Barrier to separate Beit Jala residents from their lands, laying groundwork for annexing settlement

[Jefferson23]

November 12, 2015


Civil Administration bulldozer transports olive tree uprooted from Beit Jala’s groves at Bir ‘Unah. Photo by Sarit Michaeli, B’Tselem, 20 August 2015

In August 2015, Israel’s Ministry of Defense renewed construction work on the Separation Barrier near the Palestinian town of Beit Jala in the West Bank. Doing so disregards the legal proceedings on the matter still underway, and creates permanent facts on the ground. The section of the barrier now under construction will separate the residents of Beit Jala from their privately owned farmland in the Cremisan Valley, although farming that land is an indispensable source of income. Also, the Cremisan valley is one of the last green patches left in the Bethlehem District and serves as a recreation area for the locals. In addition, there are two Salesian monasteries in the valley: the Cremisan Monastery, where monks make wine and olive oil from nearby vineyards and groves, and the women’s monastery, which offers educational services to hundreds of local children. By completing this section of the barrier, Israel will effectively annex large swathes of land.

At present, the barrier is being built along a route approximately 1.2 kilometer long, with a gap some 225 meters wide near the monasteries. After a prolonged legal battle that has lasted almost nine years, the residents of Beit Jala and the monasteries are now awaiting a ruling by Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) on the matter.

Building the barrier along the planned route will directly and severely harm Beit Jala residents:

1 Confiscating land that is privately owned by Palestinians and uprooting dozens of ancient olive trees to build the barrier: The route traverses plots of land privately owned by Beit Jala residents. This land was seized under Seizure Order SO-62-06 (see yellow marking on aerial photograph above). Upon renewal of the construction work, the Ministry of Defense recently had dozens of ancient olives trees uprooted and transferred for replanting nearby. Landowners who gave testimony to B’Tselem explained that the trees were uprooted carelessly, thereby severely damaging the trees. Therefore, they argue, replanting the trees elsewhere is merely a superficial attempt to mask extensive financial and emotional damage.


http://www.btselem.org/separation_barrier/20151112_beit_jala_separation_barrier

[6chars]

1. They uprooted trees carelessly before replanting them

How can the UN remain silent?

[Crunchy Frog]

2. Sounds like you're in favor of this sort of action?

[6chars]

3. Don't know the particulars

The anti-terrorism barrier has prevented terrorism elsewhere, not sure what the situation is in Beit Jala.

But, support? No, I think Israel should be more careful when transplanting trees. I am not sure how this compares to how other entities transplant trees.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. You don't think maybe they should avoid building settlements

in between Palestinian villages, and Palestinian farms? Israelis should be able to build homes right in the middle of Palestinian communities, and then expect the Israeli government to build walls around them to protect them? And it's just a dandy thing to do to Palestinians, as long as they're "careful" about how they dig up and replant the olive trees?

So how do you think other "entities" go about building colonist settlements in the middle of indiginous communities, and then walling them off for their protection?

It's this sort of thing that convinces me that the only realistic solution is for Israel to simply declare the entire West Bank to be annexed, and give equal citizenship and rights to everyone living there.

[6chars]

5. They should avoid building new settlements

the whole colonist thing is a little silly. the whole West Bank is half the size of Los Angeles county. As for your realistic solution, it is only realistic if it would not lead to a massive civil war within a few years. You might hate this, but I think in the short term Israels should try to maintain security without making a two state solution more difficult and while avoiding unnecessary squabbles, and in the long term it probably makes sense for there to be a two state solution about where all the recent proposals have said, and with demilitarized areas, but only if it is done in a way and at a time that ISIS or Hamas or Hezbollah would not take over the Palestinian territory and start an all out war within a few years. Being all for realistic solutions is great until someone gets hurt.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. I wish that Israel wasn't hurtling forward into an inevitable single state solution.

There's nothing I can do to stop it, though, and my government continues to enable it.

[geek tragedy]

9. our government is thankfully disengaging on this. By giving the appearance of trying to make things

better, all we do is give the Israelis cover to continue their land theft.

Obama has now disengaged and is no longer providing diplomatic cover to the Israelis. The next president, unless it's Bernie Sanders, will have absolutely zero credibility (and Congress will have even less) on the issue of Israel/Palestine outside the US, Israel, and Israel's colonies. So, even if the US wants to give Bibi cover to pursue a sub rosa one-state solution, no one will care what the US government has to say.

[6chars]

11. i don't believe in inevitability

there are a lot of options that sound unrealistic now but that could in theory work (including two states, one state, confederation, two states in one land, ...)

imo, every one of those options would be improved (for both sides) by less animosity between people, and that there are plenty of realistic ways (for both sides) to start today in reducing such animosity. and this should not wait until some perfect future.

[Little Tich]

7. Why can't they build the wall on the border instead?

As it is now, the wall is only a land grab. The notion that it stops terrorist is just a poor excuse, and it was never built for that. The route of the barrier was planned before the second Intifada, and was only intended for stealing Palestinian lands. If the barrier was intended to stop terrorists to enter Israel, it would do the same job if it was built on the border,not deep inside Palestinian territory.

[Jefferson23]

8. Like you said, a land grab..all it has ever been. n/t

[Mosby]

10. there is no border.

It's supposed to be negotiated.

[Little Tich]

12. Israel has no jurisdiction whatsoever on land it hasn't annexed.

I have no idea where you got the idea that the border is supposed to be negotiated from. Have you never heard of UNSC 242?

[Mosby]

13. the green line is not an official border

The border is to be negotiated per UNSCR 242 and 338.

The Israelis jurisdictional authority in the WB stems from the Oslo 1 and 2 agreements both sides signed.