The New Colonial Mandate: From Ancient Covenants to Digital Control in a Globalized Feud

The current political maneuvering in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not merely a regional dispute. It is the climax of millennia of religious and political rivalry, now being resolved by a new alliance of elite corporate and political power. The proposed solutions—which privilege external control over sovereignty—are so fundamentally disruptive to international law that they set an alarming precedent for conflicts across the globe, including Ukraine.

Part I: The Covenant's Feud: From Shared God to Mutual Scorn

The foundation of the Middle East crisis lies in a family feud over Abraham's inheritance. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim the covenant, but with irreconcilable theological differences:

Judaism: Maintains the covenant is eternal and unbroken, rejecting Jesus' divinity and Muhammad's prophethood as theological violations of absolute Monotheism. Historically, Jews lived as a persecuted minority. 

 Christianity: Established the doctrine of Supersessionism, claiming the "New Covenant" fulfilled and rendered the original Jewish law obsolete. This theological claim justified centuries of persecution (ghettos, pogroms, Crusades) against the Jewish people and wars against Muslims (Crusades).

Islam: Recognized both as People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitāb) but insisted that their scriptures were corrupted (Tahrif). This led to a system of legal and social subordination (Dhimmi status), where Jews and Christians were tolerated but confined to second-class status. Jews and Christians were required to pay the special Jizya tax and were often subjected to discriminatory laws (Ordinances of Umar) that restricted public displays of their faith, barred them from high office, and reinforced their second-class status.

This history of constant rejection and persecution of Jews in Europe became the single greatest catalyst for the political movement that would fundamentally reshape the region.

Part II: Zionism and the British Imperial Solution

Zionism emerged in the late 19th century as a political answer to religious persecution, realizing that Jewish security required state sovereignty, not merely assimilation or tolerance. 

 Philosophical Support: The necessity of this political movement was recognized even by external, progressive figures like the first Czechoslovak President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (obviously, he didn't realise the possible negative consequences for  Palestinian  people). Having famously defended a Jew against a ritual murder accusation (the Hilsner Affair), Masaryk grasped the systemic nature of antisemitism and became a crucial philosophical and political supporter of the Zionist project. His presidency until 1935 coincided with the slow rise of Nazism, reinforcing the urgency of a Jewish sanctuary. 

 The British Colonial Interest (The Balfour Declaration): The ultimate external backing came from Great Britain during World War I. The British support for a Jewish National Home in Palestine was not humanitarian; it was fundamentally colonial. Britain sought a dependable, pro-Western ally to secure the Suez Canal and to check French ambitions. Critically, many influential figures also saw it as a solution to the "Jewish Question," believing that facilitating a Jewish exodus from Europe would cleanse Western societies of a perceived problem. The Zionist ideal served perfectly the imperial need for a strategic buffer. 

 Part III: The New Architecture of Control

This historical legacy provides the context for the current convergence of power, money, and media, signaling a new era of non-state-led geopolitical imposition.The symbolic backdrop of a recent London Banquet—where the President and Royal Family meet with financiers, "old wealth" (with ties to colonial history), and modern tech CEOs—is no coincidence. It represents the explicit alignment of old geopolitical strategy (UK/US) with new financial power (Tech/MAGA). The result of this alignment is the "Trump Solution" for Gaza:

The Blair Mandate: The proposal to appoint figures like Tony Blair to a Gaza International Transitional Authority (GITA) to administer the territory is the direct successor to the British Mandate. It is an act of corporate-political paternalism—an executive oversight board installed to run Gaza under the guise of security and reconstruction, effectively sidelining Palestinian sovereignty and the authority of the international community.

Israel's Conditional Approval: Israel's government supports the plan's security and counter-Hamas goals but remains firm in rejecting the ultimate international demand for a Palestinian state. This effectively means Israel greenlights the "oversight" (which favors its security) while maintaining a veto on genuine self-determination.

The Fusion of Money and Military: This process is intertwined with reports of a powerful tech billionaire Larry Ellison (the second richest) seeking to acquire TikTok, a move linked to strategic comments by Netanyahu on fighting "antisemitism" in the digital sphere. The convergence of a person known for major financial support to the Israeli military and control over a key global youth media platform is the definitive link between private corporate finance, information warfare, and national security objectives.

Part IV: The Global Precedent: From Gaza to Ukraine

The most alarming significance of the proposed Gaza solution is the establishment of a precedent: the absolute abandonment of the international rule of law by powerful, aligned states and private entities. If a military conflict can be resolved through an unelected, corporate-backed protectorate that ignores the wishes of the indigenous population and the UN consensus, it proves that sovereignty is only guaranteed by military power, not by law.

This dangerous precedent immediately illuminates the threat to Ukraine -The Trump-Musk Axis: The direct involvement of Donald Trump and his perceived alignment with Putin (presidential election indirectly funded by Russian oligarchs), coupled with the strange role of Elon Musk (whose Starlink gives him geopolitical veto power) and his support for a highly controversial peace plan favorable to Russia, suggests a potentially similar playbook.

Information Warfare: The focus on social media control in the Gaza situation directly mirrors the proven effectiveness of Russian informational warfare—which aims to divide American society and promote far-right narratives across Europe (a goal coincidentally shared by many Trump allies)—often using networks of foreign-trained trolls. 

 The ultimate danger is clear: the architecture of control currently being constructed over the ashes of Gaza—where geopolitical necessity, vast private capital, and media manipulation supersede national rights—is a model that can be applied anywhere the established Western elite decides its interests are paramount. If international law can be broken for a new Mandate in Palestine, it is proof that the sovereign rights of Ukraine—or any other nation—can be the next sacrifice.