Rachel Moore, an Israeli settler from the Neve Daniel settlement, joined me to discuss what many people believe are the incredibly controversial Israeli settlements.
Fantastic interview. I learned so much yet I was nodding my head in agreement the entire time.
We lived in Westin, CT from 2000-2003. Odd coincidence. Of all places.
I admire you for leaving the “safety” of the US for Israel. Before Oct 7 whenever I heard about the murder of a civilian I wondered why all Israelis weren’t armed. If I asked an Israeli the answer was, “We have the military everywhere.” It never made sense to me. I purchased a firearm two years ago because crime was/is so rampant here. And now there are news reports that Jews in the US are buying firearms in record numbers.
Are there news reports of Israeli families arming themselves? It’s a necessary evil.
Yes, there are news reports of Israeli families buying more guns, and the Israeli government making it a bit easier to legally obtain them. Historically, the process of obtaining a firearm in Israel has been incredibly rigorous. You can check out the process here if you'd like: https://www.gov.il/en/departments/general/firearm-licensing-information
I wouldn’t take anything the UN which is dominated by Arab countries and always condemns Israel more than any other country as gospel. However occupying other people even though Israel won that land in 1967 after being attacked is not in its interest for the sake of its democracy. On the other hand security is always a considération Israel has to deal with as shown by Oct 7 th massacre
Hi Eva, I’m not sure what you think is in or not in the best interest of Israel’s democracy is relevant. If you’re willing to move to Israel and live here, like I did, then I’ll be happy to speak with you (and others) about Israel’s government.
By using the term Palestinian and Hamas interchangeably you imply all Palestinians agree with Hamas which is not necessarily the case and confuses people. We are at war with Hamas not the Palestinians
There was a recent survey by an esteemed Palestinian pollster who found that 72% of Palestinians don’t think Hamas commits enough terrorism against Israel and are in favor of more. As someone who lives next to the Palestinians, I take this number seriously and will not go out of my way to inaccurately portray the Palestinians (in general) as people who they are not. They have a profound history of being governed by multiple terrorist and terrorist-friendly organizations, and it’s time we expose the majority of Palestinians for who they are: Jew haters, or at least people who condone Jew hate.
I think you didn't address the main argument against the settlements. This is that if there is to be some sort of two-state solution, then you have to have a border. A bunch of settlements will be on the Palestinian side of the border. This means that their residents either have to live under Palestinian law or move back to Israel. This makes a two-state solution more complicated.
Anyway, a two-state solution is nowhere on the horizon, and no one has a serious plan for how to prevent it from being a second Hamas state. But Palestinian society could change in the next, say, 30 years. I think if there is ever a serious peace process, the settlements will be at most a minor headache and some solution will be found. Settlement blocs can be annexed, that's fine. Probably some settlements can be leased, and the settlers can gradually move back to Israel proper or live under Palestinian rule or whatever. Probably a few Smotrich types will have to be dragged kicking and screaming but whatever, and who knows what they will be like in 30 years.
In any case, Gush Etzion where Rachel lives and the other major settlement blocs, where in fact most settlers live, would be part of Israel in any final status agreement. These kinds of settlements are generally full of sane people like your friend Rachel who would evacuate their homes if that would solve the conflict, and wouldn't need to anyway because they live so close to the Green Line. But if you went to some isolated settlement like Kedumim and interviewed Daniela Weiss or Bezalel Smotrich, you'd get a very different picture.
I agree the core of the conflict is the existence of Israel. Palestinian rejectionism is the main obstacle to peace and not the settlements.
But of course land is an issue in this conflict! Of course various settlements and borders have come up in the two-state negotiations. While a solution can certainly be found and it's not by any means the main issue, this doesn't mean it's not an issue.
Let's also not forget Palestinian rejectionists are obsessed with the land within Green Line Israel, losing land in the "Nakba", they literally have this day called Land Day, and so on. So of course land is a major issue in this conflict.
I would also like to add that the problem with the Smotrich types is at least as much the fact that they wouldn't want to see an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel even if it was (somehow) peaceful than where they live. So as you said, these rejectionists on our side are motivated by some religious irredentism more than the actual borders. But they are a minority. Most settlers are pragmatic Haredim or Rachel types who live in the blocs.
So, you think it's OK that the Palestinians have never been asked between 1900 and today whether they would like increased Jewish settlement in Palestine? If you can point me toward an event in which they were asked their consent I would be impressed. Otherwise, trying to devalue the UN 1947 settlement is just self-serving legal interpretation to justify what Israel has wanted to do.
Kathleen, please read the essays I sent you. You are obviously uninformed and are choosing random years that have little or nothing to do with the current situation and in the entirety of history. If you want me to have an educated conversation with you, please educate yourself more holistically.
1947 is the last year when the entire international community had a chance to weigh in on this question.
I don't know if it was passed by the General Assembly, but it surely was passed by the Security Council. The UN support for a place where the native Palestinians could live apart from Israel has never been rescinded by that organization. Therefore, as far as I am concerned it is still stands.
If you could show me a Palestinian argument that Israel has a legal right to West Bank territory, I would read all three of those essays.
I hope the IDF finds and kills every Hamas terrorist. I also hope they stop bombing S Gaza, so fewer Palestinian civilians are killed.
Rachel Moore says: “No one is saying get out of the West Bank."
I am saying get out of the West Bank. That land was assigned for the Palestinians by the UN in 1947 and the UN has never voted to take it away from them. I support the UN 's decision and I think Israel should get out of the West Bank.
Although Rachel Moore is not trying to scare Palestinians out of their homes, some settlers are, and they are succeeding.
Nov 9, 2023 — Attacks against Palestinians by radical settlers have surged since Oct. 7, as vigilantes seek to exploit the war in Gaza to remake the map ...
At this point Israel has done plenty to make Palestinians hate them; Palestinians have done plenty to make Israelis hate them. But in 1900, the Ottoman Empire counted 700,000 Palestinians and about 5000 Jews. So, who is displacing whom? I remain in favor of the 1947 UN settlement, which is the only legal foundation for the state of Israel.
Hi Kathleen, thanks for reading and your comments! I’m afraid your arguments are very one-sided, and to blame Jews for people hating them is inherently antisemitic. I feel it’s important to call this out. Palestinian hatred of Jews goes far beyond the State of Israel and very well before it was founded. I’m not saying that the Israelis are completely innocent, but to focus on one side and one area in which Jews live is incredibly one-sided and unproductive.
I have a Jewish great-grandmother, and my sister and her husband converted to Judaism. Strangely, I find your coverage of the Israeli Palestinian issue very one sided.
I focus on Israel because it is the one place on Earth where Jews own more and more of the land and Palestinians own less and less.
Yes, Palestinian discomfort with Jews began before the founding of the state of Israel. It started when Palestinians began to recognize that Jews wanted to come to Palestine in greater and greater numbers.
In 1889 the Arab mayor of Jerusalem Yousef al-Khalidi wrote a letter to Theodor Herzl arguing against Zionism. "... in the name of God," he wrote, "let Palestine be left alone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism
In 1917, Jews were invited to come to Palestine by the British, but they were never invited by the Palestinians. Eventually, Britain recognized that the Palestinians were upset by increasing Israeli immigration, and so they sought to limit it by the 1939 White Paper. Jews ignored the restrictions and came anyway.
Israel is the only state occupied primarily by Jews—but not too long ago it was occupied primarily by Palestinians.
If Israel would stay within the 1947 UN boundaries (with land swaps). I would be happy for both sides. It's only fair.
I’m not sure why you keep bringing up 1947. The Palestinians, not the Jews, refused to accept this UN plan and refused to negotiate. That’s on them, not on the Jews.
Also, asking a country to abide by something that is more than 70 years old is not just outdated. It’s disconnected from the reality, and all the wars that have happened since 1947. Israel only took more land after they were attacked. I think any country would do the same, to prevent more attacks from happening in the future. That’s not occupation. That’s common sense.
If you don’t want us to take more land, (a) stop attacking us and (b) agree with us on a two-state solution. The Palestinians have refused such a solution 10 times since the 1930s.
So, you think it's OK that the Palestinians have never been asked between 1900 and today whether they would like increased Jewish settlement in Palestine? If you can point me toward a referendum in which they were asked their consent I would be impressed. Otherwise, trying to devalue the UN 1947 settlement is just self-serving legal interpretation to justify what Israel has wanted to do.
The Palestinians have been politically disorganized and fractured. They haven't had elections since 2007.
If Israel showed its true commitment to a two-state solution by withdrawing from the West Bank, we would see if the Palestinians can become able to live with that two-state solution. In my opinion, they deserve the chance. Israel's constant encroachment on Palestinian land has made them not able to trust any Israeli government since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
Israel has been so good at thinking up legal fig leaves to justify its constant encroachment on Palestinian territory.
I will not read these legal justifications. Give the Palestinians back their land so that they can have a real choice about living the two-state solution.
And you do another sophistic trick, which is you claim authority to tell me when the clock starts ticking. The Post World War Two settlements are still quite alive and well in 2023. You don't get to throw away history unilaterally.
Clearly, the 1947 UN settlement intended the native population to exist unmolested on the West Bank. Why do you as an Israeli think otherwise, other than naked disregard for Palestinian rights?
When you continuously decline a two-state solution 10 times in less than 10 decades, which is what the Palestinians have done, your opinion about disputed territories becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Yes it’s true that some Israeli Jews are hostile toward the Palestinians, but so too are Palestinians to Israeli Jews. It goes both ways, and them not having a state is not an excuse. If they wanted a state they’d have it by now.
And we gave them back Gaza. Look what they did with it. Sorry but Israelis aren’t stupid. We won’t keep making that mistake.
You see, I believe it cuts both ways. As far as I'm concerned, the 1947 UN partition is the only completely valid legal rationale for the existence of Israel. Otherwise, the state of Israel depends on the recognition by other countries and conquest (Golan Heights/ West Bank).
IMO, if Israel rejects the 1947 partition, the Palestinians are equally entitled to reject it, too. It would be silly of them to seek the annihilation of Israel and it's quite beyond their capacity, but I believe they would have the legal right to try their hand at conquest and take back the land the UN assigned to them. I believe the 1947 partition safeguards both parties, and Israel rejects it at its long-term peril.
The Israelis remind me of an experience I once had sharing a bed—my bedmate kept gradually creeping on to my half of the bed until I had 11 inches left. I woke the person up and I think I placed a barrier between us.
Fantastic interview. I learned so much yet I was nodding my head in agreement the entire time.
We lived in Westin, CT from 2000-2003. Odd coincidence. Of all places.
I admire you for leaving the “safety” of the US for Israel. Before Oct 7 whenever I heard about the murder of a civilian I wondered why all Israelis weren’t armed. If I asked an Israeli the answer was, “We have the military everywhere.” It never made sense to me. I purchased a firearm two years ago because crime was/is so rampant here. And now there are news reports that Jews in the US are buying firearms in record numbers.
Are there news reports of Israeli families arming themselves? It’s a necessary evil.
Thank you. Beautiful family. 🇮🇱🙏
Yes, there are news reports of Israeli families buying more guns, and the Israeli government making it a bit easier to legally obtain them. Historically, the process of obtaining a firearm in Israel has been incredibly rigorous. You can check out the process here if you'd like: https://www.gov.il/en/departments/general/firearm-licensing-information
Thx!
I wouldn’t take anything the UN which is dominated by Arab countries and always condemns Israel more than any other country as gospel. However occupying other people even though Israel won that land in 1967 after being attacked is not in its interest for the sake of its democracy. On the other hand security is always a considération Israel has to deal with as shown by Oct 7 th massacre
Hi Eva, I’m not sure what you think is in or not in the best interest of Israel’s democracy is relevant. If you’re willing to move to Israel and live here, like I did, then I’ll be happy to speak with you (and others) about Israel’s government.
Josh
You don’t mean condone u mean condemn
Re Abu Mazel and Oct 7 th
Also don’t call Hamas terrorists Palestinians. You need to choose words carefully
But they are Palestinians.
By using the term Palestinian and Hamas interchangeably you imply all Palestinians agree with Hamas which is not necessarily the case and confuses people. We are at war with Hamas not the Palestinians
There was a recent survey by an esteemed Palestinian pollster who found that 72% of Palestinians don’t think Hamas commits enough terrorism against Israel and are in favor of more. As someone who lives next to the Palestinians, I take this number seriously and will not go out of my way to inaccurately portray the Palestinians (in general) as people who they are not. They have a profound history of being governed by multiple terrorist and terrorist-friendly organizations, and it’s time we expose the majority of Palestinians for who they are: Jew haters, or at least people who condone Jew hate.
I think you didn't address the main argument against the settlements. This is that if there is to be some sort of two-state solution, then you have to have a border. A bunch of settlements will be on the Palestinian side of the border. This means that their residents either have to live under Palestinian law or move back to Israel. This makes a two-state solution more complicated.
Anyway, a two-state solution is nowhere on the horizon, and no one has a serious plan for how to prevent it from being a second Hamas state. But Palestinian society could change in the next, say, 30 years. I think if there is ever a serious peace process, the settlements will be at most a minor headache and some solution will be found. Settlement blocs can be annexed, that's fine. Probably some settlements can be leased, and the settlers can gradually move back to Israel proper or live under Palestinian rule or whatever. Probably a few Smotrich types will have to be dragged kicking and screaming but whatever, and who knows what they will be like in 30 years.
In any case, Gush Etzion where Rachel lives and the other major settlement blocs, where in fact most settlers live, would be part of Israel in any final status agreement. These kinds of settlements are generally full of sane people like your friend Rachel who would evacuate their homes if that would solve the conflict, and wouldn't need to anyway because they live so close to the Green Line. But if you went to some isolated settlement like Kedumim and interviewed Daniela Weiss or Bezalel Smotrich, you'd get a very different picture.
Actually, land has never been an issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an ethnic and religious issue, not a territorial one.
I agree the core of the conflict is the existence of Israel. Palestinian rejectionism is the main obstacle to peace and not the settlements.
But of course land is an issue in this conflict! Of course various settlements and borders have come up in the two-state negotiations. While a solution can certainly be found and it's not by any means the main issue, this doesn't mean it's not an issue.
Let's also not forget Palestinian rejectionists are obsessed with the land within Green Line Israel, losing land in the "Nakba", they literally have this day called Land Day, and so on. So of course land is a major issue in this conflict.
I would also like to add that the problem with the Smotrich types is at least as much the fact that they wouldn't want to see an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel even if it was (somehow) peaceful than where they live. So as you said, these rejectionists on our side are motivated by some religious irredentism more than the actual borders. But they are a minority. Most settlers are pragmatic Haredim or Rachel types who live in the blocs.
Not sure it’s true that “most” settlers are what you said.
Sure. Most do live in the blocs at least. In places like Gush or Beitar Ilit or Maale Adium.
I think still fewer than half of the Israelis over the Green Line vote for Smotrich and Ben Gvir. I hope so at least.
Maale Adumim
So, you think it's OK that the Palestinians have never been asked between 1900 and today whether they would like increased Jewish settlement in Palestine? If you can point me toward an event in which they were asked their consent I would be impressed. Otherwise, trying to devalue the UN 1947 settlement is just self-serving legal interpretation to justify what Israel has wanted to do.
Kathleen, please read the essays I sent you. You are obviously uninformed and are choosing random years that have little or nothing to do with the current situation and in the entirety of history. If you want me to have an educated conversation with you, please educate yourself more holistically.
1947 is the last year when the entire international community had a chance to weigh in on this question.
I don't know if it was passed by the General Assembly, but it surely was passed by the Security Council. The UN support for a place where the native Palestinians could live apart from Israel has never been rescinded by that organization. Therefore, as far as I am concerned it is still stands.
If you could show me a Palestinian argument that Israel has a legal right to West Bank territory, I would read all three of those essays.
I hope the IDF finds and kills every Hamas terrorist. I also hope they stop bombing S Gaza, so fewer Palestinian civilians are killed.
Rachel Moore says: “No one is saying get out of the West Bank."
I am saying get out of the West Bank. That land was assigned for the Palestinians by the UN in 1947 and the UN has never voted to take it away from them. I support the UN 's decision and I think Israel should get out of the West Bank.
Although Rachel Moore is not trying to scare Palestinians out of their homes, some settlers are, and they are succeeding.
Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › world › 2023/11/09
Nov 9, 2023 — Attacks against Palestinians by radical settlers have surged since Oct. 7, as vigilantes seek to exploit the war in Gaza to remake the map ...
At this point Israel has done plenty to make Palestinians hate them; Palestinians have done plenty to make Israelis hate them. But in 1900, the Ottoman Empire counted 700,000 Palestinians and about 5000 Jews. So, who is displacing whom? I remain in favor of the 1947 UN settlement, which is the only legal foundation for the state of Israel.
Hi Kathleen, thanks for reading and your comments! I’m afraid your arguments are very one-sided, and to blame Jews for people hating them is inherently antisemitic. I feel it’s important to call this out. Palestinian hatred of Jews goes far beyond the State of Israel and very well before it was founded. I’m not saying that the Israelis are completely innocent, but to focus on one side and one area in which Jews live is incredibly one-sided and unproductive.
I have a Jewish great-grandmother, and my sister and her husband converted to Judaism. Strangely, I find your coverage of the Israeli Palestinian issue very one sided.
I focus on Israel because it is the one place on Earth where Jews own more and more of the land and Palestinians own less and less.
Yes, Palestinian discomfort with Jews began before the founding of the state of Israel. It started when Palestinians began to recognize that Jews wanted to come to Palestine in greater and greater numbers.
In 1889 the Arab mayor of Jerusalem Yousef al-Khalidi wrote a letter to Theodor Herzl arguing against Zionism. "... in the name of God," he wrote, "let Palestine be left alone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism
In 1917, Jews were invited to come to Palestine by the British, but they were never invited by the Palestinians. Eventually, Britain recognized that the Palestinians were upset by increasing Israeli immigration, and so they sought to limit it by the 1939 White Paper. Jews ignored the restrictions and came anyway.
Israel is the only state occupied primarily by Jews—but not too long ago it was occupied primarily by Palestinians.
If Israel would stay within the 1947 UN boundaries (with land swaps). I would be happy for both sides. It's only fair.
Hi Kathleen,
I’ll ask you to read two essays we recently published:
One on colonization: https://www.futureofjewish.com/p/the-greatest-decolonization-project
One on Palestinian history: https://www.futureofjewish.com/p/palestinian-history-doesnt-reflect
I’m not sure why you keep bringing up 1947. The Palestinians, not the Jews, refused to accept this UN plan and refused to negotiate. That’s on them, not on the Jews.
Also, asking a country to abide by something that is more than 70 years old is not just outdated. It’s disconnected from the reality, and all the wars that have happened since 1947. Israel only took more land after they were attacked. I think any country would do the same, to prevent more attacks from happening in the future. That’s not occupation. That’s common sense.
If you don’t want us to take more land, (a) stop attacking us and (b) agree with us on a two-state solution. The Palestinians have refused such a solution 10 times since the 1930s.
This is not pro-Israel. This is pro-history.
So, you think it's OK that the Palestinians have never been asked between 1900 and today whether they would like increased Jewish settlement in Palestine? If you can point me toward a referendum in which they were asked their consent I would be impressed. Otherwise, trying to devalue the UN 1947 settlement is just self-serving legal interpretation to justify what Israel has wanted to do.
The Palestinians have been politically disorganized and fractured. They haven't had elections since 2007.
If Israel showed its true commitment to a two-state solution by withdrawing from the West Bank, we would see if the Palestinians can become able to live with that two-state solution. In my opinion, they deserve the chance. Israel's constant encroachment on Palestinian land has made them not able to trust any Israeli government since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
Israel has been so good at thinking up legal fig leaves to justify its constant encroachment on Palestinian territory.
I will not read these legal justifications. Give the Palestinians back their land so that they can have a real choice about living the two-state solution.
And you do another sophistic trick, which is you claim authority to tell me when the clock starts ticking. The Post World War Two settlements are still quite alive and well in 2023. You don't get to throw away history unilaterally.
Clearly, the 1947 UN settlement intended the native population to exist unmolested on the West Bank. Why do you as an Israeli think otherwise, other than naked disregard for Palestinian rights?
When you continuously decline a two-state solution 10 times in less than 10 decades, which is what the Palestinians have done, your opinion about disputed territories becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Yes it’s true that some Israeli Jews are hostile toward the Palestinians, but so too are Palestinians to Israeli Jews. It goes both ways, and them not having a state is not an excuse. If they wanted a state they’d have it by now.
And we gave them back Gaza. Look what they did with it. Sorry but Israelis aren’t stupid. We won’t keep making that mistake.
You see, I believe it cuts both ways. As far as I'm concerned, the 1947 UN partition is the only completely valid legal rationale for the existence of Israel. Otherwise, the state of Israel depends on the recognition by other countries and conquest (Golan Heights/ West Bank).
IMO, if Israel rejects the 1947 partition, the Palestinians are equally entitled to reject it, too. It would be silly of them to seek the annihilation of Israel and it's quite beyond their capacity, but I believe they would have the legal right to try their hand at conquest and take back the land the UN assigned to them. I believe the 1947 partition safeguards both parties, and Israel rejects it at its long-term peril.
The Israelis remind me of an experience I once had sharing a bed—my bedmate kept gradually creeping on to my half of the bed until I had 11 inches left. I woke the person up and I think I placed a barrier between us.