This Road is for Jews Only. Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

[Billo_Really]

Sorry to say but every nation that has signed for the full set of Geneva conventions does agree as it is spelt out in them. Then there is this that puts the icing on the cake

Military occupation and the laws of war[edit]

From the second half of the 18th century onwards, international law has come to distinguish between the military occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation, the difference between the two being originally expounded upon by Emerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations (1758). The clear distinction has been recognized among the principles of international law since the end of the Napoleonic wars in the 19th century. These customary laws of belligerent occupation which evolved as part of the laws of war gave some protection to the population under the military occupation of a belligerent power.

The Hague Convention of 1907 further clarified and supplemented these customary laws, specifically within "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[6] The first two articles of that section state:
Art. 42.Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.Art. 43.The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
In 1949 these laws governing belligerent occupation of an enemy state's territory were further extended by the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Much of GCIV is relevant to protected persons in occupied territories and Section III: Occupied territories is a specific section covering the issue.

Article 6 restricts the length of time that most of GCIV applies:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

Military occupation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was not what I said.

I'll put it another way, there isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land.

It's been 47 years and not one country has sided with Israel. Not one.

Catch the ******* clue, it ain't gonna happen!

 

[Billo_Really]

SAFER and no more women and children murdered from ambush by cowardly Palestinian terrorist scum

Resistance is not terrorism.

 

[toastman]

SAFER and no more women and children murdered from ambush by cowardly Palestinian terrorist scum

Resistance is not terrorism.

Shooting women and children on roads is resistance?

 

[Billo_Really]

Shooting women and children on roads is resistance?

It's not something I condone, but you're talking about an area where Israeli presence is illegal. Since they are nationals of an occupational force, they are not protected civilians. And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately.

It is against IHL to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

 

[Phoenall]

433 was the one highway between tel aviv toward jerusalem, which passes through a part of the WB, that was restricted at times for security before 2010. It was never a jew only road.

I am not saying there have been "Jews" only roads; there have been and currently are Israeli only roads.

Were and corroborated evidence that this is the case.

 

[Phoenall]

I am not saying there have been "Jews" only roads; there have been and currently are Israeli only roads.

There are highways everywhere that do not have on/off ramps to every road or every town. They are designed for speed and to main destinations. Sometimes you have to take side streets to get to and from a ramp.
Yes in some areas road ramps are closed or blocked for security reasons.
Just because a highway runs nearby you does not mean it must have a ramp close to you.

Roads have been open since 2010, so why are still making incorrect claims?

You do realize that palestinians are not Israeli. That does not mean they should be free to travel within Israel. Israel does not have to give them easy access on their roads or across their borders (permanent or temporary)
US and Canada are friendly neighbors, but entry still has to go through check points to get in and out. Not every road enters Canada.
Why should palestinians have open access to all Israeli roads? Check points at every on and off ramp would slow traffic down.
If palestinians want to use the highways, let them enter Israel legally and use an Israel on/off ramp to get on the highway.
The highway makes travel for Israelis faster and safer, rather than entry and exit in and out of PA territory traveling from one Israeli town (or major settlement and will be part of Israel in a land exchange) to another.
Palestinians can build their own highway between palestinian town to speed their traffic.

Does it mean that the UK is apartheid because it shuts public roads and stops all traffic from using them. It is done in an instant and you can be arrested if you object and try and drive past the road blocks. It happened last night when the main road into town was closed to all traffic but certain designated ones and people had to turn around and find alternative routes. The reason will be the same as in any other country, safety and security of the populace. A youth under the impression he was a racing driver lost control of the car he was driving and ploughed into the front wall of a house, causing the house to become unstable and dangerous.

 

[Kondor3]

SAFER and no more women and children murdered from ambush by cowardly Palestinian terrorist scum

Resistance is not terrorism.

Resistance which targets innocent civilians (especially women and children) versus the targeting of military personnel is, indeed, terrorism, de facto, if not de jure.

Frigging Palestinian lowlife scumbags, who do that...

 

[Kondor3]

Shooting women and children on roads is resistance?

It's not something I condone, but you're talking about an area where Israeli presence is illegal. Since they are nationals of an occupational force, they are not protected civilians. And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately...

Thus we see how pro-Palestinian pro-Arab pro-Muslim apologists and fifth-columnists and fellow-travelers amongst us make 'legal' excuses for the killing of innocent women and chidren...

It's all "legal" (from some angle or interpretation or another), so it's permitted, so it's OK.

They'll ***** and piss and moan for days-on-end around here if a single Palestinian women or child is killed because they were too close to a rioting crowd that got fired upon...

Or because that woman or child were too close to a Palestinian militia sniper position that got fired upon...

Or because they were too close to a Palestinian military leader that got fired upon...

Or because they were too close to school or hospital that the Palestinian milita was using as an operational or interim tactical base, or where the militia had set up sniping or observation positions, that got fired upon...

Or because they were too close to a Palestinian rocket launcher or other war-assets that the Palestinian militias had parked, amongst their civilians, hiding behind the skirts of their own Palestinian women and children, in such a cowardly fashion, and where those war-assets got fired upon...

But in the case of Israeli-Jewish women and children...

It's OK, because they're nationals of an 'occupying' power that the Palestinian scum are resisting, and, from various 'legal' angles, it's OK to kill such civilians...

Lesson...

It's not OK to kill Palestinian civilians...

It IS OK to kill Israeli civilians...

Is it any wonder why the Israelis pick-and-choose which aspects of International Law that they consider operative within their borders and binding upon them?

Is it any wonder why the Palestinians are so widely hated - for such callous analysis and such barbaric action upon such analysis?

Is it any wonder why their sympathizers and fellow-travelers and their Fifth Columnists here amongst us are so widely hated?

Narrowed-down to Palestinians who think in these terms... **** 'em...

Narrowed-down to Palestinian sympathizers who think in these terms, as well, and consider them operative, and excusing of such behaviors by the Pals... **** 'em...

'Nuff said...

 

[Phoenall]

Sorry to say but every nation that has signed for the full set of Geneva conventions does agree as it is spelt out in them. Then there is this that puts the icing on the cake

Military occupation and the laws of war[edit]

From the second half of the 18th century onwards, international law has come to distinguish between the military occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation, the difference between the two being originally expounded upon by Emerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations (1758). The clear distinction has been recognized among the principles of international law since the end of the Napoleonic wars in the 19th century. These customary laws of belligerent occupation which evolved as part of the laws of war gave some protection to the population under the military occupation of a belligerent power.

The Hague Convention of 1907 further clarified and supplemented these customary laws, specifically within "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[6] The first two articles of that section state:
Art. 42.Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.Art. 43.The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
In 1949 these laws governing belligerent occupation of an enemy state's territory were further extended by the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Much of GCIV is relevant to protected persons in occupied territories and Section III: Occupied territories is a specific section covering the issue.

Article 6 restricts the length of time that most of GCIV applies:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

Military occupation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was not what I said.

I'll put it another way, there isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land.

It's been 47 years and not one country has sided with Israel. Not one.

Catch the ******* clue, it ain't gonna happen!

Then they have to re write the Geneva conventions and change International law. Then the UN has to change its charter and put together an international armed force that will step in and separate warring nations. In other words a totalitarian system of world government with ultimate power. Until that happens the Geneva conventions stand and Israel is within the scope and letter of them until such time as hostilities cease as written in the UN charter and the Geneva conventions.

Have you caught the clue yet ?

 

[Phoenall]

SAFER and no more women and children murdered from ambush by cowardly Palestinian terrorist scum

Resistance is not terrorism.

Since when has the cold blooded murder of a mother and her children from ambush been resistance, and it is resistance to what exactly.


UN definition of terrorism

the United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[6]

 

[Phoenall]

Shooting women and children on roads is resistance?

It's not something I condone, but you're talking about an area where Israeli presence is illegal. Since they are nationals of an occupational force, they are not protected civilians. And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately.

It is against IHL to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

Then this makes the shooting of any Palestinian a legal act as they are no longer protected civilians but militia. So next time you screech about the Palestinians being shot remember that your criteria says they are legal targets.
OTHERWISE YOU ARE BEING RACIST AND ANTI SEMITIC IN APPLYING THE LAW UNFAIRLY

 

[Kondor3]

Shooting women and children on roads is resistance?

It's not something I condone, but you're talking about an area where Israeli presence is illegal. Since they are nationals of an occupational force, they are not protected civilians. And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately.

It is against IHL to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

Then this makes the shooting of any Palestinian a legal act as they are no longer protected civilians but militia. So next time you screech about the Palestinians being shot remember that your criteria says they are legal targets. OTHERWISE YOU ARE BEING RACIST AND ANTI SEMITIC IN APPLYING THE LAW UNFAIRLY

No, I think you're missing the point.

It's not about race nor ethnicity.

It's about status as an Occupying Power.

If you engage in a military occupation, your civilians are fair game, legally.

By that sort of insane rationale...

With us occupying Afghanistan for several years after we went in there after Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and his buddies in the Taliban...

If an Afghan Taliban member came to the United States, and blew up another two skyscrapers, and killed another 3,000 innocent American civilians...

And then got caught...

The Taliban member would be innocent under international law, because we are all nationals of an occupying power...

See how that works?

A convenient interpretation, on behalf of such Militant Islamist scum, isn't it?

And only an insane person (or a fifth columnist) would insist that such an interpretation should be held to be operative in the Real World.

 

[aris2chat]

SAFER and no more women and children murdered from ambush by cowardly Palestinian terrorist scum

Resistance is not terrorism.

Since when has the cold blooded murder of a mother and her children from ambush been resistance, and it is resistance to what exactly.


UN definition of terrorism

the United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[6]

Unfortunately shouting in such large print does not make understanding any clearer to those who don't want to know.

 

[Chaussette]

I must live in an apartheid area, because we have no ******* arabs in my town, just the way it should be. So I can understand what the Israelis are going through trying to clean up all the trash.

 

[Ronin]

Israel should invade Jordan, change its name to Palestine, and kick all the ******* unhappy arab shitheads there. Then close the ******* door and hang a nuke way up high in the sky, as a warning of what will happen if they ever leave the new Palestine to attack Israel.

"Israel should invade Jordan, change its name to Palestine, and kick all the ******* unhappy arab shitheads there. Then close the ******* door and hang a nuke way up high in the sky, as a warning of what will happen if they ever leave the new Palestine to attack Israel."

"Just tired of those ******* useless arabs trying to grab more land in the area, when EVERY ******* country they control is TOTALLY FUCKED UP ALREADY!!!!"
That's a real gem.

"And I despise muslims. Like any normal, sane person does."
Another treasure.

I'm in general heavily against war, BS but I give Israel a free pass to carpet bomb Gaza and the WB, and any other pesky arabs who won't leave them alone. Anytime. Anywhere. As often as they want.
Then there is no surprise to you when innocents on any side get taken out by acts of terrorism. Cost of doing business?

It doesn't matter if Israel has "stolen" land. Those ******* asshole arabs have more than enough land already, and they fucked all of it up. So why should anyone want to give them more land?
Actually, a common view, and this is "sane" to you?

I’m guessing you are of the thought if WWIII occurs and our global civilization radiates the Earth that a mystical being will fly down, violate all laws of known physics, wipe the destruction clean, and leave a paradise for the “saved and chosen”.

No, I just think you're an asshole. Defending muslim scum, geez, go kiss a carpet already, the ones at the mosque haven't been drooled on enough.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Little man, I've served my country and seen more death to last a dozen lifetimes. You sound like some dumb hick that watches Faux News as if its gospel. Actually you sound a lot worse. There is no difference between you and any other hate filled shithead.

Fates a funny thing, that hard on you have to see people die will most likely be your undoing.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Unfortunately, this is entirely wrong; without any form or substance to it. I repeat --- this is totally wrong and without any legal foundation.

Murder is something totally different then the support of the right of self-determination.

Shooting women and children on roads is resistance?

It's not something I condone, but you're talking about an area where Israeli presence is illegal. Since they are nationals of an occupational force, they are not protected civilians. And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately.

It is against IHL to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

As I've often said, Humanitarian Law, like the Geneva Convention, is not always applied correctly here in this discussion group. In this case, our friend "Billo_Really" is correct in that protected persons are people protected from abuses by the occupation power. But that does not give the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) free rein to assault any Israel civilian.

This statement is absolutely false: "And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately."

There are two Applicable codes that apply:

First --- Intentional Murder:

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;​

SOURCE: International Criminal Code - Rome Statues

The "Protected Person" (in this case the HoAP) loses their protected status when they commit certain crimes.

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

SOURCE: ICRC - GCIV

I'll say this one more time. The HoAP has no special authority or international dispensation to commit crimes:

• intended to harm the Occupying Power; or,
• espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power; or,
• intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons (Murder).

It is absolutely insane for someone to even suggest that such criminal behavior should be somehow sanctioned by the international community. Any HoAP even suggesting such an idea is guilty of instigating or encouraging terrorist activities intended to be committed against Israel or their citizens. (A/RES/60/288) "Recalling the duty of States (the State of Palestine included) to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State (the State of Israel included).

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 or the Rule of Law UN Document

I find it very despicable for even a HoAP advocate to suggest some legality to this concept: "Since they are nationals of an occupational force, they are not protected civilians. And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately." Yes, I know that many HoAP believe this to be true, but I usually chalk it up to the fact that they are culturally stunted and intellectually impaired. No rational Arab Palestinian advocate could possibly claim the higher moral ground and even suggest this.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SAYIT]

Billo_Really, et al,

Unfortunately, this is entirely wrong; without any form or substance to it. I repeat --- this is totally wrong and without any legal foundation.

Murder is something totally different then the support of the right of self-determination.

Shooting women and children on roads is resistance?

It's not something I condone, but you're talking about an area where Israeli presence is illegal. Since they are nationals of an occupational force, they are not protected civilians. And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately.

It is against IHL to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

As I've often said, Humanitarian Law, like the Geneva Convention, is not always applied correctly here in this discussion group. In this case, our friend "Billo_Really" is correct in that protected persons are people protected from abuses by the occupation power. But that does not give the Hostile Arab Palestinian free rein to assault any Israel civilian.

This statement is absolutely false: "And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately."

There are two Applicable codes that apply:

First --- Intentional Murder:



The "Protected Person" (in this case the HoAP) loses their protected status when they commit certain crimes.

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.



SOURCE: ICRC - GCIV

I'll say this one more time. The HoAP has no special authority or international dispensation to commit crimes:

• intended to harm the Occupying Power; or,
• espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power; or,
• intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons (Murder).

It is absolutely insane for someone to even suggest that such criminal behavior should be somehow sanctioned by the international community. Any HoAP even suggesting such an idea is guilty of instigating or encouraging terrorist activities intended to be committed against Israel or their citizens. (A/RES/60/288) "Recalling the duty of States (the State of Palestine included) to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State (the State of Israel included).

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 or the Rule of Law UN Document

I find it very despicable for even a HoAP advocate to suggest some legality to this concept: "Since they are nationals of an occupational force, they are not protected civilians. And if they are not protected civilians, then they are legal targets. Unfortunately." Yes, I know that many HoAP believe this to be true, but I usually chalk it up to the fact that they are culturally stunted and intellectually impaired. No rational Arab Palestinian advocate could possibly claim the higher moral ground and even suggest this.

Most Respectfully,
R

Perhaps not but a Billo_Really regularly does.

 

[Chaussette]

"Israel should invade Jordan, change its name to Palestine, and kick all the ******* unhappy arab shitheads there. Then close the ******* door and hang a nuke way up high in the sky, as a warning of what will happen if they ever leave the new Palestine to attack Israel."

"Just tired of those ******* useless arabs trying to grab more land in the area, when EVERY ******* country they control is TOTALLY FUCKED UP ALREADY!!!!"
That's a real gem.

"And I despise muslims. Like any normal, sane person does."
Another treasure.

I'm in general heavily against war, BS but I give Israel a free pass to carpet bomb Gaza and the WB, and any other pesky arabs who won't leave them alone. Anytime. Anywhere. As often as they want.
Then there is no surprise to you when innocents on any side get taken out by acts of terrorism. Cost of doing business?

It doesn't matter if Israel has "stolen" land. Those ******* asshole arabs have more than enough land already, and they fucked all of it up. So why should anyone want to give them more land?
Actually, a common view, and this is "sane" to you?

I’m guessing you are of the thought if WWIII occurs and our global civilization radiates the Earth that a mystical being will fly down, violate all laws of known physics, wipe the destruction clean, and leave a paradise for the “saved and chosen”.

No, I just think you're an asshole. Defending muslim scum, geez, go kiss a carpet already, the ones at the mosque haven't been drooled on enough.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Little man, I've served my country and seen more death to last a dozen lifetimes. You sound like some dumb hick that watches Faux News as if its gospel. Actually you sound a lot worse. There is no difference between you and any other hate filled shithead.

Fates a funny thing, that hard on you have to see people die will most likely be your undoing.

Next time you go to the mosque, say hi to all your fellow terrorists for me. Then blow yourself up, I bet you're gagging for a virgin.

 

[Lipush]

There is no such thing "Road for Jews only".

Liar.

Then what do you call roads that prohibit Palestinian's from traveling on?

Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem reports that 170 km of roads in the West Bank are either off-limits to Palestinians or highly restricted.

Do you even know what apartheid means, idiot?

Apartheid is separation based on race!

Israeli Arabs and Israel Jews can drive on the same roads. Palestinians cannot based on security.

If Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews can walk the same sidewalks, learn in the same school, sit in the same bus seats, it's not separation based on race, therefor not apartheid!

But to try and reason with Anti-Israelis is like talking to the wall. waste of time and energy.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

OK, let's say I believe you (what reason would I have for doubting you)!!!

There is no such thing "Road for Jews only".

Liar.

Then what do you call roads that prohibit Palestinian's from traveling on?

Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem reports that 170 km of roads in the West Bank are either off-limits to Palestinians or highly restricted.

(QUESTION)

Can you name a road that is under this prohibition?

Most Respectfully,
R