Will overpopulation in Israel result in much greater settlement in the West Bank?

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,024
here
#41
Also, I do hope that, eventually, the Palestinian refugees who want to move to Israel will be allowed to do so. I mean, aren't the Germans who were expelled from Eastern Europe after the end of World War II now able to move back to Czechoslovakia and Poland if they so desire (I suspect that very few actually want to do this due to the greater poverty in those countries, but that's a separate point)? Doesn't the EU have freedom of movement? If so, maybe there could eventually be justice for the Palestinian refugees as well.

I'm not fond of the idea of a country refusing to let people in simply because they have the wrong race, ethnicity, or religion. This is why I am not too thrilled about Israel's Jewish-only immigration policy.
Futurist, let me start off by saying that I believe you have a unique attitude or approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Unlike darn near everyone I've ever talked to on the subject --including folks here on Historum-- comes to the discussion ready for battle and armed with preconceived notions that they don't seem willing to change or even to consider another point of view; myself included. You strike me as someone who is genuinely open minded about this subject, so I would like to discuss all of these things with you. I will do my best to consider points that you make without getting defensive or having a knee-jerk reaction.

1. I believe letting all or even most of the Palestinian refugees back into Israel would be suicide for Israel. If Palestinians had parity with Israelis as voters, then Israel would change drastically. What you're suggesting is a non-starter, imho.

I'll let you respond to this question first before I pose the other question I had for you.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,898
SoCal
#43
Futurist, let me start off by saying that I believe you have a unique attitude or approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Unlike darn near everyone I've ever talked to on the subject --including folks here on Historum-- comes to the discussion ready for battle and armed with preconceived notions that they don't seem willing to change or even to consider another point of view; myself included. You strike me as someone who is genuinely open minded about this subject, so I would like to discuss all of these things with you. I will do my best to consider points that you make without getting defensive or having a knee-jerk reaction.

1. I believe letting all or even most of the Palestinian refugees back into Israel would be suicide for Israel. If Palestinians had parity with Israelis as voters, then Israel would change drastically. What you're suggesting is a non-starter, imho.

I'll let you respond to this question first before I pose the other question I had for you.
It would be easier to do if Israel didn't annex the West Bank. Then, Israel could absorb, say, a million Palestinian refugees without threatening its Jewish character. I've previously seen a poll that stated that only 10% of Palestinian refugees actually want to move to Israel proper--but that might be an understatement due to the fact that the standard of living in Israel is so much higher. Anyway, if Israel can't absorb all Palestinian refugees, it could at least try choosing some of them to absorb.

BTW, I wasn't necessarily talking about doing this in the near future. I mean, it took Europe several decades after the end of WWII to have free internal migration.

If Israel does eventually decide to annex the West Bank, though, then Yes, absorbing even more Palestinians would be a non-starter since annexing the West Bank would already significantly dilute Israel's Jewish character.

Of course, here's the problem with my own armchair philosophizing about Israel--I myself am unwilling to actually fight for Israel. In turn, this makes me opinion worth less than someone who actually is willing to fight for Israel. While I am personally not fond of the idea of excluding people based on their race, ethnicity, or nationality, the people who actually live in Israel and who are actually willing to fight for Israel appear to feel very differently about this. This is why the blogger Anatoly Karlin previously referred to Israeli Jews as "blood and soil Jews."
 
Likes: Menshevik

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,898
SoCal
#44
Sympathy that did nothing really to change facts of the ground. As long as Israeli claimed to be engaged in teh "peace progress" the actual steam roller of settlement construction and Palestinians dispossession, and the girm brutal day to reality of the occupation could continue. Eveybody was willingly to make all sorts of symbolic gestures will continuing to just allow the Israeli expansion to continue.

Yes well talk about the long term settlements while continue to make large settlements in the wets bank which are the used as the principal justification for Israel reguiring to keep parts of the west bank forever, doing nothing to stop settkler extremists form making unofficial settlement (founded , supplied , connected and protected by the Isralei goebvernment, army and authorities) and very very rarely the supreame court make a illgal settlement be rmoved the settlers are compensated, and another settlement expanded.

The Absoute dishinesty of the Isreali position and settlements,. How could any Paletsianin take any Israeli commitmemt seriously while the creeping expansionof the Israeli settlements continued?
Your points here might very well be valid, pugsville. Still, I stand by my previous assertion that a new Palestinian Intifada is only likely to further radicalize Israelis and make them even less willing to consider peace. Heck, Israel could even use yet another Intifada as an excuse to expel some Palestinians from the West Bank.

Anyway, whatever choices the Palestinians make are up to them. However, as I have already said, I am skeptical of the ability of violent Palestinian resistance to achieve much--if anything--positive in regards to this.
 
Likes: Menshevik

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,676
#45
Your points here might very well be valid, pugsville. Still, I stand by my previous assertion that a new Palestinian Intifada is only likely to further radicalize Israelis and make them even less willing to consider peace. Heck, Israel could even use yet another Intifada as an excuse to expel some Palestinians from the West Bank.

Anyway, whatever choices the Palestinians make are up to them. However, as I have already said, I am skeptical of the ability of violent Palestinian resistance to achieve much--if anything--positive in regards to this.
The Palestinian leadership has rarely been good. I condemn utterly terrorism and the targeting of civilians, Arab , Jewish, whoever. There is pteny of bad behaviur and blame to go around. And not just Jews and Arabs.

Agree that violnece has not achieved anything really, ( a bad tactical as well as moral choice)

The appointment of Amin al-Husseini by the British Commissioner (A Jewish Zionist) who came 4th in the election, then the enlargement of his position and giving him more money and power was one of the worst decisions in the whole rotten saga. The Israeli suppression/expulsion of the post 1967 Palestinian west bank leadership is another.
 
Likes: Futurist

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,024
here
#46
It would be easier to do if Israel didn't annex the West Bank. Then, Israel could absorb, say, a million Palestinian refugees without threatening its Jewish character. I've previously seen a poll that stated that only 10% of Palestinian refugees actually want to move to Israel proper--but that might be an understatement due to the fact that the standard of living in Israel is so much higher. Anyway, if Israel can't absorb all Palestinian refugees, it could at least try choosing some of them to absorb.

BTW, I wasn't necessarily talking about doing this in the near future. I mean, it took Europe several decades after the end of WWII to have free internal migration.

If Israel does eventually decide to annex the West Bank, though, then Yes, absorbing even more Palestinians would be a non-starter since annexing the West Bank would already significantly dilute Israel's Jewish character.

Of course, here's the problem with my own armchair philosophizing about Israel--I myself am unwilling to actually fight for Israel. In turn, this makes me opinion worth less than someone who actually is willing to fight for Israel. While I am personally not fond of the idea of excluding people based on their race, ethnicity, or nationality, the people who actually live in Israel and who are actually willing to fight for Israel appear to feel very differently about this. This is why the blogger Anatoly Karlin previously referred to Israeli Jews as "blood and soil Jews."
My opinion is no greater than yours, my friend.

The other comment/question I wanted to pose to you is in regards to this post:

Israel is no longer interested in Gaza. That said, though, Benny Morris (a prominent Jewish Israeli historian) actually did argue that it was a mistake for Israel not to conquer the West Bank back in 1948-1949:

'Israel will decline, and Jews will be a persecuted minority. Those who can will flee to America'

I'm inclined to agree with him on that score. Of course, it would have been best had a lot of the Arabs in the West Bank voluntarily fled afterwards.

For what it's worth, in spite of me being originally from Israel, I'm hardly confident that seeking to establish a Jewish state in Palestine was a particularly good idea in the very beginning (before WWI). However, after Israel was created, it should have gotten secure borders which would have also given its population a lot of potential to expand without extremely massive overcrowding.
I feel the opposite. The Israelis seem to be the only people in the region who have been good stewards to the land; they've been the only ones to create and thrive. If the land that currently is Israel was instead a country that remained Arab, then it would be not much better off, if at all, than its neighbors. Israel is what it is, a success story, because of the Jewish settlers and the culture of Zionism.

That's not to say that Israel hasn't had a hand in the dysfunction that plagues the Middle East, they certainly are not perfect. But they they've done more than the Arabs could have ever hoped to achieve, that's worth something in my book.

The last thing I wanted to say to you tonight, is this: Beggars can't be choosers. That perfectly sums up the situation of the Palestinians. They and their supporters need to be less demanding and less dismissive of any offer that Israel might extend, they're in no position to bargain; they have nothing to bargain with, no leverage.
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2011
2,119
#47
Also, I wouldn't say that the Palestinians got nothing out of these agreements. They did get their own quasi-state-
Though your intentions are honest, futurist, your remark does seem to show a bias. In all negotiations, the Israelis have demanded that the Palestinians first acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, and this they did decades ago. Now suppose the Palestinians had said "we will agree to the existence of the Israel as a quasi-state, where we can put in our own soldiers as we see the need to, and build our own Palestinian settlements withing the Israeli quasi-state where we want". THAT points up the real,unequal, relationship between the 2 sides.

Israel last year killed 290 Palestinains (including 56 children) mostly unarmed people within their own territory of Gaza. https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/2018deaths/ The killing is continuing, the latest of a 14 year old boy on 22nd February. https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/2019deaths/
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,676
#48
I feel the opposite. The Israelis seem to be the only people in the region who have been good stewards to the land; they've been the only ones to create and thrive. If the land that currently is Israel was instead a country that remained Arab, then it would be not much better off, if at all, than its neighbors. Israel is what it is, a success story, because of the Jewish settlers and the culture of Zionism.
.
Paternalist colonialism. Israel has been the recipient of vast amounts of free foreign aid (i;m talking mostly about Jewish gifts to Israel rather than government) that Israel gets to chose how to sepnd rather than the dictates of foreign aid and the world bank generally impose.

The last thing I wanted to say to you tonight, is this: Beggars can't be choosers. That perfectly sums up the situation of the Palestinians. They and their supporters need to be less demanding and less dismissive of any offer that Israel might extend, they're in no position to bargain; they have nothing to bargain with, no leverage.
Holding out for actual self determination, there is no actual halfway house. they have not had much in the way of good choices. Accepting 1967 borders is a major concession. met by nothing than more expansionism,. Israel has always been expansionit state. 1948, 1856, and 1967 were all wars waged to expand the state of Israel.
 
Aug 2014
214
New York, USA
#50
It would be easier to do if Israel didn't annex the West Bank.
This is my thinking also.
What Israel should have done is to wall off themselves from Gaza and West Bank, unilaterally recognize those areas as Palestinian states, and then treat them as such. No work permits for Palestinians, no negotiations needed, no nothing, just leave them be. Whatever happens there should not have been Israel's concern, just drop it off on the UN lap. Let UN put peacekeepers, humanitarians, organize elections, and whatever else they want there, as long as no terrorist attacks are coming from those areas. Treat any invasions or attacks over the wall as an act of war between sovereign states.
They pretty much managed to do this with Gaza now, but West Bank is a complete clusterf****, mainly because of the settlements and Jerusalem status.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions