US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[MalaspinaGold]

I'd say offer any Israelis in the West Bank Palestinian citizenship. I imagine they'll use their right of return to Israel, but who knows.

Imagination and reality don't always mesh.  In some future historical tome of The Rise and Fall of the State of Israel this election just past will be a marker where the two-state solution was dealt its final death blow, tho in truth the settlements killed it long ago.  The only question now is how the eventual one-state solution will be reached, and how bloody it will be.

They said this in 2013, and they said this in 2009. Something can't die ten thousand times. Which in all likelihood means it's still alive.

[ingemann]

I'd say offer any Israelis in the West Bank Palestinian citizenship. I imagine they'll use their right of return to Israel, but who knows.

Imagination and reality don't always mesh.  In some future historical tome of The Rise and Fall of the State of Israel this election just past will be a marker where the two-state solution was dealt its final death blow, tho in truth the settlements killed it long ago.  The only question now is how the eventual one-state solution will be reached, and how bloody it will be.

They said this in 2013, and they said this in 2009. Something can't die ten thousand times. Which in all likelihood means it's still alive.

I love this comment. It's wonderful attack on the doomsaying which dominate the debate sometimes.

[Velasco]

Among possible consequences, there is optimism among Arab countries that the US would not veto a new UN resolution recognizing Palestine.

It would be a little step forward, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[Hnv1]

I'd say offer any Israelis in the West Bank Palestinian citizenship. I imagine they'll use their right of return to Israel, but who knows.

Imagination and reality don't always mesh.  In some future historical tome of The Rise and Fall of the State of Israel this election just past will be a marker where the two-state solution was dealt its final death blow, tho in truth the settlements killed it long ago.  The only question now is how the eventual one-state solution will be reached, and how bloody it will be.

They said this in 2013, and they said this in 2009. Something can't die ten thousand times. Which in all likelihood means it's still alive.

If anything it died with the disaster of Barak PM+camp david+second intifada. But with passing time I become more complete with the realization that maybe it was never a viable option

[Famous Mortimer]

I'd say offer any Israelis in the West Bank Palestinian citizenship. I imagine they'll use their right of return to Israel, but who knows.

Imagination and reality don't always mesh.  In some future historical tome of The Rise and Fall of the State of Israel this election just past will be a marker where the two-state solution was dealt its final death blow, tho in truth the settlements killed it long ago.  The only question now is how the eventual one-state solution will be reached, and how bloody it will be.

They said this in 2013, and they said this in 2009. Something can't die ten thousand times. Which in all likelihood means it's still alive.

If anything it died with the disaster of Barak PM+camp david+second intifada. But with passing time I become more complete with the realization that maybe it was never a viable option

What do you think is going to happen then? I remember last time we talked about this, you said the one state solution was ridiculous. Have you come around to its inevitability or do you just think the status quo will continue forever?

I think after the next election, we probably see prominent politicians on the left coming out for one state. I wouldn't be totally surprised if it happened before then.

[Hnv1]

I'd say offer any Israelis in the West Bank Palestinian citizenship. I imagine they'll use their right of return to Israel, but who knows.

Imagination and reality don't always mesh.  In some future historical tome of The Rise and Fall of the State of Israel this election just past will be a marker where the two-state solution was dealt its final death blow, tho in truth the settlements killed it long ago.  The only question now is how the eventual one-state solution will be reached, and how bloody it will be.

They said this in 2013, and they said this in 2009. Something can't die ten thousand times. Which in all likelihood means it's still alive.

If anything it died with the disaster of Barak PM+camp david+second intifada. But with passing time I become more complete with the realization that maybe it was never a viable option

What do you think is going to happen then? I remember last time we talked about this, you said the one state solution was ridiculous. Have you come around to its inevitability or do you just think the status quo will continue forever?

I think after the next election, we probably see prominent politicians on the left coming out for one state. I wouldn't be totally surprised if it happened before then.

Tough answer. The one state solution is ridiculous because it will only work on paper, in reality it will rapidly turn into a bloody civil war. I think the status quo will continue for awhile (as long as the PA has the ability to pay its people and hence their will to sustain it) until it will fall apart and then what will happen on the ground is hard to predict (well part for bloodshed that will come in abundance no doubt).

I think you'll see more politicians from the extreme right calling for "one state" (in reality an autonomy with minimal civil rights) before you'll see the shift in the left (2 states is like a religion to most).

I think BB will go to his default strategy: no negotiations but easing the economic pressure to allow the PA to live on and thus cementing a status quo. Problem is the PA is a rough patch with the Palestinian public hence why I can't see how the PA lives on like that with internal and external (foreign PLO) pressure. Abbas will try to maintain it with diplomatic pressure in Hague and the UN but I doubt it will work in the long run.

But than again the prophecy was given to the fools...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Calling him BB?  Very clever...

[Hnv1]

Calling him BB?  Very clever...

No pun intended, really. Seems nicer and shorter to write it in English than Bibi.

[Indy Texas]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Granted the Law of Return is problematic by liberal democracy standards, but it correlates do the idea of Jewish nationality at basis of Zionist ideology and the nation-state based on its values. So if you accept a Jewish nation exists, a law of return is logical considering the diasporic state of that nation, if you don't than the Law of Return would inherently be racist in that view.

Also, I would say we need to differ between a democracy in ethnic sense (which is more common outside western world) and a liberal democracy who so far seems like an undesired concept in most non European countries. I say this as an Israeli who is for a liberal democracy with a harsh view on the Law of Return.

Israel inside the 1967 border is an ethnic democracy (with some liberal traits), this naturally creates tension with liberal values. I wouldn't call it an apartheid (as opposed to what's happening in the West Bank) but the institutionalized discrimination of Arabs in land ownership will be considered racist by liberal standards.

Except that European nation-states still acknowledge ethnic/linguistic minorities within their borders and consider them an integral part of the national identity. Israel does not do this for its non-Jewish, Arabic-speaking community.

Even the PLO defines a "Palestinian" as anyone who resided in Mandatory Palestine prior to 1948 (or the direct descendant of someone who did) - regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or linguistic community. In other words, this would include not only all Palestinians and all Israeli Arabs but probably about half of all Israeli Jews. (The bulk of those who would be excluded would be Jews from Arab countries or from Iran, and Jews of Russian/Soviet origin.) This is a far more generous criteria for citizenship than the criteria Israel uses (where someone who was living in Israel prior to 1948 could be ineligible for citizenship but someone who has never lived there in their life could be eligible).

[Hnv1]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

Yeah, Jews are not a majority in the area they control.  Not unless you accept the legitimacy of second-class Bantustans carved out of that area from places the Jews are happy to leave to be Palestinian ghettos.

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

Granted the Law of Return is problematic by liberal democracy standards, but it correlates do the idea of Jewish nationality at basis of Zionist ideology and the nation-state based on its values. So if you accept a Jewish nation exists, a law of return is logical considering the diasporic state of that nation, if you don't than the Law of Return would inherently be racist in that view.

Also, I would say we need to differ between a democracy in ethnic sense (which is more common outside western world) and a liberal democracy who so far seems like an undesired concept in most non European countries. I say this as an Israeli who is for a liberal democracy with a harsh view on the Law of Return.

Israel inside the 1967 border is an ethnic democracy (with some liberal traits), this naturally creates tension with liberal values. I wouldn't call it an apartheid (as opposed to what's happening in the West Bank) but the institutionalized discrimination of Arabs in land ownership will be considered racist by liberal standards.

Except that European nation-states still acknowledge ethnic/linguistic minorities within their borders and consider them an integral part of the national identity. Israel does not do this for its non-Jewish, Arabic-speaking community.

Even the PLO defines a "Palestinian" as anyone who resided in Mandatory Palestine prior to 1948 (or the direct descendant of someone who did) - regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or linguistic community. In other words, this would include not only all Palestinians and all Israeli Arabs but probably about half of all Israeli Jews. (The bulk of those who would be excluded would be Jews from Arab countries or from Iran, and Jews of Russian/Soviet origin.) This is a far more generous criteria for citizenship than the criteria Israel uses (where someone who was living in Israel prior to 1948 could be ineligible for citizenship but someone who has never lived there in their life could be eligible).

Again, I see the problem (I have my own arguments against the Law of Return), but if you re-read my first paragraph you'll see where this problem stems and why it's more difficult than discussing this as a textbook problem in political science.

Other points:
- I'm trying to think of a European liberal democracy with 20% distinctive minority population (not immigrants) which has connection with a neighboring belligerent national group. I can't, again why comparisons are good only to a certain degree.
- I'm not sure how well you know the Israeli Arab population but I might be the first to tell you that some of it groups have very weak affiliation with the overall Palestinian national identity. Again, not black and white
- pardon me if I take your interpretation of PLO ideas with  a grain of salt. You see we have this tradition in our region when addressing the rest of the world each side moderates its tone and say more welcoming things. I say this as an Israeli Jew who is closer in his view to fatah than Labour most likely.
- nationality, liberalism, and democracy are vague philosophical term when you try to place them on reality problems sprout. To be crude I will use a the metaphor of a large penis (reality) and a too small condom (philosophical terms created by humans). Hence, why I'm usually for practical solutions that fit reality and the humans in it than Utopian textbook solutions.

[politicus]

Other points:
- I'm trying to think of a European liberal democracy with 20% distinctive minority population (not immigrants) which has connection with a neighboring belligerent national group. I can't, again why comparisons are good only to a certain degree.

Both Estonia and Latvia have those. And while Russians are (mostly) of immigrant descend they do constitute a distinct minority.

[Dan the Roman]

This entire thread is absurd. Israel does not have to do anything. The simple fact is that Israel holds all the cards in any potential settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just as the Croatians held all the cards in any agreement on the future of Serbs within Croatia post-1995, by virtue of winning the war. In the case of Israel, it not only beat the Arabs once, but repeatedly, and most recently it has thrice crushed Palestinian uprisings to the extent that Palestinian resistance poses less threat to Israel internally than Islamic extremism does to France.

Furthermore, Israelis, or at least a majority of them, have nowhere to retreat to. Recent developments in Europe will serve to convince a majority of Israelis who matter that Europe is intrinsically anti-Semitic, and the only people who care about Israeli lives will be Israelis, meaning that absolutely anything is justified to maintain their security. Yes some on the Israeli left may say that Israel's actions are provoking that reaction in Europe, but they are a fringe domestically. And ironically, the more Europe tries to pressure Israel, the more vindicated will be those who say that Israelis cannot retreat one inch no matter what the moral or physical cost to anyone else. As a consequence, European pressure is likely to make Israelis less likely to make concessions to the Palestinians, or god forbid, endanger national survival through allowing a binational state.

Finally, Israel is in a stronger position internationally than it has ever been. In the 1970s Israel was isolated and the combination of Eastern Bloc and Islamic hostility meant that there literally were three or four countries with whom it had relations. Today, Israel no longer looks like an occupier to the vast majority of the world, as major non-Western powers such as Russia, India(under the BJP), and China all have serious problems with their Islamic muslim minorities and have no desire to create a universal precedent. At the same time, the Palestinians, with their knack for picking the wrong side in every single conflict throughout their history(the Nazis, the Soviets, Saddam Hussein) are seen as aligned with two of the most polarizing groups in the region, or at least Hamas is, namely the Muslim Brotherhood and Erdogan's Turkey. Whatever Egypt, Saudi Arabia's, or though they will not admit this, Iran's thoughts about Israel, they have no desire to see a Muslim Brotherhood/Turkish/Isis base on their borders, which is exactly what any potential Palestinian state in current circumstances would be. So basically, Israel's isolation, to the extent it exists, is largely confined to Western liberals who have become much more anti-Israel in recent years due to Netanyahu's incompetence, but this shift has come at a time when Europe has never been more irrelevant to Israel's future, except insofar as Israeli leftists want to feel part of Europe culturally, but again they don't govern Israel. It is highly amusing for people on this thread and elsewhere to act as though not letting 35% of those who live within your military control vote is somehow some sort of anachronistic situation for a government in the 21st century when a huge number of countries do exactly that. I mean even the Baltics  which are EU members do so to 20% or so on the grounds of national security.

 A single-state is an impossibility. It would be national suicide for Israel, and the only circumstance in which it would be possible, an Arab military victory, it would not be on the agenda of anyone. This conflict will end one of two ways - a settlement with the Palestinians on Israel's terms in which they will get internal autonomy in nominally independent protectorates, or in their removal. The latter would mark a permanent break with Europe and with the Left in the United States, but public opinion in the US is such that under a Republican Administration American reaction would not go beyond verbal, and maybe limitations on aid. And Israel would have plenty of friends in a Modi-ruled India, and China.

But Western Lefties have no say or influence on how this conflict will end, and for them to try and threaten Israel, or engage in wishful thinking about consequences is absurd.

[Hnv1]

Other points:
- I'm trying to think of a European liberal democracy with 20% distinctive minority population (not immigrants) which has connection with a neighboring belligerent national group. I can't, again why comparisons are good only to a certain degree.

Both Estonia and Latvia have those. And while Russians are (mostly) of immigrant descend they do constitute a distinct minority.

Which adds to tensions in both. Now lets put them both in decades of conflict with this minority and neighboring hostile  authoritarian countries and let see how their democratic values fare. I want to emphasize I'm completely against most of what he is opposing I'm just saying I don't like the situation analyzed based on detached western liberal perspective.

[politicus]

Israel did win, but they can not get away with an ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and without it they risk minority status in the long run + they risk getting the South African treatment from the world community.

The idea that India and China should have an interest in supporting Israel over Arab countries is absurd. Both countries need oil.

[Dan the Roman]

Israel did win, but they can not get away with an ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and without it they risk minority status in the long run + they risk getting the South African treatment from the world community.

The idea that India and China should have an interest in supporting Israel over Arab countries is absurd. Both countries need oil.

The Arab world is fading in terms of its importance to global oil markets. And if you have been paying attention, the Arab world isn't that interested in a Palestinian state right now. At least not any of the Oil producers. Hamas is aligned with Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood, and they have zero faith in the PA to hold them off. It is safer for the Saudis and Gulf States to have Israel in military control of Gaza and the West Bank than to risk Hamas getting it.

[Dan the Roman]

Also worth noting that Netanyahu invited Modi to Israel when neither the US nor the UK would let him in. He remembers that.

[ingemann]

Israel did win, but they can not get away with an ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and without it they risk minority status in the long run + they risk getting the South African treatment from the world community.

The idea that India and China should have an interest in supporting Israel over Arab countries is absurd. Both countries need oil.

The Arab world is fading in terms of its importance to global oil markets. And if you have been paying attention, the Arab world isn't that interested in a Palestinian state right now. At least not any of the Oil producers. Hamas is aligned with Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood, and they have zero faith in the PA to hold them off. It is safer for the Saudis and Gulf States to have Israel in military control of Gaza and the West Bank than to risk Hamas getting it.

The problem are whether Arab countries are fading as a factor, Israel is a minor state, which is not worth a bad relationship with the Arab and many Muslim countries over, unless you have some cultural or sentimel reason to upkeep a good relationship with them instead of the Arabs over

[politicus]

Israel did win, but they can not get away with an ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and without it they risk minority status in the long run + they risk getting the South African treatment from the world community.

The idea that India and China should have an interest in supporting Israel over Arab countries is absurd. Both countries need oil.

The Arab world is fading in terms of its importance to global oil markets. And if you have been paying attention, the Arab world isn't that interested in a Palestinian state right now. At least not any of the Oil producers. Hamas is aligned with Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood, and they have zero faith in the PA to hold them off. It is safer for the Saudis and Gulf States to have Israel in military control of Gaza and the West Bank than to risk Hamas getting it.

Not fading fast enough for that to matter. China currently imports more oil from the Gulf than any other country.

Not being pro-Palestinian does not translate into supporting a pariah state like Israel. Israel is unfortunately too unpopular by this point for non-Western powers to support them - especially Muslim countries.

[Dan the Roman]

Israel did win, but they can not get away with an ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and without it they risk minority status in the long run + they risk getting the South African treatment from the world community.

The idea that India and China should have an interest in supporting Israel over Arab countries is absurd. Both countries need oil.

The Arab world is fading in terms of its importance to global oil markets. And if you have been paying attention, the Arab world isn't that interested in a Palestinian state right now. At least not any of the Oil producers. Hamas is aligned with Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood, and they have zero faith in the PA to hold them off. It is safer for the Saudis and Gulf States to have Israel in military control of Gaza and the West Bank than to risk Hamas getting it.

Not fading fast enough for that to matter. China currently imports more oil from the Gulf than any other country.

Not being pro-Palestinian does not translate into supporting a pariah state like Israel. Israel is unfortunately too unpopular by this point for non-Western powers to support them - especially Muslim countries.

What evidence is there for this? Israel has had unparalleled security cooperation with China and India over the last year. India has abandoned Congress' traditional Pro-Palestinian third world solidarity position for one in which it treats the Palestinian issue as an internal Israeli security matter. China is busy signing trade treaties. And Israeli security cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Egypt is the closest it has ever been, see the story from about two years back about Israeli security officials being spotted in Jeddah.

I really don't get this "Israel is a pariah" thing that has sprung up on parts of the European and American left except insofar as it seems to be a product of the same thing that has produced the revival in identity politics, namely the fact that Vox/Tumblr have convinced certain people that they represent far more than they actually do.

Israel is the strongest and least isolated it has ever been diplomatically in terms of its relations with the Non-Western world currently.

Now in terms of international pariahs, you might want to look at the thread about how Sweden does seem to have turned itself into one in a large part of the world. Islamic nations seem to be showing far more outrage at the Swedes this week than they have a reaction to Netanyahu's reelection.

[politicus]

Dan, I am a live long Zionist and I tell you that Israel is unfortunately in serious trouble and risk global isolation. Apart from the US it has no real allies of any strength and no chance of getting any. It is simply not a valuable ally and supporting Israel costs too much. You do not have to be a "liberal" or have an ounch of sympathy for the Palestinians to see that. Denying reality is no use.

[Dan the Roman]

Dan, I am a live long Zionist and I tell you that Israel is unfortunately in serious trouble and risk global isolation. Apart from the US it has no real allies of any strength and no chance of getting any. It is simply not a valuable ally and supporting Israel costs too much. You do not have to be a "liberal" or have an ounch of sympathy for the Palestinians to see that. Denying reality is no use.

I am not. I am contesting a very Euro-centric view of reality, as someone who does a lot of work in East and South Asia as well as in energy. There is a massive gap between the way Israel's isolation has been talked about the last few days in the Western media and the reality I have seen on the ground for the last year.

Modi rushed to congratulate Netanyahu in effusive terms.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Indian-PM-Modi-congratulates-Netanyahu-in-Hebrew-394363

India now is sourcing its spare parts from Israel
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/india-has-started-sourcing-sukhoi-spares-directly-from-israel-france-parrikar/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Israel-offers-top-notch-military-technologies-for-Make-in-India-endeavour/articleshow/46307051.cms

If you even want to look at online comments, pretty much all of them in Indian newspaper articles on the Israeli elections are Pro-Israel

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/israel-elections-netanyahu-s-back-and-what-s-in-it-for-india/article1-1327694.aspx

As for the rest of Asia
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/israels-asian-allies

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Dan, right now those Asian countries are favoring Israel for the same reason that Israel is for the moment secure, its superior military equipment is something they want access to.  However, the idea that Israel will be able to forever maintain military superiority over its neighbors is laughable.  They simply do not have the resources to do so without outside assistance.  If the US and Europe cut off Israel then Israel's military will first lose the qualitative edge of its equipment over India and China as their own abilities improve, and then lose the edge over its neighbors. Even with a total break with the west, I doubt that Israel will lose its edge in less than half a century, but it will happen.

[ag]

The idea that a European colonial project (the way Israel is perceived in most of the world) would have much sympathy outside Europe... Well that is brave.

Yes, Modi will be friendly - in a vague general way. He is strongly anti-Muslim, and that dominates a lot for him. But India does not, really, have a foreign policy that extends to beyond Pakistan and China. Nor does it show many signs of developing one. So, perhaps, it will abstain at the UN when a particularly strong resolution is voted on. Do not count on much more than that: Israel is simply too far away and of too little strategic interest to do too much. China will not endanger its supplies, and that means it will not do anything that would enrage its suppliers. Everywhere else outside of the "white" world Israel remains toxic - far more so than it is in Europe. And going the bantustan way (which seems to be the only alternative Israel is putting on the table now) will make it even more toxic.

[ag]

The one-state solution is less acceptable to (most of) Israeli Zionist left than to its right. It is not the matter of "religion", it is the matter of who they are. Basically, Israeli Zionist left is, first and foremost, Zionist, but it also has a strong liberal attachment. The single state cannot be both Jewish and democratic. Furthermore, on many issues the conservative Muslim and Christian segment of the West Bank society will find itself in agreement with the conservative Jewish segment of the Israeli society. There is, really, no place in such a state for the traditional leftish Zionism. In fact, I would be pretty certain that a lot of the current Israeli left will simply not stay in the country, if such a solution were to be implemented. Within a few decades Israel would become just another fundamentalist Mideastern non-democracy.

The Israeli right, in contrast, would be a lot less scared. To begin with, they do not care about things like minority civil rights, etc., so they could feel they would be able to live with a less liberal and less democratic state, in which their dominance is preserved. For that matter, in neighboring Jordan Palestinians are a majority: but they have little power. The more traditionalist Israelis, especially those of Mideastern origin, would, probably, feel that they can, in fact, develop certain links with some Palestinian forces: they are richer, so some sort of clientelistic relationship is possible. In fact, in such a society the Jewish Arabs' ability to deal with Muslim and Christian Arabs would make them particularly important and influential. And they will not be sorry to see the abandonment of the country by its liberal citizens.

So, I can easily see the reason most of Israeli left is dreading the one-state solution: that one state will not be their state. In fact, this is the reason some Israelis I know give for being on the left: the two-state solution for them is the only way to preserve the Israel they belong to.

[MalaspinaGold]

The one-state solution is less acceptable to (most of) Israeli Zionist left than to its right. It is not the matter of "religion", it is the matter of who they are. Basically, Israeli Zionist left is, first and foremost, Zionist, but it also has a strong liberal attachment. The single state cannot be both Jewish and democratic. Furthermore, on many issues the conservative Muslim and Christian segment of the West Bank society will find itself in agreement with the conservative Jewish segment of the Israeli society. There is, really, no place in such a state for the traditional leftish Zionism. In fact, I would be pretty certain that a lot of the current Israeli left will simply not stay in the country, if such a solution were to be implemented. Within a few decades Israel would become just another fundamentalist Mideastern non-democracy.

The Israeli right, in contrast, would be a lot less scared. To begin with, they do not care about things like minority civil rights, etc., so they could feel they would be able to live with a less liberal and less democratic state, in which their dominance is preserved. For that matter, in neighboring Jordan Palestinians are a majority: but they have little power. The more traditionalist Israelis, especially those of Mideastern origin, would, probably, feel that they can, in fact, develop certain links with some Palestinian forces: they are richer, so some sort of clientelistic relationship is possible. In fact, in such a society the Jewish Arabs' ability to deal with Muslim and Christian Arabs would make them particularly important and influential. And they will not be sorry to see the abandonment of the country by its liberal citizens.

So, I can easily see the reason most of Israeli left is dreading the one-state solution: that one state will not be their state. In fact, this is the reason some Israelis I know give for being on the left: the two-state solution for them is the only way to preserve the Israel they belong to.

There may well be a lot of truth in this. However, my question then becomes: why do the Arab parties  support it, in addition to Hadash? They obviously have different motivations than the Jewish left in Israel.