Adventures of a Young Mashiach, Part 1 & 2 are posted separately.
Adventures of a Young Mashiach, Part 3, starts below:
The world doesn’t know how close it is to Armageddon. It’s just an ordinary day to most. People go to work. People waste time. If they only knew. The risk is great that the story of humanity may soon be, “fought since the dawn of man wielding sticks and stones, invented nuclear weapons, invented social media, destroyed ourselves over nothing, The End.”
A wall is approaching the path of humanity. It is our own human nature. It takes us to war every generation, and yet every new generation forgets, thinks they are smarter, and that it won’t happen again, and repeats it. Next time it will be nuclear. Unless an anomaly stops it. But that anomaly likely has its own challenges.
In every generation, just like how teenagers think they know more than their parents, new ideologies sprout up and say the Jews are evil. It’s almost that natural a phenomena.
If Mashiach were here now, he might solve all our problems. But while he is not yet, here are some questions we might want to ask to avoid destroying ourselves until he gets here.
The world is wondering, “why support Israel?” The answer is, because whatever new evil ideologies arise first attack the Jewish people, and unless stopped, attack them next. The Jews are the “canary in the coal mine”. But how do we explain that to a world that sees each side askew, through a lens of ideological distortion and human emotion? Why is Israel correct and so much of the world’s combined viewpoint mistaken? How do we objectively prove it without Israel as the moral compass? The Bible would work, except the Bible is increasingly opposed also. International law would work, except the deciders lose perspective, change definitions, and end up accomplishing the opposite of what it intended. Right now, the same law designed to prevent genocide against Jews, is now being used as a weapon to destroy Israel so the world can again commit….you guessed it…genocide against the Jews.
Whoever and wherever Mashiach is, maybe he is trying to get his email working and his password reset. Maybe he is stuck in traffic, or struggling to get over life’s basic obstacles. Someone who will be able to do what he will, will probably have difficulty with the everyday. Moses could not even convince his fellow Jews to want to leave Egypt before demanding Pharaoh let his People go. Per Exodus 4:10, “Moses said to the Lord, “I beseech You, O Lord. I am not a man of words, neither from yesterday nor from the day before yesterday, nor from the time You have spoken to Your servant, for I am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue.”. Per Exodus 6:26-30, “But Moses said before the Lord, “Behold, I am of closed lips; so how will Pharaoh hearken to me?” Moses’ brother Aaron had to speak for him. Similar was David, the weakest and youngest brother, a feeble sheepherder, the last person most would have expected to be defeater of Goliath and King of Israel. Maybe we can expect Mashiach, when he comes, to have similar qualities and challenges.
Until he gets here, I’m exploring my ideas to resynchronize the world’s moral perspective with Israel and build global peace, like the PeaceMatrix™. We not only need peace, but the right kind of peace; one that protects Israel first as the source of Western civilization’s morality, ends global support for Hamas, liberates the Iranian people, and rebalances the world’s moral compass.
The system is not fully built, or even complete in its development, but we are close to being out of time.
So I’ll show you how it works. Of course, I’ll need a problem to show you on.
One theory behind the PeaceMatrix™ is that the world’s conflicts are caused by unaddressed questions, and the solutions are in the paths of those same questions.
In the two-year Russia-Ukraine war, a peace deal was a few sentences away from being agreeable nearly two years ago. While peace talks were underway in April of 2022 in Istanbul, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew to Kiev on April 9th, and told Zelensky not to sign the peace agreement that would have resolved the conflict for secure Ukrainian neutrality. Today, we must do more than ask, “what do the parties want?” What the parties want depends on the misaligned power interests of the world continuing to be misaligned, based on more unanswered questions, so the conflict continues. We have a broken system in which the media covers countless attacks, casualties and tear-jerking stories, but gives no attention to the few key missing sentences between Biden’s position and Putin’s, that may actually resolve the conflict.
In China-Taiwan, maybe unification is right and maybe not, but the world can’t even help both the Taiwanese people and China ask key questions about the perfect China-Taiwan relationship, nor calibrate moral compasses, nor properly examine the key question of why the Taiwanese are or are not a unique people and culture, nor foresee the future expansions of China with its expansionist ideological trajectory, nor know the responses of Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Australia, Japan, or the U.S.. Putin misunderstanding the degree to which Ukrainians are a separate people and culture is partly what got us in that mess also, if China wants a road map not to follow into a similar abyss.
The polarization of the Russia-Ukraine war has spread across the globe, aligning Russia, China, Iran and North Korea in a union of each pursuing their own selfish and separate power goals. Once their individual quandaries are deep enough, it’s a pretzel we won’t be able to untie without nuclear war. Their alignment is helping fuel the conflict between Israel and Hamas, as all of Israel’s enemies feel empowered by the backing of Russia and China. Yet, glaring questions like Russia’s and China’s responsibility likewise go unasked.
Unless we improve our systems, ask and answer the right questions, humanity may well destroy itself for any of countless miscalculations, misunderstandings, or unnecessary quarrels.
It is my dream that the development of a new system of peace-building will reveal that all of the world’s conflicts can be solved in a few simple child-like question chains that humanity has simply grown too “adult” to ask. If the solutions to our problems lie where we are too afraid to look, why don’t we develop a system to ask the unaskable questions. Maybe answers are just waiting for us to find them.
The goal of the PeaceMatrix™ is to develop the puzzle to find the best questions, by asking questions of questions, until we find the questions that are the keys to unraveling the conflict.
A PeaceMatrix™ dissects 26 categories simultaneously, including:
B-Chain “What is the most important understanding about the parties and terminology for peace?”
C-Chain “What is the most important understanding about the history for peace?”
D-Chain “What is the most important understanding about the parties’ wants for peace?”
By developing the question chains, and the patterns they reveal, we eventually arrive at a divine perspective. And we might just solve the whole conflict with a few child-like questions we’ve grown too adult to ask.
PeaceMatrix™ categories (26) include all the elements of all human conflicts and their solutions, including:
A-Summary and scope
B-Parties and definitions
H-Culture & ideology
Here are some examples of chain derivative development:
(Please note that the PeaceMatrix™ is a fluid system and questions and coordinates change as the process develops)
(D-Chain – Wants)
D3a – “What is the long-term solution of anyone who wants a ceasefire?”
D1G2 – “How can the Palestinians give up their desire to destroy Israel?”
D3b – “What are the implications of the ideological alignment between those who want to destroy Israel and those who just want to help suffering Palestinians?”
Since the conflict is fueled by the merger of an ideology that wants to destroy Israel with another that wants to merely stop the suffering of the Palestinians and its global implications, why don’t we map out their distinctions and develop a solution for one without the other, or even at the expense of the other? Then, the ideological polarization is no longer united against Israel as the out-group. See my article on “The three-Option Plan.”
D3b1 – “How do we separate those who want to destroy Israel from those who want to help Palestinians?”
D3b1a – “What peace scenarios involve helping the Palestinians while strengthening Israel’s security?”
D3b1a1 – “Who will and won’t support such scenarios and why?”
(F-Chain – Communication)
F2a – Why isn’t there a communication system for the Palestinians to improve their own political process?
We could ask strategic questions:
(S-Chain – Why Resolve)
S1 – What if October 7th was a distraction so Iran can cause a war, get the bomb, dominate the region, and take control of Saudi Arabia as they have claimed a desire to?
S1a – “How can moderate Arab states work in their own interest to prevent a nuclear Iran?”
S1a1 – “How can the world correct dangerous Russian, Chinese, and North Korean support for Iran?”
S1a1a – “What is the nature of responsibility of these states if Iran fuels conflict in the region?”
We could ask cultural and identity questions:
(B-Chain – Parties and Terms)
B3 – “How are Palestinians separate from or aligned with the broader Arab and Muslim world?”
B3a – “How does Palestinians being Arabs and Muslims affect their ability to negotiate in their own individual interests versus those of the greater Arab cause?”
B3a1 – “What is that broader ‘Arab cause?’”
We could map the factual histories:
(C-Chain History and Current Situation)
C1a – “What is the most important understanding of the parties’ history for peace?”
Much of the conflict now is because Palestinian ignorance of provable factual history of the Jewish people in the region and its meaning. Maybe there is an education system better than Palestinians teaching their children there was no Jewish presence in the Holy Land before 1948, which obviously leads to conflict.
The PeaceMatrix™ chains work together. If we know the histories, it helps define today’s accusatory terms so they turn constructive again:
B5c1 – “Why is the most constructive definition of “colonization” a culture with one homeland and capitol seeking to establish domination over the indigenous people of another land?”
With this definition consistent across all historic colonizers, it is clear the Jewish people are indigenous and have no other homeland, so only Arabs from Arabia who pray toward Mecca five times a day could be “colonizers” in Israel. The U.N. couldn’t properly define “colonization” and map out the parties’ histories in 75 years. In fact, there’s more ignorance and disagreement as to the evidence-based factual history now than when the dispute began. It’s like living under communism where the future was certain but the past kept changing. As chain development continues, we can examine why these hypocritical definitional problems exist in the first place.
D1 – “What do Palestinians Want?” leads to D1a – “Why would Palestinians stop hating Israel?”
Arab states have no answer to how the Palestinians would ever develop a Jeffersonian democracy to ensure polarization would be dealt with politically internally instead of all being directed at Israel. After all, no other Arab state in the Middle East is a democracy, so why would a theoretical Palestine be? And if all the polarization is directed at Israel, it doesn’t really matter what Israel does or doesn’t do, the war to annihilate her will continue. Especially if instigated by Iran. Why would any authoritarian ruler voluntarily take the personal blame for problems when they can just blame Israel?
We can also ask constructive questions, like:
(U-Chain – non zero-sum-game analysis)
U1 – “What potential actions help both sides and harm neither?”
That quickly leads us to ask:
U1b1 – “Why not allow Palestinians who want to leave to relocate (temporarily or permanently)?”
We know this is a key issue, because the first and foremost demand of every Arab state after October 7th was that not a single Palestinian refugee be relocated. If it’s the main request of Arab states in a 75-year conflict, as Shakespeare said in Hamlet, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks”. That would be the first un-askable question I’d ask. If some Palestinians want to relocate, and are able to relocate, even temporarily, it would help Palestinians, ease pressure from the Iran-induced conflict like letting steam out of a steam engine, and put all parties in a better negotiating position. Regardless whether Israel should or shouldn’t pressure Palestinians to relocate, the world still should not force those Palestinians who do want to leave to stay.
So good derivative questions naturally follow:
(X-Chain – Main solution development chain)
X3 – “Why not help Palestinians who want to leave relocate? (temporarily during the conflict or permanently)”
X3c – “What percentage of Palestinians would leave if they could?”
X3a – “Why won’t/should/would Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states accept Palestinian refugees?”
X3a1 – “What would happen if the world compensated countries for accepting Palestinian refugees?”
If Gaza really is an “open-air prison” and “genocide”, aren’t Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states, even the whole world that keep Palestinians who want to leave from leaving complicit?
Why does the world force Palestinians to remain there blaming Israel, when the world has no problem gleefully relocating every other people in conflict and taking in millions of refugees?
Israel is not keeping Palestinians in Gaza, it’s only keeping them out of Israel. It’s the rest of the world keeping the Palestinians in Gaza, by not accepting Palestinian refugees who want to leave.
If this isn’t the world’s moral compass, why is the world following this policy?
(H-Chain – Cultures and ideologies)
H3 – “Why is or isn’t such policy putting the “Palestinian cause” ahead of individual Palestinian’s interests?”
H3a – “Why is the world supporting the Palestinian “cause” over the interests of individual Palestinian people?”
H3b – “How is the “Palestinian cause” different than what individual Palestinians want?”
H3c – “Why or why not are “Palestinians” (named after the Philistines which are neither Arab nor Muslim) a unique and independent people versus an arm of an Arab or Islamic ideology?”
And if we keep deriving:
J1 – “Why is or isn’t Arab states’ refusals to accept Palestinian refugees consistent with the world’s morality of helping Palestinians?”
As we continue to ask questions about the Arab ideological phenomenon, we’ll get to:
(I-Chain – Writings)
I1 – What are the different Islamic views on following the Quran’s statement that God has given the “Promised Land” to the “Children of Israel”? (Qur’an 5:20-21, and 17:104)?
I1a – Why isn’t there a growing viewpoint within Islam that supports following this scripture?
(H-Chain – ideologies)
H1 – Why does one Islamic ideology that doesn’t follow the Qur’an and caused the Nakba have more support than ideologies that believe the Qur’an’s language literally means what it says?
Many in a dominant Arab ideology are not helping Palestinians, because they want to further the “Palestinian cause”, even at the expense of the Palestinians themselves. Their view is contrary to their own scripture, and done for ideological expansion purposes. And, the world is supporting it. Nobody disputes that Mecca and Medina are Islamic. Nobody (yet) disputes that Rome is the center of Catholicism. But much of the world is disputing the same for Judaism in Jerusalem. If not Arabs vying to take Jerusalem from the Jewish people, it might be Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Byzantines, or other non-indigenous former-conquerors if their ideologies were expanding today.
A question underlying that is:
What is that broader Palestinian or Arab “cause” and why should the rest of the world care?
As I have discussed in my articles on Entitativity, ideologies do not behave according to their proclaimed values in conflict, but like separate living organisms controlling their adherents and seeking to survive, grow, and spread. The Palestinians can’t make peace because if they did, the Palestinian “cause” would die, and it doesn’t want to die. What else is suicide bombing, if not an expression that the individual adherents are the drones, and the ideology the true living “entity.”
With a system more powerful than the U.N., we might fix problems the U.N. can’t. We might finally ask the unaskable questions, to uncover the fundamental underlying ideological issues deeper than the U.N.’s structure, international law and definitions, and short-term state policies.
The B-Chain (“Parties”) will eventually lead us to examine the implications of Islam, having grown from 90 million in the year 1800 to 200 million in 1900; and from 200 million in 1900 to roughly 2 billion in 2023, and now dominant in 57 nations. By comparison, Jews still have not reached pre-Holocaust levels of just 16 million. This is the most important thing to understand about Islam as a party.
Egypt used to be a Christian nation. So was Syria. So was Lebanon mostly Christian just 50 years ago, formerly referred to as “the Paris of the Middle East.” Afghanistan was Buddhist, as we saw from the beautiful Buddhist statues destroyed by the Taliban. Turkey was largely Christian until the time of the Ottoman conquest, now 98% Muslim. Iraq, Pakistan, and many other nations killed or expelled their Christian, Buddhist, and other ethnic populations. Over a million Jews from Arab countries were expelled and forced to move to Israel. Now, Muslims are expanding to and seeking dominance in not just Israel, but most of the 30 countries of Europe that allow such immigration, but many Asian countries, many African countries, Russia, China, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Burkina Faso, Nepal, Philippines, and so more. This broader phenomenon wouldn’t stop if Israel became a Muslim nation, instead, the exuberance would accelerate it. Within this expansion, Iran’s regime has also grown more powerful, without real consequence, to exert influence in much of Middle East.
Yet, with all of that, Israel is being accused of being a “colonizer” and committing “genocide” for being on its indigenous land constituting 0.4% of the Middle East, while Arabs control the other 99.6%.
If Aliens came down to Earth, and looked at the actions of the United Nations, they would think Israel must be conquering the globe, and the Arab world a victim on the verge of extinction. The United Nations is unable to examine both the Israel-Palestinian question and the Israel/world-global Islamic expansion question together, regardless that they are the same fundamental moral question the world’s security and future hinge on.
The problem is not people believing different viewpoints, but the ideological polarization over such questions growing into conquest and conflict.If preserving one’s culture is natural law that has been moral for 3000+ years if not eternity, and most of the 193 U.N. member states and most other peoples want to preserve their own cultures as well, then Israel is not wrong for wanting to remain Jewish, but rather, an untenable new moral perspective is being ideologically proliferated for the sake of a conquest-motive.
The Palestinians claim they “want” a state, but have rejected proposed states at least five times, when it is not a stepping stone for further conquest of all of Israel.
As we develop the PeaceMatrix™ chains, they present patterns to the heart of the issues, and solutions. And eventually we reach a fundamental underlying question facing the world:
J1 – “Why is or isn’t Islamic expansion and colonization of the rest of the world’s 130 or so remaining non-Muslim countries, and all other religions, tribes, cultures, and peoples consistent with the world’s moral perspective?”
How’s that for a gem of a question?
In the I-Chain (“Writings”) we will see the world has already answered whether a nation’s army is allowed to aggressively invade another country and take it over by force in the U. N. Charter’s Art. 2 Para. 4 prohibition on use of force as “All members shall refrain…” The U.N. General Assembly also defined state aggression in Res. 3314 (1974), a crime against peace, as “Invasion of a State by the armed forces of another State…”
And in asking what is missing, the world must address the gaping moral loophole left unanswered:
J1a – “Why is or isn’t it moral/allowed for one culture to dominate and extinguish another if done by migration, birth rates, bribes, international law, terrorism and/or political pressure?”
That’s the gem of a fundamental underlying question the world faces now; that each nation separately, and the world together, must address.
If the world decided that this is moral, or immoral, that would be one thing. But if the world leaves it undecided, there is conflict.
There are many different ideologies within Islam, and many are good, moderate and peaceful people who want to live in peace and balance with all other peoples, including Israel. However, an expansionist ideology within Islam that seeks to (re)conquer Israel is the same conquest ideology seeking to expand and dominate Europe, India, China, Russia, Africa, and countless countries, peoples, and cultures. Even moderate Muslim states and peoples are at risk, with Iranian goals of overthrowing Arab states, and persecution of Sufi Muslims, as examples.
Ironically billions of people today are shortsightedly aligned with the umbrella ideology of their future colonizers. This includes Arab states, who might ask why stopping Iran from going nuclear is a more immediate concern than the Palestinian cause.
Whether Israel can remain Jewish is the same fundamental question as whether every unique and beautiful culture on earth is allowed to remain its own culture. And if they may, then so may Israel. It’s natural law. Yet, the world can’t answer it, and the United Nations’ structure is ill-equipped; one Jewish viewpoint controls one vote, and one Islamic ideology leads across most of 57 Muslim countries’ votes. So, they can support “indigenous rights for me, but not for thee.” Pure majority rule encourages consumption of smaller indigenous cultures, and thus conflict.
The world’s moral compass is skewed, but when clear, the world can no more demand that Palestinians have their own militarized state with a capital in East Jerusalem, than demand that Arab factions in Great Britain or France or Germany or India or Russia or China can have their own state and their own capital in East London or East Paris or East Berlin or East New Delhi or East Moscow or East Beijing with their own armies there. It’s the same fundamental moral question. If the world does not prioritize indigenous rights, then what’s left is encouraging conquest and colonization. And again, the problem is not Islam, but an ideology within Islam that provides for uncontrolled expansion to, domination of, and elimination of other cultures. At issue are not just derivative questions about nations’ immigration or ethnic group policies or international relationships, but also the philosophical, moral, and ideological “why” behind them. Not to mention, it is better for Islam not to allow expansionist factions and ideologies to go unchecked.
The world has answered that colonization is illegal in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), for example, Article 3, “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination.” The world has applied those principles and answered that it is immoral for Europeans to colonize indigenous peoples of South America, Africa, India, or Islamic countries. Article 6 of the Declaration says, “Article 6 – Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.” The world has already decided it is not “racist” to protect indigenous rights. But the world has not yet applied the same principles and answered, whether it is moral for Islamic peoples to colonize the indigenous peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, and the indigenous Jews in Israel.
The conflicts are the same because the moral question they hinge on is the same.
If you answer the fundamental question first of whether Israel may remain Jewish, consistent with all other peoples’ indigenous rights, then its easy to answer the sub-questions about why you can’t open up the floodgates with a Palestinian capitol in East Jerusalem, or a Palestinian army, or uncontrolled borders, or right of return. You also answer why other countries must take in Palestinian refugees, and why Iran’s leadership is wrong. You also answer why the Palestinians can’t be a state, if the ideology is just an arm of a broader “cause” to destroy Israel ahead of the interests of its individuals.
That fundamental question underlies all other sub-questions for policy consideration, because that divide ultimately terminates cultures on the wrong side of it. With this deeper question unaddressed, many nations are allying short-term with Islamic expansionist ideology now, but planning to later conveniently switch when it is their culture at risk. Which, of course, will backfire.
If we ask and answer the fundamental underlying questions, there may be peace, because conquest-minded Islamic factions won’t rise to compete over new territory they won’t control. And if we don’t, conflicts will get worse. Yes. Definitely. For certain.
That, in a nutshell, is how the PeaceMatrix™ works. You find the right question, you solve the puzzle, you solve the war.
In summary, it’s not just about moving beyond the moral void of our unexamined, conflict-plagued world currently forcing the Palestinians to remain where many of them don’t want to be without a solution, like a forced pawn in a chess game they don’t want to play. It’s not just about an ideology in the Arab world actually keeping the Palestinians in an “open-air prison”.
It’s about supporting or not supporting the broader “cause” for which they do so.
And until the nations of the world understand why or why not, they are next.
Daniel Ben Abraham