The end of Israel? (The Spectator)


By Stephen Pollard
June 10, 2010
Share

My Spectator piece from last week is now free from its paywall. You can read it here.

COMMENTS

Blacklisted Dictator

Thu, 06/10/2010 - 17:49

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen,

You conclude that the writing might be on the wall for Israel. Do you think that she will last longer that the Islamist regime in Iran?

I know it is a difficult question to answer but, if you really were pushed to give an answer, what would it be ?


tomeisner2

Thu, 06/10/2010 - 18:27

Rate this:

0 points

On the basis that countries throughout history evolve and change Israel cannot and won't survive in its present form.
I believe that Israelis and Palestinians have too much in common to remain separate people.
The day will come when there will be a united country for all. It doesn't have to be so far away.


Yvetta

Thu, 06/10/2010 - 19:30

Rate this:

0 points

I think you have completely misinterpreted Stephen's piece, Tom. The crux of the matter is that Israel's enemies are our enemies. And unless this fact is recognised, those who seek to establish a world Caliphate and plunge the world into a new improved version of the Dark Ages will turn their guns on us when they have exterminated Israel.


amber

Thu, 06/10/2010 - 22:54

Rate this:

0 points

Eisner, what do Israelis and Palestinians have in common?


Blacklisted Dictator

Thu, 06/10/2010 - 23:02

Rate this:

0 points

Tom,
I think that you might be a Prophet. Have you ever had yourself checked out?


tomeisner2

Fri, 06/11/2010 - 08:46

Rate this:

0 points

Yvetta
you sound paranoid

Amber
Human beings

BD
Profit please instead


Joshua18

Fri, 06/11/2010 - 11:35

Rate this:

0 points

"Yvetta
you sound paranoid"

That's what they said about your relatives, and they ended up in gas chambers.

"Amber
Human beings"

Tell that to Indians and Pakistanis, to Czechs and Slovaks, to Bosnians, Croatians and Serbs, to Kurds, to the Basques, and so on.

"The day will come when there will be a united country for all."

Oh, please, simply because you desire it doesn't mean it will be so. There is actually far more chance you are going to be recognised by one and all as the reincarnation of Heifetz. In other words, no chance at all.


tomeisner2

Sat, 06/12/2010 - 11:43

Rate this:

0 points

How much do you want to bet?


amber

Sat, 06/12/2010 - 17:54

Rate this:

0 points

eisner, that's true between any people. So, they have nothing else in common that would bind them into one state? You simply advocate the end of the Jewish state because, well, you hate Jews.

You don't advocate the end of Saudi Arabia do you?


amber

Sat, 06/12/2010 - 17:55

Rate this:

0 points

Heifetz was a proud Jew, unlike eisner.


steveabbott

Sat, 06/12/2010 - 18:20

Rate this:

0 points



Punchy and powerful posting from Eve Gerrard.

Whats to argue with? - nothing - so i wont. All the countries she lists have done terrible things. no decent person can defend those things, or argue that Israel is worse. But what does trouble me, is the implication that while israel does terrible things, so do lots of other countries, so its ok. Its such terrible company to be in.

It is of course, not ok. And with a little imagination, courage, and compromise, it does not have to be like this. Israel does not have to be in occupation of palestinian lands. It could agree withdrawl to the 1967 borders, make a proper peace with the palestinians, and get its soldier back. It could resolve border issues with lebanon, make a commitment to no more invasions or bombing, get its soldiers back, and have peace on its northern border. It could very easily agree to hand back the Golan, and make peace with Syria. Israel could make a public declaration that the IDF will only be used to defend Israel at its borders - not for invading neighbouring countries. Everyone except the opposing fringes knows what the final settlement looks like; similarly everyone knows how to get there. The initial drive must come from Israel, since it is the dominant player in a hugely uneven regional power structure. But its negotiating partners will have plenty of hard commitments they will need to make to ensure that Israelis feel welcome and secure in the post conflict environment, and more - that Israel itself is a recognised, accepted, fraternal member of the family of the middle east.

None of the above prevents Israel maintaining strong armed forces, or even retaining its nuclear weapons - with a no first use doctrine. All of the above would utterly transform Israel, and the region.

What other options are there? Just to ask the question is to answer it - none. The status quo is completely unsustainable, as Stephen Pollard himself recognises. The occupation is sapping the morale of the IDF, and is a poison infecting Israeli society. Military spending is a drag on the economy. The aggressive posture re the neighbouring states is so obviuosly counter productive - are hamas stronger than in 2008/9 are Hezbollah stronger than in 2006? Can Israel continue to rely on an eternally compliant and co-operative US - will the cashpoint remain open? Are the demographics of Israel and the occupied territories favourable? Will Israel be forced to act in more extreme, yet more aggressive ways to maintain the status quo?


steveabbott

Sun, 06/13/2010 - 21:12

Rate this:

0 points

yvetta. world caliphate? you can forget that - they had their chance 500 years ago. last shot - failed. islamism has zero external appeal. medieval religion for closed minds. we are not going back to the dark ages - progess is far to exciting! dont confuse the global jihadis (utterly irrelevant), with those resisting israeli occupation and colonialsism (legitimate).

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

STEPHEN POLLARD ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS