Daniel Cohen TV has produced a video to ‘debunk’ a conversation between Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson regarding the legitimacy of a country’s existence if it must depend on another country for survival. Israel was used as an example. Israel exists economically because the US gives it money. Lots of money – $18 Billion annually, and another $14.5 Billion to fight barefoot Palestinians. But the Israeli BOUNTY is vast. Money and/or weapons were also sent to Israel by: Netherlands, Serbia, Italy, Germany, France, Canada, India, and the UK. To Defeat an Army called HAMAS comprising some 20,000 foot soldiers…
Wild that India would have the resources to fund Israel – while its GDP pp is $2980. In fact, every major western alliance funds Israel. Propping up their GDP in trade. Creating a false monetary base.
According to Cohen, Israel’s importance is based on their ability to micro-manage the entire Middle East and maintain good relations for the US and EU. And that importance requires Money. Therefore, we are not just giving handouts to Israel, we are paying them to be the Gatekeeper. This Gatekeeping Operation requires manufacturing bad guys to fight and kill.
But the immigrant problem doesn’t come from the Middle East. It comes from Latin America, Haiti, Africa and South America. While Israel continues to create animosity and war – choosing the most poverty stricken to annihilate. Most recently bombing Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, in addition to Palestine.
The point of Cohen’s attempt at documentary justification was to create a narrative which makes Israel look like the defender of the US and legitimize its wars. Because, Israel has lost the narrative War across the globe and Jews are screaming anti-Semitism in order to save face. “Remember the Holocaust” is the mantra.
The Institute For Human Sciences makes this statement with regard to relations between Russia and Ukraine over their war, “Public opinion overwhelmingly supports Ukraine, but Israel has also absorbed over one million Russian immigrants since the 1990’s”. Interesting view… The idea that Israel called on all Russian Bolsheviks to move to Palestine in order to colonize the country has been rewritten as ‘Israel took in refugees’. But then, the rewriting of history is what keeps us enslaved.
The narrative twists reality like a Lewis Carroll caricature. This Institute claims Israel is a global ‘neutral party’ as evidenced by Russia allowing them to carry out operations in Syria.
Apparently, the program to call for the Russian Bolsheviks to scatter and settle across Israel, the EU, and the US, in order to pervert their respective governments was simply an illusion. The fact that Trump’s hand picked cabinet is dominant Jewish is a narrative that is scuttled to the back of the press room when discussing accomplishments. A distraction. But voters are concerned.
Given the Russian invasion of Ukraine – a bastion of Nazi’s and Jews, with an open heart and extended hand, Israel called for all Ukrainian Jews to come to their land for safety and security and to beef up their colony. Unfortunately, no one came to the party and they have remained in the EU instead.
In 2014, the European Union created project Horizon 2020 with a lump sum fund of $80 Billion. Under the bylaws, 14 EU states, Armenia and Israel receive funding. WHY are European Taxpayers Funding ISRAEL? In 2021, the Horizon Project was extended to 2027 with an additional $95.5 Billion in funding. The money is used to fund scientific research projects that fulfill the initiative of sustainability.
In the first phase of the Horizon Project there were 888 attached to Israel – a non-EU state. The ‘Israeli projects’ include funding EU scientists at an annual consortium in Israel, paying for their hotels, meals, stipends, that sort of thing. A party.
One such Project specific to Germany has a stated purpose: “to increase the quality, relevance, social acceptability and sustainability of research and innovation outcomes in various fields of activity from social innovation to areas such as biotechnology and nanotechnology”. Another funding project is to “research clothing and fashion in Israel for its perception”.
Then there is this nugget of word salad worthy of Kamala that defines an Israeli project: “The TAKE5 project is the next in a chain of thematically connected ENIAC JU KET pilot line projects which are associated with 450mm/300mm development for the 10nm technology node and the ECSEL JU project SeNaTe aiming at the 7nm technology node”. Sounds like FUN!
Bottom Line, it would appear that Israel is getting a hefty share of their EU funding through circuitous routes not unlike USAID. And Cohen’s documentary just got shacked. The Trade Market is another interesting schematic that seems to require the same countries which export resources to import those same resources back at a premium. AI claims this moving of resources helps create markets…while artificially recording GDP and gains across the globe.
Britain proves itself a faithless whore once again. Like as its White Paper betrayal of the 1917 Balfour Declaration upon which the League of Nations awarded to Britain the Palestine Mandate of 1922.
Recently the UN Security Council attempted to decree a Chapter VII ultimatum which dictated that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza. The British and French betrayal of Israel in this UN vote would have meant that those countries would have committed to going to war, like as happened following the Chapter VII UN ultimatum issued to North Korea in the early 50’s.
Should Israel abandon its partnership with the UN European voting block and request to join the American voting block of nations? Currently Israel has a special relationship with the EU and participates in various EU programs and agreements. It is part of the European Neighbourhood Policy and has signed agreements that allow for cooperation in areas such as trade, research, and cultural exchange. The EU member states typically coordinate their positions and voting strategies within the UN framework as part of this broader Western bloc. Clearly, in this latest UN Chapter VII ultimatum which demanded that Israel immediately surrender to Hamas or the UN would invade Israel like it did North Korea, this betrayal by Britain and France places them within the Russian Chinese UN voting block of nations.
Aligning more closely with the U.S. voting block could strengthen Israel’s ties with the United States, which has historically been one of its strongest allies. This could lead to increased political and military support. Abandoning the EU partnership could limit Israel’s diplomatic options and reduce its influence in Europe, a 3rd rate power among the community of nations today. The geopolitical landscape is constantly changing, and Israel may need to navigate its relationships with both the EU and the U.S. carefully to maintain its interests. Ultimately, the decision to shift alliances or voting blocks would depend on a variety of factors, including Israel’s strategic goals, the current geopolitical climate, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a move. It would require careful consideration of both immediate and long-term implications for Israel’s security and diplomatic standing.
The EU is one of Israel’s largest trading partners. A shift away from the EU could have economic repercussions, impacting trade relations and access to European markets. As global power dynamics shift, Israel’s foreign policy may need to adapt to new realities, including emerging alliances and changing attitudes within the international community. Israel’s decision-making regarding its alliances and voting blocks will likely involve weighing immediate benefits against long-term strategic goals. The interplay between its relationships with the U.S. and the EU will be crucial in shaping its future diplomatic and security landscape. Careful consideration of both current geopolitical trends and historical ties will be essential for Israel to navigate this complex environment effectively.
As countries like China and India gain influence, Israel may need to consider how these shifts affect its relationships with both the U.S. and the EU. Engaging with these emerging powers could open new avenues for trade and diplomacy. Israel’s relationships with neighboring countries and regional powers are also evolving. The Abraham Accords, for example, have opened new diplomatic channels with Arab states, which could influence Israel’s strategic calculations. Israel’s leadership will need to articulate a clear long-term vision for its foreign policy that considers both immediate security concerns and broader economic and diplomatic goals.
The normalization agreements with several Arab states have significantly altered the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. These accords not only enhance Israel’s security but also create opportunities for economic collaboration and cultural exchange. But the critical Plate tectonics earthquake of the Abraham Accords it destroyed the British French UN 242 two-state solution as the only viable option for peace in the Middle East.
The Abraham Accords have shifted the focus away from the Palestinian issue as a central concern for many Arab states, which may complicate efforts to revive the two-state solution. The normalization agreements suggest that some Arab nations are willing to engage with Israel independently of progress on Palestinian statehood. The Oct 7th abomination has permanently changed the dynamics in the region. The archaic British and French chapter VI UN Ultimatum for a two-state solution, completely out dated and irrelevant.
The changing realities on the ground, including shifting alliances and the evolving nature of conflicts, necessitate a reassessment of how peace can be achieved. As the dynamics change, there may be a need for innovative diplomatic strategies that address the complexities of the situation. Specifically, Arab Palestinian leadership has clearly proven itself as utterly bankrupt to merit becoming an independent nation among the community of nations in the UN Middle East voting block.
Italy did not support the recent UN Security Council resolution that called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, which was vetoed by the United States. The resolution received 14 votes in favor, with the U.S. casting the only vote against it. The draft resolution was co-sponsored by several countries, but Italy was not listed among those actively supporting the resolution in the context of the recent vote.
These 14 countries Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Algeria (co-sponsor), Denmark (co-sponsor), Greece (co-sponsor), Guyana (co-sponsor), Pakistan (co-sponsor), Panama (co-sponsor), South Korea (co-sponsor), Sierra Leone (co-sponsor), Slovenia (co-sponsor), and Somalia (co-sponsor) voted to impose a UN Chapter VII dictate upon Israel. Of these countries Algeria and other scamp countries do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.
Neither Iran nor Sudan, for example, have diplomatic relations with Israel. No different than Algeria. Algeria and Turkey have developed a military partnership and cooperation over the years, particularly in the areas of defense and security. This relationship has been strengthened through various agreements and joint military exercises. The relationship is part of a broader strategic partnership that includes economic and political cooperation, with both hostile countries to Israel sharing interests in regional stability and security.
Those 14 countries have already repeatedly called for international condemnation of Israel, rabidly support Palestinian terrorism relabeled as “Palestinian rights”. They already engage in public relations propaganda campaigns hostile to Israel. They already support and initiate legal actions against Israel in international courts such as the ICC. These countries have escalated their rhetoric propaganda against Israel. Hamas could never have dug its complex tunnel system without international support. They already promote cultural and academic boycotts of Israel.
These countries throw their support for the Palestinian cause, like whores on street corners sell their wares. They often use ‘stinky’, blood libel slander rhetoric, to condemn Israeli actions, framing them as oppressive or colonial. Such putrid rhetoric seeks to poison public opinion and mobilize support for Palestinian groups. Numerous solidarity movements around the world that advocate for Palestinian rights; they often align with groups like Hamas, viewing them as legitimate representatives of Palestinian resistance.
Countries without diplomatic relations with Israel compare to corrupt judges that accepts bribes. This objection, seeks to raise critically important questions about the legitimacy and fairness of the recent Chapter VII UN ultimatum which demanded that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza. While the analogy of a corrupt judge highlights concerns about bias and fairness, the international system, in point of fact, operates on principles of representation and sovereignty.
The International system operates, so it appears, as something akin to a beauty contest. What defines beauty — not a rational logical concept. Israel demands a change to the International system. It could express its rebuke of the UN, by leaving the UN. The analogy of a corrupt judge suggests that countries without diplomatic relations with Israel, that they lack objective credibility to fairly judge the case heard before the court of international opinion.
This perception of bias, Israel argues, undermines the legitimacy of all UN resolutions or demands made against Israel. Particularly since nations who do not have diplomatic relations with Israel obvious their anti-Israel hostility – politically motivated – rather than based on objective criteria. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, the application of this chapter, like as in the Korean war, especially when it appears to favor one side over another in a conflict, historically expands the local conflict into a far larger international war. The call for Israel to surrender to Hamas, obviously viewed by both the US and Israel as an ultimatum that lacks balance and fairness. Just as China despised the UN Chapter VII ultimatum decreed against North Korea.
The international UN system, indeed based on principles of state sovereignty and representation. However, the effectiveness and fairness of this system both the US and Israel have repeatedly warned and challenged. Especially when certain countries dominate decision-making processes or when resolutions reflect geopolitical interests rather than universal principles of justice.
The idea that Israel should demand changes to the international UN system, this demand reflects the Israeli requirements for a more equitable and fair approach to international relations expressed through public UN diplomacy organs. Leaving the UN perhaps a radical step. But it raises questions about the effectiveness of the international UN system of public diplomacy among nation states in the world community of nations.
Confronted with British and French imperialism Jerusalem threatens to annex area C of Samaria! And also to terminate the EU Israel special relationship wherein Israel pulls out of the EU UN voting block.
‘Britain cannot be on the side of Hamas’: As the UK turns on Israel, one leader stand
The fall of Assad in Syria, the collapse of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the obliteration of Hamas in Gaza have triggered a massive domino effect which has radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Britain and France, their ‘Great Power’ status collapsed with the establishment of Vichy France and the defeat of Britain to seize the Suez Canal in 1956.
The Abraham Accords irreversibly tarnished EU imperialism known as UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 as utterly archaic, yesterdays’ dead news.
President Trump’s efforts to force a forced population transfer of all Gazans unto Arab countries resembles the mass population transfer post WWII Allies forced upon the defeated Germans. The Allies compelled 14 million German refugees to depart and move away from Prussia – the newly established Polish territories acquired consequent to War – comparable to Israel’s capture of Jordan’s West Bank. The territory of Prussia, territory which both Poland and Russia acquired through war … mocks the Pie in the Sky language of UN 242 by which the defrocked great powers of England and France declared “Inadmissibility of Acquisition of Territory by War“
The abraham accords, Ha another good one by mudsucker. It is recognized as a swindle and it is treated as the other zionist swindles–ignored by even the zionists.
Noise from the Dune Coon.
You are a lot of fun mudsucker, like shooting those metal ducks at the carnival. Put up more hasbara nonsense for me to shoot down.
Dune Coon can say they say about you. Your noise nothing but blanks, no real evidence bullets, just your idiotic noise. LOL What a fool, what an utter public clown.
Shall have to rechristian you now as: Jester. Dune Coon your the best fool I have ever met.
Mudsucker, Balfour Declaration, that’s a good one, a letter written to Rothschilds supporting the jewish theft of Palestine, in effect Balfour granting to the Rothschilds a country that belonged to neither. bear in mind, it was a letter of support, yet the swindlers took it as a legal document supporting the theft. you have a twisted interpretation of history
Trout for brains, Rothschild bankers did not write the Balfour Declaration, silly ignorant fool. The Balfour Declaration defines the political objectives that Herzl’s Zionism sought to achieve: recognition by a great power of Jews equal rights to self determination in the Middle East.
Mudsucker, you are reading my post with zionist reading glasses, that accounts for the distorted impression.
“…jews equal rights to self-determination in the Middle East” Ha, that’s another good one. The jews who were in the Middle East prior to zionism and the invasion of the Eastern Europeans had equal rights in the countries they resided, they were prosperous as well.
nice👍
Israel’s Response to EU imperialism and attempts to dictate Israeli strategic interests.
Israel should immediately recall its ambassadors for consultations from these countries. Publicly condition normalization of relations on an end to EU unilateral I e.g., (recognition of a Palestinian state without negotiations with Israel). Demand that those European countries likewise recall their ambassadors for consultations.
Mobilize allies (U.S., Czech Republic, Hungary, etc.) to push back against EU overreach. Engage in strategic counter-diplomacy, e.g., intensifying ties with Eastern Europe, Africa, or Latin America. Outright reject the perversion of UN 242 from a Chapter VI to a Chapter VII dictate. Withdraw from the UN. Expand the Abraham Accords forging alliances with other Arab States in the Middle East as far more worthy and stronger allies to replace the broken reed alliance with Europe. Europe guilty of the Shoah.
Threatening a break in diplomatic relations should be a last resort, used only if European states actively recognize a Hamas-linked Palestinian authority or materially support actions that undermine Israeli security during wartime. In the current moment, calibrated diplomatic pushback combined with strong rhetoric and selective retaliatory moves may achieve more than full severance.
European Union leaders have intensified calls for an immediate ceasefire. Countries such as Spain, Ireland, Belgium, and Malta have urged the EU to push for a lasting humanitarian truce, emphasizing the need for a political process based on a two-state solution. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has condemned Israel’s blockade of Gaza and called for the full reinstatement of humanitarian aid during any ceasefire.
French President Emmanuel Macron is considering the recognition of a Palestinian state, aligning with a UN conference co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia. This move aims to establish a framework for Palestinian statehood while ensuring Israel’s security.
A strong Israeli “message” might deter other European nations from taking similar unilateral positions or advancing recognition of a Palestinian state outside negotiated frameworks. It signals that Israel will not tolerate foreign interference in what it considers a defensive war against a genocidal terror organization (Hamas). Israel could frame such a move as an assertion of its sovereign right to defend itself without foreign-imposed conditions. It underscores that meddling in internal or security matters—especially in wartime—is diplomatically unacceptable. It could bolster Israel’s standing with partners like Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia who are also wary of Western moralism and Islamist empowerment.
to mudsucker the zionist bumboy, A great man noted: “while the zionists try to make the rest of the world believe the national consciencess of the jew finds its satisfactionin the creation of a Palestinian state, the jew again slyly dupes the dumb goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a jewish state i Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindler, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks….”
To Adolf Shit Head and the Protocol Peddlers
(A Scornful Epitaph)
You scribbled your bile on a counterfeit scroll,
A forgery foul as your festering soul.
You preached that the Jews ran the world in disguise—
Yet the only real mask was your pitiful lies.
“Protocols,” you claimed—some ancient dark pact—
Yet it’s proven a fraud, a paranoid act.
You weaved from thin air a vast global scheme,
While choking on hate like a dog in a dream.
Your “university of crooks,” you sneered with disdain—
Projecting your crimes in a hall of cracked panes.
For the only real scam was your fevered crusade,
Drenched in the blood your own madness betrayed.
You saw plots in the light, and poison in peace,
Your mouth just a sewer that begged for release.
But history judges, and memory bites,
And your “great ideas” rot in history’s blight.
So here’s to your grave—unmarked and alone—
Where truth shatters myths like a hammer to bone.
We dance on the ashes of your foul little fable,
A toast to the living, while you’re off the table.
Ah, Shakespeare, I wasn’t aware you were so well read. a nice break from fellating zionists.
Goyim like yourself, your stench reeks from generation to generation to generation. Goyim to ignorant learn.
Regarding stench: you should read Patton’s observations about the jews where he lost he lunch. The reptilian stench of the jews is not so bad in the open but it is hell in a closed environment.
Bull shit. There is no credible evidence or historical documentation to support the claim that General George S. Patton referred to Jews as “reptilians” or made any statements of that nature. Patton was a complex figure known for his controversial views and statements, particularly regarding various ethnic and national groups, but the specific language you mentioned does not appear in reputable historical records or his writings.
You have a reading comprehension problem mudsucker. The words were mine, not Patton’s.
I try to span Mosckerr – sorry – he is a shame
When General George S. Patton and his troops encountered Nazi concentration camps during World War II, particularly in April 1945, he was shocked and horrified by the conditions and the atrocities he witnessed. One of the most notable encounters was with the Ohrdruf concentration camp, which was the first camp liberated by American forces.
Upon entering the camp, Patton was confronted with the sight of emaciated prisoners, mass graves, and evidence of the brutal treatment they had endured. He ordered his men to document the conditions and to take photographs to ensure that the evidence of the atrocities would be recorded. Patton also insisted that local German civilians be brought to the camp to witness the horrors inflicted by the Nazi regime, believing that it was important for them to see the consequences of their government’s actions.
Patton’s response was a mix of anger and determination to ensure that such atrocities would not be forgotten. He recognized the importance of documenting the Holocaust and the need to hold those responsible accountable. However, his views on the aftermath of the war and the treatment of Germans were complex and sometimes controversial, reflecting his broader military and political beliefs.
The “reptilian conspiracy,” idea was popularized by David Icke, a former professional footballer and sports broadcaster, who began promoting the theory in his books and public speeches. Icke’s first major book on the subject, “The Biggest Secret,” was published in 1999, where he claimed that many world leaders and influential figures were actually reptilian aliens in disguise. He argued that these beings were part of a secret society that manipulated global events for their own benefit.
David Icke promoted conspiracy theories that many consider to be anti-Semitic. His theories often involve claims about a secretive elite that includes Jewish individuals, which has led to accusations of perpetuating harmful stereotype ‘Blood Libel’ (if you even know what that refers to) conspiracies.
His narishkeit nonsense, they contribute to a broader racist KKK like culture of anti-Jewish sentiment, particularly because they echo historical conspiracy theories that have targeted Jewish people. Icke’s discussions about a “reptilian elite” and other conspiratorial themes have been interpreted by some as veiled references to Jewish people, which has further fueled the perception of him as promoting anti-Semitic, continuation of the fraud Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Czarist secret police slanders employed to justify the 1880s pogroms.
If its got a big mouth like a bass, and smells like a rotting fish then the John of a prostitute took a shit in the loo and gave birth to another run of the mil ignorant John Trout.
Ah, original poetry from mudsucker that reveals his true ugly self. At least it is not plagiarized.
More ‘evil eye’ and slander from a dirty Goy.
thank you –
Germans have a long bloody oppressive history of scape-goating Jews and promoting Goebbels anti-Jewish propaganda.
While some may view comparisons between the Nakba and the Holocaust as inappropriate or revisionist, others argue that such comparisons can serve to highlight the ongoing struggles for justice and recognition faced by different groups. The discourse surrounding these issues is often polarized, reflecting deeply held beliefs and historical grievances on all sides. The comparison between the two events is indeed a contentious issue, and many people hold differing views on the appropriateness and implications of such comparisons.
Initially, many Arabs referred to the events of 1948 as a military disaster or defeat in the context of the Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel. In the immediate aftermath of the 1948 war, Arab leaders and commentators described the events as a military failure, particularly in light of the expectations that Arab forces would successfully prevent the establishment of Israel. This perspective emphasized the military aspects of the conflict and the perceived disgrace of the Arab states in failing to achieve their objectives.
Initially, the term “Nakba” was used to describe the military defeat and the failure of Arab states to prevent the establishment of Israel in 1948. This perspective emphasizes the military and political dimensions of the events. The fact that many Arab states did not grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees has been a point of contention. Critics argue that this refusal has contributed to UNWRA, the ongoing plight of generations of Palestinians and has been used politically to maintain their status as refugees rather than integrating them into host countries.
Concerns about historical revisionism are valid, especially when narratives are perceived to distort established facts or diminish the significance of particular events. Engaging critically with these narratives is essential for understanding the complexities of the conflict.
The Holocaust was a systematic genocide that resulted in the murder of six million Jews and millions of others, including Roma, disabled individuals, and political dissidents. The Nakba, while involving significant displacement and suffering for Palestinians, occurred in a different historical and political context. Many argue that conflating the two events diminishes the specific historical significance of the Holocaust.
Concerns about historical revisionism arise when narratives are perceived to distort established facts or diminish the significance of particular events. The use of the Holocaust in political discourse, especially in ways that may seem to equate it with other forms of suffering, can be seen as an attempt to revise or reinterpret history in a way that is not accurate. The discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often polarized, with deeply held beliefs and historical grievances on all sides. To equate the Palestinians to the Shoah directly compares to Joseph Goebbels Nazi propaganda which distorted reality to fit the Nazi/Arab narratives. Fact remain rock solid: All Arab Israeli war the result of Arab refusal to validate the 1947 2/3rd UN General Assembly vote which recognizes the equal rights of the Jewish people to achieve self determination in the Middle East based upon the League of Nations accepted Balfour Declaration.
The refusal of many Arab states to grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees has been a significant point of contention. Critics argue that this has perpetuated post ’67 Six Day War “status” of Balestinians, (Arabs cannot pronounce the letter P) as refugees and contributed to their ongoing plight, complicating the narrative of displacement. The discourse surrounding the Holocaust and the Nakba is often fraught with concerns about historical revisionism. When narratives are perceived to distort established facts or diminish the significance of particular events, it raises valid concerns about the accuracy and integrity of historical discourse.
The 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which recommended the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, is a critical document in the history of the conflict. The rejection of this resolution by Arab states is often cited as a pivotal moment that contributed to the ongoing conflict.
Erhard Arendt’s shift in focus from the historical context of the Holocaust to advocating for the Palestinian cause can be understood through his life experiences and the socio-political environment in which he operated. Specific details about when or how this shift from disgraced post WWII German to Arab propaganda promoter, when exactly this occurred in his personal beliefs, not widely documented. His advocacy for the Palestinian cause may have stemmed from a broader commitment to fighting against oppression and injustice, reflects the systematic German hatred of Jews. While it is clear that Erhard Arendt became an advocate for Palestinian rights, the exact timeline and motivations for this shift are not extensively documented. Arendt’s shift toward advocating for Palestinian rights scape-goats the Jews just as classic Church ”cursed Cain” propaganda promoted throughout the Ages.
Mudsucker. You have a distorted view of events in Palestine: the difference between the NAKBA and the holohoax is the NAKBA really happened. The NAKBA was the murder and the forced expulsion of the Palestinians by the Eastern European crooks and swindlers. It was not the defeat of the Arab states who were against the partition of Palestine. FWI isreal is not a bona fide state, it is an occupation of Palestine by murderous international swindlers and crooks.
Never forget that Israel’s creed is “War by Deception.” There is evidence that Israel’s Mossad is behind both “Hamas” and the “Houthis” – created to justify genocide and war. Makes sense that they are blaming the current fires in Israel on Hamas…that’s how they roll.
In the list of donors to the parasitic state, Russia was overlooked.
One narrative the jews put foreward on social media is the Palestinians are layabouts who have never worked and depend on handouts while keeping them blockaded in the worlds biggest open air prison.
The jews live high in the houses and farms stolen from the Palestinians and the money from the ZOGS. The jews don’t have to lift a finger, just watch the money roll in.
British UN Resolution 181 universally rejected by all Arab states. Between 1948 to 1967 Jordan ruled Samaria while Egypt ruled Gaza. In 1964 when opportunist Arafat – Egyptian born – raised the propaganda banner of “Palestine”, calling his outfit PLO – Polluted Louse Outfit – his charter condemned 1948 Israel and not the illegal Jordanian or Egyptian occupation of Samaria and Gaza!!! That’s right in the PLO charter.
mudsucker, It wasn’t a British UN resolution, resolution 181 was a UN resolution drafted by a special committee (read zionist) The resolution was rejected by Arab states as you pointed out the zionists treated it as if it was legal and began their murderous rampage in Palestine.
There was no Sameria at that time, historically Samaria was a tiny fiefdom in the land of Canaan that only existed for a little over four hundred years and historically Gaza was an Egyptian protectorate.
You fanatics believe your own bullshit.