On September 29, 2025, the New York Times reported on the White House meeting between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Its front-page headline read: “Trump and Netanyahu Tell Hamas to Accept Their Peace Plan, or Else.” The subheadline clarified: “President Trump said Israel would have a green light to ‘finish the job’ if Hamas refused to agree to the cease-fire deal.”

The cease-fire deal… It’s not that history rhymes. It repeats itself. Since the 15th century, agreements signed by European empires have been systematically ignored when they no longer served those empires or when new opportunities advanced their lines of fire. Destruction and plunder were seasoned with a convenient cause: civilization, freedom, democracy, and the invader’s right to defend itself. For centuries, this was the repeated history of diplomacy between Indigenous peoples and white settlers―not unlike the most recent case of the “peace agreement” proposed and imposed under threat by Washington and Tel Aviv on Palestine. It was the same history of violated peace treaties with Native nations on both sides of the Appalachians, before and after 1776. What historians call the “Louisiana Purchase” (1803) was not a purchase but a brutal dispossession of the Indigenous nations who were the ancestral owners of that territory, territory as large as the entire nascent Anglo-American nation. No Indigenous people were invited to the negotiating table in Paris, a place far from the dispossessed. When any of these agreements included a “representative” of the attacked peoples―as with the Cherokee dispossession of 1835―that representative was false, a Guaidó invented by the white settlers. The same thing happened with the transfer of the last Spanish colonies (Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam) to the United States. While hundreds of Sioux were staining the snows of Dakota red to demand payment under the treaty that forced them to sell their lands, a new peace agreement for tropical peoples was being signed in Paris. No representative of the dispossessed was invited to negotiate the agreement that supposedly made their liberation possible.

For Theodore Roosevelt, “the most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, and “the only good Indian is the dead Indian.” Further south he wrote and published that Blacks are “perfectly stupid race.” According to Roosevelt, democracy had been invented for the benefit of the white race — the only one capable of civilization and beauty.

During these years the Anglo-Saxon ethnic group needed a justification for its brutality and its habit of stealing and laundering its crimes with peace agreements imposed by force. Since the epistemological paradigm of science had replaced religion in the second half of the 19th century, that justification became racial superiority.

Europe had subjugated the majority of the world through its fanaticism and its addiction to gunpowder. Theories about the superiority of the white man went hand in hand with a narrative of victimization: blacks, browns, reds, and yellows were accused of taking advantage of white generosity while threatening the minority of the superior race with replacement by the majority of “inferior” races. Does this sound relevant today?

Because these biological theories were insufficiently grounded, proponents turned to history. At the end of the 19th century, linguistic and later anthropological theories about the pure origin of the noble (Aryan, Iranian) race―the white race, traced back to the Hindu Vedas―proliferated in Europe. These far-fetched stories, along with Hindu symbols such as the Nazi swastika and other ancient motifs (the Star of David has a long and complex history), became popular as racial symbols in print.

Not coincidentally, it was at this time that supremacist theories and political Zionism were founded and articulated in northern Europe. Theodor Herzl, one of the founders of modern political Zionism, believed Jews should have their own national home and wrote in the terms of his era; some early Zionist thinkers adopted racialized language.

Until World War II, these supremacists coexisted with frictions, but not enough to prevent agreements such as the Haavara Agreement between Nazi authorities and Zionist organizations, which for years transferred tens of thousands of European Jews to Palestine. The first anti-Zionists were not the Palestinians who opposed colonization, but some European Jews who resisted ethnic-based projects. At the same time as Palestinians were colonized and dispossessed of their lands, Judaism was transformed and stripped of many of its local traditions.

When the Soviets and the Allies defeated Hitler’s Nazis, being a supremacist became a global disgrace. Suddenly, Winston Churchill and American millionaires stopped openly praising fascist ideas. Before that, the 1917 Balfour-Rothschild Declaration was an agreement among imperial powers to divide and occupy a territory inhabited by peoples they deemed “inferior.” As the racist and genocidal Churchill―then a senior minister―wrote, “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.”

But the brutal irrationality of World War II also liquidated the modern age’s naive faith in reason and progress. Science and critical thinking gave way to the irrationality of consumerism and a new kind of religion.

This is how today’s Zionists no longer insist at the UN and the White House on Aryan racial superiority, but rather on the special rights of being God’s chosen. Netanyahu and his evangelical allies cite the biblical sacredness of Israel a thousand times, as if he and King David were the same person, and as if the dark-skinned Semitic people of three thousand years ago were the same as the Khazars of the Caucasus who later adopted Judaism.

The Washington agreement between Trump and Netanyahu, to be accepted by the Palestinians, is illegitimate from the start. It doesn’t matter how many times the word “peace” is repeated―just as it doesn’t matter how many times the word “love” is repeated while a woman is raped. It will forever be a rape, just as Israel’s occupation and apartheid of Palestine is.

On Tuesday, September 30, U.S. officials gathered and quoted George Washington: “He who yearns for peace must prepare for war,” not because Washington “wanted war, but because he loved peace.” President Trump concluded that it would be an insult to the United States if he were not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1933, in his Reichstag speech, Adolf Hitler declared that Germany only yearned for peace. Three years later, after militarizing the Rhineland, he insisted that Germany was a pacifist nation seeking its security.

Even if the new agreement between Washington and Tel Aviv is accepted by Hamas (one of Netanyahu’s historical adversaries and opponents), sooner or later it will be violated by Tel Aviv. Because for the superior race, for the chosen peoples, there are no real agreements with those considered inferior―only strategies of plunder and annihilation: strategies of demonizing the slave, of stripping agency from the colonized, and of victimizing the poor white man, that gunpowder addict―now a white-powder addict.

Jorge Majfud, September 2025.

Ideology and Intervention: A Critical Review of Jorge Majfud’s The Wild Frontier