This thought experiment rests on a lot of dubious, implicit assumptions, which actually makes it irrelevant. A more relevant scenario would be this:
Egypt, Jordan and Syria occupies (let us say) the Northern part of Israel. What would this occupied territory look like today. As miserable as the West Bank? Hardly.

Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were all part of a Jewish Middle East...(that would be the way to start an honest reverse analogue to the current situation)...

Walt, let me be frank: your thought experiment is ridiculous. That was a dazzling sleight-of-hand, trying to set up an analogy that conveniently skips over the first 19 years of Israel's history and completely distorts every major element of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why don't you ask yourself how it came to be that after losing an attempted genocidal war against the newly founded State of Israel in 1948, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all decided to leave their Sunni Moslem Arab brothers who had previously lived on the other side of the cease fire lines to rot for generations in refugee camps? Why should the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Palestinians from Jaffo live in *refugee camps* in Gaza - a territory under Palestinian self rule? Isn't it about time the Arabs stopped sacrificing human welfare to the god of historical resentment and allowed the descendents of Palestinian refugees to get on with their lives? All over the world many millions of people became refugees in the 1940s, and millions of them rebuilt their lives in new lands. The solution for the grandchildren of Palestinian refugees is quite painless: they are Sunni Moslem Arabs who simply have to be absorbed by Sunni Moslem Arab states that are located not far from where their grandparents and great grandparents lived many decades ago. They should have no probelm feeling right at home. Hey Mr. Super-Duper Realist: wouldn't that be the realistic thing to do?

I have seen people of good will make respectable cases for the Palestinian cause, however, I search desperately for a hint of intellectual honesty in your post, but to no avail.

I never read your book about the Israel lobby, so I have tried to keep an open mind regarding you, but you know what? This one completely absurd blog-post has just about convinced me: there must be some kind of darker motivation at play when a Harvard professor is willing to demean himself by producing such crude propaganda. If you yourself were a Palestinian Arab, the irrationality of your post would be understandable - there is something very human and in some ways even noble about people whose thoughts are sometimes clouded by personal loyalties. What is your excuse?

If your analogy is to be accurate, it also needs to include:

Well, the thought experiment is not rigorous -- it's a "thought", not a "scientific", experiment, for God's sake --, but it's no less rigorous than most of the rationales used to justify the ongoing situation in Gaza, or the Arab-Israeli conflict in general. This kind of "experiment" is usually questionable and it should be probably avoided in a space like this -- readers are much more demanding when visiting expert sites than with the common blogger.

According to newspapers, now we have 500+ dead in Gaza and the U.S. has blocked an appeal for a cease-fire in the United Nations Security Council. This reminds me of the "Israel Lobby" subject and I'd like to suggest you to write some lines about it, Mr. Walt, if you can.

Regards,
R.

All the Jews would have been killed.

What are the options? That the Arabs would GIVE THEM land. An enclave? Seriously, this is so preposterous. Look at Lebanon, look at Iraq. Civilians and co-religionists, fellow Arabs, butchering each-other with glee. You yourself admit the improbability of their brother Sunni Arabs allowing the Palestinians to form a state. No. Quite simply, any Jewish non-combatants would have been murdered by the Arab armies. Hafiz al-Asad butchered tens of thousands of his OWN countrymen in Hama. Would the Jews of Palestine have expected better? If there was an enclave, as you disingenuously propose, it would have been enslaved, destroyed, reduced, or what-have-you'd in days.

The Diaspora's inability to forego its connection to Israel is a statement of solidarity that is envied by all, except Americans. It is to the Arabs' eternal shame that they have abandoned the Palestinians.

Stephen, I would like to thank you for having the coverage to write such great books, articles and ofcourse this nice analysis. I want to ensure "Ridiculous" that Jews have been living in the Middle East for hundreds of years. And Arabs in Morrocco have helped the Jews when they were expelled from Spain. Arabs (Christians and Muslims) do not hate Jews, they hate Israeli brutality against siege civilians. There are many voices of Peace inside Israel, West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and across the world but thier voices are silence by Israeli brutality. I don't support Hamas or the corrupted thugs Fatah and I don't support Israel's government, victims have falled from both sides (Gaza 520 killed, Israel 5 killed) in the apst 10 days and this madness should stop now.
I have posted some interesting things in my blog "http://www.alidahmash.blogspot.cm"

I don't expect more.

Your so-called thought experiment imagines not only a different political world but a different ethical structure for Judaism. It is also ignorant of Jewish history. That is why this is anti-semitic. You say "hardline Orthodox Jews" but who would those be and where would their violence come from? The history of Judaism says that Orthodox Jews are generally peaceful, devoted more to Torah study than to worldly matters.

But more importantly, we already know the answer to this question. For how many years was Jerusalem under non-Jewish control? The answer is 1967 years, not even 1948 years. What happened? For thousands of years, Jews would go to Jerusalem, even having their bones carried there. They came in peace. They settled and became a majority by 1900.

When the Arabs held Jerusalem from 1948 on, the Israelis didn't attack it. They didn't lob in mortars, even as the Jordanians methodically blew up them main buildings of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City.

For thousands of years, the Jews came to Israel in peace, but now you decide "Let's convert the Jews. Let's imagine they live by the sword, like us Christians. Let's imagine they'd put aside their thousands of years of traditions and would act exactly like Hamas today." An anti-semitic fantasy.

There is no answer to your thought experiment because it could not happen in Judaism, something you cannot grasp. Jews would not do this.

My assumption is that you'd leverage from the behavior of settler groups to large numbers of Jews but that would be wrong. There are Jewish extremists, but as you certainly must know every poll in Israel says the country would sell them out in a minute if there were a real chance for peace. It is the lack of peace which gives these extremists a platform.

But your thought experiment goes further. It assumes something which has never been demonstrated ever in the Jewish world, that the Jews of America, Europe, etc. would support murderous extremists pursuing some Messianic dream. It wouldn't happen. It just wouldn't happen.

And beyond that, so you can understand how offensive your experiment is, the assumption seems to be that Jews in America would somehow guide the US toward supporting this imagined murderous group. You are wrong. Jews in America would never do that. It is only true in your fevered imaginings.

An exodus to where?

"Imagine that a million or so Jews had ended up as stateless refugees confined to that narrow enclave known as the Gaza Strip."

No need to do a silly "thought experiment." As Mr Walt knows, this already happened, back in 1948. Only the a tiny, narrow enclave surrounded by hostile neighbors was known as "Israel." Did the Jews establish a polity grounded in a genocidal charter? Nope. Instead of fanatics taking over, the beleaguered Jewish mostly refugees created a liberal democracy.

Of course, a second problem with your thought experiment is, that had the pan-Arab armies won in 1967, according to their battle cry, there would have been no Jews left to enclose in Gaza. They'd have all been thrown into the sea. Even to this day, the Arab thirst for genocide has not (yet?) been satisfied.

Now a thought experiment for you: imagine that when Israel rendered Gaza Judenrein, instead of importing weapons and digging tunnels and calling for the genocide of Jewish people, the Gazans had worked, using the millions and millions of dollars of international (i.e., EU, American) aid, to create a state built on ideals of modern state-building, not to mention the well-being of their people? But...that's too hallucinogenic an experiment. Better to do thought contortions so as perpetually blame the Jews...

Steven

Professor Walt, tell us again what justifies Israel's right to exist?

As far as I can tell, the best justification is that all colonial states, including good ole US of A, were founded on great crimes perpetrated against the natives . The native population, in this case the Palestinians, historically is expected to just suck it up and go away, or roll over and die like them Injuns did. Any attempt at resisting ethnic cleansing, dispossession, imprisonment, total blockade, occupation, as well as killings, is taken as prima facie evidence of Islamic extremist terrorism.

It took the colonial powers and later the United States centuries to make the Indians see the light. If we expect Israel to pull it off faster, we need to massively increase our military aid to Israel. Why not bring back the draft and send a couple of million American soldiers there as well?

If not, what is the solution? Give every Israeli American citizenship, transplant them all to America, and leave Palestine to the Palestinians?

The U.S Media would be calling the "Palestinian Defense forces" terrorists, and they'd be correct.

There is no need to classify people by religion or race, and assign them different rights on that basis.

If one stops policing ethnicity and religion, one can live together in peace as in secular modern states.

Don't create an in-group and out-group, and make a zero-sum game of security, so that my security exists only in so far as yours is destroyed. It doesn't work.

Collective identities and narratives do not trump individual human rights. The Gazans came from land that is today Israel. The problem is they don't have rights in their homeland.

And these hypothetical Jews, do they also deliberately target civilians? Do they hide amongst their own civilian population, deliberately endangering them further. Do they indoctrinate their children into dehumanizing their adversaries, and teaching them, in kindergarten, to desire to blow themselves up for the cause? (An aside, would they also have so many apologists, such as yourself, for this repugnant behavior?)

A more intriguing question is, would the Jews, or anyone else for that matter, actually develop so hateful and violent a society as currently exists in Palestine? No, they wouldn't. But don't let me rain on your Jew-hating parade.

Mr. Walt is proposing that we look at both parties:

Party A: Young state, established on land claimed by party B, people once disposed of land. Currently using targeted yet powerful weapons aimed at possibly valid targets, but predictably with lots of "collateral" damage/deaths.

Party B: Non/emerging state, peopled by people who claim land of party A (which party A says has older claim to). Currently using far less powerful weapons, indiscriminently aimed at civillian centers.

In reality, Party A is Jewish (Isreal) and Party B is Palestinian/Arab/Muslim (Gaza/Hamas).

Currently, our government condemns Party B, and more or less backs Party A.

Mr. Walt's question is what would happen if we switched the ethnic/political/religious identtities of the two parties.

****************

So, I have two answers to that.

First, I don't think that it is the ethnic/religious/political identities that makes the biggest difference. Just sticking to his question, I think that the most important difference is the targeted use of weapons vs. the indiscriminent use of weapons. We are (too) forgiving of "collateral" dammage/deaths, if the original targeting was done in good faith. I might not like it, but that's that way it is.

Second, I think that he misses the idea of long term intent. It is not at all clear to me that Isreal has ever thought that its existance depended on the absense of a Palestinian state. I'm not going to say that this was charitable or generous, or that Isreal did not to encourage a Palestinian state -- until relatively recently, of course. But Isreal did not say "It's us, or its them."

On the other hand, Hamas and other organizations have said publicly and based their identities on their committment to the end of the state of Isreal. They actually HAVE said "us or them," as a literal existential question.

The second point is quite relevant to the first point. If a group doesn't believe that another group has the right to exist, the indiscriminent use of weapons doesn't seem quite so unreasonable. If you think that they do -- or might -- have the right to exist, a bit more judiciousness is certainly in order.

So, a third party (e.g. the US government, me, members of the media) look at this situation and don't just see Jew vs. Arab/Mulsim/Palestinan. I think that they see "potentially willing to accept the existance other" and "utterly willing to accept the existance of the other." Which one do they side with? They side with the more reasonable seeming one, Party A.

*************************

Problems with the Mr. Walt's hypothetical question.

I don't know how the US might respond if situations were reversed. While I don't think that we are pro-Jewish or in the control of the Jews, I do acknowledge that there's a fair amount of anti-Muslim stuff here. There's a lot of anti-semitism, and some of the anti-muslim stuff comes from the same place (i.e. but they're not christan!). But there is a bunch more, too. I'm not going to get into all the reason for it, but I am going to say that the reaction wouldn't be exactly the same because we are less tolerent of Muslims.

I also think that many in the US would say that there are lots of Arab states, and so the Palestinians have other places to go. We would stupidly equate all Arab groups, and not acknowledge that Arab is about as useful a term as Eastern European. We wouldn't give enough heed to the fact that Palestinians are a (at least) somewhat distinct group that as much deserves its own state at the Czeks and the Slovaks do. Again, unfair.

These are relevant. These get to why the US might not side as strongly with the hypothetical established Palestinian state, as it does with the actual established state of Isreal. But, at the end of the day, I think that the US would side with the targeted use of weapons, rather than the indiscriminent use of weapons aimed generally at civilian centers.

*******************************

And last, I hope, this issue of attacking Mr. Walt's question.

Come on, people! Was there some anti-semitism in there? Well, at the very least it raised the question of whether the USA is in the pocket of the Jews or the Isreali lobby. So, maybe you want to call that anti-semetic. But there's a lot of anti-muslim stuff out there, too. And there's a lot of knee-jerk support of Isreal out there, too. So, let's not disregard someone just because they demonstrate that they favor one side over another (if you think that's what is going on).

More importantly, you see, he asked the question. He did not insist on an answer. He was inviting dialogue, giving an opportunity for reasoned response. He was actually engaging. How comments so far actally attempted to engage -- as opposed to exclude -- those who disagree.

From Ross Douthat's Atlantic Weblog:
January 6, 2009

A Jewish Gaza?

Having praised the new Foreign Policy site, let me welcome them to the blogosphere by taking exception to this hypothetical from new-minted FP blogger Stephen Walt, which has been mentioned favorably by Yglesias and Klein as an example of the sort of daring thought that mainstream op-ed pages fail to publish:

Walt: Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria had won the Six Day War, leading to a massive exodus of Jews from the territory of Israel. . . .

Here's the question: would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as "terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?

The odd thing is that by Walt's own account, the answer would seem to be "Yes," since presumably the rump Orthodox Gaza - run, perhaps, by Verbover Jews - wouldn't have an all-powerful lobby shaping U.S. policy and public opinion to its specifications. Or am I missing something?

More seriously, this analogy - which Chris Brose critiques elsewhere on the FP site, and which comes complete with the staggering insinuation that the recent bombardment of Israeli towns (as opposed to, say, this business) is the only reason why the United States treats Hamas as a terrorist (sorry, "terrorist") organization - is a reminder of why when I say that the American Right needs a new realism, I really do mean a new realism, because so many of the old realists have failed to distinguish themselves in the debates of the decade just passed. That failure is the subject for an essay, rather than a blog post, but for now let me just say that on the one hand, you had figures in the broad realist firmament (from Henry Kissinger to George Will to Chuck Hagel) lining up to support the invasion of Iraq at a time when the Bush Administration could have used a serious critique from the right (and then acquitting themselves less-than-impressively, in Hagel's case especially, in the debate over what to do with Iraq once things had fallen apart) ... while on the other hand you had figures like Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer deciding that the best way to promote legitimately important "realist" ideas (like, say, that America should be pushing Israel harder to abandon the West Bank settlements, and that American Jews ought to play a more constructive role on this front) was to wrap them up in a farrago of oversimplifications and half-truths, ride the ensuing attention up the bestseller list, and then cry "persecution!" when anyone called them on it.

I admit to some professional bias here, since The Israel Lobby opens with a none-too-veiled insinuation that the Atlantic, which commissioned the original essay and then declined to publish it, did so out of fear of a potential backlash from the Jews the Israel Lobby. I wasn't privy to the editorial decision-making surrounding the piece, so I'm speaking only for myself when I say that we almost certainly rejected the essay because it was lousy - because the analysis it provided on a subject of great moment was indefensibly slanted and wrapped in frankly conspiratorial thinking. Buried within that analysis was the kernel of a good point, which might have made for a good essay in different hands - just as a foreign-policy realism in general might have had a more constructive impact on public debate in the Bush Era (and it did have a constructive impact, I should allow, in many arenas) had it not been associated with such fundamentally unserious figures as Chuck Hagel and, well, the authors of The Israel Lobby.

--Posted 06 Jan 2009 01:09 pm

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/a_jewish_gaza.php

By proffering your question you lead to other questions.
What of the Jews whose lives and properties were forfeited during WWII in the Middle East?
What of the Jews whose lives and properties were forfeited after 1947 in the Middle East?
What of the Arabs who lived in what is now Israel who were promised homes in what is now Jordan?
What of the Arabs who lived in what is now Israel who were promised homes in other places?
If your point is that the US view is myopic, that is one thing. If your point is that the Jewish view is biased in favor of what the Israeli government has been doing for the last 60 years, remember this: as a college professor told me in Havana a few years ago, we like you but we don't like your government. And I told him I felt the same way.
The issue should have been trying to make life as normal for folks in what is now Israel and what is now Jordan and elsewhere. But the leaders were too caught up in what would benefit them instead.
A final note: what of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who ought have been tried as a WWII war criminal and instead was feted by western leaders?

How about this scenario?

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate
in 1928 a violent Islamic extremist organization is formed in Egypt resolved to restoring the Caliphate and as an article of faith declare that Jews are the mortal enemies of Islam. WTH we will call this fraternity the Brotherhood.

As the Arab states gain independence following the WW2 amongst their very first acts is the violent Dispossession and Expulsion of a Million Jews to a narrow strip of land in the Middle east. WTH we will call it Israel. These same Arab states then in 1967 go to war all the while threatening to finally dispossess and eliminate these same Jewish Refugees once and for all.....

These same Million Jewish Refugees and their descendants, now numbering more than 5 million, despite their poverty shun the left wing parties repeatedly voting for political parties promising strong robust defense measures that will Never Again expose them to Arab aggression.....

Oh wait that is exactly what happened.

Not exactly a brain stumper.

A real academic would look to history as an indicator. A real academic would ask what happened to the Jews in the areas of Palestine that Syria Jordan and Egypt conquered in 1948?

They would discover there were no Jews left there. All the Jews in those areas of Palestine, Syria Jordan and Egypt conquered in 1948 were killed or driven out.

The real question is why Mr. Walt posing as an academic postulates such an exercise with complete ignorance and disregard for history.

Is Mr. Walt in possession of newly discovered 'facts' that would inform us that in the 19 years that had passed since 1948 any of the mentioned countries would contrary to all their public declarations suddenly behave charitably to Jews....allowing them an enclave? Really? Now we are in fantasy land.

A real exercise would be to explain how standards of academia have been so lowered that this even passes as "...a thought experiment"? In a Hillbilly bar or Fox News, no even Fox News wouldn't go that low....from a Harvard Professor?

Everyone makes brain burps which are excusable, but immediately realizes the error, and shuts up hoping it will be forgotten. Mr. Walt publishes his brain burps with out even a hint that he has taken a moment to consider the profound stupidity or incredible insensitivity he displays to the Million Jewish victims who were expelled their property and possessions confiscated by the same states who sent their armies to fight in 1967.

No wonder the US is in such "dire straights" with this as an example of what is passing for intellectual discourse from 'expert' in foreign policy.

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.

May I suggest another thought experiment.

Say that in the time from 1948 to 1967 Jordan and Egypt decided that the Palestinian people who they ruled deserved the respect of self-determination and established a state called Palestine on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Say that Lebanon and the other Arab states allowed their Palestinian brothers and sisters who did not want to return to the new state the dignity and respect to become citizens and get jobs to provide for their families.

Where would the conflict be today?

Interesting to consider which thought experiment scenario requires a stronger suspension of disbelief.

Don't ask what it would have happened : the jews would have been exterminated !
So no problem in a 'jewish' Gaza strip !
Your question and the possibilty that you wrote has no matter : already in 1967 the propaganda in the arab world -mainly Egypt and Syria- spread antisemistic (and not only anti israelian) words and songs.
It is an intellectual lie to write a such article like yours... Or maybe a proof that you do not know a lot about the ME conflict

Here's a more cogent thought experiment because it exists within the realm of the possible, unlike the one posited: What if the Zionists, deciding they were damned in world opinion anyway, decided to purge the land of Eretz Israel of all Arabs?

They don't, but they could.

Nice try Steve. The reason it doesn't work in reality is that Jews value life and the Palestinian terrorists don't. Jews would never hide behind civilians to launch missiles, nor would they send their children to be suicide bombers. They would not deliberately target civilians, as the US and Britain did in WW2. Most importantly, they would not cynically draw fire to civilian targets, hide ordinance in synagogues and hospitals and schools. As I said, nice try, but the 6 Day war was a just war, and Jews won it fair and square. And BTW, they aimed their weapons at military,not civilian targets, in case you missed it,

The big problem with analyses of the current situation is that they start too late: even 1967 is too late. To understand why Arabs are angry, I think you have to go back to the founding of Israel. The bottom line is that outsiders from a different culture came in to Palestine and set up a state *for themselves* by taking land away from the people who lived there. Sure, the outsiders ancestors had lived there... a long time ago. This brings me to the analogy.

What if Native American tribes, flush with casino money, decided it was time to establish a country of their own? They used to be everywhere in the US, so let's just say they pick Manhattan -- well, maybe they'd be generous and only take part of it, say Midtown and below -- all of Long Island (including Brookyln), and New Jersey.

Would (non-Native) Americans stand for this? Of course not. If Native Americans were even to try this, they'd be considered traitors and probably terrorists. And, if in some science-fiction-y scenario, they managed to succeed, would you expect (non-Native) Americans to give up being angry, to accept this fait accompli... after 19 years? or 60 years?

Here's one to send Jewish conspiracy theorists into a tizz. What if Ahmadinejad is really an agent controlled by the Jews? The cognoscenti know that the holocaust was a brilliant Jewish trick to weed out the sick and weak Jews and bring about the creation of a Jewish state by cashing in on Christian guilt feelings. The new plan for world domination is as follows:

Ahmedinejhad acquires nuclear weapons. Iran wipes Israel off of the map. The USA nukes Iran out of existence. The world feels teribly sorry, yet again, for having allowed another genocide of the Jews. The United Nations votes to give the territory of the now depopulated Iran to the Jews as a new homeland.