Trump Recognises Jerusalem: The Zionist End-Game Begins


APOCALYPSE IN THE VALLEY OF AMARGEDDON”. The Daily Blog editor, Martyn Bradbury, certainly displays a gift for evocative language! On the subject of President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, however, I believe Martyn’s evocation of the apocalypse is premature. Trump’s decision is less a sign that Armageddon is imminent, and more a signal that the Zionists’ end-game is about to begin.

By announcing the United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Trump has sent two very important messages to the extreme Zionist elements in Israeli society. The first message is brutally simple: the so-called “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dead. The second, to the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, is that, as the political logic of the two-state solution’s demise is followed to its inevitable and brutal conclusion, the United States has got Israel’s back. Not just at the UN Security Council, but everywhere Israel needs American support.

The political logic of the two-state solution’s demise is inextricably bound up with the relentless colonisation of the West Bank by extreme Zionist “settlers”. Essentially, the so-called “settlements” were planted on the West Bank in order to render the formation of a viable Palestinian state impossible. The larger those settlements grow, the tighter the hands of Israeli politicians are bound. The political cost of dismantling the settlements has risen so high that no sensible Israeli any longer believes that a Palestinian state is achievable.

This leaves the Israeli authorities with two options. They can either continue to act as an army of occupation on the West Bank of the Jordan River: controlling every aspect of the Palestinian people’s lives, while Zionist settlements metastasise into every corner of Palestine’s shrinking body. Or, they could simply transform the West Bank into a Palestinian Free Zone.

- Sponsor Promotion -

This latter option has lain dormant in Zionism from its very inception. No matter how eloquently the partisans of a Jewish homeland reassured their Arab neighbours that they had nothing to fear from a future State of Israel, the brute logic of Zionism argued against the longevity of any such attempt at cultural and religious cohabitation. Sooner or later, the sheer impossibility of the two communities, Jewish and Arab, rubbing along together in peaceful coexistence would become apparent. And when that happened, one of those communities would have to go.

Ethnically cleansing the West Bank would, of course, be a gross violation of international law. It would constitute a crime against humanity on a scale not seen since the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, the Rwandan genocide and, more recently, the expulsion of the Rohingya people from Myanmar.

Protected by Donald Trump and the American veto in the UN Security Council, however, Israel is unlikely to much care what the world thinks or does. When all is said and done, isn’t its fifty-year occupation of the West Bank a blatant contravention of international law? And, haven’t Israel’s repeated incursions into Lebanon, and its brutal bombing of the civilian population of Gaza, occasioned many crimes against humanity?

If a decision to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank is taken by the Israeli authorities, it would undoubtedly provoke fury in the Arab world. So great is Israel’s military power, however, that launching any kind of meaningful retaliation against such forced expulsions would risk a potentially devastating Israeli counter-strike.

Some of the most extreme Zionists might even welcome an Arab attack. What better justification for levelling the Al-Aqsa Mosque and laying the foundation-stone for the Third Temple?

Certainly, the rebuilding of “Solomon’s Temple” and the expansion of the State of Israel to the full extent of its biblical boundaries would be welcomed by the tens-of-thousands of so-called “Christian-Zionists” (and fervent Trump supporters) living in the United States. In their eyes, such developments would constitute proof-positive that the “End Times” had well and truly begun.

“Apocalypse in the Valley of Armageddon” would only be the beginning.


  1. Lebanon government calling for a new intifada.

    2 Israeli F15’s strike targets in Westbank with in the last half hour.

    Toxic wast is now being dumped in Westbank.

    When the Middle East oil stops flowing into Isreal. God have mercy on there soles.

  2. What about if the Arab world united and retaliated ..not with military might,.. but with economic strategies.
    Like for instance de dollarising. Refusing US dollar payments for oil
    The demand for US dollars would radically diminish, and the US would no longer be able to endlessly print money to offset their trillions of dollars in debt
    Trump’s move could turn out to revive the notion of Pan-Arabism

  3. Chris, the Jews did once have a history of meek acquiescence, and that didn’t work well for them. They learned a lesson.

    • “meek acquiescence”? Hardly. Their current extreme position is nothing to do with learning “a lesson”. It is a strategically thought out approach based on ideological and religious beliefs.

    • Yes, they learnt so well from the horrors that the Nazis imposed on them, they’re inflicting the same atrocities on the Palestinians now.

    • And now they’re wreaking their vengeance on Palestinians? The oppressed have indeed become the oppressors.

  4. I actually don’t see how this brings the possibility of a two-state solution to an end. It just means it’s destined to be a two-state solution in which the Israelis have their ancient capital back. The one they owned before an invasion from Saudi Arabia brought with it a religion which believes that once it conquers an area, there is no going back. And Trump has brought them into a great state of anger by showing that in fact, it is quite possible to go back.

    Personally, I think Trump is now morally obliged to offer full recognition to a Palestinian state in return for this, but it seems to me fairly plain that Jerusalem is quite appropriately the capital of Israel. We get postcolonial in just about every other situation, and the fact remains that this was their ancient city, it was confiscated from them by Islamic colonialism, and denied them by subsequent generations of those colonials. Aren’t we on the left for amending that where possible? I simply do not see how having it once again the capital of Israel makes it something so hard for Muslims to accept. The Dome of the Rock is still there, they get to access it. It’s not going to be destroyed with jackhammers and explosives like the ancient pre-Islamic temples of Nineveh or Palmyra were in Syria; it’s unlikely to be razed with tank fire and explosive charges like the Bamiyan Buddhas.

    Now, I don’t really even like Israel that much and consider them almost certainly to be the murky hand behind the Syrian civil war. I detest their land grabbing in the Golan, and the Palestinian territories. But I’m able to not let my distaste for their deep state and its activities detract from what seems fairly uncontroversial. That is, uncontroversial unless you think it’s kinda normal that the Islamic world gets to throw a fit or threaten violent repercussions whenever the territories which were won in their extremely violent medieval conquests are in any way turned back by the descendants of their conquest victims. But I bet you wouldn’t see it that way in any other post-colonial context.

    • In that case, why don’t we give Palestine back to the Turks. It is they who most recently ‘owned’ it before the creation of Israel.

      Could you direct me to literature that shows that Saudi Arabia invaded Jerusalem?

      • The Ottoman Turks probably stole it from the Romans, who stole it from the Macedonians, who stole it from the Persians.

      • The Islamic conquest of Jerusalem is settled and uncontroversially settled history. From its beginnings in Saudi Arabia (again, I’m puzzled as to how you could be unaware that this is where Mohammed and his religion originated), the Caliphate spread out and invaded North Africa and the Levant, as well as Mesopotamia and Persia.

        You can quite easily find reference to this settled and documented history online, and no doubt almost as much scholarly ink has been spilt on the subject as unbeliever blood was spilt during the actual events

        • You can beat on about that, it does not make this any better, or gives crusaders more justification, as neither had a right to rule Jerusalem, but they tried, they did, as many other powers and dynasties in the region did before:

          So looking further down the history lane, it was the Romans, who ruled, when the Jews were finally driven into the Diaspora, as far as I remember.

          The Umayyad Caliphate established itself centuries later:

          And in those days, like in much of Europe, it was the sword, and other weapons, by which rule used to be enforced, democracy was hardly known then, or the human rights, the rule of law, and so forth.

          • Yeah, thanks dude, I’ve done quite a few classes on this period back at uni. It’s Brigid who seems confused about the basic progression of facts in the region. What your comment comes down to is, you are willing to ‘look back down the history lane’ just as far as it suits you to do: conquests other than that of the Islamic world, but not at what doesn’t: who founded the city, and whose civilization grew from it.

            Also worth noting that the Roman expulsion didn’t actually work that well. Hebrew communities were back in the city in no time, as the Romans didn’t long remain.

            I do certainly agree that this much has changed though:

            “And in those days, like in much of Europe, it was the sword, and other weapons, by which rule used to be enforced”

            Yep, and so too with the age of European colonialism. But we still try and undo or ameliorate it where we can. The problem is, you still refuse to recognize that Islamic presence in Jerusalem = colonialism.

            • I absolutely refuse to accept that interpretation of history, it has nothing much to do with colonialism.

              “Colonialism is the policy of a nation seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country and helping the colonies modernize in terms defined by the colonizers, especially in economics, religion and health.”

              It does not quite fit that ‘exploiting’ aspect, I think. That was more what the European powers did to much of the world, and some ancient empires also, like the Romans.

    • “The one they owned before an invasion from Saudi Arabia brought with it a religion which believes that once it conquers an area, there is no going back. And Trump has brought them into a great state of anger by showing that in fact, it is quite possible to go back.”

      Well, well, well, what a simplistic view of history, much happened before the Umayyad Caliphate expanded, much happened after. And it was not always simply based on religion, more on dynasties, powerful rulers and economic and cultural interests.

      “With Muhammad’s death in 632, disagreement broke out over who would succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. Abu Bakr, a companion and close friend of Muhammad, was made the first caliph. Under Abu Bakr, Muslims put down a rebellion by Arab tribes in an episode known as the Ridda wars, or “Wars of Apostasy”.[191] The Quran was compiled into a single volume at this time.

      Abu Bakr’s death in 634 resulted in the succession of Umar ibn al-Khattab as the caliph, followed by Uthman ibn al-Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib and Hasan ibn Ali. The first four caliphs are known in Sunni Islam as al-khulafā’ ar-rāshidūn (“Rightly Guided Caliphs”).[192] Under them, the territory under Muslim rule expanded deeply into the parts of the Persian and Byzantine territories.[193]

      When Umar was assassinated by Persians in 644, the election of Uthman as successor was met with increasing opposition. The standard copies of the Quran were also distributed throughout the Islamic State. In 656, Uthman was also killed, and Ali assumed the position of caliph. This led to the first civil war (the “First Fitna”) over who should be caliph. Ali was assassinated by Kharijites in 661. To avoid further fighting, the new caliph Hasan ibn Ali signed a peace treaty, abdicating to Mu’awiyah, beginning the Umayyad dynasty, in return that he not name his own successor.”

      And were the Christians, or rather the Crusaders, acting upon orders by a Pope any better?

      And was it not the Romans that drove the Jews into the Diaspora?

      One thing that should always be followed, where so many interests are involved, is the principle of wise diplomacy, of which Trump simply has a dim view, a very dim view.

      Hence I fear, he will eventually bring us all into WW3.

  5. I see nothing in Trotters piece about the US senate voting in 1995 (with a majority of 60-0) to agree that Jerusalem IS the Jewish capital, even Hillary Clinton back in ’99 agreed that the Embassy should be moved to Jerusalem.

    Bush and Obama kicked that can down the street, Trump picked it up but it’s not ‘new’ news it’s been on the cards for 23 years.

    Muslums/Palistinians will have 3 days of anger, lol! the Islamic world have ‘Outrage de jour’ every day, it’s just not reported on as most of the time it’s against the west!


  6. To Tom Gartner, careful with language. Judaism , whether religious or secular, is not the same as Zionism. Many many Jews oppose Zionism, a cruel colonial project that originated in Eastern Europe.

    To Chris, not sure what you mean by the “US has got Israel’s back”. Reports I’ve read suggest that Sheldon Adelson, Trump’s casino-baron multi-billionaire patron, who has often said that Israel is his one and only interest, ordered Trump to make the announcement re Jerusalem. Netanyahu is convinced that he (and his friend Adelson) have the US Government in their pockets. When he addresses Congress he gets standing ovations.

    One other point Chris, the so-called 2-State solution died decades ago, with the Oslo agreement.

  7. If I Google “Capital of Israel” into my favourite search engine, it says “Jerusalem ”

    So what is the issue?

  8. Great news ,

    Maybe the Jew hating nation of New Zealand will be nuked into obvilion

    One can only hope


    As they say

  9. So great is Israel’s military power, however, that launching any kind of meaningful retaliation against such forced expulsions would risk a potentially devastating Israeli counter-strike.

    Through conventional warfare, you’re right, Chris.

    But non-State “actors” would be the biggest threat to Israel and the more they alienate and anger people, the greater the threat that at some point a “terrorist” group would undertake an attack that would rival (or exceed) September 11.

    If Israel is determined to live permanently under a siege mentality, fearing every shadow, jumping at every sudden move – this is the right way to go about it.

    If I were a tourist considering holidaying in the Middle East, Israel would forever be off my itinerary.

  10. Yes, Chris is right with his assessment of the situation, that we now have with Jerusalem’s status, after Trump’s blunt and ideologically, driven, pro Israel decision, to move the US’ embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He openly stated, that Jerusalem is the rightful capital of Israel, thus creating a situation, that is in contradiction and contravention of UN resolutions and international law.

    It appears, Trump considers it quite correct, to have the once upon a time victim of ethnic cleansing and extermination do something similar to what their ancestors suffered, to the Palestinians, who have lived for centuries on the land that is now Israel, and occupied by Israel, those who are not Jews, who are Arabs, and Muslims or Christians.

    That ‘Final Solution’ was not always meant to lead to the Holocaust, as we know it:

    “In 1940, following the Fall of France, Adolf Eichmann devised the Madagascar Plan to move Europe’s Jewish population to the French colony; but the plan was abandoned for logistical reasons mainly due to a naval blockade.[7] There were also preliminary plans to deport Jews to Palestine and Siberia.”

    But in the end, due to lack of options, to get ‘rid of’ the Jews in Europe without spilling too much blood, they did what they did.

    I am not saying the state of Israel and its institutions will do the same, but I do not rule out, that the present day Palestinians, if they do not accept their lot to live in a patchwork of ghettos, on the land that is their own, and serve as casual and temporary servant workers for Israel and its business sector, may well feel the pressures to leave their remnants of land they live on, so to make it available to the future Zionists, who have their plan, to re-establish Greater Israel, including the occupied territories, Gaza and even Jordan and some other lands.

    It will happen, as the Zionists have for too long held power in Israel, that is Likud and its smaller allies, and they will not rest, to silence the alternative forces and voices, such like critical media, to complete their plans.

    Perhaps they will come up with a solution that involves putting substances in the water, that may render the Palestinians infertile, of sorts?

    New forms of fascism are in the development before our eyes, in many places, watch this space, it will also be attempted here.

    • Indeed, Marc. Giles MacDonogh described Nazi plans to ship Jews to Madagascar and Palestine in his book, “1938: Hitler’s Gamble”. But because of British and Arab resistance, the plan never went ahead. (Though there was unofficial Jewish migration to Palestine by privately-hired boats. In being supplied Exit Visas from Germany, the Nazis exacted a heavy “tax” on emigrants. As one high-ranking Nazi official said at the time, “the Jews can go, but their money stays”.)

  11. Would the descendants of the Holocaust do that? I’d expect self-interest v. ethics would be especially fierce in the minds of Jews. Though of course ‘Israel’ itself says on what side thought always comes down on. But ‘ethnic cleansing’ is too close to what happened in the Nazi extermination. There is a psychological truth to Chris’s thesis, but it is vilely near to that of the ‘final solution’. Could they be so blind?

    In surmise, I believe it’s a possibility, but in the context of the next 10 years I can’t believe they would be successful. Beyond that frame I’m not a pessimist about this problem, just our problem.

Comments are closed.