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

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,330
India
#51
I think increasing Jewish settlement in West Bank has already made things too much complex and a peace settlement far from reality. There are so many Jewish majority towns in the middle of the Arab majority towns and villages.
 
Dec 2011
2,119
#52
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.
Regarding Gaza, what they are doing is operating a seige on it, killing 290 Gazans in the past year, who were within their own territory and mostly unarmed. Would the Gazans be able to treat such attacks as an act of war?
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,024
here
#53
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.
In principle, the settlements should not be there. But do you think that at least a nominal Israeli presence is required in the West Bank for security reasons? If the Israelis completely pulled out of the West Bank and left the Palestinians there to their own devices, then I see it as a foregone conclusion that attacks will come from the region. And this time attacks would possibly be more complicated and effective. The Iranians or someone else could very well move into the region and set up shop and support attacks against Israel.

So, what then, after an attack? Israel invades and it's back to square one?

Ultimately, I think such a move could further disrupt the region and create even more instability.
 
May 2015
1,031
The Netherlands
#54
In principle, the settlements should not be there. But do you think that at least a nominal Israeli presence is required in the West Bank for security reasons? If the Israelis completely pulled out of the West Bank and left the Palestinians there to their own devices, then I see it as a foregone conclusion that attacks will come from the region. And this time attacks would possibly be more complicated and effective. The Iranians or someone else could very well move into the region and set up shop and support attacks against Israel.

So, what then, after an attack? Israel invades and it's back to square one?

Ultimately, I think such a move could further disrupt the region and create even more instability.
Why are you so concerned about potential Palestinian attacks that may or may not take place in the future, but not about the violent acts and terrorism of Israeli settlers and soldiers targeting Palestinian civilians on an almost daily basis? Everything and everyone should give way for Israel's security, while at the same time the Palestinians are denied legal protection and basic human rights.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,676
#55
In principle, the settlements should not be there. But do you think that at least a nominal Israeli presence is required in the West Bank for security reasons? If the Israelis completely pulled out of the West Bank and left the Palestinians there to their own devices, then I see it as a foregone conclusion that attacks will come from the region. And this time attacks would possibly be more complicated and effective. The Iranians or someone else could very well move into the region and set up shop and support attacks against Israel.
.
There is no conenction what so ever between Israel secuirty iand the settlements. The Presence of the army for secuirty purposes is a seperate Issue.
 
Dec 2011
2,119
#56
In principle, the settlements should not be there. But do you think that at least a nominal Israeli presence is required in the West Bank for security reasons? If the Israelis completely pulled out of the West Bank and left the Palestinians there to their own devices, then I see it as a foregone conclusion that attacks will come from the region. And this time attacks would possibly be more complicated and effective. The Iranians or someone else could very well move into the region and set up shop and support attacks against Israel.

So, what then, after an attack? Israel invades and it's back to square one?

Ultimately, I think such a move could further disrupt the region and create even more instability.
You say that the settlements should not be there, in principle, but it is surely Israel's policy to maintain and defend them permanently, hence it will always say that it needs soldiers there for that purpose, and therefore there will never be a contiguous, free, state of Palestine there, and the people will continue to be denied their human right to citizenship of a state.

A peace settlement would be possible, if both sides really wanted it, involving land swaps and compensation, but the stark fact is that Israel is content with the situation as it is, and its intention is obviously to maintain control of the West Bank, such that most of it becomes de facto a part of Israel, with the Palestinians in the area a people without citizenship or rights.

I think the issue of Iran is very much stoked up, a part of geopolitical propaganda involving Saudi Arabia and others. Obviously Iran supports Hezbollah, which is armed to the teeth with missiles and based in Lebanon. But Israel isn't being attacked by Iran or Hezbollah is it? Because in fact Hezbollah only exists because Israel attacked Lebanon in the past, and it arose to get Israel out and keep it out. So long as Israel stays out, Hezbollah seems not motivated to attack Israel (except that there is still some dispute about the location of the border).
 
Aug 2014
214
New York, USA
#57
Regarding Gaza, what they are doing is operating a seige on it, killing 290 Gazans in the past year, who were within their own territory and mostly unarmed. Would the Gazans be able to treat such attacks as an act of war?
1. Gaza has a border with Egypt, Israel is not preventing them to use it. Israel is also "seiged" by all of the Muslim countries surrounding it, but I don't see you calling it a "siege".
2. In my hypothetical scenario, any Gazan trespassing the border with Israel would have been detained and jailed, and then deported back. Any Gazans being aggressive or holding weapons and not complying with demands to put them down would've been shot. In this scenario, since Gaza/West Bank would be a legitimate country, Israel should also look into deploying marked minefields along the border (similar to NK/SK DMZ). If the Arabs want to clear minefields using children, that's on them.
In principle, the settlements should not be there. But do you think that at least a nominal Israeli presence is required in the West Bank for security reasons? If the Israelis completely pulled out of the West Bank and left the Palestinians there to their own devices, then I see it as a foregone conclusion that attacks will come from the region. And this time attacks would possibly be more complicated and effective. The Iranians or someone else could very well move into the region and set up shop and support attacks against Israel.
There would be a UN presence in Palestine, and if UN fails to contain any aggression coming from the West Bank, it would be an act of war and Israel would have the right to go in and do as they see fit, provided they are abiding by Geneva convention. Anyway, I consider this a very remote possibility, since the border with Lebanon/Hezbollah is relatively quiet. Israel should've cut off any contact with Gaza/West Bank a long time ago, walled themselves off, and left the Arabs by themselves to build their paradise on Earth.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2014
214
New York, USA
#58
A peace settlement would be possible, if both sides really wanted it, involving land swaps and compensation, but the stark fact is that Israel is content with the situation as it is, and its intention is obviously to maintain control of the West Bank, such that most of it becomes de facto a part of Israel, with the Palestinians in the area a people without citizenship or rights.
I think Israel's long term strategy, or at least radical Likud/settlers, which I do not agree with, is a complete annexation of the West Bank. I believe the long term demographic situation is favorable towards Jews in the West Bank, as long as they can isolate the high fertility Arabs that live in the Gaza strip, which is exactly what they are doing. Also, a lot of western countries started granting asylum to Palestinians, which is again, favorable to the extremist settlers, as more Arabs are voluntarily leaving the territory to go live in Europe/US. Rising anti-Semitism also favors the settlers, as in the case of France, where it lead to a big influx of new French Jewish immigrants to Israel, with a portion of them going straight into the settlements on the West Bank. It also contributes to their narrative that Jews are not *really* safe anywhere else, so they must come and support Israel at all cost as a matter of life and death.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
2,119
#59
Telastron said
Israel is also "seiged" by all of the Muslim countries surrounding it, but I don't see you calling it a "siege".
I do not understand that. Do Muslim countries prevent (using lethal force) Israel's fishermen from going out more than 12 miles, as Israel does in Gaza? Do they treat an area INSIDE the Israeli border as a buffer zone, treating it as a free-fire zone, killing unarmed Israeli civilians going about their business? That is what Israel enforces in Gaza. Does any Muslim country have control over the land and sea of Israel, such that it can control what goes in and out of the country? Does any Muslim country's army shoot dead civilians within Israel?
See this summary of the Gaza situation by Israeli B'Tselem human rights group. The Gaza Strip

. In my hypothetical scenario, any Gazan trespassing the border with Israel would have been detained and jailed, and then deported back. Any Gazans being aggressive or holding weapons and not complying with demands to put them down would've been shot. In this scenario, since Gaza/West Bank would be a legitimate country, Israel should also look into deploying marked minefields along the border (similar to NK/SK DMZ). If the Arabs want to clear minefields using children, that's on them.
That seems very reasonable, assuming you are saying that any Gazan who is armed (or even not armed) who trespasses into Israel should be treated that way. The problem is, hundreds of Gazans have been shot dead within their own border (thousands have been shot and injured).
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
2,119
#60
I think Israel's long term strategy, or at least radical Likud/settlers, which I do not agree with, is a complete annexation of the West Bank. I believe the long term demographic situation is favorable towards Jews in the West Bank, as long as they can isolate the high fertility Arabs that live in the Gaza strip, which is exactly what they are doing. Also, a lot of western countries started granting asylum to Palestinians, which is again, favorable to the extremist settlers, as more Arabs are voluntarily leaving the territory to go live in Europe/US. Rising anti-Semitism also favors the settlers, as in the case of France, where it lead to a big influx of new French Jewish immigrants to Israel, with a portion of them going straight into the settlements on the West Bank. It also contributes to their narrative that Jews are not *really* safe anywhere else, so they must come and support Israel at all cost as a matter of life and death.
Yes, I basically agree, Israel's policy is to permanently deny the rights of the Palestinians and take over their land.
 

Similar History Discussions