The Weekly Sift

mosckerr  On November 18, 2025 at 2:57 am

Permalink

Justice Justice Pursue
The concept of Ancient Consciousness Engineering involves understanding how ancient cultures perceived and interacted with the divine, particularly through the art of building and construction. This perspective often highlights the spiritual and symbolic dimensions of architecture, emphasizing how structures reflect the consciousness and beliefs of the societies that created them.

Buildings often incorporated symbols that represented gods, myths, or cosmological theories. For instance, Egyptian temples were aligned with celestial bodies, reflecting the connection between the divine and the cosmic order. Structures like temples or pyramids were often seen as physical manifestations of divine plans, mirroring cosmic structures. The layout of cities and monuments was frequently designed to reflect mythological tales or the lives of deities.

The scale, orientation, and materials used in construction often reflected social hierarchies and religious beliefs. Larger, grander structures typically represented higher spiritual significance or authority. Temples like the Parthenon were dedicated to specific deities and were built to embody their attributes and myths, serving as a focal point for worship and community.

Shlomo’s reign occurred during a time of extensive interaction with neighboring cultures (the Goyim), whose worship practices involved building grand temples dedicated to their gods. This context shaped Solomon’s approach to architecture and spirituality. Shlomo deluged with foreign wives, starting with the daughter of Par’o. Many ancient cultures valued grand temple architecture as a reflection of their gods’ majesty. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Mesopotamians built magnificent structures to honor their deities.

His construction of the Temple was a pivotal ירידות הדורות moment for Judaism. The בית שני Talmud response to king Shlomo’s avoda zara which so dominated later generations, beginning with Ezra’s rebuilding of a 2nd Temple avoda zara abomination. The Talmud Bavli prioritized the בית המקדש not as a building of wood and stone. It interpreted the Torah construction of the Mishkan as only a משל.

The anointing of the house of David as Moshiach likewise a משל through which the prophet Shmuel interpreted its נמשל response to the rebellion of Israel against the Torah, the anointing first Shaul and later David as Moshiach! Based upon the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan תוחקה mussar rebuke which he instructed both David and Shlomo. Natan saved Shlomo and his mother in the opening Book of Kings. רחבעם ignored the advise given by the elder advisors of Shlomo just as Shlomo did the exact same with the תוחקה mussar rebuke wherewith the prophet Natan commanded Shlomo not to build the בית המקדש but rather prioritize building the establishment of a Federal Sanhedrin common law court system; based upon the p’suk: צדק צדק תרדוף.

The Talmud comments on the consequences of avoda zara associated with Shlomo and later generations, emphasizing the need for prioritizing Courtroom common law justice over Pie in the Sky theological beliefs in Gods, associated with Shlomo and all later ירידות הדורות generations. Prophets like Natan admonished Shlomo regarding his actions, instructing him to focus on establishing a system of justice (Federal Sanhedrin) rather than solely on temple construction.

The anointing of David and later Shlomo as Moshiach reflects a broader narrative regarding leadership and adherence to Torah centered upon the pursuit of judicial justice based upon the memory of judicial injustice before the Court of Par’o and the מוסר תוחקה which Yitro rebuked Moshe immediately after Israel gained our National freedom from Par’o and Egypt. Israel came out of Egypt in accordance with the oath brit sworn to the Avot concerning the eternal inheritance of this land. HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt with the k’vanna that Israel would rule the land with righteous judicial justice – fair restitution of damages inflicted.

Xtianity and Islam, their av tuma avoda zarah prioritizes belief in God – just as does assimilated Rambam’s 13 essential beliefs! In point of fact, the Torah commands no belief in God or Gods. Its this distinction which separates the revelation of the Torah at Sinai from belief in av tuma avoda zara Gods – based upon Creeds, theologies or Angelic revelations! Therefore Prophets like Natan and all other prophets thereafter admonished Shlomo and all the kings of Yechuda and Israel – regarding their failure to prioritize judicial justice through common law courtrooms. The mussar תוחקה of all NaCH prophets therefore instructs both Shlomo and all generations of our Cohen people thereafter, to focus upon ruling the oath sworn lands of the chosen Cohen people with justice – Federal Sanhedrin – common law justice.

The prophetic mussar rebuke of Cain & Abel serves as the יסוד upon which stands the Torah revelation of the Mishkan with its required korbanot dedications. The central Torah theme: Who merits as the Chosen Cohen, initiated through the murder of Abel by his older brother following the korban dedications made by both sons of Adam HaReshon. Cain offered as his korban – a barbeque unto Heaven. Abel dedicated his korban to אל מלך נאמן – God the faithful King … Faith understood as meaning fair judicial justice. Hence the prophet Shmuel interpreted the נמשל mitzva of Moshiach based upon the משל mussar taught through the commandment of the Mishkan together with korbanot.

Moshe, the greatest of all Torah prophets commands prophetic mussar. Hence all other NaCH prophets – they too command mussar rebukes. Mussar defines all prophetic revelations recorded in the literature of the T’NaCH. Witchcraft and/or Goyim prophets like Bil’aam – their av tuma avoda zara predicts the future. The NT framers, they depicted their imaginary false messiah JeZeus as a person/God who fulfilled the words of the prophets. Hence the NT framers redefined T’NaCH prophets including Moshe Rabbeinu as witches because witches foretell the future.

C. S. Lewis, the moral coward, never denounced the church guilt for the Shoah. Lucy Maud Montgomery, was a Canadian author best known for her classic novel Anne of Green Gables, published in 1908. L.M. Montgomery passed away on April 24, 1942. Church’s silence during the Holocaust (Shoah), coupled with the Catholic Rat Lines that assisted Nazi War criminals to flee justice by hiding in S. American countries and the post WWII Polish pogroms! This has led to discussions about the responsibilities of faith leaders and the impact of moral cowardice in the face of atrocity. Lewis and Tolstoy both failed to address the war crimes committed by their people in their life times. Tolstoy failed to condemn the Czarist Pogroms of the 1880s and the secret police forgery: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

L.M. Montgomery, while primarily focused on themes of childhood and community in her novels, lived during a time that contained its own set of moral struggles, including the events of World War II. She never publicly condemned the 1938 pogrom: Night of Shattered Glass. The failure of figures like Lewis and Tolstoy to address grave injustices raises questions about moral courage and the obligations of public intellectuals. The Church’s silence and the concealment of war criminals spotlight the responsibilities of faith leaders in the face of atrocities.

C.S. Lewis labeled a “moral coward” for his silence regarding the Church’s role during the Holocaust. The lack of denunciation of institutional wrongs at a time when moral clarity was crucial exposed the truth of his moral spinelessness. Similarly, Leo Tolstoy’s inaction regarding the Czarist pogroms and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion reflects a pattern of moral evasion. L.M. Montgomery’s literary focus on childhood and personal growth didn’t typically address societal issues.

The silence of various Christian denominations during the Holocaust, specifically the Lutheran support for Hitler’s Nazism, coupled with actions like the Catholic Rat Lines, raises critical questions. The failure to confront and condemn atrocities reflects a broader moral cowardice among faith leaders. The concealment of Nazi war criminals illustrates a deep conflict between moral teachings and institutional actions. Pope Pius XII permitted the Nazis to murder the Jews of Rome. What is the responsibility of public intellectuals in speaking out against injustice? Should their focus include social or political obligations? How should churches and faith institutions hold themselves accountable for past inactions?

Authors and intellectuals are often perceived not just as commentators but as moral agents who can influence public opinion and action. Navigating the balance between personal beliefs and public responsibility poses complex ethical questions, particularly during times of upheaval. Religious and social institutions need to confront their past in order to guide future actions and regain credibility. Institutions must not only teach values of justice and ethics but also demonstrate commitment through action, particularly in contexts of societal injustice. These reflections challenge both individuals and organizations to consider the implications of their actions (or inactions) in the face of moral crises.

Did not write a commentary on the political content of the Obliviousness article. Rather my commentary transposes the structure of Obliviousness into a Torah-based, oath brit, judicial reading. The relationship works on the level of intent, not topic. As an Israeli my world completely different than an American perspective. The American society ruled by Power rather than justice. The Courts – utterly and totally corrupt. The contrast of Trump out of power and Trump as President – Night and Day different. The two assassination attempts and the political assassination of Charlie Kirk define the deep fractures of American political insanity.

Obliviousness — Society is falling apart because institutions have abandoned accountability.
Power replaces justice. Systems that should deliver fairness instead deliver corruption, secrecy, and self-serving elites. The public is deceived by structures that look like order (government, churches, media) but conceal rot. The consequences are systemic: shutdown, corruption, violence, failed leadership, manipulation of justice, tribalism. America exists as a nation on the verge of anarchy and collapse because justice – an utter joke. Obama Clinton and the Intelligence Agency heads have yet to stand trial for treason. Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters likewise have never stood trial for the charge of treason.

The Israeli Torah perspective: ancient kings abandoning צדק צדק תרדוף and falling into avoda zara. Oblivious shows what happens when a society replaces justice with spectacle, belief systems, and personality cults. While Justice Pursue argues that this likewise occurred under king Shlomo and Yeridas HaDorot of g’lut rabbinic Judaism which assimilated to Roman statute law and abandoned Torah as judicial common law. The Temple becomes a theological object (avoda zara) rather than a metaphor for judicial structures. Belief replaces courtroom justice. Theology replaces the oath alliance expressed through judicial common law. Power (kingship) replaces federal Sanhedrin.

My comment reads Oblivious as a modern example of the ancient pattern of civilizational decline caused by abandoning common-law justice. Elite corruption & hidden crimes (Epstein / Obama, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, CIA, FBI, NSA Heads). Shlomo’s foreign alliances, wives, temple grandeur → political rot → prophetic rebuke; Justice Pursue interprets this modern collapse as the same pattern the prophets condemned.

Citizens suffer because leaders reject accountability — Prophetic critique: kings of Yehuda rejected תוחקה and צדק. Just as Oblivious describes democratic institutions failing their people; Justice Pursue argues that ancient Israel fell for the same reason. Party loyalty and personality cults replace honest governance. Avoda zara: divine right of kings replaces common-law rank-and-file judicial authority – the foundation upon which the American Republic stands. Oblivious sees American politics becoming a cult of personality. Justice Pursue says: this is literally the biblical definition of avoda zara.

Collapse of public trust; no one believes institutions anymore. Natan the Prophet’s warnings: society cannot survive without justice. All NaCH prophets’ focus prioritized not theology/Democracy, but legal structure. The article Obliviousness – The same spiritual mistake that the Torah warns about. A society becomes idolatrous when it substitutes belief, symbols, or buildings for courtroom justice. America today Washington has replaced Justice. Oblivious replaces justice with conspiracy narratives, personality cults, theocratic rhetoric, media mythologies, spectacle politics.

Ancient Israel did the same when it replaced the federal Sanhedrin, mussar rebuke, case law with statute law, Temple fixations, kings, theological dogmas, Greek-style creed systems (Par’o, later Rambam’s 13 ikarim). There is no civilization without צדק צדק תרדוף. Therefore my commentary functions as the נמשל to Oblivious as the משל. All civilizations collapse when they abandon common-law justice for belief systems (avoda zara). Justice Pursue reveals the ancient consciousness engineering behind the pattern of national decline.

Everything you observe in modern America – the Oblivious Article – the same pattern that destroyed ancient Israel and every empire thereafter. It is the structural sin of replacing justice with belief, power, and symbols. Torah and prophecy diagnose the disease at its root.

mosckerr  On November 19, 2025 at 12:08 am

Permalink

Genocide, a profane taboo word, commonly raped pillaged and burned among people who abhor the Israeli response to the Oct 7th 2023 massacre. Genocide in this context, amounts to Holocaust denial. A word meant to prevent another Shoah has been weaponized to accuse Jews of committing the very crime inflicted upon them.

Genocide — a word forged in the ashes of the Shoah — has become a profane taboo, violated, cheapened, and weaponized by those who abhor Israel’s response to the Oct. 7th 2023 massacre. In this context, the accusation is not merely false; it amounts to Holocaust denial. A term meant to prevent another genocide is now hurled against the Jewish state in a grotesque inversion of history: the victims accused of the crime that nearly annihilated them.

This version of the Xtian Church infamous blood libel. Manufactured and disseminated by the UN, EU bureaucrats, Moscow, Beijing, and the media conglomerates that sell “genocide headlines” the way pornography sells clicks. Genocide sells. Justice does not. And so, the word violently and brutally raped and pillaged for political theatre rather than applied with legal integrity. Genocide occurs when those in power worship power itself, not justice. But no one dares question the motives of the institutions promoting this Blood Libel slander. Why? Because the same leaders, together with their institutions, have grown dependent on the “Jewish problem” narrative to justify their own existence.

Never once has anyone questioned the agenda of an organization that promotes this “Blood Libel Slander” made against Israel. Israel did not sign the Rome Agreement which established the International Court of the Hague. In point of fact, NEVER AGAIN, as PM Begin expressly communicated to Jimmy Carter at Camp David, means that Israelis post the European “Final Solution” will ever again permit, specifically European Goyim States, to dictate their “SOLUTION” to “THE JEWISH PROPLEM”. Israel rejects the idea that: (1) Jews exist again a ward of Europe. (2) Jewish sovereignty pre-conditional to UN approval. (3) Jewish self-defense is subject to foreign veto. Thus, the ICC’s attempted jurisdiction is a political fiction—an extension of the pre-1948 mindset that Jews do not have independent standing among nations. The ICC’s claim of jurisdiction over Israel: a fiction built on an older fiction. This accusation of “genocide” guilt imposed by Press decree upon Israel, simply the old paternalism in a new legal wrapper of classic South African Apartheid racism.

The accusation of “genocide” against Israel after Oct. 7, a form of modernized Holocaust denial — a mutation of the classic European blood libel — and the UN’s usage of the term reveals a long-standing imperial contempt for Jewish sovereignty. The UN never had moral universality. It functioned from birth as a colonial power-balancing instrument, and its treatment of Israel, merely the most concentrated exposure of its original design flaws. Where medieval Xtendom accused Jews of murdering Xtian children, the modern UN-Leftist coalition accuses Jews of murdering Palestinian children.

The replacement theology converts the UN as the new Ersatz-Xtianity. The idea of a secularized form of Xtianity that rejects the theological trappings of the Gospel narrative, but retains dogmatic moral and ethical frameworks associated with Papal Rome. This concept often manifests in political contexts, where political ideologies adopt seemingly Xtian ethical principles, like for an example: a just war, without engaging theological ‘Good News’ yet promoting the new religion of democracy.

The UN originally set up to prevent another Shoah. Clearly the UN has failed its mandate and MUST disband. What does the UN have to do with the Xtian “Genocide” in Nigeria? Or Pol Pot, or Idi[ot] Amin? The UN promotes platitudes rather than pursues justice. The UN today totally not recognizable to the UN of 1948. Pursuit of power and political coalitions of State international alliances has completely uprooted the founding Charter. The UN systematically ignores or minimizes actual genocide, mass slaughter, and mass enslavement when politically inconvenient. The UN protects authoritarian regimes with bloc voting. The Human Rights Council institutionalizes political scapegoating. UN Bloc voting by authoritarian states has turned this pie in the sky replacement of Wilson’s post WWI League of Nations into a political marketplace where justice get bought and sold on the illegal white women, and child-slave trade-markets.

Franklin D. Roosevelt U.S. President; championed the idea of a global peace organization. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights; pivotal in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Winston Churchill – British Prime Minister; advocated for collective security and cooperation. Joseph Stalin – Soviet Dictator primarily responsible for the Allied victory over the Nazis; boycotted the UN Chapter VII dictate to North Korea. Charles de Gaulle – not included at the Yalta Conference, French Resistance leader; crucial in representing defeated France’s interests post-WWII wherein France sat as a Permanent Member in the UN Security Council. De Gaulle as a statesman, succeeded in asserting France’s interests in the aftermath of World War II. Harry S. Truman, U.S. President after FDR; supported the formation and principles of the UN which negated the Constitutional Right of Congress to Declare War.

The Yalta Conference, held in February 1945, was a pivotal meeting between Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin to discuss the post-war reorganization of Europe and the establishment of international cooperation through the United Nations. Their responses varied significantly, reflecting their distinct national interests and ideologies. Stalin showed a positive attitude towards Roosevelt’s proposal for a new international organization aimed at maintaining peace. He recognized the need for a framework to manage post-war tensions and prevent conflicts. These men who built the UN, represent colonial empires, racial hierarchies, colonial interests, and military blocs.

Stalin insisted that the new organization must include mechanisms that recognized the Soviet Union’s status as a major power. He wanted assurances that Soviet interests and security concerns, particularly in Eastern Europe, would be addressed. While agreeing to the formation of the United Nations, Stalin was adamant about establishing Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, emphasizing a security buffer to protect the Soviet Union from future aggression. Clearly the Democratic Party leadership attempt to increase the NATO alliance to include these same Eastern European countries into the NATO alliance, specifically the Ukraine, no UN Resolution has ever condemned.

Churchill was more cautious regarding Stalin’s intentions. He was supportive of the idea of a United Nations but harbored concerns about Soviet expansionism and the balance of power in Europe. Churchill advocated for a United Nations that emphasized democratic principles and human rights. He urged for a system that would prevent the imposition of totalitarian regimes, especially in nations liberated from Nazi occupation. Yet the UN promotes Arab dictatorships, specifically Palestinian Arab dictatorships, precisely following the Oct 7th 2023 massacre of Israelis. Churchill wrote the first White Paper, this man focused his interests over British domination upon any new balance of power political arrangement.

Stalin’s enthusiasm for the concept of the United Nations demonstrated a strategic acknowledgment of the necessity for international governance. This was essential for managing tensions after the war. His insistence on recognizing the Soviet Union’s status as a major power was non-negotiable. The establishment of a security buffer in Eastern Europe was paramount for him, as it aligned with the Soviet doctrine of protecting its borders from perceived threats. Stalin’s strategy foreshadowed the post-war division of Europe. His desire for influence in Eastern Europe laid the groundwork for future Cold War dynamics, where conflicting ideologies and interests between the USSR and Western nations would lead to tension.

Mali announced the expulsion of French troops, effectively ending an French economic or military domination. In similar fashion the governments of Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Senegal, & Côte d’Ivoire. The UN never once condemned French neocolonialism. The rise of alternative global partnerships, particularly with nations like China and Russia, has provided Sahelian countries with options to diversify their diplomatic and economic relationships. The UN never condemned Western neocolonial economic structured dominance which favored French interests over African development. Independent Sahelian countries, no thanks to the UN, have started to forge new alliances that prioritize their interests rather than continuing to rely on traditional colonial ties. African sovereignty and control over national resources the UN never recognized.

Jan Christian Smuts, a prominent South African statesman and military leader, had a contentious and complex relationship with Mahatma Gandhi. While they both played influential roles in early 20th-century India and South Africa, their interactions were often marked by significant ideological differences and personal animosity. Smuts held a more conservative viewpoint, often prioritizing colonial interests and the maintenance of order within the British Empire.

One major point of contention was the implementation of discriminatory pass laws targeting Indians in South Africa. Gandhi actively opposed these laws through protests, while Smuts supported the laws as a means of maintaining control. During discussions about Indian representation in South African politics, Smuts was seen as obstructive, further fueling Gandhi’s disdain for him.

Reports suggest that Smuts had a personal dislike for Gandhi, viewing him as a radical undermining British authority in South Africa. This animosity was reflected in their public exchanges and political opposition. Despite their differences, Gandhi’s struggle for Indian rights in South Africa remains a significant historical contribution, overshadowing Smuts’ position at that time. Today, Smuts is often critiqued for his stances, which contributed to systemic discrimination, while Gandhi is celebrated for his non-violent approach to achieving social justice. The relationship between Jan Christian Smuts and Mahatma Gandhi exemplifies the broader tensions of colonial politics, with personal ideologies and ambitions clashing in a critical period of history. Their interactions serve as a lens through which the complexities of resistance against colonial rule can be understood.

Jawaharlal Nehru, as India’s first Prime Minister played a significant role in the establishment of the United Nations (UN). Nehru was a strong proponent of internationalism and believed in the necessity of a global organization to foster peace and cooperation among nations. His vision was largely influenced by the horrors of World War II and the need to prevent future conflicts. Nehru actively participated in key discussions that shaped the UN’s formation. He was part of the Indian delegation at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, where the UN Charter was drafted.

His contributions emphasized the importance of decolonization and civil rights. Nehru advocated for the inclusion of human rights in the UN framework. As a leader from a newly independent nation, he championed the cause of oppressed peoples, aiming for a UN that would not only prevent wars but also promote social justice. Nehru’s commitment to the UN and its principles laid a foundation for India’s active participation in UN affairs, which has continued to influence its foreign policy. His advocacy for peace, cooperation, and justice remains a part of India’s global identity today.

In 1975 the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned the Augusto Pinochet regime for its widespread human rights violations, including torture and political repression. The resolution called attention to reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearance of political opponents, and the overall lack of civil liberties in Chile under Pinochet’s dictatorship. The Augusto Pinochet regime immediately eclipsed the socialist influence of Hernán Santa Cruz.

Alger Hiss, a high-ranking official in the U.S. State Department and a key figure in the founding meetings of the United Nations. In 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former communist and journalist, accused Hiss of being a communist spy and of passing classified documents to the Soviet Union. In 1950, Hiss was tried for perjury and was convicted, serving several years in prison. While Hiss was involved in the establishment of the United Nations, serving as a crucial part of the U.S. delegation at the founding conference in 1945, his legacy became overshadowed by the espionage allegations. Historians often debate the extent of his guilt, with some arguing that he was falsely accused.

The Weaponization of “Genocide”, the UN has perverted into a political cudgel, detached from its historical meaning. Its use against Israel, framed as a form of Holocaust denial and “blood libel.” Israel’s Sovereignty Post-Holocaust — “Never Again” means Israel will not allow external powers—especially European states—to dictate Jewish survival, our international borders or our Capital City. Israel’s refusal to sign the Rome Statute, presented as a rejection of foreign-imposed “solutions” which presume Israel remains a Protectorate Territory of the UN or post WWII European Courts of international law.

The UN was created to prevent another Shoah, but instead it promotes platitudes and power politics. Examples: ignoring atrocities in Nigeria, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Idi Amin’s Uganda, and French neocolonialism in Africa. A UN which continually remains worse than simply silent about its founding premise: preventing unilateral security expansions that could trigger world conflict. A UN which “claims” to defend human rights, built partly by men who defend racially stratified empires.

Selective Condemnations, the UN condemned Pinochet’s Chile but ignored French neocolonialism in Africa. UN resolutions often reflect political convenience rather than consistent justice. The Smuts vs. Gandhi conflict illistrates how the UN’s silence on neocolonial structures in Africa echoes the impact of Colonial legacies.

Alger Hiss’s role in founding the UN is overshadowed by espionage accusations, symbolizing the organization’s compromised legacy, matched only by the grossly perverted number of UN condemnations made against Israel. The UN has always had compromised foundations, and those cracks have widened into fissures today.

The UN never morally coherent. It stands exposed as a truce between competing empires wrapped in universal language. The same Human Rights Commission built by men like Smuts and Santa Cruz now functions as a propaganda bureau for authoritarian regimes. And the same UN founded with Alger Hiss — now shadowed by espionage accusations — continues to operate with layers of clandestine influence.

The weaponization of “genocide”, an old psychological warfare guilt trip, on par with “He died for you”. It continues the old European narative: The Jew as the world’s chief problem. Where once Jews were accused of poisoning wells, today we are accused of poisoning Gaza. Where once Jews were accused of blood crimes, today we are accused of genocide. A system built on the ashes of the Holocaust now recycles Holocaust denial under the guise of human rights.

Why Smuts? Why Gandhi? Why Pinochet? Why the Sahel? Why Nehru? These leaders and countries both tyrants and saints influenced the establishment of the UN, its the failed ‘dream vision’ which ignores the eternal conflict conducted between Power vs. Justice. All the prophets of the T’NaCH pitted justice against avoda zara – the Human worship of power as God.

Israel never signed the Rome Statute. Therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction unless Israel consents which fundamentally profanes the post Shoah sworn oath “NEVER AGAIN”. The ICC’s maneuver relies on the fiction that “Palestine” is a state with standing. British Palestine, established by the League of Nations based upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917 ceased to exist when David Ben Gurion declared Jewish national independence and named the new country Israel in 1948.

Only in 1964 did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name of Palestine as central to his PLO Charter. That charter did not view Jordan’s West Bank or Egypt’s Gaza as occupied territory. It limited the phrase “Occupied Territory” only to ’48 Israel. UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334 etc all political blood libel frauds. UN Resolution 3379 – Zionism is Racism – rejects the Balfour Declaration which fathered the Palestine Mandate of 1921.