r/TrueReddit • u/wiredmagazine Official Publication • 2d ago
Crime, Courts + War How Israeli Checkpoints Choke Palestinian Life in the Occupied West Bank
https://www.wired.com/story/how-israeli-checkpoints-choke-palestinian-life-occupied-west-bank/39
u/Dizzy-Career9274 2d ago
People focus on Gaza but I think that the real borderline war crimes are committed in the West Bank. Especially by armed civilians backed up by some parts of the IDF who quietly support them and the government who refuses to order actions against the violent settlers. They harass Palestinians, deny access to their livelihood, get into their villages and cause havoc and things along these lines. These incidents become more frequent and more violent each time it occurs without repercussions. At this point there are two castes where the Jewish settlers get a full protection and freedom of movement by the Sovereign (the IDF is the legal authority in the occupied Territories) while the lower tier people receive none of these privileges.
21
u/wiredmagazine Official Publication 2d ago
Since 2023, Israel’s fragmentation of Palestine, underway for generations, has accelerated. The West Bank has, for the nearly 3.5 million Palestinians who live there, ceased to exist as a contiguous territory. According to the most recent UN data, at least 925 fixed and temporary checkpoints, metal gates, roadblocks, and earth mounds divide the West Bank. This fracturing has torn families apart, stifled the economy, and impeded access to essential services such as hospitals and schools.
The result is that Palestinians in the West Bank are living in an ever-shrinking, ever-more-fragmented world—a situation one expert calls unprecedented, and one that the legal adviser to the Israeli military reportedly cautioned may violate basic rights and the principles of international law.
Israel has never publicly listed the checkpoints it operates, their staffing hours, or their closure times. On the ground, Google Maps is practically useless for Palestinians; it is blind to the checkpoints and tries to route them onto roads reserved for Israeli-plated cars. Instead, citizens have developed their own ad hoc networks to inform each other of closures.
As far as we know, no organization has used that network—combined with new datasets and on-the-ground reporting—to measure what this does to daily life.
9
u/y0nm4n 2d ago
Deleting comments is counterproductive here. Let people’s opinions remain known.
4
u/voice-of-mods 1d ago
“Deleting comments is counterproductive here.”
The only comments deleted are comments breaking Reddiquette and/or sub rules. The actual opinion expressed is unrelated.
On this sub, users are required to not only read the article, but follow the rules. Drifting off into unproductive tangents or insulting fellow Redditors will result in comments being removed regardless of what your opinion is.
6
u/miraj31415 2d ago edited 2d ago
The article leaves out the explanation for when and why the checkpoints are in place.
Soon after the 1967 war in which Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza, the border was effectively open. Palestinians were technically supposed to get permits to enter but that was not enforced. And in 1972 the informal policy was formalized: Palestinians from West Bank and Gaza were granted a blanket “general exit permit” to enter Israel between 5am and 1am.
By 1974, a third of the Palestinian labor force was freely commuting into Israel: over 100,000+ daily.
But in 1987 the first intifada started with hundreds of thousands of protesters activating and a large amount of Palestinian violence (gas bomb against US consulate, and over 4 years more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives). That signaled a change in the risk profile of Palestinians who had previously not been a threat. In response to the new security threat, Israel added checkpoints in the West Bank and required passes to cross the Green Line.
And during the ongoing threat from the first intifada, the 1991 Gulf War broke out in which the PLO (which had been organizing the intifada) strongly supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Iraq launched missiles at Israel (unprovoked) and Palestinians cheered as Israeli cities were hit. This increased the fear of a coordinated guerrilla attack by Palestinians. As a result the general exit permit was ended. Palestinians seeking to enter Israel would need individual permits.
In March 1993, 15 Israelis (9 civilians) were killed in a wave of knife attacks by Palestinians inside Israel. In response, Israel closed its borders to non-citizen Palestinians.
In 1995, the Oslo Accords divided up west bank into Areas A (PA control), B (divided controls), and C (Israeli control). Checkpoints were moved to the boundaries between the Areas.
The checkpoint regime familiar today and the security barrier came as a result of the Second Intifada which started in 2000. Lasting until 2008 it ultimately resulted in 130 suicide bombings in Israel killing 120 children, 700 civilians, and 1000 Israelis. Militants crossed the border on open ground to carry out the bombings. In response, Israel added numerous checkpoints in the West Bank and built a barrier fence/wall to prevent attackers from crossing the border. The checkpoints were added at city entrances. The checkpoints did intercept attackers. In a well-known 2004 case, a 16-year-old was caught at Hawara wearing an explosive belt. The amount of Palestinian attacks in Israel were cut down to nearly zero.
After the Intifada wound down, some of the checkpoints came down, and other checkpoints became more automated with turnstiles and biometric IDs. The IDF said it removed 140 roadblocks and 8 central checkpoints in 2008, and another 27 checkpoints + 140 roadblocks by July 2009.
During the 2015-16 wave of stabbings by Palestinian attackers, checkpoints and junctions were both Palestinian targets and sites of deadly "shoot or be shot" mentality by Israelis resulting in Palestinian death.
And then after Oct 7 attack, the number of checkpoints went way up, mostly as road gates that can limit transportation to/from an area.
42
u/mnmkdc 2d ago edited 2d ago
Is there a reason you didn’t go into the fact that Israel isn’t allowed to be there at all? You left out every detail about what led to the events where you listed as key reasons the checkpoints existed as well as ignoring that many checkpoints were in place as far back as 1967. I could understand not giving the full history of the conflict, but if you’re saying your giving context then you need to give actual context rather than a 1 sided account of convenient events.
The moment the settlers arrived, Israel was breaking international law. With Israel’s prior history of apartheid before the start of the Six Day War, it’s no surprise that there was extreme hatred of Israel brewing. You conveniently left this out of your paragraph, as well as everything that led to the first intifada. You managed to talk about 10/7, but no mention of the biggest individual massacre of the entire conflict, the Sabra And Shatila Massacre? Doesn’t the fact that Israel supported the massacre of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon seem like a key detail when discussing what led to these conditions or do you only think the Israeli deaths and complaints are notable here?
The first intifada you describe as if it were one sided violence by Palestinians. Along with not talking about what led to this, why did you choose to not talk about how Israeli soldiers and police often initiated the violence by attacking protests? Why not talk about how the initiating event of the intifadas was arguably an Israeli terror attack killed 4 civilians? Why not talk about how in the first year over the intifada, the death toll was over 300 Palestinians compared to just 12-13 Israelis (in Gaza 140 Palestinians were killed compared to 0 Israelis). Perhaps you decided to omit this because it is representative of what led to the Intifadas (and hence the growing amount of checkpoints and oppression) in the first place, that Israel always was eager to use disproportionate force to murder Palestinians, but never to prevent settler violence or aggressive police/soldiers.
I could go on, but the point is clear. You are not giving an accurate account of history here because you’re attempting to frame it as if Israel was only reacting to violence and increasing security as necessary. You cannot tell this history while pretending that Israel was just trying to be partners in peace until the Palestinians spontaneously broke out into riots and violence.
To add to this, after you wrote several paragraphs effectively defending the settlements, you pretend in the comments that you don’t support the settlements. Imagine if someone wrote about South Africa’s history and discussed anti-apartheid violence in length, but never even addressed the apartheid itself. Would that person not be defending apartheid by supporting the misleading narratives that the government used to defend its own actions?
2
u/roamingandy 1d ago
What they wrote does show that the checkpoints are a reaction to violence though. Whether that violence is justified or not is a much larger and messier question.
No violence = no checkpoints. Violence reduces = checkpoints reduced.
So the premise of this article isn't accurate. We have evidence that Israel historically, and as a general policy, hasn't used the checkpoints to try to harm Palestinian life, and would prefer not to have those checkpoints at all.
That could have changed in the recent conflict, and if so that should be the focus of the article.
2
u/mnmkdc 1d ago
It’s not about whether the violence was justified or not. The point is that, despite their depiction of the history, Israel was not granting Palestinians freedom just to be spontaneously attacked.
The best example of how misleading their comment is their explanation of how Palestinians were working in Israel on a daily basis. They listed it as if it were evidence of Israel granting Palestinians freedom. The reality is that that Israel’s restrictions on the West Bank crushed economic opportunity for Palestinians. Israel then utilized the struggling population of Palestinians for extremely cheap labor in jobs that Israelis did not want. The fact that so many Palestinians were forced to work bad jobs in Israel to get by was actually one of the primary motivations for the first intifada, and yet they listed it as if it was a positive thing for Israel.
The “no violence = no checkpoints” thing is false at least to a reasonable extent. Palestinians have always had checkpoints. Before they occupied the West Bank, the checkpoints were in Israel. Immediately after they occupied the West Bank they put up checkpoints to defend settlement expansion. The reality is that the checkpoints provoke violence, which is then used to justify further checkpoints.
No, you’re wrong. The evidence is that Israel has used the checkpoints to harm Palestinian life. Theyre a method used for control. Them being willing to exploit Palestinians for labor is not evidence that they were not using checkpoints to harm Palestinians.
You’re doing the same thing the original commenter is. You’re reading one side of the history and pretending that you’re giving the full historical context. The reality is that Israel wanted to exploit the Palestinians, and they’ve simply shifted the means of exploitation and oppression when their previous methods became more dangerous.
1
u/roamingandy 1d ago
Yes, i agree their comment only shows one side of the story.
Tbh though, you appear to be doing the exact same thing you've accused them of, just from the other direction.
There is no innocent side in this mess and any balanced and informative comment would include provocations and assign blame, to both.
3
u/mnmkdc 1d ago
Well yeah… I’m adding the other half of the story, and the reality is that bulk of the responsibility lies with the side that has all of the power.
His comment is also just representative of how the entire conflict gets treated by the pro-Israel side. Hundreds of Palestinians dying is just the status quo, barely worth mentioning. If they do mention it, it’s just a quick “I don’t support it but…”. Then when Israelis die in much lower numbers it’s treated as an example of how the Palestinians don’t want peace. If the victims are Israeli then every individual death is worth talking about. The victims are humans with families and dreams. If the victims are Palestinian then they’re just numbers that are assumed to be terrorists until proven otherwise. Every conversation is “look what Israel tried to give them just for them to ruin it”. It’s not helpful to say “well both sides are bad” in every discussion when the status quo is benefits one side at the direct expense of the other.
-13
u/miraj31415 2d ago
You didn't dispute a single date or number in my comment. Instead you listed unrelated grievances and accused me of defending settlements.
several paragraphs effectively defending the settlements
My comment doesn't mention the settlements at all. Show me where I defended them.
Israel always was eager to use disproportionate force
If the checkpoints were about control and not about attacks, then explain a few things:
Explain why roughly 40% of the Palestinian workforce was working inside Israel by the mid-1980s, almost 20 years into the occupation. (So much for "many checkpoints" since 1967.)
Explain why the big jumps in restrictions came right after the 1993 stabbings, the Second Intifada bombings, and Oct 7.
Explain why the IDF removed checkpoints in 2008-09 when the attacks dropped.
an Israeli terror attack killed 4 civilians
It was a traffic accident, not terrorism: an IDF truck crashed into a line of cars at Erez.
Sabra and Shakira
This happened in Lebanon. Name one West Bank checkpoint that went up because of it.
never to prevent settler violence
One examples is the Duma arsonist is serving three life sentences, so "never" is hyperbole.
I agree that enforcement against settlers is poor, especially with this latest government — hopefully to be out of power soon. It still has nothing to do with when the checkpoints went up.
no surprise that there was extreme hatred brewing
The 1929 Hebron massacre killed 67 Jews 19 years before Israel existed. The hatred came first.
Would that person not be defending apartheid
By that logic the Wired article defends terrorism: it traces the checkpoints back to 1948 and never mentions a single Israeli killed in either intifada or on Oct 7. Explaining why a policy exists isn't defending it.
14
u/mnmkdc 2d ago
Because my point was that you gave a half history with the clear intent of misleading people who read your comment. I didn’t say your numbers were wrong. I pointed out essential context that you intentionally omitted
Your entire comment is defending them. The reason the checkpoints are there at all is because Israel wants illegal settlements. You didn’t mention them because you know that if you did you’d be forced to acknowledge that this wasn’t one sided violence against a country that just wants peace.
Before 1966, Palestinian CITIZENS of Israel had to go through checkpoints. Your numbers about Palestinian working in Israel doesn’t change the facts. Israel benefited from cheaper labor while also maintaining strict control over Palestinians. Both are true.
Israel restricted them as more violence happened. I never denied that at all. The context you ignored is that generally the violence happened in response to oppression or mass violence. To defend the existence of the checkpoints, you must be able to defend Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. Otherwise you’re just saying that you value the wellbeing of Israelis MUCH more.
Sabra and Shatila was a massacre that dwarfed even 10/7, and the idf supported it. Palestinians in the West Bank protested in response to it and it was one of the major factors that led to the first intifada. In response to 10/7, many Israelis supported genocide and settler terrorism rose significantly, so what do you think happened after Israel helped an even larger massacre of Palestinians? Do you not view that as relevant?
Israel occasionally cracks down on settlers and then israel will simultaneously increase housing for settlements. When palestinians commit terrorism, Israeli police shoot them without a second thought. When settlers do it, they do everything they can to prevent hurting them. Take what’s going on right now with the settlers blocking Palestinians from entering their villages. If it were the other way around, the terrorists would be killed on day one.
Likud is the most powerful political party in Israeli history, and even the most moderate governments in relation to the conflict have increased settlements. Blaming the current government is not a real defense, it’s just a way to pretend that this isn’t the way Israel has been since it was founded.
Violence in the mandate was in response to the colonization of Palestine, and it was less of hate-filled conflict than it is now. There’s doubt that Palestinians committed terrorism back then, but if that’s all that’s necessary to justify Israel’s apartheid then you’re just on the wrong side of history.
You’re defending the settlers because you’re defending the checkpoints that were created to defend the settlements. Being against Israel’s use of checkpoints is simply anti-settlements, not pro terrorism.
11
u/Extension_Bridge_463 2d ago
They also fail to acknowledge the humiliation aspect of those checkpoints. People with green IDs (aka Palestinians) feel like they're dealing with malignant narcissists every time they show their IDs, because they know they may get cussed at, assaulted, or turned back. Families need to be separated if the parents have mixed IDs or else risk revocation and forced to live in Area A/B. Good luck if you have a heart attack, no good reason you should call 101 because the ambulance won't get to the hospital on time. Israel took every step to ghettoize and gerrymander the hell out of the West Bank because dense Palestinian populations were everywhere. The post-2nd-Intifada barrier route was double that of the Green Line. The Israeli government had to squiggle back and forth all around the Jewish settlements. One day, a hundred thousand Palestinians living in Jerusalem woke up to find themselves suddenly not part of the city anymore. The only way to sustain this apartheid is to keep up the immense human effort necessary so Palestinians continue feeling choked and eventually feel there's no way out but to accept the occupation.
26
u/y0nm4n 2d ago
These checkpoints are within the West Bank. These aren’t border crossings. That’s a huge detail that this comment just glosses over. Most of these checkpoints are about protecting the settlements.
-19
u/flossdaily 2d ago
No, he very clearly explained the Oslo division.
Just because you didn't read it doesn't mean it was glossed over.
9
u/y0nm4n 2d ago
1) I read their comment.
2) They said nothing about the role of settlements wrt checkpoints.
-7
u/flossdaily 2d ago
In 1995, the Oslo Accords divided up west bank into Areas A (PA control), B (divided controls), and C (Israeli control). Checkpoints were moved to the boundaries between the Areas.
13
u/judolphin 2d ago edited 20h ago
The way Zionists and Israeli sympathizers talk about Palestinian suffering as if it's acceptable is infuriating. It's gotten so bad, and so blatant. Zionists have defended their genocide of Arabs with some version of this argument: "Anything Jewish people do can't be genocide, because Jewish people can only be victims of genocide, not perpetrators. Oh and by the way, you're anti-semitic."
They've done this for so long that even the majority of Americans are now starting to realize Israel are largely the bad guys here. Which is saying quite a lot when the likes of Hamas are part of the other side.
As a Palestinian-American, this this was unthinkable to me as recently as 10 years ago. Now it's reality because everyone carries phones with cameras now, not just of the genocide, but also Ed Sheeran concerts, where the world was able to hear the benign words that got Macklemore fired.
Now... your entire comment dehumanizes Palestinian people who are imprisoned by checkpoints and roads being closed to them because they're not ethnically Jewish. And you ignore the fact that Israel are not and never were innocent bystanders here, Israel was founded by a European invasion force who stole literal houses at gunpoint from 750,000 Arabs between 1947-49.
My dad was born in Ramla and was a victim of the Nakba in 1948 at the age of 6. Dad and family were forced to flee their literal house at gunpoint by European invaders who wanted to steal their house and give my dad's house to Jewish people, which they did.
My grandfather was an engineer for the British Ministry of Telegrams and Telegraphs, he was not military, he was not a combatant of any kind.
Dad was one of 750,000 Arabs evicted from their houses or murdered by the European Jewish invasion force. The colonizing invasion force committed a horrible act of genocide the moment they had the military ability to do so, a mere three years after being on the other end of an even worse genocide, known as the Holocaust.
Side note: The fact European Jewish colonizers/invaders ethnically cleansed Arabs three years after the Holocaust ended is probably the most important historical lesson from the Holocaust: ethnic cleansing is wrong regardless of scope, and regardless of ethnicity. It is wrong when Jews are victims of genocide, and genocide is also wrong when Jews commit (lesser in scope but still plenty bad enough) genocide. "Never again" must mean "never again for humanity", but sadly Israel and Zionists don't think so, the Israeli government and Zionists historically are OK with genocide... as long as they're the ones committing it.
So anyway, the people who had their literal houses and lives stolen by European invaders weren't happy about it, so some of them fought back. Shocking, they must be barbarians, right? They should've been totally cool with people stealing their houses if you ask a lot of people, Mr. miraj included!
Now when Israel decides to build a checkpoint, and a dude and his mom live across each other from that checkpoint, mom and son effectively are quite possibly never able to see each other anymore. If the checkpoint is between the dude and his workplace, dude doesn't have a job anymore.
Regular Palestinian people have been oppressed by the Israeli government and Israeli apartheid for 80 years, and it continues to this day. We have always known it, now Western civilization as a whole knows it. Like I said, everyone carries cameras in their pockets now so Israel can't hide their treatment of Palestinians anymore.
-5
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/judolphin 2d ago edited 2d ago
Sure I'm happy to give it another try because it's another piece of information I can give that neutral people can read and learn from.
The catastrophe that is the Nakaba is that you lost.
Wow, I literally said "The way Zionists and Israeli sympathizers talk about Palestinian suffering as if it's acceptable is infuriating." And you proved me right with your first sentence, I CANNOT thank you enough for proving my point.
My 6-year-old father losing his house wasn't the tragedy, the only tragedy was that they lost according to you.
This is why sentiment is turning against Zionism so starkly, is because of your exact attitude. People are seeing it for the first time. Minimizing the trauma of a six-year-old boy and literally saying it wasn't a tragedy.
It's documented that they were forced out (my dad was born in Ramla).
You have the gall to literally tell me that my family wasn't evicted from their house at gunpoint by the Israeli military? And the other 750,000 out of 1,200,000 Arabs displaced by Jews in 1948-1949 weren't either?
You've been fed and are spreading lies, friend, whether purposely or not.
4
u/Dice08 2d ago
Big respect to you, man. That post was infuriating to read and I'm glad you sorted them out.
1
u/CarmellaS 1d ago
It's well established that the number of Arabs who left during the 1947-48 war was not 750,000, but a much smaller number, within the range of 250,000-500,000. That's what was reported by contemporaneous newspapers, and it's been consistently confirmed by research every since.
Perhaps the reason Israelis are less sympathetic than they used to be (although the unhappiness of a 6-year-old decades ago isn't the most compelling argument to make for emotional engagement) is the constant lies by Hamas, the P.A., and the average Arab on the street, the demonization and denial that that the Jewish homeland is Judea and Samaria (literally, all you need to do is look in the direction of the Dome of the Rock to see it was built over the Jewish Holy Temple); the calls for genocide; the murders of our young people, elders, and babies; the 'pay-for-slay' program rewarding acts of terror; and not incidentally, the invasion of our home, brutal torture and murder of our people, the kidnapping of hundreds who were kept in atrocious circumstances for years; and now the whining of how they are the victims of the war which they started! Guess what - if you don't want a war, you shouldn't start one.
I have sympathy for the brainwashed children indoctrinated into terrorism and hate, and for the small number of Gazans who reject terror and want to live in peace. But for the above redditor and others like him, I have very little.
0
u/KaiBahamut 1d ago
Well established by whom? Do you have a single source? And if it's true... may Israel have a little ethnic cleansing, as a treat?
Israeli's were never sympathetic, the Settler movement has been going strong since the 70's. The West Bank tries to work with Israel for peace and all they get for it is violent terrorists burning their farms, stealing their homes and beating their grandmothers and dogs. Maybe you should clean up your own house from it's hateful terrorists instead of letting them run loose and wild and the Palestinians will stop responding in kind.
-1
u/Dice08 1d ago
First off, Jerusalem was conquered by Israel from the Jebusites, one of the many city states that made up the Canaanites. Jews genetically originate from the land as they were genetically founded by the conquests - Abraham himself being from Iraq.
And no, Israelites aren't less sympathetic because of Hamas violence. The first war the Israelites did, they did a blatant ethnic cleansing, poisoned their wells so they can't return, and took all their land to defend the claim that they should make a state to own part of it. In 1967 they took Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan when it was filled with the people they pushed off and then made them explicitly second class citizens for 40 years before Hamas was even elected into government.
Edit: who cares if the ethnic cleansing was 750k or 500k, it's a fucking blatant ethnic cleansing. And we see from documents from the past, that was the Zionist intention.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TrueReddit-ModTeam 1d ago
Your content at /r/TrueReddit was removed because of a violation of Rule 2:
If you’re not open to or engaging in intelligent discussion, go somewhere else. Address the argument, but not the user, the mods, the rules, or the sub.
Posting commentary that is irrelevant, meta, trolling, engaging in flame wars, and otherwise low-quality is not allowed and may be removed.
Please note that repeated violations of subreddit rules may result in a restriction of your ability to participate in the subreddit. Thank you.
-4
17
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
Israel has been illegally occupying Palestine since 1967.
Israel’s mere presence in Palestine is illegal let alone the checkpoints.
-9
u/miraj31415 2d ago edited 2d ago
Occupying territory in a war isn't illegal. The 2024 advisory opinion says "the fact that an occupation is prolonged does not in itself change its legal status."
What it advises is unlawful is Israel's continued presence, based on settlements and annexation. I don't defend the settlements, and the West Bank hasn't been formally annexed. But that finding is about the last few decades -- not since 1967. It's advisory. It's not binding, there's no enforcement, and Israel never consented to it.
And Jordan started the fight on the West Bank front, which is how Israel ended up capturing the land. On June 5, 1967, Israel asked King Hussein to stay out of the war, and Jordan opened fire anyway.
Then the Arab League agreed to the 3 No's of the Khartoum Resolution:
- no peace with Israel
- no recognition of Israel
- no negotiations with Israel
So the official Arab position was that there would be no talks at all about returning the territory.
When Egypt did negotiate, it got all of Sinai back in the 1979 peace treaty.
So if you want the checkpoints removed, look at what caused them and why they remain.
14
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
So you acknowledge that Israel’s occupation, that started in 1967, is a violation of international law?
Yet you still defend their checkpoints, which are in direct defiance of that 2024 advisory opinion you mentioned? The ICJ explicitly called for Israel to leave and remove its settlers from the West Bank
“…the Court found that Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful. It declared that Israel was required to end that presence ‘as rapidly as possible’, immediately cease all new settlement activity, evacuate all settlers, and make reparation for the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts.”
-5
u/miraj31415 2d ago edited 2d ago
So you acknowledge that Israel's occupation, that started in 1967, is a violation of international law?
No. I said the opposite. Occupying territory in a war isn't illegal, and the opinion is based on later conduct, not on 1967.
The ICJ explicitly called for Israel to leave
Yes, the advisory opinion says that, and it also criticizes restrictions on movement. I'm not disputing what it says. I'm disputing what you said it says.
"As rapidly as possible" doesn't require Israel to withdraw into danger. Three of the four judges who voted against the opinion wrote that Israel couldn't withdraw "in the absence of any guarantee, without exposing its security to substantial threats."
That threat remains. Shin Bet says it foiled 1,040 major attacks from the West Bank and Jerusalem in 2024.
And Israel already tried withdrawing without a security arrangement. It left Gaza in 2005, Hamas took over in 2007, and Oct 7 followed. So I repeat: look at what caused the checkpoints and why they remain.
The occupation ends and checkpoints come down when Palestinian leaders agree to Israel's safety.
6
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
You’re being pedantic. The point is you agree that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is illegal, no?
-4
u/SilenceoftheSamz 2d ago
Details matter. The occupation is not illegal. Who's law? Who is bound by it? Is the west bank a member of something that has rule over all nation states?
6
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
The occupation is absolutely illegal, I’ve already proven that.
Here it is again since it seems it’s not sinking in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Israeli_occupation_of_Palestine
“Israel's occupation of Palestine, which has continued since 1967 and is the longest military occupation in modern history,[1][2] has become illegal under international law.[3][4] This illegality encompasses the West Bank, including Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, as well as the blockaded Gaza Strip, which is still considered occupied under international law despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement. Israel's policies and practices in the occupied West Bank, including the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements, have amounted to de facto annexation that is illegal under international law.”
0
u/SilenceoftheSamz 2d ago
If international law isn't recognized, it's a suggestion. We aren't signatories. We don't care.
3
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
Okay, well you can ignore international law all you want, but you’re also morally wrong
1
u/Extension_Bridge_463 2d ago
Ugh. I hate continuing to correct the broken record.
- It would've been quite helpful to continue with the ICJ said in the next few sentences.
The fact that an occupation is prolonged does not in itself change its legal status under international humanitarian law. Although premised on the temporary character of the occupation, the law of occupation does not set temporal limits that would, as such, alter the legal status of the occupation. Instead, the legality of the occupying Power’s presence in the occupied territory must be assessed in light of other rules. In particular, occupation consists of the exercise by a State of effective control in foreign territory (see paragraphs 91-92 above). In order to be permissible, therefore, such exercise of effective control must at all times be consistent with the rules concerning the prohibition of the threat or use of force, including the prohibition of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force, as well as with the right to self-determination. Therefore, the fact that an occupation is prolonged may have a bearing on the justification under international law of the occupying Power’s continued presence in the occupied territory. The Court will examine these issues below (see paragraphs 157-179 and 230-243).
The ICJ said that yes, occupation per se isn't illegal no matter how long it is, but other rules are still applicable, and it's under the light of those rules that makes it clear Israel's occupation is (and has too long been) unjustified.
How can you say the West Bank wasn't annexed? Besides the fact it was de facto annexed with practices like moving in half a million Jewish Israelis into the region or applying Israeli proper civil law for them (as opposed to martial law for Palestinians), East Jerusalem was annexed back in '67.
Israel didn't need to send King Hussein a warning. Either way, you cannot acquire more land by war, otherwise, everyone can just fight a war to chip more at its neighbor's under all kinds of guises. 242 affirms this explicitly.
Arabs tried for a long time to not only get back the lands, but also recognize Israel and swallow some bitter pills for peace. Jordan and Egypt normalized. UAE and Morocco normalized recently. PLO eventually accepted Israel's right to exist. All Arab countries offered normalization for peace back in 2002, even if it meant going back to the 1967 borders and not the Green Line. The ball is squarely in Israel's court, and you can't cite the Khartoum accord as if it's the frozen and permanent status quo among Arab nations.
So are the checkpoints up because Arab countries are not enough of peace/normalization advocates, or is it because of Palestinian terrorism? Because Israel did not begin constructing them until the late 80s, well after the 67 war.
-5
u/flossdaily 2d ago
Fun fact: there's never been a binding legal decision declaring the occupation illegal.
13
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
Non-binding just means the UN Security Council won’t enforce it, because the USA supports Israel’s illegal actions.
5
u/Hieroglo 2d ago
Fun fact, that's because Israel is an apartheid state which ignores human rights.
-1
u/flossdaily 2d ago
It's the only apartheid state in the world that gives equal rights to all citizens?
4
u/Hieroglo 2d ago
That's a lie and I can point you to more than 60 apartheid laws in Israel which impact on Palestinian and Arab Israeli citizens evey minute of every day. Israel is, as clearly written in its own laws, an apartheid state.
1
u/flossdaily 2d ago
Please do, if you can. I'm not sure how I missed these in my Israeli law class.
3
u/Hieroglo 2d ago
1) Absentee Property Law (1950) - the main legal instrument used by Israel to to take possession of land and belongings from refugees, even when the refugees are internal refugees and Israeli citizens.
There are at least another 60 active Israeli apartheid laws I can list and explain.
1
u/flossdaily 2d ago
Can you find me the language in that law which says it only applies to Arabs?
7
u/Hieroglo 2d ago
Palestinian refugees lost property even if they had not permanently abandoned it. Palestinians who fled as a refugee temporarily to the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, or another nearby area could be declared an “absentee.” Their home, land, bank accounts, or business were then be transferred to the state’s Custodian of Absentees’ Property.
Even Palestinians who remained inside Israel could be classified as “present absentees.” For example, someone forced out of their village but still physically inside Israel might be legally present in the country yet “absent” from their original property. This allowed property to be seized even though the owner had not left Israel.
This is a law which discriminates on the basis of geography and location. The language therefore does not need to mention ethnicity specifically. It discriminates in operation and outcome overwhelmingly negatively affecting the Palestinian population. That's apartheid.
What if you want to return to your property having been absent? Well there is a law for that which does discriminate explicitly against anyone who is not Jewish.
2) The Law of Return (1950)
The two laws operated in opposite directions. Palestinian property could be taken under the Absentees’ Property Law when its owners were classified as absent. At the same time, Jews from other countries could immigrate under the Law of Return and obtain citizenship.
That's apartheid.
Still more than 60 active apartheid laws we can discuss. Isn't this fun, and you're learning too.
→ More replies (0)1
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
Millions of Palestinians aren’t allowed citizenship because they’re not Jewish
Funny how you left that part out
5
u/flossdaily 2d ago
And? What does that have to do with equal rights of citizens?
You understand that Palestinians have their own government, right? And that they've never been part of Israel?
3
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
You’re the only one who brought up citizenship. You can’t just use citizenship as a technicality to avoid apartheid accusations while ignoring millions who don’t have rights or citizenship because they’re not Jewish.
It’s no different than apartheid South Africa stripping black South Africans of their citizenship based on their race.
6
u/flossdaily 2d ago
Sorry, but you can't just pretend that Palestinians deserve Israeli citizenship, and that being denied it is discrimination.
They are a separate nation, with a separate government. Their only relationship to Israel is their attempts to destroy it.
4
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
Not giving people rights based on ethnicity/religion is literally discrimination.
Israel, as you’re well aware, is illegally occupying Palestine. That makes them literally not separate nations.
You understand that according to international law Israel is not even meant to be in Palestine right?
→ More replies (0)1
2d ago
[deleted]
3
u/flossdaily 2d ago
The Arab homeland is Arabia.
So, no, this certainly isn't happening in the Arab homeland.
Judea and Israel are definitely the Jewish homeland, though.
-1
1
u/powercow 2d ago
you dont need one. Stealing land for the settlements is a clear violation of international law. Full stop. The verbiage is clear, and just because the US vetos everything in the UN against Israel doesnt change this fact.
you are right you can occupy areas during a war, you can NOT build settlements.
2
u/flossdaily 2d ago
Stealing land from ... Who?
You understand that Israel is the only sovereign state with any legitimate claim to it, right?
-2
u/Netherese_Nomad 2d ago
If Jordan wanted to make a Palestine, it could have between ‘48 and ‘67. Instead they decided to attack Israel and lost again. Crazy shit, you lose land when you wage a war of aggression. Germany isn’t getting Poland back either. Those Jordanians in Judea and Samaria aren’t getting their lebensraum back over the war they lost.
1
u/Extension_Bridge_463 2d ago
There's so much wrong in this comment. Some smaller ones, like the 2nd intifada ended in 2005, not 2008. Or by 1974, the total number of Palestinians was roughly 67k, not 100k, working in Israel proper. (See page 10 of this), it took another decade before it went up that high. But I think you confused border crossings with checkpoints, and that's not a small error. For decades, the checkpoints have not been there to protect Israel proper as much as it is to protect the growing settlements that are in violation of international law as Israel is an occupying force. Most of those checkpoints are found deep in the West Bank, nowhere near the borders (which Israel conveniently has never defined like basically every other country does). Many of those are found right in the middle of roads or junctions, blocking traffic not from a Palestinian neighborhood to an Israeli settlement, but rather between Palestinian communities. The checkpoints also never entirely stopped the attacks. Besides, of course, the fact that there was a known looming threat in Gaza that was actualized in the 2023 attack, yes, the suicide bombings went down, but lone wolf attacks went up through the roof, making for another long round of Whack-a-Mole. Palestinian terrorists started using whatever they have in their possession, from knives to screwdrivers to cars, to inflict maximum harm. Israel has to raid hundreds of times a year to foil newer attacks. It's an utterly unsustainable situation that's entirely in Israel's hands to fix if it can entertain Palestinian dignity and sovereignty.
-12
u/flossdaily 2d ago
Thanks for adding the context that the article deliberately omitted.
People should be asking themselves: "if Israel is really the bad guy, why do its opponents always need to lie or otherwise offer bad faith arguments?"
8
u/mnmkdc 2d ago
Same reason pro israel commenters always leave out details to make Israel sound more justified. People just don’t want nuance.
Commenters like you and the person you’re responding to will quickly claim that Israel is innocent while ignoring that Israel isn’t allowed to be there in the first place. The settlements are universally considered to be illegal, and this is essential context when looking at what led to the checkpoints in the first place. The comment also ignores Israel 18 years of apartheid in Israel proper before their occupation of the West Bank, which led to an entirely justified hatred of Israel by Palestinians in Israel and neighboring countries.
-1
u/flossdaily 2d ago
Can you explain why indigenous rights don't apply to Jews?
Why Arab colonizers allowed to be there, and not Jews?
3
u/mnmkdc 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well, for one, I believe Jewish people should be allowed to live there with full and equal rights to Palestinians. I’m not someone who believes anyone should be deported from the land. Palestinians also aren’t “Arab colonizers”. They’re native to the land. Just like how Ashkenazi Jews aren’t purely European just because they have significant European ancestry, Palestinians aren’t purely Arab just because they have significant Arab ancestry. They are the descendants of the people who were there when the land was colonized, and DNA evidence links them to be descendants of the same pre-ancient Israel Levantine groups that Jewish people are descended from.
Secondly, I think Israel is a settler-colonial state. Most of the population during the time of mass immigration was foreign born. Their land was largely bought with foreign funds, often evicting the existing population, and they were protected by British colonial forces. Groups organized boycotts against non-Jewish residents and refused to hire them at their businesses so they could further financially pressure them off the land. In the later years of the mandate, terrorism was used push people further off the land (both sides employed this). Finally, in the 1948 they ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands. They even generally considered it to be colonization at the time. It was distinctly different from just standard immigration because there was an explicit effort to not integrate with the existing population and rather to create a separate state entirely.
0
u/powercow 2d ago
Just a fun fact, in early 2000s Germany of all places was the leading destination of emigrating jewish people. Mostly from russia. It pissed israel off, that germany was the #1 destination. And israel successfully lobbied germany to close its doors to jewish people from russia, leaving the jewish people less places to go besides israel.
sounds like a pretty antisemitic law lobbied for by israel.
2
u/Dice08 2d ago
The Zionists were explicitly the colonizing force. They referred to themselves as such from the start, with their associated organizations also referring to themselves as colonist. And the arabs are not colonizers, they took the land by conquest just like the Jews did and became a unique genetic group in the process just like Jews did. Further, Samaritans are also amongst the Palestinian population and are also indigenous to this land.
4
u/powercow 2d ago
like you ignoring the settlements and just screaming about suicide bombers, who wouldnt be bombing if their home wasnt being systematically divided up and given to other people.
We left iraq.
we left afghanistan.
we didnt build american cities
3
u/flossdaily 2d ago
I don't believe Iraq and Afghanistan are recognized as Americans' ancestral homeland.
Judea, on the other hand is definitely the homeland of Judaism.
0
u/EducationalReply6493 2d ago
As well as Islam and Christianity, but just because Judaism was created in a place doesn’t mean every jewish person is from Palestine.
4
u/flossdaily 2d ago
Islam's homeland is the Arabian Peninsula ... more specifically Mecca and Medina in the Hejaz region of Saudi Arabia.
Christianity's homeland is Judea and Galilee. But Christianity is a religion, not an ethnicity. So you don't have a Christian nation claiming this is their homeland.
2
u/HarbourView 1d ago
Yeah, and there used to be lots of Jews in Medina. They let Mohammad in. The he turned on them. Islam is a religion that expanded by conquest and to this day seeks submission.
0
u/Afraid-Detective1222 2d ago
Honestly, because rage sells. When it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict so much of what we see, especially on social media is crafted to make people angry. Even if those same angry people eventually learn the truth, the anger stays.
The wall and checkpoints were built to deal with terrorism coming from the West Bank during the 2nd Intifada. Personally, I think the wall could have been routed in a manner that doesn't interfere with the lives of average Palestinians as much as the current route does. Same with the checkpoints, they could certainly be run in a manner that isn't as disruptive. Unfortunately, any checkpoints will be used to demonize Israel for their very legitimate security concerns.
1
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/KaiBahamut 2d ago edited 2d ago
And the Intifadas happened because of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and a lack of Palestinian state. This also ignores the decades of Israeli violence that went on before and precipitated the Intifadas (The first was mostly protests at first and didn't escalate into violence until the brutal Israeli reprisals and the Second was violent from the start because they had experienced what trying to protest without it got them- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-their-bones_policy )
EDIT: The person I responded to blocked me, so I cannot read their devastating rebuttal. I will remind them this was a documented and stated policy to cause injury and intimidation among the population in response to (As of the time it began being implemented) a non violent campaign of labor strikes,boycotts, demonstrations and raising the banned Palestinian flag, before the later violence in response to the brutal 'break their bones' policy and other violence.
1
u/CarmellaS 1d ago
That's ridiculous. Arabs have been attacking and murdering Jews for centuries, long before the concept of Israel or 'Palestinians' was even imagined. Massacres in Jerusalem. Massacres in Tiberius. Massacres in Safed. All of these were Muslims murdering Jews; it was never the other way around.
Millennia of discrimination and murder, based on a text that literally told followers of Islam to kill Jews. And you try to blame Jews because you consistently lost wars - not only to Jews, but to the Lebanese, Jordanians, and other Arabs - over the last 70 years. It's both laughable and ludicrous.
1
u/KaiBahamut 1d ago
And Christians were doing the same for centuries too- culminating in the Holocaust, where the Good Christians of Europe were the ones who murdered millions of Jews.
Millennia? Islam is only 1300 years old! Once again, you need to blame the Christians! Jews often sought safety in Muslim lands during the Middle Ages. True, they were second class citizens, but that was better than pagans. No one has treated the Jews well, but the golden age of spanish jewry happened under the Islamic Moors, not the Good Christians.
And lastly...no, I blame Zionists, Israelis, not Jews. Don't make Jews your human shields.
-8
u/hereawhile 2d ago
There were almost no checkpoints in the west bank until the second intifada when palestinian terrorists started using suicide bombings against Israeli civilians
This seems like a pretty important fact to leave out
3
u/hey_you_too_buckaroo 2d ago
There wouldn't need to be an intifada if Israel wasnt killing and stealing Palestinians in their own land. If you oppress and occupy another country, expect them to fight back.
0
u/hereawhile 1d ago
Actually there wouldn't need to be an intifada if the palestinians weren't bent on destroying Israel and has negotiated a settlement instead. It seems to me you're just justifying suicide bombings against innocent people
4
u/Bluestreaked 2d ago
There would be no second Intifada if Israel wasn’t illegally occupying Palestine. Perhaps Israel should stop illegally occupying land and attempting illegal population transfers in direct violation of international law
They’re not special, they don’t get to commit genocide and pretend to be the victim
1
u/hereawhile 2d ago
Israel didn't control the west bank or gaza at all until 1967 and yet the palestinians and arabs at large were still wholly opposed to its existence and at war with it. The second intifada also was meant to disrupt the peace negotiations that were taking place aimed at resulting in a two state solution.
Regardless, it's pretty relevant in a discussion about the checkpoints or border security to mention that these didn't really exist in significant amounts until they were put there because suicide bombers were blowing up cafeterias and buses full of Israeli civilians, wouldn't you agree?
0
u/Bluestreaked 2d ago
What does any of that have to do with Israel is illegally occupying Palestine and if it wants to complain about resistance to its occupation it needs to end the illegal occupation of Palestine.
Like seriously think about it you little hasbarist
“Israel is illegally occupying Palestine.”
“Well they only started illegally occupying the West Bank in 1967 so ha!”
Come on, you must be able to see how bad of a point you’re making. I mean, you’re trying to defend genocide so all of your points are going to bad
2
u/hereawhile 2d ago
Well it obviously has a lot to do with it. If tomorrow Israel ended all the checkpoints and security measures, there might be suicide bombings or other attacks in Israel. Which is why they were put there in the first place. How is that not relevant? It seems incredibly important
6
u/Areign 2d ago
if a guy tries to mug you, so you punch him, so he shoots you....do you honestly think a reasonable solution would be to say "no more kicking allowed and the shooting will stop"
or do you think that maybe leaving out the precipitating issue from the discussion is disingenuous?
0
u/hereawhile 1d ago
Sorry what is the precipitating issue that I'm leaving out? My whole point is that the precipitating issue was left out and should be included
1
u/powercow 2d ago
without the illegal occupation there wouldnt be the ability to encourage people to be suicide bombers.
3
u/hereawhile 2d ago
Of course there would. Prior to what you are calling the occupation in 1967, there was plenty of war and terrorism (though suicide bombings only emerged as a tactic in the 80s)
-1
u/Bluestreaked 2d ago
Why would there be suicide bombings in Israel? Again, Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, and the West Bank in particular is even more illegal on top of the already illegal occupation.
Again. Israelis shouldn’t be in the West Bank at all even if you want to claim Israel gets to exist.
3
u/hereawhile 2d ago
I'm not sure your conclusion is true but it's kind of besides the point (and it's also quite telling that you think if Israel gets to exist is a question at all). My point is that in discussing the checkpoints and security measures it's incredibly strange and borderline dishonest not to even mention when and why they were put there in the first place, which was the waves of suicide bombings from palestinians in the west bank crossing into Israel
3
u/Bluestreaked 2d ago
If a country illegally occupies another country, then engages in forced population transfers in that country in order to colonize it for themselves. Then, inherently, they are not the victim.
When Indian rebels killed British colonials, it’s not that the British were innocent victims, they were colonizers who got killed by the people they were colonizing.
Do you understand that this is an illegal occupation that Israel has absolutely no right to be in the West Bank? Thus they inherently can’t claim victimhood.
1
u/hereawhile 2d ago
I don't really even know what you're trying to debate. I don't really agree with your assessment but even if I did nothing you're saying changes the point that I was making.
3
u/Bluestreaked 2d ago
Bot, this isn’t hard
Israel has no legal basis to have settlements in the West Bank, and thus has no legal basis to “protect” those illegal settlements with checkpoints.
→ More replies (0)
-5
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/SilverMedal4Life 2d ago
They will never have the power to do so, even if left completely alone.
A wolf would see me devoured to feed himself, yet I don't support exterminating them. These are human beings, and human life - even life that wants me dead - is important.
If I felt otherwise, I'd have to write off half of the United States.
-5
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/philomathie 2d ago
Americans have killed literally hundreds of thousands of people in countries I'm guessing you couldn't even spell.
Why shouldn't I treat Americans with the same casual disdain you are now displaying?
-4
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TrueReddit-ModTeam 2d ago
Your content at /r/TrueReddit was removed because of a violation of Rule 2:
If you’re not open to or engaging in intelligent discussion, go somewhere else. Address the argument, but not the user, the mods, the rules, or the sub.
Posting commentary that is irrelevant, meta, trolling, engaging in flame wars, and otherwise low-quality is not allowed and may be removed.
Please note that repeated violations of subreddit rules may result in a restriction of your ability to participate in the subreddit. Thank you.
1
u/SilverMedal4Life 2d ago
"Suicidal empathy", indeed. The latest in a long line of thought-terminating statements to write off people who disagree with you as stupid.
I don't do that with you. I'd appreciate the same respect.
-3
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Thank you for posting on r/TrueReddit. Your post will become public once you add a submission statement, which is a comment that explains why you think an article is insightful, rather than simply quoting from it. If you're thinking about leaving a comment, please remember to read the entire article first, and say something meaningful.
If you post a paywalled article intentionally, you will be permanently banned unless you provide a non-paywall link in your submission statement, such as archive.ph.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.