Long-term prospects for Israel

Great Debates
1

Why not another Israel thread?

My feelings are that Israel’s prospects are very poor in the long term if a two-state solution doesn’t happen. Without a two-state solution, Israel will either cease to be a Jewish state as demographic changes cause Jews to be a minority for elections; or if it prevents some or most non-Jewish residents from gaining voting rights, it will become an international pariah. With a two-state solution, Israel remains a Jewish state and gets far more international support, which will be necessary to maintain its defense against a region that is still very negatively inclined to its existence. What possibilities haven’t I thought of?

2

I don’t have a dog in this fight, so when I ask it’s out of genuine curiosity: Is this scenario plausible, in light of the demographical facts? I remember hearing the “Palestinian [or was it Israeli Arab?] birthrate = demographic time bomb” argument back in the day, and for all I know it may well still be true, but I also recall reading or hearing a rebuttal, arguing that the Israeli birthrate equals or even tops the Palestinian and/or Israeli Arab birthrate. What is the straight dope there?

3

Israel’s long term prospects? Its going to fall into the sun along with rest of the earth.

IIRC, Gaza + East Jerusalem + West Bank along with Israeli Arabs make up slightly above 50% of the regions population.

4

The Israeli government will never allow the former scenario to happen. Never. And I don’t think they care much about whether they are an “international pariah” or not. Hell, they pretty much already are.

5

Pretty much.

Unless the U.S. pulls the plug on aid to Israel, I don’t see any reason why Israel can’t go on doing what they’re doing more or less indefinitely, continuing to build more settlements in the West Bank and continuing to take territory there away from the Palestinians who live there.

And it would take a closer observer than me to say how much difference our withdrawing aid would make. Maybe Israel could do OK without it, maybe they couldn’t, but I’m not the person to ask about that.

I’m not happy with that reality, but I can’t see a reason why they can’t keep doing what they’re doing for the next 35 years, just as they have for the past 35 years.

6

I hope this isn’t true – they should care. International pariahs (which I don’t think would include Israel at this time) either go the way of South Africa and have a total political reversal, or the way of North Korea and become poor and deluded barely-functioning fortress states, I think.

7

I don’t see how they survive even with a 2-state solution. There would still be a lot of Arabs in the “Jewish” state (and even more if they cave on the “right of return”, which the Arabs have been unflinching about), so at best it just pushes the demographic problem down the road a bit.

Plus, the Israelis are surrounded by hundreds of millions of Arabs in other countries (plus other symphathetic Muslims). Right now they have the technological advantage, but the world turns and you can’t count on that lasting indefinitely. In order to survive they have to keep on beating the odds again and again, which is not a good long-term prospect.

I have no idea what you may have heard. But I believe the straight dope is that the Arab birthrate tops the Jewish one, but a) has been falling, and b) is topped by certain segments of the Jewish population (i.e. ultra-orthodox Jews).

8

Much of the Arab world supports a 2-state solution, so I believe the threat from the region might be reduced were a peaceful solution reached.

9

Not so simple.

Firstly, “much of the Arab” world means leaders of much of the Arab world. It’s very unclear what most of the Arabs themselves believe but it’s likely that they’re much more radical than their leaders, on the whole. And there’s no guarantee that these regimes will remain in power indefinitely.

Second, most of the Arab world leadership supports this now. But suppose the 2-state solution was actually implemented, and Hamas or some similar entity continued their campaign to liberate the rest of Palestine. How much confidence would you have that they would not have significant support in the Arab world? In my case, very little.

10

At some point the Israelis are going to have to expel or kill the Palestinians inside Israel if they want to survive. After that it will take a century or so for things to normalise.

11

It’s certainly very complicated. I’m sure there would be many that would remain in opposition to Israel. But I think that there’s some significant number of Arabs in the region who would grudgingly accept a peaceful two-state solution, and there’s no significant number whose anger at Israel would increase due to a two-state solution. So I think the net threat would likely be lower than it is now.

12

I don’t see a demographic time bomb. Israel’s population is only 20% Arab. If Israel faces demographic destruction, then Europe follows a couple decades after. Which as much as I love Israel, is probably the more significant event.

But really, birth rates tend to be a product of factors like economics and the role of women in society. I don’t think you can predict demographic change past a decade or so. Did anyone predict that the world birth rate would fall?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/13/why-are-birthrates-falling-around-the-world-in-a-word-television/

So now the Israelis know how to solve the problem. Thank you Brad Plumer!

13

It’s hard to know what the net effect would be.

It is a pretty clear historical pattern (ignored by many) that improved circumstances create rising expectations which can trigger increased anger. Related to this, when people perceive that their position is getting stronger and their opponents’s is getting weaker, they become less tolerant of their opponents’ position. To the extent that an independent Palestinian state creates this perception, it could trigger more hostility.

In addition, from a purely military position there’s no doubt that Israel would be weakened considerably by a two state situation (considering the shape of the country, the range of missiles and so on). If there is ongoing conflice after the two state solution is implemented, Israel might have to compensate with stronger measures than they currently use, which could further provoke Arab anger.

Beyond all that, this thread was ostensibly not about advocating for a two state solution, but about Israel’s long term survival. IMO the prospects are poor regardless of a two state solution.

14

A one-state solution includes the disputed territories (West Bank, Gaza). Did you include the Arab populations there?

15

What do you think would maximize Israel’s long term prospects?

16

I don’t know. Try to hang on and hope something changes?

17

The Israeli-Arab conflict is used by Arab governments as a distraction from their own ineptitude and brutality. It’s the oldest political game in the book. The absence of a Palestinian cause would negate the issue.

Of course, a two-state solution is a seemingly impossible thing to achieve. But, it we’re theorizing that you COULD achieve it, you are by definition theorizing that much of the Israeli-Arab conflict goes away.

18

As far as I know, no-one is calling for a “one state” solution. Certainly not Israel, which effectively divested itself of Gaza some years ago. Is there anyone involved in the conflict who really expects or wants Israel to take over Gaza? If not, why would we wish to include the population of Gaza in the future population of Israel?

What the current government of Israel apparently wants, is to put off statehood for the WB as long as it can, while using Palestinian weakness and inability to govern itself as an excuse to carve off bits of territory from the WB that it can (the settlements) - so that when a “two state” solution is, eventually, arrived at, either de facto (as it already more or less is) or de jure, Israel is left with more good bits than the 1967 cease-fire line would have granted it.

Thing is, as much as I dislike the strategy, it is more or less working. Due to current events, there is no possibilty of “the Muslim world” challenging Israel in the near, medium or indeed foreseeable future - they have more important issues to worry about; Lebanon, Iraq and Syria are in complete disarray; Egypt is in crisis - having violently ejected the “Muslim Brotherhood” government most likely to be sympathetic to Gaza; Iran is too far away to intervene. That leaves Jordan - hardly likely as a challenger.

What of the US? Could it influence Israel to change its course? Well, relations between the Obama government and the current Israeli government could hardly be worse - but in the immediate future, with Republicans controlling both houses, that looks unlikely.

The Europeans? Chances are that recent changes will make them less, not more, likely to intervene. As I’ve noted before, Israel has recently discovered major natural gas reserves, and plans to export them to Europe. Europe needs such exports desperately - because their other source is Russia. European willingness to cross Russia over its egregious behaviour in Ukraine is, well, underwhelming; should it be obtaining gas from Israel, rather than just Jaffa Oranges and the like … chances are its willingness to go out on a limb to support Palestinians will be just as undewhelming as its willingness to go out on a limb to support Ukrainians (a subject of far greater immediate concern to them).

The best chance for a change is a change in Israeli public opinion, leading to a change in Israeli government. Again, unfortunately, that doesn’t seem likely in the near future.

19

Isn’t the ultra-Orthodox birth rate actually substantially higher than that of Palestinian Muslims? And the Muslim birth rate is decreasing, while the Jewish rate is increasing.

If you expand the time scale out long enough, then the one state will be majority ultra-Orthodox.

20

Israel obviously can’t do that. There will be a two state solution.