Apr 23, 2013 - Prejudice    No Comments

Normalizing Anti-Jewish Discrimination

April 1933 German street activist promotion of boycott against businesses owned by Talmudic Jews.

There are citizens of different nations living in many different disputed and/or occupied territories on the surface of this planet. The human world (to the inclusion of Europe) is actually replete with disputed territories as disputed territories are often typically considered “occupied” by the rival claimant that as it happens does not control the mutually disputed territory in question.

So my simple question to certain so keenly concerned governments is the following. Why not simply agree to legislating universal labeling policy for products from all disputed and/or occupied territories worldwide? The hypocritically disingenuous claim that is being offered about providing consumers with accurate information so as to allow them to choose for themselves would surely seem valid for all disputed and/or occupied territorial units worldwide, including for that matter businesses owned by continental Turks in Northern Cyprus and businesses owned by Israeli Muslims in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. So why not consider simply legislate a non-discriminatory law that applies universally in all such cases and you may hence avoid being publically considered and even “specially labeled” as Anti-Jewish bigots in tragically further degrading Europe’s reputation among the Israeli general public, something surely not conducive to the further development of vital economic ties with the global nerve center in high-tech R&D, something which together with a number of other similarly vital factors are surely very much potentially significant for Europe’s economic recovery? Also, the EU prohibits its member states from requiring labeling country of origin for products manufactured within the European common market so why hypocritically label others? It seems indeed that the purpose for this is a protectionist policy and is thus one aimed at favoring goods produced within the European common market over externally imported goods.

However, the reason legislation for universal labeling regarding products from disputed and/or occupied territories is not advocated and advanced by those very groups seeking to label goods from Talmudically Jewish owned businesses of Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem is simply because the purpose of those pushing this discriminatory Anti-Jewish agenda is to discursively normalize discursive discrimination against Talmudic Jewry and against Israel among the nations. Israeli Muslims living in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem are for some mysterious reason not considered “settlers”, their home construction activities are not considered “settlement activity” and products from their businesses in the area are not considered “settler produce” even if they also as their Talmudically Jewish neighbors and fellow Israeli citizens happen to indeed also live and/or produce in the same Area C of Judea & Samaria. Even Talmudic Jews and their descendants who lived in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria prior to being expelled in 1948 by the Jordanian army and having long since returned to the area are considered “settlers” and produce from their businesses in the area are also considered “settler produce”. Even products from businesses in Judea and Samaria owned by Diaspora Talmudic Jews are considered to be “settler produce” even if the employees are more often than not at least in part constituted by non-Israeli Palestinians in integrated work places in the area. The term “settlers” has thus in contemporary Anti-Jewish discourse become yet another superficially “sanitizing” Anti-Jewish euphemism for Talmudic Jewry precisely as the term “Zionists” before it.

Furthermore, Samaritans, members of an ancient Jewish sect who are not Talmudic Jews yet who are nowadays all Hebrew-speaking Israeli citizens and who were ethnically cleansed from Nablus during the infamous 2000-2005 terror campaign misnamed as the so called “Second Intifada” and who did indeed subsequently establish their own “new settlement” of Kiryat Luza south of Nablus as a refuge of theirs on their holy mountain Gerizim - are not considered “settlers” and their Israeli village is not considered “a settlement” despite being historically recently established and inhabited by Hebrew-speaking Israeli citizens who generally, willingly and patriotically perform military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Hence the sole criterion for whether someone is considered a “settler” here in this context is not citizenship but rather entirely whether they are in fact Talmudic Jews living in a certain territory. Thus the basis of this discrimination is in fact a completely illegitimate one, the same exact one that Talmudic Jewry has indeed faced throughout the long history of Anti-Jewish prejudice.

This discriminatory policy against an indigenous people living in its own indigenous sacred lands is thus in some ways very much akin to the Nazi German policy in Europe which as a matter of policy intended to exclude the non-Talmudic Karaite Jews from Nazi persecution and extermination. There is of course also a long history of European powers engaging in discriminatory delegitimization efforts towards other also mostly overseas indigenous peoples who in fact also tend to regard their indigenous lands as sacred.

Furthermore, why are goods produced at least partly by non-Israeli Palestinian employees in businesses owned by Talmudic Jews; businesses established in ancient sacred indigenous Jewish land – considered as produced by Israeli Jews only (sic!) when in fact it is also often at least jointly produced by non-Israeli Palestinians in entirely integrated local work places in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem? Also, why not also exclude all other disputed and/or occupied territories worldwide from international EU trade agreements? The fact is that this Anti-Jewish agenda is one that exclusively targets businesses owned by Talmudic Jews and is in this sense almost indistinguishable from historical Nazi German boycotts against German Jewish owned businesses; boycotts indeed exercised with the full weight of Nazi German law even if the employees were in fact not even Jewish.

As with contemporary Anti-Jewish propaganda generally against Israel and Talmudic Jewry; Nazi propaganda with its big lies & Communist propaganda with its big inversions are often the conceptual models here as well. The concept is hence to incrementally, slippery-slope-style make discursive discrimination against Talmudic Jewry seem supposedly “reasonable” and “acceptable” by introducing one “small” Anti-Jewish step after another and hence incrementally also attempting to normalize Anti-Jewish discursive discrimination generally and the Anti-Jewish BDS polarization agenda more specifically.

The stated purpose of discriminatory labeling of produce from businesses owned by Talmudic Jews and operated in indigenous sacred Jewish (yet internationally disputed) land is explicitly done so as to enable consumers to boycott Talmudically Jewish owned businesses as was indeed encouraged in the 1930’s in Nazi Germany and hence in both cases subsequently promote an incrementally broader Anti-Jewish discrimination discourse agenda. Because this is not labeling on the basis of citizenship of owners of businesses, it is rather labeling of products from businesses owned by Talmudic Jews as products from other Israeli businesses in the area (including from within Area C) that are owned by other Israeli citizens such as Israeli Muslims are certainly never considered as “settler produce”. This is hence both discrimination against Israel among the nations and discrimination against Talmudically Jewish business owners in a certain part of the world where Talmudic Jews are in fact part of the indigenous Jewish/Crypto-Jewish population in our very own ancient indigenous sacred land of Israel.

The intended political purpose is thus to incrementally mainstream Anti-Jewish BDS polarization with the next “logical” step seen as promoting trade embargoes against Talmudically Jewish businesses located or active across the genocidal 1949-67 lines (which were historically correctly “specially labeled” in Israel as “the Auschwitz lines”). This is specifically intended as a slippery slope tactics deliberately devised to promote sanctions discourse against Israel generally so as to hence increasingly once more put in place a question mark over the future of Israel’s economy, a market question mark that existed in the Israeli decades prior to the Oslo Accords. After all, how would any European democracy feel about any fellow democracy collaborating with hostile attempts on the part of Fascist enemies of open society and their corrupt political proxies aimed at deliberately putting a psychological question mark over its economic future in order so as to attempt to incrementally destroy it?

Furthermore, the inferred distinction between East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem is absurd and without basis in applicable codified international law as West Jerusalem from the EU’s own legal standpoint is terra nullius no less than East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. The EU does not recognize West Jerusalem & East Jerusalem as part of any sovereign state and hence officially consider the city to be what under international law is known as terra nullius, territory that is not considered to be under the sovereignty of any sovereign state. So why then is it considered OK for Europe to maintain diplomatic representations in East Jerusalem but not in West Jerusalem? Where is the logic when it comes to still very much existing discriminatory attitudes towards Talmudic Jewry?

There is apparently need for a new Aufklärung among certain misguided remaining patronizing European Besserwissers including those consciously/subconsciously so implicitly apparently keenly interested in strategically facilitating a Second Shoah at the hands of Muslim neo-imperialists so as to psychologically erase their own Western sense of “inherited sin” – by means of seeking indefensible and hence genocidal lines for Israel with which we Israelis are supposed to live with for a political “eternity” that could fatally prove to become very short indeed. Israel’s geographic capability to defend itself must thus not be taken for granted under any hypothetical absence of absolutely defensible borders. But of course, demagogically inciting & discriminating against Jews is I suppose seemingly more convenient for certain Western personalities than getting in trouble with China and India (and indeed much of the international community) through universal labeling legislation for produce from all disputed and/or occupied territories worldwide, including from inside the EU.

After all, Europeans have historically tended to blame Jews for the lack of success of gentile salvation history narratives and have also tended to blame Jews for what are indeed universal problems certainly not in any sense limited to or reducible to the Jews.

More about the Nazi roots of the BDS movement in the essay “The Other Side of Nordic Supremacism”

Apr 9, 2013 - Diplomacy    No Comments

Q & A #25 – Big Fallacies

Betting on the dead corpse of Arabism and getting Islamism & Jihadism in return.

Q. Should Israel make unilateral concessions to the dying Abbas regime?

A. Substantive change of the status quo of any kind in perpetuating Fatah rule in Judea and Samaria will inexorably lead to Hamas deposing the Abbas regime even earlier as Hamas already did years ago in the Gaza region back in 2007. What would after all be the point in Israel making concessions to the corrupt Mr. Abbas and subsequently getting an extended Hamas polity in return in parts of Judea and Samaria as many of our European friends in the international community completely irrationally officially still claim to favor?

Q. Will Israeli annexation of Pan-Jewish regions of Judea and Samaria lead to segregation?

A. No, all members of Israeli-annexed human populations who are not already Israeli citizens will be entitled to full Israeli citizenship under a two-state, two-nation partition between Amman and Jerusalem.

Q. Would a Jewish one-state solution not including Gaza demographically require disenfranchisement of annexed Pseudo-Philistine Sunni Amians?

A. No it certainly would not, serious problems could however arise in terms of national security and particularly so in terms of Jihadist terrorism and even locally attempted Anti-Jewish Jihadist genocide. Those West Bank residents with official UNRWA “patrilineal hereditary refugee status” could however be asked to individually and on the part of all their offspring for all eternity renounce in writing their own “hereditary patrilineal refugee status” as well as all related economic/political claims pertaining thereto before becoming eligible for Israeli citizenship while simultaneously being offered very attractively financially incentivized emigration options to other countries as an additional completely voluntary family option. Also, so as to ensure national security, all new citizens of Israel of all ethnicities & religions should be obliged to publically swear an appropriate oath of allegiance as do new citizens of the United States and a number of other countries. All independent states expect their citizens to be loyal citizens and Israel should be no exception irrespective of ethnicity, nationality and religion of those hence undergoing naturalization. This said about such legitimate procedures for naturalization; Israel with its demographically highly dynamic Talmudically Jewish population can certainly demographically afford to even forcibly, fully naturalize the entire “Neo-Philistine” human population of Judea and Samaria. Indeed, the strategic option of comprehensive Israeli annexation of Judea & Samaria is increasingly gaining more and more support among the Israeli public.

Q. PA opposition to indigenous construction in restored indigenous communities of Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria?

A. This proves their fundamentally bad faith and indeed opposition to mutually conclusive partition of the land of Israel. What is apparently an uncomfortable truth is that their leaders are committed to exterminating us while logically deceiving many naïve, well-meaning persons along the way.

Q. Compromise Fallacy?

A. No, rather than strategically and existentially endangering the two existing stable nation states of Jordan & Israel, the eventual comprehensive resolution to all regional West Asian conflicts is rather mutually maximizing Jordanian national interests & Israeli national interests locally and regionally through conclusive partition between a federal Amistan & a federal Israel, including through inland mutual contiguity of territorial intersections in the land of Israel, north-south for Amistan and west-east for Israel. Geographically/demographically inconclusive partition would certainly not conclusively end the conflict but would rather most severely, even disastrously exacerbate it, leading to otherwise certainly unnecessary suffering and otherwise certainly preventable tragic loss of human life.

Q. False dilemma?

A. To claim that there is merely a binary choice for Israel between going back to either ‘67 or ‘48 is simply false, completely unfounded dichotomous essentialist political determinism and indeed fallacious demagoguery.

Q. Pseudo-partition?

A. Pseudo-partition of hypothetically going back to some geographic version of the historically highly volatile de jure temporary lines of the 1949-67 former Jordanian-Israeli armistice agreement as a panacea for purported conflict resolution in the land of Israel is not only wholly incompatible with conclusive, genuine partition with crucially absolutely defensible borders for Israel but serves also as a genuine discursive obstacle to genuine peace of genuine partition throughout the land of Israel between two nations.

Mar 31, 2013 - Diplomacy    No Comments

Q & A #24 – Big Fallacies

Samuel anoints David (Dura Europos 3rd century CE)

Q. Everybody knows how the solution will look like?

A. No they don’t, that is clearly a false Messiah, in fact one that actually never appears.

Q. Increasing restoration of indigenous communities threatens ultimate partition?

A. On the contrary so, no one could credibly dispute the geographic matrix of conclusive partition as the blueprint for two-nation partition if restored indigenous communities of eastern Judea & Samaria were already generally considered sufficiently demographically significant to therefore absolutely determine partition. Thus the problem is not too much construction; the problem is rather far too little indigenous construction as more indigenous construction does indeed make the area and the region increasingly ripe for conclusive partition.

Q. Is Mr. Abbas the long awaited Messiah of the Jewish nation?

A. Few persons in open society would consider a non-Muslim person who publically remains a Shoah-denier & even still publically idolizes terrorists as a partner for anything politically reasonable or responsible, certainly not as supposedly being Europe’s historically more recent idea of a Messiah for “Jewish salvation”. The hollow apologia as relating to Mr. Abbas’ regime by many Western governments is part of what has long been a thoroughly racist, paradigmatic double standard systemically holding Middle Eastern Muslims to lower standards of morality. There is also a widespread discursively neo-colonial, racist Western pattern of discursively dividing Jews and Muslims into Good Jews & Bad Jews and Good Muslims & Bad Muslims. Religious and political views among Muslims have thus typically long been considered essentially irrelevant and hate speech among predominantly Muslim populations therefore considered mere “demagogy” or “rhetoric”. The primary reason the institutions of the administration of Mr. Abbas for years merely incited to terrorism is that his regime would soon fall apart within a fairly short timeframe without Israel’s comprehensive security backing of his corrupt and illegitimate regime. Ultimately however, not even Israel will be able to prevent the downfall of the Abbas-Fatah regime without a major Israeli military operation, something that would hardly be conducive to Israel’s national interest of achieving genuine peace through conclusive, optimal partition between a Federal Israel and a Federal Amistan.

Q. Is President Obama the Messiah of the Jewish people?

A. While we greatly respect and appreciate President Obama, there is with all due respect a tendency, even hubris among Westerners to believe that they can offer the Jews determinist “salvation” by “converting” Jews to delusional messages of loving existential enemies of open society, irrational “messages” indeed completely politically divorced from tragic realities of prevailing reactionary, genocidal, neo-imperialist ideologies of Islamdom as if Westerners still controlled the world when in fact Westerners are not positioned to offer, much less guarantee anything of the sort. Religious imperialism is the core problem and certainly not the solution.

Q. Cannot Israel exist without pseudo-partition?

A. Hypothetical pseudo-partition would be an invitation to further intensified conflict that would thus very dangerously encourage destabilization of Jordan and armed aggression against Israel similar to what happened in Sinai after Egypt opened its border to the Gaza polity. Israeli existence depends on Israel and certainly not on our existential adversaries. Zionism is about redemption of sacred indigenous lands certainly not about empowering our existential enemies so as to allow them destroy us.

Q. Jews are being minoritized?

A. No we are not, that’s just an antiquated fairy tale thoroughly disproven by both history and demography. Talmudically Jewish and Sunni Amian fertility rates are increasingly converging in Israel while in Judea & Samaria, the demographic trend is rather increasingly edging in the direction of Pan-Jewish majoritization with a Talmudically Jewish fertility rate there of five children per woman whilst the purported “Pseudo-Philistine” Amian women have only some three children on average as according to official PA data which nevertheless exaggerates their official population figure by one million. This means that the Talmudically Jewish population of Judea and Samaria naturally grows three times as fast, substantial annual indigenous migration to Judea and Samaria not included. It would however in any case be easy to revolutionize Israeli Jewish demographics (including in Judea and Samaria) by opening up for Crypto-Jewish immigration in the millions to Israel as per the model of the long since ongoing Crypto-Jewish immigration to Israel from Ethiopia. Besides, Israel is undergoing a Haredi demographic revolution, Haredim are already a tenth of Israel’s population with very large families (30% of Israeli first-graders study in the Haredi school system) so there can either be a Jewish one-state solution without Gaza or a Jewish two-state solution of geographically-demographically optimal two-nation partition with a federal Amistan under responsible Jordanian royal guidance as our highly trustworthy, esteemed partner for peace. Anyway, most of the Talmudically Jewish Diaspora is expected to permanently come home to Israel during the coming decades as Israeli salaries are becoming increasingly competitive for Diaspora Talmudic Jewry. So let’s face reality as it truly is, there is simply no demographic problem, only misleading demographic demagoguery.

Feb 19, 2013 - Diplomacy    No Comments

Q & A #23 – Conclusive Partition

The strategically located Jewish village of Psagot in the Binyamin region.

Q. Time vs. space in diplomacy?

A. The ultimate spatial patterns of permanent status partition are by far more crucially strategically significant for Israeli national security and indeed Israeli national survival; short-term, mid-term and certainly long-term than the mere public timing of the signing of a permanent status agreement.

Q. Time vs. space in security?

A. Time is even more important, in the sense that any permanent, indeed absolutely defensible borders must thus logically be capable of militarily withstanding the test of any hypothetical future Anti-Israel geopolitical military scenario, including obviously once more attempted Anti-Israel genocide (as in 1948 and 1967) such as in the form of major imperialist aggression as e.g. launched from a future hypothetical Muslim Brotherhood neo-imperialist Arabist-Islamist-Jihadist Caliphate.

Q. How would new permanent defensible borders based on mutual inland territorial contiguity look like geographically?

A. In many ways quite unlike the de jure temporary 1990s Oslo ABC partition map with much more territorial continuity within the major Amian regions as in the diplomatic future, between themselves sovereignly directly connected through north-south Amistani territorial contiguity of mutual inland territorial intersections in addition to one mutual venue of east-west Amistani future sovereign territorial contiguity with the Amistani East Bank. There will be some local similarities to the two historical temporary partitions of (1) the 1949-67 former Israeli-Jordanian armistice agreement and (2) the 1990’s Oslo ABC map. However, permanent partition of new absolutely defensible Israeli borders will be a completely new map locally in the land of Israel mutually ensuring not only peace & good life for both federal nation states but also national dignity in a federal Amistan & national security in a federal Israel as on the two sides of the completely new permanent international boundaries of geographically-demographically optimal, conclusive partition, including as based on inland mutual territorial contiguity through mutually horizontally intersecting tunnels at different levels of depth essentially only slightly below the surface of Planet Earth.

Q. Extra-territorial highways & extra-territorial railroad tracks?

A. Both nations would obviously have a mutually keen interest in such safe extraterritorial connections inside each other’s future respective sovereign territory, especially in the shape of extraterritorial subterranean connections that would thus mutually minimize territorial disruption.

Q. Why did the Oslo map temporarily end Sunni Amian territorial continuity in so many ways?

A. So as for Israel to later be positioned to diplomatically offer and indeed subsequently provide mutual inland north-south Amian territorial contiguity between the major Amian regions as part of the permanent status partition map once Jordan became strategically ready for demographically-geographically mutually conclusive partition in the land of Israel.

Q. The broader regional context?

A. The West Asia region generally needs to be partitioned between a federal Israel and a federal Amistan and the local partition in the land of Israel is merely one local territorial complex forming part of a much bigger geographical jigsaw puzzle of sometimes complex region-wide partition between the two nations. Judea & Samaria is essentially a microcosm of the broader regional situation in West Asia as between ethnically Muslim Amian peoples in relation to Crypto-Jewish peoples who form local/regional majorities in significant parts of the West Asia region. Certainly, conclusive partition is currently by far more politically urgent in Syria considering the current severe humanitarian situation there as opposed to in Judea & Samaria, yet the political situation is tragically also still apparently not yet ripe for partition in neither local part of our shared West Asian region. Just as the internally severely divided kleptocratic Syrian regime is not yet ready to formally agree to conclusive, genuine partition between the two nations, so is still not the similarly kleptocratic Ramallah regime either. As for the present period, strategic patience is of essence as the West Asia region increasingly ripens for region-wide partition between the two nations from Yemen to Iran and not just so in Judea & Samaria.

Q. What about perpetuating the existing Oslo map?

A. The temporary 1990s partition map of the Oslo Accords was devised in stages through mutual bilateral negotiations in the 1990s between Jerusalem and the previously mainly Tunisia-based Cold War era – previously KGB-directed Fatah militia. Yet, the 1990s Oslo ABC map of temporary partition could most easily very soon indeed be disbanded if the Palestinian Authority only agreed to dissolve itself as they so often threaten so as to frighten Europeanized leftwing Jewish domestic public opinion in Israel although disbanding the Abbas regime would actually be an excellent pro-peace move by hence removing the main obstacle to the public signing of a permanent status partition agreement between Amman and Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the Ramallah regime is undoubtedly incrementally politically dying and this means that the existing 1990s Oslo ABC map will then need to be supplanted by a completely new map of bilateral conclusive partition throughout the land of Israel and the West Asia region between two independent nation states – one federal Israel & one federal Amistan. The only thing that therefore strategically indeed still keeps the 1990s Oslo ABC de jure temporary transitional administrative partition map in place is the anachronistically rejectionist, yet nevertheless politically dying, however immensely corrupt Fatah regime.

Q. Timing of conclusive partition locally and regionally?

A. The West Asia region is increasingly ripening for conclusive, optimal partition between an increasingly unified federal-democratic Israel and a Jordanian-led federal Amistan. We are not yet there although West Asia generally is certainly moving towards such eventual partition as geographically spanning from Yemen in the south to Iran in the east.

Q. Temporary Partition versus Permanent Partition?

A. Both (1) the 1949-67 then highly volatile, Israeli-Jordanian former armistice agreement (temporary lines that were very frequently indeed breached by Pseudo-Philistine Arabist Anti-Jewish terrorism during these violent 18 years) and (2) the Israeli-Palestinian 1990s Oslo ABC map were de jure temporary partitions. These two historical de jure temporary agreements state clearly that these shall not be perceived to prejudice any permanent settlement. Many remnants of historical partitions (these two mentioned temporary partitions as well as other now very much redundant colonial historical partitions) will indeed be removed by conclusive local & regional partition between two independent nation states of Federal Israel & Federal Amistan in the land of Israel and West Asia more generally. Yet those Anti-Israel demagogues who discursively seek anachronistic “return” to 1948 do claim that the 1990s de jure temporary Oslo ABC partition is somehow mystically permanent whilst similarly those Post-Zionist demagogues discursively seeking anachronistic “return” to 1967 in contrast do wholly illogically claim that the then very much historically extremely unpeaceful de jure temporary lines of the 1949-67 former Israeli-Jordanian armistice agreement instead are likewise somehow mystically-retroactively-permanent despite having ended 45 years ago! Neither of these two historically temporary partitions was permanent as the land of Israel indeed still awaits completely new & indeed absolutely defensible Israeli international borders of a permanent status agreement of genuine, optimal partition between two independent nation states of Federal Israel and Federal Amistan. Indeed, the real, genuine two-state, two nation solution no less.

From Chapter VI of the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement as signed on April 3, 1949:

8. The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.

9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.


4. The two parties agreed that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period. 

Q. Will the dying Ramallah regime eventually sign on to a permanent status agreement of conclusive partition between Jerusalem and Amman?

A. The Ramallah regime really, truly has no political future other than as part of a Jordanian-led federal Amistan where security, defense and justice would be an exclusively federal Royal-Jordanian Amistani domain. However, destroying Israel is still more ideologically important for Fatah than the Fatah regime’s own political survival which is thus merely their second strategic priority. Will this most peculiar order of strategic priorities pragmatically change in tactical terms as the Fatah regime increasingly, incrementally approaches political implosion and therefore also ultimate historical demise? Such tactical change still seems highly unlikely under the dictatorial rule of Mr. Abbas although not entirely out of question for what is still an ideologically neo-imperialist Arabist, genocidally Anti-Jewish movement for which pragmatically striving for destroying in stages the ancient-modern, liberal-democratic, sovereign-indigenous, increasingly restored independent Jewish nation in the land of Israel geostrategically remains indeed their very foundational, political raison d’être. However, simply because such strategic change of priorities remains strategically inconceivable under the current dictatorial rule of Mr. Abbas does not mean it is tactically entirely out of question and especially so as the Fatah regime incrementally, increasingly indeed finds itself edging incrementally closer to its own ultimate political implosion and therefore also strategic historical demise. Indeed, there are many kleptocrats and other financial beneficiaries in the Fatah polity who potentially would indeed have a lot to lose economically from their regime’s eventual political fall from power just as have their similarly economically predisposed financial counterparts in Syria. While in Syria such economic interests effectively still prevent diplomatic partition, in Ramallah such ill-gotten, often monopolistic economic interests may under a different leadership than that of Mr. Abbas actually ultimately turn out to eventually become politically amenable to the logic of geographically-demographically conclusive partition between two nations into two federal nation states in the land of Israel & West Asia more generally.

Q. What about the impact of a rapidly changing region?

A. It’s either a liberal, responsibly pro-democratic Amistan or else the seeking of a Muslim Brotherhood, neo-imperialist Arabist-Islamist-Jihadist Caliphate which means waging once more intentionally genocidal major regional war against Israel. The Middle East is rapidly changing; the main question is rather whether the indisputably dying ideology of non-Islamist Arabism will be supplanted by Pan-Liberalism or by Pan-Islamism and this struggle and indeed shift of paradigm is of course well underway and increasingly spreading throughout the broader Middle East from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. A liberal, Egyptian Egypt and a federal Israel are also no less important building blocks for the democratic future of our region.