D: "the differnce is that they did not go there to settle for eternity, and would be prepared to move if a better opportunity arose. Hence temporary. hence legal." The LEGALITY of requisitioning land in occupied territory doesn't come JUST from the temporary nature of requisitioning, but from the requisitioning for IMMEDIATE MILITARY NECESSITY. THESE settlers are settling on that requisitioned land with the intention/expectation that they will be there permanently. That was also the intention/expectation in the case in the Gaza before Sharon decided to run over the top of them, as it was the case in the Sinai before Begin was forced to abandon them. They were illegal when they were constructed, and they remained illegal *until* they were abandoned. That does not mean you can claim that the WB settlements are legal NOW because, hey!, THEY might also be abandoned sometime in the future! They are INTENDED to be permanent, and that makes them illegal.
WHO: Polio back in Europe for first time since 2010 (Reuters)
from the article: Failed marks in comprehension