IDF begins dismantling West Bank separation fence

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

IDF begins dismantling West Bank separation fence near Bil'in

Four years ago Supreme Court ruling called to remove the fence from the area, which denies land to residents of the West Bank village.

The Israel Defense Forces began Sunday tearing down a section of Israel's contentious West Bank separation barrier near a village that has come to symbolize Palestinian opposition to the enclosure.

The dismantling of the section near the village of Bil'in began four years after the Supreme Court ordered it torn down.

Bil'in, which lies about 25 km (15 miles) east of Tel Aviv, has become the focal point of protests against the controversial Israeli network of walls and fences that separates much of the occupied West Bank from Israel.

Bil'in lost half its land to the barrier. Years of weekly protests there frequently have evolved into clashes between villagers and Israeli troops.

Palestinian protesters on Friday rammed a bulldozer into the contested barrier, days after the IDF said it would finally comply with a court order and reposition the fence.

Following the announcement of the decision, Palestinian leaders and activists descended on Bil'in in celebration, but said the protests would continue because much of the land remained inaccessible.

IDF soldiers fired volleys of tear gas and jets of foul-smelling liquid to force the flag-waving demonstrators away from the metal fencing that keeps locals from their land.

Israel began building the barrier in late 2002 to keep out Palestinian attackers. But it juts into the West Bank, and critics say the route is designed to grab land that Palestinians want for a state.

The barrier at Bil'in curves 3 km (2 miles) inside the Green Line, established by a 1949 ceasefire, which divides Israel and the West Bank. It does so to ensure nearby settlements lie on the Israeli side of the barrier.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-begins-dismantling-west-bank-separation-fence-near-bil-in-1.369682

We already know what the Israeli government thinks of international law and UN resolutions about its illegal behavior. But here's an example of what it thinks of its own Supreme Court - it took 4 years of continuous pressure to finally induce the Israeli government to obey the Israeli high court ruling, and that's only because of the tireless actions of the protestors and activists.

[mawilson 2,133]

And no rockets fired. Imagine that.

[Karee 4,190]

We already know what the Israeli government thinks of international law and UN resolutions about its illegal behavior. But here's an example of what it thinks of its own Supreme Court - it took 4 years of continuous pressure to finally induce the Israeli government to obey the Israeli high court ruling, and that's only because of the tireless actions of the protestors and activists.

I don't get all this. They're basically stealing land. The U.S. supports them in this endeavour. All this "it was our land 1000 years ago" is bullshite. Ron will be by shortly. They build walls etc. They are nuts. It's kind of ironic that they are doing the same sh!t that was done to them in Europe in the 30s. They should wear a nazi armband.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Karee

[mawilson 2,133]

It's kind of ironic that they are doing the same sh!t that was done to them in Europe in the 30s.

Really? They put 6 million Palestinians in gas chambers?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

And no rockets fired. Imagine that.

Walls can't stop rockets. Imagine that !

And there have been virtually no rockets fired from the West Bank anyway. Imagine that !

Israel's Wall was purportedly built to stop "suicide bombers" from crossing into Israel; however, it was built not on Israeli territory or even along the Green Line, but juts deep into the West Bank to wrap around the illegal settlements, seizing even larger expanses of Palestinian land which Israel hopes to keep.

The article basically admits that the route of the Wall was planned to include the illegal settlements, and all the land on the way to them:

The barrier at Bil'in curves 3 km (2 miles) inside the Green Line, established by a 1949 ceasefire, which divides Israel and the West Bank. It does so to ensure nearby settlements lie on the Israeli side of the barrier.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Also here is a great interactive map where you can zoom in on specific areas and see in detail what the Wall is designed to seize:

http://mapsof.net/west_bank/static-maps/png/separation-barrier-map-west-bank

[mawilson 2,133]

And there have been virtually no rockets fired from the West Bank anyway.

Exactly my point. Progress can be made when rockets are not being fired.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Exactly my point. Progress can be made when rockets are not being fired.

So.... you admit there were never any rockets being fired from the West Bank, which you stated was the reason for the Wall being built. This is "progress."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So.... you admit there were never any rockets being fired from the West Bank, which you stated was the reason for the Wall being built.

I take it he said that in another thread? Couldn't find any such statement from him in this one.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I take it he said that in another thread? Couldn't find any such statement from him in this one.

Read the thread again. I said there hadn't ever been any rockets fired from the West Bank anyway, and Ma Wilson answers "exactly" - seems to me that he's conceded the point.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Read the thread again. I said there hadn't ever been any rockets fired from the West Bank anyway, and Ma Wilson answers "exactly" - seems to me that he's conceded the point.

But where did he state that rockets were the reason for the wall being built?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

But where did he state that rockets were the reason for the wall being built?

He's the one who brought up rockets as somehow relevant to the topic about the Wall in the West Bank - saying "when no rockets are fired, progress can be made.

It was a McGuffin from the get go.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

He's the one who brought up rockets as somehow relevant to the topic about the Wall in the West Bank - saying "when no rockets are fired, progress can be made.

It was a McGuffin from the get go.

I think what he was getting at is that progress is being made in the West Bank because ,comparatively, Abbas seeks a peaceful resolution whilst Hamas does not.

Rockets in Gaza = no progress

No Rockets in the West Bank = progress.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Sousuke

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I think what he was getting at is that progress is being made in the West Bank because ,comparatively, Abbas seeks a peaceful resolution whilst Hamas does not.

Rockets in Gaza = no progress

No Rockets in the West Bank = progress.

What do rockets in Gaza have to do with building the Wall illegally on Palestinian land in the West Bank, in order to ultimately annex the illegal settlement blocs into Israel ?

What represents "progress" in the West Bank re: rockets, when there were never any rockets fired from the West Bank ?

[scandal 951]

I don't get all this. They're basically stealing land. The U.S. supports them in this endeavour. All this "it was our land 1000 years ago" is bullshite. Ron will be by shortly. They build walls etc. They are nuts. It's kind of ironic that they are doing the same sh!t that was done to them in Europe in the 30s. They should wear a nazi armband.

Who are "they"? And who are "them"

And who is "Ron"? I'm sorry, are we personally acquainted? Do I know you? Um, no, I don't think so.

I really tussled with responding yet again on VJ regarding the Middle East. It's really all rather pointless. Engaging in an Internet forum does not solve any real problems in the region. I can assure you that policymakers in the region care not a whit about our rantings on here.

When it comes to this topic unfortunately there is all to much noise and vitriol and far too little actual information.

This post is Exhibit A. Nazi armband, indeed. Now here is a poster who's clearly plumbed the depths of the issues, researched them vigorously, and come come up with a reasoned way to move the situation closer to a negotiated settlement.

Yes, if only Israelis wore swastikas the Middle East disputes would be solved in a flash. Eureka! Now why didn't I think of that?

So, at risk of repeating points I've tried to make numerously in the past, and at greater risk of boring many and convincing none, here goes one further attempt at laying out my views. Why? To set the record straight? I suppose. Though no doubt it will get cluttered up with a few more swastika posts right after mine. That's fine, the haters can have the last word, I'll be content with this post destined to reside somewhere forlornly in mid-thread.

To begin with, I do strongly believe that Israel's claim to legitimacy is rooted in the ancient homeland of Judea. That's what the Romans called the province after occupying it - Judea. There were other peoples in the land in addition to Judeans. Not least of which were Philistines who yielded the name 'Palestine' but otherwise have no connection to the modern Palestinian people. There were Hittites and Jebusites too, not to mention Phoenicians, Greeks and other peoples who came and settled in pre- and post-Roman days. One thing that did not exist during that period of time were indigenous Arabic speaking peoples in that corner of the world, and certainly there were no Muslims, Mohammed having not even received his prophecies until some 6 centuries later, and Arabic tribes not ascending out of Arabia and throughout the Levant and beyond until that time. The Judean claim that there is an intrinsic connection of that People and that Land is ancient and documented. It was Romans who conducted the ethnic cleansing of Judea. They're not around to blame for it today, but we are faced with the aftermath of that ethnic cleansing. This is not, by the way, intended in any way to be a religious claim. I am not appealing to any God given right or Biblical grant. Personally, I am an atheist and have no use for such justifications. Not that others don't make them (they do), but I do not. The claim is a documented historical one. It's no less real than that of any displaced populations. Including Palestinians, I may add.

As we move forward into more modern times, I further note that the territory in question continued to shift between remote empires and occupying peoples: from Romans to Byzantines (Eastern Roman Empire) to Abbasid caliphate to Mamalukes to Crusaders to Ottomans to British occupiers. Over the centuries Armenians came and made a home, Greek Orthodox did, Maltese Christian Knights did. And, of course, Jews have had a continuous presence as have Arabic-speaking Muslims and Christians. Who, over time, came to think of themselves as a distinct local ethnicity: Palestinians. Which is their right, and which I respect as a sovereign right of a people to self-identity. I claim that right for Jews, and I respect it no less for Palestinians. Both peoples have lived in the land for centuries.

At a certain point in time, when enough generations live in a place, regardless of how or when or why they've come to be there, there's a certain "statute of limitations" that I believe must apply in recognizing their rights to live where and how they do. Otherwise, we'd have world wide chaos. What right do we have to live in the USA? After all, this land was usurped in a colonialist subjugation of Native populations that were here before the European arrival. Ditto for the rest of the New World. What right do the English have to be in Quebec, 3 centuries after the Plains of Abraham? According to (some) Quebecois - not at all, it's illegitimate still today. But ask an anglophone Quebecer who's family has lived in the Eastern townships or Montral for generations, for CENTURIES! where his legitimate home is, and he'll gladly let you know.

Here's one: what right do the Spanish have to be in the historic Basque homeland? Or for Arabs to be throughout the Maghreb - after all, they subjugated the ethnic Berbers at sword point to accept Islam and blend into Dar al Islam. I'm curious to know where the outcry is over the shameful ethnic cleansing that Charlemagne and his Franks and Burgundians subjected the native pagan Saxons of Westphalia to. No, no outrage? What about the cry for freedom from the invasive (French) Norman yoke in Olde England? Or the more modern cry of the Welsh and Cornish and Scots? No? No outrage?

Here's another one: Islam came by expeditionary force into al Andalusia (Spain) and into the Balkans. It wasn't there previously. So in modern day 1990s Bosnia when we (correctly!) decried the ethic cleansing of Muslims, what we're really saying is that centuries after a conquest and population transfer has occurred, it's time to accept that (relative) newcomers have rights as well as do previous residents. At some point, we just stop trying to disentangle all those competing claims, and accept that if you're born in a place you belong there. Consequently, the USA is a legitimate country. Great Britain is a legitimate country. Saxony and Westphalia became part of Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire and over time present day Germany. And that's legitimate.And we don't try to "undo" it. The Basque separatists may not like it, but the world recognizes Spain's modern borders as legitimate and legal. That's not to say we squash the rights of Basques or Bosnian Muslims or Anglophone Quebecers or Francophone Quebecois. We find ways to integrate and ratify the rights of minority populations, or to carve out new states with new boundaries that give populations a contiguous homeland.

Israel has a population of Jews that claim ancestral ties to the land, as well as modern ties. When generations of Israelis are born in the land, live and raise families in the land, they are legitimate residents. They are not squatters, any more than the descendants of William Penn are squatters in Pennsylvania, or the descendents of the Mayflower are squatters in Massachusetts. Palestinian Arabs who have ties to the land are not squatters either. They are as legitimate as the aforementioned groups.

The tricky part is how to handle multiple population groups who hold legitimate claims to the same piece of geography and don't seem to get along very well. In some cases, it's not that tricky. In other cases it's a difficult dilemma. The Israeli/Palestinian dispute is one such.

The world community has by and large come up with a formula - the land-for-peace swap, aka the two-state-solution. Israel will remain the homeland of the Jewish people with sizable Arab and Druse minority populations. Palestine will be a Palestinian homeland. Both states should be, insofar as possible, contiguous and effective states to govern and secure. Both are entitled to defensible borders. The terms and conditions are to be decided in negotiations. Not on the battlefield, not through terrorist intimidation, not unilaterally, and certainly not by chatter on Internet forums.

Several UN Security Council resolutions, most notably 242 and 338, have adopted this basic formula. So too did the Oslo Process, the "Quartet", the 2000 Camp David accords, Bush's 2003 plan, the Saudi plan, and Obama's recent speeches on the subject. A series of Israeli governments have negotiated in good faith under this framework, as did tireless and hardworking and courageous Palestinians under Abu Amar (Arafat) and Abu Mazen. There are difficult, painful issues to be worked out. Sacrifices and political will are needed by both sides. Both sides have a history of weak coalition politics which extremists of BOTH SIDES have used to hijack the process. But in the core, there is an exhaustion in the peoples and a desire for peace and stability and to focus on economic growth rather than more wastage. If that central core of moderates on both sides can lower the rhetoric and get their extremist factions under control, there is still a chance for a comprehensive solution that is equitable to both sides. That means Hamas and the radical militant elements within Fatah(al Aqsa Brigades etc.) need to be brought to a fundamental recognition of the essential, basic legitimacy and permanence of Israel and forswear terrorist tactics aimed at civilians. And the Israeli government needs the fortitude to get the settler movement under heel and be prepared for the massive dismantling of settlements that is going to be called for.

There are people and factions and political parties in the region who sign on to prescriptions like what I wrote above and are still working at them. I applaud them.

And there are people with no inkling of history or the intricacies of the region who anonymously scream on Internet forums about the need to equip the IDF with swastika armbands. I treat those with the disdain to which they're entitled.

I have made a practice of asking people with whom I debate the MidEast on the Internet whether they accept the basic land-for-peace two-state formula. If they do, no matter how strongly they are partisan to the Palestinian side of the debate I'm happy to respectfully engage. However, when I ask the question "do you accept the basic legitimacy of Israel?" and the answer is either no, or more often - evasive but not yes, then there is really nothing to debate, so I stop. That's Israel's practice as well. Israel negotiates with the PA since they accepted the formula. Israel does not negotiate with Hams since they do not accept it. What would be the point? How do you negotiate with someone who doesn't believe you even have a right to exist? Where does that negotiation end? What could satisfy such an adversary in negotiation? Only one thing: the entire removal of Israel, nothing less. Well, that doesn't seem fruitful. A negotiated compromise implies both sides moving away from their extreme positions towards a consensus they can live with. Israel and Israelis must recognize the rights of Palestinians to a state. I believe that in large measure that has been the stated policy of Israeli governments for decades now. Palestinians in turn must recognize the right of Israel to exist. That's really not much to ask, just as a basis for discussion. The PA has done so. The problem has been it's a weak government that hasn't been able to speak for the greater Palestinian body politic. And so we go on.

For the record, while I sharply disagree with the OP, I do in large part agree with her sentiment in the original post of this thread. While I do think that Israel has a legitimate security-based right to construct a fence, I think the fence should have kept to the Green Line (insofar as topologically possible) and should not have been used to intentionally disrupt Palestinian travel or movement within the West Bank. I have no doubt that much of the fence's path was chosen for cynical political, not security reasons. That is why Bagatz (the Israeli supreme court) ruled the route should be changed. And it was Israeli right-wing coalition politics between Shas and Likud that stalled the rerouting. I'm glad the route is being changed. It is one small step in the direction of negotiated compromise I alluded to above.

Over and out.