Legislation will make it more difficult for Israeli parliament to approve any exit from occupied territories
(1) The use of this photograph is fairly typical of reporting in the Western mass media. It bears no relevance whatsoever to the article on hand. Why was this particular image chosen? Is it because of the contrast between the heavily armed soldier and the clearly unarmed little boy? Is it because the soldier appears, from this angle, to be aiming his rifle at the boy? Or because the boy looks so dejected? Clearly, this picture tells a story. Unfortunately, it's a blatantly anti-Israel story that has no place in this report.
(2) Israel is a democracy. A referendum is nothing more than a vote put to the electorate. It is the ultimate expression of democracy. Any deal between Israel and the Palestinians will almost certainly have a huge impact on ordinary citizens, no matter where they live. Are these citizens not entitled to have a say?
(3) This statement is simply untrue. UN Resolution 242 Section 1 (i) clearly states: "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" It does not say "the territories" or "all the territories". It deliberately states "territories", because the framers of this resolution believed that Israel was entitled to secure borders - and understood that the 1948 armistice lines - commonly known as the Green Line - did not provide security to Israel.
(4) Note that every Knesset member quoted here is against the referendum law. Isn't it surprising that even though the law passed with a majority, The Guardian was unable to find a single Knesset member to speak up for it?