I don’t believe that ditching neoliberalism will work, unfortunately. We’d all have to become a lot more disciplined, consume a lot less in every way, acquire a lot less cheap plastic stuff, cheap plastic relationships, cheap plastic entertainment. Learn to make things, feelings, relationships, ideas last. I don’t think there’s a large collective wish for any form of self-restraint.
Can We Ditch Neoliberalism?
Clarissa's Blog 
It’d be very healthy!
LikeLike
How best to describe and understand the intent of the language of UN 242?
UNSC 242 shares about as much with EU neutrality and desires to restore peace in the Middle East, as EU’s refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in UN 242, a denial of reality, akin to pretending a nuclear Israel doesn’t exist. It infantilizes Israeli sovereignty and keeps Europe locked in a colonial-era mindset, where they think they still get to decide Middle East borders.
A diplomatic game of denial — but only one side is expected to play fair. Israel’s policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear capability — widely understood but never officially acknowledged — mirrors the West’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s de facto victory and the political outcomes of 1967, especially regarding Jerusalem. Just as Israel says, “We won’t confirm or deny,” so too do Britain and France say, “We won’t accept what happened, even though we all know it did.”
The omission of Jerusalem’s status from 242 is glaring. Britain and France deliberately avoided affirming Israel’s sovereignty over East Jerusalem, even after the 1967 unification of the city — again signaling a non-neutral tilt against Israeli political and historical claims.
The Infamous “Withdrawal from Territories” Clause. UN 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict,” not “all the territories.” The ambiguity was intentional, and different powers have since interpreted it differently — Britain and France used this to pressure Israel diplomatically, without actually ensuring peace from the Arab side.
Britain had exited Palestine in 1948 with a deep sense of resentment toward the Zionist movement. France, after the Algerian War, pivoted toward Arab states and saw the Middle East as a strategic chessboard to regain relevance. The resolution was shaped by Lord Caradon (UK) and French diplomats, whose countries had long-standing ties to Arab regimes, especially after the loss of colonial holdings. Supporting Arab causes post-decolonization became a way to maintain influence.
UN Resolution 242, drafted largely by Britain and France, was never a neutral document. It was a political compromise crafted in the shadow of their imperial interests, Cold War alignments, and long-standing pro-Arab policy biases — not an impartial framework for peace.
LikeLike