Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Israel to Press Ahead on West Bank Walls
Associated Press ^ | 08-19-03

Posted on 08/19/2003 8:23:50 AM PDT by Brian S

Israel Vows to Press on With Construction of West Bank Barrier Despite U.S. Criticism

The Associated Press

JERUSALEM Aug. 19 — Israel said Tuesday it would press on with construction of a barrier through the West Bank, confiscating Palestinian property near Jerusalem for a project that has drawn harsh criticism from the United States.

Israel plans a series of massive cement walls, electronic fencing, barbed wire and trenches between the West Bank and Israel to prevent suicide bombers from launching attacks.

The plan, which has already seen sections built in Jerusalem and the West Bank, has outraged Palestinians, and U.S. President George W. Bush has called it a "problem." But Israel's defense minister was adamant Tuesday that the project had already prevented attacks and would go ahead at full-speed.

"I think it is very necessary for Israel that the continuation of the fence be carried out in line with the established timetable," Mofaz said after inspecting the barrier near the Jewish settlement of Alfei Menashe. "Including the section around Jerusalem."

Near Jerusalem, Israel has begun expropriating the land of Palestinians for a barrier that will cut them off both from the city and the West Bank hinterland, officials said.

Dozens of families in four towns Abu Dis, Izzariyeh, Tsur Baher and Al-Sawahreh Al-Sharkia received confiscation notices late last week, said Khalil Tufakji, a Palestinian cartographer.

Once the fence round Jerusalem is completed, tens of thousands of Palestinians will have to use just one road manned by Israeli soldiers to get in and out of the fenced-in area, he added.

"All these villages on the outskirts of Jerusalem will be isolated and the only way to move outside them or to enter them will be through a couple of Israeli checkpoints," Tufakji said. "Under the umbrella of security, Israel is implementing its political plan to isolate villages around Jerusalem and to turn them into isolated cantons."

Israel built a concrete wall between the towns and Jerusalem more than a year ago, already separating residents from the eastern sector of the city.

The wall increased the travel time between the towns and east Jerusalem from about 5 minutes to an hour or more. The new electronic fence will make it almost as difficult for them to get into the West Bank.

An Israeli security source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed Israel had distributed the confiscation orders, and said construction could begin within a month.

U.S. President Bush opposes Israel's plan to build the barrier, especially as Israel and the Palestinians are trying to implement the U.S.-backed "road map" to peace.

Bush earlier this month called for the plans to be changed, because it "meanders around the West Bank, which makes it awfully hard to develop a contiguous (Palestinian) state over time."

In a meeting Monday with U.S. Sen. John McCain, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas expressed his displeasure with Israel's decision to go ahead with the barrier, which Palestinians fear will be used as a final border during statehood negotiations.

According to minutes of the meeting, Abbas told McCain: "This is threatening the final agreement between the two sides. It separates the Palestinian lands from each other and sabotages the vision of President Bush to establish an independent Palestinian state near the state of Israel."

Meanwhile, efforts to implement the "road map" hit other obstacles as Israel and the Palestinians struggled to agree terms for Israel to withdraw from Qalqiliya and Jericho.

Palestinians are insisting Israel remove checkpoints outside the West Bank towns, while Israel is demanding the Palestinians set up a detailed plan for keeping tabs on militants whom they refuse to arrest for fear of sparking internal fighting.

Talks were set to resume Tuesday and an Israeli army spokesman said Israel could withdraw from Qalqiliya and Jericho in the coming days. The initial pullout planned for Tuesday was postponed when the sides failed to agree to the details.

Mofaz and Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan have agreed in principle on an Israeli handover of the towns of Jericho, Qalqiliya, Tulkarem and Ramallah, within two weeks.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Israel
KEYWORDS: goodfence; israel; jerusalem; securitybarrier
Imagine that. A country looking out for its own interests and securing its borders, in this day and age.

Hats off to Israel!

1 posted on 08/19/2003 8:23:51 AM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brian S
...To the tragedy however, that it must wall itself out of its own land.
2 posted on 08/19/2003 8:39:42 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Yehuda; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; ...
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
3 posted on 08/19/2003 8:42:11 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
What an objective news article. NOT!!!!
4 posted on 08/19/2003 8:45:09 AM PDT by Alouette (Every democratic politician should live next door to a pimp, so he can have someone to look up to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Fantastic news. It's funny how everyone wants to protest this wall when it is absolutely the simplest and most obvious solution to homicide bombers. It is going to be interesting watching the Pallies negotiate without the threat of continued terrorism. I'd wouldn't be surprised if they mostly disband and move away (actually, I'd get on my knees and thank G-d for a solid week).

Maybe other Arab countries will offer them economic support? HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHA, ohhhhh, , ok, that was a little joke.

5 posted on 08/19/2003 8:53:08 AM PDT by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shryke
A wall is a great idea. The problem is that it is not being built on the border, but east, on land the Israelis don't own.
6 posted on 08/19/2003 10:14:45 AM PDT by Maurkov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Maurkov
Building on private property is unfortunate. Israel is exercising eminent domain. However, most of the fence is on public land that Israel administers.
7 posted on 08/19/2003 10:52:02 AM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
I can find no evidence that the private property owners are being reimbursed. If you can, I would be very interested in seeing it.

The phrase "public land that Israel administers" is contentious if not disingenuous. I believe the land is more commonly referred to as "occupied territory." What is the legal basis for exercising eminent domain in an occupied territory?

If they were building the wall on the green line it would look a lot more like a defensive action and a lot less like a land grab.
8 posted on 08/19/2003 11:56:58 AM PDT by Maurkov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Maurkov
I can find no evidence that the private property owners are being reimbursed. If you can, I would be very interested in seeing it.
If Israel is not doing so, that is the problem, not the wall.

The phrase "public land that Israel administers" is contentious if not disingenuous. I believe the land is more commonly referred to as "occupied territory." What is the legal basis for exercising eminent domain in an occupied territory?
What is the legal basis of calling the West Bank "Occupied Territory?" As the land was not owned by a sovereign power when Israel took control of it from Jordan, Israel is not an occupying power. That the media and UN ignore the actual definition in the case of Israel is a problem.

If they were building the wall on the green line it would look a lot more like a defensive action and a lot less like a land grab.
Israel already controls the entire area! It is effectively ceding 95% of the disputed territory.
You assume a Palestinina state on the West Bank. None exists.

9 posted on 08/19/2003 12:22:01 PM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Maurkov
The West Bank is disputed territory that Israel administers. Under UN resolution 242, Israel is expected to withdraw from some (i.e., most) of the land so that a Palestinian state can be formed, provided that Israel's security is assured.
10 posted on 08/20/2003 1:10:46 AM PDT by tictoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
What is the legal basis of calling the West Bank "Occupied Territory?"
After some research, I realize this is a good question. Legally, the waters are muddy. The term is defined in the he Fourth Geneva Convention as, "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party...." The High Contracting Party here would be Jordan, but for reasons I have yet to determine, Jordan's control of the region was only recognized by Britain and Pakistan. Still, Israel has no claim on the West Bank other than that of conquest. In common parlance, occupied means "seized and controlled as by military invasion," so I can understand the media using the term. In terms of what is just, I do not agree that a state of occupation depends on previous possession by a sovereign government. Israel should be bound by, and Palestinians deserve, the protections of the Convention. Legally, I don't know. The phrasing of GC4 seems to contain a loophole.

Israel already controls the entire area! It is effectively ceding 95% of the disputed territory.
The fact that they control the territory is immaterial. I've seen maps where the fence will partition a lot more than 5%. The fence, and its purpose of security, needs to be disentangled from the issue of territory. Unless it is, the motive for building it remains in question.

You assume a Palestinina state on the West Bank. None exists.
I assume an eventual end to the occupation, either with annexation and grant of citizenship or partition and Palestinian statehood.

11 posted on 08/20/2003 9:34:01 AM PDT by Maurkov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Maurkov
Still, Israel has no claim on the West Bank other than that of conquest. In common parlance, occupied means "seized and controlled as by military invasion," so I can understand the media using the term. In terms of what is just, I do not agree that a state of occupation depends on previous possession by a sovereign government. Israel should be bound by, and Palestinians deserve, the protections of the Convention. Legally, I don't know. The phrasing of GC4 seems to contain a loophole.
1. I wasn't aware that definitions were loopholes.
2. It seems to me that everyone, including the UN, are ignoring the actual GC4 in respect to Israel. Some double standard.

The fact that they control the territory is immaterial. I've seen maps where the fence will partition a lot more than 5%. The fence, and its purpose of security, needs to be disentangled from the issue of territory. Unless it is, the motive for building it remains in question.
Israel does not need a fence to take disputed land. It is the military power here. It could expell the Palestinians and get all the land. The fence is setting facts on the ground. I don't support it because it unilaterally cedes a lot of land, including many holy sites.

I assume an eventual end to the occupation, either with annexation and grant of citizenship or partition and Palestinian statehood.
Annexation and citizenship is the end of Israel.
PArtition is far more likely (at least until another war). However, there is no reason that all disputed territory should go to the Arabs. The Palis have 3/4 of Palestine in Jordan.

12 posted on 08/20/2003 10:31:30 AM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson