ThothStreetsDisciple
No bio...
User ID: 2805
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
Netanyahu wasnt Prime Minister than. Ariel Sharon was. He was neutral about the war in Iraq. Just because some minister had an opinion doesnt make it official Israeli policy. And Netanyahu was finance minister, not even Foreign Affairs minister.
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
The international community is getting tired of it, and yes they brought Israel into this world with a vote. That's the sort of origin story that gives the demands of the international community a lot of weight.
The international community recognized Israel. They did not bring into existence. You can partially thank the Arab states for expelling their Jews for that. Without the million or so Mizrahi Jews from the Arab states, Israel would not have survived. The international community did not build up Israeli institutions, and for the most part, did not give the Israelis out of good will. The British and Americans embargoed the Israelis.
If it were up to me, there would be a one-state solution with equal political rights between Israelis and Palestinians, and constitutional protections for any minority groups.
Neither side even wants this. And not to mention, that a one state would look like Lebanon. A failed state run by either religious Zionist militias or Islamist militias. Add in nukes, and youve successfully destabilized the middle east for another several generations. Very divorced from the realities of wanting stability and peace.
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth... Israel is this invincible Middle East Prussia, but then at the same time Israel's survival is threated by a Palestinian state. Which is it?
I have not been clear. A Palestinian state would not jeopardize the existence of Israel. However, when a Palestinian state fires rockets over Israeli population centers, you hit a red line for what the Israelis will be willing to take. There is only so much duress they will be willing to live under.
with EU peacekeepers to put down any troublemakers on either side to make it happen, there's no reason to humor the notion of Israel nuking Europe
You want the EU to project force out of Europe to make israel capitulate, when they cant even find the will to help Ukraine against Russia?
Because the US/EU has no control over Israel yet we are responsible for and impacted by what happens in the Middle East. When the Yemenis shut down shipping lanes, it's the problem of the United States. You've already explained why a regional war in the Middle East would be a catastrophe for Europe, so why do you keep asking why the US/EU cares what happens there?
A failed Palestinian state, would lead to a regional war. As it currently stands, the Houthis will end their stupid attacks on shipping once the Israeli war in Gaza ends. We would not be having this discussion, if Israel had just kept up its occupation of Gaza. There would be no war in Gaza, no massive civilian deaths. That is what is likely if a Palestinian state is made in the West Bank. Not a political solution or peace in anyway.
So the reality is you have no solutions, you are demanding we accept the status quo, or demanding we accept an ethnic cleansing of the region which will destroy our credibility and myths surrounding our own hegemony.
I say, yes accept the status quo. Why not accept the status quo of Israeli occupation? The current Gaza war is only because Israel left Gaza. If Israel hadnt left and ended the occupation, it would be all quiet on the Palestinian front.
I dont say accept ethnic cleansing. I dont want that. Im saying, a failed Palestinian state will resolve into ethnic cleansing. Notice, I mean failed. There is a possibility for success with a Palestinian state.
A successful Palestinian state will have to be at least 20 years down the line. Reform the PA. The PA is a corrupt govt, like very badly corrupt that siphons off most the aid given to it. Gradually deradicalize the population. Make economic incentives that intertwine the economies of Israel and Palestine.
An economic peace must come first, than a political peace. Once that is established, we can talk about a Palestinian state.
As I see it, an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank will just result in more fighting. Just like Gaza did. That will result in a regional war and more death and instability in the Middle East. Better for the occupation to continue than for chaos.
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
Sanctions, Israeli bombing of Libya and Israeli support for jihadist groups did not help at all. Israel has clearly seen Syria as an enemy and has done its best for decades to undermine and destroy Syria.
When did Israel bomb Libya? Your making stuff up. Sanctions on Libya were because of French neocolonial and Western morality, Same with Syria.
Israel did also not train Jihadist groups in Syria. It at most, provided medical support for anyone who came to the border. Which included Syrian civilians. The West backing the Free Syrian Army was because of Western morality and some love for Western democracy. Not Israel.
Why do these rebels end up with air support and expensive weapons? Who trains these militias? How did thousands of mercenaries show up in Libya and why was Libya bombed to pieces from the sky?
You really believe Israel is the answer for all of this? Dont you see you have a ton of regional actors like the Gulf States, Iran, Algeria, Egypt or even far away regional actors like France or Russia? They are the ones who provide weapons and training. Look at Sudan currently and the RSF vs the Sudanese govt. The RSF is gaining support militarily from the UAE. While the Sudanese govt gains support from Saudi Arabia. Its a proxy conflict between them. Nothing to do with Israel.
Your looking for Israel to be the answer for why the Middle East is unstable. Its not. The Middle East is unstable because of the Middle Easts characteristics. The West projecting their values on the Middle East doesnt help. Its not the Israelis making Libya rise up against Gaddafi nor against Assad. Its not the Israelis that make Jihadist groups or political Islam attractive. Its more likely extreme religiosity and poverty.
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
We spent 20 years fighting Islamic terrorism and spent trillions of dollars fighting much of the Middle Eastern public and you think their public opinion doesn't matter?
We spent that because of Western decisions to. Not Israeli or Israeli concerns. Islamism and Islamic terrorism has declined. Isis was its heydey. Secularism is spreading in the Middle East.
The Abraham Accords caught... Bahrain and the UAE. This great success was followed up with Sudan, of all countries. Not Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia: any of the relevant powers. UAE is vaguely relevant I suppose.
First off, it got UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan. Two...Egypt has had relations with Israel for over 40 years, ever since Israel gave back the Sinai. Do you even know anything about the Middle East, if you dont know this most basic geopolitical fact? It makes anything you say come into question.
Syria is a failed state that can barely keep itself together. Its not a relevant power. Iraq is a barely holding itself together, let alone relevant. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only ones you have a point on, and even then not much. Why? Because Saudi Arabia is offering to normalize with Israel for "steps" towards a Palestinian state. Not making one come into fruition. Just recognition that eventually one will be created. Thats very little commitment.
So that leaves just the UAE. Not a great success.
Bahrain still has political relations and recognizes Israel. They still are apart of the Abraham Accords. Still a major success. Still 4 Arab states that normalized with Israel.
Did you miss the Yemen/Red Sea war we're now fighting? Iran and the US are fighting a proxy war in Iraq as we speak, shelling eachother.
The Iranians and US are fighting a proxy war in Iraq because the US wants to contain Iran for its own geopolitical considerations. Its as much as protecting Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, which are US aligned, from Iran. And maintaining US power in the region. Not for Israel.
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
Wouldn't it be great if we enjoyed the support of the Middle Eastern public, or at least got along with them like China does?
The Middle East is run by authoritarian governments. The Middle Eastern public barely matters. The Saudis, with most of the oil, are concerned about the Americans leaving the region because the Americans no longer care to be involved.
The Arabs get angry with us when we provide aid to Israel, just like the Israelis get angry with Iran when Iran aids Hamas/Hezbollah. It makes it much harder to work with Arab governments and it angers Arabs, who can do us harm.
The Arab states are no longer hostile to Israel like they used to be. The Abraham Accords broke that assumption, when Arab states normalized with Israel for no gestures towards the Palestinians. They mostly dont care enough about them.
The Palestinians dont get in the way of dealings between the Middle East and America and Europe. Its largely just some past time that has no affect on international relations.
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
don't think the Israelis are going to nuke their Plan B. A decent portion of dual citizens have already left. If they are willing to nuke Europe for forcing a two-state solution onto them, by force if necessary, then that already says everything we need to know about our Greatest Ally.
Most Israeli jews dont have a second passport. Theyre for the most part, born and bred in Israel. If anything, some have a passport to Russia. Thats about it.
If they are willing to nuke Europe for forcing a two-state solution onto them, by force if necessary, then that already says everything we need to know about our Greatest Ally.
You propose military invading a nation and then that nation not responding? Is this not ridiculous bad faith? If you invade a nuclear armed nation, why are you even remotely surprised in response? Europe would deserve a nuke or two if they were that stupid.
the Israelis would fold like a cheap suit if the EU plausibly threatened to enforce a two-state solution with the threat of force, with the backing of the majority of the world community. The international community brought Israel into this world, if Israel is going to throw nukes to stop a two-state solution then that is a big problem for the entire world which needs to be solved
The world didnt bring Israel into this world? What are you even on about? The British limited immigration to Palestine during the Holocaust. America embargoed Israel from 1948-1962, onlyproviding weapons sales when they also sold to Egypt. The British and Americans tried to limit arms going to the Israelis during the war of independence. It was the Soviet Union, France and Czechoslovakia that allowed arm sales to israel that helped the Israelis win. The israelis arent dependent on arms sales any longer.
History rhymes, that would end poorly for Israel, but it wouldn't come to that.
I mean....if Israel uses a nuke, it means they already made the rational calculation your going to destroy their survival. Why not use a nuke if thats the case?
The purpose of enforcing a two-state solution onto Israel with international administration of Jerusalem would be to prevent the likelihood of a regional war which Western support of Israel is currently enabling under the status quo.
And you would station European troops inside Palestine and Israel?
Europe cant even defend its borders, and you want it to manage a conflict in the middle east? Youd have 7-8 million angry Israeli Jews doing an insurgency, and possibly 5 million Palestinians, because they would not likely react to European forces being maintained there positvely.
You realize Israel has already, again, brought the region to the brink of war?
Yes...50 years ago. Not today. No one is going to war over Gaza or the West Bank. No one cares enough. Not Egypt. Not Jordan. Hezbollah is content lighting some rockets on fire at the Israeli north.
You just explained why a regional war is a catastrophe for European and American interests. I've already explained that these military operations in the Middle East are a huge burden of resources and credibility, now we are fighting Yemen in a very expensive engagement that is probably going to last quite a while. It's our problem, it's not just Israel's problem.
And Ive just explained why enforcing a solution just to make an even bigger mess for almost no gain seems ridiculous. There is no regional war going on for the West Bank and Gaza. Why do you propose a military solution to something that doesnt even matter to Europe? Why do you propose a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict at all, when no one in the Middle East cares enough except for Iranian proxies which mainly focus on attacking Israel?
You also seem to think most of these military operations in the Middle East are for israels sake. They arent. Israel was neutral about the invasion of Iraq. No Netanyahu wasnt Prime Minister even though he was in favor during the time, Ariel Sharon was. Israel didnt care about Gaddafi in Libya. Houthis are being bombed because they attack all shipping going through the red sea, not just Israeli. Almost none of these military operations are for Israels sake. Israel fights alone usually, at most relying on foreign arm imports when necessary, and rely on domestic arms manufacturers when it can.
I do not know what you are smoking if you call the situation "contained." It is not contained. Israel has failed for decades to contain the situation. They aren't capable of it.
I mean they mostly have. The West Bank doesnt explode in violence. The only reason Gaza became such a handful was that Israel chose to leave it. Why pray tell, should Israel deoccupy the West Bank and Gaza when the history has shown that they are contained when Israel has military control, and the region doesnt ignite on fire without big political moves.
For someone who wants less problems for Europe, it seems very counter intuitive to desire a possible military action against Israel and enforce a failed Palestinian state, which would likely set up a regional war when there isnt one anyway.
From what it sounds like, you seem to think Israel is a weak little state that will fold at the drop of the hat. They arent. They are the Middle East's Prussia. A military with a state.
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
If you dont care for why the Israelis pay for their own bombs, why do you even care about imposing a solution? I understand not wnating to give military weapons, but the Israelis can likely just succeed without that.
The Arab states dont care enough about Palestine to intervene. They dont cut off trade, they dont oil embargo the West. Why care about what Israel does enough to impose a solution, like by embargoing trade?
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
Libya was stable for decades before the neocons decided to have a war and flood Europe with migrants. Syria could have been as stable as Jordan or the UAE if it hadn't been destroyed.
You also blame Israel for Syria? Syria had a civil war because Al Assad was shitty at managing his state. The Syrian economy didnt fundamentally improve the lives of its citizens. I remember reading that climate change forced Syrian farmers into cities in Syria. Food prices increased a lot, which led to the Syrian 2011 protests that became a national rebellion.
The Middle East is unstable because its leaders and elites have been shit at managing their states. This leads to major rebellions and wars. This is why there was a rebellion against Gaddafi in Libya and Al Assad in Syria. The French went into Libya because of a mix of morality and wanting to maintain power over their former colonial holdings. Not neocon interventionism on behalf of Israel.
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
t is the opposite. Every time the neocons send troops to the middle east we get flooded with migrants. The best policy for the west is to get out of the middle east, support stable regimes and ending support for Israel.
This is conspiracy theorism. Israel didnt care about Gaddafi. Sure, they disliked him. But Libya isnt anywhere close to Israel. He wasnt even remotely a threat. He was just some oil corrupt Arab dictator not even at their borders, why would Israel care about deposing him?
Gaddafi getting deposed was a French operation of neocolonialism. Blame Western "morality" for it, not any Israeli or Jewish interest that even remotely cared about Libya. France just simply liked to have power over North Africa, and it was their belief they could change the region for the better. They were wrong
ThothStreetsDisciple
3mo ago
Israel is a nuclear armed state. You want a special military operation against a nuclear armed state to enforce what is likely an existential crisis for the nuclear armed nation? Israel differs from Iran and Pakistan in that its a dense nation. Its population centers are close to everywhere. You cant do limited attacks on it without attacking an Israeli population center. Thats a redline for the Israelis. They might genuinely choose to detonate a thermonuclear bomb over Europe in response. And Europe would deserve it.
Im going to answer some concerns and questions pre-emptively. The Israeli are mostly self sufficient when it comes to weapons. They do rely on outside parties for munitions, aircraft(as in piloted aircraft), and precision guided bombs. That ignores the Israeli ability to build bomb and munition making factories. They also have access to F35s and could reverse engineer them. In the 80s, the Israelis engineered an F15 competitor called the Lavi. An F15 was the major US air fighter jet btw, before it was replaced by the F35. Without US help, the Lavi aircraft showed the Israelis have the manpower and technical expertise to make advanced war weapons on their own. It was mainly a cost issue that they decided against, and it was only by a margin of one vote that it was decided against. After the fall of the Soviet Union, over a million Soviet Jews immigrated to Israel. This was a highly educated population with lots of technical expertise. Even before that happened, they had enough of it to survive.
Many people really dont look at the 50s-80s of Israeli history. They were precarious times, but the state of Israel survived under much worse circumstances. They have only grown richer and more established.
Lets say you cut off all military weaponry to Israel, including US aid. They already spend 5% of gdp on military. You likely only raise it to 7%, with no US aid. The Israelis have the technical expertise to manufacture the basics of war.
Lets say you start a trade embargo.
How far do you take it? Are you going to starve the Israelis to death? That would kill more Palestinians than israelis...because ding ding ding, Palestinians are controlled by Israel.
Okay, lets say not that. You only hit the Israeli pocketbook. You might convince them. Emphasis on might.
All this goes out the door the instance a Palestinian state starts shooting rockets at Israel. Which I find likely. Lets say a Palestinian state shoots rockets, what happens? A Palestinian state is positioned near Israeli population centers. Most Gaza rockets only affected the Israeli South. Not Tel Aviv or the Center. That wouldnt be the case with a Palestinian state, because of how the West Bank is positioned. If a Palestinian state fails to establish peace, I find it likely the Israelis expel the Palestinians. The Israelis will get sick of rockets over their heads, eventually.
Israel expelling the Palestinians leads to a regional war. A war the middle east would not win. All Israel has to do is survive. Israel has the superior military in the Levant. It has nukes. The conventional militaries of the Arab states are made for keeping the populations in line, although I suspect they will do better than even the Israelis predict. Israel would win, because at the very worst, they would use tactical nukes on advancing Arab militaries. The Arab militaries that also do show prowess, are mainly guerilla fighters in populated territories. Not conventional forces. If their population centers were threatned, they would use nukes on Arab population centers like Cairo, Amman, Beirut, Damascus. They might even target Riyadh in Saudi Arab in the Gulf if they feel malicious.
So Israel wins. It is now a heavily sanctioned pariah state like North Korea. Except unlike North Korea, they have decades of built up infrastructure and technical expertise. The Israeli population will also be much more motivated, because its their survival at stake. Not some stupid regime.
Israel likely wins a middle east war. What you have next, is waves of millions of refugees on Europes borders. Not just Palestinians. Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians. I could see Israel taking the East side of the Jordan and expelling any all Jordanians to give a buffer. Jordan likely collapses because of internal instability caused by too many Palestinian refugees.
All youve done is destroy the Middle East, and send hordes of refugees to Europe. You probably havent even destroyed Israel, just punched it. This also ignores the one unknown. Russia. If push came to shove, and Israel was already isolated, I could see the Russians supporting Israel in trade. A state that could become a Russian proxy to threaten Europe? Russia would love that.
Frankly the worlds obsession with the Israeli Palestinian conflict is absurd and more trouble than its worth. Fine boycott arms if you want to feel morally superior, but all you do is make the situation worse just to sniff farts up your own ass.
Why Europe even needs an opinion to care about this conflict, that they need to impose a solution, is whats ridiculous? The Arab states barely care about the Palestinians as they have shown. Not enough to militarily intervene. Not enough to stop trading oil. Why should Europe do anything only to make a contained situation worse. that they have nothing riding on?
ThothStreetsDisciple
4mo ago
I read a fascinating article on Jewish Tunisian intellectual Albert Memmi, with interesting takes on Anti-Colonialism and nationalism. Memmi was an odd man out of sorts. He was a secular left wing revolutionary in Tunisia who advocated for a secular tolerant left wing state. He was a staunch Anti-Colonialist, believing Anti-Colonialism was the true fulfillment of French values, as embodied by the French Revolution. He wanted a Tunisia that was tolerant of minorities, and believed himself to be an Arab Jew. This did ultimately, not pan out, as he was asked to leave Tunisia in either 1956 or 1952(its a really long article, so the location of the dates is inexact for me to find).
He started out life as a staunch Zionist, being from the poor Jewish ghettos of Tunisia. The Jews of Tunisia were Pro-French, and received numerous benefits over their Arab muslim neighbors. They did, according to Memmi, sympathize with the Arab Tunisian struggle for independence and freedom. The Pro-French attitude was entirely motivated by self preservation, as Jews in Tunisia(or at least poor Jews. Rich Jews believed a utopia of tolerance in a secular state would come about. Only Poor Jews recognized the true reality of what was to come....and poor Jews made up most Jews of Tunisia) believed that if the French left, they would be persecuted by their Arab Muslim neighbors. While Memmi started out as a Zionist, he transitioned to the Anti-Colonialist and Left Wing Socialist position as I stated above, coming to the belief that Jews could live in a tolerant Tunisia.
This idealism did not hold up with the contradictions of nationalism and national liberation. Albert Memmi and Jews of Tunisia were not well treated by the new independent Tunisian government. Anti Jewish decrees made it impossible for poor Jews to make a living.
As it turned out, Anti-Colonialist National Liberation movements were often religious, ethnic nationalist, conservative and violent. This shocking realization to Memmi would influence him towards Socialist Zionism, believing that Jews and Zionism must have a place in internationalist thoughts in a distinctly Jewish and independent position.
One of the interesting things to come from Memmi, is the Left's support of Third World Regimes that were intolerant, chauvinistic and conservative, under the name of Anti-Colonialism. Often times, the Left supported these regimes, and even worse, the violence they took, turning a blind eye to their acts. However, these regimes did not adopt the secular tolerant leftism of Memmi or the French Revolution. Memmi wrote "“discovers that there is no connection between the liberation of the colo- nized and the application of a left-wing program. And that, in fact, he is perhaps aiding the birth of a social order in which there is no room for a leftist as such."
He also came of the belief that the problems of Anti-Colonial Regimes were not problems that came from the Colonizers, but problems inherent in the populations themselves. While Colonialism perverted both Colonized and Colonizer, leaving psychological problems for both, that they are ultimately not the cause of the now independent and previously colonizeds problems.
I do not do the article justice. Id recommend reading it, for interesting takes on Leftist support of Anti-Colonialism and the anti-colonialist regime. https://fathomjournal.org/albert-memmi-zionism-as-national-liberation/
It seems self evident to me, that all national liberation movements, classified as left wing, are but a step away from nationalistic chauvinism, classified as mostly right wing. Nationalism as supported by the Left, will ultimately rebound and make authoritarian and Anti-left wing regimes.
One interesting example I can think of is Iraq under Baathism. For those who dont know, Baathism is basically Fascism. And I mean this quite literally, it has most of the distinctive characteristics of 1930s Italian Fascism, except in an Arab context. One primary belief of Baathism, is Arab Socialism, a non-marxist socialism dedicated to the national rejuvenation of Arab culture. Italian Fascism and National Socialism of the Nazis, predominantly believed in a Non-Marxist form of socialism in rhetoric, if more mixed and pragmatic in terms of practice. Baathism is not your average Far Right populist movement, but a distinctly fascist ideology. Although, there are many far right populists who are Post-Fascist in thought, like Brothers of Italy, from which the Prime Minister of Italy, Georgia Meloni, leads.
Ive done readings on Meloni herself and her post fascist thought. Interestingly, I've read that Ethnopluralism and Anti-Colonialism, along with socially conservative and Anti-immigration sentiments are major tenets of neo-fascist and post fascist far right movements in Italy. This is labeled as Third Positionism.
What does Italy and Third Positionism have to do with Albert Memmi? Italy and Third Positionism represent the kind of socially conservative, nationalistic and anti-internationalist beliefs that Memmi was against. Another interesting factor is how Third Position thought interacts with Zionism and Jews. The Likud and Far Right in Israel are unexpected outgrowths to Memmi. He believed that Zionism would cure the Jews of his neurotic diasporic characteristics, and that Zionism would be an end to Judaism in a sense, turning the Jews into a normal people. He was both right and wrong.
Like any normal people demonstrate, there is a predisposition towards nationalistic and socially conservative thought. His belief of a new tolerant left wing Zionist Jew has given way to Jews as now more religious, more nationalistic and more right wing people.
It is likely, given everything I have wrote and all the evidence, national liberation and the lefts defense of Anti-colonialism is self defeating. What are The Mottes thoughts?
ThothStreetsDisciple
4mo ago
US Pro-Israel sentiment has usually been very strong. When has it been ever as weak as it currently is?
Plus the US is not currently reliant on foreign sources of oil. There isnt much reason for the US to support Israel
ThothStreetsDisciple
4mo ago
The way I see it, the Russians pay lip service to the Palestinians but dont really care. The Israelis are the strongest power in the Levant, and Russia is hungry for allies and influence. Its why they cozy up to Iran.
Russia also lacks high tech and educated human capital. I could see the Israelis eventually becoming major aid to the Russians in terms of upgrading military tech, and high tech
ThothStreetsDisciple
4mo ago
Thank you for this. Economics is not my forte, I should have done more research before I spoke.
So oil will remain important in the middle east? What do you see as the benefit or demerit to China and Russia allying with the Israelis? The Israelis are the strongest power in the Levant.
ThothStreetsDisciple
4mo ago
What is the future of Israel?
Progressive leftists these days are Anti-Israel, and this sentiment is only likely more to spread. With the South Africa apartheid comparison looming, Im guessing that Israel will eventually be sanctioned by the United States and that this is an unavoidable outcome. Dont believe me? The Anti-Israel sentiment on the internet has been astounding, and even once the Gaza war flares down, there will always possibility be a flare up in violence in the West Bank. If I had to guess, in 20 years, a progressive candidate will be either talking or enacting sanctions against Israel.
So lets go into how Israel will change in the future, and what it might possibly do.
Israeli demographics are interesting. Some background. Israel is principally divided into two groups of Jews. Ashkenazi(European) and Mizrachi(Middle Eastern). About half of Israeli Jews are of Ashkenazi descent, while the other half is Mizarahi. There is significant intermarriage, so the lines are now blurred. Israel is also split along religious lines, with around 13% of israeli Jews being Ultra Orthodox, with the remainder being either secular or traditional. Israel birthrates are high. The average birthrate per woman is 3 in Israel, and its trending upwards. Thats the highest in the Western world. Its trending upwards in all demographics, except the Ultra-Orthodox, whose birthrate has trended downwards to 6.8-6.6 kids per woman.
By 2050, a third of Israeli Jews will be Ultra-Orthodox, up from the 13% they are now. By some estimates, by 2060 they will make up half of Israeli Jews.
Israeli Ultra-Orthodox primarily vote for United Torah Judaism, a union of Haredi Degel HaTorah and Hasidic Agudat Israel. A majority of Israeli ultra orthodox are Ashkenazi, but there is a minority that is Mizrahi. The Mizrahi minority votes for Shas. Shas usually gets more seats than United Torah Judaism, why? Because many Shas voters arent ultra orthodox, but rather traditional and religious Mizrahi Jews. Shas functions as a Mizrahi Jew interest party. Mizrahi Jews have tended to be more religious on average than Ashkenazi. Saying all this, there is actually a third group of "Ultra Orthodox" who are growing rapidly.
They are called Chardal. Chardal are ultra orthodox who are religious zionist. Religious Zionism is the ideology that believes all of the West Bank should be under Israeli control, they are big in the Israeli settler movement. Traditionally, Ultra Orthodox Jews are Non Zionist, not believing in a Jewish state or being maximalist in regards to territory. While this is still true for United Torah Judaism, it is no longer true for Shas, which is now Zionist.
Chardal are the most right wing. Shas is firmly right wing. United Torah judaism is middle of the road, and is open to siding with the left and center, depending on the Rabbis who lead them opinion.
The reason I make such a big point about Ultra Orthodox, is that they are the future of Israel. Israel will only get more religious, and more right wing. Even normal non ultra orthodox right wing voters, have more children then secular leftists.
Lets say the Israel Palestinian conflict remains unsolved in 20 years. Israel is likely to face economic sanctions, in the vein of either South Africa or Russia. Based off demographics, Im skeptical that sanctions will convince a religious and right population to change course. Israel is a populist ethnic democracy, its govt is responsive to its voter base, and I dont think that will change.
In 20 years, we can expect a multitude of geopolitical changes. First, oil's importance in the world economy will decline. The power of Gulf Arab states will be lessened. Two, I think the US and China will decouple even more so economically, in an effort to prevent Chinas rise. I do not think it will work. China has a decreasing population, but the unknown factor is AI. Advances in AI are likely to hit the upper middle technological class hardest and reduce amount of jobs. I believe China will whether the shrinkage of its population, decently in my opinion. There will be pain, but not instability. Three, Russia is unlikely to get unsanctioned by the West. Russia invading Ukraine was a no go for Europe and America. Conquering territory has made Russia a pariah for a generation, unless they give it back, which they wont, the economic sanctions on Russia will likely not dissipate. Russia will also, not collapse. The Russian economy had mostly survived fine under sanctions with some pain, and most corporations that were stationed there left their infrastructure there. That infrastructure is being run, and it seems most Russian citizens(or at least in Moscow and St petersburg) have access to most of the same goods that they had before, with only some shortages.
My bet is, that if Israel is sanctioned in 20 years, it will reorient to China and Russia as major trade partners and allies. China is already one of Israels biggest trade partners. They mostly dont care about human rights, and domestic political considerations for humanitarian foreign policy are basically non existent. Russia will be similar. Both economies will likely be decoupled from America in 20 years, to some degree or another.
Israel is an entirely export and manufacturing driven economy, with little raw resources. The Ultra-Orthodox and Right wing sentiment(as in Anti-Two state solution sentiment) is growing. If israel is sanctioned by the West, it is likely Israel would expropriate the infrastructure that globalized trade and companies have left in it to survive. Israel will also likely start to receive most of its raw materials from Russia, and subsidiary and secondary materials for manufacturing from China or India.
The middle east with the decline of oil, will be a poor and war torn place...more so than it is already. Climate change will only make things worse and more unlivable. What does this mean for Israel?
Lets look at the middle east. Egypt is apparently, not doing well economic wise even though its indicators say its growing. Dictator El Sisi has favored military owned businesses to push out private industry. There is increased spending on inefficient infrastructure projects like the new capital. Industrial and agricultural capacities in Egypt are inefficient relative to population. With the construction of the Great Ethiopian Renaissance dam, Egypt's nile river is threatened with significantly decreased water flow. This will impact industrial and agricultural capacity further and could lead to war with Ethiopia, which would weaken Egypt.
Lebanon is suffering from chronic brain drain and corruption. The Lebanese Syrian and Palestinian populations of refugees makes up almost 2 million people out of 5.6 million. That is a third of the country. Syria is a failed state that will not be able to attract industry in the future, as it will take some time to recover from the Civil War. Jordan is the only economy of the Levant Arab states doing somewhat well. And it is having a hard time managing its Syrian refugee population, which is numerous
Here is their relevance to Israel's future.
If Israel is sanctioned by the West, I believe Israel will expel the Palestinians in Areas A and B into Jordan. Thats currently 3 million people, and it will expand into more.
None of Israels neighbors are doing well economically. Corruption, climate change, internal strife and refugees make them more prone to inefficient war machines and economies.
If Israel expels the Palestinians, there will be a regional war. Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon, the countries bordering Israel, will likely attack in some capacity. Israel will likely win, for a variety of reasons. It is a major arms manufacturer, being number 9 in the world and mostly self sufficient in terms of arms and missiles and tanks and drones, with it mainly being reliant on United States for aircraft parts.
The Levant Arab states will not commit to many troops to try to attack Israel for fear of nuclear weapons that Israel has. There will be mostly token forces to fight Israel to not risk Israel using a nuclear bomb.
I cant help but feel while my analysis is detailed and somewhat knowledgeable, that it is lacking somehow. Could anyone offer their insight?
What kind of bullshit is this? The Egyptians already had made peace with Israel. They mainly made peace in return for the Sinai, not American aid. Thats just a benefit.
Your obfuscating things to match your agenda. The Abraham Accords had no need for Egypt, because Egypt had already made peace. They got four Arab states to go make peace with Israel. Two of them Gulf States.
The Iranians are fighting a proxy war because they want to spread their own brand of political Islamism and revolutionary islamic govt. Pro-US forces are there to stop the spread. This helps maintain stability and aid the Saudis and by extension, other Gulf states like Bahrain, UAE and Oman.
...the US isnt occupying any of Syria. What are you even on about? You mean because the US supports the Syrian Democratic forces with a very minimal amount of troops? The Syrian Democratic Forces are local forces, mainly local Kurds and Arabs, who arent even trying to rebel against Assad anymore. They mostly want autonomy and detente with the Syrian state. The reason US forces were even there was to help the Kurds fight ISiS. It had nothing to do with Israel, and it certainly isnt an American occupation. Most of the forces are Syrian, local Kurds and Arabs who run the show. Saying the US occupies Northeastern Syria is ridiculous.
The fact that you obfuscated with Egypt leaves all of this incredibly suspect. Sharon was neutral on Iraq, and he was the Prime Minister at the time. Do you really expect the israelis to come out in full force opposition to their greatest ally? They would primarily share their thoughts in private. And Sharon was neutral.
Iraq was motivated because George W Bush had an axe to grind. His father didnt take down Saddam, and that fact irked Bush. So Bush, along with Cheney, was happy to finally take Saddam down. The Iraq war was a mistake motivated by personal interests, not any Israeli concerns.
More options
Context Copy link