A supervisor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency directed disaster relief workers in Florida to “avoid homes” with signs endorsing President-elect Donald Trump, the agency confirmed on Friday.
Marn’i Washington, a FEMA official, gave her directive both verbally and via a Microsoft Teams chat used by relief workers following the devastation caused by Hurricane Milton in October, the Daily Wire reported.
“Avoid homes advertising Trump,” Washington wrote in a “best practices” memo to staff.
It’s past time to get rid of these people. They are everything they accused Trump and his supporters of.
Delusions of Adequacy 
Faith: Justice Justice Pursue.
The Peace Process. Why does Israel absolutely reject all international attempts to mediate the Arab-Israeli wars?
France’s emphasis on multilateral diplomacy in the Middle East seen as a threat to Israel’s sovereignty and right to self-determination. This French imperialism with its political rhetoric baggage, labeled as ‘multilateral diplomacy’, dilutes the specific needs and rights of Israel, particularly regarding its self-determination.
This political jargon rhetoric – utterly treif. For example: [[[France’s broader strategy in the Middle East emphasizes multilateral diplomacy]]] Arab States absolutely reject Jewish self determination in the Middle East. France’s “multilateral diplomacy” marketing propaganda favors the rejection of Jews equal rights to self-determination. How? Israel requires direct face to face negotiations. Arab states racist Nazism therefore favors “multilateral diplomacy” because this degrades Israel into the status of a UN protectorate mandate territory.
Discussions about multilateral diplomacy often overlook how the involvement of international bureaucratic organizations and external powers like France can undermine Israel’s sovereignty and its right to self-determination through alien/foreign red-tape bureaucratic regulations.
When France emphasizes multilateral diplomacy, Israel interprets such marketing tactics as siding with Arab states that reject Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in the region. This approach seen as an attempt to delegitimize Israel’s sovereignty by involving external powers, such as the United Nations or the European Union, in ways that infringe upon Israel’s ability to negotiate directly with its Arab neighbors.
The Arab states, including nations like Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, have long rejected the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East, with many maintaining historical and territorial claims over areas that now comprise Israel. These states have used international platforms, including the UN, to push for resolutions that isolate Israel, deny its legitimacy, or call for a “two-state solution” that would see Israel’s borders fundamentally altered in ways that many Israelis believe undermine their security and territorial integrity.
In contrast, Israel has consistently argued that it must engage in direct face-to-face negotiations with its Arab neighbors to ensure that any peace deal respects its security needs and the integrity of its borders. Israel sees the imposition of external bureaucratic pressure, through multilateral diplomacy or UN resolutions, as undermining its right to negotiate terms of peace on its own terms, without being coerced into concessions that would leave it vulnerable to Auschwitz borders.
This broad Jewish distrust\tension reflects a fundamental clash between Israel’s desire for direct, bilateral negotiations and the international community’s, its skewed traditions & antisemitic history, patronizing pretensive role wherein it attempts to mediate or impose solutions seen as skewed in favor of Arab states that refuse to recognize Israel’s legitimacy. This antisemitic dynamic turns multilateral diplomacy into a tool for delegitimizing Israel, instead of fostering genuine peace. It serves as a key tool that places Israel in a defensive position, forced to contend with political pressures that diminish its ability to act in its own national interest.
Ultimately, these tensions, part of a larger struggle for Israel’s recognition and its place in the Middle East, where the international bureaucrats attempt to apply ‘multilateral diplomacy’ in an attempt to erase Israel’s status as an independent and sovereign nation. To reduce Israel’s role in the region to that of a mandate territory, under the supervision of international bodies rather than as an equal member of the global community.
The Zionist movement, which advocated for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was founded by Theodor Herzl, consequent to the Dreyfus Affair and Russian pogroms. Widespread antisemitism and persecution of Jewish communities in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries served as a major catalyst for the Zionist movement. The First Zionist Congress, held in 1897 in Basel Switzerland, where Herzl and other prominent figures in the Zionist movement discussed and debated their divergent visions for the establishment of a Jewish state – such as political vs. cultural Zionism.
The Balfour Declaration, a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, expressed British support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This political Zionist breakthrough, the first recognition by a major international power of Jewish national aspirations, had a profound impact on international diplomacy, contributed to the end of Ottoman rule in the region, and shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by laying the groundwork for competing national claims to the League of Nations awarded Palestine mandate.
The League of Nations granted Britain this mandate, to administer Palestine in consequence to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. The mandate included a solid commitment to implement the Balfour Declaration and facilitate Jewish immigration and settlement of divided Ottoman Greater Syria. This awarded mandate, with its pre-conditions, led to nearly 30 years of British control over the region, ending in 1948. A direct consequence to the British 1939 White Paper whereby London betrayed the Jewish people and made open alliance with Hitlers’ Shoah genocide. Both Churchill & FDR made the conscious decision that Allied bombers not destroy the rail lines that transported Jews to the death camps. Stalin ordered the Red Army to halt in sight of Warsaw to permit the SS to obliterate the Jewish revolt.
The Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organization, played a significant role in the defense of Jewish communities during the corrupt British Mandate. Initially formed to protect Jewish communities from local Arab attacks, the Haganah later evolved into one of the main military organizations in the Jewish community in the lead-up to the expulsion of the British Nazi alliance and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The Irgun blew up the King David Hotel which served as the Central British Headquarters in Jerusalem.
The 1929 Hebron massacre exploded. This violent trauma in the city of Hebron, caused by British policy, which promoted a divide and rule strife between Arabs and Jews. Arab residents attacked that Jewish community, resulting in the deaths of approximately 67 Hebron Jews, including women and children, and injuries to many others.
The 1930s Arab revolt followed. A period of intense Arab resistance and rebellion against British colonial rule and Jewish immigration to Mandate Palestine. That revolt occurred from 1936 to 1939; triggered by several factors, including Arab frustrations over land dispossession, Jewish immigration, and economic disparities.
The Six-Day War, June 5 to June 10, 1967; a brief but intense conflict in the Middle East. Primarily pitted Israel and a coalition of Arab states, including Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. It resulted in an overwhelming victory for Israel, & the capture of large swathes of territory from the surrounding Arab states; creating an important defensive buffer for Israel, and the reunification of Jerusalem. Which came under Jewish sovereignty for the first time in nearly 2,000 years.
Multinational intervention, specifically the British/French UNSCR 242 first introduced the idea of “occupied territories” together with a Chapter VI “suggestion” of “land for peace”. Never did that UN intervention address the key primary cause of the War: the Nazi Arab racism which rejects the Israeli right to self determination in the Middle East. The UNSC never has demanded from Arab countries that they recognize the equal rights of Jews living in the Middle East to self determination. The skewed biased multinational UN Resolution only places demands upon Israel, as if Israel rather than Jordan invaded. As if Israel rather than Jordan, Syria, and Egypt captured rather than lost territory consequent to Nassers’ military adventurism.
The 1973 Yom Kippur War, another significant multi-national intervention. This Arab surprise attack, by Egypt and Syria on Israel, strove to restore the balance of power in the Middle East to Arab domination which these states justified as Arab pride. The conflict led to superpower involvement, the U.S., no longer tied down in the Vietnam imperialism. Both the US and Russia demanded a ceasefire. Despite Israel having cut off and besieged the Egyptian 3rd Army and Suez City, coming within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of Cairo.; IDF advances on the Golan front, within a few dozen kilometers (about 20 miles) of the Syrian capital! Russian and US intervention stopped the Israeli capture of Damascus which would have radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East at the expense of both USSR and US strategic interests. Israeli pilots shot down Russian pilots over the Sinai. The war’s long-term impact on regional security – President Sadat decided to accept the Israeli invitation and start direct face to face negotiations, which Israel demands for any Arab/Israeli peace.
The 2009-2010 settlement freeze represented a significant multi-national diplomatic effort by Obama, this US imperialism later culminated in the multi-national condemnation of Israel, infamously known as UNSCR 2334.
Multilateral diplomacy as promoted by foreign powers like France – virtually always perceived by Israel as undermining and threatening its sovereignty. This foreign imperialism attempts to position Israel within the framework of some hostile international consensus, which seeks to impose Chapter VII conditions and resolutions—like the rhetoric jargon gas which the United Nations continuously farts.
Multinational demands for peace negotiations armed with “multilateral” oversight. France and UNSC great powers push for a form of control or constraint on Israel’s self-determination. Israel categorically rejects this foreign imperialism as strongly as Arab Nazi racism rejects Israel’s right to self-determination in the Middle East. No UNSCR has ever recognized Israel as an independent country within the Middle East. Israel unequivocally demands the conduct of Peace negotiations through direct, bilateral negotiations with its neighboring states, free from external Big Brother foreign bureaucratic regulations.
UNSC bureaucratic resolutions—always demand that Israel surrender territorial concessions; yet never equally demand reciprocal recognition from Arab states concerning Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. This multinationalism framework as a rule positions Israel defensively within international relations, where Israeli actions, condemned by a standard that does not apply equally to other nations involved in any other conflict.
Multilateral diplomacy in the Middle East, particularly as practiced by Western European states like France & Russia supports Arab state positions which attempt to diminish Israel’s unique security and sovereignty fundamental requirements. This deeply contentious multinationalism issue reflects a broader, complex legacy of international involvement in Israel’s path to securing and maintaining its status as a sovereign nation.
In essence, the argument claims that multilateral diplomacy, in this specific context, simply anything other than neutral. Not a tool for conflict resolution but rather a mechanism used to undermine Israel’s sovereignty and legitimacy. This position paper, the strength of its argument lies in its historical depth and consistent narrative.
LikeLike