Is it a Fence? Is it a Wall? No, it's a Separation Barrier

Scroll down the article a bit and it'll give you a visual idea of how this wall compares to the Berlin Wall size-wise. Scroll a bit further down and it shows a map of how far into the West Bank this wall is going. I've been wanting to see a map of its path for a while, so it might interest some of you guys as well.

Nigel Parry, The Electronic Intifada, 1 August 2003

Israel's Separation Barrier, dubbed the "Apartheid Wall" or "Berlin Wall" by Palestinians, has increasingly attracted international media attention, largely due to the hard-to-ignore scale of the project.

The most obvious historical parallel to the barrier is the Berlin Wall, which was 96 miles long (155 kilometers). Israel's barrier, still under construction, is expected to reach at least 403 miles in length (650 kilometers). The average height of the Berlin Wall was 11.8 feet (3.6 metres), compared with the maximum* current height of Israel's Wall -- 25 feet (8 metres).

<*it is not clear whether the shorter fence sections, about 6 meters in height, are first or final stages in Israel's construction of the barrier.>

Israel's barrier is therefore planned to be four times as long and in places twice as high as the Berlin Wall.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1775.shtml

Amazing how hard it is to get a clear map - this map has been around for months, but with lines much to thick and with colors too faded to read very well.

This is a great improvement.

Thanks.

If you come back and read this thread, I'm glad you found the map handy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that you have a problem not so much with the wall, but the fact that it's taking in so much Palestinian land?

Violet...

When Archbishop Tutu called Israel a state that practices Apartheid,
many American jews criticized him.Here is a physical evidence that Apartheid is the official policy of the State of Israel. Combine this with yesterday's news item that they were going to deny citizenship to any Palestinian that marries an Israeli citizen and now you can see where we are going.

Israeli Arabs can vote and be members of the Knesset. This is to protect Israel from those who both Israel and them claim are not citizens.

... not running smack dab thru the middle of your neighbor's property.

if all Israel wants to do is protect Israeli citizens, then all they have to do is take their citizens back where they belong - IN ISRAEL.

Borders are negotiated between nations when there is doubt, which there currently is. However, the PA is not YET a nation and needs to even negotiate that fact to settle permanent borders. Since it will not, that issue is being decided for them.

OR, the PA could wise the hell up, agree to combat terrorism and look at Ireland as a model for solving the problem. The Irish did not get everything they wanted, but they managed nationhood, which is a damn sight more than Arafat and his thugs have done.

Northern Ireland did not reach peace with GB by "combating terrorism" other than what the Tories and Loyalist delivered. They reached peace by bombing the shit out of GB and GB finally said, "screw this colonial experiment, where's the fuckin' exit".

Ireland has been an independent country since 1923 (or 22).

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, ingnorance abounds, gad-zukes!

Wow, let's go into the Irish question then. The Irish wanted independence AND the freedom of all of Ireland. In essence, they wanted everything just like today's Palesitinians.

Instead, they accepted a compromise that didn't even include immediate true nationhood and also kept the northern counties under English control.

They compromised. It is something that the Palestinian leadership will need to do to gain a nation. So far, they have been unwilling to do that. They still expect...well...everything. They want all of the pre-1967 land. They want the right of return. They want this and they want that.

Except there is one big sticking point. They aren't even a nation as yet. Much like the Irish, they require the actions of another to accomplish that fact.

The Brit gave up (looong ago) on trying to annex the northen counties. They realized there would never be an end to conflict as long as they laid claim to lands that did not belong to them.

The Brits had the luxury of being able to give up on the colonial experiment, in the I/P conflict Israel *is* the colonial experiment. There is no comparison.

The brits gave up trying to steal Irish land long ago. There is no comparison.

The northern counties are *not* british soil and the brits don't want it. There is no comparison.

The british populace came to grips with the baser instincts surrounding conquest and colonization. There is no comparison.

The brits actually made the connection between colonialism in Ireland and getting their collective asses blown to hell. There is no comparison.

If Tinnypriv sees your nonsense he won't be as gentle as I am...be glad he hasn't seen it yet.

Northern Ireland is represented in Parliament. It is part of Britain.
They still hold that land. Ireland does not. Many of those in NI consider themselves British citizens. Most, in fact.

Israel is not a colonial experiement, it is a fact of life. That the Palestinians, much like the Irish in the early 1900s, have no nation is also a fact. The Irish tried armed rebellion, but settled on a peace treaty that gave up the northern counties and led to their own nationhood.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am not comparing the issues of 2003 Ireland, I am comparing the time when Ireland gained its independence.

Jsut because they are facts of life doesn't make them cease to be colonial experiments.

I don't think Israel is a colonial experiment; I just am in a picky mood right now.

in the slightest. If you want to cherry-pick unrelated historical events on another continent to make some point, have at it. I don't see any relevant connection other than you get to talk about something other than the Apartheid behavior of a *failed* colonial experiment.

It is an example of two groups -- both with claims to the same land -- who are of different religions and who battle for many years.

It shows that the group without a nation can realize its dreams if it sets reasonable goals.

The catholics wanted to join with an *existing* nation. There is no comparison

The Protestants wanted to remain part of England. England is *not* carved out of part of historical Ireland. There is no comparison

The tenuous similarities are so tenuous, they render the comparison painfully inept.

Is painfully inept.

England controlled Ireland -- just like Israel now controls the West Bank and Gaza. The Irish Catholics -- a different religion than the English who controlled the nation, just like Israel and the Palestinians -- wanted the whole of their nation free from the English.

They tried endless amounts of armed confrontation -- yet again, like the Palestinians. Eventually, however, they found a compromise that left the northern counties under English control and eventually led to an Irish nation.

I'm through pogo-sticking around Irish History. It has nothing to do with a failed colonial experiments descent into apartheid.

It is a very good parallel and shows how a group like the Palestinians can set reasonable goals and attain them through compromise and peace, not absolutism and violence.

Y'know, it's not a very good parallel at all. For a long, long time Ireland had representation in the British Parliament, something other colonial possessions didn't have. Something that the Palestinians have NEVER had in the Knessnet. Unlike Israel, England didn't send settlers to Ireland, build them English-only settlements and build English-only access roads which the native population wasn't allowed to use on fear of death....

So, have you emailed Sharon yet and told him that his absolutism and violence isn't the way to obtain peace? He just doesn't seem to have gotten that memo yet ;)

Violet...

If Sharon were a true absolutist, he would have tried to kick out ALL of the Palestinians and Arabs living in Israel a long time ago. He has not done so. Nor has he gone for full-scale war against them in the West Bank and Gaza.

Funny, as bad as the comments are about him here and what he might do, he never seems to be doing it.

because he CAN'T!

In case you've forgotten, Sharon is the prime minister in a semi-democracy. He does not have totalitarian power.

As a result of the numerous suicide bombings and other Palestinian terror acts. If he really wanted to either a) declare full-scale war or B) kick out the Palestinian or Arabs, he could probably do so.

Because, as I hope you know, Israelis aren't insane, and neither is the world community.

Given the Second Intifada's ongoing onslaught and the obvious support it has had in the PA (especially with Arafat), almost any politician could have convinced the Israelis to declare war on the PA. Sharon, as a former general, would have found it far easier.

But for some reason he did not do this.

Oh, I see. He only blasted through Arafat's quarters in Rammallah and completely destroyed large amounts of the PA security force's infrastructure. And as he did this, he didn't say that he was declaring war on the PA. Therefore, he wasn't. :eyes:

Borders are negotiated between nations when there is doubt, which there currently is.

Building a wall on territory that's being occupied by a nation is NOT in any way acceptable just because that territory isn't a state. If Indonesia had decided to put a wall smack-dab in the middle of East Timor and claimed that was okay because East Timor at the time wasn't a state, it would have been no different. UN Resolution 242 has stated the inadmissability of territory acquired by force, and building a wall deep in that territory is no more acceptable that building settlements there....

Violet...

in fact only a few days ago people on this forum were saying Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to vote (in Israeli elections) and now you say the fence/wall is on the neighbor's land. This is typical of Palestinian politics. A lot of ambiguity over whether they should be Israel, destroy Israel or Israel should die for them.

If it is a separation between neighboring people (approximate as it may be) then there should be no claim to having a right to vote in Israeli parliamentary elections. Only Israeli citizens, which includes a million and a half Arabs, have the right to vote. No apartheid here.

The wall idea came up last year when it became clear
the attacks could not be stopped with military force,
as some of us here predicted at the time, operation defensive
bullshit or whatever it was. Sharon is putting it where he
wants it, what do you expect from Sharon? But the wall won't
work either.

Dimplomacy is needed for peace.