Lifespan of Israel

ZeinElNour

If you think that the Israeli regime will live on forever, this thread is off topic for you.

For the rest of the world, what do you think?

1. How long will this experiment (the Israeli “state”, in its current format as for-Jews-only) continue to exist? Place your bets (metaphorically speaking)

A) 5 years
10 years
C) 15 years
D) 20 years
E) More than 20 years
F) Less than 5 years

2. What will be the main reason for its demise?

A) Internal fighting (Israeli)
Corruption
C) Arab countries’ invasion
D) Natural disaster
E) Demographics
F) Nuclear attack
G) Palestinian mega attack
H) Sell out (selling the state for the highest bidder)
I) Financial/economic collapse
J) Other




_____________

cavedave

in its current format as for-Jews-only

Do you have a reference for this? According to wikipedia Muslims make up 16.2% and Christians about 2% of the population.

O'Morris

Israel is a Jewish state for a Jewish people and it will still be a Jewish state in a hundred years from now. The Israelis are a proud and ethnocentric people and they will never let themselves become a minority in their own country.

wes

cavedave wrote: »

Do you have a reference for this? According to wikipedia Muslims make up 16.2% and Christians about 2% of the population.

The whole point of Israel is to be a Jewish state. There leaders refer to it as a Jewish state. There laws refer to it as a Jewish state. The leaders of Israel see the very existence of Palestinians as a demographic threat.

**FURTHER EDIT**

Palestinians harden refusal to accept a 'Jewish state'

Opposition from Palestinian leaders to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the "state of the Jews" intensified on Wednesday, threatening to derail the planned post-Annapolis attempt to renew substantive peace negotiations.

Click here for full story

I think the above article illistrates things nicely.

**EDIT**
As for the OP question. I can't possibly see the future, but hopefully the conflict will end soon, with either a single state for all people both Jews and Palestinians will eventually emerge or 2 viable states living side by side in peace and prosperity.

wes

O'Morris wrote: »

Israel is a Jewish state for a Jewish people and it will still be a Jewish state in a hundred years from now. The Israelis are a proud and ethnocentric people and they will never let themselves become a minority in their own country.

The funny thing is that not all Jews are the same race. Look up info on the Berber and the Khazar Jews.

El Stuntman

wes wrote: »

The whole point of Israel is to be a Jewish state. There leaders refer to it as a Jewish state. There laws refer to it as a Jewish state. The leaders of Israel see the very existence of Palestinians as a demographic threat.

well it does have quite a sizable Israeli Arab, Druze and Christian minority but that's somewhat beside the point, the OP's proferred potential reasons for the possible collapse of the State of Israel are ludicrous and border on delusional

Israel is here to stay, it needs to accomodate with the Palestinians (and the wider Arab world) and the Palestinians (and wider Arab world) need to accomodate with it. It's not going to self-destruct and it's not going to be overrun by invaders.

compromise, negotiation and non-violence, that's what's required from both sides

wes

El Stuntman wrote: »

well it does have quite a sizable Israeli Arab, Druze and Christian minority but that's somewhat beside the point, the OP's proferred potential reasons for the possible collapse of the State of Israel are ludicrous and border on delusional

While I agree that a collapse of Israel is unlikely, I still think the fact that the very existence of the Palestinian minority being seeing as a threat in Israel, shows that the likelihood of peace is pretty far away and that a South African style situation is very possible, if Israel continues on it current path, which they show every sign of doing.

El Stuntman

wes wrote: »

While I agree that a collapse of Israel is unlikely, I still think the fact that the very existence of the Palestinian minority being seeing as a threat in Israel, shows that the likelihood of peace is pretty far away and that a South African style situation is very possible, if Israel continues on it current path, which they show every sign of doing.

I'm not sure I agree that South Africa is a valid comparison as that was a single-state issue whereas the Israeli\Palestinian situation crosses international borders. Israel has retreated from Gaza and it would be most helpful if they would dismantle their settlements in the West Bank and get out of there too. Domestic political considerations make this most unlikely though.

It's an interesting time in the affairs of Israel and Palestine though - it will be fascinating to watch the evolution of the Obama administration's stance.

A further point on the South African comparison is that it was essentially international isolation and pressure that forced the apartheid state to dismantle itself. This pressure was for the most part concerted and orchestrated. You could maybe use the example of the Saddam regime in Iraq facing similar pressures. No such pressures exist on Israel - this is a very important point.

philologos

I think Israel will exist into the indefinite future, much longer than 20 years. Some alteration of regulations and political institutions may be required at some stage however.

wes

El Stuntman wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree that South Africa is a valid comparison as that was a single-state issue whereas the Israeli\Palestinian situation crosses international borders. Israel has retreated from Gaza and it would be most helpful if they would dismantle their settlements in the West Bank and get out of there too. Domestic political considerations make this most unlikely though.

Israel didn't really leave Gaza actually. They still control the borders, there air space and sea access. Its basically a giant open air prison. As for the West Bank, it is defacto part of Israel as long as there are colonies there. I think South Africa is a valid comparison, as the Palestinian areas are basically Israels version of Bantustan's.

As long as Israel builds more colonies, the harder it is for them to try and pretend that they haven't annexed the West Bank for all intents and purposes. Right now there current system give them excuse to engage in there racist policies under the guise that the West Bank isn't Israel, unless they want to use the land for colonies than suddenly it is Israel.

El Stuntman wrote: »

It's an interesting time in the affairs of Israel and Palestine though - it will be fascinating to watch the evolution of the Obama administration's stance.

Well, there is not much hope there considering the US government fully supported the most recent atrocities in Gaza.

El Stuntman wrote: »

A further point on the South African comparison is that it was essentially international isolation and pressure that forced the apartheid state to dismantle itself. This pressure was for the most part concerted and orchestrated. You could maybe use the example of the Saddam regime in Iraq facing similar pressures. No such pressures exist on Israel - this is a very important point.

True enough, but you do realize that Apartheid South Africa enjoyed good relations with the world for years, before the boycott movement started having effect? The same could eventually happen to Israel and I think the longer they try and steal more of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the more likely this becomes.

El Stuntman

wes wrote: »

Israel didn't really leave Gaza actually. They still control the borders, there air space and sea access. Its basically a giant open air prison.

granted, it's hardly a 'normal' state. Hamas is hardly a 'normal' government either though, for all its faults Fatah would be a better bet for Gazans in terms of achieving something concrete at the negotiating table (as they will never achieve anything by rocket attacks, suicide bombings etc.)

wes wrote: »

As for the West Bank, it is defacto part of Israel as long as there are colonies there. I think South Africa is a valid comparison, as the Palestinian areas are basically Israels version of Bantustan's.

As long as Israel builds more colonies, the harder it is for them to try and pretend that they haven't annexed the West Bank for all intents and purposes. Right now there current system give them excuse to engage in there racist policies under the guise that the West Bank isn't Israel, unless they want to use the land for colonies than suddenly it is Israel.

I agree with you here, the colonies are a obstacle on the way to peace and should be removed. There is no economic or military reason for sustaining them - it costs Israel large amounts of money and manpower to protect them, it's purely political. The settlers should be removed - by force if necessary.

wes wrote: »

Well, there is not much hope there considering the US government fully supported the most recent atrocities in Gaza.

let's be fair, the most recent Gazan conflict started when Bush was still in power and ended before Obama took power on 20 January.

I hope we will see a much more constructive approach from his administration

wes wrote: »

True enough, but you do realize that Apartheid South Africa enjoyed good relations with the world for years, before the boycott movement started having effect? The same could eventually happen to Israel and I think the longer they try and steal more of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the more likely this becomes.

wishful thinking I'm afraid Wes. The simple fact in the Israeli\Palestinian face-off is that Israel holds all of the aces.

wes

El Stuntman wrote: »

granted, it's hardly a 'normal' state. Hamas is hardly a 'normal' government either though, for all its faults Fatah would be a better bet for Gazans in terms of achieving something concrete at the negotiating table (as they will never achieve anything by rocket attacks, suicide bombings etc.)

Well, Fatah haven't achieved anything by talking either. I think both parties are no good and have not been fit for purpose either way.

The sad thing for the Palestinians is that violence, talking and peaceful resistance have all failed to bring them any tangible results. All of that the above has failed completely.

The only thing at this point that will do so is outside pressure.

El Stuntman wrote: »

I agree with you here, the colonies are a obstacle on the way to peace and should be removed. There is no economic or military reason for sustaining them - it costs Israel large amounts of money and manpower to protect them, it's purely political. The settlers should be removed - by force if necessary.

The problem here is that Israel doesn't seem to want to remove them. Also, there are half a million colonist there now. If Israel doesn't stop soon (and its look very unlikely that they will), this number will continue to grow. I honestly think they will have a hard time removing half a million colonists. What happens when there is twice that number? I think the 2 state solution is dieing as we speak and some already consider it dead and buried by the facts on the ground.

El Stuntman wrote: »

let's be fair, the most recent Gazan conflict started when Bush was still in power and ended before Obama took power on 20 January.

Well, I am being fair:
US congress votes to back Israel

Thats the new democrat dominated congress that voted here. So I think I am being more than fair to the US considering how there congress voted.

El Stuntman wrote: »

I hope we will see a much more constructive approach from his administration

Sadly the above link suggests otherwise.

El Stuntman wrote: »

wishful thinking I'm afraid Wes. The simple fact in the Israeli\Palestinian face-off is that Israel holds all of the aces.

I don't think so. I am sure it seemed the same way with Apartheid South Africa, before things started to change.

toiletduck

Do you not have to give your own opinion in the OP?

Lifespan of Israel? Well I don't see it going anywhere any time soon.

oscarBravo

Read the charter.