|
|
| Author |
Message |
oval
|
|
wall of shame
| 
Aug 5 16:46 UTC 2003 |
check out the WALL
http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2003/08/13163.shtml
|
| 166 responses total. |
oval
|
|
response 1 of 166:
|
Aug 5 16:57 UTC 2003 |
and btw:
The officially stated reason for building the 'security fence' is to prevent
the unauthorised passage of Palestinians out of the West Bank. However, the
route of the so-called does not follow the internationally
recognised pre-1967 borders of the State of Israel. The Israeli authorities
refuse to publish the official path of their 'security' . However,
research carried out by the Israeli human rights group, BTselem, the
planned route for the fence will isolate a number of Palestinian villages
and rob a great many more of their farmland. Thereby, enabling the
acquisition of even more Palestinian land by the Israeli state. B Tselem
estimates that the Apartheid Wall will cause direct harm to at least 210,000
Palestinians in 67 cities, towns and villages.
http://palsolidarity.org/pressreleases/PR_28Jul03_20_16_47JeninISMJenin.htm
|
klg
|
|
response 2 of 166:
|
Aug 5 16:59 UTC 2003 |
Yes. It is a shame that the Arabs have been unable to control their
killings of innocent women, children and the elderly, for had they been
willing and able to do so, the wall would not have been built.
|
novomit
|
|
response 3 of 166:
|
Aug 5 17:00 UTC 2003 |
From what I understand, the Israeli record hasn't been much better.
|
klg
|
|
response 4 of 166:
|
Aug 5 17:02 UTC 2003 |
Ah. A misunderstanding.
|
novomit
|
|
response 5 of 166:
|
Aug 5 17:03 UTC 2003 |
Promoted by our "free press" no doubt.
|
oval
|
|
response 6 of 166:
|
Aug 5 17:14 UTC 2003 |
wall photo gallery:
http://www.4blacksheep.com/photos/separation_wall/
Frequently Asked Questions:
Israel has recently announced that it will isolate Palestinians from Israelis
(both inside Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories) by erecting
walls and buffer zones in a plan styled unilateral separation.
1. Whats wrong with Israels unilateral separation and the
construction of a wall?
The wall will not be built on Israels border. [1] Israel has already
announced that it will build the wall to the east of Israels border in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories, thereby de facto annexing more Palestinian
land. The strategy is to annex as much Palestinian land as possible while
militarily caging in as many Palestinians as possible, all in an attempt to
continue Israels colonization and occupation of Palestinian land. At the same
time, Israel will effectively isolate Palestinian population centers from one
another,[2] and restrict not only freedom of movement of individuals but also
of goods and services, thereby worsening an already crippled Palestinian
economy.
2. Where is Israel planning to build the wall?
Israel will build the wall east of Israels 1967 border in Occupied Palestinian
Territory, thereby de facto annexing more Palestinian land, in particular with
respect to Occupied East Jerusalem.
Not only will Israel build a wall, Israel has also begun erecting
militarily-enforced electrified fences around Palestinian controlled Areas
A (consisting of approximately 17.2% of the West Bank divided into 13 separate
non-contiguous ghettos). The wall, the fences and the new movement
restrictions for Palestinians[3] effectively cage Palestinians into
Israeli-created ghettos or Bantustans.
Israel is not building the wall on the 1967 border. Israeli governments led
by both Labor and Likud have repeatedly stated that Israel will not return
to the pre-1967 border.[4]
3. Isnt the wall necessary for Israels security?
No. The wall is not protecting Israeli citizens inside Israel, it is instead
protecting Israels occupation, illegal colonies and ongoing colonization of
Palestinian land. If Israel is truly interested in its security it will do
one or both of the following: (1) withdraw completely from all of the
territories it occupied in 1967 or (2) place additional security on its
internationally-recognized border, rather than in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories.
Israel has long had the formula for peace and security end the occupation.
In exchange for its complete withdrawal from Palestinian and other Arab land
occupied in 1967, Israel will live in peace and in security. Despite the fact
that peace and normalization were recently offered to Israel by the entire
Arab world during the Arab League Summit of March 2002, Israel walked away
from this gesture, demonstrating that it prefers land and colonization to
peace and security.
4. What is Israel really trying to do by building a wall?
Israel is attempting to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories
by establishing militarily-enforced Palestinian ghettos corresponding to the
Palestinian population centers, while continuing its illegal colonization
policy. The walls will ensure that Palestinians are denied the ability to
move, while Israeli settlers will be able to freely travel throughout the
Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Unilateral separation and walls will also ensure that Occupied East Jerusalem
is completely sealed off from the rest of the Occupied West Bank, in violation
of international law, UN Resolutions and the stated policy of the United
States.[5]
5. Is Israels unilateral separation legal under international law?
No. Unilateral separation violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, including
the following obligations which cannot be abrogated by invoking military
necessity:
* Prohibition on the Use of Collective Punishment:
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not
personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of
intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. (Fourth Geneva Convention,
Article 33(1))
The wall will serve to divide the Occupied Palestinian Territories with
movement from one area to another controlled entirely by the Israeli army,
in effect punishing the entire Palestinian population. Jewish Israelis
illegally living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories will, however, enjoy
total freedom of movement.
* Prohibition Against Annexation:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any
case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention
by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into
the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement
concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the
Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of
the occupied territory. (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 47)
Israel will de facto annex additional areas of the Occupied Palestinian
Territories.
6. Is Israels unilateral separation legal under the Oslo Agreements?
No, unilateral separation violates the Oslo Agreements.
Obligation to Preserve the Territorial Integrity of the Occupied
Palestinian Territories:
The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial
unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim
period. (Interim Agreement, Chapter 2, Article XI)
The construction of a wall within the Occupied Palestinian Territories
violates the territorial integrity of the West Bank.
Prohibition Against Restricting Freedom of Movement:
Without derogating from Israels security powers and responsibilities in
accordance with this Agreement, movement of people, vehicles and goods in the
West Bank, between cities, towns, villages and refugee camps, will be free
and normal and shall not need to be effected through checkpoints or
roadblocks. (Interim Agreement, Annex I, Article IX, para 2(a))
Israels security powers, with respect to freedom of movement, extend only to
prohibiting or limiting the entry into Israel of persons and of vehicles from
the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Building a wall within the Occupied
West Bank affects Palestinian freedom of movement not only into Israel, but
also within and throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
7. What is the international community doing to stop this?
Nothing that has had any effect. The Fourth Geneva Convention obliges the
international community to ensure that the Convention, the primary purpose
of which is to protect a population under occupation, is respected:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and ensure respect for the
present Convention in all circumstances. (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article
1)
Despite the fact that these actions are illegal under international law and
the Oslo Agreements, the international community has not stopped Israel. The
international community continues to teach Israel that it is above the law.
|
klg
|
|
response 7 of 166:
|
Aug 6 00:07 UTC 2003 |
Now that the hysterics have abated, may we consider some factual and
more logical information?
http://www.aipac.org/obstacletoterrorism072903.htm
Near East Report, July 29, 2003
Obstacle to Terrorism
"After nearly three years of Palestinian terrorism, including 122
successful suicide bombings originating in the West Bank, Israel is
building a security fence along its porous border. . .
"While Israel continues to look to the Palestinian Authority (PA) to
dismantle terrorist groups . . . the Jewish state is taking its own
steps to thwart attacks by constructing the fence . . . "This fence is
aimed at preventing terrorist attacks and attempts to torpedo the peace
process," Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said . . .
"The security fence . . . should to a large extent negate the need for
the IDF to carry out military action against terrorists in civilian
areas . . . Having a fence as a security buffer would also reduce the
number of IDF soldiers within Palestinian cities and towns and would
serve to minimize the uses of curfews and other security measures . . .
"(W)here the construction of the security fence has separated
Palestinian farmers from their fields, Israel has begun creating dozens
of agricultural passageways to enable the farmers to tend to their
crops. Additionally, more than 60,000 olive trees that lay in the path
of the security fence have been uprooted and replanted . . .
"Israel has approved two sections of the fence, both of which run close
to the former "Green Line" border. . .
"Along only three sections of the security fence, Israel has built
large, concrete barricades. Accounting for less than 10 percent of the
entire defensive obstacle, these walls are built right on the former
"Green Line" near centers of Palestinian terrorism. . .
"The Palestinian town of Qalqilya, which sits adjacent to the Israeli
town of K'far Saba, is the only major Palestinian population area that
will have a defensive physical obstacle installed around its perimeter
under currently approved plans . . . During times of calm, residents
will be able to travel east into the West Bank via the major road out of
the city without any security checkpoints. So-called enclaves such as
Qalqilya will only affect 2 percent of Palestinians . . .
"The security fence can be moved or removed to meet a future peace deal.
. . In the past, Israel has been willing to move fences . . . Along the
border with Lebanon. . . Israel has moved sections of fence more than a
dozen times in order to implement its U.N.-certified withdrawal from
Lebanon. . . ."
|
pvn
|
|
response 8 of 166:
|
Aug 6 06:13 UTC 2003 |
#7 doesn't seem to contradict previous claims. I think even the
canadians would have a problem if the US built walls and bunkers on the
canadian side of the border. I'm sure mexico would. Perhaps the
solution is for the IDF to pay rent to the landowners to build stuff
that isn't on their own property.
|
mary
|
|
response 9 of 166:
|
Aug 6 13:25 UTC 2003 |
Israel is welcome to wall itself in. No problem.
But what is happening, even mentioned in #8, is
Israel is enclosing Palestinian areas as a defensive
action.
Totally unacceptable.
What amazes me is how Israelis can possibly think
this will work or help the peace process.
|
oval
|
|
response 10 of 166:
|
Aug 6 13:43 UTC 2003 |
if i were to shove a loaded gun into klg's mouth, we'd get along pretty well.
|
klg
|
|
response 11 of 166:
|
Aug 6 16:33 UTC 2003 |
re: "#8 (pvn): #7 doesn't seem to contradict previous claims."
We beg to differ:
1. However, the route of the so-called does not follow the
internationally recognised pre-1967 borders of the State of Israel.
Accoriding to the Arabs, Israel had/has no recognized borders. And
since 1967, that is irrelevant.
2. the planned route for the fence will isolate a number of
Palestinian villages
Perhaps; however, provisions are made for travel into and out of the
villages.
3. rob a great many more of their farmland
Provisions are made for farmers to be able to reach their fields.
4. B Tselem estimates that the Apartheid Wall will cause direct harm
to at least 210,000 Palestinians in 67 cities, towns and villages.
What do they mean by direct harm and where do they get their number??
5. thereby de facto annexing more Palestinian land
If you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that the
term defacto annexing is nonsense, as demonstrated by the fact that
Israel has pulled back from the lines of fences it previously erected.
6. Israel will effectively isolate Palestinian population centers
from one another
With only 2% of the Arab population being surrounded, it is ludicrous
to claim that population centers are being isolated.
7. worsening an already crippled Palestinian economy
The Arab economic problems are those of their own making, not of
Israel s.
We have neither the time, nor inclination to spend further time
responding to the dozens of other errors.
And, Mr. oval, based on what we read in your so-called "argument" we
have serious doubts that you'd be able to place the correct end of your
gun in our mouth were you to be given the opportunity. But your rabid
anti-semitism is, none the less, still projected loud and clear.
Have a pleasant day.
|
jep
|
|
response 12 of 166:
|
Aug 6 18:40 UTC 2003 |
re resp:9: I try not to take sides between the Palestinians and Israel,
and for that matter, don't usually pay much attention to their problems
with each other.
That said... I've noticed that people who become frustrated when they
attempt solutions to a problem, but don't see any results, then tend to
try increasingly unusual solutions. They can be obviously ineffective
to outsiders, and can seem likely to make a problem a lot worse.
For example, a person who catches his clothing on fire might try to
beat it out with his hands. If that doesn't work, he might try running
around (panicking). When you're in an intolerable situation like that,
it's really difficult to just do nothing. You might do the wrong
thing, but the situation is intolerable, and so there's nothing you can
do to make it much worse for yourself. Anyone around can tell you that
running around is not effective at stopping yourself from being burned,
because they've got a better perspective. Eventually, through advice,
or by stumbling across the right answer, you will either fall into a
lake, roll around on the ground until the fire is extinguished -- which
*hurts* while you're doing it -- or you'll be very badly burned and
possibly even die.
So here's Israel, which doesn't know how to solve it's problems, but
has tried a lot of different things, none of which have worked.
They're getting attacked by suicide bombings all the time; there's no
denying they've got pain. There's no way for them to determine what
solutions are analogous to a burning man running around, and what ones
are akin to rolling around or falling into a lake. Everyone in the
rest of the world is shouting advice to them. The advice is all
different. Much has been tried before without positive results. Some
of the rest must seem as ludicrous as someone shouting to a burning man
that he douse himself in gasoline.
So, they're going to try something else now. It probably won't work.
Maybe their problems don't *have* solutions -- but it seems to me
they've got to keep trying. Giving up is no good either.
|
slynne
|
|
response 13 of 166:
|
Aug 6 19:19 UTC 2003 |
The fence wont work unless it gets placed in a fair place. Hopefully,
this is something that can be negotiated.
|
klg
|
|
response 14 of 166:
|
Aug 6 19:44 UTC 2003 |
You ought to know that the fence has been used successfully on the
borders with both Gaza and with Lebanon. Israel is probably more
concerned with what is effective (i.e., protecting its citizens from
terrorists) than what some other individuals for their own political
purposes may or may not deem to be "fair."
|
slynne
|
|
response 15 of 166:
|
Aug 6 20:19 UTC 2003 |
It wont be effective if it isnt fair. Because if people are pissed off
enough (or caged), they will cause problems.
|
cross
|
|
response 16 of 166:
|
Aug 6 20:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 17 of 166:
|
Aug 6 22:28 UTC 2003 |
re: "#15 (slynne): It wont be effective if it isnt fair. Because if
people are pissed off enough (or caged), they will cause problems. "
Correct. The proof of such being how the Arabs have behaved during the
50+ years when there was no fence!
|
cross
|
|
response 18 of 166:
|
Aug 6 23:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 19 of 166:
|
Aug 6 23:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 20 of 166:
|
Aug 7 03:10 UTC 2003 |
So because some people hate Israel, that absolves them of any responsibility
to play fair?
|
other
|
|
response 21 of 166:
|
Aug 7 03:31 UTC 2003 |
Not to excuse anything, but Israel is very much in a "damned if you do,
damned if you don't" situation with the Palestinians.
No matter what Israel does, it will be blamed for not doing enough, or
not doing it right, while on the whole, the Palestinians have shown
absolutely no will to do the ONE thing that will allow Israel to ease up
on them: crack down effectively on the promotion and practice of
terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.
I am no big fan of the practices of the more extreme elements of the
Israeli society, but the fact remains that attacks on random Palestinians
who are just going about their daily business are not an acceptable
practice in mainstream Israel, and the inverse simply cannot be said of
the Palestinians.
|
other
|
|
response 22 of 166:
|
Aug 7 03:33 UTC 2003 |
err, "converse" not "inverse"
|
cross
|
|
response 23 of 166:
|
Aug 7 14:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 24 of 166:
|
Aug 7 15:10 UTC 2003 |
And during this "hudna" ceasefire, the PA refuses to disarm the terrorist
groups who instead are using this time to rebuild their forces. Already
they are indicating that they won't agree to continue the ceasefire beyond
the 3-month period -- if they'll even keep it that long.
Prime Minister Abbas must disarm and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure
in the PA.
A few of the claims in the propaganda peace above need to be addressed:
> The wall is not protecting Israeli citizens inside Israel, it is instead
> protecting Israels occupation, illegal colonies and ongoing colonization
> of Palestinian land.
Fact of the matter is that 122 of the 122 successful suicide bombings (100%)
originated from Trans-Jordan's former "West Bank". No such attackers have come
out of Gaza. There already is a security fence between Israel and Gaza.
Terrorists in Gaza have been lobbing mortars and Qassam rockets (at Israeli
population centers), but with very limited success (they end up falling in
fields in this mostly unpopulated region).
Similarly there is a fence along the Lebanese border. There has been only 1
successful infiltration from Lebanon into Israel in the 3.3 years since
Israel's withdrawal from its 6-mile security zone. Hezbollah is limited to
firing anti-aircraft weapons across the border. Another mostly futile exercise
(about the worst damage they've done is starting forest fires).
Does the author truly consider Hebron to be a Jewish "colony"? Until their
massacre in the 1929 anti-Jewish pogrom, Jews had been living in Hebron,
continuously, for at least 3300 years. Those who returned following the riots
were forced out (or rather, escaped, if they managed to) in 1948 when
Trans-Jordan attacked Israel in violation of UN Resolution 181. That Hebron
was illegally held by Trans-Jordan for 19 years (until 1967) makes Jews living
in Hebron "colonizers"?!
Talk about entitlement, what makes all the land "Palestinian land", as if by
default? Until the end of WW I this was Turkish land, then it was a British
mandate (charged with developing the Jewish Homeland) until 1948. Previously
it hasn't been "Arab land" since before the Crusades (and then only as a
colony taken, and lost, by force). What next? Is Grenada a Spanish colony
in "Arab land"? Is Shiraz a Persian colony on "Arab land"?
(Similarly reference to the Geneva Conventions and "occupation" ignore Article
2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which defines what constitutes an
"occupation", and this situation does NOT qualify. If you think it does, ask
the Arab states why they haven't pursued proper LEGAL venues for resolving
this issue, such as taking this before the World Court rather the POLITICAL
venues such as the UN.)
> If Israel is truly interested in its security it will do one or both
> of the following: (1) withdraw completely from all of the territories
> it occupied in 1967 or (2) place additional security on its
> internationally-recognized border
There is a great misconception in the propaganda piece which references to the
"1967 border". That is the border that currently exists between Israel and
Jordan along the Jordan river. Elsewhere it is correctly identified as the
"pre-1967 border", which is a code for the 1949 border. It's not an
"internationally-recognized border" but the ceasefire lines of the 1949
armistice -- which specifically states that these borders are open to
negotiation.
With deference to this, despite Arab opposition, UN Security Council
Resolution 242 (the Resolution of record in this matter and further enshrined
in the Camp David and Oslo Accords), does not call for a complete Israeli
withdrawal but for a negotiated withdrawal as part of a comprehensive peace
agreement.
That's why the PLO and Arab states rejected UNSCR 242 for a quarter century
or more (the lone exception was Egypt, which after a decade made peace with
Israel and was promptly thrown out of the Arab League).
> Israel has long had the formula for peace and security - end the occupation.
> In exchange for its complete withdrawal from Palestinian and other Arab land
> occupied in 1967, Israel will live in peace and in security.
Really? Then why did the Arabs refuse to make peace prior to 1967? They
rejected UNGAR 181 in 1947. They rejected UNGAR 194 in 1949. And in 1956, as
a gesture of good will and faith, Israel withdrew from all territories it
captured in that war. Yet the Arab League re-issued its infamous "3 NOs"
declaration: No negotiations, No recognition, No peace with Israel.
For more on this, see:
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/29263.php
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/44258.php
Why reject peace and opt for war? Because the goal was NOT peaceful
coexistence but rather to destroy Israel. A goal that cannot be achieved
by peace and must be pursued through violence.
This can further be seen in the "Covenant" of the PLO (established in 1964,
3 years before 1967) which rejects all non-violent solutions. See:
http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/32147.php
In fact, even before Israel held the disputed territories, the Arab states
vowed its destruction, which is why there was another war in 1967 (and 1973).
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/48626_comment.php#48635
> Despite the fact that peace and normalization were recently offered to
> Israel by the entire Arab world during the Arab League Summit of March 2002,
> Israel walked away from this gesture....
This reference is to the Saudi "Plan-in-the-drawer", which the Arab League
never accepted or issued. The plan stayed in the drawer because it lacked
support in the Arab world. It's mind-numbing that this is considered
progress. One has to ask: where were the Saudis and most of the Arab world
during 7 years of Oslo?
|