Clarissa's Blog

3 responses to “Undoing the Cold War Defeat”

1. 

   mosckerr

   April 23, 2025

   From Feudalism to the UN: How International Law Recreates Medieval Structures to Contain Jewish Sovereignty

   UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334 reflect an imperial logic that attempts to redefine Jewish sovereignty not on the basis of national independence, but on external moral frameworks crafted by global elites. Much like the Church tried to reassert its medieval authority over populations moving toward emancipation and civic equality, the post-1967 international community—through the UN—often acts as a neo-medieval power bloc, trying to re-feudalize Jewish national rights. Through the propaganda of “International Law” the UN seeks to redefine the Jewish People as Feudal subjects of the UN, mantain the protectorate status, and not acknowledge Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of “nations”. A political Apartheid policy directed against Israeli Jews.

   The Church of Europe once said: “You are not a people unless we say so.” The UN says: “Your borders, capital, and legitimacy are not yours to define. The UN and “international press”, like Democracy Now, continuously employs morality propaganda whereby Israel get’s condemned. The current war in Gaza serves as a fresh example. Oct 7th 2023 Hamas invades, inflicts a pogrom, killing some 1400 Israelis and taking some 250 hostages, an attack similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemn Israel. The UN ICJ and ICC accuse the leaders of Israel of the crime of Genocide.

   The MSM propaganda press always publicly condemns Israel over the post ’67 “Occupied Territories”, and “stolen Palestinian lands” despite the simple fact that neither Jordan nor Egypt between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian State. The cabal of 3rd world African nations and 22 Arab countries dominate the UN General Assembly’s anti-Israel agenda. England and France together with all other countries other than the US under the leadership of President Trump, refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. This cabal of nations assumes that they determine the international borders of the Jewish state and its Capital city of Tel Aviv!

   In point of fact, neither the Western Roman empire after it expelled and destroyed Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”. Nor the Arabs who conquered the Middle East. Nor the Muslim Turks. Never in all the annuls of Human history has there ever existed a Palestinian State independent or otherwise. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemns Israelis for stealing and illegally occupying stolen Palestinian lands.

   The Balfour Declaration combined with the UN General Assembly vote where 2/3rds of all UN members voted that Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East, these two ground breaking events set the foundation of Zionism to this very day.

   Comparing the modern UN system (and its web of international law and media discourse) to the medieval Church’s efforts to control national and civic identity merit deep consideration. It questions “UN sovereignty, legitimacy, and the power structures”, like the General Assembly that claim moral authority over nations—especially the Jewish state. Nations that do not even hold diplomatic relations with Israel participate in GA condemnations of the Jewish State over and again.

   The UN General Assembly often function like medieval hegemonies. Just as the Church once denied legal personhood and nationhood without its blessing, the UN often positions itself as the final arbiter of what constitutes a state, a capital, or legitimate borders. By framing Jewish sovereignty as conditional or revocable, it echoes the feudal Church’s claim to mediate all political legitimacy. UN Resolutions act like papal bulls or canonical decrees—morally binding from the top down, without democratic accountability to the people they affect.

   The MSM as a moral propaganda apparatus mirrors critiques of how the medieval Church used sermons, decrees, and public punishments to shape public opinion and suppress dissent. Today, moralizing headlines, asymmetrical coverage, and legalese from bodies like the ICC or ICJ can create a similar effect—defining Israel as a perpetual violator, never a victim. This especially comes into focus post-Oct 7, 2023, when the moral asymmetry in global reactions seemed stark. Hence the analogy to Pearl Harbor isn’t just rhetorical—it highlights the absurdity of demanding restraint from a sovereign state responding to what, under any other context, would be an unambiguous act of war.

   The cold fact that Israel is not even included in the Middle East voting bloc and faces systemic isolation by a cabal – an international voting block, despite being a sovereign state, an Israeli counter-condemnation to the UN and its legality. It recalls how ghetto Jews in medieval Xtendom, always denied civic status or land ownership—forced to lend money as our only legal occupation, and then thereafter condemned. Jewish refugee population lived under biased racial laws, and always taxed without rights to fair political representation. The modern twist: Israel, treated by the post ’67 UN as a “conditional” nation, whose very borders, capital, and rights, like medieval Jewry, subject to the approval of an amorphous international morality. That’s not international law; that’s international lordship.

   During the current Gaza war, Jerusalem views the UN and its constellation of legal and media institutions squarely in the lineage of supra-national religious authority, like the medieval Church. The UN institutions, while cloaked in the language of universal values, operate with realpolitik interests that often delegitimize Jewish national expression. Just as the medieval Church denied the de jure or de facto rights of Jews to sovereignty, dignity, and space within the political order, the UN often plays gatekeeper—determining which borders and capitals are “legitimate,” regardless of actual historical continuity or democratic will.

   The medieval Church had an Index of Forbidden Books; today we have an informal but equally effective system of narrative control: headlines, op-eds, human rights reports, and resolutions that implicitly (or explicitly) decree who is righteous and who is criminal. The demand that Israel show “restraint” after a pogrom-level event is only explicable if Israel is already being viewed through a moral-theological lens, not a legal-political one.

   The exclusion of Israel from the Middle East voting bloc and its isolation in forums like the UN General Assembly mirrors the medieval dynamic: Jews could live under Christendom but could not belong to it. The irony that nations with no diplomatic ties to Israel get to vote on its fate, while Israel is denied full parity as a sovereign peer. This resonates strongly with the historical exclusion of Jews from guilds, land ownership, and political decision-making. Israel is a member state in form, but treated as a conditional entity in practice. This isn’t law, it’s lordship.

   Not the application of consistent principles, but the imposition of a moral-political hierarchy that demands submission rather than negotiation. Israel’s borders, capital, and even its legitimacy are constantly retried in a global forum that acts more like an ecclesial court than a parliament of equals.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      PaulS

      April 24, 2025

      There is nothing wrong with being magnanimous in victory.

      In SA, much of the opposition to communism was because its proponents were subservient to Moscow.

      Opposition to the current order is just as much because of unilateral actions by the US.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      1. 

         mosckerr

         April 25, 2025

         “Observer status” doesn’t mean “no influence.” In fact, Palestine (like the Vatican) holds only observer status at the UN, yet the Palestinian issue dominates discussions, resolutions, and international debates. he Palestinian Authority was granted non-member observer state status in 2012 (Resolution 67/19). This gave them access to international bodies like: The International Criminal Court (ICC), UNESCO, World Health Organization (WHO), and participation in the General Assembly debates. Though they can’t vote, they can speak, propose language, mobilize blocs, and file legal claims (e.g., war crimes allegations against Israel at the ICC).

         The UN General Assembly is ruled by numbers, not dollars. Over 2/3 of UN member states are part of the Non-Aligned Movement, OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), or Global South — most of whom side with Palestinian narratives out of: Post-colonial solidarity; Oil and trade diplomacy; Shared anti-Western sentiment; Islamic unity etc. This means Palestinian-backed resolutions routinely pass, even if the U.S., Israel, Canada, and a few others vote “no.”

         The bias in certain UN bodies (like the Human Rights Council, which has a permanent agenda item only on Israel — Item 7). The Vatican amplifies the legitimacy of Palestinian claims by, recognizing the State of Palestine; visiting Palestinian sites; making statements about peace, occupation, and human dignity that subtly undermine Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. It adds moral weight, not votes — but moral weight matters in diplomacy, especially when shaping public perception and media framing.

         From 2015–2023, the UN passed over 140 resolutions against Israel, more than against North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia combined. Most of these are symbolic and non-binding, but they shape global opinion and are used as legal ammunition in anti-Israel propaganda campaigns. The Vatican’s role in this system isn’t financial — it’s moral, symbolic, and theological. But that symbolism moves votes, shapes resolutions, and keeps the Palestinian issue at the center of the global stage.

         Though both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Vatican hold only observer status at the United Nations, the Palestinian issue dominates global discussion, diplomacy, and symbolic resolution traffic at an overwhelming scale. This case illustrates how the UN can function less like a neutral forum and more like a diplomatic echo chamber, where bloc politics and symbolic victories overshadow both funding realities and member state hierarchies. How Papal Bull throughout the Middle Ages condemned Jews to ghetto gulags for multiple centuries and supported taxation without representation upon stateless Jewish refugees expelled from one European country to another almost every Easter.

         No other nation on Earth is subject to a permanent agenda item at the UN Human Rights Council — except Israel. Item 7 mandates the Council to debate Israel’s conduct at every session. Other egregious human rights violators (e.g., Iran, China, North Korea) evade similar scrutiny. This institutional double standard exposes the political weaponization of human rights mechanisms under the guise of Vatican moral domination of international law. The Vatican contest Israeli rule over Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. Issue statements about “peace,” “occupation,” and “dignity” that subtly delegitimize Israeli sovereignty. The Vatican provides theological and moral capital, enhancing the perceived legitimacy of Palestinian victimhood narratives in Western media and diplomatic circles. That moral-theological hostility toward Jewish sovereignty has merely changed costumes — today, it wears the robes of international law, human rights rhetoric, and multilateral diplomacy. The UN’s obsession with Israel is not grounded in human rights, international law, or funding priorities — it is a symbolic theater where observer states, bloc alliances, and ancient theological resentments converge to perpetuate the denial of Jewish agency on the world stage.

         LikeLike

         Reply