Of course I would want to. I also would like peace with our neighbors, functional relationships, etc. That means the ability to fly (direct even) to many Middle Eastern nations. The ability to fly direct to the Far East on shorter and cheaper flights.
But want doesn't equal practicality.

The lack of those things have not stopped other airlines in the region from joining alliances and developing hubs.

The crux of the difference of opinion here is that some are linking the notion of a formal peace agreement coupled with being able to overfly Israel's neighboring states to the Far East on one side with the ability to turn TLV into an East/West hub of sorts.

I contend that there is little to no linkage between those issues. The only issue for EL AL is being able to draw pax by offering them competitive fares and perks. Whether EL AL is able to do so and make money is largely dependent on reforming its cost structure. Just because EL AL has to fly 3 more hours from TLV to BKK than other companies does not automatically render offering such a route to connecting pax unprofitable nor does it mean pax will never go for it. Again, if Lufthansa is able to offer competitive priced fares from TLV to the Far East with a stopover in FRA and earn a profit on each ticket doing so, even though the overall flight time is longer than than that of EL AL's fight times including the diversion around the Middle East, EL AL can and should do the same.

But EK doesn't need to do extended flyovers

But EK also does not offer non-stop flights from North America or Europe to the Far East/Australia and yet people fly with them knowing they will have a stop in Dubai which will add hours to their travel times. Point is that a few additional hours of travel time for most pax is a secondary issue to the fare and benefits one.

Hence, if EL AL is able to offer attractive fares and benefits for pax flying through TLV then many will come.

People may not mind one stop. But why would I fly on a connecting flight, knowing that my second leg will be significantly longer than it needs to be.

I already mentioned why. Price and benefits.

By not offering connections to BOM/JNB/HKG etc, El Al is losing out on their Jewish American customers who would love to fly El Al and get the stopover in TLV, whether for a few hours or a few days.

Especially Religious Jews who cannot make Sat night flights in the summer to many Asian destinations would welcome the chance to spend Shabbat in Israel and then take the Sat night flight to Asia

Not only that. They are missing out budget travelers who would like to spend a day or two in TLV or Jerusalem on their way to the the far east. They are also missing out on high tech execs who could combine trips to TLV and India into one. Most of all, they are missing out on the industry trend which now favors connecting carriers verses O&D ones.

I am trying to understand why in light of the fact that EL AL already flies to North America, Europe, and the Far East, it is impossible to do something so simple as to offer a competitive connecting fare through TLV and market it on the EL AL website and other airline ticket ones? I don't believe doing so is such a novel idea.

When I read that something so simple as offering connecting fares through TLV and trying to turn it into a hub is impossible for this reason or that one, I cannot help but wonder whether we would even be here discussing EL AL today if that was the prevailing attitude back in 1948 when Israel's leaders were pondering declaring independence and EL AL was formed.

What benifits? If traveling premium classes LY have nothing special to offer and if traveling Y, prices would have to be extremely competitive, something LY isn't very good at...

As for thinking a stopover in TLV would be so attractive to people you're wrong. Yes it may attract some, but most business travellers are just interested in making their trips as short as possible with as little time away from their families, and then for others the security at TLV alone would be enough to put them off.

Clubman,

You are looking at it from a business travelers perspective. The majority of business pax LY would be able to attract for these connections are the ones who need to combine TLV and India/Far East as well as Orthodox Jewish ones.

As far as benefits are concerned, that is the whole point. EL AL would need to offer leisure pax benefits flying through TLV similar to what EK does for their pax through Dubai; namely good hard/soft products, good mileage accrual (this requires alliance membership), the ability to spend some time in TLV or Jerusalem during transit, and competitive fares. All of this would require that EL AL reform itself in many aspects.

With regard to the security issue, there was a lively debate on another thread about the need to reform security at TLV and utilize more technology. With streamlined security that produces the same or better results as the current apparatus in place, security won't be much of an issue.

You may or may not be right but the incremental cost to essentially create new fare structures in the computer and publicize them via email to their customers and for free to the press seems so low that it doesn't make sense not to try.

ELY001, you claim that EK is who to strive to be like, and mention good mileage accrual. But then you say that you need to be an alliance member for that. EK isn't an alliance member...

Josh,

When have I ever made a "claim" that EK is who I strive EL AL to be like? The only time I mentioned EK recently was yesterday on this thread in response to our moderator's assertion that TLV could never be turned into a hub and pax from Europe would not connect through TLV until peace in the region breaks out. I pointed out that other regional carriers, such as EK and EY, developed hubs and have a large amount of connecting traffic despite the fact that their base of operations is in the Persian Gulf, one of the world's most politically unstable areas. In essence, I made a rebuttal against a likage between the need for Israel to have a regional peace agreement with her neighboring states and the ability of EL AL to generate connecting traffic through TLV. I don't understand how you took that to mean EK is what I strive EL AL to be like.

As far as EK not being in an alliance goes, they do not really need to be in one. They have a very extensive route network, and as a consequence, they could go at it alone. One of the benefits of alliance membership is the pooling of route networks between different carriers. Given that EL AL has a relatively small route network, being in an alliance is more critical for their survival and long term success. Also, alliance membership would enable EL AL to offer it's pax services on Shabbat without using their own metal to do so thereby generating some revenues even while the airline itself is grounded.

Or a set of strong partnerships in key markets. The whole 'alliance' thing is overdone. If they have strong benefit/accrual/spend reciprocity then the route network problem is solved. El Al's partnership with AA is extremely useful for onward connections throughout the US, but they fail to sell tickets online for these 'beyond' journeys. I doubt they would be unable to come to commercial terms with CX from HKG to most points in the far east. So then, you have coverage in the most heavily trafficked areas where they lack the aggregate demand to fly it alone.

They can't compete not because its not quite reasonable to, but because they've chosen to maintain an obtuse points program, a lousy website and a pathetic hard product in the premium longhaul cabins.

Their extremely high cost structure is another factor.