Yes, but that assumes some sort of population transfer/buyout isn’t part of the final agreement. I think that it would be.[/quote]
If you mean that Israeli-Arabs will be transferred to live in the Palestinian state then I disagree. Although they consider themselfs second rate citizens here (and to be honest, in many ways they are right), and becoming antagonised over it, they are still way better off then their neigbours in the territories. Nobody in their right mind would choose to live there (except jewish settlers off course, but they are not in their right minds).
I mean that they’ll be offered finanical incentives to leave. And some will undoubtedly leave, many eagerly, if and when Palestine stabilizes. But I basically agree with your main point, that the Arabs are eventually going to become the majority in both states.
If (and this is a big if) the Arabs can be brought into a more modern standard of living, I think the whole demographic problem goes away. It’s pretty much well-known that people living in poverty have more kids than affluent folks. So, if Israel can move agressively to help its Arab citizens, their birth rates might go down to levels similar to Jewish levels.
Of course, the Haredim are still a ticking demographic time bomb, as well, and there’s not much anyone can do about that, so Israel’s probably doomed no matter what :-).
If you understand why Israel was set up, how can you say that the criteria are irrational? People have been persecuted for being Jewish for a long time; is it so irrational to think that having our own state to provide a haven is a good thing?
If the “premise” of Israel is irrational, then so too are the premises of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lesotho, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, etc. etc.
If you understand why Israel was set up, how can you say that the criteria are irrational? People have been persecuted for being Jewish for a long time; is it so irrational to think that having our own state to provide a haven is a good thing?
Gav[/quote]
There is a clear, understandable causality for Israel’s creation; that does not make it a rational progression. Look, I’m not debating its legitimacy, or even talking about my high regard for the country and its people. My point is simply that basing a country around ethnicity/religion is an irrational idea, no matter where it’s done, and ultimately dysfunctional if an aggressive effort is made to prolong it. You know, the same way that an employer who chose workers based on race would be considered irrational.
Is that a counterargument or an expansion of my point? Anyhow, the situation is exponentially worse in Israel than most of those because of its particular circumstances (ie being surrounded by people that loathe it). But, yes, the same applies to them. Diversity when permitted to flourish naturally is the future of the nation-state, broadly speaking.
Of course, in Israel’s case they really are between a rock and a hard place. That doesn’t make it less true, just difficult to find a solution for (I can’t think of one).
