I agree that making places which will definitely be part of Israel in any future two state solutions denser, whilst not increasing footprint, or access to neighbouring land is not inherently problematic.
But give people an inch and they will take a mile. From the US perspective far easier to just deliver an ultimatum on settlement building full stop. Besides, the fewer settlers, the fewer troublemakers, so that’s another advantage.
Also that provides an incentive for those who live in the settlements to come to an agreement on a two state solution since that will free up their land for further building.
I agree that they should turn a blind eye to small scale refurbishment/rebuilding of existing housing stock, but should object to any Greenfield building, or major projects.
From the US perspective far easier to just deliver an ultimatum on settlement building full stop
The question is different: is such an ultimatum more likely to be accepted?
the fewer settlers, the fewer troublemakers
It is not my impression that the troublemakers come from Ariel.
Also that provides an incentive for those who live in the settlements to come to an agreement on a two state solution since that will free up their land for further building.
Here our perception of people from Ariel may differ in the other direction: do you see them support any two states solution that a Palestinian agreed to, under any realistic circumstances?
I agree that making places which will definitely be part of Israel in any future two state solutions denser, whilst not increasing footprint, or access to neighbouring land is not inherently problematic.
But give people an inch and they will take a mile. From the US perspective far easier to just deliver an ultimatum on settlement building full stop. Besides, the fewer settlers, the fewer troublemakers, so that’s another advantage.
Also that provides an incentive for those who live in the settlements to come to an agreement on a two state solution since that will free up their land for further building.
I agree that they should turn a blind eye to small scale refurbishment/rebuilding of existing housing stock, but should object to any Greenfield building, or major projects.
The question is different: is such an ultimatum more likely to be accepted?
It is not my impression that the troublemakers come from Ariel.
Here our perception of people from Ariel may differ in the other direction: do you see them support any two states solution that a Palestinian agreed to, under any realistic circumstances?