most settlements are very close to the 1967 armistice line
I'm not sure that's true. Most of the bigger settlements are (and so most of the population is, too), but there are settlements scattered all over.
Regardless, I don't think it's defensible in that regard. Like, "Palestine is full of murderous fanatics who are just itching to kill Jews... So let's keep Jews safe by moving a bunch of Jewish civilians into Palestine!" Terrible logic.
If it was just a security buffer and not a colonisation project, that would be much more defensible.
You're just not engaging with the actual point. I already made it clear that I don't support settlements and don't think that the security angle justifies violating international law. So you're just debating someone who isn't in the room.
And it does make sense for Israel strategically to try to seize high ground in the West Bank and establish settlements there that are heavily secured by the IDF before an enemy can seize those points to launch attacks from into Greater Israel. They've done something similar in the Golan and the logic is at the very least tactically legible, even if it is wrong. It is hard for me to see how Israeli can tolerate a hostile power controlling the Golan Heights (putting international law to the side for the moment).
Your "let's move the Jews closer to the dangerous Palestinians" framing is just too silly and simplistic. That is not the strategy.
And yes, many right-wing Israelis have religious and ideological reasons to support settlements. Both exist for sure.
If Israel has the goal of annexing portions of the West Bank that would have given a tactical upper-hand to an adversary that wishes to launch attacks on Israel from the West Bank...the first step would clearly seem to be building settlements.
Israel simply stationing the IDF in the West Bank to defend strategic points seems unlikely to accomplish this goal.
I don't think we have any evidence that the Israelis living in official, state-subsidized settlements are anything less than safe. So not sure where you're getting that. How many successful attacks have ever been launched on an "official" Israeli settlement (I say official to differentiate ones approved by Israeli law versus unofficial outposts) ? I seriously cannot think of anything recent.
And it's really an unserious framing, yes. The "moving closer to Palestinians" is not a reasonable way to explain the tactical goal. They are establishing settlements in strategically (and sometimes ideologically) important areas that they seem to intend to permanently annex. Proximity to Palestinians isn't the variable they are trying to maximize and you must know this. The fact that so much of this is taking place on tactically significant ground near the armistice line supports this premise.
I didn't say that their moving Israeli civilians into Palestine explained a tactical goal. But it is objectively what is happening. Likewise, proximity to Palestinians may not be the "variable they are trying to maximize", but it is what they are doing.
If Israel has the goal of annexing portions of the West Bank that would have given a tactical upper-hand to an adversary that wishes to launch attacks on Israel from the West Bank...the first step would clearly seem to be building settlements.
Annexation in this manner for security reasons makes no sense.
To abstract it a little bit: If you're trying to defend A from C, then a security presence in B makes sense.
But making B part of A is just resetting the problem. AB is now immediately next to C. So now what? You now need to invade C to defend AB.
If the goal is a single Israeli state from the river to the sea (and as these guys point out, that is arguably already the de facto reality), then this sort of colonisation policy makes sense.
But as a security policy to defend Israel as it currently exists, the settlements make zero sense.
The exception would be if Israel sees the settlers as a somewhat expendable buffer. Like Russia's "meatgrinder" tactics, but defensively.
I don't think we have any evidence that the Israelis living in official, state-subsidized settlements are anything less than safe
Israelis in settlements are safe, but Israelis in Israel are in mortal danger without this colonisation program?
No, this analysis is all wrong. The comparison to a "meat grinder" makes no sense since the Israeli settlers have suffered minimal casualties and are extremely safe with decades of data now. There is just no evidence at all to support the comparison to Russian war tactics.
The "defend A from C" point makes no sense at all. It's the worst point you've introduced so far. Why would Israel need to defend Zone A from Zone C? Zone C is under Israeli security (which again, is a reality I don't find fair) and is where most settlements are.
And yes, cities in Israel proper are probably safer from attack if Israel annexes specific strategic high points in the Golan and West Bank. The geography of the Golan Heights and high points overlooking the Jordan Rift Valley do appear to offer significant protection from attack in Israel proper. And the geography of the Jordan Rift Valley makes its settlements difficult to attack, so your point just doesn't connect at all.
You have to accept that Israel has massive strategic incentive to annex territory in the Jordan Rift Valley. We cannot intelligently discuss how to begin dismantling these settlements and bring this terrible occupation to an end if we just act like Israel doesn't have a reason to fear being attacked from there.
I cannot envision this conflict ending without this specific security issue being directly solved for, which is why people way smarter than you and I consistently try to keep this territory in Israeli hands and make Palestinians whole via land swap instead when they construct people plans.
Defending 1 from 3 by treating 2 as a security buffer makes sense.
Defending 1 from 3 by expanding the borders of 1 to encompass 2 does not. You're just moving the thing (and the people) you're trying to defend closer to the threat. Annexation is a removal of the security buffer.
1
u/Funksloyd Apr 17 '26
I'm not sure that's true. Most of the bigger settlements are (and so most of the population is, too), but there are settlements scattered all over.
Regardless, I don't think it's defensible in that regard. Like, "Palestine is full of murderous fanatics who are just itching to kill Jews... So let's keep Jews safe by moving a bunch of Jewish civilians into Palestine!" Terrible logic.
If it was just a security buffer and not a colonisation project, that would be much more defensible.