Firstly:
Okay now for the post.
When Palestine is liberated, I think the vast majority of settlers will either be [redacted] or forced out of the region. There is no way that any Arab in the region will accept having a settler in their land, and the settlers know this. The plan will have to be a mass exodus for the west, both for their safety and livelihood (I can see many going into ghoul industries like defense, tech, and police training).
That being said, how would you react if your country decides to accept settlers? Would you support the move? If they were going to live in your community/ neighborhoods how would you feel?
Do you think the Haitians were wrong to revolt? An oppressed group fighting against their oppressor is not the same as their oppressor committing a genocide against said group.
We're talking in hypotheticals, and the hypothetical situation is, from my understanding, occurring after the state of Israel has already been abolished. Your post is asking where to send the refugees, I stand by my stance to not kill refugees.
Trying to paint me as being against revolution for not wanting to kill refugees seems a little disingenuous.
I wouldn't call settlers who got rightfully kicked off indigenous land by indigenous people refugees. It's actually pretty problematic since it ends up confirming a lot of the right wing/reactionary myths about refugees and migrants. That they will take your land, and that they will treat you like 2nd class citizens in your own home.
I left a comment below about this; the only reason I use the term "refugee" is bc I don't know what to call a settler that kicked off the land.
Which Israeli citizens qualify as a settler? Every single one? Fine.
Unless you have a way to identify which settlers are real genocidal maniacs and which were just born in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't think you can treat every single one as the former.
I'm sure many Israelis don't necessarily "deserve" refugee status. However, I believe in immutable human rights, and until you can prove someone engaged in or enabled the genocide, those rights still stand.
As for the optics of allowing settlers to be seen as refugees, I feel like that definitely takes a back seat to defending human rights.
It's not about optics, you're doing every refugee and migrant a disservice by lopping ex-settlers with them. Refugees and migrants don't steal land and attempt to turn the native population into second class citizens, that's just a reactionary myth.
Except the Israelis actually did do that, so you can't say they're the same thing as Syrians, Sudanese, Congolese, etc escaping war and genocide.
You don't have to "punish" people on behalf of the Palestinians, but you also can't act like they're the same thing as South/ Central American migrants coming to the US to escape poverty and violence just for a chance to give their family a better life.
I don't think settlers are genociders necessarily, but that doesn't mean that they have a right to any land either.
The Haitians weren't without compromise; under l'ouverture they were prepared to have peace with France, but then the French tricked him arranging for a meeting and then took him hostage.
The French rejected l'ouverture's peace and got Dessaline instead. Me? I would've preferred if l'ouverture had been successful, but it's entirely on France that he didn't; and I ONLY favor l'ouverture because I wasn't there, if I was a Haitian myself I could easily imagine I wouldn't chance treachery by the French and would rather be lead by Dessaline from the get-go.
I saw a quote of the horrors the former slaves had endured and I don't doubt for a moment it still undersells the brutality they faced under the French. The quote was horrifyingly similar to a quote I read of people living under Batista's regime in Cuba, over a hundred plus years later. Luckily for the butchers of Cuba they didn't murder their l'ouverture and Castro even invited (the UN?) to bear witness to the trials after the revolution themselves (which of course they rejected).
No indigenous group is without compromise, in fact every indigenous group's history is filled to the brim with broken promises and broken treaties. Name a time when settlers were willing to honestly engage with indigenous people and not stab them in the back?
The French got Dessaline for a reason, and that's not something to attack the Haitians for, it's not like they're obligated to consider the safety of the French settlers and slavers.
If the French wanted their safety to be considered they should've considered the safety of the Haitians. They didn't, and the revolution went the way of eye for an eye (almost).
I absolutely do not condemn the Haitians or Dessaline (my guilty pleasure nickname for him that I didn't mention cause I thought it cheesy is the iron man); the oppression the slave owners gleefully visited on their victims solidly puts them in my eyes in the same place as Nazis, and I wish them a very
and 
However because they basically brought their children to the front lines of their slave holdings, and because the indigenous population themselves were amenable to peace I would have preferred l'ouverture had not been deceived and his attempts at peace not thrown out, but I acknowledge that that is solidly on the French. The very oppression and brutality they visited on their fellow man condemns them.