Israel prospers despite the conflict, not because of it - as you suggest.
Well, you might think that.
I see Israel’s position as this: it’s like a man clinging to the side of a cliff by his fingernails. To climb to the top to safety appears impossible; to let go is unthinkable. So he hangs there indefinitely, no matter how much his fingers hurt.
Considering how badly Israel’s economy has been hurt by the conflict, I find such a claim rather weird.
Please explain.
What do you mean by “a non-official guerilla genocide”?
How would that work, particularly since the Palestinian population of the occupied territories has actually grown quite dramatically under Israeli rule?
Since you’re suggesting it would become “just another country” you must have a number of nearby countries in the region it should model itself after.
Which one would you pick?
The two that spring to mind when it comes “a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state” would be Lebanon or Iran.
Since you seem to believe you’d want it be “just another country” in the Middle East, which would you like it to be?
Lebanon or Iran?
Those are your choices. Pick one and explain your reasoning.
Thanks.
We were doing so well…
But the reason we care is the oil in the region. Otherwise it’s just Somalia with worse beaches.
I agree with ralph. The Palestinians need something to lose, some measure of prosperity and value. This would require cultural changes, though, to something more like a Western model of productive capitalism.
I’m not talking about anything that’s happening right now. I’m saying that probably the only way this stalemate is going to end is if Israel gets rid of the problem (from their point of view). And it WILL be Israel getting rid of its problem, since there is nowhere near any kind of parity of force between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Israeli government is getting more and more rightwing and incalcitrant about things like the settlements. I think if they get to the point where they don’t really care AT ALL about world opinion or not looking like the bad guy, they would take much less care than they currently do to treat with the P’s diplomatically.
Why would you think I “want” it to be anything? Why would I care either way? This is not a normative argument about what Israel ought to do (the answer to which I am very grateful not to know, since it appears to me to be utterly unsolvable). If you’re just reducing this is the usual boilerplate “Is Israel Good or Bad?”, I can answer without hesitation, “Sometimes.”
The point is that Israel logically cannot continue to be both a Jewish state and a democracy, because the population will eventually become majority Muslim*. The Israelis themselves have recognized this for a long time. The last decade of Israeli history, and probably the next decade, has been them slowly working their way through all of their choices (none of which are very good).
- Well, I suppose it is logically possible, if a majority of Muslims would be willing to respect Israel’s charter as a Jewish state. That is not likely. But it is fair to say it is an ontological possibility.
That’s a common myth that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.
Only about 20% of Israel’s citizenry are non-Jews and not all of them are Muslims. Additionally, while their birthrates are higher, they have been declining and Arab Christians and to a lesser extent Arab Muslims have been fleeing in droves.
There is zero chance of Israel’s citizenry being predominantly Muslim anytime in the near future.
You apparently didn’t understand my question or I was a bit unclear. You said Israel could become “just another country” which was “multi-ethnic and multi-religious”.
Now leaving aside the fact that Israel is already “multi-ethnic and multi-religious” your implication is that they could “choose” to become like any other “multi-ethnic, multi-religious” country in the region.
So, which would it be better for them to be like and why.
Lebanon or Iran?
Or do you have a third Middle Eastern country in mind?
I still don’t understand your question.
I made my point above, you have provided your refutation which being unsourced doesn’t help (but is interesting, and my own assertion was unsourced which didn’t help either).
From your insistence on comparing to other regional states it appear you have an agenda, and I’d love to combat you but you’re not making your assumptions clear, so if you do that we can dance, otherwise I’m not interested in guessing.
It will end when either side is destroyed or the Muslim nations decide they have other things to care about.
Why do you think that?
No, that’s complete crap. If all we cared about was oil, we’d have tossed Israel to the wolves and never invaded Iraq.
Beyond that, suggesting that Jordan, Syria, Israel Egypt and the other countries are “just Somalia with worse beaches” is utterly asinine.
So then how would this “non-official genocide” take place.
Would the Israelis be marching them into gas chambers? Kidnapping and murdering their children to make Matzoh? Drugging the water supply so as to sterilize all Palestinian males? Some biological weapon that attacked people with genes unique to Levant Arabs? Something else?
You made a rather extreme claim so perhaps you’d like to back it up.
First things first. Why on earth would we throw our only dependable regional neighbor to the wolves IF it was about oil? That doesn’t follow. The West needs allies in the area and Israel is the only one there where popular sovereignty would not be followed by either neutrality or even aggressive anti-Western sentiment. Into what basket would we put our eggs otherwise? The Saudis? Granted the regime needs us desperately, we know it is perishable.
As for oil vs non-oil interest, what it comes down to is this: is that region of significant enough geopolitical interest to the US, if we posit a world where either there’s no oil left or oil doesn’t matter, where we keep pouring in the same blood and treasure?
There’s an argument to be made that it’s a historical crossroads between Asia, Africa and Europe and that’s actually not a bad one, but I suspect technological advance has rendered pure geography less important.
If the argument is that AIPAC is such a powerful lobby that it would influence US policy no matter what the energy situation, I doubt it. I think Israel would more likely wind up with a lot of well-meaning rhetoric but not much support from us.
If the argument is that it’s an interest because it’s a democracy embedded in an undemocratic region, I can honestly say I wish I was that idealistic about the way our government operates.
This statement makes no sense. Everything I mentioned was common knowledge while your primary claim, that Israel would soon become “majority Muslim” is racist bullshit.
What’s next? Do I have to produce a source for the claim that most Americans speak English?
Were you seriously unaware of the fact that only 20% of the Israeli citizenry are non-Jews?
I made no claims. I did not implicate current Israelis in anything. All I’m saying is that about the only way to break the stalemate, that I can see, is to get rid of the Palestinians. I am NOT, under any circumstances, promulgating blood libel, so you can just shove that accusation somewhere painful.
There are very few options to fixing the current situation. If you have one or two you care to share, feel free. But I think the existence of the Palestinians is an insoluble problem for the Israelis as it stands. They’re not going anywhere without “help”. And I don’t know that it’s possible for the situation to continue at stalemate forever.
I repeat that I’m NOT claiming that the Israelis are just waiting to take up Hitler’s torch…I’m saying that one or the other side of this pushmepullyou is going to have to get rid of the other to end it, and Israel is the side with all the American high-tech military hardware and a pretty much bottomless defense budget from the same source.
This is the first link that came up addressing the argument. I have no idea if it’s bullshit, though, and a number of other sources are the kind of nutbar publications that cry about “Eurabia,” which are not encouraging bedfellows.