Israel's Failing Wall

[La_Serpiente]

Israel's Failing Wall

• Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
  What I was walling in or walling out,
  And to whom I was like to give offence.
  Something there is that doesn't love a wall...
  (from "Mending Wall," Robert Frost)
  

It used to take ten minutes to ride from the village of Azariya to the Old City that divides West (Jewish) and East (Arab) Jerusalem. Following the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000, Israeli soldiers set up a checkpoint across the main (only) street that links the West Bank with Jerusalem. As the cycle of violence increased, with Palestinian suicide bombers striking at Israeli civilians in Jerusalem buses and cafes, the Israeli army built a six-foot-high wall across the street. That stopped cars from crossing, but enterprising Palestinians placed boulders on both sides of the wall, enabling men going to work, youth going to school, old men with canes and women with shopping bags to climb back and forth. People would pass babies over the barrier like an old-time bucket brigade. Entrepreneurial souls even set up makeshift stands to sell goods and produce on both sides of the wall, a spontaneous Middle Eastern souk. Taxis took travelers to one side of the wall, they climbed over, and were picked up on the other side by another taxi to continue on their way. Sometimes bored soldiers stood alongside the wall and spot-checked people, but more often than not there was just the wall, and a semblance of normal life continued.

A few weeks ago the residents of Azariya suddenly awoke to discover that a hulking, twelve-foot-high granite wall was emerging in place of the six-foot obstacle. It wound its way up and down hills like a gloomy medieval dragon, casting a dark shadow over the area. An outsider could immediately sense the dispirited pessimism that overtook Azariya. All the stores on both sides of the wall closed, almost overnight. It was like a scene from a novel by García Márquez.

This granite monstrosity--there's nothing even slightly aesthetic about it--is part of the "Jerusalem envelope" built to protect the citizens of Jerusalem, Jewish and Palestinian, since both are random victims of the suicide bombers.

more...

Israel's Failing Wall

[xchrom]

1. newton's law

what goes up must come down.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Those who campaign against the wall would do better to campaign against

the psychos who bomb school buses.

[Forkboy]

5. I can do both

amazingly,I can walk and chew gum at the same time also.

[number6]

22. so can I ....

;)

[JohnLocke]

26. Hey! You stole my candidate's quote!

[LeahMira]

3. Out of curiosity...

I wonder why there's nothing in the news about the 1800-mile long fence between India and Pakistan or the 150-mile fence between Kuwait and Iraq.

Not word one is said about the wall between areas of Zambia and Angola or the walls in Northern Ireland that separate neighborhoods from one another.

Thailand has announced its intention to build a wall separating itself from Malaysia, and even here in the USA we have a 60-mile fence separating parts of the U.S. from Mexico.

This begs the question of whether any nation should build walls separating itself from another nation or whether a nation should build walls separating some groups of people within its borders from other groups of people. Robert Frost's poem begins with the words: "Something there is that doesn't love a wall."

I think that healthy human beings more naturally reach past boundaries and borders to connect with one another.

Still, we in the U.S. are not unlike others in the world that choose to ignore the walls that exist everywhere but in Israel. Why do you think that is happening?

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Fences

And the Saudi plan to build a fence with Yemen has gotten little press as well.

Yes, the world does not treat Israel fairly. I am used to it, I just don't accept it.

[Darranar]

6. Are any of those walls...

being built on another nation's land?

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Neither is this one

[Darranar]

8. Question...

If the West Bank is part of Israel, how is it perfectly okay for Israel to deny the Palestinians there citizenship?

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. It's not part of Israel

It's disputed territory and will remain so until there is a permanent agreement. In the meantime, Israel is the only state in charge of running things there.

[Darranar]

10. It is occupied territory...

and therefore it is subject to all the international law in regard to such territory.

Israel cannot legally build a wall in the middle of occupied territory unless there is a security purpose for doing so. There is none, because Israel can build it just as easily on the Green Line and have the same security benefits from it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Israel is in charge of the territory until there is a formal peace

As such, it can build roads, bridges and security fences to its heart's content. The international community does NOT overrule such internal activity.

[Darranar]

12. Really?

So, if Hugo Chavez took the US-sponsored coup as an attack against Venezuela (which is what it was) and mobilized an alliance of various developing nations, then proceeded to attack the US and occupy large stretches of territory here, would you be fine with having your house bulldozed and a huge wall built in the middle of your neighborhood to protect Mexico from US terrorists?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Thanks for the false analogy

But it doesn't compare.

Nothing comes really close to the breadth and depth of the I/P situation.

[Darranar]

18. How not?

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. How?

How can you even vaguely pretend they are similar?

[Darranar]

20. Oh, sorry, you are correct...

the US has killed several thousand more innocent people in Latin America then Palestinian terrorists have killed in Israel. Makes it even easier for you to say "yes".

Once again: if Latin America, lead by Hugo Chavez, wanted to defend itself from American aggression, would you be okay with them knocking down your house and building a concrete wall through your neighborhood?

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Once again

How does this equate to the I/P situation?

[Darranar]

29. Here's how...

The US has been messing around in Latin America for many years. Many of its actions - say, supporting the Contras and helping them commit many of their atrocities - constitute state-sponsored terrorism in my view. Others, such as the US-sponsored coup against Hugo Chavez, are clearly against international law.

Similarly, elements among the Palestinian populace have engaged in reprehensible terrorist atrocities against innocent Israel civilians. This is the excuse given for building a wall in the middle of occupied territory.

So, my question is this: Would it be okay with you for the Latin American countries to engage in their right to collective self-defense, invade the US, occupy large stretches of land for security reasons, then seize some land and bulldoze a number of houses, including yours, to build a huge fence/wall in the middle of the US to prevent more US aggression?

If not, how is that different from what Israel is doing?

It is true that the analogy is flawed. Latin America has not engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Americans. It has not oppressed and brutalized us. It has not taken our land, nor has it launched wars of aggression against us.

The Palestinians have never gone anywhere near to killing the number of civilians the United States has.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. The analogy is so flawed, I can't even begin to answer

[Darranar]

32. Please answer the question...

or at least explain how the analogy is flawed to the point that you cannot answer it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. I/P is uniquely complex

It includes a couple thousand years of history. It takes into account numerous actions by other nations -- Arabs, Palestinians, America, the EU, the UN. It includes religious issues, definitions of terror, etc.

I can't possibly see that kind of depth and nuance in your post.

Hang it up, you won't get there.

[Darranar]

35. So?

Nothing justifies building a wall on someone else's land when you can just as easily build it on your own.

There is nothing complex about that fact.

Interestingly, you still refuse to answer the question.

Which particular details, existing in I/P but not in the hypothetical I outlined above, matter in the discussion at hand?

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Security

Justifies building the wall on the land chosen. And, since Israel is the state in charge of that territory -- pending permanent resolution -- it has the right to build roads, buildings and fences as needed.

I refuse to address your example because it doesn't even vaguely relate. This being I/P, I seek to stick to THOSE issues.

[Darranar]

43. And the various Latin American states would be in charge...

of the territory of the US, too!

Would that justify them destroying your house and taking your land, if they wanted to build a wall for "security" purposes?

What, exactly, is the difference?

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. I think I've made myself pretty clear

[LeahMira]

37. Your analogy is a stretch...

Can you come up with some fantasy scenario regarding Virginia, Maryland, and a wall through DC? It might make more sense, but please don't ask me or Muddle to do it for you.

BTW, I find it interesting how you pulled in the issue of the houses. In the U.S. it's customary for the police to evict all the occupants of homes where drug dealers do business, even though other occupants of those homes may not even know the dealing is going on. We don't destroy the homes. The homes are sold at auction usually. But the former occupants, whether guilty or innocent of the crime, are every bit as homeless as any Palestinian whose home was used by terrorists and was subsequently razed.

Nearly three thousand Americans were killed in one day. America's response was to invade Afghanistan and bomb the guilty with the innocent, and subsequently to invade Iraq and again bomb the guilty with the innocent. You may not think that was the right thing to do, and if you don't then I would agree with you on that, but that is what happened. In addition, Homeland Security measures have been imposed on all Americans and travelers to and fro in order to prevent further terrorist attacks. Again, you may not agree with this, but it is what we have.

A state that is the size of New Jersey has had hundreds, if not thousands of its citizens brutally murdered in a time frame that spans decades. After years of unrelenting terrorist attacks, they finally built a wall. I agree that a wall is ill-conceived, a bit silly, and inconvenient and humiliating for the Palestinians. It does seem to be limiting the number of terrorist attacks, though.

The West Bank consists of high land and mountains. From some of those mountaintops it's possible, on a clear day, to see all the way across Israel to the Mediterranean Sea. The West Bank hills and mountains have saved Israel from disaster more than once. Saddam's scuds failed to reach their targets during the Gulf War because his radar couldn't "see" past them to find their targets. Yet Israel is willing to relinquish that strategic territory away to people who have never wished her well in exchange for the mere promise of peace.

So you tell me. What exactly will it take for the Palestinians to accept the state that Israel has been offering them... with reparations and with a limited right of return (recalling that great grandfather's olive grove no longer exists to return to) at least since the 1990s?

[Darranar]

38. Well, yes, there is the question...

of how any nation would have the military capabilities to occupy territory that deep in the US. It is of course a hypothetical, not really meant to be a likely event; the point was simply to illustrate to some extent the situation of the Palestinians.

Assuming for a moment that an alliance of Latin American nations could contest the US on the battlefield, I think that Mexico might want its land back, plus a 'security buffer' (isn't that the justification given by some for the wall being off the Green Line?) and ensuring that the US remained divided might be a useful objective to those nations.

I agree totally that the US is worse than Israel. That hardly justifies Israel's actions, however, any more than the fact that Hitler was worse than Bush justifies Bush's actions.

When, exactly, has Israel offered the Palestinians a fair deal for a state?

[LeahMira]

54. OK... to try to answer...

It is of course a hypothetical, not really meant to be a likely event; the point was simply to illustrate to some extent the situation of the Palestinians.

Actually, I was vaguely thinking of some sort of Civil War type situation, but whatever...

I see parallels between the Palestinian situation and that of the American Indian tribes. Our solution was to make the Indian nations "domestic, dependent nations" and a hundred or so years later, in 1924, to make them all citizens of the U.S. First, though, we have to kill most of them off and also increase our own population to the point where our sheer numbers were overwhelming. At least Israel is trying to do better than we did!


That hardly justifies Israel's actions, however, any more than the fact that Hitler was worse than Bush justifies Bush's actions.

That's not at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is that while there is legitimate reason to criticise Israel, there is also legitimate reason to be far more critical of other nations in the world, including, sometimes, our own.


When, exactly, has Israel offered the Palestinians a fair deal for a state?

Here's a good site to begin reading: http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0401/article/040111a.html

Poke around some others of the links you'll find there and learn more.

Also, I'd suggest you get a copy of The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. You may not agree with everything you read (I don't, but haven't finished reading the whole book yet), but I believe it will start you thinking.

[Darranar]

55. The Geneva Accord is a great model for peace...

I support it and am very well aware of it.

Unfortunately, the current Israeli government has rejected it.

We seem to pretty much agree about everything else here.

[tinnypriv]

56. The Case for Israel

Is so unbelievably stupid I'm surprised Dershowitz even dares to commit such idiocy to print.

If you're interested why I state that so unequivocally, I can expand on that.

As for Geneva, it wasn't "offered" by Israel, and is unlikely to be (ever) unless the U.S. reverses course and decides to support it. There is very little support for the initiative at the political level in Israel, and I'm not just referring to Likud.

Also, as Tikkun probably well knows, in the interviews they have with Beilin he speaks of "mutual" security and benefits etc for both Palestinians and Israelis, but when he's addressing Israelis, it's a completely different story. Then it's a full-on hard sell.

(How the accord is sold on the Hebrew heskem site is one example of that, and Beilin's own statments in an Israeli center-right newspaper just compound it)

FWIW, though it doesn't change the above in the slightest, I'm a supporter of the accord and have been ever since it was published. I wrote a detailed examination on the subject, which if interested you can find in the archives somewhere (October 2003).

[Jack Rabbit]

16. It is not internal activity

The Wall is being constructed on land that is not and never has been part of the modern state of Israel. One of the issues before the Court is whether that constitutes an illegal annexation of the land.

The only dispute about this land exists in the minds of the Israeli right wing and their supporters, who believe that all the land from the river to the sea belongs to Israel. They should learn to read a map.

There is no dispute; this land is under a hostile military occupation. We can argue all day about whether there is a good reason for that (and I believe there is). However, the very fact that this territory is occupied places its administration under the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory. Under this convention, Israel does not have the right to build roads, bridges, fences or to allow parts of her own population to settle the occupied territory.

Calling the land disputed rather than occupied is little more than a way of obfuscating the issue and allowing Israelis to settle the land while denying basic rights to its inhabitants.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Until there is peace

The border between the future Palestinian state and the present Israeli state will be uncertain.

I think you and I both agree that the final border will NOT equate to the Green Line. That bit of fantasy has long since passed.

I call the land disputed because it is. There is no final determination on it -- hence a dispute.

[Jack Rabbit]

30. The Green Line would still be the starting point of negatiations

While final borders will not be the present Green Line, they will approximate it.

The Green Line has served as a de facto border between Israel and the West Bank for half a century.

The West Bank and Gaza are not disputed territories. They are occupied.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

36. the de facto border is...

de facts on de ground...

[Jack Rabbit]

40. Facts on the ground

The facts on the ground are over three and a half million Palestinian Arabs living in the Occupied Territories, making up 92% of the population of the West Bank and Gaza, who say that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel.

[sushi]

53. That is contradictory

First you say it's disputed territory and then you say what Israel does in this disputed territory is "internal activity."

[number6]

23. exactly right

;)

[Jack Rabbit]

13. In an attempt to satisfy your curiosity

I wonder why there's nothing in the news about the 1800-mile long fence between India and Pakistan or the 150-mile fence between Kuwait and Iraq.

Could it be because that, unlike this fence, those fences are built on internationally recognized boundaries?

This begs the question of whether any nation should build walls separating itself from another nation or whether a nation should build walls separating some groups of people within its borders from other groups of people.

Once again, I have not seen a post here that denies that Israel has a security problem with Palestinian terrorists or a legitimate right to do something about it. The issue raised is not with building a fence; the issue is where that fence is currently being constructed.

No one has yet given a good reason why a fence built on or closer to the Green Line would be any less effective in preventing terrorist acts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. The fence follows a path

To protect the maximum number of Israeli citizens. Until the border is formalized many live in areas some here do not wish Israel to protect, but protect it must.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. I disagree

See post number 16.

If the GOI were serious about protecting Israeli citizens, it would not encourage of even allow them to move into areas inhabitied by hostile Palestinians. Indeed, these Palestinians are made more hostile by the use of their land and rescources to benefit Israelis rather than themselves; they have a legitimate grievance in this respect.

What the GOI would do if it were really more serious about protecting Israelis rather than grabbing land is evacuate the settlers into a defensive parimeter and fortify it. That would encompass dismantling the settlements and building the wall at or near the Green Line.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Israel

No nation can possibly protect its citizens from complete attack by terrorists. It just can't be done. It doesn't matter if they are Gaza, Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, Israelis will be at risk from terrorists.

As you suggest, Israel IS setting up a defensive parimeter and fortifying it. They just aren't setting it up where you want them to.

[Djinn]

48. well...

that may be because those walls are delineating national borders - Israel's fence isn't and second those walls do not snake in and around the villages of foreigners cutting them off from each other and their land.

P.S - You might want to broaden your news intake though - there's been quite a bit about the India/Pakistan border over the last few years

[number6]

21. Israels wall of failure

ain't nuthin but a piece of shit ;)

[Jim Sagle]

25. What a harsh thing to say about the Peace Fence.

Whoever gave you that idea? ;-)

The Peace Fence...making the world a better place, one brick at a time.

[Comadreja]

33. Palace of the end

Did you hear that tanks and helicopters and infantry attacks every day crowded camps in Gaza? Did you know that in February 72 Palestinians were killed, among them children younger than 10 years old? Did you catch that multi-story buildings are demolished in the middle of the winter leaving hundreds without a roof since perhaps there isone enemy living there? Do you comprehend how much mourning and despair and hatred it creates? Do you understand the price Israel will pay in blood and wealth for these crimes?

members.tripod.com read more (3184 characters)

Quote: The palace of the end
Tuesday, Mar, 04 2003 (submitted: Mar, 04 2003) By Martin Amis

[tinnypriv]

39. The fence would probably have been irrelevant today, even if built

Given that the terrorist boarded the Egged in Talpiyot, he may have come from inside Jerusalem (where he worked in an Israeli settlement/neighbourhood).

He may also have come directly from his family home in Bethlehem, but the fence around there will probably end up being quite porus in any case (given the numbers who will move through each day).

Regardless of the above, the security guards on duty today should be fired for negligence.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. The solution is simpler

End all contact with the Palestinians except when, as needed, use of military action.

[tinnypriv]

44. As any remotely competent Israeli security analyst will tell you

Ending "all" contact between Jews and Palestinians in the WB is impossible.

It can be limited (to a large or small extent), but that is it.

There is also a not-minor consequence: it is a receipe for total disaster in the future (certainly for Palestinians, likely for Israelis, likely for both).

The last sentence an opinion. Everything else is fact.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. You can virtually end it

No Palestinians allowed into Israel under any circumstances. Those found are assumed to be terrorist invaders and jailed for not less than 20 years.

No business is done with Palestinians. No travel from Israel into the West Bank or Gaza is allowed. This includes aid workers, journalists, etc. Anyone who wants to enter the West Bank or Gaza must do so through other access points.

No contact between Israel and the PA is permitted.

All border crossings are closed and guarded for use only by the IDF if needed.

Then, over time, perhaps the Palestinians will realize that they actually need Israel. They need Israeli jobs. They need Israeli tourism. They need Israeli gambling money in their casino. They need Israeli cooperation on infrastructure. They need access to Israel for travel.

And then, maybe, they will opt to eliminate the terrorists rather than lose those things. If not, that is their choice.

[tinnypriv]

47. Not much of that is workable

Though I suspect you won't take my word for it, so I won't go into detail.

I will suggest that you take the time to research the subject. One hint: ask any Israeli who specialises in the field (perhaps an academic, they're more likely to be polite and check their bgu emails every day to boot).

BTW, since you indirectly acknowledged that "all" is inaccurate, perhaps after doing the above you'll also rewrite your options to reflect reality on the ground (I'll repeat: you're not wholly wrong).

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. I have friends in Israel from my time there

They don't disagree.

[tinnypriv]

52. "specialises in the field"

Are the magic words.

[Djinn]

49. then you can watch Israel's economy slide

without Palestinian labor there's not enough people left working...why do you think they havn't already tried this...successive Israeli governments have absolutely no desire to take this action

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Outside labor

Israel has been shipping in labor from Eastern Europe and Asia. It might be a little more costly up front, but it lacks the same security concerns, so the overall costs are less.

Israel is reluctant to do this because it means acceptance that there won't be peace any time soon. Israel still wants peace, though that remains the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and there are no rainbows in sight.