| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
075807
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
116183
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Israel is one of the only countries whose existence is openly called into question. There are a number of contemporary threats that could bring an end to Israel as a Jewish democracy. They include 'hard' threats of nuclear destruction and conventional invasion and 'soft' threats of an emerging Arab majority and elite actions to end Israel either as a Jewish state or as a democratic state. Israeli policymakers can learn how to cope with these threats by examining how Israel was destroyed in ancient times. Israel's destruction at the hands of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans reinforces Realist lessons for contemporary Israel. They include the dangers of relying on outside allies for support, the need to prevent adversaries from gaining the capability to destroy you, the risks of an unfavourable demographic balance, and how internal conflict can bring about one's demise. Although appeasement proved to be the preferred policy for some of Israel's ancient forebears, the total threat posed by some of modern Israel's adversaries and Israel's contemporary ability to overpower its regional foes require substantial modification before such an approach should be considered today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
177741
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In order to pressure Israel to withdraw from the lands it took following the 1956 Suez War, the United States made two key commitments. It promised Israel it would open the Straits of Tiran if Egypt reimposed a blockade and that if the blockade nevertheless persisted, Israel would have the right to act on its own to ensure free passage of Israeli ships. When Nasser closed the Straits in 1967, President Johnson reneged on both commitments. LBJ chose not to act to end the blockade and warned Israel not to act alone. The failure to live up to these commitments contributed to the outbreak of the 1967 War, hampered efforts to get Israel to give up the territories it conquered as a result of the war, and reinforced in Israel the conviction that it could not depend on others for its security. Israel and the Middle East would be very different places today if those commitments had been fulfilled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
144671
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Israel is one of the only countries whose continued existence is called into question. The history of state death and particularly the record of state death since the end of the Cold War provide insights into the kinds of threats that are most likely to bring about the demise of countries in the twenty-first century, including Israel. This record suggests that armed conquest is no longer a principal danger to countries. Instead, state death is more likely to arise by a peaceful decision to end the state. The reasons for this decision vary case by case, but changes in the policy of a great power, ethnic strife, and a growing belief in the illegitimacy of the country’s right to exist have all played key roles in recent state deaths. Israel struggles with each of these issues, making the lessons of state death especially relevant for its future. By learning from the experience of state deaths, Israel can best assess its own vulnerabilities and determine what it needs to do to maximize its prospects for survival.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|