Dinner Party Chatter

There are two kinds of states: those that need propping up lest they collapse, and those that are self-perpetuating.

For the majority of history up until roughly the Second World War, the division of the Earth’s surface into recognised states (or kingdoms and empires as they were better known prior to the concept of the modern state) was fluid. Kingdoms came and went, empires rose and fell, with only a relatively few managing to survive for centuries and in rare cases millennia.

Not until we reach medieval times do we see the first signs of long-term stability, and not until after the industrial revolution does that stability gather force and become more widespread. And the aftermaths of both World Wars see the creation of many more independent states, many in the Middle and Far east, such as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Israel and Pakistan.

In our modern era of a well established and more or less stable geographical division of the Earth’s surface into nation states, the self-perpetuating state is by far the overwhelming variety. There have been a few cases in modern times when countries – for example, Rhodesia and Somaliland – have gone bust so to speak, to vanish forever off the face of the Earth (with a resulting increase in the worth of their postage stamps). But, generally, the roughly 200 odd countries that currently exist have been around a while, and most do not look likely to be going anywhere soon. Most importantly, few have their legitimacy in question (which is to skate over the argument that many, if not all states are illegitimate, since the concept of statehood is arguably invalid), and few among them face any serious challenge to their continuation. There are disputes a-plenty, with political wrangles and physical skirmishes over bits of territory deemed to belong to one or other state. But essentially, more or less, the country map of the world is not likely to change much in future.

However, though much change in the global map is unlikely, some change is quite likely. China may reclaim Taiwan (quite likely), Russia may subsume Ukraine once more (not so likely), the Greek Cypriots may succeed in shaking off Turkey’s hold (who knows), and Israel may implode (a near certainty.)

Of course, here we are interested only in the Apartheid state of Israel, which has existed for less than a century yet has managed to keep an entire region profitably at war for all of that time.

And therein lies the key to Israel’s future. As long as Israel is profitable, it will survive. The question to ask, however, is profitable for whom? The answer is of course obvious, which is the countries that use Israel as a means to interfere in the region, as well as the Israeli and Zionist elites that gain power and wealth through Israel’s existence. Israel’s existence would not have come about had the interest in imposing it on the region was simply the safety of Jews. In the minds of those who paved the way – namely, Britain and later the USA, there were greater interests than helping Jews who, let us remember, the West had not stopped persecuting for thousands of years. Britain “viewed with favour the creation of a Jewish state” because 1) many in Britain wished rid of their Jews, and 2) the Zionists made it abundantly clear they would “kick-back” benefits to Britain, which at that time was beginning to take a leading role in controlling Middle East oil. Later, the USA would take on the role of supporting Israel once its existence had been imposed on the region in 1947, and till today American tax dollars lavish tens of billions in finance, military hardware, and munitions on the Apartheid state. This is not to mention the potent political leverage that the USA exercises on behalf of Israel, vetoing UN resolutions that could help Palestinians escape persecution and occupation, and protecting Israeli officials from criminal prosecution at the International Court of Justice.

The long and short of the argument here – which is by no means scientific or scholarly, but nonetheless rests intuitively on the strong evidence we daily see before us – is that Israel is propped up. Without the aid, military support, exceptionalism, and protection from criminal prosecution, to say nothing of the deference to powerful Zionist interests and fear of being called an antisemite should anyone dare to criticise, Israel continues, like a wind-up clock, sustained by the hands that turn the crank. To the West it is a tool, an instrument, a gadget of regional control, and should those hands tire or find something more profitable to prop-up, or, heaven forbid, develop a conscience, Israel is left not just high and dry but winding down. It cannot sustain itself no matter how smart its tech industry, no matter how clever its academics and corporate leaders. The Israeli Apartheid regime knows this, and it is why it has sought alliances with Arab states, in particular with the fellow oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia. If it could normalise permanently with the wider Arab world whilst completely marginalising the Palestinians, its future is better assured, especially as the West grows tired of propping up and apologising for its criminality.

As Western interests in the region wane over the coming decades, and their complicity and support wind down, without strong regional alliances the Zionist state is doomed (Jews, however, are not, let us be clear on that). This is why, whatever you might think of it, the attack on October 7 was a logical move for Hamas. What will come of it in the short term is not important. Even if Israel manages to resuscitate the so-called Abraham Accords which began to normalise relations with Arab states, in the long-term Israel has been exposed for what it is – a genocidal apartheid state – and no amount of alliances will protect it from that. We saw what happened to the vicious apartheid regime in South Africa. In today’s world, even with all its flaws and injustices and conflicts, apartheid and “on-air genocide” are unsustainable.