Will Israel survive? That question hasn’t really been asked since 1967. Then, a far weaker Israel was surrounded on all sides by Arab dictatorships that were equipped with sophisticated weapons from their nuclear patron, the Soviet Union. But now, things are far worse for the Jewish state.
Egyptian mobs just tried to storm the Israeli embassy in Cairo and kill any Israelis they could get their hands on. Whatever Egyptian government emerges, it will be more Islamist than before — and may renounce the peace accords with Israel.
Advertisement
One thing unites Syrian and Libyan dissidents: They seem to hate Israel as much as the murderous dictators whom they have been trying to throw out.
The so-called Arab Spring was supposed to usher in Arab self-introspection about why intolerant strongmen keep sprouting up in the Middle East. Post-revolutionary critics could freely examine self-inflicted Arab wounds, such as tribalism, religious intolerance, authoritarianism, endemic corruption, closed economies, and gender apartheid.
But so far, “revolutionaries” sound a lot more like reactionaries. They are more often retreating to the tired conspiracies that the Israelis and Americans pushed onto innocent Arab publics homegrown, corrupt madmen such as Bashar Assad, Moammar Qaddafi, and Hosni Mubarak.
In 1967, the more powerful periphery of the Middle East — the Shah’s Iran, Kemalist Turkey, a military-run Pakistan, and the Gulf monarchies — was mostly uninvolved in the Israeli-Arab frontline fighting.
Not now. A soon-to-be-nuclear Iran serially promises to destroy Israel. The Erdogan government in Turkey brags about its Ottoman Islamist past — and wants to provoke Israel into an eastern-Mediterranean shooting war. Pakistan is the world’s leading host and exporter of jihadists obsessed with destroying Israel. The oil-rich Gulf states use their vast petroleum wealth and clout to line up oil importers against Israel. The 21st-century United Nations is a de facto enemy of the Jewish state.
Meanwhile, the West is nearly bankrupt. The European Union is on the brink of dissolving, its population shrinking amid growing numbers of Islamic immigrants.
America is $16 trillion in debt. We are tired of three wars. The Obama administration initially thought putting a little light between Israel and the United States might coax Arab countries into negotiating a peace. That new American triangulation certainly has given a far more confident Muslim world more hope — but it is hope that just maybe the United States cannot or will not come to Israel’s aid if Muslim states ratchet up the tension.
It is trendy to blame Israeli intransigence for all these bleak developments. But to do so is simply to forget history. There were three Arab efforts to destroy Israel before it occupied any borderlands after its victory in 1967. Later, it gave back all of Sinai and yet now faces a hostile Egypt. It got out of Lebanon — and Hezbollah crowed that Israel was weakening, as that terrorist organization moved in and stockpiled thousands of missiles pointed at Tel Aviv. Israel got out of Gaza and earned as thanks both rocket showers and a terrorist Hamas government sworn to destroy the Jewish state.
The Arab Middle East damns Israel for not granting a “right of return” to Palestinians who have not lived there in nearly 70 years. But it keeps embarrassed silence about the more than half-million Jews whom Arab dictatorships much later ethnically cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus, and Cairo, and sent back into Israel. On cue, the Palestinian ambassador to the United States again brags that there will be no Jews allowed in his newly envisioned and American-subsidized Palestinian state — a boast with eerie historical parallels.
By now we know both what will start and what will deter yet another conflict in the Middle East. In the past, wars broke out when the Arab states thought they could win them and stopped when they realized they could not.
But now a new array of factors — ever more Islamist enemies of Israel such as Turkey and Iran, ever more likelihood of frontline Arab Islamist governments, ever more fear of Islamic terrorism, ever more unabashed anti-Semitism, ever more petrodollars flowing into the Middle East, ever more prospects of nuclear Islamist states, and ever more indifference by Europe and the United States — has probably convinced Israel’s enemies that finally they can win what they could not in 1947, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, and 2006.
So brace yourself. The next war against Israel is no longer a matter of if — only when. And it will be far more deadly than any we’ve witnessed in quite some time.
My original comment was going to be "Can America recover from the Obama presidency?". It would be more correct to ask what kind of world will survive the Obama Presidency.
Israel, founded by the most powerful western interests as a sop to our guilt, is the canary in the coal mine of our civilization. The immediate question is "Can Israel Survive?"; Hanson's trenchant analysis and conclusion that it cannot has to merit serious consideration. The deeper question is "Can Western Civilization Survive?" One doubts it. A civilization that cannot protect Israel, which would be a very simple thing to do if we had the will, is unlikely to maintain its own security at a much greater cost.
Actually, Israel did quite well for a millenia, blsdaniel, before it got ransacked in a thing called the Crusades.
But to treat Israel as the guilty party when it has done everything to achieve peace is akin to believing that the United States does not have a spending problem.
Of course, if there was guilt that created Israel, then the state could have been created anywhere. However, there is more historical proof that Israel was located right in the Middle East being discovered everyday, which is probably why the "Palestinians" and other Arabs don't want the Jews to be exploring in the backyard much.
The Israelis have a much grander and richer history in the Middle East than you realize. This does not require one to consult the Bible, which places Israel right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. No, the Jewish archeologists, historians, and other scholarly figures have been making discovery after discovery about the history of the Jews in that land.
The Israelis didn't just point their finger on a map and say, "Middle East it is!" They had to prove that there was a historical connection between them and the land they sought in the Middle East, which everyone properly recognized, until 1967. Now, everything is muddled and muddle only helps those who seek to destroy the Jewish state.
I think I'm generally familiar with the highlights from around 1400 BC till now. I don't know all the latest vis a vis archaeology, but I do know that there is a lot of disagreement among them about just how grand their history was, at least in the BC. But at lease from 1200 BC on, I think everyone agrees that that have been Jews in Israel / Palestine.
And to whom did they "prove" this historical connection? I'm not saying there isn't one, I just never realized that selecting the Holy Lands as their emigration target involved proving this connection.
But in order to help you dispell the muddle, I hereby stipulate that there have always been Jews in Israel / Paletine since at least 1200 BC, and possibly 1400 BC, with a small, tribal pressence even before that.
I further stipulate that, inside and outside of Israel / Palestine, Jewish history has been rich and vibrant.
"And to whom did they "prove" this historical connection? I'm not saying there isn't one, I just never realized that selecting the Holy Lands as their emigration target involved proving this connection."
Again with this Holy land carp. Why is it that only the Middle East is described as "holy land"? What exactly did they do to deserve this honor other than that they themselves (as in Muslims) have said it?
As for how they have proven the historical connection to Israel, try starting here:
YOU: As for how they have proven the historical connection to Israel...
ME: HOW was never of interest to me, as I am familiar with the proofs. i asked TO WHOM did they "have prove that there was a historical connection between them and the land" to?
YOU: Again with this Holy land carp. Why is it that only the Middle East is described as "holy land"? What exactly did they do to deserve this honor other than that they themselves (as in Muslims) have said it?
ME: Lots of other places can be called holy land, but "the Hold Lands", at least in English, pretty much means Israel / Palestine / Canaan / Whatever. I've always thought it a pretty neutral word. You make it sound as if it's biased somehow to Muslims.
"HOW was never of interest to me, as I am familiar with the proofs. i asked TO WHOM did they "have prove that there was a historical connection between them and the land" to?"
Israel had to prove its existence in the Middle East since its inception in 1947. It has also had to continuously raise this proof throughout its existence. When an entity questions "your right to exist" and wants you wiped out, then you have to constantly prove to that side why you need ot be there.
"Lots of other places can be called holy land, but "the Hold Lands", at least in English, pretty much means Israel / Palestine / Canaan / Whatever. I've always thought it a pretty neutral word. You make it sound as if it's biased somehow to Muslims."
That's because it has become a biased word to Muslims. When was the last time you heard anyone call Israel holy?
YOU: Israel had to prove its existence in the Middle East since its inception in 1947.
ME: Again, the question is TO WHOM did they HAVE to prove it? The UN? I really don't think that that was a big part of what motivated members to vote.
And if they HAD to prove it, what would have been the consequce of failing? Would the UN have voted against partition if they thought, for some bizarre reason, that there hand't been Jews in the area continuously?
YOU: "Lots of other places can be called holy land, but "the Hold Lands", at least in English, pretty much means Israel / Palestine / Canaan / Whatever. I've always thought it a pretty neutral word. You make it sound as if it's biased somehow to Muslims."
That's because it has become a biased word to Muslims. When was the last time you heard anyone call Israel holy?
ME: Doesn't apply to me. I grew up in a Christian home (son of retired missionaries, though never on the field myself), and there Israel was often refered to as "the Holy Lands". I really don't think that using that term implies bias in favor of Muslims.
Is Israel trying to gain a majority of the Middle East? Did not the Jews give back lands they won after the six day war in 1967? Did not the Jews give back the Gaza Strip in 2005?
The Israelis have done far more than any country EVER would, yet they are still being blamed for the problems of the Middle East from supposed "partners" in Turkey and Jordan or being reduced to equivalent mush by a mealy-mouthed President who would just as soon be taken more seriously if he appointed Rashid Khalidi as ambassador to Israel than he would be by pretending to be a friend of Israel.
Tell me, what exactly have the Palestinians given up (who, by the way, was absolutely created by guilt and grievance) to attain peace?
As I was talking about Israel and not the Middle East in general, I thought that it was clear that I was asking whether or not you thought that the Jews were a majority (and had a state) in Israel, not in the whole of the Middle East.
The population percentages of Israel / Palestine fluctuated wildly over the years, but I didn't think that the Jews were the majority anytime between about 150 AD and 1948 AD. But I could be wrong.
I'm all but positive they didn't have their own state in the above interim.
I'm quite positive a Jewish state existed from 1948 on.
That's the question I and the author of the original post in this thread were saying.
As for the always-blame-Israel choir, your condemnation of them is just. But I don't think that the original poster to this thread is among them, and I know I'm not.
"Are you saying that they were the majority of the area and had a state, because that was what was being discussed."
That is the answer you posted originally and responded accordingly. Your point was vague enough that it could have been interpreted either way.
As to your point about Israel's population, yes it has fluctuated, but that would be because they have always had external conflicts which disrupted its growth. That is not the issue here anymore: The majority of Israel NOW is Jewish and that happened primarily through recent events such as ethnic cleansing of Jews in the area.
"As for the always-blame-Israel choir, your condemnation of them is just. But I don't think that the original poster to this thread is among them, and I know I'm not."
You are the type of individual (based on what I am reading) that is always circumspect in your writing so that it can be interpreted either way. That's why I don't form opinions of you just based on one post, but through the myriad posts you write. I would be pretty certain that I can put you in the "Blame Israel" camp just based on what you have written here.
YOU: I would be pretty certain that I can put you in the "Blame Israel" camp just based on what you have written here.
ME: Hmmm. Let us proceed just as you suggest, and see, if from just what I have written here, I am in "always blame Israel" choir.
There are now five pages of comments here.
PAGE ONE:
* No comments.
PAGE TWO:
* A misplaced duplicates of a post that was supposed to be a response to you.
* An apology for the misplaced post
* My claim that the radical settlers, with their attempts to bring all of the WB into Israel proper were the main existential threat Israel faced, as that would ultimately wind up bringing in those non-Jews living there, of whom there are enough to threaten Israel's Jewish majority.
PAGE THREE:
* A question to Donna Diorio what "far better" the Palestinians deserve (one state solution, two state solution, etc.)
* That triggered a conversation about whether or not Jordan is the Palestinian homeland, with someone who thought it was a crazy idea at this point (and I saying that it was a crazy idea at any point)
* Me saying that holding the Dome of the Rock hostage was a bad idea, unless you WANT to make Israel look bad / worse
*
PAGE FOUR:
* Me mocking VDH for being a chicken little.
* Me explaining why Israel's existence is much more secure than VDH makes it sound, even while terrorism presents a threat to individuals, and admitting the limited danger of an Iranian nuke. Money Quote: In the past, the Arab countries have decided to teach Israel that the only way to get them to leave Israel alone is for Israel get tough. And Israel has proved itself to be an apt pupil. Ask any country that decided to push the envelope. Is it just me, or does that sound more like blaming the Arabs?
* My claiming that what VDH presented wasn't the most likely situation but a worst case scenario. I also repeated that I (and VDH) was talking about Israel's SURVIVAL, not the terrorist danger to individual Israelis. Also, I defended the need for there to be a security barrier between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I even said that the barrier NEEDED to cut into the West Bank (i.e., and not fallow the Green Line the whole ways. Finally, I asked if the author could back up his claim that "Death to Israel" is chanted at every Friday prayer in Iran, as he claimed.
* Another explaining why Israel's existence is safe.
* Another explaining that my (and VDH's) focus was on Israel's survival, not that of places like Sderot, which is, admittedly, under major attack.
* This thread gets under way. A lot of it is kind of silly, with us talking past each other. I did make the claim that Europe's guilt over the holocaust was one cause of their (and a lot of other people's) support for creating Israel in 1948.
PAGE FIVE:
* More of us discussing when there was and wasn't a state of Israel, when the Jews were and weren't the majority, etc. That just kind of petered out, and then you got a bee in your bonnet about, of all things, me calling them "the Holy Lands". Sorry if that's offensive. I grew up in (a very pro-Israel) church hearing them called that. If it means so much to you, what should I call it?
OK, that's this set of threads. What else have I said that would put me in the blame-Israel choir?
I've said that it's hard to see any other people reacting much differently than the Palestinians did vis a vis the Partition (and quote Ze'ev Jabotinsky to the same effect).
When someone said Israel has done everything they could do peace-wise, I said they hadn't, but that they had come closer than the other side.
I have said that Israel expelled some of Palestinians directly (i.e., kick 'em out of the village, burn it to the ground, etc.). I've also said that most left pseudo-willingly, thinking that they could come back later, and that Israel blocked their return.
I've indicated that it was unknown what the Arabs would have done if they had won any of the wars, though it probably would have been worse, at least in the short to medium run, than what did wind up happening.
I've said that Obama should veto the Palestinians at the Security Council, but if they had tried negotiations under Obama and Israel had not made a fair offer (one for one land swaps, sovereignty over the Dome of the Rock but NOT the Wailing Wall, sovereignty over most of the Arab neighborhoods in East Jeruslaem, etc.), THEN I would have backed UN recognition.
IF THIS BE PARTAKING IN THE BLAME-ISRAEL CHOIR, MAKE THE MOST OF IT!!!
