Israel announces partial settlement freeze

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israel approved on Wednesday a limit on settlement construction for 10 months in a bid to revive peace negotiations with the Palestinians who said the partial moratorium did not meet their terms for talks.

The building freeze excludes areas of the West Bank that Israel annexed to its Jerusalem municipality after capturing the territory in a 1967 war and building projects already under way, government officials said.

"Any return to negotiations must be on the basis of a complete settlement freeze, and in Jerusalem foremost," said Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's security cabinet approved the policy, an official in his office said. The "temporary suspension" was part of an effort "to restart peace talks with the Palestinian Authority."

more

[oberliner]

1. Palestinians reject Israeli West Bank building freeze

Israel's prime minister on Wednesday proposed a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlement construction in what he said was an attempt to jump-start Mideast peace talks.

But the Palestinians rejected the proposal before it was even formally unveiled, saying it was unacceptable because it did not include east Jerusalem.

Israeli construction in settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem has been a key sticking point in U.S. efforts to restart Mideast peace talks. The Palestinians say they will not return to the negotiating table without a complete halt to construction in both areas, which they claim for a future independent state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented his proposal to his security cabinet, a small group of senior cabinet ministers and top security officials. The group was supposed to vote on the proposal later Wednesday.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/25/israel-palestinian-settlement-construction.html

[Chulanowa]

2. Can't blame them.

"We promise to not publically rob you for the next 10 months here, here, and here but not there" isn't exactly a great deal.

Kind of like the Palestinians saying "we won't officially rocket you for ten months, except for these four cities."

[oberliner]

3. "Hamas won't launch rockets at you, but these other groups might"

I think that was the crux of the most recent cease fire offer.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. That wasn't the crux of it at all...

In the article I read in this forum only a week or so ago, Hamas specifically said that militant groups in Gaza had agreed to stop firing rockets. If you've read anything to the contrary, please provide a link to it...


amas' Ministry of the interior has reached an agreement with Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip to stop rocket fire into Israel, Hamas' Interior Minister Fathi Hamad announced during a press conference Saturday.


Hamad said according to the agreement, rocket fire will only be used in retaliation to Israeli military offences within the Strip. Late Friday night, a Qassam rocket landed in an open field in the Shaar Hanegev Regional Council. No injuries or damage was reported. (Ali Waked)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3808424,00.html

[Chulanowa]

5. Well, Hamas did work to put a halt to that

But yeah, that's the general gist.

Do you think Israel will actually arrest and incarcerate Israelis who keep building anyway? Currently all they do is knock stuff over and let the unauthorized colonists rebuild.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. No, it's not the gist of it at all....

Hamas did NOT say anything close to what Obie's implying and in fact said that they'd reached an agreement with militant groups not to fire rockets. What Oblie seems to be referring to is the one rocket that was fired since then, of which he appears to be believing that this one rocket means that all bets are off the table. That's a completely different thing than him implication that there was no agreement between Hamas and militant factions to stop rocket fire...

[oberliner]

8. Well the other groups basically announced they had not reached an agreement

I'm not sure how serious Hamas was about doing anything about their actions.

In any case, I do agree that Israel needs to crack down more seriously on those who try to build those illegal outposts.

[Chulanowa]

15. You're not sure?

You're sure that you're not sure? Because I'm sure the information was given to you.

[oberliner]

17. That information is not accurate unfortunately

From Al Jazeera:

Gaza groups deny rocket ceasefire

Several Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip have denied Hamas claims that an agreement has been brokered among them to stop firing rockets across the border into Israel.

The al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, was the latest group to disavow the claim.

"We are categorically denying that we have released a statement on reaching agreement with Palestinian factions over suspending rocket firing at the Zionist enemy", Abu Obeida, a spokesman for al-Qassam Brigades, said.

"We are amazed that such an issue be circulated in the name of Izzad Din al-Qassam Brigades without their knowledge."

Earlier, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) both denied they were party to a ceasefire.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/20091123823655686.html

Even elements from within Hamas itself dispute the claim.

[Chulanowa]

18. Ah. Apparently we're speaking of different cease-fires

Carry on.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. What you said in post #3 was totally inaccurate...

Yr now addressing something different than the claim you made originally....

[aranthus]

20. Excuse me, but when did any part of Jerusalem ever "belong" to the Palestinians?

When did they ever have sovereignty over the place? They didn't did they? If anything, parts of East Jerusalem were wrongly taken from the Jews by the Jordanians and given to the Palestinians.

[Chulanowa]

22. Clearly the history of the world began in 1967

Go educate yourself, please. I'll wait.

[aranthus]

24. You can't answer the question, can you?

When, if ever, did the Palestinians have sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem? The correct answer is never in the history of the world. Not in the last 2,000 years. If you have a source that says otherwise, name it.

[Chulanowa]

29. Wait wait...

You're one of those people who don't think Palestinians really exist, aren't you?

The Palestinians have been living there since at least the 600's.

Hilariously, Israel hasn't had a presence in Jerusalem since the 830's BC, when the civil war put Jerusalem in the hands of Judea.

[aranthus]

37. Maybe you don't understand the question.

The question asked when the Palestinians had sovereignty over Jerusalem. Sovereignty is more than mere residence. It's about who is ruling the place. So when did the Palestinians rule Jerusalem? Again, the answer is never. They may have lived there (although for many years before 1948 the Jews were the majority in the city), but they never ruled Jerusalem, did they?

[Chulanowa]

45. I see

So they don't deserve to be there, because they lived as a conquered people for a good portion of the time? That having their homes confiscated and destroyed, and having any chance at self-rule removed is perfectly fair because of that.

So by your logic... The jews of Europe, who never had sovereignty in any European state or city, were treated perfectly fairly while having THEIR homes and businesses confiscated and destroyed, suffering third-class abuses, and being driven from city to city on the whims of their neighbors?

[aranthus]

46. Who said anything about the Palestinians not deserving to live in Jerusalem?

Are you able to respond to an argument without making things up? The issue is whether the Old City remains part of Israel or is given to a Palestinian state. That's why the Palestinians want a building freeze; because they want the city for themselves.

You also misstated the meaning of my logic. According to my argument the Jews don't have a right to make Rome their own country even though they have lived there a long time. It says nothing about whether Jews have a right to live in Rome or anywhere else.

[Chulanowa]

47. You did

Your position is one in favor of Israel possessing the entire city, is it not? Israel is accomplishing this by ethnic cleansing - it is forcibly evicting Palestinians from East Jerusalem - it has successfully cleared out most of the rest of Jerusalem, and is currently working on those few neighborhoods it missed. Why?

Because the Israelis figure that since the Palestinians have no sovereign claim to Jerusalem, then they don't really need to be there. Just like you!

Incidentally, Israel doesn't have any sovereign claim to the city, either. It just has enough firepower and connections to break the law and get away with it. Jerusalem is supposed to be a stateless city under UN administration.

[aranthus]

52. Like I said; you're just making stuff up. n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. "wrongly taken from Jews and given to Palestinians." That's funny. You sure you want to go there?

YOu might want to educate yourself on the issue of East Jerusalem.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusalem/Index.asp

[aranthus]

38. I see nothing of relevance in that site.

Sure it states the false and unsupportable opinion that Jerusalem is occupied territory, but that's just the opinion of Bt'Selem. So what? Does it mention anywhere how the Jordanians invaded in 1948, and kicked out Jewish families from Jerusalem (and Etzion as another example)? Of course it doesn't admit any of the facts that would destroy their position. In fact, I didn't see any history stated there; only the ludicrous assertion that the Old City is part of the West Bank. Are you sure you want to go where there' no there there? Cause the biased opinion of Bt'Selem based on false facts won't cut it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

40. OK then. Let's all give back the stolen land to the original inhabitants. ..

Be careful what you wish for... and whine about.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. East Jerusalem is definately occupied territory and that's a fact, not an opinion...

Also, you must have missed this part of what B'Tselem said:

'Between 1948 and June of 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two: West Jerusalem, which covered an area of about 38 square kilometers was under Israeli control, and East Jerusalem, which contained an area of some 6 sq. km, was ruled by Jordan. In June 1967, following the 1967 War, Israel annexed some 70 sq. km to the municipal boundaries of West Jerusalem, and imposed Israeli law there. These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. Following their annexation, the area of West Jerusalem tripled, and Jerusalem became the largest city in Israel.'

http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusalem/Legal_Status.asp

After having read that, is there anything in there that you'd want to dispute?

[aranthus]

43. Then who is the rightful sovereign?

The Palestinians who have never before had sovereignty over any part of the city? The Jordanians, who did steal it in the 47-49 war? The British? Should israel give it back to the Ottomans?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. I know it's definately not Israel, which is what you seemed to be claiming n/t

[Scurrilous]

7. Palestinians: Netanyahu move is not real settlement freeze

<snip>

"Palestinians immediately rejected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement of a 10-month halt in construction in West Bank settlements on Wednesday, blasting the move for not including east Jerusalem.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said there was nothing new in Netanyahu's announcement, pointing to the 3,000 new housing units under construction in the West Bank.

"This is not a moratorium," he said. "Unfortunately, we hoped he would commit to a real settlement freeze so we can resume negotiations and he had a choice between settlements and peace and he chose settlements."

Earlier Wednesday, Netanyahu's plan drew a wave of verbal attacks on Wednesday, with right-wingers accusing him of betraying his electoral base.

"It can't be possible that Netanyahu is spitting in the faces of those to whom he promised less than a year ago that he would constitute an alternative to Sharon's policy of uprooting," said MK Yaakov Katz, the chairman of the National Union.

He was referring to former prime minister Ariel Sharon's withdrawal of Israeli soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Riqht-wing activist Itamar Ben-Gvir accused Netanyahu of betraying the State of Israel.

"The time has for the right to fight Netanyahu the same way they fought Rabin, Olmert, Sharon, and Barak," he said, in reference to former Israeli premiers who were the target of rightist attacks.

Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing extremist in 1995 after entering into peace talks with the Palestinians."

more

[oberliner]

9. Hated by the Right and the Left

Does that mean he is finally doing something right?

This settlement freeze may be the first positive step he has taken in all of this.

Glad to see the right-wingers so pissed off!

[LeftishBrit]

10. Wow

I have said for a while that the 'First Law of Republican Politics' is that however right-wing you are, you can still be attacked or defeated by someone further right. Seems that the same is true of the Israeli Right.

As for Ben Gvir he is truly scary, and especially given his past statements and support for domestic terrorist groups, his suggestion that Netanyahu needs to be fought like, among others, Rabin, is ... worrying.

[oberliner]

12. Ben Gvir was arrested for an anti-Bush protest not long ago

He also apparently once attacked Mohammed Dahlan with an Israeli flag.

[Scurrilous]

11. This Time Clinton Ain't Buying Israel's Latest Settlement Freeze Offer

<snip>

"Prime Minister Netanyahu today announced a partial 10-month settlement freeze.

According to the New York Times, "A statement from Mr. Netanyahu's office said the moratorium would be in Judea and Samaria, the biblical names of the West Bank, meaning it would not include Jerusalem, and would not apply to new residential building, so existing construction would continue and public structures like schools and community centers would be unaffected." (And, I'd guess, also parks, hospitals, day care centers, bakery cooperatives, Weight Watchers centers, synagogues, more synagogues, Arthur Murray's dance studios, aviaries, fine restaurants, zoos, etc).

The freeze's inapplicability to Jerusalem renders the offer almost meaningless.

Jerusalem, according to Israeli law, is not only the historic city but also towns and villages extending well into the West Bank which were never considered to be part of Jerusalem. Israel expanded the city's borders in 1967 precisely so it could hold on to these areas by claiming them as part of Israel's capital, which they aren't.

By ruling out a settlement freeze in all of expanded Jerusalem, Israel will continue to grow in precisely the area where it is most determined to expand. It is also the area of most significance to the Palestinians who hold, quite legitimately, that a Palestinian state without any part of Jerusalem as its capital is like a French state without access to Paris. It's ridiculous.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not go out on any limbs in support of Bibi this time. She merely acknowledged his "offer" as a possible step toward reconciling "the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." The reference to the '67 borders was a nice shot over Bibi's bow.

Special Envoy George Mitchell said Bibi's gambit "falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli government has done before...." I don't think that's true and, in any case, is very faint praise indeed."

more

[oberliner]

14. George Mitchell's full remarks can be found here:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/nov/132447.htm

Excerpt:

MR. MITCHELL: Great. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Prime Minister Netanyahu has just announced his government’s moratorium on new settlement buildings. I think it’s important to look at this issue in a broader context, particularly how it affects the situation on the ground and how it can contribute to a constructive negotiating process that will ultimately lead to an end to the conflict and to a two-state solution.

It falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli Government has done before, and can help move toward agreement between the parties. As President Obama has said many times, we believe that a two-state solution to the conflict is the best way to realize the shared goal of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. It is also in the national security interest of the United States. It is urgently needed.

The President knows that achieving this goal will be difficult, but he also has said that he will not waiver in his persistent pursuit of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. For that reason, he has dedicated himself and his Administration to the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and to the creation of an atmosphere that maximizes the prospects for success.

[oberliner]

13. Clinton praises Netanyahu West Bank settlement moratorium

Hillary Clinton issued a statement praising the move: "Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements. Let me say to all the people of the region and world: our commitment to achieving a solution with two states living side by side in peace and security is unwavering."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1109/Mitchell_brief_as_Netanyahu_to_announce_partial_settlement_freeze.html

[Chulanowa]

16. This is what's known as "enabling"

Clinton is praising Israel for saying they might not steal more land than they've already stolen. A promise that has been made and broken since the 70's, time and time and time again.

This is like praising a car thief for promising he won't steal your car.

[oberliner]

19. Israel is much smaller than it was in the 70s

It has given up a lot more land than it has "stolen" since that time.

[Chulanowa]

21. And it's still stealing land, so your point is what, exactly?

Your argument is sort of like "they don't kill as many civilians as they could if they really wanted to" being used as an excuse for Israel targeting civilians.

No. It's not as bad as it could be. That does not make it good.

[oberliner]

23. My point is that peace is possible

And specifically that the land-for-peace formula has worked in the past.

[Chulanowa]

28. Of course peace is possible

That doesn't mean either side wants it.

"Land for peace" is a crock. "We'll give you some of your land back if you completely stop shooting at us for stealing your land."

It's another "better than nothing" but, y'know, just once, I'd love to see Israel actually do something certifiably good, instead of half-measures and things that aren't as bad as they could be.

[oberliner]

31. What would you like to see Israel do exactly?

What do you consider to be the land that Israel stole? Are you talking only about the West Bank and Gaza or do you mean all of what is currently Israel? Or something in between?

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Are you a supporter of Nutty's partial settlement-freeze?

The posts from you in this thread certainly seem to indicate that, but rather than jump to conclusions, I thought it best to ask you.

If you do support Nutty's stance, what are yr reasons for doing so, and why would you have a different attitude towards what is a smoke and mirrors tactic to when there are situations in the past when the Palestinians have offered partial cessations of violence etc?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. True Israel may have occupied more dunams in 1976, but are you actually stating

Israeli settlers lived on as much land?

click the "map of the settlements.
click the populaitons statistics.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Settlements/Statistics.asp

Most important, then as now... illegally occupying it DOES NOT MAKE IT "ISRAEL."

[oberliner]

34. I was talking about the size of the Sinai Peninsula

That huge land mass was returned to Egypt as part of their 1979 peace treaty.

I realize that illegally occupying land does not make it part of Israel; however, I am responding to the claim about Israel stealing more and more land. If the land they are occupying is not part of Israel, then they haven't stolen it. If one wants to claim that they are stealing land, then one has to acknowledge that previously stolen land has been returned to the tune of a land mass that is larger than the current size of Israel.

People seem often not to acknowledge that all of the Occupied Territories were taken not from any pre-existing Palestinian state, but rather from Jordan and Egypt, countries who, as has been pointed out here previously, do not want the land returned to them.

Curiously, there was not a major movement to create an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza when those lands were occupied by Jordan and Egypt.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. What next Oberliner, "Judea and Samaria?"

Are you saying that in 1977 there were more Jewish settlers than there are today?

[oberliner]

48. I am saying that in 1977 there was more occupied territory than there is today

Do you dispute that?

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Could you answer even one of the questions I asked you, Oberliner?

It's just that I'm finding it just a bit rude the way you avoid answering questions while firing off questions at everyone around you in this thread.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. That's a really ridiculous argument. States can steal land that doesn't originally belong to them...

Indonesia did it in East Timor, and there's many other examples of land being stolen by occupying powers where the land was never part of the occupying state

Curiously, there was not a major movement to create an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza when those lands were occupied by Jordan and Egypt.

And what does that mean?

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Occupied territory is NOT part of Israel...

And Israel is the same size now as it was in the 1970's.

[shira]

53. for those not really paying attention to Clinton regarding the settlement freeze...

Hillary Clinton issued a statement praising the move: "Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements. Let me say to all the people of the region and world: our commitment to achieving a solution with two states living side by side in peace and security is unwavering."

With those words, HRC just endorsed the 2004 Bush letter to Sharon that conceded land swaps based on the reality of settlements - which is also the same language of Bill Clinton's Parameters of 2000.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Thankfully, Abu Mazen has rejected this offer for the absurdity it is. Sanity reigns! nt

[Scurrilous]

30. Not enough manpower to implement settlement freeze, cabinet told

<snip>

"The implementation of Israel's decision to freeze settlement construction in the West Bank for 10 months is seen as an especially major challenge for Israel. Attorney General Menachem Mazuz told the security cabinet Wednesday ahead of a vote on the decision that there is no real way to enforce the freeze due to a lack of manpower."

<snip>

"In the whole of Judea and Samaria , there are just 14 building inspectors," Mazuz told the cabinet. "If this doesn't change it will be difficult for the inspectors to implement the decision."

In light of Mazuz' warning, the cabinet authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovich, the Justice Ministry and the Finance Ministry to provide a supplementary budget and extra manpower for the enforcement of the settlement freeze. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, who backed the decision, was asked to present a budget proposal within three days.

According to the cabinet decision, the next stage will be for Barak to instruct the GOC Central Command Major General Gadi Shamni to issue a directive detailing the new construction policy for the West Bank.

The directive will explain that there will be no new permits for construction in the settlements; building permits issued before the freeze will be suspended; and no construction will be carried out, including on infrastructure and laying of foundations.

The construction of 3,000 new housing units in the settlements will continue unabated, as will construction of public facilities like synagogues and schools."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1130865.html

[IndianaGreen]

35. LMAO

I stopped believing in these smoke and mirrors years ago, and so should you regardless of where you stand on the issues.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. Title should read "Israel announces continued settlement construction".

There have always been some restrictions on the further expansion of the settlements - it's never been allowed to go ahead as fast as some would like.

But "we are going to go on building 3000 homes in the West bank (IIRC - that's from memory, and may be wrong), and building in East Jerusalem" is not a "partial freeze", it's "continued expansion".

[Scurrilous]

51. Israel okays new public buildings in West Bank

<snip>

"Israel has approved construction of 28 new public buildings in the occupied West Bank, the defence ministry said on Friday, highlighting the limits to settlement restrictions announced this week.

"These public buildings and schools must be completed in time for the start of the new school year in September," the ministry said.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak's approval for the new construction came just two days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced restrictions on building in West Bank settlements in a gesture to US President Barack Obama."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g09wQ2rCTlGcza7kZ5Mn3sI5trKg



Settlers have been working for months to undermine construction freeze

<snip>

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu owes much gratitude to the Yesha Council and the members of the rightist flank in Likud. Were it not for their public opposition over the past two days, someone might have suspected that the decision to freeze settlement construction permits for 10 months was an even smaller Israeli concession than it originally appeared to be.

There can be no doubt: Under heavy U.S. pressure, Netanyahu crossed an ideological Rubicon from his point of view. The announcement to freeze settlements joins the Bar-Ilan declaration, in which the prime minister agreed to a two-state solution. But in practice, analysis of the situation on the ground suggests that there will be nearly no change in settlement construction, at least not in the coming months.

According to Defense Ministry data, there are currently some 2,500 housing units under construction and contractors are entitled to complete them. The construction of a further 490 units was recently approved in an unusual move by Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Netanyahu's declaration is not catching the settlers by surprise. The government's intentions have been known for five months, and during that time the settlers have stepped up new construction in an effort to get ahead of the restrictions. Hundreds of new housing units are in the process of construction, among other places in Bracha, Yitzhar, Eli, Shilo, Betar Ilit, Elazar, Carmel and Ma'on.

Since in some of the settlements, like Eli, there is no approved master plan, the construction cannot possibly be authorized. While it is true that the Netanyahu government has not been generous in approving plans for construction, mostly in areas far from the separation fence, there is still a significant amount of new construction in the territories."

more

[Scurrilous]

54. Netanyahu: Settlement freeze is 'one-time, temporary' move

<snip>

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that a 10-month freeze of new construction in West Bank settlements was only a "one-time, temporary" move, in an apparent bid to ease settlers' fears.

"We shall resume building once the moratorium is over," Netanyahu told a conference organized by the financial newspaper Calcalist.

"The future final-status accord in Judea and Samaria will be determined at the end of negotiations - and not a day earlier," he said."

<snip>

"The prime minister's comments came after Defense Ministry inspectors who came to the West Bank on Tuesday to enforce the moratorium found the roads blocked by settlers, who have vowed to defy the government crackdown.

Settlers fanned out across the West Bank, from Karnei Shomron in the northern territory to Kiryat Arba in the south, shouting at the inspectors and refused to let them pass."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131965.html