Addle, clearly you have a distorted view of Israel's role in the West Bank. "the IDF would make annual trips to homes or marketplaces and randomly shoot people"? Where did you get this information? Wait, don't tell me, the same sources you use to get all of your information. "They only throw rocks or set tires on fire when they have to resort to that option"? Just like they only send 14 year old kids into a cafe to blow themselves up when they "have to", right? You're using the same defense argument that was used by Hamas during the bus bombings in the 1990s. Truthseeker, keep seeking, because that isn't truth you're espousing. The mere reference to apartheid shows how little you actually know about the situation. It would be easy to see things in a black and white world...too bad this world is mostly grey.

In an earlier posting you claimed that the Hague conventions give Israel the right to all the land they occupied in 1967 as well as the right to move their citizens on to this land. Sarah, I have searched and searched and cannot find anything in the Hague conventions that speaks to your claims that Israel has the right to keep the land especially after it began the war. I checked out the Wikipedia site to which you referred. There was not a single word about the Hague conventions. As far as Germany goes, Germany was the aggressor in World War 2. In 1967 it was Israel that was the aggressor. Jordan came into the war only because it had a treaty with Egypt that called upon Jordan to come to the assistance of Egypt should that country be attacked. If what you say is true please give me the exact words from the Hague conventions that you are relying upon as well as the URL where you found them. That is, if indeed, those words exist.

Those of you who would shoot and kill those who protest against the theft of their lands so that the apartheid wall can be built on those lands would have cheered if East Germans had torn down the wall that separated them from their families. In actuality, as horrible as was the Berlin Wall, it pales in comparison to Israel's apartheid wall. At least the Berlin Wall was built on what was then the border of East Germany. This wall is built not just to protect Israelis but more so to grab more land. Why don't you wall lovers just admit it? I say Mr. Nethanyahu, tear down that wall!!

as opposed to the land of the terrorists? Why should Israel pay for it rather than terrorists? BTW, unless there is Palestinians state there is no Palestinian land. It would appear Israel built the fence on its own land.

No, the security fence is not built on so-called "Palestinian land." The Palestinians rejected a two-state solution, preferring to go to war instead. They rejected two more offers of a two-state solution and ending up going to war no fewer than five more times, losing each time (all six times, Arabs were the aggressors; not Israel). Since was there was never a Palestinian state, there is no Palestinian land. Palestinians that live in Judea in Samaria, which Israel acquired while repelling the Jordanian attack in June 1967, are Jordanian citizens. Roughly 75% of Jordan's population are Palestinians -- that IS the Palestinian state. Not Judea; not Samaria. Back to some mention of Canada -- have you any idea how many natives were murdered, dispossessed and executed in Canada as white interlopers stole their land? When is Canada planning to redress that grievous situation? I remind you that Arabs originate from the Arabian peninsula. Jews are the indigenous people in the region that is popularly known as the Holy Land. Israel and Judea were countries long before Arabs had an identity! Right up through the middle of the twentieth century, Arabs were your quintessential nomads. They HAD no homeland. They just used up resources, packed up and moved on. Actually, dear, my eternal homeland is held captive by Palestinian squatters. A whole invention called "Jordan" was carved out of part; another whole invention called "Syria" was carved out of another part. In answer to your question, I would never initiate violence. But violence begets violence, and Israel is more than justified in responding to provocation. Have you any idea how many innocent Israeli civilians have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists? Should that violence continue unchecked? Keep in mind that Israel endured eight years of daily missile barrages from Gaza before finally responding with a limited and careful operation. How long would Canada have waited if the United States were to start lobbing missiles across the border? I'm betting not even eight seconds, let alone eight years. Whether you realize it or not, you are justifying violence ab initio on the part of the Palestinians. Why? Do you support terrorists when historical fact flies in the face of every single claim that Palestinians make? Do you realize that each and every charter of the thirty or so organizations which purport to be the sole true representatives of the Palestinian people calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and the extermination and/or expulsion of the Jewish people. Are you aware that "Palestinian" is a made-up term, arriving on the scene roughly in 1969? Prior to the Six-Day War, Arabs on the West Bank were perfectly content to be Jordanian, and Arabs in Gaza were perfectly content to remain Egyptian. You cannot remove the historical facts; you cannot undo the result of sixty-one years of terror and violence and six wars, none of which were started by Israel. Curfews may be limitedly imposed ONLY following grievous Arab violence. Israel and the Israel Defense Forces have every right to take lawful measures to protect its citizens from harm. The West Bank -- particularly Hebron, Schehem and Jenin -- have been hotbeds of radical terrorist activity. Why wouldn't Israel protect its people in areas in which Israel lawfully maintains jurisdiction? I see from your penultimate and final paragraphs that you are parroting whatever lies and propaganda issued by any number of terrorist organizations and which you have foolishly and gullibly consumed wholesale. A little trip to the region -- or, at a minimum, to a decent research library in Toronto -- would do you a world of benefit. Judging from the tripe you spout, you have chosen your name quite aptly.

Riot is Israel.Are you guys mad,no wonder no one takes you seriously.

That I knew and admired.You are not going to win any points or friends by allowing these rioters to run amok.

The security fence is a non-violent, effective means for Israel to protect citizens from terror. Israel paid top dollar for land the fence is built on. The terror, in particular homicide bombings, pre-existed the fence and the fence was built because the Palestinians would not stop terror. The rock throwing, bombings, other terror attacks were used instead of negotiation and have led the Palestinians nowhere. Israel only controls specific areas. There are permanent and temporary roadblocks. Temporary roadblocks go up and come down based on terror threats. Curfews are also associated with security. Palestinians are governed by leadership they elected into office. This leadership controls their economy, infrastructure, educational system, politics, religion, culture, labor market etc. Instead of illegally protesting at an Israeli military zone where they do NOT belong, they should protest in front of their leadership and demand change. But no, they take no action. The only Palestinian protest was a pita protest where they took to the streets over lack of bread. Perhaps you should go lecture the Palestinians on their passive-aggressive, self-destructive approach to life.

I did an Ulpan at Kibbutz Ein Hashofet. Some of the best days of my life.

Sarah - You have found the time to answer other posts and yet you ignore my request for a link to the Hague conventions which show, as you allege, that the conventions allow Israel to keep the occupied territories and to move in their people. I have searched and searched the conventions and find nothing to support your allegation. Maybe I haven't looked enough so I would appreciate a URL that points out your contentions. That is, if there are any, If you can't reply to this I will assume that your allegations are not correct.

Israel was not the aggressor in 1967. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping in late May of 1967. You know perfectly well that that constitutes casus belli, or act of war, under all recognized international convention. Israel's actions commenced on June 5, 1967 were purely retaliatory in nature. But your analogy fails on other grounds as well. You will recall that the United States never declared war on Germany; it was quite the other way around, justified by Nazi Germany as coming to the aid of their Axis ally, Japan, following the United States declaration of war against Japan in the aftermath of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. You pays your money; you takes your chances. The United States was perfectly content prior to Germany's declaration of war to allow the British to do the fighting (can you spell lend-lease?). If Jordan felt drawn in due to treaty, more fool them. They certainly paid for it, didn't they? Just like Germany did. Stop trying to re-write and re-interpret international conventions. They are what they are, your vicious hatred of Jews and Israel notwithstanding. Here are your links to the actual Hague Conventions. How unfortunate your computer aptitude (or lack thereof) prevented you from finding them on your own. If you could not even figure out how to look them up, how on EARTH are you qualified to pronounce on them, as worded and as practiced? Are you a lawyer? Doubtful. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp I'm really tired of arguing this point with you time and again. Your hatred of Jews and all things Israel prevents you from appreciating how the Hague Conventions have translated in practice. My suggestion is that you acquire a degree in law (I went to Harvard, myself) and a Master's Degree in International Affairs (Harvard again), and then come back to debate with me. Assuming, of course, that you do not yet have to acquire an undergraduate degree. In that instance, tack on another four years before you challenge me again.

I provided it, twice. Let's try again. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

I just posted, for a third time, links to the Hague Convention. If it doesn't go through, just Google Avalon Law Project, which is a free service of Yale University's School of Law, with an internal search engine. I always answer posts except from a select few whose TBs I do not bother to read, even if they are addressed to me. I have no control over what the YNet moderator posts, however.

YNet did post my rather lengthy reply to you. It appears at No. 41. Shouldn't jump to conclusions. All of our posts are in the hands of the YNet moderators. In my reply at No. 41, I think you will find that I addressed all of your comments raised in your post at No. 32. Patience, dear.

Hope that what the protesters claim that the IDF is using live ammunition is the truth.The public are sick of the cowardly leadership threating these filth with caution.Let them be shot and go back to thier own country's as cripples.The arabs will be able to relate stories to thier grandchildren how stupid they were first being suiside bombers and then tryig to get through the fence.

I think you did a bedpan at Kibbutz David Hasselhoff!

the palestinians should resort to other acts other than peacefull ones. this hs been tried since the lands of palestine have been stolen. what did it get them? it was taken by force the palestinians will only get it back by force

Wow. Since the Israelis believe there is no Palestinian state, then shooting civilians is not a crime for they 'don't exist'. Yet, in the same breath, they speak that any measures utilized by the IDF are excused for Israel is 'at war'. At war with whom? All Arabs? All Palestinians? How do you 'war' against a civilian population? So, you use live amunition and wound protesting civilians. Some advocate not only the wounding of civilians but the collective punishment of razing villages or expelling the civiilian population. The funniest thing is reading the excuses and circular reasoning that somehow, a civilian population under military occupation for over 40 years are somehow non-people. Tell me, if the Nazis used the same reasoning during WWII, would that make their actions correct? If they said that the killing and wounding of civilian populations under occupation was somehow excused because the victims were not members of a 'state' and therefore were not protected as human beings? If so, then there really was a legal excuse for all the depredations committed.

It must be difficult arguing a position when the documentation and excuses provided by you so patently refute your arguments.