Should I support the settlers?

This question has been bothering me for quite some time. Let's just lay some groundwork for my frame of reference. Though I am religious, and a Zionist, I am not a religious Zionist, and therefore do not buy that a necessary step of redemption is settlement of the land. Is it possible that the State of Israel has relevance to the redemption? Yes- but not in the way that Religious Zionists have construed it.

Let me first start off by saying that the settlers are, fundamentally speaking, no different than early Zionists who came to settle the land. There is a prevalent attitude that the settlers practice 'not my kind of Zionism.' Zionists tend to ignore the fact, and yes I did say fact, that there were people here before the state. No many, yes, but people were here nonetheless. As such, the current settlers differ in degree and not form. There are more Palestinians now than in 1850 (try over 10 times more)- and they are more so a cohesive unit. The idea of settling the land is Zionist through and through.

So, I don't have a positive reason from the standpoint of Religious Zionism. What about the supposed security they bring? As that is a rather disputable point, I don't see how I could sway definitely on either side. They probably do serve as a front-line bufferzone- but they also piss the Palestinians off (rightly or wrongly) and I'm not sure which is stronger.

What about international law? Well, here's where it becomes problematic. International consensus seems to be that the settlements are illegal. The law itself is not so clear. First of all, '67 would most likely be classified as a defensive law. As such, when Israel captured Judea and Samaria, its occupation thereof would be 'legal.' Perhaps a better word is legitimate. I'm still not clear how this affects the law. Those on the pro-settlement side tend to think that it validates it. Those against, obviously,think it does not.

But, there is a bigger point to be had. Can the 'Palestinian Territories' be properly considered occupied? Since the Arabs refused the Partition plan in 1947, how could it be operative now? In contract law, when one party refuses to comply, the contract is completely void. Although, this seems to bear problems for the legitimacy of Israel itself. It is further argued that since the Partition Plan failed, the British Mandate is still in effect. This either means that the land is completely up for grabs, or that it is slated for Israel. This reasoning sounds a bit dubious- Even Israel agreed to U.N. Resolution 242, (land for peace) and as such, it comes with the implication that Israel will have to give some, even if not all, land towards the Palestinians. (whether as a new state, or as part of Jordan, et al.)

These last two arguments seem to provide legal justification for the settlements. But, even when something is legal, doesn't mean it is moral, or even tactically sound.

A further argument can be made that we ought to support the settlements because of their locations in the heartlands of the previous Jewish state. Hebron, for example, was the original capital of Judah, and the second Temple state was located primarily in Judea. It only later conquered the North, etc. The question here is simple: does the current state of Israel need to acquire contiguity to the previous states? I think this question also has significant bearing on the nature of public religion in the modern state.

I think, at the end of the day, there are certainly two good reasons for 'supporting' the settlers. I put the supporting in quotes because the point is quite vague, and the ways in which I will extend my support aren't really that.

The first is simply that to be against the settlements is to pander to racism. Imagine that a peace deal were struck right now, giving the Palestinians all of Judea and Samaria. Do the Palestinians demand that the setters be evacuated? If so, that's when the true apartheid kicks in. Such a scenario would be likely. So, by evacuating the settlements, Israel would be encouraging apartheid, instead of the opposite. As such, allowing settlements mandates that the future Palestinian state (is it still gonna happen?i dont know anymore) would be morally 'on the level.' It would send the wrong message to the Palestinians to evacuate, as it would legitimize their racism.

However, such a consideration only mandates some settlements. To 'get the point across' Israel would not have to build anymore settlements. And, this would actually be a good thing. Assuming you don't buy into the whole 'Greater Israel' stuff, which, as I mentioned earlier I don't.

The second consideration is perhaps more cynical. In the eyes of public opinion, and in the eyes of foreign leaders, there is a balance to be struck between the competing interests of each party. The less the Israelis 'demand' the closer the pendulum swings towards the Palestinians. But the more radical demands Israel presents, the more the pendulum swings back towards the middle. But, Israel has, as would I, a problem with that- the Jews in Israel have consistently gone out of their way to tell the truth to their detriment.

When confronted by the British to determine who should take control of the Wall, the Jews argued that it belongs to G-d. The Arabs, on the other hand, staked full claim on it. Guess who won?

So, by having a faction that demands all of Israel, that becomes the radical sentiment. As soon as that is disbanded, then Zionism itself becomes the most radical claim available, marginalizing it, and making a 'one state' solution the only one available.