KPG said:
The point was simple - public US criticism even from US Presidents is lip service and has no bearing on settlements in Israel, and that settlements will continue. Just saying they're unhelpful doesn't absolve their material detriment to peace, and their material and systematic eradication of the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
The link you shared is from post-1948, what happened in 1948 that caused such a reaction? Why hadn't that happened prior to 1948?
In Iraq Jewish life flourished. It wasn't perfect (what is?) but Russian Jews even fled to Iraq to escape persecution in the 20s. Jews were heavily involved in civic life, politics, trade up until the 1930, when growing Zionist clashes emerged with local Arabs in what was then Mandatory Palestine. Jews made up about 1/3rd of the population of Baghdad in the 1920s. If you want to make the argument that Jews are only safe regionally in Israel, you can make the case that it's because of the creation of Israel that Jews aren't safe elsewhere in the region.
I think that at this point there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, but I think your hypothetical underscores why settlements are so incredibly detrimental to peace, and why they matter. That you can flippantly dismiss their relevance by acknowledging they're not helpful, then ask a question about the tenability of peace with the presence of settlements where hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers have violently displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and systematically excluded them from participating in Israeli society and excluded them from visible independence shows that you're not interested in a real discussion.
1.) The premise is absurd, the settlers are there because they enjoy the privileges and pritections of apartheid and are trying to manifest a religious proclamation, not because they think there's great weather and good hiking trails in Nablus with the opportunity to join a nice Palestinian community. But yes, sure, if they wanted to remain in a 1967 border Palestinian state, the settlers who built new homes in previously unsettled areas should be allowed to stay if they want. The settlers who forcibly evicted and stole the homes of Palestinians should obviously not be able to remain in those stolen homes, nor should the settlers that exist in bulldozed Palestinian communities that seek a right of return. But if they'd otherwise like to stay in the territory, sure.
2.) Should Jews be allowed to move from other countries there. I don't think that's a common emigration policy for any country, but you can certainly put it into the suggestion box.
3.) Would Jews enjoy equal rights, security, and acceptance? I imagine the rights would look similar to existing PA rights:
The Palestinian Authority (PA) does not have a constitution; however, the Basic Law provides for religious freedom. The Basic Law was approved in 2002 by the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and signed by then-President Yasser Arafat. The Basic Law states that Islam is the official religion but also calls for respect and sanctity for other divine religions (such as Judaism and Christianity).
I think religious discrimination is a problem for every country in the entire world. There are currently 50,000 Christian Palestinians, and there is not a history of religious persecution against them. Many left in 1948 die to the war, many in Jerusalem were dispossessed of their homes by Israelis. The mayors of Ramallah, Birzeit, Bethlehem, Zababdeh, Jifna, Ein 'Arik, Aboud, Taybeh, Beit Jala and Beit Sahour are Christians currently. There is no evidence that they enjoy less security than other Palestinians on religious grounds, they seem to be slightly more affluent and therefore slightly more susceptible to petty crimes, but nothing targeted or systemic.
There is nothing to suggest Palestinians engage in apartheid against Christians. They don't have different colored license plates, they don't have limited freedom of movement by Palestinian government officials, and they are able to participate in Palestinian elections. Can we say the same about Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank?
Do you even have an elementary level understanding of what's going on in the West Bank? Your questions suggest perhaps not. Do you have an elementary understanding of what the region was like prior to 1917?
One thing I know, is that prior to 1917 there was not an independent nation/state called Palestine and there were not people who identified as "Palestinians."
That is the problem with your worldview and, quite bluntly, your selective sources of history. When does history start? At what point do the settler colonialist (which would include Muslim conquerors from circa 610 CE) become victims of the set of next conquerors? Why aren't the Arab Muslims - who directly descend form the Muslim conquerors - settlers?
It is pure silliness. Taken to the extreme, we know as a historical fact that Jews were in what we now call Israel long before Muslims or the people now called Palestinians. But it doesn't matter, because conquerors/settlers came and went for thousands of years.
All of human history involves dispossessing people from their land, usually with violence. Full stop.
And while you claim I have little understanding of the West Bank, I think you have a lot of misunderstandings of how religious freedom works in Gaza and the West Bank (not to mention the treatment of other groups, like LGBTQ people)
Yes - Hamas engaged in a purging (or if you like ethnic cleansing).
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/03/vanishing-arab-christians-gaza-hamas-di-giovanni-book/And the PA in West Bank is not much better.
https://forthemartyrs.com/palestines-vanishing-christian-population/What happens in the West Bank if a Muslim wants to convert to Christianity?
Your description of the Basic Law is woefully incomplete and ignores that Islam is the official religion of the PA.
"The PA Basic Law, which serves as an interim constitution, establishes Islam as the official religion and states
the principles of sharia shall be the main source of legislation but provides for freedom of belief, worship, and the performance of religious rites
unless they violate public order or morality"
Sure seems like the final 7 words (not to mention the imposition of Sharia law) significantly qualify your claim of religious freedom. But according to you, I'm the one who is uninformed and doesn't understand what really happens in the West Bank?.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/#:~:text=The%20PA%20Basic%20Law%2C%20which,violate%20public%20order%20or%20morality.The most amazing part of your post is your equivocation on points 1, 2 and 3. Some Jewish settlements in the hypothetical PA State are ok; others must be removed. Jews in the hypothetical Palestinian state would have
ostensible religious freedom, though in practice you acknowledge they would not be equal citizens. The PA state would have no obligation to accept any Jewish immigrants or for that matter any immigrants.
You accept all of these traits, realities, and nuance in a hypothetical Palestinian state. But you view the analogous situations in Israel as intolerable apartheid. It seems many of the things you find condemnable about Israel are just fine in hypothetical Palestine.
Theories of settler colonialism have destroyed many peoples ability to think. If all that matters is perceived victimhood, then there is no real legal or moral principles. Just political ideology.
