I guess this is what "bringing about long-term peace and social justice ...

[Jayjay]

Most Palestinians have agreed to 1967 borders, and in any case, my opinion or the world opinion is not the same as Palestinian opinion. Whether some Palestinian militants think the whole of Israel is occupied territory is as irrelevant as ISIS thinking that Spain is Dar-al-Islam. The speculative accusation that Palestinians might have unjustifiable territorial ambitions of their own in no way negates Israel's unjustifiable territorial ambitions, especially because Israel is actually engaged in annexing and settling the land, whereas all Palestinian nationalists might have are pipe dreams.

1) Most have not agreed to the 67 borders. 67 borders are seen as a stepping stone to a final victory, not as an end.

2) It does matter what they think is occupied because that's the motivation for the violence. World opinion doesn't really matter on this, only the opinion of the Arabs backing the continuing conflict. They're already whining about what's going to happen with the Arabs cracking down on Qatar.

That's a red herring. I never said anything about foreign financing, by all means cut it off. And do you think that someone who is armed with a knife is someone who needs millions of dollars of funding from Qatar? Please.

Legitimate resistance is legitimate resistance even if the individuals or groups who engage in it happen to be doing also other activities that are not so legitimate, or if they take funding from abroad. In situations where your country is occupied and you have no proper sovereign government, it is to be expected that the once who fight are a little bit fanatical. Desperate times, desperate measures.

As for Palestinian residents--why would you expect there to be any? The settlements were on either vacant land or on land they bought from it's owners.

"Vacant land" excuse is bullshit. If some Palestinian were to find vacant land on Israeli side of the border, he could hardly claim and annex it to the Palestinian state. Borders are legal agreements, and there is practically no "vacant land" anywhere on Earth at this time in history.

Reality check time:

1) There's lots of vacant land in the world. I live in the western US--most of what is around here is vacant land.

2) You continue to bring up borders--forgetting that at the time in question Israel had conquered the land. Not only that, but at that point their ownership was uncontested. (The Palestinians had refused to try to make a nation (they backed the horse of conquest and lost) and thus could not make a claim.)

3) I pointed out the difference in the property ownership laws of the two systems.

No, Israel did not conquer the land. It occupied the land, and since there has been neither a peace treaty, nor an annexation, it's still an occupation. That is a major legal and moral distinction. And to say that the ownership is not uncontested, that's bullshit. In 1967, Jordan (which was a sovereign state as much as Israel) did contest it, and later Jordan officially ceded its claim to PLO. Whatever claim Palestinians have is at least as strong as Israel's from legal point of view, and since there were practically no Jews living in West Bank before 1967, they certainly have a stronger moral claim.

As for the first point, you still seem not to understand that even if a plot of land is "vacant" in the US, it is still under jurisdiction of US laws and goverment. I can buy an empty plot of land in America, but I can't declare it a sovereign state.

It is irrelevant whether the land is "private" or "public" under Israeli law, becasue international law (as well as ethics) trumps Israeli law. It is nevertheless occupied territory, and whatever labels the occupier uses to label that land is irrelevant. Even if Israeli government were to buy some land from Palestinians, it would be illegal for Israel to use it to house settlers. At best they could use the land or buildings for military purposes to keep the peace in the occupied territory.

If the Israeli government were to do so you are right, it would be illegal under Geneva. However, that does not prohibit private individuals from buying land and moving to it.

Nonsense. The fact that Israel allows it, makes it already complicit. Israel is responsible for what its citizens do, especially if they are being financed and supported by the state of Israel, in occupied territory that Israel administers. If it wanted, Israel could easily prohibit land buying in West Bank and prevent its citizens moving therein. It could certainly stop annexing land and giving it to those individuals.

Besides, if you really believed that what private individuals do is of no concern to the government, then Israel must have committed a war crime when it attacked Lebanon for allowing Hezbollah wage their own private war with Israel?

This is why Israel's taking the land can be considered "stealing". It first cleanses some area from Palestinians, and designates the land as "public". Then it gives the land to private settlements and annexes it to Israel. It is ridiculous to claim that there is any difference with this two-step process from public to private, and simply stealing the land in one step. The end result is still the same: land that belongs to occupied Palestine is ethnically cleansed and annexed to Israel.

You still need to support your claim of cleansing.

There are zero Palestinians living in Israeli settlements in West Bank. Is that not ethnically clean enough for you?

And note that the lawful owner of a property can expel unwanted individuals on it without it being ethnic cleansing. If the landlord sold the land to the Jews the tenants have to leave when their lease is up if that's what the new owners want.

None of them are lawful owners of the land. In fact, Palestinians law explicitly forbids selling land to Israelis.

"Being liable to attack" does not mean an city or a neighbourhood is outside government control. That kind of neighbourhoods where it is dangerous to move outside exist in all major cities, and plenty of smaller ones too. There is absolutely no analogy between even the worst "no-go zones" of Paris, and actually being under a military occupation of a foreign power.

And where in any other civilized country is it extremely dangerous to simply drive down the street if you're of the wrong group?

Los Angeles. Oakland. Chicago. Paris. London. Do I need to go on?

 

[arkirk]

Israel reunited their historic capital in the 1967 war (which just passed 50 year anniversary a week ago). East Jerusalem has a different legal status than West Bank and it's not accurate to describe it as "occupied".
Why do you think an armistice line from 1949 is so sacrosanct?

As you know, the whole Country is Palestine, and the Nazis have no claim to it whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

Your anti-semitism is only very thinly veiled by using dog-whistle language like "Zionist".

So talking about Palestinian terrorists murdering Israelis is "Zionist rhetoric"?
And who are these "new Republicans" you believe are on your, anti-semitic, side re Israel?

So make like New York and get with the time, square!

What?

As you know, the Resistance in occupied countries takes what action it sees fit to remove Nazi killers.

Iolo: I don't think Derec understands that the country was, is, and will always be Palestine. Netanyahu is trying to make the very word Palestine disappear from usage. He will be unsuccessful...and lucky if he doesn't start a nuclear holocaust. Netanyahu is as goofy and narcissistic as our own Orange Devil.

 

[Derec]

Iolo: I don't think Derec understands that the country was, is, and will always be Palestine.

I don't think you and iolo understand that there never was a country named "Palestine". There was Philistia in the Iron Age, but those were likely descendants of Aegean Sea Peoples and not at all related to modern Arab Palestinians.

Netanyahu is trying to make the very word Palestine disappear from usage. He will be unsuccessful...and lucky if he doesn't start a nuclear holocaust. Netanyahu is as goofy and narcissistic as our own Orange Devil.

He is a million times better than what the Palestinians have to offer. Even Abbas, the supposedly "moderate one" still pays generous stipends to terrorists and their families as reward for murdering Israeli civilians and names buidlings after terrorists.
And Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc. are really no different than Al Qaeda or ISIS.
The Hamas government in Gaza even banned public dog walking recently.
Hamas Bans Dog Walking in the Gaza Strip

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The route they have is peaceful negotiation. The thing is it will never happen because negotiation can't get them what they want--all the land.

You do realize that the same applies to Israel, right?

You realize Israel has been willing to talk two-state solution all along? It's the Palestinians that won't engage in meaningful talks.

As an average citizen I have no other means of getting rid of illegals. By your logic I should be allowed to shoot them.

As an average citizen you do have another means to get rid of illegals: call the police or the immigration officials and turn them in. Palestinians can hardly call the IDF and say "officer, we have 600,000 squatters on our land, can you help us move them out?"

Neither is going to have much effect unless it's a workplace raid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Most have not agreed to the 67 borders. 67 borders are seen as a stepping stone to a final victory, not as an end.

2) It does matter what they think is occupied because that's the motivation for the violence. World opinion doesn't really matter on this, only the opinion of the Arabs backing the continuing conflict. They're already whining about what's going to happen with the Arabs cracking down on Qatar.

That's a red herring. I never said anything about foreign financing, by all means cut it off. And do you think that someone who is armed with a knife is someone who needs millions of dollars of funding from Qatar? Please.

I note no response to the bit about 67 borders not being the endgame.

And without the foreign funding there would be peace--the Palestinians wouldn't have the billions to spend on fighting and the PR effort. Nor could they keep up an "economy" based on making war the only option.

And while that knife doesn't cost the PR to get them to do it certainly does.

No, Israel did not conquer the land. It occupied the land, and since there has been neither a peace treaty, nor an annexation, it's still an occupation. That is a major legal and moral distinction. And to say that the ownership is not uncontested, that's bullshit. In 1967, Jordan (which was a sovereign state as much as Israel) did contest it, and later Jordan officially ceded its claim to PLO. Whatever claim Palestinians have is at least as strong as Israel's from legal point of view, and since there were practically no Jews living in West Bank before 1967, they certainly have a stronger moral claim.

What dictionary are you using? How can you occupy without conquering?

As for Jordan claiming it?? Jordan claimed it in 1948, when it was intended to be a Palestinian state. Jordan relinquished that claim in 1967 after Israel conquered it and it was thus not available to be a Palestinian state. Likewise, Gaza was claimed in 1948 and relinquished in 1967. They didn't want the land or the Palestinians, they just didn't want a Palestinian state.

As for the first point, you still seem not to understand that even if a plot of land is "vacant" in the US, it is still under jurisdiction of US laws and goverment. I can buy an empty plot of land in America, but I can't declare it a sovereign state.

And nobody is doing so over there.

Nonsense. The fact that Israel allows it, makes it already complicit. Israel is responsible for what its citizens do, especially if they are being financed and supported by the state of Israel, in occupied territory that Israel administers. If it wanted, Israel could easily prohibit land buying in West Bank and prevent its citizens moving therein. It could certainly stop annexing land and giving it to those individuals.

Geneva doesn't require them to prohibit people from moving there.

Rather it's aimed at the sort of thing that Russia and China did to the territories they occupied--the sort of stuff that lead to the current mess in eastern Ukraine.

Besides, if you really believed that what private individuals do is of no concern to the government, then Israel must have committed a war crime when it attacked Lebanon for allowing Hezbollah wage their own private war with Israel?

Citizens can move where they want. When they attack another country, though, the other country is allowed to respond.

You still need to support your claim of cleansing.

There are zero Palestinians living in Israeli settlements in West Bank. Is that not ethnically clean enough for you?

Which proves nothing--you have to show there were Palestinians there and that they were expelled, not that the Jews didn't simply buy the land.

And note that the lawful owner of a property can expel unwanted individuals on it without it being ethnic cleansing. If the landlord sold the land to the Jews the tenants have to leave when their lease is up if that's what the new owners want.

None of them are lawful owners of the land. In fact, Palestinians law explicitly forbids selling land to Israelis.

So? Doesn't mean they haven't done so, it doesn't make the sale illegal. And Palestinian law is irrelevant to those living outside it's area anyway.

Los Angeles. Oakland. Chicago. Paris. London. Do I need to go on?

I said "drive down", not "walk down".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Iolo: I don't think Derec understands that the country was, is, and will always be Palestine. Netanyahu is trying to make the very word Palestine disappear from usage. He will be unsuccessful...and lucky if he doesn't start a nuclear holocaust. Netanyahu is as goofy and narcissistic as our own Orange Devil.

Fine, give it to them--"Palestine" referred to the Jews!

 

[Jayjay]

You do realize that the same applies to Israel, right?

You realize Israel has been willing to talk two-state solution all along? It's the Palestinians that won't engage in meaningful talks.

Pretending to be "willing" to talk is one thing, and actually talking and negotiating is another. Actions matter more, and clearly, Israel has demonstrated by illegally moving over half a million of its citizens to West Bank, and by moving its capital to Jerusalem, that it has no intention of granting Palestinians a viable state. Besides, you don't seem to undestand what "talks" even mean. The purpose of "talks" is that both sides have something the other one wants, and they come to some agreement that benefits both. Israel has not made an offer that Palestinians could find acceptable, because they are doing just fine by simply taking what they want by force. Any talks where one party feels that they have nothing to gain are not "meaningful talks" by definition, so it is ridiculous to claim that "only" Israel is willing to talk. Talking all by yourself is not a dialogue, it's a monologue.

The only way Palestinians can change the situation and make Israel want to talk is to amp up the violence. That's the harsh reality of the situation. If Palestinians aren't fighting for themselves, they might as well give up the pipe dream of any resemblance of an independent state.

As an average citizen I have no other means of getting rid of illegals. By your logic I should be allowed to shoot them.

As an average citizen you do have another means to get rid of illegals: call the police or the immigration officials and turn them in. Palestinians can hardly call the IDF and say "officer, we have 600,000 squatters on our land, can you help us move them out?"

Neither is going to have much effect unless it's a workplace raid.

But they will have some effect. It is a reasonable, legal avenue of dealing with illegal immigration, and it has worked well enough. The Palestinians have no peaceful methods to get rid of illegal settlers.

 

[Jayjay]

That's a red herring. I never said anything about foreign financing, by all means cut it off. And do you think that someone who is armed with a knife is someone who needs millions of dollars of funding from Qatar? Please.

I note no response to the bit about 67 borders not being the endgame.

And without the foreign funding there would be peace--the Palestinians wouldn't have the billions to spend on fighting and the PR effort. Nor could they keep up an "economy" based on making war the only option.

And while that knife doesn't cost the PR to get them to do it certainly does.

If you read a bit more carefully, you'd see that I did respond to the bit about 67 borders. The point is that the motivation of the attacker, or what he may think are acceptable borders, or what his ideology is, or where he gets his funding is irrelevant. Legtimate resistance in West Bank is still legitimate, even if the perpetrator were a card-carrying member of ISIS, believed the whole world belongs to muslims, and had been funded by Hitler himself.

The accusation that "well palestinians wouldn't stop at 1967 borders anyway" is a red herring, a hypothetical that in no way justifies Israel's actual war crimes that are happening right now. It's absolutely irrelevant what you think the Palestinians will do if they had the upper hand, it's even irrelevant what the Palestinians themselves think they'd do.

No, Israel did not conquer the land. It occupied the land, and since there has been neither a peace treaty, nor an annexation, it's still an occupation. That is a major legal and moral distinction. And to say that the ownership is not uncontested, that's bullshit. In 1967, Jordan (which was a sovereign state as much as Israel) did contest it, and later Jordan officially ceded its claim to PLO. Whatever claim Palestinians have is at least as strong as Israel's from legal point of view, and since there were practically no Jews living in West Bank before 1967, they certainly have a stronger moral claim.

What dictionary are you using? How can you occupy without conquering?

As for Jordan claiming it?? Jordan claimed it in 1948, when it was intended to be a Palestinian state. Jordan relinquished that claim in 1967 after Israel conquered it and it was thus not available to be a Palestinian state. Likewise, Gaza was claimed in 1948 and relinquished in 1967. They didn't want the land or the Palestinians, they just didn't want a Palestinian state.

You are misinformed. The claim was not "relinquished" in 1967, and if you think otherwise, show me the document or statement where it did so. Jordan later did relinquish its claim, but that was to the PLO, not to Israel. And it doesn't matter whether Jordan or Egypt wanted the land to themselves or a Palestinian state in 1967, the point is that the land was not uncontested by any reasonable definition of the word.

You are turning yourself into a pretzel trying to justify Israel's actions with legalistic nonsense, but you never take even half a second to apply the same rules to anyone else. To you, Israel is either playing by its all rules, or above all rules altogether, depending on what atrocity or war crime you are currently defending.

As for the first point, you still seem not to understand that even if a plot of land is "vacant" in the US, it is still under jurisdiction of US laws and goverment. I can buy an empty plot of land in America, but I can't declare it a sovereign state.

And nobody is doing so over there.

Israel considers East Jerusalem and the settlements part of Israel. It does not recognize any Palestinian laws or jurisdiction for its citizens that it has moved there. That is exactly what is happening in West Bank. If I tried to pull that off in America, I'd have to deal with the courts and the police, F.B.I., the national guard or ultimately the full force of the U.S. armed forces.

Nonsense. The fact that Israel allows it, makes it already complicit. Israel is responsible for what its citizens do, especially if they are being financed and supported by the state of Israel, in occupied territory that Israel administers. If it wanted, Israel could easily prohibit land buying in West Bank and prevent its citizens moving therein. It could certainly stop annexing land and giving it to those individuals.

Geneva doesn't require them to prohibit people from moving there.

Rather it's aimed at the sort of thing that Russia and China did to the territories they occupied--the sort of stuff that lead to the current mess in eastern Ukraine.

You are just asserting the same empty claim over and over again without understanding it. The Geneva convention makes it a war crime to move civilians to or from occupied territories. Israel cannot subvert the treaty by pretending that it's "private citizens" who are doing it, because its own legislation not only allows but incentivizes it.

Imagine the same logic being applied to any other war crime; the use of chemical weapons for example. If Lebanon said that manufacture and use of chemical agents was legal agains Israel, and then Hezbollah (a group consisting of "private citizens") decided to use Zyklon B or Sarin agains Israel, do you think that wouldn't be a war crime? Do you think the international community would just shrug its collective shoulders and say "well it's private citizens so Geneva Convention doesn't apply"? Of course not.

Besides, if you really believed that what private individuals do is of no concern to the government, then Israel must have committed a war crime when it attacked Lebanon for allowing Hezbollah wage their own private war with Israel?

Citizens can move where they want. When they attack another country, though, the other country is allowed to respond.

Finally you seem to be getting there. This is exactly why Israeli civilians in West Bank are legitimate targets; Palestinians are "allowed to respond".

You still need to support your claim of cleansing.

There are zero Palestinians living in Israeli settlements in West Bank. Is that not ethnically clean enough for you?

Which proves nothing--you have to show there were Palestinians there and that they were expelled, not that the Jews didn't simply buy the land.

And note that the lawful owner of a property can expel unwanted individuals on it without it being ethnic cleansing. If the landlord sold the land to the Jews the tenants have to leave when their lease is up if that's what the new owners want.

None of them are lawful owners of the land. In fact, Palestinians law explicitly forbids selling land to Israelis.

So? Doesn't mean they haven't done so, it doesn't make the sale illegal. And Palestinian law is irrelevant to those living outside it's area anyway.

Of course Palestinian law is relevant to land that is in Palestinian territory. And the buyers certainly live there, or plan to live there, yet they don't follow Palestinian laws. What you are doing is again what you always do: you apply one set of rules to Israel, but obstinently refuse to apply the same rules to Palestinians.

Los Angeles. Oakland. Chicago. Paris. London. Do I need to go on?

I said "drive down", not "walk down".

I'm sure that if you drive fast enough, you can drive through any neighbourhood in Israel just as well. But now this is too vague. Tell me, what exact neighbourhood in Israel (not the occupied territories) are you thinking about that is so dangerous for Jews to even drive through, that no ghetto in any major city in America or Western Europe comes even close?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize Israel has been willing to talk two-state solution all along? It's the Palestinians that won't engage in meaningful talks.

Pretending to be "willing" to talk is one thing, and actually talking and negotiating is another. Actions matter more, and clearly, Israel has demonstrated by illegally moving over half a million of its citizens to West Bank, and by moving its capital to Jerusalem, that it has no intention of granting Palestinians a viable state.

Your bias is showing--why shouldn't they move their capital to Jerusalem?

Besides, you don't seem to undestand what "talks" even mean. The purpose of "talks" is that both sides have something the other one wants, and they come to some agreement that benefits both. Israel has not made an offer that Palestinians could find acceptable, because they are doing just fine by simply taking what they want by force. Any talks where one party feels that they have nothing to gain are not "meaningful talks" by definition, so it is ridiculous to claim that "only" Israel is willing to talk. Talking all by yourself is not a dialogue, it's a monologue.

Reality of the talks:

The Palestinians got one agreement that was very front-loaded to their benefit: Oslo. They promptly exploited the front-loading and shat on the agreement, freely admitting in Arabic that it was a sham. Now Israel isn't going to agree to a front-loaded agreement so the Palestinians aren't willing to actually make one--they walk out if they don't have any other way to scuttle it. Most of the time there aren't even talks in the first place because the Palestinians put unreasonable requirements on simply having talks in the first place. They know they aren't going to get any more handouts like Oslo so they demand concessions to have talks in the first place.

The only way Palestinians can change the situation and make Israel want to talk is to amp up the violence. That's the harsh reality of the situation. If Palestinians aren't fighting for themselves, they might as well give up the pipe dream of any resemblance of an independent state.

That's not going to make Israel talk because Israel knows that talking won't bring peace.

The basic problem is that fundamentally what Israel can agree to is 67 borders with territory swaps. No right of return. It would be treason for a Palestinian leader to accept any deal without the right of return. Thus a total impasse.

Note that you won't find the right of return mentioned in the Palestinian proposals--it's always hidden behind a reference. That's to delude careless eyes that don't bother to look up what they actually mean.

As an average citizen I have no other means of getting rid of illegals. By your logic I should be allowed to shoot them.

As an average citizen you do have another means to get rid of illegals: call the police or the immigration officials and turn them in. Palestinians can hardly call the IDF and say "officer, we have 600,000 squatters on our land, can you help us move them out?"

Neither is going to have much effect unless it's a workplace raid.

But they will have some effect. It is a reasonable, legal avenue of dealing with illegal immigration, and it has worked well enough. The Palestinians have no peaceful methods to get rid of illegal settlers.

I mean that neither type of report is going to get a response unless you have clear data for a workplace raid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I note no response to the bit about 67 borders not being the endgame.

And without the foreign funding there would be peace--the Palestinians wouldn't have the billions to spend on fighting and the PR effort. Nor could they keep up an "economy" based on making war the only option.

And while that knife doesn't cost the PR to get them to do it certainly does.

If you read a bit more carefully, you'd see that I did respond to the bit about 67 borders. The point is that the motivation of the attacker, or what he may think are acceptable borders, or what his ideology is, or where he gets his funding is irrelevant. Legtimate resistance in West Bank is still legitimate, even if the perpetrator were a card-carrying member of ISIS, believed the whole world belongs to muslims, and had been funded by Hitler himself.

You're still missing the point. The point is agreeing to the 67 borders would not bring peace, but rather more war. The history of the conflict over there is that every good gesture by the Israelis ends up making things worse for them.

The accusation that "well palestinians wouldn't stop at 1967 borders anyway" is a red herring, a hypothetical that in no way justifies Israel's actual war crimes that are happening right now. It's absolutely irrelevant what you think the Palestinians will do if they had the upper hand, it's even irrelevant what the Palestinians themselves think they'd do.

It's not what I think, but what they say their plan is.

And you're focusing on the right or wrong of it with no regard for the pragmatic reality that you are trying to make things worse for the Jews.

You are misinformed. The claim was not "relinquished" in 1967, and if you think otherwise, show me the document or statement where it did so. Jordan later did relinquish its claim, but that was to the PLO, not to Israel. And it doesn't matter whether Jordan or Egypt wanted the land to themselves or a Palestinian state in 1967, the point is that the land was not uncontested by any reasonable definition of the word.

I do agree they relinquished it to the PLO but the PLO isn't a nation. If they want to assert their claim they need to assert their nationhood first--something they are unwilling to do because they don't want a Palestinian nation, they want to conquer Israel.

You are turning yourself into a pretzel trying to justify Israel's actions with legalistic nonsense, but you never take even half a second to apply the same rules to anyone else. To you, Israel is either playing by its all rules, or above all rules altogether, depending on what atrocity or war crime you are currently defending.

The pretzel I see is the justification for terrorism and antisemitism.

Israel considers East Jerusalem and the settlements part of Israel. It does not recognize any Palestinian laws or jurisdiction for its citizens that it has moved there. That is exactly what is happening in West Bank. If I tried to pull that off in America, I'd have to deal with the courts and the police, F.B.I., the national guard or ultimately the full force of the U.S. armed forces.

But that's not because individuals purchased it.

"East" Jerusalem was recaptured and made part of Israel like it was originally intended to be.

You are just asserting the same empty claim over and over again without understanding it. The Geneva convention makes it a war crime to move civilians to or from occupied territories. Israel cannot subvert the treaty by pretending that it's "private citizens" who are doing it, because its own legislation not only allows but incentivizes it.

"Move." Not "permit to move."

Finally you seem to be getting there. This is exactly why Israeli civilians in West Bank are legitimate targets; Palestinians are "allowed to respond".

1) Civilians are not legitimate targets.

2) It's Israeli controlled land, there are no other claimants. If the Palestinians want to claim the land they need to declare statehood. Until then Israel can make whatever system they want.

Of course Palestinian law is relevant to land that is in Palestinian territory. And the buyers certainly live there, or plan to live there, yet they don't follow Palestinian laws. What you are doing is again what you always do: you apply one set of rules to Israel, but obstinently refuse to apply the same rules to Palestinians.

The buyers. The issue is the sellers. You have previously complained about absentee landlords--in other words, the sellers were beyond Palestinian law.

Los Angeles. Oakland. Chicago. Paris. London. Do I need to go on?

I said "drive down", not "walk down".

I'm sure that if you drive fast enough, you can drive through any neighbourhood in Israel just as well. But now this is too vague. Tell me, what exact neighbourhood in Israel (not the occupied territories) are you thinking about that is so dangerous for Jews to even drive through, that no ghetto in any major city in America or Western Europe comes even close?

If I drive down a bad street in the US I'm not going to have people trying to kill me with rocks. A Jew who drives down a Palestinian street very well might face such an attack.