Is Israel on its way to being a "Failed State?"

[TooBigForMyBoots]

Netanyahu is destroying Gaza.

The IDF is committing war crimes.
Netanyahu's government has angered, pissed off and disappointed Israeli citizens.
They have disappointed, pissed off and angered Israel's allies.
They are pissing off neighbour states.
The Israeli government and the IDF have created a broken nation of traumatised people.

Right next door.

I fear that Israel will become a failed state.

Napoleon wanted a Western presence in the Arab world in 1799, but failed. Neither he nor the British at the time of Balfour, had any right to want this last colonial disaster.

Baruch Goldstein ?

I recently read "Between River and Sea", written by Dervla Murphy about 10 years ago, during which she lived in the West Bank and travelled extensively around Israel. It is a profoundly shocking, well researched book and I would thoroughly recommend it. The sheer depth and breadth of human rights abuses committed either by the Israeli state, or tacitly condoned by it, that she relates are worse even than I imagined.

The problem is, as she points out, that the Israeli state has failed to challenge or rein in the settlers and the religious right at all, and at the time of writing they had a terrifying amount of power - including having infiltrated the army to a scary degree. I assume it's only got worse since then. It's now at a point where these people would not, I believe, "allow" Israel to adopt a more peaceful approach towards the Palestinians. Even 30 years ago, the fate of Yitzhak Rabin was a cautionary tale.

So yes, in that sense I believe that Israel could be a failed state- it's being controlled by a powerful, dangerous faction that it's scared to stand up against.

Israel is too powerful, they know America are its key ally (and UK and others have their back as well).

Israel was established by diplomacy and legal means. How exactly are you suggesting it wasn't?

@LemonyTicket I'm sure you know there was a long campaign, by Irgun and other groups, to force an end to the British mandate. The white paper, with its limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine, was a stumbling block to the Zionist dream of a Jrewish state. KDH bombing was only one of the events that pressured the mandate to end, forcing the issue to be brought to the UN.

Israel will be fine because it has huge support from the Jewish diaspora in the US.

The independence of Jewish people was negotiated over decades of peaceful diplomacy, and was voted for at the UN in 1947 by a big majority. The idea they did not achieve statehood by peaceful negotiation and legal means is false. That is exactly what they did.

Jews had been told they would get their independence and safety, for decades, by the British. The Peel commission had outlined plans for this and the Arabs rejected it. The Arabs were angry at the idea of a Jewish state, and launched themselves long campaigns of violence, terror attacks and ongoing riots which resulted in many deaths.

If you read the history of this time, the Brits were terrified of the Arabs - not the Jews - which is why they capitulated and banned Jewish immigration with the White Paper. And that White Paper, as you say, almost completely banned Jewish immigration to Israel from 1939, leading to the needless deaths of millions of Jews under the hands of Hitler.

The bulk spate of Jewish violence and strike action began immediately after that in 1939, and had no effect at all on the decision to move ahead. The white paper was enacted regardless and all those Jews were left to die.

It was only at the end of WWII when it was made clear 6 million Jews had just been murdered as the world did absolutely nothing, that Britain rescinded the White Paper and even then, they continued with the immigration ban. Holocaust survivors tried to get to Israel and the British stopped them, which led to violent resistance. Immigrants were detained by the British in camps on Cyprus. Stateless. Mostly children. Mostly OPHANS.

And that didn't end until May 1948 when the British mandate completely withdrew.

If you take a historical perspective of the events leading to the establishment of Israel as a modern state, it is one of the few in history which was established by diplomacy, negotiation and a legal means of international consensus. Most were established with swords and guns.

The reasons for it's success were many - it was agreed by the Peel commission years BEFORE the Holocaust that Jews had a legitimate claim to statehood, but factors such as Holocaust guilt, countries not wanting to take in Jews themselves, and serious antisemitism across the MENA region were the primary causational factors.

I was always taught to be wary of any narrative of ‘we are the good guys’. It is those who believe this who cause the biggest massacres.

So for a list of Jewish terrorist activities:

1. the assassination of Yithak Rabin by a Jewish nationalist
2. Baruch Goldstein and the Hebron massacre
3. The Jewish Defense League which has been considered a terrorist association by the United States
4. The hundreds of West Bank Palestinians killed by far-right settlers who are subsidised by the Israeli state to live there and allowed to kill with impunity.
5. The 700,000 settlers living in the West Bank on what is illegally occupied land according to the UN.

I accept that Israel exists, but it currently seems on a path to destruction. Hamas can never be beaten militarily - instead you have to win the battle for hearts and minds. Israel had the support of the West, but it is hard to stomach our money and arms being used to kill aid workers and children.

@Flammkuchen

I accept that Israel exists, but it currently seems on a path to destruction. Hamas can never be beaten militarily - instead you have to win the battle for hearts and minds. Israel had the support of the West, but it is hard to stomach our money and arms being used to kill aid workers and children.

What would you suggest? This isn't a snidey question, I genuinely don't understand how you think Israel can solve this problem without essentially removing Hamas

Can Israel survive if the USA stops funding them?

Thy may succeed in removing Hamas, but the tactics they are using will only create more terrorists with different names to take their place.

This war is a threat to Israel's future security.

@LemonyTicket Interesting to hear your point of view. I can't agree with your perspective. It seems to me there were quite a lot of kidnappings, killings, bombings and massacres before Israel gained sovereignty. I'm surmising you do not think the violent attacks by Jewish groups such as Irgun had anything to do with the creation of Israel as a state, which has answered my question.

Take a look at how the British behaved in Ireland. After the 1916 rising, the British lost control of the country by overreacting and sending in a militia to route out the IRA. By reacting like oppressors, they were treated as one.

In the Troubles, (Bloody Sunday apart) they largely behaved with restraint. They did not react to IRA bombs by driving the inhabitants out of Derry or Belfast. Instead, they largely showed restraint while the IRA committed atrocities and sickened the people.

If you want to live peacefully, you have to show that you are the better people. Show that you do not stoop to the level of Hamas.

But if you starve children in a sealed ghetto, drive people from their homes, bomb aid convoys and hospitals, and shoot civilians waving white flags how will you ever convince ordinary Palestinians that you mean to live in peace?

Me denying that Israeli's have a "rotten culture", and " a country whose people are devoid of compassion or empathy towards another group and who would happily see them exterminated or expelled" is disgusting?

Imagine I had made that same comment I quoted immediately after October 7th, substituting Palestinians for Israelis, you would quite rightly be appalled, and it would be shocking and wrong if there was NOT a pile on. Why is this ok to say about Israelis?

I'm Israeli. The reason I hardly engage on these boards anymore is that when the starting point for discussion is an assumption of the above, then what is there to say? Ruthless, victim mentality etc, I can't remember what other lovely comments there were today.

If you take a historical perspective of the events leading to the establishment of Israel as a modern state, it is one of the few in history which was established by diplomacy, negotiation and a legal means of international consensus. Most were established with swords and guns.

But really, are you suggesting the local and native population were all part of this happy diplomacy, negotiation and consensus? Because I thought there was quite a lot of fighting. Or are you not including the local 'Arabs' as part of this negotiation process?

I totally agree with this. The actions of the Israeli government and the IDF are appalling

@stormy4319trevor

During the entire period of the British Mandate there was 62 violent incidents started by Arabs and 34 started by Jews and in total circa 850 people were killed. The majority killed were Jews.

That is over 31 years of the mandate. In perspective, almost twice that were killed on 7/10 in Israel in a single attack.

Less than 100 British casualties occurred over that 31 years, and the perpetrators were more or less evenly split between Arab and Jewish militias. So no, I do not believe the Brits were cowering in terror of Jewish militias.

There is a full record of all attacks in the period here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

As you can see, Arabs were attacking for 19 years before the Jews retaliated even once. And those Jews retaliated after the White Paper was announced and British commitment to Jewish independence was effectively cancelled leaving millions of Jews to die.

I do not condone any terrorism of any kind for any cause, but as an historian, it is plain to see the Jewish were peacefully waiting for 19 years, enduring multiple Arab attacks of violence and murder without fighting back. That is evidenced.

When the White Paper was introduced, it appears a number of Jewish militia groups decided to fight back, but as the plan for their independence was put forward by the Peel commission three years before the first attack, I doubt that was causational.

If you read the historical accounts, the British were trying to do what was most advantageous for them. Playing both sides off against the others, and certainly for the first 20 years - appeasing the Arabs who were fairly violent. As things escalated, they wanted to wash their hands of the entire thing and passed the mantle to the UN - who voted to establish the Israeli state.

History is partly facts, and partly opinion, but I am unsure how anyone would interpret this data as the Brits being cowered into submission by Jewish violence when there was - evidently - twice as much violence from the other side. That makes no sense!

Me denying that Israeli's have a "rotten culture", and " a country whose people are devoid of compassion or empathy towards another group and who would happily see them exterminated or expelled" is disgusting?

The trouble is that at the moment is all we are seeing of Israel by your leaders, your soldiers your illegal settlers. Actions speak louder than words and it is the actions of the Israeli government that are atm defining how people view Israel. Of course as humans we don't believe ordinary Israeli citizens are like that but when do most of us meet them? Rarely if ever so our information about Israel and how you think is coming from Netanyahu and his government, and the pretty horrid social media channels frequented by the IDF, and the people actively trying to prevent aid getting through and the illegal settlers and by some quite hardline posters on here whose words are dehumanising Palestinians.

If this is how many across the world (not just mumsnetters) view Israelis it's time to look inward to find out why that is and maybe get the voice of the moderate ordinary citizen out there because we are not seeing it.

Of course not. Pakistan was not established by happy diplomacy and consensus and there was a lot of fighting - but it was still done by legal and diplomatic means. As opposed by the sword. It certainly didn't mean everyone liked it, no such circumstances could ever possibly exist.

And seeing this, and saying it is so so wrong- does NOT in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER make me antisemitic. Just saying as it is. Would be saying the same if any group, religious, cultural or political did what Israel is doing to Gaza.

@LemonyTicket Well, that's a novel definition of consensus!

I have family in Israel. One has left, the other would probably leave soon (after her boyfriend 'squeezes the shekels out of the Israeli government'- his words not mine). They are rabidly pro Israeli and anti palestinian but i always question their motivation given that no matter how 'patriotic' they are, they would never be Israeli given they can't actually afford to live there and can't decipher a life insurance policy in Ivrit . It is a state for all Jewish people but yet people of their means can't live there. What is the point?! They are all educated btw, but that isn't enough.

Its not the war, its the unaffordability of housing (a deprived city on the edge of tel aviv has the same kind of prices as my northwest london suburb but israeli salaries are far lower) as well as the lack of job opportunities outside of tech. their welfare state is far more threadbare and the only thing that is better in Israel is the healthcare. Their cost of living crisis is far more acute and their poverty rate is far higher than in the UK. Israel has the highest poverty rate in the OECD.

The war just makes the housing crisis even worse.

What a weird post. Bad things happen in many countries. Even if you do not back this war (which I do) then it's very odd to message an Israeli and suggest you only hear from it's leaders and they should "get the message out" that not all Israelis have the same views.

There are appalling things going on all over the world. Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Congo, China, Ukraine, Sudan. You only hear from their leaders too. Would you tell a Pakistani in Mumsnet to "get the message out" that all Pakistanis aren't rotten?

Or would you just not be a racist bigot in assuming such a thing to begin with?

What is? I haven't defined consensus anywhere.