The Wall, 10 years on / part 11: Security for Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

The immediate trigger to start building the wall was the security of Israeli citizens. Ten years later, with all the known accumulated effects on Palestinians, nature, economy and political affairs – has the barrier fulfilled its stated goal for Israelis?

Standing on the cemetery mount in Budrus, at first sight the separation fence seems to make perfect sense. Over the clouds of tear gas rising from the field below where the village youth and the army youth are exchanging stones for grenades, beyond the fence which is now almost on the Green Line after the famed local popular struggle led the army to change the route of the fence and give back 95 percent of the village’s lands, and through the brownish fog of car smoke that sits on top of the heart of the land – one can clearly see the Tel Aviv skyline. Only twenty kilometers away, one can actually recognize some famous buildings that seem surprisingly close.
Standing here, one can easily understand why Israel wants this fence to be here. As mentioned in the first chapter of this series, it was the wave of suicide attacks on Israeli cities that created public pressure on the government to build the wall, and this fence here that prevents Palestinians from accessing the biggest metropolis in the country freely and quickly seems to be just the solution.

<snip>

As mentioned earlier in the series, the length of the zig-zagging barrier is more than twice that of the Green Line and is thus clearly harder to protect. But it’s not just the route as a whole that offers less than the best defense possible, it’s also certain specific fragments of it. In 2005 the High Court of Justice repealed its own ruling, and shifted the fence built near the settlement of Tzufin. Justice Aharon Barak ruled that the state lied to the court by hiding the fact that this section of the route was planned for the benefit of future settlement expansion – and not solely for security reasons. It was a ruling that would cost the fence planner and the settler Colonel (res.) Danny Tirza his job – but not to worry: the same Tirza has recently been hired by Prime Minister Netanyahu to sketch a future border for Israel to present in negotiations.

In a different case, that of the village of Bil’in, the court found that not only was the route planned with the expansion of the Matityahu East settlement in mind, but that it was actually tactically inferior. “There is no doubt that the route endangers patrolling troops,” wrote former Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch. “Considering previous cases in which we were told of the importance of keeping the fence in dominant topographical positions the current route raises some questions.”

While it is possible to argue that cases such as these prove the security value of the wall, as the system appears to be able to mend its own errors where the route requires it, I wish to add some skepticism to the equation: for who is to say that the local Palestinian community even bothered going to court in all places where planners chose an annexing route? Who’s to say that evidence such as that hidden by the army and revealed by the petitioners in the cases of Jayous and Bil’in could have been revealed elsewhere? And what about the long term security implications of the High Court’s own consistent choice to accept the state’s odd claim that the wall is “temporary” and may thus be allowed to engulf and protect major settlements?

http://972mag.com/the-wall-10-years-on-part-11-security-for-israel/50900/

[hack89]

1. Yes - it stopped the bombings. nt

[holdencaufield]

2. And THAT is the reason they hate it. NT

[shira]

3. This is why the morons at +972 find a more receptive audience (useful idiots) outside Israel. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

4. And who is 'they'?

Has it ever crossed yr mind that many people oppose the route the wall takes because of the harm it does to Palestinian civilians, as well as it being a defacto annexation of territory beyond the Green Line rather than clinging to some pathetic vision that people are opposed to it because they get their jollies that Israelis get killed or something?

[shira]

5. 'They' are the people who won't allow Israel to defend itself in any manner...

If Israel sets up roadblocks or checkpoints, it is criticized.


If it invades temporarily, destroys aggressors, and withdraws, it is criticised.


If it shoots back, it is criticised.

If it performs a surgical strike against one aggressor, it is accused of “extrajudicial killings”.


If it interrupts the war supply chain from Iran, it is accused of violation of sovereignty.

If it builds a wall to stop suicide bombers, it is criticized.

Thus anything Israelis do in self-defense is criticised, other than lay down and die.

=====

In fact, it's so bad that Israel's detractors do not claim Israel is acting in self-defense at all. They argue Israel is trying to steal land, punish Palestinians, be mean, cruel, practice their ethnic supremacy via their racist apartheid policy, do full-on genocide, ethnic cleansing, act like Nazis, etc... all out of malice. Self-defense is just an excuse, the holocaust is invoked for the wrong reasons, etc....

That's who "they" are.

"They" are vile, disgusting, rabid racists and bigots who pretend to care about Palestinian human rights while showing nothing but utter disdain for the human rights of Jews.

[azurnoir]

6. here is why the criticism

If Israel sets up roadblocks or checkpoints, it is criticized

the roadblocks are placed throughout the occupied West Bank how is impeding the movement of Palestinians in their own territory security for the Israel? .



If it invades temporarily, destroys aggressors, and withdraws, it is criticised.


the temporary invasions usually involve the destruction of civilian infrastructure

If it shoots back, it is criticised

it usually shoots back via F-17 bombings .

If it performs a surgical strike against one aggressor, it is accused of “extrajudicial killings”.


yes it criticized over that like when Israel herded an entire family into a compound and then 'surgically struck' killing women and children along with Israels target, then excused it self with the customary "oops"

If it interrupts the war supply chain from Iran, it is accused of violation of sovereignty.

wtf are you talking about give an example

If it builds a wall to stop suicide bombers, it is criticized.

Israel is criticized over choosing to use the wall as a pretext to take more Palestinian land, if the Israeli wall followed the Green Line then little would or could be said

Thus anything Israelis do in self-defense is criticised, other than lay down and die.

simply untrue

[shira]

10. You've made it clear why you criticize Israel while never criticizing Arab leadership....

To criticize Arab leadership in your view is to delegitimize. It's a waste of time as it would have no effect. It shouldn't be done until after a Palestinian state, etc.

So cut the shit about human or civil rights.

[azurnoir]

12. No I did not do anything that you claim in that comment I refuted your comment

nothing more or less

but if you want to through civil rights in why is that you seem to have no problem with Palestinian civil rights being stepped on as long as it's Israel's foot?

[shira]

14. You wrote Israel built the wall as a pretext to take more land....

Yes, of course that's why Israel did it.

Has nothing to do with security at all.

You prove my point.

[azurnoir]

16. attempting to change the subject again?

I wrote that if the wall followed the Green Line there would be fewer complaints, so explain to us exactly why it is necessary for Israel to lay claim to Palestinian olive groves and agricultural lands for its security?

and BTW economic security is also under the heading of security

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Okay, so 'they' are anyone who criticises checkpoints, the wall, or extrajudicial killings...

Sorry, but most people at DU are critical of those things. Calling us all bigots and racists is ugly and dishonest.

Probably if you were able to show just a shred of empathy for the Palestinian people instead of trying to portray people who criticise Israel as bigots, you'd be able to see exactly why people do criticise the route of the barrier...

on edit: my apologies to Holden. I've only just woken up and mistakenly thought that ugly rant I replied to was from them. To Shira, how about you let the person who's asked a question it just for once. If I want to ask something about something you've said, then I'll ask you. But when I ask someone else about something they've said, I expect that they'll turn up and answer, unless they've appointed you their spokesman. So take the really ugly smearing routine and nip at someone else's heels with it...

[shira]

9. "They" are those who criticize EVERYTHING Israel does to protect its citizens. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Uh, thanks for clarifying that, Holden!

Another great example of not bothering to read what's posted...

Have a great day!!

[azurnoir]

7. once again who exactly is "they" Holden?

not that expect an answer ..........

[holdencaufield]

13. If you're offended...

... you may be a "they".

There are people who feel the wall is wrong because it impedes "armed struggle". If you feel that, you're a "they". If you don't, then don't worry about it.

The wall saves lives -- Jewish lives, Arab lives, Palestinian lives. I don't have a problem with saving lives, do you?

[azurnoir]

15. oh so you meant me?

I feel that if the wall followed the Green Line there would be far fewer complaints but it does indeed protect Israel's 'security' interests to lay claim to Palestinian agricultural land does it not, but exactly what kind of security is to be debated

[holdencaufield]

17. "if the wall followed the Green Line there would be far fewer complaints"

Respectfully, I disagree. First of all, the Green Line isn't relevant to the wall. The Green Line is an armistice line, not a border. The UN resolution that created it makes that abundantly clear. It wasn't even an armistice with the Palestinians, it was an Armistice with Jordan. The Green Line is as politically relevant to this debate as the Mason-Dixon Line.

However, if Israel had installed the wall spot on the Green Line without a centimeter of deviation, there would still be the same complaints -- "apartheid wall", "outdoor prison", "Palestinian ghetto" ... yadda, yadda, yadda. They complainants would just have to revise their arguments.

If the wall was on the Green Line, there would still be checkpoints. Lest we forget the ONLY reason the wall is there to begin with is that the PA prefer "armed struggle" to good faith negotiation. My advice to Palestinians and their facilitators... drop the "armed struggle" (it's not working anyway), negotiate in good faith with no preconditions and take what you can get.

Or -- continue as before -- hold out for everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea -- and see how that works out.

[azurnoir]

18. The Green line is not relevant to Israel who refuses to officially declare its borders

Last edited Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

but who's actions and recent committee decisions would say that it considers Israel to be from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), so it seems your confused or projecting here but its okay I'm quite used to that

You'll find though a good deal of the rest of the world does see the Green Line as Israels border