Israel West Bank Annexations Considered

[Malthus]

These days in the long established settlements yeah, I think its so.
They were founded by zealots however and the newer settlements are also inhabited by the crazies. Its a rolling wave of Israeliness.

I was talking about all the new stuff in the Jerusalem burbs.

Yeah, part of this kerfuffel is caused by a definitional two-step: various bits and burbs of Jerusalem are being, at least notionally, classified in the same way as isolated outposts of armed religious/nationalist zealots ploped deep inside traditional Palestinian lands. The people involved are quite different, as are the issues - it is difficult to run a city as if it were (again, notionally) divvied up into portions which are alternatively one's capital city and "occupied territory" which will eventually be given back. It is highly unlikely that Israel will ever agree to a peace treaty which hands over chunks of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and equally it is highly unlikely that the Palestinians will ever agree to a treaty that allows the "settlements" to continue; the consensus is that an eventual peace will require Israel to remove the "settlements" and allow Israel to annex the bits of Jerusalem defined as "occupied".

This was the issue over which the US and Israel recently squabbled.

[Malthus]

  Hell, Malthus made the assertion that the anticipated late-1800s population levels could not be sustained, and population levels are some ten times what he said wouldn't be sustainable!

I said nothing of the sort. 

[Valmy]

I do not understand.  Why are you throwing up these strawmen?  Your argument is not that " there is an issue with space and water resources and so forth in that region," but that "Israel-Palestine cannot continue to support such high  birth rates," which is obviously an unsupported assertion and hence unconvincing.  Hell, Malthus made the assertion that the anticipated late-1800s population levels could not be sustained, and population levels are some ten times what he said wouldn't be sustainable!

The Strawmen?  Because I am trying to get at what your issue is.  Anyway Malthus was based on technology of the time and without things he could not have forseen what came to pass.  Perhaps some huge game breaker will allow us to cram more people into Israel-Palestine as well.  Topics like overcrowding in Palestinian areas and the big political fight over the water in the Jordan River Basin are well known so I am unsure how you are 100% sure it is unsupportable there could not be problems sustaining the current population growth rates.  It may not be a correct statement to say they cannot support a larger population but it seems increasing problematic from what I understand.

"Incoherent" is the word you are looking for, not "subtle."  And the answer is, "yes."  One could hardly help but be incoherent when throwing around phrases like "demographic defeat of the Jews."

I took the demographic defeat thing from Tamas but demographic defeats of whomever gets thrown around from time to time these days. and I do admit that sometimes I do not phrase things well.  In any case people talk about this sort of demographic determinism all the time as a scare tactic and the results of these concerns has, I believe, been driving increased birth rates in Israel.  I think this is pretty irresponsible given the space and resource problems already there.  Is that an incoherent view?  Maybe in the way I phrased it.  But perhaps you are correct and many more millions of people can live in Israel-Palestine in the future.

[Malthus]

I took the demographic defeat thing from Tamas but demographic defeats of whomever gets thrown around from time to time these days. and I do admit that sometimes I do not phrase things well.  In any case people talk about this sort of demographic determinism all the time as a scare tactic and the results of these concerns has, I believe, been driving increased birth rates in Israel.  I think this is pretty irresponsible given the space and resource problems already there.  Is that an incoherent view?  Maybe in the way I phrased it.  But perhaps you are correct and many more millions of people can live in Israel-Palestine in the future.

I think you are quite correct that various forms of demographic determinism get tossed about, generally by those wishing for whatever reason to make doomsday predictions about the eventual fate of Israel.

I don't think such fears actually play much role in Israeli decisions to have kids.

The notion of doomsday scenarios based on demographics has never been particularly convincing to me - for one, in the modern world huge populations are not necessarily associated with power; more like with poverty and weakness, if they are in third-world conditions.

[Valmy]

Sorry, didn't realize that your stupidity was intended to be obfucating.

My stupidity is come by quite honestly and is not intended to obfucate in any way.

[Tamas]

we need a "beware, Grumbler!" smiley

[jimmy olsen]

Sorry, didn't realize that your stupidity was intended to be obfucating.

My stupidity is come by quite honestly and is not intended to obfucate in any way.

Awesome line

[grumbler]

The Strawmen?  Because I am trying to get at what your issue is.

I said what my issue was:  that talk about "Israel-Palestine cannot continue to support such high  birth rates," is unsupported assertion.  I have stated that several times, and each time you ignore it and pretend that i haven't explicitly stated my point.  You say Israel and Palestine can no longer physically support their current birth rates, and I say there is no evidence to that effect - that those birth rates can probably be continued for at least a decade.

It may not be a correct statement to say they cannot support a larger population

So you agree with me, and the discussion is ended. 

[grumbler]

The notion of doomsday scenarios based on demographics has never been particularly convincing to me - for one, in the modern world huge populations are not necessarily associated with power; more like with poverty and weakness, if they are in third-world conditions.

Exactly.  The idea that group B becoming larger than group A represents a 'defeat" for A is silly, IMO.  Too much depends on context, and ideas like "demographic defeat" frankly make some rather dangerous assumptions about a biological basis for politics.

[grumbler]

we need a "beware, Grumbler!" smiley

I'll have to find the one FB put together.

[Viking]

So the dilemma you keep trying to present has been resolved decades ago, the issue now, for the israelis, is what land do the israelis need to keep to ensure that the the attempt at genocide remains pathetic.

I don't consider ethnic cleansing a serious option for a state that has the history and the moral tradition of the Jewish people.

Insert the word you consider most relevant

"I don't consider ethnic cleansing a serious option for a state that has the history and the moral tradition of the _________ people."

A. German
B. Yugoslav
C. Rwandan

In all of these cases the history of the people suggested otherwise. If the Jews did cleanse the West Bank of Arabs it would be the second time in my lifetime that a people that had been subjected to a brutal genocide in the 20th century ethnically cleansed a land of people unrelated to the perpetrators of the Genocide. How many Azeri's live in Nagorno-Karabakh (and Armenian occupied environs?)

I also think you're conflating an extreme section of the Israeli population with 'Israelis' in general.  I think the dilemma I've presented of the imperative to establish two-states with all of the difficulties that presents or facing a situation in which you have either an Arab sub-class or a non-Jewish state is one that's being grappled with by Labour, the Israeli left in general, by Kadima, generally by Barak's new party and even by a reasonable number of Likudniks.  The dilemma you pose, throwing in ethnic cleansing, is something that I don't think even Lieberman's considering.

Word of the day: Trilemma, it's like Dilemma, but with three bad options.

It's not an option for today. It's an option for the day when the generation growing up today that only knows arabs as violent hostile perpetrators of suicide bombs and missiles and mortars thrown at civilians take power.  The tendency is there, there is an article in today's Haaretz about how young israelis are much more rightist than their older countrymen. You referring to Kadima sort of makes my point. Israel has reached near Portugese conditions in politics. While Portugal has the Socialists (Left) vs. the Social Democrats (Right), Israel has a political situation where both main political parties trace their heritage back to Menachim Begin.

I did make it clear that every proposal for transfer so far has been voluntary. It is an option, it is an option that is not being proposed, but the criticism of the Lieberman Plan (Land in the Galilee populated by arabs to be given to a Palestinian state as part of a peace deal) suggests that serious people think that other serious people are thinking about it.

If you are a religious jew who thinks that god gave the jews the land then you are rational in wanting all of the land and irrational in conceding any inch of it.
If you are a security focussed israeli jew then wanting to keep strategic plots of land which strengthen israel's security is being rational.
If you are a Mizrahi jew who's land in yemen or egypt was stolen by arabs you might be completely rational in wanting to be compensated for that loss not just as an individual but also as a society.

Which of these arguments doesn't apply to a similar Palestinian?

Yes, which is why I was dismissing your suggestion that people should just be reasonable. These people clearly are not reasonable. The Israelis obviously have more and better means of coopting or forcing their religious nutjobs to submit to the state while the Palestinians still lack something so prosaic as a functioning government capable of enforcing it's laws and providing services.

Seen from london with a detached view being rational is easy since getting it wrong does not mean that you and all your friends, family and neighbors get murdered.

The settler movement aren't representative of Israel.  But to clarify, I meant that I don't think what's happened with settlements was a rational decision by Israel it's happened and Israel's had to deal with it - I can see how saying it's not a rational 'Israeli decision' could be ambiguous.

The settler movement isn't representative of Israel. They are, however, represented in the Knesset and other Israeli decision making bodies. When considering Israel's broken parliamentary system, it's fractured politics and the immense challenges and dangers facing any Israeli government it makes eminent sense to build settlements since it

A) Placates the single issue religious nutjobs the PM needs to stay in power.
B) Establishes facts on the ground that continually shift land away from being perceived as clearly Palestinian.
C) Puts pressure on the PA to negotiate before the settlement blocs become too large and too established to be negotiated away.
D) Provides a fig leaf to the end-times Christian nutjobs that want the Jews to initiated end-times by settling the West Bank.
E) Provides a simple and easy Concession for Israel to make it if is to "work for peace" for the present peace plan which will last until the Palestinians succeed in killing somebody.

[Viking]

The link to the Haaretz "blog" i referenced above

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/as-israel-perpetuates-occupation-its-youth-sees-little-value-in-peace-and-freedom-1.353487

[Malthus]

The link to the Haaretz "blog" i referenced above

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/as-israel-perpetuates-occupation-its-youth-sees-little-value-in-peace-and-freedom-1.353487

Meh - Israel is a country of political differences. When I read that blog entry, I get the impression of someone on the left who is reaching for explainations as to why the left is losing -- and choosing that explaination which is most flattering to his own position.

For example:

A large proportion of those 21 to 24 years old have done part of their army service in the territories. The 15 to 18 year old know that they will soon be called to do the same. The impact of this service is rarely spoken about in Israeli public discourse, and the attempts of 'Shovrim Shtika' to have Israelis face the realities of the occupation are met with great hostility. Yariv Horowitz's poignant documentary 'Aftershock' shows why: the memories of these soldiers are difficult to live with since they are filled with guilt and shame.

In short, young folks do army service and see first-hand the realities of the occupation - and this makes them more right-wing ... not because they make an informed decision based on what they have seen and experienced, or because the camaraderie of service makes them more prone to nationalist 'us vs. them' thinking, but rather because it - drives them crazy with shame and guilt?

Does that not strike anyone as self-serving bullshit?

[MadImmortalMan]

More like fear-fueled paranoia brought about by a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of their political opponents.

[Viking]

I'm not talking about the exposition on why the change is happening, I referred to this "blog" to point out that the change is happening. I have no comment on why the change is happening. There is a change happening in Israel. Meretz is gone, completely to the best of my knowledge, Labour has been reduced to a minor party and Gush Shalom can't get more than a handful of people out for their demonstrations.