Noone, supposing the two-state solution is put into effect (and let me say I see no evidence that Israel is actually moving in that direction), what do you see as the future of Israel proper about a hundred years out, given that there’s such a disequilibrium between the Jewish and the Arab birthrate? Or even given the disequilibrium between the birthrate of the haredim and secularists like yourself?
I think the dis-equilibrium is not as sharp as you seem to believe – just like predictions of world-wide demographic catastrophes have been proven wrong time and again, and in fact world population is now expected, AFAIK, to start declining in a few years.
As various minority groups in Israel slowly gain enfranchisation and some modicum of economic parity with the rest of the population, their birthrates plummet; so while the Arab minority may be growing in size, it will take a lot longer than people think, if it ever happens at all, for them to become a majority. Plus there is still some Jewish immigration, which partially sets off the gap in birthrates.
As for the Haredim, that is a different kettle of fish. As Israel becomes more “Westernized” and more technolgical, and as they too find themseves forced to participate in everyday life, many young Haredim end up leaving the ranks of the ultra-orthodox, to become either less- or non-religious.
As a case in point, the Arab representation in Knesset is roughly constant at about 9-10 deputies (or about 7.5%), and religious representation is also fairly constant, at roughly double that number, or about 20 deputies. This has remained true pretty much throughout the life of the state, and I doubt it will be changing dramatically in the years to come.
So, Noone, if you support a two-state solution, what do you propose to do with the Israeli settlers/settlements on the West Bank? I can’t see them being accepted even as a minority in a Palestinian state; and drawing the border so as to put them all on the Israeli side (as Ariel Sharon proposed) would leave the remaining Palestinian state economically non-viable.
In the Jewish Tribune of Canada, I see the following: “After 15 years of stability up to the year 2000, the Muslim sector’s birth rate continued the downward trend in 2004 and currently stands at 4.4 births per woman. In the Jewish sector, the birth rate in 2004 was between 2.6 and 2.7 births per woman.”
4.4 versus 2.7 is a very sharp disparity. If those rates hold good, that means, according to my admittedly poor math skills, parity between Palestinians and Jews in about two generations. You mention immigration, but there is also outmigration, which some have suggested has been bigger than immigration in recent years.
Where demographics are concerned, past performance is no guarantee of future results, as you mentioned. However, there seems to be no question that the Palestinian proportion of the population will continue to increase, at least in the short term. I’m all for increasing economic opportunities for Palestinians, and decreasing discrimination against them. If that brings the Palestinian birthrate down, so be it.
We’ll see what happens under Olmert.
Omert certainly is behaving like someone ready to take the settlers on.
OK.
DSeid,
Experience of the recent past has shown that that separation by withdrawal from hostile communities does not make you safer. Israel effectively reduced terror attacks of intafada 2k only when it “went back” to Jenin and other places. Does anyone think our security will get better now that we are out of Gaza? Since we left, we have already established a “security belt,” out of necessity. How long before we “go back” to the rest of Gaza? And when and if that happens people will ask, What was the point of the disengagement again?
So at least from a security point of view, a one state solution offers a certain advantage, assuming as you are at least for the sake of argument that such a state becomes a viable possibility from a political point of view.
Akohl,
Remember that I listed two options:
[ol]
[li]A negotiated settlement in which Israel is convinced that those in charge of a Palestinian state are willing and able to provide reasonable levels of security. Or, if that is not possible, then-[/li][li]Unilateral disengagement and withdrawl behind a defensible fence whose borders are chosen primarly for defensiblitiy and secondarily for it coming as near internationally recognized margins as possible. Further negotiations over final borders to be left as an open option whenever the terms in option one are met. One presumes that left with the issues of trying to build a country, the Palestinians would eventually realize that negotiation was in their best interests.[/li][/ol]
Of course if the first was achievable then, by definition, Israelis would be convinced that security would improve. If the second option is needed then, yes, withdrawl behind a defensible fence would improve security and allow for a cooling down period. And analysis of recent events show that to be true. This from Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
It would be a very imperfect solution for all involved, but there are only levels of imperfection to choose from.
Question for you – you appear to accept that it’s OK for the Palestinians to refuse to have Jewish citizens, when and if they achieve statehood. So, I suppose you apply the same standard to Israel and agree that in a future settlement all non-Jewish residents of Israel should be forced to move to the Palestinian side, right? …
… No, I didn’t think so. And I don’t think this is what should happen. But why the double standard? And why the total acceptance of Palestinian refusal to have Jews living in their part of the land?
To your actual question – What I would wish for is probably irrelevvant. What I see happening is Israel withdrawing to or near the Green Line. I would like the settlers to be given the option of staying under Palestinian rule, perhaps becoming Palestinian citizens, but most likely nobody will agree to that and we will see additional “disengagements” (assuming there isn’t really anybody on the Palestinian side capable of delivering a bilateral agreement any time soon).
Sal Ammoniac I suspect the figure of 2.7 children per Jewish woman may not include some of the Ultra-orthodox communities; many of those have more children than the Arab population. Regardless, it is a fact that about 25% of under-18s here are non-Jews; but I suspect that within this generation birthrates may well even out, so that is as high as the non-Jewish population can be expected to rise, percentage wise.
Add the fact that there is still a net immigration of Jews and that there is a net emmigration of non-Jews, and I think that the 20% non-Jews figure is likely to stay with us for the medium term at least. But only time will tell.
akohl – first off, pleased to meet you, where have you been? 
As to your assertion that withdrawal doesn’t work… I’d like to offer Lebanon as a counter-example. Since we finally extricated ourselves from there in 2001, it has remained almost completely quiet, except for the problems with Rajar and Shaba’a – and at least the Shaba’a Farms problem stems from the fact that it is territory held by Israel as having been captured from Syria, yet Lebanon claims it in a dispute with Syria… putting us in the middle.
Also, I think the latest missile attacks from Gaza have more to do with the elections (on both side of that fence) than with an ongoing situation; we’ll see in half a year or so.
Incidentally, I think we now have a representative sample of Israelis on the Board, ranging from me at Center-Left, through Alessan at Center-Right and on to akohl who, judging by the short paragraph I have seen from him/her, appears to be firmly Right-wing. Which is a good thing. Should be interesting though – you’ll probably get to see us bickering among ourselves; almost like we do in real life! 
No, I don’t accept it’s OK. I just assume it’s inevitable. (And I don’t think the Israeli settlers would even accept citizenship in a Palestinian state.)
No, because that is not inevitable – the Israelis already being accustomed to accommodating a minority of Arab citizens.
In other words, you don’t even pretend to expect the Palestinians to behave like human beings. Nice.
I expect they would, in a united binational state. But if they get a state all their own, after all these decades of strife and hatred and bitterness, I rather expect they will (and not unreasonably) expect the Israeli settlers of the West Bank to skeddadle exactly the same way those of the Gaza Strip did.
The document you quote is talking about the efficacy of a fence when our troops and communities are on both sides of the fence. I’m saying that defending yourself “from behind,” a border is harder than controlling an area within your borders.
So I’m saying that from a security point of view, a one state solution is better than disengagement, even if there is no political agreement.
Lebanon would be a counter-example to Jenin, as Noone Special points out. However, there are differences such as the fact that Lebanon is further away from our major urban centers. It’s not so easy to walk from Lebanon to the downtown area of an Israeli city.
[/list]
Isn’t this a good reason to unban him? I never really understood why he was banned in the first place. If you really want an arab perspective on world affairs, then perhaps you should actually allow them to give their ‘real’ opinions, and accept that their POV will not always [or even often] coincide with that of non-Muslims.