18 anti-barrier protesters injured northwest of Jerusalem (Bidu)

18 anti-barrier protesters injured northwest of Jerusalem
Ma'ariv, 14 April 2004

Violent confrontations continued today (Wednesday) between security forces and Palestinians protesting against the security barrier (Heb: "separation fence") around Bidu, northwest of Jerusalem, Palestinian sources claim 18 protesters were injured, four of them seriously.

The Palestinian demonstrators, along with Israeli peace activists, were protesting against the IDF's continuing to build the security barrier at Bidu despite a High Court ruling temporarily halting work on the barrier in the area.

According to the Palestinian sources, all the wounded were Palestinians,. Two of them were injured in the head and a 15 year-old boy, Ahmed Farid Mansour, suffered a skull fracture. 60 other demonstrators were treated on the scene after inhaling tear gas.

The demonstrators claim that they attempted to hold a peaceful demonstration this morning (Wednesday) at the site of the barrier but were pushed back with undue force (Heb: "a furious (army) reaction").

...

An IDF official confirmed that rubber-tipped bullets and tear gas was used to push back the demonstrators, while the police only confirm the use of tear gas (Heb: "but deny the use of rubber bullets.")

...

The demonstration is still continuing, albeit peacefully, with some 150 protesters taking part.

...

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=5971
http://www.maariv.co.il/channels/1/ART/688/636.html (heb)

...

Comment: These people are totally courageous, and the silence about the savagery they're experiencing (even in contradiction of Israeli law, never mind anything else) is utterly shameful.

They are trying to stop Israel from building a SECURITY barrier. Every day they cost can mean more Israeli lives lost.

Teargas is a time-tested way of dispersing crowds without injury.

from a de facto Israeli annexation.

They are doing so non-violently and heroically.

It is simply a temporary barrier between two groups. And some members of the Palestinian side insist on coming across the border to blow up women and children. This will limit that option.

why isn't it being built on the Green Line?

Since the opposition to the Land Grab Wall is almost entirely due to the fact that it's NOT on the Green Line, wouldn't it make more sense, even totally ignoring the plight of the Palestinians, to build it there?

The Green Line is not the final border, so why limit yourself to what, in various places, is a geographically or topographically inferior location?

No, the opposition to the Peace Fence merely picks a convenient target. Had it been built along the Green Line, the world would still be upset that Israel DARE wall off the poor lil ol' Palestinians and their multitude of terror groups.

The Green Line is a better border for "security" (i.e. security for Israel), as you'd discover if you took note of the reports of hawish Israeli commentators and centrist politicians, or even listened to the IDF.

They tell you loudly that the routing around settlements away from the Green Line is a "security mistake" (direct quote, IDF sources), and a "political decision" (Labor MK Haim Ramon).

So yes, building away from the Green Line is "in various places" a "geographically or topographically inferior location", but for the opposite reasons that you think it is.

The rest of your post is not worthy of refutation.

The Peace Fence is designed geographically and topographically to protect Israeli citizens. Some live in the disputed territories and the fence is designed to maximize THEIR protection as well.

The rest of your post is not worthy of refutation.

No final peace agreement and even the Palestinians proclaim the desire for more land, so the final decisions have no been made. Hence, "disputed."

Not quite...

Annexations don't have to be of disputed territory. All the land east of the Green Line is occupied, because Israel conquered it in 1967 and hasn't yet given it back. In the context of any viable peace agreement, Israel will end up annexing some occupied land. That fact doesn't make the land "disputed" though, any more than the fact that in any just peace agreement the Palestinians will end up annexing some Israeli land makes Israeli territory disputed...

Israel is not annexing the land in question. It is building the Peace Fence much as some nations would build a road or a civic center. Only, in this case, every second of delay places Israeli civilians at risk.

Lacking a formal peace agreement, all of the territory in question remains under Israeli authority.

In that case, assuming you aren't biased towards Israel, all occupied land is disputed...

Israel has no right to build a wall in occupied territory when it could just as easily do it on the Green Line.

That's not bias, that's fact.

Until there is a final settlement and the creation of a Palestinian state, there is only one state charged with the authority over the disputed territories. That is Israel.

As such, Israel can build fences, roads and buildings among other things.

The fact that they have authority over it doesn't mean that it's disputed...

Or is Iraq now "disputed territory", too?

But clearly the region is in flux. How it will turn out even you admit is unclear. Hence, disputed.

Damn! Learn something new every night! ;)

Violet...

If you wish to discuss Iraq, you might go to the infinite other threads to do so.

Thanks for the new rules. No mention of Iraq. There's no room, what with the 'discussions' of Europe that take up I/P ;)

Darranar wasn't discussing Iraq. He was pointing out that using yr logic, you'd consider Iraq to be occupied too. This is what he said:

'The fact that they have authority over it doesn't mean that it's disputed...

Or is Iraq now "disputed territory", too?'

Simple question that deserves an answer...

Now I must depart to the upper reaches of DU and discuss Disputed Iraq and see how many posts I can get in before I'm laughed out of DU ;)

Violet...

Just gotta tell you I admire yr patience. I've run out so I'm off to bed...

night...

Violet...

What's FACT is that it's been explained to you by Darranar in this thread why Palestinian territory is occupied and not disputed territory. Ignoring these explanations in favour of repeating 'it's disputed!!' again and again isn't a particularly effective means of debating something. It's also been explained to you why Israel can't just go and build fences etc wherever it likes. Maybe you could try pointing people to relevent bits of international law on the obligations of occupying powers that support yr claims? I won't hold my breath waiting...

Violet...

It is building the Peace Fence much as some nations would build a road or a civic center.

Others have been through this one with you before. Other states don't build roads or civic centers outside of their own states. If the Occupied Territories were part of Israel (which they're not), yr analogy wouldn't be so feeble...

Violet...

The Peace Fence is designed geographically and topographically to protect Israeli citizens.

If the translation of that is The Apartheid Wall is designed not for geographical and topographical reasons (those reasons don't exist), but to grab Palestinian territory in a defacto annexation designed to try to lend some sense of legitimacy to the ILLEGAL Israeli settlements, then that may be the only bit of fact there...


Some live in the disputed territories and the fence is designed to maximize THEIR protection as well.

For the thousandth time, the West Bank isn't disputed territory. It's occupied territory. And the claim that the Apartheid Wall is designed to maximise the protection of illegal settlers doesn't wash. If Israel really cared about protecting them, they'd be moving them all back into Israel...

Violet...

You didn't refute any of it.

Unsurprisingly, because the sources can't be refuted - I'm quoting a center-right, highly respected Israeli military commentator (Amir Rapaport, Ma'ariv), Haim Ramon (centrist Labor, as you can discover by checking who Labor picked to head their discussion team dealing with National Unity with Likud), and the IDF.

Elsewhere in the thread I state that your position that the IDF should ignore the civilian authorities is shared only by Sharon and Mofaz - and in that case I'm also quoting a respected Israeli military correspondent - Amir Oren of Ha'aretz.

In any event, your response to the presentation of massive counter-evidence (all Israeli) is to repeat your statements, more hysterically, sans evidence.

I suggest we let the forum decide which form of discussion is the more credible.

The major opposition is due to its position. You have no way of knowing what the world would say if it were placed differently, except for actual statements made by them about that possibility (and the ones that exist generally state quite the opposite). Until the two state solution is implemented, the internationally recognized border is the pre-June 1967 borders.

The Green Line is probably not going to be the final border. That changes nothing, because it still has far more legitimacy then the line Sharon has created with the Land Grab Wall. The purpose of the wall is redefining the default border to its position, therefore giving Israel an advantage in future negotiations.

The world blames Israel for everything it does or doesn't do. There is a certain consistency in that which allows for easy predictions.

Actually, until the two-state solution is implemented, Israel remains the only state responsible for those areas.

The world blames Israel for everything it does or doesn't do.

No, Israel gets criticised for its occupation and the treatment of the Palestinian people. I don't hold with some nonsensical viewpoint where Israel shouldn't be criticised for things that any progressive should be critical of a state for. I find the whole 'the world is anti-Semitic' attitude just so much drivel used as an excuse to justify anything Israel does...

Israel remains the only state responsible for those areas because it's the occupying power, and with that comes responsibilities and obligations towards the native population that Israel tends to prefer to ignore...

Violet...

Things like free holiday offers, which state on the tv ad (I quote):

"Now you can win two free tickets to any destination in the world...even though we are hated, some countries still have to accept us"

That kind of irrationality you could expect in Israel, but seeing it outside of it ("The world blames Israel for everything it does or doesn't do") is interesting. :)

The Jewish people are used to being pariahs after 2,000 years of mistreatment.

Try reading the article. :eyes:

That demolishes your argument without even criticising the tacit assumptions contained within it.

To comment on one of those, there could perhaps be some debate on whether or not Israel has the right to fracture the skulls of 15 year old kids peacefully demonstrating against the robbing of the land of their forefathers, in contradiction of all known international conventions, but it seems that is beyond unthinkable.

As for "security barrier", that is a propaganda phrase right out of the GOI. Not used in the Hebrew version, which is why I put it in there. Obviously Ma'ariv wants a different picture for international eyes, but that is about as surprising as finding out that the Pope is a Catholic.

As for "tear gas", lets say you agree with that. Fair enough.

How about if they still don't "disperse" (to where? This is their home)? Rubber-steel bullets? (already used) Live ammunition? (ditto)

How about if they still don't move after that? Tanks? (the IDF has refrained from that so far, not without some urging to the contrary in Israel, I should add).

I did read the article. :crazy:

The IDF is moving ahead with a necessary SECURITY fence for safety. I would hope under similar circumstances our military would continue to build and let lawyers fight it out later.

Rubber bullets are also used in protests, even in the U.S.

However, I have a different attitude than you about people who enter military zones in combat areas. I would not respond peacefully to them. So, I would have made it clear (as Israel has) that the Peace Fence is such a zone.

However, Israel is trying to put down the protests in a peaceful manner even though the protestors are putting ISRAELI lives at risk every second they delay construction.

Putting your evasions into common language:

1. The IDF should contradict the civilian authorities of Israel.

2. The IDF has the right to declare "military zones" in occupied territory in order to rob land.

3. The IDF has the right to respond with as much force as required to anybody who dares to enter such a zone (regardless of whether they live in it).

4. Any military force unleashed by the IDF is ipso facto "peaceful", regardless of the injuries sustained by the people on the other end of the club (their humanity being irrelevant).

Fair enough.

You should note that (1) is not a democratic position to take, and is supported by the likes of Sharon and Mofaz, and nobody else. (2) is illegal under conventions your government has signed and bound itself to uphold, (3) is going to be bad PR, and (4) is not worth commenting on.

Putting MY words into other language:

1. The IDF should obey its commanders. THEY should work things out with the courts. Meanwhile, the building can and must continue because the Peace Fence will save lives. (I do support compensation for anyone who loses land do to emminent domain. They should pursue that claim in the courts if need be.)

2. The IDF has the right to declare "military zones" in areas under Israeli jurisdiction much the same as the militaries of all nations in conflict do.

3. The IDF has the right to respond with as much force as required to dangerous threats. In the U.S., it is quite common to see signs that say "trespassers will be shot," for instance. Trespassers in that area have a lovely tendency to be wearing bombs or carrying AK-47s. Israel has gone out of its way to NOT treat the protestors that way, and every time it does this it places its soldiers at great risk.

4. The IDF is a DEFENSE force. If Israel were not under constant attack, it's job would be a lot easier.

Fair enough.

I only agree that you put words into my mouth.

But that isn't anything new.

You might try putting the ACTUAL words in my mouth, not yours.

You do agree. That's a fact.

You don't like your positions put into straight language, but that is true of everyone defending positions that are not morally defensible.

I sympathise - it must be hard trying to evade this dilemma. Who on earth would want people to know that they support the army of a foreign country rather than the civilian high courts?

Nobody - so the only answer is evasion and hysterics. Understandable.