This didn’t start off as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We both know that if Israel had lost the war in 1948 there wouldn’t have been an independent “Palestine”.
So that’s why you’re okay with continuing the brutal mistreatment of peaceful WB civilians? Because peaceful Israelis elsewhere were slaughtered?
No, I’m not “okay” nor am I “OK” with the mistreatment of WB civilians. I said before that I think Israel should do what it can to clamp down on actual settler violence including move additional forces into the West Bank so long as this doesn’t threaten security by taking forces away from Gaza.
But I don’t think that the settlements should be disbanded unilaterally.
Still the criteria. Still the conditions. You don’t like it, but you’re willing to live with it under certain conditions.
That’s not never never never. That’s rationalization for allowing brutal mistreatment of human families.
To be clear, the condition I mentioned was “not threatening security from Gaza”. If you think we should risk more October 7th style attacks in order to clamp down on settler violence, then we are definitely not gonna see eye to eye on this. You aren’t going to convince me that this is an unreasonable take.
Or you could empower Palestinian groups to protect themselves. The settlers violating rights don’t require military protection, or weapons. Disarming them would not take any significant military force.
The Palestinian group that currently pays for dead Israeli civilians? No thanks.
If the IDF disarmed them and left the area, what do you hoenstly think would happen?
The settlers might leave the WB? Certainly WB civilians would be much, much less at risk from oppression and brutality.
Or maybe the IDF already in the WB could disarm the settlers, and then enforce equal treatment and human rights?
Really? You don’t think there’d be any oppression and brutality in that scenario? Why would the Settlers leave if there’s “much less risk of oppression and brutality”?
Would enforcing equal treatment and human rights involve disarming the Palestinians too in this scenario?
I’m just trying to find out under what circumstances you’re okay with this kind of demeaning, humiliating, and ongoing violation of human rights and brutality. That there are any such circumstances is the main difference between us, but I’m curious about the specifics.
So no answer to this question?
Because it really seems like you do correctly understand that if the IDF disarmed the settlers and dipped out, the settlers would be subjected to “demeaning, humiliating, and ongoing violation of human rights and brutality” until they left the West Bank, or at least that they’d understand this clear and immediate threat and flee beforehand, and you think this would be a good thing.
So you would not be “OK” with that being the outcome of the IDF disarming the settlers and leaving?
Settlers are humans and thus have the same rights as any humans. Right now, I’m not aware of any ongoing, continuous violations of the human rights of settlers. There are such violations of Palestinians in the West Bank, and there’s no excuse for allowing them to continue. The IDF is already protecting the rights (and sometimes the crimes) of settlers. They should stop protecting crimes, and start protecting the rights of everyone. Note that “keeping property I stole” is not a human right.
Why do you think the settlers would leave if the IDF disarmed them and left? You still haven’t answered that very basic question.
I don’t know, that’s why I said “might”. It’s hard to keep publicly known stolen property without heavy weapons and/or military force to protect you.
Of course you don’t…
OK, don’t give a real answer to the question. The answer is very obviously obvious.
We’ve drilled down to the difference here - you’re okay with apartheid, under specific, limited circumstances. I’m not, under any circumstance.
No, I’m OK with a military occupation under specific, limited circumstances. No matter how much buzzword bingo we play, the underlying facts don’t change.
And you’re clearly OK with forced, violent ethnic cleansing under specific circumstances. Because we both know that this is exactly what would happen if the IDF disarmed the settlers and left.
You’re okay with apartheid if you call it occupation. I’m okay with (in fact I demand) ending the settlements because they’re a crime, morally and legally. Ending illegal settlements is the opposite of ethnic cleansing. The illegal settlements are part of an ongoing, slow ethnic cleansing.
Well no, they’re actually very different things. Apartheid is when some of your country’s own people are second class citizens or worse. Occupation is when you win a war with a foreign nation (in this case, a series of wars all declared by them) and you wait for them to establish a government that isn’t dedicated to your destruction.
Ending the settlements and removing all the Jewish people from Palestine so it can be nice and ethnically purified of subhuman Jews and other non Arabs is precisely the definition of ethnic cleansing. As part of a two state agreement, it is barely tolerable; there’s no reason why a future Palestine couldn’t treat its Jewish citizens well, but anyone counting on that is beyond stupid, so removing the settlers is the better alternative.
The way you suggest, of the IDF disarming them and then declaring open season on West Bank Jews by leaving? That would be a slaughter. Literally, like on October 7th.
Are you saying Israel would prevent the settlers from returning? Or wouldn’t assist them? Because I’d definitely oppose that. Israel by all means must not only allow, but assist and ensure the settlers can safely return to Israel, in that circumstance.
Also, are you saying all Jews in the WB are criminal settlers? If so, I was not aware of that.