Zionism, Armageddon and the UN Charter

Was Operation Rising Lion a lawful campaign of Jewish national defense against the genocidal nuclear countdown clock of antisemitic Shia terrorists in the Islamic Republic of Iran? Or was it an Islamophobic crime of aggression by nuclear-armed Zionist madmen from the genocidal and apartheid state of Israel?

The battle between these two competing narratives is a distinct legal, diplomatic, and political front in a complex war that could well be Israel's last. On its surface, this war began on 7 October 2023 with an Iranian proxy attack from Gaza called Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. On a deeper level - what might be called the Zionist level - this war began in May of 1948 with Israel's Declaration of Independence (cf. 1948 Arab–Israeli War | Wikipedia); in November of 1917 with the Balfour Declaration (cf. The Hundred Years' War on Palestine | Wikipedia); and in August of 1897 with the Basel Program of the First Zionist Congress (cf. First Zionist Congress | Wikipedia). On the deepest level, the war over Jewish self-determination in the land of Israel began during the biblical era and has been perpetual ever since.

From Christian and Muslim eschatological perspectives, it seems defensible to call the modern Zionist phase of this war "Armageddon."

Put another way, Zionism is the nucleus of Armageddon, and Armageddon, in turn, is the nucleus and crucible of a reforming UN Charter.

When will this Armageddon be over? Perhaps once we have reached Net Zero on the climate change front, Goal Zero on the WMD nonproliferation front, and an Israel that is secure, prosperous and sustainable within internationally recognized borders on the Question of Palestine front.

As we continue to assess the complex implications of Operation Rising Lion against this Armageddon backdrop, I think it is too early to say that it was an unequivocal strategic success for Israel. Here we have to carefully distinguish between support for the state of Israel, on the one hand, and support for Israel's current governing coalition, on the other. It's a difficult distinction to draw at a time when Israel faces an existential crisis. I continue to stand firmly by Israel, but I fear the nation's governing coalition may have veered off-course on 2 March 2025 into a worsening sequence of war crimes. President Trump probably did the only thing he could to nip Operation Rising Lion in the bud, but it came at a cost to Trump's diplomatic credibility. I pray that I am wrong about Israeli war crimes, but I cannot afford to let my appreciation for Netanyahu's epic wartime leadership get in the way of sober legal assessment by the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and the IAEA Board of Governors. The unilateral bombing of IAEA NPT safeguard sites by the world's only undeclared nuclear power (and a state not in the NPT) is no small test of the nuclear safeguards system. China, Pakistan and Russia probably really do need to table a UN Security Council resolution for a vote, and it might need to include an isolating condemnation of both Israel and America, regardless of any tactical nonproliferation merit in Netanyahu's and Trump's decisions (cf. US Attack on Iranian Nuclear Sites: Thirteenth Emergency Special Session? and Midnight Hammer: Collective Defense Under Article 51 of the UN Charter). But I don't know that a condemnation is better than a more neutral expression of regret. I am still deliberating. I wonder what the remaining missions to the UN Security Council are thinking about the issue.