One of the rare moments of lucidity that rightoids have is that contraceptives and having women join men in school and at work and so forth - 20th century triumphs by many people's standards - may be one of the causes of lower birth rates in the 21st.
But then they have the temerity to whine about comparative birth rates. You can't have it both ways!
Rightoids, have the courage of your convictions; spread Feminism to the Arabs to own the libs.
Telling the guy whose family is dying of heroin addiction that they should focus on making sure the heroin supply continues unabated so the family he doesn't like might possibly die sooner.
I kind of wonder if Israel is better off for expelling the Palestinians in 1948, from a security standpoint. To me, it's not so poshut, and it kind of depends what we mean. Some factors to consider:
In the real world, Israel's Jewish population doubled between 1948 and 1951, so the demographics were not necessarily that unfavorable.
In the real world, Israel put its Arabs until martial law until 1966, so they weren't involved in the political process anyway so they likely couldn't stop mass immigration from happening.
On the other hand, if there's 700,000 more Arabs in Israel, maybe it's not so easy to put them under martial law.
They were under martial law, but they could vote, as far as I know.
But more to the point, it wasn't that Israel won the war, and then expelled them. That happened a bit, but mostly *they won the war by expelling them*. Arabs didn't have military bases, they had villages they fought out of. Winning a battle and clearing out a village were kind of the same thing.
I think that is true in some situations, e.g. the villages around Jerusalem which prevented the Yishuv from supplying the capital. But I don't think this is true as a general rule. In a lot of these situations they were not even trying to depopulate the villages. I don't think the Yishuv understood that they needed to depopulate Haifa's Arab community to take or hold Haifa, for example. And they won some battles in areas where the Arab population remained.
But just on a fundamental level - the real expulsion decision happened after they won the war when they refused to let the refugees return.
Yes, that's a strong point. In a majority of cases, expulsion was retroactive.
One thing to consider is that, in the 1950s, the fertility pattern was opposite to now. Israeli Arabs had higher effective fertility because they had better medical care and weren't living in disease-ridden refugee camps.
A recurring theme of Zionist history is that key decision makers were totally wrong about how future demographic trends would pan out.
From a non-security standpoint, the big benefit from expelling the Arabs in 1948 was taking all of their property which was desperately needed to house and feed the hundreds of thousands of new immigrants.
We have to genocide the Arabs... by importing all of them into Israel and raising their wages and quality of life, which will crash their birth rates and cause them to go extinct. From the river to the sea, Arab birth rates cease to be.
Yes, if we just kick them out without dispersing them among the nations, they might grow into an enemy. Like Hizbollah. But I'd point out to you the fact that we've been fighting in Gaza for over a year and a half now, and we whipped Hizbollah in a couple of weeks. I'll take an enemy outside of our land over one in our land any day.
That said, that's not the only piece I've written about how to deal with the problem of the so-called "Palestinians":
Because there's more than one way to skin a terrorist. This one presents (roughly) the Zehut program for dealing with them.
Essentially, facilitate (with significant monetary rewards) emigration. That would get rid of the lion's share of them, and it'd do so in a way that is likely to give them really good lives. Lives where they can be productive and happy and acculturate into civilization.
Those who don't want to leave, and pass a background check to ensure they haven't been committing terrorist acts or playing footsies with those who do, *and* are willing to take a public oath of non-aggression against us, can stay with full civil rights, but no national political rights.
And those who honestly want to join us as most Arab Israelis have can petition for citizenship, and after a long period of observation, get it.
The primary issue isn't "how". It's recognizing that it has to happen. And *then* figuring out the best way to do it.
The reason why the war against Hizb'Allah went better than the war against Hamas isn't because one is in the land and one outside it (parenthetically, this isn't even true since south Lebanon is more certainly part of EY than Gaza is), it's because the Leftist IDF worked on a plan to defeat Hizb'Allah over 2 decades, invested massive resources in this plan, carefully developed it in secret, then rolled it out with no input from the democratically elected bits of the government. Conversely, the IDF had no plan for Gaza, and has just spent a year and half winging it with the government periodically poking it to wing it harder.
And that is why you are diametrically wrong. It is precisely the 'how' that matters.
I voted for Zehut, by the way, but they didn't pass the threshold because of the mindset you advocate. Rightoid Israelis don't care about the 'how'; they just care about the 'recognizing it has to happen' i.e. empty slogans, and no matter how much Feiglin debases himself to appeal to the squalid cretins of the Israeli Right (and, heaven knows, he's done it plenty), Ben Gvir can always be stupider and cruder than him, and your influence will never amount to anything more than standing on the sidelines cheering while (G-d forbid) the Right finally get to have their mighty chimp out and we are driven out into the sea.
"The reason why the war against Hizb'Allah went better than the war against Hamas isn't because one is in the land and one outside it (parenthetically, this isn't even true since south Lebanon is more certainly part of EY than Gaza is), it's because the Leftist IDF worked on a plan to defeat Hizb'Allah over 2 decades, invested massive resources in this plan, carefully developed it in secret, then rolled it out with no input from the democratically elected bits of the government. Conversely, the IDF had no plan for Gaza, and has just spent a year and half winging it with the government periodically poking it to wing it harder."
Not sure how you know the politics of the people who planned the attacks in Lebanon.
More importantly, your analysis ignores the fact that in Gaza there's no alternative to Hamas. Lebanon historically had, and still has, several rivals to Hezbollah. By Israel kicking Hezbollah in the teeth, they've allowed those rival factions to assert themselves.
"Experts say that while Hezbollah may prefer to retain its arms, Israel’s weakening of the group and its continued attacks on Lebanon along with pressure from the Lebanese government may make the once inconceivable prospect a reality.
Until its conflict with Israel last year, Hezbollah was widely regarded as the most formidable non-state armed group in the Middle East, with tens of thousands of missiles and a well-trained military force.
Aoun said the government has yet to speak to Hezbollah about the matter, but that Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a Shiite politician allied to the militant group, “is in full agreement” that the state should have a monopoly over arms. Berri served as the mediator between Hezbollah and the US in talks last year to reach a ceasefire with Israel."
====
Also, there weren't Israeli hostages being held in Lebanon. That allowed the IDF bomb Dahiyeh without worrying about accidentally killing some of their own citizens being held there. By contrast, they've had to tiptoe around in Gaza:
"Throughout the war, the IDF has not struck areas where there are indications or suspicions of the presence of hostages. The IDF operates a mechanism through the Headquarters of the Hostages and Missing Persons in the Intelligence Directorate, aimed at ensuring that offensive actions do not harm hostages wherever possible, and invests significant efforts in gathering information about the hostages. "
I think it's worth pointing out that when right wingers advocate genocide or expulsion they're not really making a security argument. To take the example of Lisa Liel, there's no reason to think that Karmiel would be safer if Hamas was relocated to the Golan Heights rather than to Gaza, in the same way that the PLO being relocated to Lebanon didn't exactly work out either. It is particularly bizarre to count Syria's current weak anarchic state as being a plus in favor of putting the Palestinians there. The core of Israel's security problem is that it is surrounded by suicidal terrorists based in weak countries that do not have the ability to stop them from launching attacks on Israel. Shuffling them around from border to border in a country the size of New Jersey obviously won't accomplish anything.
Rather, the real point of the argument is they just want the land the Palestinians are sitting on. Because then it matters very much where exactly the Palestinians are located. Moving Hamas from Gaza to the Golan doesn't make Israelis safer but it does allow Israelis to build new settlements in Gush Katif.
And right wingers in general don't really care about security per se, and to the extent they do, it's a of a much less priority than yishuv eretz yisrael. If they did, they wouldn't be clamoring to build tiny outposts in every nook and cranny of the West Bank and Gaza despite the fact that this puts themselves and their families at real risk of grisly murder.
Like Republicans and tax cuts, the right winger's response to every stimulus is building more settlements. Period of sustained quiet? Better build more settlements while no one is looking. War? Build settlements to show the Arabs we won't be bullied. October 7? Time to rebuild Gush Katif.
I think that is correct at a certain level of abstraction, but very few people are psychologically capable of telling themselves 'I want to conquer this territory because I think it causes a repair in the tear between the sefira of Tiferet and that of Gevurah and I would advocate that regardless of whether it will make Israel or more or less secure, but I will just lie and tell people that I think it makes Israel more secure'. The best way to address arguments people make, at least in the context of blogging, is to take them at face value, because they themselves don't even really know if they are being sincere.
Plus, the reality is that the Oslo Process (left-coded) and the Disengagement (centrist-coded) really were total disasters from a security standpoint, so you can see why people think that maybe a right-coded solution might be worth a try.
>Plus, the reality is that the Oslo Process (left-coded) and the Disengagement (centrist-coded) really were total disasters from a security standpoint, so you can see why people think that maybe a right-coded solution might be worth a try.
Yeah a real weak point for things from the left side of the perspective is that every left wing-ish attempt to solve this has failed spectacularly.
On the other hand:
I think the security barrier has worked very well, though. I wonder how the security barrier is coded. Centrist? Right-wing? I can see why right wingers wouldn't like to claim it though, because the logic militates against settlements.
I think right wingers have been calling the shots for most of the last 45 years and especially the last 15 years, and they haven't been making any progress either.
The security fence (along with the system of checkpoints and 'architecture of occupation' that came with it) is center-Right coded, and that is pretty fair in light of who came up with and supported it. Since it's the only thing that has worked at all, it's part of the reason the Right is considered better for security by the ordinary Israeli.
As for the Right, proper, part of their whole thing is that they deny ever having had power until this latest government, which also doesn't count because they didn't do judicial reform. In a sense, it's true that, since the Right's plans are so delirious, they can never actually be implemented, and therefore they can never be responsible for anything. If they ever did get their way, they can't be blamed either because Israel would flame out and there'd be nothing to talk about. It's kind of like the Anthropic Principle for Rightoidism.
But in the first case backed by the Right (except the very far Right who at that time weren't even in the kenesset), and in the second case backed by the Left (except Meretz IIRC).
There's a case for seeing Disengagement and the Wall as part of an integrated strategy. No doubt Sharon did. But that's not how it appeared through the prism of Israeli politics.
Hypothetically, a country like Egypt has a large enough population that if you spread out the Gazan population randomly throughout their territory they'd probably be too thinly dispersed to do real damage. But I guess that remains a hypothetical, and Egypt obviously isn't crazy about trying the experiment.
"Republicans and tax cuts" is on the money, though. Not the *most* irritating aspect of the Trump administration, but it's up there.
Egypt definitely could. The question is why should they. Transfer advocates, if they were serious, would be working on ways to give Egypt an incentive to do so.
Bribe the generals. The only problem lately is that with the Arab Spring, the generals know they are very much mortal and can always end up like Gaddafi if too many people start viewing the Muslim Brotherhood as a preferable alternative again.
They should have been bribing the Germans back when the Germans were taking in any Syrian who asked. The solution is not to put these people into countries nearby, where they will destabilize authoritarian regimes that are precariously supported by perfectly balanced ad hoc arrangements between ethnic and political factions, but to get them to Europe or Oceania or the Far East where they can lead happy productive lives and if not, at least they're far away.
I don't think contemporary Germans would appreciate this suggestion, given the fairly dismal track record for the social integration of refugees from Syria and other MENA countries. (Also, low-IQ migrant groups are currently helping to prop up a different kind of left-wing authoritarianism which functionally amounts to a western demographic suicide cult.)
'Righteous Victims', though, for he period before 1947, he is mostly reliant on the archival work of others. But tbh his YouTube videos are pretty good and give you the gist.
So, your point is that Israel shouldn't have expelled any Arabs in 1948, the better to bring them into the clutches of modernity, i.e. collapsed fertility?
What you're saying is that inside Israel, or not, Muslim Arabs present a "challenge" to Israel's existence.
And don't go so far with this "collapse of Arab fertility" meme - they've "collapsed" to the point where they are now where Jews are. Some collapse.
As for identifying with the Israeli state as a result of Oct 7, I mean, really. The moment the winds change it could go in the opposite direction.
1) I was quite explicit. It was necessary to expel some, but we'd be better off now had they expelled fewer.
2) It's pretty big collapse. From 7 to less than 3, and there's no reason to think it isn't going to decrease further.
3) Well, that's certainly true. There is an Arab cleaner at the school I teach at. Various boys shout at her and what not, so their teacher told them not to because she is Druze, which is a lie, but did the job more or less. Stuff like this is going on on a daily basis up and down the country. If Israel doesn't deal with it's rightoid problem, then it will certainly make the Arab problem worse too. But the fact is that, as of today, things did not turn out at all like Benny Morris predicted twenty years ago.
If you're going to go the what-if route, the interesting alt-history question is whether there was in an option to resettle refugees under Resolution 194 that would have satisfied Arab demands for a peace treaty at some point pre-67. BG was adamant that the proper number was zero. If, as you suggest, that number was too low, do you think that an appropriate number short of ALL would have been acceptable to the neighboring Arab states?
Because the archives haven't been opened, we know very little about what the Arab states actually wanted. But one thing that does seem clear is that, if there had been a peace treaty with Egypt, they would have just ripped it up in 1952; if there has been a peace treaty with Iraq, they would have ripped it up in 1958; if there had been a peace treaty with Syria, they would have ripped it up in 1951 (or 1954, or 1961, or 1963, or 1966).
In retrospect, a peace treaty with Jordan would have been beneficial, but, at the time, that seemed one of the least likely monarchies to survive, and it would have entailed taking in the most refugees, because they had the most. So all in all, you can see why BG was like 'nah'.
Here's my totally honest take on the issue: I do not like Arabs in Israel, especially the ones who call themselves Palestinians. I don't like their faces, their voices, their accents, their culture, their brutish sounding language, their lack of manners, lack of professionalism, their inability to stop talking for more than 2 minutes, their stupid religion, their ingratitude, their overly aggressive and explosive demeanour, their loudness, their music, their woefully low collective IQs. I want them out of my land and out of my sight. I am a racist, bigoted Islamaphobe and proud of it. In my 16 years living in Israel I have never met an Arab I liked. They have no concept of manners, personal space and can't understand why I don't like being asked personal questions or casually touched without my consent. They do not produce or innovate. They have contributed nothing of beauty to the world. I have no problem using all means necessary to get rid off all of them.
here's a twitter feed mostly comprising beautiful stuff produced by a Palestinian in jordan- there's no reason to believe the local ones incapable of similar.
As usual, the answer kinda seems like "you need to govern". Israeli policy has been ever more elaborate displays of burying our head in the sand. Not punishing terrorists properly, not expelling their families etc. I wonder if old Rabbi Meir's idea of paying them to leave will work once the UAE runs out of people with their impressive 1.44 per woman.
I think it would be more. Palestinians struggle to explain why if Israel is so evil then Arab Israelis are doing basically OK. They try and ignore it, or focus on the bad bits, but not with 100% success. To some extent, it is a moderating factor.
In a democracy ( blah blah) you are allowed to protect yourself from foreign threats more so than domestic. You can build walls and have a bunch of Sefardim point their guns at people who try parkour. If some of these Sefardim had been hanging around certain open areas with clear lines of fire holding automatic weapons on a certain date, they would have been unlikely to receive repremand for their likely actions.
One of the rare moments of lucidity that rightoids have is that contraceptives and having women join men in school and at work and so forth - 20th century triumphs by many people's standards - may be one of the causes of lower birth rates in the 21st.
But then they have the temerity to whine about comparative birth rates. You can't have it both ways!
Rightoids, have the courage of your convictions; spread Feminism to the Arabs to own the libs.
Telling the guy whose family is dying of heroin addiction that they should focus on making sure the heroin supply continues unabated so the family he doesn't like might possibly die sooner.
Nonzionism is in fact a combination of benny Morris, rav froman, amir hetsroni and the satmar rebbe
I kind of wonder if Israel is better off for expelling the Palestinians in 1948, from a security standpoint. To me, it's not so poshut, and it kind of depends what we mean. Some factors to consider:
In the real world, Israel's Jewish population doubled between 1948 and 1951, so the demographics were not necessarily that unfavorable.
In the real world, Israel put its Arabs until martial law until 1966, so they weren't involved in the political process anyway so they likely couldn't stop mass immigration from happening.
On the other hand, if there's 700,000 more Arabs in Israel, maybe it's not so easy to put them under martial law.
They were under martial law, but they could vote, as far as I know.
But more to the point, it wasn't that Israel won the war, and then expelled them. That happened a bit, but mostly *they won the war by expelling them*. Arabs didn't have military bases, they had villages they fought out of. Winning a battle and clearing out a village were kind of the same thing.
I think that is true in some situations, e.g. the villages around Jerusalem which prevented the Yishuv from supplying the capital. But I don't think this is true as a general rule. In a lot of these situations they were not even trying to depopulate the villages. I don't think the Yishuv understood that they needed to depopulate Haifa's Arab community to take or hold Haifa, for example. And they won some battles in areas where the Arab population remained.
But just on a fundamental level - the real expulsion decision happened after they won the war when they refused to let the refugees return.
Yes, that's a strong point. In a majority of cases, expulsion was retroactive.
One thing to consider is that, in the 1950s, the fertility pattern was opposite to now. Israeli Arabs had higher effective fertility because they had better medical care and weren't living in disease-ridden refugee camps.
A recurring theme of Zionist history is that key decision makers were totally wrong about how future demographic trends would pan out.
Yup.
From a non-security standpoint, the big benefit from expelling the Arabs in 1948 was taking all of their property which was desperately needed to house and feed the hundreds of thousands of new immigrants.
We have to genocide the Arabs... by importing all of them into Israel and raising their wages and quality of life, which will crash their birth rates and cause them to go extinct. From the river to the sea, Arab birth rates cease to be.
Yes, if we just kick them out without dispersing them among the nations, they might grow into an enemy. Like Hizbollah. But I'd point out to you the fact that we've been fighting in Gaza for over a year and a half now, and we whipped Hizbollah in a couple of weeks. I'll take an enemy outside of our land over one in our land any day.
That said, that's not the only piece I've written about how to deal with the problem of the so-called "Palestinians":
https://lisaliel.substack.com/p/from-the-river-to-the-sea
Because there's more than one way to skin a terrorist. This one presents (roughly) the Zehut program for dealing with them.
Essentially, facilitate (with significant monetary rewards) emigration. That would get rid of the lion's share of them, and it'd do so in a way that is likely to give them really good lives. Lives where they can be productive and happy and acculturate into civilization.
Those who don't want to leave, and pass a background check to ensure they haven't been committing terrorist acts or playing footsies with those who do, *and* are willing to take a public oath of non-aggression against us, can stay with full civil rights, but no national political rights.
And those who honestly want to join us as most Arab Israelis have can petition for citizenship, and after a long period of observation, get it.
The primary issue isn't "how". It's recognizing that it has to happen. And *then* figuring out the best way to do it.
But hey, thanks for the mention.
The reason why the war against Hizb'Allah went better than the war against Hamas isn't because one is in the land and one outside it (parenthetically, this isn't even true since south Lebanon is more certainly part of EY than Gaza is), it's because the Leftist IDF worked on a plan to defeat Hizb'Allah over 2 decades, invested massive resources in this plan, carefully developed it in secret, then rolled it out with no input from the democratically elected bits of the government. Conversely, the IDF had no plan for Gaza, and has just spent a year and half winging it with the government periodically poking it to wing it harder.
And that is why you are diametrically wrong. It is precisely the 'how' that matters.
I voted for Zehut, by the way, but they didn't pass the threshold because of the mindset you advocate. Rightoid Israelis don't care about the 'how'; they just care about the 'recognizing it has to happen' i.e. empty slogans, and no matter how much Feiglin debases himself to appeal to the squalid cretins of the Israeli Right (and, heaven knows, he's done it plenty), Ben Gvir can always be stupider and cruder than him, and your influence will never amount to anything more than standing on the sidelines cheering while (G-d forbid) the Right finally get to have their mighty chimp out and we are driven out into the sea.
"The reason why the war against Hizb'Allah went better than the war against Hamas isn't because one is in the land and one outside it (parenthetically, this isn't even true since south Lebanon is more certainly part of EY than Gaza is), it's because the Leftist IDF worked on a plan to defeat Hizb'Allah over 2 decades, invested massive resources in this plan, carefully developed it in secret, then rolled it out with no input from the democratically elected bits of the government. Conversely, the IDF had no plan for Gaza, and has just spent a year and half winging it with the government periodically poking it to wing it harder."
Not sure how you know the politics of the people who planned the attacks in Lebanon.
More importantly, your analysis ignores the fact that in Gaza there's no alternative to Hamas. Lebanon historically had, and still has, several rivals to Hezbollah. By Israel kicking Hezbollah in the teeth, they've allowed those rival factions to assert themselves.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/middleeast/lebanons-president-says-he-seeks-to-disarm-hezbollah-this-year-intl/index.html
"Experts say that while Hezbollah may prefer to retain its arms, Israel’s weakening of the group and its continued attacks on Lebanon along with pressure from the Lebanese government may make the once inconceivable prospect a reality.
Until its conflict with Israel last year, Hezbollah was widely regarded as the most formidable non-state armed group in the Middle East, with tens of thousands of missiles and a well-trained military force.
Aoun said the government has yet to speak to Hezbollah about the matter, but that Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a Shiite politician allied to the militant group, “is in full agreement” that the state should have a monopoly over arms. Berri served as the mediator between Hezbollah and the US in talks last year to reach a ceasefire with Israel."
====
Also, there weren't Israeli hostages being held in Lebanon. That allowed the IDF bomb Dahiyeh without worrying about accidentally killing some of their own citizens being held there. By contrast, they've had to tiptoe around in Gaza:
https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-israel-at-war/september-24-pr/summary-of-the-investigation-into-the-circumstances-of-the-deaths-of-the-hostages/
"Throughout the war, the IDF has not struck areas where there are indications or suspicions of the presence of hostages. The IDF operates a mechanism through the Headquarters of the Hostages and Missing Persons in the Intelligence Directorate, aimed at ensuring that offensive actions do not harm hostages wherever possible, and invests significant efforts in gathering information about the hostages. "
I think it's worth pointing out that when right wingers advocate genocide or expulsion they're not really making a security argument. To take the example of Lisa Liel, there's no reason to think that Karmiel would be safer if Hamas was relocated to the Golan Heights rather than to Gaza, in the same way that the PLO being relocated to Lebanon didn't exactly work out either. It is particularly bizarre to count Syria's current weak anarchic state as being a plus in favor of putting the Palestinians there. The core of Israel's security problem is that it is surrounded by suicidal terrorists based in weak countries that do not have the ability to stop them from launching attacks on Israel. Shuffling them around from border to border in a country the size of New Jersey obviously won't accomplish anything.
Rather, the real point of the argument is they just want the land the Palestinians are sitting on. Because then it matters very much where exactly the Palestinians are located. Moving Hamas from Gaza to the Golan doesn't make Israelis safer but it does allow Israelis to build new settlements in Gush Katif.
And right wingers in general don't really care about security per se, and to the extent they do, it's a of a much less priority than yishuv eretz yisrael. If they did, they wouldn't be clamoring to build tiny outposts in every nook and cranny of the West Bank and Gaza despite the fact that this puts themselves and their families at real risk of grisly murder.
Like Republicans and tax cuts, the right winger's response to every stimulus is building more settlements. Period of sustained quiet? Better build more settlements while no one is looking. War? Build settlements to show the Arabs we won't be bullied. October 7? Time to rebuild Gush Katif.
I think that is correct at a certain level of abstraction, but very few people are psychologically capable of telling themselves 'I want to conquer this territory because I think it causes a repair in the tear between the sefira of Tiferet and that of Gevurah and I would advocate that regardless of whether it will make Israel or more or less secure, but I will just lie and tell people that I think it makes Israel more secure'. The best way to address arguments people make, at least in the context of blogging, is to take them at face value, because they themselves don't even really know if they are being sincere.
Plus, the reality is that the Oslo Process (left-coded) and the Disengagement (centrist-coded) really were total disasters from a security standpoint, so you can see why people think that maybe a right-coded solution might be worth a try.
>Plus, the reality is that the Oslo Process (left-coded) and the Disengagement (centrist-coded) really were total disasters from a security standpoint, so you can see why people think that maybe a right-coded solution might be worth a try.
Yeah a real weak point for things from the left side of the perspective is that every left wing-ish attempt to solve this has failed spectacularly.
On the other hand:
I think the security barrier has worked very well, though. I wonder how the security barrier is coded. Centrist? Right-wing? I can see why right wingers wouldn't like to claim it though, because the logic militates against settlements.
I think right wingers have been calling the shots for most of the last 45 years and especially the last 15 years, and they haven't been making any progress either.
The security fence (along with the system of checkpoints and 'architecture of occupation' that came with it) is center-Right coded, and that is pretty fair in light of who came up with and supported it. Since it's the only thing that has worked at all, it's part of the reason the Right is considered better for security by the ordinary Israeli.
As for the Right, proper, part of their whole thing is that they deny ever having had power until this latest government, which also doesn't count because they didn't do judicial reform. In a sense, it's true that, since the Right's plans are so delirious, they can never actually be implemented, and therefore they can never be responsible for anything. If they ever did get their way, they can't be blamed either because Israel would flame out and there'd be nothing to talk about. It's kind of like the Anthropic Principle for Rightoidism.
Aren't the same people who came up with the fence the same people who came up with disengagement, i.e. Ariel Sharon?
But in the first case backed by the Right (except the very far Right who at that time weren't even in the kenesset), and in the second case backed by the Left (except Meretz IIRC).
There's a case for seeing Disengagement and the Wall as part of an integrated strategy. No doubt Sharon did. But that's not how it appeared through the prism of Israeli politics.
Hypothetically, a country like Egypt has a large enough population that if you spread out the Gazan population randomly throughout their territory they'd probably be too thinly dispersed to do real damage. But I guess that remains a hypothetical, and Egypt obviously isn't crazy about trying the experiment.
"Republicans and tax cuts" is on the money, though. Not the *most* irritating aspect of the Trump administration, but it's up there.
Egypt definitely could. The question is why should they. Transfer advocates, if they were serious, would be working on ways to give Egypt an incentive to do so.
Bribe the generals. The only problem lately is that with the Arab Spring, the generals know they are very much mortal and can always end up like Gaddafi if too many people start viewing the Muslim Brotherhood as a preferable alternative again.
They should have been bribing the Germans back when the Germans were taking in any Syrian who asked. The solution is not to put these people into countries nearby, where they will destabilize authoritarian regimes that are precariously supported by perfectly balanced ad hoc arrangements between ethnic and political factions, but to get them to Europe or Oceania or the Far East where they can lead happy productive lives and if not, at least they're far away.
I don't think contemporary Germans would appreciate this suggestion, given the fairly dismal track record for the social integration of refugees from Syria and other MENA countries. (Also, low-IQ migrant groups are currently helping to prop up a different kind of left-wing authoritarianism which functionally amounts to a western demographic suicide cult.)
Well yeah, now it's too late. We're in full on backlash. Zero appetite to take in Muslim refugees from the Middle East.
Where does one start if he wants to get Morris-pilled?
'Righteous Victims', though, for he period before 1947, he is mostly reliant on the archival work of others. But tbh his YouTube videos are pretty good and give you the gist.
It makes sense to run these kinds of thought experiments.
They are very concrete, tangible problems for Israel and Palestinians alike.
Even moderates on both sides have completely impractical ideas
Believe me, I understand, as circa 2002 I used to earnestly believe that Jews and Arabs could live peacefully in a secular state of Palestine.
So, your point is that Israel shouldn't have expelled any Arabs in 1948, the better to bring them into the clutches of modernity, i.e. collapsed fertility?
What you're saying is that inside Israel, or not, Muslim Arabs present a "challenge" to Israel's existence.
And don't go so far with this "collapse of Arab fertility" meme - they've "collapsed" to the point where they are now where Jews are. Some collapse.
As for identifying with the Israeli state as a result of Oct 7, I mean, really. The moment the winds change it could go in the opposite direction.
1) I was quite explicit. It was necessary to expel some, but we'd be better off now had they expelled fewer.
2) It's pretty big collapse. From 7 to less than 3, and there's no reason to think it isn't going to decrease further.
3) Well, that's certainly true. There is an Arab cleaner at the school I teach at. Various boys shout at her and what not, so their teacher told them not to because she is Druze, which is a lie, but did the job more or less. Stuff like this is going on on a daily basis up and down the country. If Israel doesn't deal with it's rightoid problem, then it will certainly make the Arab problem worse too. But the fact is that, as of today, things did not turn out at all like Benny Morris predicted twenty years ago.
Nonzionism needs an article on dbg
Israel should abandon National Socialism and embrace full and total multiculturalism. They need more Arabs and Africans.
If you're going to go the what-if route, the interesting alt-history question is whether there was in an option to resettle refugees under Resolution 194 that would have satisfied Arab demands for a peace treaty at some point pre-67. BG was adamant that the proper number was zero. If, as you suggest, that number was too low, do you think that an appropriate number short of ALL would have been acceptable to the neighboring Arab states?
Because the archives haven't been opened, we know very little about what the Arab states actually wanted. But one thing that does seem clear is that, if there had been a peace treaty with Egypt, they would have just ripped it up in 1952; if there has been a peace treaty with Iraq, they would have ripped it up in 1958; if there had been a peace treaty with Syria, they would have ripped it up in 1951 (or 1954, or 1961, or 1963, or 1966).
In retrospect, a peace treaty with Jordan would have been beneficial, but, at the time, that seemed one of the least likely monarchies to survive, and it would have entailed taking in the most refugees, because they had the most. So all in all, you can see why BG was like 'nah'.
Here's my totally honest take on the issue: I do not like Arabs in Israel, especially the ones who call themselves Palestinians. I don't like their faces, their voices, their accents, their culture, their brutish sounding language, their lack of manners, lack of professionalism, their inability to stop talking for more than 2 minutes, their stupid religion, their ingratitude, their overly aggressive and explosive demeanour, their loudness, their music, their woefully low collective IQs. I want them out of my land and out of my sight. I am a racist, bigoted Islamaphobe and proud of it. In my 16 years living in Israel I have never met an Arab I liked. They have no concept of manners, personal space and can't understand why I don't like being asked personal questions or casually touched without my consent. They do not produce or innovate. They have contributed nothing of beauty to the world. I have no problem using all means necessary to get rid off all of them.
here's a twitter feed mostly comprising beautiful stuff produced by a Palestinian in jordan- there's no reason to believe the local ones incapable of similar.
https://x.com/archmaher
Xenophilia
As usual, the answer kinda seems like "you need to govern". Israeli policy has been ever more elaborate displays of burying our head in the sand. Not punishing terrorists properly, not expelling their families etc. I wonder if old Rabbi Meir's idea of paying them to leave will work once the UAE runs out of people with their impressive 1.44 per woman.
The culmination of FAFO was allowing them to govern themselves.
Maybe out-of-Israel arabs' hostility would be lower if they had no brothers across the border. The loss would be less obvious.
I think it would be more. Palestinians struggle to explain why if Israel is so evil then Arab Israelis are doing basically OK. They try and ignore it, or focus on the bad bits, but not with 100% success. To some extent, it is a moderating factor.
In a democracy ( blah blah) you are allowed to protect yourself from foreign threats more so than domestic. You can build walls and have a bunch of Sefardim point their guns at people who try parkour. If some of these Sefardim had been hanging around certain open areas with clear lines of fire holding automatic weapons on a certain date, they would have been unlikely to receive repremand for their likely actions.