Is Israel doomed?

[Keit]

I was really shocked when I saw the following article. Even if Robert Yisrael Aumann (won a Nobel prize) is religious, I actually thought that this man have a true kindness in his heart. My boss is his relative and a very good friend. He showed me pictures of Aumann's family and told me stories about him. On those pictures this man looks like a really good person. So after all this, to read such article??? How come so many brilliant Israeli scientists spend their time on thinking how to kill in more efficient way, then thinking how to improve or create life? How come kindness is limited only to the specific nation? And how come no one can't see that this is fundamentaly wrong.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ArticleNews.jhtml?itemNo=775930&contrassID=13&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0

Professor Robert Yisrael Aumann, the Israeli-American scholar who won the Nobel Prize for economics last year, has said that Israel may not be capable of continuing to exist in the long-term.

According to Aumann, who moved to Israel from the United States in the 1950s, too many Jews living in Israel do not understand why they are here. "If we don't understand why we are here, and that we are not America or just a place in which to live, we will not survive," he said in a speech in the West Bank, warning against signs of fatigue and inalertness among Israelis. "The desire to live like all the nations will sustain us maybe another 50 years, if we are still here."

Aumann, who lost his son Shlomo in the first Lebanon war, accused Israelis of being overly sensitive to casualties of war. "We are too sensitive to our losses, and also to the losses of the other side," he said. "In the Yom Kippur War, 3,000 soldiers were killed. It sounds terrible, but that's small change."

Aumann cited the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip as mistaken. "Looking at the other side is an important element of game theory," he said. "The Arabs' understanding in the wake of the expulsion [from Gaza] was that they had succeeded, and that they have to continue on the same path.

The expulsion, therefore, brought about the launching of Qassams on Israel and the abduction of the soldiers. The expulsion transmitted the message that we can be moved even from Tel Aviv, and not just from Gush Katif."

"Last summer we set back peace and understanding with our neighbors by at least 10 years," said Aumann. "After the expulsion, no words will convince them that we intend to stay here forever."

To what extent does Aumann's analysis accutely depict Israel's post-disengagement reality and the dangers the state faces? Are there competing factors that call his view into question? What are the most important steps Israel can take to ensure its long-term survival?

Also go to the link of this article and read the comments. All of the comments made by apparent Zionists that not so surprisingly live in USA. How come those Jehovah fighters for Israel survival choose not to live IN Israel? Maybe because they prefer to spend their money on their beloved investment, but to be far away from harm if this investment will go in flames.

 

[salleles]

Here is an interesting commentary from M.J. Rosenberg on Aumann's speech:

Aumann, an ultra-Orthodox Jew who lost a son in the 1982 Lebanon war, believes Israelis need to toughen themselves so that they can sustain more losses, without losing faith in the Zionist mission.

Of course, the Zionist mission was to establish a state where Jewish young people would be safe, not one in which a certain percentage of 18-year old kids would die in battle in each generation.

Aumann's upside-down Zionist vision -- a Jewish state perpetually at war -- would neither have inspired Jews to build a state nor would it have sustained it.

http://web(dot)israelinsider.com/Views/9678.htm
http://www(dot)sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=M.J._Rosenberg

Sounds quite reasonable from the mouth of an ex-AIPAC and ex-Capitol Hill member, but further on he writes:

Hopefully, we still have time to prevent that catastrophe. The Bush administration enters the last two years of its term in January but, in fact, it was during the last two years of their terms that former Presidents Bush and Clinton made their most significant contributions to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Those two Presidents essentially left behind a blueprint for an agreement that would end the conflict once and for all.

George W. Bush will probably not be able to solve the national health crisis in two years. Or end nuclear proliferation. Or put social security on a permanently sound financial footing.

But he can produce a peace agreement. After all, as my Israeli friend asks: Why do Israelis and Palestinians deserve less than the Irish, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Bosnians or the South Africans?

Thus, Rosenberg essentially demands the US government to end the mess in the promised land, taking away any responsability from Israel itself. Of course, speculating that Bush might achieve some form of peace anywhere on this planet is utterly unrealistic. Therefore his words are as hollow as a drain pipe.

 

[bngenoh]

This is interesting, basically acknowledging that the entire creation of Israel was the creation of a castle in the sky, as always, reality will come a knocking, and based on the actions of Israel, they will do all that they can to keep their castle in the sky a float. The consequences of wishful thinking being shown for all to see.