The Ironic Legacy of the Holocaust, the Rise of Zionism, and its Connection to the Modern Genocide in Palestine: A Reflection on the Consequences of Failed Foreign Policy by the United States
My engagement with the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in 2015 through my involvement in local politics within Dutchess County. During that period, I encountered a fellow Puerto Rican activist of similar age, who had pursued a degree in political science at SUNY New Paltz. She had a particular focus on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, having delved extensively into its dynamics. Bianca was a font of knowledge, frequently bringing me up to speed on the nuances of life under occupation, the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and the structures of power maintained by the Israeli Defense Forces that she characterized as an apartheid regime. She was also astute about the influence of the Israeli lobby on American politicians.
At that stage, international relations were just beginning to capture my attention as I explored political risk in the context of my corporate finance studies. My subsequent research revealed a concerning pattern of outcomes from U.S. military interventions. I found that failed policies in Iraq and Afghanistan inadvertently nurtured the very terrorist entities that the U.S. initially supported, which ultimately turned against American interests (Solomon, Public Integrity, 2011). These policy failures appeared to serve the narrow interests of influential individuals with deep ties to the oil industry — individuals who reaped substantial financial benefits from these conflicts (Corn, Mother Jones, 2023).
United States’ Foreign Policy has been Oil Profits for the Elite
The American Oil Dynasty: Bush, Cheney and Koch Families Middle Eastern Imperialism
Notably, former President George W. Bush (R) and his Vice President, Dick Cheney (R), who previously chaired Halliburton (an oil company turned defense contractor), are said to have been involved. They are alleged to have maneuvered economic sanctions and defense contracts to their advantage, possibly leading to enormous profits in the vicinity of $36 billion dollars from the Middle Eastern conflicts due to massive defense contracts, this occurred while sacrificing the lives of thousands of American soldiers and innumerable local civilians (Al Jazeera, 2004; Corp Watch, 2019).
Now, I’m recognized for my aptitude in linking human rights violations and monetary disputes to the investment strategies and Wall Street executives who seemingly profit from widespread human suffering.
The oil moguls and Middle Eastern intervention don’t end with Bush and Cheney, the Koch Brothers (R) also have made profits and engaged in similar activities to Cheney and Halliburton.
A U.S. Senate investigation concluded that:
“Koch Industries made improper payments (described by the former compliance director who discovered them as “bribes”) to win business in six countries over eight years, a possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. One criminal law professor called the findings a “smoking gun.” The company described the payments as “activities constitut[ing] violations of criminal law.”
Koch Industries sold millions dollars worth of refinery equipment to Iran after President George W. Bush declared the nation was part of the “Axis of Evil.” The company claims these sales were legal at the time, and says it has since cut ties with Iran.
Koch Industries allegedly pilfered 1.95 million barrels of crude oil pumped from federal lands by falsifying purchasing records, a Senate investigation found. One former worker said the company routinely incorrectly measured the oil, calling this practice the “Koch Method.”
Koch Industries ignored federal regulations for pipeline safety — resulting in the deaths of at least two people in a pipeline explosion in Lively, Texas in 1996.” (Olsen, NBC News, 2011).
The Holocaust Gives Rise to Israel through Zionism
The British Banking Dynasty: The Rothschild Family and Their Role in the Zionist Movement & Establishment of Israel
The Rothschild family, a name synonymous with wealth and banking, has played a significant role in the history of the Zionist movement. Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, found a notable patron in the Rothschild dynasty.
One of the most prominent Rothschilds in the Zionist cause was Edmond James de Rothschild (1845–1934). Often referred to as the “Father of the Yishuv” (the pre-state Jewish community in Palestine), Edmond de Rothschild’s dedication to supporting Jewish resettlement efforts was paramount in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Wall Street Journal, 2006).
Through extensive philanthropy, the Rothschilds helped finance the establishment of early Jewish settlements in Palestine, such as Rishon LeZion, Zichron Yaakov, and Rosh Pinna. Beyond merely providing funds, they also assisted in the development of infrastructure, agriculture, and industry, which were crucial for the nascent communities’ sustainability as they developed their far right extremist movement towards the mainstream.
The Rothschild family’s contributions were multifaceted; they not only supported the Zionist ideological goals but were also mindful of the practical aspects of establishing a functioning society. This support was not without its complexities, as it sometimes led to tensions regarding the nature of governance and economic organization within the Yishuv.
As philanthropists and financiers, the Rothschilds’ influence stretched beyond the borders of any single nation. They were instrumental in the economic and social foundations that would later support the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 (Al Jazeera, 2017).
In contemporary discussions, the Rothschilds are sometimes mentioned in various conspiracy theories, which overshadow their genuine historical contributions. As supporters of the Zionist movement, their role was significant yet intertwined with a broader tapestry of efforts from Jews and non-Jews alike, who worked towards the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland.
The Rothschild family’s contribution to the Balfour Declaration and the eventual establishment of Israel is rooted in their support of the Zionist movement and their influence in European political circles during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Balfour Declaration
The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated November 2, 1917, from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild family and a figure in the British Jewish community. The letter stated:
“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
Lord Rothschild was chosen as the recipient of this declaration because he represented the British Zionist Federation and was a prominent advocate for Zionist causes. The involvement of a Rothschild in this capacity served as an acknowledgment of both the family’s support for Zionism and their influence (Jweekly, 1997).
The Rothschilds, among others, played a role in lobbying for British support for the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Their financial and political clout, as well as their established networks, were instrumental in fostering diplomatic dialogue that favored Zionist aspirations.
It’s important to clarify that the Balfour Declaration itself did not create the State of Israel; rather, it was a significant step towards international recognition of the Zionist objective. The declaration provided a diplomatic boost for the Zionist movement, helping legitimize its aims and making it clear that they had the backing of a major world power (Al Jazeera, 2017).
Over the following decades, the groundwork laid by the Balfour Declaration, combined with the activities of various Jewish organizations, demographic changes due to Jewish immigration to Palestine, and the geopolitical aftermath of World War I and II, led to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947. This plan recommended the division of the land into separate Jewish and Arab states. The State of Israel was declared on May 14, 1948.
The Rothschilds’ support for Jewish causes and the Zionist movement, both financially and politically, created an environment that was conducive to the diplomatic progress embodied by the Balfour Declaration. However, the establishment of Israel was the result of many factors, involving numerous Zionist leaders, organizations, global events, and the support of the international community, including the critical aftermath of the Holocaust and the prevailing sentiment for a Jewish state post World War II (Daily Sabah, 2021).
It is essential, particularly in an era prone to misinformation, to recognize the Rothschilds’ historical role in the context of the Zionist movement based on documented evidence and reliable historical accounts (you can read more at the references below).
The Holocaust, the Foundation of the United Nations and the Genocide Convention
In the wreckage of World War II and the unfathomable atrocities marked by the Holocaust, international leaders were compelled to create a system that would prevent such crimes against humanity from recurring. The Holocaust, with its systemic and industrial-scale extermination of six million Jews and millions of others, was a pivotal catalyst in the formation of the United Nations (UN).
Established on October 24, 1945, the UN aimed to promote peace, security, and international cooperation. It emerged directly from the imperative to prevent future genocides and to build a platform where international issues could be addressed through dialogue and legal structures. The UN Charter was based on principles such as the defense of human rights, self-determination of peoples, and the prohibition of the use of force except in common defense.
The genesis of the Genocide Convention was deeply intertwined with the legacy of the Holocaust. Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who lost family in the Holocaust, had tirelessly advocated for the recognition of genocide as a crime under international law. In 1948, bolstered by the evident need to criminalize such inhumane acts, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). This convention legally defined genocide and established it as a crime that all signatory nations were obligated to prevent and punish.
The recognition of the State of Israel can also be traced back to the aftermath of the Holocaust, where the international community saw the need for a homeland for the Jewish survivors of the Nazi genocide. One significant influence on this development was the lobbying efforts by the Rothschild family. Having been long-time supporters of the Zionist movement, they utilized their influence to advocate for the creation of a Jewish state. Their support played a role, alongside the wider Zionist movement and the urgent need to find a solution for displaced Jews, in garnering international backing for Israel.
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, recommending the partition of British-controlled Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel declared its independence, which was recognized swiftly by major powers, marking a momentous outcome of post-war efforts to secure a national home for the Jewish people.
The Palestinian Nakba of 1948
The term “Nakba,” which means “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the events of 1948 that led to the mass displacement of Palestinian Arabs following the war associated with the creation of the State of Israel. Simultaneously, the term “Holocaust,” also translates to “catastrophe” and is used to describe the systematic genocide of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II.
The Nakba is a significant and traumatic part of Palestinian history. In the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes. The conflict began after the United Nations recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states in 1947. Tensions escalated between Jewish and Arab communities, resulting in war when Israel declared independence in May 1948. As a consequence of the war, hundreds of Palestinian villages were destroyed, and the refugee crisis that ensued remains unresolved to this day. Palestinians commemorate the Nakba annually on May 15th, which is the day after the Israeli Independence Day, marking it as a time of mourning and remembrance for their losses (UN.org, N.D.).
The Holocaust occurred during World War II when Nazi Germany orchestrated the systemic extermination of Jews, along with other targeted groups, in an attempt to carry out their ideology of racial purity. It stands as one of the most atrocious acts of genocide in human history, leaving a profound impact on the collective memory of the Jewish people and the global conscience regarding human rights and genocide prevention.
While both the Nakba and the Holocaust translate to “catastrophe,” it is imperative to approach each historical event within its specific context and recognize the distinct nature of both tragedies. Each remains a central element of identity and memory for their respective peoples and plays a significant role in the ongoing discourse around historical grievances, conflict, and the pursuit of reconciliation and peace. According to Al Jazeera, the Nakba occurred with the early 19th century rise of Zionism funded by the Rothschild family:
“Though some of the movement’s pioneers initially supported a Jewish state in places such as Uganda and Argentina, they eventually called for for building a state in Palestine based on the biblical concept that the Holy Land was promised to the Jews by God.
In the 1880s, the community of Palestinian Jews, known as the Yishuv, amounted to three percent of the total population. In contrast to the Zionist Jews who would arrive in Palestine later, the original Yishuv did not aspire to build a modern Jewish state in Palestine.
After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1517–1914), the British occupied Palestine as part of the secret Sykes-Picot treaty of 1916 between Britain and France to divvy up the Middle East for imperial interests.
In 1917, before the start of the British Mandate (1920–1947), the British issued the Balfour Declaration, promising to help the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, essentially vowing to give away a country that was not theirs to give.”
Egypt and the Suez Canal Crisis
The Suez Crisis of 1956, often referred to as the Suez Cabal Crisis, stands as a pivotal event in post-World War II geopolitical history, symbolizing the end of traditional colonialism and the rise of nationalism in the Middle East. At its core was a dispute over control and operation of the strategically vital Suez Canal, connecting the Mediterranean and Red Seas.
On July 26, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, previously managed by the Suez Canal Company — a British-French owned entity since the waterway’s completion in 1869. Nasser’s decision was a climactic turn in the mounting political tensions between Egypt and the former colonial powers, the United Kingdom and France. Despite offers of economic compensation for the nationalized assets, the move was met with outrage by the British and French governments. Nasser, who sought to end perceived attempts by the West to maintain colonial dominance in the region, thus became a controversial figure at the intersection of regional ambition and European indignation.
The Eisenhower administration in the United States, wary of escalating conflict that could draw in the USSR and complicate Cold War dynamics, endeavored to defuse the situation. A crucial proposal came from U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles on September 9, which called for the formation of the Suez Canal Users’ Association (SCUA). This consortium, to consist of 18 maritime nations including Britain, France, and Egypt, aimed to oversee the Canal’s operations democratically. However, international initiatives like SCUA failed to resolve the dispute, with none of the main parties willing to compromise their positions.
Behind the scenes, the British government’s discussions with the U.S. indicated a willingness to use military force if necessary to address the issue with Nasser. Concurrently, Britain and France engaged in secret military talks with Israel, seeing Nasser as a shared threat. This collaboration foreshadowed a more direct and explosive confrontation that would shape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
The Suez Crisis underlined a shift in global power dynamics, with colonial governance drawing to a close and emergent nations asserting their sovereignty. The ensuing conflict embroiled multiple national actors and highlighted the crucial role of international diplomacy — or its failure — in managing such crises (History.State.gov, n.d.).
Syria and Egypt form the United Arab Republic which ultimately fails at unity
The United Arab Republic (UAR) was a short-lived political union between Egypt and Syria. The UAR was established on February 1, 1958, when the two countries merged under the leadership of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, a dominant figure in the Arab world due to his charisma and promotion of Pan-Arabism, which espoused the idea of Arab unity and independence from Western influence.
The creation of the UAR was seen as a monumental step towards Arab unity. Nasser became the President of the UAR, and Cairo was designated as its capital. The union was formed in a Cold War context, as Arab nations navigated between alliances with the United States and the Soviet Union. Both Egypt and Syria aimed to balance against perceived threats from Western-backed neighbors and the growing influence of communist ideology. The union served as a symbol of anti-imperialism and a desire for a collective Arab voice on the world stage.
However, the UAR was plagued by internal challenges from the outset. Egypt, being the more dominant and populous partner, effectively came to control the affairs of the union. This centralization of power in Cairo, combined with differences in political culture and socio-economic structures, created resentment among many Syrians. Syrian interests and identity felt submerged within the larger Egyptian bureaucracy, leading to dissatisfaction and growing calls for decentralization and autonomy.
This dissatisfaction culminated in a military coup in Syria on September 28, 1961. Army officers dissatisfied with Cairo’s domination of the UAR orchestrated the coup, which resulted in Syria’s secession and the proclamation of the Syrian Arab Republic. The breakup of the UAR was a major setback for the cause of Arab nationalism and reflected the practical difficulties of uniting disparate Arab nations under a single political entity.
Despite the dissolution, Egypt continued to be known as the United Arab Republic until 1971, when it adopted the name Arab Republic of Egypt following the death of President Nasser in 1970. The union’s end re-emphasized the significance of national identities and local politics over broader Pan-Arab sentiments.
The United Arab Republic’s brief existence and sudden downfall underscore the challenges of regional unity in the face of divergent political interests and the complex mosaic of identities in the Middle East. The UAR’s dissolution also demonstrated the limitations of charismatic leadership and ideology in the face of institutional and socio-economic disparities. Despite its failure, the UAR left a lasting legacy on Arab political thought and continued to inspire future attempts at regional cooperation and integration.
Jordan and Saudi Arabia Relationship to Israel
Jordan and Saudi Arabia, both of which border Israel, have historically had different relationships with the Jewish state, driven by their respective national interests and the broader Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape.
Jordan
Jordan shared a long border and a complex history with Israel, including involvement in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 and the annexation of the West Bank. However, following decades of overt hostility and covert communications, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, formally normalizing relations. The treaty resolved territorial disputes and included provisions on water sharing, security cooperation, and economic relations. The relationship between the two countries has seen ups and downs but remains a significant example of a peace agreement between Israel and an Arab neighbor. The Jordanian monarchy has often sought to balance its relationship with Israel, its strategic partnership with Western nations like the US, and the sentiments of its predominantly Palestinian population (Brookings Institute, 2019).
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has not officially recognized Israel and historically supported the Palestinian cause, emphasizing the rights of Palestinians and the importance of East Jerusalem. However, recent years have seen a shift in the region’s dynamics, primarily due to shared concerns over Iran’s regional ambitions. While Saudi Arabia does not have formal diplomatic relations with Israel, reports suggest back-channel communications and some degree of covert cooperation, particularly concerning security and intelligence matters related to mutual regional threats (Brookings Institute, 2022).
Saudi Arabia has told the United States it will not open diplomatic relations with Israel unless an independent Palestinian state is recognised on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, its foreign ministry said on Wednesday.
Riyadh reiterated its call for permanent members of the U.N. Security Council that have not recognised a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital to do so, a ministry statement said (Reuters, 2024).
To maintain their monarchies, both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have implemented various domestic and foreign policies to ensure stability and control. They balance traditional governance with modernization efforts, manage economic challenges, and navigate complex relationships with regional and international powers. The stability of each monarchy is also a function of their ability to address internal social and political dynamics, including the aspirations and unrest of their populations. The monarchs of these nations continue to play critical roles in the politics of the Middle East and in their relationships with Western allies, including the United States.
Iran’s Position is to Oust Western Colonizers in the Middle East
Iran’s strength in the Middle East is multifaceted, deriving from its strategic location, substantial natural resources, a large population, a strong military, and significant influence over non-state actors in the region. Iran’s relationship with several Middle Eastern countries is complex and often contentious, particularly regarding its regional rivalries and ideological stance.
Israel
Iran does not recognize the State of Israel and has been its staunch adversary. The two nations have engaged in indirect conflicts, with Iran supporting anti-Israel groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions have been a source of tension, and Israel considers Iran its most significant threat.
Syria
Syria and Iran have had a strategic alliance for decades, primarily due to their common enmity toward Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and shared resistance to Western and Israeli interests. Iran has been a key supporter of Bashar al-Assad’s regime during the Syrian civil war, providing military advisors, materiel, and financial support.
Yemen
Iran is widely believed to support the Houthi rebels in Yemen, a group that seized control of the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, and other parts of the country. This support has exacerbated the conflict in Yemen, which pits the Houthis against a Saudi-led coalition backing the internationally recognized Yemeni government. The Houthi’s have been attacking U.S. and NATO allies in the Red Sea due to Israel’s current war on Gaza (BBC, 2024). This has led to the attacks of US Navy and commercial vessels as well as the the U.S. and allies retaliating against the Houthi’s who have strong public support in Yemen for their support of the Palestinians (Reuters, 2024).
Iraq
Iran has significant influence in Iraq, particularly among the Shi’a population and Shi’a-dominated political parties. Following the 2003 US-led invasion, Iran supported various Shi’a militias and has been a key player in Iraqi politics. Iraq serves as a battleground for US-Iranian tensions, with frequent militia attacks on US assets often attributed to Iranian proxies.
Afghanistan
Iran’s relationship with Afghanistan is historically rooted in shared culture and religion with the Afghan Shi’a community. Iran has worked to cultivate relationships with various Afghan factions, including the Taliban, aiming to secure its interests and mitigate the potential for conflict spilling over the shared border and ousting the United States Military after a 20 year occupation in their region.
Jordan
Jordan, a Sunni monarchy, has traditionally been cautious with Iran, viewing its regional ambitions with suspicion. Although diplomatic relations exist, Jordan aligns more closely with Gulf Arab states and Western allies who share its concerns about Iranian influence.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is Iran’s primary regional rival, with both competing for influence across the Middle East. The two countries differ in religious leadership (Saudi Sunnism vs. Iranian Shi’ism), geopolitics, and relations with Western powers. This rivalry has manifested in proxy conflicts in Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere.
Palestine
Iran supports Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, considering itself an ally of the Palestinian cause against Israeli occupation. This support is part of Iran’s broader strategy to project its power and champion resistance against Israel and the United States in the region.
Overall, Iran’s relationship with surrounding countries is determined by a mix of ideological, strategic, sectarian, and national interests, often leading to regional tensions and alliances that shift in response to the dynamic geopolitical environment of the Middle East with the main objective of making it so hard for the United States to be profitable in the Middle East that they withdraw from the region militarily and economically.
China
Iran’s relationship with China is primarily driven by trade, energy, and mutual geopolitical interests. China, as one of the largest importers of Iranian oil, plays a critical economic role for Iran, especially in light of Western sanctions against the country. The two nations have strengthened ties through a comprehensive strategic partnership, which includes significant Chinese investment in Iranian infrastructure and energy sectors under the Belt and Road Initiative. This relationship serves as a counterbalance to Western influence, allowing Iran to maintain economic stability and leverage in international affairs despite isolation from many Western powers.
Russia
In contrast, Iran’s relationship with Russia is anchored in strategic cooperation and a shared skepticism of Western dominance in international politics. Both countries support the Syrian government in the Syrian civil war, showcasing their aligned interests in the region. They also collaborate in the defense sector, with Russia supplying Iran with military equipment and technology. Furthermore, Russia acts as an important mediator for Iran on the international stage, including in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. This partnership is characterized by a mutual desire to reinforce each other’s standing against perceived Western encroachment and to preserve their respective spheres of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia.
The United States is involved in Middle Eastern Conflicts because years of failed American Intervention for Oil Profits has now Escalated to Threats on American National Security
The interest of American and European elites in the Middle East has often been attributed to the region’s vast oil resources. Prominent families and political figures, such as the Bush, Koch, Cheney, and historically the Rothschilds, have been connected to the oil industry, whether through direct business interests or through policies that influence global energy markets.
The Bush family, with ties to the Texan oil industry, has been involved in American politics for several generations, holding positions that have directly and indirectly shaped U.S. policy in the Middle East. This includes military interventions and diplomatic relations that some critics argue serve to protect American oil interests.
Similarly, the Koch brothers, through their corporation Koch Industries, have significant investments in energy and related industries, and they have been known to lobby for policies favorable to their business interests. This has extended to a broad support for deregulation and energy independence, which implicates foreign policy decisions regarding the Middle East.
Dick Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, an oilfield services company, and later as U.S. Vice President, also had a role in shaping policies that affected the Middle East. Under his influence, decisions made post-9/11 led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which some argue were motivated by a desire to secure oil fields and establish a strategic foothold in the region.
While historically the Rothschild family has been active in oil investments, such as in the early development of the oil industry in Azerbaijan, their connection to current oil interests in the Middle East tends to be less direct and more a part of broader historical narratives about their financial and industrial activities.
Critics claim that the collective influence of these elites and their interests signifies an underlying drive to control oil resources, which has significant implications for energy security, economic power, and geopolitical strategies.
The Rise of the Israeli-Hamas War
The ongoing hostilities between Hamas and Israel are often viewed as the latest chapter in a prolonged history of regional turmoil, which, some analysts argue, has partly stemmed from unsuccessful Western interventions and foreign policy decisions driven by a desire to access and control oil reserves. Since Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal and the influence exerted by Houthi rebels over the Red Sea pathways, there is a contention that Israel’s military engagements in Palestine are in part motivated by an ambition to fully acquire Gaza. The strategic intent, as hypothesized by some, is to exploit the potential oil reserves in the Gaza Marine field and to exert territorial dominance, facilitating a scenario where the U.S., Israeli interests, and their Middle Eastern allies might establish an alternative canal. Such strategic moves are believed to enhance their sway in a geopolitically critical region.
This perspective asserts that various military endeavors, motivated by a number of Western elites from the U.S., Britain, and France, have over time led to the conflict and humanitarian crisis in Palestine. The narrative suggests that the protracted quest for oil and control over its transportation routes by colonial powers has culminated in what some describe as systematic oppression and human rights violations against the Palestinian people. It is more important than ever for the international community to stand against the elites and demand a cease fire.
References:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-women-behind-the-balfour-declaration-11665677028
https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2023/12/75-years-genocide-convention
https://www.timesofisrael.com/jordans-25-year-peace-with-israel-cold-and-getting-colder/
