Sunday, July 12, 2026

Compiling Religious Scriptures with an Imperial Nail and Reading it with an Imperial Lens.Part 3

 

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 2017, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly rejected the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a state whose ultra‑inhumane policies defy international law. 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)

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.”

 


 

 

 

Friday, July 10, 2026

Compiling Religious Scriptures with an Imperial Nail and Reading it with an Imperial Lens. Part 2 Father of Zionism Theodor Herzl just a front for European Dispossession of Ashkenazi Jews

 

Compiling Religious Scriptures with an Imperial Nail and Reading it with an Imperial Lens. 

Part 2 - Father of Zionism Theodor Herzl just a front for European Dispossession of Ashkenazi Jews 

The Bible, first conceived as a repository of moral law and sacrificial devotion, did not remain static. Its transmission across centuries was repeatedly reshaped by the ambitions of rulers, the agendas of clerics, and the national interests of adopting cultures. Translation itself became a tool of power;Thus, what began as divine instruction was continually reframed by human hands, reflecting less timeless purity than the shifting priorities of history.

In that context, Protestant theology about Jews returning to Canaan began to take shape in the 16th and 17th centuries, and ulterior motives emerged intertwined with imperial ambitions, foreshadowing later colonial and Zionist projects.  The European instigation of Theodor Herzl towards the formation of Zionist movements and convening the Zionist Congress was part of European projects in which Jews were often treated as symbols in Protestant eschatology rather than as a living community, to systematically build up to convince followers and the monarchs and politicians to roll on.   

 Theodor Herzl, a convenient front for the European dispossession of the Ashkenazi Jews was the architect of the Zionist Movement. He was an Austrian-Hungarian Ashkenazi Jew, an ultra-secularist, and Lawyer-cum-Journalist by profession. He was hugely worried about the expulsion of Jews communities from many European countries for many centuries, country after country. Being an influential person among the Heads of State and his contacts with the wealthy Jews, who in turn had contacts with Heads of State.

During 1894-1895, Herzl was covering the French Government scandal over a bogus trial against Dreyfus, a Jewish Captain of the French Artillery Regiment in Paris, on behalf of a Vienna-based newspaper. Captain Dreyfus was falsely convicted of very sensitive charges of espionage for Germany and Russia. The French public gathered and shouted slogans against Dreyfus, which expanded against the entire Jew community, calling “Death to the Jews!”

There were pro-Jew protests as well by Jew activists; Herzl and Jews always believed that France was the cradle of the Enlightenment and Jewish emancipation up until this espionage trial, which exonerated another French suspect comrade. This incident worked up Herzl, and he responded by initiating publication of the journal Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896), advocating for a sovereign Jewish homeland.  

Despite the Ashkenazi Jew Dreyfus being exonerated later by a special commission probe, Herzl exaggerated the issue and convened Jewish leaders, declaring the goal of establishing “a publicly and legally assured home for the Jewish people outside Europe.” This marked the formal birth of organized Zionism in 1897, a manumission of a national movement for Jews in continuous displacement to establish a secure homeland for Jews, with objectives of the creation of a legally recognized Jewish state, the encouragement of Jewish migration (Aliyah), and the revival of Jewish culture and sovereignty, and behind the curtain were European Rulers.

The hallmark of Theodor Herzl’s emancipation effort was based on a nationalistic, urgent requirement of a Sovereign Secular State outside Europe, instead of Religious Prophecy, hence the migration initially not necessarily towards West Asia, especially flipping the theological prophecy of the “Arrival of the Messiah would initiate the return to the land of Canaan" into a mandate. "If you will it, it is no dream."

By framing the return to Zion as a matter of human willpower, diplomacy, and engineering rather than divine timing, he effectively transformed a passive religious hope into an active political movement through his Jargon Der Judenstaat, though not with absolute success. European authorities were very zealously watching these activities of their charity consumers till, and it is a fact that the false conviction of Dreyfus, the prominent Jew in the French force, was an act of provoking Theodor Herzl, well known among the ruling circle for his empathy towards the centuries-old plight of Jews in Europe.

Authorities, wary of social instability, were reluctant to accommodate those who could not assimilate into the native fabric of the host nation. Suspicion toward individuals dependent on charity had been deeply ingrained for centuries, reinforcing this resistance. Compounding the tension, Europe itself stood on the brink of widespread conflict, its atmosphere thick with the imminence of war. In such a climate, exclusionary policies appeared not merely reactionary but inevitable, shaped by both longstanding prejudice and the looming specter of continental upheaval.

Opposition to Zionism Within

His proposal for mass Jewish emigration out of Europe faced immediate, fierce resistance. The opposition didn't come from just one place—Herzl was attacked from nearly every corner of the Jewish community, each for completely different reasons. Orthodox Rabbis viewed Herzl’s secular movement as an act of heresy. Traditional Judaism held that the return to the Land of Canaan could only happen through divine intervention and the arrival of the Messiah. Trying to force it through European diplomacy was seen as an attempt to "hasten the end."

The General Jewish Labour Bund (founded in 1897, the same year as Herzl's Congress) argued that Zionism was a form of "escapism." They believed Jewish working-class people should stay in Europe and fight alongside other workers to overthrow capitalism and Tsarist autocracy. To them, moving to a new territory was a bourgeois distraction from the real fight for local equality (doikayt, or "hereness").

Cultural Zionists (Ahad Ha'am) argued that Herzl was too focused on a mechanical, political fix (just moving bodies to a piece of land) while ignoring the Jewish soul. He believed that before a state could exist, there needed to be a cultural and spiritual revival centered in Palestine, establishing it as a cultural nucleus rather than just a refuge for millions of refugees.

Theodor Herzl, a charismatic Austrian journalist, did not just rely on moral arguments to convince European leaders to support a Jewish state. Recognizing that goodwill alone wouldn't cut it in the era of Realpolitik, Herzl tailored his pitch to appeal directly to the strategic, economic, and geopolitical self-interests of Europe’s great powers.

In 1896, Herzl met Reverend William Hechler, a Protestant chaplain in Vienna. Hechler was deeply influenced by biblical prophecy and believed Herzl was the man destined to fulfill it. He introduced Herzl to influential European leaders, framing Zionism as the fulfillment of Christian prophecy.

1. The Strategy-"Solving the Jewish Question."- In the late 19th century, European leaders were deeply preoccupied with what they called the "Jewish Question"—the societal tension, rising anti-Jew, and political unrest surrounding Jewish populations. Thus, Herzl pitched Zionism not as a favor to the Jewish people, but as a practical solution for European governments. He argued that creating a Jewish state would naturally siphon away Jewish populations, thereby relieve the domestic anti-Jew tensions and would weaken the radical revolutionary movements (like socialism) in which disenfranchised young Jews were often active.

 2. Courting Kaiser Wilhelm II (The German Empire)

Herzl’s first major diplomatic target was Germany. He managed to secure audiences with Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1898, leveraging two specific arguments:

The "Culture" Buffer: Herzl, a deeply Germanophile intellectual, argued that a Jewish state in the Middle East would serve as an outpost of modern German Kultur (culture) and technology.

Geopolitical Leverage: Germany was trying to build a strong alliance with the Ottoman Empire (which controlled Palestine). Herzl suggested that the Kaiser could act as a grand protector of the Zionist project, increasing Germany’s influence in the Near East.

The Result: While the Kaiser was initially intrigued, he dropped the idea once he realized the Ottoman Sultan strongly opposed it and that backing Herzl might jeopardize Germany's relationship with the entire Ottoman Empire.

3. Bargaining with Sultan Abdul Hamid II (The Ottoman Empire)

Because the Ottomans ruled Palestine, Herzl knew he needed a charter from them. His pitch to Sultan Abdul Hamid II was entirely financial:

The Financial Bailout: The Ottoman Empire was severely indebted to European banks (often referred to as the "Sick Man of Europe"). Herzl offered to have wealthy Jewish financiers completely restructure and pay off the Ottoman Empire’s foreign debt in exchange for a charter to colonize Palestine.  The Sultan flatly refused the offer stating that the land belonged to the Islamic Caliphate and his people, not him personally, and could not be bought.

4. The Pragmatic Alliance with Great Britain

After being rebuffed by Germany and the Ottomans, Herzl turned to the world's most powerful empire: Great Britain. He met with influential figures like Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain.

The Imperial Guard: Herzl argued that a Jewish colony in the Middle East would serve as a highly loyal, neutral buffer state protecting British imperial interests, specifically the vital Suez Canal. He also pitched a strategic lie that Germany and Russia are eyeing a commitment in the Ottoman Empire!

The Result: Britain took Herzl seriously. While they couldn't give away Ottoman Palestine, they offered Herzl the "Uganda Scheme" in 1903 (which was actually in modern-day Kenya)—an offer of autonomous Jewish territory in East Africa. Though the Zionist Congress ultimately rejected it because they were committed solely to Palestine, it was a massive diplomatic victory: it marked the first time a global superpower officially recognized the Zionist Organization as a national political entity. That means Britain was not considering the Ashkenazi Jews as religiously legitimate claimants of Canaan -Palestine in the Initial stages.  

5. Exploiting Russia's Anti-Semitism

In 1903, Herzl traveled to Russia to meet with Vyacheslav von Plehve, the notoriously anti -Jew Minister of the Interior, shortly after the horrific Kishinev pogrom.

The Common Goal: Herzl used cold Realpolitik here. He told Plehve that Zionism and the Russian government actually shared a goal: reducing the number of Jews in Russia. By supporting Zionism, Russia could help divert its Jewish population out of the country (and away from anti-Tsarist revolutionary groups) cleanly and organized.

The Result: Plehve agreed to support the movement diplomatically, provided it encouraged outward migration rather than internal national agitation.

Summary of His Legacy

The opposition to Herzl's migration ideas reached a boiling point at the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903. Following the horrific Kishinev pogrom in Russia, Herzl desperately wanted an immediate sanctuary for fleeing Jews. Because negotiations for Palestine with the Ottoman Empire were stalled, he presented a British offer: a piece of land in East Africa (modern-day Kenya, called the Uganda Scheme. This proposal completely fractured the Zionist movement: The debate was so venomous that a young student even attempted to assassinate Herzl’s close ally, Max Nordau, shouting "Death to the African!" Herzl managed to keep the organization together by reaffirming his commitment to the land of Canaan, the destination of “whatever has been chosen”, which has been inherited and continuously inhabited by Palestinians for centuries.

Post Theodor Herzl Zionism

Charismatic Herzl died just a year later, in 1904, at the age of 44, due to collapsing health by immense stress brought about by Jews' infighting and workload, without securing the official international charter he desperately sought; still, his methods changed the course of history. He successfully transformed Zionism from a fringe, decentralized charitable idea into a legitimate player on the international diplomatic stage. Following his death in 1904, leadership of the Zionist movement passed to Chaim Weizmann, David Wolffsohn, and Ze’ev Jabotinsky, among others, who carried forward Herzl’s vision through diplomacy, grassroots organizing, and military initiatives, and the Zionist movement officially dropped the East Africa proposal, firmly cementing Palestine as its exclusive geographic goal. Chaim Weizmann, in the shoes of the Late Herzl, framed a future Jewish state as an asset to European imperialism and a solution to European domestic problems, which led to the British government's Balfour Declaration in 1917, 

Leader

Role/Contribution

Approach

David Wolffsohn

Stabilized WZO, fundraising

Administrative continuity

Nahum Sokolow

Diplomatic outreach, pre-Balfour work

Diplomacy

Chaim Weizmann

Secured the Balfour Declaration, led Zionist diplomacy

Pragmatic, scientific diplomacy

Ze’ev Jabotinsky

Founded Revisionist Zionism, the Jewish Legion, and Herzl’s secular state buried beneath!

Militant nation

 

While Europe was hysterically seeking to dispose of its many centuries-old Headaches caused by Jews, extraordinarily maintaining their identity within the native population, the destination targeted Palestine has been thriving well as many thousand years old Tri- religious civilization in West Asia. Such a great Tri-religious Civilization, Palestine never needed a policing or Security System to live wonderfully Harmonious for centuries, as per the Abrahamic Command.  Indeed, Palestine had no forces and thrived by cultivating its very fertile land.

 An open, non-hostile inhabitation, a walk in the park for all who like to come and settle there, and for imperialistic invaders, where there is honey, bees will swarm in. When an open door tempts a Saint, the house is bound to become divided, and that is what has happened in West Asia. The Ashkenazi Jews who adopted Judaism while in Europe were attracted by a flourishing agricultural system dominated by grains, olives, fruits, and vegetables across millions of dunams, with olives and cereals forming the backbone of subsistence and trade in Palestine/Arab.

Between 1882 and 1903, Ashkenazi Jews had begun migrating to Palestine independently, establishing small agricultural settlements long before Theodor Herzl’s organized Zionist movement took shape.

Local Palestinian farmers, rather than resisting, often extended hospitality to the newcomers. This openness facilitated Jewish agricultural settlement, underscoring the enduring civility and generosity of the indigenous Palestinian population during that period.

The Ashkenazi Jews stand as living proof that “old habits never die”. Though the early migration was independent, as time passed, migration gained momentum, driven by pogroms in Russia and Romania, and by the backing of British Colonial Rulers. Palestinian resentment also gained momentum and took different forms, from peasants to Palestinian intellectuals, as the following changes unfolded rapidly.

Here’s a compact summary of the five Aliyot, highlighting their timeframe, undertakings, driving reasons, and the ulterior demographic motives; heavily at the receiving end were Palestinians.

The story of modern Jewish migration to Palestine unfolds across five great waves, each building upon the last and together transforming the land and its people. The First Aliyah (1882–1903) began with small groups of pioneers, largely from Eastern Europe, who sought refuge from pogroms and persecution. Their settlements were fragile, yet they planted the seeds of agricultural renewal. The Second Aliyah (1904–1914) brought idealistic youth inspired by socialist and Zionist visions, who labored to establish collective farms and the foundations of the kibbutz movement, embedding a spirit of sacrifice and communal resilience.

The Third Aliyah (1919–1923) followed the upheaval of World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, bringing thousands of young workers who expanded agricultural settlements and laid the groundwork for the Haganah, the defense organization of the Yishuv. The Fourth Aliyah (1924–1929) differed in character: middle-class families, many from Poland, arrived seeking stability amid rising antisemitism and restrictive immigration laws elsewhere. They invested in commerce, crafts, and urban development, particularly in Tel Aviv, which began to flourish as a modern city.

The Fifth Aliyah (1929–1939) was the largest and most urgent, driven by the rise of Nazism and intensifying antisemitism across Europe. More than 250,000 immigrants, including professionals and intellectuals, enriched the economic and cultural life of Palestine, but their arrival also deepened tensions with the Arab population, culminating in violent clashes during the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939.

Together, these five Aliyot forged the economic, social, and institutional foundations of the Jewish community in Palestine. Yet they also intensified the conflict with the Arab inhabitants, setting the stage for the struggles that would dominate the mid‑20th century. What began as scattered settlements grew into a formidable national movement, but at the cost of escalating confrontation with those who had long called the land their home.

Demographics: Palestine was overwhelmingly Arab Muslim and Christian, with Canaanite Jewish* communities ancestrally established in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias. These older Jewish communities were well integrated into local society, unlike the new European arrivals  

Land Ownership: Much of the land purchased for moshavot (colonies) was acquired from absentee landlords in Beirut or Damascus. Palestinian peasants (fellahin) who had worked these lands for generations were often displaced, creating resentment.

Economic Shifts: The new agricultural colonies introduced new farming methods and were backed by foreign capital (e.g., the Rothschilds and Baron Edmond). This created competition with local Palestinian agriculture, which was largely subsistence-based.

Ottoman Rule: Palestinians were subjects of the Ottoman Empire, which restricted land sales to foreigners. Yet loopholes and corruption enabled Zionist organizations to circumvent these rules, fueling suspicion that outside powers were undermining local sovereignty.

The torment endured by Palestinians at the hands of newly arrived Ashkenazi Jews was mirrored by the zealous return of Yemenite Hebrew Jews*, who regarded their migration to Palestine as the sacred fulfillment of their covenantal destiny to reclaim the land of Canaan. This was no mere accident of history—it was deliberately orchestrated, driven by Dispensationalist Protestant preachers and strategically advanced by British imperial ambitions. Together, they fused theology with empire to project the illusion that the entire Jewish population was the singularly chosen people, reshaping the region’s destiny under a mantle of divine inevitability.

A Marathon Relay of Betrayals and Deceptions

The creation of Israel in 1948 can be read as the final baton change in a marathon relay of betrayals and deceptions, rendering Palestinians generational refugees for the sake of West Asian Fossil Fuel Treasures (WAFFT). WAFFT served to prevent competitive fuel purchasing, while payments in dollars or sterling were redirected into the treasuries of monopolizing nations, reinforcing their economic dominance. The British Empire’s limitation of its mandate on Palestine to 1948 was itself a calculated connivance, framed through the Balfour Declaration as a third betrayal, and conveniently passing the baton to prolong deception through the establishment of Israel.

On May 14, 1948, David Ben‑Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the State of Israel, recognized the same day by U.S. President Harry S. Truman. Although the United States had supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured Arab leaders in 1945 that no intervention would occur without consultation. Britain, holding the mandate until May 1948, opposed both a Jewish and an Arab state, seeking instead to preserve relations with the Arabs to protect vital interests.

Truman’s administration wrestled with competing pressures: humanitarian appeals for displaced Jews, strategic concerns over Arab oil, and fears of Soviet influence. In 1946, Truman approved the admission of 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and later declared support for a Jewish state. The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine recommended partition, and Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 formalized the plan. Despite State Department reservations, Truman ultimately recognized Israel upon its declaration, cementing the baton change in this long relay of betrayal and deception.