Some comments: - Comment - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
  • p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '25'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap
    • O
    • 14.12.11 | 10:42 (IST)

    I'm going to ignore the blatant racism at the start of your post. "Jewish, Christian, Samaritan, Druze, Beduin, etc. civilians are all legal occupiers because Judea and Samaria are disputed territories, as is Jordan itself." Hardly. There is no legal foundation for designating other people's land as "disputed territory" (whatever that is). Do you think that Arabs should be allowed to forcibly settle in Israel, and claim that land for their own countries, just because they dispute that the land is Israeli? "The fact that Jews are not allowed to settle in Jordan is apartheid." No it is not, look up apartheid on wikipedia (or whatever) and you will find out that it is quite different. What you describe is more along the lines of racial discrimination, though I don't think very many Jordanians are allowed to settle in Israel either. "...because many violations of Oslo by Arabs are considered acts of war under international law and thus give Israel the right to respond". First of all I don't believe that there is a term called "act of war" in this context in international law. What you are likely referring to is an "armed attack", as in the 51st article of the UN-charter. The term cannot be used as loosely as you seem to do, I very much doubt that there have been "many" such acts by the Palestinians in the last 20 years (it would help if you were a bit more specific). Also do note that in order to exercise self-defence under such circumstances a country has to report to the UN that it is doing just that. I doubt Israel has done that "many" times.

    from the article: Jewish rock-throwers are more equal
    First published 02:44 14.12.11 | Last updated 02:44 14.12.11
Haaretz Headlines
Netanyahu and IDF chief Eisenkot touring Israel's eastern border, February 9, 2015.

Erekat compares Netanyahu to apartheid leaders

Prime Minister said on Tuesdau that Israel needed to surround itself with fences and barriers against the 'wild beasts' in neighboring countries.

Hillary Clinton after losing the New Hampshire primary, Feb. 9, 2016.

Clinton to attack Sanders on Israel record after New Hampshire defeat

For the Clinton campaign, New Hampshire made clear that it is time to increase pressure on the Vermont socialist — including a harsher message to Jewish American voters.

The Netanyahus. He also has grandchildren.

Court rules: Sara Netanyahu abused employees in PM's residence

Meni Naftali, former chief caretaker of the PM's residence, awarded 170,000 shekels in damages after winning civil case over violation of his employee rights.

Senator Bernie Sanders

On foreign policy, Bernie is blowing it

The leftist Vermont Senator is forfeiting his chance to influence the foreign policy agenda and to make Hillary Clinton less hawkish.