Lebanon Bans Snow White Because Gal Gadot Supported Israel More Than She Supported the Script

Indian foreign policy together with its NAM allies, systematically deny the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination by cloaking antisemitic narratives in the rhetoric of postcolonial solidarity. This not only distorts the historical context of the Holocaust and the Jewish refugee crisis but also perpetuates double standards that undermine claims to a just multipolar world order.

India has prioritized foreign policy independence, which is a well-documented aspect of its diplomatic history. A trilateral relationship involving the U.S., India, and Tibet reflects a historical perspective on how these nations have interacted, particularly in the context of geopolitical concerns regarding China.

Growth in U.S.-India relations, particularly in trade and defense, which is supported by data showing increased bilateral trade and cooperation in various sectors. India’s nonalignment and strategic autonomy is a recognized principle in its foreign policy, as articulated by leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and more recently by Prime Minister Modi. India maintains relationships with multiple countries, including those that may be at odds with U.S. interests (like Russia and Iran), reflects India’s diplomatic strategy of “multi-alignment.”

The metaphor “strange bed fellows” indicates the opinion that describes an unusual alliance, the emotional weight of the phrase implies a negative connotation about the partnership, suggesting an inherently unstable or insincere, without delving into a balanced view of the strategic rationale behind such alliances, as outside the scope of this paper. The Kashmir conflict the direct result of Britain’s Two State Solution failure. The US perhaps follows this British policy, something like a dog on a leash. Based upon the British White Paper and later the decision made by the FDR Administration to close all US ports to European Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi Shoah.

The theft of British imperialism that robbed India of its wealth and natural resources has nothing to do with the US, which existed as a pre-WWII minor power. The emotional propaganda “utter waste of time” and “strange bedfellows” raises red flags of “warning propaganda ahead”, which this address seeks to avoid.

The increase in trade and defense cooperation between the U.S. and India, well-documented. This growth signifies a shift in both countries’ approaches to mutual interests, particularly in the context of regional security and economic collaboration. Obviously Western propaganda plays up and toots the horn of “Two-State Solutions”, this fits their hostile imperialist strategic interests as “Great Powers”.

The U.S. has its own strategic interests and policies that have evolved independently since World War II. The 1956 Suez Crisis serves as a direct proof that post WWII that Britain has transformed unto a lower status power in the Middle East … a barking poodle. But the post WWII US Super-power status highly influenced by the 19th Century British empire “First among equals” Great Power status.

India exists as a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which emerged during the Cold War. This alliance of countries sought to remain independent from the major power blocs led by the Cold War U.S. and the Soviet Union. This movement included many African nations. Their foreign policy emphasized solidarity among developing countries. India has often aligned itself with the voting patterns of non-aligned and developing countries in the UNGA, particularly on issues related to Israel and its dhimmi Arab refugee populations. This alignment reflects India’s historical support for the Arab promoted propaganda: the Palestinian cause. This post ’64 Arafat led propaganda promotes advocacy for the rights of dhimmi Arab refugee populations, specifically located in Israeli territory while conveniently ignoring these “oppressed peoples” suffering in refugee camps in Arab and Muslim countries. The ’64 PLO Charter makes no reference to Jordan’s West Bank or Egypt’s Gaza. It condemns ’48 Israel.

The broader sentiment among many non-aligned and African nations tend to skew their perspective of Israel, seen through the distorted lens of colonialism and oppression. As if the Shoah never really happened! India’s alignment with African non-aligned countries in the UNGA can also be seen as part of its broader strategy to strengthen ties with the Global South and assert its leadership role in international forums. This approach clearly aimed at promoting a multipolar world order and countering the Cold War Western vs. Soviet bi-polar hegemony.

Indian propaganda superficially promotes a foreign policy directed toward Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East which denounces Israel as a part of European colonialism and India expresses solidarity with “oppressed Dhimmi Arab refugee” populations within the domain of Israel while totally ignoring the oppression endured by Palestinians shoved into refugee camps in Arab countries and denied citizenship and repatriation.

The African Nam countries skew their perspective of Israel, perhaps best described as an expression of Holocaust Denial. This Arab and Muslim nations perspective, often emphasizes historical injustices and frames the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a broader context of colonialism and oppression. Critics argue that this focus overshadows the plight of Palestinians in refugee camps in Arab countries, where they often face significant challenges, including lack of citizenship and rights.

Palestinians in refugee camps in Arab countries face difficult living conditions and limited rights, and this reality – totally overlooked to support their hostile propaganda anti-Israel narratives that focus solely on the condemnation of Israel. This propaganda ignores Arab refusal to recognize Jews equal rights to self determination in the Middle East. Rather than outright overt denial of the Shoah war crimes by both the Germans and Allies, post Israeli Independence focuses upon the pathetic plight of Arab refugees consequent to Arab military defeats before the arms of the IDF.

India and Nam allies basically ignore the slaughter of the Jews by Nazis, together with the great power approval, expressed through the White Paper and FDR’s decision to close all US ports to Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi slaughter. And the Allied collective decision to not bomb the Nazi rail-lines leading to the death camps. India and Nam allies tend to buy into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion propaganda that Jews control governments and economies.

Yes it would be absurd for India and NAM countries to deny the Holocaust. Yet the propaganda which declares that Israel exist as Western colonialism, in point of fact denies the Shoah. It ignores the Israeli military victory in its 1948 and 1967 Wars of Independence!

During British colonial rule, Jews often portrayed as greedy and manipulative, echoing broader European antisemitic stereotypes. This included the idea that Jews were responsible for economic exploitation. In some Indian literature and folklore, Jews were depicted as outsiders or as having sinister motives, which contributed to a perception of Jews as untrustworthy. In the post-independence era, certain political figures have used antisemitic tropes to criticize Israel, often conflating Jewish identity with Western imperialism. This rhetoric sometimes includes references to Jews controlling global finance or media.

Some leaders within the NAM alliance have made statements that downplay or deny the Holocaust, often as a means to delegitimize Israel. This includes claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated or fabricated to justify the establishment of Israel. This utterly gross conspiracy theory has occasionally resurfaced in NAM discourse, suggesting that Jews secretly control world events or manipulate political outcomes. This trope repeatedly used to frame Israel’s actions as part of a larger, nefarious agenda. While criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, some NAM leaders have crossed the line by employing language that echoes historical antisemitic tropes, such as portraying Israel as a global puppet master or suggesting that Jewish people collectively bear responsibility for the actions of the Israeli state.

India and NAM countries often employ language and imagery comparable to blood libels, Jews control the world antisemitism. The hypocrisy of their “double standards” concerning the gross Arab refusal to repatriate dhimmi Arab refugee populations post the First and Second Israeli Independence Wars fought in 1948 and again in 1967. India and NAM hostile propaganda collectively blames all Jews held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government – a clear antisemitic trope.

Framing Israel solely as a colonial outpost of the West conveniently ignores the Shoah, which exists as a major catalyst for post-war Jewish immigration and international recognition of Israel. This narrative erases the continuity of Jewish historical presence and trauma, reducing Zionism to a foreign implantation rather than a national revival movement to achieve Jewish self determination in the Middle East based upon the Balfour Agreement and the League of Nations Palestine Mandate. By labeling Jewish return their ancestral lands as “colonialism,” this rhetoric denies Jews the same rights to self-determination afforded to other postcolonial peoples, including India.

UNGA Resolution 3379 (1975): This resolution declared that “Zionism as racism, and racial discrimination.” That disgusting resolution framed the establishment of Israel as a colonial endeavor, equating it with other forms of colonialism and imperialism. This perspective defines NAM discourse during the 1970s, which reflects a broader anti-colonial hostility. In his address to the UN General Assembly, Arafat referred to the Palestinian struggle as a fight against colonialism. He characterized Israel’s establishment as a colonial project, which resonated with many NAM countries that were themselves emerging from great power colonial abuse.

In a speech at the UN, Castro described Israel as a “colonial entity” and criticized Western nations for supporting it. He framed the Palestinian struggle as part of the broader anti-colonial movement, a classic common theme in NAM rhetoric. UNGA Resolution 194 (1948): While not explicitly using the term “colonial,” this resolution called for the return of Palestinian refugees and the right of return, framing the situation in a way that implied a colonial context to the establishment of Israel.

The “colonial” framing used in NAM speeches and UNGA resolutions often overlooks the historical context of Jewish suffering and the motivations for statehood. While the establishment of Israel involved complex geopolitical factors, including the end of British colonial rule in Palestine, the framing tends to simplify the narrative to one of colonial oppression without acknowledging the historical injustices experienced and endured by Jews minority populations. The UN has never condemned the 3 Century Catholic church imposed ghetto gulag imposed upon the Jewish people.

During British colonial rule, European antisemitic tropes (e.g., Jews as greedy or manipulative) imported into Indian literature and discourse. India with its NAM allies, post Israeli independence, employed hostile political rhetoric which conflated Jewish identity with Western imperialism, portraying Israel as a nefarious global actor.

The speech at the 2003 OIC Summit: Mahathir Mohamad, then Prime Minister of Malaysia, made a controversial declaration where he stated, “The Jews rule the world by proxy.” He suggested that Jews control global institutions and economies. This reflects classic antisemitic trope about Jewish power and influence, never condemned by India or its NAM allies. The 2001 speech at the World Islamic Economic Forum: Mahathir claimed that Jews had a “stranglehold” on the world and accused them of manipulating global events for their benefit. Such disgusting rhetoric consistently defines his political career.

Speech at the UN General Assembly (2006): Chávez referred to the United States as an “imperialist” power and implied that Jewish influence secretly behind U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel. He used a conspiracy language which involved Jewish domination of global politics. Venezuelan state media has often echoed Chávez’s sentiments, portraying Israel in a negative light and suggesting that Jewish interests drive Western imperialism.

At his UN General Assembly Speech (1974), Arafat characterized the Palestinian struggle as a fight against colonialism and imperialism, framing Israel’s establishment as a colonial project. His rhetoric often included references to the “Zionist” movement as a form of colonial oppression. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Former President of Iran) made numerous speeches that included Holocaust denial and references to a supposed Jewish conspiracy. For example, in a speech at the UN in 2005, he questioned the historical accuracy of the Holocaust and suggested that it was used as a pretext for the establishment of Israel. Iranian state-sponsored media frequently disseminate content that promotes antisemitic tropes, including claims of Jewish control over global finance and media.

Textbooks in Various NAM Countries, educational materials have included content that perpetuates antisemitic stereotypes. For example, UNWRA textbooks which depict Jews as greedy or manipulative; or frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way that portrays Jews as colonial oppressors. UNGA Resolution 3379 (1975): This resolution, which equated Zionism with racism, was supported by many NAM countries and reflects a broader narrative that frames Israel’s actions as colonial and oppressive. These examples illustrate how antisemitic tropes, particularly those related to Jewish control and colonial framing, have been utilized by various NAM leaders and state-sponsored media. Such rhetoric often serves to delegitimize Israel and perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Jewish people, contributing to a broader culture of antisemitism in political discourse.

The issue of refugee rights and citizenship policies in Arab host states, particularly concerning Palestinian refugees, contrasts sharply with Israel’s absorption of Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries after 1948. Approximately 2 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan have been granted citizenship, but many still face legal and social discrimination. Palestinian refugees in Lebanon do not have citizenship rights and are restricted from many professions and property ownership. They are often marginalized and live in overcrowded camps. Palestinian refugees in Syria had access to citizenship and social services before the civil war, but the ongoing conflict has severely affected their status and rights. Palestinian refugees in Egypt have limited rights and are not granted citizenship, facing restrictions on employment and movement.

Many Arab states have openly refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, which affects the legal status and rights of refugees, including the right to work, education, and social services. Following the establishment of Israel in 1948, approximately 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries due to rising antisemitism and violence. This included significant populations from countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya. Israel absorbed these refugees, providing them with citizenship and integrating them into society. By the early 1950s, most of these refugees had settled in Israel, contributing to the country’s demographic and cultural landscape.

While Israel absorbed a large number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and provided them with citizenship and support, Arab host states have maintained restrictive policies toward dhimmi Palestinian refugees, often limiting their rights and opportunities. This aspect of history, totally ignored and overlooked in NAM discourse, which tends to focus primarily on the Palestinian one sided propaganda narrative, without acknowledging the complexities of Jewish refugee experiences from Arab countries.

The expulsion of Palestinian from Kuwait following the Gulf War in 1991, indeed a significant and often overlooked event in discussions about refugee rights and the treatment of minority populations inside Arab states. Following the liberation of Kuwait, the Kuwaiti government expelled a significant number of Palestinians. Estimates suggest that around 400,000 Palestinians, forced to leave the country. Largely due to the fact that many Palestinians overtly and publicly supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Similar to how the post WWII French treated Vichy supporters.

This violent expulsion, characterized by a lack of due process, many individuals forcibly removed from their homes and denied the right to return. Yet India together with its NAM allies totally support Arafat’s demand for the right of return. This hypocrisy has raised serious concerns regarding human rights violations and the treatment of minority populations in Kuwait.

The expulsion did not receive significant international condemnation, especially compared to post ’48 and ’67 dhimmi refugee crises or the 1970 black September Jordanian expulsion of dhimmi Palestinians. The expulsion of Palestinians from Kuwait or Jordan, often overlooked in the narratives promoted by NAM countries, including India. While these nations frequently criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, they totally ignore the complexities of Palestinian experiences in Arab states, including the expulsion from Kuwait, Jordan and the Lebanese Civil War.

The term “dhimmi” classicly refers to non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with legal protection. The expulsion of Palestinians and other Arab residents from Kuwait raises questions about the treatment of minority Arab populations, and the responsibilities of Arab states towards those dhimmi Arabs who have historically lived within their borders. The expulsion of Palestinians and other Arab residents from Kuwait following the Gulf War, a significant event that highlights the complexities of Arab state policies towards dhimmi Arab minority populations.

It underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of the refugee experience in the Arab world, particularly in the context of the local Israeli-Palestinian dhimmi refugee status. This aspect of history totally overshadowed by the focus on the illegality of Israel as a nation within the Middle East community of Nations. This one-dimensional narrative utterly fails to account for the experiences of Palestinians in various Arab states, the racist Item 7 of the UN Human Rights committee and the rejection of Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of nations.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism provides a framework for identifying when criticism of Israel crosses unto antisemitism. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor). Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, like the current Gaza war-crimes propaganda. Using symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., accusing Jews of being greedy or controlling the world).

Denying the Right to Self-Determination…various NAM leaders have referred to Israel as a “colonial” or “settler” state, implying that the existence of Israel is illegitimate. For instance, Yasser Arafat, in his speeches, often framed the Palestinian struggle as a fight against colonialism, suggesting that Jews have no historical or legitimate claim to the land. This rhetoric denies the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. UN Resolution 2334 promotes this colonial state slander propaganda.

Many NAM countries have criticized Israel for its military victories while remaining silent on the actions of other nations with similar or worse human rights records. For instance, during conflicts in Gaza, leaders from NAM countries have condemned Israel’s military responses without addressing the actions of Hamas or other groups that target Israeli civilians. Jordan’s use of Jewish grave stones as building material during its West Bank occupation never internationally condemned. This selective criticism exemplifies the application of double standards, as similar criminal behavior totally ignored by the India/NAM alliance in the UN General Assembly.

The IHRA definition of antisemitism provides a useful framework for analyzing India/NAM rhetoric regarding Israel and the Jewish people. By identifying instances where criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism, it becomes clear that certain narratives perpetuated by India/NAM leaders and their supporters contribute to a broader culture of antisemitism guilt. Recognizing these ever repeated patterns, essential for fostering a more nuanced and responsible discourse around the Israeli-dhimmi Arab conflict and the rights of all peoples involved.