The Greens, the Triumph of Fascism, and a Religious War

Headline in “Ynet Global” on 4^th October 2026. “Israel’s religious turn risks transforming the conflict  into a religious war” By Dr. Michael Milshtein (senior researcher at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University.)

Israel’s religious turn risks transforming the conflict into a religious war

Dr Milshtein admits that “the main challenge is fundamental Islam.” The Islamic faith prohibits returning conquered land, which is understood to be an eternal patrimony for the global Islamic nation,  to infidels. He admits the best result we can hope for is a hudna – a temporary truce with the Islamic faithful. He fails to mention that theologically, a hudna is permitted to last only for as long as is necessary to defeat and annihilate the enemy. That is the sole purpose of a hudna – time required to overcome a strategic military disadvantage. Theologically, a temporary truce should not last longer than ten years although it has never prevented Muslim empires from using the absence of hostilities to massively profit from the relationship, or even to develop alliances with infidel nations against other Muslim nations. Dr. Milshtein does refer to a hudna being inevitably broken by a 10/7 style attack (slaughter of the innocents).

Islamic extremists view a world of constant conflict between the faithful and the rest. Violence, slavery, and death are viewed as an appropriate 'lessons for those who fail to adhere to inferior status.' If this sounds like classical Roman rule then you would be right.

In classic Roman rule there was no honour in not dominating your opponents. Acts of rape, torture, and mass slaughter were not subject to morality or ethics (except when dealing with fellow citizens and even then, acts of sedition cancelled out any rights a citizen might 'enjoy'.)  Violence was simply an aspect of domination and control.

We should not reduce ourselves to celebrating as our enemies do, the institutionalisation of malice. The hostility of Ben Gvir and Moshe Feiglin are not Judaism. But to describe the relationship between Israel and the new-Palestinians as anything less than a religious war is also delusional.

10/7 should have taught us the advisability of not succumbing to blind faith and especially, not to succumb to secular naiveté.

We have been fighting a religious war since we started to reassert our fundamental human rights in the nineteenth century, not just in Israel.

The Green Party of England and Wales are a political party dedicated to safeguarding the environment through biodiversity and measures meant to rid the planet of man-made pollution. Recently, they passed a policy motion (on 4 October 2026) that designated Zionism as a form of racism. The resolution called for a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict. In Israel, approximately two million Muslims enjoy greater human rights than the overwhelming majority of the 2 billion Muslims found in the Muslim world. However, apparently, at least according to demagogues and activists of the Green Party, Israel is an ethnocentric Jewish nation while over two billion Muslims exist in a multiethnic paradise. At least 49 Muslim states are dictatorships, and most are ethnostates, but this is deemed irrelevant to the Greens.

The Greens are a party of fascism. They demand our human sacrifice on their altar of unity. It is the classic antisemitic strategy. Hold up “the Jew” (now relabelled as a “Zionist”) as uniquely evil and to hell with any of the contrary evidence. Hate is an instrument, a vehicle that unifies the amoral masses – of all classes and creeds. Of course, a creed is a system of religious beliefs, but organised hate requires a scapegoat and the espousal of an unquestioning faith. This is the essence of any quasi-religious, political fundamentalism. Facts are an obstacle, a complication in the dissemination of a prejudiced narrative. A person of hate does not need facts.

In contemporary society we exclude any relevant information by a device called non-platforming, along with the denial of safe spaces and use of intimidatory tactics such as doxing to allow the “right-kind” of hate speech to flourish. This too is fascism.

It is bewildering but intersectionality, a term its founder referred to as “a system of interlocking oppressions” is used to create a new pyramid of oppression, fuelled by hatred, and prejudice. It places the most vicious champions of the new apartheid – foot soldiers and their masters, at the top of a new oppression pyramid. These are the new “social-injustice warriors” of Islamic Extremism and the Fascist Left. Their new system of injustice places Jews and 'Whites' in ‘their’ place at the bottom of the pyramid. But Jews will usually be their initial target. It is  Cultural Colonialism; rapidly developing into a devolved system of oppression and persecution.

Unsurprisingly, the bigot will explain, as if talking to an infuriating simpleton (me) that fascism is right-wing, not left-wing. But Fascism has never been restricted to a geographic point on a compass. It is a mindset of replacement, silencing, the lie as truth and the replaced truth as fiction. And modern-day ethical thinking is framed in carefully delineated absolutes. So, Left is good, Right is bad. Forget the Holodomor, the Khmer Rouge, Baathism, and the murderous atrocities of the radical-Left’s exponents.

Jews are that easy target amongst those political or religious groups that need to hate to survive. That is our reality.

Fascism grants the outlier (Jew) conditional human rights. This is an oxymoron but essential to the very healthy financial position of the global Human Rights community. When one’s human rights are conditioned on silence or on the parroting of a self-abnegating story-line, and when any divergent opinion is ill-tolerated to the point of intimidation, violence, and murder then this too is fascism.

The acceptance of our equal rights in society should be non-negotiable but in the world of Islamist extremism where hierarchies of dominance demand a continuous demonstration of power, scapegoating is essential if dictatorships are to retain their hold on power. It is the reason that the global (Selective) Human Rights community, led by the United Nations Organisation is so selective in its apportionment of rights. Appeasement is both financially lucrative and low-risk. Jews have always been peripheral in numbers and divided. Therefore, we represent the eternally easy target.

So, how to deal with an avalanche of hate? How do we deal with a narrative of deception? In the 21^st Century, the only way to win a religious war is to not fight it.

Diplomacy will not work either because we are too small in number. As a non-missionary faith, we will always be thus. Being a marginal group makes us easy prey to the predator.

In a world that fears meaningful engagement, while worshipping at the simpletons’ altar of social media, the best way to fight a religious war is to rub their noses in their religious hypocrisy, their bigotry, and their prejudice. When winning is dependent on convincing others of your virtue, of proving to others your victimhood; and on being the presumptive loser in an existential battle we must clarify the muddied water and demonstrate the mendacity, the hate, and the malevolence of our opponents. Because when we are dealing with a hate movement; when we are dealing with a fascists’ antisemitic conspiracy there is only good and evil. The entire strategy of our enemies is that we are evil incarnate - unadulterated and irredeemable. The logical outcome is genocide. If that is going to change, the stench has to transfer back onto our hate infused enemy. There is no other way.

It is the only way to “convince” others of our right to exist! It sounds obscene. IT IS. Only in  a world that has lost its way, only in a world of fascism do we have to convince our oppressor that we too, have always had and still do have rights.

Our enemies like things simple and binary: right and wrong, good verses bad. Duality not complexity. There is nothing like a gaggle of elderly, white-haired Caucasians with a couple of young children in tow, waving their banners or standing in gloomy silence to impress the gullible with their passion for “justice.”  At the turn of the 20^th Century the British Foreign Office had the toxic reputation (much envied) for being able to smile at you, while stabbing you in the back. Britain has upped its game, several times since then. Laughably, they still call us ‘friends’ even as they ignore and therefore encourage the violence against us. Our streets have been colonised by the Blackshirts, the Greenshirts and the Redshirts.

The power of the English and Welsh Greens, and their admirers, is in their ability to express their hatred openly. That is the reality of evil; non-philosophic and radical. Ignorance dressed up as virtue. And that will always excite groups and ideologies like HAMAS, Fatah, and the Greens. They are anything but exceptional.

The Madrid Bombings and Islamism’s successful Western Colonial Project

 or How the new-Palestinians learnt to Gaslight Jews on Everything.

On the 11^th of March 2004 at 07:37 a.m. Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network exploded ten bombs on four Madrid bound commuter trains murdering 193 people (including Spaniards and people from sixteen other nations). The coordinated terrorist attacks seriously injured some 2,500 people. Osama bin-Laden immediately took direct responsibility for the attacks. Each bomb that was used held no less than ten kilograms of dynamite and about 700 grams of shrapnel. It was meant to be a mass casualty event which, if it did not kill, would permanently damage the greatest number of human beings. It led directly to the defeat of the incumbent Peoples Party and the successful rise to power of the Socialists Workers party.

Acting on behalf of al Qaeda, bin Laden instructed ‘Europe’ to return Al-Andalus (those sections of Spain and Portugal governed by Muslims between 711 and 1492 CE)  also known as the Iberian Peninsula, to Islamic ownership, if, that is, Europeans wanted to ‘immunize’ their nations against ‘Islamic anger.’ As continuation of a five-hundred-year-old historical grievance it was breathtakingly hypocritical. It had never prevented Islam from conquering and enslaving whole races and nations.

What did Osama bin-Laden mean? And is this a universal Muslim theological idea?

According to Islam, no land, previously conquered (or declared to be ‘Islamic inheritance’) may be returned to non-Muslim ownership. To adopt the present-day vernacular – this isn’t just imperialism; this is settler-colonialism taken to an extreme of ever-lasting domination and control. No non-Muslim may exercise either self-determination or anything other than conditional and selective human rights in such lands. This ‘Peace’ has been inevitably and infrequently interrupted by pogrom and slaughter.

According to Islamic theology, as a missionary faith the superiority of the Muslim male is eternal and unconditional. It leads directly into the logic of eliminationism. Structural aspects of human conflict and selective human rights speak falsely of Muslim victimhood and thus places them at the pinnacle of an intersectional hierarchy.

Critical theory makes Islam the most entitled, the most privileged group in Western society and in a material world that posits the idea that “money cures all ills” Western states have failed to demand reciprocity of any kind. No reciprocal tolerance, respect, or love of thy neighbour. Just never-ending hatred, transplanted onto Western soil.

Critical theory in colonial studies has largely gaslit Jewish history. It has succeeded in placing Jews  at the bottom of the human rights pyramid. It is the only way the big lie can work. Google the meaning.

  Gaslighting:

1.  It trivialises feelings: dismissing a victim’s emotions as “too sensitive,” “crazy,” or “irrational.”

2.      Blocking or diverting (think cancel culture).

3.    Projection: shifting blame by accusing the victim of the very abusive behaviour they are committing

4.      Gradual implementation: creating a pattern of abuse.

There is a reason that the above, from google, ends with the following statement:

The National Domestic Violence Hotline can Provide Support.

These are the tactics employed in our colonized universities and our colonized public spaces against the Jewish Community.

Systematic denialism is fascism defined. It is structural and routinely abusive behaviour. To systematically replace the objective reality; rewriting Muslim – new-Palestinian history to benefit their narrative of victimhood. This isn’t about a war HAMAS lost and its appalling consequences. It is about an irredentist theology of hatred towards non-Muslims that will deny every attempt at reconciliation or resettlement.

Jews are cancelled; our rights are restricted - defined and dependent on denying ourselves every constitutional human right allowed to others unless we embrace a faux narrative that criminalises our co-religionists. Safe spaces are to be denied to us. Only so-called “White people” are to be denied that same safe-space, but it is more difficult, at the present time to deny them the other rights we (Jews) are denied precisely because White people are the majority and self-abnegation is counter-intuitive to survival.

This then, is the woke terrorism of contemporary political life. This is the contemporary narrative that for far too many people holds every act of violence in a warm glow of anti-Jewish self-righteousness. A spider-web of controls – “specifically rigid, intersecting systems of language, gender, spatial colonisation and personal manipulation that dictate human behaviour,” creating rejection, fear, and ostracism for Jews and any of our supporters who refuse to embrace the primary Palestinian narrative of dispossession and its concomitant demand for a right of return.

This is, as Andrew Fox, an  expert in defence and disinformation calls it, the “manufactured reality” of the Free Palestine Movement.

James Baldwin pointed out that Jews could hide from their identity, so, if the “wrong” kind of Jew is labelled as a “Zionist” all Jews may be raped or murdered for the simple crime of being. Because Zionism is at its most fundamental, a utopian, universally applied philosophy, for all people and all faiths, its rejection represents the crime of Arab – Muslim particularism supported by White entitled racists, Christian progressive-  religious bigots, and the ever-present House Jew.

The one thing they have in common is that their ideology is fuelled by irrational but powerful hate. It does not require reason or truth to be embraced unconditionally. Breaking this global web of anti-Jewish oppression is the challenge of our generation.

In the USA, the (fascist) Radial Right argues that we (Jews) will not replace them. They do not mean numerically. As an overwhelmingly liberal community we support immigration and a robust regime of human rights legislation in action and not just words. This ‘behaviour’ is not limited to the U.S. But physical replacement is precisely what Islamists, and their Left-wing allies are imposing on the Jewish community.

Language is used to define identity, to take and hold onto power as an instrument of oppression. And just as HAMAS used and continues to use rape and sexual abuse as an instrument of dominance and oppression (this time, allegedly against its own women and female children in Gaza), it is the denial of this crime against women by the “Me-Too” movement, by Western feminists, by the radical-Left and by Islamists, of a (Jewish) right to protection that reinforces the language of oppression against Jews everywhere and incites violence and murder across the world.

Just a small example – in November 2023 UN employee and communist ideologue Francesca Albanese stated that following on from the 10/7 Genocide, Israel had no rights to self-defence.  This is not a case of patriarchal dominance. Another example: A female Egyptian journalist, in a nation where over 80% of women seen out in public without a male escort are sexually assaulted, wrote in an Op-Ed that Muslim men must reach out to Jewish women and girls everywhere and rape them to “teach them a lesson” (because they might  support Israel.) I cannot foresee a situation where righteous Muslim males will first ask any woman for her religious affiliations, prior to raping her. Sophistication is rarely an attribute of violence.

Female Muslim scholars have said “Allah allows Muslim men to rape non-Muslim women to humiliate them. If we fight infidels, we can take their women as sex slaves and rape them.”

And yet the reaction of the United Nations, Amnesty International, the ICC, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch have been characteristically, thunderously silent in all of these cases. Post 10/7 the Me-Too movement, Jews for Palestine, entitled Muslims and Woke Whites everywhere have managed to ignore everything that took place on 10/7 as well as the ongoing and systematic violence of thought and  deed that has engulfed the Western world. Intimidation and the conquest of public spaces, violence – these are not aspects of freedom of expression. They are aspects of an abusive relationship, conditioning human rights on the denial of our communities’ human rights. And still, it manages to blame the victim in every case.

Jewish history is continuously erased in case it contradicts the acceptable narrative of a Jewish power structure that oppresses Muslims (as well as others). That, at least, is in harmony with antisemitic conspiracy theories put forward by missionary faiths determined to extinguish our light. How else can they explain why Arabs failed to annihilate us in 1948?

Structural as well as intermittent violence against Jews alongside of periodic expulsions kept the Jewish population of Israel low in pre-1948 Israel. But fascists always use our population in the late 19^th Century as the primary determinant for deciding we lack any right of immigration or refugee flight targeting the Land of Israel, when they usually also mean, anywhere else.

Surprisingly, the widespread conquest and colonisation by Islam of other nations is not considered a good reason to similarly, deny Muslims a right of immigration. There are fifty-eight Muslim nations, none of which appear to be favoured as targets for Muslims fleeing Muslim poverty or Muslim oppression. It does not occur to Western fascists of either side of the political compass or their allies, that denying Jews those same rights exhibit the all-pervasive stench of prejudice and antisemitism.

This is the narrative of oppression that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is supposed to guard against. CRT has sought to transform the relationship between race, racism and power but fails spectacularly because race is interchangeable with religion in defining aspects of the power relationship between peoples, nations, and civilisations.

Within the Islamic world, criticism of its religion is punishable by death. The Muslim nation here in the UK and at the UN have attempted to legislate (in the former, nationally and in the latter, globally) to ban criticism of Islam. In both cases it failed only when non-Muslim nations insisted, reasonably, the ban on criticism had to apply to all religious groupings, or none at all.

Symbolic violence, defined by Pierre Bourdieu, “manifests through the imposition of academic narratives on marginalized voices.” One could add, post 10/7 that academia has become the principal attack-dog providing intellectual - sociological justification behind real-world antisemitism and antisemitic violence. But then, hate is a wonderful unifier. It allows one to embrace every lie and justify every act of violence.

It is the abdication of morality where-ever and whenever the wrong kind of Jews are mentioned. That is at the heart of the intersection of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

Islam and the radical Left (though increasingly it is the Left as a whole that identifies with this horrific prejudicial behaviour) have colonised social media, they have colonised the traditional media, they have colonised our universities and they have colonised all of our Public spaces. It has led to public-social ostracism through ongoing colonisation of the offices of the State. The painful truth, to quote the title of a book by British comedian David Baddiel,  “Jews Don't Count: How Identity Politics Failed One Particular Identity,” is that Jews really don’t count.

In electoral terms we are minnows. An epithet commonly used in British political circles, the “Jewish vote” used to be periodically employed as if it identified an exclusive Jewish  ‘alliance’ (cabal). It was a club used to beat down the ‘uppity Jew,’ usually, but not exclusively, at election times. This prejudice has been completely absent from British political discourse on Islam. Islamic infiltration into Western political parties and those parties’ programs reflecting an increasingly extremist Muslim bigotry is tolerated and even encouraged. This explains the absence of any serious action against hate-speech and violence - in particular see the hateful Green Party of England and Wales which is today, barely cognizant of the environment. (Gaza rules.)

It makes sense that the Police will not get involved when Muslims and their White-entitled allies, protest violently near our schools and places of worship, or anywhere else. The numbers involved make any confrontation dangerous for the Police (and innocent non-Jewish passers-by.) Better to tell the Jew(s) to shut up and **** off. But that knowledge is powerful. It translates into action. Muslims and White racists are able to employ violent and destructive tactics (see Palestine Action) and are untouchable, “giving a green light to mob violence in pursuit of political objectives.” (thesecretbarrister.com).

One final example of how both the police and the courts (no doubt through government instructions) empowers violence in society: Six Palestine Action fascists broke into an Israeli factory in the UK and one of their number violently assaulted a female guard. He then raised his sledgehammer over his head and deliberately brought it down on her spine. Two Supreme court judges ruled that the six assailants from Palestine Action did not have a case to answer for. And let them go. Ergo, it is realistic to assume that assault including murder is no longer a criminal offence in the UK if it is carried out for political purposes.  Note: They were convicted, later in a re-trial.

Jews / Zionists are the perfect patsy. As members of a non-missionary faith our numbers will always be small and therefore accessible to structural violence without consequence. We are large enough to be visible but tiny enough to be unable to defend ourselves. Except in Israel, which is why they, our enemies, expend so much energy creating the structural, intellectual, and public framework for genocide. Anti-Zionism will always bleed into antisemitism.

Entitled and privileged groups of self-interested purveyors of hate with interlocking agendas need to be able to feed off each other in order to legitimise their actions and words .

The current alliance between primarily Left-wing, White-entitled racists, and Muslims is an existential threat to Jewish peoplehood because of the enormous numbers of people engaged in its program of hatred and lies. How then is the Palestinian war against Jewish independence different from previous attempts at exclusion, delegitimization, and expulsion from society - as a precursor to genocide?

Decolonisation, Lies and a Tale of Western Deceit.

 

Jews are victims of the West’s Post-Colonial Ignorance and Postmodern Political Bigotry

Immediately following the events of 10/7, across the world people, were interviewed who explained that this was the actions of a people that had been waiting for 75 years for “return”. Mohammad Shtayyeh, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority was more honest. He stated that  Jerusalem (the whole city) must be the Palestinian Capital, and all the refugees returned to their homes inside Israel. The way that Israel’s enemies parroted an identical narrative of victimhood and need for return to pre-1948 lines would indicate that this latest twist in the conflict, was co-ordinated well in advance of the 10/7 massacres. Conspiracy?

Since the creation of the State of Israel the revanchists have been assiduously rewriting Jewish history in order to fit that history into a straight-jacketed narrative that denies Israelis any rights of self-defence. Francesca Albanese, the Italian doyen of anti-Zionist, pro-genocide Islamism, has said nothing new when she states that Jews in Israel have no right to self-defence. Can a person who supports genocide be called a genocidaire?  It must also be assumed, given the current climate of unsheathed hatred, that none of us, labelled as Zionists, have any human rights according to Albanese and her ilk. As United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories she openly supports, and without reservation, the genocidal Muslim movement, HAMAS, in its war against Judaism.

Since 10/7 the bigots have escalated their rhetorical deceit to justify mass-rape, torture, and the slaughter of unarmed civilians. And it seems that so-called progressives  have embraced this narrative. But then, none of this is new, we should not have been surprised. This narrative of ‘all actions by Palestinians are acceptable’ as demonstrated by the global (selective) human rights community, and so many more people besides, is again, not news.

Revanchism – is from the French word “revenge” – and it means a policy of seeking to retaliate, especially to recover lost territory.

Over many decades we have been negligent in our response, and this must change.

The Balfour Declaration was published in November 1917. It called for a national home for Jews. Nothing happens in isolation. The Declaration came as Russia, convulsed by revolution also called for national self-determination for the minority peoples of Russia (in July 1917).  Britain, fearful of an armed revolt across its own imperial territories needed a response to the Menshevik-Bolshevik  policy-paper. Its response, never seriously pursued, was Balfour’s declaration. What then followed (in January 1918) was US President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points – this was a statement of principles for peace. It was intended as a guide for those negotiating the end of conflict in World War One. A key principle (number 5) called for political freedom in the colonies. In a speech to Congress on February 11, 1918, he further enunciated his fourteen points in what was referred to as his “Four Principles.”  The two of relevance to this discussion are:

                The peacemakers had to respect the rights of small nations and regions: 

               “ Peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty.”

                “The interests of local populations trumped those of the Great Powers.”

 

Any discussion of Jewish rights inevitably falls short of the truth when it is claimed that Jews were an insignificant minority in the Holy Land and therefore had (and have) no rights of self-determination. What is omitted is that for most of the period from at least, 1,400 BCE, Jews were the majority population within what was the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah, Judea, and Samaria. That presence in the land of Israel continued until a two-century hiatus ensued following on from the invasion of Israel in 632 CE by the Islamic-Arab imperial juggernaut. A Jewish return to Israel resumed prior to the Crusades. That immigration was fuelled by a desperate messianic hope for any future other than the present, mired as it was, in relentless insecurity. The Jewish population rose and fell with the terror unleashed by successive Christian and Muslim conquerors.

 

From 1828 onwards Jerusalem had a Jewish majority (there were more Jews than Christians and more Jews than Muslims). In 1864 a census undertaken by the British embassy revealed Jerusalem to be 80% Jewish. And yet, the social media record of this is inexplicably non-existent. As are falls in the Jewish population, often a collapse, whether in Jerusalem or elsewhere throughout Israel which curiously, was not accompanied by a commensurate Christian or Muslim cataclysm and was/is left unexplained.

 

To be clear about this: Jews have been yearning for or actually “returning” to Israel since 597 BCE. The Prophet Ezekiel, exiled to Babylon, wrote these words: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.”   Zion is where the movement and word “Zionism” originates. Spiritual and religious Zionism has existed for over 2,600 years. Political Zionism did not begin with Theodore Herzl. Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalisher (born 1795) promoted Zionism as did his contemporary, Judah ben Solomon Chai Alkalai (born 1798). Both promoted a return to the land as part of a religious-Zionist movement.

 

The persecution of Jews, “blaming” that oppression of Jews on Zionism is a lie based on ignorance or more sinister, on a malevolent form of deceit. Anti-Zionism, the rejection of our return to Israel is based on a foreign, colonizing (Muslim) ideology. It is buttressed by a theology that believes all conquered land to be an Islamic inheritance. Accordingly, to oppose that theology is a blasphemy.

 

In a world that sanitises hate as long as it springs forth from a theological fountain, domination is basic. In much of the world it is a religious mania; a theology that mandates captured territory to be an eternal patrimony. It is why al Qaeda murdered almost two hundred people when it bombed the Madrid train network in 2004, and why neo-Ottoman Turkey conquered Northern Cyprus and to this day claims that the whole of the Mediterranean Basin belongs to it, contrary to all international maritime laws. It is central to a theological conquest philosophy. It is called Dar al-Harb (in Arabic).

 

We humans complicate in order to obfuscate. The Muslim world hates (and fears) Israel because Israel has freed itself from an Islamist theological prison; one that is suffered by minorities throughout the Near-East. This intolerance is not because it cries out for justice for the new (Arab) Palestinians but because it demands inequality and usually, it institutionalises it. But human rights organisation will not issue any reports on this phenomenon, nor will they accuse any other nation of apartheid. Let us not forget that the world has conveniently ignored the plight of some forty million Kurds, persecuted, and denied the most basic right to self-determination in order to placate todays artificially created Near-Eastern Arab nation states.

 

When European empires were disintegrating into a multiplicity of nation states the lines that were drawn were not perfect but reflected ethnic identities. None of this redressing of inequality occurred within the Near-Eastern region, except within historic Israel.

 

At the time of the Balfour Declaration there were exactly five independent Muslim majority states. The only Muslim-majority regions not to be colonized by the Europeans were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, the Sultanate of Oman, and Afghanistan. Turkey was one of the first colonial powers in Europe with the Ottoman empire having dominion over a vast region for over 6 centuries (from 1299 – 1922).

 

If the fascists want to argue that the First Balfour Declaration (there was a Second Balfour Declaration issued in 1926) is a tragedy for the Middle East, then they need to agree that the Muslim majority nations that also aspired to and received their independence in the wake of that first Balfour Declaration are an even greater tragedy. They have been responsible, independent of any Jewish or Israeli input, of enormous human misery that many if not most of them have caused for the minorities in their midst and the conflicts they have created. Conflicts that have killed millions of people in the decades since they gained their independence.

 

A single example will suffice. Lebanon was granted its independence in 1941 (from France). But it is a nation split along sectarian lines between Christian, Sunni Muslim, Shiite Muslim, and Druze. After a fifteen-year civil war (1975-1990) that saw one hundred and fifty thousand people killed (about five percent of the total population) and almost one million of its citizens displaced, Lebanon has, to this day, not enjoyed peace. It cannot. Each of the separate religious factions hate and fear each other. At one point in that war there were twenty-two separate internal armies operating against each other in constantly shifting alliances. The creation of that one Lebanese nation was a convenience for France but a disaster for the region.

 

The latest racist meme against Israeli independence refers to a 75-year injustice (Israel’s winning of independence in 1948, against all the odds.) The real injustice is that according to the logic of that meme, Jews have no right to immigration, we have no right to flee our homes when we feel threatened, and we certainly have no right to be “refugees.”  We should just “turn the other cheek,” and have the good grace to die as previous generations did, in silence.  The inhumanity is breathtaking.

 

Apparently, human rights only attach to other people wishing for a better life in the Western World.  But not Jews.

 

There are few nations that have gained independence from their colonial overlords that have enjoyed everlasting peace, and they tend to be Western nations. Israel, however, is the only one that is unforgiven for its birth and survival.

 

Israel should never forget this lesson in duplicity, mendacity, hatred and bigotry.

If I forget thee O Jerusalem

So Jerusalem is now formally the Capital of Israel, at least according to Israel and the United States of America.

It could have happened on so many different occasions in the past.  All the Muslim threats of violence, buttressed, even encouraged by Europe’s fawning – obsequious and sycophantic rejection of President Trump’s announcement can help us to understand why this declaration is long overdue.

Manuel Hassassian, chief Palestinian representative to Britain, declared Trumps’ announcement to be “a war against hundreds of millions of Christians that are not going to accept the holy shrines to be totally under the hegemony of Israel.” (Metro, page 5, December 7, 2017).  But wait a minute. Christians have been tortured, murdered, and ethnically cleansed throughout the Near-East at the hands of Muslims, not Jews!  Muslim extremists have committed genocide against the most ancient of the Christian communities of the Middle East. Muslims have destroyed churches and killed hundreds of Christians inside of churches in terror attacks. They have chased away most of the regions Christians just as they did the regions Jews. Only in Israel are they safe and only in Israel have their numbers increased. So I find this number “hundreds of millions” both comical and inflammatory. He may be trying to foster a heightened anti-Semitic reaction by the progressive churches in the non-Muslim world. But even his numbers do not add up.  The big lie coupled with incendiary statements that cannot ever be possibly proven is consistent with Palestinian historical creativity.  It is this creativity that by and large dismisses any Jewish connection to the Holy land and ignores any crimes that are committed in the name of Allah or his prophet.

We need to go back some considerable time to understand how we have arrived at this day.

The ending of the Ottoman Empire happened in parallel with the ongoing collapse of far more powerful European empires. The failure of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empire occurred along with the ongoing disintegration of the British, German, French, Italian and Belgian empires. All this created the global impetus for minorities to seek independence from their colonial overlords.

The Arabs were eager to supplant the Ottoman’s who were not so affectionately referred to as the Sick Man of Europe.  Sharif Hussein ibn-Ali was keen to become the new dictator of the Muslim world. But he needed the British to achieve his aim.  Armenia and Eastern Thrace were both Christian nations intended to be freed from Ottoman domination.  Kurdistan and Anatolia should also have been freed. The problem was never that Sykes-Picot gave self-determination to Muslim nations. The real problem was always that the successor Arab nations (and Turkey) were incapable of respecting the minorities within their borders.  And though initially both Turkey and Saudi Arabia’s leaders viewed with favor the establishment of a national Jewish entity in Palestine, it was their greed that inevitably overcame their rational judgment that a Jewish state would be a stabilizing influence in the region.

And it was a British desire to retain its influence in the region that undermined its credibility – and led to its betrayal of the British Mandate in Palestine. That mandate was supposed to lead to a national homeland for the Jews even as it was clear that it would protect non-Jewish rights in the allotted Jewish state. 

Britain betrayed that mandate by choosing to appoint to its most important Arab liaison post in Palestine, Hajj Amin Husseini. This man was well suited to the elitist inclinations of the British ruling classes –he was from an old, wealthy Arab family that traced its roots back to Mohammed’s grandson Ali, he was a businessman and he was virulently anti-Semitic.  Britain sentenced him to ten years imprisonment for inciting a murderous anti-Jewish pogrom in 1920 that kicked off the Palestinian National movement as an exercise in race riots and religiously inspired violence.

By handing over the top religious and administrative post in Jerusalem (and hence Palestine) to Husseini, Britain fatally undermined its own position in the area. While the Mufti of Jerusalem (as he was known) was very happy to make his fortune from selling land to Jews throughout modern day Israel he also had aspirations to become feudal dictator of a pan-Arab empire.

Why did Britain undermine its own position in the region? Perhaps one can only explain the inexplicable, by reference to a paragraph in Chaim Weizmann’s autobiography:  he narrates how he met up with General (Sir Wyndham) Deedes (Chief Secretary to the British High Commissioner of the British Mandate of Palestine) who handed Weizmann “a few sheets of typewritten script...I read the first sheet  asking what could be the meaning of all this rubbish...(he replied) ‘you had better read all of it with care; it is going to cause you a great deal of trouble in the future.’ This was my first meeting with extracts from the Protocols of the Elders  of Zion” he then said, “You will find it in the haversack of a great many British officers here-and they believe it! It was brought over by the British Mission which has been serving in the Caucasus on the staff of the Grand Duke Nicholas” (Trial and Error P273).  And later (P279) “Jews were not trusted, and had to be turned out; Arabs, who were known to cross the enemy lines repeatedly, were left unmolested.”

Demographically, even as it went against the best interests of all Jews and Arabs in the area, this unregulated Arab traffic shifted the balance massively against Jewish immigration into Palestine.  The hostility that Jews experienced was understood correctly, to provide a green light to violent confrontation against the Jewish presence in Palestine.

What was not understood was that the Arab world would take what it could from the British but rather than assist in furthering the Anglo-Arab relationship it was always viewed as no more than demonstrating the weakness of Britain.  Appeasement, particularly when it relates to violence, never works. What it does encourage, in every case, is a vortex of bloodshed that spirals out of everyone’s control. It suited the Arab thugs pouring into Palestine because they could only profit from the inevitable chaos.  And Husseini was at the centre of this web of violence and death.

Historically, the Jewish residents of Palestine were referred to as Palestinians. The Arabs identified themselves either as South Syrian Arabs or Muslims of the greater Ottoman Empire.  It was only in 1964 when the original Palestine National Charter was written by the first PLO Chairman, Ahmed Shukeiry, that the wholesale theft of Jewish identity was brilliantly achieved – in naming the Arabs ‘Palestinians’ they not only stole Jewish Palestine’s identity, they stole its history as well.   George Orwell would have been proud.  His book cynically predicted the ease with which societies can choose to believe (and disbelieve) anything and will enthusiastically embrace every lie if it reinforces their existing prejudices.

Books aside, it is instructive that in reflecting the pan–Arab nationalism that was rampant throughout the region (though mainly with intellectuals and secular Arabs) the main objective of the Palestinian National Charter was shown to be the destruction of the State of Israel.

Jerusalem had a Jewish majority from the 1820’s or 1860’s depending on how you count the population.  In the 1820’s Judaism was the majority religious faith. By the 1860’s Jews ‘enjoyed’ a numerical majority presence in Jerusalem. They did not enjoy the rights of either Muslims or Christians and were occasionally persecuted but this was par for the course in both the Ottoman Empire and in Europe.

It is under these conditions that a movement for self-determination based on changing demographics and global opportunities for minority independence should be understood when reviewing Israeli history.  Zionism was tangential but not a primary basis for Jewish sovereignty in Palestine.  It became the engine for accelerated self-determination exacerbated by British policies that ran counter to its mandated responsibilities.   If the horrific occurrences in World War 2 expedited a positive decision on Jewish independence, Britain’s “Arabs-only” open-border policy, with its concomitant revocation of Jewish rights in Palestine, was its parallel set of negative activities and it is not possible to divorce one from the other without being accused of historical sectarianism, historical fallacy and unmitigated bigotry and prejudice.

In the early 1990’s in the heady days of optimism, when the Oslo accords were still young and reality was momentarily discarded, Yasser Arafat’s minions in the United Nations ensured that over 90 per cent of all Security Council resolutions condemned Israel and the General Assembly was only marginally less focused on attacking Jewish rights.  To this day, some 25 per cent of all resolutions at the UN are dedicated to condemning Israel.

Its pinnacle may not yet have been reached.  December 2016 saw a resolution that totally ignored the Jewish connection with Jerusalem. Within the last month or two a total of 1,300 million dollars has been allocated to the Palestinians for their legal fight against Israel – to be spent over the next five years. This is paid for by the USA, Canada, fourteen or so European nations and Japan.  They provide almost all of the United Nations’ budgetary needs.

Not the Vatican nor France nor Germany nor Britain, nor any other country seems willing to stop this obscenity, the United Nations, as it continues its war against the Jewish nation.  If conflict has created some 500 million refugees since the end of the Second World War in 1945, and some 100 million deaths from war in the same period of time, the Israel-Arab wars are but an infinitesimal percentage of the total. Unfortunate and immoral to deal in numbers but also a beacon of injustice in this world.

For the first 19 years of Israel’s independence and after the Jordanians had committed cultural genocide against the Jews of Jerusalem the world said nothing; the United Nations did not offer us a single resolution in protest. There was not a lone diplomat who visited the region to protest the destruction of Jewish cultural property in East Jerusalem. No politician or diplomat demanded to know why Jews were barred from Judaism’s holiest sites. We forget this past and the Western public does not care, but they will always tell us that we are ungrateful for not trusting them to protect us, (as they always have done!)

Can you imagine a history of the twentieth century that describes it as peaceful and uneventful? The spotlight on Israel is breathtaking in its failure of international will.  The focus on the Jewish State is the reason that the United Nations Organization does not deserve to exist in any form.

The old-guard of the Palestinian national movement is incapable of accepting the legitimacy of Jewish people-hood.  Abbas has played out his professional life in the pursuit of delegitimizing our history, we should appreciate that this is the real reason there has not ever been a genuine peace process.

The legality of a states’ right to protect its cultural and religious heritage are not questioned except when it come to Israel.  Recognizing the centrality of Jerusalem to Judaism goes against the current global ‘consensus.’

It is time to fight back against the rewriting of history.  All of Israel’s diplomats and all of its knowledgeable supporters must be united in correcting this conspiracy against history.

I will leave you with a quote from the current Palestinian President for Life, Mahmoud Abbas:  “I will never recognize the Jewish state, not in a thousand years!”

This is the reason there is no peace process.

President Trump’s correction of an historic anomaly is a long overdue correction.  And only a first step. 

Stuck in the same old political rut - weakness, prejudice and the no where game

Egypt gave the world the Muslim Brotherhood, the institution that has spread across the globe as a cross between the Institution of the Inquisition and the Knights Templar. Its most recent activist successor is Islamic State. It is noteworthy that in a country without Jews to blame, Muslims blame Christianity for the failure of the Arab Spring.

The Muslim Brotherhood was the creation of Hassan al-Banna, in Egypt in 1928.  Its fountainhead was devoid of any connection to Zionism or Jews. It was (and is to this day) socially regressive. It was created in response to British colonial attempts at reform.  It demanded as it continues to demand the elevation of sharia law to a position of domination over everyone. 

Zionism also had an idealised foundation.  But whereas the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to establish a solid link between seventh century Islam and the contemporary world, the philosophy and vision of Zionism was in complete contrast to Islamism’s latest radical creation in a never ending progression of extremist Islamist positions.  Zionism rejected superstition, it discarded bigotry and it rebuffed any inclination towards a hegemonic religious, totalitarian vision.  Zionism created a Declaration of Independence which forms the inspiration behind Israel’s Basic laws.   It is worthwhile to repeat part of that founding Declaration: 

“The State of Israel will ….be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture…” 

It is something that has skewered Israeli political and moral thinking. In Israel, realistically, equality exists in law but not in practice. That does not make Israel unusual or unique. It just makes the State of Israel normal.  Democratic institutions strive to create a consensus towards equality but it is an ongoing dialogue that is continuously being tested under changing conditions. That is the frailty and the strength of democracy. 

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (1973-77) lived the American dream but never escaped the nightmare of anti-Semitism. He admitted to confronting social prejudice at every stage in his career even as he became one of the most influential people in America. And as a Jew, he could always be put in his place.  Nevertheless, the greatness of America is that he was able to dream, and minus the Presidency (he was foreign born), he could reach for the stars. 

Courage is a pivotal requirement in achieving any dream, and peace is impossible without it.  But peace between Israel and Palestine is becoming more difficult to achieve with every day and it is because of ongoing incitement.  If there is no violence or threat of violence then people can and do live freely together.  Settlements are nascent villages and towns – they can become the core of inter-communal reconciliation.   But incitement, because it creates fear also demonstrates a negotiation conducted in bad-faith.  This is because people who are frightened forge maximalist positions to protect themselves from their enemy.  As gaps grow and positions harden the possibility of reconciliation decreases. 

Palestinians never cease to incite hatred of Israel’s Jewish population while promoting demands reminiscent of their previous periods of historical prejudice.  President for Life Mahmoud Abbas tells the world that his country will be Judenrein (Cleansed of Jews). He rewrites our history to eradicate Jewish history.  Western liberals, if they acknowledge this war-crime, this cultural ethnic cleansing, perhaps see it as no more than a negotiation tactic.  That is naïve at best and at worst it is telling the victim to trust his abuser. The nullification of anything precludes its negotiation. It is an aggressive strategy created in that same bad-faith.  Fatah honoured its jailed leader Marwan Barghouti because he had killed “61 Zionists”.  When we glorify killers we also send out a message.  Sticks and stones will break your bones but with words begin the slaughter. It is argued that Yasser Arafat had more blood on his hands – he killed Muslims as well as Jews indiscriminately.  But grandstanding, telling your supporters that someone who killed 61 Zionists is to be honoured has a parallel, wholly negative message to the seven million or so Zionists who live in Israel and to the tens of millions of Zionists living outside of Israel. 

Our enemies understand the importance of the War of Ideas in winning over the hearts and minds of world-wide public opinion. We do not.  In 2016, Belgian lawmakers across the political spectrum nominated the mass-murderer, Marwan Barghouti, for the Nobel Peace Prize. They were expressing support for Palestinian violence; a tactic that Europeans selectively applaud.  To many Israeli’s it must seem to be stating that murdering Jewish civilians, either singly or in mass-killing events, is legitimate, which given European history, is a position laden with irony; unfortunate if not historically consistent in its bias. 

President Mahmoud Abbas received his doctorate by denying the Shoah and associating Zionism with Nazism.  He later justified his position with reference to the ongoing state of war between the two peoples (Jews and Muslims) and “in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis.” 

Let’s be clear on this issue of incitement:  Someone who predicates their position vis-à-vis the other by engaging in Holocaust Denial and historical revisionism is ill-placed to demand trust from Israelis of all affiliations, Jews, or for that matter, from anyone of moral standing. 

Jews also do not always practice peaceful or even a sensible inter-communal dialogue. The Irgun had a maximalist approach to Jewish land claims prior to 1948.  There are many people on the radical Right who retain the conviction that the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria can be simply ‘wished away.’  Ultra-orthodox Jews who were powerless for so many centuries are now partners in political power and have ensured that their own maximalist religious demands are met, even when they violate the democratic and secular principles that govern Israel. The ultra-left has adopted a Western and frankly anti-Semitic agenda in its adoption of a post-Zionist position towards the conflict. What is anti-Semitic is that it nowhere demands the same post-national requirement of any other nation or group, anywhere; therefore the Jews of Israel are uniquely expected to renounce their equal human rights.  And trust to whom, in the face of which precedent, to protect them? 

The Left is an elitist amalgam of old-school egotists unable to relate to the electorate it (the Left) must attract in order to have any chance of winning back power.  It is unelectable because it refuses to discuss the unique circumstances that make Israel’s local political landscape so challenging. Israel’s calamitous political soap-opera lacks a strong, credible opposition that can provide an alternative to a political Right wing which disrespects any divergent points of view. 

Since 1977, Labour has governed between the years of 1984-1986, 1992-1996 and 1999-2001. That is eight years out of the previous forty years. Realistically, the longer a party controls political power the less responsive it becomes to human rights and the general good of the people it was elected to serve.   Being positively responsive to democratic principles (i.e. accountability, transparency and political tolerance) fades as the length of rule grows.  Those that hold onto power for too long close their hearts as well as their minds to all but the supporters they manipulate in order to retain their control.   Tyranny begins with there being an incomplete restraint on an abusive relationship between stake-holders.  It inevitably leads to enslavement because it becomes increasingly more difficult to rein in the unreasonable demands of a privileged minority.  Any corrupt ideological process nurtures a culture of dependency and a sense of exclusive entitlement is central to any narrowly focused world view. 

www.lawanddemocracy.org/pdffiles/amazing.prin..pdf 

The importance of having a credible opposition is that the party in power is unlikely to make the hard decisions that are required to advance peace when it does not feel its hold on political power is under threat from its political rivals.   While our enemies re-write history and intimidate us into silence it is only as a united society that we can effectively argue for justice for us too.  It becomes increasingly difficult to make peace with our external enemies when we are disunited and when internal debate is heavily circumscribed in order to mitigate an ever more acrimonious atmosphere of tribalism and exclusion. 

Zionism does not preclude sharing the land. Islamism, Arabism and the Boycott movement (BDS) do.   Israel, in becoming a post-Zionist, me-centric society is unable to put together cogent arguments to combat its enemies’ segregationist, maximalist and anti-Semitic arguments. 

Donald Trump, Deplorables, Democrats and Danger to Democracy

A failure of democracy occurs when a lawfully elected individual is denied legitimacy by his or her opponent who then continues to agitate for that non-recognition. It is not fascism to disagree with a result, nor is fascism defined by a desire to want to change the present system of government or the electoral system. But when a consistent policy of questioning; of undermining a result in order to repudiate that result, occurs, then eventually violence will become a logical call to arms in defence of opposition to what will be seen, to be, an unjust result.

The suppression of free speech is a key component of the fascists bag of tricks. There are many ways to suppress free speech and I am not calling for it. I would however, like to provide people with one of the myriad definitions of fascism, with thanks to Zack Parker: In its simplicity and categorical consistency, in its visceral emotion and outrage, and, in its stereotyping, (in this case, by the labelling by Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, of Republican voters as ‘the Deplorables’) it places into a category of (sub) humanity those people who voted for Donald Trump - (‘the enemy’).

All this makes it much easier to establish a narrative of grievance, to ennoble that narrative and then, to suppress any opposition to the only ‘correct’ narrative, in the name of fairness. All this is what makes it fascism. Today, the Democrat Party is the polite face of fascism.

It is not to say that the opposition to President Donald Trump are wrong about the threat his populism poses, but equally, taking every opportunity to deny the legitimacy of the President of the United States not only threatens the life of that President but also damages the institution of the Presidency itself. Because the United States of America is the world’s leading democratic nation, discrediting one discredits all and in its place, strengthens the followers of fascism (and theocratic totalitarianism).

Ignoring the concerns of the everyman and the everywoman is not smart nor progressive but contemptuous. And that probably cost the Democrats the election. It isn’t rocket science. Calling 50% of the electorate “deplorables” was an unforgivable insult to 50% of the electorate. I am not comfortable with the idea that dismissing the result of the presidential election because they were uncomfortable with the persons personality (behaviour) is democratically acceptable. In fact it is fascism.

It is ironic that I accused Trumps supporters of inciting violence during the presidential elections (Donald Trump and the Race for the White House).

http://thebilateralist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/donald-trump-and-race-for-whitehouse.html

It is the Democrats who now pose the greatest threat to American interests at home and abroad. I feared Trumps supporters but it is now the Democrats I fear most.

It was decided that the Oxford dictionaries international word of the year for 2016 was post-truth.” It reflected the ‘highly-charged’ political environment of the previous 12 months. The Oxford Dictionary defined the word as an adjective ‘relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals.’ Does it sound familiar? Post-truth is an integral tool in the spread of the fascist poison.

It is with some embarrassment that I find Jewish connections, even here. The Jewish people have been called ‘the canary in the coal mine’ for a very long time and it is because fascism targets their liberties first that it is always Jews and Judaism that initially, suffer most (because of their acute awareness of its corrosive impact on their human rights). The BDS movement has been enthusiastically embraced by Western universities. BDS is the ideal example of a fascist conspiracy to ‘own’ the truth and suppress at any cost, any and all contrary narratives. And it is only because of the success of the anti-Zionist narrative, which is in its essence, a ‘post-truth’ antisemitic movement, that the concept of post-truth has infiltrated and taken hold throughout the Western world. When the lie can so easily become the truth and the truth so easily becomes the lie then we are living George Orwell's dystopian future.

For decades journalists have been manufacturing the news. But while their target was only the Jewish State of Israel and its supporters, no one seemed to care. When Jews and Zionists have often been marginalised through violence and propaganda; through controlling the dissemination of largely false or inaccurate information via universities and international organisations, the response has been at best indifference and at worst, encouragement.

One of CNN’s reporters openly boasts that she has the right to choose how to interpret the news – she omits the detail that she and her fellow journalists reserve the right to manufacture the news based on their unequal interpretation of an ethical standard that would never be acceptable under a Western legal system. That legal system is theoretically anchored in the concept of equal justice for all. But if by laying claim to a progressive agenda, journalists can dismiss what is termed ‘an inconvenient truth’ and only report what they care about, then they also exercise the right to betray any person, group or nation they ‘decide’ are at fault.

I quote Christiane Amanpour: “There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing,” so she argued in response to criticism. The issue here is that historically, journalism has rarely suffered honest reportage. As Christiane indicates by the above, that dishonesty is no different today.

I started this blog by discussing my fears about the failure of democracy. Many on the Left are crying that the Russian Federation has undermined American democracy though a putative, an alleged connection between Vladimir Putin (former director of the FSB) and Donald Trump. They fear a kleptocratic conspiracy between the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States of America! In a nation that is obsessed by conspiracies it is an unparalleled classic of deception. We can take issue with the President of the Russian Federation. It is always possible that the FSB (the main successor agency of the KGB) interfered in the US presidential elections. It is also possible that the FSB did nothing but leak disinformation implying that it interfered in those elections. The British Intelligence officer could also be part of a false flag operation meant to help to undermine American stability.

After all, in both the cases I refer to above, a destabilized America is a win for its rivals.

It is obvious that between prominent Democrats refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential result and the media campaign against Donald Trump, American democracy is being undermined.

It is time to move on from the elections and stop denying the legitimacy of the result.

The Refugee Crisis and the Abomination that is UNRWA

David Milliband (President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, former British Foreign Secretary and former head of the British Labour Party) boasted that Britain “led the drive to codify the rights of refugees after the Second World War.” If that includes taking responsibility for the UN abomination that is The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) then we have nothing of which to be proud. But more about that later.

There were tens of millions of refugees after the war. Germany accepted twelve million ethnically German refugees from European countries. “Between 13.5 and 16.5 million Germans were expelled, evacuated or fled from Central and Eastern Europe, making this the largest single instance of ethnic cleansing in recorded history.” (Deaths are estimated at between half and three million people).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion

The UN Refugee Agency claims however that the largest single mass migration (expulsion) in history occurred after the partition of India in 1947. Some 14.5 million refugees fled or were exchanged between India and the newly created state of Pakistan.

Korea expelled millions of Japanese after the war.

In terms of scale the Jewish – Arab population exchange is relatively small. It involved up to two million people in roughly equal numbers (over a period of 26 years, between 1947 and 1973). Over 600,000 Mizrahi Jews came to Palestine-Israel. At least 300,000 more went, predominantly, to France but also to Britain and the USA. Jews integrated into their host societies. It has to be a conscious choice to do so.

The conspiracy, if one exists, is that at no time was there ever any intent to integrate Arabs from Israel into the host countries that absorbed them. It was fundamental hostility to the non-Arab, and Arab anti-Jewish racial prejudice, that created a desire to flee an independent Jewish polity. Arab refugees remain uninterested in integration; unless it helps them create a virtue out of their self-inflicted victimhood. And the United Nations, instead of solving global conflicts, perpetuates them. The Palestinian Arab’s greatest collaborator in undermining resolution of the Israel-Arab conflict is UNRWA.

The Arab and greater Muslim world is afflicted by ages old prejudice and this prejudice is fed by its successes throughout the history of the last 1,400 years during which they conquered vast tracts of land and enslaved tens of millions of human beings. We rarely publicly speak of it and we do not ever teach this silent history.

UNRWA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) uniquely defines a Palestinian refugee as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1^st June 1946 to 15^th May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”...“The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are also eligible for registration.”

It means that any temporary worker who resided in Israel (or can “prove” that they did) during a two year period that ended on the 15^th May 1948, became a refugee even when they had a home to return to; even better, in terms of eligibility for money transfers from Western nations to Arab nations.

It also means that they have no incentive whatsoever to ever forgo their refugee status.

If I were David Milliband I would not boast about UK complicity in the creation of UNRWA. We could so easily speculate that setting up UNRWA was a Western European conspiracy to undermine regional stability in the Near East (with a secondary antisemitic aim to overthrow Jewish self-determination) by creating an organization that could only ever be a force for lasting regional conflict.

The inheritance of refugee status, in perpetuity, is an ongoing act of regional destabilization! There can be no other explanation for the United Nation’s active collaboration in the creation of a unique, perpetual Palestinian victim-hood. UNRWA created an Arab (Palestinian) underclass, infected by hate and viewing re-conquest of Israel as a pan-Arab racial obligation; as an Arab political and Muslim theological imperative. UNRWA has inculcated three generations of refugees with a desire and an undiluted, blind, passion for revenge against a Jewish enemy it has always held in religious ridicule; colonial domination and pure ethno-religious contempt.

Jews have no reason to want to return to the ugly conditions of permanent, inferior status and intermittent persecution under Arab rule. For too many centuries they lived and died at the caprice of others.

UNRWA has only ever been a vehicle for Arab grievance and a message to any minority in the Arab colonial enterprise that minority aspirations for freedom from Arab persecution is a non starter. UNRWA is nothing less than a European – Arab cabal that stimulates chaos and precludes reconciliation between Jew and Arab. It exists to prevent the modernization of the Arab world, which in turn would end Islamism in the Arab world.