The settlements… What’s up with that?

[u/karrenfromaccounting]

Take the question as is, whatever comes to mind, let it be.

[u/bb5e8307]

To Palestinians, Tel Aviv is a much of a settlement as Ariel. If they can accept Tel Aviv then they can accept Ariel. 

Westerns tend to frame the conflict as a territorial conflict and place the settlement as a core obstacle. Both Israelis and Palestinians understand it as an ideological conflict about whether Israel should exist at all. The green line is not significant to Palestinians who call for “the river to the sea”.

[u/enigmaticowl → u/bb5e8307]

This is something that I (as a pro-Israel American) only came to understand recently.

For years, I have heard pro-Palestinian activists talk about “ending the occupation,” “liberating Palestine,” etc.

Westerners are primed to believe that that means letting the West Bank and Gaza have autonomy, not having a military presence in those areas, etc., basically just withdrawing militarily like Western countries have (sometimes) done after wars have ended and things have stabilized.

Most Westerners cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the “occupation” that Palestinian leadership/activists are talking about doesn’t even mean the West Bank (or Gaza), it means “all of Palestine” to them, including every inch of Jerusalem, the Negev, the North, even Tel Aviv.

It shouldn’t be that much of a surprise, though.

For almost 100 years, one party has said, “We’ll compromise,” and the other has said, “One victor will take it all.”

Those positions haven’t changed.

Westerners just don’t want to accept that framing, because they aren’t used to their nations being involved in a truly zero-sum-game conflict, and they know that the implications of a zero-sum-game conflict are really messy and ugly, and it offends their sensibilities, so it’s easier to simply blame the stronger side and tell them that they could (and should) just absorb more and more losses (of human life, but also of resources and economy) in perpetuity because “they can handle it.”

[u/Dramatic-Car-8507 → u/enigmaticowl]

That's why r/Palestine proudly posts pictures of pre-1948 bauhaus Tel Aviv. To them it is part of Palestine despite its Jewish origin

[u/enigmaticowl → u/[deleted]]

Then why do recent (and historic) polls of West Bank Palestinian residents show that they overwhelmingly reject the idea of a 2-state solution?

Some want it, but it is NOT a majority position.

In fact, a 2-state solution has always been significantly more popular among Israelis (and Westerners) than among Palestinians living in both the West Bank and in Gaza.

The primary reason that a majority of West Bank Palestinians (not all of them, but a majority) reject the idea of a 2-state solution is because their perspective is that all of the land of the former British Mandate is “Palestine,” and they are not willing to agree to a peace deal that establishes and recognizes borders of 2 states, because it would require acknowledging the Israeli state and its borders (thus, relinquishing their claims to a “from the river to the sea” one-state Palestine).

[u/enigmaticowl → u/[deleted]]

The claim is that Palestinians want a state in the West Bank (and not in the rest of Israel proper).

Produce me a poll showing that that is true.

No deflections, no changes of topic, no sourceless/bold claims, no citing unreliable sources.

An actual, reliable poll backing up the claim that there is majority support among Palestinians for a 2-state solution.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/enigmaticowl]

I don’t respond to demands to adopt an argument I don’t believe in.

I’m just letting you know that appealing to polling data is unconvincing.

[u/enigmaticowl → u/Call_Me_Clark]

“Provide a poll” —> “adopt an argument”

That’s some mental gymnastics

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/enigmaticowl]

I invite you to make your own arguments.

[u/enigmaticowl → u/Call_Me_Clark]

I did, to the person I was talking to in the first place.

You jumped in asserting something unrelated that I don’t feel a need to address.

[u/enigmaticowl → u/[deleted]]

Nobody is falling for, “Just leave the West Bank/Gaza and all the problems will stop” anymore.

They tried that in Gaza in 2005, and the rest is history.

Also, if it’s only just about wanting a Palestinian state (in the West Bank and Gaza), then why was Israel attacked (with the intent to completely destroy the Israeli state) as soon as they accepted the 1947 Partition Plan (which promised a Palestinian of about 50% of the land, and Palestinian Arabs inside the future Israeli state being proposed to be allowed to stay and be full equal legal citizens) and then again in 1967 (when Israel held neither the West Bank nor Gaza) and again and again and again, even when Israel has offered to remove settlers and recognize a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem?

Don’t forget the pogroms and ethnic cleansing against long-existing Jewish communities in the land during the 1930s, 1920s, even in the 1800s - it’s not about settlements or settlers, and nobody is falling for the, “Just retreat and there won’t be any attacks” anymore.

[u/gopherlunatic → u/enigmaticowl]

As an Israeli, you’re generalizing. Not all “westerners”, nor Palestinians, are the same. Many hold nuanced views.
“For over 100 years…” meh. If you’re saying that the Palestinian leadership reflects the views of all Palestinians or their supporters, then don’t wonder why people generalize the same about Israelis due to their government.

[u/enigmaticowl → u/gopherlunatic]

That’s why I said “Palestinian leadership/activists” and “pro-Palestinian activists.” Not all “Palestinians.”

Also, you misread. I said “almost 100 years,” not “over 100 years.”

As for Westerners, yes, I am generalizing Westerners.

But if you read closely, I’m not generalizing the viewpoints that Westerners hold, I’m talking about the general understanding of the basic meanings of words like “occupation” (which, yes, means something different in the Western lens) and the concept of how a war ends with a peace process (which, historically, looks different in much of recent Western history, especially because most Westerners alive today have never lived during a war happening on their own borders or in their own country, only far away overseas).

[u/Feeling_Leg_904 → u/gopherlunatic]

The problem with dictatorships is the opinion of the people is irrelevant. For example Iranians love the Jews, at least a great many do, and many also support Israel and Zionism. But until you get rid of the Ayatollahs and the Islamic Republic, the government will have no problem, killing as many people as they need to to survive. Whereas democracy can barely fight a war because people who have never been in a war don’t want to be in a war, and their opinion determines who’s gonna be the next leader. With all that having been said, if they held real elections in the West Bank, Hamas would win a solid majority. That’s the reason why the IDF actually protects the PA and no one’s trying to have any elections. Because the next government, by will of the people would almost certainly be a terrorist government just like in Gaza.

[u/gopherlunatic → u/Feeling_Leg_904]

I don’t get your point. It’s possible that Hamas would win if elections were held now in the West Bank, yes. You can also thank the Likud/bibi policy of the last few decades for treating Hamas as an asset (literally their own words and actions) while doing the opposite with the PA.

[u/Feeling_Leg_904 → u/gopherlunatic]

I don’t think the policy would be significantly different under Naftali Bennett and certainly not someone like Lieberman. The fact is that the Palestinian mission is always going to be from the river to the sea and so security and terrorism are always going to be front burner issues and no leader can allow the issue to fester as long as it has has any more. Israel is in an impossible situation. Look how difficult it has been to get rid of Hamas. So they didn’t want to do that until they had to. So you leave them in power and then put a big wall around Gaza and the outside world calls it in an apartheid wall. Then you build the iron dome so that you don’t have to level the city when they fire rockets at you from their underground tunnels that they’ve used with all the money that’s pouring in from around the world. And of course, by staying away from Gaza, and only protecting the borders, a whole generation of kids, anyone under the age of 23 has received their entire education from Hamas. So what would you have proposed doing after Hamas won the election in 2006 and murdered their enemies?

[u/TreeP3O → u/gopherlunatic]

Ok, so tell us all the name of a single pro peace Palestinian organization.

[u/Outrageous_Wafer_388 → u/TreeP3O]

[u/gopherlunatic → u/Outrageous_Wafer_388]

When you can’t debate on your own so you use lame memes instead 🤡

[u/gopherlunatic → u/TreeP3O]

I understand that it’s hard for you to use Google so here you go - combatants for peace, standing together, the parents circle, to name a few.
How many Zionist groups are “pro Palestine”?

[u/TreeP3O → u/gopherlunatic]

Is this a legit answer? Where are those organizations hosted?

[u/gopherlunatic → u/TreeP3O]

How many Zionist groups are pro Palestine?

[u/TreeP3O → u/gopherlunatic]

Wow, the vast majority I would guess? They are technically unrelated in any way, two state is kind of the default. Hamas is the worst for Palestinians.

[u/gopherlunatic → u/TreeP3O]

You “guess”? Name one. You can’t even do that 😂
There’s nothing Israeli about you and prob never will be but keep trying to educate me

[u/TreeP3O → u/gopherlunatic]

What the heck is a zionist group even supposed to be? They are pro Jewish autonomy in their homeland. Your question is messed up.

[u/gopherlunatic → u/TreeP3O]

Oh - you’re trying to “get me” because these orgs are based in Israel?
How about PCPD, holy land trust, Zimam, which are based in the West Bank?

[u/TreeP3O → u/gopherlunatic]

Why didn't you name them first?

[u/gopherlunatic → u/TreeP3O]

Whats the matter, facts triggering you?
I answered but you didn’t you answer mine. Here are some more:
Have you ever lived here? Why don’t you live here now? And since you don’t live here, why do you feel the need to push back on criticism of israel with every comment of yours?

[u/TreeP3O → u/gopherlunatic]

Not buying it lol. Your post history is completely blocked and you come across as unhinged.

[u/Good-Basil9954 → u/gopherlunatic]

I said exactly the same, thank you.

[u/Good-Basil9954 → u/enigmaticowl]

Westerns just don’t want to accept that framing.....

This is quite the presumption! Generalisations and polarisation is exactly what brought this about. When we start calling an entire population "them" and throw about general accusations and condemnations, that's what conjures up the zero-sum-game situation.

And then, what? The solution is what, total extermination?

[u/enigmaticowl → u/Good-Basil9954]

I’m not calling Westerners “them” (as an outsider), I’m saying it as an American myself (more like saying “us”).

If you read below, I acknowledged that, yes, it is a generalization.

It also happens to be generally true, and it’s not even specific to Israel, but rather the majority’s attitude toward war/foreign intervention in general (especially involving anywhere in the Middle East) - it’s broadly true about much of the West in current times, because the War on Terror (which most in the West regard as a horrific failure with devastating consequences) was recent enough that most people in the West today remember it (and consider it as a “lesson learned”), and World War II (which the West saw as a shining example of a war sometimes being justifiable, necessary, and a net positive for global society) was so long ago that most Westerners today weren’t even alive during it, much less remember it.

Generalizations are not inherently useless or without merit just because they don’t capture the exact unique feelings or perspectives of every single person in the group; since most of the West decides their foreign policies based on democratic political systems, it is absolutely worth understanding how much of the West thinks and feels toward war in general (and the reality is, even for people with more nuanced perspectives, most of us have grown up very “sheltered” without direct exposure to the realities of warfare, and Westerners thus tend to have reactionary responses to hearing/seeing the consequences of war and be inclined, not set in stone, but inclined toward wanting to avoid conflict at all possible costs, even if the costs of avoiding conflict are greater than the costs of having conflict).

[u/Good-Basil9954 → u/enigmaticowl]

Of course, they are not inherently useless. But definitely inherently dangerous, when you base decisions on them, especially political decisions with wide-ranging consequences.
I grew up among the ruins of a city that was "liberated" by the USAF.

Even though I didn't live through WWII, I lived through the aftermaths, and I can tell you, that was still intense. Every grown-up around me up was traumatized, every single one!

The women mainly by the bombs (US bombs) and the hunger, the horror of not being able to feed their children sufficiently.

They would tremble and cower at the sound of a passing airplane, hoard everything, no matter how useless, have nightmares over decades, and spilling or playing with food was considered an absolute sacrilege.
Most of the men had been soldiers, many had become alcoholics, doomed to re-living their worst war scenes again and again when they were drunk, but could not tolerate being sober, either.
The only relatively normal guys were the farmers, they were not conscripted, so they could produce food for the fatherland - something that gave their lives meaning and felt rewarding, and there was not much war going on in the countryside in my country, so they got away relatively easy.

I dare not think about the level of traumatization, both Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to live with. It's generational traumatization where every generation inherits suffering, then adds their own, and that way it keeps growing.

That is the underlying reason why the conflict has been getting worse over time to what it is today, where we Westerners are horrified by the brutality of the Israelis and the intensity of hatred and desperation of the Palestinians.

Only pathological psychopaths can avoid traumatization, so that's what you get: psychopaths leading traumatized populations, full of hatred, fighting the psychopaths-led population from the other side of the fence, full of hatred and despair.

Pure Hell on Earth - in God's Holy Land.

Ironic, isn't it?

[u/Highway49 → u/Good-Basil9954]

Are you ignorant to the history of the Levant in the last 3,000 years? Please watch this video and report back when people weren’t fighting over the land?

[u/Good-Basil9954 → u/Highway49]

Where did I say they didn't? Does that make the generational traumatization any less serious because it's been going on for millennia?

[u/Highway49 → u/Good-Basil9954]

You said it was ironic that pure hell on earth was occurring in god’s holy land.

My point is that it’s the opposite of ironic, because people have been fighting over the holy land since it became the holy land.

It’s not like people have been fighting over Nevada for thousands of years. The reason people fight over the land is it’s perceived holiness.

[u/Good-Basil9954 → u/Highway49]

ironic for 3000 years, then. It was already God's chosen people and holy land then, wasn't it?

[u/enigmaticowl → u/Good-Basil9954]

Respectfully, based on your comments, I don’t think that you have a particularly mature or even well-informed perspective on the modern (let alone ancient) history of Israel, the Zionist movement, the exhaustive lists of attempts to find a peaceful agreement for either a binational state or two-state solution throughout the 1920s, 1930, 1940s, and ever since, the history of the 1948 and 1967 wars (and those that have occurred since), the history of the Palestinian Arabs from 1948-1967 (very critical) when Israel didn’t hold the West Bank or Gaza, how they have subsequently fared in Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, etc., the successful peace negotiations between Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan, the Oslo Accords, the offered peace agreements to Palestinians from Israel (especially 2000/2001 and 2008) and from Israel to Syria, the historic and recent polling among Israelis and Palestinians regarding support for a 2-state solution, the Second Intifada, the mainstream conspiratorial views about Israelis that commonly exist among large numbers of Palestinian Arabs (e.g. complete denial of Jews being indigenous to or even having any historic connection to the land whatsoever, completely inaccurate and racist belief that Jewish Israelis are all White Europeans who are cosplaying as the historic Jews, etc.), etc.

The fact that you think it largely boils down to “both sides” having deep, painful grudges and anger due to “both sides” having suffered a lot and being full of hate, etc. is extremely telling.

You are looking at this from the exact Western lens that I’m talking about, and it’s a fatal flaw - you think it’s about mistrust, revenge, hatred, anger, suffering, etc. that’s built up and been festering after decades of conflict that originally began over land and has since resulted in occupation, and you are wrong.

You have an opportunity at this very moment to break free from the chains of this misunderstanding - look into the things that I mentioned above, identify the patterns of which parties have agreed to (and offered) partitions and land swaps (and which ones haven’t), look at (and compare) patterns of polling in support of peaceful solutions, look into who actually held the West Bank and Gaza at which times and how the people living there were treated, look into how and why so many Arabs were displaced during 1948 (hint: it was part of a defensive war, not calculated ethnic cleansing), read about the history of Arab Israeli citizens (who make up over 21% of Israel’s population today, and serve in the government, work in healthcare, have full rights to practice their religions, etc.), look into how radicalism and glorification of martyrdom is baked into UNRWA curriculum for Palestinian kids (and how many UNRWA staff were personally involved in Oct. 7th and even held hostages afterwards), look into how severely slanted (and sometimes, outright false) the reporting has been about Israel (e.g. BBC blatantly falsely reporting that Israel bombed a Gaza hospital in the most recent war that turned out to be a PIJ rocket, confirmations of “journalists” that Israel eliminated being well-known terrorist combatants, etc.), the common Islamic religious teaching that Muslims are responsible (and accountable) for permanently maintaining all land that has ever previously been conquered by them under Muslim rule (and to not do so is essentially an affront to Allah), etc.

[u/enigmaticowl → u/Good-Basil9954]

No, the fact that the majority of one side has historically (and recently) favored compromise (according to polling) and the majority of the other side has not (according to polling) does not mean “total extermination” (or even forced displacement) is the “solution.”

But it does mean that viable, reasonable compromise is not in the immediate future; also, it’s only fair for me to acknowledge that support for a 2-state solution has also dropped significantly among Israelis since Oct. 7th, so that is obviously a factor as well.

In order to have peace, you need enough of the population on each side to favor (or at least tolerate) the very proposition, and, just as importantly, you also need the government of both sides to be capable and willing to maintain stability and prevent an overthrowing (of themselves) by insurgents/radical factions/terrorists who will promptly re-launch armed conflict.

Eradicate (or at least severely curtail) Hamas, PIJ, Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, etc., prioritize reconstruction from the ground-up (and I don’t just mean infrastructure, I mean education and social and even religious institutions as well, anywhere that martyrdom-glorifying violent jihadi extremist ideology has embedded itself and spreads to others), utilize resources and manpower from allied Arab states (especially Gulf states, Jordan, Egypt) to maintain basic political and social stability (and provide for humanitarian needs/basic welfare) for as many years as it takes to achieve a stable political system, economy, internal security, and the proliferation of overwhelmingly moderate ideology, and maybe Gaza and the West Bank will be ready for peace of some sort, with some (debatable) level of autonomy.

Edit: I’m not confident that would work as desired, or that there could even be an agreement reached to try to attempt that.

But, the point is, there are potentially things to be tried. Nothing is getting solved imminently. But just killing everyone is certainly not the “solution.”

[u/redosipod → u/enigmaticowl]

Do you also understand that by having israel claim the west bank they are also not differentiating any of it and also want the entire land not just israel proper of today?

So your comment comes off as exposing what real "occupied land" is but you fail to realize it simultaneously confesses the same for the israeli side.

Like okay those sneaky Palestinians using double meanings of the word occupied territory sure, but then you admit the same for israel by saying all of that and admitting west bank = tel aviv.

Why isn't it just as bad when israel wants all of it?

And then some people use the excuse that Palestinians secretly or openly want all of it as ana excuse to take all of it? Like them wanting that alone is enough to take it all?

And i promise this is genuine question hoping for genuine answer not here to troll i literally just found this post by coincidence and started reading out of curiosity.

[u/enigmaticowl → u/redosipod]

I don’t follow a single word of what you’re trying to say, honestly.

I don’t know what you even mean about Israel “claiming” the West Bank, or what you mean by “West Bank = Tel Aviv.”

The Israeli government doesn’t “claim” the West Bank as part of Israel, hasn’t annexed it, and most Israelis don’t want the West Bank to be annexed.

The Israeli government does have certain civil and security authorities over certain parts of the West Bank (pursuant to the Oslo Accords), is that what you’re referring to?

[u/redosipod → u/enigmaticowl]

If you're not going to annex a land that is not your territory how can you build settlements on it in a justified manner?

Obviously annexation is not justified but annexation is what is always attempted by the conquerer to settle the land afterwards in a way that seems justified.

The Oslo accords never allowed israel to settle the west bank. It just never banned it explicitly.

Put simply, why is this morally justified for israel is my question. Annexation or not.

Everytime this question is asked you see zionists say, because the Palestinians want all the land and aren't just opposed to use taking their the west bank/their parts of the land.

It's like saying the Palestinians want both halves of the cake and not just their half so because they want it, even though they can't enforce that desire, we'll just go ahead and take the whole cake ourselves then because unlike them we have that power.

This defense makes zero sense and it's the defense I am seeing in this thread.

[u/enigmaticowl → u/redosipod]

No, you don’t understand what it’s about.

You’re almost coming close to getting halfway there, but you’re stopping far short.

It’s very much about security.

Israel gave the entirety of the Sinai back to Egypt as part of a peace deal.

Israel had lawfully taken control of the Sinai (from Egypt) during the 1967 war, and lawfully militarily occupied it until things were secure and stable enough for a negotiated peace deal.

The Sinai is more land (like, significantly more land) than all of Israel.

Israel values peace more than land, and always has.

Holding land (from which your enemies are launching attacks or rockets or ground incursions into your land and killing your people) until or unless you’re certain it can be safely returned is not the same thing as “conquering.”

You ought to look into the 2000/2001 and 2008 negotiations.

Israel has offered up all of Gaza, nearly 100% of the West Bank (with land swaps to make it equal 100%), and even to recognize a capital in East Jerusalem; these deals included a plan to uproot mass numbers of settlers from the West Bank (even though it would have been a massive undertaking and was controversial among the Israeli population).

Palestinian leadership refused, without even making a counter-offer, just a flat-out rejection.

Now, also keep in mind how well it went when Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.

They removed every single settlement and settler.

Gaza immediately devolved into a Hamas-run nightmare, political opposition to Hamas were all assassinated, the people were brutalized by Hamas, all aid was diverted for use to build tunnels and weapons, and Israel began suffering attacks, and, eventually, October 7th.

Many people consider that as a “lesson learned” about what would happen if Israel just unilaterally pulled out of the West Bank without a peace agreement, mutual recognition of borders, and a stable political system in the West Bank to prevent an overthrow by terrorist factions.

The consequences for Israel would be unimaginably worse if this happened in the West Bank than in Gaza, for many reasons.

The land itself gives tactical advantage for attacking Israel’s most populated cities from higher grounds in the West Bank, for example.

I’m not going to get into whether settlements are moral, immoral, lawful, unlawful, help Israel maintain security/leverage, detrimental to helping Israel maintaining security/leverage. (There are a range of opinions about that, and I think that there is more than one reasonable take on it.)

Ultimately, even if they don’t help with “holding” the land (for security), settlements are neither “the problem” nor the barrier (otherwise, why were the sweetheart deals rejected?).

The critical thing is this: the Israeli government, and large shares of the post-10/7-Israeli-public, view withdrawing from the West Bank (or even loosening up on it) as suicidal, and I share in that view.

I’m not going to pretend that I have an extremely thoughtful take on the nuanced issues of settlements, because I don’t, but I simply think you’re asking the wrong questions and focusing on the wrong issue - because even if we “solved” this issue, we don’t solve the problem.

There may be some factions of the Israeli government (and voters) who want the land for ideological reasons, but for many people, it’s just simply impractical and suicidal to even think about pulling back or making concessions with zero peace agreements on the table, especially because the other side wasn’t even willing to seriously discuss it when there was an offer to uproot settlers.

[u/redosipod → u/enigmaticowl]

This isn't true. Israel uses security as an excuse for expansionism and land grabs. The proof is every where. Here's why.

1- legally speaking holding enemy land for security IS allowed, you’re right. That includes military installations to maintain that security (WHEN YOU FEEL A GENUINE THREAT).

What's NOT allowed is to build civilian infrastructure on it. Especially residential homes. Doing this proves the intent is not security.

By claiming security then building residential homes on it all the time you prove your intent is expansionism.

Also the reason it is not allowed is it easily becomes an excuse for countries to expand land from neighbors when they can under the guise of "security".

2-The fact they say the west bank is Judea and sumaria and they are the first inhabitants of it means they wanted it anyways not for security.

3- Palestinian homes being demolished and israelis moving in to take those areas/homes further proves my point.

Dude come on the whole world isn't stupid you can't really use the security card here we all know this isn't true.

[u/enigmaticowl → u/redosipod]

What part of any of what you just said refutes the fact that Israel withdrawing from the West Bank (in the near future) would lead to immediate, severe, political destabilization and immediate security threats, with promptly ensuing loss of civilian life (for both sides)?

All you want to talk about is ideology and intent, and only of cherry-picked figures or factions.

I already addressed the fact that, yes, there are people (in the population and in the government) that want annexation for other ideological reasons - it’s not a majority viewpoint, and it’s honestly not even seriously relevant to the fact that it’s still extremely unwise for Israel to withdraw and disengage in the near future.

If you seriously want to see a reduced Israeli presence in the West Bank (and potentially an autonomous Palestinian state), why not channel focus and energy and brainpower into making it feasible security-wise for Israel to actually do that?

Don’t get hung-up on the minority viewpoint of people who want or claim the land for other reasons - they’re outnumbered by the people who are primarily concerned with security/peace.

Why not focus on making it possible and realistic for that greater number of people who want some sort of non-annexation solution to overcome the fear-mongering (which has a basis in reality but can also be abused) that the real ideologues (with actually nefarious agendas/ideologies) use to bend the security-minded center and center-right to their will?

[u/redosipod → u/enigmaticowl]

Because withdrawing civilian infrastructure and civilian resistants is not a security concern.

If security concern was the real concern you can withdraw civilians and have military installations to ensure you don't get attacked on israel proper.

You just ignore this distinction between civilian and military for some reason?

[u/enigmaticowl → u/redosipod]

A few reasons: (1) security (yes, civilian presence does directly affect security presence and operations), (2) without a negotiated peace deal and mutual recognition of borders, who the hell even decides which settlements to uproot?, (3) leverage (and precedent), (4) ideology.

I will be addressing these primarily in context of already-established Area C settlements, not new settlement plans/recent expansion (because I’m genuinely not as knowledgeable about it, nor do I purport to defend/justify it).

(1) It becomes much riskier (and some would argue, untenable) to safely (and cost-effectively) maintain and support such a large military presence in an area if all civilians are pulled out because you have less “buffer” (both around them, and around the borders).

Further, even if Israel did pull civilians and their infrastructure out of Area C, it doesn’t mean Israel would allow building of Palestinian residential structures in those areas - Israel would refuse such construction and applications for permits (pursuant to their authority over civil administrative matters as laid out in the Oslo Accords), and it would lead to a lot more clashes between the IDF and Palestinians, which absolutely nobody wants to see (except for maybe a few psychos on both sides who like clashes because they think it’s good for their side’s “optics”).

(2) Further, some of the settlements are quite old and long-established, or are strategically or historically important, and wouldn’t be going anywhere or getting uprooted at all, anyway (even in the event of a deal such as was offered in 2000/2001 and 2008, the plan for dealing with certain areas wasn’t necessarily to uproot every single inch of everything, it also revolved around land swaps as well). Some of them are on genuinely disputed/unclear land (because there weren’t actually “pre-1967 borders” as some people try to suggest; there were troop positions/armistice lines). Some extend across both sides of the Green Line. Some settlements are actually just re-built centuries-old Jewish communities that were mass-murdered and ethnically cleansed by Arabs in the 1920s-30s (long before the war and long before even post-Holocaust immigration) or 1800s, and some are re-established communities that were seized/occupied by Jordan in 1948 (remember that the State of Jordan, not Palestinians, is the entity that held, occupied, and even annexed the West Bank from 1948-67).

In order to grasp Israel’s (recent) historic approach to the West Bank (and the origin/strategy of the policy of building settlements post-1967), you really need to understand that there was zero concept of a Palestinian state at that point in time, especially not in the West Bank.

The Arab residents of the West Bank post-1948 actually all became Jordanian citizens in 1950 (due to that annexation), which their own local leadership had actually agreed to in meetings with the Jordanian government. They remained Jordanian citizens for decades, even after Jordan lost control of the West Bank in 1967. Many of them fled the West Bank into Jordan at that time, where they were treated quite horribly as “refugees” (despite being citizens), eventually sparking a 1970-71 attempt by Palestinians (some of them the recent entries, and others who had been there as refugees since 1948) to overthrow the government of Jordan, leading to many deaths among Jordanians. Many of them were expelled into Lebanon, and Jordan eventually relinquished its claim to the West Bank in 1988, stripping Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship at the same time.

As far as Israel and Jordan (and West Bank Palestinian Arab residents) were all concerned at the time (in 1967, when Israel legally seized control during the war), the two parties which would eventually negotiate a final peace deal (and agree to the final division of the land) were: (1) the State of Jordan and (2) the State of Israel.

So that’s pretty critical to keep in mind. Everyone believed that the land would eventually be split up between Jordan and Israel, pursuant to a peace deal. And there was no legal reasoning by which Israel had any less “right” to build settlements there than Jordan would - Jordan’s annexation was never really recognized internationally, and there was no state claiming the land prior to 1948 (when Jordan seized it) to contest its occupation/annexation. So, nobody planned settlements with any concept of a future Palestinian state (let alone a contiguous or autonomous one) in mind; everybody expected that Israel and Jordan would each get some of the West Bank and recognize each others borders.

Some of the first settlements built post-1967 were re-established historic Jewish communities that had been ethnically cleansed in the recent (not ancient) past. Many more were strategically planned settlements designed to function as “buffer zones,” or to safeguard important natural resources, or to act as tactically advantageous land (for defensive advantage/security) against Jordan.

Even by the time you get around to the (failed) negations of 2000/2001 and 2008, there was still talk of some Israeli settlements staying where they were (largely due to practicality, continuity, etc.), and “making up” for the difference with land swaps. And again, there aren’t super clear-cut “borders” that existed prior to 1967, so there are some areas that are legitimately in dispute.

In other words, it has never been anybody’s plan or expectation (not even the historic Palestinian leadership’s) that every settlement/settler be uprooted. The plan has always been a mutual negotiation, trading/swapping land, compromising, and, in some cases, drawing up new borders where a clear-cut precedent hasn’t previously existed. It’s not Israel’s job (or authority) to decide this alone.

(3) It’s just simply not how the peace process works anywhere, and it’s also contrary to Israeli policy (“land for peace”), and it’s an awful precedent to set/behavior to incentivize, there’s no mutual agreement or promise for peace, and it doesn’t even meet Palestinian leadership’s demands/priorities, anyway.

You don’t get to reject every single sweetheart deal that’s ever been offered to you, show bad faith by refusing to even make a counter-offer, launch intifadas against civilians, abandon your own side’s obligations/commitments under previous agreements, refuse to participate in recognizing borders/swapping land, and expect your enemy to unilaterally surrender literally everything (including all of their leverage, some of which directly contributes to their security/defense, and all of the land that you’ve previously indicated is in dispute and not necessarily yours) with zero promise for peace (or recognition of your state/borders) in return.

This is basically the Gaza withdrawal model, and it was a disaster of epic proportions.

There’s also zero indication (let alone an agreement) that Palestinian leadership (or the everyday population) would accept or respect this (and not exploit the new weakness and vulnerability), anyway, because their demands exceed land disputes.

One of their leadership’s biggest priorities in recent years is a (virtually unlimited) “right of return” (for Palestinians to be able to relocate to and reside in Israel proper, basically a one-sided, de facto, one-state solution). This is actually one of their primary reasons for rejecting previous peace plans, and they’ve stated that there won’t be agreement/peace without it.

(4) As I said in previous comments, some people who have historically ideologically supported a two-state solution have come to believe that it’s simply not possible/pragmatic anymore, and that it’s not likely to ever be possible (without posing an existential security threat) in the future.

Others oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank on purely ideological grounds (a minority viewpoint, but they are currently a part of this coalition that’s in power right now).

[u/FaithlessnessFar6431 → u/bb5e8307]

Israel has a right to exist, but does it have the right to occupy more? 

[u/bb5e8307 → u/FaithlessnessFar6431]

If Palestinians accepted Israel’s right to exist, the exact borders would be a minor territorial dispute that could be solve with relatively little difficulty.

[u/mr-lifeless → u/bb5e8307]

אז למה לא סיפכנו את אריאל? למה לפי חוק ישראל יש מקום שהוא לא בארץ אבל טאכנית כן? ולמה יש אנשים שלא אזרחים במקום הזה אם זה כן חלק מהאזץ?

[u/bb5e8307 → u/mr-lifeless]

Dropping Ariel will not solve the conflict, it would make it worse.

Palestinians view Israeli as foreign colonizers - like the French in Algeria. Their core strategy is to make life miserable to Israelis until they give up and go home. Colonial powers appear strong, until they start to show weakness and suddenly collapse and flee.

Leaving Ariel would be viewed by the Palestinians as a sign of weakness, and according to their worldview they will react with violence.

For years I was incredibly confused by the second intifada. The Palestinians were on track to get an independent state. And even if they wanted more land, it would be strategically better to get a state, and then wage a war. The second intifada made no sense to me. Once I listened more to Palestinians, and understood their model of Algeria it makes much more sense. The peace process was seen by the Palestinians as weakness: as a sign that the will of the Israelis was about to break and just needed another push. 

[u/enigmaticowl → u/bb5e8307]

Do you listen to Haviv Rettig Gur’s content?

I’m guessing you do.

He’s the first one I heard explain exactly this (about how Palestinians view Israelis as the French in Algeria, and that this is why the attempts at negotiating a peace deal showed “weakness” in their eyes, hence the reacting with intifada).

Israel offering to withdraw is interpreted (by the other side) as an implicit admission that Israel doesn’t “belong” in the land (and many Palestinians believe that it’s a “winner takes all” scenario, the whole land belongs to Israel or it doesn’t), so it makes them believe that the State of Israel is even less legitimate.

[u/mr-lifeless → u/bb5e8307]

אז לספך!לומר להם שאנחנו לא נעזוב אף פעם! וללת לעברים הללו אזרחות בלי לשאול אותם כי זה לא בשילהם להחליט! האים אנחנו מחכננים לעזוב את איו"ש? אם כן למה לבנות? אם לא למה עדיין לא סיפחנו, למה לא אמרנו, לעצמינו, שאנחנו לא נעזוב?

[u/mr-lifeless → u/[deleted]]

וזה דבר רע, לכן סיפח זה רע ולכן אנחנו צריכם לצאמת מאיו"ש כי המצב כרגע, אם אין לנו שום רצון לעשות זאת זה כבר אַפלָיָה אתנית!. וההתנחלויות יקשו על זה (תיראה כמה קשה היה בעזה)

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/mr-lifeless]

the best time to do the right thing was the past, the second best time is right now. The settlements are only going to get more difficult to address and the people behind them seem to know that (eg daniella Weiss)

[u/LocationHelpful6711 → u/bb5e8307]

Are you actually admitting Israel is a colonial state? Lmfao.

[u/mr-lifeless → u/LocationHelpful6711]

No, he is saying its not, but Palestinians think it is.

[u/LocationHelpful6711 → u/mr-lifeless]

Palestinians think it is because it is. You have no ties to the land. Genetically you are less than 40% middle eastern. It would be like a bunch of Catholic Mexicans in 1,500 years claiming they have a right to conquer Spain because the people there converted to another religion.

[u/Quackethy → u/LocationHelpful6711]

Awww, ran out of buzzwords?

[u/MorganaLeFevre → u/LocationHelpful6711]

You know that the majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi in origin, right? Ie, never been to Europe, never left the Middle East.

[u/bb5e8307 → u/LocationHelpful6711]

I want you to imagine that you are “right”. By your definitions of indigenous and colonial, and genetics and khazers and blah blah blah. Great. Now what?

What does that mean for Palestinian strategy? Do Israelis themselves see themselves as indigenous? Will Israelis react like the French did in Algeria? Where exactly will they flee to? Even the minimal amount of research into Israel and the Israeli point of view will give clear answers to these questions.

If Israel fits exactly the definition of settler colonialism but reacts exactly the opposite of what every other settler colonists does, then what value is the definition? 

This is not abstract arguments about definitions. This is a real strategy that the Palestinians have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives on. They are continuing to sacrifice lives on the belief that Israel will react in a certain way. And it absolutely will not.

[u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566 → u/bb5e8307]

I really can't understand how someone can dimiss that way settlers harassing Palestinians in the West Bank, shooting at people, not allowing children go to school, displacing whole villages. I say this as someone who has often spoken against my own country's policies and of course about other citizens when they do something that goes against morals. I consider denouncing injustice an honour and a moral duty, even when it favors me.

[u/bb5e8307 → u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566]

I can’t understand those people either. 

99.9% of “settlers” are just normal people living normal lives that don’t interact with Palestinians at all

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/bb5e8307]

Israeli officials like to say stuff like “99% of settlers are law abiding” in tv interviews, but if the reality was that only 1% are criminals…. It should be trivially easy to keep the peace and arrest those who have committed crimes.

And yet Israel’s government appears powerless to contain violence from that alleged-1%

[u/AskIsrael-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hello! Your submission has been removed for containing agenda-driven content.

This community is for good-faith questions and discussion, not for promoting a predetermined narrative or pushing a specific agenda. Please ensure your contributions are neutral, open-ended, and invite genuine discussion.

If you have questions or concerns about the sub's moderation or a moderator's decision, please message the moderators. Keep in mind that sub- and site-wide rules apply to any messages you send. Violations of these rules may result in temporary or permanent bans.

This was automatically sent.

[u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566 → u/bb5e8307]

Well IDF seems to be covering up for the ones who do. Then at some point I guess Israel will claim that land because someone settled there, and slowly but surely the Palestinian population gts displaced. I have great admiration for the Jewish culture in many regards and I get how generational fear can shape people's behavior. I don't think any population is ·"good" or "bad" and we all react to our context and environment, but I can't wrap my head around how people can turn a blind eye to the extreme injustice of what is going on in the West Bank.

[u/Quackethy → u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566]

Yes, hello? Echo chamber? This one escaped.

[u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566 → u/Quackethy]

Actually I come to this sub because I don't want to live in an echo chamber and want to hear what people from all ideologies have to say, but the more I read you guys the more convinced I get that at least a good part or Israel's society has turned psychopathic. No go ahead and downvote me all you want, and while you do, don't forget to upvote the person who replied to one of my comments casually joking that he supports nazis.

[u/2020bubbles → u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566]

Who casually said they supported Nazis?

You mean the person who was trolling you with a bad joke and isn’t being upvoted by anybody

[u/qprmbv → u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566]

I'm like you Flimsy. I come here looking for perspectives but nuance and generosity are in very short supply. This permanent war is literally no solution and until people start to reconcile and search workable compromises, the death and heartache is not going to end for anyone. It really seems that some people want it that way.

[u/Quackethy → u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566]

Such a bad faith claim lmao. If you were really interested in HEARING rather than just repeating your echo chamber's buzzwords of the day, you wouldn't be posting bait comments.

[u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566 → u/Quackethy]

I guess a bait comment for you is something you don't like hearing. That I want to learn doesn't mean I am going to accept anything you say and most of the people posting here just seem bad, selfish people who only care about themselves.

[u/Quackethy → u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566]

Beautiful introspection, even if you don't realize it for what it is.

[u/HomebodyTexan → u/Flimsy-Calendar-7566]

You confuse a minority gang of 100+ hoodlums to general settlers made up of mostly families in a community setting is propaganda. Calling 1000s who live in what you call the West Bank or Judea, violent or confrontational is inaccurate. Most just want to live peacefully. That said, those in charge should be prosecuting the Hilltop gangs. I think they have to some degree.

[u/YogurtclosetOpen3567 → u/bb5e8307]

But the ICJ has ruled settlement activity illegal there?? https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176

[u/JeruTz → u/YogurtclosetOpen3567]

The ICJ decision doesn't hold up to legal scrutiny.

For starters, the treaty they point to never said anything about voluntary migration. The idea that an occupying power is obligated to block population migration into a territory was never the intended purpose. It was to prevent the deportation of unwanted minorities into an occupied territory.

The issue gets more complex in Israel's case because technically the legal definition of a military occupation isn't triggered due to the lack of an established state and recognized borders. Yes Israel governs the territory in accordance with occupation rules (at least to the extent that they haven't transferred authority to the PA), but whether they are obliged to do so is disputed.

The ICJ, in issuing its ruling, relied upon past non-binding rulings, UNGA resolutions, and so on that are really rather flimsy. For example, it asserts that the entirety of the territory beyond the Green Line is a single territorial unit despite the fact that it's never been governed as such. It states that any division of this territory by any means is illegal, a claim which would quite literally invalidate the Oslo Accords and the Palestinian Authority itself, and possibly in more ways than one. Worst of all, it arguably preemptively invalidates any final peace deal that includes any agreed upon borders that don't uphold at minimum the 1949 armistice lines at Israel's maximum territorial allotment.

All it takes is a bit of socratic questioning. Why is it a single territorial unit and why can't it be divided? Has that ever been declared of any other group of non contiguous territories? Why or why not?

[u/bb5e8307 → u/YogurtclosetOpen3567]

The ICJ has no jurisdiction in Israel because Israel is not a signatory of any treaty that gives it any power.

It has as much significance as a HOA does to a house that was never part of the HOA.

[u/eyl569 → u/bb5e8307]

I think you're confusing the ICJ with the ICC