You are arguing two mutually-exclusive positions in those posts, and you seem to have no ability to recognize this when you argue that: 1) The settlements are temporary, and as such are quite legal (in itself wrong, but we'll leave that point for later) 2) The settlements are too difficult to remove, and therefore they must stay i.e. they are permanent, and that permanency is simply a fact that must be recognized and accepted by the Pals as legitimate, and a legitimate reason for throwing a wall around them (again, incorrect in itself, but that's for later). The two appear irreconcilable to *me*, but they clearly pose no problems for *you*. You are able to compartmentalize them, are you?
India floods derail two trains, killing at least 20; hundreds rescued (Reuters)
from the article: Failed marks in comprehension