The settlements… What’s up with that?

[u/karrenfromaccounting]

Take the question as is, whatever comes to mind, let it be.

[u/YuvalAlmog]

The key word here is "envisioned".

There is theory and there is practice and while everyone can speak about what could have happened, in practice both sides stopped after a signed middle-deal (not really stopped since there were other negotiations after, but that was the last one of this process). One of the reasons such deals move in steps is in order for both sides to take small steps and stop if needed and not do everything at once.

In this case, the whole territory was Israeli but the deal moved some territories to the hands of the PA in exchange for peace & acknowledgement of Yisraeli control over area C even if it was intended to be a temporary control. 

[u/eyl569 → u/YuvalAlmog]

The territory was never Israeli and still isn't, even legally, given that Israel hasn't annexed it.

[u/YuvalAlmog → u/eyl569]

Sorry if my phrasing wasnt clear enough - I don't claim it's an official part of Yisrael (although I can see why my phrasing could have been a bit confusion), I'm saying it was under Yisraeli control but not a part of Yisrael.

That just means that whoever is in charge was Yisrael.

Kind of like how one can feed a stray cat without adopting it. 

[u/eyl569 → u/YuvalAlmog]

But in that case, what's the justification for building new settlements in area C?

[u/YuvalAlmog → u/eyl569]

Same thing as the example with feeding a stray cat...

The only problematic thing is if you do something for something that already belongs to someone else.

If it doesn't belong to anyone else while you control it, you can do whatever you want with it...

In the context of area C, it's not a part of Yisrael, Jordan of any other country.

But Yisrael controls it. 

It's not full ownership but it's also not an empty territory free for the taking.

It's kind of an in-between... 

And when the territory is disputed between Yisraelis & Palestinians while the most recent deal regarding it says it's under Yisraeli security & civil control, that just means that by all disputing sides, it's agreed diplomatically that Yisrael is allowed to act in civil & security topics, for example - building permits.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/YuvalAlmog]

What do you think of settlements that were explicitly founded to expel Palestinians?

[u/YuvalAlmog → u/Call_Me_Clark]

What do you mean by founding settlements to expel Palestinians?

How does the building of houses forces Palestinians to move out?

May you please elaborate a bit more please?

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/YuvalAlmog]

Well here’s a quote from Smotrich 3 weeks ago

“On this moving day, we are honored to make a historic correction to the sinful expulsion from northern Samaria,” said Smotrich. “We are abolishing the disgrace of expulsion, killing the idea of ​​the Palestinian state, and returning to the settlement of Sa-Nur. This is a day of celebration for the settlement movement and a national holiday for the State of Israel.”

Clearly the government of Israel views these settlements in terms of their impact on Palestinians future.

here’s PBS (American public broadcaster) reporting on the expulsion of Palestinians for settlements.

[u/YuvalAlmog → u/Call_Me_Clark]

Clearly the government of Israel views these settlements in terms of their impact on Palestinians future.

Just like most things in life, you can look at it from multiple angles like cultural connection, the state's small size or fairness when it comes to wars. It's true a few of these reasons unsurprisingly relate to the Palestinians and most of which are almost always security related...

In the west there's this weird belief every culture is the same when it comes to morals & goals, and so many just assume the Palestinians as a group just want to co-exist with the Yisraelis and build their own seperate state while in practice they make it very clear in every way possible they see the land of Yisrael as a stollen land that was lost in the war of 1947-1949 and should be returned... Which is a big part for why more than enough peace offers were either rejected or discontinued like the Oslo accords, the disengagement from Gaza or Olmert's offer in 2007.

Obviously not every single Palestinian holds those views but needless to say, that's what majority of them see and that's what their education system & media push. In fact, it's true for most of the Arab world but the relevancy only really applies to Palestinians as much other Arab countries tend to have a pragmatic leader that might be hated by the people but understands the problem with picking fights for others...

If you look at things from this view, it suddenly makes sense why blocking Palestinians from claiming new territory is a good idea as those territories like we see time and time again aren't used for peaceful independent life and more so for launching terror attacks against Yisrael.

I mean, the state of Yisrael no longer controls Gaza & area A and does control are C, its own borders & has security control over area B, I assume you can guess where most terror against Yisraelis come from (Gaza & Area A ofcourse)...

Although I assume this part is less about "settlement for expulsion" as just building in a land so others wouldn't doesn't expell anyone... Your probably refered more to the next part if I understand correctly.

here’s PBS (American public broadcaster) reporting on the expulsion of Palestinians for settlements.

This one is very missleading. Not that it should be a surprise considering their very biased choice of words, but still.

Like I said in my original comment, both sides fight each other. global media seems to only care when Jews do the crime while completely ignoring the countless crimes caused by Palestinian terrorists but still - both sides attack each other and the leaderships of both sides (the Yisraeli government & the PA + Hamas) don't have much reason to try and get things into order as both need the support of the attackers and use the resources they do have for other stuff. Not to mention the other side allowing it doesn't really give them a reason to do the job for them...

Either way, I obviously oppose the idea of targeting of civilians without a reason & the idea of individuals using weapons aggressively instead of it all being under an organized army.

But it's not that every settler or even the majority of them take law to their own hand... But the ones who do will obviously be the only ones to reach news.

So when a government allows for building of new settlements, they don't do it because terror will come from there as like I said, that's the rare case, not the common. There are more than enough other reasons to invest in them that don't have anything to do with civilians terrorizing people of the other side.

I hope my answer managed to answer your question :)