Sloving the settler problem. (Yet another Mid-east tread)

Great Debates
1

I was thinking about ideas for peace and tell me if this will work. I really don’t have a way to solve the whole Israel/Palestinian conflict, but here is an idea for the settler/refugee problem.

How about for every Israeli settler that is left inside of the West Bank and Gaza, a Palestinian refugee is to be let inside of Israel.

This seems like an ideal solution. This will prompt the Israeli government to pull out all the settlements (lest they get a whole whack of non-Jewish Arabs in their boarders), but still leaves some leeway for Israelis who don’t want to be relocated. The Israeli settlers who do return to Israel will get nothing, but what ever they can carry back (i.e. their stuff). If the Israeli government wants to help them out that’s good to.

Also this works for Palestinians because they get a new state without it being dotted full of Israeli settlements, but still leaves a loop hole for some of the Refugees to return to their homes in Israel. Palestinians can move on in to the abandoned settlements and the Palestinian refugees who will enter Israel will get nothing but whatever they can carry there back (i.e. their stuff). If the new Palestinian government wants to help them out that’s good to.

Israelis who are staying in Palestine and Palestinians who are moving to Israel will be Palestine and Israel citizens (respectively), with full rights under the law. This also helps to mix the demographics up in both states (now they **have **to get along, Mwa ha ha ha). How feasible is this? If they are some problems it can be adjusted.

2

Hello friend from outer space :slight_smile:

I’m sorry, but I don’t think this would work, for several reasons:

  • the number of settlers is between 200.000 and 300.000 (if I remember correctly). The number of Palestinian refugees, both inside Palestine and living in Jordan refugee camps, is in the millions
  • Israel has invested billions upon billions in infrastructure during the last 30++ years. They cannot afford to relocate the settlers inside their “own” borders
  • the settlers are hardliners, they believe they have the right to live where they live, and they will not leave voluntarily. And they all have guns (well most of them do I suppose)
  • an Israeli politician even suggesting something like this = political suicide
  • your solution doesn’t address the issue of annexed East Jerusalem

Add to this that there are 1.200.0000++ Israeli Arabs already living in Israel holding Israeli citizenship, mostly Palestinians. The Israeli leadership does not wont any more of them because they fear Jews some day could become a minority in “the only jewish nation on earth”.

In fact, according to a pro-Israeli newssource, Barak once tried to add a secret clause to a final-status agreement, which would have changed the status of many Israeli-Arabs from citizens of Israel to citizens of Palestinian, living in expanded Palestine. In other words they were to loose their Israeli citizenship.

A nice introduction to the problem with the settlers, as well as info about past proposals, can be found here, excerpt:

btw, you might want to ask a Mod to correct the thread title, maybe there will be more replies

3

I do realize that this might screw over some of the refugees, but according to a recent survey as few as 10% of Palestinian refugees seem really keen on returning.

So, this idea doesn’t seem to hurt a lot of the refugees.**

The settlements are illegal, so Israel and the settlers themselves knew what they were getting into. Also, Israel has offered to remove them before, so I think the idea isn’t that unworkable. However, there is some leeway so they don’t have to uproot everyone. Those that don’t want to leave will be replaced by a Palestinian refugee who will take their place.
**

I’m sure they are some sensible people there who will go back to Israel for peace. However, those who don’t want to leave can stay, but in doing so they will have their Israeli citizenship revoked and replaced with a Palestinian one.
**

Well, I have no idea how this might go over in Israel, but not removing the settlements isn’t an option if we are to expect a viable Palestinian state. They will have to be removed, however this allows some settlers to stay and also gets rid to the “right of return” problem with the Palestinian refugees. **

Hmmm… How 'bout this Jerusalem as a whole will belong to both countries with no split. Sharing the Holy city (instead of splitting it) will go good to build trust with everyone. However, I mostly want to discuss solving the settler/refugee problem, not the whole west/east Jerusalem thing.**

Well, if Israel removes the settlements that she built, more Jews will be in Israel and they get to accept less Arab refugees. This gives them an incentive to remove those settlements, while preserving a viable Palestinian state. Lets not forget that the settlements are a pain-in-the-ass to maintain politically, economically, and military. This is a great deal for Israel to finally get rid of those damn things, and they also solve the right of return…

4

Well if they is anyone who could see where I’m coming form it would be you, Alien. :smiley:

5

I’m going to take your cited poll upfront since I dont’ have any such cites myself. But I do think the 10% number seems low. While the refugees are not living in tents today, they do have very poor housing and small prospects of getting a good job, so I would assume more than 10% would be ready to start over again somewhere else.
.
A note: There are two issues being discussed here: 1) the return to Israel, and 2) the return to Palestine. In your cite refugees were asked if they wanted to return to Israel - not Palestine - , and this may be the reason only 10% said yes.

But even if only 10% wanted to go back to Israel, there would still be 100.000 (give and take) refugees left after the swap. How can you have the right of return for some, and not for others?

I agree that the settlements are illegal. But we are talking about so much money here (I was reading about a figure of $500 billion the other day, dunno if it’s true) that it may sink the Israeli economy if they should just walk away. And money talks, as always.

In your OP you said that Israel should accept 1 refugee for 1 settler in Palestine. The problem is:

  • if they accept the offer and keep the settlements, how should Israel find the money to shelter 250.000 refugees?
  • if they vacated the settlements, how would they find the money to shelter 250.000 settlers?

The second problem is this: It’s not really the settlements that is the problem, it’s the surrounding infrastructure: the roads (those that only Israelis are allowed to drive on), pipe lines, security fences, etc. This infrastructure is dividing the West Bank into a number of enclaves, or islands if you will, that would make it impossible for a sovereign Palestine to function.

I suspect that if the settlers suddenly are told to relocate (“pack up your things and leave”), we would witness civil war between the settlers and the IDF, that is, those parts of the IDF that wont side with the settlers. These are hardliners, often militia kind of types.

Well, I’m pretty sure a final agreement (if it will ever happen) will allow Israel to keep a majority of the settlements. God knows they don’t deserve it, they agreed as early as 1978 (peace agreement with Egypt, Jordan, supervised by Carter) to stop building settlements, but they just continued. But I think they will keep most of them, yes.

Maybe it could work, maybe not. But as you said, let’s stick to the settlers.

I can’t believe I’m defending Israel, I must be getting old and conservative :eek:

6

The thing is, any settlers staying behind under Palestinian authority are in all likelihood signing their own death warrants. Even if the Palestinian army or other agents of the Palestinian government don’t actually kill them, they surely aren’t going to do anything to protect them against paramilitaries.

Without the Israeli army, the settlers will be attacked. Then Israel will have to decide whether to intervene in sovereign Palestinian territory without permission, or to allow the settlers to be massacred. Neither option is politically possible. Intervention would almost certainly mean war with Palestine, which means war with all the other Arab countries. And allowing a second holocaust to happen in their own back yard would be impossible as well.

So the only solution for the Israelis is to not let things get to that point in the first place. Which means that no settlers can be “left behind” in Palestinian controlled territory. Which means either annexing the settlements, relocating all settlers, or not allowing the formation of a sovereign Palestinian government.

The last option is looking worse and worse, even Sharon has stated that Palestine should exist some day. And so there must be some combination of the first two options, relocation or annexation. So some are relocated, but the trouble is that many of the settlers will refuse to move, even when it is pointed out that the army will no longer be able to protect them, which means they will be killed. Since it would be impossible politically to allow the settlers to be killed, some of them must either be forcibly evicted, or annexed. Either way is difficult.

7

Actually, let’s go further back, and start around 1948. During the 1948 War of Independence, many Arabs left what had become Israel, for a variety of reasons ( including coercion - I don’t want to open that debate here, so I’ll just accept that claim for now…).
We’re talking around 750000(?) (I don’t have the time to look up numbers just now - anyone with the time for cites is more than welcome to add one. If neceessary, I’ll try to do some lookup in the evening)

Following the war, over 1 million Jews left Arab countries near and far and came to Israel (pretty much for the same variety of reasons).

The fledgeling state of Israel somehow absorbed a number of refugees larger than its initial population. The established Arab states made a point of not absorbing the Arab refugees.
India and Pakistan were exchanging populations, too, just about around this time (the Partition), so this was not a unique occurence, either.

Fast-Forward to 2003. In the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river, there are, de facto two polotical entities, a Jewish one (Israel) and an Arab one (the PA). Each has population elements which properly belong in the other.

So, to wind down a long historical perspective, why not do the Partition all over again - convince ALL Jews from the PA (to become State of Palestine) to move back to Israel. Convince ALL Arabs from the State of Israel to move to the State of Palestine. Anyone who does not wish to move, needen’t, but must become a citizen of the country in which (s)he resides.

On our side, there are over a million Arab citizens in Israel. I agree that there situation is not perfect (think blacks in the United states), but they are full fledged citizens. I don’t see why Jews who wish to do so should not become citizens of the State of Palestine, in the same manner. The Palestinian State must be held responsible for their safety, just like any other citizen’s.

Or, force the population exchange. On BOTH SIDES. Or, forget about moving people; I, for one, admit I’d be completely willing to see the Jewish Settlers becoming Palestinian citizens (possibly retaining dual citizenship, but then being Israeli ex-patriates, just like a, say Belgian citizen, with an Israeli passport as well, who is living in Belgium).

P.S. - Alien:

there never was any such thing as an inter-city highway which Palestinians were forbidden to use, except for one main road in the Gaza Strip. This road has recently been turned over to Palestinian use, and is now out-of-bounds to the Jewish settlers in the area. So I’m not sure what you are talking about there.

Dan Abarbanel

8

You see the thing is the settlers unlike the Palestinians in Israel don’t have the right to live there and have no legal claim to the land they live on. There are a few settlers (though only a tiny minority as most settlements are built on land that Israel confiscated for ‘military use’). There are some settlers mainly in Hebron who do have at least some legal claim to their land (I’m not sure whther their claim is pre or post-1948), however Hebron has been the scene of some of the worst settler violence and due to the prescence of the settlers the people of the town have been put under almost 24 hr arbitary house arrest and many houses have been demolished in order to create a security zone around the settlers houses. This means that there is alot of ill-feeling towards these settlers and as in situations when the formerly oppressed find themselves in charge of their oppressors I seriously doubt they would last very long.

No-one special there are many roads in Palestine that are specifically for Jews only, quite often settlers will also claim Palestinian roads as for their own use too.

9

MC - Other than the example I gave above, I am unaware of any roads in the OT closed to Arabs.

Now, I live in Tel-Aviv, so I don’t see the situation first hand. I only know what I am fed by The Media - which to me are Israeli + American (CNN, FOX) media. So I am aware that I may be missing things that are happening, so to speak, “under my nose”. And I like to think that I never swallow any government – or opposition, or media – line along with the hook and the sinker…

So - I googled for {road “jews only”}. I found zero claims, by anything resembling a reputable objective source, of evidence that the Israeli government or army have ever declared any road “Open to Jews only”. Yes, there are road blocks, often there for nuisance value. Yes, the more Vigilante-like settlers (and there are plenty of those:() do sometimes attempt to impose their own ideas and forcefully bar Arab vehicles from cetain roads. But I have found no evidence of official decree that any road is for “Jews only”.

I accept that I may not be looking hard enough, that I don’t want to see the ugly side of my own country’s behavior. But I just don’t see the evidence this time.

So - do you have a cite (or site) to back up your claim of official “Jews Only” roads? Again - not “nuisance” roadblocks by the army (pretty awful- but you do get through after hours of waiting), nor Vigilante roadblocks by armed settlers (I agree - those are scary! but they are not official!) – claims or proof of OFFICIAL policy designating roads as “Jews only”.

Oh, and in case I haven’t made it clear enough: I think that many of the settlers are, essentially, bullies looking for victims; and that the Palestinians are easy marks for their behavior. That they are the very worst propoganda for their very own agenda. In fact, I often (only at most half-jokingly) say that any agreement under which a Palestinian state comes into being should include a condition that it must accept the settlers as Palestinian citizens and good riddance!. But the settlers are not Israeli government policy (even if they do have an ear there); and they certainly are not Israeli public opinion. If the Palestinians ever come to their senses and implement a real end to terrorism, the settlers and all their political backing will not thwart the Israeli population at large from eventually forcing some compromise from our side as well.
MHO only, of course.

OK, I’m blabbering; enough already…

Again - I am willing to try to locate and remove the beam from my eye - if it is there, please show it to me…

Dan Abarbanel

10

Noone Special, I’m a bit surprised that you as an Israeli citizen, or at least as someone living in Israel, don’t know of any further details about this. A quick google search for “only roads Palestine human rights” restricted to the domain “site:un.org” (just to avoid a lot of irrelevant hits) returned several documents:

Here is one example from a UN report:

And here is a another UN report:

And btw, on the legality of the settlements (from the first link above):

May I ask you, what kind of information is there in the Israeli media about the conditions in the occupied territories (except terrorism). And, have you ever been inside the territories yourself?

11

I’m afraid there are many roads that are for the exclusive uses of the settlers, perhaps phrasing roads for ‘as Jews only’ was a bit strong but your’re only allowed to be a settler if you’re Jewish, Arab-Israelis living in the occupied territories run the risk of losing their Israeli citzenship and certainly cannot use these roads.

I want add a further cite as I belive Alien’s is sufficent, but I know for a fact that a group of Jewish settlers claimed the Palestinian road that lead towards the Tomb of the Patriachs and they were accompanied by the Israeli army, despite the fact that it is little more than a dirt track that only goes half-way up the hill whereas a new tarmaced road that led all the way to the top had just been built (I beleive this particular road though Palestinians were banned from using it was open to general people coming in from Israel to visit the tomb and presumably the mosque too).

To give a partial answer to Alien’s question in general it has been noted that Palestinian-suffering isn’t particularly publicized in Israel but the information is certainly freely avaidable. Israel’s oldest and largest(?) daily Ha’aretz certainly goes out of it’s way to let all voices (right-wingers, left-wingers, Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians are heard).

12

Actually, my first cite about settler’s only roads should have been:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/b3e2ad721cf5a16485256af5006a79cc?OpenDocument
MC, thanks for the reply about Israeli media. Do Israelis, in general, know about the conditions in the occupied territories, and do any Israelis visit the areas?

13

Can’t really answer that one it’s more one forNoone, I do have a (Jewish) Israeli friend who has visted the WB and Gaza with the interantional soldiarity group recently, but he hasn’t lived in Israel for a few years and is hardly reperesenative as his family were hounded out of Israel for their leftist poltical views (I don’t know too much about the exact situation of why they left, I’m relying on what I’ve been told)

Many Israeli’s would of served in the West Bank or Gaza at some point but in everyday life their interactions with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would be limited though they may of come across some of the many Palestinians who formerly worked within Israel (this is before the 2nd intifada tho’). Of course there are hard-left Israeli politcal groups that go out ther and do humanitarian work and also try to protect the Palestinians from abuses by settlers during the olive harvest,.

14

To MC and Alien

First, Ha’Aretz is not, by any stretch of imagination, the country’s largest newspaper. It likes to style itself as “The Times of Israel”, but lacks the readership and, IMO, is just plain boring most of the time. It has maybe 5-10% of the market, and I’m probably being generous. I read Ma’Ariv and Yedioth Akharonot - the two large dailies. Tabloid format, popular but generally sound and not yellow journalism.

I read the cites above and they make me sad and angry. I knew already that I didn’t like the settlers as a group; I knew already that they get far too much support from government; I just didn’t realize it was that bad.

As for whether I have been in the OT - Yes, fairly regularly until about the mid-80’s (before Intifadah I). A few scattered times during the 90’s. Never since 2000 (Think the Ramallah Lynch - not exactly our idea of an ideal tourist trap…). The situation described above did not exist as such in the 1980’s (and as I was born in 1963, I was old enough then to appreciate fairly accurately what was going on).

For the record, I am neither a Left- nor Right-winger politically. I would like to believe that I am a pragamtist. I think that in the long run, a Palestinian State in most or all of the OT’s is unescapable, and - if they can get their act together - may actually be a Good Thing. But it just Won’t happen - will not be accepted by the Israeli public opinion - as long as the terrorist campaign against us continues.

I have to add, also, that there is a measure of “what goes around, comes around” on both sides here - The Palestinians are reaping misery as a result of their campaign of terrorism in the 1990’s. We are reaping terrorism as a result of the political and human situation in the 70’s and 80’s. The Palestinians, in turn, reaped the treatment they received after the six-day war as a result of the general Arab hostility to Israel over the first 20 years of its existence, plus the Fedayyin attacks of the 50’s and 60’s. Etc…
The current cycle is predicated on the terrorist wave of the past few years. It will end sometime, to be replaced by another cycle of some other form of animosity, with or without a real solution - just as these cycles have subtely shifted in the past - but if there is any chance that it can be ended in such a way as to break the cycle of violence, then I believe that the ball is squarely in the Palestinian court at this stage in the game, and that a complete and real end to the terrorist campaign against Israeli citizens can be the event that breaks this terrible cycle and allows some real chance for peace.

YMMV

Dan Abarbanel

15

The just solution: Jewish settlers would live under Palestinian rule and have the same rights as any other Palestinian citizen in a democratic Palestine. Those Jews that could not stomach living under Palestinian rule would move to Israel.

16

That’s a fair assesement Daniel, I feel that the settlers (and their supporters)in general give Israelis a bad name as they are the ones who make the news whereas in my experince most Israelis are not anything like them. Both Palestinains and Israelis are victims of this conflict.

17

My only possible reaction to this is “Me too!”.

I think that your even-handedness in alloting the blame equally to Israelis and Palestinians is not quite fair. On the whole, I think that the Palestinians have far more to answer to than we do in the past decade or so at the very least. But I think that leads us into a whole new debate, and we are going into the long (Jewish) new-year’s weekend, so I’ll leave your (fairly accurate) conclusion to close this one.

And MC - I have no problem with your use of my given name (rather than my screen name), since I hardly hide it. But it is Dan (the tribe) and not Daniel (the prophet). Please.

Shana Tova to any Jewish dopers reading this thread (well, actually, to everyone - but only Jews normally celebrate the Jewish new year :))

Dan Abarbanel

18

Yes, you could wash your hands of any settlers who choose to stay behind in the newly created Palestinian state.

But does anyone seriously disagree with my contention that any Jews who stayed under Palestinian rule would be massacred? And that Israel would be forced to do something about that massacre, which would mean the invasion of the Palestinian state?

Everyone knows that whoever or whatever ends up running the Palestinian state, it will invariably be authoritarian. Any disagreements? Anyone who seriously thinks that some form of representative government will emerge? If so, why would we expect Arab Israeli citizens to voluntarily move there? And why would we expect that the human rights (and lives) of any Jews left behind would be respected?

19

[

I think an independent Palestinian state would be more likely to fall apart the other way…bigger danger for a Palestinian state wouldn’t be an authoritarian dictatorship, but a weak, ineffective state, fragmented along religious/secular, political, and regional lines, both Gaza vs. West Bank, and ancestoral residents vs. refugees from Israel, as well as “too many chiefs” syndrome…those current people in power unwilling to give up their power to a more centralized state. This might lead to a dictatorship to control the chaos, but it isn’t going to start off authoritarian right off the bat.

20

I’m sorry Dan, in the UK Dan is short for Daniel.