...but as a result am more worried than ever about its long-term prospects

Thanks to commenters' inputs on a previous post concerning the details of citizenship in Israel, I withdraw much of my criticism--both implied and explicit--regarding the current state of formal laws discriminating against non-Jews living within Israel proper (the most recent post). The situation seems more defined by informal means than "ones on the books," so the comparisons (interally, at least) are more contemporary when it comes to U.S. history (like civil rights for African-Americans over the past several decades, which is why Israel's supreme court is such a crucial player).

This new knowledge makes me more understanding of why Israel is so nervous about the long-term demographics (the enlightenment of laws created decades earlier didn't foresee the demographic shift--save the specifically crafted Law of Return).

Internally, I would expect the pervasive informal discrimination to get worse over time, to include--as we see here in the States with Hispanics and other immigrants--increasing attempts to formalize into law new mechanisms (beyond the Law of Return) whose aim is to preserve clear majority status for Jews over the long term.

I know a lot of observers argue that Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza are heavily colored by this long-term fear (the focus of Carter's book), and I would expect those strategies to get more explicit and obvious over time as well--although it's hard to beat the security fence for explicitness (as we are soon to find out ourselves).

Thomas Friedman (among others) pushes the interesting historical analogy that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to the Long War (actually, I think he's still running with the "world war-something" crowd) what the Spanish Civil War was to WWII: a proving ground.

To the extent this proves true, Israel's attempts to stave off the unfavorable demographic trends may well presage Europe's, where I believe scale factors and assimilation capacity are far more favorably arrayed--for Europe.

In that way, whatever perversion of Israel's democratic tradition unfolds (e.g., recent rough talk from a senior official about loyalty oaths and deportations) may well serve to dissuade Europe from similarly desperate measures, thus elevating the utility of political co-optation through the accepted rise of Muslim immigrant-focused parties that are progressively mainstreamed (in Israel, such a progression would need to occur within an overarching one-state solution that seems fantastic from today's vantage point).

In short, not every "proof" need presage similar bad choices or tactics or outcomes elsewhere. We've seen Israel educate us positively in the past on many related security issues. Maybe it can do the same negatively regarding what should and should not be tried in pursuit of perserving a nation's perceived cultural birthright/identity.

Conversely, it's no surprise that a demographically rich Core country like China has the easiest time arguing (and to a lesser extent, practicing) policies of cultural "noninterference" abroad (even as it can be rather ruthless about such matters in its internal "frontier" areas). When you've got surplus bodies and spend most of your time trying to control population growth, you look at the world differently--i.e., you naturally think of an expanding frontier and not a fenced-off gated community.

This is why I argue for turning the immigration "threat" on its head--as in, why not get back into the business of adding more states and keeping America open for new members?

Suffice it to say, that the Gap's frequently frightening demonstrations of civilization's thin veneer in their own countries typically scares the hell of us in the Core, convincing many--in the manner of Mark Steyn--that the West is "doomed " unless we systematically mirror-image the perceived threat instead of remaining true to what got us strong in the first place and retaining more faith in the resilience of our political, social and economic cultures.

Hmm, looking over this post I find even more interesting things to think about regarding the film "Children of Men," which is an extreme depiction of such fears (no babies presages end times for civilization). I'm definitely going to have to read P.D. James' original novel.

Further thoughts:

Of course, I stand ready to instantly recant any portion of this post that's patently "untrue!" As I learned long ago on the subject of Israel-v-Palestinians, "insurmountable facts" can be amassed for all conceivable positions!

And if my flip style offends, then please move along, because this is a blog, not a press release. I know a lot of people take their (and others') blogs very seriously (and I welcome their patient lecturing), but I--unfortunately--do not.

I write this blog only for myself, because that's what works best for me. So I'm more than happy to offend, screw up, misstate, or just plain get it wrong, because this is the space where I do that.

When I want to be more careful, I write a column, or beyond that an article, or beyond that books. The blog sits at the bottom of that foodchain, where richness is held supreme and reach is--quite frankly--ignored.

And yes, by such statements I am rehashing old, touchstone arguments that I've employed here many times in the past. Why? The assumption that Hewitt's interviews are triggering any influx of new blog readers.

Strange sort of welcome, I know,but better to be straightforward from the start, no?