• 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!

Does Israel have the right to build more ettlements on the West Bank?

Seems the UN has already come to a resolution on this matter.

United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted on 22 March 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".[SUP][1][/SUP] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.
In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"
The Resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions from Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446

Odd, but this sounds a lot like the what just happened last week.
 
Do you think that Israel has the riight to buld new and expand older settlements on the West Bank?

It didn't have the right to build any settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territories in the first place and it doesn't have the right to expand them either. They are all illegal under international law. The World Court decision on them , amongst other stuff , in 2004 confirmed the applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention to the conflict

Israel as a signatory to that convention is thus bound by it.

All illegal , all an obstacle to peace imo
 
Actually they do. Throughout this planet's history, all nations have built settlements in the lands they conquered and managed to hold onto. Why should the middle east be any different. if we are going to demand that Israel back off, shouldn't we then ask every nation on the planet to vacate settlements from any land that they gained at any point in history by conquest? Virtually every border in Europe would change. Israel has been patient for over five decades now. Every time they have given up land to the Palistineans for the sake of peace, the rockets and suicide bombers are just moved in much closer to Israeli territory. At some point, Israel has every right to just say "Screw them!" This land is ours now.

No they don't.

The 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the acquisition of territory through warfare. Most people understand the sense in that position and most people understand that what predated it will have to stay as it is. You shouldn't try to back date the law , if that makes sense. It should do for obvious reasons
 
Yes, for as long as Israel is threatened with obliteration by its neighbours and the wider Islamic world. Settlements are part of Israel's defensive strategy. The best defence is essential; no other country is under an equivalent threat of destruction.

The threat has to be credible. For instance, if the Russians decided to invade and occupy Wales because they claimed it to be an existential threat to them, everybody would rightly belly laugh at the idea

Deals have been struck with Egypt and Jordan. There's nothing to stop a just settlement to the Israel/Palestine conflict that would encompass the remaining Arab states . The Saudi Peace Initiative could, for example, offer such hope.

I think that a big obstacle is that the political elites on either side are too entrenched and concerned about their own political aspirations to offer any real hope of a resolution to the conflict. That the only way might be for international pressure on both sides to force the issue.

Up until now the US veto has prevented this and has nobbled what is a massive international consensus for a resolution of the conflict on the 1967 borders , the Two States solution.
 
The threat has to be credible. For instance, if the Russians decided to invade and occupy Wales because they claimed it to be an existential threat to them, everybody would rightly belly laugh at the idea

Deals have been struck with Egypt and Jordan. There's nothing to stop a just settlement to the Israel/Palestine conflict that would encompass the remaining Arab states . The Saudi Peace Initiative could, for example, offer such hope.

I think that a big obstacle is that the political elites on either side are too entrenched and concerned about their own political aspirations to offer any real hope of a resolution to the conflict. That the only way might be for international pressure on both sides to force the issue.

Up until now the US veto has prevented this and has nobbled what is a massive international consensus for a resolution of the conflict on the 1967 borders , the Two States solution.

Fair points. Though if Russia declared year after year, day after day, that it intended as its prime policy objective to wipe Wales and the Welsh off the map the laughter might have a nervous edge to it.

'International pressure' might, I concede, by helpful if it was not entirely directed at one side. Israel understandably fears that if it returned to 1967 borders it would be wide open to attack and that that imaginary entity the 'International Community' would do nothing to protect it. The lesson Jews have drawn from the 20th century is that they had best protect themselves because no one else will.
 
What international law would that be? Post a specific statute.

The 4th Geneva Convention 1948

Israel is not a signatory to any treaty preventing them from building settlements in conquered territories.

Wrong, they are a signatory to............. The 4th Geneva Convention 1948
 
If the palistineans ever gain nukes and are stupid enough to even think of using them against Israel, it would be a suicide move for the palistineans. Israel not only has nukes, they have the capability to destroy the palistineans with them, even if Israel is hit first.

The proximity of the two would make a " nuke " attack " suicidal " if either side ever resorted to it
 
I think I'm well known here to oppose settlements, the resolution in the UN however is ridiculous, do you even understand how ridiculous it is?
The UN resolution says that Jews are not allowed to live in the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem

And the Israeli governments enforce a situation whereby Palestinians can't build houses on certain areas of their own land.

How " ridiculous " is that ?
 
So, lets return to the 1967 borders. Give the West Bank back to Jordan, who illegally obtained the land through warfare. Give Gaza back to the Egyptians who illegally obtained the land through warfare.

Oh, wait.

Give the lands back to Britain. Um, no. They gained the land through warfare. Give it back to the Ottoman Empire.

Nope, the don't exist. And they obtained the land through warfare as well.


Hmmmmmm
 
Fair points. Though if Russia declared year after year, day after day, that it intended as its prime policy objective to wipe Wales and the Welsh off the map the laughter might have a nervous edge to it.

I think , given your position as I see it , you might have gotten this bit wrong and meant if the Welsh were threatening to wipe the Russians out the laughter might appear different ?

I think it's better to form judgements on actions and not declarations anyway, generally speaking.

'International pressure' might, I concede, by helpful if it was not entirely directed at one side. Israel understandably fears that if it returned to 1967 borders it would be wide open to attack and that that imaginary entity the 'International Community' would do nothing to protect it. The lesson Jews have drawn from the 20th century is that they had best protect themselves because no one else will.

I don't think international pressure is directed at only one side tbh

As Less Biased said earlier , and I agree with them , if it appears that way, it might just be that Israel is , and has for a very long time now , in violation of international laws and conventions it has agreed ( by treaty ) to abide by and is violating them further whilst ignoring the whole raft of UN resolutions that has followed from that

As Justabubba has already outlined , amongst others , Israel is by far the most militarily powerful state in the region , so the credibility of any threats need to be assessed imo. Likewise the threat Israel poses to other countries in the region should be considered

And , as I pointed out earlier , there are proposals , that if they were to be the basis for a just , and it has to be just , resolution of the conflict the very threats cited today would surely diminish as a result of it.

I don't blame the Jewish people for wanting to protect themselves and I support their right of self defence , what I don't support is the ongoing violations of the Palestinian people that have resulted from the establishment of the Israeli state. Have the Arabs made mistakes ? For sure they have. Should that mean that the Palestinian people are denied the right to freedom and self determination indefinitely ? Not in my book
 
So, lets return to the 1967 borders. Give the West Bank back to Jordan, who illegally obtained the land through warfare. Give Gaza back to the Egyptians who illegally obtained the land through warfare.

Oh, wait.

Give the lands back to Britain. Um, no. They gained the land through warfare. Give it back to the Ottoman Empire.

Nope, the don't exist. And they obtained the land through warfare as well.


Hmmmmmm

All of your examples predate the acceptance of the 4th Geneva Convention as an instrument to set the guidelines for international law and relations by its signatories. An inconvenient truth for you perhaps but that's how it is

If you choose not to believe in adhering to things you have signed an agreement on or disagree with the wholly understandable use of laws designed at preventing conflicts and trying to keep a degree of international security in the world, the protections of the sovereignty of states and peoples , preventing human rights abuses you are free to do so. Some of us, however , have a completely different view
 
All of your examples predate the acceptance of the 4th Geneva Convention as an instrument to set the guidelines for international law and relations by its signatories. An inconvenient truth for you perhaps but that's how it is

If you choose not to believe in adhering to things you have signed an agreement on or disagree with the wholly understandable use of laws designed at preventing conflicts and trying to keep a degree of international security in the world, the protections of the sovereignty of states and peoples , preventing human rights abuses you are free to do so. Some of us, however , have a completely different view

So, when was the West Bank Palestinian?
 
So, lets return to the 1967 borders. Give the West Bank back to Jordan, who illegally obtained the land through warfare. Give Gaza back to the Egyptians who illegally obtained the land through warfare.

Oh, wait.

Give the lands back to Britain. Um, no. They gained the land through warfare. Give it back to the Ottoman Empire.

Nope, the don't exist. And they obtained the land through warfare as well.


Hmmmmmm

Since going back isn't an option, forward is the only way.

So either a two state solution, with an acknowledgement that the State of Israel has a right to exist, or a one state solution where 1/2 the population wants to kill the other 1/2 (not a recipe for a stable and peaceful state).

The peace process is at the same stalled out place it's been since like forever, driven there by neither party willing to give even a little bit.
From my view, the Palestinians need to come to grips with the reality that the state of Israel isn't going anywhere, and is here to stay.
Once that step is taken, then progress might be made. But certainly not any until then.
 
Twas British and before that the Ottoman Empire.

Most countries in the world have , at one time or another , been under the jack boot of a colonialist power or part of an empire ( including your own ). You should know better than to push this moot point imo
 
Most countries in the world have , at one time or another , been under the jack boot of a colonialist power or part of an empire ( including your own ). You should know better than to push this moot point imo

The Ottoman Empire was a "Colonist power" in reference to Palestine?

Oh, hell no.
 
The Ottoman Empire was a "Colonist power" in reference to Palestine?

Oh, hell no.

Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire , it's not a controversial statement. I don't see where you are going with this tbh
 
I don't blame the Jewish people for wanting to protect themselves and I support their right of self defence , what I don't support is the ongoing violations of the Palestinian people that have resulted from the establishment of the Israeli state. Have the Arabs made mistakes ? For sure they have. Should that mean that the Palestinian people are denied the right to freedom and self determination indefinitely ? Not in my book

Sorry for omitting the earlier portion of your post but I wanted to highlight the portion with which I agree.

The Palestinians do have a right to self determination. And when they demonstrate their threat against the Israelis has ended they should get it, in some portion of land to be negotiated between the sides (but not on all territory they say they want).

But they have a terrorist organization explicitly dedicated to the destruction of Israel in control of Gaza and a weak Palestinian authority which is not truly willing to reconcile itself to an end of its war against the Jews on the other. And there is no dialogue in Palestinian society about what they need to do to change things and make Israel more willing to take the risks necessary for peace (which Israel did and was repaid with a decade of terrorist violence).

IMO the onus is on the Palestinians to stop and to change their tune. Once that has happened, and only then, will the onus shift to the Israelis to stick their necks out again.
 
Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire , it's not a controversial statement. I don't see where you are going with this tbh

Moreover, the north was very heavily Syrian in terms of identity while the south was Egyptian. The Bedouin, of course, did not have any real territorial or national affiliation.
 
Back
Top Bottom