Ok, so which of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_EastIsrael existence is to blame for?
Even if you only count casualties after 1946, Israel-Arab wars amount to less than ~2.7% of the total casualties. heck, even if you take all the wars Arabs fought among themselves that involved palestinians as a major factor and pin them on Israel, which is like blaming a rape victim for her rape because she is pretty, it amounts to less than 8%.
But why should we take pre-1946 figures out of the equation? they actually prove my point that the Mid East would have been a shit hole even without Israel's existence in it. no, we should keep them. and in that case, Israel-Arab wars amounts to ~1% of the total casualties, despite taking 99% of the Media, UN and SJWs attention.
So i am very glad you agreed with me on the first half, but you are still totally wrong on the second.
Well, second part too. You could try to argue that without Israel to serve as a scapegoat the Middle Eastern governments would have to be more responsive to their population and more democratic, but that's really stretching it.
Not only it's stretching it, i think that on the contrary, Israel existence provided a convenient scapegoat that managed to somehow keep the illusion of the "Arab unity" intact and the Arab population subdued. I don't think the Arab states would have been more responsive to their population, on the contrary, i think that just like in Syria, they would have been using even more oppressive measures to subdue their populations.