Correct. When David Ben-Gurion, the first prime-minister of modern Israel, was asked the same question, that was his response. (Like most of the early Zionists, he was secular, by the way.) He was purely practical and accepted a state that would not have all land that it, perhaps, would want.

Israel has to have the sup­port of the US to con­tinue as a viable state in the Mid­dle East, right?

Not necessarily. That premise may not be as true as both supports and critics of Israel think. Israel was by itself — except for the initial recognition by the Soviet Union since the country was socialist at the beginning — for many of the early years. It was not an exaggeration to say that they fended off the neighboring Arab countries themselves. US support — in all of the capacities — did not come until years later because, in part, the US was not sure it would survive its birth. The country wanted to “wait and see.”

Many Israeli themselves think that it would be better to decline future US financial aid — that way they could determine their own fate 100% without needing to lean on anyone else. They survived alone before, and many think they could do it again — especially since the country is in a much-better state economically and militarily today than in 1948.

At least, [Option #3] is what Israel SHOULD do if they act in a prac­ti­cal, ratio­nal way. Time will tell if it does so.

I agree. But the question is one of political reality. Because of Israel’s coalition-government, any proposal that veers beyond the status-quo will be vetoed at the moment. The religious parties have a disproportionate amount of influence because if they withdraw from the coalition, the government will fall.

But interesting enough, the future of the Israeli right may rest with Avigdor Lieberman (leader of the Israel Our Home party and current foreign minister). Although he is demonized in the foreign press (much of whom does not understand Israeli politics) as being a far-right extremist, that is not entirely accurate. His domestic policies are fairly liberal, and his party represents what may become the “post-Occupation right.” He supports land swamps and population transfers to create two stable states.

Still, no one knows what will happen in such a fragmented government and society.

Religion certainly adds flavor, or more likely a cover, but in the end, it’s always been about the balance of power amongst tribes and their relationships with larger, outside powers.

As long as people continue to value self-governance based on ethnicity, that’s where you’ll have conflict.

I can tell you what a realpolitik answer would be: option 3.

Israel has to have the support of the US to continue as a viable state in the Middle East, right? To maintain US support, Israel must remain democratic, right? Therefore, option 2 is out.

I suppose the real debate is between options 1 and 3. Both can be considered realistic options. Option 1 retains more power and influence due to a larger land and population base. Option 3 retains more unity and cohesion by excluding a group of people that are radically different from the rest of the nation. Both have pros and cons, obviously. Since no solution is perfect, as you point out, Israel must therefore make some sacrifices.

I think they will sacrifice some land in order to retain their identity as a Jewish democratic, independent state. If it were almost any other country, I would think they would choose land and democratic, but since the entire purpose of Israel as a nation-state is to be the home of the Jews, it is integral to the very nature of the state. Plus, by providing Palestinians with their own land, other countries — namely the US and Europe — will be pleased with a two-state solution.

To summarize: being Jewish is critical to Israel — in fact, it is the entire purpose of the state. In addition, US support is critical to Israel as well — American military support helps offset the power of the surrounding Arab states. Therefore, Israel will choose to be Jewish and democratic, and sacrifice some land to the Palestinians to form their own state.

At least, that is what Israel SHOULD do if they act in a practical, rational way. Time will tell if it does so.

But I do hope readers do not remain silent but make their own contribution. I was the only one to give Sam a response, which was disappointing.

You already know something of my view, so come on people, tell us what you think and why!

Even the “traditional” ( by which I mean monoculture-farming heavily relying on fertilisers and pesticides that has become the norm since 1950’s) has contributed greatly to develop more resilient insects and weeds, that require even more chemicals to kill, even though a small percentage survive to produce a more resilient strain and so on… At the end the consumer gets more expensive products with more chemicals and the farmer is bankrupted under the expenses of patented seeds and chemicals.

The attempt to develop even more effective farming methods relying on machines and chemicals is a bit questionable in itself, as the majority of the world population is in fact unemployed. A return to a more work-intensive small-scale farming employing local strains of plants and animals would not only figth the dangers of erosion and the runoff off nutrients and chemicals, it could also contribute to peace and stability in the world.

I think you should’ve also addressed the cultural background for population growth. The Saudi Kingdom is a great example. During the oil-fueled economic growth in the 1960’s-80’s, the GDP per capita was something like 20 000–30 000 $ if I remember correctly, now it has dropped to 6000–9000. The income disparity within socio-economic sectors is unebelievable, making latin america seem sosialdemocrat. However, the Al Sauds have created a fairly advanced health care system with all those hospitals bearing the names of their innumerous kings and princes, and basic services either has been or could have been available for the population for at least 50 years. Looks like contraception hasn’t been promoted much. They’re now facing the rage of angry young males who feel they’re entitled to the same economic well-being without much struggling that their parents generation enjoyed. Although the kingdom is a very untypical “3rd world country” it illustrates well that economic advancement does not always hinder population growth.

In the end the human population is part of the bigger ecological net of the world. If we don’t restrict our numbers, HIV, HTLV, tuberculosis, malaria, hepathitis, dengue and the new nasty hemorrhagic renal failure hantavirus-fevers will do the job. I’d take state-sanctioned one-child policy any day compared to a return to pandemics and death and social breakdown. The return of old enemies, like cholera and the pest is also just around the corner. Both are abundantly present around the world in animal reservoars that cannot be destroyed without severe ecological consequences. A short period of social unrest and dysfuntioning public healthcare is enough for a pandemia. The extinction of disease is an oudated dream. For microbes, an infection-free human body is unconquered ground and some of them will make the mutational jump to evade the immune system and antibiotics. Purposely creating the ideal circumstances for rising epidemics is another issue. Animal-to-human organ transplants, unresponsible use of antibiotics and the growing numbers of an immunodeficient population is the perfect recipe for epidemics.

Again, people are people…let’s live, eat and be happy. Oh, and I’m married to a Jew and have 4 happy and successul children. So there!

If the wife takes a job outside the home, the total amount of work absolutely increases. The decision is if the additional work is worth the additional paycheck.

Sam — I think you made this point before and I commented on it then with no response, but when you cite statistics that most divorces iamong middle aged couples are initiated by women, you can’t take that to mean that men aren’t trading them in for a new model. The man could be 100% at fault in many of these cases. Maybe he is having an affair and was caught. Maybe he was abusive. Maybe he was doing drugs. These are all things that I recall being more common among men as reasons for divorce wen I looked it up last time you posted this. In the US, women often get custody, child support, alimony, etc, so it is a lot easier for a man to justify on a financial basis not leaving his wife, and just let the affair or whatever ride till she gets sick of it.

In my last paragraph I mentioned both truth and facts. These are quite different. Facts are confined to what is stated, whereas truth fills in the many blanks, including other facts, and tells the full story of why these events happened. Facts that omit other relevant facts are therefore inadequate and misleading, and may well lead to false conclusions.

Your timeline, for instance, omits Jewish presence over thousands of years, and Herzl and Balfour, without which current Israel may not even exist.

The bullet points, like the timeline, do not begin at the beginning. The Hamas rockets are part of a continuing story and did not happen out of nothing. The facts concerning the year up to Cast Lead show it was Israel, not Hamas, who broke the ceasefire that had worked very well, and then refused to extend it when asked.

The facts Hamas would present would have similarities but their viewpoint would be different.
That is how we all operate; compare World War 2 history as presented by Britain and Russia, or China and Japan.

Retaliation and vengeance have become bywords in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Even the old question, which came first, the chicken or the egg, remains controversial, because each party has a different beginning point.

The definition of a fact, in part, is something on which all sides can agree (and on which all successive arguments and opinions are based).

In the bullet-points I outlined at the beginning of the post, which ones are not 100% accurate? And what are the facts that, say, Hamas would present?

Further, the claim that “Israel is the side that always has the moral high-ground and oper­ates in Just War prin­ci­ples” is nothing short of laughable. A major part of its rationale is “punishing people who have done wrong”, for example.

I recently wrote a letter to my local paper on this issue of the credibility of various governments or movements. I cited Israel and Hamas, the US and
Al Quaida and said we think there are good guys and bad guys, but in fact all of them are bad guys, and that there are no good guys, as all have committed heinous acts.

It is dangerous to assume our side is the knight in shining armor and our opponents are only terrorists. The truth and the facts are much less clear-cut and we owe it to ourselves to re-examine our glib assumptions and do some thorough homework to find out what is and was really happening.