u/Runofthemilljacket

I want to preface this with the fact that I don’t support anyone who violently attacks innocent people. In the handful of cases where this happens, I think those Israelis should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. It’s odd that Western activists cherry-pick a handful of cases and try to have them represent an entire group of people. I could do the same thing with all these antisemitic attacks in Western countries, but I have morals and will not stoop to their level.

Now, I will explain why I support the settlers in Judea and Samaria. Trend-driven commentators with limited historical depth like to argue that the settlers are the heart of the conflict, but that is easily disproven. The settlers are a symptom of the conflict, not its source.

Let’s say Palestinians accepted UN Resolution 181, or one of the many other overly generous proposals for them to have an independent state. Then, there would have been an established Palestinian state with defined borders. If that had happened, there would have been no settler movement. Israel would have defined borders, and Palestinians would have had defined borders. There wouldn’t have been this vague subjectivity of the borders we see today. If a Palestinian state that recognized Israel’s right to exist and agreed to peace, I would not support the settlers. However, this is not the reality we live in.

We live in a reality where Palestinians have rejected every offer of peace, and have chosen violence and war time and time again. Every time, they will lose territory, as happens in every war around the world. The loss of territory is the main pressure point that prevents wars from breaking out. That is why I support the settler movement. The status quo is unacceptable, and so long as Palestinians reject peace and refuse to recognize Israel, the settlers have very legitimate claims. The settler movement stops the moment Palestine recognizes Israel and agrees to peace.

The settlers are simply a symptom of Palestinian aims to destroy Israel. Had peace happened in the past, this never would have happened. Now, we have to live with the consequences of the failures of Palestinian leadership. The settlers in Judea and Samaria exist, and no amount of denial will change that reality.

If a Palestinian state ever exists, this reality has to be taken into account. We all see the disaster that resulted from the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza in 2005. When the settlers leave, radicalism thrives, and we wind up with the conditions that led to Hamas's control of Gaza and outbreaks of violence such as October 7th. Therefore, those mistakes will not be repeated in Judea and Samaria. Jews living in Judea and Samaria have the right to remain there, and Israel will not ethnically cleanse them as it did in 2005. That was tried and failed.

I am yet to hear a single valid argument that the settlers are an obstacle to peace. From a historical perspective, they appear to be the only source of peace in the region.

Under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention (Article II), genocide is defined as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

The October 7th massacre align with this definition. Hamas deliberately targeted Israeli civilians with the goal of killing as many as possible. Their actions were not random or purely tactical, they were directed at a specific national and ethnic group.

This intent is further reinforced by Hamas’s own statements. They described October 7th as just the beginning and openly called for repeated attacks—“a second, a third, a fourth”—until Israel is annihilated.

Given both the actions and the stated intent, the classification isn’t ambiguous. The real question is why aren’t people calling October 7th what it was, a genocide?

—

Edit: Most Israelis and Jews refer to October 7th as a terrorist attack. I ask this question because I think that labeling is misleading, and calling October 7th a genocide is more accurate.