Protesters form 'human chain' to protest pullout

[Gimel]

Protesters on Sunday evening formed a 90-kilometer-long "human chain" between the Gush Katif settlement bloc in the Gaza Strip and the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem, to protest against the disengagement plan.




According to the police, some 130,000 people took part in the event, spreading out from the Nissanit settlement in Gaza to Jerusalem.

Settler leaders said Sunday that they had been overwhelmed by the response to the protest and that they expect some 800 busloads of people to help form the chain.

....

"We came here to protest the program of expelling Jews from their land," said Avraham Yitzhaki, 54, from the Gaza settlement of Ganei Tal.

Read more...

BTW, I'm posting this article because it's a major news even of the day, not because I support the demonstration necessarily. I support the right of peaceful demonstrations for whatever political position is taken.

[Djinn]

1. So they're getting in the way of government policy

kind of like standing in front of houses to be demolished...so in that case you'd understand if the military drove over them with a bulldozer?

[meti57b]

2. Anyone who remains in front of a moving bulldozer ....

would have to be a stupid idiot. My guess is that none of these protesters would stand in front of a moving bulldozer. If somehow any of them did, the others would show more concern for that person than for making a propaganda news headline out of it, and pull that person to safety.

[Djinn]

3. yep pretty much what I expected

cold - really cold. As well as a total lack of knowledge re what happened to Corrie and what exactly could have been done to save her -by the time anyone realised the driver was going to flat out murder her there was no chance to do anything that wouldn't have been suicidal ...no tasteless jokes though, I'll have to give you that.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. It's called Blaming The Victim...

Nothing else matters, not facts, when it comes to the obsession with casting the victim as the one to be blamed. Look at it their way. How stupid is it for someone to assume that the IDF would place the value of a human life over that of destroying a Palestinian home? Knowing that unlike where settlers try to stop their illegal outposts from being dismantled, the IDF doesn't wear kid gloves when it comes to anyone who opposes the occcupation. What do people expect? If yr in the Occupied Territories and yr not a settler or an Israeli carrying that unwavering vision of a Greater Israel, then if you place yrself between the IDF and their 'work', yr going to get killed...

Hey, are you old enough to remember the Franklin River blockade? Kind of interesting to find out that meti considers that those thousands of people who ended up saving the river by getting in the way of bulldozers and chaining themselves to trees were 'stupid idiots'. Tasmanian loggers obviously thought that way too. I remember at the time they were peddling t-shirts with 'Doze A Greenie Today' on them...

Violet...

[Djinn]

5. I was just a kid back then

but it was probably my introduction to politics, during the campaigning before the 83 election my parents (old hippies) took me along with them to a rally in the local park where Bob Hawke was speaking, I must have only been about 7 or 8 at the time but I still remember the real buzz in the atmosphere and the way he could really psych the crowd up, lots of Save the Franklin badges and stickers around, Eltham was full of greenies back then (unfortch it's filled up with suburban "aspirational" types now).

As for the rabid loggers - still plenty of them about a friend of mine was at a forest sit in in Gippsland when a bunch of loggers came through with iron bars and proceded to smash the place up - these were the same people who accused the protestors (who's most violent act was the god awful feral singing a drumming!) of being terrorists yet I seriously doubt they would have thought that about there own actions which injured people and scared the living shit out of others.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I predate you by a bit...

My intro to politics was back when Gough Whitlam got sacked and that evening my parents dragged us kids out to a big rally in front of Parliament House. All I remember is being really bored and wanting to go home cause I didn't understand what was going on....

Something I've noticed about protests in the Occupied Territories is that people get treated differently, depending on whether they're supporters of the occupation or not. A peaceful protest by anyone who opposes the occupation is met by over the top use of force in order to quell it, and some folk will then try to say the protest wasn't peaceful, conveniently forgetting to mention that it was the IDF or the border police who were the violent ones. But when settlers protest, they don't have to worry about being attacked by Israeli forces, who are, after all there to protect them..

Violet...

[Gimel]

9. This doesn't have anything to do with

Yr comments here, digressions and ramblings are off topic. There is no victim here except the settlers who have to be uprooted to satisfy the Palestinians.

[IndianaGreen]

10. They are squatters that are living on Palestinian land

If this were old American West, the "settlers" would have received a healthy dose of American frontier justice.

[Gimel]

11. Right

The land belonged to the British Empire. It was the Mandate held for a Jewish state. It was further divided to give a homeland to the Palestinians, but they rejected it and started three aggressive wars and two Intifadas.

[Matilda]

12. Oh, please!

Palestine has been predominantly Arab-Islamic since the seventh
century. The Turks over-ran it in the 1500s, but the Arab Muslims
remained, and also a small number of Christians and Jews, living
peacefully, albeit under Ottoman rule.

The Jews have not lived in Palestine since about 200 AD, while the
Arabs have lived there continuously since the 600s. The land didn't
belong to the British, they simply drove the Turks out and took it
over as a British protectorate, but that didn't make it theirs. It
was never held for a Jewish state - Lord Balfour made certain
promises to the Jewish people, but he also made promises to the
Arabs as well, and his promises were mutually exclusive.

The land was divided by U.N. resolution to create the state of
Israel, granting the Arab population less than 50% of the territory
in which they had lived for 1300 years - small wonder they declined
to just roll over and accept the situation.

It's one thing to believe that the Jewish people needed a homeland
after the Nazi holocaust - it's quite another to rewrite history to
suit your belief.

If you're going to mount an argument for Israeli occupation, do it
honestly, please.

[The Magistrate]

14. Well, Ma'am

If you are going to complain of the re-writing of history, you might wish to take a bit of care in the comments you provide.

The statement Jews have not lived in that area since the end of the third century is quite false. The Romans barred Jews from Jerusalem in the immediate aftermath of the Bar Kochba rebellion early in the second century, and in the period of rebellion running roughgly from 70 C.E. to 140 C.E. certainly killed many Jews and carried off many into slavery elsewhere in the Empire, but their efforts fell far short of depopulating the land, nor were they intended to achieve that. Doing so would rather cut down on the tax receipts, after all.

Jews remained a signifigant portion of the population of the region throught the period between the second century and the present day, though there number has certainly waxed and waned. The impact of Christianity, in the period after Constantine, and in the period of the Crusades, had the greatest diminishing effect. When Christianity became the state religion of the Empire, Judaism and Jews came under many legal proscriptions, which moved a great many people to convert to the dominant religion in order to escape the impact of these regulations on their lives. The Crusaders, in their periods of triumph, indulged in wholesale massacre of the Jewish populace, particularly in the taking of Jerusalem. The first period of Islamic conquest in the seventh century similarly resulted in a great many conversions of Jews to Islam, to escape liability to slavery and various taxes the Islamic regime imposed on non-believers.

It is an oddity of history, therefore, that a great proportion of what are now considered Arab Palestinians could actually, if they were so inclined, trace their ancestery to persons who considered themselves Jews in the Roman period. The Arab conquest of the region had very little impact on the actual ethnicity of the peoples over-run, since the Arabs were not a very numerous people, and simply constituted a politically superior strata over the native populace in the areas they conquered. That peoples conquered by the Arabs came to identify themselves as Arab over the centuries does not alter the actual descent.

Your comment that the English conquest of the region did not make it theirs is interesting, since you seem to feel that earlier Arab conquest of the region does make it theirs, and one would feel the same principle ought to apply to either instance, so that either neither conquest conveys title, or both do. The fact is, of course, that the region has been held by various conquerors throught its history, and has that in common with the entire world: you would be hard put to find more than a few acres on this planet still in possession of descendants of the original inhabitants of the place. Under international law at the time of the English conquest, it was certainly theirs, and the region became the property, so to speak, of the League of Nations, which empowered England to act as its agent in administering it under the Mandate. You may feel that was wrong or right as you please; it was certainly legal as international law was construed at the time.

We may leave consideration of the details of Balfour and the Partition for another day, as my time is pressed just now....

[Matilda]

24. Your comments are, as always, well articulated.

But I did say in my post that Jews and Christians also lived in
Palestine, although Arabs were the majority race. What is more,
they lived in peace; there were no troubles regarding either race
or religion.

It is also true that the British did not claim the territory of
Palestine as theirs - they held it under a Mandate, which means
that they would administer the territory until such time as the
native population were able to be self-governing. So although the
British ruled the territory, it was never claimed by them as part
of the British Empire, nor was it intended to be a permanent
situation.

I can't claim to be really conversant with the organisation of Arab
society at the time they were holders of the land, but I believe
it was less organised than the west at the time, in terms of land-
owning and government. But the Turks were more canny, and took
out title to the land when they had conquered it, so when the Zionist movement began buying land in Israel, they purchased it generally from Turkish absentee landlords, to the surprise and consternation of the Arabs, who were not aware that the land they held and had farmed for generations was not legally theirs. In
today's society, the Turks wouldn't be able to do this, but back
then (1500s onwards) nobody was going to stop them, and they had
nearly 400 years to consolidate their holdings.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Are you sure about that?

The first period of Islamic conquest in the seventh century similarly resulted in a great many conversions of Jews to Islam, to escape liability to slavery and various taxes the Islamic regime imposed on non-believers.

I've got to question this one while it's really fresh in my mind. Umar was a follower of Mohammed, someone who heard the revelations directly from the Prophet himself. Taking dhimmis (aka Jews and Christians, who were protected subjects) into slavery or doing anything that didn't afford them protection was contrary to the teachings of Mohammed. It was Umar who invited the descendants of Jews that the Romans had expelled from Palestine to return. So my question is how did Islam change so drastically in the very short time between Mohammed dying and being succeeded in quick succession by Abu Bakr and then Umar? I understand that as Islam expanded, it cross-fertilised with other cultures, and some of the grafting from other cultures and religions weren't good things (eg segregation of women and veiling them was copied from Greek Christians generations after Mohammed's death), but these customs were picked up hundreds of years after the time yr talking about. And conversion to Islam didn't even start to be encouraged until the eight century...

As for considering Jews and Christians non-believers, they did not. All three religions believed in the same god, and Jews and Christians were afforded respect because of it...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

15. The Machine Hiccoughed

[Gimel]

26. Jewish Population in Palestine

The Jews have not lived in Palestine since about 200 AD, while the
Arabs have lived there continuously since the 600s.

While the Jews have lived in the land of Israel continuously since about 1000 b.c.e. The Muslim religion was only created in 600 c.e., so if you are referring to religion, that would include the holiest sites of Islam, in Mecca. Arab is not the true ethnic origin of the Palestinians.

In 1914 there were approximately 60,000 Jews in Palestine. That is not just a few, by the population levels in that day. Between 1919 and 1922 Jewish migration to Palestine was 27,008. While a minority in the population, the immigration preceded the Holocaust, and most of the immigrants were from Muslim nations. Many Jews were forcibly expelled from nations such as Iran and Iraq.

More than half of the population of Israel today originated in Eastern and North African nations. Spanish and Moroccan Jews are also grouped here, and none of them are refugees from the European Holocaust.

[Matilda]

27. The number of Arabs in Palestine (Filastin) post WWI was 1,000,000+.

The people who were living there in the 600s were from all over the
region - principally descendants of the Canaanites, but also
Persians, Greeks, Jews, Christian converts from all around the
region of what includes today's Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. They
intermarried with each other, and by the end of the seventh century
had become predominantly Arabic and Islamic - that is, both the race
and the religion. Western history tells us of the crusades of the
Middle Ages into the area - they were fighting to regain the land
from the Muslims, not the Jews, who by that time were well and truly
dispersed throughout western and eastern Europe.

There were always a number of Jews in the region, but they had no
political aims as regards separate statehood; that came with the
Zionist migration to the ME in the 1800s, but more Jews in that time
went to the U.S. than to Palestine. In the 1930s, 170,000 Jews
moved from Europe to Israel, principally to escape from the policies
of the Nazis. Following statehood in 1948, 678,000 Jews emigrated,
of whom about 160,000 came from surroudning Arab states, the rest
from former Nazi-occupied European countries.

Link: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/holocaust/Research/Proseminar/tomerkleinman.htm

I don't know why you're trying to pretend that few Jews were coming
from Europe; of course they were, and it made perfect sense that
that's where they would go, as immigration to the west was limited.
The Jews were expelled from the Arab states after partition, but
there were not huge numbers living there.

Since the 1960s, Jews have come from all over the world to Israel,
but historically, the aftermath of the holocause gave Israel its
greatest boost in numbers, and why wouldn't it? It's not hard to
understand why many Jews did not want to go back to their former
homelands in Europe. Please don't try to lay all the troubles of
the Jews at the door of the Arabs; that is just not historically
correct.

[Gimel]

28. Which shoe..?

I don't know why you're trying to pretend that few Jews were coming
from Europe;

I don't know why you think I am trying to pretend anything. My statements as fact stand. There were large and thriving Jewish communities in the north in Safed since the Spanish Inquisition, which caused emigration by persecution. The Jerusalem Jewish community rivaled the Muslims in numbers. That is more than a few Jews.

And so what if they had no aspiration of statehood. That doesn't mean that there is no right to statehood now. The Palestinians didn't have aspirations of statehood either. The weren't even identified as a distinct nationality. You call them Arabs and Muslims which included maybe a billion others.

[Matilda]

34. There were few Jews living in Palestine until the 19th century.

They had been driven out by the Romans, and again by the Crusaders
when they held brief sway in the Holy Land. At the beginning of
the 18th century, Jews numbered some 1500-2000 people, and this
was about as large as the numbers got.

Muslim Arabs were the principal residents from the 600s onwards.
Jews and Christians were tolerated as People of the Book, but were
vastly inferior in numbers. All the place names in Palestine were
Arab names, the culture was Arabic. Jews did not begin to arrive
in any appreciable numbers until the 1890s. By 1947, there were
600,000 Jews to 1,300,000 Palestinians. As this was the pre-state
peak, it is pure fancy to claim that at any prior time the number
of Jews rivalled the number of Arab Muslims.

Palestine has been predominantly Arab and Islamic since the seventh
century, and even though it was part of the Ottoman Empire from
1516 until the British Mandate began in 1920, it remained Arabic
in culture and religion. That is a matter of historical record,
and cannot be wished away.

[Gimel]

40. "Rivaled in numbers"

While I did not use any terms that implied that Jews were rivaling the total population of the area called Palestine in the 18th century, I did mention that in two municipal areas (Safed and Jerusalem), Jews outnumbered Arab Muslims. Also, as I have pointed out, and you dispute, over half of the immigrants came from the neighboring Muslim states, where in most cases they were forcibly ejected.

The total Jewish population in Palestine in 1914 was approximately 60,000. That is from an excellent source, a text titled The Population of Palestine by Justin McCarthy, Columbia University Press 1990.

If you take the turn of the century as the cut-off date for Jewish immigration pre-modern or pre-Holocaust, and I see no reason for that, you still have a significant number immigrating from the Muslim nations of North Africa prior to the 20th century.

Are you trying to prove that Jews came only in response to the European Holocaust? If so, how do you account for this early immigration being primarily from the Muslim nations and religious Jews from Russia?

With the constant changes in the population makeup in the area know s Palestine, there is a history of population flux. That includes the nomadic tribes of the Bedouin and the Arabs who moved around the area. The more stable Arab population centers were in Jenin, Nablus, Rafah, Khan Yunis, as well as villages in the Galilee, where they remain today.

[Gimel]

74. Spanish Exile

1516 - The first ghetto is established in Italy. Eretz Yisreal becomes part of the Ottoman Empire, increasing the movement of Jews from Spain and Portugal to the "Holy Land". Safed is an important center.

Time line in Jewish history

[Cassandra]

83. Interesting that you buy into the idea that...

the principles of the region were primarily descended from Canaanites, when actually, they are, as the Magistrate suggested, much more likely to have been converted Jews.
http://www.cohen-levi.org/
" These Jewish communities are more closely related to each other and to other Middle Eastern Semitic populations – Palestinians, Syrians, and Druze, than to their neighboring non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora."

Most likely they are all, genetically, the same people who over the centuries chose different religions at various times. So the notion that Jews are somehow alien to the area is rather ridiculous. The Palestinians push the idea that they are a separate race from the Jews because they can't stand the notion of a shared descent.

[Matilda]

84. They all are, as you say, descended from the same race.

That's why it's an oxymoron to call someone who doesn't like Jews
anti-semitic - both the Jews and Palestinians are Semites.

The point I was making was that the Palestinian/Muslim peoples have
been in the majority for over 1,000 years - not the fault of the
Jews, who were forced out by various forces from the Romans onwards,
but refuting the claim that they have a stronger title to the land
than the Palestinians, who have been there continuously over the
centuries.

I think it's beyond doubt that the state of Israel was formed by
land taken from the Palestinians who had lived on it and farmed it
for generations. It is also a fait accompli - after fifty years,
there is no going back, and it's something all the Arab nations are
going to have to accept.

But pushing the Palestinians out of the area that was set aside for
them is illegal, immoral, and unjustifiable. And doing it by brutal
means is nothing short of ethnic cleansing - an international crime.

[Cassandra]

86. You're still speaking of the Jews...

as if they actually all left. They have always been there; some converted. The Arab conquerors didn't replace the native population, they converted it.

[Matilda]

88. Haven't you heard of the Diaspora?

There were various periods in which the Jews were expelled from
the land of Judea, notably the Babylonian captivity, and the years
in Egypt. After the Romans had destroyed the Temple in 70CE, many
Jews fled from Judea, but it was in 135 that Hadrian forcibly
expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and Judea (which was then renamed,
for the first time, Palestine). Of course some stayed, at first
secretly, but the majority fled to other ME countries, to North
Africa, to Spain and eventually Portugal and across to England.
During the times of the crusades, there were never more than a
couple of thousand Jews living in Palestine. They were far
outnumbered by the Arabs, who during the 600s, became Muslims.

I am making a point of this simply to discount the claims of
hardline Israeli supporters that the Muslim Arabs were not living
continuously and in large numbers in Palestine during the centuries
of the Diaspora. This is not to deny ancient ties of the Jewish
people to the land, but it was the Arabs who were the majority race
there for over 1300 years, albeit for centuries under Ottoman rule.
They are not recent immigrants, nor was the land virtually
uninhabited when large-scale migration of Jews back to the Holy Land
began in the late 1800s.

[Cassandra]

89. I'm part of the Diaspora...

so, of course, I've heard of it. You're missing my point. Some of the Muslims' ancestors who have lived there for so long were Jews originally. Just because they haven't been Jews in the area for centuries doesn't mean that Jews are new to the area; they have always been there.

[Matilda]

90. Once again, I'm not saying the Jews haven't been there all along.

What I am saying is that the Arabs have been there in ten times
the number for 1,000+ years, so I don't understand how the Israelis
can say that the land belongs only to them, and the Palestinians
have no rights there.

It simply flies in the face of reason and history.

[Gimel]

91. "the Israelis"

This is a broad generalization so I don't understand how the Israelis can say that the land belongs only to them, and the Palestinians have no rights there.

If you read that one Isreali settler said that, you cannot assume that all Israelis hold that opinion.


Actually, even one person who is a descendant of the land has a right to the land of his ancestors, so numbers don't matter in the question of right. Arabs today have the largest area in Palestine, and if you go back to the Ottoman Empire, it included Egypt as well as most of the peninsula.


The 1 million population that you quote is for all of Palestine, not just what is recognized as Israel today.


From your post:refuting the claim that they have a stronger title to the land than the Palestinians, who have been there continuously over the centuries.

As Arabs, the Palestinians are native to the land. They have not existed as a recognized national group until the last 30 years or so. Jewish rights to the land are not "stronger than" Arabs, but what land and how is it to be divided, that is the question. What are the borders? That has to be determined by negotiations. To say that Israelis don't a

[Lithos]

97. Language is not always consistent

That's why it's an oxymoron to call someone who doesn't like Jews
anti-semitic - both the Jews and Palestinians are Semites.

The term was derived not by philogists, but by someone trying to create a pseudo-academic word to better justify and legitimize the hatred of Jews. Coincedentally enough it was an anti-Semite who coined the phrase and it is his definition that stuck.

At this stage to try and redefine the word to make it philogically consistent is close to a revisionism that is much more offensive than the perceived inconsistency it presents.

Truthfully, Semitic is also wrongly defined. It is derived from Shem which would theoretically apply to the Lydians and the Elamites (who Shem fathered) who are not considered Semites. The more correct word I believe is Hamitic (those descended from Ham). Hatred of Jews and Arabs, Aramaeans would be miso-Hamitic or anti-Hamitic.

L-

[geek tragedy]

13. Those settlers are a big problem for both Palestinians

and Israelis. They're the ones who moved out there, knowing that Gaza is not part of Israel.

How many Palestinians and Israelis should die so they can keep their outposts?

I say the Israelis should pull the military out and let the Palestinians deal with those who remain behind. If they want to live as citizens in a Palestinian state and swear loyalty to Yasser Arafat and his successors, good for them.

[Gimel]

16. The "settlers"

They're the ones who moved out there, knowing that Gaza is not part of Israel

As a matter of fact most will testify that Gaza is a part of Aretz Israel.

If they want to live as citizens in a Palestinian state and swear loyalty to Yasser Arafat and his successors, good for them.

Nice of you to offer, but I think Arafat has other ideas. The Hamas certainly does, and they are currently more in control of Gaza than Arafat is.

[geek tragedy]

19. "Most will testify?"

Gee, that's not self-serving or anything.

Whether one wants to call them settlers or colonists, but their presence in Gaza and the WB is an obstacle to peace and democracy for both Israelis and Palestinians.

If they want to enjoy the protection of the state of Israel, then they should move to those areas governed by the state of Israel.

Gaza is not part of the state of Israel. They knew that going in.

[Gimel]

20. It's not

self-serving. At least in the normal sense of the words. I wasn't talking about myself. I was rather trying to give you some of the impressions I have of listening to representatives of the settler groups.

It's so easy to demand that Jews leave Gaza and the West Bank because "their presence ... is an obstacle to peace and democracy for both Israelis and Palestinians." Yes. If you want a democracy, send out all the people who are Jews. Good answer.

Some here complain about roads being for Jews only as though it was a crime. When snipers were killing Jewish women and children on the roads, the settlers set up road blocks to try to prevent it. That's what evolved into separate roads for the settlers to use. The Arabs complained about the road blocks. So now it's "apartheid" for any road that is specified for settler use. It's meant to protect lives, as is the barrier. It works. That makes them angry.

I favor the Disengagement Plan, and the evacuation of Gaza, and the isolated settlements in the WB. However, the settlers are not going to like it. Some 80% will leave willingly, by the liberal reports, while the Yesha council says very few are going to take up the offer to relocate or take financial compensation. Telling them it isn't the land of Israel is not going to solve anything either.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Bypass roads...

Many people complain about them because they realise that they are a crime. And the bypass roads are a product of the Oslo Accords. They're a network of roads cutting up the West Bank and connecting those illegal settlements to Israel. Seeing as how snipers kill Palestinian women and children on roads, I doubt very much if the boot were on the other foot that there wouldn't be loud and long complaints of apartheid, discrimination, etc....

If the settlers and anyone who supports them is so dense as to think the dismantlement of settlements is being demanded because they're Jewish, there's no hope that they'll ever develop the mental wattage required for rational thought. Gosh, why is the concept that the settlements are illegal under international law so difficult for some folk to start to comprehend? Why do some folk feel the incessant need to paint the very valid complaints of the Palestinian population as them not being understandably pissed off about the oppression they've suffered from for so long, but because they're a bunch of slavering at the mouth anti-Semites who love nothing better than killing Jews? That was a rhetorical question, btw, as I already know the answer, and it doesn't paint those who throw around those silly claims in a very good light at all...

Violet...

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. I've given you the only logical explanation...

If they sere illegal, then legal means to evict them could be undertaken.

Fact: Those settlements are illegal under international law. There's no disputing that. The legality or otherwise of attempts taken to evict them in no way makes the settlements legal....

Murder is not a legal means of eviction.

Thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious. I've never said or thought it was. But that has zero to do with the illegality of the settlements...


I don't see you complaining about those murders of Jewish civilians.

My kidlet will claim she can't see her schoolbag when it's right in front of her face and she's just tripped over it. It's amazing what people don't see when they don't want to. Anyway, what part of me repeatedly saying over the whole time I've been posting here that the killing of civilians is morally and legally wrong is getting missed? I hope it's not because I don't confine my opinion on that to just Israeli civilians, but have the audacity to believe that the lives of Palestinian civilians are every bit as valuable as Israeli lives. I've said it before and I'll say it again, and whether you see it or not is completely up to you. Anyone who condones the murder of civilians of one group, and then raises all hell about the murder of civilians of another group are hypocritical and have no argument that floats to back their position, because in condoning the killings of one group, they're weakening their own argument against the killings aimed at the group they've decided to make themselves a defender of...

While we're talking about the murder of ANY civilians, I think it'd be kind of ironic and amusing if anyone who tried to justify the murder of a Palestinian child by the Committee For Road Safety popped up and tried to claim I wasn't opposed to the murder of Jewish civilians.

Violet..

[Gimel]

53. Disputing the legality

Those settlements are illegal under international law. There's no disputing that.

You have not the authority to limit freedom of speech, either for this board or for the world.

The very vague condemnation of a very general nature has registered. It is not adequate, IMO.

I have condemned the killings of innocent civilians. I have never tried to justify murder. A combat situation is different in the eyes of the law, if not in your mind, than attacks on civilian populations.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. That communication problem thing is kicking in again...

You have not the authority to limit freedom of speech, either for this board or for the world.

I'm more than aware of it. Now what on earth did that have to do with my post? Maybe you could explain why you don't think the settlements are illegal under international law?

The very vague condemnation of a very general nature has registered. It is not adequate, IMO.

Adequate for who? Anyone who's opinion I give a toss about? Anyone who actually bothers to read what people say without putting words in their mouth or misrepresenting their views? Sorry, but I'm not some performing seal who froths at the mouth on cue and trots out colourful rants against the murder of civilians in one group, and then being chided for not using enough colourful rants or appearing outraged enough. Screw that...

I have condemned the killings of innocent civilians. I have never tried to justify murder. A combat situation is different in the eyes of the law, if not in your mind, than attacks on civilian populations.

It's a bizarro world that there are indeed people (not saying you, of course!) who would probably try to justify the murder of a child by the Committee For Road Safety as being an act of self-defence in a combat zone. Attacks on civilian populations are just as abhorrent if they're on Israeli or Palestinian populations, and the excuse of a combat situation is no excuse. Combat situations have in the past brought about huge civilian casualties, and whether it's through intent or down to sheer lack of concern as to whether civilians are killed or not doesn't make any difference...

[Gimel]

60. I have

numerous times. Apparently to the thin air.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Sorry, but you haven't explained how the settlements are legal...

[Gimel]

82. Read the post here

Same thread

[Violet_Crumble]

93. That doesn't explain why you think the settlements are legal...

Israel does have jurisdiction over the land until there is a Palestinian state.

Yes, Israel is the occupying power. No-one is disputing that. What I asked was for you to explain why you believe that the settlements are legal under international law. As the occupying power, Israel has obligations. Building settlements in occupied territory and encouraging the civilian population of the occupying power to move there is illegal. From the Fourth Geneva Convention:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

It's been posted in this forum many times before, and I've yet to see anyone put up a convincing argument that the Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip...

Violet...

[Gimel]

102. The non-existence

of a previous Palestinian state, and the fact that the "international law" applies to a country that is occupied, not a territory where no state existed.

Furthermore, the Arabs rejected partition, and so there can be no reverting to that idea at all.

The historical rights of the Jews to the land is a further justification, as the existence of Jews in the area has been continuous, especially in cities like Hebron and Bethlehem, where some of the holiest cites in Jewish history remain.

[Violet_Crumble]

103. The Geneva Convention makes no reference to sovereignty...

It doesn't say anything at all about only being applicable if a sovereign state is occupied by another. It seems a rather ridiculous argument to try to say that it was written with the intent of not providing protection to those in occupied territories if they didn't happen to live in a sovereign state. The intent wouldn't have been to deny human rights and protection to these people. Also, the Fourth Geneva Convention has been found applicable to the Occupied Territories by the General Assembly and the Security Council, the ICRC, and most of the High Contracting Parties (I say most as I'm guessing the predictable dissenters would be Israel and possibly the US)...

Furthermore, the Arabs rejected partition, and so there can be no reverting to that idea at all.

What idea? Two states in what was historic Palestine? Besides, the Palestinian people didn't reject partition, and even if they had, that doesn't make the settlements legal under international law...

The historical rights of the Jews to the land is a further justification, as the existence of Jews in the area has been continuous, especially in cities like Hebron and Bethlehem, where some of the holiest cites in Jewish history remain.

Again, any claim of historical rights doesn't make those settlements legal under international law. Also, don't the Palestinians have the same historical rights to the land as well? What about parts of what is now Israel where there were large populations of Palestinians? Or doesn't this 'justification' apply to Palestinians?

Violet...

[Gimel]

59. In 1998

The Palestinians (excuse the similarity - but this is not a racist comment, they just happen to call themselves Palestinians) called an Intifada against the settlements. Maybe you haven't heard of it. Here are some links.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Articles/1998/Fatah%20Preparing%20for%20Intifada%20of%20the%20Settlements%20-




Rabin after meeting Arafat in 19 Jan 1995
I informed that all the stories about confiscation of land lately were made only to build bypass roads, in preparation of the implementation of the second phase of the DOP - to have a bypass of Tulkarem, to have a bypass of Ramallah, for the Israelis, in order that once we will implement the second phase, it will be more secure, without friction. No land was confiscated for building houses or anything of this kind.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1995-1996/Statement%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Rabin%20following%20his%20me


http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Israel+Line/1995/ISRAEL+LINE++-+02-Aug-95.htm


The Oslo agreement put the issue of the settlements for final negotiations, along with the status of Jerusalem.

PM Rabin ws working on developing industy in the Palestinian areas. The bypass roads were also according to agreements, and did not infringe the rights of Palestinian passage.


The attacks on Israelis in the territories have alsways been part of the the reality there. Movements of families are always subject to massacres.

The proposal was never implemented because of red tape and delays, or because other security issues seemed more urgent. Some security officials claim that there are also drawbacks to the plan to have separate roads for the two communities. For example, it would then be easier to identify Israeli vehicles travelling on the roads. This is an unconvincing argument, since the number of attacks on Israeli vehicles was large even when traffic was interspersed. In any case, it is clear that separating traffic is not an answer to all forms of possible attacks for example, shooting from ambush.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Articles/1995/SEPARATE+ROADS+ALREADY+PROPOSED+AT+END+OF+1994+-+1.htm

[IA_Seth]

22. uprooted to satisfy...

Nice use of language....

Or you could say...Everyone is a victim here because of the occupation.

[Gimel]

25. Because of the conflict

While Palestinians are continually pointing to "an occupation" they are also continually wanting to enter Israel as permanent residents.

[IA_Seth]

35. WTF

Would you rather live in an area under the constant threat of dying by missle fire when the Israeli's decide to destroy a building that may have a terrorist in it?

Would you rather live in an area that is being increasingly shut out of schools and crops due to Israel's "peace fence".

Would you rather live in an area that could be bulldozed at any time, so the Israeli's can go after terrorist's tunnels?

Believe it or not Gimel, there ARE peaceful Palestinians. There ARE innocent people being killed because of this conflict on BOTH sides, not only the Israelis. Palestinians can not take full blame for this conflict, and I do hope you will agree.

[Gimel]

46. Your thrust

I have often stated the view that many Palestinians are innocent. Where have you any cause to blame me, or to put my life in harm's way?

Children living in Israel, are also subject to rocket attacks.

I know that the Palestinians suffer. Hopefully, more care will be taken in the future to avoid civilian injuries. The situation has calmed in the past few months. Now measures to repair and improve the protection are being taken. With the peace fence, both sides will have a better opportunity to live without fear. I'm sorry that it has come to this. There can be no returning to life the thousands that have been lost, or restoring to wholeness those whose bodies have been peppered with shrapnel from a bomb attack.

You haven't noticed that the route of the fence has been altered. The path should avoid unnecessary hardship for the Palestinian families. This is with less security for Israel and Israeli children in compromise.

Raising children to hate, openly admitted to by Palestinian parents, is not the way to build a future society in peace with its neighbors. You do seem to cast blame and hatred my way, so I hope that you can see your errors.

[IA_Seth]

47. Blame and Hatred

Ma'am, I do think you are misreading me.

I put no "blame or hatred" on anyone that posts here, and if my posts seem to blame you it is only due to my passion on the subject and the need I feel to express that passion.

I agree that parental influence to hate is wrong.

If anything, I will thank you for putting into words the thoughts of those that share your views. They seem quite alien to me and wrong as hell sometimes, but you aren't the only one that feels that way and it is helpful to have someone try to explain it sometimes.

It is MUCH more fulfilling to read your posts than a Jim Sagle post about how Sharon Raaaaaaawks. Trust me.

[Gimel]

58. I would rather

Live in a villa on the Riviera. With plenty of money.

Arafat's wife lives a life of luxury in Paris, collecting masterpieces. Why not I?

The Palestinians are victims, many of them, even if they say they support Hamas, because they have been coerced. There are a large number of young terrorist who are single men who come to the area from Jordan, holding Jordanian pasports. They have no real home in the PA areas. They come to fight and attack Israel. They hide in the population which has been socialized and brainwashed to believe that Israelis live on land that is theirs.


It is neither historically or legally true.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. Rather it is the opposite

The Palestinians are being uprooted to placate the settlers. It was their home first.

[Gimel]

54. The Disengagement plan uproots Palestinians?

That is a bizarre interpretation.

[Classical_Liberal]

61. The settlement plan does precisely that, and has since 67.

. What you don't get is that most people don't view Jews as superior to Palestinians.

[Gimel]

66. How do you surmise that?

It seems that protecting Palestinians is the illusion of most. Israel has the armaments, most will point out, to smash the Palestinians in the territories to smithereens. Even the Palestinians were amazed that the Israelis came in tanks and on foot, door to door, to seek out the terrorists.

Many people expected Israel would launch nukes at Saddam also, if attacked. There are many illusions. Like Israel is evil and Israelis are using their might in an overly aggressive way. Actually, it is simply propaganda.

[number6]

48. yep, I agree ...

cold - really cold. As well as a total lack of knowledge of what happened to Corrie ...

[Matilda]

6. Or she may have been a passionately committed idealist.

Foolishly brave as only the very young can be, but her heart was in
the right place. That cannot be said of the driver of the bulldozer.

I hope she haunts his dreams.

[IA_Seth]

21. Cold

That makes me sick. You are going to call her a "stupid idiot"?

Come out and say it and show your true colors.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. Maybe it is because she assumed the bulldozer driver had a moral conscienc

stupid assumption huh?

[Gimel]

7. This is called...

thread hi-jacking. Anything to mention the RC saga.

We'll wait and see if the settlers stand if front of their houses to be demolished. You've really jumped to none events in assuming that a peaceful demonstration, coordinated with officials is similar to an impulsive young idealist trying to stand in the way of a military vehicle. It will go down in history, but as a lesson on how not to stop a war.

[IndianaGreen]

8. They can always come back to America

and buy property here instead of stealing it from the Palestinians.

[Gimel]

17. Hmm

England has a lot of open space too. Maybe the Palestinians would like to set up camp there, especially the diaspora crowd.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. It was their home first

They have more of right to it than the settlers do. The settlers are just bullies who used military might to steal land that was not theirs. They are also using some incomprehensable religious justification.

[Zhade]

18. Gee, I feel so bad for the squatters.

Oh, wait, I don't.

These people put their own children in danger by illegally occupying Palestinian lands. That's a form of child abuse, in my opinion.

[Gimel]

29. Child abuse

Blame the victims. You've made it official.

[Zhade]

37. I didn't blame the children.

They have no say in the matter, sadly.

Three simple facts:

1. The land does not belong to Israel, and is not part of the Israeli state.

2. It is against international law for Israels to move onto Occupied land.

3. The squatters who are stealing the Palestinian land with their government's assistance choose to put themselves in harm's way. Their children are given no choice.

It seems, by all reason and logic, that those Israelis choosing to place themselves knowingly in harm's way by occupying land that is not theirs, with full knowledge that this is both illegal and prone to provoke a violent response, are anything but victims. Their children are, yes, and it is tragic when even one Israeli child is killed thanks to their parents' arrogance and foolishness.

I would prefer the Israeli "settlers" were not killed, but they should know better than to live on stolen land in the middle of a war zone. It's hard to feel too horribly for them, when they have chosen to be there.

[Gimel]

38. More deaths

More Israeli children were killed inside the boundaries of the state of Israel than in the territories during the past three years. Maybe you think that Israelis should not have children either. Isn't that a little radical, even for DU?

Since you have a view that Gaza (and the WB) is not Israel, you agree that there is no disenfranchisement of the Palestinian population.

[Zhade]

41. "How about a little fire, Scarecrow!"

Straw men to the right of me! Straw men to the left of me!

1. I, of course, do NOT believe that Israelis shouldn't have children. I never said any such thing, as you well know. Poor attempt to sidetrack the issue.

2. As you also well know, the disenfranchisement goes on daily, with further theft of Palestinian lands by both "settlers" - in reality, squatters on others' lands - and a "peace fence" carving Palestinian land into open-air jail cells in some cases, and cutting deep into land that does not belong to Israel. Theft is theft is theft.

But then, you knew all this already.

Instead of hunting for ways to divert the topic, why not try honestly discussing the things in play? Is it, in your opinion, wise for parents to move their children to lands that are, at best, violently contested by both sides, with death and destruction from both sides adding to the further spiral into mutual suicide?

Is there not something criminal in moving your children to lands that don't belong to you, where you are not wanted thanks to your government's actions in your name, where your children stand a good chance of dying for your decision?

Surely there's something to my arguments - the ones I actually made, that is.

[Gimel]

45. Your arguments

You are saying that because that is what you've heard.

1. Of course it is relevant that fewer settlers have been killed in the Intifada over the past few years. You say it's a dangerous place for children. Putting a child in a car and driving 50 or 60mph is dangerous also. Yet how many people in America do that every day. And may children die on the roads. Not only in America, in Israel also and other counties. It is not diverting the issue to point out that living in the territories is not more dangerous than living in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. In your mind it is DANGER. Yet, for all the missiles dropping on the land, almost no one has been hurt by them. I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, but I don't think it's any more dangerous than the life-styles that people take their children into everyday, and to say that people who live there shouldn't have children (most of the kids were born there, not dragged there) is inhuman.

2. You second point. Disenfranchisement goes both ways. Furthermore, the security fence has been rerouted, and although it probably won't be 100% within the Green Line, it is not going to infringe on the lives of the Palestinians as much as it would if total security were the only issue.

The issues of Jewish settlements on land over the Green Line, will be settled through negotiations.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. Fewer settlers would be killed if they weren't stealing the land of the

Palestinians too. If Israel were really concerned about their security it would stop this practice. How come theft isn't relevant. You claim to be religious. Isn't stealing against the commandments? Why the hell would God advocate that his people become theives and cheaters of the poor? Why would he claim such depravity as a "holy land"?

[Zhade]

65. Don't you get tired of straw men arguments?

Once again, you construct one that misses a huge point: when people choose to take the risk to, say, drive their car, they're not involved in disenfranchising others to the point of inflaming legitimate anger.

Driving a car is nothing like stealing another's land - and again, you of course know this.

[Gimel]

69. That wasn't

the issue in question. Danger was.

Many things done that have inflammed anger, that doesn't mean that they were either right or wrong.

[Zhade]

70. So, stealing land ISN'T wrong?

I'm not going to say that's your stance - I'm asking for clarification.

Is the ongoing theft of Palestinian lands by the "settlers" wrong, in your view?

[Gimel]

71. I'm not sure it is clear

"theft" is a strong word. It's only hear-say. I have no way to verify if it is true or false.

[Zhade]

72. Seriously?

Appropriating land that doesn't belong to you, and does belong to others, is theft. The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel and never have been.

How can this not be clear? Willful ignorance? Wishful thinking?

[Gimel]

73. there is a governance

Israel does have jurisdiction over the land until there is a Palestinian state. Until then there are no agreed upon borders. As there was never a Palestinian state there how can it be theirs? You say it isn't Israel "and never has been", yet it is very clear that it was never the Palestinian's either.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. The Occupied Territories have never been part of Israel...

East Timor wasn't a state until recently. Do you really believe that the land didn't belong to the East Timorese because a state didn't exist on the land they'd lived on for so long? Australia wasn't a state till after European settlement. So you believe that Australia wasn't the Aboriginals land? How are the Palestinians any different from them?

Violet...

[Gimel]

81. I didn't say it was

Until a PA was set up by Oslo there was no government there, only terrorist organizations.

[Darranar]

87. Israel still has no right to steal the land...

the Occupied Territories are not part of Israel, and Israel has no right to take them.

[Gimel]

92. The land

is not stolen. It remains where it's always been. The personal property (houses built) has rightful owners as well. Stealing private property is not a compensation for the settlements. It is unjustifiable.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. As should we all!

Those squatters are so misunderstood. When will people understand that they're *the ONLY victims* in this? When will people buy a clue and realise that sacrificing the lives of conscripted troops to protect them shouldn't earn the squatters the resentment of the Israeli population, as well as most folk but the most extreme supporters of those poor squatters, but should earn them respect! And what choice do these *victims* have? Are they supposed to leave their children back in Israel? No! They have no choice but to promote PEACE by dragging their kids into a war-zone! It's those Palestinians who shouldn't be dragging their kids into the Gaza Strip and acting like it's their territory! Where else could these misunderstood squatters live? The West Bank? Nah, that's just as dangerous for a poor, misunderstood squatter. Israel? Totally out of the question! What sort of mad world is it when people expect Israelis who want to live with all the trappings of Israeli civil administration to live within the borders of Israel to do it??? Next thing you know, some smartarse will appear and try to say some of these Peace Squatters are prone to get pretty violent towards Palestinians. When will the propaganda end so we can all get on with our Victim Vigil for the Peace Squatters?? ;)

Violet...

[Djinn]

36. LOL

"What sort of mad world is it when people expect Israelis who want to live with all the trappings of Israeli civil administration to live within the borders of Israel to do it???"

Pretty much sums up my feelings on this violet, if they want to live outside Israel, the Israeli taxpayers should stop providing their sons to protect them (particularly since the mega religious can get out of the military service that other Israeli's can not) they should stop financing them and leave them to their own devices.

I kind of like the idea of living in or around PNG, do think I could get the Australian government to pay for my healthcare, roads, education etc AND provide me with soldiers for my protection if I chose Bouganville to retire to?

[Gimel]

39. The victims

The victims for the removal of the settlers from Gaza is the situation that I am referring to, not the total conflict. My comment was in that context.

[Djinn]

42. Settlements - "can't have it both ways"

If the settlements (or colonies) are on NON Israeli land then the settlers are not and never will be "victims" - they shouldn't be "compensated" for having to leave land they hand no right to in the first place.

If the settlements ARE legal then the land they stand on is part of Israel and all the Palestinians living there should be considered Israeli's and given the vote.

So Gimel - ARE the settlements part of Israel or not - if not then why compensate them - how are they victims?

[Gimel]

44. They are pawns

They are the pawns in this, whether you see the settlements as legitimate or not.

Here is a link to interviews with a few of them (also photos).

The compensation is for the homes they have bought with mortgages or built using their own money.

[Matilda]

49. Pawns??

The settlers have chosen to be where they are, and are heavily
subsidised by the Israeli government.

A major purpose of the settlements is to provide a justification
for the IDF presence in the territories, supposedly to guard the
settlers from the wicked Palestinians who coninue to object to their
presence of Palestinian land. Some of the settlements in the West
Bank have the specific purpose of guarding the aquifers that provide
fresh water to Israel.

The special roads built for the settlers not only link the
settlements by the most direct route to Israel, but also serve to
cut off Palestinian cities and towns from each other. Isolation
of Palestinian cities and towns is further exacerbated by
surrounding them with settlements. Indeed, Jewish settlers may
face attacks by Palestinians whilst travelling outside the
settlements, but if they weren't there in the first place, there
would be no problem. So creating Jewish only roads is the solution
to a problem that has been created by the settlers themselves.

[Gimel]

55. The bypass roads

do not cut of the Palestinian population. The road blocks are put up to detain terrorists. You must have confused the two.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Those roads cut up the West Bank...

Check a map of the roads. Of course they cut off the Palestinian cities and towns from each other. The road blocks detain all Palestinians, btw....

Violet...

[Gimel]

67. Is there any other way?

Of course all Palestinians are delayed when there's a road block. Duh. Everyone is stopped and asked for ID.

The map will not show you the bypass roads, because there are few of them. Most planned bypass roads were never built.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Of course there is...

And that of course there is applies to both there being other ways and also that maps of the bypass roads do exist and they are cutting up the West Bank. Duh, indeed. Settlers are NOT stopped and asked for ID...

Dismantling the Israeli-only settlements in the West Bank would be a solution that would *gasp* comply with international law. Something that's illegal in the first place can't be used to justify using other illegal means...

As for maps of the bypass roads in the West Bank, they do exist. Here's one. So, which of those roads were never built, Gimel?

[Gimel]

76. Roads

Checkpoints on the Israeli Military controlled roads are not bypass roads. There are no bypass roads marked on this map.

One road that was to be built but never was was the planned connection rout between Gaza and the WB. That would have been Palestinian vehicles only. I assume you would have protested that.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. What's the purpose of all those checkpoints?

There's a hell of a lot of them. So, how many of those roads are bypass roads?

We're talking about bypass roads in the Occupied Territories, not any possible future road between Gaza and The West Bank. And no, I wouldn't protest that one, for the obvious reason that it would be the result of agreement between both Israel and Palestine, something that the bypass roads in the West Bank aren't a result of...

Violet...

[Gimel]

80. Check points

Are not bypass roads and are not on bypass roads. Israelis are not checked for ID's, may be rather a superficial notion. Israeli licenses are often on cars driven by terrorists. Don't count on it. There is no date or other identification on the map, so I have no way of knowing if it is current. By pass roads would have to say Israelis only. I see none parked that way. The Jericho bypass road may no longer exist.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. I asked what the purpose of all those checkpoints were....

There's a shitload of them all the place throughout the West Bank. Now I'll ask what the purpose of all those Israeli military controlled roads are that ever so conveniently are criss-crossing all over the West Bank. Why would a map have to have a label saying 'Israelis only' for you to acknowledge that they're bypass roads? Doesn't the Israeli military control the bypass roads? btw, the map is dated 2003...

Violet...

[Gimel]

104. the information is dated

The reality is that many of the roadblocks have been removed in the past 6 months. As the situation has changed, so did the need for keeping a lock-down due to movement of terrorists within the area.

[Djinn]

64. I know WHAT they're being compensated for

Just not WHY.

If I built a home outside the boudaries of the nation who's taxpayers support me I would not expect to be compensated for my own illegal actions.

And you didn't answer the question Gimel - are the settlements PART of Israel or not?

[Gimel]

68. The legal context

The settlers are Israelis, and are given the protection of Israeli law. They are not in Israel's parameters, but Israel does have some obligations as far as the territories are concerned, as they are not independent at this point.

Although the PA receives funding from other nations, such as Japan and the EU counties (the EU acting as a block of nations), which is considered humanitarian aid, and aid in helping the PA operate and develop their economy. Recently 125 million Euros was allocated to the PA by the EU.

[Matilda]

85. May I suggest that they are not in Israel's parameters,

because they shouldn't be there at all.

[Gimel]

95. World order

"they shouldn't be there at all."

I'm sure, since you think there should be no Jews beyond the Green Line, that you would also agree to no right of return of Palestinians to Israel within the Green Line. Also, to closing the gates into Israel as a prevention for illegal immigration and terrorism.

After all, the Palestinians shouldn't be there (in Israel) at all.

[Djinn]

96. they can close any gate they like

as long as the gate is on a wall in THEIR TERRITORY

[Gimel]

98. Actually

when there is a military control, any gate may be closed for security measures. Humanitarian needs have to be taken into consideration, but allowing entry is not mandated. Of course Israelis have been denied access to PA areas for more than 10 years.

[Djinn]

99. not up to Israel to decide

whether people should be able to move within the West Bank (that is what we're talking about NOT checkpoints into Israel - of course they can control that) mandated or not. West Bank IS NOT ISRAEL

[Gimel]

101. Military necessity

Sorry, closed crossing, please use other entrance.

No problem with that.

[Matilda]

100. Palestinians who don't have Israeli citizenship

are not allowed to pack up and move into Israel. Similarly, Israelis
are not supposed to just move themselves into the Territories.

If Israelis want to live on the West Bank, perhaps they should apply
for Palestinian citizenship first.