Doubtful. History would simply view it as the ultimate orgy of self-defeating violence. Arabs determined to eradicate the Jews, Jews return the favor. The fact that there are more Arabs than Jews is irrelevant. Both sides destroy each other. Morally neutral.
Except this is more analogous to responding to a home invasion by setting off a nuclear weapon that obliterates the entire city you are in.
It just shows how dehumanized the Arab world has become in the eyes of their enemies that killing 400 million of them is considered a perfectly reasonable response to, well, anything.
That’s more Arabs than actually exist for that matter; to even get close to that number they’d need to be nuking countries all over the world to get at every last little enclave and family. How’d you like it if Israel nuked your home town because there’s an Arab family somewhere in it? Because that’s the kind of thing they’d have to do to complete such a nuclear genocide campaign.
I doubt people would just shrug off the worst genocide in human history. The worst by far; it would Hitler look like nothing in comparison, and he sure hasn’t been forgotten.
I’ve never understood this logic. Israel is surrounded by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, and the Mediterranean Sea.
None of these countries appears eager to march an army into Israel. I suppose that might change again sometime, but it’s hard to see where such change might come from, if it hasn’t happened already.
And an army from elsewhere in the Arab world would have to march through the aforementioned Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon to get to Israel. I suppose that’s possible, but that sounds like something out of Left Behind-style wingnut Christianist endtime fiction than anything likely to happen in reality.
The “hundreds of millions of Arabs in other countries” aren’t an existential threat to Israel.
Hitler committed genocide against a helpless people. What Israel would do to the Arabs in case of a genocide against Israelis would be more akin to what the US was prepared to do to Japan if they didn’t surrender. FDR was explicit: if Japan didn’t surrender, they faced “complete destruction”. That’s genocide. And the history books would shrug it off as, “Well, shouldn’t have attacked a stronger country.”
Attacking a nuclear power with the intent to kill its inhabitants is an insane act. No one is going to feel bad for the Arab if they reap what they sow.
That’s some fancy footwork there.
This discussion came in response to your assertion that “most of [Israel’s] population” would be destroyed. Now you’ve pivoted to interpreting people’s responses as being about “anything”.
This is beyond the point of the thread, but killing every man, woman, and child in a region is not comparable a potential US invasion of Japan (which, while extremely bloody, would not have come close to requiring the death of every single man, woman, and child in Japan). And if a US invasion of Japan had proceeded and killed every single Japanese person, we would have been rightly thought of as history’s greatest monsters.
If some country launches/detonates a nuclear weapon at/in Israel, then Israel would reasonably strike back with nuclear weapons. “Striking back with nuclear weapons” does not entail destroying the entire region and killing hundreds of millions of people.
Right now Israel could smash them all. The only thing that needs to change is for the balance of power (& possibly some regime changes) and their enthusiasm could increase considerably.
Cute, but you’re ignoring that this has actually happened in Israel’s brief history, both ground invasions (in 1948 at least) and missiles (from Iraq, at least).
You’re also ignoring that there are at this time considerable number of Muslim fighters fighting in various wars far from their home countries.
So yes, if you ignore reality, then it’s a wingnut fantasy. If you face reality, it’s a lot more feasible.
Should have also added the role these countries have in arming proxies (e.g. Iran and Hezbollah).
I don’t believe they would try to “kill all the Arabs”, I believe they would shoot at the army or country of the guys invading them.
Um, “create land” ? This is the West Bank we’re talking about, not the Netherlands.
While I share your expectations, the notion that Israeli West Bank settlements, and the network of roads connecting them with each other and Israel proper, aren’t somehow an obstacle to a two state solution, is crazy. They are, as the phrase goes, “facts on the ground.” They represent an investment in a long-term West Bank occupation. They create a constituency - settlers and those in Israel proper who identify with them - whose minds would be hard to change to the extent that a two-state solution meant giving up any of that.
It’s easier to simply change your mind about an abstraction than to give up stuff you’ve got for an abstraction. Of course the settlements are obstacles to a two-state solution.
Yeah, “the only thing.” Also, it would help if the land bridge of the Sinai were widened, so that it wouldn’t be nearly so easy for Israel to defend against an invasion from Egypt. That would be a problem for a hostile Egypt if it were twice as strong militarily as Israel.
No, I’m not. And you’re ignoring status quo bias, and the fact that those four wars in 25 years have been followed by 40 years of peace for Egypt, Jordan, and (until lately) Syria.
True, but they’re fighting in situations where a few thousand disciplined fighters can make a big difference. We’re not talking about numbers that can make a difference in an Arab-Israeli war.
Sorry, but I still find your view of things to be the fantasy.
The reality is that these Muslim fighters are fighting - other Muslims.
The notion of a Muslim (or Arab) world walking in lock-step towards a common goal has never been true. It wasn’t even true when Egypt ans Syria were, supposedly, joined as a “united Arab republic” allegedly dedicating to defeating Israel. That lack of actual convergent goals goes a long way towards explaining why such wars were such notable failures - behind the facade of superficial agreement, various Arab actors were pursuing incompatible goals.
Yet we are expected to believe that, somehow, at a moment when the ME is more divided and chaotic than it has ever been, that it is likely at some future point to unite in an anti-Israeli jihad?
First, they have a few minor issues to work out - like the fight between secularistists versus militant islamicists, the Sunni - Sh’ia divide, the oil rich vs. the rest, competing ethnicities, etc. Then they can unite in an anti-Israeli jihad.
I would not hold my breath.
That’s fine, but it’s not an insurmountable problem.
As I said, Israel has been a lot stronger militarily than these other countries over that time, and this is one reason you never had anyone “march[ing] through the aforementioned Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon to get to Israel”. But it’s silly to deride something as a fantasy if it’s actually happened in recent times.
Every bit helps.
That plus the other factors that you ignored.
Neither would I.
But the title of this thread is “Long-term prospects for Israel”.
Is your position, then, that in the “long term” these divisive tendencies in the ME will be overcome in some sort of foreseeable future?
To my mind, it is far more likely that some intervening, unforeseen events happen that make the Arab-Israeli conflict yesterday’s news.
That’s one possibility. My point is that it’s not some sort of “Left Behind-style wingnut Christianist endtime fiction” as some other guy was claiming. How likely that it will happen at one time, I couldn’t say.
What I can say is that being surrounded by countries with hundreds of millions of people is an existential threat that will be hard to survive in the long term, because of this among other possibilities.
You missed the rest of the phrase - land that Israel will annex. That is, the settlements will enable the transfer of the land from a Palestinian state/neutral territory/land in dispute to Israel proper.
It’s not an obstacle to a “two-state solution”; it’s an obstacle to “a two-state solution that includes all of the West Bank”. Because as you state (IMO quite correctly) the settlements are facts on the ground. That’s what I meant by “creating land that Israel will annex” - the settlers and the settlements represent land that, as time goes on, will be more and more firmly part of Israel as much as Tel Aviv.
The Palestinians already turned down the best “two-state solution” deal they were likely to get. As the settlements continue, that deal is becoming less and less attractive.
Israel offered something like 90+% of what the PA said they wanted. The Palestinians responded “all or nothing”. Now, in essence, Israel’s counter-offer is “how about 85%? And five years from now the offer will be 80%”.
Tick-tock.
Regards,
Shodan
Trying to wipe out Israel - if that’s what precipitates such an Israeli nuclear strike - isn’t just “anything.”
One shouldn’t respond to evil with more evil.
If Israel’s on the brink of defeat by some coalition of Arab states, they should not launch all their nukes and bring as many people down as they can. The right thing to do would be to nuke their own country so no one can live there, or surrender and hope for the best.
I’m pretty sure that’s where the “Never again” comes in. 
No, I read it: you said “gradually the settlements continue to create land* that Israel will simply annex, or re-claim, or whatever you want to call it.” They will create land that Israel will annex. Which is nonsense. The land was always there. Like I said, this ain’t the Netherlands.
You may have meant to use some other word besides ‘create,’ but the way to correct that is to correct that, not double down on it.
Well, that’s a fatal obstacle already. Because a two-state solution that works for the Palestinians needs to (a) include the vast majority of the West Bank, (b) in a contiguous manner, rather than some checkerboard with Israeli checkpoints to pass through to get from one red square to another.
There you go again with that ridiculous word. But aside from that, the existing facts on the ground are enough to make a checkerboard of any division of the West Bank between Israelis and Palestinians.
Their turning down the deal gave Israel carte blanche to extend its occupation and settlement of the West Bank? In a practical sense, of course. In a moral sense, hell, no.
Yeah, they wouldn’t have gotten a contiguous state even then, Israel would have stationed troops permanently on the West Bank-Jordan border, the Palestinian state would have to be without its own military, and one of the stipulations was that Israel would control the West Bank’s water.
Guess it depends on how one defines ‘90%+ of what they wanted.’