اجعلنا صفحة البداية RSS خدمة Add to favorite Facebook Twitter

Advanced

Israel to seize Jerusalem village land to construct wall
Published Saturday 29/12/2012 (updated) 01/01/2013 13:14
Font- Font+
A section of the Israeli separation wall is seen between the Shufat
refugee camp and Pisgat Zeev in an area Israel illegally annexed
after capturing it in 1967. (Reuters/Baz Ratner)
BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- Israeli authorities issued notices on Friday to annex 456 dunams of land from a Jerusalem village in order to build part of its separation wall, local officials said.

Head of Beit Iksa village council Kamal Hababa said villagers were shocked when they saw the notices detailing plans to seize agricultural land, officials news agency Wafa reported.

The notices invited residents to participate in a tour with Israeli military officers along the proposed route of the barrier, Hababa said, adding that villagers refused to take part and vowed to confront soldiers if they come to the village.

The wall, when finished, will surround the village on all sides and annex around 12,000 dunams of agricultural land used for growing olive trees and grape vineyards.

Beit Iksa's 2,000 residents will be left with only 300 dunams of land for natural growth and will be separated from Jerusalem and isolated from the rest of the West Bank, Jerusalem governorate official Muhammad Tari said.

Beit Iksa village is located in Area B but is physically isolated from surrounding areas, with residents having to cross a checkpoint to access the West Bank.

The village is located directly opposite the illegal Ramot Allon settlement, which is considered part of Jerusalem by Israel but is illegal under international law.
Print
1 ) Colin Wright / USA
30/12/2012 00:06
Out of curiosity -- has Israel ever seized any Jewish-owned private land to build this wall? Not that this would justify the action -- but it would be illuminating to know.

2 ) gabi / australia
30/12/2012 01:40
Israel strikes again! The Palestinians have international law and world opinion on their side - Israel has might in its side (and total disregard for international law and morality). And every time Israel uses its might, it digs itself deeper into pariah status. Well done, Israel!

3 ) Amin / The Netherlands
30/12/2012 14:12
Again another illegal act of Israel. These continusly illegal act's are almost uncountable. This confirms the necessary of a mass BDS campain, against these theft, oppression, occupation and apartheidsregime of this state.

4 ) Brian Cohen / Israel
30/12/2012 17:14
Blah blah blah from Gabi and Amin. Real easy solution to get rid of the wall: get the Palestinians to stop suicide bombings. Last week a top Hamas leader called for intifada #3 and suicide bombings. Like Gabi said - the Israelis have international law on their side since blowing up buses and restaurants is a war crime. To take down the wall there is a solution - a peace treaty with Israel. But Hamas runs Gaza, Abbas is toothless, and no Palestinian government can sign anything. The wall stays.

5 ) Mel / USA
30/12/2012 19:16
Mr Obama!Mr Putin! TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!The ONLY thing obvious about this racist,apartheid,bigotted(WAR CRIME)wall,is that it will ALL be TORN down,in a quarter of the time it took,to put it UP! SOON! It's just there,waiting to be TORN DOWN by good people,from around the world & locally!Now,that would be"CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!When that wall is DOWN,& every racist checkpoint closed for ever! Israel & PALESTINE will be better off for it!So will USG & Americans! 'FORWARD Obama'?Take it down!

6 ) Lawrence / England
30/12/2012 20:18
What would be nice is for someone to draw where this wall will be. I can not get an appreciation better yet understanding of the facts without this map. With all due respect this article is worthless without it. Investigate more....geezee. Aren't you guys reporters. Then report! :-).

7 ) gabi / australia
31/12/2012 00:51
Brian Cohen - you would make much more sense if the wall was built along the green line. And, seeing Israel wants the wall, that land taken to build it was taken from the Israeli side.

8 ) Lilith / The World
31/12/2012 12:44
Lawrence they can't report what they want. What don't you people understand? Israel is stealing no one's land. You can't steal land if no one owns it. There are no borders. You racists would love for the separation barrier to come down, that would mean dead Israelis. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005. For Peace!. It offered Gaza to Egypt & West Bank to Jordan & they refused them & refused to negotiate in 1937, 1947, between 1948-1967, 2000/2001 and 2000

9 ) Amin / The Netherlands
31/12/2012 12:44
@ 4- Brian : pls. with dreaming and wake up!. If Israel really wanted peace then there was already a peace agreement. Israel has (ab)used the peace process to steal Palestinian land and build settlements as much as they can, in order to create facts on the ground, to thwart and make peace impossible. Remember that Israel has created this situation! BTW: The definition of peace for Israel is a Palestinian surrender. Something that Palestinians NEVER will do.

10 ) Brian Cohen / Israel
31/12/2012 15:10
Gabi - the "green line" is NOT a border and there is not international body that says so. The line is an armistice line only and according to international law the border has to be determined by negotiations between the warring parties. Anybody familiar with history knows that this was Jordan and Israel, since there was never a country called "Palestine". Jordan absolved itself, and the PA has to negotiate a peace treaty with Israel. Peace = wall comes down. Ipso facto.

11 ) Colin Wright / USA
02/01/2013 23:13
Brian Cohen #4 says: 'Blah blah blah from Gabi and Amin. Real easy solution to get rid of the wall: get the Palestinians to stop suicide bombings...' Colin runs a quick search. The last Palestinian suicide bombing was four years ago. Not that this will affect Brian's 'reasoning' (if that's the right word) in the least.

12 ) Colin Wright / USA
02/01/2013 23:15
To Brian Cohen #10 'Gabi - the "green line" is NOT a border and there is not international body that says so. The line is an armistice line only and according to international law the border has to be determined by negotiations between the warring parties.' No. According to international law, the border is right where it always was: it runs along the Partition Line defined by the UN in 1947. Those are Israel's borders. She accepted them.

13 ) Colin Wright / USA
02/01/2013 23:17
Re Lilith #8 'What don't you people understand? Israel is stealing no one's land. You can't steal land if no one owns it.' This all works -- assuming you don't define Palestinians as 'people.'

14 ) ian / australia
03/01/2013 00:37
#8 "Israel is stealing no one's land. You can't steal land if no one owns it." "A land without a people" eh, Lilith? Keep repeating it if you find it soothing but in the real world (a) people have a natural right to their homes, defined, as they say, with the force of law, in UDHR and (b) Jordan ceded its title to the West Bank to the PLO on behalf of the Palestinian people in 1988...so continue to mollify your guilt, or whatever it is you're doing, just don't try it in a court of law.

15 ) ian / australia
03/01/2013 14:35
#10 "the "green line" is NOT a border and there is not international body that says so." The '67 line has become a defacto border since Res 242 called for Israel to withdraw behind it. The ICJ ruling that everything beyond it (inc. East Jerusalem) is occupied reinforces it. And the huge consensus is that it should be. But it's a good deal. Israel should leap on it. They've got away with massive territorial expansion (illegal since Nuremberg) since declaring the state in 1948 on the border

16 ) ian / australia
03/01/2013 14:36
(contd.) proposed in the Partition Plan! Also, Jordan transferred its title to the West Bank to the Palestinian people (represented by the PLO) in 1988 which, as far as I know, was legal, binding, kosher and Jordan's every right to do so...making your argument that 'there was never a country called "Palestine" ' irrelevant.

17 ) ian / austraia
03/01/2013 14:37
#10 "...the PA has to negotiate a peace treaty with Israel. Peace = wall comes down. Ipso facto." A little nit-pick about that Brian: the only peace treaty Israel would sign by present indications would require massive forfeiture of Palestinian land (East Jerusalem, al-Haram al-Sharif, ALL settlements, E1, Jordan Valley etc.) which of course is unacceptable and also NO guarantee the wall wouldn't stay or in fact extend to fence off the newly acquired (Palestinian) land.

18 ) ian / australia
03/01/2013 21:46
#4 "The wall...will surround the village on all sides and annex...12,000 dunams of agricultural land...Beit Iksa's 2,000 residents will be left with...300 dunams of land...separated from Jerusalem and isolated from the rest of the West Bank." Brian, aren't you missing the point? In response to a story about the horrible fate awaiting the villagers of Beit Iksa (who are about to have their lives ruined), you repeat the standard apologists' justification of the wall as necessary for security.

19 ) ian / australa
03/01/2013 21:47
(contd.) "The wall stays" until "suicide bombings" stop. (Last one 2008.) But the wall clearly aims for maximum mayhem and disruption (as planned for Beit Iksa) whether it's for security or not. If a village and its farming land can be separated, or access to a well prevented, or a trip that should take ten minutes increased to five hours, it'll twist and turn to make it happen. If security, not traumatising Palestinians and gradual theft of their land was the aim it would follow the '67 line.

20 ) ian / australia
03/01/2013 21:47
(contd.) And really, it would be an abomination, expressive of the ghetto mentality and paranoia of a crazy state, but no-one would have a huge problem with it.

21 ) Colin Wright / USA
04/01/2013 06:13
To ian #19 ' If security, not traumatising Palestinians and gradual theft of their land was the aim it would follow the '67 line.' One would think that this would be too obvious to merit discussion. After all, right or wrong, in all our own fantasies about building a border fence between ourselves and Mexico it never occurs to us that we should build it within Mexico.

22 ) Filipe / Portugal
04/01/2013 11:10
@ian, Jordan ceded the land it annexed west of the River Jordan to Israel via the Jordan/Irael peace treaty. It delineated borders. It made no single solitary reference to the PLO. It stipulated that final status was to be negotiated between Israel and the PLO. It made no provision or requirement that Israel cede any of the land to a 3rd party nor did it require that any of the land was to used to create an independent state for or by anyone. The treaty is legal, binding, never challenged.

23 ) Filipe / Portugal
04/01/2013 11:53
In 1988 Jordan had no presence in the WB. It was under control of Israel since 1967. Lacking a peace treaty with Israel, Jordan had no authority to cede any land that it did not control to a 3rd party. Nothing more than a strategic move on King Hussein's part to relieve himself of any responsibilities of the arab citizens of Jordan he left behind when he lost possession of the land to Israel. He simply left the PLO to be responsible for the peace process. No documents of transfer exists.

24 ) ian / australia
04/01/2013 22:22
#22-#23 Interesting Filipe. Let's just establish first that the motive behind your post is to dash the hopes of several million Palestinians and to argue that despite aspirations to more they are actually disenfranchised, stateless people "squatting" on Jewish land. That's it isn't it? Your first bit is wrong. The peace treaty signed in 1994 officially ended belligerency, normalised relations and defined the western border of Jordan ie. the river. But it was careful to state that the border is

25 ) ian / australia
04/01/2013 22:22
(contd.) NOT with sovereign Israel but "territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967" (Annex 1a) which is NOT the same as "ceding" the West Bank to Israel as you claim. Now, I'm no Alan Dershowitz (or Sir Martin Gilbert) and I don't know how valid the 1988 transfer of "title" from Jordan to the PLO is...but the treaty is also at pains to reaffirm the UN Charter, UN Res 242 (Israel to withdraw to Green Line) and core values of "freedom, equality, justice and respect for

26 ) ian / australia
04/01/2013 22:25
(contd.) fundamental human rights" (Preamble). So it seems the Palestinian claim to the West Bank, as the indigenous population, is rock solid WITHOUT Jordan's passing on ITS entitlement. (Jordan's "entitlement" is no different to Israel's: territory acquired by war, and AFTER Nuremberg which established it was illegal when Nazi Germany did it). (That the treaty contains "no...requirement that Israel cede any of the land to a 3rd party" or "that any of the land [be] used to create an independent

27 ) ian / australia
04/01/2013 22:26
(contd.) state..." is unsurprising and irrelevant. It's a Peace Treaty between two countries. Why should it go into the internal political issues of one?) So, a symbolic gesture by Jordan and no doubt "a strategic move on King Hussein's part" but "No documents of transfer exists"? Can that be? No letter in PA files? No record in Jordan of the King's noble gesture? Really Filipe, you are in no position to know that beyond being willing to spread it round like a scurrilous urban myth.
Name Country
Comment
Characters
Note: Comments will be reviewed for appropriate content. Click here for more details.

Share/Bookmark

Official: PA forces regularly conduct politically motivated arrests
Erekat: If UN resolution fails, Palestine to join int'l orgs
Israeli forces demolish 3 Jerusalem houses, 23 homeless

Close Next Previous
All Rights Reserved © Ma'an News Agency 2005 - 2014