Israeli government seen accepting new settlement freeze

[donsutherland1]

Respecting international law is not a "concession".

Ultimately, all final status issues, including the status of East Jerusalem will have to be resolved in negotiations. It should be noted that the UNSC's speaking on East Jerusalem all followed the 1967 war. No similarly specific resolutions were directed at Jordan when Jordan had conquered East Jerusalem. Putting all those resolutions aside and the UN's omissions following the 1948 war, the challenge of resolving East Jerusalem's status remains. A negotiated outcome is essential. Neither the UN nor any single party can impose a solution outside of negotiations and then expect that the solution would be viewed as legitimate.

The Israeli should be happy that the Palestinians seem to accept that the border won't be the legal, 1967 one, and that some of the biggest colonies in Palestine will remain under Israeli control. That is a concession.

From the "Eretz Israel" perspective, one could similarly argue that the Palestinians should be happy that Israel is offering them any land at all given the Arabs' attempt to conquer Israel. The reality is that neither viewpoint is accurate. Either position is largely an attempt to substitute imaginary concessions for substantive ones. Those arguments are little more than attempts to avoid making substantive concessions, even as substantive concessions from both parties will be required if a peace agreement is to be reached.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Great. How was this freeze accomplished or how long will it last? Oh lets see it was accomplished with the US government paying 20 F-35 fighters in three months and as long as Palestine AND ISRAEL work towards peace. So this won't last for too long.

There is nothing here, really. This is just another unilateral concession from the Israelis, as the US promises was stuff that was happening anyways or otherwise empty nothing that the administration can disown (like it did Bush's letter to Sharon which was used to extract previous concessions).

But yes, this will make no difference. Abbas will then move on to his next item on the List of grievances (or invent more if he can't find any readily available) and use the new greivance as an excuse not to negotiate.

He will then start negotiating close to the deadline, reiterate his list of maximalist demands, and break off negotiations once this most recent concession expires.

We will then rinse and repeat yet again.

The Palestinians have never and are not working towards peace. Which is why none of this could ever go anywhere.

.

 

[bub]

Sorry, who made the 67 border the legal one? I must have missed that.

That's the internationally recognized one

In any event, can you also follow up on which of your cites to Security Council resolutions cited binding resolutions as opposed to non-binding ones?

Cause the security council can pass both.

Thanks

No idea but that doesn't change much, they're not applied anyways

 

[bub]

Ultimately, all final status issues, including the status of East Jerusalem will have to be resolved in negotiations. It should be noted that the UNSC's speaking on East Jerusalem all followed the 1967 war.

No one recognises the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, even in 2010.

No similarly specific resolutions were directed at Jordan when Jordan had conquered East Jerusalem. Putting all those resolutions aside and the UN's omissions following the 1948 war, the challenge of resolving East Jerusalem's status remains. A negotiated outcome is essential. Neither the UN nor any single party can impose a solution outside of negotiations and then expect that the solution would be viewed as legitimate.

That's a bit easy: let's invade and occupy as much as we can, then we bargain these territories so we can at least keep a small part of it. IMO there is nothing to bargain as no one outside of Israel recognises that the occupation/annexation/colonies as legitimate.

From the "Eretz Israel" perspective, one could similarly argue that the Palestinians should be happy that Israel is offering them any land at all given the Arabs' attempt to conquer Israel. The reality is that neither viewpoint is accurate. Either position is largely an attempt to substitute imaginary concessions for substantive ones. Those arguments are little more than attempts to avoid making substantive concessions, even as substantive concessions from both parties will be required if a peace agreement is to be reached.

The difference between Eretz Israel and the 1967 border is that the 1967 borders are internationally recognized as the borders of Israel.

 

[Mika-El]

Netanyahu is stuck in the role of reactor not initiator thanks to the U.S. and the European Union and the United Nations all siding with Mr.Abbas and the P.A. on the issue of the settlement freeze. By refusing to remain neutral and by siding with Mr. Abbas they then force Netanyahu's hand not to back down otherwise look weak which then in turn forces the U.S. to then have to create the silly game of pretending to give Israel F 35 jets to get it to approve of a freeze so Netanyahu can save face in front of his own right wingers.

There was a not so subtle freeze already on. The F 35 play is designed to preempt critics like Lieberman from calling Netanyahu weak. If people were to butt out and shut up and not take sides, each time Abbas plays his its my way or I leave card if the settlements are not continued, they would be quietly frozen with no fan fare and no attention brought to that and both sides would continue to negotiate.

Abbas whines, the European Union, Obama and Union flop all over each other cheering his demands for freeze on, and it leaves Netanyahu clearly looking like he is ganged up on.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand while negotiations for a territory are on, players such as the European Union, the UN, the U.S. should not however well intentioned they think they are being, demand settlement freezes and other concessions from Israel. If that does not come about because of a mutual agreement between Israel and the P.A. on their own but instead these parties try force it on Israel, Netanyahu can't find the room to negotiate.

Its time everyone shut up on the world stage and let the parties be, to talk on their own.

I said it before I say it again-its all melodrama at this point with both sides trying to save face and posture precisely because the Euro Union, UN, the U.S., and so many others just can't resist yapping during times they should remain silent and work behind the scenes and not make comments to the press to try pressure one or the other party.

 

[CJ 2.0]

That's the internationally recognized one

so?

No idea but that doesn't change much, they're not applied anyways

Actually, it changes everything if you actually weant to talk about legality, rather than assess where you want to end up normatively.

But since you started talking about legality, would seem this is directly related, and critically important, to its assessment.

 

[Mika-El]

No one recognises the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, even in 2010.

Two things. Firstly, no the pre 1967 border of Israel has never been recognized internationally ever.

Secondly and I hate to be picky on the matter but The Tennessee River Band of Chickamaugan Cherokee did announce full recognition of the State of Israel and as its capital, the undivided city of Jerusalem and recognizes the Jewish people as the sole owners of all land west of the Jordan River, in which was formerly known as Palestine.

Interestingly the Cherokee nation has very close ties with the State of Israel.

 

[donsutherland1]

No one recognises the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, even in 2010.

I'm not arguing that the Israeli annexation is not disputed. It is. But the roots of that dispute do not begin in 1967, even as possession changed in 1967.

The difference between Eretz Israel and the 1967 border is that the 1967 borders are internationally recognized as the borders of Israel.

The fact is that the pre-1967 war boundary was not a recognized boundary. It was comprised of demarcation lines, all of which were explicit on two points: (1) they were intended only to separate the opposing military forces and (2) the armistice lines did not constitute permanent borders.

The parties were left to work out agreed borders. While any of the parties could seek to make the demarcation lines permanent, no party is obligated to do so. Ultimately, negotiations will be necessary to establish agreed borders. Until such negotiations are concluded with agreement, the issues concerning the borders of the West Bank and status of East Jerusalem will remain unresolved in technical parlance.

 

[Mika-El]

Let's talk about the reality of Jerusalem and this issue of East Jerusalem not being recognize by the international community as part of Israel.

The fact that East Jerusalem is considered by the P.A. and the UN part of territory that does not form part of Israel does NOT under international law preclude Israel from setting up West Jerusalem as its capital which it has.

Let us not confuse the two issues. Not recognizing West Jerusalem is part of Israel is b.s. It is and always was. Saying Israel can not have a capital their mistates the issue of not recognizing Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem. They are two seperate issues no one takes the time to recognize as such.

Furthermore it never ceases to amaze me the number of arm chair experts who have never been to Israel who talk as if they understand the complexity of this 3,000 year old city and can simply arbitrarily say it belongs to the Palestinians or must be shared between two nations.

First of all there is no precedent for two cities sharing the same capital.

The reasons for that are obvious and one only need to look at Jerusalem to understand why.

In the real world and not on the internet in threads, Jerusalem is a densley populated, and unbroken urban centre which sprawls and Jewish and Arab populations are mixed together and not seperate.

This necessarily means for you experts who want to divide the city, that if you tried to divide Jerusalem physically into two nations with an international border running through it, the actual physical distance between I would suggest most of the Jewish neighborhoods in the city and their counterpart Arab neighborhoods would be in such close distance to constitute light-weapon range. So small in fact we are talking not hundreds of meters but tens of meters and people who have not been to the city do not understand how small and crowded a place it is and why two nations would be not just in shooting distance of one another or hand grenade distance, but literally spitting distance.

Who in their right mind sets up borders this close?


More to the point which genius will assure that the Arab and Jews who then find themselves in the border neighborhoods won't abandon the city causing economic blight and collapse?

It already happened once before. In 1948,1/4 of the Jewish population of about 25,000 Hews moved away from the city because of close by terror attacks.

Does anyone think any nation given the terrorism that has gone on in the Middle East would agree to a border with potential terrorists 10 metres away from it?

Since 1967, it is believed that about 190,000 Jews now live in himes in Eastern Jerusalem built on land that was annexed to the city in 1967. This would include a
government compound at Sheikh Jarrah, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem campus and Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopu as well as hotels along what is called Route 1.

Appocolypse of actual Israelis living in Jerusalem can correct me if I am wrong on the geographic locations and size. I make no claims to remembering actual distances and space as accurately as they could.

To think all this land would just be handed back to the P.A. is naive.

Interestingly as well, what we also k now is that when the security fence was built on the northern extreme of Jerusalem's borders, many thousands of Palestinians moved to the Israeli side.

What this clearly shows is even if Israel were to agree to giving back parts of Jerusalem to the P.A. for a Palestinian nation on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, thousands of Palestinians would flock to Israel and not want to remain outside Israel as the standard of living for them is far higher in Israel then it would be in a new Palestinian state or for that matter any where in the Arab League of States today.

Palestinians are not stupid. They are not about to give up Israeli citizenship if it means going down in life style.

Sure East Jerusalem Arabs identify with the P.A. but in the real world such ideology becomes secondary to the material benefits of remaining an Israeli and East Jerusalem Palestinians have made this already clear.

As recently as february of 2008, a survery showed the majority would not wish to leace Israel.

Then on top of all the above complex issues, we also have to deal with the fact that there are nuemrous Christian churches with legal rights to much of Jerusalem land and they would have to be consulted and may very well not want to be part of an Israeli or Palestinian state and demand their lands become international outposts like embassies which would take up as much as 80% of the land in the core of Jerusalem.

Tnen there would be all the legal rights to title of Jews on the East side and Arabs on the West side that would have to be dealt with.

So its easy to turn this issue into black and white ones with the aggrieved Palestinians demanding East Jerusalem and all of the West Bank but its a bit more complex then that.

 

[Mika-El]

To be clear on the size of Jerusalem it is as follows:

1-a total size pf 126,000 dunams or 31,500 acres

2-Eastern Jerusalem includes territories annexed to Jerusalem immediately
following the Six-Day War, to the east, north, and south of the city

3- before 1967, Israeli Jerusalem was 38,000 dunams or 9,500 acrea in size and rthe Jordanian section was 6,000 dunams pr 1,500 acres)

4-after the 1967 war, Israel Israel annexed the “Jordanian city” portion of Jerusalem and an additional 64,000 dunams or 16,000 acres which in fact came from absorbing 28 surrounding villages

5- additional land was then annexed from the west side of the city (land within pre 1967 Israel) in 1990bringing the total size of Jerusalem up to 126,000 dunams or 31,500 acres.

You can check out the above size on atlases.


Now compare that to cities of comparable size. Try yours. Imagine running a country border through the middle of your suburbs.

 

[Mika-El]

In terms of security in Jerusalem consider this.

1-after the 2nd intifada that began in 2000, there were 600 attacks (including
30 suicide attacks) in the city by mid-November 2004, that kilked 210 people and injured
thousands

2-suicide attacks on buses, cafés, and on the open streets killed 174,
while 14 were killed by gunfire

3- Bombs exploded on 173 occasions

4-32 Molotov cocktails and ten grenades were thrown; and 12 mortar
shells were fired at Jerusalem.


5-once the partial construction of a barrier around Jerusalem and the return of the Israel
Defense Forces to Arab towns and villages surrounding the city in Operation Defensive
Shield (2002) the terrorism ended.


The source for all my info comes from:

http://www.jcpa.org/text/shragai_last2.pdf

U.S. State department

CIA reports

Wikipedia

 

[Demon of Light]

neither does continuing with it....

Don went right on and contradicted you so I see no need to add harm to injury.

I would add that a permanent freeze might actually undermine prospects for a negotiated outcome. If the Palestinians realized that there were no opportunity costs associated with intransigence e.g., no existing settlements would reach critical population/infrastructure mass that would lead to a risk (not certainty) of their being retained by Israel, they can hold out looking for additional Israeli concessions. If, on the other hand, the Palestinians concluded that there was a risk (not certainty) that delay would lead to less generous settlement parameters than would otherwise be available, then they would have an incentive to negotiate and reach agreement before such a prospect would be realized.

It sounds like you are suggesting a diplomatic game of chicken, only it is like a Pinto taking on a semi.

 

[donsutherland1]

It sounds like you are suggesting a diplomatic game of chicken, only it is like a Pinto taking on a semi.

IMO, there are limits on how much of the West Bank Israel could retain under unilateral disengagement, even if the Palestinians abandon negotiations. Somewhere in the vicinity of 20% +/- a few percentage points is probably realistic (main settlement blocs + largest non-block settlements + continuity). Genuine legitimacy issues would arise if Israel attempted to retain too large a portion of the West Bank. My point is that if the Palestinians are forced to confront a choice of gaining no more than let's say 80% of the West Bank on account of the opportunity costs of delay vs. 95%-100% (inclusive of land swaps) in a near-term settlement, the Palestinians would have an incentive to try to lock in an arrangement toward the latter outcome. IMO, the Palestinians should focus the early portion of talks on settling the boundaries, especially as that would also resolve the settlements issue. Whether they will return to talks, much less focus on reaching an expedited border agreement remains to be seen.

 

[ido_]

Since 1967, it is believed that about 190,000 Jews now live in himes in Eastern Jerusalem built on land that was annexed to the city in 1967. This would include a
government compound at Sheikh Jarrah, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem campus and Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopu as well as hotels along what is called Route 1.

Actually Mount Scopus was always Israeli and not annexed in 67. It was an Israeli enclave inside Jordan

 

[bub]

I'm not arguing that the Israeli annexation is not disputed. It is. But the roots of that dispute do not begin in 1967, even as possession changed in 1967.

I hope you are aware that there is a worldwide consensus on this question.

The fact is that the pre-1967 war boundary was not a recognized boundary. It was comprised of demarcation lines, all of which were explicit on two points: (1) they were intended only to separate the opposing military forces and (2) the armistice lines did not constitute permanent borders.

The parties were left to work out agreed borders. While any of the parties could seek to make the demarcation lines permanent, no party is obligated to do so. Ultimately, negotiations will be necessary to establish agreed borders. Until such negotiations are concluded with agreement, the issues concerning the borders of the West Bank and status of East Jerusalem will remain unresolved in technical parlance.

The question of whether, or to what extent, Israel should withdraw its population and forces to its side of the Green Line remains a crucial issue in some discussions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though the subject is relatively uncontroversial in the international political community. The near-unanimous international consensus has been displayed in the yearly UN General Assembly vote on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Although disputed by the official Israeli position, UN resolution 242 [17][18][19] [20][21][22][23] and the International Court of Justice[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] have made clear the interpretation of international law regarding Palestinian Territory.

Green Line (Israel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bub]

IMO, there are limits on how much of the West Bank Israel could retain under unilateral disengagement

I always find it funny how we talk about "unilateral disengagement" or "unilateral concessions". Should we also talk about "unilateral colonization" and "unilateral violation of international law"?

 

[donsutherland1]

I hope you are aware that there is a worldwide consensus on this question.

I'm well aware of the UNGA's repeated positions on the issue. But that sentiment is largely irrelevant. If anything, the subjective view that ignores the careful but explicit language in the 1949 armistice agreements, probably facilitates intransigence by the Palestinians who have been led to believe they are entitled to certain territory. The great tragedy is that such intransigence doesn't benefit the Palestinians, especially as the impotent UNGA's ritual votes ring hollow in terms of concreteness. Ultimately, what is relevant is that Israel and the Palestinians need to negotiate an agreed solution and, to reach such an outcome, both sides will need to compromise. My guess is that the Palestinians still have an opportunity to receive 95% +/- a few percentage points of the West Bank inclusive of land swaps.

 

[Degreez]

I'm well aware of the UNGA's repeated positions on the issue. But that sentiment is largely irrelevant. If anything, the subjective view that ignores the careful but explicit language in the 1949 armistice agreements, probably facilitates intransigence by the Palestinians who have been led to believe they are entitled to certain territory. The great tragedy is that such intransigence doesn't benefit the Palestinians, especially as the impotent UNGA's ritual votes ring hollow in terms of concreteness. Ultimately, what is relevant is that Israel and the Palestinians need to negotiate an agreed solution and, to reach such an outcome, both sides will need to compromise. My guess is that the Palestinians still have an opportunity to receive 95% +/- a few percentage points of the West Bank inclusive of land swaps.

How is it "largely irrelevant"?

I'm guessing you would have us all believe that acquisition of territory by force is "largely irrelevant" too.

What is laughable is you bringing up the 1949 Armisitice Agreement, knowing that Israel violated the agreement within months by expelling the villagers of Wadi Fukin and destroying their homes, while also massacring villagers in Qibya.

 

[donsutherland1]

How is it "largely irrelevant"?

For starters, the UNGA's opinions are not binding.

I'm guessing you would have us all believe that acquisition of territory by force is "largely irrelevant" too.

There are distinctions between defensive and offensive wars. Moreover, the fundamental issue remains achieving an agreement to end the dispute over boundaries that preceded the pre-1967 war lines.

What is laughable is you bringing up the 1949 Armisitice Agreement, knowing that Israel violated the agreement within months by expelling the villagers of Wadi Fukin and destroying their homes, while also massacring villagers in Qibya.

That both sides were engaged in reprisals and counter-reprisals doesn't change the nature of the demarcation lines. They were temporary lines to separate the opposing military forces. They were not permanent boundaries.

 

[Degreez]

For starters, the UNGA's opinions are not binding.

So because something is not legally binding it is "largely irrelelvant"?

There are distinctions between defensive and offensive wars. Moreover, the fundamental issue remains achieving an agreement to end the dispute over boundaries that preceded the pre-1967 war lines.

Of course there are distinctions. One is defensive, the other is offensive. That still does not address the problem Israel has created by acquiring territory by force.

That both sides were engaged in reprisals and counter-reprisals doesn't change the nature of the demarcation lines. They were temporary lines to separate the opposing military forces. They were not permanent boundaries.

No one has suggested they are permanent borders. And yes, violating an agreement nullifies it.

 

[donsutherland1]

In message #20 in this thread, I expressed my concern that it is not assured that the Palestinians or Arab League would accept the U.S.-Israel 90-day settlement construction freeze. I noted that I suspect that the Palestinians have made a strategic choice to de-emphasize the negotiating process and, if that is the case, the Palestinians would look for arguments/excuses why the latest deal is insufficient. In inventing new excuses for avoiding direct negotiations, the Palestinians would rationalize their strategic choice to push for a unilateral outcome rather than a negotiated one.

Today, The Jerusalem Post reported:

Palestinian refusal to return to the negotiating table even if a 90-day settlement freeze is in place has delayed the anticipated agreement between Israel and the US for a package of incentives in exchange for such a moratorium, The Jerusalem Post has learned from sources close to the issue.

As a result, there is no formal document to date which sets out the terms of the incentive package which was hammered out last Thursday in a day long meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Should the Palestinians persist in their boycott of direct negotiations, the U.S. should provide Israel with the written package. Israel should then make the difficult choice to accept it. Then, if the Palestinians maintain their boycott of negotiations, the U.S. should unambiguously make clear that the Palestinians bear the entire responsibility and consequences for their strategic choice to avoid negotiations, with consequences including a loss of U.S. diplomatic support for the duration of their boycott and a requirement that the Palestinians will need to enter into a formal bilateral commitment not to abandon talks again if the U.S. is to resume a mediating role in future negotiations. Any breach of that bilateral agreement would result in a loss of U.S. diplomatic support, along with the risk of a loss of U.S. economic, financial, and technical assistance on account of the Palestinians' undermining the U.S. interest in promoting increased regional stability. At the same time, the clock should be permitted to run on the settlement construction pause beginning on the date Israel accepts it regardless of whether the Palestinians choose to avoid or participate in negotiations.

In general, the Palestinians should be grateful to the U.S. for the U.S.'s having provided Israel with compensation for Israel's concession. That reciprocity is something that the Palestinians, not the U.S. should be providing. However, considering that the Palestinians might have made a strategic choice to abandon negotiations, gestures that fall well short of Palestinian maximum demands could well prove insufficient in bringing the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Ultimately, if the Palestinians wind up in a situation where they gain much less of the West Bank than would have been the case under a negotiated outcome, their losses will have been entirely avoidable and completely self-inflicted.

 

[donsutherland1]

So because something is not legally binding it is "largely irrelelvant"?

The GA's resolutions are opinion. Nothing more. They have no constructive impact on the issues/differences that need to be resolved in bilateral negotiations. If anything, the GA's meddling might well have undermined the negotiating process by giving the Palestinians a sense of entitlement that pushed them toward greater intransigence. Hence, a large number of states that have no interests whatsoever in the dispute--mere sentiments don't constitute interests--might well have undermined prospects of achieving peace among the two peoples who have the most to gain from peace and most to lose from a perpetuation of the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

 

[Mika-El]

Actually Mount Scopus was always Israeli and not annexed in 67. It was an Israeli enclave inside Jordan

I beg your pardon. Yes indeed. I apologize for that error.

 

[Mika-El]

I always find it funny how we talk about "unilateral disengagement" or "unilateral concessions". Should we also talk about "unilateral colonization" and "unilateral violation of international law"?

Are you suggesting neither the P.A. or Hamas has engaged in violation of international law or for that matter any different colonization than Jews? Why is it when a Jew settles in Israel he's called a colonizer but when an Arab settles in Palestine they are simply called a Palestinian?

Take a look at the current trendy anti Israel rhetoric you buy into. Oh I know the script.Any Jew in Israel whether born there or who comes there is referred to as a colonizer. Zionists are colonialists. However any Arab descended from any Arab who was not from Palestine but moved there and displaced Palestinians and has been there just a minimum of two years is defined as Palestinian and is not a colonizer. Who came up with that double standard?

Why when an Arab from outside Palestine came and displaced Palestinians, they were nto colonizers but jews were?

It is precisely that double standard that perpetuates the myth that Muslims and not Jews are indigenous to the Middle East and Israel, the West Bank and parts of Jordan seized by Britain and turned into a Jew free Jordanian state are not a place where Jews are indigenous people.

Sorry but I no more consider a Jew a colonizer then I do an Arab. what an absurd thing to perpetuate. refugees fleeing Arab League States and the holocaust and other nations and their anti-semitism were not colonizers. They were refugees seeking the right of self-determination, something Muslims and Christians take for granted and for some reason when a Jew wants it turns it into a colonial exercise

For that matter if we want to get technical how would a Christian coming to Israel be a colonizer? They too have historic roots to the lands in Jerusalem and West Bank. Should we do as the PA suggests and seize all the church land and declare it sovereign Palestinian soil?

It was in fact Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and an assortment of Americans without the support of their government (as many non Jews as jews) as well as non Jewish and Jewish commonwealth country citizens that assisted Israel in its war of independence. The Brits, Yanks, Canadians, and Jews from Australia, South Africa, Europe, South America that ended in up in Israel wete far from colonizers. They were a rag tag assortment of refugees, Russians peasants, and non Jewish world war two idealists who felt a moral obligation as Christians to stand by Jews. I know some of them and their children and children's children. They were far from colonizers. They simply were refugees seeking freedom.

The point of the matter is this convenient revisionism of history to suggest only Jews who go to Israel are colonialists is b.s. just as it is to suggest Hamas and the P.A. have not violated international laws as well.

More to the point take a look at the nations in the UN pointing their finger at Israel and tell me how many are pristine virgins and have not engaged in violations of international law. Name me one nation that points its finger. Who? China? Edgypt? Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Russia? France? Who?

 

[bub]

Why is it when a Jew settles in Israel he's called a colonizer but when an Arab settles in Palestine they are simply called a Palestinian?

I'm not talking about Jews who settle in Israel, I'm talking about those who settle in West-Bank. Well IMO they can live where they want, even in West-Bank, but then under Palestinian authority, not in...colonies.