Here is what mainstream Israeli press thinks of the term:

“Settler” is not a neutral descriptor. In English, the word entered common use in the early 17th century to describe people establishing permanent communities in sparsely inhabited areas. At first, the term evoked ideas of pioneering and self-reliance. But during and after the age of European colonialism, it grew heavier with meaning, often associated with conquest, displacement, and injustice.

In today’s activist and postcolonial discourse, “settler” frequently implies illegitimacy, occupation, and even violence. That shift in meaning has colored its modern use, especially in contested areas like the West Bank.

For Palestinians, the term “settler” is almost always pejorative. The settlements are seen as encroachments on land designated for a future Palestinian state, and the continuing expansion—especially under the current Israeli government—has been viewed as a major obstacle to any viable two-state solution.

So, no, those fuckers don’t consider “settler” to be anodyne.

Does the word “settler” have connotations of innocence in your culture?

Of Catan.

Apartheid state doing apartheid things.

According to Vlad Vexler, in Russian political/bureaucratic culture this is not to be understood as real analysis and more to be understood as functionaries pitching themselves as useful to Putin: https://youtu.be/ZJryUKULZ_E

This is complicity in genocide.

Independence doesn’t mean no bias. Also what outlet has no bias?

I would assume the author focuses on them because they are retail facing and therefore somewhat vulnerable to consumer behaviour.

But for sure, any company profitting off of apartheid and genocide should be shamed.

I like you ask in hypotheticals.

Resist now.

All 30 if us who play it agree.

The Franco-German rivalry I had in mind is much older. WW2 was the very final phase of it, but it is clearly present and recognizable at least as early as 1871, ie 70 years earlier, whereas the supposed chronology goes all the way back to the 1400s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French–German_enmity

Regardless, I don’t have the answer, obviously, but I wouldn’t underestimate the capacity of the Israelis and Palestinians to actually get to a (likely implicit/de facto) agreement of what they think is an acceptable answer. But for that, I would imagine serious external pressure to Israel would be needed, similar as the one exerted to the white Afrikaners…

I am quite eurocentric, so take this as a caveat. France and Germany I guess would be the most obvious and successful example? And Germany with like the Netherlands, Poland, etc. Ireland with the UK are getting there too possibly. Sub-nationally, I would add South Africa to the list, maybe also Catalonia, Basque and Quebec (but they’re not winning the oppression olympics).

For Greece and Turkey I think it’s still an unfinished project (Cyprus is the proof of that). We have achieved a big degree of functional reconciliation, but mistrust, hatred, and shenanigans persist (my theory: this because neither nation properly reconciled with the fact that we based our peace on mutual ethnic cleansing…).

And here is the weird take of the day: I wouldn’t be too shy to say that a lot of the Balkans have “advanced” to a point where in practice memes and teasing (think 2balkan4u) serve as a sort of a weird fucked up balkan version of truth and reconciliation…

But that’s the point, right? Justice seen as a process. Nothing can ever be said to be “done” but you can get more towards it.

The concept of justice I’m advocating for in this context (and I’m not claiming to be a moral philosopher) is a mix of Transitional and Restorative concepts of justice. I’m inspired from things like ending vendettas/blood feuds. For such long standing conflicts, absolute justice is just not realizable, because absolute evil has already happened. However we can get to functional relationships and communities that work towards a future. So when I say ‘each side gets what they can live with’ I mean exactly the question of how far can you get to justice without breaking the future. And I actually mean “live with” not just tolerate but actually live. It’s not a compromise in the sense of horse trading, it is a compromising in the sense of accepting that some wrongs just cannot be amended but that a better future is still possible.

The most certain way to deradicalize the Palestinians is simply to deradicalize and demilitarize the Israeli state and to dismantle its apartheid and occupation edifice.

I think you hit the nail on the head exactly. That’s it, the whole affair in one line.

“maybe ham fisted, in which case I apologize”

So now that the misunderstanding is cleared, I call you again to examine your assumptions and blind spots.

Stop both sides-ing for goodness sake! There are no two equal sides here. There are the perpetrators and the victims of a genocide, of apartheid, and of occupation.

Not to mention that you are literally factually wrong. Hamas controls Gaza but the PA controls the West Bank. There is nothing the PA does that “creates violence, hatred, destruction and desire for vengeance” among Israelis. So to be extremely clear YOUR FRAMING IS FACTUALLY WRONG. The PA has recognized Israel, supports the two state solution. The PA is so actively trying to supress radicals that if you look around this thread you will see people accusing it of being collaborationists. And what do they get in response? Colonization, occupation, apartheid, and pogroms. If Israel achieves its war goals and eliminates Hamas from Gaza, the result will be that that insufferable misery also extended there. The Palestinians are literally given a choice of genocide or apartheid, of a quick fiery death or a slow bleeding death. This is Israel’s policy and it isn’t just Bibi, it is the Israeli state policy of the last 30 fucking years.

No, it is an attempt (maybe ham fisted, in which case I apologize) to make you reflect on whether you have the cultural middleware to really understand that 50 years of occupation is not “forever”, that longer timelines have existed. It’s a call to examine your assumptions.

What absolute position? I wrote a whole paragraph after the bit that you quote exactly on why it is not an absolute position.

Justice by the way does not mean that Palestinians get everything. It means that they get enough to feel that they have gotten a deal they can live with. Ireland is a fantastic example here actually. The Irish didn’t get a united Ireland in the early 20th century, but they got an independent country. And in the next chapter of struggle, the republicans and the unionists again didn’t get everything, but they got enough to get to a place they can live with. But Britain had to fucking let go in both cases. The Israelis have to fucking let go and they have to come to terms with what they’ve done and realize that they will have to pay some kind of reparation at the very least.

I acknowledged that when I said “If a Palestinian leader becomes too moderate, Hamas will do their own thing.”.

Like I told you, it’s Israel that “mows the grass” to make sure no moderate gets ahead. Bargouti is in an Israeli jail.

“what will lead to an enduring peace is actually more important than what is just.”

But that’s the point: if it is not just, it will not be enduring. I don’t understand what is confusing about “no justice no peace”. Justice by the way does not mean that Palestinians get everything. It means that they get enough to feel that they have gotten a deal they can live with. Ireland is a fantastic example here actually. The Irish didn’t get a united Ireland in the early 20th century, but they got an independent country. And in the next chapter of struggle, the republicans and the unionists again didn’t get everything, but they got enough to get to a place they can live with. But Britain had to fucking let go in both cases. The Israelis have to fucking let go and they have to come to terms with what they’ve done and realize that they will have to pay some kind of reparation at the very least.