In recent years, the previously gradual change in the political and media environment has accelerated to the detriment of Israel. The Palestinians' Nakba Day on May 15, 2023 was also celebrated for the first time at the UN – as a commemoration of the more than 700,000 Arab victims of expulsion who had lost their homes 75 years earlier.
On May 15, 1948, the day after the proclamation of the State of Israel, was a day of assault – though not by Israel on Arab citizens, but by six Arab states on the then approximately 600,000 Jewish settlers. Israel won this very hard war, but the Jewish state had to fight for its existence again in each of the following decades, namely 1956, 1967 and 1973. The motto of the Arab side, which announced genocide, had been in each of these military conflicts, “to throw the Jews into the sea". According to traditional rules of war, the dispute over Palestine would have ended after the four wars and the clear winner could have set the conditions for a finally more stable post-war order.
But backed by the entire Arab League, the UN and various Western organizations, the Palestinian side has been rebelling to this day, while its Autonomy Authority has refused to recognize the State of Israel and equally to engage in substantive negotiations. The EU and other Western donors are supporting this destabilizing defiance by constantly refilling the PA's chronically empty coffers. From these latter regular payments are made to terrorists imprisoned in Israel and to the families of suicide bombers - loosely based on the motto "pay for slay".
The openly celebrated reverence of the perpetrators of violence as martyrs illustrates the “moral” psychological environment supported by the West, in which terrorism is virtually cultivated. The school lessons in the refugee camps managed by UNRWA also contribute to this, with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate propaganda as a fixed part of the lesson there. – “Of course” UNRWA, like the entire UN, is mainly financed by the West.
The “charitable” Western donors should ask themselves whether they would “help” so thoughtlessly if the beneficiaries were German terrorists, namely people who, to this day, would carry out terrorist attacks in Poland with the aim of restoring the 1914 borders, i.e those before the 1st World War. - Because if you take a closer look, the Arab resistance turns out to be nothing else - a rebellion against the results of the WW I (whose very advantageous sides are ignored, see below).
The Nakba, the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs commemorated on May 15, represents the result of a military uprising against the WW I outcome of a Jewish homeland and of mutually brewed bitterness - both rooted in Western influence. To this day, the devastating Western interference in the Middle East conflict, to the extent that it is benevolently motivated at the lower and middle levels, is based on insufficient knowledge of the historical context and in lack of sensitivity for the psychological mechanisms triggered.
Israel's legal position is clear. It is based firstly on the Mandate Treaty of the League of Nations of 1922, which is valid under international law, and secondly on the right of self-defense (enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter) of a community which, beyond all doubt, is threatened with genocide by its Arab neighbors. According to this, the Jewish state has long since legitimately won unrestricted sovereignty over Palestine by defending its very survival four times.
Regarding to their territorial claims in terms of international law, Palestinians usually refer to the UN's 1947 partition plan for Palestine. However, this was rejected by the Arab population in a referendum. Therefore and because of the military force used in 1948, it couldn´t become legally effective. Thus, the legal basis for Israel and Palestine as a whole is formed by the Mandate Treaty between the League of Nations and Great Britain of June 1922. This international treaty, which obliges the elected mandatory to set up a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as well as the consequent creation of Israel, represent the constitutive results of the First World War. Within the framework of this Jewish community, the civil and religious rights of the Arabs are protected - “...nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". - ... nothing should be done to interfere with the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.
The continued revengeful non-recognition of the Jewish homestead does not harm the objective Israeli legal position - but the Arab one. Because this position is only protected within the framework of the Jewish homeland according to the Mandate Treaty - an Arab-dominated Palestine does not appear in it. Such had not existed even before the WW I. Rather, most of the Arab world had been under Ottoman-Turkish rule up to that point.
If Arabs to this day dispute the legal nature of the Mandate Treaty of 1922 and speak of an illegal colonialist project, they overlook the fact that the political environment at that time was generally shaped by colonialism. The Jewish settlers, who left for Palestine in large part because of growing anti-Semitism, did so under the premise of permanent legality and not with the prospect of once again abandoning their historically reestablished polity a little more than 100 years after the Mandate Treaty.
Nevertheless, today's moral criticism of the legal situation created by the League of Nations in 1922 would have some justification if the Arab-populated countries had not been involved in the First World War. But they seized the unique historic opportunity to rebel against Ottoman rule alongside Great Britain. Since the Turks have always been more eager to adopt advanced European forms of organization and armament technologies, the Arabs had no chance of freeing themselves from this foreign domination on their own.
Only the alliance with Great Britain and France offered the possibility to do so. In the period that followed, all Arab countries received their state independence, most of them before the founding of Israel. The lag was due to the remnants of colonialist aspirations. The pact with Britain produced an overall fair outcome for the Arabs, because the benefit of liberation from Turkish rule outweighed the shortcoming of the Jewish homestead project in Palestine. This affected less than 0.2% of the Arab territories and had been known to all concerned war parties since the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
From a conciliatory point of view, however, Israel's existence doesn´t constitute a disadvantage at all. As one of the technologically leading countries in the world, under normal political conditions, it would have long since assumed the role of a driving force within a prosperous Middle East region.
But intentionally or unintentionally polarizing forces of predominantly Western origin till today have prevented the envisaged Jewish Palestine being allowed to coexist in harmony with Arabs within and beyond its borders. Their destructive effectiveness began with the mismanagement of the Palestine project by the mandatory power Great Britain and has since continued in a chain of counterproductive interventions by five different forces. These are (understandably in this case) the Arab League, the UN (actually committed to neutrality), Western media (to which the same applies), Western politicians (who have reason for solidarity with the Jewish state) and by thousands of NGOs (which claim to be charitable).
First, it was the British government that just as clearly neglected or thwarted its clear obligations under the 1922 treaty. Instead of promoting the Jewish influx as requested, eve new restrictions and hurdles for land purchases and immigration were set, so that the demographic changeover to a Jewish majority was bound to fail. The lack of physical and moral support for the legitimate project of a Jewish homestead understandably encouraged Arab residents to resist (including in the 1936-1939 uprisings).
Since Israel's independence and to this day, the divisive ambience of a doubt about Israel's legal status has continued to evolve in Western politics, the media, and charities. The tenor of the mainstream comments shifted from being cautiously pro-Israel (but without ever clearly explaining the clear legal situation) to “neutral” and now often flagrantly anti-Israel. Even in esteemed newspapers like the New York Times, a spate of anti-Zionist articles ignores the correct legal position of the Jewish state.
According to simple psychological rules, the uncritical, one-sided support of Palestinian claims does not lead to moderation and understanding, but to radicalization. The growing wave of terrorism thus has its actual origin in the historically and psychologically blind media environment of the West, which cultivates the one-sided self-image of abused victims among Palestinians and thus provides "moral" backing for revanchist rebellion, constant hatred, resistance and violence.
Israeli politics is by no means innocent in the tense situation - but here, too, Western influence is proving to be a determining destructive factor.
After the clear military decision in the 6-day war in 1967 against the superiority of four Arab countries at the same time, Israel had the opportunity, despite the extremely unfair UN intervention (Resolution 242), to establish a clear and conclusive territorial order in Palestine - either with the conciliatory solution of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, which was occupied by Transjordan between 1948 and 1967, or with the hard solution of deporting all Palestinians not willing to recognize Israel.
The latter theoretical consideration is shocking, has to be shocking. However, from a neutral point of view that is not influenced by the Western media environment, this spontaneous, harsh rejection is relativized: Because, among many other aspects, the citizen who is "informed" in this environment is not aware that after the war of 1948 and after the 6-day war of 1967, in the end almost all Jews living in Arab countries were expelled from there - altogether more than 800,000. Most of them were accepted by Israel and soon integrated. This was a unilateral step towards a population exchange, to which Israel could have reacted with similar expulsion - as confirmation that the damaged compatibility between the population groups was no longer sufficient for a prosperous coexistence.
Israel's renunciation of the crude solution of a mirror-inverted expulsion of Palestinians has been kept out of the political consciousness of western citizens. - This meant that a great opportunity remained unused for decades to finally find a conciliatory assessment of the situation and future perspectives, equally on the Jewish and on the Arab side.
Instead, time was able to continue to work against a sustainable settlement by keeping another fundamental fact out of media attention - the ongoing violation of the principle of responsibility, especially self-responsibility
When more than 700,000 Arabs fled Palestine or were expelled in 1948, the Arab countries admitted some of the refugees, but refused to integrate them into their societies. - A comparison helps to correctly assess this strikingly unanimous refusal: West Germany (whose area is not even 2% that of the Arab world) after WW II took in about 15 times as many refugees from the lost East and fully integrated them within a few years.
By refusing to act accordingly, Israel's neighboring Arab countries evaded the obvious responsibility for the consequences of a war that they themselves had unleashed. However, this non-dutyful behavior was only made possible by supposedly good Western interference. Because instead of supporting (if at all) the Arab host countries of the refugees in integrating them into their societies and labor markets, the UN subsidiary organization UNRWA set up around 50 refugee camps, which have been expanded to this day. The 700,000 people who fled in 1948 have now grown to around 6 million recognized refugees.
This increase has an organizational and a psychological reason. The organizational one is that UNRWA allows the refugee status to be inherited, i.e. it regards the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who fled at the time as refugees. The psychological reason lies in the lack of self-responsibility that a supervised camp life entails. This ambience offers no incentive for birth control, as observations in other refugee camps around the world confirm. On the contrary, rapid demographic growth is often seen as a means of generating political pressure, i.e. using demography as a weapon.
In 1948, UNRWA took on a responsibility that it was not entitled to, and since the refugees wave in 1948 it has failed to put this responsibility back into the hands of the people cared for. There was also failure on the part of Israeli politics. The problematic demographic trend was known, but its connection with the factor of self-responsibility went fatally unnoticed. For this reason, the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state in 1967, which would have given the Arab population sovereignty and responsibility for their group territory and for themselves, did not take place.
There were and are unjustified security concerns in Israel about an independent Palestinian state. If the rules of conduct with external wartime opponents are consistently applied, a clearly superior military power has nothing to fear. These rules have always included the risk that an attacker would have to cede territory in the case of defeat. For example, the annexation of the Golan Heights after the Galilee was constantly shelled, although condemned by the UN, was a necessary security strategy, morally justified and, in terms of its extent (less than 1% of Syria's area), a modest border correction.
In this case, too, it was far less the radical Arabs who represented the actual threat to the Jewish state and still do so to this day, but rather forces that supposedly helped to interfere, among which particularly the UN profiled (and disqualified) itself with a never-ending chain of partisan resolutions. For it was the artificially distorted "moral" ambience, not least under their influence, that encouraged the Arab side four times to take up military (and continuously terrorist) rebellion against the Jewish homeland and to take responsibility for the consequences of this use of force - namely for the flight movements of the Nakba of 1948.
Another example of polarizing interference was provided by British intelligence in 1947, when it urged the Egyptian government to prepare to intervene in the anticipated Israeli declaration of independence. – On the contrary, it could have been expected from the previously responsible colonial powers Great Britain and France, that they would make the release of the Arab countries into independence subject to a strict condition – respect for the Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, without such a peacekeeping condition, almost all Arab countries were granted independence before Israel - e.g. Egypt in 1922, Iraq in 1932, Lebanon in 1943, Syria and Transjordan in 1946.
When the USA intervened in 1991 in the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait and thus between two Arab states that were only marginally democratic, one of the "incidental" consequences of the liberation of Kuwait was that 450,000 Palestinians integrated there were expelled from there under the pretext of complicity with the Iraqis - more homeless Palestinians who were misused to increase the moral pressure on Israel.
The fact that this second Palestinian Nakba received no media coverage either then or now confirms the unfair one-sidedness that has become a characteristic of the Western media environment. Keeping important information out of focus and presenting others with exaggerated and unobjective partisan comments constitutes propaganda, or to put it more clearly, information warfare. (For clarification: The criticized filter is much less the fault of individual media editors than of the upstream big news agencies and the universally effective influence of big money, which becomes a propaganda power, for example through selected NGOs.)
It is an unfair war against Israel and generally against Western nations , which has already brought about a grotesque loss of correct standards.
The distortion of scale, however, is only part of a larger package of accumulated threats which Israel faces from Western forces. – These dangers are easier to detect if one identifies in advance the tools that allow money to be turned into political power. In addition to many others and in addition to the media and the tax-exempt NGOs mentioned, these are also to a large extent the UN and its sub-organizations in the practical location of New York and as well to a large extent the western political establishment, especially in the United Kingdom and the USA including their military-industrial complex . The interpenetration of state power and moneyed nobility, which can be traced back at least to the year 1600, has been refined many times over the course of time. Closed groups such as lodges and school fellowships from elite private schools, are excellently suited to operating personnel policies and spreading certain narratives useful to the rule of money.
Among such narratives, for well over a century, has been the fairy tale that the ultra-rich oligarchs were the friends and protectors of Judaism. In view of the undoubtedly existing political influence of the financial elite, it is unfortunately only a small step towards the unspeakably defamatory insinuation that "the Jews" were on the way to world domination. It is evident that the undemocratically powerful have a huge interest in the narrative of such close ties to Judaism.
Because a realistic view, identifies this bond as a form of tool use - namely the religious community as a living shield against any questioning of their financial rule. To that end, a lunatic narrative is being vehemently kept alive – that criticism of the financial oligarchs would be covert anti-Semitism. On the contrary, the false imputation makes millions of Jews collateral victims, exposing them to the suspicion and criticism that are rightly aimed at the ultra-wealthy.
There is ample evidence demonstrating the direct opposite of oligarchs' authentic allegiance to Judaism. These include American bank financing of the Nazis, the thwarted Jewish Palestine project, the current promotion of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment, and the financial and "moral" promotion of projects that purport to help Israel but ultimately turn out to be self-destructive.
This generally applies to the supposed defense of national interests through tough actions that do not get Israel any further on the matter, but convey an irreconcilable message. A simple example is the practice of destroying the homes of terrorist families, which can only fuel further hatred. It was just as counterproductive to refuse to recognize Hamas' democratic election victory in the Gaza Strip in 2006, with loud American support, because the group is classified as terroristic – but as a result of such measures it must remain so. On the other hand, and completely against actual Israeli interests, people stand idly by as the head of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas, constantly tramples on the democratic rule of law, for example by torture practices, by postponing the parliamentary and presidential elections for years, by rewarding terrorism with pay for slay - and with one of the most corrupt administrations in the world which thwarts any approach to the healthy development of a Palestinian community that is economically prosperous on its own.
The construction and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which is devastating for Israel's reputation, is largely financed by American, supposedly pro-Israeli NGOs worth billions. These activities violate massively the rule discovered Niccolo Machiavelli, hard measures against rivals always have to be finished within the shortest possible time, because otherwise the result consts in resistance instead respect. Additionally, the jumble of new Jewish settlements between existing Palestinian settlements, with fences and walls in between, offers a target for that growing group of critics who defame Israel as an "apartheid state." The fact that the separation systems are necessary as protection against attacks is lost in the perception of media consumers. The outcome of this "moral" dispute is already certain if no restoring of media fairness happens. - This is already proven by the fact that the mainstream media do not tell the citizens about the EU funded Palestinian settlements in Area C, constructed in violation of the Oslo II Accord.
Not only does the left-wing political approach of limitlessly yielding appeasement, prove to be unsuitable for the future, but also the right-wing one, with its settlement projects in the West Bank, away from a final, border-shortening territorial order. At the same time, Israel had and still has the legitimate legal position to set up such an order entirely on its own, namely ...
1. The claim of the Jewish state to the entire territory of Palestine as part of the unassailable post-war order of World War I (and fair price for the liberation of the Arab countries from Turkish rule)
2. The right to a unilaterally declared post-war order as the victors of 1967, after the UNO had failed in this function with its law-bending Resolution 242.
If one defines capitalism as the unofficial rule of big money and oligopolistic distortion of the fair market economy, then Karl Marx was right with his prediction of the failure of this system because of its contradictions. – However, he was wrong about the cause, which he located in a system-related reduction in profits, while this system based on privileged corporations, on the contrary, fails before our eyes due to the gigantism of its unfair extra profits. Because the dimensions of the cash flows into the coffers of international (e.g. pharma) companies and tens of thousands of allegedly charitable NGOs can no longer be kept secret and inevitably arouse the above mentioned mistrust of the citizens.
The misdirection of these flows of money, which is becoming increasingly obvious, reveals the opposite of a benevolent disposition, namely a cold striving for power and disdain for human beings. Thus the well-known "divide et impera" - divide and rule of the autocratic rulers of earlier times was further developed into a systematic, psychologically perfidious strategy in which all nations and groups are ultimately incited against any other. Occasionally, the polarizing intention is revealed when the simultaneous support of two war opponents is revealed, as in the Iran-Contra Affair. The historical upheaval is inevitable – either to militaristic excesses and an autocratic Orwellian state under the control of big money or to the restoration of authentic freedom and fairness in the spirit of America's founding fathers, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.
In this situation, Israel and Judaism play a decisive role - as the only ones who can convince their false friends with the gigantic cash disposal that their system has indeed produced a huge empire for the second time after the British Empire, the Empire of Big Money, but without a chance of historical sustainability - because it violates the rules of evolution. But history, and on this point Marx was right, is a variant of evolution.