Israel picks up the gauntlet

[JohnLocke]

Israel picks up the gauntlet

The UN General Assembly voted on Monday to refer the controversy over Israel's construction of a security barrier through Palestinian land to the International Court of Justice (ICC). The newly established tribunal in The Hague will be asked to rule whether Israel is legally obliged to tear down the barrier.
The government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says the 150-kilometre barrier around the West Bank - in places a high concrete wall, elsewhere an alarmed fence – is a security device to keep suicide bombers out of Israel. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have described the project as a "new Berlin wall" designed to grab Palestinian territory.
"The wall is a false excuse used as a justification for colonizing our land and establishing settlements," Palestinian UN observer Nasser al-Kidwa told the Assembly on Monday.

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/isr031209.html

----------------
This entire charade makes the the UN and the ICJ in paticular look bad. I defy anyone of this board to give me a link to an offical UN document regarding the barrier that Israel has ratified and broken.
----------------

[bluesoul]

1. I like this part

"The wall is a false excuse used as a justification for colonizing our land and establishing settlements," Palestinian UN observer Nasser al-Kidwa told the Assembly on Monday

Very true!

[Gimel]

21. Total BS. eom

[wtmusic]

2. How about the UN Charter, Article I?

The UN's purpose: 'to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.'

[drdon326]

3. Riiiight...

theyve done a swell job dealing with suicide bombers.

:eyes:

[wtmusic]

5. So Israel has the right to erect a fence on someone else's property?

Riiiight... :eyes:

[JohnLocke]

7. How is it their property in the first place?

Why can't they live in peace under a single government? There are plenty of Arab political parties in Israel.

[bluesoul]

8. Excuse me?

Are you talking here about Greater Israel? Single government? So Palestinians should all be under Israel? Oh my...

[wtmusic]

10. Because last time I checked, Israel was Jewish state

There is no separation of church and state in Israel.

'Why can't they live in peace'?

Why can't we all just be happy? :puke:

[mobuto]

12. The last time I checked, there was no separation of church and state

in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Yet there are more than 1.5 million Muslims in the UK and only 800,000 in Israel.

[tinnypriv]

13. Riiight

The lack of separation of church and state in the UK is essentially symbolic. In Israel, it isn't.

Next analogy please.

[JohnLocke]

14. There are state-supported churches in many countries.

[Gimel]

70. Freedom of religion

There is a guarantee of freedom of religion. There is de facto separation of government and religion. No need to worry about "church".

The "Jewish state" is Jewish in the majority. The character of Israel is Jewish, just as the character of the US is Christian, because of the majority who are of that faith. Christmas, therefore is the legal holiday. Jews can get Channuka off at school, but Christmas is the legal holiday. Sunday is the sabbath. In Israel the Sabbath is Saturday. However, secular people even in the government, do not observe the sabbath religiously. Arabs have their own holidays. No one expects them to become Jewish. Kosher food must be kosher, but non-kosher food is sold as well.

[Gimel]

17. Wrong

Of its 6.4 million people, 77.8 percent are Jews, 17.3 percent are Arabs (mostly Muslim) and the remaining 4.9 percent comprise Druze, Circassians and others not classified by religion.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ky0

About 1.1 million Muslims in Israel. What percentage is 1.3 million of the population in GB? That is a fairer measure than raw population figures.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. because they have lived there

for a long time, and were recognised as the owners of the land by all governing powers (even the Israelis - just because the Israelis offer compensation it doesn't allow them to forcibly take land).

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Mr. Locke

Quite often, when the issue of a single state solution is raised here, there is the inevitable objection that, since Arabs will soon outnumber Jews in the Levant, a single state could never be a Jewish democratic state.

Your remarks suggest you might feel differently. Do I misunderstand them? Would you please clarify?

[BrokenSegue]

44. hmm.. no response

He didn't respond because their is no way to respond.
If the Palestinians and Isrealis were under one government it wouldn't be a Jewish state.
Period.

[JohnLocke]

67. Wrong...

Jews outnumber Muslims in Israel. Furthermore, if there was peace in that region of the country, far more Jews would immigrate there.

[Jack Rabbit]

71. The question was of being Jewish and democratic

I'm not completely satisfied with your answer, since it assumes will increase, as opposed to comparing current birthrates (which is an empirical fact). In order for Israel to remain a Jewish state as well as a democracy, that immigration will have to increase exponentially, since even a near even split of the ethnic groups in Greater Israel (as it is now) would endanger Israel's Jewish character.

Also, democracy implies equality. Currently in the occupied territories, Arabs do not seem to be able to live anywhere they please. Palestinians don't live in Israeli settlements. Furthermore, Palestinians are forbidden from traveling on bypass roads to such settlements. About a year ago, a 95-year-old Palestinian woman was killed while traveling on such a road.

This is not the sign of a healthy democracy. Would this state of affairs be allowed to continue in a Greater Israel?

[LeahMira]

22. They don't trust one another.

There are plenty of Arab political parties in Israel.

I wouldn't say that there are "plenty" but Israeli Arabs are represented in the Knesset.



Why can't they live in peace under a single government?

Because the Palestinians want a state of their own where they set the agenda and write the rules.
Wait until after the holidays this year and maybe you will understand why if even members of the same family can't always keep things cool it is asking a bit much to expect the Hatfields and the McCoys... or the Israelis and the Palestinians to get along as one.

[MikeGalos]

52. UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

say that it is all Israel's land until a peace treaty is reached with all the involved parties protecting their right to exist in peace.

Until Arafat (now proxy for Jordan and Egypt on the West Bank and Gaza respectively) signs a peace treaty guaranteeing Israel's right to exist in peace (and that means actually working AGAINST murderers based in his lands) then according to international law and the United Nations, that IS Israel. Period. And even after such a treaty, 242 and 338 allow for the borders to be adjusted to promote a defensible border.

Sorry to break it to you but there is NO Palestinian right to the West Bank or Gaza until they negotiate a treaty.

Deal with it.

[Jack Rabbit]

53. That is one of the strangest interpretations of 242 and 338 I've seen yet

Here is Resolution 242 (1967). There is nothing in it that says that the land overrun in the '67 war is part of Israel. There is nothing in it that even implies it. On the contrary, it states that acquisition of land through war is inadmissible. To me, that means that Israel has no right to make any permanent claim to the occupied territory, Mr. Begin's later nonsense about the Territories being an "integral part of Israel" notwithstanding.

The resolution establishes a land-for-peace formula. Israel has the right to occupy the Palestinian Territories in lieu of a peace agreement. In the absence of such an agreement, she can occupy the Territories until the cows come home. However, it is occupation foreign land; the Fourth Geneva Convention applies. Israel is not free to do just anything with this land that suits the fancy of one poltical faction or another.

Resolution 338 (1973) is merely a call for a cease fire. It recognizes no changes in international boundaries.

Israel has internationally recognized borders at the Green Line. While her posture in the '67 was defensive, that gives her no right to claim or annex one acre of land occupied as a result of the war with compensating the people living on that land.

Deal with that, sir.

[MikeGalos]

54. Then you've never actually read 242 and 338

And should stop relying on what other people have told you it should be "interpreted" to mean.

Here's a copy. You'll find that Israel has the right to the land taken in '67 and later retaken in '73 until there is a treaty.

242 sets the guidelines for the treaty including return of territories (but, note, not "all territories" or "the territories" - an intentional phrasing designed to allow the borders to be adjusted to make them more secure that was refined through multiple votes) as part of an overall agreement.

No overall agreement, no return of land.

338, btw, not only calls for a cease-fire in enabling clause 1, it calls for an immediate implementation of the 242 treaty in clause 2 and calls for immediate work toward a just and durable peace in clause 3. I guess whoever "interpreted" it for you, didn't bother to read past the first paragraph.

---

United Nations Security Council
Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967


The Security Council,


Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,


Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,


1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

[Jack Rabbit]

55. Nonsense

I've read them and posted them as often, perhaps moreso, than you have, sir.

Until Arafat (now proxy for Jordan and Egypt on the West Bank and Gaza respectively) signs a peace treaty guaranteeing Israel's right to exist in peace (and that means actually working AGAINST murderers based in his lands) then according to international law and the United Nations, that IS Israel. Period.

There is nothing in them that support that interpretation. Period.

[MikeGalos]

56. If you had read them

there is no way you'd call the exact interpretation of them that has been used for 36 years now anything but conventional.

The interpretation I cited is exactly what both the UN called for, the authors called for and what was reported at the time.

It is also what the text states.

Saying it isn't so doesn't make it not so.

Please, feel free to explain how they say anything other than what I've said. I note that all you've said so far is "It doesn't say that. Really, it doesn't." and that's merely silly.

So, again. 242 and 338 say the land is Israel's unless and until lands are returned as part of a lasting treaty that grants Israel (and Egypt, etc.) a right to exist within safe borders.

Again - Deal with it.

[drdon326]

59. If i can enter here, guys...

the part in question appears to be this (with my emphasis)
.........................................................
. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of *BOTH* the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
.........................................................

since "states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence"
has not been accomplished therefore *BOTH* PRINCIPLES have not been
met ,therefore (i) is not applicable.

whew

[Jack Rabbit]

62. I don't disagree with that

My dispute with Mr. Galos was his remark (perhaps a typographical error) that the occupied land is Israel.

[MikeGalos]

64. My point is simple

until that 242/338 treaty is in effect, it IS Israel in the sense that Israel is the only nation with legal control of the land. In a sense the more correct phrasing is that it is trust territory administered by Israel pending a final treaty. But, in no way, is it legally under any other governmental control including the PA which failed to meet the requirements of the treaties that gave them limited control.

[Jack Rabbit]

61. This is better, Mr. Galos

242 and 338 say the land is Israel's unless and until lands are returned as part of a lasting treaty that grants Israel (and Egypt, etc.) a right to exist within safe borders.

I can deal with that. The land is Israel's (possessive adjective) to occupy consistant with the Fourth Geneva Convention until such time as a peace settlement is reached.

That is different from your original statement, which said the land is Israel (noun). It isn't.

[MikeGalos]

57. Let's go through it slowly

Here's enabling clause 1

---

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

---

This calls for a peace settlement (treaty) that should contain at minimum two things:

1) Israel returns land taken in the 1967 war
Note that this says "territories occupied) and not "all territories" or "the territories". This is a VERY intentional choice of wording and, in fact, the alternate wordings that required a return to the "Green Line" were proposed as an ammendment by the USSR delegation and were voted down as it was never the intention of the UN SC to require Israel to return to non-defensable borders that were established only by the 1949 cease-fire line.

2) All states in the area (which include Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Israel) must agree that all of these states can live in peace and they have the right to exist and maintain their political independance without fear of military attack.

Note that the enabling clause 1(i) does NOT happen except as part of a treaty which has "application of both principles" and DOES NOT happen without the lasting peace requirements of 1(ii) as some people wish would happen. Including, apparently, the people you've had "interpret" it for you.

[bluesoul]

58. Eretz Israeli

hey?

[drdon326]

60. Ditto

read my post

you just type faster than i do.

[Jack Rabbit]

63. Addendum to Number 61

(since number 57 is an addendum to number 56).

The resolution still does not give Israel the right to unilaterally determine her borders. The Green Line have long been recognized as Israel's border on the east. Look at any map, especially one drawn before 1967.

Under 242, Israel must make adjustments to its border by compensating the nation from which land is taken. The resolution would seem to make this compensation in the form of an equivalent acreage, but any future agreement might well throw cash into the deal if that is what it takes to get things moving.

We should take note the virtual peace agreement, the Geneva Accord, makes such a land swap in a way that allows Israel to incorporate the large settlements around Jerusalem into Israel rather than dismantle them. This is not a perfect solution (there is probably no such thing), but a very practical one.

[MikeGalos]

65. Not really

242 never states a mechanism for establishing the border. It is assumed that the establishment of the final borders will be negotiated as part of the treaty. To assume a compensation plan will be part of that treaty is premature and not called for by 242. It would be up to Jordan and Egypt and Israel to decide.

[Jack Rabbit]

66. Not quite

The land in question is populated by Palestinian Arabs, not by Jordanians or Egyptians. The final border is for representatives of the Israeli and Palestinian people to decide.

[JohnLocke]

6. How is the wall a violation of that?

First, that's the statement of purpose for the UN, not any kind of governmental obligation.
Second, building a wall is an excellent, effective measure to prevent and remove terror activities in Israel.
In other words...:wtf:

[wtmusic]

9. A more effective measure would be to stop bulldozing Palestinian homes

Are you telling me that all the land the fence is on is in the state of Israel?

[LeahMira]

24. Is it really?

Second, building a wall is an excellent, effective measure to prevent and remove terror activities in Israel.

The feeling in Israel, and among some people outside of Israel, is that the wall is necessary to protect the Israeli people. My question is: Is it working?

Are there fewer incidents since the wall was built, or at least fewer incidents in the areas of Israel that are closest to the wall? Have the Israelis been able to catch would-be suicide bombers more effectively since they built the wall?

I really don't know the answers, but I think there just must be another way. Jewish people were forced to live behind ghetto walls or within certain boundaries in the past. Now, in Israel, they are building their own ghetto walls... because while you're building a wall to keep someone else out you're also building a wall to keep yourself in.

[GabysPoppy]

25. Yes, there are fewer incidents

And in a perverse sort of way that is sad. It would be a happier story if there were less attacks because "responsible" leaders were talking and seeking other answers.

But reality insists that this fence must be built to prevent attacks.

To compare or allude to the fence as another "Warsaw Ghetto" is insanely offensive.

[tinnypriv]

27. Tell that to Israeli doves

I've heard and read many say just that. Those exact words: Warsaw Ghetto.

I suppose they are insanely offensive to you as well, because they don't subscribe to your hawkish view of Israel?

[bluesoul]

28. Maybe they're "misguided"

like Avnery, Hass, Tsemel, Gush Shalom, and all those 100.000 Israelis that demonstrated against Sharon and his policies? :shrug:

[GabysPoppy]

29. Sorry, Mr. Priv

Your attempt to label me "hawkish" is a poor attempt to avoid what I posted.

You know absolutely nothing of my views as was exposed before so why should this be different.

[tinnypriv]

30. I suggest actually reading what I wrote

I said you have a "hawkish view of Israel" (emphasis added)

That doesn't mean you're a hawk across the board - many with the same opinions as you work for peace and justice elsewhere in the world. Just not with regards to Israel. Some of the most fervent "supporters" of Israel are liberal democrats you know.

As for the supposed exposé, I rather think what I said in that thread has been borne out over time. If you truly meant what you were saying literally (obviously not, but lets play the game), that'd make you more generous to the Palestinians than the Geneva accord and to the left of Jibril Rajoub.

Yeah, if you say so.

[GabysPoppy]

31. If and when you have shown to have read my posts

we could have a civil discussion..

And again you didn't read the post you reacted too, but then again shame on me for thinking otherwise.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. If you don't think yr post has been read...

...then perhaps you could explain how? Tinnypriv quite clearly said: 'your hawkish view of Israel'. So what is yr problem with that? Are you saying that you don't hold a hawkish view of Israel? And because Israel was stated specifically, it's very clear that yr views in general about other issues weren't being referred to as hawkish, just those in regard to Israel...

Violet...

[Blitz]

49. Actually, it's working remarkably well

As you may or may not know, there has long been a security fence separating Gaza from Israel. Not coincidentally, very few attacks originate in Gaza despite the fact that all of the major terror groups are well represented, if not headquartered there. The West Bank Peace Fence is having similar results, with attacks down significantly. In fact, Shin Bet reports that the fence has prevented more than twenty suicide-bomb attacks:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/17/wmid17.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/17/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=229966

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

"Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html

Since the wall could be built along the pre 1967 boundary, building it inside the West Bank clearly violates this article.

[dudeness]

16. good post muriel..

the ICJ will find Isreal in breach of this convention and others..therefore this court must irrelevant and pro-arab..and will treated by the US and Israel with the contempt they feel it deserves..

[pistoff democrat]

18. Excuse me, your dudeness,

you refer to "...the US...they..."

What country are you from? It doesn't matter; this is a world-wide forum; I'm just curious since you dissasociated yourself from the US and I sincerely doubt you live in Israel.

Thanks!

[Darranar]

19. I don't want to speak for dudeness, but...

though I live in the US I often refer to the US as 'they'. I am not part of the government, nor do I approve of its policies.

[dudeness]

34. thanks darranar

but this is just semantics and word play..anyone who bothers to read my posts knows how opposed I am to any forms of vilification and bigotry..

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

50. Wrong, Darranar.

If you are a U.S. citizen, you are part of your government, regardless if you agree or disagree with its policies.

[Darranar]

51. Sorry, we don't live in a direct democracy.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. Good point, pd

A better phrasing would be:

this court . . . will treated by the US Bush and Israel Sharon with the contempt . . . .

[pistoff democrat]

23. You got it!

:yourock:

[JohnLocke]

33. By the way, great idea.

You know, making the signature line more visible by bolding it.:yourock:

[pistoff democrat]

41. Oh, thank you.

I'm so glad you've decided to do the same.

:pals: :yourock:

[tinnypriv]

26. Disagree

The United States has never deviated from treating the ICJ with contempt. Doesn't matter what government is currently in office.

[dudeness]

32. australia here pistoff

you know.. the place of kangaroos and koalas and vermin like john howard..are you suggesting one must reside in the US or Israel to have a valid viewpoint on the I/P situation?

[pistoff democrat]

39. Here is the post to which you refer:

"you (Dudeness) refer to "...the US...they..."

What country are you from? It doesn't matter; this is a world-wide forum; I'm just curious since you dissasociated yourself from the US and I sincerely doubt you live in Israel.

Thanks!"



So, calm down, of course your POV is valid.

[dudeness]

43. very calm here..thanks for your concern

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

47. dudeness!

Have you visited John Howard's blog yet? It's a must-read!

http://johnhoward.blogspot.com


Violet...

[Gimel]

35. Doubtful

The necessity of the Peace Fence is well documented. It's postion is still being negotiated. If there was in fact a Palestinian State, there would be more credit to your argument.

[bluesoul]

36. This wall is so much about peace

as Sharon is a "man of peace". The notion alone is insulting...

[dudeness]

37. just a small point

but generally negotiation comes before a final outcome..I believe the fence is being constructed..cart before the horse?

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Phase A is already complete

From the United Nations report, 24th Nov 2003:

Completed sections of the Barrier have had a serious impact on agriculture in what is considered the “breadbasket” of the West Bank. In 2000, the three governorates of Jenin, Tulkarm and Qalqiliya produced US$ 220 million in agricultural output, or 45 per cent of total agricultural production in the West Bank. Palestinian cultivated land lying on the Barrier’s route has been requisitioned and destroyed and tens of thousands of trees have been uprooted. Farmers separated from their land, and often also from their water sources, must cross the Barrier via the controlled gates. Recent harvests from many villages have perished due to the irregular opening times and the apparently arbitrary granting or denial of passage. According to a recent World Food Programme survey, this has increased food insecurity in the area, where there are 25,000 new recipients of food assistance as a direct consequence of the Barrier’s construction.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/11/a-es-10-248.pdf

25,000 people going hungry. What a marvellous achievement!

[Jack Rabbit]

42. A modest proposal

The Wall serves two purposes. One is to keep terrorists out of Israel. This is a perfectly good reason to construct a wall.

However, no one has yet made a persuasive case that a wall contructed through Palestinian land would perform this task better than one constructed on the Green Line, which is Israel's internationally recognized border. Consequently, the wall serves a second purpose: it annexes part of the West Bank into Israel.

What shall we call this dual-purpose wall? Well, many here have dubbed it the Peace Fence when used to stop would-be suicide bombers. When it is used to grab a piece of Palestinian land for Israel, we should call it the Piece Fence.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Well said, Jack...

However, no one has yet made a persuasive case that a wall contructed through Palestinian land would perform this task better than one constructed on the Green Line, which is Israel's internationally recognized border.

That's the case I've been waiting to see addressed as well. And to be honest the only attempt I've seen made in this forum was from drdon. While I didn't think his argument was convincing and contained some flaws, in my opinion he now stands head and shoulders above others who think trotting out the newly found phrase 'peace fence' ends any need for questions or discussion on why it's going where it's going...

When it is used to grab a piece of Palestinian land for Israel, we should call it the Piece Fence.

Something I've been wondering about. Those pieces of Palestinian land it's grabbing wouldn't happen to be chunks of fertile and highly desired land, would it?


Violet...

[tinnypriv]

48. Regarding fertile land

I posted something a couple of months ago on that.

Turns out that most of the area in the north west Samaria area taken in by the wall has a large number of aquifers, farm land etc.

This point was picked up recently by one of Yediot Ahronot's acerbic commentators (B Michael):

...

But if the purpose of the fence is invisible, its deeds are quite visible. And one can no longer turn one’s eyes westward only, and stubbornly continue to ignore the horrors taking place in the east.

For clarity’s sake: an honest-to-goodness fence, reasonable and humane, would be received with relief and open arms by people on both sides. Israelis and Palestinians.

It would not have robbed anyone of anything. It would not have shut tens-of-thousands in cages. It would not have suffocated thelivelihood of tens-of-thousands.

And who knows, perhaps it would have helped to create neighbors who are just a wee-bit better, the way high fences are supposed to(although one could continue to doubt its effectiveness in blocking suicide-bombers). Only the route imposed on it, the snaking, evil line that has been laid down for it by the cult of zealots holding the country by the throat and their servile footmen in the government, turns it into such a loathsome abomination.

About 200,000 people live in the immediate vicinity of the northern part of the fence. Hardly any of them have not been hurt by it. The entire town of Qalqilya, with a population of over 40,000, is hermetically sealed off. Only one gate connects it to the world. Tulkarm is cut off from the west by a wall, and from the east by closure checkpoints. 18 villages, with all their inhabitants, are completely surrounded with barbed-wire fences. Their residents live in a gunuine pen. 3,000 families (at least) have already been separated from their lands. The “farming gates” which they were promised – do not exist.

About 25 wells have been destroyed, another 14 face destruction. 36 other wells have been separated from the communities that used their water. These wells would yield 6.7 million cubic meters of water.

The entire system, consisting of double razor-wire coils on both sides, an “intrusion tracking path”, a lurking path, a petting path, an obstacle-ditch and watchtowers, is at least 50 meters wide. It runs through 15,000 dunams of confiscated land, and the route assures another 120-150,000 dunams that have suddenly attached themselves to the State of Israel, separate from the West Bank.

Annexation? God forbid.

Why annex when you can simply snatch?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

69. it's the Sept 2000 PA Line of Control Pre-Intifada War Fence...

...

(a) The demarcation line between the two societies is not an international border but a cease-fire line that ended the first Palestinian-Israeli conflict in 1948. It was never accepted by the Palestinians until nearly half a century later and, even then, not as the border of a legitimate Israeli state.
(b) The two societies live in the closest proximity to one another; indeed, the central challenge is how to achieve coexistence when the distance between the Jordan River and the sea is 50 miles or less. There is no cushioning strategic space as in the Sinai between Egypt and Israel.
(c) In these circumstances, security cannot be based on battle lines in a war that ended more than half a century ago and must instead be adjusted to the experience of actual security threats.

...

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200312/kt2003122214543311550.htm

[Gimel]

72. Good Article!

Kissinger is not being too partial to the Israeli side here. He is trying to be objective, and thus not dealing with specific issues other than the border. He makes valid and important points on that:

The real challenge is terrorism, against which international guarantees are likely to prove empty. If Israel's armed forces with a huge stake in the outcome could not prevent infiltrations, how is an international or even an American force going to do it? It is much more likely to prove a barrier against Israeli retaliation than against Palestinian terrorism. The probable outcome is that an international force would become hostages who will either purchase their safety by turning their backs on violations or risk their lives by serious efforts, at which point the governments supplying the forces will be under pressure to withdraw them.

Have to agree with that. That is exactly why an international peacekeeping force would never do here.

[bluesoul]

73. Status QUO

is even worse. Someone will have to interfere, or the US policy will have to drastically change or there won't be peace soon...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

74. another valid point and important point...

that has been coming across loud and clear from all the hysterical hoopla raised over this fence (and not only from the Palestinians) is the following -

"Is the Palestinian objection less the result of the principle of the fence but the ratification of the permanence of Israel it represents?"

[Gimel]

68. What goes here?

I assume that this text was copied off the Internet in the usual manner. However, there are discrepancies between the text at the URL provided and the text as printed in the original post.

I wonder why the ICC is noted, when actually it is the ICJ. Also, these words:

(ICC). The newly established tribunal in are not in the article at the site address posted.

What is the explanation here?