Word has it that if soon-president Trump does indeed shift the embassy from Tel Aviv to [OMG!] Jerusalem, all heck will break loose:

• All Arab states would force the US to withdraw all current ambassadors;
• All agreements heretofore agreed upon by the Arabs/Fakestinians and the state of Israel would be abrogated unilaterally;
• The Arabs would erupt into Ferguson-like craziness, fomented by the reliably ugly fulminations of the clerics or imams or whoever has the parchment for preachment;
• Relations between the Arab states and the US would be less holy; relations between the renounced Israeli state (following the  US embassy move) would go from brrrisk to  deep Celsius -273, colder than your annual legally mandated get-together with your ex-;
• Rescission of the recognition of Israel as a state [as if];
• Further BDS, presumably

In my analysis, these "threats" are toothless – more trial balloons than actionable policy recommendations to ignite the street shebab to think about hysterics à la Ferguson and analogous American cities currently under Democrat mayoral misconduct.

The so-called "recognition of Israel" is a long-running joke, as there is never a time when they can articulate this recognition without going into DEFCON 5 choking and gagging.

And as for rescinding all agreements with Israel, name one that has been observed without weekly incursions and defalcations of terms, rains of missiles, abuse in their local media, antipathies on their radio and TV – i.e., they are all fictional, save for the Egyptian cold peace and the Jordanian stasis.

Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would indicate a real veering of the U.S. toward Israel in the face of the still bloody gash in the back delivered with antiseptic gloves and grim smiles by the soon to be ex-president and self-described “genocide chick” Samantha Power along with the dandy Kerry.

The other pacts are observed only by Israel...so in practical terms, what can we say would be altered?

The ambassadors having to go home from the U.S. embassies and outposts would still be paid, could carouse better in D.C., and the locals would be scorched for exit visas to the U.S. with no one there to guard the store.

I was not in favor of riling the natives before the Security Council backstabbing occurred this past week.  But now that the lame squatter in the W.H. has indicated his maximal disdain for Bibi and all things Israeli, why not a riposte to his unprecedented viciousness to the greatest U.S. ally?

It seems a jolly idea, in fact.  Keep the Fakestinians in hysterical malaise and frothing impotence – a great notion.  The more they congregate on the protest floor, the less they propagate.  N.B.: There are those who favor meaningful employ for such people, rather than clash action, throwing things, and burning buildings.

We all know there are no friends beyond the fingers of one hand for the democratic, feisty toothpick state.  If so, why pay lip service to the corruptocrats and observe their niceties and furbelows?  In the immortal phraseology of my great second cousin, Captain Ruben Rabinowitz, commander of a tank division in WWII and serving under the esteemed George S. Patton: "Screw 'em."  We can't lose friends when we apparently have none to lose, correct?

Net-net, the scenario would include a mordant nosegay of fomented malcontents getting hauled off to the local pokeys or being sprayed with water cannons or rubber bullets in crowd control efforts.  No great loss to the world.  The grumbling would after a period stop, and the situation would normalize, much to the consternation of the disloyal opposition in the U.S., for whom nothing less than conflagration and destruction of their hated idols of egregiousness is acceptable.

As with the Chinese facts of the ground neo-isles of attack bases, the world would shrug to a point, and go on to condemn Israel.  So what else is new?