Palestinian Jews?

This week's bitterlemons poses an interesting question which, despite never having been examined seriously by either Israelis or Palestinians, nevertheless presents an intriguing possibility for resolving part of the conflict over the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River:

Is it feasible for Jewish settlers to not be evacuated but instead stay where they are live under Palestinian sovereignty in a future Palestinian state?

The reason this option seems preferable to some settlers is obvious: They don't want to leave their homes. Many settlers have resorted to the language of human rights in order to fight Sharon's disengagement plan. Tearing settlers from their homes--where many of them have lived for the better part of the last 30 years--amounts to an undeserved and cruel human rights violation, they say. Settler leaders have been discussing the possibility of large scale psychological help to deal with the divorces, depression, and juvenile delinquency that may accompany such an uprooting. Allowing the settlers to stay put in a Gaza under Palestinian rule could help avoid many of these anticipated difficulties. Besides, say opponents of the disengagement, why should a person be uprooted from their home based on their religion or ethnicity? (The fact that this is oversimplified reasoning and that some of the more extreme settlers have long been advocating uprooting Palestinians has not seemed to deter this argument).

In any case, the most convincing reason to let the settlers stay is that in any future peace agreement Palestinians will be living on both sides of the Green line (20% of Israel's citizens are Palestinian). Shouldn't Jews also be able to live on both sides? The fact that many of the Jews settled in the West Bank after 1967 is not that relevant, since the border was always gray or nonexistent, and some of the large Jewish settlements around Jerusalem had existed prior to 1948 and had been evacuated during the independence war. Hebron was likewise cleared of its ancient Jewish community in 1929. Many Israeli Jews can also claim lost and confiscated property in places like Iraq, Syria, and Iran as Gazan settler Avi Farhan points out. (Farhan himself is an Israeli of Tunisian origin).

However, despite these benefits, this plan is weighted down by its complications. Certain segments of the settler population harbor extremely hostile attitude towards the Palestinians, and large segments of the Palestinian population feel the same way about the settlers. Having these two populations in such close proximity could result in bloodshed. Although, conversely, if settlers and Palestinians could live together, not under the auspices of an occupying army, but rather as fellow citizens, this could be a tremendous beginning to a new kind of attitude in the region.

Ultimately, though, this plan is unrealistic because there doesn't seem to be sufficient support for it from either Palestinians or settlers. At least the prospect of a relatively violence free disengagement looks more and more promising...



A Kippah identified with Religious Zionism with the Gazan shore in the Background