In the fateful year 1967, after the 6-day war, Israel stood there as a heroic victor in view of the great numerical superiority of the opposing forces, and therefore had broad sympathy on it´s side in all "Western" countries. The military actions themselves corresponded in an exemplary manner to Niccolo Machiavelli's basic rule of political philosophy, that unavoidable painful interventions are to be completed within the shortest possible time (see Chapter A 20th, 2nd half). A short, effective blow enables the loser to come to terms psychologically with the new situation in a manageable reset process.

But in the aftermath of the 6-day war, Middle East policy has gone astray under the concerted influence of four main external forces. These were the Arab League, the UN, the "Western" media, and various supposedly charitable organizations/NGOs. Under these influences, a total of four categories of fundamental principles were violated. Firstly, the stability principles listed in Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter (including the right to self-determination, legal equality and sovereignty of all states), secondly, the stability principle of solidarity-based integration, thirdly, the rule of Niccolo Machiavelli mentioned, and fourthly, the dual principle of self-determination and responsibility for oneself. 

As a result, the post-war situation turned into endless non-peace, so that the 6-day war has meanwhile turned into a 55-year war, during which the Yom Kippur War of 1973 was just one particularly active episode. The first of the counterproductive initiatives came from the members of the Arab League, the majority of which were not even involved in the war. "Still wounded by their defeat in the Six-Day War, Arab leaders met in Khartoum, Sudan, in August 1967, and signed a resolution that promised >no peace, no recognition and no negotiation< with Israel. - Led by Egypt and Syria, the Arab states later launched a fourth major conflict with Israel during 1973's Yom Kippur War". / Six-Day-War, May 2018, updated August, 2018, in H History, reference: https://ww.history.com/topics/middle-east/six-day-war

Israel could already take this total refusal of its wartime opponents and their supporters as a warning signal that it would very likely have to set up the post-war order without the participation of the opponents, i.e. solely in cooperation with the Security Council responsible according to the UN Charter.

But the warning to the Arab League, which was to be expected from the UN, did not come off. In doing so, they should have demanded respect for the charter principles and, of course, for the right to exist of the UN member state Israel. Instead, in November 1967, the UN put pressure on Israel with its Resolution 242. "The Security Council... Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war... Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of... the following principles (I) Withdrawl of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” / UNO, New York, NY - This resolution was "pioneering" for many later unilaterally anti-Israel resolutions:

1. Contrary to what is misleadingly formulated in the resolution, the fulfilment of the principles does not require the establishment of a just and lasting peace, but conversely the establishment of a just and lasting peace requires the fulfilment of the principles mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 - logically and also according to the charter text.

2. However, these principles, in particular self-determination, sovereignty, equal legal treatment and territorial integrity of all states, are not mentioned at all in the resolution. Otherwise it would have been obvious that it was the Arab League (with its Khartoum Declaration of August 1967), Jordan and the UN Security Council itself that violated these principles; the League by permanently denying Israel the recognition of its sovereignty (as well as negotiated solutions and peace in general, i.e. overarching UN goals - "The purposes of the United Nations are ..."); Jordan, by already annexing the West Bank - which was intended as part of the Jewish homeland according to the Mandate Treaty of 1922 - in 1948 and expelling the Jewish settlers, and further by never giving the Arab residents there the opportunity in the 19 years after the annexation until 1967 to exercise their right to self-determination. They would probably have voted for the Palestinian state they have been demanding since 1967.

3. The inadmissibility of territorial acquisition through war mentioned in Resolution 242 is not applicable to the now autonomous Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, since these constitute merely charter-compliant corrections of the annexation by Egypt and Jordan, which took place contrary to the Palestine mandate of 1922 in 1948. Furthermore, the right to appropriate self-defense measures according to Article 51 of the UN Charter (of course) also includes security-related occupation - until a peaceful solution is found.

The call on Israel to withdraw from the conquered territories therefore did not represent a valid legal principle, as claimed, but the anti-principle of unfair bullying, which does not bring closer to a just and lasting peace, but prevents it - namely through misinformation about the legal situation on the part of the Security Council, which in turn violated another basic principle, namely the equal legal treatment of nations (according to Article 1 of the Charter) and states (Article 2).

Since the Security Council has not properly performed its peacekeeping tasks in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, it has kept Israel in a permanent situation of self-defence since the law-bending Resolution 242, firstly factually and secondly also from a formal view. Because Article 51 states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security “. 

However, since the Security Council, with its peace-preventing, Charter principles violating resolutions against Israel, undoubtedly did not fulfil the mandate to take such measures "necessary to maintain international peace and security", the right of self-defence enshrined in Article 51 continues to exist. Actual peacekeeping measures require a serious application of the principles mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter and not just their conceptual use as empty phrases that can be filled at will.

Of course, the anti-Israel mood in the UN and the inflationary resolutions passed are not based on a uniform ideological view. For decades, however, an extreme attitude that was far removed from civilization was tolerated there, according to which the Jewish state is already regarded as guilty of the fact that it exists. In September 1961, the then Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was allowed to present his "practical" solution to the Middle East conflict to the UN General Assembly: "The only solution to Palestine...is that matters should return to the condition prevailing before the error was committed - i.e. the annulment of Israel's existence." / Gamal Abdel Nasser, New York, September 27, 1961, quoted in Center for Online Judaic Studies, Quotes by Gamal Abdel Nasser, reference http://cojs.org/quotes_by_gamal_abdel_nasser-_1954-1967/

Resolution 242 of 1967 documents the insufficient willingness, typical of tribalism, to clearly identify valid goals and principles and to apply them fairly. In addition, it ignores the historical specification of the still valid obligations from the mandate of the League of Nations from 1922 - although the preamble to the UN Charter already gives up, "... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties .. .can be maintained". Because even the withdrawal of Great Britain from the Palestine mandate, which was announced at the end of 1947, could not erase the obligations and responsibilities that are still outstanding today.

However, the Arab League and the UN are not only cooperating in bending the legal situation in the Middle East conflict, but also in dealing with refugees in a way that gives them the role of victims in order to achieve political goals.

Today, several million Palestinian refugees live in or around 68 refugee camps. But if the consequences of World War I had been dealt with correctly, there would not have been any flight movements at all, but instead there would have been unresisting acceptance of the clearly defined peace conditions - from which the Arab world had benefited enormously with small delay; and even with movements of refugees, today, 73 and 54 years after the fighting in 1948 and 1967 that triggered them, normally none of those affected would describe themselves as refugees.

According to the narrative conveyed by the “Western” media (and their Arab equivalents), citizens are given the impression that the Palestinian refugee tragedy has its historical origin in the influx of Jewish immigrants to Palestine. However, if one researches the further historical context, one recognizes the actual origin in the lack of respect for the hierarchy of forces between the technically far superior European-American and the Arabic cultural areas, which had already been finally clarified in the Berber Wars (1801-1805). For it was disrespect that encouraged the Arabs to resist the peace terms after World War I (explained in more detail in Appendix C 7.). This lack of respect was and is, however, an artificially created phenomenon for which the simple Arab citizens of Palestine are not to blame. Rather, it was the British mandate administration that laid the foundations for this by not using suitable measures to swiftly advance the decision made by the League of Nations in 1922 to set up a Jewish home, but on the contrary delaying and thwarting it. This was done not only by systematically hindering Jewish immigration and land acquisition, but also by promoting the demographic development of the Arab population. "The Arab population also increased during this period (the 1930s). This growth is attributed to a high birth rate and to the British recruitment of foreign workers from Syria and the Transjordan region, current-day Jordan, attracted by good salaries". / Amira Bahmed, Historial Palestine's Demography, 2013, in CJPME, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East Fatsheet CJPME Factsheet Series No. 182, reference https://www.cjpme.org/fs_182

By neglecting and preventing the mandate administration from creating the Jewish majority required for a self-determined future, it blatantly violated Machiavelli's state-philosophical rule, which was mentioned above, to complete painful interventions in the shortest possible time. This predictably had a paralyzing effect on acceptance by the Arab population. Since there was still no Jewish majority when the mandate was resigned in 1947/48, it was understandable that the Arab side let themselves be driven to rebel against the Jewish homeland project and even to reject the UN partition plan of November 1947.

In the civil war that broke out afterwards, secondly in the immediately following war against several invading Arab states in 1948 and thirdly in the context of the 6-day war in 1967, there were movements of refugees. This affected both Arabs and, overall, at least as many Jews who were expelled from Arab countries in retaliation. The integration of the latter in Israel took place according to the principle of solidarity as a matter of course. Likewise, between 1944 and 1950, West Germany fully integrated between 12 and 18 million refugees and displaced persons from the east. / Cf. NDR, Flight and expulsion overshadow the end of the war in 1945, NDR 2021, reference https://www.ndr.de/geschichte. The same kind of solidarity could have been expected with the same implicitness from the sheltering Arab states, especially from those who had just expelled their Jewish minority.

The expulsion of the "Arab" Jews in retaliation for military defeats represented a reaction of defiance that has its psychological roots in the unaccepted hierarchy between winners and losers. Therefore, to this day, this defiance includes the need for revenge in order to regain the higher rank position.

In contrast to the Jewish refugees in Israel, the Palestinians in the Arab sheltering countries have been and still are being systematically prevented from integrating since 1947/48, among other things by restricting their freedom of movement, by discrimination on the labour market and denial of naturalization (with the exception of Jordan). Instead, they were and are still being accommodated in 58 official and 10 unofficial refugee camps, where the UN sub-organization UNRWA has been looking after them exclusively since 1949. Because UNRWA allows the refugee status to be inherited from generation to generation, because demographic development is also continuing at a rapid pace, and because integration by the Arab host countries continues to fail, the original 700,000 to 800,000 refugees have now grown to around 6 million. However, the number no longer corresponds to the claim to return to their country of origin, which has been raised for 74 years.

Another reason why this claim was not effective under international law was that the Arab League had ruled out any non-violent settlement in the Khartoum Declaration of August 1967 - no peace with, no recognition of, and no negotiations with Israel. However, the UNO rules expressly provide for a peaceful framework for the return of refugees.

After the Palestinian side has been reinforced in a legal position artificially inflated by the UN and the media for 55 years, their tough refusal in negotiations is easy to understand. - The Palestinian side has also rejected the most recent Israeli initiative, in which the establishment of a Palestinian state in the entire area of ​​the West Bank (with a territory exchange of 1.5% of the area for an Israeli area of ​​the same size) is offered. Their chief negotiator then summed up the peace talks that had been dragged on for decades: “First [the Israelis] said we would [only have the right to] run our own schools and hospitals. Then they consented to give us 66% [of the occupied territories]. At Camp David they offered 90% [actually 97%] and [recently] they offered 100%. So why should we hurry, after all the injustice we have suffered?” / Jewish Virtual Library, Fact Sheets: No Peace Without Compromise, October 2021, reference https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/no-peace-without-compromise

The Arab total refusal shortly after the 6-day war and the UNO-Resolution 242 of November 1967 had created a permanent situation of self-defence under international law. In this situation, Israel should have set up its own provisional post-war order, which was consistent with international law, in accordance with Machiavelli's rule immediately after becoming aware of the law-bending UN resolution.

In an identical statement to the UN and to the Arab League, it would have been declared that a permanent self-defence situation had arisen through the fault of these two bodies, so that Israel would now have to set up a temporary post-war order on its own.

Citing Israel's claim to all territory west of the Jordan River under the 1922 Mandate Treaty, a moderate border straightening aimed at improving security could have taken place in order to prepare for a Palestinian state in the main part of the West Bank. An uninhabited security zone about 2 km wide should have been set up on its periphery.

Following this prioritization of security concerns, the right of self-determination of the residents of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Galilee and Samaria) should have been complied with. However, the referendums to be held could not have offered the option of annexing the areas to Israel.

The Palestinian side should have been told that the protective strip bordering their territory only has to exist as long as Israeli security remains threatened. If they were comfortable neighbors, the area would be transferred to them in portions over time.

However, granting full state independence while at the same time permanently regulating the border issue was not only required by the principle of self-determination. Although Israel, as a Jewish homeland, was formally entitled to the entire area west of the Jordan River according to the Mandate of 1922, a complete re-annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was out of the question for demographic reasons. – The then very high proportion of the Arab population within its state borders would have directly endangered the character of Israel as that of a permanently Jewish state. On the other hand, with the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state, full responsibility would have passed to it - specifically also for future demographic developments and their consequences - more details in the final part of this chapter.

But instead, Israeli politics has been shaped by two different strategies, both of which are doomed to lasting failure. One is emphatically geared towards understanding and approach, but without recognizing that the supposedly disadvantaged and weak other side is actually playing to gain time and therefore does not and does not have to show any substantial accommodation (see the quote from the Palestinian negotiator in the first third of this chapter). The consequent one-sided approach corresponds to an inflationary appeasement over the decades. This anti-strategy entails - psychologically unavoidable - constantly increasing demands from the other side and therefore, if it is not clearly detected and stopped, leads to total abandonment, to certain demise.

The other, the conservative current, is patriotic and determined to counter the Arab refusal to negotiate by building up pressure, as they did in 2006 after the elections in the Palestinian Gaza Strip. Billionaire George Soros, who was mistaken in other respects, commented very aptly: "Then came the blunder ... Israel, with the strong backing of the United States, refused to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government and withheld payment of the millions in taxes collected by the Israelis on its behalf. This caused great economic hardship and undermined the ability of the government to function. But it did not reduce popular support for Hamas among Palestinians, and it reinforced the position of Islamic and other extremists who oppose negotiations with Israel.” / George Soros, On Israel, America and AIPAC, in The New York Review of Books, New York, NY 2007, reference https://www.georgesoros.com/2007/04/12/on_israel_america_and_aipac/

Likewise, hard conservative forces think they had found a suitable means of pressure against the other side's unwillingness to negotiate in the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). Legally correct, one can invoke the territorial claim to the entire territory west of the Jordan, which exists since 1922, but firstly violates the above-mentioned rule of Niccolo Machiavelli, according to which painful interventions must never be prolonged and secondly against the idea of a clear territorial order while avoiding a mixed situation.

The consequences are not only frustration and further radicalization of the Palestinians, but also damage to Israel's international reputation, going so far as to draw comparisons to South African apartheid.

The question as to why Israeli policy has increasingly deviated from the correct course since 1967 finds the same answer as that of the general political disorientation in the "West" - see the opening sentence in Chapter A 1. In both cases it is the power of big money which is constantly bending the political consciousness of ordinary citizens, as well as that of politicians, in a direction proclaimed to be "politically correct". This is not only happening via the media - in the exercise of cultural violence according to Johan Galtung - but increasingly also via supposedly charitable NGOs. In contrast to genuinely charitable organizations such as the Bloomberg Philanthropies or the Bezos Earth Fund, these polarizing or - at the other extreme - appeasement-orientated organizations already represent the transition from cultural to structural violence. Because their propaganda takes place - driven by the power of big money - in a firmly institutionalized framework and it is flanked by physical actions.

Since the Vietnam trauma, leftists and greens, and now increasingly also liberals and Christians, have tended psychologically to “identify with the opponent” and thus to appeasement and anti-patriotism (see Chapter A 25., last third). In Israel, the same phenomenon only spread later than in other "Western" states due to the 6-Day War, which was won in a superior manner, and thanks to the confirmation of the ranking position in the Yom Kippur War. However, those Jewish organizations are currently gaining in popularity whose sincere commitment to peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs is based on factually unfounded collective feelings of guilt. This weakened psychological status is the inevitable result of the concerted distortion or retaining of Information about the historical, international legal and thus moral situation. Like every appeasement, this inevitably triggers an increase in the demands of the other side (see Palestinian reaction to Israeli peace proposals) and thus to the opposite of the desired peaceful settlement.

But the political profile of the conservatives is also subject to a slow but steady distortion that makes them unsuitable for a peace process in a completely different way. It's the same slide into manners seen among the American neoconservatives, and particularly among the so-called hawks. Their hypocritical perception results in unnecessarily polarizing (and contrary to Macchiavelli's basic rule) actions, which give the other side a victim status in public perception and thus moral advantages. In May 2021, the Israeli military destroyed residential buildings in Gaza. While this was by no means gratuitous, but in legitimate retaliation for rocket fire from Hamas, it was devastating to Israel's image, while the Palestinians were excellent at playing the role of the hopelessly weaker (with over 1,000 rockets doing little damage). , who desperately tries to defend himself against a violent stronger adversary. - This elaborate psychological warfare harmonizes remarkably well with its continuation - namely the presentation in the media. - The Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip, which supposedly deter the enemy, have provided this one-sided media reporting with additional material and are thus proving to be self-destructive.

The gradual establishment and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank falls into the same category. In addition to direct-acting propaganda ammunition, these actions provide the opposing side with another, delayed-acting ammunition. For the unfavorable mixture of new Jewish settlements between existing Palestinian settlements with fences and walls in between offers a target for that rapidly growing group of critics who are trying to defame Israel as an "apartheid state". The fact that the separation systems are necessary as protection against attacks is quickly lost in the perceptual view of media consumers, so that the outcome of this "moral" dispute is already certain – as long as the urgently needed restoration of the solidarity within the Christian-Jewish cultural area keeps to be unsettled. Not only the left-wing political approach, which amounts to appeasement, is proving to be unsuitable for the future, but also the right-wing conservative one with its psychologically disastrous settlement projects in the West Bank, while the same time, Israel had and still has the legitimate legal position to set up a territorial order entirely on its own, namely …

- the claim of the Jewish state to the entire territory of Palestine as part of the unassailable post-war order of World War I (and fair price for the liberation of the Arab countries from Turkish rule).

- the right to a unilaterally declared post-war order as the victor of 1967, after the UN failed in this function with its law-bending Resolution 242 (see above)

- at the latest after the Arab side had rebelled for the fourth time in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 against the territorial order established after World War I by force of arms (and this rebellion continued in terrorist actions), the unilaterally explainable post-war order to which Israel was entitled would also have been very bad harsh measures - up to the expulsion of the Arab population or parts of it. Already without having such a justification, Arab countries had unilaterally rejected the model of coexistence of Jews and Arabs in the same national territory by expelling their Jewish minority after the 1948 and 1967 wars.

- The acceptance and integration of Palestine refugees, which has always been stubbornly rejected by the Arab community of states, had to be demanded because, as participants in the war, they also had to bear all the risks of the war.

Instead of defending Israel's correct legal position, the "Western" media damage Israel's reputation and instead offer the two equally suicidal approaches of appeasement on the one hand and the continued use of structural and physical violence without once establishing a stable order on the other.

Both self-destructive strategies have counterparts in other “Western” countries, albeit at an even more advanced stage there. The result is a general development of free-democratic societies in the direction of being unsuitable for the future. The guiding principle that leads unerringly there, and obviously should lead, is “political correctness”.

The remarkably coherent spread of two objectively irrational and self-destructive worldviews in almost all western countries can be rationally explained if both are identified as staged art products. Once on this trail, one easily finds the initiators and promoters of these subtly auto-destructive ideologies. These are – in difference to many actually charity NGOs - allegedly charity organizations that enjoy tax exemption in the USA.

Many of the left ones among these organizations spread aggressive narratives against Israel, among other things, while conservative and pro-Israel NGOs propagate and finance the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank (without the final territorial order). In both cases, the counterproductive activities are driven forward with tax-free funds in the billions. In this world of financially strong NGOs, various politically motivated and very rich people, who, however, in terms of their mental and ideological profile are by no means to be counted among the financial dynasties, are allowed to stand out with supposed charitable commitments. One such example is George Soros. The around 200 organizations he supports (which can be found clearly listed on the Internet along with their goals) have high idealistic goals, but in driving them they sometimes serve dangerous political trends, including the future vision of a UN world state. / Cf. Steve Balich, Complete List of U.S. Organizations Funded by George Soros, Brookings Institution, The Will County News January 2020, reference https://thewillcountynews.com/install/index.php/2020/01/11/complete-list-of-u-s-organizations-funded -by-george-soros/

On the one hand, Soros recognizes with remarkable clarity Israel's self-damage through neoconservative politics (example Hamas election, see above). But one can use the profile pictures of "his" organizations to show that their actions are also detrimental to Israel's security by representing Palestinian positions, which in turn reproduce the falsification of the legal situation by the UNO and in the media without checking - see Resolution 242 at the beginning of the chapter and Annex C 7.

The policies of the capitalist centres of power Great Britain and the USA have shown for more than 1 ½ centuries (in the meantime also those of the UNO) that the politically influential superrich regard all people without exception as tools that end up on the waste after use. Irritatingly, this also applies to the Jewish faith community, whose life and security they have repeatedly sacrificed to their interests in power - behind a facade of solidarity and under pretexts. This was the case throughout the British Mandate, but particularly during World War II, when Jews from Central and Eastern Europe, despite their perilous situation, were coldly prevented from entering British-administered Palestine and the United States (see Chapter B 7.) .

In the meantime, a new sacrifice is in the offing, this time hidden in the jungle of opinions and information, revelations and pseudo-revelations, among which those that stir up general anti-Jewish suspicions among the citizens spread conspicuously. According to these, the manipulations of the financial magnates were secret actions of "the Jews". As a result, however, all justified criticism, which must only apply to the representatives of big money, is redirected to the people of Israel - and this is used as a living defensive screen - more correctly abused. Because the alleged but false solidarity between the capitalists and Judaism is increasingly becoming an existential danger for the latter, in that the citizens of the West (meanwhile from all political camps) recognizing the manoeuvres of big money and large corporations, fall into a rapidly growing anti-Semitic current. - This observation also unmasks the increasingly propagated confusion of terms, according to which any criticism of the actions of big money is "hidden anti-Semitism" as an irresponsible endangerment of Jewish citizens. Conversely, only the correct distinction between Jews and money magnates can protect the first ones from the - absolutely necessary - criticism of the latter - and thus from an otherwise inevitably escalating anti-Semitism.

1. Capitalism (defined as the unofficial political power of big money and the oligopolistic falsifying system of the fair market economy) has accumulated a maximum of contradictions (see Chapter A 30.) and urgently requires a system change. The necessity does not arise directly from declining profits, as Marx had assumed, but from the impossibility to conceal continuously the even plentiful sources of it´s extra profits (at the expense of the otherwise fairly functioning market economy).
2. From the capitalists' point of view, the system change must therefore bring significantly more leverage against a growing number of liberal critics - which amounts to the need to formally break with the democratic principles of the USA. - The Covid pandemic has offered some pre-practice opportunities for this.
3. An “elegant” and “legal” way to an arbitrary state free of democracy would be via an American civil war, because then “appropriate” emergency laws would come into force. The chaos of competences already programmed into it (see Chapter A 31.) and the escalating state power would provide the ideal environment in which the influence of big money could develop to the maximum. 
4. A war of annihilation against China can therefore be regarded as inevitable because it will not be incorporated into the empire of big money and its clearly more effective economy is not compatible with global dominance of the capitalists even in the short term - reflections at the end of Chapter B 8.
5. To this very big war, another one that would eliminate Iran would have to precede - which has been prepared for propaganda purposes for 42 years (to be found echoing on the websites of a large number of organizations). Psychologically, the way has already been paved for the use of nuclear weapons, since all conventional "attempts" to stop militant Islamism finally failed with the Taliban triumph in August 2021 - at least in the manipulated consciousness of the citizens.
6. Israeli Defence Minister Benjamin Gantz has already announced a military strike against Iran on December 12, 2021. Even if the latter does not yet have nuclear weapons, a nuclear counter-attack must be expected. Cooperation between Iran and North Korea regarding the construction of missiles and in the field of nuclear technology has been discussed for years, which is disputed in Tehran. Unfortunately - at least since the experiences in the run-up to the Iraq war - one can hardly rely on the information that the CIA gives out about possible opponents of the war. In this uncertain, rumor-filled environment, even this well-communicated allegation of nuclear weapons cooperation is enough for the public to perceive the situation. After a nuclear strike that hits Israel, among the scenarios and narratives circulating then, scenarios and narratives in particular would automatically count as plausible, according to which North Korean nuclear bombs were in Iranian hands. However, correctly viewed, these would be nuclear weapons that would subsequently be assigned to an Iran/North Korea alliance, regardless of their actual origin.
7. Looking back historically, the question remains as to why the relaxation of East-West relations towards the end of the 1980s was not used to jointly, resolutely and sustainably end the then still manageable North Korean nuclear threat. – As it is, however, the announced strike by Israel against Iran, backed by the USA, threatens not continue the military success story of the Israeli army, but rather in the endless series of largely unsuccessful American military operations and their destabilizing results.
8. The attack of September 11, 2001 has sufficiently shown that in hindsight, true backgrounds blur between false, true and half-true information. In the media presentation of the topic, what counts above all is the placement or suppression of this or that revelation and pseudo-revelation, much less the truth, however it is stored. (One may ponder why this rumor mill is interspersed with narratives linking Israel and its intelligence agency Mossad to 9/11.)
9. If, in addition to Israel, a target in the USA (namely in the West) is also affected, the use of American nuclear weapons against Iran would be particularly easy to justify.
10. With Israel as the war-triggering party, there would be an escalation of the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish mood that had been fueled for a long time in Islamic countries, in the UN and in the USA.
11. A US civil war could easily develop from this, in which the rule of law, freedom and the USA as a republic very likely perished (Chapter A 31.).
12. A (nuclear) elimination of China according to point 4. would guarantee that the factually freer and thus more successful economy there would remain permanently hidden from the consciousness of the "western" citizens (see Chapter A 29., second half). The acceptance of such an irresponsible step is already being built up in the media and politics through anti-Chinese propaganda - cynically under the pretext of wanting to defend freedom. It “must” take place before the US nuclear arsenal passed into the hands of the UN (see also Appendix C 4.).

This chain of scenarios, which seems to be extremely imaginative, should be recognized from an unbiased perspective as the consistent implementation of an unfortunately all too justified distrust - in a political atmosphere in which anything can happen except trust. The realism of the design is not even crucial. It is crucial to awaken the consciousness that people in the “West” have for far too long placed trust where critical democratic vigilance would have been appropriate. This applies to all institutions which constantly state to be so concerned about the citizens´ security, but especially to the top tier of big money power - where authentic solidarity can still be successfully demanded for a limited time - see Chapter B 7.

The politically highly "correct" (obedient to big business) German government Merkel has continued its payments to UNRWA despite leaking information about anti-Jewish radicalization.

However, not only for the refugees in the camps, but also for other Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, the situation is psychologically unsuitable for developing responsibility for themselves and their environment. Because the current autonomy status means limited freedom of decision, while a population can only develop full responsibility as sovereign owners of their state territory (see Chapter B 2. in the last third). Earlier in the current chapter it was stated that in late 1967, immediately after the promulgation of the unfair UN Resolution 242, preparations should have been made for the ceding of the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank to a sovereign Palestinian state.

It was gravely detrimental to Israel's security to retain control of the territory and the established PA. For by denying sovereignty to the Palestinians, they were also kept from assuming full responsibility. This includes the application of the stability principle of voluntary self-restraint, according to which more and more of the extensive possible human actions must be omitted out of responsibility - and in particular out of responsibility for an adequate coexistence between nations and towards the environment. The actions to be limited concern the transformation of a finite earth and the increase in the number of people - see Chapter B 2nd last quarter. According to this, no one should bring more children into the world than he is able to raise in prosperity. In the international context, as a logical consequence of its sovereignty, every nation bears the exclusive responsibility for a demographic balance on its territory and, if necessary, for all the consequences of a failure in this regard, i.e. overpopulation, environmental destruction and poverty. A nation's permanent violation of this self-responsibility from a certain degree takes the form of an aggressive act against other nations. Because when a large number of residents try to avoid the consequences of their insufficient collective responsibility and strive for developed countries, the position of the civilized nations there as sovereign rulers over their state territories is undermined and destroyed in the medium term without defensive measures.

The aggressive nature of such interventions in demographic balances was taboo and hushed up in global politics and the media for decades. It is only thanks to hypocritical delusion that this systematically suppressed truth was officially able to come to light - namely in UN Resolution 446 of 1979: "The Security Council, Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council, ... 3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, ... to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and ... and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories; ...” / UNO, New York, NY

In essence, a significant change in demographic composition is viewed as an act of aggression, which is absolutely correct. However, the fact that Resolution 446 still ignores the legal situation is due to the fact that Israel, as a territorially incompletely realized Jewish homeland - which guarantees the Muslim population equal religious and civil rights - has a formal claim to all areas of Palestine west of the Jordan according to the League of Nations Mandate Treaty of 1922 .

Contrary to what is implied by the UNO resolution, it is an unofficial but widespread practice worldwide to use demographic shifts to pursue power-political goals. One example is Indonesia's policy, known as Transmigrasi, of relocating predominantly Moslem Javanese to other islands such as Sumatra, New Guinea, Kalimantan and Sulawesi. Insofar as a comparable strategy also applies to Israel/Palestine, it was the Palestinian side, however, whose birth rate, which has been very high for decades, was used very obviously as a means of asserting territorial claims. In the interim result, the proportions of the population of Arabs and Jews in the entire area of ​​Palestine/Israel, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were almost equal in 2016 at between 6 ¼ and 6 1/2 million people. Accordingly, Palestinian demands for a state of their own are now fading, while a movement is rapidly gaining momentum calling for an enlarged Israel to include the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in which Palestinians will soon form a majority - especially when the demanded right of return for those Palestinians scattered around the world will be enforced through the UN.

Based on this strategy, the Arab side's systematic delay in negotiating for decades becomes understandable - namely as a gain in time for the demographic overtaking process that is intended to bring about the end of the Jewish state. The initiative for a common state of Israel-Palestine does not arise from the desire for reconciliation, compensation or even integration, but from the desire for conquest through demographic outflanking. "In the absence of a national liberation movement, we can look to the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement) calls put forward by Palestinian civil society that lay the groundwork for an end to Israel's colonial project: ending ethno nationalism and Israel's occupation of all Arab land, dismantling Israel's apartheid wall, and upholding the rights of Palestinian refugees". / Daphna Thier and Sumaya Awad, The One-State Solution, in Palestine Updates, reference https://palestineupdates.com/the-one-state-solution/

At the same time, the quote shows an attempt at a moral justification for this demographic conquest – practically using a vocabulary that has been coined against racism for decades. However, the "apartheid wall" did not have to be built for ethnic separation, but to protect against terrorist attacks - ultimately because the Arab states, even after more than 100 years, are still not ready to accept the results of World War I. In order to be able to correctly assess this refusal, one should imagine that the Germans were still rebelling against the terms of the Versailles Treaty with terrorist attacks to this day.

However, while the peace conditions for Germany were extremely humiliating and are considered a contributing factor to the Second World War, the results of the First World War were, on the whole, extraordinarily advantageous for the Arab world, albeit with a time lag. Because from the mid-1940s, all countries in the Arabic cultural area were able to gain independence - after having been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries under Turkish and then briefly European foreign rule. The alliance with Great Britain and France during the First World War represented the only chance of liberation, above all, because the Turks had adopted progressive elements of European civilization much earlier and to a much greater extent than the Arabs (e.g. administration, judiciary, education, writing , weapons technology and organization of the military) and were therefore clearly superior to them. Since the liberation was only possible within the framework of the First World War with Great Britain and France as the main powers, the Arabs had to submit to the peace conditions of these victorious powers - like all other participants in the war.

The only hardship imposed by the victors of both World War was and is to allow Jews to settle extensively on 0.2% of the area of ​​the countries inhabited by Arabs, where they also need the equally permanent demographic position of a majority for permanent democratic sovereignty.

Israel/Palestine has unnoticed developed into a precedent for the whole world, in that parallel societies in the "West" and their ethno-cultural groups of origin in backward countries decades ago stepped into a "demographic race" against the highly civilized nations - which, however, is not addressed by the media. Wanting to create "democratic" majorities in this way, however, represents a destabilizing, anti-civilizational strategy that does not aim for integration, but - after continued emotional isolation and non-integration – in the demographic overtaking of the resident nations in this disrespectful way to conquer. 

As with the spread of worldviews through armed force, the opportunity offered by civilization to regulate the demographic balance in the future by lowering the birth rate instead of leaving it to the level of the death rate, as in the past, is wasted. The unwillingness of a parallel society to regenerative restraint must therefore be recognized as a lack of willingness to adapt to a life in high civilization (namely under the assumption of personal responsibility) and to be effectively admonished. – It is not clear language that is dangerous, as some politically correct people still think, but cowardly appeasement and avoidance of uncomfortable truths. For continued growth of non-integrated groups prevents a nation from establishing a demographic balance on its territory according to the principle of self-responsibility. The result is a loss of control and thus of stability.

However, the threat to liberal civilization posed by the disrespectful weapon of rampant demographic development continues to be systematically kept out of the sight of "Western" citizens - although it has been clearly apparent since the 1960s, as a statement by Egyptian Prime Minister Nasser in 1960 shows: "If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist." / Gamal Abdel Nasser, 1 September 1960, Center for Online Judaic Studies, Quotes by Gamal Abdel Nasser, reference http://cojs.org/quotes_by_gamal_abdel_nasser-_1954-1967/

In an authentically non-violent concept, it is therefore not enough to protect existing territorial borders against shifts caused by aggressive wars. Rather, it is important to extend vigilance to all other forms of territorial conquest attempts, namely towards the armed spread of ideologies (e.g. by jihadists) and towards demographic outflanking (e.g. by economic refugees with limited ability to integrate). On the basis of the right to self-protection, free civilization can and must define clear defensive principles that protect it from such unfair forms of invasion. This also includes reminding governments of backward countries of their ecological, economic and demographic responsibility on their territory, while stopping the cowardly squeezing around unpopular messages. For the non-violent concept to function in the long term, it must also take into account the fact that there will always be historical change in which the forms of society continue to develop. As backward models are replaced by more effective ones, shifts in power will inevitably continue to occur. This results in the task of creating a non-violent, fair and legally clear framework for these processes of natural law development that does not leave any loopholes for violent, unfair or otherwise tribalistic ways.

The concept of non-violent submission corresponds to these requirements (Chapter B 6., last third). Its core idea is the peaceful invasion in the form of an orderly and consensual migration of moderate proportions from the superior to the inferior side. This also gives the necessary space for the two historical trends of increasing, firstly progressive integration with automatic (and, as a private matter, to be kept out of the political focus) genetic mixing and secondly the transport of ideas through the migration of higher qualified people to less developed regions.

In this concept, the less developed countries enjoy protection from larger and more developed countries through the principles of self-determination, non-interference and the inviolability of borders (UNO Charter Art. 1 and 2). On the other hand, they owe to respect the demographic balance. Excessive population growth resulting in migratory pressure means a violation of this principle and endangers international peace.

In Israel, a specific demographic profile with a Jewish majority has been contractually stipulated for a century. Because with the Mandate of 1922, Great Britain was given the express responsibility for creating such conditions by promoting immigration, under which the establishment of the national home for Jews in the area west of the Jordan is guaranteed. "ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, ..." - 

Even before the founding of the State of Israel, the Arab population rebelled against this fixed hierarchy of forces in the small country (0.2% of the area of ​​the Arab states), which was imposed as a result of World War I. It was Britain's disloyal mandate, which thwarted the rapid establishment of the intended demographics. After more than 3000 years of uninterrupted Jewish presence in Palestine/Israel, the League of Nations mandate granted in 1922 - of course - decreed the creation of a permanent homeland for Jews, not a short-lived scenery world, which after the expiry of "99 years of lease" is released to settlement for a demographic overrun in the 2020s.

As a prerequisite for a possible one-state solution to the ongoing conflict (over the entire area west of the Jordan), Israel can legitimately demand of the Palestinian population, in mirror-inverted application of UN Resolution 446, "... to desist from taking any action which would result in... materially affecting the demographic composition...” In relation to the Palestinian state that is to be set up immediately, the one-sided reference to the absolute demographic responsibility is sufficient. On the other hand, a demographic agreement is to be drawn up with the Palestinian minority in Israel, which has only limited compatibility to date, in which an upper limit for the proportion of the population is set. In analogy to a generational contract that guarantees old-age security, the associated responsibilities and framework conditions (such as degressive child benefits, job opportunities for women, etc.) are to be regulated.

Going further, UN Resolution 446, in conjunction with the principle of responsibility, forms the basis to be applied worldwide for the legitimate self-protection of developed nations against demographic conquest by parallel societies.

Among the hypocritical-unfair groups in the UNO, this explanation of the international law context is likely to meet with resistance to insight. However, if the organization is to find its way back to a status in which it can authentically fulfil its peacekeeping mission according to the founding charter of 1945, the member states must seriously internalize the stability principles mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 in order to be able to apply them impartially and fairly in the future. Specifically, actions that result in "materially affecting the demographic composition" must be identified as aggressive or revanchistic and ostracized. The Second World War left an unclear hierarchy of forces and thus great instability on earth. Since the UN has not yet developed the necessary maturity to carry out the task of impartial peacekeeping according to its own charter, there is no serious alternative to the immediate creation of the Grand Alliance including Israel – see Chapter B 3.

Their close cooperation, namely with China, India, Japan, South Korea and South Africa, is able to guarantee the self-protection of liberal civilization and thus lasting peace - with ease. And only in this ambience of stress-free lightness can a higher development of interpersonal manners be realized, with gradual overcoming of tribalistic relicts - namely to fairness on all sides - see Chapter A 34.

But to do this, a far more dangerous and psychologically complex resistance to insight has to be overcome, namely in the area of ​​the Holocaust. However, this requires the willingness, in accordance with the words of Martin Luther King, to listen to one´s supposed and actual enemies - see the end of Chapter A 26.