• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Israel continue it's freeze on settlement expansion in the West Bank?

Should Israel temporarily continue it's freeze on settlement expansion in the WB?


  • Total voters
    26
To be more specific, when you you say filling in a circle are you saying filling it in "from the outer edge - in" or "from the center - out"? If it is the latter, that in my mind is claiming more territory. To expand an area any other way sounds a bit strange to me, but anything is possible.

I don't understand your question.
What I'm saying is that the existing settlements do not expand over their defined land. (except of those outposts that settlers build that are illegal according to Israeli law as well)
 
Yes, but for a limit amount of time only.

Frankly, both sides need to start giving a bit and dealing with reality.

Give up the notion that Gaza must be involved in this. They're single handedly doing more harm to the Palestinian people in the West Bank than Israel, as it is Gaza which is hampering their ability to truly get this talk done. They've had a chance, cut the cord and let Gaza deal with themselves and let the West Bank citizens establish Palestinine.

Second, perform a landswap. Allow Israel to keep the land in the West Bank they currently have, while gaining an equal amount of land elsewhere. Will the land necessarily be of equal value? Perhaps not. However, the fact of the matter is that the Palestinians were offered this land and chose war instead. Israel is occupying it now because they essentially conquered it in a war where another nation attacked them. Palestine, technically, has zero land right now. More land is greater than zero land, so getting hung up on this land swap that the lands not "truly equal" is ridiculous, akin to a begger demanding that he wants five $20's instead of the $100 you gave him because some shops don't take $100's so its of more value to him.

Israel should not extend itself or allow its citizen to extend its land any farther then it is now. Any farther expansion after this point should not be part of the land swap and regardless of how much an Israeli has built up the area, it should still go over to Palestine. A line in the sand must be drawn and an end point sent.

The split jerusalem may be the most fair to both sides, though unsure how likely it'll be able to function.

Get to work on an underground tunnel to allow Palestinine passage to a port.

I like the idea of land swaps, but unfortunately it seems that many colonies are around East Jerusalem and that they also nearly cut West-Bank in 3 parts.

The future Palestinian state must not be a kind of Bantustan, there shouldn't be Israeli "islands" into it, and there should be a connection between it and East-Jerusalem.
 
I like the idea of land swaps, but unfortunately it seems that many colonies are around East Jerusalem and that they also nearly cut West-Bank in 3 parts.

The future Palestinian state must not be a kind of Bantustan, there shouldn't be Israeli "islands" into it, and there should be a connection between it and East-Jerusalem.

The settlements that Israel will annex as part of such land swap are the big settlements, and those reside next to the 1967 border, meaning that Palestinian land will not be disfigured.
 
Explain? What's to explain? That is, unless of course you are in favor of inflaming an already volatile situation.
 
The settlements that Israel will annex as part of such land swap are the big settlements, and those reside next to the 1967 border, meaning that Palestinian land will not be disfigured.

I hope so. The aim is not to deport Israeli people, it is to make a future Palestinian state viable.

What about East Jerusalem? Do you also agree that it should be placed under Palestinian rule?
 
I hope so. The aim is not to deport Israeli people, it is to make a future Palestinian state viable.

What about East Jerusalem? Do you also agree that it should be placed under Palestinian rule?

I think that the Palestinians should be given the Arab quarters of East Jerusalem.
Besides that, I can also agree with the international management of the sacred places.
 
I think that the Palestinians should be given the Arab quarters of East Jerusalem.
Besides that, I can also agree with the international management of the sacred places.

OK, pre settlement "Arab Quarters" or what is left now?

If all of the so called Holy places cannot be flattened to the ground (which I would wholeheartedly support) so that no one can argue about them then I agree with you about giving them special international management status.
 
OK, pre settlement "Arab Quarters" or what is left now?

First of all let me correct myself, I've meant to the Muslim quarters not Arab quarters.

Secondly, you don't seem to hold any knowledge over the architecture of the old city of Jerusalem.
It is divided into quarters; Muslim, Armenian, Christian, Jewish quarters.
The Palestinians can get the Muslim quarters.

The settlements built at that place do not change the fact that it's called the Muslim quarters, so when I'm saying the Muslim quarters I mean the Muslim quarters, all of them.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand your question.
What I'm saying is that the existing settlements do not expand over their defined land. (except of those outposts that settlers build that are illegal according to Israeli law as well)

Basically what I'm saying is that many new cities expand out from a semi-central point... people normally don't build an outside edge of houses and then start building in toward a central point. People could also build buildings far apart from each other and fill in the gaps later on. But filling in those gaps can also lead to claiming land.

If Israel is expanding OUT, that in my mind is claiming more land. When they build on land, the residents will be less willing to give up that land in future negotiations with the Palestinian government if negotiations demand it.

It wouldn't make sense to me for Israel to give up land that they've spent resources on and moved people to. But hey, if they're willing to do that, no sweat off my back.

I am curious what you meant by "defined land" though.

I'm also curious, seeing you're from Israel, if you know how willing Israeli citizens would be in moving out of those settlements near the border?

If all of the so called Holy places cannot be flattened to the ground (which I would wholeheartedly support) so that no one can argue about them then I agree with you about giving them special international management status.

The land is what's sacred. There are important buildings, but the land would still be there for people to claim.

I have my doubts that international control would work, but I wouldn't be against the idea if people can live with it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom