Israel Plans Turning Separation Wall into De Facto Borders

[newyorican]

The Israeli security establishment revealed plans to hand crossings between Palestinian Territories and Israel, as marked by the separation wall, to civil authorities; a strategic move that creates de facto borders along the separation wall.

According to the revealed plan, three to five large terminals will be built between Israel and the West Bank equipped with new technologies for inspecting people and goods. In addition, 40 to 60 smaller checkpoints will be built along the wall.

-----

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has asked the president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, to finance the construction of two or three large terminals, claiming that it "will ease the freedom of passage for Palestinians and the transport of Palestinian goods."

-----

However, the World Bank objects to funding crossings along the separation fence which are located on points beyond the Green Line (namely, Sha'ar Efraim, Bitunia and Mazmuria) and has suggested that Israel relocate them.

read more...

So, it was a land grab after all.

[King Mongo]

1. True

Yes, but only a temporary grab to be followed with another grab. Many little grabs over an extended period of time will eventually reach the dead sea.

This reminds me of this:

Less than five years ago, as foreign minister, Sharon urged Israelis to "grab more hilltops," so that no future prime minister would be able to relinquish the West Bank.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/156607_sharon15.html


as well as this:

Yesha Council calls for campaign of civil disobedience to disrupt pullout plan
http://www.newsisfree.com/iclick/i%2C65343143%2C2029%2Cf

[pelsar]

2. the moral of the story.....

dont try using weapons against us....it didnt work in 48, 67, 73.....nor in 2000.

dumb idea, dumb dumb dumb idea....and doubly dumb for the cheerleaders who egg them one.....

I mean really, did the palestenains think that we got "weaker" over the years?

[Forkboy]

4. The moral of the story....

neither side has any morals.

[King Mongo]

5. the truth about weapons

This is true. Palestinians must be tricky when attempting to gain equality and citizenship in Eretz Israel given that conventional weapons don't work against the IDF.

[pelsar]

6. king...

no king..they dont have to be "tricky"...quite the opposite, once they and their brethren realize that using violence doesnt work to well (how many wars do they have to lose before that sinks in?)....they should try the opposite, its been proven to work already in specific areas in the conflict


what is the problem?

[King Mongo]

8. The problems with both violent and non-violent resistance

While both methods of violent and non-violent resistance have been used by different Palestinian resistance groups, non of these activities have succeeded in ending the occupation or even reducing illegal settlement growth or gaining citizenship and equality in Eretz Israel.

Thus, given that, historically, both methods of violence and non-violence have failed, Palestinians must be tricky, attempting to figure out how to do the impossible, the impossible task of gaining equality.

Palestinians have been committed to developing an effective non-violent resistance movement at least since the beginning of the Israeli Occupation in 1967
http://friendvillarticles1102.homestead.com/17ThePalNon291102.html

Palestinians have attempted at various stages to resist colonization and occupation efforts by non-violent methods. Unfortunately, the western media under Zionist pressure refuse to report on these things nor do they report on Israeli terrorism but are more than happy to report on any Palestinian violent resistance.
http://www.qumsiyeh.com/palestiniannonviolentresistance/

advising Palestinians to lead non-violent marches is simply an invitation for more repression
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/4954

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Question about the separation barrier...

Nothing to do with the post I'm replying to, but it seemed as good a place as any in this thread to ask you what yr thoughts on the barrier are. Are you opposed to the path it's taken where it diverges from the Green Line? I'm curious because it's the route of the fence/wall that is the sole problem I have with it. Sorry if you've already answered this question in another thread, but my visits here have been pretty sporadic over the past few weeks...

Violet...

[eyl]

9. If I may answer

While there are places I disagree with the barrier's route, I don't think it should be strictly on the Green Line.

1) There are places where the wall can't be built on the Line for topographical reasons.
2) The purpose of the barrier is not, strictly speaking, to defend the State of Israel, but rather Israeli citizens. As such, it needs to encompass at least those settlements close to the Line.
3) The most important reason is the Jerusalem area (where the majority of the deviations take place; almost all the Palestinians who will end up west of the barrier are residents of the city). The Green Line runs through the middle of the city. The barrier can't be built there, however; besides the civil (and symbolic) consequences of redividing the city, it would allow terrorists to launch indirect-fire weapons over the barrier, as well as allow tunneling under it (both of which are far easier in the cover of the urban environment than from open areas). It would also endanger the Jewish residents of eastern Jerusalem (especially the Jewish Quarter). Therefore, the eastern part of Jerusalem, and its environs, also needs to be west of the barrier.

[King Mongo]

13. Wall should protect all Israelis, including those denied citizenship

Using this logic, the wall should defend all Israeli citizens, not just those who's citizenship is recognized. Thus, the wall should surround Eretz Israel meaning that it should surround Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Dividing up Judea, Samaria and Gaza into many little segregated pieces surrounded by walls simply demonstrates how costly apartheid can be and why such should be avoided.

[eyl]

18. the wall should defend all Israeli citizens, not just those who's citizens

That's a contradiction in terms.

[King Mongo]

20. Problamic walls of discrimination

Since Israel took the lands of Judea, Gaza and Samaria and is developing these lands by moving people into them, Judea, Gaza and Samaria belong to Israel including the people who live on these lands. Thus, the wall must protect everyone, not just people of a certain culture, race or religion. All of the native people of Judea, Gaza and Samaria are Israeli citizens even if the current Israeli government refused to recognize such.

Walls dividing Israelis based upon religion, culture or race are only bound to create more problems.

[Igel]

32. The problem is that "protection" has a few

grammatical arguments. You protect something/somebody. But the word's semantics entail protection from something or somebody.

[King Mongo]

35. Police protection

In situations lacking apartheid, the police protect the people from criminal activities, regardles race, culture or religion.

[The Magistrate]

37. Again, Your Grace Is Pleased To Attempt Our Amusement

Police protect property, and enforce the rights of its owners; all else is mere accidental by-product of this....

[King Mongo]

38. Property is the human body

Honorable Magistrate

In this case, property can be understood the human body. It is the duty of the police to protect the human body so that it will not be stolen. Thus, it is the duty of the police in Eretz Israel to protect every human being in Eretz Israel so that their property (their body) will not be damaged.

Of course, the human body also requires shelter and thus, it is the duty of the police to protect the property of the human body, shelter, from being destroyed through demolitions.

Your humble servant
King Mongo

[The Magistrate]

39. Only If It Can Be Bought And Sold, Your Grace, Is It Property

The difficulty with Your Grace's analysis of the situation is that it ommits the consideration that the actual situation is one of open war-fare between two peoples, that has persisted for more than half a century. A state of war is different than a state of civil order, and the routines and expectations of neither can properly be applied to the other: it would be as pointless to suggest the ordinary usages of war be applied to a state of civil order as to suggest the ordinary usages of civil order be applied to war.

[King Mongo]

40. The situation of civil war

Honorable Magistrate

The human body can be bought and sold. Fortunately, the police often regulate such activities, defining what is or is not allowed. A very common activity is the sale of the human body for a temporary amount of time where it performs services in exchange for food, shelter and entertainment.

You are confusing all Arabs with Palestinians. While it is true that most Palestinians are Arabs, it is important to not confuse the Palestian problem with the European immigration problem.

The European immigration problem is one of hostilities towards all Arabs due to its treatment of Palestinian Arabs.

The Palestinian problem is one of hostilities towards mostly European immigrants due to their activities of removing Palestinians from their native homeland.

Ignoring the existing hostilties between European immigrants and most Arabs, one can clearly see that the current conflict is a condition of civil war where the European immigrants refuse to recognize the citizenship and equality of the indigenous population in a limited piece of land.

Your humble servant
King Mongo

[The Magistrate]

41. Your Grace Is Pleased To Err, It Seems

It is not the human body that is sold in a condition of employment: it is the energy it produces applied to certain operations that create value, and the value created by the doing, that is sold.

Though this statement may irk some of my friends on this side of the aisle, at the level we are conducting this examination, Your Grace, the immigrant arrival is tantamount to invasion, and where invasion occurs, there can be no question of a civil war. No one has ever claimed, for instance, that the Zulu wars, or the Indian wars, were civil wars, as they were clearly wars resulting from invasion in the ancient style of the horde, where a people travels entire, men, women, children, and chattels, into some new land. It is, in fact, one of the odd features of this situation, and one of the reasons it resists so strenuously the conventional platitudes of political analysis current in our day, is that it preserves a most ancient pattern of behavior into the modern era, where it has lpng been thought, at least by the un-reflective, to be no longer in operation.

[King Mongo]

42. The Intertwined struggle

Honorable Magistrate

Without the body, there is no energy. Without gas, a tractor won't plow. The complete package is sold to perform a specific task for a limited amount of time. An example of the body being sold as the complete package is the situations where the body is forced to look a certain way, such as wearing a uniform, or behave a certain way like a machine performing a task (example: a soldier). The police act to free or force the body to act according to the conditions of the sale. If the body violates the conditions of the sale, the body may be liable for damage charges.

As for the invasion, you have a good point. Yet, how can it be a condition of war and not of civil war when the civilians of both sides are intertwined within Eretz Israel. It's not a situation of one side against the other side, but rather a situation of the invaded living with the invadors while struggling for the removal of one or the integration of both.

Your humble servant
King Mongo

[Igel]

34. If I may poke my nose into your conversation ...

I like the fact the barrier isn't on the Green Line. It serves to dispute one point that is frequently taken as settled, and to remind us that a UN resolution buried a nasty issue in having two versions say different things, both official.

The Green Line isn't necessarily an internationally recognized border; but it's certainly a cease-fire line. And, if you speak English, Israel should withdraw from occupied lands, with the border, presumably, being open for discussion. Of course, if you speak French, Israel has to withdraw from all occupied lands, so presumnably the Green Line is the border. In any event, Israel should have defensible borders.

By not having the fence and the green line be identical, it raises the question of where the border is. It's a messy question. And it's going to have to be resolved.

That said, don't infer that I like where the fence was put.

[King Mongo]

43. A defensible border for both sides

>>In any event, Israel should have defensible borders.

Well, assuming that Israel will enforce a two-state solution instead of accepting equality and citizenship for everyone in a one-state solution, Palestinians also must have a defensible border especially considering the fact that Israel invaded the West Bank after attacking Egypt in 1967 and then began building cities and walls in the West Bank while refusing to give the natives citizenship and equality.

[Walt Starr]

3. Definitely a land grab

and it stinks.

[number6]

10. So, it was a land grab after all.

yep

[Darranar]

11. No, the Fence for Peace, Harmony, and Justice is not a land grab!

It's just a security measure Little Israel put in disputed territory!

You see, if Israel were to actually respect international law and put it on the Green Line, that would encourage terrorists. This way, all it does is provoke them and collectively punish the Palestinians.

And those extra square miles of stolen land are a helpful added bonus, too....

[number6]

27. and loli pops and ice cream too ;)

"No, the Fence for Peace, Harmony, and Justice is not a land grab!"

"if Israel were to actually respect international law and put it on the Green Line, that would encourage terrorists."

like those dang Spanish voters, encouraging terrorists.
voting for leftists ya know ...;)

[newyorican]

12. There's tons of blubbering gibberish...

in the archive on how the barrier is so great. How it's temporary. How it's not a land grab. How it's "building peace one brick/link/slab at a time", "...and everyone goddamn well knows it!"

Some real gems in there. The best mindless pearls are from the dearly departed, even though there are quite a few from those still present.

The only question remaining is, were they misguided or just used?

[King Mongo]

14. There are no benefits with apartheid

Well, I don't see any benefits with apartheid, so it's best to speak out against it and criticize it. The wall is an excellent example of apartheid, dividing the superior race from the inferior race.

A condition lacking apartheid is one where people have the same rights regardles of race, culture and religion or one where two states are divided by a political border and independent from each other with immigration accross the border being restricted by both sides.

[pelsar]

15. its a dumb argument.....cause your facts are wrong...

here we go again....when facts ruin a good argument.

the wall in effect becomes a border, the settlers who believe in greater israel up to and beyond the jordan river are against the wall...

since it cuts that dream down....time to rethink, that means the govt of israel is effectivly putting some kinds of breaks on the settlers or.... (here we go the real reason)

the wall went up only after other methods to stop the suicide bombers failed....and it was demanded by the israeli population-that the suicide bombers be stopped, and its working.

this is one of those arguements when pseudo religion/cult beliefs seem to ignore some very simple facts.

its positioning is partially military partially political, and since its the paletenian society that is sending the suicide bombers over, they really dont have a say in where it goes.

it may make for more frustrated suicide bombers...but thats all they are...frustrated.

[King Mongo]

16. wall of apartheid

A wall that surrounds villages can't be a border. Rather, it is a demonstration of apartheid.

Israel can do anything that it wants to in Israel. The fact that Israel builds walls outside of Isreal demonstrates why apartheid exists, given that Israel believes that Yesha is a part of Isreal since it thinks that it has the right to settle and build walls in Yesha.

A wall along the green line is a just wall along a border and a wall generally exists for the purpose of defending one's border. A wall beyond the green line simply demonstrates that Israel is slowly expanding its border, expanding its border around growing settlements. The purpose of the wall is to expand while preventing any resistment to expansion.

If the purpose of the wall was to stop suicide bombings, then the wall would have followed the green line, attempting to prevent people from sneaking into Israel.

From the perspective of defense, Israel has nukes and doesn't need silly walls of apartheid to defend itself.

[pelsar]

19. king....logic?

From the perspective of defense, Israel has nukes and doesn't need silly walls of apartheid to defend itself.

care to explain how having nukes stops suicide bombers?.... this is called trying very hard to find a reason to find something wrong with the wall when all other logic fails-go for the inane, some no doubt will belive it.

and this one......If the purpose of the wall was to stop suicide bombings, then the wall would have followed the green line, attempting to prevent people from sneaking into Israel.

gosh some of the reality again...we have citizens on both sides of the green line...and until we have a settlement with the palesteians a responsable state defends its citizens.

oh I forgot....the wall? it works (I know a minor detail that when its mentioned really ruins a good argument for debassing israel)

[King Mongo]

22. wall of apartheid

Since the native people of Judea, Gaza and Samaria don't have Israeli citizenship, there is no need for Israelis to be in Judea, Gaza and Samaria.

While you recognize that a settlement is pending, why do Israelis settle instead of working on the settlement? The lack of interest for a settlement demonstrates the need for equal treatment in Judea,
Gaza and Samaria.

Understanding the need for a settlement and the lack of equality in Judea, Gaza and Samaria demonstrates that a wall along the green line is needed so that equality on both sides of the wall will be encouraged.

If the idea of the wall exists for the purpose of defending Israel from suicide bombings, then the wall is appropriate along the green line and any excuses are unacceptable. For other types of defense, nuclear bombs exist for that purpose, so the wall is unnecessary for any other type of threat.

Isrealis who live in Judea, Gaza and Samaria can either accept equality in Israel or equality in Judea, Gaza and Samaria and don't need a wall of apartheid to protect segregation.

You are correct that the wall properly protects segretation by practicing collective punishment and that's why it is illegal according to the international community.

[pelsar]

24. and the green line....

the green line was a defacto border that came out of the result of a war with jordan/iraq and the palestenians....we are now involved in another border dispute with the palestenians.

that future border will be a result of negotiations, or war....the "magic" peace pill of the green line, was proven false in 67.....

time to face up to the reality: that green line was never recognized previously as a border by the PLO-established 1965) only recently when the palesetenians have understood that the more they fight us, the more they tend to lose, have they and others jumped on the idea that pre67 all was peaceful here.

history doesnt show that.....so there is no need to retreat to an armistice line....that didnt make peace anyway.

the final border has to be through an agreeement between the warring parties...thats what count, nothing else.

[King Mongo]

25. negotiations based on land-grabbing

Well, if one must negotiate in order to agree on something, then why does one quickly build and expand illegal settlements so that one can grab as much land as one can? Why are these negotiations based upon how much land the greater power can grab?

What you forgot to mention is that the only reason why these negotiations based on land-grabbing exist are because the people who are losing the land were never given citizenship and equality. For some reason, people prefer to push others into the dead sea instead of recognizing them as the natives of the land.

Instead of fighting against the natives, why not just let them live on their land?

[The Magistrate]

28. Your Grace Has Ahold Of One End Of A Sticky Point

But might not be pleased were the logic of it pursued to the other end of the stick he has grasped.

It pleases Your Grace to prentend that the territories over-run in '67 are a part of Israel now, and that all residents of them are Israelis, and that therefore the situation is to be regarded as one in which Israelis discriminate against other Israelis.

But the facts of law are that the territories over-run in '67 are not part of Israel. Military occupation is a very different thing from sovereignty. The military occupation has a foundation in legality because both major portions of those lands were claimed by sovereign states as part of their territory at the time, albeit rather dubiously. This military occupation was to cease, by direction of the United Nations, when a general treaty of peace was signed, recognizing the legitimacy of, and inviolability of the territorial integrity of, all states in the region, and since no such instrument has ever been signed, the military occupation endures. Specific directives of the United Nations, however, as well as the current law of nations, flatly forbids this territory becoming sovereign territory of Israel.

Disregarding this for the moment, as Your Grace is pleased to do, there flow from the full implications of Your Grace's position some interesting consequences, that ill-humored and ruthless persons could not fail to note. For one thing, if the land in question is now part of Israel, then there ceases to be any international character to the matter of what occurs there, and there could be no application of the Geneva Convention to any aspect of the matter, save perhaps a small portion forbidding gross atrocity by signatoroies to that Convention against rebels. And rebels those inhabitants there in arms against the state of Israel would surely be, in the eyes of law, were Your Grace's position to be the actual state of the matter. Rebels, and traitors even, would be all inhabitants of the place who acted in armed struggle against Israel. There could be no doubt whatever of that state's right to use whatever means were necessary to break such rebellion; there could be onus on that state to negotiate with that rebellion's leadership.

[King Mongo]

29. International law

This is an interesting situation. The Israeli government officially recognizes international law, it recognizes the Geneva Conventions and it recognizes the conditions of a military occupation.

However, many people in Israel do not recognizes the UN, international law, the conditions of a military occupation and the Geneva Conventions. Thus, they have succeeded in ignoring such while turning this territory into sovereign territoriy of Israel.

Since the UN, international law, the conditions of a military occupation and the Geneva Conventions have been ignored and violated, Israel is required to recognizes citizenship and equality for everyone or face reduced foreign relations, sanctions and possibly (but hopefully avoided) even war.

I think that it is Israel's right to squash the rebellion. However, I hope that Isreal will study the many different options available to solving problems especially since the nations of the world don't like trading with locations that practice apartheid.

[The Magistrate]

30. Still, Your Grace

The territory in question remains outside the sovereignity of Israel. That some in Israel would treat it as sovereign Israeli territory does not alter this: it is rather like the old jesting question, "How many legs has a dog, if you call a tail a leg?" to which the answer is, "Four. Calling a tail a leg don't make it so." Even if it were true, as Your Grace states, that Israel has ignored or violated the whole list of things in Your Grace's third paragraph, its having done so would not by any extant law or customary standard require it to extend Israeli citizenship to anyone not born a citizen of the state of Israel.

[King Mongo]

31. Looking into the future

Honorable Magistrate

Your view of the situation is very correct when examining the current situation.

My view is heavily influenced by looking into the future, seeing the situation 100 years ahead from today, as explained as follows:

- As we know, Jewish cities in Yesha will never become a part of an independent state of Palestine due to memories of the holocaust.

- Due to the nature of human beings, the Jewish cities will expand in Yesha

- As demonstrated by Bush, the wall and the demographic realities on the ground, the Jewish cities will slowly be included with the sovereignity of Israel. Removing these cities is unacceptable since such is understood as the practice of racial cleansing.

- Eventually, as demonstrated with the following map, Sovereign Israel will completely surround the reservations of the indigenous population and the native population will eventually be given the same benefits that were given to the Native Americans who found themselves in a similar sitaution.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/Land_Grab_Map.asp


Thus, when looking at the situation 100 years from today, one can clearly see that the people in the occupied territories are already Israeli citizens because they will be such in the future.


At your service,

King Mongo

[Igel]

33. I'm sorry, I don't understand your temporal logic.

Does this mean that the Chumash that were alive in 1401 AD in what is now California were US citizens? Or were they Spanish citizens because it was Spanish territory in the 1600s? Or Mexican citizens, because it was Mexican territory in 1800?

[King Mongo]

36. About expansion, racial cleansing and apartheid

Honorable Igil

People who were not racially cleansed from America eventually became American citizens. The same rule will apply to Israel. Of course, the methods of racial cleansing used by Israel may or may not be successful.

Your humble servant,
King Mongo

[Igel]

44. Nonetheless, it remains a fact that most people alive today

will be dead 100 years in the future.

"Thus, when looking at the situation 100 years from today, one can clearly see that the people in the occupied territories are already Israeli citizens because they will be such in the future."

If the West Bank becomes Israel proper in 90 years, your statement is clearly false, unless we assume "the people" refers to a small percentage. But that's not the usual reading: people may not mean 100%, but they usually mean at least a majority.

Trivial point, but I still don't understand your logic.

[King Mongo]

45. Democracy now instead of later

Honorable Igil

As explained in post 36, a two-state solution is impossible. It's not realistic. It won't happen. Forget it.

Post 36
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x83180#83628

As I have mentioned in many posts, racial cleansing and genocide are undesirable. It's not realistic. It won't happen. Forget it.

As I have mentioned, the practice of apartheid is not healty for Israel. It's not beneficial. It shouldn't happen. Forget it.

This leaves only one option for the future remaining: Democracy, equality and citizenship for everyone.

While I understand that for some the practice of dmocracy, equality and citizenship is dreadful, feared and even hated, it is the future. It is the way to go. It is the most acceptable practice known to human beings. Knowing that all of the people of Eretz Israel are going to practice democracy, equality and citizenship in the future, why not practice it now instead of later? Why not end the conflict sooner? It doesn't make sense to force people to suffer until they die simply because one believes that many people are not yet ready to practice democracy, equality and citizenship.

Your humble servant
King Mongo

[eyl]

17. "The wall is an excellent example of apartheid"

", dividing the superior race from the inferior race"

You'd have a better chance for this argument if there weren't roughly equal numbers of Palestinians (counting Israeli Arabs) on either side of it.

[King Mongo]

23. encouraging the practice of equality

It is true that Palestinians have almost the same rights as non-Palestinians in Israel.

It is true that many Palestinians do not have the same rights as non-Palestinians in Eretz Israel.

Solution to this problem:

Build a wall along the green line so that equality will be encouraged in all of Eretz Israel

Eretz Isreal = Israel + Yesha (Gaza is undecided)
Yesha = Gaza + Judea + Samaria

[Elise]

21. Your link gives me a '404' error:

Ya' certain this doesn't belong in the 'conspiracy theories' forum?

[newyorican]

26. Ya think at all...

that it might have moved into the archives...

http://www.imemc.org/headlines/2004/December/week4/122604/israel%20plans%20defacto%20borders.htm

[Elise]

47. WOW

Those terrorist sources certainly move quickly to archive their lies articles, now don't they? LOL

[newyorican]

48. Request for clarification:

Are you referring to the International Middle East Media Center as a "terrorist source"?

[Violet_Crumble]

49. This may clarify things, seeing Elise can't reply...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=161670

[Scurrilous]

46. Israeli railway to cross West Bank

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6692BFBE-0FEF-4E2B-BD88-A165605E3A6E.htm

A planned rail line between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is to traverse the occupied West Bank in two areas, according to Israeli officials.

<snip>

"A spokesman for Israel's Transport Minister Meir Sheetrit said on Friday that the train project had received a green light from the attorney-general to route the line through the illegal Latrun and Mevasseret Zion settlements.

The attorney-general, Meni Mazuz, had held up planning on the line to study the legal implications of its crossing West Bank territory, but had now decided it could move forward, Transport Ministry spokesman Jonathan Beker said.

"The minister has been informed that there is not a problem that should stop the progress of the rail line," Beker said.

The announcement on Friday was immediately criticised by Palestinian representatives and raised questions about Israel's intentions for the occupied territory."