'Last Chance For Mideast Peace'?

[yolland]

Last chance for Mideast peace

By Gary Kamiya
salon.com, Apr. 03, 2007

...Last week Saudi Arabia revived the Arab League's 2002 peace initiative. This offer, backed by every Arab country, offers a fair solution to the crisis. It is basically a land-for-peace deal along the lines of the Clinton parameters and the 2003 Geneva accord. The rudiments of the plan are that Israel will return to its pre-1967 borders, with some territory swaps to be negotiated; a reasonable compromise will be worked out on the issue of refugees; and East Jerusalem will become the capital of Palestine, with Israel maintaining control over the Jewish holy sites and Jewish neighborhoods. Such a plan represents the only solution that will be acceptable to both sides. Essentially, the Arab states have told Israel: Whatever you work out with the Palestinians will be agreeable to us.

But despite U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's suddenly more active diplomacy and Olmert's invitation to Arab leaders to meet at a future regional peace conference, there is no indication that either the Israelis or the Americans are willing to take the steps necessary to make peace. Rice headed home last Tuesday in diplomatic humiliation. She wanted to prod Olmert to discuss final-status issues, but was unable to get him to agree to anything more than meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas twice a month...Olmert's call on Sunday for a regional conference appears to be a positive step, but it is nothing more than diplomatic window-dressing designed to give the appearance of open-mindedness and bolster his approval ratings. (Considering they now stand at 3%, this should not be hard to do.) Olmert has refused to deal with the real issues, and Rice, who obviously lacks Bush's support, has not forced him to. Both Israel and the United States still refuse to end the boycott of the Palestinian unity government. They refuse to go directly to final-status issues. And they refuse to talk to Hamas, because they consider it a terrorist organization that will not recognize Israel or forswear violence.

Israel's supposed "friends" in America will, as always, demand that the United States and Israel continue their hard line. But as M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum said, blasting the move by U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., to prevent the United States from working with the Palestinian unity government,

It's time for the United States to play the role of honest broker. And it's time for the pro-Israel community in this country to stop pretending that those who work to thwart US peace efforts are friends of Israel. They are not. They are champions of a hopeless status quo.
...................................................................
David Ben-Gurion would think he was dreaming. After 60 years, the Arab states (every one of them) and the PLO, are offering Israel full normalization of relations in exchange for territorial withdrawal and a solution to the refugee problem. But if Ben-Gurion saw how the Israeli government was responding, his dream would turn into a nightmare. Because it is understandably put off by the initiative--the language on refugees, for instance--the Israeli government is utterly unimpressed with the plan. Although the Saudis say that if Israel agrees to talk about the plan, they are prepared to amend the particulars, the Olmert government is saying, essentially, that it can’t accept the plan, even in principle, because it objects to certain parts of it. The government's argument does not hold water...The Arab League plan expressly says that any deal on refugees would have "to be agreed upon" by Arabs and Israelis. What is so threatening about that?...And that's the point. No one is going to dictate the terms of the Arab League Initiative to Israel. It is simply a proposal which its authors are asking Israel to consider. A Saudi government spokesman said yesterday, “What we’re saying is accept the principle of land for peace as the basis for negotiations and we can work out the details.”
......................................................................
A Ha'aretz editorial on Wednesday said it best: "A realistic government would rush to embrace this willingness for recognition and reconciliation, expressing reservations for what it does not accept and seeking dialogue on the regional level."

Indeed, some experts believe that the status quo is even worse than hopeless. Middle East Project director Henry Siegman, a veteran analyst whose pieces in the New York Review of Books and elsewhere are among the most cogent on the subject, said this is the last, best chance for peace. And he believes that if the United States and Israel don't seize it, the Jewish state will find itself heading down a dark road--one that could even lead to its doom. Siegman believes this opportunity must not be squandered, for two reasons. First, the Arab states will not repeat their offer if it is spurned. "The Arab states have decided that they would like to bring this to an end by offering Israel complete normalization--political, economic and so on," Siegman told me. "But if their offer is turned down, and if the Arab world sees it as Israel simply slamming the door in their face, they will not be able to resume it." Second, Siegman said that if this deal isn't closed, ordinary Palestinians will simply give up on the two-state solution. "For years, important Palestinian voices have said, 'Why are we pleading, why are we begging? We now have 22% of mandated Palestine. Israel has 78%. Why are we begging for crumbs? Why don't we forget about our state, and history, if we are patient, will give us all of it?'"

If there isn't real progress toward a two-state solution, Siegman said, "that view will become widely accepted in the Palestinian community. Because it's not as if they have an alternative. If you can think in terms of a longer time line, they're suffering anyway under occupation. And they say, 'The kind of deal at best we're going to be offered is an occupation by other means. Even in the small sliver that is left to us, we will not be genuinely sovereign and independent. We'll be totally under Israeli control. Why should we settle for that? We've suffered for 50 years, let's wait another 50 years. Then we will be clearly the vast majority in this land, and Israel's position as a Jewish state will become entirely unviable.' That view will come to predominate. And there's a certain logic to it that is difficult to escape, particularly if there is no alternative. At least not an attractive alternative." Siegman is referring to what many Israelis have argued is the greatest danger facing the Jewish state: the so-called demographic threat. In just a few years, thanks to explosive Palestinian population growth, Jews will be a minority in Greater Israel, the area composed of Israel proper and the occupied territories. As Siegman pointed out, unless Israel divests itself from the occupied territories, this will leave it in an untenable position.

The Saudi peace plan is a lifeline that could save Israel, Siegman said. But Olmert--inexplicably, since he was one of the first Israelis to publicly raise the demographic issue--lacks the vision to understand this. Instead, he is "taking the easy way out" by stalling and trying to avoid entering into genuine negotiations with the Palestinians. "If Olmert had an interest in pursuing a serious peace process, he has ample opportunity to do so now," Siegman said. "He has the wiggle room to do it. He knows that there is room for negotiation on all of the final-status issues. But that's not what he's looking for. He continues to look for reasons not to engage in the process so that at some point he can say, 'Well, we tried, but we have to do it unilaterally.'"

Olmert's rejection of the Saudi plan on the grounds that it insists on a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel is the most egregious example of his deliberately evasive response to the plan. In fact, all the Saudi plan says is that a fair solution to the refugees be found, in accordance with U.N. Resolution 194 (which states that the refugees "be permitted" to return to their homes), but that the solution must be agreed upon by both sides. As the Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar noted in Ha'aretz, this is obviously not an extremist position--the Palestinians could hardly be expected not to mention the refugees--or one that anyone serious about making peace would seize on as a reason not to talk.
.....................................................................
In short, Siegman said, Olmert is still playing the same old maximalist game, one he sees as essential to his political survival. The same motivation, along with deference to Bush (who wants to isolate Syria, which he sees as a rogue state) lies behind Olmert's continued refusal to accept a remarkable peace offer from Syria that has been on the table for two years. (According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, in exchange for the return of the Golan Heights, Syrian President Bashar Assad offered "surprisingly broad" concessions to Israel, including turning most of the Golan into a demilitarized national park that Israelis could visit, granting Israel control of vital water rights, and stopping its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.)

The only thing that could force Olmert to negotiate with the Palestinians is pressure from America. But could Bush, who has been demanding that Olmert not talk to Syria, be the one to exert that pressure?...Siegman praised Rice for at least trying to restart peace talks, but said her task was impossible because Bush didn't support her. The reason: The Israeli-Palestinian issue is the last one where he is still under the sway of the hard-line neoconservatives. "While many neocon ideologues, who were the architects of the Bush administration's approach to the Middle East, have been let go or have left on their own, on the Israel-Palestine situation it seems that [Deputy National Security Advisor] Elliott Abrams and Cheney are still very much in control, sufficiently so to prevent any effort by Condi Rice to pressure Israel to join the team and to engage in a serious peace process," Siegman said. "She has decided, it seems to me quite bravely, and despite the fact that she doesn't have the support from the President, to try to sweet-talk the folks in Jerusalem to suck them into the process although they don't want to be. And what she discovered is that Olmert is not suckable, to put it inelegantly."

The only ray of hope Siegman held out was that individual European countries might "break the taboo" and begin talking with members of the new Palestinian unity government. "If Europeans begin a dialogue with this new government and with the Hamas leadership directly, which is what it will take for the Hamas leadership to begin changing its formula for recognition of Israel, then I think a political dynamic will be created that will compel the United States to do the same," Siegman said. "And if Olmert sees that Israel's policy is becoming undone in terms of its boycott of Hamas and the unity government, then it may have to change its policy."

...[Middle East Institute director Clayton] Swisher said the peace process is likely to be torpedoed before it even gets a chance, because the Bush administration, including Rice, is still clinging to the deluded belief that Hamas can be defeated--politically or militarily. With the help of Egypt and other "moderate" Arab states who are afraid of the growing power of the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a branch) in their own countries, the United States is arming Fatah, which backs Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, to prepare it for a showdown with Hamas. The likely result, Swisher says, will be the end of the Saudi-brokered cease-fire between Fatah and Hamas, and a Palestinian civil war. This catastrophic outcome would end all chances of peace. "I see a perfect storm brewing," Swisher said. "Because you have, on the one hand, Rice pushing for a Palestinian state, what she calls a 'political horizon,' while at the same time she's pursuing a policy of 'strengthening moderates' like Fatah and Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas]. Between now and the summer, the idea is to inject Abu Mazen with steroids." To strengthen Abu Mazen and weaken Hamas, Swisher said, the US is bolstering Fatah's military capability and "pushing Fatah to make reforms that people can see, like young people getting promoted, people getting their salaries, making these changes so that people say, 'Oh, Fatah's cleaning its act up and they're delivering.' ... Hamas is going to see this as subversion. And that's going to undo the cease-fire between it and Fatah. And what the hell good is talking about 'political horizons' when the West Bank and Gaza look like Mogadishu? You can't concurrently pursue these policies. They're unworkable in the end."

Pumping up Fatah to defeat Hamas is the same wrongheaded strategy the US has employed since Hamas had the temerity to win the elections the US insisted on. Swisher, like Siegman, argues that it is essential for Israel to negotiate with Hamas--and it is an ignorant fantasy to believe Hamas can be defeated either militarily or politically. "Hamas will do a two-state deal, but they will not jump first," Swisher said. "Like it or not, Hamas is a fact. They are a significant portion of Palestinian society. A significant proportion of Palestinian society also believes in a two-state solution. The two aren't necessarily incompatible. But Rice doesn't get that."

Swisher said that the Bush administration's timid, wag-the-dog approach to Israel is doomed. "The administration is already adopting this 'Why press Olmert now, he's weak' line. This is a fantasy and Rice is buying into it. She wants to do a deal, but she's going about it the wrong way at a pace that won't work. She's hesitant to talk final status now, to say the four words: Jerusalem. Security. Refugees. Borders. But she's got to be standing on the roof and shouting this now. Because if you don't condition the Israeli public for this, they'll never be able to swallow it. We should be telling the Israelis, 'Bend over--here it comes.' They should know that they're going to have to make a painful concession on this. That would give Olmert cover. But we're playing the same old game. And there won't be time. And more importantly, the cease-fire will break."

"I do not believe for a moment that time works in Israel's favor," Siegman said. "And so I have a sense that what we are witnessing is an unfolding tragedy. Because I would consider an endangered Jewish state, and one that in the long run loses its possibility of viability and existence, to be a great tragedy for the Jewish people."

 

[yolland]

New York Times, April 5

A major arms-sale package that the Bush administration is planning to offer Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to deter Iran has been delayed because of objections from Israel, which says that the advanced weaponry would erode its military advantage over its regional rivals, according to senior US officials...In particular, the Israelis are concerned about the possible transfer of precision-guided weapons that would give Saudi warplanes much more accurate ability to strike targets, officials said...American officials would not provide a dollar figure for the planned sales. But one American defense industry executive said that if all the equipment under discussion with the Saudis and other Gulf countries was eventually sold—including tanks, warships and advanced air defense systems—the deal could run from $5 billion to $10 billion.

...They said Israel did not seem intent on using its political clout in Congress to kill the entire planned sale. "It’s not like the Israelis are going to end up with nothing," said a senior administration official, adding "the Israelis understand that it’s in our interest and their interest" that the US try to shore up military systems for Sunni Arab allies. But Israel is also concerned that the Bush administration’s ambitions for an American-Israeli-Sunni coalition allied against Iran may never materialize, or that there could be a revolution in Saudi Arabia that would leave the mostly American-made Saudi arsenal in the hands of militant Islamists.

The Israeli reaction to the planned sales has been relatively muted so far, compared with previous fights over sales of weapons or technology to Arab governments. There is less Israeli opposition to possible sales to Gulf countries of several advanced weapons systems that are seen as more defensive in nature, including advanced Patriot antimissile batteries as well as new missile-armed coastal warships and a version of the sophisticated Aegis radar system, officials and defense industry executives said. One defense industry official said Saudi Arabia was considering buying as many as a dozen of the new ships.

While the effort is publicly focused on countering Iran, American officials concede that one goal of the effort is also simply to demonstrate that the US has no intention of turning away from the Gulf region, even if it is forced to withdraw from Iraq without bringing stability there.

It's interesting, because several analysts have commented concerning the Arab peace initiative that an unspoken--or only spoken off the record--underlying motivation for resurrecting it now seems to be a belief, on the part of several involved countries, that ironically they now share with Israel a growing concern that they may wind up destabilized or worse through Iranian support to various regional 'Arab' terrorist groups, and would rather not have to contend with fallout from both problems at once (and could perhaps even kill two birds with one stone by addressing the Palestinian situation now).

 

[STING2]

Indeed, some experts believe that the status quo is even worse than hopeless. Middle East Project director Henry Siegman, a veteran analyst whose pieces in the New York Review of Books and elsewhere are among the most cogent on the subject, said this is the last, best chance for peace. And he believes that if the United States and Israel don't seize it, the Jewish state will find itself heading down a dark road--one that could even lead to its doom. Siegman believes this opportunity must not be squandered, for two reasons. First, the Arab states will not repeat their offer if it is spurned. "The Arab states have decided that they would like to bring this to an end by offering Israel complete normalization--political, economic and so on," Siegman told me. "But if their offer is turned down, and if the Arab world sees it as Israel simply slamming the door in their face, they will not be able to resume it." Second, Siegman said that if this deal isn't closed, ordinary Palestinians will simply give up on the two-state solution. "For years, important Palestinian voices have said, 'Why are we pleading, why are we begging? We now have 22% of mandated Palestine. Israel has 78%. Why are we begging for crumbs? Why don't we forget about our state, and history, if we are patient, will give us all of it?'"

If there isn't real progress toward a two-state solution, Siegman said, "that view will become widely accepted in the Palestinian community. Because it's not as if they have an alternative. If you can think in terms of a longer time line, they're suffering anyway under occupation. And they say, 'The kind of deal at best we're going to be offered is an occupation by other means. Even in the small sliver that is left to us, we will not be genuinely sovereign and independent. We'll be totally under Israeli control. Why should we settle for that? We've suffered for 50 years, let's wait another 50 years. Then we will be clearly the vast majority in this land, and Israel's position as a Jewish state will become entirely unviable.' That view will come to predominate. And there's a certain logic to it that is difficult to escape, particularly if there is no alternative. At least not an attractive alternative." Siegman is referring to what many Israelis have argued is the greatest danger facing the Jewish state: the so-called demographic threat. In just a few years, thanks to explosive Palestinian population growth, Jews will be a minority in Greater Israel, the area composed of Israel proper and the occupied territories. As Siegman pointed out, unless Israel divests itself from the occupied territories, this will leave it in an untenable position.

The Saudi peace plan is a lifeline that could save Israel, Siegman said. But Olmert--inexplicably, since he was one of the first Israelis to publicly raise the demographic issue--lacks the vision to understand this. Instead, he is "taking the easy way out" by stalling and trying to avoid entering into genuine negotiations with the Palestinians. "If Olmert had an interest in pursuing a serious peace process, he has ample opportunity to do so now," Siegman said. "He has the wiggle room to do it. He knows that there is room for negotiation on all of the final-status issues. But that's not what he's looking for. He continues to look for reasons not to engage in the process so that at some point he can say, 'Well, we tried, but we have to do it unilaterally.'"

Olmert's rejection of the Saudi plan on the grounds that it insists on a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel is the most egregious example of his deliberately evasive response to the plan. In fact, all the Saudi plan says is that a fair solution to the refugees be found, in accordance with U.N. Resolution 194 (which states that the refugees "be permitted" to return to their homes), but that the solution must be agreed upon by both sides. As the Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar noted in Ha'aretz, this is obviously not an extremist position--the Palestinians could hardly be expected not to mention the refugees--or one that anyone serious about making peace would seize on as a reason not to talk.
.....................................................................
In short, Siegman said, Olmert is still playing the same old maximalist game, one he sees as essential to his political survival. The same motivation, along with deference to Bush (who wants to isolate Syria, which he sees as a rogue state) lies behind Olmert's continued refusal to accept a remarkable peace offer from Syria that has been on the table for two years. (According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, in exchange for the return of the Golan Heights, Syrian President Bashar Assad offered "surprisingly broad" concessions to Israel, including turning most of the Golan into a demilitarized national park that Israelis could visit, granting Israel control of vital water rights, and stopping its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.)

The only thing that could force Olmert to negotiate with the Palestinians is pressure from America. But could Bush, who has been demanding that Olmert not talk to Syria, be the one to exert that pressure?...Siegman praised Rice for at least trying to restart peace talks, but said her task was impossible because Bush didn't support her. The reason: The Israeli-Palestinian issue is the last one where he is still under the sway of the hard-line neoconservatives. "While many neocon ideologues, who were the architects of the Bush administration's approach to the Middle East, have been let go or have left on their own, on the Israel-Palestine situation it seems that [Deputy National Security Advisor] Elliott Abrams and Cheney are still very much in control, sufficiently so to prevent any effort by Condi Rice to pressure Israel to join the team and to engage in a serious peace process," Siegman said. "She has decided, it seems to me quite bravely, and despite the fact that she doesn't have the support from the President, to try to sweet-talk the folks in Jerusalem to suck them into the process although they don't want to be. And what she discovered is that Olmert is not suckable, to put it inelegantly."

The only ray of hope Siegman held out was that individual European countries might "break the taboo" and begin talking with members of the new Palestinian unity government. "If Europeans begin a dialogue with this new government and with the Hamas leadership directly, which is what it will take for the Hamas leadership to begin changing its formula for recognition of Israel, then I think a political dynamic will be created that will compel the United States to do the same," Siegman said. "And if Olmert sees that Israel's policy is becoming undone in terms of its boycott of Hamas and the unity government, then it may have to change its policy."

...[Middle East Institute director Clayton] Swisher said the peace process is likely to be torpedoed before it even gets a chance, because the Bush administration, including Rice, is still clinging to the deluded belief that Hamas can be defeated--politically or militarily. With the help of Egypt and other "moderate" Arab states who are afraid of the growing power of the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a branch) in their own countries, the United States is arming Fatah, which backs Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, to prepare it for a showdown with Hamas. The likely result, Swisher says, will be the end of the Saudi-brokered cease-fire between Fatah and Hamas, and a Palestinian civil war. This catastrophic outcome would end all chances of peace. "I see a perfect storm brewing," Swisher said. "Because you have, on the one hand, Rice pushing for a Palestinian state, what she calls a 'political horizon,' while at the same time she's pursuing a policy of 'strengthening moderates' like Fatah and Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas]. Between now and the summer, the idea is to inject Abu Mazen with steroids." To strengthen Abu Mazen and weaken Hamas, Swisher said, the US is bolstering Fatah's military capability and "pushing Fatah to make reforms that people can see, like young people getting promoted, people getting their salaries, making these changes so that people say, 'Oh, Fatah's cleaning its act up and they're delivering.' ... Hamas is going to see this as subversion. And that's going to undo the cease-fire between it and Fatah. And what the hell good is talking about 'political horizons' when the West Bank and Gaza look like Mogadishu? You can't concurrently pursue these policies. They're unworkable in the end."

Pumping up Fatah to defeat Hamas is the same wrongheaded strategy the US has employed since Hamas had the temerity to win the elections the US insisted on. Swisher, like Siegman, argues that it is essential for Israel to negotiate with Hamas--and it is an ignorant fantasy to believe Hamas can be defeated either militarily or politically. "Hamas will do a two-state deal, but they will not jump first," Swisher said. "Like it or not, Hamas is a fact. They are a significant portion of Palestinian society. A significant proportion of Palestinian society also believes in a two-state solution. The two aren't necessarily incompatible. But Rice doesn't get that."

Swisher said that the Bush administration's timid, wag-the-dog approach to Israel is doomed. "The administration is already adopting this 'Why press Olmert now, he's weak' line. This is a fantasy and Rice is buying into it. She wants to do a deal, but she's going about it the wrong way at a pace that won't work. She's hesitant to talk final status now, to say the four words: Jerusalem. Security. Refugees. Borders. But she's got to be standing on the roof and shouting this now. Because if you don't condition the Israeli public for this, they'll never be able to swallow it. We should be telling the Israelis, 'Bend over--here it comes.' They should know that they're going to have to make a painful concession on this. That would give Olmert cover. But we're playing the same old game. And there won't be time. And more importantly, the cease-fire will break."

"I do not believe for a moment that time works in Israel's favor," Siegman said. "And so I have a sense that what we are witnessing is an unfolding tragedy. Because I would consider an endangered Jewish state, and one that in the long run loses its possibility of viability and existence, to be a great tragedy for the Jewish people."

[/QUOTE]

The only "ignorant fantasy" on the Israel/Palestinian issue is the idea that its only a matter of time before Israel is doomed because it will no longer be a viable state. This is based on unknown but projected population levels for the Palestinian occupied territories vs. Israel in 50 years. Well, look back in 1948 and look at the difference in population between Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel. Under Siegmans logic, Israel was not a viable state in 1948, and thats without counting the rest of the Arab world at the time as well. But what has happened in the past 60 years? Israel successfully defeated the Arabs and Palestinians in multiple wars. Over time, the Palestinians have seen their portion of Palestine/Israel shrink as their leaders and those of Arab countries continued to pursue strategies attempting to wipe Israel off the face of the map which they repeatedly failed to do.

60 years later, Israel has a country with a first world standard of living and one of the strongest military forces in the world. Israel ranks #22 in standard of living in the current 2006 Human Development Index. The Palestinian Occupied territories on the other hand, 60 years later, have no state, rank at #100 on the human development index, and would be unable to successfully defend the occupied territories from a determined attack from any country in the region.

Israel has proven that despite a small population, it can survive as well as thrive in a region surrounded by enemies and they have done that for 60 years. The Palestinians have yet to prove that they can even form a viable state even if they finally start to pursue the policies that have the best chance of getting them one.

Israel has what it wants and more, a state with a first world standard of living and excellant security, relative to what they have had in the past as well as their neighbors in the region. Palestinian and Arab policies of the past 60 years have failed to succeed in giving the Palestinians a state, a good standard of living, or security. Just look at the map of 1948 and the map in 2007. Look at the conditions that the Palestinians lived in in 1948 and now look at it in 2007. Look at the conditions the Israel's lived in 1948 and now in 2007. Who's side has "time" been on?

The Population disparity between Jews in Israel and Arabs in the Occupied Territories are unlikely to ever return to how it was in 1948, and even if it did, we know from history that alone would never make Israel doomed or unviable. In fact, the growing population in the Occupied territories should be reason for alarm among Palestinians given that such a small area of land cannot support an infinite amount of people. A rapid Palestinian population growth rate, will likely outstrip its development and economic growth rate eroding the standard of living of Palestinians which would weaken the viability of any future Palestinian state.

Its time for Humas to recognize that the terrorism and wars launched against Israel for the past 60 years have failed in their main objectives and have only succeeded in making the lives of Palestinians worse and the probability of having their own state less likely. The Jews have their state, a state with a first world standard of living, a state who's military is one of the best in the world.

Many of the Arab countries now recognize this as evidenced by their 2002 peace initiative. Its time that Humas got on board with their Arab "brothers". 60 more years of terrorism against Israel will not achieve a different result. It will only make things worse for the people they are claiming to be fighting for, just as it has done over the previous 60 years.

 

[yolland]

'Unviable' was suggested with reference to Israel as a representative liberal democracy, not to Israel as a military or economic power. The demographics of Israel proper circa 1948 are irrelevant to that point as they were shortly thereafter radically altered by first the flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, then the influx of hundreds of thousands of Mizrahi Jews fleeing their homes in neighboring countries, in both cases as a result of the war. (And Holocaust refugees as well, obviously.) And of course from 1967 until 1993, when internal jurisdiction was transferred to the Palestinian Authority, most Palestinians in the occupied territories were not able to vote at all.

 

[STING2]

'Unviable' was suggested with reference to Israel as a representative liberal democracy, not to Israel as a military or economic power. The demographics of Israel proper circa 1948 are irrelevant to that point as they were shortly thereafter radically altered by first the flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, then the influx of hundreds of thousands of Mizrahi Jews fleeing their homes in neighboring countries, in both cases as a result of the war. (And Holocaust refugees as well, obviously.) And of course from 1967 until 1993, when internal jurisdiction was transferred to the Palestinian Authority, most Palestinians in the occupied territories were not able to vote at all.

The demographics they are talking about involve "greater Israel" which includes the West Bank and Gaza where many Palestinians fled to in 1948. They are claiming that the population explosion on the West Bank and in Gaza will make Israel unviable as a state. But the demographics will not be any more in their favor in "greater Israel" than it was in 1948. Most people in the West Bank and Gaza where the population explosition is occuring are not Israeli citizens and cannot vote in Israeli elections. So the only way they could think they could threaten Israel is if they think that the greater numbers would offer them some sort of military benefit.