Actually, it’s my understanding that there are plenty of Jewish settlers who, for religious reasons, do not accept the legitimacy of Israel.
Anyway, if what you are saying is true, isn’t the natural solution to simply require any resident of the West Bank to renounce his or her citizenship in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the United States, etc.?
And if so, is that legitimate?
Again Ensign your cite does not support your specific claim. Violence between the the groups, no small amount by settlers? Yup. Israeli security forces kicking squatters out of buildings they did not own? Yup. But no cite documenting “actually taking people’s homes under force”.
You won’t find too many here defending settler actions in general here. They are and have been a selfish group with their own agendas who have put many others at risk for their own purposes. Idiots. But that doesn’t mean any claim against them is true. What they have done is bad enough; no need to embellish without evidence that the accusation is true.
You seemed to be defending ethnic cleansing of Jews on the West Bank on the ground that some unspecified number had literally forced non-Jews out of their homes. If that’s not what your argument was, then I have no idea what you are trying to say.
In any event, I still am waiting for some kind of cite about Jewish settlers literally forcing non-Jews out of and inhabiting their homes. Sorry to make light of it, but was it something like the scene in Revenge of the Nerds where the football fraternity takes over the freshman dorm?
I don’t know why you think I “seemed” to be doing something I said I wasn’t doing from the get-go. I wasn’t making an argument; I was pointing out the facts. I believe that attacking people in their homes and as they go about their daily business, then moving in when they leave, constitutes taking people’s homes under force. If you don’t agree with that definition of the phrase, so be it.
As far as I know, some of those settlements have been around since shortly after the 6 day war. So that’s roughly 40 years, no?
Me: The question is why anyone thinks it’s better that the area have fewer Jews.
You: Well, there’s undeniable and virulent Jew-hating infecting the Palestinian resistance, but even so, that’s like if you come to my house with a gun, order my family out and start moving yours in, then when I complain you ask why I think it’s better the house have fewer message board posters in it to imply that my real problem is bias. I think the question is how come you’re in my house. Now, the answer to that, some say, is that it’s actually your house in the first place, but it’s still a different question.
Clearly you appeared to be defending the concept that someone might think it’s better for the West Bank to have fewer Jews.
First by drawing an analogy, and then by accusing (some) Jewish settlers of literally taking peoples’ homes by force. (Perhaps like in some lame episode of The A Team.?)
No, you were making an argument by analogizing the Jewish settlers to home invaders.
Let’s do this: I am asking you nicely to please give me a cite for an incident where you believe the Jewish settlers took somebody’s home by force. Thank you.
You keep making a claim that you have not substantiated.
Settlements have almost all been new construction in uninhabited areas.
The one circumstance which could fit your description is in Hebron - and that is a very complicated circumstance. A town in which an long established jewish presence was massacred early on and of large religious significance in which there was an attack on Jews by Arabs which was responded to with force - destroying some Palestinian homes in the process and having some settlers buld on that destroyed land. Also an area from which Jews in illegal outposts have been forcibly removed. Otherwise Jews mainly stay out of the Palestinian occupied areas.
The thing is, eventually Israel will have to withdraw from the West Bank.
Then they have a choice. They can either annex the settlements, or cede the settlements. Annexing the settlements is a problem because the Palestinians won’t agree, and then we have more fighting. Ceding the settlements is a problem, because that would leave the Jewish settlers under the control of the Palestinians, whether the settlers are deemed citizens of Palestine or citizens of Israel living in Palestine.
And pretty soon the settlers are going to be under attack, either the Palestinian government will try to expel them, or extra-governmental militias will attack them.
And then Israel will have to either watch as the settlers are killed, or intervene. Public opinion in Israel will not allow Israel to sit by while Jews are being attacked. And so Israel will have to intervene, and we’re back where we started.
And so, any peace treaty that leaves Jews under the authority of the Palestinian state won’t be possible, because it is inevitable that those Jews would become targets and it is inevitable that the Israelis would have to intervene to protect them. Therefore the settlements will either have to be abandoned or annexed. Outright annexation of more than a few crumbs of land means that no peace treaty is possible.
And therefore the settlements have to be abandoned, and the settlers removed by the Israelis.
If there is to be peace, that is.
Only if it is understood the IDF will no longer guarantee their safety. Which will not happen.
So your belief is that it is impossible that any Jews could or would stay there as citizens of a new Palestinian state with rights and protections and subject to local rule of law?
You make a good argument, but aren’t you saying, in essence, that ethnic cleansing is sometimes justifiable on practical grounds?
Actually, I suspect that the presence of the IDF does more to protect the Palestinians than the Jewish settlers. Be that as it may, is the principle you advocate universal?
Yes, and 40<50. As I said, if Jewish settlers had moved into these areas 300 years ago, it would be unfair to try and drive out their ancestors. But we are talking about the actual people who did the territorial expansion. So if you own a farm you are not using, and I go and build a house on it, should the land be mine as soon as I finish the house?
Also, you are confusing things with the term ethnic cleansing. If Jews who have always lived in the West Bank, or legally bought property (as opposed to just claiming it) are being forced out because they are Jews, that is ethnic cleaning and should be deplored. If they are only moving out people who illegally claimed land and also happen to be Jewish, that is not. The two issues should not be confused.
Jonathan
So just 10 more years, and they’re out of the woods? 
In many parts of the US, the land would be yours after 20 or even 10 years.
Many of the Jewish settlers were either born on the West Bank or moved there when they were underage. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many Jewish settlers occupy land under color of title, i.e. they bought land from somebody else and paid money for it. Isn’t it ethnic cleansing to make such people leave?
I’m sure there are plenty of settlers that would vow to stay where they are, no matter what. But without protection from the Israeli army those people are fairly quickly going to be attacked. After all, the sense of the Palestinians is that these settlers stole that land, right? And so perhaps the Palestinian government will move to evict the squatters and return the land to the rightful Palestinian owners, right? And even if the Palestinian government doesn’t do such a thing, some militia group will, and the government isn’t going to fight them to protect the settlers.
Sure, the settlers are pretty well armed, today. But is the Palestinian government going to allow the settlers de-facto armed independence? Why not just cede the settlements to Israel in the first place, if you’re going to leave the settlers alone.
So yeah, in theory the settlers could remain as Palestinian citizens, or Israeli citizens who just happen to live in Palestine. But they won’t be allowed to keep their land, they won’t be allowed to function as armed camps. But the settlers will fight rather than give up their land, they’ll fight rather than be disarmed. And therefore the Palestinian government will demand that the Israelis evacuate and disarm the settlers for them, or demand that the Israelis stand aside while the settlers get wiped out.
What principle? I was merely pointing out that Israeli settlers within the boundaries of a Palestinian state might not be safe; and that for Palestine to be truly independent, it would have to be clearly agreed that the settlers’ safety could be no concern of Israel’s. Those are the facts on the ground.
The principle that an ethnic or religious minority should be allowed to choose not to be ethnicly cleansed only if it is understood that no outside force will protect them from persecution.
I am pretty sure that only applies if the owner makes no protests or attempts to remove you. Since the settlers have needed constant armed protection, I don’t think this applies.
The real question is knowledge and intent. If settlers bought land from the legal owners, they should not have to move (as long as everything else such as permitting is done legally as well). If they knowingly bought land that was obtained illegally, they are out of luck. If they bought the land under assurances that it was legal when it was not, then they may have a case for fraud against the selling, but you have no right to stolen goods you thought were legal. Being born there or going as a minor really has no bearing unless they are living in an inherited house. Even then, given the time frame means there is a good chance that there is still a legal owner out there. If your father left you a painting stolen from a museum, does that mean it’s now legally yours?
Jonathan
No, I am not pleading that as a universal principle; it is simply that nothing else will work in this particular situation. Palestine cannot be independent if it has to tolerate quasi-independent Israeli enclaves within its borders. Palestine cannot be independent if the IDF has any recognized right to cross its borders without permission under any circumstances, and that includes crossing the border to protect Israeli settlers from mob violence or even state-sponsored repression; any Israeli who wants to remain within an independent Palestine will have to assume that risk. Nor can Palestine be independent if Israel in any sense controls its borders with Jordan or Eqypt. And nothing is going to be sustainably settled until Palestine either is independent by the terms I have outlined, or else annexed to Israel in a one-state solution with full voting rights for Palestinians in the Knessit.
As has been pointed out (in other terms): because the lack of a Palestinian state is probably an insurmountable obstacle to peace, the presence of the settlers is probably an insurmountable obstacle to a Palestinian state, therefore the presence of the settlers is probably an insurmountable obstacle to peace.
No, it’s context dependent.
Also, I would suggest you stop referring to “ethnic cleansing,” which is a loaded phrase, and has to be used in a unique way as it typically means that a majority is cleansing its territory of a minority (here, it would ultimately be other Israelis taking action). At best, it is imprecise. “Forced relocation” is better.