My blog is about my personal opinions only and do not reflect or represent any company that I work for either past, present or future. I will not hesitate to use the benefit of my experiences in telling the story of what goes on in the real world. beep/bop/boop
View all posts by John
Published
One thought on “One Of The Best Yoda Meme’s”
Who Runs the Government?
What are the potential humanitarian consequences of the intense Israeli bombardment in Gaza City?
The nationalization of the Suez Canal by Nasser in 1956 imposed a major blow to British and French influence in the Middle East. The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War further weakened the influence of England and France in the region, as Israel’s decisive victory drastically changed the regional balance of power.
An immediate reaction to this disaster for British and French interests in the Middle East, France drafted UN Resolution 242 in an effort to negate Israel’s gains from the 1967 war and return the borders to the pre-1967 status.
Quite amazing that France, having lost WWII, appointed to sit on the UN Security Council as a permanent member. Neither Germany nor Japan to this day sits as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Britain separated the area of Trans-Jordan from the Palestine Mandate territories, establishing the Jordan River as the international border. In 1950, the UN condemned Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as illegal. Since Jordan attacked Israel in the 1967 war, and Israel subsequently recaptured the Samaria region (the West Bank), Israel cannot be considered an “occupier” of lands within its own established borders as determined by Britain during the Mandate period.
The historical record shows that foreign-imposed two-state solutions or border demarcations have always failed to bring lasting peace in various regional conflicts. Utterly misleading or disingenuous to automatically associate discussions of UN Resolution 242 and UN Resolution attempts thereafter to determine Israel’s borders with the rhetoric of “peace.” The reality simply much more complex, with competing interests and perspectives at play.
Examples of India-Pakistan, North-South Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq-Kuwait — Great Power interventions, illustrates how externally-driven border arrangements and partition plans have always failed to resolve deep-seated tensions and conflicts. The use of that rhetoric propaganda language, employed to gloss-over the political realities and power dynamics involved. A more nuanced and impartial analysis that challenges the corruption of Bureaucratic intelligence agencies of the Great Powers emphatically warranted, when discussing such sensitive geopolitical issues, rather than relying on simplistic “peace” narratives of propaganda.
Addressing the complex issues surrounding UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 242 on the Arab-Israeli conflict, requires examining the role and influences of foreign state intelligence agencies and bureaucracies. The behavior and motives of these state actors, absolute critical factors that shape the geopolitical landscape and the outcomes of such UN resolutions.
Competing intelligence assessments and interests: Different states’ intelligence agencies clearly have diverging analyses and priorities when it comes to regional conflicts like the Arab-Israeli dispute. This can lead to inconsistent or self-serving policy positions.
Bureaucratic inertia and institutional biases: Intelligence and foreign policy bureaucracies can develop entrenched habits, narratives and biases that perpetuate certain approaches, even as regional dynamics shift. Covert influence operations: States may leverage intelligence capabilities to covertly shape public opinion, pressure political actors, or manipulate the information landscape around these issues.
Power struggles and proxy conflicts: The Arab-Israeli conflict post WWII, an arena for larger geopolitical rivalries and proxy battles between global and regional powers. The Cold War struggle between the US and USSR domination of the Middle East oil reserves a stark example. Nixon’s establishment of the petro$ monopoly over OPEC States.
Examination of the role of state intelligence agencies and their institutional dynamics; these concealed, unreported and unseen forces play a profound impact on the formulation, implementation and long-term propaganda impact of these reactionary UN Resolutions/rubber stamps. Intelligence agencies shape the information and assessments that inform the development of all UN resolutions. These hostile Great Power bureaucratic intelligence spy agencies, by their mandate definitions: they pursue agendas that go beyond the ostensible goals of the resolution.
Bureaucratic interests and biases can become embedded into the wording and framing of resolutions. Intelligence agencies leverage covert operations, information warfare, and proxy actors to influence how resolutions, interpreted by the Main Stream Media propaganda organs of the Great Powers, and applied attempts to dictate terms to “client” banana republic States.
They seek to subvert the consequences of the Israeli victory in the June 1967 war. UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334, through selective enforcement or undermining compliance, seek to carve Israel into two hostile States like the post WWII Allies divided Germany into 2-State solution and Berlin into a 2-Capital Solution.
The intent behind these resolutions goes beyond their ostensible goals of promoting peace and security. The underlying agenda, one of leveraging the UN framework to diminish Israel’s position and territorial control – outcomes that would align with the interests and institutional biases of certain hostile state intelligence agencies.
Selective enforcement or undermining of compliance with these resolutions, exposes the key tactic employed by Intelligence bureaucracies to achieve their imperialist objectives. Rather than facilitating a genuine conflict resolution. State propaganda rhetoric deceives by means of Peace lies. This speaks to the profound impact that concealed, unreported forces can have on the implementation and legacy of such UN actions.
UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334, part of a broader effort to divide Israel into two hostile states, akin to the post-WWII partitioning of Germany. This speaks to the geo-strategic calculations and power dynamics at play, which often transcend the ostensible goals of promoting peace and security.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been a proxy battleground for competing regional and global powers. Intelligence agencies may leverage these UN resolutions to advance the interests of their respective states, even if it perpetuates the underlying conflict.
Institutional Biases: Bureaucracies within foreign policy and intelligence establishments can develop entrenched narratives, preconceptions, and institutional incentives that make them resistant to solutions that don’t align with their preferred outcomes. This can lead to the selective interpretation and application of UN resolutions.
Covert Information Warfare: State intelligence agencies have ignoble reputations, known to employ sophisticated information manipulation tactics, including the strategic leaking of information, the promotion of favorable narratives, and the suppression or distortion of inconvenient facts. This can shape the public perception and historical framing of all these UN anti-Israel actions.
Long-Term Strategic Objectives: Rather than seeking immediate conflict resolution, the subversion of UN resolutions may be part of a longer-term strategy to gradually erode Israel’s position and create the conditions for a more favorable geopolitical arrangement from the perspective of certain state actors.
The complexities involved in these dynamics highlight the importance of looking beyond the explicit text and intent of UN Security Council resolutions. Accounting for the hidden influence of state intelligence agencies and their institutional biases, absolutely crucial toward understanding the true forces shaping the implementation and legacy of such international frameworks and imperialist hidden agendas.,
Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334, part of a broader effort to gradually erode Israel’s territorial control and position, with the ultimate objective of carving the country into two hostile states. This strategic objective aligns with the geopolitical interests and institutional biases of certain state intelligence agencies.
An important dynamic to consider, the role of covert information warfare tactics – employed by these hostile foreign “international” agencies. They have a known reputation: to selectively leak information, promote favorable narratives, and suppress or distort inconvenient facts in order to influence public perception and historical framing of these criminal UN actions.
For example, hostile intelligence agencies often strategically release partial or misleading information about the implementation of these resolutions, obscuring the true extent of non-compliance or even undermining of the resolutions’ intent. This can create the impression of progress and compliance, or the reverse, even as the resolutions’ transformative potential – quietly subverts the publicly stated political rhetoric of the Resolutions. UN Resolution 181, serves as an excellent example. That UN General Assembly resolution which all Arab countries rejected at the time does not compare to the 10 commandments written in stone.
Furthermore, the bureaucratic inertia and institutional biases within foreign policy and intelligence establishments can lead to the selective interpretation and application of these UN resolutions. Preconceived notions, organizational incentives, and entrenched narratives can all contribute to a reluctance to pursue solutions that don’t align with the preferred outcomes of these state actors. For example: the repeated rhetoric of “occupied territories” or “the State of Palestine” etc.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long served as a proxy battleground for competing regional and global powers. Intelligence agencies may leverage these UN resolutions to advance the interests of their respective states, even if it perpetuates the underlying conflict.
The subversion of UN resolutions exposes part of a long-term strategic hostile Quartet foreign objective. Rather than a sincere effort at immediate conflict resolution. The Quartet intelligence bureaucracies seek a gradually eroding Israel’s position through selective enforcement and undermining of compliance disputes. These state intelligence agencies seek to create the conditions for a more favorable geopolitical arrangement that better serves their hostile perspectives.
This complex interplay of covert information warfare, institutional biases, and geopolitical maneuvering highlights the need for a more comprehensive analysis of these criminal UN Security Council resolutions. Understanding the hidden foreign Intelligence bureaucratic forces which shape their implementation and legacy. Simply crucial to unveiling the true dynamics at play.
Delusions of Adequacy 
Who Runs the Government?
What are the potential humanitarian consequences of the intense Israeli bombardment in Gaza City?
The nationalization of the Suez Canal by Nasser in 1956 imposed a major blow to British and French influence in the Middle East. The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War further weakened the influence of England and France in the region, as Israel’s decisive victory drastically changed the regional balance of power.
An immediate reaction to this disaster for British and French interests in the Middle East, France drafted UN Resolution 242 in an effort to negate Israel’s gains from the 1967 war and return the borders to the pre-1967 status.
Quite amazing that France, having lost WWII, appointed to sit on the UN Security Council as a permanent member. Neither Germany nor Japan to this day sits as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Britain separated the area of Trans-Jordan from the Palestine Mandate territories, establishing the Jordan River as the international border. In 1950, the UN condemned Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as illegal. Since Jordan attacked Israel in the 1967 war, and Israel subsequently recaptured the Samaria region (the West Bank), Israel cannot be considered an “occupier” of lands within its own established borders as determined by Britain during the Mandate period.
The historical record shows that foreign-imposed two-state solutions or border demarcations have always failed to bring lasting peace in various regional conflicts. Utterly misleading or disingenuous to automatically associate discussions of UN Resolution 242 and UN Resolution attempts thereafter to determine Israel’s borders with the rhetoric of “peace.” The reality simply much more complex, with competing interests and perspectives at play.
Examples of India-Pakistan, North-South Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq-Kuwait — Great Power interventions, illustrates how externally-driven border arrangements and partition plans have always failed to resolve deep-seated tensions and conflicts. The use of that rhetoric propaganda language, employed to gloss-over the political realities and power dynamics involved. A more nuanced and impartial analysis that challenges the corruption of Bureaucratic intelligence agencies of the Great Powers emphatically warranted, when discussing such sensitive geopolitical issues, rather than relying on simplistic “peace” narratives of propaganda.
Addressing the complex issues surrounding UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 242 on the Arab-Israeli conflict, requires examining the role and influences of foreign state intelligence agencies and bureaucracies. The behavior and motives of these state actors, absolute critical factors that shape the geopolitical landscape and the outcomes of such UN resolutions.
Competing intelligence assessments and interests: Different states’ intelligence agencies clearly have diverging analyses and priorities when it comes to regional conflicts like the Arab-Israeli dispute. This can lead to inconsistent or self-serving policy positions.
Bureaucratic inertia and institutional biases: Intelligence and foreign policy bureaucracies can develop entrenched habits, narratives and biases that perpetuate certain approaches, even as regional dynamics shift. Covert influence operations: States may leverage intelligence capabilities to covertly shape public opinion, pressure political actors, or manipulate the information landscape around these issues.
Power struggles and proxy conflicts: The Arab-Israeli conflict post WWII, an arena for larger geopolitical rivalries and proxy battles between global and regional powers. The Cold War struggle between the US and USSR domination of the Middle East oil reserves a stark example. Nixon’s establishment of the petro$ monopoly over OPEC States.
Examination of the role of state intelligence agencies and their institutional dynamics; these concealed, unreported and unseen forces play a profound impact on the formulation, implementation and long-term propaganda impact of these reactionary UN Resolutions/rubber stamps. Intelligence agencies shape the information and assessments that inform the development of all UN resolutions. These hostile Great Power bureaucratic intelligence spy agencies, by their mandate definitions: they pursue agendas that go beyond the ostensible goals of the resolution.
Bureaucratic interests and biases can become embedded into the wording and framing of resolutions. Intelligence agencies leverage covert operations, information warfare, and proxy actors to influence how resolutions, interpreted by the Main Stream Media propaganda organs of the Great Powers, and applied attempts to dictate terms to “client” banana republic States.
They seek to subvert the consequences of the Israeli victory in the June 1967 war. UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334, through selective enforcement or undermining compliance, seek to carve Israel into two hostile States like the post WWII Allies divided Germany into 2-State solution and Berlin into a 2-Capital Solution.
The intent behind these resolutions goes beyond their ostensible goals of promoting peace and security. The underlying agenda, one of leveraging the UN framework to diminish Israel’s position and territorial control – outcomes that would align with the interests and institutional biases of certain hostile state intelligence agencies.
Selective enforcement or undermining of compliance with these resolutions, exposes the key tactic employed by Intelligence bureaucracies to achieve their imperialist objectives. Rather than facilitating a genuine conflict resolution. State propaganda rhetoric deceives by means of Peace lies. This speaks to the profound impact that concealed, unreported forces can have on the implementation and legacy of such UN actions.
UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334, part of a broader effort to divide Israel into two hostile states, akin to the post-WWII partitioning of Germany. This speaks to the geo-strategic calculations and power dynamics at play, which often transcend the ostensible goals of promoting peace and security.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been a proxy battleground for competing regional and global powers. Intelligence agencies may leverage these UN resolutions to advance the interests of their respective states, even if it perpetuates the underlying conflict.
Institutional Biases: Bureaucracies within foreign policy and intelligence establishments can develop entrenched narratives, preconceptions, and institutional incentives that make them resistant to solutions that don’t align with their preferred outcomes. This can lead to the selective interpretation and application of UN resolutions.
Covert Information Warfare: State intelligence agencies have ignoble reputations, known to employ sophisticated information manipulation tactics, including the strategic leaking of information, the promotion of favorable narratives, and the suppression or distortion of inconvenient facts. This can shape the public perception and historical framing of all these UN anti-Israel actions.
Long-Term Strategic Objectives: Rather than seeking immediate conflict resolution, the subversion of UN resolutions may be part of a longer-term strategy to gradually erode Israel’s position and create the conditions for a more favorable geopolitical arrangement from the perspective of certain state actors.
The complexities involved in these dynamics highlight the importance of looking beyond the explicit text and intent of UN Security Council resolutions. Accounting for the hidden influence of state intelligence agencies and their institutional biases, absolutely crucial toward understanding the true forces shaping the implementation and legacy of such international frameworks and imperialist hidden agendas.,
Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334, part of a broader effort to gradually erode Israel’s territorial control and position, with the ultimate objective of carving the country into two hostile states. This strategic objective aligns with the geopolitical interests and institutional biases of certain state intelligence agencies.
An important dynamic to consider, the role of covert information warfare tactics – employed by these hostile foreign “international” agencies. They have a known reputation: to selectively leak information, promote favorable narratives, and suppress or distort inconvenient facts in order to influence public perception and historical framing of these criminal UN actions.
For example, hostile intelligence agencies often strategically release partial or misleading information about the implementation of these resolutions, obscuring the true extent of non-compliance or even undermining of the resolutions’ intent. This can create the impression of progress and compliance, or the reverse, even as the resolutions’ transformative potential – quietly subverts the publicly stated political rhetoric of the Resolutions. UN Resolution 181, serves as an excellent example. That UN General Assembly resolution which all Arab countries rejected at the time does not compare to the 10 commandments written in stone.
Furthermore, the bureaucratic inertia and institutional biases within foreign policy and intelligence establishments can lead to the selective interpretation and application of these UN resolutions. Preconceived notions, organizational incentives, and entrenched narratives can all contribute to a reluctance to pursue solutions that don’t align with the preferred outcomes of these state actors. For example: the repeated rhetoric of “occupied territories” or “the State of Palestine” etc.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long served as a proxy battleground for competing regional and global powers. Intelligence agencies may leverage these UN resolutions to advance the interests of their respective states, even if it perpetuates the underlying conflict.
The subversion of UN resolutions exposes part of a long-term strategic hostile Quartet foreign objective. Rather than a sincere effort at immediate conflict resolution. The Quartet intelligence bureaucracies seek a gradually eroding Israel’s position through selective enforcement and undermining of compliance disputes. These state intelligence agencies seek to create the conditions for a more favorable geopolitical arrangement that better serves their hostile perspectives.
This complex interplay of covert information warfare, institutional biases, and geopolitical maneuvering highlights the need for a more comprehensive analysis of these criminal UN Security Council resolutions. Understanding the hidden foreign Intelligence bureaucratic forces which shape their implementation and legacy. Simply crucial to unveiling the true dynamics at play.
LikeLike