Argument: The Settlements are illegal, and demonstrate the impotence of the international community  The Settlements, constructed on land that is neither recognizably Israel’s nor which Israel has even claimed to annex are illegal, encroaching on the territory of a future Palestinian state.  It is absurd for the international community to demand the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and yet allow Israel to establish its population on that land in settlements that view themselves and are viewed by Israel as Israeli territory. [1]  Furthermore, their continued expansion is something that each and every Palestinian can see every day. As a result, the continued expansion both: 1. Destroys Palestinian confidence in the ability and willingness of the International community to enforce its own promises, especially after repeated American and European promises to stop their construction.  2. Convinces Palestinian opinion that the negotiating process is an Israeli game to buy time until they have changed the facts on the ground.  As a consequence of these two factors, the continued expansion of settlements has an impact in driving Palestinians towards violent resistance even beyond the direct impact of the settlement construction by undermining their faith in International Law, and by adding a sense of urgency to their grievances.  [1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘The Big Question: What are Israeli settlements, and why are they coming under pressure?’, the Independent, 29 May 2009,

Counterargument: rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west The settlements are a sideshow that provide a convenient excuse for the Palestinians and their foreign friends to ignore the real (and difficult to solve) issues such as Jerusalem and what sort of sovereignty a Palestinian state would have.  For one thing, international law is very unclear on who owns the West Bank. Jordan gave up all claim to it in 1988, but its unclear as to whether their annexation in 1949 was legitimate in the first place. [1] Only Pakistan and Great Britain ever legally recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank. Secondly, the current border of the West Bank are arbitrary, the results of the military conflict of 1948-49 for which they represent the cease-fire line. As a consequence, even if one accepts the principle that there should be a Palestinian state in the West Bank, it does not follow that the final international border should follow the regions border exactly. It might for instance to make sense, as Israelis like Avigador Lieberman have suggested, to trade Arab villages in Israel proper for settlement areas on the West Bank. [2]  The Settlement issue mainly serves the purpose of putting Israel in the wrong, so as to distract from the need on the part of the Palestinians to define what sort of state they are willing to accept. The problem is not territory per se, but what happens to that territory and it’s on that issue that previous efforts to reach peace deals have faltered.  [1] ‘Jordan Renounced Claims to West Bank, 1988’, Palestine Facts,   [2] Carlstrom, Gregg, ‘Lieberman sees common ground with Livni’, Al Jazeera, 25 January 2011,