P.S
meant to start the response with how "national unity" is not something I hold in high regard. Not at all.

"That, my reasonable friend, is the essence of fascism."
Wrong! Alternative reasons are disdain of violence and armed conflict, caution, a belief in the rule of thumb that war is not even a stupid solution and has no winners etc., A conflict that cannot be resolved without a (civil) war can rarely be resolved with it. I'd add that war is a risky path - you may know how it starts but..
Should it happen in the specific case of 21st century Israel then you will lose, your friends will lose and your enemies will lose. Perhaps you will have learned a lesson, though.
This is but the tip of the iceberg of why I cannot accept your rationalization of the "merits" of a civil war.

Enjoyed the discussion, though.

Fine, I'll leave the points you're satisfied with as they are, and just regard the civil war.
Avoiding civil war in any case, regardless of the values and principals one's giving up to do so, means that the highest value one holds is the unity of the nation. Being willing to throw away your every value for the sake of this unity can mean no other thing but that all the other values are less important. That, my reasonable friend, is the essence of fascism.
Civil wars are horrors, just like any war, but one must fight for what one believes in. If two parts of the nation cannot settle their differences, and they reach a conflict that simply cannot be resolved because either side won't give up, then they could either fight for what they believe in, or give up. I already explained why I think fighting is the preferable choice.

Converging at last..

You have done two things: outline the basic facts/almost-facts we do not agree on (and will not for a while) and flushed out the huge gap between our hopes, or as you put it - desires.

To summarize: your assessment of the chances of the reasonably successful evolution of Israel in the next 50 Yrs is much higher than mine (>99% vs. 40-70%). Your reasons are the confidence in allies (C), confidence in the political and social separation of Palestine from Israel on a reasonably short timescale (E) estimation that this separation will be thorough enough (F) lack of appreciation/acknowledgment of a crisis inducing level of scarcity of resources (G) a belief that religious conflicts are decaying even if not monotonously (H-I) and perhaps other reasons.

I totally disagree on all counts but not in a way that we can bridge via discussion because we seem to disagree on the underlying (pseudo-)facts. To you I might seem wrong and/or pessimistic. To me you seem to be engaged in GROSS wishful-oversimplification of problems like the complex entanglement of Palestinian and Israeli societies (your comparison to Syria etc is bunk), the complexity and far reaching consequences of religious conflicts and the fragility of international support. There are indeed lessons to learn from Yugoslavia and I don't think you are seriously learning them. To top it off you are GROSSLY underestimating the severity of the resource scarcity issue. I would allude to quantitative studies on this issue but they wont convince you. Still, reaching the point where the basics of the dispute are clear is a satisfying achievement. Perhaps one of us will change his mind in days to come.

I left for last your desire for a civil war. Frankly, if you truly mean this then I think that you are nuts. The basic fact is that civil wars are horrors - to be avoided if at all possible and NEVER to be desired.

Ironically enough, your confidence that "your" side is the majority and will "win" is almost as ludicrous as your war fantasy. If you yell "Aharai", start running and pause and look back then chances are you wont see much more behind you than your footprints in the mud (not to mention that even IF you belonged to some imaginary majority that would by no means guaranty a victory in an armed conflict).

Be careful what you wish for because an Israeli civil war is not entirely unlikely. If it does happen your "side" (whoever they are) might loose, together with the other sides no doubt. Should, then, you be granted the opportunity to look at what is left in the ashes I hope that you give it enough thought to not wish for a civil war a second time.

A. I never said these countries were on the brink of extinction. I don't think Israel is, too.
B. It's not that I'm unwilling, it's that I can't.
C. Oh, I'm pretty sure the Hosen we have can carry us through the coming couple of decades.
D. I'm not afraid of a civil war. I desire one. I think it's the most immediate and best solution to Israel's major problems, I think rejecting one at all costs is fascism, clear and straight, I know most democracies in the world see their civil war as their finest hour and I am confident that my side is going to win it, being that we are the majority.
E. Palestine and Israel will have to be separated. That's the lesson of Yugoslavia, and to some extent Georgia; that's the lesson from the PQ and recent events in Belgium - dual ethnicity doesn't work. The only question here is the price and the time.
F. Why? for the very same reason density in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt or any other sovereign country is not Israel's problem.
G. The majority of Israeli territory is not even occupied. As for resources, I see no issue. Everything can be brought from outside.
H. I have some different stats, the Reform communities in the States and in Europe are growing constantly.
I. You're not talking about a million even today. There are some 200k settlers, maximum.
J. Gurvitz (And me) talk about the radicalisation, and we oppose it, because we find it evil. But that does not go to say that neither of us thinks religion will take over Israel.

I have limited time slots for browsing these days so I'll try to be brief and focused.

1. Problems in other countries: we totally disagree about the severity and scale of these but this is secondary in comparison to Israel's troubles. Suffice to say that you will be hard pressed to find serious support for the thesis that Sweden/Canada/Germany/Switzerland are on the brink of a major (near) extinction event . Not every economic crisis results in a failed state. To me this seems too obvious to merit further discussion. However, lets agree to disagree here. you should go to Montreal sometime in the spring//summer though. Lovely town.

2. As for your confidence in your convictions: I think that you are dead wrong but it is hard for me to demonstrate that if you are unwilling to discuss (rough) numbers and speculate on red-flags/scenarios. What the discussion will boil down to is you stating your beliefs and me stating my different ones. We've done that already, in fact.
Here's a randomly picked selection of statements I think you are wrong about, to some degree or other:

2a. "Israel has more than enough strong allies with a distinct interest to keep Israel around"
To the very least I would say 'lo leolam hosen'. In fact, I think that Israel has far too few allies even now and their interests are shifting as we speak.

"Lebanon … Israel has nothing to worry about."
Israel has everything to worry about in the context of Lebanon. One not too unlikely road to Israel's demise starts with a Lebanese-like civil war. Your Israel (middle class secular educated and sane) will be the first Israel to be annihilated in the aftermath.

"Palestine, when it should be established"
It is not at all certain that Palestine will be established and that it will EVER be truly separate from Israel. For one, notice that not so many Palestinians even want it. It is likely that the window of opportunity for two states is closing now, for lack interest on the part of the Palestinians among other reasons. If this is the case then the chances that Israel will pick unpleasant elements of the history of countries such as South Africa and Lebanon are large. There is no happy ending to going down this road.

"Israel is also not even remotely the most dense country in the world"
Mt frame of reference is in the Western world, and density is merely half of the problem. The full problem is density, Scarce finite resources and the fastest growth rate (maybe with the exception of the empty US). Dense countries that are not growing like crazy in population are better off in the context of this argument. empty coutries that are growing have time to deal with future problems. The religious conflicts accentuate these problem.

"that will cease to be Israel's issue"
WHY?!
This is not true even if an independent Palestine will magically spring to life. This seems like such an obvious point that I don't know where to start explaining it. Perhaps you should explain your vision of the decoupling of the two societies. If you do then I can refute the details or discuss counter-examples.

"More and more Jews, in Israel and outside of it, are turning their back on the demonic orthodox Judaism"
More and more of them are turning their backs on Judaism period. Especially in the US, the strongest ally from your previous argument. This is one reason why "lo leolam hosen' with the allies an all. (an I say this despite the relative current strengths of the reform community here)
Religion is a problem inside Israel, and it is not only Judaism. It is Judaism and Islam and in particular the 10% extreme versions of on both sides. These are enough to fuel the conflict and distract everybody else from their real problems.
Besides, since resources are final the battle for water/land/etc and the battle for Jehova/allah will fuel each other and become hopelessly untangled. This is usually a bad sign.

"a few hundred lunatics will probably not be able to create even an exciting civil wa"
How do you get from about a million (on all sides - Israeli Palestinian Jewish Muslim) to a few hundreds? what is the mechanism of mass enlightment? How much time does it take it to work?

"Claiming that Israel's situation is affected by religion shows very little familiarity with reality"
I beg to differ but Yossi Gurvitz and others wrote extensively about this.

Have to run again..

I too suggest that we leave the whole "You're not a parent" issue out, and not a minute too soon.
A. No, I believe the odds to be closer to null than to 5 per cent. As fat as time scales go, when I say that Israel can still be changed, I'm taking them into consideration.
B. No, I am confident in that.
C. I appreciate the advice, but I do think that constant examination of the state Israel is in and possible future prospects gives me a good-enough picture to decide whether or not I still see hope for this country. As much as I love a lively discussion, I will not commit myself to any red flags I'm unsure of.
My other passport is not American - I am almost offended, really - and I have enough friends and family in the UK to allow me the certainty of an alternative abode.
1. No, all was done means nothing is left to do. I don't think we will reach that stage - like I said, I'm positive that we won't - but IF and when things turn to the worse, I'll know it, and when (IF) I'll feel there's nothing I can do - I'll leave.
2. I do constantly. It's more than a lot of other people, and I'm proud to say I made some difference. Not as much as I'd have liked, but some. I'm not alone in this battle.
D-E
I'm sorry, I completely disagree. By 2030 Sweden will have lost more than 40 per cent of it's workforce; Swiss economy is being severely influenced by teenage suicide rates; Germany starts exercising xenophobia in historically frightening levels due, in part, to the economic fluctuations and Canadian are NOT great, they're dull and they have a quaint accent.
The streets of Paris were burning with the fire of what can only be described as a coo for weeks, Israel still isn't there in any of the numerous conflicts we face. The instability in Italy is in no way less dangerous than the one in Israel, what with public participation in political life plummeting towards the end of democracy there - they have been on the brink of it twice already.
As far as first passage goes, Israel has more than enough strong allies with a distinct interest to keep Israel around. As a matter of fact, if Lebanon still exists, and, to a great extent, is still one of the most progressive Arab countries, Israel has nothing to worry about.
Israel is also not even remotely the most dense country in the world. Palestine, when it should be established, will be quite dense, but that will cease to be Israel's issue. More and more Jews, in Israel and outside of it, are turning their back on the demonic orthodox Judaism; this is a process that will speed up in the coming future. Religion is kicking so hard these days because it's back is against the wall; some say that by 2020 ultra orthodox population will actually reduce in percentage. Religion stops being a factor. a few hundred lunatics will probably not be able to create even an exciting civil war. Sure, a lot of so called secular Jews are still very orthodox, but that weakens as religious leaders are becoming more and more extreme, and they are becoming more extreme because they're loosing the war.
Mafdal lost a great deal of it's power to the non religious Liberman party. Shas is constantly loosing height, Aguda never grows stronger even though their voters have almost twice as many children as the rest of the population. Claiming that Israel's situation is affected by religion shows very little familiarity with reality.

Not arguing that my opinion is "better". Just that on average parents and non-parents are different in ways that affect their reasoning. Lets ignore this side-point, though, from now on.

I'll try to focus on what I think are your weaker arguments. So here: point-by-point answers although brief, incomplete and not edited as the genre dictates:

"A. I do not think that Israel will cease to exist."
Bad wording. We can only talk about oddds. I'll take it that you think that the odds are lower than, say, 5%. So low that an expensive "insurance policy" is not worth the trouble
"I do think Israel has a lot of changing to do."
Yes, but you are ignoring timescales. I may come back to this later. Briefly, there is a timescale for realizing that change is required, a timescale for it to have an effect, a timescale for the damage from pre-changed conditions to accumulate to a point of no return etc. These have to be estimated and compare favorably in order to support this argument.

"B. I am confident "
Well, literally speaking this makes the entire discussion moot, so I wont take this at face value.

"C. I cannot give a list of conditions under which I'll feel forced to flee"
I think that you should think about this more carefully. Unlike pornography, slow gradual processes that might accelerate suddenly can catch you by surprise. If you think the risk is real then you should consider IN ADVANCE what are your "red lines". Then periodically examine how close reality is to them. Besides, if you cannot define even a putative set of conditions/indicators/red-flags even just for the sake of the argument then the discussion will benefit.

"alternatives"
I am assuming that you are alluding to a dual citizenship. This is good but, from a certain age and on, not enough - especially if your other passport is American. There are serious economic issues to be considered. Tiktzar hayeria so I'll leave it at that.

"before all was done to save Israel"
Two problems here:
1. All was done is best defined as a fair estimate that there is a good chance that the point of no return was reached. By definition you cannot do that without reforming your attitude towards points A-C.
2. Honestly estimate the contribution of whatever it is you are doing to the cause of saving Israel. Perhaps you'll be happy with it, perhaps change your mind about it, perhaps realize that you need to do something else.

D-E
This is your weakest argument, perhaps. It actually accentuates Israel dire circumstances because all of the problems you list are either not threatening the survival of the country and/or are much more severe in Israel. A few examples:

Non existence threatening problems (at current levels) are teenage violence in the US (the US is a more complicated story altogether and best left out of the discussion - average levels of anything there are misleading because distributions tend to be bi-modal rather than normal; there is far less violence in Ithaca NY or Boulder CO or Ann-Arbor or.. than anywhere in Israel), suicides in Sweden, economic problems in Germany and Canadians (who I find to be great).

Worse yet, the chances of a civil war in Israel are orders of magnitude greater than in France, and the comparable instability of the political system is far more dangerous in Israel than in Italy. Also, labor problems in Western Europe are by and large the lesser of two evils, where the alternative is a sudden major crisis as I'll try to explain. This touches upon two issues: sticky boundaries (or first passage) and exponential growth.
The first point is simple. Israel is less likely to bounce back from a severe social crisis. If it reaches the point that Albania or Lebanon or Argentina have reached (and Italy might) there are internal and hostile external forces that might not allow it time to bounce back. It therefore cannot afford "Italian-style" instability.
The second point requires numbers and don't hold me to then - I am quoting from memory. Human population was more or less constant for a couple of thousand years. in the last 2-3 centuries it grew exponentially 20-30 fold. Similarly, the percentage of humans+livestock of total biomass (not including various small organisms) jumped from less than 5% to more than 95% in this period. This has to stop. It is what physicists call "unstable" and environmentalists call "not sustainable". There are two extreme scenarios that end exponential growth - a gradual decay into a non-growing phase or a huge crisis', i.e., mass extinction. Obviously it is better to be nearer to the first end of the scale.
Because of geopolitical divides the effects of overpopulation are not even world-wide. The US population is 10 times less dense than Israel's, for instance.
My point is that Israel is particularly BADLY poised in this context:
It is dense and has a rap[id population growth, it is infested with religious conflict and religious people that are prioritizing procreation and xenophobia over tackling pressing survival issues (thereby considerably slowing the timescale for positive change) etc. In fact,. the religious conflicts which you completely ignore make all my points much more acute and solutions much less likely to work in time.
This boils down to a crisis scenario (there are several - no time to go into details) that the ~10M people between the Jordan river and the sea will likely suffer from in a few decades.

Perhaps more later because I have to run..

"I think that there are subtle aspects of the argument that you are completely missing, e.g., issues of time-scales, first passage, practical sides of immigration (more pressing if you are not a dual citizen but existing also if you are), etc" - I'll gladly hear them.
"I also think that expecting not to have children makes the discussion somewhat more theoretical for you" - Dude, huh?! Don't go all Anner Ravon on me. If you argue that your opinion is in any way better than mine because you have kids and I don't and probably won't, we should end this discussion right now, while I still sort of like you.
1. That's fine.
2. All the more.
3. Fine. Really, not that important.

This should probably go on but i am not sure if this is thew right venue. You raise many interesting points and I would gladly reply, point by point, at least to those I find the most interesting. I think that there are subtle aspects of the argument that you are completely missing, e.g., issues of time-scales, first passage, practical sides of immigration (more pressing if you are not a dual citizen but existing also if you are), etc.

I also think that expecting not to have children makes the discussion somewhat more theoretical for you - and trust me that I fully understand how deeply you care about Israel when I say this. It is just mostly the case that your patriotic feelings as well as your feelings towards family and friends pale in comparison to what how you find yourself feeling towards a young son/daughter.

I guess that the ball is in your court. Let me know if this is the time to stop, if I should reply here or if there's a third way.

BTW:
1. I can't type in Hebrew when I travel but I can read it fine if it is more convenient for you to write in it.
2. I do live in the states although my decision to extend my stay beyond the requirements of my job was a very recent one.
3. Rest assure that I feel no need to defend my fellow immigrants, nor do I think that they need my defense. I am rationalizing in the sense that I think that my decision was rational, but I was never apologetic about it - Not on behalf of myself and sure as hell not on behalf of others. It would save time for you to just take my word for it when I say that any negative feelings that might cause the rationalization you suggested are just not there.