"the end of israel as we know it."

i believe this is going to be the era of:
"the end of many things as we knew/thought them to be."

Germany immorally took on the whole world at least in the hope of acquiring badly needed (anyway) farmland and access to mineral and fossil fuel resources. Israel (I thought Jews were smart) is taking on the whole world (the whole militant Islamic world at least) for what: living space, literal meaning; extra room to put up real estate developments?

The most militant Israeli settlers could not live happily in Israel "proper" if it were not an official Jewish state -- overwhelmingly Jewish population would not be enough to satisfy. In the West Bank, even if half of Israel's population unaccountably moved into the one-fifth more land that the West Bank represents, Palestinians would outnumber Jews two to one even even before their higher birth rates grows their advantage. In reality the settlers must always remain a very small minority. For this they are willing to take on eternal war?

Oh, and if Israel ever gets around to using any of those nuclear weapons it may add a (Arab?) holocaust on its currently shameful resume. Nice! Maybe its time for Israel to get out of its adolescence and finally grow up.

The fact is that the worst-case scenario for Israel is to withdraw to the 67 borders. If maintaining control of the West Bank becomes untenable, they can always unilaterally withdraw. It wouldn't be perfect or even pretty, but for Israel even that would be preferable to a one-state solution. Of course, that is the whole point of advancing the one-state solution. It's not that the Palestinians actually believe it could happen, but the threat of it might make Israel withdraw.

The fact is that the worst-case scenario for Israel is to withdraw to the 67 borders.

Yup. This is where the facts get in the way of Walt's fantasy of a one-state solution. The legal precedence for a two-state solution within the construct of international agreements via the UN is so strong, that any expert claiming a 2 to 4 year window until its a one-state solution sounds like an expert hoping to get rid of Israel (de facto from a one-state solution), not one taking a cold look at the facts.

It's been obvious for years that Israel's choices are ethnic cleansing, apartheid, or a one-state solution.

It's now obvious to anyone who has eyes to see that they are psyching themselves up for the first or second options, rather than the third.

Within the last couple of months, we've had the Gaza massacre and the move to take the Arab parties off the ballot - a little from column A, a little from column B.

These latest election results are a further retreat in that direction, rather than an advance toward any outcome that doesn't involve a human rights catastrophe.

Right to vote? Are you kidding me? If the Israelis won't even give them land to live on and water to drink what makes you think they'll give them the right to vote? They'll sooner begin slaughtering.

The US will argue it the same way the have so far: by avoiding it. Democracy? Oh, yes, but what about the rockets? Please stop the rockets, then we'll think about letting you live with dignity. Voting rights? Yes, of course sir, right after you convert to Judaism.

It's facile to say "Israel can always withdraw to the '67 borders," for the reason that Walt makes clear in his article: there are Israelis living outside those borders now who weren't living there in 1967. The more the settlements expand, the less likely it becomes that they will be entirely dispersed, which is what it would require to return to '67. Israel is closing off that option for itself.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY TOO LATE FOR A TWO STATE SOLUTION. Get over it, it will NEVER happen. Just look at the Israeli elections... Nothing will ever change. Get over it.

ONE STATE with full voting rights is what the only moral thing to do is.

And that state will be knows as Palestine to everyone in the world except Israel.

One of the tragic aspects of Jewish history is that there have always been some Jews promoting the agenda of those who have set themselves up as enemies of the Jews. This website has become home to a motley crew of assorted Israel bashers, holocaust deniers, and just plain hard workin' Jew haters, while its proprietor basks in praise for being "open minded."

I agree with similarly anonymous here. There's no way Israel is going to give the Palestinians voting rights. Doing number games is meaningless. A one state solution is just not on the table, at least not in this generation. Ethnic cleansing and apartheid (not to mention stripping Arab citizens of their citizenship) will happen much sooner.

Facts on the ground. You might get a parody of the two-state solution based upon land-swaps and forced migration, but that's a face-saving means to an end, which involves shoving Gaza off to Egypt and the remnants of the West Bank to Jordan, which satisfies Israelis of all stripes who just want the Palestinians to go away.

The problem that Israel really doesn't want to contemplate is integrating people like Avigdor Lieberman (who, let's remember, lives over the Green Line in the West Bank) into civil society, but that's already happening in a weird way. The settlers that Tel Aviv Israelis don't want living anywhere near them are gradually becoming the voters that make or break the government.

What about incorporating the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, respectively? I certainly don't like this solution, and nothing suggests right now that Egypt and Jordan would even be interested. But if you're positing a world in which the 2-state solution is off the table, isn't it at least as palatable as the 3 options Walt mentions? To the point, that is, that it must at least be given consideration?

To the point, that is, that it must at least be given consideration?

It's clearly hovering in the background, given that it's the one with lots and lots of historical precedents where the integrity of one nation-state is deemed to rely upon the exclusion and dispersal of other claimants to nation-statehood. There are plenty of Kurds who can talk about that.

That doesn't mean it's something the US should touch with a ten-foot pole as a negotiating position.

These are some great points pseudonymous in nc makes.

However, I don't think there's an issue of integrating people like Avigdor Lieberman. I think he's not that far off from Likud or, for that matter, from where the consensus of Israeli public opinion is. He's just the one to say it out loud.

I think if you look at public opinion polls regarding the status of Israeli Arabs and look at the wall-to-wall consensus on banning the Israeli Arab parties (the labor party voted for it too!) you'll see that his opinions are not that far out of the mainstream. The distinction between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv and the settlers is more along the line of the secular-religious rift lines, not so much the left-right axis.

And if anything, Tel Aviv itself is not representative of the country as a whole. In Tel Aviv, the Meretz-Labor-Kadima block got 57% as opposed to the national 36%

(Data from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061917.html)

That link should have been

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061917.html

That doesn't mean it's something the US should touch with a ten-foot pole as a negotiating position.

Absolutely agreed on that point.

One of the tragic aspects of World history is that there has always been some nationalist ideology that has morphed into a racist and bigoted evil.

Ezra, you are not an anti-Semite, and of course one can criticize Israeli policy without being an anti-Semite, but the reader comments on your blog tend to be, disturbingly, either anti-Semitic or grossly separated from reality. This post alone has enough examples, but this type of comment has been recurrent.

Denis Drew: "I thought Jews were smart," a comparison to Nazi Germany, wild speculation about Israel committing mass murder.

similarly anonymous: describing Israel's actions as "ethnic cleansing."

anonymous 12:48: "they'll sooner begin slaughtering."

eran: "Ethnic cleansing... will happen much sooner"

Whether or not you feel that Israel's actions are, on balance, morally justified, there is no way that anything they have done can be considered ethnic cleansing or mass murder. Ezra, I strongly encourage you to make a statement along those lines--even though you disagree with Israel's policies, and even though you feel that they have crossed moral boundaries, the Middle East situation has created difficult moral dilemmas and complex questions, and describing Israel as genocidal takes away from real instances of genocide that are occurring in the world today.

tomemos:
Israel can still withdraw even if its difficult. As hard as that would be, it would still be easier than for Israel to accept the one-state solution

John, I appreciate your intentions, but you seem to confuse genocide and ethnic cleansing, which are very different.

Speaking only for myself, I didn't claim that Israel's current actions are tantamount to ethnic cleansing. What I did say is that in the current political culture in Israel, I find the option of ethnic cleansing (in the form of land swaps / forced migration or just by making living conditions unbearable) more likely than a one state solution with equal rights to all. I don't know how closely you follow Israeli politics, but the idea of "transfer" is deeply rooted in Israeli politics and if you want to give it a different name that's OK with me.

As for past Israeli actions, there's a strong case to be made that in 1948 Israel did perpetrate ethnic cleansing:
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm . It is not uniquely evil nor is it unheard of. Ethnic cleansing is a political phenomena that does happen in the reality I live in.

As for hurling accusations of antisemitism or separation from reality, I'd rather stay away from name calling. Feel free to argue issues on the merits.

Anonymous 4:25

Please help John "argue on the merits" this lovely quote:

I thought Jews were smart

Just because some people may over-react and call too much anti-Semitic doesn't mean that it never happens. In the spirit of fair conversation, we all need to call out what isn't fair conversation. Denis Drew's comment WAS antisemitic and would be good if everyone else called it as such. Let's see how fair minded you'll actually be, for starters.

There's one Anonymous here (darn it, people, give yourselves names!) who repeatedly alludes to Holocaust-deniers commenting here. In fact, that has never happened, and I would encourage him to cut it out.

But I agree that "I thought Jews were smart" is anti-Semitic.

Looking to the future, our major ally in the Middle East may well be Iraq rather than Israel. Iraq is increasingly developing a healthier and more vibrant democracy than Israel, although Iraq has a long way to go in relations between Arabs and Kurds. To that end we must start sharing the $billions we spend annually on foreign military aid for Israel, with Iraq. Iraq is also must less likely to use our foreign military assistance against Arabs, thus enabling the US to better promote democracy in Arab-majority countries.

Doesn't this all come down to two simple, brutal facts:

1) The state of Israel as a Jewish state is demographically unviable

2) The state of Israel is strategically unviable

The only way in which these facts will change involves either apartheid (which will fail in the course of time), or ethnic cleansing which will destroy Israel rather more rapidly.

Israel's claims are based, ultimately on two factors: Biblical authority for the right of Israel to exist where it does, and the "moral" legitimacy conveyed by the Holocaust and the need for a Jewish state to ensure that it never happens again. Once Israel goes down the path of ethnic cleansing, the Holocaust narrative will cease to be taken seriously as a source of legitimacy. The rest of the world is hardly likely to regard the Bible as a good warrant for ethnic cleansing either.

Can Israel ever be more than an exercise in romantic nationalism, doomed to failure over the course of time?

I'm pleased that though you asked me to withdraw the "holocaust denier" charge, you will allow the Israel basher and just plain hard workin' Jew hater charges to stand. I agree to this. Another "progressive" (!) website I visit has holocaust deniers galore. But they are not showing up here ... much.

Well, "over the course of time" is pretty vague, Malachi, and predictions over anything more than a 15- or 20-year timeframe are prone to error.

But if you read Walt's article, I'd say his only error in logic is that he's too optimistic. He says Israel will have to choose either 1. ethnic cleansing, 2. apartheid, or 3. the one-state solution. Seems to me they're already in 2. apartheid (while pretending to move towards a 2-state solution which is always impossible for various reasons), and I see no clear reason why they should ever really be forced to admit the situation or to make a choice for any other option. The Palestinians can be repressed indefinitely; the deterioration of Israeli society is taking place over a timeframe of decades and is hard to forecast.

I lived in Jerusalem as a kid and am (or was) a Zionist, but I've had it.

Oops, just found a holocaust denier on this thread! D. Drew said Germany's motive was "access to needed mineral and fossil feuls" wtf? If they had not been supremely motivated by the desire to wipe out the Jews, they could have easily grabbed the fuels, and probably won the war. They devoted huge energy and resources to the project of murder, and so could not win. Re-casting their motivation is a way of denying who they were and what they were up to and therefore I say: holocaust denial.

I can understand why anonymous wishes to remain anonymous because no one would want their name associated with the lunatic proposition that Germany started WW2 because it was "supremely motivated by the desire to wipe out the Jews." If anyone here is in denial about the holocaust or WW2 it is anonymous.

brooksfoe, I agree that "over the course of time" is vague - but any attempt to be precise would be simply rhetoric at this point. I think the demographic reality is starkly clear, and the basic strategic reality is unlikely to change. Israel lacks the resources and population, not to mention the terrain, to survive permanently bad relations with its neighbors.
I agree with you that Israel is in an apartheid stage, and has been for a lot longer than anyone wants to admit. On your other thoughts: is Israeli society "deteriorating"? Or are we just seeing more clearly what was always there? And by deteriorating, do you mean a swing to the right? An openness to more or less fascist tactics and behavior?

One reason I see Israel as unlikely to last in the long-term is that their situation parallels the Frankish kingdoms established after the Crusades in many uncanny ways. Demographic decline, strategic isolation, dependence on remote powers that may ultimately decide that enough is enough. Those kingdoms lasted around 200 years, but fell in the end. Is Israel able to overcome demographic and strategic reality? It seems highly unlikely to me.

If they had not been supremely motivated by the desire to wipe out the Jews, they could have easily grabbed the fuels, and probably won the war. They devoted huge energy and resources to the project of murder, and so could not win.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2009 10:03 PM

Gibbering nonsense. Don't you read any history? If Germany lost, it was because they took on the Russians, and then decided to provoke America as well. Both powers had better industrial complexes, and yes, mineral resources. Germany lost because of bad strategy and limited resources, not the Holocaust.

As a confidence building measure and in order to reduce the overall anonymity of this thread I'm going to claim the 4:25 comment. Not sure why it showed up as anonymous.

And I think brooksfoe's point can't be emphasized enough. Israel can withstand staying in the current stalemate for a very long time. Nothing magical is going to happen when the number of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is going to exceed that of the Israeli Jews. Nothing magical is going to happen if its international status keeps declining unless heavy economic pressure is exerted. And if Israeli society hasn't reached its "end as we know it" after 40 years of occupation there's no reason to expect it'll reach it in the next 40 years.

eran

eran, so how do you plan to defeat demographic reality? What's your answer to the fact that the Arab population is expanding faster?

Malachi, as brooksfoe said, "The Palestinians can be repressed indefinitely" (kudos for the semicolon). Demographics have nothing to do with it. No one's going to give Palestinians voting rights.

On the one side you have a regional superpower with a nuclear arsenal and every weapons system known to mankind. On the other side you have people with guns and makeshift rockets.

If your point is that Israel is this island in the midst of a great Arab/Muslim region, the ratio has been the same for the past 60 years or so. I don't see the crusader scenario playing out anytime soon.

Eran, the problem with your assumptions is that:

1) The demographic shift will make repression harder, bloodier, less acceptable as time goes by. The population ratio is moving against Israel with every year - that's not stalemate, but a drawn-out defeat.

2) How do you repress the Palestinians within Israel? You can't simply deny them voting rights forever.

3) Israel is hardly a "superpower" in the region. It's essentially a well-armed client state, in a dreadful position, with a paymaster that is losing patience.

4) Israel has been lucky enough to enjoy relative Arab disunity over the last 20 odd years. It's unlikely that this condition will always obtain.

5) Western opinion is moving against Israel - and that will make the policy of repression more expensive as time goes by. If repression/apartheid is the only card Israel has, Israel is going to lose the game. 30 years ago, no-one could foresee that South Africa would end apartheid. Now consider the reality. Why should Israel be different?

And if Soviet society hasn't reached its "end as we know it" after 40 years of Communism there's no reason to expect it'll reach it in the next 40 years.

This probably sounded pretty true in 1959.

How do you repress the Palestinians within Israel? You can't simply deny them voting rights forever.

Well, no society exists *forever*. But you surely can deny a minority voting rights or any other kind of rights for centuries, at least. History demonstrates that amply.

The real problem for Israel is that they can't afford to become a *complete* pariah because they're dependent on outside military support (having pissed off pretty much every one of their neighbors). This restricts their actions to those which can at least be painted by a sympathetic media as not too atrocious, and/or swept under the rug.

P.S. If you bomb enough schools and hospitals under the pretext that there might have been a terrorist there, you can offset a birth rate gap quite effectively by raising the death rate. Recent events seem to indicate that Israelis have at least a working grasp of this ruthless proposition.

"I though Jews were smart."

Social reality check: Imagine what a scandal Mel Gibson would have caused had he gotten drunk and said (only) those words. Oooo.

Social reality check: When you are tickled, you feel vulnerable but you are really not vulnerable so you laugh. (A little more info: I figured this out while laughing hysterically as the urologist tickled his way down to my abs to my little ballsies.) I cannot even sift out the precise vulnerability component in the above tickle -- maybe my critics can help.

Calling me an anti-Semite is as irrational but not as SELF-DESTRUCTIVE as seeing Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general as avowed destroyers of Israel if they only could (couldn't as Israel has as many tanks on short notice, 3000, as the US Army had on active duty at the height of the cold war; went 90-0 against the Syrian Air Force last time out). Get past that adolescent hysteria and Israel has a chance to see the irrationality in cost/benefit terms of moving in on the people next door.

It's not about neighborhoods anymore, Moshe, after 2000 years of neighborhoods -- It's about countries now. You cannot just move in on the country next door -- that will guarantee you undying enmity and warfare until you move out. Undying enmity and warfare for what: cite me one thing found in the West Bank that Israel does not have at home.

Well, no society exists *forever*. But you surely can deny a minority voting rights or any other kind of rights for centuries, at least. History demonstrates that amply.

Posted by: Chris | February 12, 2009 9:50 AM

Name a specific, democratic society that has actually done this. History demonstrates nothing of the kind. Remember that national democracy is, at best, 2 centuries old, and in most cases, rather less than this. Your point actually proves the arguments to the contrary. South Africa failed to manage precisely this attempt, and apartheid is no more. How long did it take? Hardly centuries, and South Africa was in a rather more favorable strategic situation.
..............................

If you bomb enough schools and hospitals under the pretext that there might have been a terrorist there, you can offset a birth rate gap quite effectively by raising the death rate.

Posted by: Chris | February 12, 2009 9:50 AM

Not really. You won't do much to affect the overall demographic trend by relatively small-scale acts of murder. Ethnic cleansing is the only way Israel can change demographic reality, and I doubt you could find a single government willing to permit Israel to do so. Also, remember how Israel uses the Holocaust as one source of legitimacy. That's not a card they can afford to lose by ethnic cleansing.