Earlier quoted context omitted.
That some Israelis believe the settlements help security only makes sense in the same way white Rhodesians believed counter insurgency made them safe[1]. The settlements are unambiguously illegal and they do infringe on civil rights of Palestinians. There is nothing complicated here. The Israelis that believe this are just wrong, and probably racist, and they have no rights to these wrong beliefs to be entered as pol…
> That some Israelis believe the settlements help security only makes sense in the same way white Rhodesians believed counter insurgency made them safe[1] I have no idea what happened in Rhodesia and I don't think yet another comparison (let me guess - it makes Israel look bad right?) is helpful. The reality is the last disengagement from Gaza went absolutely horribly. Palestinians should also have a big burden to pr…
No worries. We all learn bit by bit. But I think you could have a look at it. Many of the security beliefs that you shared above related to Israel are not new, but like all the others they are wrong, and dehumanising. Those so called security issues were backbone of violent colonisation and Genocides. Americas, Africa and Asia alike.
The notion that the rest are savages, who can't govern for their interest and we must do it for them, is not new, and is inhuman and wrong. And it is not even new to Zionism, which after all, has unfolded to be a pretty sophisticated colonisation process.
BTW, Israel never fully disengaged from Gaza, you can look up on Gaza Freedom Floatilla raid. Those are not the actions of a disengaged regime, but a colonialist entity doing crimes in the name of security. And although they are now separated by occupation, Gaza and West Bank are not different people. One can't continue to occupy one region, storm their holy sites, while repressing other region to be a an open air prison, and say that we have disengaged.