I think some nuance is missing here. I agree that the settlements were a bad idea to begin with, and that expanding to new areas is bad. But the israeli cities like Ariel in the west bank are not going anywhere, nor places like Oranit. Given that you and I know that, it must be very visible to the Palestinians and other stakeholders—maybe even by building those places even denser, while keeping other areas visibly empty and ready for land swaps. Nothing is worse for peace than unrealistic expectations.
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 think some nuance is missing here. I agree that the settlements were a bad idea to begin with, and that expanding to new areas is bad. But the israeli cities like Ariel in the west bank are not going anywhere, nor places like Oranit. Given that you and I know that, it must be very visible to the Palestinians and other stakeholders—maybe even by building those places even denser, while keeping other areas visibly empty and ready for land swaps. Nothing is worse for peace than unrealistic expectations.
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?
5 disagree and no dislikes on a rare political position—if only the rest of the world was that sane.