Is There a Solution?

by James Jaeger

Let me be clear: to be critical of Israel is NOT to be anti-Semitic. To be critical of Israel, Israeli politics or its "right to exist" has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, the irrational and bigoted hate of Jews in general. Many Jews in fact are critical of Israel and many are totally unconcerned with Israeli politics.(1)

People who support Israel are thus known as Zionists. Zionism is the belief that Jews should have their own nation. This belief is analogous to the idea that Christians should have THEIR own nation, or whether any group should have its own nation. This is a hot-coal question, especially when people are asked: is the US a Christian nation? If this question is answered in the affirmative, some people are joyous whereas others become downright hostile. On the other hand, if one asks the question: is Israel a Jewish nation? -- or the variant of this question -- does Israel have a right to exist -- one better answer in the affirmative or they are often labeled an anti-Semite.

The savvy person can immediately see where this question and the ensuing arguments take us: into an endless battle of total insanity. In political terms, this question, and the ensuing arguments, take us into the domain of CHURCH and STATE.

In the US we pride ourselves on the idea that we have a "separation of church and state." If so, how come so many Christians and Jews that emphatically call for a "separation of church and state" here in the US call for, or condone, the commingling of church and state over in Israel? In short, why is it okay for the Jews to have their own state, when it's frowned upon if the Christians consider the US their own state?

Why the double standard, and why does the US, mainstream media push this double standard endlessly?

The American Founders, and most reasonable people, realize that the church and the state, when commingled, are bound to cause endless problems. Is it thus any surprise that when Zionists call for a Jewish state (ISRAEL) and Arab-Muslims call for an Islamic State (ISIS aka ISIL) there is going to be massive and endless conflict?

So why are Americans -- people who are supposed to be aware of their Constitution and the surrounding advice about the separation of church and state -- pouring tax dollars into a battle being waged by two groups who want to violate Constitutional principles? Does this make any sense?

If the Jews want a state of their own, and the Muslims want a state of THEIR own, Americans have no right to deny either of them this goal. The Middle East is their part of the world ... and North America is OUR part of the world. Let each part of the world do what it wants. If Jews and Muslims like to commingle church and state, let them. It's none of our business. Even if the Bible says Christian Americans should support the Jews and Israel, it's STILL none of our business to sit in judgment on them. But Christians cannot support a Constitution that calls for separation of church and state and THEN turn around and use the Bible to "justify" the support of "church and state" elsewhere. This is inconsistent and hypocritical thinking -- and it has lead to endless conflict, war and death in the Middle East.

There is no reason Christians cannot do their Biblical duty to support Jews and Israel spiritually. The Bible does NOT say that Christians are supposed to send money and tanks to Israel. Christians are supposed to support Jews and Israel spiritually. The "Christian" that does not acknowledge that spiritual support is senior to material support does not have very much faith in the power of God or the "holy spirit."

But many will call this advice foolish and unrealistic, especially hard-core Zionists and probably a majority of the 7 million Jews living in Israel surrounded by 1.6 billion Muslims. They will say that, without US armed-support and money, the Jewish State will be overwhelmed by Arabs, Muslims, ISIS, ISIL, ETC and driven out. They will say: Israel needs more than just "spiritual" support from its Christian bothers. Agreed, this is where the rubber meets the road as it's the toughest of questions.

The only way I can see meeting this question is this: faith. Faith in both the goodness of Jews and Muslims. Faith in the basic goodness of all people and all religions and that they will eventually be practical. When one comes down to the basic human being, everyone is very similar, if not identical. On a physical level our DNA is so similar, the concept of "races" is foolish, for there is virtually no difference between any of the so-called "races" on a biological level.

Thus, for someone to hate someone, they are in actuality basing their hate upon other factors than biology. They are basing their hate upon ideological factors. They are basing their hate upon religious factors or upon political factors. Hate can thus never be based upon physical factors. And this, as strange as it may seem, is good news. It's good news because it means that the hate and conflict -- such as what's going on between the descendents of Isaac and Ishmael -- is NOT based in biology or genes.

The Jews and the Muslims are NOT at odds with each other because they are biological brothers, both sons to Abraham. They are only at odds because they have differing IDEAS about life and the way one should live it. Fortunately ideas can be resolved, biology cannot be changed (at least not yet). The Middle East conflict is thus a SOFTWARE problem -- NOT a HARDWARE problem.

Software -- ideas -- can be debugged. Hardware -- biology -- cannot. Jews thus do NOT have a problem with Muslims because of their DNA, and Muslims do NOT have a problem with Jews because of THEIR DNA -- as the fable of Isaac and Ishmael may suggest -- they have a problem over ideas about life.

The French philosopher, Auguste Comte, once posited that the problem with civilization is it's trying to operate on several different philosophies at the same time. He cited science and theology as the culprit philosophies, but we can extend his point here. A religion is also a form of applied philosophy. Politics is another form of applied philosophy. Even the "science" of Comte, what he called "positivism," is a form of applied philosophy, for the "scientific method" is itself an applied philosophical system about the collection of data and an explanation of physical phenomena. So, if Jews, Muslims and Christians each have their own religious philosophy AND they attempt to combine these religious philosophies with a political philosophy and then they attempt to combine or impose both their religious and political philosophies on each other -- we are going to get chaos. And this is what we have.

Thus, the solution to the problem in the Middle East is for all of the conflicting parties to realize that there IS no solution if nine philosophical systems (3 religious philosophies X 3 political philosophies) are all attempting to operate on the same HARDWARE, i.e., on the same land mass.

What this may come down to is, if Jews and Muslims are not able and willing to agree upon the exact land mass where each of their respective philosophical systems is to operate (whether religious or political), then conflict may be difficult or impossible to avoid.

Since there are only about 6.2 million Jews in Israel and an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the greater Middle East, the demographics are on the Arab-Muslims' side. Any conflict between the two groups may result in the destruction of Israel no matter what weapons Zionists or the US taxpayer supplies.

The question of whether someone has the RIGHT to do something and the ABILITY to do that thing are TWO different questions with TWO different sets of considerations. The Jews may have a RIGHT to have their own state, but without the ABILITY to have their own state the RIGHT is meaningless. This is the hard reality and the reality that everyone knows in the back of their minds. This is the reason Zionists desperately promote, and need, US military assistance in the region. This need and promotion are understandable and it is also understandable why Christians and non-Jewish Zionists are concerned.

Unfortunately, just as some consider that Muslims have some insane and out-dated things in their "Bible," Christians have some insane and out-dated things in THEIR Bible. The whole idea of Armageddon, for instance, permits many Christians to sit around and do nothing. Deus ex machina -- God will come down and end the play -- the philosophy they have adopted. They have arrived at the conclusion I have outlined above and decided that, because the Bible says we are going to have some huge and final battle, there is nothing that can be done about it.

But there ARE things that can be done about it. The sane people of Earth do NOT have to be cowed by the insane people of earth. Thus, the people and nations around the world that are NOT involved with the insane, so-called Arab-Israeli conflict, should form a coalition around principle that might go something like this:

1) If one calls themselves a Muslim, Jew or Christian then that person is responsible for the actions of ALL of his fellow Muslims, Jews or Christians, respectively.

In other words:

2) Muslims in general are responsible for Muslims in general. Jews in general are responsible for Jews in general. And Christians in general are responsible for Christians in general.

Or, put another way:

3) The People of the Middle East are responsible for the People of the Middle East just as the People of North America are responsible for the People of North America.

It follows that:

5) People that do NOT reside in the Middle East are NOT responsible for the People that DO reside in the Middle East. For the not yet bright: this would mean that People that are in North America are NOT responsible for People who are in the Middle East and People who are in the Middle East are NOT responsible for People who are in North America -- nor are they responsible for their energy needs, as I will discuss shortly.


6) If anyone who resides in the Middle East causes or participates in a conflict, that conflict should be treated like a disease and quarantined from the rest of the world.

7) In other words, the noble action for the world should be CHANGED from the current "norm" of INTERVENTION to the previous norm of ISOLATION.

The past 30 years, the military-industrial complexes of the world, through their various states and PR machines, have propagandized the world's citizens into accepting intervention over isolation as the moral action. Unfortunately, the moral action -- and the logical action -- is always to quarantine a disease. And there is no worse human disease than war and armed-conflict.

Therefore, the non-conflicting world should form a coalition based upon the following:

8) In consideration for the Non-Conflicting World's continued purchase of oil from any OPEC country, that country must demand that none of its fellow OPEC countries AND none of the residents in its country -- whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian -- be involved in any way in any conflict, overtly or covertly, with any other Muslim, Jew or Christian who lives in any other OPEC country.

In other words:

9) The "commercial world" should demand that the "religious world" cease and desist using the state and technology to abet their conflicts. To this end:

10) The citizens of the US should demand that their taxes and debt will not be allocated to any country that violates human rights or that has anyone that calls themselves a Jew, a Muslim or a Christian warring with each other in the name of their religion, or for any other reason, real or imagined. Again, it is up to ALL members of any religion to take responsibility for ANY member that engages in conflict.

The idea that "all Muslims are not extremists" does little more than provide the Muslims that ARE peaceful with the "rationale" that they do NOT have to take responsibility for those of their membership who call themselves Muslims. The same policy should be applied to Jews and Christians.

It is not sufficient for any member of a religious group to stand by idly while other members of their group, or even people using the group name (or any version of it) to commit crimes, human rights violations and/or injustices -- yet get to continue calling themselves members of the group. The practice of excommunication should thus be stepped up to discourage the unethical and/or immoral application of the religious message.

EXCOMMUNICATION IS ONE OF THE ONLY THREATS THAT A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT TAKES SERIOUSLY. And the more zealous such practitioner, the more seriously he or she takes excommunication, by definition.

Thus, religious leaders, if indeed they ARE leaders, should use this spiritual "weapon" to bring members of their "flock" back into better alignment with the message of their Founder.

To make this more personal: if YOU have the resolve to call yourself a Muslim, Jew or Christian, then YOU are responsible for the actions of anyone and everyone else that ALSO has the resolve to call themselves a Muslim, Jew or Christian. No hiding behind a group. No evading group-responsibility or legitimate-majority group interpretation of the tenets. The group is responsible for the group or it's simply NOT a legitimate group or even a group at all.

Given these considerations, "extremists" are thus NOT better group members because they have seen some new "truth" and thus seek to "reform" the group -- they are simply non-conformists acting in the name of some self-proclaimed, higher wisdom.

If the majority of Muslims say they are peaceful but some minority of Muslims say they have the "right" to practice non-peaceful deeds, then who's responsibility is it to resolve the group's policy? Is it Christians' responsibility? Is it Jews' responsibility? Is it the American tax payers' responsibility? No, it's none of these peoples' responsibility -- it's the 1.6 billion Muslims' responsibility. The same exact thing goes for Christians and Jews. If the majority of Jews say they are peaceful and some minority says they have the right to practice non-peaceful deeds, then who's responsibility is it to resolve the group's policy? It is Jews responsibility, not the US military's responsibility or Muslims responsibility.

Again, if one calls themselves a Muslim, Jew or Christian then that person is responsible for the actions of ALL of his fellow Muslims, Jews or Christians, respectively -- or they are simply condoning non-conformist members acting in the name of some self-proclaimed, higher wisdom.

Given the religious responsibilities that have been outlined above, it logically follows that US citizens have no right to position their tanks and military bases all over other citizens' lands. US citizens are not responsible for the conduct, practices or conflicts of Middle East residents. They are responsible for themselves and these things, as discussed above. Just because the US -- or any other country -- may have the means to place a military base on another country's soil, does not mean they have the responsibility to do so, even if "invited." The sooner the world starts practicing the doctrine of "independent responsibility" and STOPS practicing the doctrine of "interdependency," the sooner we will have a world with fewer conflicts.

The doctrine of "making the world safe for democracy" because "democracies are less warlike" is false, if not foolish. Just because the world is full of democracies does not mean it will be more peaceful. History shows us that democracies are just as willing and able to go to war as dictatorships.(2) The Neocon dream to forcibly expand democracies all over the world so as to mitigate conflict is ridiculous. This is nothing more than the strategy of people, industries and states that depend on perpetual wars for their livelihood. This is a strategy of the banking institutions that rely on debt-financing and the printing of fiat currency in order to fund and expand the warfare state.(3) Democracies are MORE likely to conflict, even than most dictatorships, because democracies are little more than mob-rule.

So again, the sooner People shift over from the current false policy and false philosophical tenet of INTERDEPENDENCE to a world of INDEPENDENT RESPONSIBILITY, the sooner we will have global peace. And this principle, applied to the warring religions in the Middle East, will lead to peace for them as well.

Whereas individuals have the right to "keep and bear arms" -- and should -- it seems that, when states give other states arms, it spells little more than perpetual conflict. The opposite may thus be true: when states are deprived of the "toys of war" -- whether money, killing machines or unwarranted support -- those states will be forced to solve their own problems and make their own peace -- or not. If not, this invokes the question: is the state really able to create or guarantee peace and its cousin, liberty? This may be the most important question the world will have to face and answer in the first part of the 21st Century.

It has been observed that, behind every conflict there is an undisclosed third party actively promoting the conflict. I believe that the third party that is actively promoting the Middle East conflict between Jews in Israel and Arab-Muslims in Palestine is the United States.(4)


The 3,500 year old war between two conflicting brothers and their respective tribes was probably caused by their father or mother. This conflict has been going on way too long because the anatomy of the problem has not yet been analyzed. A "he said, she said" solution to this problem has proven to be impossible. It's high time American taxpayers, Christians and the entire world recognize these things and stop enabling the "devil's" work.


(2) All one has to do is look at the record of the US "democracy" since the 1950s.

(3) See FIAT EMPIRE at

(4) See "The Third Party Law" at

Originated: 05 February 2015
Revised and Supplemented: 06 February 2015

Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute