Interesting thoughts, but respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
Israel is already close to normalization with Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Abraham Accords could be signed with these countries as soon as (1) the hot war with Gaza & Lebanon cools off, and (2) a supportive US administration (i.e., a Trump second term). The Saudis want a "pathway" to a Palestinian state, such as renewed Oslo-like talks -- not an actual independent Palestine.
No one wants an independent Palestine. It would immediately be an Iranian terror vassal, importing weapons through the Jordan Valley. Rockets out of the West Bank could shut down Ben Gurion airport daily and target key military and civilian infrastructure in the heart of Israel. A Hamas-style invasion from Qalqiya or Tulkarm could cut Israel in two in an hour. The West Bank is 15x larger than Gaza and much more strategically important.
Unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon created the current existential threat from Hezbollah. It would be suicidal to repeat this failed experiment in the Golan, E. Jerusalem, and the West Bank.
I agree, peace runs through Mecca. So give the Saudis what they actually want (hint: it's not a Palestinian state).
Thanks for the feedback. I doubt the actual House of Saud really cares about the Palestinian cause. But Arab public opinion does, which even autocrats must take into account for reasons of self-preservation. The hot war with Gaza will eventually cool off, but without a long-term solution, we are doomed to a next one (whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or the West Bank). October 7 proved the failure of a “mowing the grass” approach to the conflict. An Israeli-Arab alliance, openly aligned against Iran, can’t take root if it’s continually disrupted by endless clashes with the Palestinians. We need to cauterize the open wound or else Iran will keep picking at it for exactly that reason.
I agree that an independent Palestine poses a grave security risk to Israel. But so does a non-independent Palestine: more of a risk, I’d argue, since a functional state (bound by security guarantees) could be brought to heel through traditional statecraft. Getting to that point won’t be easy, but rather than repeating the mistakes of Oslo, I’d like to see an “outside-in” approach to peace in the spirit of the Abraham Accords. Once Hamas is defeated, Gulf Arabs have the money and influence to help rebuild and de-radicalize Gaza, but their involvement requires a concrete path to a Palestinian state (again, for reasons of public opinion if nothing else).
I agree in principle, but you argue for Israel to make unilateral withdrawals from territory controlled as of Oct 6th. This approach already failed twice - in Lebanon and in Gaza.
I argue that Israel's doctrine when attacked should be to permanently conquer territory, which establishes a strong deterrent. Then, as with the 1979 Egypt peace deal, give back territory for peace. The "Land for Peace" formula only works if it's opposite is also true -- War for Loss of Territory.
This would allow Israel to be the magnanimous victor, and the Saudis to be the saviors of Palestine by returning Gaza in exchange for normalization.
To be clear, I'm not in favor of unilateral withdrawals. Bilateral negotiations with the Palestinians have failed, as has unilateral disengagement. What I advocate is a new approach: negotiations with the Arab League, on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative (which should not be implemented as proposed, but which can serve as a starting point for talks). The Arab League includes Palestine, so these negotiations would include Palestinian buy-in. But an advantage of negotiating with the Arab League is that Israel could go over the heads of the feckless Palestinian leadership and incentivize strong rulers like MBS to hold their feet to the fire.
I agree with the principle of deterrence. But the problem with permanently conquering territory for deterrence is that Israel is stuck governing the hostile people of that territory. Hamas launched the October 7 attacks, in large part at least, to claim leadership of the Palestinian movement (through a demonstration of "resistance") and derail Israeli-Saudi normalization. An independent Palestine cannot be seen as a reward for Hamas. But a Hamas that is physically destroyed (or severely diminished), then cut out of a post-war settlement that results in Israeli-Arab normalization, has no claim to any victory. The bigger enemy is Iran, who would indeed be deterred by an open Israeli-Arab alliance against its "Axis of Resistance."
1. The right of return is a fallacy created to destroy Israel. No other refugees in history have a right of return to a country they abandoned in war. And once they have settled in a new country they cease to be refugees. Only for the Palestinians is the status of refugee inherited. Palestinian refugees will need to go to a Palestinian state. Until they recognize that fact this conflict will never end. I suggest you read Einat Wilf on the subject if you haven't already.
2. Jerusalem will never be divided again. Jews lived with that, when the Jordanians destroyed every synagogue and turned the Kotel into a garbage dump. These synagogues have been rebuilt and the Kotel turned into the holy place that it is. Why Jews would ever allow someone else to rule over their holy places again is ridiculous. The idea that Muslims cannot imagine that others have the same rights to holy places that they do is to simply give in to their religious supremacism. Instead of asking the Jews and Christians actually to placate this racism, maybe it's time for the supremacists to grow the heck up. Jews and Christians are not lesser peoples and have a right to rule over their own holy places without having to placate haters of any kind. No Israeli government will ever divide Jerusalem ever again.
3. Israel has already given back land....ahem Gaza and areas A and B in the West Bank. See how that turned out. Oslo was killed by Arafat in the 2nd intifada. Hamas has killed the idea of a truly independent Palestine for the near future. There is no way any Israeli government is going to agree to this nonsense and no reason that they should. That the world thinks to placate the Palestinians for their barbarism with a state is disgusting. I didn't see the US offer al Qaeda a state after 9/11 or beg Al Qaeda for forgiveness for making them kill Americans. Same rules need to apply to Israel when it comes to the Palestinians/Arabs.
4. Thinking that KSA is ever going to sign a peace treaty with Israel was and is nonsensical. Wahhabism which is the underpinning of the right of the Saudis to rule would never allow for it. Anyone who thinks there will ever be peace beyond what actually exists , whether Israel agrees to a Palestinian state or not, does not understand Saudi Arabia at all. MBS is playing the US and everyone for fools. The funniest bit when he said that Netanyahu is a war criminal. This murderer who leads a gender apartheid, backward country based on a 7h century philosophy really should keep its mouth shut about human and civil rights.
The only way there is ever going to be peace in the Middle East is if, or when, the Arab/Muslim nations actually come to the conclusion that Israel is not going anywhere. That they live with some kind of fever dream that someday they will be able to commit genocide against Israel and by extension the Jews worldwide is no different than nazism and should be treated with the same disdain instead of being given a hearing and placated. The only reason the world even pays these genociders any mind is that those that want to destroy are Jews.
You want to make the word zionism an anachronism. Then rid the world of antisemitism and then there will be no need for zionism. You make all of this the Jews fault. The Jews are no more at fault for antisemitism than POC are at fault for racism. To say otherwise is to not understand how much of the antisemitic mindset has attached itself to the discourse surrounding MENA.
I don’t think you read the piece carefully enough. Far from saying “all of this is the Jews’ fault,” I wrote “Palestinian rejectionism, embodied by Hamas, remains the most significant obstacle to Israeli-Arab peace.” It’s possible to hold two separate thoughts together at the same time: 1) The Palestinian delusion of destroying Israel is the primary reason there hasn’t been peace or a Palestinian state and 2) It is in Israel’s interest for there to be peace and a Palestinian state. If you don’t agree with point #2, then please let me know what you propose as a long-term solution for the demographic reality that there are around eight million Arabs and seven million Jews in the Holy Land.
Should Israel simply keep the status quo of “managed conflict” going forever? Based on current projections, the Haredim will account for a third of Israel’s Jewish population by 2050 (https://www.timesofisrael.com/nearly-1-in-4-israelis-will-be-ultra-orthodox-by-2050-study-says/). Is an increasingly Haredi Israel (which will probably also result in an outflow of non-Haredi Jews) capable of ruling the West Bank and Gaza, subject to habitual outbreaks of violence, indefinitely? Should Israel simply annex the West Bank and Gaza? If so, should it grant the Palestinians citizenship (thus removing the “Jewish” part of Israel’s “Jewish democracy” as Jews lose dominant majority status)? If not, and Israel chooses to sacrifice the “democracy” part of “Jewish democracy,” will ties with the West survive? Can Israel survive without ties with the West? As Tzipi Livni has said, “I want two states not so we can marry the Palestinians, but so we can divorce them.” Maintaining the status quo until the Arab world assumes the political positions of Likud (ie, until the Messiah comes) assumes the demographic reality is in Israel’s favor. It is not.
The Zionist movement, at its origins, was about Jews assuming agency over their own fates. It’s fine and proper to criticize the Palestinians and the Arab world more broadly for a long record of brutality and antisemitism. But in the spirit of the first Zionists, Jews need to assume an attitude of agency. What is to be done? You don’t make peace with your friends. You make peace with your enemies. Any kind of peace agreement is going to be imperfect, but right now Israel has the US on its side. As the boomers die out and are replaced by the TikTok generation, is the US going to become more pro-Israel, or less? MBS and Saudi Arabia are interested in an accord with Israel out of their own self-interest. Is it geopolitically smart for Israel to wait for Saudi Arabia to become Sweden before negotiating? Again, I welcome alternative long-term visions, but “wait it out” does not count.
I don't disagree that it is in Israel's long term interest for there to be a Palestinian state. Just not now. After WW2 the US occupied Japan and germany for over a decade in trying to recreate the government there. There needs to be a period of deradicalization. They need to develop an economic picture that provides them a future so they dont turn to Islamism. That of course is another issue, how do you untether Islamism from the middle east. As long as this ideology is pervasive , Israel has no choice but to protect itself from another Oct 7.
Now demographics aside, because i have read other reports that the demographic time bomb isn't as dire as some say, the truth of the matter is that there is no need for Israel to rule over millions of people that hate them. Let the palestinians take care of themselves, but as I said no right of return and no Jerusalem. Sorry. East Jerusalem was already offered by both ehud Barak and ehud Olmert and rejected b. The right of return is a fallacy and they are not going back to homes they abandoned. There is no right of return for any refugee under international law, including the palestinians. they will need to go to what ever state will be constituted for them.
And I have already addressed the KSA issue. I do not think MBS is really interested in a peace deal. He likes the low level deals they have now. He gets what he wants and he doesnt have to cause issues in his country. And no KSA doesnt have to become Sweden. I was just putting in there why he is a hypocrite and an evil SOB.
What will happen in the US as far as ISrael? Well the tiktok generation is stupid. But they too will grow up but us boomers arent going anywhere so fast. There is also politics and education that can play a large role in the future. The US has always been aphilosemtic country i dont see that changing any time soon, maybe it will one day but Israel needs to take her immediate issues at heart and not worry about the tiktok generation and 20 years from now. Israel will be here. What she will look like is up to Israelis. The question about the tiktok generation is whether it will be good to be a Jew in the US still in 20 years when the tiktok generation starts taking over boardrooms and congress. It is our future and our children and grandchildren's future at stake with these tentifada antisemites.
I don’t say there should be a Palestinian state *right now* either. I do think a post-war Gaza, ideally rid of Hamas, offers the opportunity to rebuild and reconfigure Palestinian society with outside Arab support and investment. But that won’t happen without a promised pathway to a Palestinian state. In the meantime, there could be a mandate, a trusteeship, or even a provisional Palestinian state in Gaza alone. If you want to encourage Palestinian deradicalization, you need to offer both carrots and sticks. I also wouldn’t discount moderate Islamism as a countervailing force to Hamas. After all, Israel has an Islamist party, Ra’am, that participated in a coalition government and condemned October 7.
Previous peace negotiations largely foundered over the status of Jerusalem and the so-called right of return. These are the most symbolically important issues to the Arabs, so I doubt there can ever be peace without addressing them. "Addressing them" does not mean accepting every Arab demand. The UN resolution that concerns Palestinian refugees states that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property.” I'd emphasize the "live at peace with their neighbours" part in any negotiated settlement. Israel can accept a small number of Palestinian migrants who, like the current Arab minority, can demonstrate that they wish to "live at peace with their neighbours." Others can elect for compensation in tandem with compensation to the descendants of Jews kicked out of Arab countries. Questions around Jerusalem's division are fraught but not unsolvable, and do not require Israel giving up sovereignty over Jewish holy sites (the Clinton Parameters proposed special joint arrangements for the Temple Mount, with the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter to remain Israeli).
MBS would like security guarantees from the US and support for a civilian nuclear program, which America will only deliver if they are coupled with recognition of Israel. He is also focused on improving the kingdom's economy and is opposed to Iranian expansionism (since Iran is a rival for Saudi leadership of the Islamic world) and radical Islamists (who are opposed to his rule), which aligns with Israeli interests. He may be a hypocrite and an SOB, but there are considerably worse SOBs in the region.
What happens in the US directly affects what happens in Israel, since Israel is reliant on US support. So I don't think it's wise to only focus on immediate issues. Many in the younger generation see the world through the lens of America-centric identity politics that reduce the Israeli-Arab conflict to a morality play. They have no memory and little knowledge of past Israeli attempts at making peace, let alone the circumstances that led to Israel's foundation (eg, widespread antisemitism). I'm all for educating and condemning the most ignorant among them (which I've done), but Israel cannot count on unbroken American support forever, certainly not on the Democratic ledger.
Israel was militarily chased out of Lebanon in 2000, as IDF staff sources will admit. It wasn’t some magnanimous gesture that was responded to with a slap in the face.
The broader point is that further Israeli withdrawal risks creating similar vacuums to be filled by hostile forces. After all, for Hamas and Hezbollah, among others, "occupied Arab territories" includes all of Israel. Any viable peace agreement needs to account for this valid security concern.
Dividing Jerusalem is a terrible idea. No way that the radical Muslim leaders who believe in Temple denialism will agree to share holy sites, and Jews/Jewish students will be displaced like they were in 1948.
If the goal is rapprochement with the Arab and Muslim worlds (as I believe it ultimately must be), then a divided Jerusalem is inevitable. I'm aware of the basic facts that Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish people long before Islam existed and that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism but "only" the third holiest city in Islam. Nevertheless, the third holiest is still holy, and compromise on this issue is a sine qua non of lasting religious as well as political peace. Israeli control over Jerusalem is a fact on the ground, but so is the small size of the Jewish people as contrasted with Arabs and Muslims.
A compromise over Jerusalem must ensure shared access to holy sites. That's why I like the idea of involving Saudi Arabia as a third party. Saudi Arabia has theological legitimacy as the birthplace of Islam and its ruling dynasty has religious authority (the Saudi king bears the title Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques). But Saudi Arabia also has a strong relationship with the US, is opposed to Iranian expansionism, and is generally interested in regional peace and prosperity. It would be in the Saudi interest (and in line with their claims to religious leadership) to prevent clashes in Jerusalem that would spark wider unrest.
Israel has already officially accepted the Clinton Parameters for the division of sovereignty in Jerusalem. The Parameters call for Israel to resume sovereignty over the Western Wall, Palestinians to gain sovereignty over the rest of the Temple Mount (with Israel having "symbolic ownership"), both parties to share sovereignty over excavations beneath the Mount, and East Jerusalem to be divided according to ethnic lines. These Parameters could form the basis for further negotiations, with the additional involvement of moderate Arab countries to pressure the Palestinians out of their intransigence.
It seems to me that the Abraham Accords were accomplished without a divided Jerusalem, which seems to throw your thesis into question and I tend to think, on principle, that dividing individual cities is something better left in the Cold War, but the Clinton Parameters sound satisfactory to most of my realpolitik concerns.
The Abraham Accords are proof of concept that increased normalization between Israel and the Arab world is possible. Perhaps they could have been extended further, without much compromise on the Palestinian issue, had the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained "frozen" at low-level hostilities. But that obviously didn't happen and is implausible in the long term absent a political settlement.
While support for terrorism and the murder of civilians is abhorrent, I understand on a basic level why most Arabs and Muslims are sympathetic to the Palestinians, who are their ethnic and/or religious brethren. For that reason, lasting regional peace can't take root if there is constant Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians are responsible for much of the conflict, but it is still in Israel's interest to end it, even at the cost of painful concessions (such as a divided Jerusalem).
I can absolutely guarantee you it is everlasting war with the Muslim world unless and until east Jerusalem is a capital. It's an extreme compromise but at least our holy site is ours, with Jews and Christians able to travel to their sections of the holy sites as they've historically done. There is no conceivable peace where Jews sleep at nice and Muslims don't own east Jerusalem with al aqsa (all of it.) simply not happening.
I think Palestinians would in practice probably take a 67 deal with withdrawal of settlements and just work with that if east Jerusalem is entirely their capital, settlements are out etc. al aqsa reigns supreme. It's not merely Saudi normalization that provoked Hamas, it's the view that Jews are planning to build the third temple and last years apparently heightened provocations at the mosque.
Muslims can forgive, and in fact can forgive nonbelievers in particular a lot more easily than I think people understand (as long as no *women/girls* specifically are raped which unfortunately it seems there have been a few instances of that in prisons. ) If a kid has had his face burnt by the IDF we tell the lad your reward in paradise will be a permanently higher rank, and you can work to make it higher. There IS a reason Palestinian Muslims haven't given up, Palestinian christians have jumped into diasporadom and it's not the fantastical tale of Muslim persecution which wasn't convincing enough for 1400 years but magically has been in the past decades. As for Jews, it's the easiest thing to forgive someone you expect to roast in hell for literal, not figurative eternities. So the math just works out. We can move forward.
Hamas itself is trying to draw a minimum at 67 borders and leave the right of return more to "national consensus" than a die hard personal policy. I view them as moderate islamists.
I certainly would prefer it if Jews simply packed up and left for North america where they're loved and appreciated a lot more than they are in the middle of Muslim lands. But I suspect it's going to be a war to the end.
Either gazans will be genocided or they'll survive this round. In either case it's going to count as a victory, Israelis and their kids will remain uncertain about their safety, gazans will go to sleep knowing they've never really had it and continue as before.
As for Israelis, it seems like the current population is pretty bent on Zio-maximalism right as it's losing popularity world wide. At the very least younger generations seem to be growing more apathetic and even younger evangelicals lack the same zeal of other evangelicals. But do they have the threshold for a drop in life standards and growing discomfort that Palestinians do? Especially when North america is such a sweet and available alternative.
94% of Saudis oppose normalization. It's not going to feasibly happen. Mbs is already crying about potential assassination attempts (perhaps to sweeten the deal for himself but I suspect his fear is real.) even if an accord does happen it's not likely the case that the Saudi population will accept it and I suspect that trying to sidestep them via tyrants is not going to work out long term . Egyptian and Jordanian youth are all the more hostile to Israel now, despite lacking the personal history to develop it.
Ahmed Yassin, the late founder of Hamas, told Rabbi Menachem Froman (interfaith activist and settler) that the Oslo Accords didn’t work because “they were an agreement between our heretics and your heretics to subdue religion.“ Any lasting peace needs to involve religious elements on both sides. This could involve Jewish denunciation of any plans for a Third Temple as messianic heresy (which is the normative Jewish position anyway). In exchange, Muslim leaders could formally acknowledge the historicity of the Jewish Temple (which is referred to as Bayt al-Maqdis, a cognate of its Hebrew name, in Islamic tradition but is bizarrely denied by Palestinian leaders).
Insofar as they acknowledge the legitimacy of nationalism as against dreams of a global caliphate, Hamas are moderate Islamists compared to the Islamic State. But under Sinwar, they are sincerely deluded that they can vanquish Israel. The October 7 attacks were preceded by a 2021 conference discussing logistics for “post-liberation Palestine” (including, interestingly, forcing some “educated Jews and experts in the areas of medicine, engineering, technology, and civilian and military industry” to remain in the country to assist the new Islamist regime). There are Islamist parties prepared to acknowledge political reality and even denounce the murder of civilians (eg, Mansour Abbas’s Ra'am party in Israel), so I think we can set slightly higher standards for a Muslim negotiating partner than Sinwar’s Hamas.
You overestimate the number of Israelis who are “Zio-maximalists.” Around 20% of Israel’s Jewish population is National Religious and thus ideologically committed to settlement of the West Bank, and even this group includes pragmatists (eg, former PM Naftali Bennett). The remainder are secular, “traditional,” or Haredi. The Haredim are basically inwardly focused, while the other two groups form the basis for a center that could support peace with the Palestinians if security concerns were met. Israel also has a large Arab minority who can play a positive political role (eg, the aforementioned Ra’am). That being said, the Israelis most likely to decamp for North America are the ones least committed to territorial maximalism and thus most likely to compromise with the Arabs. If the anti-Zionist plan is to depopulate Israel of pragmatists, leaving only a fanatical core willing to fight to the death: well, mutual destruction is a solution of sorts.
Peace with the UAE and Bahrain provided proof of concept for Israeli-Saudi peace (which is probably why MBS tacitly supported the Abraham Accords). That being said, Saudi Arabia is obviously a much larger, more important nation. MBS needs to show his people that he won concessions for the Palestinians to minimize a public backlash. Moreover, I agree that a people-to-people peace is in Israel’s interests, as well. This requires coming to terms with the Palestinians, since the importance of the Palestinian cause to the Arab public can’t simply be bought away with economic and military benefits. They care about their co-ethnics and holy sites. So do the Jews. Let cognitive empathy prevail.
Jerusalem was previously divided as a consequence of war. Any future division of Jerusalem would be the result of a treaty meant to establish peace. If the Palestinians betrayed that treaty, Israel would be well within its rights to take appropriate measures. Israel would still be the far superior military power if a Palestinian state was established, with the backing of the United States, treaties with major neighboring states, and increased international legitimacy. So I do think the circumstances of a divided Jerusalem would be markedly different in this scenario, to the benefit of Israel.
It's a nice view into "should". Three caveats, though:
1. If we're in a fantasy world of should anyway, nationalism (including having "a state of our nation", be that nation Jews or Kurds or Arabs) and Islam shouldn't exist or at least matter.
2. You can't get an 'is' from a 'should'. Any Israeli politician who would offer following that route is a political corpse, and Netanyahu personally is interested in prolonging the war to avoid an unwinnable early election. Likewise, "the fall of the Islamic Republic" is nowhere in sight, and the current powers in Palestine are Iran's vassals, not Saudi.
3. Iran is largely an exception for "conquerers not conquered". Persian influence in Muslim world has long been considerable.
1. The vision outlined here is ambitious, but not sheer fantasy. As I alluded to in the piece, Theodor Herzl's vision of a reborn Jewish state was also subject to accusations of fantasy when first outlined. The original Zionists were capable of dreaming big but also acting pragmatically in pursuit of long-term goals. What I bemoan today is the absence of any such grand vision on the part of Israel's leadership, especially since simply "managing" the conflict has proven a failure. The success of the Abraham Accords shows the way forward and provides a model to build upon. However, I don't think you can get around the Palestinian issue if the goal is truly universal, permanent normalization.
2. As stated in the piece, most Israelis identify as right-wing and the political left is moribund. But as the old trope goes, "only Nixon could go to China." Menachem Begin, the founder of Likud, made peace with Egypt. Ariel Sharon, champion of settlements, disengaged from Gaza (however ill-advised unilateral disengagement was in retrospect). Netanyahu is not the leader to do it, but a far-sighted figure with the right credentials could make the case for a grand bargain from a pragmatic security standpoint.
3. Yes, that's true. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been rivals for leadership of the Muslim world since the Islamic revolution. Iran's support of Palestinian extremists is part of their bid for pan-Islamic credibility. A Saudi-brokered political solution for the Palestinians would strengthen the Saudi position and weaken Iran's. A strengthened Saudi Arabia also benefits Israel, since Iran's goal is Israel's destruction whereas the Saudi goal is regional stability and economic prosperity (which also benefits Israel).
I agree that the fall of the Islamic Republic is not an immediate prospect, but the regime is internally unpopular and the country is in economic crisis. The Soviet Union has taught us that revolutionary ideologies based on false promises, once discredited, can collapse as quickly as they first arise.
> Theodor Herzl's vision of a reborn Jewish state was also subject to accusations of fantasy when first outlined.
Because they were? Even though Holocaust was very bad, for Zionists _as a movement_ it was a blessing-in-disguise. It was a crazy idea, which only got evidenced rather than disproved by Israel founders actually pulling it off and ending up, predictably, surrounded by aggressive neighborhood. Should've gone to Argentina :)
That's a common conception, but I don't buy it. On the eve of World War II, British Mandatory Palestine was already 30% Jewish, the Hebrew language had been revived, kibbutzniks were working the land, Tel Aviv had long been established, etc. The Holocaust undoubtedly increased international sympathy for the founding of a Jewish state after the war, but the momentum had already been established. Furthermore, without the Holocaust, there would have been millions of additional Jews who might have immigrated to the Jewish state.
Before the Holocaust, millions of those who did move wouldn't have moved because, well, they had good lives with their houses and families in Europe that weren't yet destroyed or vacated. "30% Jewish" is not a big deal given that we're talking about a not-so-hospitable desert, so the absolute numbers are low. And, most importantly, international sympathies wouldn't have been with Jews if they didn't have the victim card.
It's important to remember that Zionism gained Jewish support in large measure as a reaction to pre-Nazi antisemitism, such as the Dreyfus affair in France and pogroms in the Russian Empire. Even if there had been no Nazism or Holocaust, there was still pervasive antisemitism in Eastern Europe, which was where the bulk of European Jews lived. An interesting historical sidenote is that the pre-WWII Polish government supported Zionism precisely because it wanted to rid Poland of its Jews. Non-Jewish support for Zionism in Europe was not just based on the "victim card"; it was often based on Europeans considering Jews to be too great in number and influence, and desiring their exit.
Counterfactuals are necessarily hypothetical, but look at the Soviet Jews. Millions of them left the USSR (or the subsequent post-Soviet states) for Israel, the US, Germany, and other countries as soon as they were able. If Polish and other Eastern European Jewish communities had survived, they, too, would have sought emigration in large numbers. Even after WWII, there were pogroms in Poland as the population sought to prevent Holocaust survivors from returning (see, for example, the Kielce pogrom). The Jewish experience as a large, unwanted minority in Eastern Europe was not sustainable.
Soviet Jews largely used it as a convenient vessel to leave communist countries to _anywhere_. And it was convenient for Soviet leadership to (slowly and not always, but still) sometimes let them go because they were seen as trouble. But I think you underestimate the effect of Holocaust compared to pogroms. Despite all pogroms, Jews were third- or fourth-largest group in Belarus, for instance, and quite prevalent in Ukraine, too. Pre-WW2 Soviet Belorussian coat of arms even had an inscription in Yiddish (along Russian and Belorussian). But then... as pithy post-Soviet monuments in Khatyn and places like that will tell you, "every third Belarussian was killed". Needless to say, the death toll was disproportionately Jewish. So a huge community that could have otherwise absorbed most of Ashkenazi was simply decimated.
Or take the story of Menachem Begin. He was a Zionist and arrested for it, spent some time in Soviet prison. Why did they let him out? WW2.
Interesting thoughts, but respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
Israel is already close to normalization with Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Abraham Accords could be signed with these countries as soon as (1) the hot war with Gaza & Lebanon cools off, and (2) a supportive US administration (i.e., a Trump second term). The Saudis want a "pathway" to a Palestinian state, such as renewed Oslo-like talks -- not an actual independent Palestine.
No one wants an independent Palestine. It would immediately be an Iranian terror vassal, importing weapons through the Jordan Valley. Rockets out of the West Bank could shut down Ben Gurion airport daily and target key military and civilian infrastructure in the heart of Israel. A Hamas-style invasion from Qalqiya or Tulkarm could cut Israel in two in an hour. The West Bank is 15x larger than Gaza and much more strategically important.
Unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon created the current existential threat from Hezbollah. It would be suicidal to repeat this failed experiment in the Golan, E. Jerusalem, and the West Bank.
I agree, peace runs through Mecca. So give the Saudis what they actually want (hint: it's not a Palestinian state).
Thanks for the feedback. I doubt the actual House of Saud really cares about the Palestinian cause. But Arab public opinion does, which even autocrats must take into account for reasons of self-preservation. The hot war with Gaza will eventually cool off, but without a long-term solution, we are doomed to a next one (whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or the West Bank). October 7 proved the failure of a “mowing the grass” approach to the conflict. An Israeli-Arab alliance, openly aligned against Iran, can’t take root if it’s continually disrupted by endless clashes with the Palestinians. We need to cauterize the open wound or else Iran will keep picking at it for exactly that reason.
I agree that an independent Palestine poses a grave security risk to Israel. But so does a non-independent Palestine: more of a risk, I’d argue, since a functional state (bound by security guarantees) could be brought to heel through traditional statecraft. Getting to that point won’t be easy, but rather than repeating the mistakes of Oslo, I’d like to see an “outside-in” approach to peace in the spirit of the Abraham Accords. Once Hamas is defeated, Gulf Arabs have the money and influence to help rebuild and de-radicalize Gaza, but their involvement requires a concrete path to a Palestinian state (again, for reasons of public opinion if nothing else).
I agree in principle, but you argue for Israel to make unilateral withdrawals from territory controlled as of Oct 6th. This approach already failed twice - in Lebanon and in Gaza.
I argue that Israel's doctrine when attacked should be to permanently conquer territory, which establishes a strong deterrent. Then, as with the 1979 Egypt peace deal, give back territory for peace. The "Land for Peace" formula only works if it's opposite is also true -- War for Loss of Territory.
This would allow Israel to be the magnanimous victor, and the Saudis to be the saviors of Palestine by returning Gaza in exchange for normalization.
To be clear, I'm not in favor of unilateral withdrawals. Bilateral negotiations with the Palestinians have failed, as has unilateral disengagement. What I advocate is a new approach: negotiations with the Arab League, on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative (which should not be implemented as proposed, but which can serve as a starting point for talks). The Arab League includes Palestine, so these negotiations would include Palestinian buy-in. But an advantage of negotiating with the Arab League is that Israel could go over the heads of the feckless Palestinian leadership and incentivize strong rulers like MBS to hold their feet to the fire.
I agree with the principle of deterrence. But the problem with permanently conquering territory for deterrence is that Israel is stuck governing the hostile people of that territory. Hamas launched the October 7 attacks, in large part at least, to claim leadership of the Palestinian movement (through a demonstration of "resistance") and derail Israeli-Saudi normalization. An independent Palestine cannot be seen as a reward for Hamas. But a Hamas that is physically destroyed (or severely diminished), then cut out of a post-war settlement that results in Israeli-Arab normalization, has no claim to any victory. The bigger enemy is Iran, who would indeed be deterred by an open Israeli-Arab alliance against its "Axis of Resistance."
Good try but:
1. The right of return is a fallacy created to destroy Israel. No other refugees in history have a right of return to a country they abandoned in war. And once they have settled in a new country they cease to be refugees. Only for the Palestinians is the status of refugee inherited. Palestinian refugees will need to go to a Palestinian state. Until they recognize that fact this conflict will never end. I suggest you read Einat Wilf on the subject if you haven't already.
2. Jerusalem will never be divided again. Jews lived with that, when the Jordanians destroyed every synagogue and turned the Kotel into a garbage dump. These synagogues have been rebuilt and the Kotel turned into the holy place that it is. Why Jews would ever allow someone else to rule over their holy places again is ridiculous. The idea that Muslims cannot imagine that others have the same rights to holy places that they do is to simply give in to their religious supremacism. Instead of asking the Jews and Christians actually to placate this racism, maybe it's time for the supremacists to grow the heck up. Jews and Christians are not lesser peoples and have a right to rule over their own holy places without having to placate haters of any kind. No Israeli government will ever divide Jerusalem ever again.
3. Israel has already given back land....ahem Gaza and areas A and B in the West Bank. See how that turned out. Oslo was killed by Arafat in the 2nd intifada. Hamas has killed the idea of a truly independent Palestine for the near future. There is no way any Israeli government is going to agree to this nonsense and no reason that they should. That the world thinks to placate the Palestinians for their barbarism with a state is disgusting. I didn't see the US offer al Qaeda a state after 9/11 or beg Al Qaeda for forgiveness for making them kill Americans. Same rules need to apply to Israel when it comes to the Palestinians/Arabs.
4. Thinking that KSA is ever going to sign a peace treaty with Israel was and is nonsensical. Wahhabism which is the underpinning of the right of the Saudis to rule would never allow for it. Anyone who thinks there will ever be peace beyond what actually exists , whether Israel agrees to a Palestinian state or not, does not understand Saudi Arabia at all. MBS is playing the US and everyone for fools. The funniest bit when he said that Netanyahu is a war criminal. This murderer who leads a gender apartheid, backward country based on a 7h century philosophy really should keep its mouth shut about human and civil rights.
The only way there is ever going to be peace in the Middle East is if, or when, the Arab/Muslim nations actually come to the conclusion that Israel is not going anywhere. That they live with some kind of fever dream that someday they will be able to commit genocide against Israel and by extension the Jews worldwide is no different than nazism and should be treated with the same disdain instead of being given a hearing and placated. The only reason the world even pays these genociders any mind is that those that want to destroy are Jews.
You want to make the word zionism an anachronism. Then rid the world of antisemitism and then there will be no need for zionism. You make all of this the Jews fault. The Jews are no more at fault for antisemitism than POC are at fault for racism. To say otherwise is to not understand how much of the antisemitic mindset has attached itself to the discourse surrounding MENA.
I don’t think you read the piece carefully enough. Far from saying “all of this is the Jews’ fault,” I wrote “Palestinian rejectionism, embodied by Hamas, remains the most significant obstacle to Israeli-Arab peace.” It’s possible to hold two separate thoughts together at the same time: 1) The Palestinian delusion of destroying Israel is the primary reason there hasn’t been peace or a Palestinian state and 2) It is in Israel’s interest for there to be peace and a Palestinian state. If you don’t agree with point #2, then please let me know what you propose as a long-term solution for the demographic reality that there are around eight million Arabs and seven million Jews in the Holy Land.
Should Israel simply keep the status quo of “managed conflict” going forever? Based on current projections, the Haredim will account for a third of Israel’s Jewish population by 2050 (https://www.timesofisrael.com/nearly-1-in-4-israelis-will-be-ultra-orthodox-by-2050-study-says/). Is an increasingly Haredi Israel (which will probably also result in an outflow of non-Haredi Jews) capable of ruling the West Bank and Gaza, subject to habitual outbreaks of violence, indefinitely? Should Israel simply annex the West Bank and Gaza? If so, should it grant the Palestinians citizenship (thus removing the “Jewish” part of Israel’s “Jewish democracy” as Jews lose dominant majority status)? If not, and Israel chooses to sacrifice the “democracy” part of “Jewish democracy,” will ties with the West survive? Can Israel survive without ties with the West? As Tzipi Livni has said, “I want two states not so we can marry the Palestinians, but so we can divorce them.” Maintaining the status quo until the Arab world assumes the political positions of Likud (ie, until the Messiah comes) assumes the demographic reality is in Israel’s favor. It is not.
The Zionist movement, at its origins, was about Jews assuming agency over their own fates. It’s fine and proper to criticize the Palestinians and the Arab world more broadly for a long record of brutality and antisemitism. But in the spirit of the first Zionists, Jews need to assume an attitude of agency. What is to be done? You don’t make peace with your friends. You make peace with your enemies. Any kind of peace agreement is going to be imperfect, but right now Israel has the US on its side. As the boomers die out and are replaced by the TikTok generation, is the US going to become more pro-Israel, or less? MBS and Saudi Arabia are interested in an accord with Israel out of their own self-interest. Is it geopolitically smart for Israel to wait for Saudi Arabia to become Sweden before negotiating? Again, I welcome alternative long-term visions, but “wait it out” does not count.
I don't disagree that it is in Israel's long term interest for there to be a Palestinian state. Just not now. After WW2 the US occupied Japan and germany for over a decade in trying to recreate the government there. There needs to be a period of deradicalization. They need to develop an economic picture that provides them a future so they dont turn to Islamism. That of course is another issue, how do you untether Islamism from the middle east. As long as this ideology is pervasive , Israel has no choice but to protect itself from another Oct 7.
Now demographics aside, because i have read other reports that the demographic time bomb isn't as dire as some say, the truth of the matter is that there is no need for Israel to rule over millions of people that hate them. Let the palestinians take care of themselves, but as I said no right of return and no Jerusalem. Sorry. East Jerusalem was already offered by both ehud Barak and ehud Olmert and rejected b. The right of return is a fallacy and they are not going back to homes they abandoned. There is no right of return for any refugee under international law, including the palestinians. they will need to go to what ever state will be constituted for them.
And I have already addressed the KSA issue. I do not think MBS is really interested in a peace deal. He likes the low level deals they have now. He gets what he wants and he doesnt have to cause issues in his country. And no KSA doesnt have to become Sweden. I was just putting in there why he is a hypocrite and an evil SOB.
What will happen in the US as far as ISrael? Well the tiktok generation is stupid. But they too will grow up but us boomers arent going anywhere so fast. There is also politics and education that can play a large role in the future. The US has always been aphilosemtic country i dont see that changing any time soon, maybe it will one day but Israel needs to take her immediate issues at heart and not worry about the tiktok generation and 20 years from now. Israel will be here. What she will look like is up to Israelis. The question about the tiktok generation is whether it will be good to be a Jew in the US still in 20 years when the tiktok generation starts taking over boardrooms and congress. It is our future and our children and grandchildren's future at stake with these tentifada antisemites.
I don’t say there should be a Palestinian state *right now* either. I do think a post-war Gaza, ideally rid of Hamas, offers the opportunity to rebuild and reconfigure Palestinian society with outside Arab support and investment. But that won’t happen without a promised pathway to a Palestinian state. In the meantime, there could be a mandate, a trusteeship, or even a provisional Palestinian state in Gaza alone. If you want to encourage Palestinian deradicalization, you need to offer both carrots and sticks. I also wouldn’t discount moderate Islamism as a countervailing force to Hamas. After all, Israel has an Islamist party, Ra’am, that participated in a coalition government and condemned October 7.
Previous peace negotiations largely foundered over the status of Jerusalem and the so-called right of return. These are the most symbolically important issues to the Arabs, so I doubt there can ever be peace without addressing them. "Addressing them" does not mean accepting every Arab demand. The UN resolution that concerns Palestinian refugees states that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property.” I'd emphasize the "live at peace with their neighbours" part in any negotiated settlement. Israel can accept a small number of Palestinian migrants who, like the current Arab minority, can demonstrate that they wish to "live at peace with their neighbours." Others can elect for compensation in tandem with compensation to the descendants of Jews kicked out of Arab countries. Questions around Jerusalem's division are fraught but not unsolvable, and do not require Israel giving up sovereignty over Jewish holy sites (the Clinton Parameters proposed special joint arrangements for the Temple Mount, with the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter to remain Israeli).
MBS would like security guarantees from the US and support for a civilian nuclear program, which America will only deliver if they are coupled with recognition of Israel. He is also focused on improving the kingdom's economy and is opposed to Iranian expansionism (since Iran is a rival for Saudi leadership of the Islamic world) and radical Islamists (who are opposed to his rule), which aligns with Israeli interests. He may be a hypocrite and an SOB, but there are considerably worse SOBs in the region.
What happens in the US directly affects what happens in Israel, since Israel is reliant on US support. So I don't think it's wise to only focus on immediate issues. Many in the younger generation see the world through the lens of America-centric identity politics that reduce the Israeli-Arab conflict to a morality play. They have no memory and little knowledge of past Israeli attempts at making peace, let alone the circumstances that led to Israel's foundation (eg, widespread antisemitism). I'm all for educating and condemning the most ignorant among them (which I've done), but Israel cannot count on unbroken American support forever, certainly not on the Democratic ledger.
Israel was militarily chased out of Lebanon in 2000, as IDF staff sources will admit. It wasn’t some magnanimous gesture that was responded to with a slap in the face.
I do appreciate the fact that you have a vision for permanent peace, no matter how it’s sliced. That’s something we should all be hoping for.
The broader point is that further Israeli withdrawal risks creating similar vacuums to be filled by hostile forces. After all, for Hamas and Hezbollah, among others, "occupied Arab territories" includes all of Israel. Any viable peace agreement needs to account for this valid security concern.
Dividing Jerusalem is a terrible idea. No way that the radical Muslim leaders who believe in Temple denialism will agree to share holy sites, and Jews/Jewish students will be displaced like they were in 1948.
If the goal is rapprochement with the Arab and Muslim worlds (as I believe it ultimately must be), then a divided Jerusalem is inevitable. I'm aware of the basic facts that Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish people long before Islam existed and that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism but "only" the third holiest city in Islam. Nevertheless, the third holiest is still holy, and compromise on this issue is a sine qua non of lasting religious as well as political peace. Israeli control over Jerusalem is a fact on the ground, but so is the small size of the Jewish people as contrasted with Arabs and Muslims.
A compromise over Jerusalem must ensure shared access to holy sites. That's why I like the idea of involving Saudi Arabia as a third party. Saudi Arabia has theological legitimacy as the birthplace of Islam and its ruling dynasty has religious authority (the Saudi king bears the title Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques). But Saudi Arabia also has a strong relationship with the US, is opposed to Iranian expansionism, and is generally interested in regional peace and prosperity. It would be in the Saudi interest (and in line with their claims to religious leadership) to prevent clashes in Jerusalem that would spark wider unrest.
Israel has already officially accepted the Clinton Parameters for the division of sovereignty in Jerusalem. The Parameters call for Israel to resume sovereignty over the Western Wall, Palestinians to gain sovereignty over the rest of the Temple Mount (with Israel having "symbolic ownership"), both parties to share sovereignty over excavations beneath the Mount, and East Jerusalem to be divided according to ethnic lines. These Parameters could form the basis for further negotiations, with the additional involvement of moderate Arab countries to pressure the Palestinians out of their intransigence.
It seems to me that the Abraham Accords were accomplished without a divided Jerusalem, which seems to throw your thesis into question and I tend to think, on principle, that dividing individual cities is something better left in the Cold War, but the Clinton Parameters sound satisfactory to most of my realpolitik concerns.
The Abraham Accords are proof of concept that increased normalization between Israel and the Arab world is possible. Perhaps they could have been extended further, without much compromise on the Palestinian issue, had the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained "frozen" at low-level hostilities. But that obviously didn't happen and is implausible in the long term absent a political settlement.
While support for terrorism and the murder of civilians is abhorrent, I understand on a basic level why most Arabs and Muslims are sympathetic to the Palestinians, who are their ethnic and/or religious brethren. For that reason, lasting regional peace can't take root if there is constant Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians are responsible for much of the conflict, but it is still in Israel's interest to end it, even at the cost of painful concessions (such as a divided Jerusalem).
I can absolutely guarantee you it is everlasting war with the Muslim world unless and until east Jerusalem is a capital. It's an extreme compromise but at least our holy site is ours, with Jews and Christians able to travel to their sections of the holy sites as they've historically done. There is no conceivable peace where Jews sleep at nice and Muslims don't own east Jerusalem with al aqsa (all of it.) simply not happening.
I think Palestinians would in practice probably take a 67 deal with withdrawal of settlements and just work with that if east Jerusalem is entirely their capital, settlements are out etc. al aqsa reigns supreme. It's not merely Saudi normalization that provoked Hamas, it's the view that Jews are planning to build the third temple and last years apparently heightened provocations at the mosque.
Muslims can forgive, and in fact can forgive nonbelievers in particular a lot more easily than I think people understand (as long as no *women/girls* specifically are raped which unfortunately it seems there have been a few instances of that in prisons. ) If a kid has had his face burnt by the IDF we tell the lad your reward in paradise will be a permanently higher rank, and you can work to make it higher. There IS a reason Palestinian Muslims haven't given up, Palestinian christians have jumped into diasporadom and it's not the fantastical tale of Muslim persecution which wasn't convincing enough for 1400 years but magically has been in the past decades. As for Jews, it's the easiest thing to forgive someone you expect to roast in hell for literal, not figurative eternities. So the math just works out. We can move forward.
Hamas itself is trying to draw a minimum at 67 borders and leave the right of return more to "national consensus" than a die hard personal policy. I view them as moderate islamists.
I certainly would prefer it if Jews simply packed up and left for North america where they're loved and appreciated a lot more than they are in the middle of Muslim lands. But I suspect it's going to be a war to the end.
Either gazans will be genocided or they'll survive this round. In either case it's going to count as a victory, Israelis and their kids will remain uncertain about their safety, gazans will go to sleep knowing they've never really had it and continue as before.
As for Israelis, it seems like the current population is pretty bent on Zio-maximalism right as it's losing popularity world wide. At the very least younger generations seem to be growing more apathetic and even younger evangelicals lack the same zeal of other evangelicals. But do they have the threshold for a drop in life standards and growing discomfort that Palestinians do? Especially when North america is such a sweet and available alternative.
94% of Saudis oppose normalization. It's not going to feasibly happen. Mbs is already crying about potential assassination attempts (perhaps to sweeten the deal for himself but I suspect his fear is real.) even if an accord does happen it's not likely the case that the Saudi population will accept it and I suspect that trying to sidestep them via tyrants is not going to work out long term . Egyptian and Jordanian youth are all the more hostile to Israel now, despite lacking the personal history to develop it.
Ahmed Yassin, the late founder of Hamas, told Rabbi Menachem Froman (interfaith activist and settler) that the Oslo Accords didn’t work because “they were an agreement between our heretics and your heretics to subdue religion.“ Any lasting peace needs to involve religious elements on both sides. This could involve Jewish denunciation of any plans for a Third Temple as messianic heresy (which is the normative Jewish position anyway). In exchange, Muslim leaders could formally acknowledge the historicity of the Jewish Temple (which is referred to as Bayt al-Maqdis, a cognate of its Hebrew name, in Islamic tradition but is bizarrely denied by Palestinian leaders).
Insofar as they acknowledge the legitimacy of nationalism as against dreams of a global caliphate, Hamas are moderate Islamists compared to the Islamic State. But under Sinwar, they are sincerely deluded that they can vanquish Israel. The October 7 attacks were preceded by a 2021 conference discussing logistics for “post-liberation Palestine” (including, interestingly, forcing some “educated Jews and experts in the areas of medicine, engineering, technology, and civilian and military industry” to remain in the country to assist the new Islamist regime). There are Islamist parties prepared to acknowledge political reality and even denounce the murder of civilians (eg, Mansour Abbas’s Ra'am party in Israel), so I think we can set slightly higher standards for a Muslim negotiating partner than Sinwar’s Hamas.
You overestimate the number of Israelis who are “Zio-maximalists.” Around 20% of Israel’s Jewish population is National Religious and thus ideologically committed to settlement of the West Bank, and even this group includes pragmatists (eg, former PM Naftali Bennett). The remainder are secular, “traditional,” or Haredi. The Haredim are basically inwardly focused, while the other two groups form the basis for a center that could support peace with the Palestinians if security concerns were met. Israel also has a large Arab minority who can play a positive political role (eg, the aforementioned Ra’am). That being said, the Israelis most likely to decamp for North America are the ones least committed to territorial maximalism and thus most likely to compromise with the Arabs. If the anti-Zionist plan is to depopulate Israel of pragmatists, leaving only a fanatical core willing to fight to the death: well, mutual destruction is a solution of sorts.
Peace with the UAE and Bahrain provided proof of concept for Israeli-Saudi peace (which is probably why MBS tacitly supported the Abraham Accords). That being said, Saudi Arabia is obviously a much larger, more important nation. MBS needs to show his people that he won concessions for the Palestinians to minimize a public backlash. Moreover, I agree that a people-to-people peace is in Israel’s interests, as well. This requires coming to terms with the Palestinians, since the importance of the Palestinian cause to the Arab public can’t simply be bought away with economic and military benefits. They care about their co-ethnics and holy sites. So do the Jews. Let cognitive empathy prevail.
My worries are two-fold:
1) If Jerusalem is divided into two cities, Jews will not be able to access the Western Wall.
2) If Jerusalem is divided into two cities, the Jewish Quarter will be uprooted again.
The Clinton Parameters do seem to satisfy my realpolitik concerns, but I worry that it won't be enough.
Jerusalem was previously divided as a consequence of war. Any future division of Jerusalem would be the result of a treaty meant to establish peace. If the Palestinians betrayed that treaty, Israel would be well within its rights to take appropriate measures. Israel would still be the far superior military power if a Palestinian state was established, with the backing of the United States, treaties with major neighboring states, and increased international legitimacy. So I do think the circumstances of a divided Jerusalem would be markedly different in this scenario, to the benefit of Israel.
It's a nice view into "should". Three caveats, though:
1. If we're in a fantasy world of should anyway, nationalism (including having "a state of our nation", be that nation Jews or Kurds or Arabs) and Islam shouldn't exist or at least matter.
2. You can't get an 'is' from a 'should'. Any Israeli politician who would offer following that route is a political corpse, and Netanyahu personally is interested in prolonging the war to avoid an unwinnable early election. Likewise, "the fall of the Islamic Republic" is nowhere in sight, and the current powers in Palestine are Iran's vassals, not Saudi.
3. Iran is largely an exception for "conquerers not conquered". Persian influence in Muslim world has long been considerable.
In response to your caveats:
1. The vision outlined here is ambitious, but not sheer fantasy. As I alluded to in the piece, Theodor Herzl's vision of a reborn Jewish state was also subject to accusations of fantasy when first outlined. The original Zionists were capable of dreaming big but also acting pragmatically in pursuit of long-term goals. What I bemoan today is the absence of any such grand vision on the part of Israel's leadership, especially since simply "managing" the conflict has proven a failure. The success of the Abraham Accords shows the way forward and provides a model to build upon. However, I don't think you can get around the Palestinian issue if the goal is truly universal, permanent normalization.
2. As stated in the piece, most Israelis identify as right-wing and the political left is moribund. But as the old trope goes, "only Nixon could go to China." Menachem Begin, the founder of Likud, made peace with Egypt. Ariel Sharon, champion of settlements, disengaged from Gaza (however ill-advised unilateral disengagement was in retrospect). Netanyahu is not the leader to do it, but a far-sighted figure with the right credentials could make the case for a grand bargain from a pragmatic security standpoint.
3. Yes, that's true. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been rivals for leadership of the Muslim world since the Islamic revolution. Iran's support of Palestinian extremists is part of their bid for pan-Islamic credibility. A Saudi-brokered political solution for the Palestinians would strengthen the Saudi position and weaken Iran's. A strengthened Saudi Arabia also benefits Israel, since Iran's goal is Israel's destruction whereas the Saudi goal is regional stability and economic prosperity (which also benefits Israel).
I agree that the fall of the Islamic Republic is not an immediate prospect, but the regime is internally unpopular and the country is in economic crisis. The Soviet Union has taught us that revolutionary ideologies based on false promises, once discredited, can collapse as quickly as they first arise.
> Theodor Herzl's vision of a reborn Jewish state was also subject to accusations of fantasy when first outlined.
Because they were? Even though Holocaust was very bad, for Zionists _as a movement_ it was a blessing-in-disguise. It was a crazy idea, which only got evidenced rather than disproved by Israel founders actually pulling it off and ending up, predictably, surrounded by aggressive neighborhood. Should've gone to Argentina :)
That's a common conception, but I don't buy it. On the eve of World War II, British Mandatory Palestine was already 30% Jewish, the Hebrew language had been revived, kibbutzniks were working the land, Tel Aviv had long been established, etc. The Holocaust undoubtedly increased international sympathy for the founding of a Jewish state after the war, but the momentum had already been established. Furthermore, without the Holocaust, there would have been millions of additional Jews who might have immigrated to the Jewish state.
Before the Holocaust, millions of those who did move wouldn't have moved because, well, they had good lives with their houses and families in Europe that weren't yet destroyed or vacated. "30% Jewish" is not a big deal given that we're talking about a not-so-hospitable desert, so the absolute numbers are low. And, most importantly, international sympathies wouldn't have been with Jews if they didn't have the victim card.
It's important to remember that Zionism gained Jewish support in large measure as a reaction to pre-Nazi antisemitism, such as the Dreyfus affair in France and pogroms in the Russian Empire. Even if there had been no Nazism or Holocaust, there was still pervasive antisemitism in Eastern Europe, which was where the bulk of European Jews lived. An interesting historical sidenote is that the pre-WWII Polish government supported Zionism precisely because it wanted to rid Poland of its Jews. Non-Jewish support for Zionism in Europe was not just based on the "victim card"; it was often based on Europeans considering Jews to be too great in number and influence, and desiring their exit.
Counterfactuals are necessarily hypothetical, but look at the Soviet Jews. Millions of them left the USSR (or the subsequent post-Soviet states) for Israel, the US, Germany, and other countries as soon as they were able. If Polish and other Eastern European Jewish communities had survived, they, too, would have sought emigration in large numbers. Even after WWII, there were pogroms in Poland as the population sought to prevent Holocaust survivors from returning (see, for example, the Kielce pogrom). The Jewish experience as a large, unwanted minority in Eastern Europe was not sustainable.
Soviet Jews largely used it as a convenient vessel to leave communist countries to _anywhere_. And it was convenient for Soviet leadership to (slowly and not always, but still) sometimes let them go because they were seen as trouble. But I think you underestimate the effect of Holocaust compared to pogroms. Despite all pogroms, Jews were third- or fourth-largest group in Belarus, for instance, and quite prevalent in Ukraine, too. Pre-WW2 Soviet Belorussian coat of arms even had an inscription in Yiddish (along Russian and Belorussian). But then... as pithy post-Soviet monuments in Khatyn and places like that will tell you, "every third Belarussian was killed". Needless to say, the death toll was disproportionately Jewish. So a huge community that could have otherwise absorbed most of Ashkenazi was simply decimated.
Or take the story of Menachem Begin. He was a Zionist and arrested for it, spent some time in Soviet prison. Why did they let him out? WW2.