This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
The purpose of West Bank settlements is to make a two-state solution impossible.
Palestinians can remain in the West Bank if they agree to be second class citizens without political rights.
Israel’s rightful land extends from the Euphrates to the Nile.
I don’t care about Palestinian children, only my own children.
I like the interview and I respect how honest she is. She doesn’t pretend this is about Hamas or terrorism or anything; it’s her tribe versus someone else’s tribe and her tribe should do whatever it takes to win.
Some thoughts/questions:
How mainstream is her view? My impression is that a lot of Israelis/Israel supporters implicitly think that ultimately there’s no long-term solution other than the killing/displacing all the Palestinians, but aren’t willing to bite the bullet and explicitly advocate for genocide (or know they should be more circumspect about it.)
The Netanyahu government seems like it’s on her side at least through benign neglect. Why does her cause have so much political power?
Does a settler/activist like her count as an enemy combatant? On one hand she operates under the colors of being a civilian. On the other hand it seems a little unfair for someone who is actively working to conquer your land to declare rules like “no sorry you’re only allowed to shoot at the guys who have rifles and body armor otherwise you’re a terrorist.”
For moderate pro-Israel people, is “kick all the settlers out of the West Bank” something you’d be willing to accept as part of a broader peace deal?
Mainstream as in widely shared, or mainstream as in accurate? The premise that the purpose of the West Bank settlements is to make a two-state solution impossible is more than a bit of a stretch, somewhere between over-reach, over-simplification, and ignoring other competing dynamics.
The Netanyahu government seems like it’s on her side at least through benign neglect. Why does her cause have so much political power?
Because it overlaps and taps into multiple cultural/religious/ideological/strategic considerations, which creates the conditions suitable for political coalitions to work with as a tool for compromise for internal political cohesion.
East Bank settlements have always had a strategic-security implications for the ultimate resolution of Israel's eastern border. Ever since the initial 'land will be traded for peace,' the second implication of that has been 'but facts on the ground will shape what is traded for what.' Some settlements can be tolerated/advanced for the purpose of being traded- a concession in and of themselves. But others are expected to shape the new borders, as has already been reflected in previous iterations of negotiations, where territorial tradeoffs were set to accept israeli settlements in some areas. These enduring settlements, in turn, have post-deal implications for things like who controls how much of East Jerusalem, the practical viability of a East Bank state to marshal and consolidate military power across the North-South Mountains, the strategic depth / chokepoints of any future hostile army approaching from the East, and so on.
Whether you view the Settlements as an ideological mission to secure command of the holy land, a bargaining chip that can be traded away, a tool that can be leveraged against coalition partners for domestic policy concessions, or a factor in long-term strategic planning, there are a variety of reasons why settlement activists will have access to political power. The settlements are politically potent.
Does a settler/activist like her count as an enemy combatant?
Not unless she takes part in combat.
On one hand she operates under the colors of being a civilian.
As long as those colors are accurate, she garners the protections to civilians under international law, including not being deliberately targetted (as opposed to being accepted as collateral when targetting military targets).
On the other hand it seems a little unfair for someone who is actively working to conquer your land to declare rules like “no sorry you’re only allowed to shoot at the guys who have rifles and body armor otherwise you’re a terrorist.”
Since the Israelis didn't declare rules like that, the premise of fairness is rather misaimed. It's certainly inconvenient international law, but it's not international law crafted by the Israelis for the purpose claimed, and it's not international law with a caveat for settlers.
For moderate pro-Israel people, is “kick all the settlers out of the West Bank” something you’d be willing to accept as part of a broader peace deal?
Given that the broader peace deals that were closest to being credible and coming to fruition didn't kick all settlers out of the West Bank, but rather did mutual trades with a goal of respecting many exsting population distributions, it would seem like a poison pill demand to sink a peace deal, and thus not a moderate position to take.
orthoxerox
I realized I can change my flair color to Barbie pink
Dean 6mo ago
The premise that the purpose of the West Bank settlements is to make a two-state solution impossible is more than a bit of a stretch, somewhere between over-reach, over-simplification, and ignoring other competing dynamics.
More than a bit of a stretch? What else are they? Unless the idea is to have them as Jewish citizens of the new Palestinian state, the counterpart of Israeli Arabs in Israel, they new Palestinian state will either have to remove them or have an impossibly fractal border.
Unless the idea is to have them as Jewish citizens of the new Palestinian state,
And why should this be so farfetched? Perhaps because implicit in the idea of both Israel and the Palestinian national project has been ethnic homogeneity, or at least hegemony, for the dominant ethny. Two states has always meant division of the Cis-Jordanian territory into two ethno-states, which simply isn't practical for any number of reasons (water distribution, population distribution, transport networks and ocean access, etc.) even before we get to the basic fundamental fact that significant factions in both sides see themselves as entitled to all of the land, and anything less as a bitter half-loaf to be mourned until revenge can be taken.
Precisely what I said? A number of settlements are fully expected to be traded away- those that would make things 'impossible'- while others are meant to shape the borders- the land swaps that have been a core component of 2-state talks to date.
To say the that the purpose of West Bank settlements is to make the two-state solution impossible is to ignore the history that 2-state negotiations were already built and being conducted on the acknowledgement that the 2-state borders weren't going to align with the occupied territory dividers, and that various settlements had different prospects and roles in said negotiations to different relevant actors.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
An interview in the New Yorker with settler/activist Daniella Weiss, The Extreme Ambitions of West Bank Settlers, is making the rounds on Twitter.
Tl;dr:
I like the interview and I respect how honest she is. She doesn’t pretend this is about Hamas or terrorism or anything; it’s her tribe versus someone else’s tribe and her tribe should do whatever it takes to win.
Some thoughts/questions:
Mainstream as in widely shared, or mainstream as in accurate? The premise that the purpose of the West Bank settlements is to make a two-state solution impossible is more than a bit of a stretch, somewhere between over-reach, over-simplification, and ignoring other competing dynamics.
Because it overlaps and taps into multiple cultural/religious/ideological/strategic considerations, which creates the conditions suitable for political coalitions to work with as a tool for compromise for internal political cohesion.
East Bank settlements have always had a strategic-security implications for the ultimate resolution of Israel's eastern border. Ever since the initial 'land will be traded for peace,' the second implication of that has been 'but facts on the ground will shape what is traded for what.' Some settlements can be tolerated/advanced for the purpose of being traded- a concession in and of themselves. But others are expected to shape the new borders, as has already been reflected in previous iterations of negotiations, where territorial tradeoffs were set to accept israeli settlements in some areas. These enduring settlements, in turn, have post-deal implications for things like who controls how much of East Jerusalem, the practical viability of a East Bank state to marshal and consolidate military power across the North-South Mountains, the strategic depth / chokepoints of any future hostile army approaching from the East, and so on.
Whether you view the Settlements as an ideological mission to secure command of the holy land, a bargaining chip that can be traded away, a tool that can be leveraged against coalition partners for domestic policy concessions, or a factor in long-term strategic planning, there are a variety of reasons why settlement activists will have access to political power. The settlements are politically potent.
Not unless she takes part in combat.
As long as those colors are accurate, she garners the protections to civilians under international law, including not being deliberately targetted (as opposed to being accepted as collateral when targetting military targets).
Since the Israelis didn't declare rules like that, the premise of fairness is rather misaimed. It's certainly inconvenient international law, but it's not international law crafted by the Israelis for the purpose claimed, and it's not international law with a caveat for settlers.
Given that the broader peace deals that were closest to being credible and coming to fruition didn't kick all settlers out of the West Bank, but rather did mutual trades with a goal of respecting many exsting population distributions, it would seem like a poison pill demand to sink a peace deal, and thus not a moderate position to take.
More than a bit of a stretch? What else are they? Unless the idea is to have them as Jewish citizens of the new Palestinian state, the counterpart of Israeli Arabs in Israel, they new Palestinian state will either have to remove them or have an impossibly fractal border.
And why should this be so farfetched? Perhaps because implicit in the idea of both Israel and the Palestinian national project has been ethnic homogeneity, or at least hegemony, for the dominant ethny. Two states has always meant division of the Cis-Jordanian territory into two ethno-states, which simply isn't practical for any number of reasons (water distribution, population distribution, transport networks and ocean access, etc.) even before we get to the basic fundamental fact that significant factions in both sides see themselves as entitled to all of the land, and anything less as a bitter half-loaf to be mourned until revenge can be taken.
More options
Context Copy link
Precisely what I said? A number of settlements are fully expected to be traded away- those that would make things 'impossible'- while others are meant to shape the borders- the land swaps that have been a core component of 2-state talks to date.
To say the that the purpose of West Bank settlements is to make the two-state solution impossible is to ignore the history that 2-state negotiations were already built and being conducted on the acknowledgement that the 2-state borders weren't going to align with the occupied territory dividers, and that various settlements had different prospects and roles in said negotiations to different relevant actors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link