Israeli settlements in Judea & Samaria/West Bank

[mileslunn]

My view is generally no as I feel they are unhelpful but at same time I am a pragmatist here and I don't think dismantling all in West Bank is realistic.  Main thing is ensure Area A & B islands are ended and areas under control of Palestinian Authority is contiguous so Palestinians can move freely within territory without having to pass through checkpoints.  I do think in any two state solution, land swaps probably necessary. 

Other option which I used to oppose but now think may be best is for Israel to fully annex West Bank and in exchange offer Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians living there.  This would be only for West Bank not Gaza Strip but as part of Israel and Palestinians having full citizenship, both Israelis and Palestinians likewise would have right to live anywhere in current Israel and West Bank and it would up to who purchases the land through private purchases. 

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

The reason Russia hasn’t annexed all of Ukraine is because they lack the ability, not norms. If Russia really could conquer Ukraine than it would be theirs, regardless of whether the US propped up some powerless “government-in-exile” and refused to recognize it. According to reality Crimea is Russia, and nobody serious thinks Ukraine will ever get it back.

As for Israel, they won the West Bank from Jordan, who has relinquished all claims over it. I don’t think a non-existent Palestinian entity has the right to claim any ownership of it. That doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t choose, if it so wanted, to create a Palestinian state. But when you win land in war, and administer and control it for 50+ years, and no other state can reasonably take it from you, then it is yours. That doesn’t change because of an unenforceable legal fiction called “international law”. The only real international law is the law of conquest, and if conquest has slowed down over the last few decades it’s because the US and its allies have stopped or punished it, not because of some moral law.

[Indy Texas]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

The reason Russia hasn’t annexed all of Ukraine is because they lack the ability, not norms. If Russia really could conquer Ukraine than it would be theirs, regardless of whether the US propped up some powerless “government-in-exile” and refused to recognize it. According to reality Crimea is Russia, and nobody serious thinks Ukraine will ever get it back.

As for Israel, they won the West Bank from Jordan, who has relinquished all claims over it. I don’t think a non-existent Palestinian entity has the right to claim any ownership of it. That doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t choose, if it so wanted, to create a Palestinian state. But when you win land in war, and administer and control it for 50+ years, and no other state can reasonably take it from you, then it is yours. That doesn’t change because of an unenforceable legal fiction called “international law”. The only real international law is the law of conquest, and if conquest has slowed down over the last few decades it’s because the US and its allies have stopped or punished it, not because of some moral law.

If that were the case, then they would have given Israeli citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank (which is what normally happens when a country "conquers" a piece of adjacent territory).

When people describe Israel as an "apartheid state" they are referring to the fact that in the West Bank, your ethnic/religious background determines what set of laws you are subject to (civil law for Israeli settlers with due process and everything else; military law for Palestinians with basically no legal protections) and your freedom of movement (imagine if the government built an interstate highway right by your house but you weren't allowed to drive on it and instead had to go 10 miles out of your way on random two-lane roads with multiple checkpoints - that is basically the situation Palestinians in the West Bank face on a daily basis).

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

The reason Russia hasn’t annexed all of Ukraine is because they lack the ability, not norms. If Russia really could conquer Ukraine than it would be theirs, regardless of whether the US propped up some powerless “government-in-exile” and refused to recognize it. According to reality Crimea is Russia, and nobody serious thinks Ukraine will ever get it back.

As for Israel, they won the West Bank from Jordan, who has relinquished all claims over it. I don’t think a non-existent Palestinian entity has the right to claim any ownership of it. That doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t choose, if it so wanted, to create a Palestinian state. But when you win land in war, and administer and control it for 50+ years, and no other state can reasonably take it from you, then it is yours. That doesn’t change because of an unenforceable legal fiction called “international law”. The only real international law is the law of conquest, and if conquest has slowed down over the last few decades it’s because the US and its allies have stopped or punished it, not because of some moral law.

If that were the case, then they would have given Israeli citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank (which is what normally happens when a country "conquers" a piece of adjacent territory).

When people describe Israel as an "apartheid state" they are referring to the fact that in the West Bank, your ethnic/religious background determines what set of laws you are subject to (civil law for Israeli settlers with due process and everything else; military law for Palestinians with basically no legal protections) and your freedom of movement (imagine if the government built an interstate highway right by your house but you weren't allowed to drive on it and instead had to go 10 miles out of your way on random two-lane roads with multiple checkpoints - that is basically the situation Palestinians in the West Bank face on a daily basis).

The reason they face these conditions is because they commit terrorism. Before the Intifadas they had much more freedom of movement. They also do not want Israeli citizenship. That being said, I will grant that the "apartheid" accusation bears some semblance to reality (even if it is mostly caused by Palestinian behavior), given that the land is de facto Israel's yet Palestinians living there lack civil rights. Of course, if Palestinians wanted to be citizens of Israel and marched peacefully for that, international pressure on Israel would massively increase. The conditions they face stem from their own behavior.

[Indy Texas]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

The reason Russia hasn’t annexed all of Ukraine is because they lack the ability, not norms. If Russia really could conquer Ukraine than it would be theirs, regardless of whether the US propped up some powerless “government-in-exile” and refused to recognize it. According to reality Crimea is Russia, and nobody serious thinks Ukraine will ever get it back.

As for Israel, they won the West Bank from Jordan, who has relinquished all claims over it. I don’t think a non-existent Palestinian entity has the right to claim any ownership of it. That doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t choose, if it so wanted, to create a Palestinian state. But when you win land in war, and administer and control it for 50+ years, and no other state can reasonably take it from you, then it is yours. That doesn’t change because of an unenforceable legal fiction called “international law”. The only real international law is the law of conquest, and if conquest has slowed down over the last few decades it’s because the US and its allies have stopped or punished it, not because of some moral law.

If that were the case, then they would have given Israeli citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank (which is what normally happens when a country "conquers" a piece of adjacent territory).

When people describe Israel as an "apartheid state" they are referring to the fact that in the West Bank, your ethnic/religious background determines what set of laws you are subject to (civil law for Israeli settlers with due process and everything else; military law for Palestinians with basically no legal protections) and your freedom of movement (imagine if the government built an interstate highway right by your house but you weren't allowed to drive on it and instead had to go 10 miles out of your way on random two-lane roads with multiple checkpoints - that is basically the situation Palestinians in the West Bank face on a daily basis).

The reason they face these conditions is because they commit terrorism. Before the Intifadas they had much more freedom of movement. They also do not want Israeli citizenship. That being said, I will grant that the "apartheid" accusation bears some semblance to reality (even if it is mostly caused by Palestinian behavior), given that the land is de facto Israel's yet Palestinians living there lack civil rights. Of course, if Palestinians wanted to be citizens of Israel and marched peacefully for that, international pressure on Israel would massively increase. The conditions they face stem from their own behavior.

Plenty of Basques have committed acts of terror against Spain over the years, but Basques still have Spanish citizenship and the right to participate in the Spanish political process and civil society.

Northern Irish Catholics who did not want to be British and often committed acts of terror against the government were still subjects of the United Kingdom with the right to vote.

There are regionalist/separatist movements in countries all over the world that advocate for their interests through varying degrees of nonviolent or violent action and participation in the political process.

Israel doesn't want to give them citizenship and never did. Palestinians' behavior is totally immaterial to the issue. There is nothing the Palestinians could or couldn't do that would change their mind on that.

[mileslunn]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

The reason Russia hasn’t annexed all of Ukraine is because they lack the ability, not norms. If Russia really could conquer Ukraine than it would be theirs, regardless of whether the US propped up some powerless “government-in-exile” and refused to recognize it. According to reality Crimea is Russia, and nobody serious thinks Ukraine will ever get it back.

As for Israel, they won the West Bank from Jordan, who has relinquished all claims over it. I don’t think a non-existent Palestinian entity has the right to claim any ownership of it. That doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t choose, if it so wanted, to create a Palestinian state. But when you win land in war, and administer and control it for 50+ years, and no other state can reasonably take it from you, then it is yours. That doesn’t change because of an unenforceable legal fiction called “international law”. The only real international law is the law of conquest, and if conquest has slowed down over the last few decades it’s because the US and its allies have stopped or punished it, not because of some moral law.

If that were the case, then they would have given Israeli citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank (which is what normally happens when a country "conquers" a piece of adjacent territory).

When people describe Israel as an "apartheid state" they are referring to the fact that in the West Bank, your ethnic/religious background determines what set of laws you are subject to (civil law for Israeli settlers with due process and everything else; military law for Palestinians with basically no legal protections) and your freedom of movement (imagine if the government built an interstate highway right by your house but you weren't allowed to drive on it and instead had to go 10 miles out of your way on random two-lane roads with multiple checkpoints - that is basically the situation Palestinians in the West Bank face on a daily basis).

The reason they face these conditions is because they commit terrorism. Before the Intifadas they had much more freedom of movement. They also do not want Israeli citizenship. That being said, I will grant that the "apartheid" accusation bears some semblance to reality (even if it is mostly caused by Palestinian behavior), given that the land is de facto Israel's yet Palestinians living there lack civil rights. Of course, if Palestinians wanted to be citizens of Israel and marched peacefully for that, international pressure on Israel would massively increase. The conditions they face stem from their own behavior.

Plenty of Basques have committed acts of terror against Spain over the years, but Basques still have Spanish citizenship and the right to participate in the Spanish political process and civil society.

Northern Irish Catholics who did not want to be British and often committed acts of terror against the government were still subjects of the United Kingdom with the right to vote.

There are regionalist/separatist movements in countries all over the world that advocate for their interests through varying degrees of nonviolent or violent action and participation in the political process.

Israel doesn't want to give them citizenship and never did. Palestinians' behavior is totally immaterial to the issue. There is nothing the Palestinians could or couldn't do that would change their mind on that.

Israel grants automatic citizenship to Arabs born in Israel, which is 20% of population.  For East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, not automatic but have right to apply for it.  For West Bank and Gaza Strip not available however Gaza Strip is not under Israeli control while only Area C in West Bank is which is mostly populated with Israeli settlers.  In Cyprus, people of Northern Cyprus don't have citizenship and cannot vote in Cypriot elections and likewise are not EU citizens so do not enjoy right to live and work anywhere in EU.  Latvia denies many Russian speakers citizenship thus also meaning not EU citizens.

But getting back to topic, question is whether people are in favour of Israeli settlements or against them or support them in some cases but not all.  I am for a freeze on new settlements and those obstructing creating a contiguous state as well as those deep into West Bank should be dismantled.  But those near Green Line especially on ridge I believe should be allowed to stay and if a separate Palestinian state created, there would be land swaps.  If a one state solution, then hopefully most land would privatized and it would be up to land owners to decide who can buy and not as opposed to government. 

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

The reason Russia hasn’t annexed all of Ukraine is because they lack the ability, not norms. If Russia really could conquer Ukraine than it would be theirs, regardless of whether the US propped up some powerless “government-in-exile” and refused to recognize it. According to reality Crimea is Russia, and nobody serious thinks Ukraine will ever get it back.

As for Israel, they won the West Bank from Jordan, who has relinquished all claims over it. I don’t think a non-existent Palestinian entity has the right to claim any ownership of it. That doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t choose, if it so wanted, to create a Palestinian state. But when you win land in war, and administer and control it for 50+ years, and no other state can reasonably take it from you, then it is yours. That doesn’t change because of an unenforceable legal fiction called “international law”. The only real international law is the law of conquest, and if conquest has slowed down over the last few decades it’s because the US and its allies have stopped or punished it, not because of some moral law.

If that were the case, then they would have given Israeli citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank (which is what normally happens when a country "conquers" a piece of adjacent territory).

When people describe Israel as an "apartheid state" they are referring to the fact that in the West Bank, your ethnic/religious background determines what set of laws you are subject to (civil law for Israeli settlers with due process and everything else; military law for Palestinians with basically no legal protections) and your freedom of movement (imagine if the government built an interstate highway right by your house but you weren't allowed to drive on it and instead had to go 10 miles out of your way on random two-lane roads with multiple checkpoints - that is basically the situation Palestinians in the West Bank face on a daily basis).

The reason they face these conditions is because they commit terrorism. Before the Intifadas they had much more freedom of movement. They also do not want Israeli citizenship. That being said, I will grant that the "apartheid" accusation bears some semblance to reality (even if it is mostly caused by Palestinian behavior), given that the land is de facto Israel's yet Palestinians living there lack civil rights. Of course, if Palestinians wanted to be citizens of Israel and marched peacefully for that, international pressure on Israel would massively increase. The conditions they face stem from their own behavior.

Plenty of Basques have committed acts of terror against Spain over the years, but Basques still have Spanish citizenship and the right to participate in the Spanish political process and civil society.

Northern Irish Catholics who did not want to be British and often committed acts of terror against the government were still subjects of the United Kingdom with the right to vote.

There are regionalist/separatist movements in countries all over the world that advocate for their interests through varying degrees of nonviolent or violent action and participation in the political process.

Israel doesn't want to give them citizenship and never did. Palestinians' behavior is totally immaterial to the issue. There is nothing the Palestinians could or couldn't do that would change their mind on that.

It's true that Israel doesn't want to give them citizenship (it's also true that almost all of them would refuse citizenship if given). It's true that Israel wants the land and not the people, which in theory is pretty indefensible in the context of modern democratic liberalism. It is not true that Palestinians' behavior is immaterial. The wall and the checkpoints are there because of terrorism. They were not present for most of the occupation; they came because of the Intifadas. The fact that a lot of the West allows Israel to continue controlling the land without giving civil rights to the people is a direct consequence of Palestinians making themselves extremely unsympathetic through terrorism and irredentist fantasy. If Palestinians were peacefully demonstrating for equal rights the politics of this would be radically different. Support for Israel in the West is significantly higher than it was a few decades ago, even as the rights of the Palestinians have decreased. This is because people realize that what Palestinians want is not compatible with reality. The current status quo is effectively the least bad option. BTW, if Palestinians really supported a two-state solution, I would be much more opposed to settlements. Not because I believe they are illegal, but because they would interfere with a peaceful solution to the conflict. But given that Palestinians overwhelmingly do not support peace, I don't have have an issue with Israel using the land it conquered. If peace is impossible, why not take advantage of things?

[LBJer]

I voted no.  More than anything else, the settlements show that the Israeli government is not interested in peace--or at the very least, that peace is less inportant to it than catering to Orthodox and fundamentalist ideas about God and the land in question. 

[Dr. MB]

no

That being said I agree with Rashida Tlaib on the issue:

“Some settlements have been there for so long, right?” she said. “And just the idea around taking families that — that’s been their home — it’s just completely uprooting, forcibly displacing. It’s something I struggle with because, like, we’re doing it all over again, right? This happened during the Nakba.”

Tlaib immediately qualified that “you can’t compare” the Nakba to the removal of settlements, saying that Palestinians endured more violence than uprooted settlers when they were dispersed or expelled. Palestinians, she said, also deserved “restorative justice.” But she appeared to have difficulty accommodating the idea of removing families who had lived in their homes for generations.

“Some generations now don’t know anything but that community, that is in the eyes of the United Nations and many others and agreements, it’s illegal,” she said. “So I don’t know how we do it.”

I feel like a lot of crimes have been committed by building the settlements and the best way to get rid of those crimes is to end the apartheid system which creates second-class citizens.

[patzer]

I don't think it's a problem if Jews decide to live in the parts of Israel which happened to have been controlled by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, no. That's the historic centre of Israel anyway.

[Indy Texas]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

The reason Russia hasn’t annexed all of Ukraine is because they lack the ability, not norms. If Russia really could conquer Ukraine than it would be theirs, regardless of whether the US propped up some powerless “government-in-exile” and refused to recognize it. According to reality Crimea is Russia, and nobody serious thinks Ukraine will ever get it back.

As for Israel, they won the West Bank from Jordan, who has relinquished all claims over it. I don’t think a non-existent Palestinian entity has the right to claim any ownership of it. That doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t choose, if it so wanted, to create a Palestinian state. But when you win land in war, and administer and control it for 50+ years, and no other state can reasonably take it from you, then it is yours. That doesn’t change because of an unenforceable legal fiction called “international law”. The only real international law is the law of conquest, and if conquest has slowed down over the last few decades it’s because the US and its allies have stopped or punished it, not because of some moral law.

If that were the case, then they would have given Israeli citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank (which is what normally happens when a country "conquers" a piece of adjacent territory).

When people describe Israel as an "apartheid state" they are referring to the fact that in the West Bank, your ethnic/religious background determines what set of laws you are subject to (civil law for Israeli settlers with due process and everything else; military law for Palestinians with basically no legal protections) and your freedom of movement (imagine if the government built an interstate highway right by your house but you weren't allowed to drive on it and instead had to go 10 miles out of your way on random two-lane roads with multiple checkpoints - that is basically the situation Palestinians in the West Bank face on a daily basis).

The reason they face these conditions is because they commit terrorism. Before the Intifadas they had much more freedom of movement. They also do not want Israeli citizenship. That being said, I will grant that the "apartheid" accusation bears some semblance to reality (even if it is mostly caused by Palestinian behavior), given that the land is de facto Israel's yet Palestinians living there lack civil rights. Of course, if Palestinians wanted to be citizens of Israel and marched peacefully for that, international pressure on Israel would massively increase. The conditions they face stem from their own behavior.

Plenty of Basques have committed acts of terror against Spain over the years, but Basques still have Spanish citizenship and the right to participate in the Spanish political process and civil society.

Northern Irish Catholics who did not want to be British and often committed acts of terror against the government were still subjects of the United Kingdom with the right to vote.

There are regionalist/separatist movements in countries all over the world that advocate for their interests through varying degrees of nonviolent or violent action and participation in the political process.

Israel doesn't want to give them citizenship and never did. Palestinians' behavior is totally immaterial to the issue. There is nothing the Palestinians could or couldn't do that would change their mind on that.

It's true that Israel doesn't want to give them citizenship (it's also true that almost all of them would refuse citizenship if given). It's true that Israel wants the land and not the people, which in theory is pretty indefensible in the context of modern democratic liberalism. It is not true that Palestinians' behavior is immaterial. The wall and the checkpoints are there because of terrorism. They were not present for most of the occupation; they came because of the Intifadas. The fact that a lot of the West allows Israel to continue controlling the land without giving civil rights to the people is a direct consequence of Palestinians making themselves extremely unsympathetic through terrorism and irredentist fantasy. If Palestinians were peacefully demonstrating for equal rights the politics of this would be radically different. Support for Israel in the West is significantly higher than it was a few decades ago, even as the rights of the Palestinians have decreased. This is because people realize that what Palestinians want is not compatible with reality. The current status quo is effectively the least bad option. BTW, if Palestinians really supported a two-state solution, I would be much more opposed to settlements. Not because I believe they are illegal, but because they would interfere with a peaceful solution to the conflict. But given that Palestinians overwhelmingly do not support peace, I don't have have an issue with Israel using the land it conquered. If peace is impossible, why not take advantage of things?

Since the end of the Second Intifada, there has been very little violence carried out by Palestinians in the West Bank. Their "reward" for that has been more settlements and more displacement. Israeli politics over the past decade or so has basically been an autopilot trajectory of more settlements, ignoring the Palestinians, and assuming the Iron Dome and sufficient walls and troops could let them ignore the issue indefinitely.

Why does Israeli settler violence against Palestinians not qualify as "terrorism" to you? 

Why is the onus solely on Palestinians to support a two-state solution? The overwhelming majority of Israelis oppose one, as does the majority of Israel's elected officials.

[Indy Texas]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

The reason Russia hasn’t annexed all of Ukraine is because they lack the ability, not norms. If Russia really could conquer Ukraine than it would be theirs, regardless of whether the US propped up some powerless “government-in-exile” and refused to recognize it. According to reality Crimea is Russia, and nobody serious thinks Ukraine will ever get it back.

As for Israel, they won the West Bank from Jordan, who has relinquished all claims over it. I don’t think a non-existent Palestinian entity has the right to claim any ownership of it. That doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t choose, if it so wanted, to create a Palestinian state. But when you win land in war, and administer and control it for 50+ years, and no other state can reasonably take it from you, then it is yours. That doesn’t change because of an unenforceable legal fiction called “international law”. The only real international law is the law of conquest, and if conquest has slowed down over the last few decades it’s because the US and its allies have stopped or punished it, not because of some moral law.

If that were the case, then they would have given Israeli citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank (which is what normally happens when a country "conquers" a piece of adjacent territory).

When people describe Israel as an "apartheid state" they are referring to the fact that in the West Bank, your ethnic/religious background determines what set of laws you are subject to (civil law for Israeli settlers with due process and everything else; military law for Palestinians with basically no legal protections) and your freedom of movement (imagine if the government built an interstate highway right by your house but you weren't allowed to drive on it and instead had to go 10 miles out of your way on random two-lane roads with multiple checkpoints - that is basically the situation Palestinians in the West Bank face on a daily basis).

The reason they face these conditions is because they commit terrorism. Before the Intifadas they had much more freedom of movement. They also do not want Israeli citizenship. That being said, I will grant that the "apartheid" accusation bears some semblance to reality (even if it is mostly caused by Palestinian behavior), given that the land is de facto Israel's yet Palestinians living there lack civil rights. Of course, if Palestinians wanted to be citizens of Israel and marched peacefully for that, international pressure on Israel would massively increase. The conditions they face stem from their own behavior.

Plenty of Basques have committed acts of terror against Spain over the years, but Basques still have Spanish citizenship and the right to participate in the Spanish political process and civil society.

Northern Irish Catholics who did not want to be British and often committed acts of terror against the government were still subjects of the United Kingdom with the right to vote.

There are regionalist/separatist movements in countries all over the world that advocate for their interests through varying degrees of nonviolent or violent action and participation in the political process.

Israel doesn't want to give them citizenship and never did. Palestinians' behavior is totally immaterial to the issue. There is nothing the Palestinians could or couldn't do that would change their mind on that.

Israel grants automatic citizenship to Arabs born in Israel, which is 20% of population.  For East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, not automatic but have right to apply for it.  For West Bank and Gaza Strip not available however Gaza Strip is not under Israeli control while only Area C in West Bank is which is mostly populated with Israeli settlers.  In Cyprus, people of Northern Cyprus don't have citizenship and cannot vote in Cypriot elections and likewise are not EU citizens so do not enjoy right to live and work anywhere in EU.  Latvia denies many Russian speakers citizenship thus also meaning not EU citizens.

But getting back to topic, question is whether people are in favour of Israeli settlements or against them or support them in some cases but not all.  I am for a freeze on new settlements and those obstructing creating a contiguous state as well as those deep into West Bank should be dismantled.  But those near Green Line especially on ridge I believe should be allowed to stay and if a separate Palestinian state created, there would be land swaps.  If a one state solution, then hopefully most land would privatized and it would be up to land owners to decide who can buy and not as opposed to government. 

Arbitrarily drawing borders to surgically exclude people you don't deem worthy of participating in civil society is what South Africa did in the 1970s and 1980s.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Yes. Israel needs to militarily occupy the land for security reasons. Settlements make it much easier to administer. Plus they won it by war so why not try to keep some of the land for themselves, also it make their borders more defensible.

Conquest by war is not really a concept that the world uses these days: for starters that would justify russia annexing Ukrainian territory (and would have given it carte blanche to annex Georgia).

The reason Russia hasn’t annexed all of Ukraine is because they lack the ability, not norms. If Russia really could conquer Ukraine than it would be theirs, regardless of whether the US propped up some powerless “government-in-exile” and refused to recognize it. According to reality Crimea is Russia, and nobody serious thinks Ukraine will ever get it back.

As for Israel, they won the West Bank from Jordan, who has relinquished all claims over it. I don’t think a non-existent Palestinian entity has the right to claim any ownership of it. That doesn’t mean Israel couldn’t choose, if it so wanted, to create a Palestinian state. But when you win land in war, and administer and control it for 50+ years, and no other state can reasonably take it from you, then it is yours. That doesn’t change because of an unenforceable legal fiction called “international law”. The only real international law is the law of conquest, and if conquest has slowed down over the last few decades it’s because the US and its allies have stopped or punished it, not because of some moral law.

If that were the case, then they would have given Israeli citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank (which is what normally happens when a country "conquers" a piece of adjacent territory).

When people describe Israel as an "apartheid state" they are referring to the fact that in the West Bank, your ethnic/religious background determines what set of laws you are subject to (civil law for Israeli settlers with due process and everything else; military law for Palestinians with basically no legal protections) and your freedom of movement (imagine if the government built an interstate highway right by your house but you weren't allowed to drive on it and instead had to go 10 miles out of your way on random two-lane roads with multiple checkpoints - that is basically the situation Palestinians in the West Bank face on a daily basis).

The reason they face these conditions is because they commit terrorism. Before the Intifadas they had much more freedom of movement. They also do not want Israeli citizenship. That being said, I will grant that the "apartheid" accusation bears some semblance to reality (even if it is mostly caused by Palestinian behavior), given that the land is de facto Israel's yet Palestinians living there lack civil rights. Of course, if Palestinians wanted to be citizens of Israel and marched peacefully for that, international pressure on Israel would massively increase. The conditions they face stem from their own behavior.

Plenty of Basques have committed acts of terror against Spain over the years, but Basques still have Spanish citizenship and the right to participate in the Spanish political process and civil society.

Northern Irish Catholics who did not want to be British and often committed acts of terror against the government were still subjects of the United Kingdom with the right to vote.

There are regionalist/separatist movements in countries all over the world that advocate for their interests through varying degrees of nonviolent or violent action and participation in the political process.

Israel doesn't want to give them citizenship and never did. Palestinians' behavior is totally immaterial to the issue. There is nothing the Palestinians could or couldn't do that would change their mind on that.

It's true that Israel doesn't want to give them citizenship (it's also true that almost all of them would refuse citizenship if given). It's true that Israel wants the land and not the people, which in theory is pretty indefensible in the context of modern democratic liberalism. It is not true that Palestinians' behavior is immaterial. The wall and the checkpoints are there because of terrorism. They were not present for most of the occupation; they came because of the Intifadas. The fact that a lot of the West allows Israel to continue controlling the land without giving civil rights to the people is a direct consequence of Palestinians making themselves extremely unsympathetic through terrorism and irredentist fantasy. If Palestinians were peacefully demonstrating for equal rights the politics of this would be radically different. Support for Israel in the West is significantly higher than it was a few decades ago, even as the rights of the Palestinians have decreased. This is because people realize that what Palestinians want is not compatible with reality. The current status quo is effectively the least bad option. BTW, if Palestinians really supported a two-state solution, I would be much more opposed to settlements. Not because I believe they are illegal, but because they would interfere with a peaceful solution to the conflict. But given that Palestinians overwhelmingly do not support peace, I don't have have an issue with Israel using the land it conquered. If peace is impossible, why not take advantage of things?

Since the end of the Second Intifada, there has been very little violence carried out by Palestinians in the West Bank. Their "reward" for that has been more settlements and more displacement. Israeli politics over the past decade or so has basically been an autopilot trajectory of more settlements, ignoring the Palestinians, and assuming the Iron Dome and sufficient walls and troops could let them ignore the issue indefinitely.

Why does Israeli settler violence against Palestinians not qualify as "terrorism" to you?  

Why is the onus solely on Palestinians to support a two-state solution? The overwhelming majority of Israelis oppose one, as does the majority of Israel's elected officials.

The violence has been limited because of the wall, checkpoints, etc. If they didn't exist there would be a third Intifada. The system is effective and necessary.

When did I say Israeli settler violence isn't terrorism? It absolutely is, and it's despicable. It is shameful that Israel lets these people get away with it, and I applaud the Biden administration's efforts to crack down on these terrorists.

The onus is on Palestinians to support peace because they are the ones who want a state. As you yourself note, the current system in the West Bank mostly works for Israelis, so they tolerate it. If Palestinians want a state, they need to convince Israel and the West. That's just a fact. Terrorism and revanchism hinder that goal. The left may have the delusional belief that because Israel is the more powerful party, they should be the ones making concessions, but in reality it's the opposite. The less powerful party is the one who can't be choosy. If you have no state, no army, and very little power, and there is one party that could possibly change that... then radical Islamic terrorism against that party is not going to help you. Protestors aside, the West does not see groups like Hamas and say, "wow, the Palestinians have a point. Time to embrace BDS!".

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Obviously no. Anyone who says otherwise is insane.

In a final deal for the region the oldest settlements should probably stay a part of Israel given people have lived entire lives in them, but anything tiny or built after a certainty date (1994 perhaps?) should be ceded to a future Palestinian state. Is one thing to recognize that “giving the land back” doesn’t make sense after a certain amount of time, and another thing entirely to be actively undertaking a colonial project in the present.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess if all Palestinians are given full citizenship in a unitary state. Otherwise only if the Palestinian authorities allow them to remain.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It's likely that any final peace deal will have to involve some land swaps and some population transfers out of the land designated for Palestine. The situation is a security quagmire.

[AtorBoltox]

Practically they are an impediment to peace, morally it’s hard to see how people who are essentially squatters are somehow the embodiment of all evil as some people portray them to be. Additionally, I’m not sure why it’s taken as a given that it is just a Palestinian state be formed with a Jewish population of zero. Diversity is a strength

[Cassius]

Given that my country planted thousands of settlements on six continents spanning about a quarter of the globe, I can’t in good faith be critical of the Jews doing the same in a 90 by 30 mile zone.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I support a viable Palestinian state, so obviously not.