In 1947, the BBC reported that the vote at the UN was conducted under pressure and that the large audience at hand demonstrated its predominantly Jewish character by applauding the UN resolution’s adoption. That same “impartial” BBC shapes world opinion about Israel now.

The US soon withdrew its 1947 vote for establishing Israel. Britain conducted its usual policy of siding with the weaker to crush the stronger—at times Jews, at other times Arabs. Russia’s only foreign policy goal was to stir the pot and thus bug everyone. France remained attached to its imperial paranoia and built an imperial alliance with Muslims it was unable to finance or sustain. The UN’s leadership ran among the world powers, pleading for money and positioning itself as everyone’s ally; naturally, an ally of everyone is an enemy of Israel. There was zero goodwill on the level of governments toward Israel: Europeans supported Israel as a way to get rid of the Jews they failed to annihilate completely, and Britain evacuated its forces from the Land of Israel because Jewish guerrillas carried out thousands of terrorist attacks in the 1940s.

Arbitrators are acceptable when they have no agenda of their own. Friends are expected to share our agenda. America, and especially the Quartet of peacemakers, are neither friends nor arbitrators. The best-wishing members of the US Administration want Israel to live in peace. That’s not what the Jews need. The original idea of Zion—a safe place for the Jews—went up in the smoke of Auschwitz which the Zionist leaders did not care about. After Stalin’s death ended the Russian plans for finishing the Germans’ work and annihilating the remnant of Jews left in Siberia, safety was not an immediate problem for European Jews. Plans for a Jewish state on Muslim land created a huge security problem for the previously peaceful Jewish communities in Arab countries. The sixty years of fighting prove that in security terms, Israel is a complete failure. The only reasons for Jews to stay in Israel rather than move to Canada are religious and nationalist. Those reasons do not concern the US Administration in the peace process, and are anathema to Russia and the UN.

Israel essentially brings her case before thoroughly anti-Semitic judges. Even if the judges act objectively, Jews cannot accept their decisions because Jews want a subjective solution. The British objectively reasoned that Jewish immigrants din’t need Transjordan, and cut it off from the Balfour Declaration’s territory. Then the UN objectively reasoned that the remaining Palestinian Arabs needed a state of their own, and partitioned whatever was left of the Jewish homeland. European settlers, on the other hand, rejected objectivity in America and ethnically cleansed a country for themselves. Jews too, are partial to our own interests. A Jewish state in the Land of Israel seems an injustice to the Arabs and the Quartet, but it’s very just for the Jews.

As Mao Zedong remarked, a proposition could be true and false at the same time: true for some, false for others. Why would we want arbitrators who find the Jewish propositions false?

do we need even righteous judges