Long-term prospects for Israel

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

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

Then I think you missed the point. Including territories beyond Israel is what makes the one-state solution a demographic liability for Israel.

[Richard_Parker]

@Malthus

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.

It probably depends on how you define the term. I don’t think Netanyahu is calling for a one-state solution, but certainly some Israeli leaders are calling for a solution that is reported as a “one-state” solution because it includes the West Bank.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@RickJay

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.

Just because the Israeli-Arab conflict is used by Arab governments for their ends does not imply that that’s the sole source of Arab symphathies on the matter. As noted, there are any number of countries where the positions of the man in the street seem to be a lot more hostile than that of the government. Egypt in particular springs to mind as a very important example, but there are others. (The history of the Turkish relationship with Israel is instructive here.)

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.

It’s true “by definition” (and also pointless) if you define “solution” as “no Israeli-Arab conflict”. But that’s not what the term is commonly used to mean.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Just because the Israeli-Arab conflict is used by Arab governments for their ends does not imply that that’s the sole source of Arab symphathies on the matter. As noted, there are any number of countries where the positions of the man in the street seem to be a lot more hostile than that of the government. Egypt in particular springs to mind as a very important example, but there are others. (The history of the Turkish relationship with Israel is instructive here.)

It’s true “by definition” (and also pointless) if you define “solution” as “no Israeli-Arab conflict”. But that’s not what the term is commonly used to mean.

A two-state solution wouldn’t be an end to the “Israeli-Arab” conflict, but it would mostly be an end (assuming the agreement came from leaders on both sides) to the “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict. And the latter is a big part of the former.

[Malthus]

@Richard_Parker

It probably depends on how you define the term. I don’t think Netanyahu is calling for a one-state solution, but certainly some Israeli leaders are calling for a solution that is reported as a “one-state” solution because it includes the West Bank.

If you examine the article you linked to, you will see that the “one state solution” the policians described in that article appears to be advocating is merely a very extreme version of what Israel is already doing:

MK Yariv Levin advocated a slow but steady de facto annexation of the West Bank, mainly by expanding existing settlements and taking whatever steps were possible to apply laws on Jewish communities beyond the Green Line.

“In this way, we will try, slowly but surely, to expand the circle of settlements, and to afterwards extend the roads that lead to them, and so forth. At the end of this process, the facts on the ground will be that whatever remains [of the West Bank] will be merely marginal appendages,” he said.

In short, it is nothing like a real “one state solution” - it is simply an encroaching of Israeli territory, in the form of settlements, to cover the whole WB - save the bits that the remaining population of Palestinian Arabs are, presumably, to be crowded into.

Assuming this is the version of a “one state solution” being advocated by the majority of those who reject a “two state solution”, it strikes me that the most essential step - that is, incorporating the population of the WB (never mind Gaza!) is never taken.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@iiandyiiii

A two-state solution wouldn’t be an end to the “Israeli-Arab” conflict, but it would mostly be an end (assuming the agreement came from leaders on both sides) to the “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict. And the latter is a big part of the former.

Replace the word “leaders” with “all the leaders” and you’re on to something (as long as you keep the word “mostly” in there). Right now, the proposed two step solutions involve signing a deal with some leaders while others - who possess a lot of guns and rockets - loudly proclaim that they will not recognize or abide by any such deal. That doesn’t fit the bill.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

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.

Hizbollah and Hamas are the ones causing the trouble, and they do not favor a two-state solution. Nor does ISIS or al-Queda.

Israel is not the obstacle to a two state solution.

I expect, therefore, to see the situation continue, with the change that gradually the settlements continue to create land* that Israel will simply annex, or re-claim, or whatever you want to call it. Either the Palestinians will wise up, and realize that half a loaf is better than no bread, and accept their current territories as “their” state, or, more probably, continue to watch vaguely from the sidelines while the various terrorists fuck everything up as much and as hard as they can.

And John Mace is correct - Israel is an international pariah now to some extent. It’s not like they are going to lose prestige by annexing the WB. Especially not if it is in response to things like this.

Regards,
Shodan

*Essentially what Richard Parker 's article says.

[Velocity]

@iiandyiiii

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.

Perhaps for now. But once the 2-state is reached, what would stop them there?

“If you just give us this, we promise we won’t ask for any more.”

Then,

“If you just give us this, we promise we won’t ask for any more.”

Then,

“If you just give us this, we promise we won’t ask for any more.”

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Israel is not the obstacle to a two state solution.

I agree, and I didn’t say they were.

And John Mace is correct - Israel is an international pariah now to some extent.

To some extent, but this could be much, much worse.

[iiandyiiii]

@Velocity

Perhaps for now. But once the 2-state is reached, what would stop them there?

“If you just give us this, we promise we won’t ask for any more.”

Then,

“If you just give us this, we promise we won’t ask for any more.”

Then,

“If you just give us this, we promise we won’t ask for any more.”

This could apply to any agreement/treaty/compromise ever in human history. I said reduced, not eliminated.

[YogSothoth]

Does anyone know the % of Jews. vs. Arabs in Israel right now? Not counting the West Bank, because that’s politically murky. In all the territories Israel itself counts as its own and the citizens that live there, how do the demographics stack up? Given birth rates, what likely decade is it expect that the non-Jewish Arab population will overtake the Jewish ones?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@YogSosoth

Does anyone know the % of Jews. vs. Arabs in Israel right now? Not counting the West Bank, because that’s politically murky. In all the territories Israel itself counts as its own and the citizens that live there, how do the demographics stack up? Given birth rates, what likely decade is it expect that the non-Jewish Arab population will overtake the Jewish ones?

It’s roughly 80-20 and has been for a few decades. Without granting citizenship to the Palestinians in the Ocuppied territories the Jews aren’t becoming a minority anytime soon.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

To some extent, but this could be much, much worse.

If they simply wipe out the Palestinians, it would be worse. If they pursue the settlement building and take back the WB by inches, I doubt it will affect their standing much. Israel is blamed for not stopping the settlements and evicting the settlements that are already there. That won’t change no matter how long it goes on. Therefore it is in Israel’s interest to let it go on indefinitely, gradually gaining back what almost amounts to terrorist-held territory.

The Palestinians aren’t going to renounce Hamas or Hizbollah anytime soon. Therefore a two-state solution isn’t possible anytime soon. Maintaining the status quo is easiest. So that’s what will happen.

Regards,
Shodan

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Ibn_Warraq

It’s roughly 80-20 and has been for a few decades. Without granting citizenship to the Palestinians in the Ocuppied territories the Jews aren’t becoming a minority anytime soon.

Jews have had a lot of immigraton during those past few decades (mostly from the FSU) and the Arabs have not. That immigration is not going to continue at that level.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

A two-state solution wouldn’t be an end to the “Israeli-Arab” conflict, but it would mostly be an end (assuming the agreement came from leaders on both sides) to the “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict.

No, it wouldn’t be.

[Malthus]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Jews have had a lot of immigraton during those past few decades (mostly from the FSU) and the Arabs have not. That immigration is not going to continue at that level.

No-one I have read ever seriously argues that Jews will become a minority within the state of Israel as currently constituted. The argument - always - is that the Jews will become a minority if you add the Palestinians living in Israel currently constituted PLUS the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, and current demographic trends continue.

Hence the saying that “Israel can choose two of: democratic, control of Palestinian territories, and Jewish”.

There are, however, some problems with this analysis.

1. It relies on counting in the population of Gaza. While this made sense in the past, currently it does not: there is exactly zero likelihood, as of now, that the Israel will re-occupy and annex Gaza.

2. It relies on uncritically accepting population and demographic data produced by the Palestinian Authority, who has every reason in the world to exaggerate the numbers of Palestinians, and a long history of being less than truthful about numbers. Most non-political observers assume that both absolute numbers of Palestinians and the percentage increase in population is rather less than reported.

3. It assumes that current demographic percentages will proceed indefinitely into the future unchanged. In contrast, it would appear that the demographic trends are evening out between the two populations - most markedly in Israel itself (Gaza has the highest growth rate).

[John_Mace]

@adaher

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.

I agree. I didn’t have time to look this up earlier, but I think people are confusing the situation with a one state solution where all the Palestinians are absorbed into Israel. But Israel would never agree to that.

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

No, it wouldn’t be.

Thanks. Care to elaborate?

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

Thanks. Care to elaborate?

Because Palestinians do not just want “a state”. If that was all they wanted, they could have it 65 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, or last year. They want particular territory, which includes Tel Aviv, Haifa, Yafo, Galil, Acco, Tzefat, Beer Sheva and Eilat. And until they get it, there will be “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

[Der_Trihs]

I’m fairly sure Israel’s long term future is to be destroyed, along with most of its population. They’ve got too many enemies whom they are unlikely to be able to defeat forever, and are relatively small.