Compiling Religious Scriptures with an Imperial Nail and Reading it with an Imperial Lens.
Part 3
Isaiah 1:15, where
God declares: “When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from
you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full
of blood”
Above
an anti-Imperialistic universal declaration by God, is not limited to one
nation or conflict; it is a timeless rebuke against rulers who exploit religion
to justify bloodshed.
Israel’s entrenched pursuit of territorial
aggrandizement under the banner of “Greater Israel” stands as the central,
cumulative cause of the region’s perpetual hostility and devastation. Western
powers, together with nations of the Christian faith, have uncritically
nurtured modern Israel into a ferociously armed entity, shielded by relentless
impunity. Through theological indoctrination, democratic publics are persuaded
that Israel alone possesses an everlasting right to the so‑called promised
land—ancient Canaan—stretching from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to the
Jordan River and Sea of Galilee in the east, from the deserts of Zin and the
River of Egypt (Wadi El‑Arish) in the south to the approaches of Mount Hor and
Lebo‑Hamath in Syria to the north. This cultivated belief sustains the
destructive cycle that has engulfed West Asia in turmoil.
The Abrahamic covenant in the Holy Bible declares
that the descendants of Abraham will live and find livelihood in the land of Canaan.
Its inhabitants, the Canaanites, are the forefathers of Christianity, Islam,
and Judaism. Therefore, the
hegemonies deliberately shook and shattered the foundational covenant of the Holy
Bible, meant for peaceful coexistence, within West Asia, anciently described as
Canaan. It was an absolute fact that West Asia had been a peaceful
heaven (fitting the name of the chosen land by Abraham) for all three religious
ethnic groups, the Canaanites, Islamists, Christians, and Jews, up until the European
expulsion of Jews was introduced into an already existing civilization of Palestine*
of West Asia.
Genetic
Scientists reveal that 81-87% of all Canaanites' ancestry originated from the
Bronze Age and that they are descendants of Abraham (the forefather of
Christians, Islamists, and the Hebrew Jews). Genetic studies of this population
across all three ethnic communities of Palestine clearly indicate that they
have been inhabitants since the Bronze Age. Palestinians consisted of Islamists,
Christians, and a few Jews descended from the ancient Levantine population that
had inhabited the region since the Bronze Age.
John Hopkins genetic study reveals that 97.5% of
the Jewish people presently living in Israel have absolutely no ancient Hebrew
DNA and are therefore not Semites and have no ancient blood ties to the land of
Canaan – Palestine at all.
The
migration of Jews from Europe and North Africa into West Asia was marked by
diverse patterns of exodus and, in some cases, conversion to Judaism either
before or after settlement in Palestine. These movements help explain the
genetic distinctions between Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and the older
Hebrew-speaking Canaanite communities.
Ashkenazi Jews, largely from Central and
Eastern Europe, carried Yiddish as their vernacular, while Sephardic
immigrants, descending from the Iberian Peninsula and dispersed after the 1492
expulsion, spoke Ladino (Judeo-Spanish), Judeo-Arabic, or regional variants
such as Judeo-Greek, Judeo-Turkish, and Bukhori (Judeo-Tajik). Ladino itself
blended Old Spanish with Hebrew, Turkish, Arabic, and other influences, and was
preserved in daily life, literature, and liturgy among Sephardic communities in
Turkey, Greece, Morocco, and the Balkans. Today, Ladino survives mainly among
older generations, though revival efforts continue. Despite these linguistic
differences, Hebrew remained the sacred language across all Jewish communities,
used in prayer and scripture, and eventually was revived as the unifying spoken
language of modern Israel. Language thus became a central marker of cultural
identity: Yiddish tied Ashkenazim to their European heritage, Ladino anchored
Sephardim to their Iberian past, and Hebrew provided the shared foundation upon
which a modern national identity was built.
The notable feature herein is that Ashkenazi immigrants carried Yiddish. In
contrast, Sephardic immigrants carried Ladino or Judeo-Arabic, with Hebrew
always used as a religious and later mandatory national language to form the artificial State of Israel within the Palestinian
Civics, The Sons of the land have abided in Canaan, each generation rising upon
the heritage of the former.
Therefore, the atrocities and untold cruelty
manifested by the 97.5% of Israeli Ashkenazi and Sephardic immigrant Jews
cannot be defended by Anti-Semitic categorization. This explains the difference
among Jews; orthodox Jews and genuine Jews speak Hebrew mainly
and strongly believe in peaceful coexistence with any other communities, as
opposed to immigrant Jews, who have many centuries-old inadaptability habits wherever
they live, and that is the main reason for the expulsion, mainly from Europe
and elsewhere.
During
the exodus migration, the majority of the truly devoted Jews refrained from returning
to the so-called chosen land, Canaan. They argued that their leaving from the land
of their birth was a punishment verdict of God for overriding the Conditional Covenant on inhabitation of the holy land
of Canaan, and return would be against God’s Judgement. Hence Orthodox Jews and Genuine Judaism followers
are still living peacefully, globally scattered. This conditional covenant aligns
well with the Covenant in the Christian Bible and the Islamic Al Quran. Therefore,
the exodus migration to West Asia, though it was undertaken with a lot of
promises at the destination, did not attract the devoted Jews who preferred to
stay wherever they were, (divinely) foreseeing
the calamity that would ensue later, by the forcing elements as well as by the
random components of the exodus itself. Modern Israel’s untold atrocities have
unequivocally proved that this foresight was absolutely correct and fundamentally
contradict the conditional covenant of Judaism. If you are defending Israeli
atrocities and the lonely occupation through the wording of the divine book, you
have to consider the other related wordings of the same divine book as well, to
be fair to other faiths -that is, the jurisdiction for humanity to prevail.
Understanding the versions of the Covenant
Condition will further enlighten the migrating preferences.
The Conditional Covenant
for all three Religions emphasizes Righteousness
1. Orthodox Judaism
In Orthodox
Judaism, the authentic Jew's possession of Canaan is an eternal, divine
covenant accompanied by strict spiritual and moral responsibilities.
- The: According to the Torah (Genesis
17:8), the land is an eternal inheritance bequeathed to the descendants of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
- Conditionality of Behavior: Possession and flourishing in the
land are directly tied to keeping the commandments (mitzvot). The
Torah warns that Sabbatical, moral corruption, and idolatry within will
lead to exile.
- Divine Ownership: Rabbinic tradition teaches that God retains ultimate
ownership of the land, and the Jewish people dwell in it as tenants who
must adhere to His laws to retain the privilege of occupancy.
2.
Christianity
Christian
theology historically shifted away from literal, territorial possession,
spiritualizing the concept of the "Promised Land" while acknowledging
the historical significance of the Holy Land.
- Spiritual
Inheritance:
Through the teachings of the New Testament (such as Romans 4 and Hebrews
11), the promise of Canaan is viewed as a shadow of the ultimate
"Promised Land"—the Kingdom of God. The inheritance is open to
all believers globally through faith in Jesus Christ, rather than being tied
to a particular community or physical geography.
- Stewardship and Pilgrimage: Christians
believe the Holy Land is a sacred space for pilgrimage, reflection, and
spiritual connection. Historic possession, though not by force, is largely viewed
as a historical phenomenon rather than an ongoing biblical mandate.
3.
Islam
In
Islam, the right to the Holy Land is connected to spiritual succession and
faithful submission to God.
- Spiritual
Lineage: The Quran
recognizes the Israelites as a favored people given the Holy Land (e.g.,
Surah Al-Maidah 5:21). However, Islam teaches that all true followers of
the Abrahamic covenant are defined by submission to Allah (which is the
literal translation of Muslim), making Muslims the rightful
spiritual heirs of Abraham.
- Righteousness
and Law: Islamic
tradition asserts that the Israelites' (Jacob’s descendants) right to the
land was conditional upon their obedience to God's laws. When they
repeatedly broke their covenant and rejected God’s prophets, the spiritual
authority was transferred to the Ummah (the global Muslim community).
- Islamic
Governance: Under
Islamic tradition, control of the Holy Land by Muslims comes with the
obligation to maintain justice, allow freedom of religion for the
"People of the Book" (Jews and Christians), and protect the holy
sites
What
transpires from all three versions is that, unless the occupiers behave
morally, for humanity, the right to live in the holy land is non-existent. That
is not choosing; whoever disobeys the covenant is liable to be punished by God,
that is, laying guidance for peaceful co-existence in accordance with the Abrahamic Prophecy of Land inhabitation.
The forceful
migration into West Asia itself is atrocious, overruling the Christian Covenant
of the Bible.
Western
Hegemonic connivingly quotes the Bible to sustain their strategy for
everlasting monopoly over the West Asian Fossil Fuel Treasuries (WAFFT); hence,
there is nothing religious in migrating European discard Jews into West Asia but
a strategy.
The
classic example of this devious act by the United States is Donald Trump’s
announcement on 26 May 2026 of a peace plan called the “Abraham Accord.”
This proposal appeared to hold many promises, yet it deliberately omitted the
78‑year‑old Palestinian question—since the Naqbah—which has remained the
central and defining issue behind the multifaceted, unending volatility in West
Asia. With absolute correctness, all Islamic states rejected the plan,
recognizing that it deliberately overrides the Biblical Abrahamic covenant at
its very foundation.
The
entire Canaanites are to whom the everlasting possession of the Holy Land,
Canaan, has been promised, not to the strategically created migrants’ land created
by the Western vested interest, WAFFT, from all of West Asia.
When
the USA and Israel decided to bomb Iran for the second time within a year on 28th,
February 2026, an act of declaration of war on a 5th
Sovereign State within 3 decades, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natheniahoo
boasted out a Satanic Verse
“Jesus Obliges when you
apply Power and Force”
This
is twisting theology into a justification for violence, turning sacred
scripture into a mantle for power rather than a covenant of peace, and reflects
the series of forced migrations into Palestine, a stark warning for all Christian
followers who believe the Israelites are holy and as far as Genuine Judaists and
Orthodox Judaists consider the above utterance is a statement of anti-Semitism. All the religious scriptures emphasize moral values
in their teachings for humanity. Religions
are for the people, and not humans for the religion.
Therefore, the massacre, torture, and
deliberate starvation of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon—perpetrated under the
authority of a state artificially constituted of cosmopolitan exodus Jews and
its Ashkenazi leadership—cannot be sustained or defended under the pretense of
safeguarding a religious polity. Such acts, when examined through the lens of
international humanitarian law and the moral imperatives of human rights,
represent not merely isolated excesses but systematic violations of the
principles enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and the broader corpus of
customary international law. To invoke religion as a justification for policies
of collective punishment and civilian suffering is to distort the very
foundations of faith traditions that historically emphasize justice,
compassion, and the sanctity of life. The attempt to cloak political violence
in the mantle of religious legitimacy thus collapses under both ethical
scrutiny and legal analysis, revealing a contradiction between the state's
professed identity and the destructive practices it enacts. In this light, the
endurance of such policies cannot be rationalized as the defense of a religious
state. Still, it must instead be recognized as a profound betrayal of both
humanitarian norms and the moral claims upon which such a state purports to
rest.
In
this context, it is imperative that we eagerly take note of ever faithful
followers of Orthodox Judaism and Genuine general Judaism followers, mainly of
Hebrew Jews, who distanced themselves with foresight when the Zionist movement began,
and now, increasingly globally and within Israel itself, strongly oppose the criminal
activities of the Israeli forces and declare that such inhumane criminalities are
self-inflicted antisemitic. Israel’s Jewish population is a global mix of
Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews, all of whom are of a totally different genetic
lineage, and are only 40 % of the Global Jew population,
and balance 60% scattered all over the world form the Genuine Hebrew Jews, and
Orthodox Jews.
Ashkenazi
Jews trace their roots to Central and Eastern Europe, Sephardi Jews to the
Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and their diaspora across the
Mediterranean, and Mizrahi Jews to the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of
Central Asia, are mostly descendants of those who adopted Judaism, and thus
differ genetically from Canaanite Palestinians*.
It is a factual human behaviour
that, when a group of people with an adopted lineage to a religion manifests
greater attachment and feverishly defends the adopted religion to the core than
the authentic descendants of the same religion. The psychological explanation
for this behaviour is that the tendency of the adopted lineage group to feel
inferior to the authentic descendants of the faith, and an inferiority complex,
subconsciously propels them to portrayal-behaviour, even if there is no hate or ignore from the authentic
group. Though this is a very common
feature in countries colonized by the European bloc of countries, in the case
of the forcefully created state of Israel, the same phenomenon is coupled and
fueled by many further issues. The salient point is that the same colonizing
European bloc was dispossessing the adopted lineage Jews for the above-mentioned
reason of feverishly sustaining their faith, and emigrated into an entirely unaccustomed
area where an entirely different peaceful civilization existed, a multifold portrayal
has to be manifested, and that is Israel in 1948 and now.
It does not matter whether one convinces the
migrant through theology, provides shelter, or promises greener pastures;
immigrant behavior will unfold both individually and collectively in untold
ways. All that transpired during the series of Aliyot clearly illustrates this
phenomenon. Moreover, the organizers of migration were armed with militancy and
backed by superpowers—especially Britain—in a profoundly deceptive and
duplicitous role.
Local
inhabitant villagers
feared losing access to land and water resources as colonies expanded. The
newcomers often lived apart, armed up, spoke different languages (Yiddish,
Russian), and did not integrate into local Arab society, unlike older Jewish
communities. By the late 1890s, Palestinian intellectuals and notables began writing about
the “Palestine Question” in newspapers, warning that these settlements were not
temporary but part of a larger project of expansion beyond the need, which has
now become true with the present Israeli actions.
In
1916, Arabs rose against Ottoman rule seeking liberation, while Britain posed
as their ally—arming them, marching with them toward Damascus, and dangling the
promise of an independent Palestine. Yet behind closed doors, Britain had
already carved up the same lands with France and Russia through secret wartime
pacts. When the Ottomans fell in 1918, Britain seized Palestine, Transjordan,
and Iraq, leaving Syria and Lebanon to France. This duplicity exposed Britain’s
colonial mindset—clinging to conquest, dismissing Palestinian intellectual
dissent, and betraying its pledges of independence—planting the seeds of deep
resentment. In essence, Britain transformed former Ottoman provinces into
colonial holdings, using the mandate system as a legal cover for imperial expansion.
As
Arab fury mounted, resentment simmered for three decades while waves of
international Jewish migration swelled disproportionately. By 1936,
Palestinians rose in revolt against the British Empire—ironically, wielding the
very weapons and tactics Britain had once supplied for the Arab fight against
the Ottomans. Britain answered with overwhelming force, deploying 50,000–75,000
troops and crushing the uprising with untold cruelty for three relentless
years. Yet even as it ruled with an iron fist, Britain caved to pressure,
issuing another pledge: an independent Palestine, a cap on Jewish immigration
at 75,000, and a mandate to withdraw from occupied lands by 1948*.
This cycle of betrayal and repression etched deep scars into the political
landscape, setting the stage for permanent dissent against the colonial rulers.
These upheavals foreshadowed the calamities to come—humanitarian
catastrophes relentlessly sustained by the backing of two global powers,
cloaked in the mantle of biblical responsibility.
The
British Empire, in concert with Europe, meticulously engineered the
dispossession of Ashkenazi Jews and their aggressive migration into Palestine,
fusing political calculation with theological justification. The Jewish
communities themselves fervently organized and executed this migration, a
development that stunned the Palestinian population and left it profoundly
debilitated
The same British Empire under Edward I in 1290 expelled
and exiled the Ashkenazi Jews, the same Ashkenazi Jews that Britain is now hell-bent
on claiming as God’s Chosen People, after developing the Protestant Christian theology
that accommodates the migration of the Jews to Canaan as a biblical prophecy. When
Britain exiled those Jews in 1290, King Edward I ordered the confiscation of
their property, synagogues,
and cemeteries. This proves that the British Empire
never considered the Ashkenazi Jews as God’s chosen people when England became
the first European Kingdom to permanently ban the Jews up until the 16th
-17th century.
Christian
Zionism, as a distinct theology, began in the late 16th century with radical
Protestant thinkers and was schematized by 17th-century Puritans in England,
who tied Jewish restoration to apocalyptic prophecy at the peak of
anti-Ashkenazi Jewish sentiment, widespread in Europe. Francis Kett (1587),
when he began teaching that the Bible prophesied the Jews’ return to their land,
he was burned to death. In 1615, Thomas Brightman published a work, one of the
earliest systematic Restorationist texts, explicitly linking prophecy to Jewish
return. This thinking did not arise as an idea for smothering the anti-Ashkenazi
Jewish sentiment, but was conceived out of historical
occurrences many centuries ago, involving Canaanite Hebrew Jews.
Historical Occurrences of Hebrew Jews Exiling
Canaan and Retuning
There
were four occasions of the exile of Hebrew Jews from Canaan,
1.
During the Biblical period, Jacob’s son Joseph was sold to Egypt as a
slave, but he became the vizier of the Egyptian King later. Famine struck
Canaan, and Jacob sent all his sons to buy grain in Egypt; upon discovering
that Joseph was alive and powerful, the entire family of Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel) packed
up and took refuge in the fertile land of Goshen in the eastern Nile Delta as a
single family, expanded and transitioned into 10 tribes. This marked the enslavement by Egypt that led
to the exodus. Thus began the Exodus, a passage through wilderness and trial,
until the tribal offspring of Jacob, aka Israel, returned to the land of
Canaan.
2. Assyrian
Captivity (733–722 BCE)
733 BCE: Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria invaded
the northern Kingdom of Hebrew deporting tribes such as Reuben, Gad, and
Manasseh to regions near the Khabur River.
722 BCE: Samaria, the capital of the Hebrew
Kingdom, fell to Sargon II. Around 27,000 Jacob’s descendants were deported
to Assyria, while others fled south to Judah.
This led to the
disappearance of the “Ten Lost Tribes” and the emergence of the
Samaritan community from those who remained and intermarried with settlers.
3.
Babylonian Captivity (597–586 BCE)
Nebuchadnezzar
II, the powerful king of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem and deported the elite of
Judean society, including King Jehoiachin, members of the royal family,
priests, prophets, and thousands of Judeans. Following a subsequent rebellion,
Babylon responded with devastating force: Jerusalem was burned, the First
Temple built by Solomon was destroyed, and much of Judah’s population was
resettled in Babylon, in the region of modern-day Iraq and beyond. This exile,
and the deliberate method by which it was carried out, profoundly reshaped
Jewish theology. It marked the transition from a Temple-centered system of
worship, reliant on animal sacrifices, to the development of the synagogue as a
portable institution of prayer and study. In exile, Jewish religious life
emphasized covenantal identity, the authority of prophecy, and the hope of
return to the Hebrew Kingdom. These adaptations ensured the survival of the
Jewish people and laid the foundations for enduring theological traditions that
would continue to shape Judaism long after the Babylonian captivity.
4.
Later Roman Expulsions (63 BCE – 135 CE)
- 63
BCE: Pompey
annexed Judea, enslaving many Jews and sending them to Rome.
- 70 CE: The Romans destroyed the Second
Temple after the Jewish revolt.
- 135 CE: Following the Bar Kokhba revolt,
Emperor Hadrian expelled Jews from Jerusalem and renamed it Aelia Capitolina.
The
Roman expulsion of the Hebron Jews explains the sustained presence of Orthodox or
otherwise genuine Jews in Europe and the
newer adoption of Judaism by Europeans, which angered the European rulers and
the evangelists' reason for centuries-old anti-Semitism as a whole, leading to a
series of expulsions before the 19th-century exodus migration.
The Return from Babylonian exile under
Cyrus the Great (539 BCE)
Moral Education for Weapons-Wielding
Modern-Day Democracies
Cyrus
the Great was a brilliant military conqueror and statesman who founded the First Persian Empire,
known as the Achaemenid Empire, the largest of its era, stretching from West
Asia to Central Asia. He is remembered as a ruler who combined military
brilliance with an unusual degree of tolerance and respect for the peoples he
conquered.
Cyrus, an exceptionally enlightened,
benevolent ruler, as soon as he conquered Babylonia, issued a remarkable decree
in 538 BCE, the Edict of Cyrus, which allowed the Jewish exiles to return to
Jerusalem, rebuild the Temple, and restore their religious practices.
The
return of Jews to Jerusalem occurred in 3 phases, initiated by David’s
offspring Zerubbabel and Jeshua the High Priest, for physical restoration and
resumption of old rituals, followed by phases for Spiritual Restoration and Civic
Restoration in different periods and leadership despite the strong opposition of
the Samaritan population of Hebrew Jews escaped deportation and locals, the
Decree of Cyrus for Tolerance stood tall
and Hebron Jews completed their ambitions by
their will and resilience**. Still, a permanent, vibrant Jewish
community remained in Babylon and Persia, and
Cyrus the Great allowed their practices and rituals to continue wherever they
were and never forced anyone. **This explains the Yemenite Jews I referred to in
Part 2, and the reason why Hebrew Jews are living in Iraq and Iran at present. Israel doesn’t
like Jews living elsewhere within West Asia, and during a ceasefire in April
2026 after the war against Iran, Israel bombed the Jews’ historical Synagogue in
Iran in response to a video clip depicting how the Iranian Government looks
after the Jews better than Israel. Though Iran vowed to retaliate in Jerusalem,
to date, it has not been done yet.
The
Edict of Cyrus Decree was recorded in the Cyrus Cylinder. The Cylinder
itself, often called the world’s first charter of human rights, reflects
Cyrus’s broader policy of respecting the traditions and faiths of conquered
peoples. Unlike the usual pattern of conquerors ruling through force and
fearmongering, Cyrus adopted policies that allowed local traditions, religions,
and governance structures to continue. Cyrus stands apart not only from the preceding historical
Empires but also from the later empires and modern-day so-called democratic-defender
Western allies' bureaucrats.
Compare
this historical display of humanity towards fellow human beings with that of a series
of vetoes against the motions just calling for equal rights to Palestinians* to
become a State recognized by all peace-loving and humanity-respecting societies
of States, within the same august Chamber that is created to cater to Global
Peace, Equal Rights and Humanity, the United Nations Organization! UNO!!
Vetoes Used Against the State of Palestine in the United Nations Organization
|
Year
|
Resolution
/ Topic
|
Outcome
|
Notes
|
|
1976–1980s
|
Drafts
affirming Palestinian self-determination & recognition of the PLO
|
US
vetoed
|
Early
vetoes blocked international recognition of Palestinian rights.
|
|
1980
|
Condemnation
of Israel’s declaration of Jerusalem as its capital
|
US
vetoed
|
Prevented
the Council from rejecting Israel’s unilateral claim.
|
|
1990s
|
Resolutions
criticizing Israeli settlement expansion
|
US
vetoed
|
Shielded
Israel from censure, undermining Palestinian territorial claims.
|
|
2003
|
Condemnation
of Israel’s separation wall
|
US
vetoed
|
Blocked
Council action against construction in occupied territory.
|
|
2006–2009
|
Ceasefire
resolutions during the Gaza conflicts
|
US
vetoed
|
Prevented
binding ceasefire calls, citing an imbalance against Israel.
|
|
2011
|
Resolution
condemning Israeli settlements
|
US
vetoed
|
Widely
supported draft; US stood alone in opposition.
|
|
2011
(Statehood Bid)
|
Palestine’s
UN membership application (S/2011/592)
|
Blocked
|
US
opposition prevented referral to General Assembly.
|
|
2017
|
Resolution
rejecting US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital
|
US
vetoed
|
Isolated
US; GA later passed a similar resolution overwhelmingly.
|
|
2021–2023
|
Ceasefire
& humanitarian protection resolutions in Gaza
|
US
vetoed
|
Blocked
measures are seen as critical of Israel.
|
|
April
18, 2024 (Statehood Bid)
|
Draft
resolution recommending Palestine’s admission as a full UN Member State
|
US
vetoed
|
12
in favor, 2 abstentions, US vetoed alone.
|
|
Nov
2024 – Jun 2025
|
Gaza
war ceasefire resolutions
|
The
US vetoed multiple times
|
Argued
drafts were “imbalanced” and ignored Israeli security concerns.
|
This
veto-laden record unequivocally exposes the American bureaucrats’ blatantly
primitive, stone‑aged thinking for disregarding the eight‑decade‑long cruel
humanitarian catastrophe, culminating in the genocide of Palestinians
(2024–2025), while shouldering Israel’s mantle of religious fanaticism in
pursuit of blatant border expansion.
This
veto‑laden record reflects the United Nations’ incapacity to uphold the very
Charter it claims to embody—peace and humanity. It exposes this august chamber
of sovereign nations as little more than a conduit for American imperial
ambitions, enabling the United States to wage wars against Afghanistan, Libya,
Syria, and Iraq—three of them at the behest of Israel—on fabricated charges. In doing so, the UN sustained and defended an artificially
constructed, dubious religious state cloaked in a sacred mantle to mask its
pursuit of economic monopoly. (WAFFT). Though
in 2017, remarkably, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly rejected the
recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a state whose ultra‑inhumane
policies defy international law, an action expected of and welcomed since the same
motion was vetoed by the USA earlier.
The
United Nations must now urgently establish a binding mechanism to override any
vetoes anticipated against mandatory measures to alleviate the humanitarian
catastrophe in Gaza—a crisis that has persisted for seventy‑eight years and
reached unimaginable cruelty in recent years. Without such reform, the veto
remains a weapon of paralysis, condemning millions to suffering. Shame falls
upon all nations that have become complicit in allowing these cruel acts to
continue unabated. Only by overcoming the veto block can the UN reclaim its
moral authority and guide future success in safeguarding humanity.”
Persia,
corresponding to modern-day Iran, commemorates the legacy of Cyrus the Great
through his tomb at Pasargadae in Fars province. This monument, constructed in
the 6th century BCE, is widely regarded as the earliest example of
base-isolated and earthquake-resilient architecture, underscoring the advanced
engineering practices of the Achaemenid period. Designated as a UNESCO World
Heritage Site, the tomb serves as a lasting testament to Cyrus’s historical and
cultural influence. In contrast, the Cyrus Cylinder—frequently described as the
earliest known declaration of human rights—remains housed in Room 52 of the
British Museum, highlighting the complex dynamics of cultural heritage and its
displacement from its place of origin.
A
replica of the Cyrus Cylinder was gifted to the United Nations by Mohammad Reza
Shah Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, during the 2,500-year celebration of the
Persian Empire, where it was adopted as a national symbol of Iran. Although the British Museum has occasionally
lent the Cylinder to Iran and elsewhere for educational purposes, Britain and
the United States have either failed to learn from the inscriptions’ principles
or deliberately ignored them, particularly in relation to West Asia. This
neglect is evident in the forceful migration of Ashkenazi Jews into the region,
despite strong opposition from local Arab inhabitants and the Ottoman Empire.
Each
expulsion reinforced the theme of exile and return, central to Jewish
religious thought and later Zionist ideology, which is a strong political movement
empowered by politicians as a mantle cloud for imperialistic political gains.
These
expulsions were of definite political origin, but the will and zeal of the
exiled to return to “their home” land, which naturally accompany refugee status,
are twined with a theological call to accommodate unity in the community, which
also ensures eventual safe return. This became the theological framework that
shaped Jewish concepts of covenant, exile, and eventual return.
📜 Protestant Theology Intertwined with British
Imperial Policy
A carbon copy of the theological shaping of Jewish concepts
of covenant, exile, and eventual return, without rationalizing, but for the
imperialistic need and dispassion of Jews. Protestant theologians began
accommodating the idea of Jews returning to Canaan largely due to millenarian
expectations and geopolitical pressures, including the perceived Catholic
threat. In the 16th–17th centuries, fears of Catholic and Ottoman military
power, combined with Puritan apocalyptic speculation, encouraged Protestants to
see Jewish restoration as part of God’s plan and a way to counter Catholic
dominance.
Puritan apocalyptic speculation was that Jews would go back
to Canaan, convert to Christianity, and help defeat Catholic and Ottoman powers,
and believed that Christianity would prevail for the next 1000 years and be
perceived as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. England strongly believed in
this Restorationism and expedited the dispossession of Ashkenazi Jews from
Europe.
Prophetic
Reading: The
destruction of Jerusalem by Rome (70 CE, 135 CE) was interpreted as fulfillment
of prophecy, but also as a temporary exile — with eventual return promised in
scripture (e.g., Isaiah, Ezekiel).
17th–18th
Century Roots: Puritan
leaders like Oliver Cromwell entertained the idea of readmitting Jews to
England (after medieval expulsion) partly because of Restorationist theology.
19th
Century Evangelicals:
British politicians influenced by evangelical Protestantism began to see Jewish
return to Palestine as both a religious duty and a geopolitical opportunity.
Colonial
Strategy: By the late
19th century, Britain’s interest in Palestine grew as part of its imperial
rivalry with France and Russia. Supporting Jewish settlement aligned with both
prophecy and imperial control.
The
Balfour Declaration of 1917—this celebrated statement pledging support for a
“national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine—was forged out of Britain’s
strategic wartime needs and the sway of Christian Zionist thought among its
leaders. It embodied three core wartime imperatives: first, an imperial
strategy to secure alliances in West Asia; second, the fulfillment of Zionist
aspirations for a Jewish state; and third, a deliberate ambiguity, claiming
that “existing non-Jewish communities’ rights must not be harmed,” while in
reality the first two aims intertwined to guarantee the Empire a lasting
alliance through a future Jewish state. Arthur James Balfour, Prime Minister
from 1902 to 1905 and later Foreign Secretary from 1916 to 1919, authored the letter
to Lord Rothschild on 2 November 1917, formally expressing British support. For
the British Crown, no figure was better suited than Balfour to establish the
strongest imperial colony in West Asia—one who could conveniently ignore that
Palestine was then a tri-religious, harmonious land, and instead, in the fervor
of Ashkenazi dispossession, fold it into a colony serving the Monarch’s design.
Read
the declaration
“The British government stated it would 'use its best endeavours'
to facilitate the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, it being
clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights
and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The British
government stated it would "use its best endeavours" to facilitate
the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
Nothing
can be more contradictory than this ambivalent declaration. The colonial power deliberately
induced Arabs to revolt against the Crown so that it could use brutal force to
complete the dispossession of Jews, which the Empire had fervently undertaken;
if that had been a religious devotion for God, returning should have been very tolerant,
void of betrayals and could have sought the Harmoniousness existed within the
Holy Land before the first dumping of the Ashkenazi Jews are genetically very
intolerant group of people.
Today,
in the Holy City of Jerusalem, scenes of desecration unfold that stand in stark
contrast to the medieval hope once cherished by England and the Protestant
Fathers. Catholic nuns are kicked to the floor, Islamic pilgrims are
manhandled, and Protestant clergy are spat upon—while the IDF either joins the
sprawl or watches with a gleeful indifference. Yet, when dignitaries visit the
shrines, Israel suddenly portrays itself as a guardian of sanctity, staging
protection for safe display.
This
duplicity has become ordinary in Israel, rooted in an education system that
instills hostility toward ‘idolatrous worship’ and fosters Islamophobia. Such
systemic indoctrination perpetuates violence and undermines coexistence in a
city revered by Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike.
The
United Nations must recognize that these violations are not isolated incidents
but symptoms of a deeper crisis. To preserve Jerusalem’s sanctity and to end
the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, the UN must establish binding mechanisms
that override vetoes and enforce mandatory action. Without such reform, the
veto remains a shield for impunity, allowing cruelty beyond human imagination
to continue unabated. Only decisive, veto‑proof intervention can restore
credibility to the UN and secure a future where Jerusalem is truly a city of
peace rather than a theater of humiliation.”
