How many more Israelis would have lived in the West Bank right now had Israel conquered it in 1949?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,357
SoCal
In real life, something like 800,000 Israelis live in the West Bank right now (400,000 of these in East Jerusalem, and 400,000 of these in the rest of the West Bank)--a number that is still increasing with every given year. In turn, this motivated me to ask this question--how many more Israelis would have lived in the West Bank right now had Israel conquered it in 1949 instead of 1967?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
In real life, something like 800,000 Israelis live in the West Bank right now (400,000 of these in East Jerusalem, and 400,000 of these in the rest of the West Bank)--a number that is still increasing with every given year. In turn, this motivated me to ask this question--how many more Israelis would have lived in the West Bank right now had Israel conquered it in 1949 instead of 1967?
The Same. The Amount of Jewish Israelis would be the same. While more settlement in Jeruslaem would have happened and perhaps been more of a Capital But the major impetious for settlment in thr west bank is denial of Paletsinainas without that I doubt natural desire to move to those rgeions would be enough to makethe population greater,.

.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,357
SoCal
The Same. The Amount of Jewish Israelis would be the same.
Do you mean specifically in the West Bank or in all of Israel? I'm assuming that you're talking specifically about the West Bank, but your statement here is soft of vague.

While more settlement in Jeruslaem would have happened and perhaps been more of a Capital But the major impetious for settlment in thr west bank is denial of Paletsinainas without that I doubt natural desire to move to those rgeions would be enough to makethe population greater,.

.
What would "help" in regards to getting more Jews to move to the West Bank in 1949 is the fact that some of its Arab population could have fled back then and some additional Arabs there could have been expelled. I don't think that there would be a systemic expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank in this scenario, but I could see some overenthusiastic Israeli commanders doing this on their own initiative--for instance, in Jericho, which was located in a strategic location near the Jordanian border.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,357
SoCal
Also, even if there would not have been a threat of a Palestinian national movement developing in the West Bank, one would still think that Israelis would have been motivated to move and settle there due to the historical and religious significance that this land has for the Jews as well as due to the desire of Israelis to have cheaper housing prices.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
Also, even if there would not have been a threat of a Palestinian national movement developing in the West Bank, one would still think that Israelis would have been motivated to move and settle there due to the historical and religious significance that this land has for the Jews as well as due to the desire of Israelis to have cheaper housing prices.

Housing is the wets bank is only cheaper because of subsides driving by anti plaetsinian sentiment. Without that it woul dbnbe more expensive.

Some. But most oif the impetuous NOW, so without them some who have did so will not have, the predmomint force and funding of the Israeli settlememnt in the west bank is facts on the ground to deny Palestinains. Without that push many who have done so will not have. Some who have not settled there because of the conflict will have done so. I'm saying it will be about even.

Outside of Jerusalem which could have significantly ore settlement.,

There woudl have been a threat of Palestinian national movement devloping it just would have beebn in ALL of Israel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,357
SoCal
Housing is the wets bank is only cheaper because of subsides driving by anti plaetsinian sentiment. Without that it woul dbnbe more expensive.
Possibly, but it might depend on which parts of the West Bank. For instance, the Jordan Valley is sparsely populated and if it was a part of Israel (and internationally recognized as such, of course) instead of being Israeli-occupied territory, then it's possible that much more Israelis would have settled there. Of course, this also depends on whether the Jordan Valley would be capable of sustaining large cities and large metropolitan areas.

Also, of course, if Jericho is ethnically cleansed, the Jews are likely to resettle it.

Some. But most oif the impetuous NOW, so without them some who have did so will not have, the predmomint force and funding of the Israeli settlememnt in the west bank is facts on the ground to deny Palestinains. Without that push many who have done so will not have. Some who have not settled there because of the conflict will have done so. I'm saying it will be about even.
A reasonable hypothesis, I suppose.

Outside of Jerusalem which could have significantly ore settlement.,
How much more Jewish settlement?

Indeed, please keep in mind that about half of all of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank in real life live in East Jerusalem.

There woudl have been a threat of Palestinian national movement devloping it just would have beebn in ALL of Israel.
Very possibly, but it would have probably had to be a minority rights movement as opposed to being a separatist movement. Think of the African-American Civil Rights Movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s in real life.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
Possibly, but it might depend on which parts of the West Bank. For instance, the Jordan Valley is sparsely populated and if it was a part of Israel (and internationally recognized as such, of course) instead of being Israeli-occupied territory, then it's possible that much more Israelis would have settled there. Of course, this also depends on whether the Jordan Valley would be capable of sustaining large cities and large metropolitan areas.
It;s hard to say. Hsitrocial Isralei settlement is mostly funded and driven by Political factors that are driven by Anti Palestinain settlement. They are there to make it Israeli rather than Palestinian, or to take advantage of the subsidies which are driven by Anti-Palestinian settlement. Remove these push factors , against the easier settlement.

Look at thepattern of settlement during the Mandate. The Coastal plan is the easierist and least costlyplace to settle, in large urban areas. And is going to get most of the teh sttlement. Modern ISrael is a Uover whemingly urban population leaving in cities. Large cities are onot going to spring up in the hills and hard to settle places. The fanatacial dominitory, settlements tehre noew are solely the ceration of political factors. There are a pratical non-sense that cost much more than some sort of rational settlement pattern. Jersalema dn Hebron could have signicnnatly greater Jewish population. But the settlemenst that exsits now would not exists in the main, they are solely the trumiph of political factors over reasonable development.

Very possibly, but it would have probably had to be a minority rights movement as opposed to being a separatist movement. Think of the African-American Civil Rights Movement in the US.
The Unity of Plestinain experince without the divsions of west bank woould mean the Paletsianin poltical experince and repsonse would be more similar. So Paletsinain Political movements would be more broad baesed across both Israel poper and the west bank rather than more fragmented by radically different experinces, the dispoera/refugee expericne would still exsit. I think the initial push is for a more broad based more radical more hardline Paletsinain political response, though. development is hard to see but the middle ground has been cut out, the whole two state solution is off the table from the start, where does Palestinain politics go without any posisbel two state solution?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,357
SoCal
It;s hard to say. Hsitrocial Isralei settlement is mostly funded and driven by Political factors that are driven by Anti Palestinain settlement. They are there to make it Israeli rather than Palestinian, or to take advantage of the subsidies which are driven by Anti-Palestinian settlement. Remove these push factors , against the easier settlement.

Look at thepattern of settlement during the Mandate. The Coastal plan is the easierist and least costlyplace to settle, in large urban areas. And is going to get most of the teh sttlement. Modern ISrael is a Uover whemingly urban population leaving in cities. Large cities are onot going to spring up in the hills and hard to settle places. The fanatacial dominitory, settlements tehre noew are solely the ceration of political factors. There are a pratical non-sense that cost much more than some sort of rational settlement pattern. Jersalema dn Hebron could have signicnnatly greater Jewish population. But the settlemenst that exsits now would not exists in the main, they are solely the trumiph of political factors over reasonable development.
Makes sense.

BTW, Jerusalem and Hebron aren't the only large cities in the West Bank. There are also Bethlehem, Jericho, Ramallah, Nablus, Qalqilya, Tulkarm, and Jenin. Even if these cities will keep a part of their Arab population in this scenario, Jews could either move directly into these cities or build cities directly adjacent to these cities and move there.

Also, while I didn't mention it in this scenario because it might be harder to achieve, but had Israel conquered Gaza as well in 1949, you think that a lot of Jews would have moved there due to it being near the coast, correct?

The Unity of Plestinain experince without the divsions of west bank woould mean the Paletsianin poltical experince and repsonse would be more similar. So Paletsinain Political movements would be more broad baesed across both Israel poper and the west bank rather than more fragmented by radically different experinces, the dispoera/refugee expericne would still exsit. I think the initial push is for a more broad based more radical more hardline Paletsinain political response, though. development is hard to see but the middle ground has been cut out, the whole two state solution is off the table from the start, where does Palestinain politics go without any posisbel two state solution?
Technically speaking, Gaza (if not conquered by Israel) could still become a Palestinian state--perhaps with some expansion into the northeastern Sinai Peninsula. Still, even with such a territorial expansion, there are probably going to be too many Palestinians for them to all move to Gaza.

Thus, I agree with you that the middle ground is likely to be eliminated in this scenario. Of course, even so, I think that the Palestinian diaspora is going to be much, much more radical than the Palestinians who were allowed to stay behind in Israel since the former would not have any permanent home while the latter would have a permanent home--even if it a home where they are treated as second-class citizens.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,357
SoCal
BTW, could there be greater pressure on Arab countries to integrate their Palestinian refugees and give all of their Palestinian refugees citizenship? After all, in such a scenario, there is not going to be any hope of having the Palestinian refugees ever resettle in Palestine.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
BTW, could there be greater pressure on Arab countries to integrate their Palestinian refugees and give all of their Palestinian refugees citizenship? After all, in such a scenario, there is not going to be any hope of having the Palestinian refugees ever resettle in Palestine.
No. the reasons NOT to integrate them are going to remain. Pressure from who? No body who matters to these regimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist