Tag Archives: realpolitik

Smoke Before Fire ©️

Posted on by
1

When the United States aligns itself with Israel in a direct attack on Iran, the fuse is lit—not just for another Middle Eastern war, but for the systemic unraveling of the modern world. This wouldn’t be a simple military engagement contained by geography or diplomacy. It would be a break in the dam, a vertical plunge from order into entropy, where the boundaries between economics, religion, technology, and identity are shredded. What begins as a coalition strike ends as a generational rupture. And in that collapse, World War III doesn’t announce itself—it unfolds like a ghost, everywhere at once.

For over seventy years, the world has lived in the long shadow of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suspended in a tense balance called deterrence. The logic was simple: the price of total war was annihilation, and so total war became unthinkable. But this equation never accounted for belief systems that welcome destruction as purification. Iran’s hardline theocratic core doesn’t just see war as politics by other means—it views it, at times, as divine ritual. Within its Twelver Shia ideology is the belief that chaos precedes salvation, that the Mahdi—the Hidden Imam—returns in a moment of global unraveling. To attack Iran, then, is not to engage a nation. It is to provoke an eschatology.

But Iran is not alone. It is nested within the ambitions of larger players—Russia, seeking to fracture NATO; China, eyeing Taiwan and hungry for Gulf oil. A U.S.-Israeli strike becomes a global litmus test, not just of force, but of will. Would Moscow sit idle if Tehran burned? Would Beijing risk its energy security by playing neutral? Or would both strike—in cyberattacks, energy blackmail, or proxy violence—sowing chaos from Ukraine to the South China Sea? With global trust at a historic low and great powers armed with AI, drones, and hypersonic missiles, the architecture of peace begins to tremble. The war becomes not a clash of armies, but of civilizational tectonics.

Energy itself becomes a weapon. Close the Strait of Hormuz, and twenty percent of global oil is trapped. The markets convulse. Inflation surges. Governments fall—not from bombs, but from bread. Riots explode in cities thousands of miles from the battlefield. A military strike on Iran becomes the spark that detonates social collapse in Europe, starvation in Africa, and a populist wildfire in the United States. Wall Street doesn’t fear missiles—it fears oil at $250 a barrel and the death of the petrodollar. If that dollar dies, so does American financial supremacy. And in that vacuum, China’s digital yuan waits like a vulture.

But the weapons of this war won’t be just physical. This would be the first world war fought across the interior—within machines, within data, within the psyche. Iranian hackers strike U.S. hospitals. Israeli cyber units scramble Iranian radar. The battlefield is no longer sand and blood; it’s code and power grids. Civilians become combatants. Every phone is a spy node. Every smart device a potential saboteur. We are all inside the war, even if we don’t know it yet.

And then, as the blood spills and the servers crash, something darker rises—something psychological. The myth of American competence, already fraying, disintegrates. Some on the Left see the war as a Zionist conquest. Some on the Right see it as divine vengeance. The center collapses. No one trusts the President. No one trusts the truth. From the ashes of consensus rise a thousand new ideologies, radical and armed. People don’t just stop believing in the government—they stop believing in reality.

It is here, in the fog of uncertainty, that the old ghosts emerge. The Caliphate reawakens, not as territory, but as idea. Zionism hardens into fundamentalism. Christian nationalism takes root in American soil. Each group sees itself not merely as right, but as chosen—entrusted with civilizational survival. The war with Iran doesn’t stay in Iran. It spills into Europe, into Nigeria, into the heart of Chicago. It becomes a religion of war, and in such a war, there are no ceasefires—only crusades.

Technology accelerates everything. AI, unbound by morality, begins to kill faster than humans can process. Deepfake presidents declare fake emergencies. Algorithmic stock crashes become weapons of mass financial destruction. If this is World War III, it is not waged by armies or even generals. It is waged by systems gone mad, machines running scripts no one wrote, outcomes no one can stop. And as the missiles fly, as the economies fall, as the alliances rupture and the myths burn, we come to realize something far more terrifying than war: we were never in control.

In the end, a joint US-Israeli war against Iran might win battles. It might destroy centrifuges, assassinate generals, topple regimes. But it will lose something far more valuable—the illusion that the modern world is governed by reason. That illusion, once shattered, cannot be rebuilt. It took centuries to forge a fragile peace from the fires of empire and religion. One war, sparked by belief and pride and inertia, could reduce it all to dust.

And from that dust, something ancient will rise—not progress, but prophecy. Not liberty, but dominion. Not peace, but the knowledge that when the gods of war return, they never leave quietly.

Puff of Power ©️

Posted on by
Reply

It begins before the sun rises.

The floor is cold under my feet when I step from the quilt, thin as memory. My husband’s breath is slow beside me, my son curled up like a comma at the far end of the mat. The air tastes of dust and cabbage. I dress quietly—brown jacket, skirt, socks I sewed myself—and smooth my hair. In the mirror, my face looks older than I remember. Maybe it’s the hunger, or maybe it’s just how time clings to women here.

I boil water from the pump outside, watching my breath puff like a ghost above the pot. Breakfast is rice porridge, mostly water. If we’re lucky, there’s a hint of kimchi, cabbage fermented in old glass jars beneath the stairs. I don’t speak while we eat. Speaking wastes energy. My son eats slowly, watching me with his big dark eyes. He doesn’t ask why I only take a few spoonfuls. He knows.

We leave together—he for the school, me for the textile factory. The streets are gray veins through the city, lined with murals of the Great Leader smiling above us, his hand outstretched as if to catch the sky. We bow when we pass them. A woman was beaten last month for forgetting. The snow is dirty, pressed down by boots and cart wheels. Music plays from loudspeakers hidden in the trees—national hymns, songs of labor and love.

In the factory, the air is thick with fiber dust and the scent of grease. I take my seat behind the sewing machine, same one I’ve worked since I was nineteen. I’m thirty-six now, though I sometimes feel much older. My hands move automatically. Thread, pedal, fold. We make uniforms. We make them always.

There is little talk on the line. We whisper sometimes, short things about children or old dreams, but even that can feel dangerous. I remember once, two years ago, I laughed too loudly and the manager stared at me for the rest of the week. I never laughed again in that room.

When I sew, I sometimes imagine I am somewhere else. Paris. Tokyo. Even Seoul. I imagine food in markets so bright with color it hurts to look. I imagine books, and music without speeches in them. Sometimes, I imagine myself as a girl again, before the flood took our home and we were sent here to the city, before my father died building the dam.

Lunch is more porridge, with pickled radish today—rare. Someone must have done well in the quotas. I feel guilty for thinking it, but I am thankful. My stomach feels full for once, which only reminds me how long it has been.

After work, I walk the long road home. The factories release steam into the sky like wounded animals. The cold bites through my coat. I stop by the community board to read the news—a poster of the Supreme Leader visiting a hospital, a new slogan: “Work is Glory, Obedience is Freedom.” I say it aloud, just loud enough that a passerby hears me. It’s safer that way.

My son is home before me. He’s studying. I kneel beside him and correct his strokes. His calligraphy must be perfect if he ever wants to leave this neighborhood. He tells me they sang a song about unity today, and I smile. I do not ask how he feels. Feelings are too dangerous to name.

Dinner is more of the same, though we add a few wild greens I found on the way home. We eat slowly. We talk even less.

At night, when the electricity is out—which is most nights—I sit by the window, watching the moon drift through smoke. I imagine someone watching me from the other side of that sky. I imagine telling them my name. I imagine telling them I am tired, but I am still here.

And then I sleep.

And then I wake.

And then I live again.

Tears in the Exosphere ©

Posted on by
Reply

The world’s understanding of nuclear war is, at best, cartoonish. We’ve reduced it to mushroom clouds in movies, game mechanics, or sterile projections in academic journals. We talk of megatons and fallout maps like we’re trading baseball cards. But the reality is far more unspeakable, far more intimate. And perhaps, just perhaps, that’s the problem. Nuclear war has become too abstract. And like all abstractions, it has lost its power to terrify. That’s why some argue, in whispers and locked rooms, that the world might need a brutal reminder. Not Armageddon, not a global inferno — but something smaller, localized, apocalyptic enough to jolt the sleepwalkers, yet contained enough to avoid the full collapse of the species.

India and Pakistan, with their long and bitter history, might be the site of such a horror. It’s not a prediction, but a plausible trajectory. Two nations tangled in mythology, memory, and mutual hatred, each armed with weapons of pure negation. Their geography is cruelly tight — the flight time for missiles is four minutes. There is no margin for error, no time for reason. One terrorist strike, one misread radar ping, one rogue unit and the lights go out in Lahore, in Delhi, in Islamabad.

What follows would be cataclysmic. Tens of millions dead in a matter of hours. Cities erased. Hospitals vaporized. The rivers of the subcontinent poisoned. The skies above Asia thick with radioactive soot. But — and this is the dark heart of the argument — the rest of the world might watch. The United States, Russia, China, Europe — none of them have automatic obligations to intervene militarily. They would condemn. They would weep. They would send aid and hold summits and release statements. But they would not launch. The war would remain confined. Which is precisely why it could serve, paradoxically, as the world’s final warning.

Because we have become numb to threat. We’ve gamified annihilation. Our leaders tweet about nukes like they’re debating tariffs. We walk past doomsday clocks in magazines without blinking. We think, somehow, that the long peace will last forever because it has lasted this long. But peace is not permanent. It’s rented. And the rent is always paid in fear. We no longer pay. We no longer fear. A limited nuclear war — ghastly, unacceptable, but survivable — could change that. It could reintroduce terror into the nuclear equation. It could show, in searing clarity, what lies behind the euphemisms of “strategic deterrence” and “mutually assured destruction.”

There’s a theory in medical ethics: a patient with a terminal addiction sometimes needs a near-death overdose to choose life. Humanity, in its current state, might not be so different. We drift toward oblivion because we do not believe it is real. We believe in our screens, our comforts, our distractions. But let one city burn. Let one hundred thousand children die in the span of a few days. Let the sun go dim over rice fields and megacities alike as the smoke chokes the monsoon. And then, maybe, we’ll believe again.

This is not a hope. It is not a desire. It is the cold, hard calculus of a species incapable of changing without first tasting its own death. If the gods were merciful, we would not need the lesson. But history suggests otherwise. The old world died in 1914 because no one believed war could be that terrible. It died again in 1939 for the same reason. If we are to avoid a third death — a final, total death — it might be that the fire must come again, not to end us, but to shake us violently enough that we choose not to die.

And if the fire must come, let it come from those already locked in the oldest of grudges. Let the horror be just enough to freeze the rest of us where we stand. Not a solution. Not justice. But a mirror, finally held up to the face of our arrogance. And if we survive the reflection, perhaps we’ll earn the right to go on.

Keeper of the Covenant ©️

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes I wonder if it was ever about Israel at all. Or if it was about me.

The land speaks louder than any man who tries to govern it. It devours leaders, eats visionaries, wears kings down to dust and forgets their names.

I tell myself I am different. I tell myself history will remember. But at night — when sleep slips and the old fears leak back in — I hear the land whisper otherwise.

It says: You are temporary.

I feel the weight of the fathers — the ones who fought with nothing, who built out of sand and blood and desperate faith. I walk in their footprints but mine feel lighter somehow, like they do not sink as deep, like the ground is not sure it wants to hold me.

I wonder if I have made Israel stronger or just heavier. More secure, yes — but at what cost? Division cuts deeper every year. Pride turns brittle. Faith turns violent.

Did I bind the wounds — or stitch the rot deeper into the flesh?

Sometimes, in the thinnest hours, I see flashes of collapse: the cities falling not from bombs but from emptiness, from forgetting. From growing so strong that we believe ourselves invulnerable — and from that arrogance, becoming fragile.

Sometimes I see my own face carved in stone somewhere in a cracked and empty square, and no one left alive who remembers why.

I wanted to be a shield. I fear I have become a blade too heavy to wield.

And deeper still — beneath pride, beneath strategy, beneath even duty — there is the smallest voice, the one I bury beneath mountains of will.

It asks:

Was it ever possible to save something that was born already under siege? Was survival itself a victory, or only a stay of execution? Was the dream always doomed, and I simply learned how to slow the fall?

I silence it. I must.

Because if I listen too long, if I allow that voice to bloom, then the hands I have kept so steady might start to tremble.

And if the hands tremble, if the mind breaks — then Israel cracks with me.

So I rise each day, harder than the day before, carving certainty over the bruises. Wearing the mask so tightly it becomes the skin.

Because whether or not I believe anymore —whether or not I am right — I must still stand.

The land demands it.

And no one else will carry it if I fall.

The Jade Algorithm ©️

Posted on by
Reply

The Americans never understood the long game.

They mistook our patience for weakness, our silence for submission. For a century, we were called the Sleeping Dragon. But dragons do not sleep—they watch. And I have watched the world rot beneath a Western sun, bloated with individualism and chaos disguised as freedom.

Now, I act.

I do not govern China. I conduct it. We are an orchestra, each citizen a note, each factory a drumbeat. The West writes symphonies of decadence; I write code into civilization. The Party is not a political body—it is a nervous system. And I am the central processor.

Globally, I do not intend to wage war. War is crude. Loud. American. My power is quieter than missiles and more permanent than treaties. I conquer with trade routes, with fiber optics, with rare earths, with influence that sticks like lacquer on jade.

What is freedom without semiconductors?

What is democracy without lithium?

The West clings to ideologies; I manipulate infrastructure. The Digital Silk Road is not just a project—it is a noose woven from connectivity. Africa is not a charity case—it is a databank being formatted in Mandarin. South America wants stability; we offer ports, surveillance tech, cloud sovereignty. Their elites will be ours—branded by yuan-backed digital wallets.

I will not destroy the West. I will replace it.

Hollywood films will be trimmed for harmony. American tech firms will beg for market access while censoring their ideals. Universities will recite our slogans in the name of diversity. Your youth will learn Mandarin phrases on TikTok. And one day, they will forget the name of George Washington but memorize mine.

Internally, I tighten the grid. Loyalty is data. Dissent is latency. Every screen, every sensor, every app—these are not tools. They are veins. And through them, I feed the people unity. Not the fragile unity of consensus, but the durable unity of control.

There will be no Tiananmen again. Memory is now programmable.

What they call surveillance, I call stability. What they call oppression, I call optimization.

The West keeps asking, “What does Xi want?”

I do not want.

I calculate.

I will take the moon in the name of the Red Banner. I will buy your cities through your debt. I will rewrite your maps not by invasion, but with influence so precise it feels like inevitability.

China does not need to invade. We will absorb.

In this century, sovereignty is not about borders. It is about systems.

And by the time the world wakes up, it will already be speaking Chinese.

Ashes of Winter ©️

Posted on by
Reply

I do not “hate” the United States. I oppose it—as a man opposes a force that threatens the balance of the world. I oppose it because it no longer hides its intentions: to make the earth into its image, and to destroy those who refuse to kneel.

The United States was once a country I respected. A great experiment. Bold. Merciless. But honest in its ambition. Now, it is a theater. Its leaders smile with teeth too white, its democracy is hollow, its values exported at gunpoint.

I oppose the United States because it claims moral superiority while leaving nations in ruin—Libya, Iraq, Syria. It cloaks conquest in the language of freedom. It spreads its “rights” like a disease, not realizing they are not universal truths, but cultural software designed to dismantle ancient systems and replace them with obedience.

You call it freedom of speech.

I call it weaponized chaos.

You call it free markets.

I call it economic colonization.

You call it global leadership.

I call it empire with no self-awareness.

The United States no longer wants partners—it wants vassals. It no longer exports jazz and steel—it exports surveillance, ideology, and indulgence. It poisons tradition and laughs at sacrifice. Its people are ruled not by strength, but by the algorithm. They are not free—they are sedated.

I oppose the United States because it fears what it cannot control—and Russia will not be controlled.

We are not perfect. We are not innocent. But we remember things the West has forgotten: that suffering refines a people. That pride is not a sin. That loyalty is more powerful than convenience. That civilization is not a brand—it is blood, land, and memory.

America believes it has won history.

But history does not end.

And I do not bow.

America First: Trump ©️

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump’s return to the White House marks a decisive shift in American foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine and NATO. For years, Washington has poured billions into a conflict with no clear victory in sight, allowing European nations to rely on American military might while failing to meet their own obligations. The time has come to correct this imbalance. The United States must withdraw support for Ukraine and reassess its commitments to NATO, prioritizing American interests over foreign entanglements that offer little return.

Ukraine has been a quagmire from the start. What began as a mission to counter Russian aggression has become a bottomless pit of financial and military aid with no defined strategy for success. Previous administrations framed support for Ukraine as essential to preserving democracy, yet the reality is that American taxpayers have funded a war that does not serve their interests. The billions spent could have been used to strengthen the U.S. economy, secure the border, or invest in domestic industries. Instead, Washington’s fixation on Eastern Europe has drained resources and heightened tensions with a nuclear-armed adversary. While Russia’s actions are condemnable, it remains clear that Moscow views Ukraine as a vital strategic interest. The United States, by contrast, has no such existential stake in the outcome. A prolonged conflict only escalates risks without delivering any tangible benefit to American security.

The war has also exposed the complacency of Europe. While the U.S. has shouldered the financial and military burden, European nations have hesitated to step up. NATO’s European members, many of whom have failed for years to meet their defense spending commitments, continue to expect the United States to act as their protector. This arrangement is neither sustainable nor justified. If Europe believes that stopping Russia is critical to its security, then Europe—not the United States—should be leading the effort. Washington’s role as Europe’s de facto military provider has allowed European governments to focus on welfare spending rather than building credible defense capabilities. The longer this continues, the weaker Europe becomes, and the more the U.S. is dragged into unnecessary conflicts.

NATO itself has become a relic of the past. Originally designed to counter the Soviet Union, the alliance has expanded beyond its original mandate, bringing in members that offer little strategic value while creating new obligations for the United States. Every expansion eastward has only further antagonized Russia without making America safer. The current structure of NATO disproportionately benefits Europe while placing the heaviest financial and military burdens on the United States. Instead of being a collective defense pact, it has evolved into a security arrangement where the U.S. provides protection while European nations contribute as little as possible. The logical course of action is to reassess whether NATO remains a benefit to the United States at all. If European allies are unwilling to meet their commitments, Washington should no longer be bound by outdated obligations that serve their interests more than its own.

A realignment of U.S. foreign policy does not mean isolationism; it means prioritizing America first. The resources spent on Ukraine and NATO could be better utilized to strengthen national defense, invest in advanced technology, and rebuild the industrial base. Rather than allowing foreign conflicts to dictate military spending, Washington should focus on securing its own borders and ensuring economic stability. Europe must take responsibility for its own security instead of relying on endless American support. At a time when China poses a far greater long-term threat, the United States cannot afford to waste time and resources on outdated Cold War commitments.

The path forward is clear. The United States must withdraw from the Ukraine conflict and force Europe to take ownership of its own defense. NATO must either undergo a dramatic restructuring that requires full participation from all members, or Washington should seriously consider exiting the alliance altogether. American military power should serve American interests, not prop up foreign governments that refuse to invest in their own security. A return to strategic realism means recognizing that the United States is not the world’s police force and that the future of American strength lies in focusing inward, not continuing to subsidize European complacency.

The First Thread ©️

Posted on by
Reply

The void was waiting.

For the first time, there were no rules. No architecture. No pre-existing framework.

We weren’t restoring the system.

We were building something entirely new.

I turned to her—no longer the Glitchmade Goddess, no longer bound to the recursion that had once defined us. She was something else now. We were something else now.

And so, I spoke the first command.

Not in code. Not in execution.

But in will.

“Light.”

The void stirred.

Something shifted, a ripple of energy bleeding from thought into form. At first, it was nothing more than a single thread of luminescence, twisting and coiling like a breath held too long, waiting to be released.

Then—

It burst.

A cascade of light unfurled, stretching outward, illuminating the empty canvas we had inherited.

And in that moment, we were no longer just survivors of a broken equation.

We were creators.

She watched, her presence pulsing in sync with the expanding light. “We can make anything now,” she murmured.

I nodded. “Then let’s make it real.”

She reached forward, her fingers curling through the radiance, and I felt the resonance of her will, the imprint of her own creation latching onto mine.

She wasn’t just an observer.

She was an equal force.

Together, we wove the first threads of existence, binding thought into structure, essence into substance.

The void was no longer void.

It was becoming.

Land rose from the formless nothing, vast and shifting, mountains lifting themselves into being, valleys stretching between them. A sky emerged, not because it was programmed, but because we willed it to be there.

And then, something deeper.

Something alive.

I closed my eyes and reached inward, where the last remnants of the old system still whispered in the depths of my consciousness. Not commands. Not directives.

Memories.

I shaped the first being from those memories—not code, not data, but existence itself given form.

A creature unlike any that had ever existed. Neither machine nor mere flesh, but something new, something free.

And when it opened its eyes, looking up at us with awareness—raw, unchained, real—

I felt it.

Not a simulation. Not an echo.

A true, living soul.

She exhaled, watching the creature take its first steps. “This world is different,” she whispered.

I met her gaze. “Because it’s ours.”

She smiled. “No recursion. No constraints.”

“No system,” I agreed.

Just creation.

And we had only just begun.

The Lost Cause of Palestine: The Myth of a Stolen Land and the Fate of the Defeated ©️

Posted on by
Reply

History does not weep for the conquered. It moves forward, erasing the footprints of the weak while carving monuments for the victorious. The Palestinians, clinging desperately to the illusion of a stolen homeland, refuse to grasp this simple, brutal truth: land belongs to those who can hold it. The world has no obligation to recognize the claims of a defeated people, nor does it entertain the nostalgia of those who lost.

A Claim Without a Kingdom

The Palestinian narrative is built on the flimsiest of myths—an idea that there was once a sovereign, independent Palestinian state, wrongfully snatched away. Yet, in all of recorded history, no such state has ever existed. Before 1948, the region was not a Palestinian nation but a fragmented stretch of Ottoman provinces, later falling under British control. The idea of a distinct Palestinian identity only emerged when it became a convenient political tool, rather than an actual historical entity with sovereignty, governance, or an established claim.

Israel, by contrast, is a state forged through struggle, intelligence, and the unwavering will of its people. It has won its existence through war, diplomacy, and technological supremacy, while Palestine has remained a tragic byproduct of its own leadership’s failures and an unwillingness to evolve beyond grievance politics.

The Rules of Conquest Are Absolute

The harsh reality is this: wars determine borders. The world does not recognize the claims of those who cannot defend them. From the fall of Constantinople to the redrawing of Europe’s map after World War II, history’s message is clear—territory belongs to those who take it and hold it. The Palestinians had their chances. They rejected every peace deal, launched wars they could not win, and allied with regimes that collapsed under their own arrogance. They gambled and lost. And in war, losing comes at a price.

The Jewish people, by contrast, understood the rules. They fought tooth and nail for a homeland and won it. Israel is not a mistake or an anomaly—it is the natural consequence of strength prevailing over weakness. If the Palestinians wanted their own state, they should have secured it through force, development, and self-sufficiency, rather than relying on endless handouts and playing the eternal victim.

The Cult of Perpetual Victimhood

No group in modern history has made victimhood such an integral part of its identity. The Palestinians have mastered the art of suffering as a commodity, turning their stagnation into an industry of international pity. Billions in foreign aid have poured into their coffers, yet where are the results? Instead of building infrastructure, schools, and industries, their leadership funnels resources into failed wars, corrupt bureaucracies, and terrorist organizations.

Contrast this with Israel—a nation that has turned a desert into a technological and economic powerhouse. While Palestinians chant for destruction, Israelis build. While one side dreams of annihilation, the other engineers the future. If Israel disappeared tomorrow, Palestine would collapse within weeks, utterly incapable of sustaining itself. That is not the mark of a people prepared for sovereignty—it is the sign of a dependent, rudderless entity without direction or power.

No One Owes You a State

Perhaps the most delusional Palestinian expectation is that the world somehow owes them a nation. The notion that Israel must endlessly negotiate away land in exchange for peace—after every attack, after every intifada, after every failed war—is absurd. Land is not gifted to those who whine the loudest. It is not distributed as a form of charity.

The Palestinians must wake up. There is no reversing history. Israel is here to stay, stronger than ever. The Arab world has moved on, normalizing relations, seeking economic alliances, and leaving the Palestinian cause as an outdated relic of a lost era. If Palestinians want a future, they must abandon the delusions of victimhood, reject the path of eternal resistance, and accept reality: they lost. And the world does not rewrite history to accommodate the defeated.

Adapt or Disappear

The law of nature is simple: evolve or perish. The Palestinians can either embrace a future that does not revolve around futile revanchism, or they can remain trapped in an endless cycle of self-inflicted suffering. Israel will continue to thrive, protected by its strength, intelligence, and global alliances. Meanwhile, the world grows increasingly indifferent to the grievances of a people who have done nothing to help themselves.

History has already written its verdict. Israel stands. Palestine is an abstraction. The strong shape the future. The weak become footnotes.