Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

WATCH: Settlers attack Palestinian school, harass students

Settlers are caught on video throwing stones at a Palestinian school in Burin, and a settlement security guard fires his gun into the air. But the soldiers who arrive on the scene take no action against the attackers. 

By Yael Marom

School children in the West Bank village of Burin were harassed and attacked by settlers who threw stones at them and even fired a gun in the air last month, according to witness testimonies and video footage provided by B’Tselem.

In the late morning on Thursday March 16, two settlers approached the school, one of whom climbed the fence on the school’s perimeter and started photographing and cursing at the children in the playground. Several students responded by throwing stones, while their teachers tried to get them to go back inside to the classrooms.

The footage, shot by a B’Tselem volunteer whose son is a pupil at the school, shows the settlers as they are moving back slightly from the school, at which point they are joined by a third settler. He is armed, and seems to be a member of the security team from the nearby Yitzhar settlement. As the video shows, they begin throwing stones in at the school and the armed settler fires into the air.

Soldiers from a nearby IDF outpost can then be seen arriving and standing beside the settlers, who hadn’t covered their faces. From the video footage, they appear to be having a calm discussion. The soldiers don’t arrest the settlers or even send them away from the school. Instead, according to witness testimony, someone from the army’s District Coordination and Liaison Office called the school principal, who then went outside to talk with the soldiers.

The soldiers showed the principal the photos that the settler who climbed the fence had taken earlier, and claimed that the students had been throwing stones at cars on a nearby road. Around 30 minutes later, teachers began sending students home in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating.

The soldiers’ conduct, B’Tselem said, “emphasizes once again that the military’s role in the West Bank — with regular backing from its senior ranks — is to almost exclusively serve the settlers. It’s not just that the soldiers do nothing to protect Palestinian residents, as is their duty; they also repeat the settlers’ claims.”

And indeed, incidents involving gangs of radical settlers attacking Palestinians with no intervention from the army are routine in the West. Most Israeli citizens ignore daily settler violence, which itself complements the structural violence meted out by the army in order to control the occupied territories.

Masked settlers attack Ta'ayush activists near al-Auja, West Bank, April 21, 2017. (Screenshot)

Masked settlers attack Ta’ayush activists near al-Auja, West Bank, April 21, 2017. (Screenshot)

On October 5, 2015, for example, dozens of masked settlers were filmed descending from Yitzhar towards Burin, throwing stones and setting fields on fire, all under the watch of an army patrol. A few months prior, IDF soldiers fired tear gas at students in the same school in Burin, as they were taking morning roll call. In November 2014, settlers from Yitzhar were again caught on camera heading towards the village of Urif and attacking with stones, bars and burning tires, again took place under the noses of Israeli soldiers.

Last Friday, several left-wing activists with Ta’ayush came under attack from a group of settlers armed with clubs and stones. The activists, who were in the al-Auja area of the Jordan Valley to accompany Palestinian shepherds who were being threatened by Israelis from the nearby radical Baladim settlement outpost, were themselves physically assaulted.

The following day, groups of settlers from Yitzhar, near Nablus, descended on the villages of Urif and Huwwara and attacked Palestinian residents, smashed car windows, damaged property and reportedly uprooted and set fire to olive trees.

In each instance, Israeli police and soldiers arrived on the scene during or just after the violence, and made no arrests. An IDF officer who was attacked by the settlers on the scene of the disturbance in the Jordan Valley was the only incident to have provoked a response from Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman.

A representative of the IDF Spokesperson dismissed the video footage published here, saying that the “the editing of the film is biased and doesn’t reflect the reality.”

“On March 6, 2017, two Palestinians threw stones at cars on Route 60. The security coordinator of the small Yitzhar settlement and another resident who had stones thrown at them started to chase the suspects,” the IDF response continued. “During the chase they arrived at an Arab school close to where the stones had been thrown at them. The settlement security coordinator responded by firing into the air. An IDF unit arrived at the school immediately after in order to prevent further stone-throwing coming from the school.”

The IDF Spokesperson did not address the stone throwing by the settlers. The IDF likely believes ts duty is to stop Palestinians throwing stones by any means necessary, unless settlers are the ones doing the throwing. As we already know, the only stones the army considers potentially lethal are those thrown by Arabs.

Yael Marom is Just Vision’s public engagement manager in Israel and a co-editor of Local Call, where this article was originally published in Hebrew.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Itshak Gordin Halevy

      Who is throwing more stones? Jewish or Arabs? This is the question.

      Reply to Comment
    2. JeffB

      A good example of why Area-C should be annexed. Area-C desperately needs full fledged law enforcement. X throws stones at Y so Y chases X to a building where Z who now gets involved….. The sort of mess you get with vigilantism.

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        Most of the world believes that as the occupying power Israel has the obligation to police the occupied according to human rights laws.

        Reply to Comment
        • JeffB

          @Bruce

          I’m not sure how you are defining “most of the world”. If you mean the people in so far as they have an opinion you are probably right. I certainly do agree the masses of people simple don’t understand even the basics of the law on this or on most other topics. There are many causes of this ignorance, but the the UN’s abuse of the term “occupation” (and not only in the Israel / Palestine example though that’s the worst case) is the single most important cause. What should be a source of clarification and enlightenment is instead reduced to a source of confusion due to their abuse of language. The UN in trying to wish reality out of existence ends up tying themselves in logical knots and discrediting the good quality human rights work they wish to uphold.

          However, we have no need to look to the ignorant world. We have a strong body of law and tons of good recent examples to work from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations . We have a strong set of doctrines and laws of what occupation entails. We have a good set of human rights laws written from the mid-19th century through the early 20th century that sensibly address many of the issues of an occupation. We even have the laws arising in the mid-20th century that while nonsensical are far less destructive than early 21st century popular opinion, because they at least were written by people administering occupation governments and not human rights advocates.

          Now of course the moment one turns to real sources it becomes immediately obvious that what is going on in the West Bank is not an occupation at all. There is no remaining formal sovereign from whom the territory is being occupied. Israel clearly has more than just military interest in the territory and thus Israel isn’t the occupying it is the governing power. Trying to fit laws of occupation into the situation in the West Bank is always going to be driving a square peg into a round hole. Which is why I favor clarity so that the people who live in the West Bank get the advantages of the good government and stop living in the UN created schizophrenic existence caused by misapplication of the term “occupation”.

          If you mean serious people and want to exclude the masses then I would disagree. Serious people are not blind that’s what’s going on is not an occupation. I would say the majority wish it were and don’t want to encourage annexation by acknowledging that’s what’s happening. And that goal which they consider to be noble pursued unfortunately through a policy of lies is what drives the UN towards preaching nonsense.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “Serious people are not blind that’s what’s going on is not an occupation.”

            You are talking through your hat. Theodore Meron is a serious person. Legions of international law experts, the vast preponderance of them who disagree with you, are serious persons. Israel’s own High Court Justices, for gods sake, are serious persons.

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Ben

            Theodore Meron was writing in the late 1960s. There wasn’t much civilian settlement at the time beside some additional territory in Jerusalem. The question is not whether in the 1960s there was an occupation the question is whether in 2017 there is one.

            Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        “A good example of why Area-C should be annexed. Area-C desperately needs full fledged law enforcement. X throws stones at Y so Y chases X to a building where Z who now gets involved….. The sort of mess you get with vigilantism.”

        This is a really outrageous example of twisting the truth. The occupying power is failing, deliberately and as a strategy, to protect the occupied inhabitants from the marauding Israeli civilians that the occupying power illegally transferred in in the first place! The entire territories certainly need law enforcement. In fact, what you have is an entire meticulous Civil Administration-Israeli Army apparatus that works day and night to assiduously provide full-fledged law enforcement protection for (illegally transferred in) Jews and no law enforcement protection (the opposite in fact) for indigenous Arab inhabitants! On purpose and deliberately, as a strategy. Your twisting of this to construe this as merely “vigilantism between X and Y and Z” and your twisting this to be some kind of “annexation deficit” that makes Israel the poor victim that would love to do the right thing if only it could is truly perverse. Perverse!

        Reply to Comment
        • JeffB

          @Ben

          The occupying power is failing, deliberately and as a strategy, to protect the occupied inhabitants from the marauding Israeli civilians

          Ben if its an occupation there are no Israeli civilians. What would Israeli civilians being doing in occupied Palestine? Now you might mean Palestinian emigrants from Israel are attacking some other group of Palestinians but why would the occupying power be involved in domestic Palestinian matters with no military necessity?

          Stop trying to have it both ways.

          ______

          Now being less sarcastic regardless your on going occupation claims, we can see how Israel governs in areas where it exercises control by what goes on inside the green line. And what we find is that nothing remotely like this happens inside the ’49 Israel. The large distinguishing feature between the relationship in ’49 Israel and Area-C is the legal ambiguity that the UN/USA/Israeli left… has created in Area-C. Thus that is the most likely cause. It is entirely possible that Israel once given unambiguous control might choose to allow vigilantism inside its proper borders. I think its unlikely. But even if you are right that they would, then it would still be the case that eliminating the occupation makes it easier to eliminate this lack of governance because then Israel wouldn’t have the disputed territory / military government / occupation… to hide behind. These activities would then be unambiguous government policy.

          Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Bruce

            But if that doesn’t help, use common sense: Israel controls the lives of people who do not get to vote for the politicians who control them.

            I agree it is a very serious problem especially in Area-C since those people don’t get governed by the government of the Palestinian parliament. But if it is an occupation then Israel isn’t allowed to replace the military dictatorship over Palestine with their own government. If on the other hand Israel is the governing power than Israel has the right and the obligation to fix the situation. You want democracy in the West Bank, then you want Area-C annexed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Growl

            So, you’re arguing that it is not an occupation, but part of an apartheid state, is that right?

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Growl

            Israel is not an apartheid state. Area-C is an apartheid state because there you have different ethnic groups living under different legal regimes. That’s a problem that needs to be fixed. I should mention though that is if Area-C is occupied then Palestine not Israel is the apartheid state. However, if Area-C were annexed then the ethnic Palestinians would also be living under Israeli law and the problem would be solved. Gaza (which Israel has renounced) Area-A and Area-B you don’t have Jewish civilians so no apartheid. Green line Israel, Jerusalem and Golan you have full democracy; excluding the issue of Israel in the last 3 years not processing Jerusalem citizenship applications in a timely way which is bad behavior. There is also some discrimination which deserves being addressed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            This kind of brazen pettifoggery really doesn’t deserve a reply. The occupation is a fact not a claim or an ambiguity. It is well understood that Israel’s real goal is creeping annexation while using the creeping quality of this process to sneak around and get away with what it knows is illegal and unjust and slowly push out as many Arabs from Area C as it can and then jettison Areas A and B to another 50 years of interminable Gaza style occupation as open-area prisons. You don’t have to education me on Israel’s aims. You’re an Area C guy. You’re pushing the theft of Area C by way of misusing the Oslo Accords as a thieving trick. That you think Israel’s AIMS are a nifty “solution” to Israel’s criminal behavior in PURSUIT of those aims does not interest me. Such backwards, crime-justifying logic does not persuade anybody. I am not impressed except by your argument’s deviousness and your ability to narrowly, pedantically avoid the obvious staring you in the face. You like “large distinguishing features.” Here is one: Israel behaves like a criminal not a legitimately acting government, sneaking around and doing things bit by sneaky bit because, like bank fund embezzlers, it knows it can’t get away with it all at once. Israel behaves exactly like someone who knows full well that he is doing wrong. The behavior does not lie. It’s organized crime. Gangsters.

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Ben

            Another circular rant. Pity you reverted. Annexation of territory with the consent of the governed is legal. The people of Area-C want to be in Israel. Even if the territory were not simply disputed territory and there were an occupation there is no theft.

            As for behaving like a criminal. I think that’s uncharitable. Israel is a democracy. Israeli society has been genuinely divided between annexationists and partitionists. For a while the supporters of partition held power and tried in good faith to negotiate a reasonable partition. The Palestinians either:
            a) Negotiated in bad faith
            b) Made reasonable counter offers but could never get to yes
            c) Made unreasonable counter offers

            Depends on which sources one looks at. But regardless of sources Israel never got to yes on partition. Meanwhile the Palestinians unleashed horrific violence on several occasions and didn’t respond well to partial withdrawals. They undermined the supporters of partition and those supporters no longer have a majority. Meanwhile the annexationists, while able to push through small incremental moves have been unable to push through broad sweeping changes.

            There is nothing immoral about that. Democracies are not perfect. The United States for a long time has had the worst health care system in terms of effectiveness per dollar spent in the world. This is well known and well understood. Almost any change in any direction would be an improvement. There has never been a majority for any sort of broad change and even things like Obama’s rather incremental changes damaged our system and were deeply unpopular. As a result we spent 80 years tinkering on the edges then a minor change in Obamacare which likely starves off another round of serious change for at least another generation while we waste many trillions of dollars. Is that because the United States is an evil criminal enterprise or is it because the population can’t arrive at consensus?

            Israel is being put in an impossible situation by the world. I’d love to see the United States abandon partition and allow Israel to fully annex. But that’s my problem to fix. Your problem is to get Israel to declare their intention to annex. People like you probably help that along by being so unpatriotic and thus undermining moderate leftists who support partition but don’t demonize Israel for being unsuccessful in implementing it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Let’s just put aside your childish game playing with “rant” and “revert.” All of the fake “questions” and pettifoggery on this page are one long implausible attempt to say aims retroactively justify means and absolve crimes, that the aim to annex justifies the means of occupying. And that quasi-annexing behavior justifies or somehow erases criminal occupation behavior. And it does it all in such a confused way that no one wants to tediously pick it apart. And so you create confused and highly dishonest gems like this:

            “And what we find is that nothing remotely like this happens inside the ’49 Israel. The large distinguishing feature between the relationship in ’49 Israel and Area-C is the legal ambiguity that the UN/USA/Israeli left… has created in Area-C.”

            I mean these are really sneaky reversals of reality, there is a perversity to them, and it is basically your private and rather obscure thought system, a private system I have seen no one else here adopt or endorse. And produces not a single reason why the world would agree that annexation of Area C would be a just solution it should recognize after 50 years of defiance of the Geneva Conventions and international law and all the cruelty and all the damage done to human beings. You are dogged in doing all this because you are bent on justifying annexation of Area C alone, leaving areas A and B as Palestinian bantustans, and want to avoid either full annexation and a state of all its citizens or a fair two state solution. Now you are welcome to push this amoral power play but your efforts to dress it up in tortured legal concepts and confused causation-inferring about “what we find” has always been unconvincing.

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Ben

            Again this idea this is my private plan simply isn’t true. The annexation plan that is on the table sponsored by a major party is the one from HaBayit HaYehudi. That’s Area-C annexation. A full West Bank annexation has been discussed and mostly Israelis reject it, though some do favor it. I think Bennet’s plan makes sense as an intermediate phase towards annexation of the West Bank. He understands there needs to be a lot of cultural assimilation before Israel can absorb millions of West Bank Palestinians without damaging the society that hasn’t occurred. But eventually I have no problem with the assimilated descendants of people today living on the West Bank being Israeli citizens.

            I’m advocating for a world where the grandchildren (great grandchildren) of today’s West Bankers are Hebrew speaking Israelis practicing a Judaized form of Islam and their great-great-great grandchildren are Israelis whom like most other Israelis are descended from Palestinians as well as the now mostly non-existent and non-functional diaspora communities. The distinction between Israeli and Jewish having ceased to exist for all but tiny subgroups of no importance. What I’m not willing to advocate for is destroying Israel by doing things in the wrong order in a totally impractical way. I’m also trying to avoid the expulsion or genocide you are encouraging by making the Palestinians believe that if ultimately faced with the choice between being slaves in a Palestinian state or committing atrocities the Israelis will eventually agree to their enslavement. Nationalizing people is a complex process even under the best of circumstances and the Palestinians are far from the best of circumstances.

            As for international solutions. In most countries we don’t litigate ancient history. We don’t go back and try and decide how just or unjust the Portuguese Brazil or the Kingdom of Brazil were in how they established the borders of Brazil. We simply accept that Brazil is the country of Brazilians. The reason Israel’s borders are so contentious is the Palestinians refusal to accept that they live in Israel. Israelis like yourself by saying they don’t and that Israel is an illegitimate country they should not seek to join make this problem worse.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “The distinction between Israeli and Jewish having ceased to exist”

            I have understood full well that this is your ruthless project, JeffB. The stubborn existence of 25% of the Israeli population as non-Jewish is a slight detail you are determined to overlook, however. No to mention modernity and modern political norms since, oh, the 18th century. And the non-Jews inside this erasure of their existence are to sign on? I can imagine that Marine Le Pen pines for the day when the distinction between French and White European Catholic has ceased to exist but do not expect the world to empathize with either project.

            “What I’m not willing to advocate for is destroying Israel by doing things in the wrong order in a totally impractical way. I’m also trying to avoid the expulsion or genocide you are encouraging by making the Palestinians believe that if ultimately faced with the choice between being slaves in a Palestinian state or committing atrocities the Israelis will eventually agree to their enslavement.”

            Wow. This is a threat of genocide wrapped inside a false either/or choice. Quite sneaky and cold. Wow. Your real aims, always murky, emerge more clearly.

            “the Palestinians refusal to accept that they live in Israel.”

            Orwellian. A bizarre but quite typical reality reversal.

            “Israel is an illegitimate country”

            Who erected that strawman? Not me.

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Ben

            “Israel is an illegitimate country”
            Who erected that strawman? Not me.

            The BDS movement of which you are part which aims to end Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            JeffB ​I accept your tacit capitulation on everything above the straw man item, and reject your groundless attribution of membership in a bogeyman specter creation (a sign of your impoverishment and desperation). Very simply, if you think the brand name BDS outfit is out to destroy Israel as you know it, then all you have to do is change the entity comprising Israel and the territories it occupies into something even minimally fair and justice-seeking, and you will in one fell swoop suck aaaalll the air out of BDS. Oh, you don’t want to do that? An unnecessary land-fetishizing twilight death struggle is more important to you? I see.

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Ben

            There was no capitulation. When the hyperbole gets out of hand you get less of a response.

            As far as BDS the goals of BDS are not to have a fair and just Israel. Were such an entity to be created that would be a total failure of BDS. Depending on the BDSer the goal is:

            a) Israel is destroyed and replaced with a binational entity
            b) Israel is destroyed and replaced with a secular democracy
            c) Israel is severely weakened, huge chunks of the country are ripped away and the remaining entity is a secular democracy
            d) An Arab state is created in place of Israel with the Jews living as a variable oppressed minority
            e) The Jewish population is either exterminated or expelled and Palestine is “restored”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            ​”…you get…”

            Looks like Jeff B, after tossing a little bomb of a threat of genocide wrapped inside a false either/or choice, would like to escape out the back door by passing off my calling him to account as mere “hyperbole” — and treat me as if he has me occupied and bestows responses on me as fits his needs. Or perhaps he thinks he has me annexed.

            “hyperbole”

            Said by the guy who then launches into classic ‘existentialist threat’ hyperbole.

            Secular democracy is the “destruction of Israel”? What is a religious democracy? I and the founding fathers of the United States and the writers of its Constitution would like to know.
            What “huge chunks of the country are ripped away”? Be specific. What are “the chunks”?
            You left off (f) as a self-evident possibility Israel could strive for:
            A state of all its citizens that ensures, by its constitution and a bill of rights and a genuine, empowered Supreme Court (as opposed to the travesty that is Israel’s current High Court), that no one is favored on the basis of race or ethnicity or religion or by a tyranny of a majority.

            Reply to Comment
          • Growl

            So, you’re basically advocating for slow cultural genocide in an apartheid state until you deem the Palestinians to be sufficiently assimilated and “Judaized” that they can be tolerated enough to actually offer them citizenship and rights? And until then, no rights but what the military occupier (oops, military governors) feel like allowing them? No property rights, favor the settlers instead, because they’re Jews and Israeli citizens? No free rights to movement, assembly, speech, to work their land, no control of their own economy?

            Wow. You’re a fascist.

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Growl

            So, you’re basically advocating for slow cultural genocide in an apartheid state

            When have I ever said anything here other than opposition to an apartheid sate?

            until you deem the Palestinians to be sufficiently assimilated and “Judaized” that they can be tolerated enough to actually offer them citizenship and rights?

            I advocate immediately offering them rights as quickly as they are willing to absorb them. So no not correct at all.

            And until then, no rights but what the military occupier (oops, military governors) feel like allowing them?

            Nope. That’s the current situation which I oppose.

            No property rights,

            The Palestinians currently enjoy stronger property rights than I do in New Jersey. I advocate weakening property rights in all of Israel for Jews and Palestinians to something closer to what exists in America. But that’s a longer conversation that’s not going to be helped by this emotionalism.

            No free rights to movement

            Absolutely not. I’d love a return to the situation that existed in the 1970s and would fully advocate for it.

            assembly, speech, to work their land

            When did I say anything remotely like that?

            no control of their own economy?

            Be specific about what you mean here.

            Wow. You’re a fascist.

            Or you have trouble reading and like to jump to conclusions.

            Reply to Comment
          • carmen

            Among other things yes; pretending to be against the occupation and post after post being against palestinians is the crazy talk of a zionist trying to appear to be a ‘liberal’ – look ma – no God and with every post further entrenches himself within the zionist dogma and is an apartheid racist apologist. He also suffers from logorrhea and hijacking threads as evidenced everywhere on this site. Nothing but a troll.

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Ben

            Well we just got relevant data. Among Israelis when asked the status of Judaea and Samaria: the following percentage declare that “Israel has not declared sovereignty”:

            18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over
            40% 41% 48.5% 61% 73%

            This comes from Settlers in Contested Lands: Territorial Disputes and Ethnic Conflicts (by Oded Haklai)

            When asked specifically about Ariel the numbers drop even further by about 10% so for example among 18-29 you are down 32% of seculars and 22% of religious Zionists.

            http://fathomjournal.org/1967-why-more-and-more-israeli-jews-think-the-settlements-are-in-israel/

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            What is your point?

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Ben

            You had claimed my views were idiosyncratic and unique to me. The data is disproving that claim.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            You misunderstand. Your underlying agenda is not idiosyncratic. It is Habayit Hayehudi’s agenda. It is your arguments towards that covert agenda that are idiosyncratic. Naftali Bennett comes right out and says what he believes in. Jewish supremacism, extreme nationalism, land idolatry, and G-d as his cynical real estate agent. You, JeffB, dress up the same agenda in frilly pettifogging lace garments whose seams and stitch points are hopelessly confused.

            Reply to Comment
          • JeffB

            @Ben

            I’ve said before I think Habayit Hayehudi’s proposal seems like the most sensible one for moving forward. I’ve also never heard Naftali Bennett endorse Jewish supremacism, extreme nationalism, land idolatry, and G-d as his cynical real estate agent

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            ​Bennett says it indirectly in a thousand ways all the time, JeffB. He is a Jewish Le Pen. You *tacitly* endorse quasi-fascist things all over these pages and then walk away saying “I didn’t say that exactly. Point to where I said that. That was not my specific claim.” What even Bennett doesn’t do is engage in telling us the Israeli-Palestinian conflict equivalent of “the French not the Germans were responsible for the bad behavior of the German occupiers in France.” Not even Bennett does that. But you do:
            https://972mag.com/two-bad-choices-for-leftists-in-france/126916/
            And to point that out is no “emotionalism” and it is no “rant.”

            Reply to Comment
    3. Bruce Gould

      Incredibly, after a half century of occupation (See “A Half Century of Occupation” by Gideon Shafir”, some people don’t believe the term ‘occupation’ is appropriate.

      https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/israeli-palestinian-conflict-101/

      More broadly, the Israeli Occupation can be understood as a system of military rule under which Palestinians are denied civil, political and economic rights and subjected to systematic discrimination and denial of basic freedom and dignity.

      Reply to Comment
      • JeffB

        @Bruce Gould

        More broadly, the Israeli Occupation can be understood as a system of military rule under which Palestinians are denied civil, political and economic rights and subjected to systematic discrimination and denial of basic freedom and dignity.

        That definition itself creates problems for you. Did you notice there is nothing there about the military aims of the military rulers? Why is that? In an occupation the occupying army has aims whose fulfillment required they establish a rule. What you are describing is an army whose aim not means is to rule. An occupying power as far as possible is disinterested in change the laws in force in the country they are governing. Governing is an annoyance not an end goal. What you are describing is a military dictatorship not an occupation.

        Not that I consider JVP a reasonable source. But even if I did your evidence refutes, it doesn’t support your claim.

        Reply to Comment
    4. Average American

      Returning to the article, I don’t see how the guys throwing stones could throw as far away as the school, so I don’t see how that endangers kids. However, shots fired into the air from that guy’s rifle have to come down, and he doesn’t seem too careful about where, and that’s endangering kids. Apparently with the police standing next to that guy there is no firearms-near-schools law or they certainly would have enforced it. Normally kids should be left out of adult’s territorial squabbles. But I just read Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira’s book and I can now clearly see that those kids need to be killed because they’ll grow up to destroy Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Click here to load previous comments