I sincerely appreciate your respectful tone, but there are two basic errors in your views. 1. The Fourth Geneva Convention does not limit the duration of Occupation, but it does empower the Occupier to use restrictive measures on a broad basis. There's no legal or moral basis for condemning Israel for maintaining a defensive occupation with restrictive measures against an actively militant population supported by militant regimes. 2. The Convention also does not pass judgment on historical claims to land. So even if there were no violence against Israel, it would not have to withdraw, but only remove the restrictive measures. And please remember, before Intifada 2, there were no internal roadblocks. And before Oslo, there was nearly free passage in general. Every attempt to reduce Israeli control in the Territories has led to increased violence and then increased restrictive measures. Now lurking behind this whole discussion is another issue altogether: Was Israel's creation an act of rectification of a historic injustice, namely that the Jewish Nation was denied its rightful homeland - largely by the Arab Nation - for nearly 2 millenia, or was that creation merely a free act of mercy after the Holocaust that actually impinged on the Arab Nation in an unfair manner? How one answers that question basically determines how one interprets post-'48 history.
Thousands protest outlawing of Islamic Movement in Umm al-Fahm in northern Israel (Haaretz)
from the article: For Israel, 'delegitimization' is becoming an excuse
A Palestinian teen who tried to stab an Israeli woman in the West Bank was run over and shot to death. Her father, imam of the refugee camp where she grew up, says his daughter was 'responding to the occupation.'04:30 28.11.15 | 1 comments