Golan Heights recognized as Israeli by US administration

[PointOfViewGun]

I assumed the question meant into areas not currently under Israeli control, which would be covered as "consolidating". If this isn't what fkizz meant then yes, 1 party (that isn't currently in parliament) supports annexing the west bank, 1(2?) support annexation of area's c. But those are all minor parties.The settlements aren't expansionism really. We had settlements in Sinai and still negotiated and gave the whole thing to Egypt. We also had settlements in Gaza until one fine day we gave them up.

No Israeli government approved more settlements in West Bank in the last decades? Only minor parties?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Building settlements does not mean expansionism. We have already cleared out settlements in the past, and will likely do so again when (if) a peace treaty is ever signed.

[Love Mountain]

By making existing Palestinians second-class citizens?

As opposed to what they are now? Yes.

[Cyclops]

I think its destructive of the rule of law for this sort of decision that defies international law because "it feels right" and suits one side of a conflict. As mentioned this is just one move in a cascade of bad moves from all sides. However "rule of law" is a pipe dream post Iraq, and pragmatic results are paramount now.

From the Israeli perspective (the one I am most sympathetic to) it makes perfect sense. The position is locally important, its a slap in the face for their intransigent neighbour Syria, and it involves the US more closely in defending Israel by recognising its forward position on occupied land. Its a big win for Netanyahu, almost as big as if Trump recognised 'illegal settlements" as part of Israel.

From the Syrian perspective its illegal under international law, but as mentioned thy did kick off the war, and have refused to negotiate meaningfully for its return. Its been worth more for many of Israel's neighbours to lose wars than to cease hostility, because of Jihad brownie points. Speaking objectively I'd like Syria to CTFD, talk to Israel and get their land back.

From the US POV trump has traded away a very valuable chip...for what? Israel is a useful regional pawn for US interests but they weren't about to defect, so its a freebie AFAICS. I suspect Trump is burning cards from his diplomatic hand to distract from his numerous domestic failures: his crappy fence in Texas that Mexico won't pay for, the non-imprisonment of Hilary etc. Even his exoneration by Mueller is a weak victory, he still clings to the bizarre and conflicted position that the Democrats colluded with Russia but who knows where the hacking came from? Maybe not Russia?

Like the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, this is a desperate president flinging away US diplomatic cards to take the heat off his terrible domestic performance. Its a win for Israel (not in itself a bad thing), a massive slap for Syria (they probably deserve a slap but why kick that hornets nest after we just fragged it?) and it gains nothing for the US except one more finger in that regions pie. What could possibly go wrong?

[PointOfViewGun]

Building settlements does not mean expansionism. We have already cleared out settlements in the past, and will likely do so again when (if) a peace treaty is ever signed.

Its the definition of that if you build those settlements on somebody else's land. This is a very simple concept...

As opposed to what they are now? Yes.

So, write off one wrong with an other? What you're suggesting is incomprehemsible and immoral. Its not even logical as you can't expect hundreds of thousands of people to just bend over and accept that. Factually, its less than what they have today.

[Love Mountain]

So, write off one wrong with an other? What you're suggesting is incomprehemsible and immoral. Its not even logical as you can't expect hundreds of thousands of people to just bend over and accept that. Factually, its less than what they have today.

Factually, Palestinians lack good living conditions, effective administration or anything that would resemble competent governance. They see absolutely no benefits from their "independence." They would be better off being part of Israel. The only way Israel would accept absorbing West Bank and Gaza into a single state, would be if existing adult Palestinians are not allowed to vote. It's a basic security issue. Hence why citizenship should only be given to Palestinians born after a certain date. Otherwise, we will continue being in this quagmire.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

@cyclops
I suspect that Trump might be giving Israel "gifts" now because the "deal of the century" will require painful sacrifices from Israel. Which is fine by me because the Arabs will refuse it anyway, like they always do.

So, write off one wrong with an other? What you're suggesting is incomprehemsible and immoral.

I agree on this. If Israel were to annex Judea and Samaria, all Arabs there must be given full citizenship and equal rights, otherwise it would be Apartheid.

Its the definition of that if you build those settlements on somebody else's land. This is a very simple concept...

Settlements are built on state owned lands. Any settlement found to have been built on privately owned is either destroyed by Israel, or the rightful owner is compensated, whichever they prefer.
Expansionism would be acquisition of new territory, not building on the territory you already have. Either way, unlike with the Golan, Israel has not annexed Judea and Samaria, because it does intend to withdraw from the majority of it eventually, once there is a deal.

[PointOfViewGun]

Factually, Palestinians lack good living conditions, effective administration or anything that would resemble competent governance. They see absolutely no benefits from their "independence." They would be better off being part of Israel. The only way Israel would accept absorbing West Bank and Gaza into a single state, would be if existing adult Palestinians are not allowed to vote. It's a basic security issue. Hence why citizenship should only be given to Palestinians born after a certain date. Otherwise, we will continue being in this quagmire.

It's a basic violation of human rights...

Settlements are built on state owned lands. Any settlement found to have been built on privately owned is either destroyed by Israel, or the rightful owner is compensated, whichever they prefer.
Expansionism would be acquisition of new territory, not building on the territory you already have. Either way, unlike with the Golan, Israel has not annexed Judea and Samaria, because it does intend to withdraw from the majority of it eventually, once there is a deal.

Settlements are not built on Israeli land. Slowly, but surely, Israel have been building settlements on West Bank lands. Demolishing a few problematic settlements here and there for the show doesn't really change that. They are not building on West Bank just for the kick off it. They're slowly creating a reality there that in the future people will probably just sweep them away and accept Israeli dominance just like Sukiyama argued for above.

[sumskilz]

I'm fairly sure that fkizz was referring to plans for expansion beyond the territories already occupied by Israel, which no Israeli political party advocates for. Thus there is no need to debate whether or not Israel has plans to annex various parts of the West Bank, which is an issue on which various Israeli parties have a difference of opinion. However, it is widely believed that any two state settlement would involve Israel retaining the four main settlement blocks which are adjacent to the Green Line. Land swap proposals in order to accommodate this have been part of previous negotiations.

Israel considers public lands in the West Bank to be disputed because the armistice agreement which established the Green Line was explicit that it does not constitute a border.

From the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan:

The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

From the armistice agreement between Israel and Egypt:

The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Settlements are not built on Israeli land. Slowly, but surely, Israel have been building settlements on West Bank lands. Demolishing a few problematic settlements here and there for the show doesn't really change that. They are not building on West Bank just for the kick off it. They're slowly creating a reality there that in the future people will probably just sweep them away and accept Israeli dominance just like Sukiyama argued for above.

Yes, just like they did in Sinai. Except no, as I have repeatedly said, those were cleared out once a peace treaty was negotiated. Precedent shows that once a permanent peace treaty is signed Israel is willing to give up on the settlements. Precedent you choose to keep ignoring.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, just like they did in Sinai. Except no, as I have repeatedly said, those were cleared out once a peace treaty was negotiated. Precedent shows that once a permanent peace treaty is signed Israel is willing to give up on the settlements. Precedent you choose to keep ignoring.

Israel didn't build those settlements with the purpose of dismantling them when a peace deal was reached. Those settlements were a bargain chip for them as any other possession. They simply thought dismantling them at the time was worth it. So, no, they do not indicate precedence in the way you're painting them. You also need to be able to differentiate between ignoring a point and explaining how that point is mute. I did the latter. When the time comes Israel will not leave the settlement out of the goodness of their heart.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Israel didn't build those settlements with the purpose of dismantling them when a peace deal was reached. Those settlements were a bargain chip for them as any other possession. They simply thought dismantling them at the time was worth it. So, no, they do not indicate precedence in the way you're painting them. You also need to be able to differentiate between ignoring a point and explaining how that point is mute. I did the latter. When the time comes Israel will not leave the settlement out of the goodness of their heart.

Israel didn't build those settlements, private citizens did. Israel just allows it to happen.
How about the settlements in Gaza then, which were cleared out with no benefit to Israel whatsoever. We left those out of the goodness of our heart.

[PointOfViewGun]

Israel didn't build those settlements, private citizens did. Israel just allows it to happen.
How about the settlements in Gaza then, which were cleared out with no benefit to Israel whatsoever. We left those out of the goodness of our heart.

That's a petty classification. Israeli government approved the building of those settlements. Israeli government protect those settlements. Israeli army trains people living in those settlements. Israel did not leave settlements in Gaza out of the goodness of their heart. They were simply a bargaining chip. They were small and they were too costly to keep alive. Only about 7 thousand people lived in them. West Bank settlements cross over 400 thousand people. When Israelis left they destroyed everything they left behind as well.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

That's a petty classification. Israeli government approved the building of those settlements. Israeli government protect those settlements. Israeli army trains people living in those settlements.

The IDF is obligated to protect Israeli citizens living under its jurisdiction.
Yes, the government approved the buildings. That's what "allows it to happen" means.

Israel did not leave settlements in Gaza out of the goodness of their heart. They were simply a bargaining chip. They were small and they were too costly to keep alive. Only about 7 thousand people lived in them.

You don't tend to throw your bargaining chips away in return for nothing, do you? You concede a bargaining chip in return for something.

When Israelis left they destroyed everything they left behind as well.

False. Half of the greenhouses were left behind intact, only to be looted by the locals.

The remaining settlements' greenhouses were looted by Palestinians for 2 days after the transfer, for irrigation pipes, water pumps, plastic sheeting and glass, but the greenhouses themselves remained structurally intact, until order was restored.^[55][70][72] Palestinian Authority security forces attempted to stop them, but did not have enough manpower to be effective. In some places, there was no security, while some Palestinian police officers joined the looters.

[PointOfViewGun]

The IDF is obligated to protect Israeli citizens living under its jurisdiction.
Yes, the government approved the buildings. That's what "allows it to happen" means.
You don't tend to throw your bargaining chips away in return for nothing, do you? You concede a bargaining chip in return for something.
False. Half of the greenhouses were left behind intact, only to be looted by the locals.

Passing legislation to approve settlements is one thing. Allowing it to happen is an other.
Israel left Gaza because staying there was not worth the trouble. That's what they gained. They didn't leave just because they felt like it. Being there was not feasible for them as Gaza was very small and very crowded.
Israeli settlers destroyed half the greenhouse, rendering them useless, but Palestinians simply looted them for materials to use in their own homes, leaving the greenhouses intact. The remaining structures were used for farming later on.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Passing legislation to approve settlements is one thing. Allowing it to happen is an other.

Approving something is allowing it to happen. It is altogether different than pursuing it actively however. The state of Israel isn't moving people into settlements, it doesn't decide where they are built, and often doesn't even control if they are built. Though in the past it did for a time completely freeze all construction to allow for negotiations that, as always, failed.

Israel left Gaza because staying there was not worth the trouble. That's what they gained. They didn't leave just because they felt like it. Being there was not feasible for them as Gaza was very small and very crowded.

And yet this only caused things to get much, much worse for Israel. The supposed gain, it not being worth the trouble, is overwhelmingly negated by the consequence of having half the country under threat of rockets. Anyone not naive or blinded by idealism could have seen this coming.

Israeli settlers destroyed half the greenhouse, rendering them useless, but Palestinians simply looted them for materials to use in their own homes, leaving the greenhouses intact. The remaining structures were used for farming later on.

So clearly you admit that your statement "When Israelis left they destroyed everything they left behind as well." wasn't true.

However, we are certainly straying off-topic here. This thread it about the Golan.

[PointOfViewGun]

Approving something is allowing it to happen. It is altogether different than pursuing it actively however. The state of Israel isn't moving people into settlements, it doesn't decide where they are built, and often doesn't even control if they are built. Though in the past it did for a time completely freeze all construction to allow for negotiations that, as always, failed.
And yet this only caused things to get much, much worse for Israel. The supposed gain, it not being worth the trouble, is overwhelmingly negated by the consequence of having half the country under threat of rockets. Anyone not naive or blinded by idealism could have seen this coming.
So clearly you admit that your statement "When Israelis left they destroyed everything they left behind as well." wasn't true.
However, we are certainly straying off-topic here. This thread it about the Golan.

The debate around the level of Israeli government's participation in West Bank settlements is as trivial as it gets. The fact is that Israel utilizes an expansionist policy in West Bank. It did the same in Golan Heights and USA's recognition of that sets a very dangerous precedent.

[Yayattasa]

Israel didn't build those settlements, private citizens did. Israel just allows it to happen.

"Hamas did not fire those rockets, Islamic Jihad did. Hamas only fails to prevent them." How does it ring with you?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

"Hamas did not fire those rockets, Islamic Jihad did. Hamas only fails to prevent them." How does it ring with you?

As false. The recently fired rockets at Tel-Aviv and north of if were all fired by Hamas. They admit it, saying the first 2 were a "mistake" and the more recent one was a misfire caused by "bad weather".
Either way, both entities are terrorist groups.

The debate around the level of Israeli government's participation in West Bank settlements is as trivial as it gets. The fact is that Israel utilizes an expansionist policy in West Bank. It did the same in Golan Heights and USA's recognition of that sets a very dangerous precedent.

The situation is quite different. In the case of the Golan, Israel annexed it, meaning it intends to keep it.

[fkizz]

I'm fairly sure that fkizz was referring to plans for expansion beyond the territories already occupied by Israel, which no Israeli political party advocates for. Thus there is no need to debate whether or not Israel has plans to annex various parts of the West Bank, which is an issue on which various Israeli parties have a difference of opinion.

Yes that's what I meant. Israel with a consolidating position likely can't be shaken off, but if it goes on expansionist mode then all sorts of counter-attack opportunities would appear.