One minor quibble. While at most 20% of the Arab population could be attributed to cross-border migration, much of what the Jews perceived as "Arab migration" was likely intra-Palestinian migration from the interior to the Jewish areas.
The Peel Commission notes that wholly Arab cities like Nablus had far far smaller percentage increases than the areas in which the Jews settled.
I think your final paragraph misses a number of important points.
1. The primary reason demographics is so important for Israel is because it cannot annex Palestine unless it allows the people to vote. If Israel can achieve a substantially higher growth rate than Palestine they can later annex and allow them to vote. Until then they are stuck in endless conflict.
2. Most of the western world does not have the option of healthy immigration. For this reason, the only developed countries expected to have steady economic growth into the 22nd century are the U.S and Israel. https://www.amazon.com/How-Civilizations-Die-Islam-Dying/dp/159698273X
3. Yes, nonreligious Jews outside Israel are dying out. But religious Jews are growing fast, especially in the U.S., which as mentioned, is the only western country which will not suffer from demographic collapse. We can expect headlines like this to become commonplace https://tamritz.substack.com/p/the-jewish-vote-may-return as 10% of births in NY or NJ are to Orthodox Jewish families, and that number will increase exponentially in the coming decades.
Turkey is expected to have only 218 million births in the year 2100 and Iran only 456 million TheLancet.com_20241115%20(5).zip.812/Global-fertility-in-204-countries-and-territories,.pdf
This will hopefully be amplified as oil is replaced with other energy sources.
You write that "the vast majority of [Israeli Arabs] don’t want to live in a Palestinian state," but also that Israel offers no pathway to assimilation for its non-Jewish citizens. The basic, rather profound, fact that most Israeli Arabs prefer to live in a Jewish state seems to indicate a degree of de facto assimilation already. However, I agree with the overall point that Israel will never be demographically secure until the Jewish/Arab dichotomy is replaced by an *Israeli* (including non-Jews)/Palestinian dichotomy in the "war of the wombs."
Realism is a good basis for assimilation. If, as an Arab, you prefer to live in Israel over a Palestinian state, it follows logically (if not always practically) that you should want Israel to exist, indeed, to thrive. That means participating in its political system, defending it from aggressors (or supporting those who do), and feeling a sense of "linked fate" with your fellow citizens. I recall reading a quote from a Bedouin who experienced October 7. He said something to the effect that Hamas considered "anyone who spoke Hebrew a Jew." Here is the beginning of a pathway to assimilation.
I came across you recently under a few of Sheri Oz’s pieces, but I am not terribly familiar with your writings.
Speaking in broad terms, tho, your general approach is a bit too cozy with the anti-Zionist take for my comfort.
For example, you use the term “West Bank” to refer to Judea and Samaria, even though it was specifically named “West Bank” within recent history by the Jordanians for the purpose of erasing Jewish history on that land and, thus Jewish claims, to that land.
But let me ask you this, as someone who is curious about your general take on the issue, what of your writings would you point me to?
I've no problem using the term Judea & Samaria in certain contexts; I use West Bank because it's a relatively neutral term. In terms of my general take on the issue: Obviously Judea & Samaria are very important in terms of Jewish history but currently we run a military occupation in which the Palestinians have less rights than we do. It's true that they are at least partially responsible for this situation; but even if tomorrow they started singing the Hatikvah, that occupation would continue. Some on the right like to talk about being "reality based," but there are very few examples of countries running a regime like we do in the West Bank without their being negative consequences for their own society. I'm not in favor of a unilateral withdrawal; I am in favor of us acknowledging that we have no objection in principle to the Palestinians having the same rights we take for granted, but we also have to guarantee our security. Or we should annex and give the Palestinians citizenship. Hope this helps - let me know if you have any other questions!
One minor quibble. While at most 20% of the Arab population could be attributed to cross-border migration, much of what the Jews perceived as "Arab migration" was likely intra-Palestinian migration from the interior to the Jewish areas.
The Peel Commission notes that wholly Arab cities like Nablus had far far smaller percentage increases than the areas in which the Jews settled.
That’s a fair and interesting point although of course doesn’t impact the overall figures.
I think your final paragraph misses a number of important points.
1. The primary reason demographics is so important for Israel is because it cannot annex Palestine unless it allows the people to vote. If Israel can achieve a substantially higher growth rate than Palestine they can later annex and allow them to vote. Until then they are stuck in endless conflict.
2. Most of the western world does not have the option of healthy immigration. For this reason, the only developed countries expected to have steady economic growth into the 22nd century are the U.S and Israel. https://www.amazon.com/How-Civilizations-Die-Islam-Dying/dp/159698273X
3. Yes, nonreligious Jews outside Israel are dying out. But religious Jews are growing fast, especially in the U.S., which as mentioned, is the only western country which will not suffer from demographic collapse. We can expect headlines like this to become commonplace https://tamritz.substack.com/p/the-jewish-vote-may-return as 10% of births in NY or NJ are to Orthodox Jewish families, and that number will increase exponentially in the coming decades.
4. Within the Middle East Israel will soon have the highest nominal GDP due to its demographic growth. https://asiatimes.com/2024/08/israel-is-the-future-of-the-middle-east/
Turkey is expected to have only 218 million births in the year 2100 and Iran only 456 million TheLancet.com_20241115%20(5).zip.812/Global-fertility-in-204-countries-and-territories,.pdf
This will hopefully be amplified as oil is replaced with other energy sources.
Thanks for these points.
You write that "the vast majority of [Israeli Arabs] don’t want to live in a Palestinian state," but also that Israel offers no pathway to assimilation for its non-Jewish citizens. The basic, rather profound, fact that most Israeli Arabs prefer to live in a Jewish state seems to indicate a degree of de facto assimilation already. However, I agree with the overall point that Israel will never be demographically secure until the Jewish/Arab dichotomy is replaced by an *Israeli* (including non-Jews)/Palestinian dichotomy in the "war of the wombs."
I think that’s realism or common sense rather than assimilation!
Realism is a good basis for assimilation. If, as an Arab, you prefer to live in Israel over a Palestinian state, it follows logically (if not always practically) that you should want Israel to exist, indeed, to thrive. That means participating in its political system, defending it from aggressors (or supporting those who do), and feeling a sense of "linked fate" with your fellow citizens. I recall reading a quote from a Bedouin who experienced October 7. He said something to the effect that Hamas considered "anyone who spoke Hebrew a Jew." Here is the beginning of a pathway to assimilation.
You’re an intelligent fellow.
I came across you recently under a few of Sheri Oz’s pieces, but I am not terribly familiar with your writings.
Speaking in broad terms, tho, your general approach is a bit too cozy with the anti-Zionist take for my comfort.
For example, you use the term “West Bank” to refer to Judea and Samaria, even though it was specifically named “West Bank” within recent history by the Jordanians for the purpose of erasing Jewish history on that land and, thus Jewish claims, to that land.
But let me ask you this, as someone who is curious about your general take on the issue, what of your writings would you point me to?
I've no problem using the term Judea & Samaria in certain contexts; I use West Bank because it's a relatively neutral term. In terms of my general take on the issue: Obviously Judea & Samaria are very important in terms of Jewish history but currently we run a military occupation in which the Palestinians have less rights than we do. It's true that they are at least partially responsible for this situation; but even if tomorrow they started singing the Hatikvah, that occupation would continue. Some on the right like to talk about being "reality based," but there are very few examples of countries running a regime like we do in the West Bank without their being negative consequences for their own society. I'm not in favor of a unilateral withdrawal; I am in favor of us acknowledging that we have no objection in principle to the Palestinians having the same rights we take for granted, but we also have to guarantee our security. Or we should annex and give the Palestinians citizenship. Hope this helps - let me know if you have any other questions!