Israeli state: fence not temporary

Finally the State of Israel is admitting that its “separation barrier,” most of which is illegally built on occupied Palestinian territory in the West Bank, is not placed where it is solely due to “security” considerations. The form of admission came in a petition to the Israeli High Court brought on behalf of villages in the Qalqilya district, in which the state complained it would be “very expensive to move” the fence from its current location. Not a word from the Zionist lobby and hasbara (propaganda) forces which have worked overtime to project an image of the fence as a “temporary” security measure which can be removed when the Palestinians turn into “Finns:”

State to High Court: Fence route determined not only by security considerations
Last update – 10:15 04/07/2005
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent

Israel has acknowledged for the first time that not just “security” considerations were instrumental in determining the route of the West Bank separation fence.

Responding to a petition brought to the High Court by the residents of the Palestinian village Azun in the northern West Bank, the state asked for the fence to be left on its original route, previously ruled to be unsuitable, as it would be very expensive to move.

The state’s position marks a fundamental change in its legal arguments. Initially, the state claimed security concerns were the sole motivation for erecting the fence, and there were no other considerations.

In its principal ruling on the issue last year, in the Beit Surik affair, the High Court determined that the state has no authority to build a fence for “political” considerations, such as appending land to Israel.

The state’s new stance also highlights a major policy change regarding the “temporary” nature of the fence. Until now, the state has claimed that the fence was a short-term measure, and it was possible to move or dismantle the barrier.

The construction of the separation fence has already been completed in the area, and the barrier is fully functional.

In the region north of Qalqilyah, the route creates an “enclave” where it departs from the 1967 Green Line border and moves eastward to encompass the settlement of Tzofin, as well as much land from the villages of Jayyous and Azun.

See our last post on the cleansing of Palestine.

  1. I don’t quite get this
    This account doesn’t make clear what the other “considerations” actually are. The only consideration other than security mentioned here is the expense of moving the fence, and this doesn’t explain how the fence came to be where it is in the first place….

    1. Political
      The real consideration is political. To unilaterally define a new border for Israel, within the occupied West Bank, in contravention of international law and convention. To take as much land and water as possible with as few Arabs as possible. This is what is happening in Jayyous, where 95% of the arable farm land, and 70% of its total land, have ended up on the “Israeli” or eastern side of the barrier. All seven of Jayyous’ wells are also now on the “Israeli” side of the barrier. Does that answer the question?

      1. No, that doesn’t answer the question.
        We know all that. But where does it say that Israel has admitted to such? The newsclip talks about “security” and the inconvenience of moving the wall now that it is already positioned. It doesn’t detail what factors other than “security” resulted in it being positioned where it is.

        1. Financial
          They are trying to claim the reason it can’t be moved is financial. Previously, Israel always insisted the Wall is placed exactly where it is for carefully considered security reasons. Here they are no longer making the standard claim that it needs to be where it is for security purposes. Now they say it would cost too much to move it.