The Jewish State Solution Proposal

15 Sep 2026 by Sufian M′Barki

A map showcasing the Jewish Mandate Concept

When it comes to the situation in the Middle East, countless possibilities have already been entertained and even attempted unsuccessfully. I believe that this prompts a much more ethically and logically rigorous proposal that carries the lowest overall risk - significantly less room for failure ascertained by adequate threat management, international cooperation and logistical relief, medical and psychotherapeutic countermeasures, verified historical precedent, and the standing of surrounding nation-states on the matter.

To understand the feasibility and soundness of this proposal, as well as the exhaustive justification in favor of said proposal, we must first take a look at Israel's history.

The British Mandate of Palestine

Following the events of World War I, Great Britain conquered a piece of the former Ottoman Empire, which it mandated for a couple of decades.

A mandate is a temporary legislative structure which exists to decide the future of the territories it currently governs. Despite this, the British Mandate of Palestine did not function as a benign entity seeking to make an ethical decision for the fate of the land. Instead, Mandate Palestine functioned as yet another colonial outpost for Great Britain, making life especially difficult for Jews attempting to escape from the global rise of antisemitism, as well as the Shoah during World War II. This is to say that the British Mandate was proactively getting in the way of Jews from the Diaspora re-entering their ancestral homeland of Israel, despite the presence of Arab, Ottoman Turkic, and Muslim colonizers in general.

While Israel was under foreign colonial rule, the Muslim population living there alleged that they wanted their own state, and did not want to co-exist with the Jewish population. Meanwhile, Jews had the legitimate claim to their indigenous homeland. Despite this, in a bizarre turn of events, the Western Great Powers made the decision to deploy a Two-State Solution instead.

Between 1921 and 1922, the British Mandate governorate attempted the First Two-State Solution. They agreed to separate the territory east of the Jordan River and establish the Emirate of Transjordan under Emir Abdullah I. Soon after, Abdullah officially established the local government on April 11, 1921.

This Emirate represented about 77% of the territories previously controlled by the British Mandate, and while the remaining 23% were supposedly reserved for the re-establishment of the Jewish State, the Mandate instead declared that the future of those particular territories was undecided.

The local Muslim population was evidently not satisfied with receiving 77% (a massive chunk) of the British Mandate^[1]. They insisted on gaining more territories because of their refusal to co-exist with Jews, as well as their perceived claim to the Land of Zion. It is for this reason that when Arabs who lived in Mandate Palestine were also referred to as "Palestinians" during that period, they openly rejected the label because "Palestinian" meant "Israeli" or "a person of the Jewish homeland."

The explanation is simple. The term "Palestine" (or "Syria-Palæstina") was invented by the Roman Empire who had colonized Israel and Judah at the time of its existence. After the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt in 132-136 CE, which attempted to liberate the Jewish homeland from the Romans, Emperor Hadrian renamed the entire region to "Syria-Palæstina".

This replaced an ethnically Jewish name (Judæa, "Land of the Jews/Judah") with a geographic term linked to the Philistines (Palæstina), Israel's ancient coastal enemies, who no longer existed as a distinct polity. My historical research into the indigenous name of Azzah provides extra details on the matter, which could not be more relevant:

Philistines were an Ancient Greek tribe, and their colonial settlement was situated around the city of Azzah in the form of a pentapolis. As it has been previously established, they were far from a benign, peaceful tribe. In fact, Philistia was Ancient Israel and Judah's adversary, and they waged aggressive conflict against Jews on numerous occasions.
(...)
Once David defeated Goliath in battle, the Israelites managed to retrieve the small piece of land previously occupied by Philistines, defeating their ancient adversary.
(...)
The city of Azzah is over 5000 years old, and it belonged to the Ancient Canaanites (including Israelites). It began in the Early Bronze Age as an indigenous Canaanite cultural and agricultural hub with major archaeological sites like Tell es-Sakan. The term "Philistine" (and thus the Roman term "Palestine") originates from the Hebrew "פלשת" - or, the Semitic root "פ-ל-ש," which means invader.

Not only does "Palestine" refer to the Jewish homeland of Israel, but the term quite literally comes from the Semitic root for an invader.

Clearly, Muslim Arabs agreed with the meaning for a long time, and their rejection of the term "Palestinian" was a rejection of being called Jewish, or of being described as belonging to the Jewish homeland.

Despite this self-evident truth, another solution was proposed - a unified landmass, neither Jewish nor Muslim. Both populations rejected the idea, and Jews had a good reason to do so - retrieving their homeland for their own self-determination and independence was non-negotiable, considering their millennia-long history of being persecuted, hunted, and massacred. Muslim Arabs only rejected it because of their continued refusal to co-exist with Jews.

When the problem was instead transferred to the United Nations, their final proposal was yet another two-state solution. This was the Second Two-State Solution (the UN Partition of 1947), which would have resulted in one Jewish state and two Islamic states originating from the British Mandate.

Despite this deeply unfair offer, Jews accepted it unanimously. However, Muslims were still dissatisfied, and they rejected the UN Partition as well.

Due to the growing unrest in the Land of Zion, and the existential necessity for security after the most brutal genocide committed against Jews in history, the Jewish underground and populace mounted unified resistance against British administrative blockades. On May 14, 1948, as the Mandate expired, the Jewish State formally declared its independence, receiving immediate recognition from global powers.

Immediately following this declaration, surrounding Arab armies from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the renascent Jewish state with the explicit intent to annihilate it.

A great number of Arabs left the territory due to their refusal to co-exist with a sovereign Jewish population. Others left because regional Arab leaders encouraged evacuation - promising a swift military sweep to cleanse the land before re-distributing property - while many fled the active combat zones initiated by the Arab invasion.

Israel successfully repelled the multi-front assault, securing its sovereignty in the 1948-1949 War of Independence. Arab discourse came to define this defeat as the "Nakba" (Arabic for "Catastrophe"). The Arab residents who remained within Israel's borders were integrated as citizens with equal legal rights, formally invited by Israel's foundational charter to participate in the construction of the state^[2].

Israel's Proposed Two-State Solutions

A common narrative manufactured by antizionist propaganda claims that Israel is an obstructionist power opposing regional peace. The historical and diplomatic record proves the exact opposite: on every single occasion where an opportunity for a negotiated resolution arose, the State of Israel extended extraordinary, sweeping territorial concessions in exchange for genuine peace and recognition.

Every single olive branch was met with categorical rejection, increased violence, and the systematic escalation of Islamic terrorism against the citizens of Israel.

The 1967 Khartoum Resolution: The "Three Nos"

Immediately following the defensive victory of the Six-Day War in June 1967 - wherein Israel pre-empted an existential annihilation campaign spearheaded by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan - Israel's national unity government made direct diplomatic overtures. Israel signaled its willingness to return righteously captured territories in exchange for formal peace treaties, defensible borders, and regional recognition.

The Arab League's response at the Khartoum Summit on September 1, 1967, established the infamous doctrine known as the "Three Nos":

No peace with Israel.
No recognition of Israel.
No negotiations with Israel.

Rather than bargaining for statehood or territorial administration, regional Arab leadership chose utter rejection over peaceful coexistence once more.

The 2000 Camp David Summit (Ehud Barak)

In July 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak convened with US President Bill Clinton and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat at Camp David. Barak presented an unprecedented offer to establish an independent Arab state:

Israeli withdrawal from approximately 91% to 92% of Judea-Samaria (rising to over 95% when factoring in sovereign Israeli land swaps).
A sovereign capital in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.
Complete administrative control over 100% of Azzah.
Custodianship over religious sites on the Temple Mount.
An international multi-billion compensation mechanism for refugees.

The Israeli Prime Minister was ready to delegate a massive chunk of Israeli territory directly to Arab leadership in an attempt to establish regional peace.

Unfortunately, Yasser Arafat not only rejected the offer outright without presenting a counter-proposal, but he returned to Ramallah and launched the Second Intifada - a pre-planned, coordinated campaign of suicide bombings, bus bombings, and civilian café massacres executed by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Fatah-affiliated militias. President Clinton later placed the failure of the summit explicitly and squarely on Arafat.

The events in July 2000 reveal that Arab leaders have never been interested in any solutions that involve Israel's continued existence, as well as the existence of coordinated terrorist massacres ready to be deployed if their absurdities are not satisfied.

The 2001 Taba Summit & The Clinton Parameters

Despite the raging wave of terror attacks against Israeli civilians, Israeli negotiators met again with Arab leadership at Taba in January 2001 to exhaust every diplomatic avenue. Following the Clinton Parameters, Israel offered to expand the proposed land concessions to roughly 94% to 96% of Judea-Samaria, alongside dedicated 1-to-1 territorial swaps.

Once again, the Palestinian Authority leadership walked away, choosing the continuation of suicide bombings over statehood and compromise.

The 2005 Unilateral Disengagement from Azzah

To definitively test the principle of "Land for Peace" without waiting for an elusive negotiating partner, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon executed the Unilateral Disengagement from Azzah in August 2005^[3].

Israel made immense, painful domestic sacrifices:

Completely dismantling 21 thriving Israeli towns and agricultural communities (Gush Katif).
Forcibly evacuating over 8500 Israeli civilians from their homes.
Withdrawing every single soldier of the Israel Defense Forces to the 1949 armistice line.
Leaving behind fully intact modern agricultural infrastructure, high-tech greenhouses, and civil systems to allow the local population to build a prosperous, self-governing coastal entity.

The result of this total Israeli withdrawal was catastrophic. Rather than building a functional, independent society, the local population elected Hamas in 2006. In 2007, Hamas launched a bloody civil war, throwing rival Palestinian Authority officials off high-rise buildings, taking total tyrannical control, and transforming Azzah into a fortified terrorist base. The territory was repurposed into an underground terror tunnel hub dedicated to firing tens of thousands of indiscriminate rockets directly into Israeli kindergartens, schools, and homes^[1].

The 2008 Ehud Olmert Comprehensive Peace Offer

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented Mahmoud Abbas with the most sweeping two-state proposal in the history of the conflict:

The cession of territory equivalent to nearly 100% of Judea-Samaria (incorporating a 6.3% land swap).
A sovereign territorial corridor linking Judea-Samaria directly to Azzah.
Complete division of Jerusalem, relinquishing Israeli sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods to serve as the "Palestinian" capital.
Relinquishing sovereign administrative control of the Old City and the "Holy Basin," placing it under an international trusteeship committee comprising Israel, the PA, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

Olmert presented Abbas with detailed, forensic maps. Abbas refused to sign, took the map to study, and never returned to the negotiating table. In a 2015 interview, Abbas admitted on television that he rejected the offer without a counter-proposal.

The 2013-2014 Direct Negotiations

During talks brokered by US Secretary of State John Kerry, Israel agreed to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 lines with mutual land swaps. As an extraordinary gesture of goodwill just to initiate talks, Israel agreed to the painful release of over 100 convicted terrorists serving sentences for murder.

In response, Mahmoud Abbas abruptly suspended all discussions, signed unilateral accession documents to multilateral treaties in direct violation of negotiating prerequisites, and formed a formal political unity pact with the terror organization Hamas.

The Islamic Genocidal Pattern

The empirical record is unequivocal. The persistent absence of a two-state resolution is not the result of Israeli reluctance to make territorial compromises, but the natural consequence of an ideological death cult that refuses to accept the legitimate existence of a sovereign Jewish State within any borders.

The Horrific Precedent of Palestinian Statehood

The regional situation is beyond clear, and everyone - both inside and outside Israel - must realize that a two-state solution is an illusion. A naïve and "safe" idea that can only ever exist in the vacuum of theoretical tongue-scratching within the confines of Western universities.

It not only cannot be established due to Islamic rejection, but there is an ethical obligation not to do it. Israel must not reward its enemies with territories that are currently occupied by Islamic Jihad, turned into terrorist infrastructure, and used to launch missiles on innocent Israelis.

Doing so would set a horrifying precedent: "Terrorize your enemies for long enough, and you'll get to conquer their territories permanently."

It will cause a massive surge of terrorism in the entire world, because other terrorist factions will be encouraged to attempt to seize more territories. The Middle East is not the only location where Islamic Jihad and terrorism is a massive regional destabilizer.

Not to mention that the territories currently occupied by the terrorist organizations PA, PIJ, Hamas, and the entire PLO, do not meet any of the objective and legal requirements for independent statehood.

According to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), as well as a thorough analysis of the regional situation:

There must be a single governing body which its permanent population can turn to. The terrorist sects above are not a single body, but competing factions.
The would-be state must have clearly defined territories, and those territories must be used as civilian infrastructure, not as a terror missile launchpad.
The would-be state must have a properly established constitution. The Palestinianist objective to annihilate Israel is not a legitimate constitution - it violates Ex injuria jus non oritur (a legal right cannot arise from an unlawful act).
The same would-be state must have a historical reason to exist, whether it be the protection of a specific nation, a diplomatic agreement, etc. "Palestinians" have never existed - they are not a real nation, they are simply Arabs, and they have never had any indigenous claim to Judæa, as the name suggests.
Finally, the would-be state must have the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other sovereign nation-states. Meanwhile, these territories are paralyzed by systemic corruption, swear a terror proxy allegiance to Tehran (the IRGC), and encourage institutional terror funding like the "Pay-for-Slay" martyr fund.

If the United Nations, who serve as Jihadi proxies anyway^[4], intend to entertain and execute this idea at any point, then they must answer several uncomfortable questions:

If they are willing to recognize "Palestinian statehood" when the required infrastructure, logistics, and ethical legislative justification are completely absent, why does the State of Taiwan remain in perpetual ambiguity? Wherein lies the problem of Taiwanese statehood? The answer must be detailed (read: there is no answer, it's just posturing and bias).
What have the United Nations done to address the verified atrocities committed by a large portion of its members?
What are the United Nations' plans to address the tensions between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom? What is the context, and what solution can be proposed?

The case couldn't be any clearer. Pretense, people-pleasing, populism, and moral circle-jerking are prioritized in order to please a portion of the population to remain in power. There is no consideration behind the ludicrous idea of "recognizing Palestinian statehood."

The Fatal Flaw of the "Emirates" Alternative

Certain political analysts have shared alternative proposals, such as dividing the population into localized "emirates" governed by prominent local Arab clans and tribal families.

While superficially pragmatic, this approach unfortunately only trades centralized terror for feudal warlordism. Nothing guarantees that these families won't harass Israelis, launch terror attacks and ambushes, or fight for dominion over the territories so one particular clan can establish full control in a similar fashion to Hamas. It would only serve as an incredibly short-term solution that will unfortunately make matters worse in the Middle East. More dangerously, it is the exact moral hazard emphasized throughout this article: this would reward nearly eight decades of violent antizionist terrorism with autonomous political enclaves.

Lasting peace cannot be achieved by appeasing clan chieftains and facilitating a repeat of history.

The Jewish State Solution

Islamists have confirmed time and time again that coexistence is impossible.

Although annexation has entered the discussion many times, there are several problems with doing it at this point in time:

The current population of these indigenous Israeli territories is largely indoctrinated to despise Israel - born and raised to kill Jews and destroy their homeland. It would be suicide to grant Israeli citizenship to millions of sleeper cells with no precedent whatsoever.
Logistically, this annexation would lead to an uncontrollable population explosion in Israel, and a surge in its Arab demographic. When Israelis state that they want to preserve the Jewish character of their state, it's because that is the entire point of nation-states all over the world, and an ethnic group can only ever be guaranteed safety by its own sovereign nation (hence the word self-determination).

This is why I believe there is a much wiser, more clever, medically and psychologically sound, and more secure method to retrieve these territories, and it involves a long-term plan.

Establishing a Jewish Mandate First

The Jewish Mandate would be the political entity governing Judea-Samaria and Azzah, headquartered in Israel. It represents an ambitious initiative to invite the rest of the world to participate in a cult deprogramming psychotherapeutic program led by Israel (due to Israel's legitimate, indigenous claim over the territories).

This way, Israel solves both security and logistical problems - the same level of security is maintained via the pre-existing legal corridors, the possibility to undo the severe indoctrination propagated by Islamic Jihad factions is introduced, and the Jewish State will not have to shoulder a massive influx of Arab civilians on its own.

Prerequisites for Activation

The establishment of the Jewish Mandate is not a doctrine designed for deployment in the middle of active kinetic warfare, nor can it be executed while heavily armed terror syndicates operate unimpeded. The Jewish Mandate must instead operate as a conditions-based, post-conflict stabilization architecture.

For the Mandate to formally launch its administrative and psychotherapeutic initiatives, three non-negotiable strategic prerequisites must be secured:

Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the corrupt Palestinian Authority and PLO must be completely stripped of their governance, military infrastructure, and heavy arsenals. They must effectively be destroyed.
Surrounding proxy threats from Hezbollah and the Houthis must be decisively neutralized or prevented through overwhelming deterrence.
The primary state sponsors of regional terror - specifically the Iranian regime's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Qatar, and Turkish patronage networks - must have their financial pipelines fully shut down. Cut off from foreign finances, proxy terrorism collapses under its own weight.

Multilateral Coalition Security. Counter-Insurgency

A valid concern often raised regarding long-term stabilization is the threat of low-level guerrilla insurgency and the risk of continuous casualties among Israeli Defense Forces.

It must be explicitly stated that the Jewish Mandate is a multilateral burden-sharing mission, not a unilateral Israeli operation.

While the State of Israel retains supreme sovereign and legislative authority over its indigenous territory, the physical security, perimeter enforcement, and civil policing within the Mandate are to be conducted in coordination with an Allied Multinational Security Coalition (including willing NATO allies and normalizing regional partners).

Although foreign governments routinely display reluctance to participate in high-intensity urban warfare against terrorism, global precedent proves they are far more willing to commit troops, logistical assets, and civil specialists to post-combat peacekeeping and institutional rehabilitation once the primary terror apparatus has been neutralized. Israel will not and must not shoulder the human, logistical, financial, nor operational burden alone.

Cult Deprogramming Psychotherapy

To dismantle a generational conflict rooted in ideological extremism, the problem must first be diagnosed with absolute clinical precision. The systemic refusal of peaceful coexistence among factions in Judea-Samaria and Azzah is not merely a conventional political dispute over borders or civil administration. It is evidently the direct psychological manifestation of a closed, totalitarian ideological system - an institutionalized death cult.

For decades, organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Palestinian Authority have weaponized state and international apparatuses (including UNRWA-funded schools, municipal youth camps, and state media) to execute continuous psychological conditioning on the local populace from infancy^[5]. Children are not taught mathematics or literature in a vacuum; instead, they are systematically conditioned through school textbooks and broadcast media to glorify Istishhad (suicide martyrdom), celebrate the murder of Jews, and perceive their own individual lives as worthless expendable instruments for the destruction of Israel.

This environment fulfills every diagnostic hallmark of high-control cult dynamics:

Thought-Stopping Slogans & Totalitarian Dichotomies: Complete suppression of nuance, wherein all human experience is reduced to a binary struggle between cosmic victimhood and violent martyrdom.
Manufactured Thanatophilia (The Worship of Death): A deliberate inversion of natural self-preservation instincts, where dying to murder others is culturally elevated above building a functional, fulfilling life.
Generational Information Isolation: Rigid censorship and institutional terror applied to dissenters, ensuring zero exposure to alternative perspectives, empirical history, or the reality of democratic pluralism.

Granting sovereign statehood or immediate Israeli citizenship to a populace subjected to decades of this psychological warfare would be catastrophic. True regional stabilization requires a structured, multi-stage Cult Deprogramming Psychotherapeutic Program administered under the authority of the Jewish Mandate.

This initiative operates across four critical therapeutic and institutional pillars.

Just as post-WWII Allied authorities executed systematic Denazification (Entnazifizierung) across post-war Germany and demilitarized the imperial cult in post-war Japan^[6], the Jewish Mandate must enforce a complete purge of all pre-existing, terrorism-based educational institutions:

Immediate dissolution and the permanent expulsion of UNRWA facilities^[4], replacing them with transparent and auditable educational systems.
Complete removal of antisemitic incitement, maps erasing Israel, and Jihadi propaganda from primary and secondary school textbooks.
Implementation of rigorous instruction in formal logic, empirical science, objective Levantine archaeology, and universal human rights, teaching older students how to think critically rather than what to repeat dogmatically.

Drawing from successful deradicalization models in nations like the United Arab Emirates and Singapore (e.g., the Religious Rehabilitation Group), the Mandate will deploy specialized psychiatric and psychological protocols tailored to dismantle cult belief structures:

Deconstructing the Martyrdom Complex: Utilizing cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and rational emotive frameworks to challenge internalized beliefs regarding self-worth, divine rewards for violence, and manufactured persecution narratives.
Restoring Individual Agency: Transitioning participants from a fatalistic mindset of communal victimization toward personal responsibility, vocational aspirations, and authentic self-actualization.

Furthermore, generational cult conditioning thrives on unaddressed collective trauma, domestic abuse, coercion, and chronic systemic stress. By providing trauma-informed psychological care, counseling centers, and stable community health networks, the Mandate neutralizes all chronic hyper-vigilance which terror factions routinely exploit to recruit youth into militant wings.

Finally, this psychological rehabilitation of the population cannot be carried out in isolation. Israel will invite and collaborate with other international communities (such as the members of NATO), as well as moderate and secular Arab nations. These regional partners will provide vetted educators, psychologists, and cultural scholars who can demonstrate firsthand that modern Arab identity flourishes through innovation, ambition, economic integration, scientific advancement, and peaceful coexistence. This flourishing is to be presented as categorically detached from the nihilism of the Muslim Brotherhood and Tehran's proxy networks.

Cult Deprogramming Psychotherapy treats violent extremism not as an unchangeable identity, but as a severe, treatable form of psychological abuse inflicted by totalitarian leadership upon a captive populace. By healing the mind and eradicating the ideological poison at its structural root, the Jewish Mandate could establish the only viable moral and psychological foundation for enduring peace.

Future Israeli Reclamation of Territories

Because both Jordan and Egypt have completely abandoned any territorial claims over Judea-Samaria and Azzah, this leaves Israel with an elegant path forward.

As established at the beginning of this article, a mandate's existence is merely temporary, acting as a territorial stabilizer. Once the initiative of the Jewish Mandate has been fully realized following decades of hard work, Israel can (and should) retrieve the territories for itself as part of the Jewish State of Israel, disbanding the Jewish Mandate and finally liberating all sovereign Jewish territories from foreign oppression.

The Arab Demographic Concern

The concept might prompt readers to ask: "What about the millions of Arabs who live in these territories, even if psychologically deprogrammed from cult hatred?"

Several realities arise in response to this concern:

In the beginning, especially after the establishment of the Jewish Mandate, the likelihood of a big group of Arabs leaving Judea-Samaria and Azzah via established corridors and checkpoints is high, as precedented by the events in 1948, where Arabs left Israel due to their refusal to live alongside Jews. This isn't a "hope" but a prediction based on behavioral patterns, albeit a convenient one in this case.
The Jewish Mandate's State-Sponsored Cult Deprogramming Psychotherapy is to be applied to residents of the would-be Jewish Mandate. All Arabs who choose to stay for any reason will receive proper care and integration into modern, healthy society.
A natural consequence of nurturing ambition and pro-social existence is the rise of individual desires. Some Arabs might dream of moving to Greece, others to France, others to Germany. This could be facilitated by NATO-backed humanitarian corridors to ensure this smooth transition.
Following these events, the remaining Arabs who choose to stay in Israel and become Israeli citizens would likely not skew the nation's demographic character in a meaningful way.

The most important part is that the acquisition of Judea-Samaria and Azzah as secure, sovereign Israeli territories means the Israeli government will be able to replace the terrorist infrastructure with thriving civilian communities, ultimately rendering the state capable of accepting more Jewish refugees from the Diaspora, or simply Jews making Aliyah.

Even if all of these points don't absolutely guarantee that this demographic concern is resolved in theory, I believe that this is the perfect moment to invite further suggestions from the international community of fellow Zionists.

Moving Forward

A two-state solution cannot and must not happen, and Israel cannot afford to burden itself with millions of Islamic sleeper cells. The Jewish Mandate represents the only solution that respects Israel's sovereignty, the indigenous status of Judea-Samaria and Azzah as Jewish territories, and guarantees the security of Israeli civilians.

Sufian M'Barki

Citations

[1] Islam has a Quranic mandate to erase all non-Islamic religions. The citations are from the Quran itself, as well as Islamic legal works (e.g., Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i fiqh manuals):

Perplexity provides a comprehensive summary of specific Quranic verses proving this (Sura 9:29, Sura 8:39, and Dar al-Harb vs. Dar al-Islam)
The Definition of Fitnah: In classical exegesis (Tafsir), including Tafsir ibn Kathir, the word fitnah in 8:39 is explicitly defined as Shirk (associating partners with God / polytheism).
The Universal Mandate: Sura 8:39 commands fighting until 'the religion, all of it, is for Allah,' leaving zero structural room for polytheistic pluralism.
The 'Islam or the Sword' Distinction: In Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), classical doctrine historically offered no Dhimma (protection) status to polytheists—only conversion or combat.

[2] Israel's Declaration of Independence from 1948 explicitly confirms that all ethnic groups, including Arabs, are to receive equal rights in their participation in Israel:

Exiled from Palestine, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and the restoration of their national freedom.

(...)

In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and the representation in all its bodies and institutions, provisional or permanent.

We offer peace and amity to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.

[3] There is no genocide in Azzah carried out by the IDF nor Israel:

[4] The UN functions as a Jihadist network through its active shielding of IRGC-backed entities and its documented complicity via UNRWA:

[5] Forensic audits, watchdog investigations, and international resolutions documenting institutional antisemitism and martyrdom glorification in UNRWA and PA school curricula:

[6] Primary historical treaties and Allied directives governing post-WWII Denazification, demilitarization, and educational sanitation in Germany and Japan:

serious treatise israel antisemitism solution proposal journalism zionism

Loading witnesses...

Comment Threads (0)

Stateless Federated Authentication. Markdown supported. Zero tracking cookies.