Permits ordered for Palestinians

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1071768,00.html

The Israeli military has ordered thousands of Palestinians living near the steel and concrete "security fence" through the West Bank to obtain special permits to live in their own homes.
Palestinian officials said the order breached a pledge by Israel to the UN security council a fortnight ago that the barrier would not change the legal status of those who live near it, and was another step towards the annexation of tens of thousands of hectares of Palestinian land.

The order, signed by the Israeli army's commander in the West Bank, Major General Moshe Kaplinski, said Palestinian land between the fence and the 1967 border, known as the green line, was to be a "closed military zone".

Any Palestinian who lived in the area would be defined by a new category of "long-term resident" and everyone over the age of 12 would be required to obtain a permit to live in their own homes and travel beyond their villages.

The order said that only Israelis and Jews could enter the designated areas without a pass.

no point respecting their rights.

Israelis are not making any sense. Other than the United States, they have no real allies. And world opinion against them is growing. I don't understand how they think they can prevail against the growing discontent in the Arab world, not to mention the diminishing sympathy from everyone else. Nothing that they are doing right now makes any sense unless Sharon is starting to feel that his days are numbered and he'd better grab all the gusto he can in the time he has left.

Check out the Samaria salient. The Green Line is flat terrain (easy to defend) but the route of the wall is in rough, mountaineous terrain (very hard to defend).

The explicit purpose is obviously to annex territory for the settlements. If I recall correctly, they actually extended the fence by 100km for that alone (virtually conceded by now by competent commentators).

Smart folks like Rappaport (Military correspondent of Ha'aretz), and Caspit (same paper) have been making the above points for a while, so don't take my word for it. The final route of the wall is just the confirmation, as if anybody needed any.

actually i think flat terrain is harder to defend tinnypriv. with flat terrain movement is easy, no natural barriers against an opposing force. with rougher terrain, it is harder to cross thru in any mass amounts as anyone trying to get thru would have to go thru limited passes in the mountains or go over them. a much slower process giving a country time to react in case of an invasion.

peace
david
:hippie:

I'm only quoting Rappaport, who himself quotes 'security sources' as saying that having the wall run thru non-flat terrain is a 'security mistake'.

The point I gave is actually generally accepted by other military commentators as well.

In a normal military situation one would want to defend on higher ground.
There is no reason to expect the IDF to be in a defensive posture under conventional
operating conditions though, the Palestinians have no conventional forces, zero.

The reason that running around in the hills is bad is because it reduces visibility
in the neighborhood of the wall, hence makes sneaky approaches more feasible and
makes patrols and such less effective, hence it makes the wall harder to defend against
guerilla attacks. Guerillas hide in the mountains because they have greater freedom of
movement there, more places to hide, etc.

If you want to make the wall highly secure with minimal manpower requirements you run it
through big flat places where it is impossible to approach without being seen.

Edit: I expect it's a good deal more expensive to construct in the hills, too.

Thanks :thumbsup:

Visibilty is the key, and for this purpose, that enjoyed over flat ground is far better.

"High ground" is frequently over-rated by amatuers, and particularly so in rugged terrain. The highest point available often offers the poorest view, particularly of the approach to itself. There is often a good deal of "dead ground" invisible to defenders of such a postion.

The arms employed are important too. It can give you an
excellent vantage point or make you and excellent target,
depending on the means the enemy has at his disposal. I understand
that the Taliban and their friends in Afghanistan learned that it was good to
stay off the ridges.

Edit: spelling.

I meant to say Ma'ariv, not Ha'aretz.

Ze'ev Schiff is Ha'aretz correspondent.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Would you deny being close to the wall IS a security zone? Wanted to know who exactly is living in that area and who should NOT be in that area makes perfect sense when you consider the terrorists who lie in wait on the other side.

Like everywhere else in the world.

I don't need to go through any red tape to go into my house. Do you?

That depends on where I'm coming from, where I've been. Of course the permits are issued like ID cards. So everyone carries an ID card to go through checkposts.

If you have zoning laws, you have to have a permit to build your house. If the zone is changed, you have to recognize the new laws. You have to be registered with the Ministry of Interior in any case.

has an interesting flash presentation about the wall. The presentation is remarkable in that you can watch greater Israel expand eastward all the way to the Jordan River, while Palestinian land shrinks to two Gaza-like prisons. Check it out here:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/seperationmap_eng.swf

It would appear the Intifada I and II plans of Mr. Arafat are not working well, eh? Perhaps a peace plan might work better.

neither were Arafat's plan.. both were spontaneous popular uprisings without bureaucratic oversight to weigh them down at the start (that unfortunately came later). He piggybacked them at best, was used by Israel to hijack and suppress them at worst.

That's enough. He could also have stopped them and that's more than enough. The Intifadas have been a disaster for both sides.

calling them "his plans" is a lie (he still mistakenly believed there was a political solution in both cases and was busy kissing up to US/Israeli people trying to present himself as useful in controlling the Palestinians for their benefit, the uprisings caught all of the self-appointed leaders off guard and he had to race to keep himself relevant in the eyes of the people who actually matter) and reveals a deep ignorance as to their founding causes or basic properties. That baseline black hole being established, everything said afterwards is invalidating and practically irrelevant.
How could he stop a popular uprising? By completely being Israel's lackey and doing their dirty work? Why?

Arafat has talked out of both sides of his mouth so long it's amazing his head stays on. He has always believed that negotiation COUPLED with terrorism is an effective strategy and it has been in some ways. It certainly has caused harm to both groups.

Arafat is still the leader of the Palestinians. As such, he could have stopped it instead of encouraging and facilitating it.

He is not Israel's lackey. A lackey does what you want.

if you also called on Sharon to stop Israeli terrorism, instead of encouraging and facilitating it.

But you don't, therefore you have no credibility with anyone who has even a minimal understanding of the situation.

No action Sharon can take will bring peace. Arafat can shut down the terror network and THAT will lead to peace. Because the terror groups don't want peace with Israel, they want to destroy Israel. Until they are dealt with, Israel has no options.

NO, there are always two sides to the coin and it gets both sides to get peace. If you expect Palestinians giving up while Sharon builds new settlements, steals more land, occupies more territory, builds more wall cutting of many Palestinians, you are VERY wrong. And you obviously don't understand the part about MUTUAL ceasefire and other actions violating international law and UN conventions.

There are actions Israel will need to take to ensure peace. But right now, the Palestinians do not speak with one voice so Israel has no one to negotiate with. The Palestinians need to end the terror so they speak with one voice both diplomatically and militarily.

Actually, I expect Palestinians to not give up, I expect them to settle for a peace that, while not exactly what they want, would give them statehood and a home of their own.

As long as the terrorists vow total destruction of Israel, there can be no peace -- not short-term and not long-term.

and therefore they should give up?

My argument is that the Palestinians are allowing the terrorists to speak for them. As long as they continue to do so, there can be no peace. So, if the Palestinians want peace, THEY need to shut down the terror network and speak with one voice.

And they could, if they wanted to, shutdown the terrorists
and speak with one voice.

And if they want peace, that is the only way it can happen.

In the meantime, the GOI has no will of its own, and can only
do what the Palestinians allow it to do, and right now the Palestinians
are making it build the "security wall" and build more settlements and
expand the existing ones. It (the GOI) really would prefer not to have to
do those things, but the Palestinians are making them, by not shutting
down the terrorists and speaking with one voice.

Do I have it right now?

Would it be easy for the Palestinians to shut down the terrorists? No. Will any peace occur if they don't? Also no.

The Israeli government has a will and, in this case, a way to shut out the terrorists and that is the wall. If the Palestinians object, I suggest they make peace. Oh yeah, that's right, to make peace, they'd actually have to kill the wild dogs that bark for them right now.

I was trying to clarify whether you think "the Palestinians" are in control of the
situation or not. I don't think there is any such entity as "the Palestinians" with
the capabilty to act in a unified way at all. It's like saying Coloradans (people who
happen to live in Colorado) should eradicate all the White Supremacists within its
borders. There is no such entity as "the Palestinians" with any ability to act in any
way at all, its a political fiction. There are various Palestinian poltiical and terrorist
organizations, and one might ask them the attempt to do something, or not, but to ask
"the Palestinians" to do anything makes no sense. You have to address that sort of
demand to some real organization with the means and power to act or you are just
blowing smoke.

And it is that entity whose job it is to protect the public internally and externally. If white supremacists in Colorado start attacking Canadian civilians, you can damn well bet both local AND national people will be shutting them down.

The opposite of Dr. King's moral clarity and rigorous self-criticism.

Because Dr. King was such a huge supporter of terrorism.

The PLO, what is left of it, it pretty pathetic.
There are some municipal services, but the only entity that exercises any
global sort of enforcement power in the territories is the IDF, and thats
not really what the IDF is for, its a military force, or supposed to be, not
a police force. That is sort of the problem. I am sure Arafat, if he had the
means, would enforce dictatorial order, he's that sort of fellow, but he doesn't.
He is stuck like a rat in a hole in Ramallah, and the PLO is a just a small
collection of middle-upper class weenies like Abu Mazen and Abu Ala.
Do you think they have their own standing armies to order about?

All the pro-Palestinian people seem unsure whether Arafat is the leader of the Palestinian people or not. If Sharon wants to get rid of him, he is the elected leader of the Palestinian people and must be respected. But if you actually expect anything from him, well he's impotent.

Personally, I think he's the boss. He has some physical authority and a lot of political capital with his people. If he told them today that he could get them statehood if they all stood on their heads for a year, many would do it. This is much more normal. All he has to do is to tell them that the terror networks must be shut down. He can organize it and use the fighers loyal to him as a starting point. If he really decided to do it, he could easily find outside help.

I am not a defender of Mr. Arafat, Sharon can kill him for all I care.

It just seems like a form of mental masturbation to blame him for everything
that happens when he is stuck in that hole wondering when the IDF is going
to come for him, and it is ludicrous to say that the GOI is impotent in the face
of his intransigence.

The IDF is a for more potent organization than the Palestinian security forces,
I think anyone would agree with that, and for three years now the IDF has used
every means at its command to try to stop the terrorist attacks, and failed.

What sort of a loon do you have to be to think that the pitiful Palestinian security
forces can accomplish immediately and impeccably what the IDF cannot do in
three years?

The Palestinian people know where the terror camps are, where the bases are, where the bomb factories are. That knowledge is the way to shut them down. You don't need superior firepower, you need information.

Your suggestion to Palestinians is to be Israel's 5th column in safeguarding the occupation--as their best way forward?

Exactly who is in charge at the PA.

The chaos surrounding the PM appointments suggests a struggle which id probably generational, regional, religious vs. secular, etc etc, all wrapped up into one confusing package.

Frankly I think it easier to blame Arafat because he fits the bill of scapegoat, is old, clever, and devious, etc.

But whether he's really in charge seems pretty unclear to me. A factor yes, but not the only one.

while on the other hand,
The order said that only Israelis and Jews could enter the designated areas without a pass.

I can't add anything that this doesn't imply well enough on its own.

What's the problem?

after Israel has stolen the rest of the O.T.

So I imagine it'll just say Israel. Who gives a fuck about the original inhabitants, right?

March of history and all that. :shrug:

to quell the violence, so be it. History would approve, I imagine.