@ Kapitein Andre

If you make the effort to think for a moment, I am sure you will realise that you are mixing apples with oranges.   

1) Cogito was talking about societies in general, not individuals.  There is ample empirical evidence (also easily explainable) that socialism makes MANY people "lazy".  That is the reason why big socialistic countries have switched to forms of 'capitalism'.  China, India, etc...illustrate that well. And those who have not done so (Cuba, N-Korea, Burma, etc...) remain stuck in dire poverty. 

By contrast, at the individual level, it is easy to understand that high wealth and/or income can make individuals lazy.  Not always, but usually.  That explains why sociological studies show that, at least in the USA, typical high-wealth families tend to lose their fortunes again after 2 or 3 generations.  Hence social mobility. 

2) The paleo-right and the paleo-left like to talk about Israel's "apartheid-like policies", but that is an unfair accusation.  Within Israel there is basic equality before the law.  Outside, around Israel, there is nowhere 'rule of law'.  You cannot honestly separate Israeli "policies" from the context within which Israel has to live.  It is surrounded by muslims/arabs.  Wherever muslims dominate politically (from Malaysia to Morocco), there is something in place that is much worse than "apartheid".  It is therefore very reasonable for Israel to want to isolate itself from that reality. 

3) Your assertion about greater wealth leading to "lower religious attendance" and to "civic nationalism" needs to be qualified.  That appears true as a broad past historical trend, up to a point at least.  There are also (early) signs of a counter-trend.  Further, among rich western countries, there does not appear to be a clear negative correlation between societal wealth and church attendance.  If anything, there are contrary indications (e.g. per capita income is higher in Ireland and the USA than in Belgium and France, etc...).

There are also indications that greater wealth has not spurred "civic nationalism" in many countries.  On the contrary, in many places it has fed multiculturalist illusions and a flight away from "nationalism".  But many other factors than wealth/income are at play in all of this.

4) Peres, a wise person, is wrong on 1 point. When people become rich and lazy, and do not produce enough children at replacement level anymore, they do NOT "have to bring in workers from different cultures".  There are alternatives, but they require different government policies w.r.t. incentives. 

5) Finally, what is the "islamic view on democracy"?  I doubt that you know it, because you seem unaware that it is a contradiction-in-terms.  You also seem to refuse to make empirical observations, because you appear to doubt that Israel is a "victim of terror".  But, for the moment, that is still an easy mistake to make somewhere in the vicinity of Brussels.   

It warms my heart to think that Mr. Peres is concerned about Europe remaining "generally Christian and basically Catholic." Unfortunately, his comments relate more to Israel which is facing a similar demographic crisis; indeed, his positing of the Islamic view of democracy has more to do with garnering support for Israel's apartheid-like policies with regards to Levantine Muslims, than with say the Parisian suburbs. In the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, Ariel Sharon gave his condolences and support to the United States, but added that Israel did so because it too was a victim of 'terror.'

Actually higher per capital wealth, education and annual income result in lower fertility rates; evidently, they seem also to result in greater gender equality, lower religious attendance, and a step towards civil rather than ethnic nationalism.

It is not wealth that turns people lazy, it is socialism, also without wealth people turn lazy in a socialist regime.