1. One can argue that the Revisionists did prevail.
Meaning Likud? That was way too late for anything like this.
3. The Ba'ath party was founded by Christians as a counterweight to Islamism. Arab Christians are ethnically Arab. You'd be better off just saying that Islamism takes root instead of Ba'athism.
I know that, but I needed every possible ally for super-Israel. Incidentally, the Coptic Christians of Egypt are
not Arabs. They were there before the Arabs came.
4. What would be the national interest of these "holy wars" and what would sustain them?
There is not and never has been any rational "national interest" for Arab wars against Israel. The motive is and always has been a mix of religious and ethnic anger. Moslem Arabs feel insulted and shamed by the establishment and survival of Israel, and by multiple defeats in battle by Israel. They seek the destruction of Israel to restore their mutilated honor. (Not all Moslem Arabs of course, but enough for four wars against Israel and endless campaigns of terror and "resistance", all of which have been abject failures.)
Jordan made peace in 1967, Egypt in 1973 (and Syria, basically), and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon were never involved in attacking Israel.
Five historical errors in one sentence. Impressive in a way.
1) Jordanian troops joined in the Syrian attack in 1973. Jordan
made peace with Israel in 1994.
2) Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979.
3) Syria is still officially at war with Israel.
4) Saudi Arabian troops fought in the Six Day War.
5) Lebanese forces attacked Israel in 1948.
There'd have to be a good geopolitical reason to have continuous warfare, at least something better than "MUSLIMS HATE FREEDOM".
How about the fact that Moslems, especially Arab Moslems, consider the existence of Israel an intolerable shame? For any part of the
Dar-ul-Islam to be occupied and ruled by infidels, who should be
dhimmi but instead rule over Moslems, is a violation of fundamental Moslem doctrine. If you don't believe me, ask Hamas. Or the Moslem Brotherhood. Or Hezbollah.
I don't know how much you know about Middle Eastern Christians, but most of them are very anti-Zionist, at least as much as Muslims are.
"
at least as much as Muslims are." I rather doubt that.
I a genocidal conquering Israel
That's an
interesting phrase. I wonder what prompted it.
Iraqi Christians will choose Iraq.
If Israel actually decided to exterminate its enemies, Iraqi Christians (and for that matter Syrian Christians, Lebanese Christians, Druze, and a lot of Moslems) would very quickly become Israeli allies - because the alternative would be quick extermination. Middle Eastern history, ancient and modern, is replete with factions and figures who sided with "the strong horse" against their "nation" or monarch or ethnic/religious faction. And the evidence of the last 65 years is that Israel could destroy any military opposition in the region.
Of course, Israel has never wanted to exterminate anyone, nor even to rule over non-Jews outside Eretz Israel.
I think the whole premise of hordes of rampaging Muslim fanatics is just massively flawed in this thread as in any thread where it's brought up as a possible thing.
Because, of course, there are no hordes of rampaging Moslem fanatics
anywhere. Not in Egypt, not in Nigeria, not in Mali, not in Pakistan, not in Algeria... Right?
I threw the scenario together in five minutes. It has several "wank" elements - mainly Arab Moslems managing to drive
everyone else in the region into becoming Israeli allies. Straight Arab-supremacist Ba'athism wouldn't alienate non-Moslem Arabs; straight Islamism wouldn't alienate non-Arab Moslems. It's a stretch, but extravagant ends call for extravagant means, and the premise is pretty extravagant.