They’re not monolithic, and opinions can change. Further, that part of my OP assumes that (at some point) they do, and that a two-state agreement is signed.
Western kind of thinking doesn’t work in the Middle East.
“Not monolithic, and opinions can change” is a description of human thinking, not Western thinking.
The people of the Middle East aren’t a sci-fi hive mind of giant telepathic bugs.
Oh, don’t go applying your Western thinking.
Worse than the Holocaust? Because that would be the measure.
It will be interesting to see what Allesan has to say about this thread.
???
I’m looking forward to his thoughts as well.
They have nukes, and won’t go alone.
You lose.
Six million in the Shoah, eight million in Israel now.
And 400 million in the Arab world. Israel’s Jews won’t die without taking all their enemies with them.
I agree.
Time is actually on Israel’s side if the Arab world continues to liberalize. The hatred whipped up against Israel is mainly fanned by state-controlled media and unlike in the West, there’s no one to question whether the Palestinians are really the good guys here. In the West, we argue it from both sides, and that creates doubt, which means that maybe we’d just be all better off if they could come to a peace agreement. But in the Arab world, the conflict is universally painted as Good vs. Evil, and so even considering anything other than total victory is practically treasonous. But as their societies become more open, and dissent better tolerated, that will change.
In the meantime, that every problem, closed, tyrannical societies, means that the Arab world will continue to fall behind Israel. Israel dominated the Arab armies in the last three Arab-Israeli wars, four if you count their battle with the Syrians in 1982. The gap has only gotten wider, which is why there haven’t been anymore Arab-Israeli wars. Israel has nothing to worry about as long as they remain a liberal democracy and the Arab states remain backward. And once the world is no longer reliant on oil, they’ll be left throwing spears at Israel instead of rockets.
No thanks. These threads give me ulcers.
That’s because you know you’re doomed.
It must really put a damper on Xmas. 
Nukes might not be a factor at all.
I think it’s more likely to play out along the lines of what happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe (but probably somewhat more violent in the aftermath).
I simply don’t understand the ‘doomed’ stance. By every actual measure, Israel is safer now than it has ever been in its entire history. Safer, more powerful, richer (and soon to be even richer), its enemies either converted into reluctant friends or neutralized by fighting amongst themselves. Powerful third parties are either friends or distracted by more pressing problems.
Israel has plenty of problems to be sure, but they are not existential problems. Where is the grand Arab alliance of Egypt and Syria, that plausably threatened Israel with encirclement and extinction? Lost to history.
Israel is ‘doomed’ in the same sense as every other state in the world is ‘doomed’ - by completely unforeseen circumstances.
Which will accomplish…what? So they kill hundreds of millions of people, and in the future people don’t talk about Hitler anymore as the epitome of evil; they talk about the Israelis.
What would you do if armed thugs started shooting into your home to kill your entire family? Shoot back knowing you’ll all die or say, “well, what the hell, we can’t stop you so feel free to rape and kill my family and I’ll leave you alone.”
Are you saying all 400 million Arabs are comparable to “armed thugs” in your home? They all deserve to die?
No more than all Soviets and all Americans deserved mutually assured distruction during the Cold War. This is simply the logic of Nuclear Weapons at work … doesn’t matter if it is Israelis, Americans, Soviets, Pakistanis, Indians, now (soon) Iranians …
Anyway, discussing the relative morality of armageddon-type events seems to me more than a little besides the point.