Rights of the People of the Book: Dhimmitude as an alternative framework of sovereignty and national expression in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

You should give dhimmitude a try man. It's only 2.5 percent jizya tax on certain limited asset classes, basically same as the Zakat Muslims are required to pay. 

Except the jizya exempt you from military service! Isn't that nice? I know the zealots pushing for the third temple don't even serve in the IDF....and even when they do they don't seem to be very good at it.

In exchange, you get guaranteed protection and freedom of religion, so long as you don't spread corruption in the land.

Plus, we won't even harass for you having allegedly murdered the Son of God! We just....won't serve you shellfish and leave you be on Saturdays.

Come on. What's more important, actually practicing Judaism or stroking off to some flag that has turned the Star of David into the equivalent of the Swastika for your Muslim neighbors?

Trust me, dhimmitude might be a best case scenario. Especially for settlers who don't get the f*** up on out the West Bank in a hurry.

Some perspectives on Islamic jurisprudence may advocate for much harsher measure based on certain precedent.

There was a Jewish tribe in Medina with whom the Prophet and the Muslims entered into a treaty. They would respect each other's freedom and way of life while pledging mutual assistance if attacked from outside.

They broke that treaty by providing the people who came to exterminate the Muslims with the means to get past their defenses and then joining them in battle against Muslims.

After the attackers were warded off and the Jewish tribe defeated, the Prophet had to decide what to do with them.

He tasked a close companion who had a lot of experience interacting with the Jewish community of medinah to determine a suitable punishment for their betrayal and treason, according the law of the Jewish faith itself.

This companion, after doing some research, came across passages from Deutoronmy chapter 20 where Jews were instructed that if they captured a city or fortress outside their territory, they put all the men to the sword whike taking women and children captive.

However, if the city was one within their territory, whose war against Israel was effectively treason and rebellion, then the Jews were ordered to kill every living thing in the city. Including livestock.

Because the tribe engaged in treason against Muslims, would seem to require the harsher of the two punishments.

The Prophet, in his leniency and compassion, obviously hesitated to engage in such gratuitous massacre.

However, he did not want to deny the Jewish tribe the courtesy of living and dying with honor according to the teachings of their dearly held faith.

He graciously permitted the women and children to live while subjecting the men to the near universal punishment for high treason.

There are some who are of the view that Israel's failures to abide by international law and it's treaty obligation preclude them from being granted clemency, and they must be treated harshly in order to set an example that deters people from being duplicitous backstabbers who act like you can rely on them only to earn your trust and cause far more damage by betraying it than what they could have caused by engaging in direct and open hostility.

I personally don't think that particular precedent applies. The record shows you were external invaders and from day one you declared open hostility to Muslims.

It would be different if you'd bombed Egypt or Jordan after signing treaties. But considering that you are regular belligerents and known combatants, I believe an analysis under treason rules is inapplicable and standard rules of war and peace apply.

But, as I said, I'm just one guy and that's just my opinion.