What makes you think Israel would be destroyed by atomic weapons?
Who would use them against Israel?
The notion that Israel faces fundamental change because of the alleged “demographic threat” from its Arab population was a trope common in the 1970s (that is, some 30-40 years ago). It was based on the extreme disparity in birthrates between Israel’s Jewish and Palestinian citizens. However, it has no actual basis in reality. Israeli birthrates have increased and Palestinian birthrates have decreased, and the Palestinian-Israeli population is around one-fifth that of the Jewish-Israeli population.
Those nowadays who wish to spread alarm for whatever reason about Arab demographics tend to assert that one can “add in” all of the region’s Palestinains to the “Palestinian” total - i.e., to claim that the relevant number is not Arab-Israelis, but Palestinans generally. This means that the old mantra of “in the future Israel can be Jewish or democratic but not both” has changed into “in the future, Israel can be any two of the following three: Jewish, democratic, and contain the whole of Palestine - including the West bank and Gaza”:
The more modern or current “demographic threat” Israelis worry about is not that from Arabs, but from the Ultra-Orthodox: see above article.
Your position is some 30 or 40 years out of date - though to be fair to you, it is one that still echoes around the Internet amoung people who are not conversant with the facts. Point being, there is nothing in demographcs which would prevent Israel happily continuing to be a democratic, Jewish state indefinitely - assuming it does not attempt to absorb the entirely of Gaza and the WB. Note that no Israelis other than the lunatic fringe advocate doing so.
Eventually birth rates of Palestinians catch up with and surpass the Israeli’s. By that century, this conflict will be in its 5th, 6th, 7th, etc generation. Tensions won’t be as high and Israel makes token concessions to allow Palestinians to have a state. Everybody goes home semi-happy and Arabic/Muslim citizens in Israel moderates its stance
You “called me” on something you are totally misunderstanding. And since you are apparently willfully misunderstanding what was actually a pretty simple conjecture, I’m done with you. I’ve explained what I was saying three times now and every time you come back with “ANTI-SEMITE! JEW-HATER! NAZI!” I’m sure you can find the orifice that you can stick those in sideways without my help. You’ve been typing out of it for the last four hours.
Well, I for one and shocked, shocked I tell you, that y’all haven’t been able to solve this issue yet. Get to it people, we’re almost at 100 responses and peace has not yet broken out!
I didn’t “misunderstand” anything or are you going to claim you didn’t predict that Israel would engage in a “non-official genocide” against the Palestinians.
I also never accused you of being an “ANTI-SEMITE! JEW-HATER! NAZI!” so I don’t know where you’re getting that from.
I’d also recommend against continuing making the personal attacks against me.
Finally, answer the questions I’ve been asking.
First, how exactly do you think the Israelis will engage in a “non-official genocide” against the Palestinians?
Second, how does a “non-official genocide” differ from an “official genocide”?
Iran, the second safest place for Jews to live in the Mid East, believes Israel should be wiped of the map. It doesn’t sould like wanting to republish cartographic images to me.
I suspect most of the testosterone poisoned neighboring countries would delight in being able to nuke them if they had some and could get away with it.
Iran A)doesn’t have nuclear weapons B)isn’t suicidal and C)is led not by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but by the Ayatollah Khamenei.
jayjay, you’re out of line here. This is a formal warning: don’t insult other posters in this forum.
He’s getting if from the series of hyperbolic accusations you made in response to his first post in the thread, and his interpretation is totally reasonable since you invoked the Nazis and the blood libel a couple of times. By doing so you were implying you felt jayjay shared those kinds of opinions of Jews, and while his interpretation of the Israeli-Palestinian endgame may be questionable, he said nothing of the sort. You do this kind of thing a lot. Knock it off.
Government deniability. When the genocide is conducted by civilian “death squads,” it is unofficial. When it is conducted by uniformed troops of the state military, it’s official.
Anyway, back to the OP.
Conflicts end when one side finally recognizes that it’s been beaten and is willing to sit down and negotiate the terms of surrender.
To give an obvious example, the Troubles in Northern Ireland essentially came to an end when the IRA was finally willing to admit it had lost and it would never be able to wrest NI away from the British and was willing to sit down, surrender and cut the best deal they could.
Had Arafat been willing to admit he’d lost at Camp David the Palestinians would right now have a state of their own, but he was unwilling to do so.
So the answer is when either the Israelis or the Palestinian leadership surrenders it ends.
That said, the Israelis have no reason to surrender and neither Hamas nor Fatah is willing to tell the truth to their constituents and additionally Hamas and Fatah don’t believe that a Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is viable(for good reason I might add).
No, it is rhetoric of americans who say ignorant things about europe and France in particular, and one sees it in the unsupported stories of the extreme right in europe who exploit the subject for their own ends as a convenience and cover for other bigotries.
the data actually says that there is less and less emigration of the French jews to Israel which diminished to only slightly around 2 thousand in 2007 from a french jewish population of 600 thousands, and it is the french jews who are the most important numbers in all europe and who increased over 100 percent from the era of nazi. it is a political fantasy of certain types who promote this, shameful to repeat naively and more shameful to repeat not naively
It is grotesque exaggerations for specific propaganda aims that even link the idea to nazi era.
Eventually Israel will be wiped out
Thank you, this is all great information, and I appreciate it very much. I also appreciate the tone. I am definitely not well-educated on this issue, which is one reason I ask questions.
It seems intuitive that as sub-populations with high birthrates are incorporated into wealthier states with much more opportunity for women, those birthrates will then drop towards the state mean. (In addition to the longer term trend that the sub-populations themselves will dissipate with intermarriage).
This is exactly why I came to SD. Faith restored*. 
(* Discovering “ignore” helped too)
Really? I was under the impression that the IRA bombings bankrupted Lloyd’s of London, which made the British a little more willing to compromise.
this is not possible, Lloyds is not a corporation.
Remember my anecdote: an Israeli radar station on the site of a Turkish resoration of a Crusader watchtower, using a Bronze Age tel 'cause it’s the highest point in the area …
The notion that history has to come to some sort of conclusion, that conflicts have to end one way or another with clear victors and no questions, is a particulary North American/European 21st Century notion. Americans tend to think of Israel as if it were the wild west - push out the Indians (for Indians, read Palestinians) and build Dodge City, for better or worse; the Europeans, in terms of their own faded colonialism - the aliens will be outlasted and forced at some point to leave or die at the hands of the “natives” (again, for “natives” read Palestinians), like Zimbabwe.
People should instead think of Israel (and the ME generally) in terms of its own history, which is of a quite remarkable tenacity among everyone involved, and stuggles that have lasted over hundreds and even thousands of years …
this is silly. the middle east is not different than any other place in the world. the conflict of today has no thing to do with ancient states. It is only you have written records of this area so you notice it.
Each area has its own history. The ME is not the same as NA is not the same as Europe. It isn’t that the ME is “different from any other place in the world”, it is that each area is different from all the others, because of its unique history.
Such differences affect both the nature of the conflicts people experience, and, as importantly, how people perceive such conflicts whether they occur in their own backyard or elsewhere in the world.
Surely you must have noticed that, in general, N. Americans tend on average to perceive the conflicts in the ME differently from people in Europe (also in general?) I would explain this difference as follows: people in each place are, as people are wont to do, interpreting that coinflict through the lens of their own cultural experiences, which are formed in large part by their own history.
your perception of how it is different is very american. there is no difference in the nature of these conflicts, it is your understanding of its that pretends that there is a special ancientness or persistence