• 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?

Israel continues to build additional settlements on the West Bank as well as increasing the size of the present settlements. Do you think that Israel has the riight to buld new and expand older settlements on the West Bank?


If they are able to do so and have the necessary military force and political will to back it up, yes.


If you believe otherwise, give your home and land to your nearest Native American Tribal Council...
 
Sorry for omitting the earlier portion of your post but I wanted to highlight the portion with which I agree.

No problem

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).

The Palestinians do have the right to self determination and it should not depend on whether the Israelis feel they deserve it. Which is what you are saying in the above.

IMO The international community should take a stand ,like it did against South Africa, and force Israel to end the occupation and denial of Palestinian self determination as per already existing international laws. Laws , to which , Israel is already a signatory.

I believe in trying to apply the same standards and considerations to both parties and this is where I run into trouble with people who consider themselves " pro Israel "

Here again , what you are saying is , the Palestinians should renounce any commitment to carry out violence against Israel/Israelis............. I think that's reasonable enough to ask for

So where is the dialogue , from your own side , stating that Israel should renounce their violence against Palestine/Palestinians ?............ which I also think would be reasonable to ask for as a commitment.

Same with the land issue

Israel now possesses , as the recognized state of Israel , around 80% of the former mandate. That's around 25% more than what the UN partition plan granted it. The Palestinian state would/should consist of around 20% of the former mandate and you are still demanding that they give up more of land that the laws governing such situations , laws Israel has signed up to remember , allow them.

The above reads , to me , our security ( Israeli security ) is the paramount concern with regards to any discussions surrounding security. Our land claims are the paramount consideration on any discussions on land despite the remarkable percentages given above.

It's the same every time these things come up . People have to point out this obvious bias in the debates

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).

And you have a massive and Hi tech military machine that regularly slaughters hundreds/thousands of Palestinians in Gaza and an army of occupation in the WB that accounts for the deaths , torturing and imprisonment of thousands more.

In this conflict , as in any other I can think of , no side is free from guilt for crimes wrt the ongoing violence


IMO the issue should be resolved in accordance with international law and the massive international consensus for the two state solution based around the 1967 borders. The Palestinian self determination should be authentic self determination and not some pathetic farce that is completely undermined by Israeli security concerns. The threat has to be credible and a Palestinian threat to Israel is not credible if we are talking about any existential threat. ( which your references to Hamas amount to )
 
Come on man. You know that isn't true.

There's nothing wrong with it. The area of Palestine , of which the WB was part of , was a region of the Ottoman empire subsequently taken over by the British. All of which predate the modern state of Israel
 
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.


And the Jewish influence was virtually nil because the immigrant Jews being persecuted in Europe hadn't arrived
 
The clue is in the name

Except back when the territory was called Palestine before Israeli independence, "Palestinian" referred to the Jews living there, while the Arabs were just known as Arabs (or Syrian or Egyptian or Bedouin).

So the only clue we really have is that one people subsequently changed their name to try to create a historical connection to the historical name of the administrative area once that name had been abandoned by the other group.
 
Except back when the territory was called Palestine before Israeli independence, "Palestinian" referred to the Jews living there, while the Arabs were just known as Arabs (or Syrian or Egyptian or Bedouin).

wiki said:
During the Mandatory Palestine period, the term "Palestinian" was used to refer to all people residing there, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and those granted citizenship by the British Mandatory authorities were granted "Palestinian citizenship"

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


So the only clue we really have is that one people subsequently changed their name to try to create a historical connection to the historical name of the administrative area once that name had been abandoned by the other group.

Nope, what were Palestinian Jews became Israeli Jews after the creation of the state of Israel....................... obviously the none Jews just remained Palestinians.
 

During the Mandatory Palestine period, the term "Palestinian" was used to refer to all people residing there, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and those granted citizenship by the British Mandatory authorities were granted "Palestinian citizenship"

See above
 
Ironic isn't it that the only people to allow Palestinian self rule in Gaza were the Israelis.

I guess? I mean, given the history of the region the in-feasibility of an independent Palestine isn't shocking.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians




Nope, what were Palestinian Jews became Israeli Jews after the creation of the state of Israel....................... obviously the none Jews just remained Palestinians.

There's a difference between the term describing the residence in the territory back then and the term describing the people called Palestinians nowadays.
The territory that was named Palestine wasn't "Palestinian" in the sense that it was under the control or was belonging to the people nowadays called Palestinians.
It's very important to understand such basic terms.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians




Nope, what were Palestinian Jews became Israeli Jews after the creation of the state of Israel....................... obviously the none Jews just remained Palestinians.

sorry wikipedia?

My Right Word: On The Usage of "Palestinian Arabs" in the 1920s

In any event, If I and other Canadians started calling ourselves American, it wouldn't retroactively mean that the US has been named after us for generations.

There has never ever ever been a geogrpahic area that was governed by and for a group of Arabs who called themselves and identified themselves as Palestinians. There was an administrative territory called Palestine, with the population of Arabs largely belonging to other groupings (which of course makes perfect sense as nationalism in the Arab world is a very recent invention and there are still tribal affiliations that are as strong as national ones).

Recognizing this reality does not weaken the Palestinians' case for self determination, so not sure of the point of this effort to re-write history and cast the Palestinians as having a right because the territory was called Palestine when administered by the Romans (before Arabs conquered and colonized the area and before Muslims even existed)
 
Last edited:
So "Palestinian" is a Colonial creation.

This is not really breathtaking in its exclusiveness , a great many of the peoples, making up a nation state, around today have a colonial past. This doesn't stop any of them enjoying self determination in an area that is internationally recognised as their territory.

Why single out the Palestinians ?


Not really , your own country has one that you seem to have forgotten about
 
What does any of this even matter?

It doesn't matter to most people . The massive world consensus that East Jerusalem , the West Bank and Gaza are what make up the Occupied Palestinian Territories endorses this

Some people , however , like to make a big deal of these things in a bid to rubbish any claims the Palestinians make about their being a people with a right to self determination in an area made up of the territories mentioned above
 
Ironic isn't it that the only people to allow Palestinian self rule in Gaza were the Israelis.

You call that " self rule " ? Where you don't control your own coastal waters , airspace , border crossings, economy and live under a crushing blockade

Moving the prison guards from inside the prison to the perimeter fence still leaves you with a prison.

I think the example of Gaza is instructive as to how an unjust two state solution might play out.
 
You call that " self rule " ? Where you don't control your own coastal waters , airspace , border crossings, economy and live under a crushing blockade

Moving the prison guards from inside the prison to the perimeter fence still leaves you with a prison.

I think the example of Gaza is instructive as to how an unjust two state solution might play out.

And do you have any clue WHY the restrictions are on the Israeli border and coastal waters?

And you DO realize EGYPT borders Gaza on multiple sides... Right?

It is instructive on how land traded for peace simply became a launch pad for thousands of rocket and mortar attacks.

CLUE: Don't defecate in your own bed.
 
It doesn't matter to most people . The massive world consensus that East Jerusalem , the West Bank and Gaza are what make up the Occupied Palestinian Territories endorses this

Some people , however , like to make a big deal of these things in a bid to rubbish any claims the Palestinians make about their being a people with a right to self determination in an area made up of the territories mentioned above

You misspelled "Occupied Jordan"
 
sorry wikipedia?

Though I agree that it isn't the best source , it seems okay for you when you use it .


And this is supposed to be any better ? A scholarly judgement ?

Ive read/watched Rashid Khalidi , so I know when his views are being perverted. He dates the concept of " Palestinian " national awareness as prior to the British Mandate period ............. that's earlier than the period I cited.

Regardless , even your blogger friend states that the British references to " Palestinians " are regarding the Arab population of Palestine , not the Jewish population as you claimed was the case earlier in this thread

Recognizing this reality does not weaken the Palestinians' case for self determination, so not sure of the point of this effort to re-write history and cast the Palestinians as having a right because the territory was called Palestine when administered by the Romans (before Arabs conquered and colonized the area and before Muslims even existed)


I agree , it doesn't deny or weaken anything concerning the right of the Palestinian people to self determination but it does often act as a piggyback in attempts to undermine their claims to land , as is evident again in the above.
 
And do you have any clue WHY the restrictions are on the Israeli border and coastal waters?

And you DO realize EGYPT borders Gaza on multiple sides... Right?

It is instructive on how land traded for peace simply became a launch pad for thousands of rocket and mortar attacks.

CLUE: Don't defecate in your own bed.

Disregarding the above due to the lack of knowledge it shows still doesn't change the fact that your claim that Gazans " self rule " is evidently flawed

Egypt has one border with Gaza , Israel two and the sea takes the last space available
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between the term describing the residence in the territory back then and the term describing the people called Palestinians nowadays.
The territory that was named Palestine wasn't "Palestinian" in the sense that it was under the control or was belonging to the people nowadays called Palestinians.
It's very important to understand such basic terms.

Some of those differences have already been discussed in the above. The issue also only stemmed from CJs claim that only Jewish people in Mandate Palestine were referred to as " Palestinians "

And your comments here only endorse what I wrote earlier about how this theme often morphs into an undermining of Palestinian land claims. This , imo, is also very important for people to understand
 
Seems pretty clear to me that a subset of Jews want that particular area of land because of a religious ideology which considers their small and exclusive group to be "chosen people", and the land to be their "promised land" based on a special "covenant" with "God". For that reason, they're determined to have the land by whatever means they can, including increasingly occupying land on which Palestinians are living and smothering the Palestinians by economic and other means.

The need for Jewish "homeland" is refuted by the argument that the small percentage of Jews in the world can safely live elsewhere in the world, and prosper while doing so. The days of overt persecution of Jews are long over.

And of course those of us who aren't Jewish don't generally accept the validity of these Jewish claims which are based on their ideology.

Given the ideological basis of the Jewish motives in the Palestinian/Israeli territories, I'm frankly not optimistic that the Israelis are going to be willing to compromise with the Palestinians in a fair way that results in lasting peace. And I think that all such talk by the Israelis has been only talk, to give the impression that they're willing to compromise, when in fact they don't want to, and don't think they need to if they just continue to gradually take more and more land.

Unfortunately, all of this may result in things coming to an even more violent head than we've seen so far, with the US and others being dragged into it.
 
Back
Top Bottom