After his first year in the White House, President Trump has ruffled more feathers in the international community than all other presidents combined during the postwar period. His audacity to demand that member states in NATO all pitch in their two percent of GDP recommended for proper upkeep has enraged most notably Angela Merkel, who in the wake of Brexit finally discovered what true democracy means. Her response, like any other person of privilege living from the taxpayer’s silverspoon, was to label America and Britain as Germany’s two newest foreign foes as she outlined the beginning for integrating the European Union into Germany’s Fourth Reich during a campaign stop at Munich in late May, proclaiming that the days when Germany and Europe could completely count on outsiders were “over to a certain extent,” and that “we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands.” In the process, Merkel unilaterally severed the continent’s long-standing partnership “in friendship with the United States of America, in friendship with Great Britain” while committing to only peacefully coexist “as good neighbors… wherever that is possible also with other countries, even with Russia.”
Not to be outdone, the feckless British government under Theresa May condemns any commentary from Trump regarding its problem with homegrown jihadists and the migrant crisis while also hammering him for reposting a video third-hand exposing the impact of Islamification in Britain which originated with the far right-wing Britain First organization. It should be noted too, that Britain, alongside the entire European Union, has vociferously condemned Trump for his tax plan, which contains provisions they claim will cause a trade war. By 2025, the German former head of the European Parliament Martin Schultz intends to complete the final stage of a new United States of Europe.
But the Trump administration’s most egregious violation of the globalist consensus is the matter it guides on conviction, and not as prescribed by the United Nations. By declaring the U.S. now formally recognizes Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel and as such, plans to move its embassy there from Tel Aviv, Britain and the other major world powers within the UN Security Council have pledged to resist any U.S. activity. The UN has, to date, already been befuddled by the staunch defense of an increasingly isolated Israel by Ambassador Nikki Haley following eight years of the Obama presidency’s open hostility that culminated in his ordering former UN ambassador Samantha Power to abstain on a resolution condemning Israel’s “occupation” of territories impeding the rebirth of a Palestinian nation that has never existed, thereby empowering Hamas, Lebanon, Syria and ISIS to cross into the Golan Heights based on the pre-1967 political map.
On December 18, a seething UN Security Council convened to attempt overturning the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and plans to relocate its embassy there. Haley said that under the Trump administration, the U.S. would not have abstained in last year’s Resolution 2334 that condemned Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, claiming that the Obama administration “put peace further out of reach by injecting itself between the two parties.” By vetoing the Egyptian-authored resolution to force the U.S. to withdraw its declaration and relocation of its embassy to Jerusalem, Israel was further protected from further UN hostility.
In upending decades of U.S. foreign policy regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict, President Trump defied dire worldwide warnings from the largely anti-Israeli UN body, much to Israel’s delight, insisting that after repeated attempts at peace have resulted in failure, it was past time for a new approach while also personally endorsing the concept of a “two-state solution,” provided both Israel and the Palestinians agree to it, though other countries have lauded the move and appear poised to follow Trump’s lead. For instance, the Czech Republic Foreign Ministry announced online on December 6 that it “considers Jerusalem to be future capital of both states, meaning the State of Israel and the future State of Palestine” based on pre-1967 boundaries. Though differing from the U.S. in that Prague will only consider relocating its embassy based on results of negotiations with regional partners, it took the unusual step of breaking with the most powerful EU member states who hold Jerusalem should not be recognized as Israel’s capital until a final status agreement is reached. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte sent a message to Israel that he wanted to move his country’s embassy to the capital, Israel’s Kan public broadcaster reported Wednesday. On December 18, Hans-Christian Strache, the head of Austria’s controversial Freedom Party, told The Kurier that Vienna “can appreciate Israel’s wish because as many [Israeli] politicians say, ‘Our capital is Jerusalem, that’s where the Knesset is located,’” though despite being their wish “to have the embassies located there… we Austrians, as a neutral country, have to make sure not to act unilaterally, but to find a balance” with a hostile EU.
“But it’s possible to have a different position,” Strache continued. “The [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict has been going on for decades, the peace talks have not been successful so far. That has to change.” In his letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Strache pledged to do all in his power, “be it legislative or eventually executive, to move the Austrian Embassy from its actual place in Ramat Gan to Jerusalem,” given it otherwise is “totally absurd not to locate our Austrian Embassy in Jerusalem, as we do in other capitals of other countries all over the world.” In April, Russia was the first to recognize West Jerusalem — taken to be the pre-1967 part of the city — as the capital of Israel, while also labeling East Jerusalem to be the Palestinian capital.
It is here where the new “Iron Curtain” dividing the West among the globalist/Arab states in the U.S. and former Soviet bloc from those experiencing strong nationalist revolutions against Brussels and mass migration of dangerous elements from the war-torn Middle East have been drawn. An easier means to generalize the new division is to classify pro-Israeli states in Eastern Europe who are members of the Three Seas Initiative. Of course, there is no ambiguity behind Brussels’ suspicion of the group, founded by the governments of Poland and Croatia, which has sharply criticized the dying European experiment throughout its geographic expanses in Central and Eastern Europe. While on paper, Euractiv columnist Łukasz Janulewicz notes that the Three Seas Initiative serves to improve North-South infrastructure links in Central and Eastern Europe, he walks the proverbial tight-rope over tacit shared concerns with Brussels over its political implications. At the core of the EU infighting is the core of the TSI, the Visegrád group (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary), leading the anti-federalization fight and refusing to enforce the EU’s migrant quota policy that leaves Europhiles to fear a European superstate would split under such a geopolitical fault line and, ultimately, collapse as did the Soviet Union.
As the EU’s influence and infrastructure decline in the wake of the collapsing euro and eurozone after Brexit, the matter an enthusiastic President Trump met with the Baltic countries, Czech-Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria and the rising Eurosceptic power in Eastern Europe, Poland, to declare that “America is eager to… welcome stronger ties of trade and commerce as you grow your economies and we are committed to securing your access to alternate sources of energy so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy” from Russia, the TSI member-states — whose critical roads, pipelines and rail services run on an east-west corridor due to former Soviet and current German dominance — were emboldened to once again liberate themselves from geopolitical threats to the east in Moscow and from Brussels and Berlin in the West, who they blame for keeping the region deliberately less rich and underdeveloped compared to Western Europe.
The UN, which in 1947 partitioned the British Mandate, not only rejects Israel’s right to self-defense and its current borders, but Zionism itself, as does most of Europe and all of the Islamic world. In 1975, the world governing body classified Zionism as a racist ideology exactly 37 years to the day following Kristallnacht. All of this perpetuates, of course, because of Zionism’s key planks: that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled to a homeland defined by its Jewishness, its shared origin, religion, culture and most importantly, history. Frequently ignored is that Israel attracts Jews from more than 100 countries, including dark-skinned Jews from Ethiopia, Yemen and India alongside the approximately 1,000,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs, Druze, Baha’is, Circassians and other ethnicities who are already residents. The matter Hitler directly collaborated with Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, who led jihadists tied to the Muslim Brotherhood in the British Mandate and Afrika Korps, to exterminate the Jews in the Holy Land, and which continued upon the Arabs surrounding and attacking the newly-created Jewish state the following day after declaring its independence, affirmatively demonstrates the UN’s tacit embrace of the Nazi legacy and the jihadist imperative of the former colonial powers in the post-Ottoman period.
There is no morally-relative means of separating the ethnic cleansing and mass killings of Jews either currently by surrounding Palestinian belligerents or during the conclusion of the Reconquista by Spanish grand inquisitor Torquemada 525 years ago. The Arab world and much of Europe still share a similar sentiment with the Church of 525 years ago — as apparently does the apostate Pope Francis. In a September 1973 interview with 60 Minutes, a wistful Golda Meir explained that “the crux of the problem isn’t anything concrete that they want from us. That’s why it doesn’t make sense when people say, ‘Give up this and give up the other place. Give up the Golan Heights,’ for instance,” but that “…Egypt and Syria and the other Arab countries refuse to acquiesce to our existence. Therefore there can be no compromise,” and “would be ridiculous” to rely upon the UN or the Arabs “to account for its legitimacy” given over 40 years later, John Kerry’s ultimatum that the future of Israel rests on the “fundamental reality” that “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or Democratic; it cannot be both.” Despite the Jewish state returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979 while transferring Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005, the attacks continue from terrorists, Arab states and the UN behind Kerry’s rally cry that “The two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.” The left-leaning UN and Arab world’s drive to force the Jews of Israel into a situation similar to the siege of Masada by the Romans should remind us of how Mike Huckabee characterized the Obama administration’s motive for the Iran nuclear deal being to “march Israelis to the door of the oven.”
A date with destiny over the migrant crisis and collapse of the NATO alliance in Europe has resulted in a new iron curtain dividing the West from Washington and Brussels to east of the Adriatic. It now has a new, far more massive crack in its faultline, whose epicenter Jerusalem may isolate the rising Fourth Reich.
THE CONSERVATIVE HISTORICAL REVIEW 
2 Comments Add yours