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: