Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Forever War

Published by

Clarissa

on

Text, schmext. Why is nobody questioning whether we need yet another Yemen war? The previous one brought absolutely nothing but a tsunami of migration and a burning need for yet another war. Are we going to be playing this game forever?

The reason why libs are fixated on the texts and not the war is because they support the war. But where are the conservatives? Have they also accepted that “Yemen war” is a normal and necessary thing to have? Is anybody questioning this or have we all drowned in the details of whether it’s best to plan the war on this platform or that?

47 responses to “Forever War”

  1. mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    The US has an alliance with the Saudis, common knowledge.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    You’re so fixated on “libs support the war” that you missed the fact that this was planned by the current Republican administration. You need to get out more. Seems like you’ve been frozen in your very limited ideological information bubble.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      If you can’t gather from this short post that I’m shocked and angered by the current administration’s foreign policy, I can’t help you.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Anon2 Avatar
      Anon2

      It’s not a bubble, it’s information hygiene 😉

      Like

      Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    ???

    My lib-centric social media is full of libs yelling at other libs to be more outraged by the bombing of Yemen than the use of Signal.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I know it will come as a shock but we’ve gathered here to discuss my experiences and not yours, as evidenced in the website’s name.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        You said “Why is nobody questioning whether we need yet another Yemen war?”

        Are you saying people you haven’t interacted with don’t exist?

        Like

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous

          Here is an example: https://x.com/rashidatlaib/status/1904240734380929412?s=46&t=SaLhJOOIeWXHGjH6k2fZUw

          Like

          Reply
          1. Clarissa Avatar
            Clarissa

            Good for her. If only I could find anybody interested in having that discussion here on this blog. I’ve been trying for two days and saw nothing but extreme resistance.

            Like

            Reply
        2. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          This is moronic trolling. Go find something better to do.

          Like

          Reply
      2. Clarissa Avatar
        Clarissa

        The intense mockery of “empty-headed Americans” on Russian TV in the aftermath of Hegseth’s mistake is unpleasant to observe.

        Russians are allowed to feel vastly superior to Americans, which is their favorite thing to do. But I guess Americans aren’t down crawling on their stomachs in front of them.

        Like

        Reply
  4. methylethyl Avatar
    methylethyl

    Oh, I thought it had something to do with shipping.

    Is it not about shipping?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I’m not sure what the excuse is this time around. European shipping, terrorism, or something else. But I don’t really care anymore because we’ve been bombing Yemen since 2012, and that never achieved anything positive.

      If Europe were so preoccupied with the shipping, they could have bombed. Why is it our problem?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        I don’t know if you read the Atlantic article, but here is the quote from Vance:

        “The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”

        Here is the quote from Hegseth:

        “At 8:27, a message arrived from the “Pete Hegseth” account. “VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.”

        Make of it what you want.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          Thank you, and no, I’ve never seen the article.

          This is not encouraging. But if somebody has an argument that this is positive and I’m exaggerating the negativity, I’m very open to hear it.

          Messaging, my ass. You don’t need messaging if you are doing the will of the voters. We already have Dems if we are looking for messaging to convince us that water isn’t wet.

          Like

          Reply
  5. ed Avatar
    ed

    The words “liberal” and “conservative” are entirely meaningless nowadays, and we’re starting to see that Trump and team really don’t have any vision or grand strategy. People keep thinking there is a deeper strategy, but all we’re seeing is massive ineptitude of a scale never seen before. They’re just throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks.

    If Democrats can get their shit together Republicans will be cooked, because at this point people will start missing the Biden years, when at least the economy wasn’t going to the toilet and our leaders were not gushing over Putin like horny cheerleaders.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Democrats will never let go of the far-left stuff. So that’s where we are stuck. Men in women’s prisons, transing children, defunding the police or whatever Trump is doing.

      Like

      Reply
      1. ed Avatar
        ed

        I’ve seen some of Sander’s latest messaging and he’s got the right idea. Far from perfect, but he at least understands where the real problems are.

        I disagree with you. I think Democrats will have to throw all the DEI and social issues away. They’re already pivoting away from all that. Even Newsom is talking about how much of a mistake that all was.

        Like

        Reply
        1. methylethyl Avatar
          methylethyl

          Sanders.

          How old is he now? 100? He’s gonna lead the party to a bright new future now?

          Like

          Reply
          1. ed Avatar
            ed

            No, but he’s showing that economic populism is what Democrats should have been pushing all along. That’s a Democratic winning strategy and, as it increasingly looks likelier, Trump torpedoes the economy that’s an almost automatic win.

            We’re not even 100 days in. There is a LOT of room for things to get much worse if Trump keeps experimenting aimelessly.

            Like

            Reply
            1. methylethyl Avatar
              methylethyl

              It’s not populism if they’re getting paid to show up.

              https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1903677337406992400

              Like

              Reply
              1. Clarissa Avatar
                Clarissa

                Wow, love this post. Dems can’t organically show up. But it doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. methylethyl Avatar
                methylethyl

                Bernie Sanders is the current propaganda op. NYT is on it:

                https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/opinion/bernie-sanders-rallies-anger.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

                …and at the same time as fifteen other known propaganda sources. Big whoop.

                Can they seriously not find anybody else to be their fake-populist manufactured hero?

                Like

        2. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          California Dems voted unanimously yesterday to keep men in girls’ sports. JB Pritzker gave a speech today about the importance of gay education for schoolchildren. They can’t pivot from this. If it isn’t this, there’s nothing else.

          Like

          Reply
  6. v07 Avatar
    v07

    OK, you called me liberal two days ago (and I guess I am), and I am against bombing Yemen. You know I exist 🙂 :).

    As far as conservative / Republican support for bombing Yemen goes, they seem to support anything that seems to benefit Israel. So I expect a war with Iran in some not so distant future.

    Liberals focusing on the leak does not mean they are pro-war. It just means they are more interested in “catching” the conservatives (the mirror image of conservatives being interested in “owning the libs” above all else).

    There is that post-Soviet joke (“anecdote”): We listened to Voice of America on the radio to learn the truth about the SU. Little did we know that what our propaganda was telling about the US was also true… So rephrasing this – most of the things conservative blame liberals for are actually true. And most of the things liberals blame conservatives for are also true. And you are just “infinitely far from the people”.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I didn’t want to say it but I also very much fear that we are careening towards a war with Iran at Israel’s behest. I’m very very worried about this.

      Where are MAGAs when you need them, really?

      Like

      Reply
      1. v07 Avatar
        v07

        What do you mean by “where are MAGA” ??? ALL MAGA other than you that I know are cheering on Trump…

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          I’m not MAGA.

          MAGAs detest Israel and have zero interest in wars, especially on Israel’s behalf. The MAGA movement is not subservient to Trump. If he doesn’t satisfy, they’ll ditch him.

          Like

          Reply
          1. v07 Avatar
            v07

            Apparently, we have very different MAGA bubbles.

            Like

            Reply
            1. Clarissa Avatar
              Clarissa

              If you found Israel-loving MAGAs, I’m pretty sure, those aren’t MAGAs. 😁

              Like

              Reply
              1. v07 Avatar
                v07

                I accept self-identification. 🙂 🙂 If someone says they are MAGA, I accept them as such 🙂

                Like

              2. Clarissa Avatar
                Clarissa

                And they are pro-Israel? Would support going to war for Israel?

                Like

  7. Stringer Bell Avatar
    Stringer Bell

    The only shipments that are blocked by the Houthis are Israeli, so of course US needs to step in to secure the interests of Our Greatest Ally™. Can this parasitic country just fuck off from our lives?

    They’re gonna give us a handful of deportations of violent criminals and E-Verify plus slightly less than infinity H1Bs and tell you that that’s Mass Deportations™ and then in 2028 they’ll tell you Vance is really gonna do it this time! What are you gonna do, vote for AOC?

    Also, this whole text scandal seems fake and highly coordinated. US attacks Yemen and Vance conveniently gets to be “against war” to preserve his bona fides with the MAGA crowd. Fake fake fake.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I so hope you are wrong. So so hope. But I’m afraid you aren’t.

      It’s end of May, and we are hearing endlessly about all sorts of utterly unnecessary foreign entanglements and zilch about mass deportations.

      Are the Haitians still in Springfield, Ohio? If so, then what was the purpose of this all?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Stringer Bell Avatar
        Stringer Bell

        Given how the lib media is, you know if there was anything remotely going on that could be described as “mass deportations” there would be blitzkrieg of coverage, sob stories everywhere, described in excruciating detail. You also would’ve seen online MAGA people mocking those stories (which itself is a secondary viral phenomenon).

        None of that is happening, and that should tell us something.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          Why, though? Why can’t we get any deportations? Why is this such an intractable issue?

          Like

          Reply
          1. Stringer Bell Avatar
            Stringer Bell

            Wish I knew. Unlike in Europe where these policies are decided independently of the will of the citizens, here in the US, the last election was fought on the topic of immigration. With the same end result.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous

      You’ve got to be kidding me. So, the confirmation by the White House that the thread was genuine, the comments by the members of Congress (however misguided and pathetic), the hearing in Congress about this are fake? What a sad life you must have where you believe only what you want to believe and not the facts. Living in la-la land is probably easier than accepting reality that the current administration are a bunch of morons who got their jobs because they kissed Trump’s ass. No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket at warp speed.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Clarissa Avatar
        Clarissa

        Dude. I would be extremely happy to believe that this was a mistake, a result of carelessness or of Hegseth being drunk. What I suspect is so much worse. Are you cognitively challenged to the point that you can’t see that?

        I suspect the Trump administration of much worse than you do. Is that not clear from the discussion?

        Like

        Reply
  8. mitchellporter Avatar
    mitchellporter

    My impression is that until the Gaza ceasefire at the end of 2024, the Houthis were attacking ships from allies of Israel, i.e. North America and Europe, while allowing ships from elsewhere to pass. The rerouting of ships cost billions of dollars. Also, after the collapse of Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, they were one of the last Iranian proxies still functioning.

    When Israel resumed bombardment of Gaza this year, the Houthis also resumed some kinds of attacks. So I would expect that the rationale is to restore freedom of the sea lanes to western shipping.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I have now read the whole discussion from the closed group chat, and it seems increasingly likely that, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the leak was purposeful and aimed at creating the false impression that the bombing isn’t done on behalf of Israel.

      The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

      Like

      Reply
      1. cliff arroyo Avatar
        cliff arroyo

        “the leak was purposeful and aimed at creating the false impression that the bombing isn’t done on behalf of Israel”

        Okay the other shoe dropped. I was increasingly sure it was leaked but wasn’t sure why… but if it’s for Israel…. really, what other priority could possibly be as important as doing Israel’s bidding?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          Once you read the whole thing, it sounds so practiced and pat that no real work-related conversation compares. It’s like if a recording of the meeting with my colleagues leaked and we all turned out to be exchanging long, carefully constructed statements about maximizing education opportunities and serving the needs of the students.

          Like

          Reply
          1. cliff arroyo Avatar
            cliff arroyo

            “Once you read the whole thing”

            Looked at a couple of pages and it totally looks like it’s been copy-edited for IMPACT!!!!!
            It wasn’t a leak, it was PR by other means.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply
  9. Avatar
    Anonymous

    You ask: “Why is nobody questioning whether we need yet another Yemen war?” The simple answer is that low level “Yemen war” has been a staple of our Middle East policy since the first drone strikes in 2002, with all presidents since that time contributing, including Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Yemen

    Precise numbers are elusive, but by far the most strikes are those of Obama and Trump. It is true that Obama is in first place, but Trump is a very respectable second, so it is not surprising that Trump is interested in bombing Yemen more.

    In light of this great consistency over so many years, of course it is more interesting that we have such a juicy leak than that we are yet again bombing the same place that we always keep bombing.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      That Trump is turning into Obama 3.0 is definitely shocking to me. This is not what I voted for. And I’m very certain that almost no voters voted for more war in the Middle East. This is a betrayal of Trump’s electoral promises.

      It’s a big letdown but I’m hoping that at least we’ll get what we wanted domestically.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  10. mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Forever War? Jews and Arabs have fought continuously since after WW1. Here’s a bit of Jewish history. Hold on to your bonnet cause its a pony tail of a ride …

    Recent Israeli History

    Many argue that Hillel’s response, particularly in support of Israel, essential for maintaining a sense of security and solidarity for Jewish students, especially in the face of increasing anti-Semitic rhetoric or violence. From this perspective, this strong expression of support for Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism and attacks, such as the one on October 7th, which resulted in the deaths of over 1200 Israelis. For these students, Hillel’s position provides a clear affirmation of Israel’s right to protect its citizens, and a sense of unity for Jewish students who may feel threatened or targeted during times of heightened conflict.

    Important to bear in mind that Jewish support for Israel following the Ham-ass surprise attack on Oct 7th, does not equally mean that American Jews hate dhimmi Arabs refugee populations fighting a war against Israel in Gaza. Following the Dec 7th 1941 Japanese surprise attack, Americans fully supported carpet bombing of Japanese cities!

    After the horrific attack on October 7th, 2023, in which over 1,200 Israelis were killed by Hamas, many Jewish students and communities in the U.S. expressed unwavering support for Israel’s right to defend itself. This support, rooted in a basic human instinct to stand behind one’s community in the face of violence. Just as Americans rallied around the U.S. government’s response after Pearl Harbor, Jewish Americans naturally feel a strong sense of solidarity with Israel as it defends itself against national terrorism that has explicitly called for its destruction, and engaged in violent pogroms.

    For Jewish students, especially those on college campuses, where tensions run high and anti-Semitic rhetoric has dramatically increased during the Oct 7th Abomination war, Hillel’s position of support for Israel provides a sense of security to g’lut Jewry. Acknowledgment of the pain and trauma their community has faced, not just in the present conflict, but through history, especially considering the Holocaust and centuries of persecution. Jewish students struggle to maintain our sense of pride and solidarity with our cultural and religious identity in a time when we feel under attack or isolated.

    Jewish support for Israel’s right to defend itself does not, and should not, imply hatred or animosity toward Arab populations, including Palestinians. In fact, many Jewish Americans—like people of all backgrounds—condemn the violence and loss of life that occurs on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Supporting Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism and violence doesn’t mean condoning or justifying all actions taken in the name of self-defence, and it doesn’t equate to a blanket hatred of Palestinians or Arabs. Support for Israel’s self-defence in the face of violence doesn’t equate to rejecting the humanity of Palestinians or dismissing their suffering.

    As of now, there isn’t any official statement from Hillel International specifically endorsing or opposing the Trump administration’s stance on a mass population transfer of Gazans to Arab countries. Hillel, as an organization, primarily focuses on supporting Jewish students, promoting Jewish identity, and fostering dialogue within the Jewish community on campuses, rather than explicitly endorsing particular political positions on such complex international issues.

    The idea of population transfer draws on historical events such as the mass displacement of ethnic Germans after World War II and the population exchanges that took place during the partition of British India in 1947. After World War II, millions of ethnic Germans, forcibly relocated from areas in Eastern Europe, particularly from regions in Prussia (modern-day Poland and Russia) and Czechoslovakia, as part of the post-war settlement. These population transfers, justified by some as a way to prevent future conflict between ethnic Germans and the newly established states, and to punish the German population for the role of Nazi Germany in the war.

    The partition of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947, largely based on religious identity, with Muslims migrating to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs migrating to India. These precedents shape and determine ”international law”. The Geneva Conventions compare to a pius Baptist preacher who declares the end of days; on par with British and French UN Security Council Resolution 242. After the 7 year war England’s empire expanded to include Canadian territory gained by the surrender of France in that war.

    Both Britain and France declared their “neutrality” prior to the expected Arab total victory in 1967. The UN 242 document most definitely not “neutral”. The term “territories occupied” in UN Resolution 242 indeed specifically refers to areas Israel occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War, not to the territories occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967.

    After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza (Egypt’s control), territories that had been part of the Mandate for Palestine. Jordan never intended to establish a Palestinian state in these areas; instead, it annexed the West Bank in 1950, calling it the “West Bank” (a name that has no historical association with a separate Palestinian state). This Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) was widely condemned in the international community, and the West Bank was never recognized as part of a sovereign Palestinian entity. Thus, from a legal and historical perspective, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) under Jordanian occupation was not a Palestinian state or entity—it was simply territory occupied by Jordan, which did not alter the fact that Palestine as an independent state never existed. Hence revisionist history to refer to the “occupied Palestinian State”.

    In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank and renamed it the “West Bank” — a term that had no historical or political ties to a Palestinian national identity. The annexation was largely an extension of Jordanian control over the area, and at no point did Jordan declare the creation of a Palestinian state in these territories. The Palestinian identity and call for a Palestinian state would come later and was largely driven by political movements in the 1960s.

    From both a legal and historical standpoint, the West Bank (and East Jerusalem) under Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967 was not Palestinian land in the sense that we understand the notion of a sovereign Palestinian state today. It was part of Jordan’s territorial claims, not a Palestinian state. In fact, Jordan’s control was widely condemned by the international community, and its annexation of the West Bank was not recognized except by England and Pakistan within the UN!

    The claim that the West Bank and Gaza were part of a Palestinian state under Jordanian or Egyptian control is a modern reinterpretation of the past that doesn’t align with the historical realities of those territories. The West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967, and there was no Palestinian state in those areas, nor was there any attempt by Jordan to create one.

    This revisionist narrative, which often refers to these territories as being part of an “occupied Palestinian state”, overlooks the fact that Palestine as a sovereign entity never existed before 1967. The name “Palestine” itself historically referred to the broader region, and after 1948, Palestinians had no independent state—whether in the West Bank or Gaza.

    The West Bank and East Jerusalem under Jordanian control were never part of a Palestinian state. The territory was simply occupied by Jordan, and the Palestinian nationalist movement only began to take shape after 1967, particularly after the Six-Day War when Israel captured these areas. To refer to them as part of an “occupied Palestinian state” is historically inaccurate and a form of revisionism that distorts the legal and political facts of the time.

    Israel’s re-capture of Samaria (the West Bank) in 1967 should be seen as a legitimate act, much like other historical territorial changes. Britain originally separated Transjordan from the rest of Mandatory Palestine at the Jordan River, implying that Samaria was always part of the Jewish homeland. Israel took Samaria (West Bank) in 1967 after Jordan attacked Israel during the Six-Day War. Israel argues that this was a defensive war, making its control legitimate under the principle of defensive conquest (self-defense in war).

    UN Charter Article 2(4), acquiring territory through war is generally considered illegitimate, utterly bogus. Both Russia and Poland “occupy” Prussia. This contradicts the idea that “acquiring territory by war is always illegitimate.” Selective Enforcement of International Law, the reality is that power, not law, dictates what is accepted. China annexed Tibet by force in 1950, and despite global protests, Tibet remains under Chinese control with no serious consequences. Russia took Crimea in 2014, violating Ukraine’s sovereignty, but because Russia has military power and geopolitical leverage, Crimea remains under Russian control. Yet, when Israel wins a defensive war and takes Samaria (historically part of the Jewish homeland), the world suddenly screams about “occupation.” Why?

    The Arab world and Muslim-majority nations lobby heavily against Israel, ensuring that the UN and other global bodies treat Israel’s territorial claims differently than, say, Russia’s or China’s. Many post-colonial nations view Israel as a Western-backed state, making them reflexively oppose its territorial claims, even if they are historically justified. If Israel had the same geopolitical muscle as Russia or China, it could annex Samaria and no one would stop it. The lesson from history is clear: international law is only enforced when convenient.

    The term Palestine was essentially a European cartographic imposition on Ottoman Greater Syria. The Ottomans themselves didn’t use Palestine as an official administrative unit but instead governed the area through sanjaks and vilayets, like the Sanjak of Jerusalem, which was directly administered by Istanbul. European mapmakers, influenced by classical and biblical references, conveniently labeled the region Palestine—a subtle yet deliberate act of revisionist history, which later played into the hands of Arab interests to establish a Palestinian state carved out of the heart of Israel. The push for a Palestinian state, became a strategic move to challenge Israel’s sovereignty, rather than an organic, centuries-old national movement. Arafat’s propaganda foists the lie that the Palestinian people originated from the ancient Philistine Greeks!

    Many European countries, particularly former colonial powers like Britain and France, see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of their own history of colonialism and decolonization. The Palestinian cause, often framed as an anti-colonial struggle, similar to Algeria’s fight against France or India’s fight for independence from Britain. This perspective resonates with European political movements, especially on the left.

    During the Cold War, leftist and socialist movements across Europe often aligned with the Palestinian cause, viewing Israel as an extension of Western imperialism and the Palestinians as a revolutionary liberation movement. This ideological legacy still influences European political parties and activism today. European countries have significant economic ties with the Arab world, particularly in energy (oil and gas imports) and trade. Supporting the Palestinian cause—or at least taking a stance critical of Israel—helps maintain favorable diplomatic and economic relationships with Arab nations.

    Many Europeans see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily through the lens of human rights and humanitarian issues. Reports of civilian casualties, displacement, and settlement expansion drive sympathy for the Palestinian cause, independent of Holocaust-related factors. With growing Muslim populations in European countries, politicians and activists, increasingly attentive to the concerns of these communities. Many European Muslims have direct ties to the Middle East and see the Palestinian issue as a priority, influencing European political discourse.

    Bilad al-Sham (Greater Syria) did not permit land ownership to Arabs only Turk Muslims. Christian Arabs strong historical and religious ties to the land has nothing to do with Arab domination of Turkish Greater Syria!

    The 1834 Peasants’ Revolt against Egyptian rule (Muhammad Ali’s forces) showed that local Arabs were willing to fight for their land, even before modern nationalism. But that Arab revolt collapsed in total defeat. The Ottoman censuses from the 19th Century show a land almost devoid of population centers. Only when Jewish settlements brought jobs did Arabs move to British Palestine. The 1911 Filastin newspaper, shaped by European maps revisionist history, closed after publication of the Balfour Declaration.

    The term Palestine did not originate from “European mapmakers”. The Romans introduced Syria Palaestina after crushing the Bar Kokhba revolt of 135 CE., meant to suppress Jewish identity and memory in the region by renaming the province after the ancient Philistines. This Roman renaming has lasting historical consequences, and sometimes mistakenly attributed to modern European mapmakers, but its origins – firmly rooted in Roman imperialism.

    The UN partition plan (Resolution 181) originally proposed a Jewish state, and a pre-state Judea, later recognized as a sovereign nation in 1949; however the UN to this day does not recognize Israel as a country in the Middle East. Israel forced to join the EU in order to head any UN committee. However the assumption that 181 continues to shape Israeli history after the Independence War victory and establishment of the state of Israel – utter revisionist history.

    The Britain’s two-state UN partition plan (Resolution 181) originally proposed a Jewish state, and a pre-state Judea, later recognized as a sovereign nation in 1949; however the UN to this day does not recognize Israel as a country in the Middle East. Israel forced to participate, “as if its existed” as part of the EU, in order to as a UN committee head. However the assumption that the defeated British UN 181 Resolution continues to shape Israeli history after the Independence War victory and establishment of the state of Israel – utter revisionist history. Israel’s non-permanent membership in certain UN committees or a specific instance where it held leadership positions through diplomatic efforts, it’s important to differentiate that Israel’s influence is a product of various geopolitical realities and alliances rather than simply joining the EU. It has a complex diplomatic strategy involving multiple international frameworks.

    In the light of British and French imperialism in the 1956 War where these empires sought to dominate the Middle East by seizing control of the Suez Canal, the intensions of EU imperialism today stands under this corrupt shadow UN Resolution 242. The distinction that “occupied territories” refers specifically to the Samaria (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza, and not the 1950 UN Condemned illegal Jordanian seizure re-named by Jordan as ‘west bank’. Areas captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, consequent to Jordan’s invasion of Israel. Samaria does not inherently refer to a non-existent Palestinian state, all Arab countries rejected UN Resolution 181. That resolution became null and void in 1947. This distinction, crucial in understanding both the legal and political dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in the context of historical terminology.

    The dynamics of imperialism, Cold War geopolitics, and the shifting balance of power in the region indeed play a critical role in understanding the aftermath of the Six-Day War and the resulting international agreements like UN Resolution 242 revisionist history. In the 1956 War, UN intervention – forced a ceasefire, which effectively marked the end of British and French dominance in the Middle East, exposed their diminished global power, and radically altered the balance of international power in the region. Based upon this model, the UN has sought to impose cease fires in each and every Arab Israeli war with the imperialist objective to maintain the political pawn like status of Israel, as existed in the 1956 war. All the many UN condemnations of Israel foist the revisionist history narrative that Israel lost its 1948 War of Independence and remains to this day a UN protectorate territory, the ward of the international community of nations.

    During the 1967 War, LBJ tied down in Vietnam. Unlike the Eisenhower government in ’56, Johnson’s government in ’67 permitted Britain and France a dominant hand to write UNSC Resolution 242. Clearly these diminished European powers profited and sought to re-impose Europe’s traditional dominance over ‘’the sick man of Europe’’. Both England and France stuck in the hallucination that they dictate the borders of Middle Eastern states just as they did following WWI. Hence UN Resolution 242 qualifies as British and French revisionist history.

    The vagueness of the language in UN Resolution 242, particularly the use of the term “territories occupied” instead of “the territories illegally occupied by Jordan”, gave Arab states the leverage to demand total Israeli withdrawal from Samaria. Jordan’s West Bank and Egypt’s Gaza, both ceased to exist following their total defeat and surrender. Britain and France as already mentioned, had a significant hand in drafting and influencing the resolution. Their involvement an attempt to reassert their diminished political role in the Middle East. Resolution 242, by calling for territorial withdrawal but not specifying the extent of that withdrawal, or Jordan’s illegal annexation of Samaria following the 1948 war, a way to placate the defeated Arab states. As if either “neutral” Britain or France had fought that war and therefore had the right to dictate terms for Israel’s surrender.

    The Arab war strategy, largely based upon Hồ Chí Minh’s ”Peoples’ War” strategy. Employed successfully against both the French and American invaders of Vietnam. Arabs with their alliance with the third world non allied nations enjoys a vast majority in the General Assembly of the UN. This strategy emphasizes asymmetrical warfare, using political, diplomatic, and psychological tactics to weaken the enemy and garner international support. In the case of the Arab states, this approach focuses on political warfare rather than directly head-on military engagements with the IDF. Waging a battle for global public opinion through international diplomacy; historically primarily within the framework of the United Nations. Hence, Arab states strategic strategy conducts political warfare as their primary weapon to cause the defeat and destruction of the Jewish state, just as did Hồ Chí Minh’s ”Peoples’ War’ strategy defeated the more powerful armies of France and the US.

    One key element of this strategy, the use of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council to push narratives of the brutal victimization for the Palestinian by Nazi Israel; and portray Israel as brutal barbaric aggressor. Arab revisionist history changed the meaning of Nakba away from the disgraceful failure of 5 Arab Armies to throw the Jews into the Sea in 1948. Nakba now framed to decry the plight and criminal war crimes Israel inflicts upon the Palestinian people. This revisionist history ignores the plain fact that the KGB and Egyptian born Arafat did not embrace the slogan of Palestine, not till 1964. Prior to this opportunistic switch, Arabs condemned the Balfour Declaration which serves as the foundation of Herzl’s political Zionism.

    Hence the one key element Arab political warfare strategy, the use of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council to push a narrative of the cruel victimization for the Palestinian “equal rights to self determination”. This propaganda rhetoric ignores the rejection by all Arab states UN Resolution 181 which called for a two-state division of the British mandate of Palestine. Post the multiple Arab military defeats, Arab propaganda now pretends that Israel rejects UN 181, as if 2025 exists in the shadow of 1947. Palestinian propaganda seeks their own internationally supported “Balfour Declaration”.

    By using the UN as a tool for political warfare, the Arab states seek to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and isolate it on the world stage, leveraging their political and economic influence within the broader international system to weaken Israel’s position. Their continuous condemnation of Israel by screaming “International Law” serves as their abra-cadabra 2025 magical Balfour Declaration. This form of “soft power”—using diplomacy and international forums to achieve political goals—a central part of the Arab strategy in all Arab-Israeli conflicts.

    Arab rejection of Jewish equal rights to self determination stems from the root of their hatred and condemnation of the 1917 Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations post WWI awarded the Palestine Mandate to Britain. Hence Arab strategy endeavors to foist UN recognition of Palestine as their Balfour Declaration. The difference between then and now, Britain defeated ‘the sick man of Europe’ in WWI, while the UN exist only as a political puppet of the interests of Great Powers which control and dominate the UN narratives which continually condemns Zionism as a racist entity. The UN Apartheid refuses to acknowledge that Israel a part of the community of nations in the Middle East.

    The Arab alliance with South Africa, to slander Israel in the UN, ICJ and ICC, their accusation of genocide in Gaza, a blood libel, which produced the fruits of pogroms across the US and Europe. A prime example of the Arab strategy of political warfare through the corrupt UN puppet; utterly disgraced by the corruption of both UNWRA and UNIFIL. UNWRA’s active participation in the Ham-ass surprise attack on Israel has totally discredited the 4th leg of the Quartet dominance of the balance of power in the Middle East. Another example of Arab soft-power, the anti-Jewish university protests/pogroms. Notice the total lack of European condemnation of this antisemitic violence. The apple never falls far from the tree. European guilt of the Shoah stands upon 2000+ years of Jewish cruel oppression and violence by church oppression. The EU revisionist history now down-plays the dominance of the church in shaping European cultures and customs.

    Arab soft-power tactics, the way in which political movements, in particular those supporting Palestinian causes, crossed the line into hate speech and violence after Oct 7th; targeting Jewish individuals not involved in the political or military aspects of the conflict at all. While the Arab states have traditionally used diplomatic channels (such as the UN and international organizations) to advance their narratives and goals, specifically the increasing globalization of the Palestinian cause, in which protests and advocacy perverted platforms to promote not only Palestinian rights but also to delegitimize Israel and Jews globally.

    Europeans now project their Shoah guilt and barbarity by condemning Israel as a Nazi regime who must become extinct like Nazi Germany. European political elites—in their desire to distance themselves from their own antisemitic barbaric history—have sought to demonstrate total solidarity the Palestinian cause-as has Ireland. The deeply ingrained history of barbaric antisemitism in Europe, makes it easier for moral cowards to downplay or rationalize actions or protests that target Jews, especially when political movements actively involved.

    The increased violence and hatred directed against Jewish communities never condemned by the UN. The UN tolerates, even justifies Arab political agendas, Ham-ass terrorism against Israel and supports violent pogroms against Jewish university students thousands of miles away from the war. Anti-Zionism a controversial political stance; antisemitism—which targets Jewish individuals based on their identity, culture, or religion—a completely separate and dangerous issue denounced unequivocally by all moral Human Beings. Israeli foreign policy therefore strives to permanently diminish the influence of the EU, UN ICJ and ICC within the entire Middle East. The current Gaza war, as an attempt by the EU, UN ICJ and ICC to humiliate Jews in general and Israel in particular.

    In conclusion, the intersection of Arab soft power, antisemitism, and international politics, fraught with tensions. Protests advocating for Palestinian rights utterly forbidden to devolve into violent, discriminatory actions against Jews, whether Israeli or non-Israeli. European political elites must confront their own historical legacy and stop using their guilt over the Holocaust as an excuse to support movements that veer into antisemitism. Legitimate political criticism of Israel, one thing, but hate—directed at Jews as a people or a nation—something else entirely.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts