I was text interviewed for an Italian outlet. I received an email, responded, was asked two additional questions of clarification and here I am: (translation via ChatGPT)
[For text of the full correspondence, see at end]
Israeli settler: “The violent ones? Three hundred young men”
Journalist Medad even denies the Palestinian question: “We have the right to live here”
.png)
Medad, on what basis does an Israeli claim the right to live and build in the West Bank, which much of the international community considers occupied Palestinian territory?
“The fact that the international community considers Judea and Samaria occupied territories does not mean that they are. In 1922, fifty-five countries of the League of Nations recognized the right of the Jews to reestablish their historic national homeland.”
But the UN Security Council subsequently stated that settlements in territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity, and in 2024 the International Court of Justice ruled that the settlement policy is contrary to international law.
“I do not base the rights of the Jews on the League of Nations or on the UN Security Council. The right exists and is applicable even without recognition. It is based on three thousand years of Jewish presence in the land of kings, priests and prophets, psalms and revolts, olive trees and vineyards.”
If this right applies to Israelis, what equivalent right do you recognize for Palestinians who have lived there for generations?
“Arabs, like Druze and anyone else, can live there. But they do not have the right to carry out terrorist acts against Jews, which they have been doing since 1920.”
Terrorism: the same term used to describe the siege of Qusra by the American ambassador to Israel. Do you think the definition should change if the aggressor is Israeli?
“It should not change. Anyone who attacks civilians is a terrorist. Huckabee, however, is wrong in how he characterizes certain incidents; one has to have a sense of proportion. I checked, for example, the statistics on sexual violence in Italy: would it be justified to call Lombards ‘sexual terrorists’ because many cases are reported in Lombardy? No.”
But Palestinians repeatedly report assaults, arson and attacks on villages.
“All violence is wrong. But there is much more violence perpetrated by Arabs against Jews, and it is also more lethal. I am surprised that the world's attention is so one-sided.”
When Palestinian villages are attacked, don't you think that the settler movement bears political responsibility?
“No. That violence is the result of the failure of the education provided by parents and religious authority. I must, however, emphasize that Arab violence is tolerated and even praised, especially in Europe, by ‘progressive’ forces. This makes it difficult to explain here to these 300 young men that violence does not work.”
You speak of Judea and Samaria as part of the Land of Israel. Does that mean that, in your view, there should not be a Palestinian state in the West Bank?
“Exactly. I am convinced that the real objective of the Palestinians is not to have their own state, which they could have had in 1937, 1947 and 1967, but to deny the Jews a state.”
But if you reject the two-state solution outright, what is the concrete alternative for millions of Palestinians?
“We could try autonomy and see what happens.”
Can Israelis and Palestinians really coexist in the same territory without having the same rights?
“If there were no terrorism and incitement to violence, there would be no restrictions. In Italy, for example, millions of foreigners live without Italian citizenship.”
What is the political objective of the settler movement?
“To guarantee the continuity of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria.”
The problem is how. Imagine that your political vision were fully realized: twenty years from now, who would govern the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?
“Israel will be the sovereign power. An Arab could be an Israeli citizen, or a resident without citizenship, or could once again become a Jordanian citizen. Or perhaps we could learn something from South Tyrol.”
“If he says so.” [Se lo dice lui — the journalist's closing, slightly ironic, comment.]
And here are a couple of nuances in the Italian (added by ChatGPT)
There are a few places where the Italian framing is somewhat sharper than your actual answers:
- “nega persino la questione palestinese” literally means “even denies the Palestinian question.” That is the journalist's characterization; your answer itself does not deny that Palestinians exist or that they have rights to live there.
- “I violenti? Trecento ragazzi” is a headline, roughly “The violent ones? Three hundred young men.” It refers to your statement that it is difficult to explain to “these 300 young men” that violence does not work.
- “colono” means “settler.” It is not necessarily derogatory in Italian, but colono israeliano is the terminology the newspaper chose.
- Your South Tyrol/Alto Adige analogy is particularly interesting because it invokes a model of territorial autonomy within a sovereign state rather than partition into two sovereign states.
Also, the headline “abbiamo diritto a vivere qui” (“we have the right to live here”) is not actually a verbatim quotation appearing in your answers as reproduced below it; it is the newspaper's headline characterization of your position.
P.S. My final line to him was:
"Of course, I have kept my replies short and concise but the issue is quite complicated."
I do not think I convinced him of the practicality that a democratic, binational society in which Jews and Arabs live together without ethnic domination cannot exist.
-----
I found there this interview too: (translation via ChatGPT)
West Bank, No Other Land activist: “An ethnic-cleansing campaign is underway”
Huraini, Palestinian reporter: “There is no everyday life there; Israeli settlers continue with complete impunity.”
Rome, August 17, 2026 —
“On the 19th of last month, late at night, more than 40 masked Israeli settlers broke into At-Tuwani. I was with my cousins when we heard desperate screams coming from my house: they were my sisters. They were sleeping when the settlers began smashing the windows in order to throw gasoline inside. They wanted to burn my family members alive.
For the first time in my life I felt completely helpless: I was alone against forty of them, and the only ‘weapon’ I had in my hand was my camera. My neighbor lost the baby she was carrying because of the terror of those scenes.”
It is through his own story that Mohammad Hesham Huraini, a Palestinian reporter and activist from Masafer Yatta, describes the West Bank today. Huraini collaborated on No Other Land, the Oscar-winning documentary.
“A huge campaign of ethnic cleansing is being carried out by Israeli settlers with complete impunity.”
What is everyday life like there?
“There is no everyday life. We wake up in the morning to demolitions and in the evening we witness pogroms. We cannot even move from one village to another because of army and police roadblocks and the continuous attacks by settlers. Going to the doctor or buying food is an ordeal.”
How do the people who live there make a living?
“Securing an income is complicated. Since October 7, 2023, most of the people who worked inside ‘48”—in Palestinian terminology, the Israeli territory within the Green Line—“have lost their jobs and no one has been able to return there.”
Are you more afraid of violence, or of gradually being forced to abandon those lands?
“The greatest fear is facing the daily threat of death.”
U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee has called those responsible for the siege “Israeli terrorists.” Can words like these really make a difference?
“They are important, but they are not enough. Real pressure is needed from the European governments and the United States.”
Israel will go to the polls again on October 27. Do you hope the election can change anything?
“For the Palestinians, little or nothing will change. The settlers are taking advantage of the election period: they know that the government needs their votes, so they attack knowing that they will never be stopped.”
Do you still believe that Israelis and Palestinians can live together?
“Every time a solution has been proposed, Israel has destroyed it because it does not believe in peace, but only in the displacement of Palestinians. We are human beings, not numbers.”
After the Oscar, it seemed that the world had become aware of No Other Land. Do the people who live there feel that anyone is still watching?
“Precisely after that recognition, the filmmakers became the principal targets of attacks, arrests and detentions. The 96 minutes of the documentary showed our past life; the reality we have been experiencing from October 7 until today is even more insane and brutal than what was shown in the film.”
You mentioned October 7. Beyond the horror, don't you think that massacre caused enormous political and moral damage to the Palestinian cause?
“I prefer not to answer this question because the issue is not about October 7: the occupation already existed beforehand, as did the attacks, pogroms and killings of Palestinians.”
And ChatGPT added
A couple of points worth noting
The Italian interviewer uses “pogrom” (pogrom) in the questions/description as well as Huraini using the term in his answer. I have retained it rather than softening it to “attacks.”
Also, “inside the ‘48” is Huraini's terminology for Israel within the Green Line. The Italian journalist actually inserts an explanatory parenthesis making this explicit.
One potentially important point for your purposes: the article is not an independent report of the alleged July 19 incident. It is an interview in which Huraini gives his own account and characterization of events. The article does not provide corroborating evidence for his claims about the settlers, nor does it present an Israeli response.
_________________________________
My responses to a questionaire sent by Antonio Del Prete, Responsabile Redazione Interni/Esteri - QN Quotidiano Nazionale, in Bologna, Italy:
Dear Antonio,
Allow me to respond from my personal/private gmail as I am retired from the Begin Center (although I still do research there) and my opinions are solely mine.
"Let me startt with the fundamental question: why should an Israeli have the right to live and build in the West Bank, in territory that most of the international community regards as occupied? Is that right historical, religious, legal or political?
That the international community regards Judea and Samaria as occupied does not make those territories so. They may be technically under belligerent occupation but that is but a legal technicality. In 1922, based on the San Remo Conference of April 1920, the right of Jews to reestablish their historic national homeland was recognized in international law by 55 nations of the League of Nations. By the way, at San Remo, Italy played an important part. The official minutes for 25 April 1920, when the Palestine mandate resolution was adopted, list Francesco Saverio Nitti — Prime Minister, and chairman of the meeting; Vittorio Scialoja — Foreign Minister and Italian secretaries: Garbasso, Galli, Trombetti and Lt. Zanchi who were present at the San Remo Conference. That, of course, followed the 1919 Versailles Peace Treaty. The right to reside in these areas is the natural, historical, legal and religious right of Jews based on a 3,000 presence in the Land, of kings and priests and prophets, of psalms and revolts, of olives and grapes - and a constant residency even after dispersion and conquest all throughout the centuries, especially in Jerusalem and Hebron.
If that right applies to Israelis, what equivalent right do you recognise for Palestinians who have lived there for generations? When those rights clash, who should decide which one prevails?
Arabs - and Druze and anyone else - can live there. One right they do not possess is to conduct terror against Jews which they have been doing since 1920.
You speak of Judea and Samaria as part of the Land of Israel. Does that mean that, in your view, there should ultimately be no Palestinian state in the West Bank?
Yes. I am convinced their utmost goal is not their own state - which they could have had in 1937, 1947, 1967 and so forth - but to deny Jews a state. I do not need to reward them for their failure to eliminate Jews. They could have had autonomy of a condominium with Jordan. It's their choice to keep losing. Besides, the two-state solution is actually a four-state solution as Jordan, separated from the Palestine Mandate in 1922 by Churchill, is properly "Palestinian" (and so is the majority of its population if we want to be exact) and Gaza will never accept rule by the PLO in Ramallah. And besides, why should there be three Arab uni-ethnic states but just one Israel with 20% Arab population?
If the two-state solution is dead, what is the concrete alternative for millions of Palestinians?
Israeli citizenship with full political rights, limited autonomy, or permanent life without sovereignty? We could try autonomy and see what happens. Unfortunately, after 30 years+ since Oslo they have done abolsutley nothing in state-building.
Can coexistence genuinely exist when Israelis and Palestinians living in the same territory are subject to different legal systems, different restrictions on movement and different levels of protection?
A. if there was no terror, incitement to violence, there would be no restrictions.
B. Did you know that as of January 1, 2026, ISTAT (the Italian National Institute of Statistics) reported that 5,560,000 foreign residents with non-Italian citizenship live in Italy, making up about 9.4% of the country's total population? I presume they all have mostly the same rights except for voting and being elected. I am sure similar situations exist all over Europe. It could work in Israel + Judea and Samaria as well. By the way, I am not at all convinced there is a separate, distinct national grouping called 'Palestinian Arabs'.
Palestinians argue that the expansion of settlements, outposts and roads is making territorial separation physically impossible. Is creating an irreversible reality on the ground part of the political objective?
It should be.
How do you judge violence committed by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians, and how significant do you believe this phenomenon is today in the West Bank?
All violence is wrong, immoral and criminal unless exercised by authoritative state agencies. As there is much more violence perpetrated by Arabs against Jews - more deadly, too - I am amazed of the world's attention being one-sided.
When fields are burned, residents assaulted or Palestinian villages attacked, does the settlement movement bear any political responsibility beyond the criminal responsibility of the individuals involved? Directly?
No. It is a failure of education, parental guidance and religious authority. It is a wrong ideological orientation and immoral. However, I must point out that Arab violence is tolerated and even praised especially in Europe by 'progressive' forces which makes it difficult here to tell these 300 youngsters that violence doesn't work.
Mike Huckabee, who has long been one of the strongest American supporters of the settlement movement, has used the word “terrorism” in relation to violence by Israelis against Palestinians. If the same act were committed by a Palestinian against an Israeli family, it would certainly be called terrorism. Why should the definition change when the attacker is Israeli?
He was wrong, as he was at the incident in Taybeh [https://tps.co.il/articles/burning-questions-what-really-happened-at-taybehs-church/]. No definition should change. Persons attacking civilians uninvolved in violence are engaging in terror. Of course, there is also perspective and proportion. I checked stats for sexual violence in Italy and found that in 2024, 6,831 rapes occurred in the country. Lombardy was the region with the highest reports nationwide, with over one thousand cases of sexual violence in 2022. Would I be justified in thinking Lombardy people are sexual terrorists? P.S. I wouldn't.
Palestinians also describe a more gradual form of pressure: grazing livestock next to homes, blocking access, intimidation and repeated harassment until families eventually leave. If the result is the depopulation of a Palestinian community, is that not a form of displacement?
A. As Regavim has been reporting for years, Arabs are being funded to move into Area C and take over state land. There is a counter move on. Almost all of the incidents involve this type of Arab incursion, but not all.
B. In 1948, some 15,000 Jews were displaced from Jerusalem, its neighborhoods and other communities due to the Jordanian invasion and subsequent illegal occupation. Did they have rights? Why not?
What, ultimately, is the political objective of the settlement movement? To live alongside Palestinians, to incorporate the West Bank permanently into Israel, or to create a Jewish-majority territory in which the Palestinian presence is progressively reduced?
I would think to assure continued Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. If I can quote Ze'ev Jabotinsky from 1923: "I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo. But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism."
Imagine that your political vision is fully realised. Twenty years from now, what does the map between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea look like? And what status does a Palestinian currently living in Tuba, Qusra or Al-Mughayyir have?
Israel is the sovereign power there and the Arab in Qusra is either a citizen of Israel, a resident non-citizen or a re-citizen of Jordan (Arabs there possessed Jordanian citizenship until 1988) or perhaps we could learn from South Tyrol?
Of course, I have kept my replies short and concise but the issue is quite complicated.
P.S.
Oh. And one more thing, a "der Treppenwitz" matter, regarding "settlement".
It is a legal right guaranteed to the Jews as found in Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine decision:
"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."
And, of course, the territory then of the Jewish historic homeland envisioned was at least from the sea to the Jordan River.
There was a follow-up:
Thank you very much for your previous answers and for taking the time to respond so fully. I would be grateful if you could also answer these two follow-up questions:
You base the legal right of Jews to settle in the West Bank on Article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. However, the UN Security Council has repeatedly taken a different position: Resolution 446 stated that Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity, and Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that they constitute a flagrant violation of international law. In 2024, the International Court of Justice also found Israel’s settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territory to be contrary to international law. On what legal basis do you consider a provision of the 1922 Mandate to remain controlling today while rejecting these subsequent UN resolutions and the conclusions of the ICJ?
A. To be precise: I do not base the Jews' right on the League of Nations nor the UN Security Council. They recognized that right. That right exists and is applicable even without that recognition, or for that matter, non-recognition. I am sure Italians did not need, for example, Garibaldi's One Thousand volunteers in 1860-61 to create a right to a united Italy.
The same Article 6 that you cite also states that Jewish settlement should be encouraged while ensuring that “the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced.” How do you reconcile that condition with settlement expansion, restrictions on access to land and the displacement of Palestinian communities in the West Bank?
If you review that entire decision, Arabs are not mentioned once. Not at all. The League of Nations knew of Jews and non-Jews: Arabs, Germans, Armenians, Turks, Italians, Christians (of a half-dozen denominations), Alawites, Bahais, Sunni & Shi'ite Muslims. All were "existing non-Jewish communities". Arabs were awarded after WW One Saudi Arabia, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan from the former Ottoman Empire, not to mention the later Arab states of today, almost 30 in North Africa and Middle East including a few countries built entirely around oil refineries. There was no "Palestinian people/nation" then for sure.
^
Posts
