As I noted in my original post, I’m not arguing about the relative moral standing of the various parties to the dispute (one side or the other as a right to exist as an independent state on its own territory because it represents a more desirable political and social arrangement) but from a strictly practical standpoint.
30 years ago it was not uncommon to meet Israeli Jews who were convinced that the Palestinians would eventually realize that they were much better off living under a reasonably efficient and humane Israeli occupation than under the inefficient and inhumane alternatives which were the likely results of self-rule.
We’ve seen how that theory works out.
This of course is the conundrum of “national liberation” movements, as noted in the responses to my post they are often poorly ruled once they achieve “self-government”, in large part because revolutionaries make poor peacetime leaders and ideologues make poor managers, and the result is by most “objective” standards life is often worse than under colonial rule.
But that doesn’t change the fact that since around 1960 the chaos of self-determination has been generally perceived as more legitimate than the stability of colonial rule, and I can’t see any reason why that’s likely to change in the near future - even if we reach the point where some sort of international stewardship of failed states becomes the norm I think will almost certainly be exercised via local leadership was substantial autonomy rather than administration directly supervised by non-citizens of the country in question.
As for the ebb and flow of local authority I think the time frame of Israel’s establishment is very significant: IMO there’s a possibility that had “Israel” been established immediately post-World War I it might have been able to attain “legitimacy”, equally clearly it could not have been established at all on anything like its current terms after about 1960. These are the time frames that matter politically in the 21st century, everything prior to 1945 is essentially irrelevant to the current situation except as “historical underlying factors” not immediately relevant to possible current solutions.
Given this situation, I’m deeply pessimistic about the possibility for Israel’s survival, not only as a political entity but literally in terms of the survival of the population.
One of the ironies of Israel - a state to design to ensure the safety of Jews - is that it is increasingly becoming one of the most dangerous places to be a Jew - essentially Israel has achieved the compaction of a substantial portion of the world’s Jewish population into a very compact “target set”, and I think we can be virtually certain that for example their people the ISI who dream of diverting Pakistani devices to third-party actors. It takes only three modest sized nuclear weapons to decimate the civilian population of Israel - and while the death of 20 or 30 million Muslims in the inevitable retaliatory strikes may be deterable in the case of state actors, it’s clearly an attractive exchange to be some Islamic militants.
This is longer-term the problem with envisioning Israel as a successful garrison state - how you garrison against the possibility of a small handful of nuclear weapons being smuggled into your country as part of a really professional operation run by a competent foreign intelligence service?
The answer is, perhaps you can’t.
So when I look at the alternatives, they don’t seem very attractive: 1) you have a highly unlikely resolution via a two state solution policed (or enforced) by external actors (it’s essentially impossible to negotiate an agreement between two parties one of whom has nothing to lose and one of whom has everything to lose), or 2) you have the gradual moral degradation of Israel into a country that must contemplate the imprisonment or explosion of a large number of its own citizens as well as possible ethnic cleansing in its expanding security zones, or 3) you have a second great modern Jewish Holocaust and the attendant retaliation.
To me the way this seems most likely play out as:
Israel’s international support drops lower and lower in response to the steps a majority of Israeli citizens feel are equired to preserve their political and territorial sovereignty, until eventually Israel is faced declining markets for its exports and perhaps declining American aid.
Life becomes increasingly economically difficult for most Israeli citizens and Israel begins to divide into two camps: one of them fiercely determined to preserve Jewish political authority in Israel at any cost, and one which increasingly sees little future for their children under such conditions.
Emigration by the latter group starts to increase, led by young Israelis who move abroad for better educational and economic opportunities and at some point reaches a tipping point - many initially intend to return to Israel on a permanent basis, but fewer and fewer actually do so.
The United States becomes the primary destination of Israeli emigrants, and at some point the balance of Jewish political influence in United States tips away from unconditional support of Israel as the sole American commitment and increasingly and toward facilitating immigration of Israeli Jews into the United States to join those already resident here.
At some point this will become an extremely contentious political issue within Israel, which will probably be resolved in favor of those who wish to remain, economically disadvantaging those who continue to leave, which in turn creates a greater and greater division of international Jewish opinion into two camps, and which further reduces international support for additional steps seen by the remaining Israelis as necessary to provide security.
As the demographics of Israel change, the secular nationalists and the more nationalistic religious parties increasingly come to dominate Israeli policy, this evokes increasing nationalism and militancy in most surrounding states.
By this time I suppose the rest of the world is going to be pretty much entirely in a “pox on both your houses” state of mind with regard to both the Israelis and the “Palestinians” - who may well have been ejected by this time into neighboring countries against the wishes of both the Palestinians and their new hosts - and I wouldn’t even try and predict what happens from that point forward, except that the good alternatives are not pretty and the bad alternatives are pretty horrific.
Finally, what makes you think that I am safer than relatives in Israel. Do you think the Jihadis don't want to nuke NY?
The solution is not to give them power, but to stop them developing nuclear weapons at all costs. And you do realise that almost every country in Europe will be Muslim in a century if nothing is done?
If Israel was established right after the WWI, she would have easier time.
I agree. The reason is that Politically Correct fuzziness did not settle back then. One of the reasons the conflict between Israel and Arabs was not settled is that Israel was denied victory. After the war a winning side dictates conditions of the peace, and the loser have to accept it. It never happened to Arabs. They were protected by UN and Soviets and acquiescing West. They were allowed their famous 3 nos: no peace, no negotiations and no recognition of Israel - and they maintained the fantasy that it was them who won.
In the more basic world it would not had happened. Arabs would had been forced to live with the reality of Israel, and - shudder even to consider it - would have benefited by latching on its progress moving train out of the misery.
Everything you said is true.
“A pox on both your houses” is fine with me if it means that we are ignored as just another barbaric third world hellhole that no one cares about. Then we have a chance of surviving & securing Israel without the powers breathing down our necks. The Jews who can’t bear to live in such a place can support us from afar & then come back when it’s better.
You are quite right that it ultimately depends on the Israeli Jews, and it does seems that since Zionism is a product of “socialism” of the 19th Century. that they have always been torn by the need to fight the “natives.” My own thought is that the Israelis lost their last real chance in their blundering war in 2006.
“By this time I suppose the rest of the world is going to be pretty much entirely in a “pox on both your houses” state of mind with regard to both the Israelis and the “Palestinians” - who may well have been ejected by this time into neighboring countries against the wishes of both the Palestinians and their new hosts - and I wouldn’t even try and predict what happens from that point forward, except that the good alternatives are not pretty and the bad alternatives are pretty horrific.”
Welll, then by the picture you paint of Israel’s future, Israeli’s should just give up. The game is over after all, according to you, no matter how the Israeli’s play it. The ending is destruction regardless of the route they take. If I were an Israeli, then my mind would be made up as to what to do. I would fight with all my might to the very bitter end, if it is to be a bitter end.
Like the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, I would do whatever I could to maintain my life and that of my fellow Jews. I would be a Jewish Spartan. And I think that Netanyahur and Leiberman would become my fearless leaders, not negatives, as in your mind, for the Jewish state. Capitulation would not be in my lexicon nor in my soul. If I were younger, and a Jew, I would move to Israel and fight in their armed forces based on the principle of the right to exist against all odds. You can think and think and think all you want, I would want to do, do anything I could to preserve my people and my way of life, and the existence of the only state I was ever allowed to have other than in biblical times, in this upside down world where more and more good is bad, and bad is good. I am delighted that Bibi is now PM, and that Leiberman, if he keeps up with what he is currently saying, is FM.
By the way, yes Lieberman knows the Pali’s (in particular, Hamas) will not be able to live up to the Oslo Accords, and therefore making them stick to it means no concessions on Israel’s part for a two-party state. That is the Pali’s fault isn’t it, for not living up to the Oslo Accords. They could have their damn state if they live up to the Accords. But they won’t, and any sane person knows this. Thus Lieberman is a realist, and has the potential for being an excellent politician to boot. He’s got the Pali’s in a box. Live up to the Accords, or forget about a State of your own. Ball in Pali’s court. Of course we know though that the U.S. (lead by the Muslim Obama), and the anti-semitic EU, will rail against this Israeli policy,which is funny when you think about it, as all of them were pushing for the terms of the Oslo Accords, but what else would one expect of the EU and a new socialist country (the USSA) led by Obama? Makes George Bush and his basic “hands off Israel” policy look pretty good right about now. (With the exception of Condi Rice who was taken in, just like Colin Powell before her, by the Pali propaganda). I think this was because they were both Black and saw the Pali’s as the underdogs being oppressed by their Israeli slave masters, a portrait I’m sure the Pali’s played up to them.
What I want is a world where the truth is spoken, not the fantasy, the faux ideal, not the theories over the practicalities, not the propagandists’ ruminations, not the outright lies, or the sly inferences. Or the blatant omissions of fact which the MSM in this country are experts at. Lieberman’s speech to truth is a good step in the right direction. Let the rest of the world lie through their teeth, Israel can’t afford that luxury.