How Iranian regime, trying to go after Israel devastated Lebanon

 As I wrote in the third part of the story about Arafat and the PLO Arafat played a huge role in unleashing and shaping the course of the civil war in Lebanon. Here's a few words about the political system of Lebanon, necessary to understand what was happening at the moment the civil war broke out and afterward, and which still affects the current situation in the Middle East. This former French colony gained independence in 1943, taking advantage of France's problems. In the National Pact of that year (which in this respect served the role of a constitutional power-sharing agreement), attempting to prevent the escalation of religious conflicts, the presidency was reserved for a Maronite Christian, the prime minister's position for a Sunni Muslim, and the role of parliamentary speaker for a Shia Muslim. In this way, it attempted to prevent a political (and perhaps also a real and bloody) war among the followers of the three main religions of Lebanon. This division served its purpose for many years. In the 1960s, Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East, and the country, not without problems, but which country is free from them, was developing in peace.

The violation of interfaith balance, the enormous influence of Syria and the USSR (in Lebanon, often operating through Syria) contributed to the disruption of this fragile balance, which at the end - as I described - was destroyed by the large influx of Sunni and revolutionary-minded supporters of Arafat lead by Arafat himself. Arafat was supported by the USSR (his successor Abbas earned a doctorate in Moscow in the 1960s writing thesis on the links between Zionism and Nazism - that idea was a communist construct, and is still frequently repeated by various activists today). The Lebanese system, already heavily weakened by this religious-ideological burden, could not bear more, and the country slid into a long (1975-1990) civil war.

During the course of the war, something happened that has affected and continues to affect Lebanon, the history of the war, the state system, and brought about its downfall. Its influence continues to this day. The Khomeini Revolution. Without it, the civil war would probably have lasted shorter, the Israeli intervention in the war in Lebanon probably would not have occurred, or at the very least, it would have been much shorter and less significant, and today's Lebanon would have looked differently (I dare say, much better).

I have already written about the linguistic, ethnic, and above all religious divisions between Iran and the Arab countries of the Middle East. Lebanon, with its very delicate religious-political division, and at the same time a small country with an ongoing civil war, was perceived by Khomeini's Iran as a gateway to the Arab Middle East and to attacks on Israel.

In 1981, even before Israel's invasion in 1982 (contrary to what the ayatollahs and Hezbollah itself had insisted), Iran funded Hezbollah, thus strengthening the Shiites in Lebanon. The Party of God (as the name Hezbollah is translates), in addition to terrorist activities (always the most important and costly), was indeed involved in supporting the Shiite minority in Lebanon, running schools, hospitals, and lending institutions. This earned it the gratitude of the Shiite citizens of Lebanon, who were indeed neglected (and certainly perceived themselves as such) by the state.

Hezbollah took part in the war with Israel during the first IDF intervention in Lebanon (in response to cross-border shelling of towns and settlements in Israel by Arafat's PLO, and not because of any dominant conflict with the Lebanese authorities; the IDF aimed to ensure the safety of Israelis in Israel).

Soon, many countries designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. However, some did so only with regard to the military, not the political, wing of the organization. This was essentially a nod to Iran, and often simply a gesture of hostility toward Israel, since Hezbollah leaders themselves - neither Naim Qassem nor Sheikh Nasrallah - recognized any such division and repeatedly expressed this publicly. (“in Lebanon there is one Hezbollah, named Hezbollah. We don’t have a military wing and a political wing. We don’t have Hezbollah and the Party of Resistance, because Hezbollah is a political party, a resistance party, and the party of striving in the path of God Almighty and service of the human being. This, in short, is Hezbollah.” Naim Qassem in 2012).

Iran has used its tool - Hezbollah - skillfully, bringing about political turmoil and revolts in Lebanon's Shiite Amal Party and sending more than 1,000 revolutionary guards to the Beqaa Valley to consolidate its terrorist organization. Ayatollahs used Hezbollah not only to fight Israel, but also to attack the Shah's supporters in the 1980s in Europe and to attack France during the Iran-Iraq war, when France sided with Iraq. Iran has been funding and arming Hezbollah all along, but the organization has also created an underground state in Lebanon capable of, at least partially, circumventing U.S. sanctions.

Hezbollah, which fought wars with Israel in the 1980s, in 2006, in 2024 (when it joined the war after a Hamas's attack) and is currently at war with Israel, is also an enemy of the State of Lebanon. Its founding document, the so-called 1982 Open Letter, published in 1985, directly calls the secular constitutional republic that Lebanon was 'product of an arrogance so unjust that no reform or modification can remedy it.' Nevertheless, exhausted by the civil war, fighting against the Syrian intervention, and divided, Lebanon was not able to resist Hezbollah, which did whatever it wanted there, being de facto an occupier of Lebanon together with Syria. The Lebanese army was weaker than Hezbollah, at least until 2024. After Hezbollah's defeat in the war against Israel in 2024, the situation changed somewhat, and the Lebanese government to some extent began conducting military operations against Hezbollah. A few days ago, the Lebanese government announced that all captured Revolutionary Guards would be deported to Iran or imprisoned.

Although periodically, after the civil war, Hezbollah pretended to accept the Lebanese system, it never abandoned the plan to turn Lebanon into a Shiite religious state modeled after Iran. Of course, almost all Lebanese citizens who were not Shiites, and some of those who were Shiites, did not agree with such a plan.

Hezbollah, alongside the PLO, has enormous merit in bringing Lebanon, once a thriving country, to collapse and near bankruptcy. It bears great responsibility for economic deficiencies, power and water shortages, and chaos in the country. It is responsible for the huge explosion that significantly destroyed Beirut in August 2020, although this time it was not a deliberate attack, but the result of careless storage of large amounts of ammonium nitrate. More than 200 people died at that time, nearly 8,000 were injured, and about 250,000-300,000 lost their homes.

When I read in the press that Israel, while fighting Hezbollah, is attacking Lebanon (or fighting Lebanon), I can only sigh at the easy propaganda of the Western media. The Lebanese government would gladly get rid of Hezbollah (just as it once, with effort, got rid of the PLO at the end of the 1980s and – later – its main occupier from the time of the civil war – Syria).

Hezbollah, indeed, has seized a significant part of the Lebanese government's prerogatives, but it did so like a cancerous tumor – destroying the state and bringing it to the brink of collapse, which none of the apologists of the Iranian regime (not to be confused with Iran) and fierce critics of every Israeli move, just because it is Israeli, seem to remember.

And so the Iranian bloody and criminal regime, striving for expansion and the destruction of Israel, helped destroy Lebanon (a fact barely noticeable), and in the West almost no one saw it.

Beirut harbor after explosion in Hezbollah's warehouse.

We are Sunni Jewish state :)

 Many years ago, before the current war, before October 7, before the upheavals in my life, and even before Covid (do you remember those beautiful times?), I attended a very interesting meeting with an Israeli journalist, reporter, and commentator, organized as part of the Jewish Culture Festival in Krakow.

The meeting concerned, among other things, the geopolitical situation, Israeli politics, and its possible consequences. The host of the meeting spoke, among other things, about the differences in attitudes toward military service in the West Bank among fresh olim (immigrants to Israel) from different countries. Depending on the thought patterns and experiences acquired before immigration, the same duties, orders, and situations provoked extremely different reflections and reactions.

One of the questions that came from the audience was whether, in the long run, Israel is capable of reconciling its deeply humanistic approach to all minorities, its commitment to individual rights, openness, and the enormous, enormous energy of life with the necessity of ensuring the population's security, suppressing terrorism, and counteracting it. And how military service under these conditions affects the attitudes and behaviors of the very young soldiers who are still mostly so (olim are somewhat of an exception here).

The speaker reflected on this difficult question and admitted that the matter is difficult, raises concerns, and is fervently discussed in certain circles. Indeed, for a state built on leftist ideals, still optimistically looking at relations with its neighbors, these issues were difficult to balance. Nevertheless, as he concluded in a lighter tone, there is hope, because 'recently we discovered that we are a Jewish Sunni state in the Middle East.'

That was 8 years ago. The world has changed incredibly (and not for the better, in my humble opinion). Nevertheless, looking today at the tragic war with Iran I think about these words.

Iran has tried not only to destroy Israel since the beginning of the Ayatollahs' republic (I once wrote about the excellent relations between the two countries before the revolution). Israel was Iran's main target, but closely behind it was the desire for hegemony in the Middle East. Iran is a huge, populous, and ambitious country (sometimes in a criminal or tragic way, yet ambitious) and the Ayatollahs definitely wanted to be the main force in the region. Nevertheless, all the differences with most Arab countries played against them. Religious divisions (Shiite Iran versus Sunni majority of the Gulf states), linguistic (Persian versus Arabic), ethnic (Persians versus Arabs), and the not necessarily welcome political ambitions of Iran were a great obstacle. In the Ayatollahs' plan, a common enemy (Israel) and a shared grievance (emphasized grievance of the Palestinians) were supposed to unite. Undoubtedly, during the period of the revolution's victory in Iran, this worked, at least roughly speaking. Nevertheless, the revolution in Iran was preserved like an old photograph, and while Khomeini was a revolutionary, Khamenei was in many ways was the custodian of the revolution.

Khomeini and Arafat had a lot in common (support from the KGB and Moscow, political role in a bipolar world, partially similar goals). Khamenei had much less in common with various leaders, both of states and terrorist groups, in the Middle East.

Israeli diplomacy has for years tried to get closer to its Arab neighbors. Not without success. With the end of Nasser's era and the dominance of pan-Arabism, the chances increased. Peace with Egypt in the 1970s and with Jordan in the 1990s greatly improved the situation. In 2023, the signing of the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia was close.

This was perceived as a great threat by Iran – its militias did everything they could to torpedo such a move, as well as by Hamas. Iran, after creating and arming Hezbollah, vassalizing Lebanon, largely colonizing Iraq, and winning a proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen, could not afford normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. It could not, and neither could Hamas, hence the attack on October 7 (in the following week, the Abraham Accords were supposed to be finalized).

Surely both Hamas and Iran thought that 2023 would be a blow to Israel that would bring them closer to 'pushing the Jews into the sea.' The blow was cruel. The largest, bloodiest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, the world's lack of compassion, accusations of genocide even before the war in Gaza began. The first major clash with Iran in 2025. It seemed that hopes for an alliance had at least greatly faded.

Today, when Iran is sending missiles not only at civilian targets in Israel (including apparently Jerusalem, so important to Muslims), but also at the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, it may turn out that Iran's desire to destroy Israel was the best catalyst for Israel's understanding with its neighbors.

A Jewish Sunni state?

Why nothing was done before? WHY? (part 2)

 The war is ongoing. Terrible, because every war, even a necessary one, is terrible. Is this a necessary war? And did it really start yesterday? Could it have been prevented? Could the world, which today began a traditional session of condemnation, have done something and did it want to do something?

In my opinion, the answer to these questions is: it could, but it definitely did not want to. Where do such (my) conclusions come from?

Here is a continuation of the analysis that began yesterday in the heat of the moment.

Chapter III What was the attitude of the Iranian regime towards Israel since 1980 (from the beginning).

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran's Islamic regime has openly made the elimination of the State of Israel a top priority and has made it a central element of its ideology. The U.S. appeared in this ideology as the "Great Satan" and Israel as the "Little Satan."

September 9, 2015 Khamenei declared that Israel would be eliminated within 25 years. In June 2017, in Palestine Square in Tehran, the ayatollahs set a clock to count down the maximum of 25 (then less) years until the annihilation of Israel.

In 2018, Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Hossein Salami said that "there is no other way but to throw [the Israelis] into the sea," and in 2020, the same general urged the Israelis to "take a good look at the Mediterranean, which will be their final dwelling." In his speech, he added that "our Hezbollah is enough to destroy this political, cancerous tumor [Israel]." thus admitting (as if anyone had any doubts) that Hezbollah is an Iranian creation and that its mission is to destroy Israel.

In 2019, Majlis member Mohammad Baqer Ebadi advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "start learning to swim in the Mediterranean." He added that Israel's doomsday was approaching and that Israelis would trample each other while trying to escape.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while still president of Iran, became famous for statements (some delivered at the UN) such as: "A world without the United States and Israel is desirable and achievable," "We don't have homosexuals in Iran like you do in America," and "Iran can recruit hundreds of suicide bombers a day. Suicide is an invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this country have shown us the way and illuminate our future." Finally, "the use of nuclear weapons is Iran's right." For years, the Iranian authorities have not only called for the destruction of Israel, but also established, financed, and armed terrorist organizations directed against Israel.

Iran has called for the destruction of Israel, threatened to destroy Israel, built infrastructure to destroy Israel, praised terrorists, and praised the October 7 attack, yet none of this has been taken seriously in the West.

Chapter IV: The Ayatollahs and the Iranians

How did the regime treat Iranians? Those who didn't support it, as well as all women, Baha'is, homosexuals, and independent thinkers, were treated cruelly. Women were veiled, married off (on Khomeini's orders) before they started menstruating, raped after arrest, and subjected to the political police. Homosexuals were publicly hanged from cranes. Efforts were made to exterminate the Baha'is.

Summary Iranians protested repeatedly, and Western intellectuals expressed concern and outrage. However, when Israel turned against the regime or its offshoots, it was accused of aggression. One may disagree with the Israeli government (every government, including the current and most controversial one, the regime in Tehran treated everyone equally). However, turning a blind eye to threats, calls, and preparations for annihilation is siding with the perpetrator. And that is not Israel. Israel has never been bothered by Iran's existence, and until 1980, it had friendly relations with it. Just as Ukraine was not bothered by Russia's existence. However, ignoring, or—worse—tacitly sanctioning, Iran's threats and efforts to carry them out is a different matter. One Shoah survivor once said: "When someone tells you they want to kill you, believe them." Israel believed them. After October 7th and Iran's praise of them, it could not have done otherwise. And let me remind you who the Redzikowo base was against, who sells shaheed to Russia, who expresses hope for the fall of the West and takes steps to bring about such a turn of events? And going further, I'll recall the West's irritation with Poland's refusal to cede the corridor to Hitler, and the ceding of Czechoslovakia to him as a guarantee of "peace for our generation," and Chamberlain's betrayal of German officers who were preparing for a coup and Hitler's ouster in 1938. Peace seems blissful and priceless as long as others pay for its maintenance, as long as others are the appetizer (never the whole meal) of criminal dictatorships.

Could today's war have been prevented? Yes, years ago, by reacting (correctly) to the ayatollahs' threats, by deploying peacekeeping forces in Lebanon as required instead of sending them there on vacation, by reacting to the anti-Semitism that has been consuming the Western left for years, by calling the ayatollahs' regime's crimes against Iranians by their proper names, by showing a modicum of shame when they listed beautiful values ​​one by one, just enough for some action to follow, by naming the criminals after October 7th. But they didn't. Trump and Netanyahu are certainly not motivated by a desire to establish the rule of law in Iran and provide relief to the Iranian people. Both are concerned with their own interests, and Netanyahu also cares about the survival of his country (which is his role). I fully understand that one might dislike many things, but the time to prevent such an escalation has long passed. It was not used. There was time to point the finger of blame (and it wasn't used). War is terrible, and politicians, well, behave like average politicians. Only this situation didn't arise yesterday. It had been brewing for 45 years, and the Western left's beauties did everything they could to avoid seeing it.

Why nothing was done before? WHY? (part 1)

 The war is ongoing. Terrible, because every war, even a necessary one, is terrible. It began this morning (28.02.2026) with air raids on Tehran. So, apparently, it was started today by the USA and Israel. Is this a necessary war? And did it really begin today? Could it have been prevented? Could the world, which today began a traditional session condemning it, have done something and did it want to do something?

In my opinion, the answer to these questions is: it could, but it definitely did not want to. Where do such (my) conclusions come from?

Let's start by analyzing what the Iranian regime is, where it came from, and what it strives for.

Chapter I Where the Ayatollahs Came From:

Shah Reza Pahlavi, sitting on a peacock throne, was certainly neither a democrat nor a pure, shining figure. Educated in Switzerland, the playboy ruled Iran with all the "charm" of a dictator. His political police, SAVAK, murdered many Iranians (though incomparably fewer than the current regime, but who could have known back then...). He maintained good relations with all sides of the contemporary geopolitical puzzle, which in the bipolar world of the Cold War required considerable skill. I have already written that Iranian-Israeli relations during the Shah's time were excellent. But he also maintained relations with the USA (personal greetings from Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter), with Western countries (France, Switzerland, Great Britain among others), Eastern Bloc countries (he hosted Broz Tito and Ceausescu) as well as independent leaders and warlords (Mohamed Suharto, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, Haile Selassie to name a few). He also tried to open Iran to the Western world - often forcefully and clumsily. Hence his very critical (to put it mildly) attitude towards religious opponents. In 1964, he expelled the talented speaker and fanatical Islamist Ruhollah Khomeini from the country. However, Khomeini, with the help of an army of Iranian clerics connected to him and loyal followers, maintained and strengthened his influence in Iran. Khomeini lived in Paris for many years. What neither the Shah (probably deeply trusting in his own diplomatic abilities) nor the French authorities knew was that since the early 1960s, Khomeini had been cooperating with the East German Stasi (and through them with the KGB). In the Stasi files, he was referred to as the 'Shia Messiah.' They invested in him when he was still a little-known mullah, and that investment paid off exceptionally well for them. When tired of the Shah's excesses, permanent crisis, and the deeds of the brutal SAVAK, the Iranians began to rebel in 1978. Khomeini, with money from both the Shia Islamist opposition and the communist services, supported them as much as he could. Half of Iran's population lived in poverty, the Shah luxuriated in wealth, and the situation was ripe for an explosion. Sick and tired, in 1978 the Shah agreed to loosen censorship and schedule elections. It's hard to say what would have happened, but Khomeini did not intend to leave anything to chance. On August 19, 1978, in the city of Abadan, a wealthy center of oil extraction, a fire broke out in an overcrowded cinema. The escape routes were blocked so that people would not enter without paying. 477 people died in the fire. Only Khomeini and the Stasi knew it was not an accident. On Stasi orders and with the promise of support for him, Khomeini persuaded his supporters to set it on fire. This fire, to which the Shah reacted too late and too weakly, was the proverbial drop of water that overflowed the jug of the revolution. When the terminally ill shah fled into exile, where he soon died, Khomeini, ecstatically welcomed, took a special Air France flight from Paris to Tehran, where he was greeted as a savior. He vowed that he would establish freedom and abolish censorship, he vowed that he would uphold human rights, he vowed that women's rights would be respected. I probably don't need to add that he did not keep a single promise. Iran did not become richer, freer, or more democratic. But the USSR gained a powerful ally exactly where it needed one, although the ally was sometimes capricious and willful.

Chapter II: What the Ayatollahs of Iran are striving for
For now, this will not be about Israel, that will come shortly, although the newly minted ruthless leader of the ayatollahs has never hidden his attitude toward it. However, neither for Khomeini nor for the USSR was the destruction of Israel the only or (for the USSR) the main political goal. Iran is Shiite, a minority branch of Islam, though still powerful. Almost all Arab states are Sunni. Iran is Persian. Arab states are... Arab. The Arab minority in Iran has never been treated well, especially since it is geographically concentrated in the most oil-rich areas, which was displeasing both to the Shah and the ayatollahs. Iran speaks Farsi, Arabs speak Arabic. Pan-Arabism as a political movement developed from the 1940s (at least), the ayatollahs came to power at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s. And from the beginning (and still have) they had immense ambitions to become the leader of the region. The region, where for many reasons they were seen as pariahs, enemies, or exceptions. How to change that? Surely the bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s did not help. Nor did the bloody proxy war with Wahhabi Saudi Arabia in the 21st century in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has ambitions in the region similar to Iran’s. But there was one issue that, certainly at the onset of the ayatollahs' rule, and largely thereafter, constituted and still constitutes a bridge between Iran and the Arab countries in the region. Anti-Semitism. After the lost wars with Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, all initiated by Arab states, anti-Israeli sentiments at the time Khomeini came to power in the region were very strong. The peace with Egypt was fresh, the peace with Jordan had not yet been concluded, the peace process with the Palestinians had not yet begun, while the PLO had already been expelled to Lebanon by King Hussein and was seething with a desire for revenge, and its main source of support was the USSR bloc, the same that also sponsored Khomeini. What a beautiful, diabolical scheme...

Proposition of the Palestinian Constitution

 Recently the draft of the proposed Palestinian constitution was published in the internet.

I decided to check what is inside. So, I read it so you don't have to. Of course you may. I will share my opinion here. Share yours!

It has 162 articles, was drafted by the committee, whose members advertise proudly their names. Let's check what's inside....

Preamble excerpts:

1) "It arrives at a delicate stage where our people in the homeland face policies of displacement and ethnic cleansing, and where settlement expansion and genocide continue in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, while the dream of return remains alive in the hearts of Palestinians everywhere, generation after generation." This states that there is genocide (which is blatant lie and accusation) in the preamble to constitution, document usually accepted for years and expresses the wish to return (where to? not Gaza or West Bank. We will return to it).

2) Art. 1 "Palestine is part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian Arab people are part of the Arab nation" Does it mean that non-Arabs may not be citizens? May not be residents? It definitely looks that way. And if nation is Arab why none of 22 Arab nations (one nation?) wants some more Arabs?

3) Art. 3 "Jerusalem, religious nature, historical identity 1. Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine, and its political, spiritual, cultural, and educational center, as well as its national symbol. 2. The state is committed to preserving its religious character and protecting its Islamic and Christian sanctities, as well as its legal, political, and historical status. 3. Any measures to change its character or historical identity are considered null and void according to international law." So, the capital of non-existent country is in the other country's capital (no even mention about East Jerusalem). The state is to be religious but apparently there is place for only 2 religions. No mention of Judaism (or any other religion for that matter).  And complete denial of any connections between Jerusalem and Judaism (however even Quran states so).

4) Art. 4 " Islam, Sharia and Christianity 1. Islam is the official religion in the State of Palestine. 2. The principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source for legislation. 3. Christianity has its status in Palestine, and its followers' rights are respected." Just to make things clear. No mention of Judaism. Or any other religion except Islam and Christianity. Whereas Muslims have full rights in the State of Israel Arafat, and later Abbas (not to even mention Hamas which just wants to kill all the Jews) told public on many occasions that not a single Jew could live in Palestine if it is created. Yet it is Israel that is accused of being racist and apartheid on international forum (UN, universities, some European countries, not to mention such people as Francesca Albanese. So, in case Palestine is created we have another Sharia state, which is predictable. The real problem is not that it will be intolerant, Sharia etc. but it wants to destroy and supersede the Jewish state and states it even in its constitution proposal. And it is good to remember that ancient Jewish diasporas were destroyed by Arab countries in 1948.

5)  Art. 11 "Palestinian Liberation Organization The establishment of the State of Palestine does not diminish the status of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." There were countries described as "democracies with one party system". They were never democracies. If the sole legitimate representative is PLO than it implies everyone (Arab, Muslim, Palestinian, doesn't really matter) who opposes what PLO does or states may be put to jail or trial or maybe just be deprived of any political rights. Or murdered. It does not come as a surprise, but here the discussion regarding the legal and political system in potential new state may be finished. It will be just as democratic as Assad's Syria or ayatollahs' Iran.

6) Article 12 – "Unity of land, diaspora The State of Palestine works toward the unity of the land and the people in the homeland and the diaspora, and is committed to achieving independence and ending the occupation and ensuring the right of return for refugees according to international legitimacy resolutions." This is one of the most significant - and ominous - articles. Palestinian Authority issues passports since the 90s. They are recognized. Their owners travel to and from the West Bank mostly through Amman (and no, it is not because Israel does not allow them to fly from Ben Gurion, though there were trouble from time to time, it is because Palestinian Authority forbids it).So they can go and come back. So who are these "refugees" and where should they "return"? Due to particular system of designating being refugee permanently to descendants of Palestinian Arabs (the only such case in the world) we have Palestinian "refugees" with American, British or French passports (among others). But the so called "right of return", which is responsible for breaking any talks about creation of the Palestinian state as described here. Obviously the "right of return" equals to destroying Israel and if you have any doubts (what about the people who were refugees in 1948 etc.) just remember about circumstances when they left or were removed (the war started by them), the Jews thrown from Arab countries, and if you still harbor any doubts think what would happen if descendants of Pakistanis thrown from India would like to return to India, or the descendants of Indians thrown from Pakistan to Pakistan, or descendants of Russians from last 3 generations to Finland (say, from the time of regaining independence by Finland) or Estonia or Latvia and so on and so forth... This is the real plan to destroy Israel, written into the proposed constitution.

7) Article 24 – "Families of martyrs, victims of genocide The State of Palestine and the relevant national institutions work to provide protection and care for the families of martyrs and the wounded and prisoners and those released from the occupation prisons and the victims of genocide and to pursue the perpetrators of these crimes before the judiciary." This is yet another accusation of genocide and continuation of pay-to-slay program. 

These are just some of the most obvious "interesting" statements of the proposed document. For those of you with passion for reading legalize you may find more here

I have seen my share....

Francesca Albanese - the face of the UN

 On May 1, 2022, the position of UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories was assumed by Italian lawyer Francesca Albanese. The title itself carries a prejudice, if not a lie – there are no Palestinian territories that anyone, including Israel, could occupy. While historically one could speak of Jordanian or Egyptian territories under Israeli occupation (more or less like the Western Territories under Polish occupation, as they fell under Israeli rule as a result of wars initiated by those countries, but at least there are arguments), what about the Palestinian territories? But that's not the subject of today's post.

A position is a position. Let's take a look at the person who represents what some still consider a reasonable, international body, the UN.

 

The appointment itself was intriguing, smacking of nepotism. Ms. Albanese, who has had a long professional relationship with UN agencies, was appointed by a UNHCR advisory group in March and received a mandate on May 1, 2022, which was never voted on. 

 

She has never been neutral (one of the requirements for this role) and has repeatedly expressed her pro-Palestinian sympathies over the years, with particular emphasis on the most radical currents among Palestinians. Moreover, she had a long history of working at UNRWA, which I wrote about earlier.

 

Nevertheless, although no one probably expected neutrality and impartiality (theoretically required for her position), no one probably expected such unbridled spread of extreme forms of antisemitism.

After her recent appearances, when she spoke on the same press panel in Qatar as Hamas leaders and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, and when, during her speech, she described Israel's actions in Gaza as "genocide" and called Israel "the common enemy of humanity," France and Germany demanded her resignation. The UN is defending its neutral, impartial, and diplomatic envoy. Aren't those very balanced words?

 

 Ms. Albanese, like all propagandists and politicians caught making particularly nasty statements that were meant for a specific audience but somehow slipped out, is excused by "taking the words out of context." The context standing next to her—a representative of the Iranian government, currently committing a crime against humanity against its own citizens, and representatives of a terrorist organization that has repeatedly committed crimes against humanity (including Khaled Meshal)—clearly ignores this.

 

Let's take a look at some of this lady's other statements, as they make for interesting reading:

 

1.  Just 10 days before her last, scandalous speech, in which she declared Israel the "common enemy of humanity" (I don't know what humanity thinks about this, but as a part of it, I recommend Ms. Albanese to change her medication and see a psychiatrist quickly, even though it may be too late), she stated that "Hamas should not be perceived as 'murderers, people armed to the teeth, or fighters'" and that it was a political force that won the 2005 elections. I wrote about those elections here, and Ms. Albanese is probably still crying for the murdered, yet beautifully elected Mussolini (for whom else, I'm afraid to ask).

 

2.  In an open letter posted on Facebook in 2014, Albanese (a senior UN official) claimed that "the Jewish lobby has enslaved America"—and therefore "condemns the oppressed" Gazans, not Israel. She also criticized the BBC's coverage of the fighting, accusing the British broadcaster of "clearly the Israel lobby is in your veins and system." The BBC was already pro-Palestinian at the time, but apparently, that wasn't enough for the UN official.

 

3. In 2015, she juxtaposed two photos: a Nazi German soldier with a dog on a leash over a fallen man, and an Israeli soldier, also with a dog and also over a fallen man. She deemed it appropriate to compare the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians from Israel in 1948, with the Holocaust. Of course, she didn't hesitate to mention the start of the 1948 war by Arab states, the program to drive Jews into the sea, or the 900,000 Jewish refugees from that war who were expelled from their homes in Arab countries.

 

4. And she rightly concluded that she had done nothing wrong, because after this statement, she was promoted to UN Special Rapporteur, heading the commission of inquiry into Israel's conduct towards the Palestinians. Upon accepting the position, she declared that she "does not hold views or opinions that could prejudge the matters" under investigation. Well, let's move on.

 

5.  Following the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo, Ms Albanese shared information from an Iranian state-owned newspaper that "the Mossad and the CIA were behind the attack on Charlie Hebdo."

 

6. In 2022, it proclaimed Hamas's right to exist and operate, despite the fact that in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan and, of course, Israel, it has been recognized as a terrorist organization for years (the UN did not agree with this, they like Hamas, and twice the motions to condemn it were voted down).

 

7. In November 2022, addressing a group of… terrorists, she shamelessly claimed they had the right to “resist the occupation.” Regardless of whether it was an occupation, Ms. Albanese apparently believes that the people of Western Sahara have the right to murder Moroccans, Cypriots have the right to murder Turks, residents of (still formally occupied) Germany have the right to murder Americans, French, British (or Russians, it’s unclear), Georgians and Moldovans have the right to murder Russians, and Kashmiris have the right to murder anyone, just in case. It would be interesting to ask her about this.

 

8. After the October 7th massacre, Ms. Albanese dismissively said that "this crime must be put into context," clearly agreeing with the UN Secretary-General (the General Secretary is eager to hear this), who said the same thing. Instead (still in 2023), she expressed grave concern for the safety of Palestinians, calling for an immediate ceasefire. After all, in her opinion, only one side has the right to kill, and only one has the duty to die. Isn't that the very essence of a Special Rapporteur's impartiality?

 

9.  Albanese denied that October 7 was the worst anti-Semitic attack since World War II (if the facts do not match the views and propaganda, so much the worse for the facts). She still denies any sexual atrocities and crimes committed by Hamas.

 

10.  In 2024, Albanese compared Israel to the Third Reich three times.

 

In addition, she denied Hamas's crimes, spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories reminiscent of the Black Hundreds, and even associated the Los Angeles fire with Israel. If you have the time, energy, and desire for more of this literature, a list of some of her statements (in English) is available here.

 

When France and Germany (why only now?) demand her step down from a highly lucrative position she was never voted into, she's talking about taking words out of context. I'm not entirely sure which words, but I do know that even by the pathetically low standards of the UN, which has glorified more than one terrorist, this woman is exceptional. She's not the only one. Fifty years ago, after the Munich massacre, French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (in an October 1972 article) similarly shamelessly defended the Black September terrorists, arguing that terrorism was the only weapon available to the "poor and oppressed" and that the attack demonstrated the need to solve the so-called Palestinian problem. This line of reasoning is strikingly similar to UN chief António Guterres's recent statement that the Hamas attacks "did not occur in a vacuum."

 

 Ladies and Gentlemen, with no views or opinions that could prejudge the Palestinian issue, the highly paid, impartial, elite, educated and neutral Francesca Albanese:

 

 

Who was Jesus? Cultural appropriation

The answer to the question in the title depends obviously on who is answering it.

For believing Christians the first answer will be God or savior.

For searchers, agnostics, many historians and so on: the person who taught new approach to religion some 2000 years ago in historical Israel who (or whose disciples) established a new religion.

Some declared atheists and self-willed and contrary people may insist he did not exist at all.

But what would you (regardless to which group you belong, and it may be a totally different one from the enumerated above) say if somebody told you he was a Roman soldier under governor Pilate? or Egyptian priest? or even better Hindi sadhu? or Viking warrior? You are totally understood and justified if you had just burst out laughing. Regardless of our personal belief in Jesus as God's son and savior (or lack thereof), and even if we harbor doubts if he lived at all, we all know he was (really or in his 2000 years old story) Jewish. Or do we?  

Here is a picture from Times Square, New York, from Christmas 2025:

This is obviously addressed to believers (of what, later on) as the present time suggests we are not talking about realities of ancient Israel under Roman occupation. Yet what does this extraordinary message really tries to say, to whom and who is its author. These are important and significant matters.

Let's start with what does Christianity say. I believe (prove me wrong if I am) that each and every Christian denomination present in XXI century believes Jesus to be both God and human (historically there was a difference of opinion, but that approach was established really centuries ago). I will leave out His divine nature in this post, but as a real human he had some real qualities. He was a man, He was rabbi, and first and foremost He was Jewish. He taught Torah, He was rabbi, He was educated in Law, he was sacrificed in the Temple as the first born son (the story in the Gospels), He had His bar-micva at the age of 12 (the story about his teaching in the Temple and getting lost), He was even rebel against the Romans.

For so many centuries Christianity, very anti Judaism, very anti Semitic and very much concentrated on Jesus's divinity tried to stay away from the simple truth who Jesus the human was, but finally it was stated loudly.

In 1973 Geza Vermes, a Reader at Jewish studies at the University in Oxford, written on the Dead Sea Scrolls, published his book: "Jesus the Jew: A historian's reading of the Gospels. Vermes made the case that Jesus was not just Jewish, but he was thoroughly Jewish. He strikes out at the Christian depiction of Jesus which is theological, rather than anything remotely connected to the historical figure. he sees Jesus as a carpenter, a healer, an exorcist, teacher and miracle maker. He views Jesus as part of the Galilean historical and cultural background.That will be the topic of my other entry, but the Jewishness of Jesus, so evident when we look at Gospels, is fascinating.

And then comes 2025 and at Times Square, in the middle of New York, a big Christmas banner declares Jesus to be Palestinian.

In His time Arabs were in Arabia (today's territory of Saudi Arabia, very roughly).

In His time Islam did not exist, and wouldn't have existed for subsequent almost 7 centuries.

In His time Israel was a Jewish state under Roman occupation.

He was a Jew, knowing Scripture (Torah), citing law (mostly Deuteronomy and Psalms), wandering rabbi engaged in debates about Judaism of His time.

Some 100 years after His death Romans, as a repercussion after Bar Kochba's insurrection renamed Israel Palestine (after Biblical Jewish adversaries Philistines) and Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina. 

Who is Palestinian? 

Is it somebody whose ethnicity is Arab? Jesus was definitely NOT an Arab. 

Is it somebody whose religion is Islam? Jesus was definitely NOT Moslem.

Is it somebody who is against Israel? Jesus was Israeli.

So who was this circumcised Jewish rabbi, teaching scripture, saying to Samaritan women that it is bad to feed puppies before children when talking about Jews and Samaritans? Who was saying that He will not change one letter of the Moses Law. Who, when His disciples were gathering ears of grain on Sabbath responded by comparing them to David's warriors eating sacred show-bread when being pursued by Saul's people. This was political statement showing Jesus as Israeli patriot and Roman opponent. This also explains why He was sentenced to Roman capital punishment reserved for political rebels. 

Yet in this age and era when "cultural appropriation" on the left side of political spectrum is regarded as crime the same people who often would oppose (or did oppose) using music, fashion, hairstyle or dress as "cultural appropriation" (Beyonce in Mumbai, Wes Anderson and Japanese culture, Zac Efron and dreadlocks etc.) see nothing wrong in appropriation of Jewish rabbi regarded as God by Christians to be posed as antisemitic figure on Christian holiday. Would they depict Mohammed as defender of Israeli cause? Of course not. 

Thus everything here screams loudly: respect me while I have all the right to destroy, offend and humiliate you. Well, un-dear  authors of this despicable performance. You did it on purpose to offend, humiliate and enrage. Understood. And I hope Karma returns to you, with or without cultural appropriation.