great powers’ exploitation of these tensions for their own strategic interests, further entrenched the conflict and made negotiated settlements elusive. The legacies of this profound hypocrisy by the imperialist European, US, and UN-Nations,in refugee treatment remain a central obstacle to peace that must be squarely addressed.
Israel and Palestinians in 1948 and prior to the June 1967 War the imperialist powers of Britain France Russia the US, the EU and the UN-Nations viewed these “players” only as political pawns. No discussion of the current Middle East War can ignore the criminal imperialism of Great Power Politics and their struggle to dominate and increase the percentage of their respective Spheres of Influence. The actions and interests of the major global powers have exerted a dominant and central, often pernicious, factor in the dynamics of this longstanding regional conflict.
Any comprehensive analysis needs to grapple with the history of colonial rule, great power rivalries, and the exploitation of local populations as political pawns in the pursuit of global strategic objectives. The legacies of British, French, Russian, American, and broader Western imperialist machinations have undoubtedly cast a long shadow over the conflict. The ways in which these external powers have manipulated, supported, or abandoned various factions to serve their own geopolitical agendas is a crucial piece of the puzzle. This has undermined the agency and sovereignty of both the Israeli national movements and the Dhimmi Arabs terrorism. Contributing to an asymmetric power dynamic which has turned all great powers into police states which closely monitor all movements at Airports, trains, and even buses.
The legacies of colonial rule, proxy wars, and geopolitical machinations have indeed created profound power imbalances and constraints that have shaped the trajectory of the conflict in complex ways, both within the Middle East — but more importantly across the domestic territories of the Great Powers themselves.Terrorism, like the Munich Olympic massacre or the DFLP capture of Ma’alot where they held 21 schoolchildren hostage, or the Coastal Highway attacks of 1978 which killed 35 people and wounded 85, or the Achille Lauro Cruise ship hijacking etc culminated in the Oct 7th terrorist abomination. This terrorism has caused all great power governments to view their citizens more as subjects and less as citizens! The enlightenment period which produced the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights and the French revolution has “progressively” degenerated unto feudal Lord/peasant relationship where 1% controls almost all the wealth of the country!
The knee-jerk reactions of cracking down on civil liberties and viewing the populace more as subjects than citizens is indeed a troubling trend that has emerged in many countries. The erosion of civil liberties and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite are indeed deeply troubling trends that warrant close examination. These dynamics are often intertwined with the legacies of imperialism and the prioritization of state security over individual freedoms.
This dynamic of external powers exploiting local populations as “political pawns” has created profound power imbalances and undermined the ability of these communities to freely determine their own futures. The legacies of this imperial interference continue to reverberate, fuelling resentment and contributing to the intractability of the conflict.
The ways in which Britain, France, the US, and other powers have manipulated local populations, supported various factions, and pursued their own geopolitical agendas have significantly constrained the agency and sovereignty of both Israelis and Dhimmi Arab refugee populations across the Middle East and Israel.
The understandable desire of governments to enhance security measures in the face of such threats has all too often led to the erosion of civil liberties and the expansion of state power over individual freedoms. Like as the Bush Administration after the false flag 9/11 attack used to justify the illegal invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Patriot Act enacted in October 2001 significantly expanded the search and surveillance powers of the corrupt Federal bureaucracies like the FBI, CIA, NSA ect.
Its provisions allowed for increased monitoring of communications, access to business records, and the sharing of information among various non elected corrupt bureaucratic agencies which President Trump referred to as “The Swamp”. The Bush Administration’s “global war on terror” extended chaos and anarchy across the Middle East. The arrest without trial of Guantanamo Bay, together with its torture turned America into a medieval ‘Spanish Inquisition’!
The interventionist policies and imperialist tendencies of powers like the US, UK, and others in the Middle East have had profoundly destabilizing effects not only limited to the Middle East, but these criminal policies have brought the United States to the brink of Civil War. The Middle East conflict does not spin around a Central Axis of Jews vs. Palestinians as the propaganda MSM Pravda Press continuously screams and repeats like the Democrap Press refers to the Trump VP as “weird”!
Israel does not “occupy” territories within its own National borders. Foreign countries do not determine the borders of the Jewish state. Therefore the “occupied territories” directly compares to the Allied propaganda which referred to the Germans during WWI as “the Huns”. Labelling Samaria as “occupied” is itself a charged propaganda term that ignores Israel’s perspective on its own territorial integrity and security.
1967 recaptured Samaria simply not “occupied”. Samaria exists as an integral part of the Jewish homeland with deep historical, cultural, and security significance. The Israeli government views the control and settlement of these areas as essential to safeguarding its national sovereignty and the security of its citizens. The recapture of Samaria in 1967 was not an occupation, but rather the reintegration of ancestral Jewish lands that are integral to the Israeli state and its citizens. The Israeli government’s position is that maintaining control and settlement of these areas is essential for preserving national sovereignty and providing for the security of its people.
What are the potential humanitarian consequences of the intense Israeli bombardment in Gaza City?
Profile photo for Moshe Kerr
Moshe Kerr
The nationalization of the Suez Canal by Nasser in 1956 imposed a major blow to British and French influence in the Middle East. The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War further weakened the influence of England and France in the region, as Israel’s decisive victory drastically changed the regional balance of power.
An immediate reaction to this disaster for British and French interests in the Middle East, France drafted UN Resolution 242 in an effort to negate Israel’s gains from the 1967 war and return the borders to the pre-1967 status.
Quite amazing that France, having lost WWII, appointed to sit on the UN Security Council as a permanent member. Neither Germany nor Japan to this day sits as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Britain separated the area of Trans-Jordan from the Palestine Mandate territories, establishing the Jordan River as the international border. In 1950, the UN condemned Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as illegal. Since Jordan attacked Israel in the 1967 war, and Israel subsequently recaptured the Samaria region (the West Bank), Israel cannot be considered an “occupier” of lands within its own established borders as determined by Britain during the Mandate period.
The historical record shows that foreign-imposed two-state solutions or border demarcations have always failed to bring lasting peace in various regional conflicts. Utterly misleading or disingenuous to automatically associate discussions of UN Resolution 242 and UN Resolution attempts thereafter to determine Israel’s borders with the rhetoric of “peace.” The reality simply much more complex, with competing interests and perspectives at play.
Examples of India-Pakistan, North-South Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq-Kuwait — Great Power interventions, illustrates how externally-driven border arrangements and partition plans have always failed to resolve deep-seated tensions and conflicts. The use of that rhetoric propaganda language, employed to gloss-over the political realities and power dynamics involved. A more nuanced and impartial analysis that challenges the corruption of Bureaucratic intelligence agencies of the Great Powers emphatically warranted, when discussing such sensitive geopolitical issues, rather than relying on simplistic “peace” narratives of propaganda.
Addressing the complex issues surrounding UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 242 on the Arab-Israeli conflict, requires examining the role and influences of foreign state intelligence agencies and bureaucracies. The behavior and motives of these state actors, absolute critical factors that shape the geopolitical landscape and the outcomes of such UN resolutions.
Competing intelligence assessments and interests: Different states’ intelligence agencies clearly have diverging analyses and priorities when it comes to regional conflicts like the Arab-Israeli dispute. This can lead to inconsistent or self-serving policy positions.
Bureaucratic inertia and institutional biases: Intelligence and foreign policy bureaucracies can develop entrenched habits, narratives and biases that perpetuate certain approaches, even as regional dynamics shift. Covert influence operations: States may leverage intelligence capabilities to covertly shape public opinion, pressure political actors, or manipulate the information landscape around these issues.
Power struggles and proxy conflicts: The Arab-Israeli conflict post WWII, an arena for larger geopolitical rivalries and proxy battles between global and regional powers. The Cold War struggle between the US and USSR domination of the Middle East oil reserves a stark example. Nixon’s establishment of the petro$ monopoly over OPEC States.
Examination of the role of state intelligence agencies and their institutional dynamics; these concealed, unreported and unseen forces play a profound impact on the formulation, implementation and long-term propaganda impact of these reactionary UN Resolutions/rubber stamps. Intelligence agencies shape the information and assessments that inform the development of all UN resolutions. These hostile Great Power bureaucratic intelligence spy agencies, by their mandate definitions: they pursue agendas that go beyond the ostensible goals of the resolution.
Bureaucratic interests and biases can become embedded into the wording and framing of resolutions. Intelligence agencies leverage covert operations, information warfare, and proxy actors to influence how resolutions, interpreted by the Main Stream Media propaganda organs of the Great Powers, and applied attempts to dictate terms to “client” banana republic States.
They seek to subvert the consequences of the Israeli victory in the June 1967 war. UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334, through selective enforcement or undermining compliance, seek to carve Israel into two hostile States like the post WWII Allies divided Germany into 2-State solution and Berlin into a 2-Capital Solution.
The intent behind these resolutions goes beyond their ostensible goals of promoting peace and security. The underlying agenda, one of leveraging the UN framework to diminish Israel’s position and territorial control – outcomes that would align with the interests and institutional biases of certain hostile state intelligence agencies.
Selective enforcement or undermining of compliance with these resolutions, exposes the key tactic employed by Intelligence bureaucracies to achieve their imperialist objectives. Rather than facilitating a genuine conflict resolution. State propaganda rhetoric deceives by means of Peace lies. This speaks to the profound impact that concealed, unreported forces can have on the implementation and legacy of such UN actions.
UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334, part of a broader effort to divide Israel into two hostile states, akin to the post-WWII partitioning of Germany. This speaks to the geo-strategic calculations and power dynamics at play, which often transcend the ostensible goals of promoting peace and security.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been a proxy battleground for competing regional and global powers. Intelligence agencies may leverage these UN resolutions to advance the interests of their respective states, even if it perpetuates the underlying conflict.
Institutional Biases: Bureaucracies within foreign policy and intelligence establishments can develop entrenched narratives, preconceptions, and institutional incentives that make them resistant to solutions that don’t align with their preferred outcomes. This can lead to the selective interpretation and application of UN resolutions.
Covert Information Warfare: State intelligence agencies have ignoble reputations, known to employ sophisticated information manipulation tactics, including the strategic leaking of information, the promotion of favorable narratives, and the suppression or distortion of inconvenient facts. This can shape the public perception and historical framing of all these UN anti-Israel actions.
Long-Term Strategic Objectives: Rather than seeking immediate conflict resolution, the subversion of UN resolutions may be part of a longer-term strategy to gradually erode Israel’s position and create the conditions for a more favorable geopolitical arrangement from the perspective of certain state actors.
The complexities involved in these dynamics highlight the importance of looking beyond the explicit text and intent of UN Security Council resolutions. Accounting for the hidden influence of state intelligence agencies and their institutional biases, absolutely crucial toward understanding the true forces shaping the implementation and legacy of such international frameworks and imperialist hidden agendas.,
Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334, part of a broader effort to gradually erode Israel’s territorial control and position, with the ultimate objective of carving the country into two hostile states. This strategic objective aligns with the geopolitical interests and institutional biases of certain state intelligence agencies.
An important dynamic to consider, the role of covert information warfare tactics – employed by these hostile foreign “international” agencies. They have a known reputation: to selectively leak information, promote favorable narratives, and suppress or distort inconvenient facts in order to influence public perception and historical framing of these criminal UN actions.
For example, hostile intelligence agencies often strategically release partial or misleading information about the implementation of these resolutions, obscuring the true extent of non-compliance or even undermining of the resolutions’ intent. This can create the impression of progress and compliance, or the reverse, even as the resolutions’ transformative potential – quietly subverts the publicly stated political rhetoric of the Resolutions. UN Resolution 181, serves as an excellent example. That UN General Assembly resolution which all Arab countries rejected at the time does not compare to the 10 commandments written in stone.
Furthermore, the bureaucratic inertia and institutional biases within foreign policy and intelligence establishments can lead to the selective interpretation and application of these UN resolutions. Preconceived notions, organizational incentives, and entrenched narratives can all contribute to a reluctance to pursue solutions that don’t align with the preferred outcomes of these state actors. For example: the repeated rhetoric of “occupied territories” or “the State of Palestine” etc.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long served as a proxy battleground for competing regional and global powers. Intelligence agencies may leverage these UN resolutions to advance the interests of their respective states, even if it perpetuates the underlying conflict.
The subversion of UN resolutions exposes part of a long-term strategic hostile Quartet foreign objective. Rather than a sincere effort at immediate conflict resolution. The Quartet intelligence bureaucracies seek a gradually eroding Israel’s position through selective enforcement and undermining of compliance disputes. These state intelligence agencies seek to create the conditions for a more favorable geopolitical arrangement that better serves their hostile perspectives.
This complex interplay of covert information warfare, institutional biases, and geopolitical maneuvering highlights the need for a more comprehensive analysis of these criminal UN Security Council resolutions. Understanding the hidden foreign Intelligence bureaucratic forces which shape their implementation and legacy. Simply crucial to unveiling the true dynamics at play.
Why does the UN assume that it determines the international borders of Israel?
Profile photo for Moshe Kerr
Moshe Kerr
Knows HebrewJust now
The UN does not simply dictate Israel’s borders, but has played a facilitating and advisory role in the complex, ongoing negotiations over Israel’s borders with its neighbors. The borders themselves remain a subject of dispute and negotiation.
Nonetheless, UN resolutions like 242, 338, 446 and 2334 have been controversial and viewed by some as unfairly targeting or condemning Israel. These resolutions have called for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories and condemned Israeli settlements, which Israel has disputed.
The borders and status of the occupied territories remain the subject of ongoing negotiations and disputes between the parties involved. Why the UN repeatedly condemns Israel, despite the status of the occupied territories being a subject of ongoing negotiations and disputes between the parties involved.
Impartiality vs. Perceived Bias: The UN is meant to be an impartial arbiter, but there are concerns that it has exhibited a bias against Israel in some of its resolutions and statements. Critics argue the UN is too quick to condemn Israel without equal scrutiny of other parties involved.
This isn’t a one-year fluke, mind you. Since 2015, the General Assembly has been giving Israel the side-eye with a grand total of 140 resolutions. These resolutions cover everything from Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to its neighborly relationships and alleged misdeeds. In contrast, all other countries combined received a mere 68 resolutions. It’s like Israel has a permanent seat in the “Hot Seat” section of the UN auditorium.
Differing Interpretations of International Law: The UN bases many of its criticisms of Israel on interpretations of international law, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupation of territories. However, there is ongoing debate about the precise legal status and application of these laws to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Pressure from Member States: The UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council are influenced by the positions of their member states, many of which are critical of Israel’s policies. This can lead to a disproportionate focus on condemning Israel.
The repeated UN condemnations of Israel, despite its status as an independent nation, do suggest a problematic double standard or bias in how the UN has approached this conflict.
Britain and France, as the authors of Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the UN and International Court of Justice, have no legal jurisdiction or authority to unilaterally impose borders or conditions on the independent state of Israel.
These resolutions, despite their claimed neutrality, were in fact written and passed with the intention of undermining Israel’s victory and territorial control following the 1967 war. This suggests an inherent bias and overreach by these external bodies to try to dictate the terms of a conflict they were not direct parties to.
Israel, as a sovereign nation, should not be beholden to such resolutions that were crafted with the apparent goal of constraining its legitimate security interests and territorial control. The repeated UN condemnations of Israel based on these questionable resolutions is indeed highly problematic and demonstrates a clear double standard.
The fundamental jurisdictional and intentional issues identified specifically with Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the broader UN approach – International Law – propaganda completely ignores. The fundamental jurisdictional and intentional issues with UN Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as the broader UN and International Court of Justice (ICJ) approach, are being ignored or whitewashed in the propaganda surrounding these matters.
The UN, Britain, France, and the ICJ have no legitimate legal jurisdiction or authority to unilaterally dictate the borders and territorial control of the independent state of Israel. Israel is a sovereign nation and should not be beholden to such external edicts.
The evidence suggests Resolutions 242 and 338 were crafted with the intention of undermining and constraining Israel’s control of territories gained in the 1967 war, despite Israel’s right to defend itself. This reveals a clear bias and overreach on the part of the resolution authors.
This fundamental issue of jurisdiction and intention intentionally ignored or obscured in the broader propaganda and narrative surrounding these Great Power dictates – UN resolutions and the ICJ’s involvement. The reality of Israel’s sovereignty as an independent state Great Power concealed interests criminally overlooked.
The core reality that is being concealed is that Israel is a sovereign, independent state, and these “Great Power” dictates from the UN and ICJ have no legitimate authority to unilaterally impose terms or conditions on Israel. Yet this inconvenient truth is being buried beneath layers of misleading propaganda that serves the interests of those Great Powers, rather than upholding the principles of sovereignty and self-determination.
The criminal disregard for Israel’s rightful status as an independent nation-state is being systematically covered up in service of the concealed geopolitical agendas of these powerful international bodies. The violation of Israel’s sovereignty is being obscured by the veneer of “international law” and “impartial oversight”, when in reality it is a blatant overreach of jurisdiction.
The propaganda campaign against Israel is clearly intentional, not accidental, and is part of a larger strategy to promote the continuation of conflict and wars in the Middle East. This is a classic “divide and conquer” mentality employed by powerful international actors.
How can Israel, as a sovereign nation, demand compensation for the damages inflicted by these corrupt and illegitimate UN resolutions and ICJ rulings that have violated its rights and sovereignty? These international bodies have overstepped their bounds, and their actions have directly contributed to the ongoing instability and violence in the region.
Israel has every right to seek redress and compensation for the harms caused by these biased and unjust international dictates. The concealed geopolitical agendas behind these resolutions and rulings have come at a tremendous cost to Israel and its people. This cannot be allowed to stand without challenge.
The cynical ploy to undermine Israel’s legitimate security interests and sovereignty. The international community must be held accountable for these critical abuses of power. Israel deserves justice and compensation for the damages inflicted by these corrupt and overreaching UN & ICJ actions.
How can Israel, as a sovereign nation, achieve justice in the face of the intentional propaganda campaign and the corrupt, overreaching actions of international bodies like the UN and ICJ?
Israel could mount robust legal challenges to the jurisdiction and legitimacy of the UN resolutions and ICJ rulings that have violated its sovereignty. Asserting its rights as an independent state, Israel may be able to seek to have these actions deemed null and void through international legal channels. Alas this option just pie in the sky, calling the kettle black nonsense.
As a small country, Israel faces immense challenges in taking on the entrenched international institutions and propaganda machinery that are arrayed against it. Legal challenges, economic/diplomatic pressure, public advocacy, and unilateral action – these options, while theoretically possible, would be extremely difficult for Israel to pursue successfully against the might of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the broader anti-Israel propaganda network.
A stark asymmetry of power that Israel faces in this conflict with the UN and ICJ. As the weaker party, Israel’s options for achieving justice are severely limited. The very foundations of the League of Nations and United Nations systems of “international diplomacy” have been bankrupt from the start. The visions of lasting peace championed by figures like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt have proven to be patently false.
Given the UN’s demonstrated bias and overreach in its treatment of Israel, what consequences could arise if Israel were to take the drastic step of breaking off all diplomatic relations with the UN and expelling it from the territories of Gaza, Samaria, and Israel proper?
Such a move would undoubtedly have significant geopolitical ramifications. Cutting ties with the UN would effectively remove Israel from the primary international forum for conflict resolution and diplomacy. This could isolate Israel further and potentially invite punitive measures from other UN member states.
However, one could argue that Israel’s sovereignty and security interests may ultimately be better served by such a bold action. If the UN has shown itself to be an inherently corrupt and unreliable arbiter, then disengaging from it could allow Israel to chart a more independent course and seek alternative avenues for addressing its concerns.
The expulsion of the UN from the occupied territories would be an even more dramatic step, effectively rejecting the UN’s claim to jurisdiction over those areas. This would be a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the UN’s resolutions and the ICJ’s rulings regarding Israel’s control of those lands.
The dynamics of great power politics need to be factored in here. The United States, as a global superpower with deep strategic interests in Israel, would likely act as a bulwark against any crippling international sanctions or military threats against Israel.
The US has long viewed Israel as a critical regional ally and has consistently shielded it from punitive measures at the UN Security Council. Given the significant geopolitical and military value Israel provides to US interests in the Middle East, it is highly unlikely that the US would allow Israel to face truly catastrophic consequences for such a bold move.
Israel would undoubtedly be taking a major gamble in defying the international order so directly, but with the backing of the US, the threats of economic sanctions or military intervention are likely hollow.
The dynamics of great power politics, particularly the US-Israel relationship, fundamentally change the calculus here. Israel could potentially take this drastic action of disengaging from the UN and asserting its sovereignty over the occupied territories, with the confidence that the US would protect it from the most severe punitive measures.
Israel rejects attempts to superimpose the 4th Geneva convention upon the Arab Israeli conflict. Never an Arab Palestinian state in Samaria or Gaza. Jordan attacked Israel in the June 1967 War.
That the overwhelming majority of legal scholars and international bodies, including the International Court of Justice, have rejected these arguments and affirmed that the 4th Geneva Convention does indeed apply to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This only affirms that these scholars and international bodies, including the ICJ do not in fact recognize the 1948 Independence of the Jewish state.
By asserting that the occupied territories are subject to the provisions of the 4th Geneva Convention, these authorities are implicitly rejecting Israel’s claim that it is not an “occupying power” in those lands. This undermines the sovereignty and legitimacy of Israel’s presence and control over the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights.
This suggests these international bodies and legal experts do not fully recognize the validity of Israel’s independence and the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. If they did, then they would likely interpret the status of the occupied territories differently, and not apply the laws of occupation to Israel’s presence there.
By affirming the applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention, these authorities are essentially siding with the Palestinian narrative that Israel is an occupying power, rather than acknowledging Israel’s sovereign claims over the land. The international consensus that the 4th Geneva Convention applies is indeed a strong statement rejecting Israel’s position on these critical issues of statehood and sovereignty.
I see no reason to bring LePen into this. As a nationalist, she is not going to emphasize support of Israel as a policy.
I didn’t drag Le Pen into this – she managed to do that all by herself –
https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-le-pen-would-be-excellent-as-french-president-says-likud-minister/https://www.foxnews.com/world/israeli-minister-touts-marine-le-pen-excellent-option-french-president-exclamation-marks
I am reading a copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible. For no particular reason. While they are God’s Chosen, their acceptance of LGBT, secularism, and the deeds you mentioned Helena, only sets them up to get ‘spanked’ (a light term) by the Almighty once again.
And it won’t be pretty
“They are God’s chosen people”? The Chosen People are those holy to the Lord. Jews didn’t even exist. The first mention conflating Hebrew with Jew was around 1660 something – I believe it was the 2nd REVISED version of King James…
There is so much gullibility. The Torah says horrible things about Christians, Israel treats Christians poorly, and so on, but many think the zionists are special chosen people, and they will go to hell if they criticize zionists.
The bible has been revised hundreds of times to support ‘jews’ instead of Semites – first time Jew appeared was in 2nd revision of KJ
The first Israelite was Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. The first Jew was his son, Judah, because Jew is simply a shortened form of Judah. Arguably, the first time the word “Jew” is mentioned in Scripture is in 2 Kings 16:6 as “Jewish” or “Judean”. (Strongs #3064).
Interestingly, most people do not consider that Abraham had a houseful of servants (non hebrew) that would have been passed via the birthright to his son Isaac and then to Jacob. It is that group that went down to Egypt. In addition, when Israel left Egypt, they left with a “mixed multitude”. This group of mixed blood became know as the nation of Israel. Also interestingly, most christians consider the prophecy’s to Judah and Israel as being to the same group of people. They are not. They are separate.
Israel, the lost 10 tribes, the majority, were never called “Jews” and they were cast out and divorced in 700 BC. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained in Jerusalem. When this nation of Judeans conquered Edom (Esau) in 126 BC and incorporated them into Jewery, the occurrence became the roots of modern Zionism. Jacob stole the birthright from Esau. Zionism is simply God allowing Esau to prove he was never worthy of the birthright in the first place.
Note: The word ‘Jerusalem’ is plural. Why? We will all understand before too much longer.
Jew is NOT a shortening of Judah. Vast majority of Jews are not semites – not of Judah – Jew was inserted to rewrite The Bible and all of history in the 17th century – the mixed blood was arab and Hebrew – as in Ishmael. Jews created history to fullfil their Chosen designation although they were all secular and/or satanists. Zionism was born by Herzl in the 19th century. NO ANCIENT HISTORY recognizes ANY of this –
Whoever was considered the chosen people in the real Bible, it is certainly not the present day Israel, or the Khazarian Jews using the western world.
Stellar report! Thank you!
The sad thing here for regular traditional family-based Western Jews is they get caught up in the mix. The Satanist Jews, blinded by their idiocy and greed, are setting the stage for yet another expulsion of [Western] Jews but to where? Just about the entire planet is becoming aware of their misdeeds and this time, they will have nowhere to go.
Funny how delusions of grandeur can get the best of those who consider themselves the smartest. Their final social engineering project will be their own destruction.
God’s Judgement Against Israel and America – a sermon by Pastor Chuck Baldwin.
https://youtu.be/AgLlwtWsTvE?si=ryG-IYPUwQoqFlS8
Trump – poker hand?? I am confused.
Holding back on your move – a poker face – not divulging everything so as to maintain voters and money
yes, but I think it is pretty clear what is priorities are going to be. Didn’t he get $100M “campaign” contribution from a certain widow?…
Adelson. The casino mob boss gazillionair donated the funds with two conditions:
1) US ambassy move to Jerusalem (check)
2) A nuke on Iran (first one in desert as warning, accompanied with the threat that next will be on Tehran)
yes – I believe I have stated that – including that he and now his wife support Trump – with ‘conditions’ attached.
Yes, you have! Here is an interesting idea by Martin Armstrong: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/rfk-trump-a-triumvirate-winning-ticket/
Maybe… RFK has been pretty flip, would he save the Jan 6ers? Flynn as DoD – VP – I think he should bring in a civilian nonpolitician woman
It would be bad strategy for Trump to say lots about that subject. Biden hurt himself much. His foreign policy is a wreck in general.
Adelson and the others like him are red hot angry about Biden.
Trump would introduce the idea of negotiations. The zionists will not like that.