West Bank state founded post 1967

many figures in the Israeli Government had ideas about forming an Arab state in federation with Israel in the West Bank after the Six-Day War, Prime Minster Levi Eshkol looked for moderate Arab partners in the year between the war and his death in 1969, but found little agreement and also the PLO and Jordanian Monarchy worked hard to undermine such talks, but what if Eshkol pulled it off, forming an Palestinian State in the West Bank, could a demilitarized state under Israeli protection have worked?
 

Deleted member 1487

If not at least it would have been tried and Israel could have pointed to the failings of the PA in future talks. Honestly if Israel could resist the urge to settle the West Bank and instead incorporate it as an autonomous area within Israel (as much as the PLO would scream) that would be best for everyone and give Israel the ability to maintain it security vis-a-vis the other hostile Muslim states around her.

Unfortunately there is just too many unknowns to say with an degree of accuracy if it would have worked or not. I'm willing to say yes to a degree, but it would require lots of outside financial support for many years, perhaps permanently, and would require extremists, especially those in the government eager to win back all of the Palestinian mandate, to be marginalized otherwise Israeli is going to invade, probably with good reason. It would be hard to ensure that some violence doesn't start, but its 50/50 whether or not it could be ratcheted down enough to build a stabile state.
 
That's an interesting question. It probably depends on a number of factors:

  1. A major Israeli concern is defensive depth. With the 1948-1967 borders, Israel does not have enough space within its borders to use the usual modern mobile defensive tactics, which is why they adopted a policy of preemptive offensives when they believed an attack was imminent. A demilitarized West Bank buffer state mitigates this somewhat, but not as fully as an Israeli occupation of the West Bank, since Israeli forces would still be starting from within the 1967 borders. Some possible ways things could shake out:
    • Israel retains pre-1967 strategic doctrine of preemptive attacks, possibly leading to more Arab-Israeli wars with Israel firing the first shot. In cases like the Yom Kippur war, an Israeli first strike would improve Israeli military success, but at a substantial public relations cost. But there's also the possibility that an Israeli first-strike doctrine would create wars where no war would have occurred otherwise.
    • Israel assumes that the buffer state gives virtual strategic depth, since any crossing in force of the Jordan could still be met outside Israeli borders. This may or may not work if and when it's put to the test in battle.
    • Israel sets up military enclaves within the West Bank, which would provide an additional source of friction between Israel and the population of the West Bank.
  2. What territory, if any, does Israel annex from the West Bank before setting up the buffer state? It'd be very hard to draw a border through or around Jerusalem that wouldn't provoke irredentist sentiment on at least one side.
  3. To what extent do Palestinian refugees wind up settling in the West Bank, and does this provide a satisfactory solution to the Palestinian refugee issue?
  4. Would the population of the West Bank be satisfied with autonomy as a demilitarized protectorate of Israel, or would there be a significant resistance movement seeking, full independence, reunification with Jordan, or even the destruction of Israel?
  5. Would Jordan and other Arab states accept the outcome, or would they attempt to regain the West Bank either through direct military action or indirect support of anti-Israeli groups within the West Bank?
 
My guess is that Israel can't give up East Jerusalem, that being said I can see them giving up the Muslim Quarter and Temple Mount as Arab Islands like Mount Scopus was a Jewish Island, I'm guessing there would be IDF forts on the Jordan border and maybe to the North and South of Jerusalem
 
My guess is that Israel can't give up East Jerusalem, that being said I can see them giving up the Muslim Quarter and Temple Mount as Arab Islands like Mount Scopus was a Jewish Island, I'm guessing there would be IDF forts on the Jordan border and maybe to the North and South of Jerusalem

In 2000 Arafat was offered first the Muslim and Christian Quarters, sovereign custodianship over the Temple Mount (but not the tunnels or foundation stone beneath the sanctuary) and a demiltarised Old City. He demanded and was given also the Armenian Quarter, but turned the offer down when he was refused full sovereignity over the Dome itself.
 
In 2000 Arafat was offered first the Muslim and Christian Quarters, sovereign custodianship over the Temple Mount (but not the tunnels or foundation stone beneath the sanctuary) and a demiltarised Old City. He demanded and was given also the Armenian Quarter, but turned the offer down when he was refused full sovereignity over the Dome itself.

oh I know, thats Arafat though, this wouldn't be dealing with Arafat or the PLO
 

Deleted member 1487

In 2000 Arafat was offered first the Muslim and Christian Quarters, sovereign custodianship over the Temple Mount (but not the tunnels or foundation stone beneath the sanctuary) and a demiltarised Old City. He demanded and was given also the Armenian Quarter, but turned the offer down when he was refused full sovereignity over the Dome itself.

There were a number of other issues that had to do with internal Palestinian politics rather than Arafat being a douche. The right of return was also denied, which killed the deal, not the Dome sovereignty issue.
 
Top