Herod the Great was Idumean and Edom (in the southeast) had been forcibly converted to Judaism by the Maccabees, so there were more Jewish areas than the colored ones on that map.Historically, the Israelites lived both west and east of the Jordan river:
Have the Syrians and their Palestinian proxies take over Jordan during Black September. The Israelis in response to the collapse of the Jordanians, make a move to annex the East Bank and prevent it from being used as a place to launch attacks on Israel.
Israel having some small lands west of the Jordan was ill-received in the Muslim world, so what would be the difference except locally for the Transjordanians?Who has greater potential to stir up big trouble for the West -- the Muslim world (with large numbers of people within the rather-nervous British Empire, with overwhelming majorities in many areas that will soon become States, and with vast quantities of oil in several countries), or the Jews (a very large fraction of whom demonstrably aren't even very committed to Zionism, who have rather little overall political unity across the many nations where they are scattered, and who lack significant group authority anywhere)?
if giving Israel land east of Jordon is thought likely to be ill-received in the Muslim world, it either won't happen, or will swiftly lose any support it was briefly granted and then fail.
Unless the POD is scores or hundreds of years earlier, such that butterflies change all factors.
Israel having some small lands west of the Jordan was ill-received in the Muslim world, so what would be the difference except locally for the Transjordanians?
Israel was not given any land, it used the circumstances to establish itself and conquer selected areas.
But the PoD I am talking of does only mean instantly "more" than OTL, not "even more" in TTL. To people at the time there would be little difference.The prospect of Israel attaining even the proposed area of the 1947 partition plan demonstrably caused an uproar in the Muslim (primarily Arab Muslim) world. If they push for even more, you don't think the reaction would be even greater? And not just locally, as the OTL reaction was far from local.
Keep in mind that the 1948 borders it established were, realistically, all the land that it could steal at the time.
Well, if it occurs early on, then the issue is an even larger displaced population of Arabs, or its a much larger population of Arabs incorporated into Israel, either as Israeli citizens, or as stateless undermensch.
Have the Syrians and their Palestinian proxies take over Jordan during Black September. The Israelis in response to the collapse of the Jordanians, make a move to annex the East Bank and prevent it from being used as a place to launch attacks on Israel.
could we avoid politically and morally loaded terms?
I'm not going to touch on your (incorrectly spelled) use of the incredibly loaded term "untermenschen", but I do want to point out - the population of Transjordan is 200,000 in 1920 (compare 600,000 Muslims and Christians in Cisjordan Palestine) and under 300,000 in 1947 before the Israeli independence war (compare: 1.4 million). So, no, it's not really a "much larger" population, proportionally. Most of that population was in and around Amman and Irbid, so it would have been very possible to give Israel more land (say, both sides of the Jordan river valley, or or even some beyond) without adding much population.
Okay. So "how about, there was a finite upper limit of land that the incoming settler population could feasibly unilaterally and without consent displace the indigenous population from, by settlement or force of arms or intermediate means of intimidation or coercion."
Thank you for your correction.
As to population, you know how it goes. A hundred thousand here, a hundred thousand there, pretty soon, we're talking real populations.
History shows us that this is incorrect, by the way.
This response, while excitingly flippant, is quite silly in the context of history. A state that is capable of expelling 700,000 persons is very likely just as capable of expelling 900,000.
Well, in the global sense, yes and no. After all, Europeans managed to completely displace the indigenous population of the United States but it took a few centuries.
In terms of battle ceasefire lines - I can't imagine that it was goodwill on either side that established those lines, but merely what each side could hold. So history is basically on my side.
But my point is that an extra few hundred thousand refugees getting their land stolen, or 'involuntarily displaced from under them' are just going to create extra problems.
You can't wave a couple of hundred thousand people away as trivial.
Am I not taking this seriously enough?
Or is there something else?