With no end in sight to Palestinian-Israeli violence, with the resignation of a frustrated Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas after only four months in office, and with the latest American-sponsored "Road Map" for Middle East peace apparently having led everybody to the edge of a cliff, this seems to be as good as good a time as any to assess the question: is there a future for Israel as a Jewish, democratic state in the Middle East?

The short answer is to this question is, "the way things are going right now, not likely." No doubt, there is always the danger of being overly apocalyptic when it comes to the Middle East. Still, the situation at present does not look good. One might even go so far as to say that, if things don't soon change drastically and for the better, the only real question will be exactly when and how Israel meets its demise -- whether the Jewish State, to paraphrase T.S. Eliot, ends with a bang or with a whimper.

The Story So Far…
First, a brief update on the current situation in Israel. Since the current Palestinian uprising ("Intifada II") began in September 2000 - three years which seem like an eternity -- more than 800 Israelis and over 2,000 Palestinians have been killed in suicide bombings (all by Palestinians), shootings (committed by both sides), Israeli military incursions into West Bank and Gaza cities, ad nauseum. The "Middle East peace process," which by the fall of 2000 had produced what looked like a peace deal between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, now appears deader than the Dead Sea. Meanwhile, the Palestinian economy is in utter ruins, and the Israeli economy, once the high-tech powerhouse of the Middle East, is a complete mess as well.

Both the Israeli and Palestinian people are demoralized, confused, and exhausted, yet neither side shows any signs of taking a bold move to resolve the current situation. This is even more apparent following Saturday's resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas. The United States in particular had looked upon and promoted Abbas as an acceptable alternative to Yasser Arafat, and as one of the keys to its Arab-Israeli "road map to peace" process. However, Abbas proved unable to effectively establish his authority over the various Palestinian factions, both within the mainstream Fatah movement as well as outside - in Hamas and Islamic Jihad, particularly. At the same time, Israel continued and even intensified its policy of assassinating those it identified as Palestinian terrorist leaders. This combination dealt a possibly fatal blow to the "road map."

No Peace and No Security - Now That's a Winning Ticket!
In this context, as Tom Friedman of the New York Times has pointed out, it is fascinating that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has continued to maintain the support of most Israelis (he was overwhelmingly re-elected in January 2003), in spite of his failure to deliver either peace or security. How can this be?

Essentially, although most Israelis see little hope in a strictly military solution in their conflict with the Palestinians, they also see little prospect of a negotiated settlement either. Instead, most Israelis believe that the Palestinians and their President, Yasser Arafat, rejected the most generous peace offer they were ever going to get - the one made by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak back in 2000 - and that this proves the Palestinians' hellbent desire to destroy the Jewish, to "throw Israel into the sea." So, even though most Israelis would have to admit that General Sharon's "all stick, no carrot" approach (as Tom Friedman calls it) has been a miserable failure, they do not trust the alternative either.

The bottom line for most Israelis is that if Ariel "Arik" Sharon, Israel's "Mr. Security" and the hero of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, can't protect Israelis against suicide bombers from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, then how on earth can the more dovish Labor Party or anyone else? Given this not-necessarily-irrational feeling among a large number of Israelis, Sharon's hard-line course may simply represent the "least bad" option for most Israelis at the present time.

Give it to Me Straight, Doc
Sadly, the prognosis for the foreseeable future in the Holy Land doesn't look good. In the language of a medical doctor speaking to a terminally ill patient, the Israeli-Palestinian situation looks nasty, bloody, and painful in the short-term; even worse in the medium-term; and almost undoubtedly fatal in the long-term.

So, what would the "doctor" recommend that Israel do at this point? Four courses of action appear possible. First, Israel could pick up and move to a different climate, since this current one appears to be killing it. In other words, Jews could abandon Israel and the Zionist dream, returning to the diaspora, perhaps forever. This is not likely to be a popular option.

Second, Israel could try radical surgery, such as the extremely dangerous and morally questionable choice of expelling the Palestinians from the West Bank. Or, it could simply withdraw from this area unilaterally, in an implicit acknowledgment that grafting this overwhelmingly Arab area onto the body politic of Israel since 1967 has turned out to be a disaster. Don't hold your breath for either one of these possibilities to take place.

Third, Israel could ingest some strange drugs that cause it to mutate into a Single Democratic State (SDS) - a unified, secular State of Israel and Palestine. But this, of course, would effectively negate the Zionist dream of a majority Jewish state. For this reason, the SDS also is not likely to be a popular option among most Israelis.

Finally, Israelis could simply decide to tough it out and take their chances, awaiting their probable long-term doom stoically, while easing their current pain with whatever metaphorical narcotic might comfort them most -- religious zealotry, self-delusion, building fences, fighting back, hedonism. Not a great option, but possibly the most palatable choice for many Israelis.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
Not surprisingly, as Friedman argues, most Israelis would love to see another alternative. In their heart of hearts, many of Israelis would simply like to be completely separated from the Palestinians, and vice versa. It is easy to see why this option would have an emotional appeal for many, but the fact is that it is all but impossible. For many reasons -- historical, religious, economic, political, military/strategic - the Israelis and Palestinians are tied together. This is largely the legacy of the 1967 Six-Day War.

Seen as a great victory at the time, in the long run Israel's conquest of the West Bank during the Six-Day War has turned into a disaster, as many people on the Left have been predicting for years. Having taken control of the West Bank (historic "Judea and Samaria" to Jewish settler types) with its large Palestinian population, plus both East and West Jerusalem, the temptation grew among many Israelis to hold onto these lands at all cost. Over the years, Jewish settlements grew, to the point that they now comprise hundreds of thousands of Jews in the midst of millions of Arabs. These settlements have created a permanent source of antagonism and anger for Palestinians. In doing so, they have also helped fuel the first and second intifadas, resulting in enormous economic and human devastation for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Sadly, at the present time there is no electable Israeli politician who has the desire and the ability to uproot these settlements -- at least not on any large scale and not while the current, vicious cycle of revenge continues -- from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Making matters worse, the settlers appear determined to stay and even expand their presence in "Judea and Samaria." At the same time, the Palestinians appear unwilling, unable, or both, to compromise on their "right of return" (a non-starter for Israel) and other highly charged matters like the future of Jerusalem. Finally, the Bush Administration policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict has been a complete failure, a nearly complete capitulation to the Christian Right Wing's hard-line support for Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies regarding the "rapture" -- the Second Coming of Christ - in which the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and an ultimate battle between good and evil (Armageddon) play prominent roles. What we have here is both a vicious circle and a self-fulfilling prophecy all at once.

Doom, Gloom, and Disaster
As bad as all this sounds, the situation gets even gloomier when you look at some basic demographic facts. Specifically, in just a few short years there will be more Palestinians than Jews living in the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, also known as historic Palestine. If Israel doesn't figure out a way to disentangle itself before that happens, essentially it's got three options. As Tom Friedman outlines them, it's either: 1) some sort of apartheid solution a la South Africa, where the Jews rule by force over the Palestinians indefinitely; 2) expulsion of the Palestinians to Jordan and elsewhere; or 3) acceptance of a Palestinian right to vote Israel out of existence as a Jewish state. From Israel's perspective as a Jewish democracy, all of these options spell disaster.

The problem is, if Israel doesn't choose one of these options, it's facing even worse disaster scenarios, particularly if the current situation drags on indefinitely. In the worst case, terrorists or a country like Iran eventually could target Israel with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This may not happen tomorrow, next year, or even next decade, but eventually - 10 years, 20 years, whenever-- the Arabs or Al Qaeda or someone is going to try to pull off something like this. Muslim extremists have already vowed that they will annihilate Israel with non-conventional weapons if they can. And eventually, in the absence of peace, they may succeed.

Let's forget WMD for the moment and ask ourselves how long Israel can hold out conventionally with its backs to the Mediterranean Sea, surrounded by 200+ million hostile Arabs and 1 billion Muslims worldwide. The current State of Israel has so far lasted for over 55 years. Sadly, it is not likely to last for 55 more years in the absence of true peace with its neighbors. And for the foreseeable future, such a peace appears highly unlikely.

The New State of Israetine?
Faced with this situation, it might just be that the "least bad" solution for Israelis at this point is to grit their teeth, grimace, and down that nasty medicine called the Single State Democratic State solution. Call this state "Palestine," "Israel-Palestine," "Israetine," or any other name you like. Such a country would represent a reunification of historic Palestine west of the Jordan River, and an end to the nearly century-old attempt at establishing a secure, democratic, "normal" Jewish state in the Middle East. For that reason alone, it's probably never going to happen. But, in some ways it's an appealing vision.

Imagine a democratic state that assures fundamental rights -- religion, speech, assembly
-- for all. Imagine a compromise that continues to guarantee the right of free immigration for Jews, as well as a similar arrangement for the Palestinian diaspora as well. In the end, the new state of Israetine (or whatever) could then proceed with the business of integrating itself into the region, both economically and politically. It also could serve as a model of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Democracy for other countries in the Middle East like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt.

In this scenario, Arab and Jewish extremists alike would likely lose their appeal, as the political and economic situation improved rapidly. The few extremists that remained could be dealt with by the new state's security services, which would have a strong incentive to do so given their ownership stake in the new country.

They Wouldn't Nuke Themselves, Would They?
When all that is done, the security of the Jews living in Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem might, paradoxically, be greater than it is today in their own country. In addition, Jews would make up a large percentage of the new, unified country's population -- far larger, in fact than whites do in today's South Africa where South African whites are doing just fine. Also, like the South African post-apartheid whites, Palestinian Jews undoubtedly would still maintain great economic and political power in the new democratic secular state. And, surely, one would think that the Arabs wouldn't want to "nuke" (or otherwise destroy) their own half-Jewish and half-Arab country, right? Or is this all just wishful thinking?

So what's so bad about that scenario exactly? Well, for one thing, it's logical. This is, after all, the Middle East, where passions and dreams, miracles and massacres rule the day, and where rationality and logic often appear to be permanently wandering in the desert. More than that, though, for Israel the SDS solution would represent a loss of Zionist Founding Father Theodore Herzl's dream, that of a sovereign Jewish democracy in the historic land of Israel. Still, given the bleak alternatives, Israelis might be wise to consider the injunction in the Torah, "choose life," rather than committing slow suicide in thrall to what is ultimately starting to look like a lost cause.

About Lowell Feld

Talk politics at the The Water Cooler