site banner

ISRAEL GAZA MEGATHREAD IV

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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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:

  • 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:

  1. 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.)
  2. The Netanyahu government seems like it’s on her side at least through benign neglect. Why does her cause have so much political power?
  3. 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.”
  4. 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?
  1. I think her particular view is pretty extreme, even among religiously motivated settlers I doubt very many would see the east bank of the Nile as part of the promised land. That would imply that Moses was already in the promised land when he parted the Red Sea.

  2. Broadening "her cause" somewhat, there's a number of religious and very right-wing parties that Netanyahu relies on as coalition partners, and incorporating "Judea and Samaria" into Israel has support in those sectors because of the area's historical and religious significance. E.g. King David ruled from Hebron, Abraham was buried there, Jericho was the site of Joshua's first conquest in Canaan, etc.

  3. She's not a combatant, but I also take issue with the implication that it's obviously fine to attack soldiers. Attacking civilians is an act of terrorism but attacking soldiers is still an act of war, and war is often even worse than terrorism.

  4. Sure. "Land for peace" is a good trade if it works.