Clarissa's Blog

6 responses to “Doing for Myself”

1. 

   Nonna Maus

   October 17, 2024

   Regardless of whether you’re synchronizing time zones or physically going there, you say to their faces in those exact words that it’s self serving and you’re doing this for your personal and professional fulfillment and they absolutely would not think it’s self serving, nor would they care. They just think it’s a logical extension of your efforts on behalf of Ukrainian literature and that literature side blog and call you self effacing, modest and humble.

   Anyone half paying attention knows what the war is doing to infrastructure which includes universities.

   Bless you.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   1. 

      Clarissa

      October 17, 2024

      Thank you. I’m doing online appearances, and the time zones are definitely a bastard. Next Wednesday I’m going on at 5 am. I hope I manage to be lucid.

      LikeLike

      Reply
2. 

   mosckerr

   October 17, 2024

   Chag Sa’amach Sinwar is DEAD.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      Clarissa

      October 17, 2024

      Short and to the point. Thank you!

      LikeLiked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. 

         mosckerr

         October 20, 2024

         Does Israel view Hamas & the PA as legitimate political parties which won their 1994 & 2006 general elections?

         As of 2024, Israel has diplomatic ties with 165 of the 192 member states of the United Nations. As of 2022, 28 of the 193 UN member states do not recognise Israeli sovereignty. UN condemnations together with the overreach of international courts who have no jurisdiction over Israel – Chapter VII UN condemnations of Israel, absolutely perceived as a direct threat to Israeli sovereignty and security. Such actions interpreted by Jerusalem as legitimising international intervention or sanctions.

         The following 11 countries do not recognise Hamas as a Palestinian government: Israel, Australia, Japan, the US, Canada, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Brazil, New Zealand, and Britain. It’s important to note that while these countries share a similar stance on the illegitimacy of Hamas and the PA, the exact reasons and the depth of their agreement might vary.

         Arab racist nationalism emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, advocating for the independence and unity of Arab peoples, and highly influenced by the 1930s rise of German Nazism hatred against the post WWI Versailles Allied dictated treaty imposed upon defeated Germany.

         This ideology often viewed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine as a threat to Arab identity and territorial claims. Many Arab leaders and intellectuals perceived the Zionist movement as a form of Western colonialism. They argued that Jewish immigration and statehood were imposed by external powers (like Britain and later the United States) at the expense of the indigenous Arab population.

         The influx of Jewish immigrants to Palestine raised fears among Arab populations about losing demographic and political control. Arabs in the region worried that a Jewish state would marginalize their rights and status. The 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, was rejected by Arab leaders. They argued that it was unjust to allocate land to a Jewish state, particularly given the demographic majority of Arabs in the area at the time.

         Arab nationalism also emphasized solidarity with Palestinians, viewing the struggle against Zionism as part of a broader Arab struggle against colonialism and for Arab self-determination.

         The Arab States absolute refusal to recognize and respect Israeli self-determination has caused Israel in its own right to reject and denounce Gazan, and area A of the PA, based upon the defunct Oslo Accords – to likewise reject the Palestinian right to self-determination. That as of June 2024, 146 of the 193 member states of the UN unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state serves as conclusive proof that these countries oppose direct face to face negotiations between Israel and Arab refugee populations which currently have no country of their own; that these countries seek some international dictate which treats Israel as a protectorate mandate territory.

         That Israel has no authority to determine its own international borders. That foreign nations, some of which do not even hold diplomatic relations with Israel possess the right and authority to dictate peace terms and borders upon the Jewish people. As if Jews maintain the status of exiles who had to endure the Middle Ages feudalism slanders: the Jews poisoned the wells, killed Christian babies to make matza for Passover, and their ensuing pogroms which culminated in the Shoah – the systematic murder of 75% of European Jewry in less than 3 years.

         Israel consequently does not view Hamas or the PA in Samaria as a legitimate political party. The 2006 Palestinian general elections in Gaza and the PA election in Samaria prove nothing. Neither Gaza or the PA in Samaria have held any election thereafter.

         Both Hamas and the PA did win a plurality of seats in their respective one-time elections, Israel, along with many other countries, considers both Hamas and the PA as a terrorist organization. This designation stems from Hamas & PA stated goals, which include the destruction of Israel, using “From the River to the Sea” propaganda, as proof of the continued PLO commitment to armed struggle to destroy all Jews.

         Therefore, Israel’s refusal to recognize Hamas & PA electoral victories, based on the assessment that Hamas and the PA maintain the original PLO covenant – fundamentally opposed to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fictional legitimacy of the election results that established both Hamas and the PA as Palestinian “governments”, simply secondary to Israel’s security concerns and its assessment of both Hamas & PA maintenance of the original PLO ideology and actions.

         Israel’s stance – heavily influenced by security considerations. Both Hamas and the PA – viewed through the lens of their commitments to armed struggle and hostility toward Israel, seen as direct threats to Israeli self-determination and security. The original PLO covenant, which included objectives against the existence of Israel, continues to shape Israeli perceptions of both Hamas and the PA. Israel argues that these organizations maintain ideologies that are fundamentally opposed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

         Specifically, which countries agree with Israel that Hamas and the PA together both exist as illegitimate political actors, rooted in the Arab 1948 ideology which absolutely and fundamentally rejects the idea that dhimmi Jews share equal rights to self-determination?

         The U.S. designates Hamas as a terrorist organization and has expressed skepticism about the PA’s governance, particularly regarding its effectiveness and commitment to peace. Egypt also views Hamas with suspicion due to its affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, which poses a threat to the Egyptian government. Egypt often mediates between Israel and Hamas but does not recognize Hamas as a legitimate actor.

         The UAE has taken a more pragmatic approach, normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords. It views both Hamas and the PA as impediments to peace and stability in the region. While Jordan has a significant Palestinian population and supports Palestinian rights, it is cautious about Hamas due to its radical ideology and the potential for instability it brings to the region. Similar to the UAE, Bahrain and other Gulf states have shown a willingness to engage with Israel and have expressed concerns about the governance and actions of both Hamas and the PA.

         Germany, as an EU member state, could potentially break with France over a call for an arms embargo against Israel. Germany and France have different foreign policy priorities and approaches when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Germany has generally maintained a close relationship with Israel, emphasizing dialogue and cooperation.

         Germany could choose not to support a French-led call for an arms embargo against Israel, especially if it perceives such a move as detrimental to Israel’s security or damaging to the relationship between the two countries.

         Israel has told António Guterres that he is persona non grata in Israel. Does this preclude the Israeli breakage of all diplomatic relations with the UN and the expulsion of the UN from Lebanon, Gaza, Samaria and Israel?

         This status specifically targets Guterres as an individual, meaning, he emphatically – unwelcome in Israel. It does not, as yet extend to the whole of the UN as an organization. However the disgrace and corruption of both UNWRA and UNIFIL does strongly indicate that Israeli distust of the UN has reached a critical breaking point.

         The growing frustration with the UN’s effectiveness and its agencies’ actions could indicate that Israel approaches a critical break-point in its tolerance for what it views as inadequate support for its security and sovereignty. While the current measures focus on Guterres, ongoing dissatisfaction could lead to calls for more drastic actions against UN operations in the region. However, such decisions would be complex and could have significant diplomatic repercussions.

         Israel’s positioning reflects deep-seated frustrations with the UN and its agencies, particularly in the context of the latest UNGA Chapter VII ultimatum against Israel. Israel often views UNGA resolutions as biased against it, particularly those that criticize its policies in the UN 242 propaganda declaration “occupied territories”. Jordan invaded Israel in the June 1967 war and not the reverse! Resolutions invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which can authorize action to maintain or impose international peace and security – particularly concerning to Jerusalem.

         The UNGA most recent issue of a Chapter VII ultimatum which threatens to take actions under Chapter VII, Israel perceives as a direct threat to its sovereignty and security. Such actions interpreted as legitimizing international intervention or sanctions. Israel’s national security simply a paramount concern, and any perceived attack on its legitimacy or actions directly leads to heightened tensions. The Israeli government will respond strongly to what it sees as hostile actions by & from the UN.

         Israel’s responses to UN actions can impact its relationships with other nations, especially those that support or oppose UN initiatives. This dynamic may influence diplomatic strategies and alliances in the region. Israel’s complex relationship with Hamas, the PA, and international entities like the UN, driven by deep-seated security concerns and historical grievances which date back to slanders made throughout the Middle Ages. The perspectives of various countries reflect a mix of geopolitical interests, historical ties, and security assessments, leading to a nuanced international landscape regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

         LikeLike

         Reply
3. 

   methylethyl

   October 17, 2024

   An adventure! I hope it goes well!

   LikeLiked by 2 people

   Reply