Election Memes – It’s Almost November 5

One thought on “Election Memes – It’s Almost November 5”

1. Israeli foreign policy: The fundamental distinction which separates strategic from tactical conflicts.

   French influence, like UNSCR 242 and UN Resolution 1701 which established UNIFIL, does this qualify as great power imperialism which seeks to dominate the balance of power in the Middle East at the expense of Israel?

   France has long sought to mediate in the Arab-Israeli conflict, attempting to maintain ties with both Israel and Arab states while promoting regional stability. However, critics argue that France’s policies often tilt toward Arab interests, especially concerning Palestinian statehood and Lebanese sovereignty, which creates friction with Israel.

   UNSCR 242, authored in part by France after the Six-Day War, reflects this balancing effort. Its wording—calling for Israel’s withdrawal from “territories occupied,” without specifying “all” territories—invites differing interpretations. France has used this ambiguity to push for diplomatic solutions, but Israeli officials often view it as undermining their sovereignty.

   Israel also criticizes the inconsistent enforcement of the resolution, as some UN actions treat it as though it carries the force of Chapter VII (which authorizes military or economic sanctions) rather than Chapter VI (which only encourages peaceful negotiations). This discrepancy fosters a perception that international powers limit Israel’s autonomy, forcing it into unwanted compromises.

   Similarly, Israel views UNIFIL (the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon) as an ineffective presence, unable to contain Hezbollah’s growing influence and military buildup. France’s support for UNIFIL aligns with its broader diplomatic strategy of de-escalation through dialogue rather than military action. Yet Israel interprets these efforts as prioritizing Lebanese sovereignty at the expense of its own security. For example, Hezbollah’s access to southern Lebanon, despite UNIFIL’s mandate, illustrates the mission’s inability to enforce its terms effectively, frustrating Israeli defense efforts.

   Israel makes similar critiques of UNRWA, the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees, arguing that it perpetuates refugee status rather than seeking durable solutions. Critics accuse France and other European nations of supporting these UN frameworks to maintain regional influence while sidelining Israeli security concerns.

   Both UNIFIL and UNRWA, from Israel’s perspective, reflect international mechanisms that constrain Israel’s ability to act decisively, leaving perceived threats unaddressed.France’s Middle East policies, including UNSCR 242 and UNIFIL, aim to bolster diplomatic influence by creating cooperative structures. However, Israeli officials interpret these frameworks as limiting their sovereignty, shaping a regional power balance that favors Arab interests.

   This tension underscores the complex nature of French-Israeli relations, where France’s pursuit of diplomacy clashes with Israel’s need for security autonomy.Therefore, after the latest UNGA condemnation of Israel based upon the fraud of Chapter VII, Israel shall issue its own ultimatum against the UN.

   Either the UN 1) recognizes Israel as a country in the region of the Middle East 2) Annuls UNSCR 242 and 3) Expels France as a permanent member of the UN Security Council; based upon the reality that France lost WWII. If the UN fails to obey this Israeli ultimatum, then Israel breaks off all diplomatic relations with the UN and expels it from Lebanon, Gaza, Samaria, and Israel.

   This tension between Israel’s security needs and the international community’s diplomatic efforts underscores the complexities of the Arab-Israeli conflict. France’s role, while aimed at fostering stability, is often viewed by Israel as an impediment to its sovereignty and security. The proposed ultimatum illustrates the frustration and urgency felt by Israel in navigating its diplomatic relations amidst ongoing challenges. As the situation continues to evolve, these dynamics will play a crucial role in shaping future interactions between Israel, France, and the broader international community.

   Post UNSCR 242, the UN has grossly failed to acknowledge and address the First Cause of all Arab Israeli Wars: Arab racism which continues to view Israel as a dhimmi Crusader colony imposed upon the Middle East after the Ottoman defeat in WWI. Arab racism which absolutely rejects Jewish equal rights to self determination in the Middle East.

   The interplay between French diplomatic efforts and Israeli security concerns encapsulates the broader challenges of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As Israel navigates its diplomatic relations amidst perceived international pressures, the call for recognition of its sovereignty and security needs reflects a profound frustration with the current state of affairs. The complexities of racism, historical narratives, and geopolitical interests will continue to shape the dialogue and actions of all parties involved in this enduring conflict.

   France was one of the first countries to recognise the new State and establish diplomatic relations as early as 1949. However, France is also the friend of the Palestinian people and supports the creation of a Palestinian State, living within secure and recognised borders alongside Israel, with Jerusalem as the capital of both States.

   In 2010, France raised the status of the General Delegation of Palestine in France, which became the Mission of Palestine and is led by an ambassador. In November 2012, France voted in favour of the status of non-member observer State at the United Nations, and in September 2015 for the placing of the Palestinian flag at the UN.

   France calls for compliance with international law, in particular the relevant United Nations resolutions. Since when did the 242 Chapter VI suggestion switch to “international law”?

   Therefore, France promotes a two-state solution, which duplicates the two-state solution imposed upon defeated Nazi Germany. Furthermore France promotes a fair solution regarding ’48 & ’67 Arab refugees with the demand for a forced population transfer of Israeli settler populations living within Samaria and E. Jerusalem. France also calls on Israel to fully comply with “international humanitarian law”, yet never troubles the UN to define this political rhetoric propaganda jargon! France supports the creation of an independent, viable, and sovereign Palestinian State and is supporting the Palestinian Authority on the path to establishing a future Palestinian State.

   Oblivious to the central fact that Israel won the ’48 and ’67 wars; that the PLO and Hamas constitutions call for genocide of the Jewish state. Despite these obvious facts, France remains particularly concerned about the living conditions of Palestinians, which Paris intrinsically links to the resolution of the conflict between an Independent nation vs. Arab refugee populations who have no country of their own. Trump’s Abraham Accords fundamentally rejects this box-thinking which limits peace to the Middle East to resolving the Israel Palestine conflict.

   France had no such humanitarian concerns for the living conditions of Jews forced to live in European ghetto dungeons for 3 Centuries. The political rhetoric propaganda jargon: “France is committed to stability in the region and condemns all acts of violence and terrorism. France is unwaveringly committed to Israel’s security, which remains a key principle of its regional policy. Israel simply does not accept these Paris propaganda lies.

   This message presents a strong critique of French diplomacy in the Middle East, arguing that France’s efforts—especially concerning UNSCR 242, UNWRA, UNIFIL, and its support for Palestinian statehood—undermine Israel’s sovereignty and security. It reflects frustration over perceived French bias, calling attention to Israel’s dissatisfaction with how the UN and certain international actors address key issues in the conflict.

   The text also frames UNSCR 242 as deliberately ambiguous, suggesting that the resolution’s wording has allowed international powers to pressure Israel while ignoring Israel’s victories in 1948 and 1967. The message ties France’s diplomatic stance to deeper historical grievances, emphasizing that France’s support for Palestinian sovereignty echoes post-WWII policies but neglects Israel’s wartime triumphs and security needs.

   In addition, the critique targets the UN’s handling of resolutions under Chapter VI versus Chapter VII and accuses France of applying inconsistent standards. The message contends that these frameworks restrict Israel’s freedom of action, promoting Arab interests at Israel’s expense. Furthermore, it highlights frustration with the portrayal of “international humanitarian law,” arguing that these terms lack clarity and function as political rhetoric.

   The argument culminates with an ultimatum demanding changes from the UN, including recognition of Israel’s sovereignty as a country of the Middle East, the annulment of UNSCR 242, and the expulsion of France as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, based upon the precedent of the expulsion of Taiwan. If unmet, it suggests Israel should sever ties with the UN and expel its presence from key areas within the Middle East. This ultimatum reflects a broader critique of how international diplomacy, as seen from this perspective, hampers Israel’s right to self-defense and autonomy.

   LikeLike

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.