> I mean, yes, but it was mostly conquering because Israel was attacked. The UN did decide to partition the land into a "Jewish" part and "Palestinian" part, and the Palestinians are the ones that rejected it, while the Arab world attacked Israel. It's not that Israel decided to go out a-conquering.
That's true. And I could see how a buffer zone would have made good sense after the six day war, but to turn it into a landgrab was effectively not letting a crisis go to waste and that in itself became a serious problem. And you have to appreciate the level of naivety in the UN and in the USA at the time for thinking that such a massive restructuring of a region where there had already been long term stability issues would not lead to some kind of upheaval.
I wonder if there was even a single person there who didn't see it coming or whether or not there was some other agenda at work (but that's my cynical side). It's clear that the USA didn't have any real friends in the region (not for lack of trying) and Israel may well have been viewed as some kind of forward base or staging area. The Russians too were making plans to invade and they may well have done so if not for United States unequivocal support for Israel. This is pretty ugly especially given that many Russian Jews had fled to Israel by then. It also had the potential to spiral out of control into a nuclear conflict.
> I think if the religious component didn't exist, there wouldn't be a settlement program, but I think for sure a large part of the Israeli population is complicit in the ongoing settler situation, unfortunately.
Interesting, ok, thank you for setting me straight on that. It also explains better why the government doesn't act more forcefully against the settlers, effectively they are executing on an undeclared agenda that suits a much larger swath of the Israeli population than I was aware of. Unfortunately that also makes it a much harder problem to solve.
> effectively they are executing on an undeclared agenda that suits a much larger swath of the Israeli population than I was aware of.
I mean, I don't want to overstate things. I haven't done statistics on this, and obviously I'm a fairly left/liberal leaning Israeli, so I tend to look on all pro-settlement people fairly critically. I'm giving you my personal sense of things.
> It's clear that the USA didn't have any real friends in the region (not for lack of trying) and Israel may well have been viewed as some kind of forward base or staging area.
I think US support of Israel was far smaller in the 1960s, back then France was a closer ally iirc. But I wasn't alive back then, I'm not sure how accurate this is.
> That's true. And I could see how a buffer zone would have made good sense after the six day war, but to turn it into a landgrab was effectively not letting a crisis go to waste and that in itself became a serious problem.
Yes. I wonder what would've happened if we hadn't gotten that land, and the Palestinians had just continued to be refugees of other countries.
I'm not sure, but I think it was well understood by the Israeli government at the time that taking that territory, along with the refugees, would be a problem.
Thanks again for the conversation, it has definitely given a lot of valuable background and insights. If you ever want to mail off-site then my email is in my profile. Best of luck there and stay safe!
That's true. And I could see how a buffer zone would have made good sense after the six day war, but to turn it into a landgrab was effectively not letting a crisis go to waste and that in itself became a serious problem. And you have to appreciate the level of naivety in the UN and in the USA at the time for thinking that such a massive restructuring of a region where there had already been long term stability issues would not lead to some kind of upheaval.
I wonder if there was even a single person there who didn't see it coming or whether or not there was some other agenda at work (but that's my cynical side). It's clear that the USA didn't have any real friends in the region (not for lack of trying) and Israel may well have been viewed as some kind of forward base or staging area. The Russians too were making plans to invade and they may well have done so if not for United States unequivocal support for Israel. This is pretty ugly especially given that many Russian Jews had fled to Israel by then. It also had the potential to spiral out of control into a nuclear conflict.
> I think if the religious component didn't exist, there wouldn't be a settlement program, but I think for sure a large part of the Israeli population is complicit in the ongoing settler situation, unfortunately.
Interesting, ok, thank you for setting me straight on that. It also explains better why the government doesn't act more forcefully against the settlers, effectively they are executing on an undeclared agenda that suits a much larger swath of the Israeli population than I was aware of. Unfortunately that also makes it a much harder problem to solve.