Washington, London and Tel Aviv – the UN’s Nemesis

One. Being curious, the young man asks the social studies teacher about what is required for a country to become a member of the United Nations.

Being didactic, the teacher quotes Article 4 of Chapter II of the U.N. Charter, which provides, “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”

Two. The young man then deduces, “Does that mean that Washington, London and Tel Aviv are in breach of such conditions? And that Ukraine and Israel have the right to defend themselves, but Russia and Palestine do not?”

At that point, the teacher reaches into his portfolio and retrieves an interview with Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Egyptian U.N. secretary general during the war in Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide (1992-96).

The student asks, but why was it so strict with Saddam Hussein and not with other leaders who also violate international laws, such as Benjamin Netanyahu?

The teacher replies, if you are asking me whether there are two weights or measures, I say yes. They are not measured with the same standard. (El País, Madrid, 21/12/97).

Three. This appeared in one of this newspaper’s most courageous editorials on Jan. 14 and is the concern of thousands of educational, political and social institutions and people from all over the world who, with growing anguish, are witnessing what the editorial called “the first genocide transmitted in real time against the Palestinian people.”

Four. In a rarely quoted pamphlet, “The Jewish State,” Theodor Herzl,(1860-1904), the founder of Zionism, wrote, “For Europe we would form there (in Palestine), an integral part of the bulwark against Asia; we would constitute the vanguard of culture in the struggle against barbarism. As a neutral state (sic), we would maintain relations with the whole of Europe, which in turn would have to guarantee our existence” (1895).

Five. Herzl contended that Palestine was a land without a people and the Jews were a people without a land. Thus, at the end of World War I, coinciding (come on!) with the beginning of large-scale oil exploitation and the Arabs’ anti-colonial rebellion, London redrew the cartography of the former Ottoman Empire and, little by little, the bulwark against “Asiatic barbarism” dreamed of by the Zionists was built.

Six. Prophecy fulfilled. This is how people, such as Polish historian Benzion Netanyahu (1910-2012), father of the paleo-biblical Benjamin, saw it. As did the Ukrainian-American Maurice Blinken (1900-1986), head of the Palestinian-American Institute, who in 1946 persuaded Harry Truman’s government to establish the state of Israel (1948). And his son Donald (1926-2022), ambassador to Hungary who boasted of having installed the largest base of operations in Europe during the NATO military intervention in Bosnia. “My role model and hero,” declared Antony Blinken (grandson and son of both), when Joe Biden appointed him secretary of state in late 2020.

Seven. In 1967, Jewish intellectual George Steiner (1929-2020) wrote, “This state of Israel is going to torture other human beings. It will have to do so in order to survive … And in Israel, you have to be an armed camp, you have to be, and armed to the teeth. You have to have people imprisoned in often terrible conditions. I consider this a price I am not willing to pay.” (The barbarism of ignorance, Ed. Muchnik, 1997, p. 45).*

Eight. Jewish ultranationalism (or Zionism) began like European Nazi-fascism, with socialist pretensions; quickly following in its footsteps were racial supremacy, militaristic expansion, Islamophobia, and terrorist practices under the cover of the “free world.” It became, therefore, the only ideology that emerged successfully after the end of what we call the Cold War. It was an ideology adhered to by the paleo-biblical ultra-evangelism of Washington and London that mock both the ancient ethics of Judaism and the yearnings for peace of the remaining 191 members of the U.N.

Nine. Nevertheless, in the United Nations’ first decades, members were able to express their thoughts on the matter. In November 1975, for example, the General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism, in general, and South African apartheid in particular. It was a resolution that Washington and Tel Aviv succeeded in overturning in December 1991.

Ten. The Gaza holocaust is possible only with the support of hypocritical “Western democracies” interested in a “final solution” for the Palestinian people. One example is the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who learned something from a nefarious predecessor who once held office.

Eleven. What remains of the beautiful Charter of San Francisco (1945) and of the U.N. itself (1946), undoubtedly its nemesis?

Nemesis is a word from Greek mythology that alludes to divine vengeance or the fatal punishment that reestablishes a previous order.

The order of the biblical-militarist Kingdom of David is presently being promoted by Washington, London and Tel Aviv; “from the Euphrates to the Jordan.” It remains to be seen if they succeed.

*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, the source of this quoted remark by George Steiner could not be independently verified.