Misplaced Pages

Talk:West Bank barrier: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:42, 16 July 2004 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Accuracy. picture← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:01, 10 September 2024 edit undoAidan9382-Bot (talk | contribs)Bots9,228 edits Update archiving templates after a page move (Report bot issues) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{controversial}}
== Name ==
{{Calm}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{Article history|action1=GAN
|action1date=July 20 2007
|action1link=Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier#GA
|action1result=pass
|action1oldid=145687954


|action2=GAR
=== Of article ===
|action2link=Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/GA1
|action2date=12:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|action2result=delisted
|action2oldid=271205043


|currentstatus=DGA
As far as I know, there is not yet an article describing the Israel security wall. I was going to add something to ], but I don't know what to call the article...
|topic=Geography
:Should it be Israel or Israeli in the title?
|itndate=23 February 2004}}
:Is it a wall? partition? fence? barrier?
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
Suggestions? ] 08:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Law}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top|attention=yes}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=high}}
}}


<!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->
: I would suggest ], because all of wall, partition and fence are also barriers. ] 08:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC).
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
: What's wrong with ]? The current events page already has a missing link to it. My general feeling on article naming is that if it's the first thing that comes to mind then it's proabably the best name. We can make all kinds of redirects and discuss the "proper" name later, but start it with a "good enough" name and at least the article will get started instead of being stalled in committee. -- ] 08:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:West Bank barrier/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box|auto=long |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=60 |search=yes}}


== Extended-protected edit request on November 30, 2023 ==
This is the kind of thing I love trying. I wrote a perl script to find most common 2 and 3 word combinations on news.google.com and google.com using the top 100 hits using the search terms ''Israel'' and ''wall OR fence OR barrier OR partition OR divider OR enclosure OR fortification OR palisade''.


{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}
* Most common 1 word terms in title:
** 132 barrier
** 117 wall
** 107 fence (next only had 3 hits)


<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->
* Most common 1 word terms anywhere:
** 98 wall
** 61 fence
** 58 barrier (next only had 8 hits)


Based on that, I'd say "wall", "fence", or "barrier".


* '''What I think should be changed (format using {{tl|textdiff}})''':
* Most common 2 word terms in title:
** 22 security fence
** 18 security barrier (next only had 12 hits)


I think one more paragraph should be added to the sub-section 'Effects on Palestinians'.
* Most common 2 word terms anywhere:
** 11 security fence
** 8 israel wall
** 7 israel's wall
** 7 berlin wall
** 6 security wall
** 5 security barrier
** 5 israel's barrier


Below is the paragraph:


"Israel security fence" looks good. "Israel security wall" might be best by single word frequency. I guess "Israel-Palestine" wall might be okay for the first part, but I don't see that often. Palestine ain't building the wall, so tht would not be my inclination. ] 08:46, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


'''Effects on Palestinians working in Israel'''
: Great stats.
: I'd say ] or ]. Wall gives me a concrete or earth feeling, but fence has hole in them, like in prison. I'm not sure what's the material of the Israeli one. --] 08:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


:: I'd go for "]". From the pictures I've see of it, it's a few block on the ground with a chain link fence about 10-15 ft high ... here's some pic of it ... ]


The wall significantly impacts the rights, freedom and mobility of Palestinian workers especially<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_%27separation%27_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>.
:::Some bits are wall and some bits are fence. The more contested the area the stronger the barrier. From what I can tell the Israelis call it a fence and the Palestianians call it a wall. One lot of ] is that it is a security fence, the other that it is a partitioning wall akin to the ]. Have fun with your article. :) ] 13:37, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
It represents for Palestinians a complex system of control, surveillance and oppression. According to the Washington Post, about 70000 Palestinians cross checkpoints daily to work in Israel, mainly in construction sites<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/occupied/checkpoint/</ref>. Security forces at checkpoints have the authority to turn back Palestinians without reason or, as often is the case, turn a short commute into an hours-long, humiliating journey<ref>https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution</ref>. Workers leave their homes in the very early morning, some as early as 2am<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_%27separation%27_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>, and spend hours commuting, not returning to their homes until the late evening<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>. The military checkpoints they need to cross are usually overcrowded, in poor conditions and characterized by long processing times<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>. They are herded through congested steel cages and metal turnstiles and go through invasive security checks. They are not allowed to take their own tools, food and drinks with them, adding an additional financial burden<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>. Several human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have reported human rights abuses inside checkpoints, including arbitrary arrests and unlawful shootings<ref>https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution#_ftn330</ref><ref>https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Full-Report.pdf</ref>. The daily struggle and humiliation of going through a checkpoint is not only for workers but also for those communities that were cut in two by the presence of the separation wall. West Bank Palestinians who live on the Jerusalem side in areas like Nabi Samuel are forbidden to go to the Jerusalem site outside their homes and must cross a checkpoint to attend schools or go to work or to the hospital<ref>https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution</ref>.
::: Of course both sides will produce appropriate pictures ;) ] 13:39, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


::Heres the isreali's site on it . ]


* '''Why it should be changed''':
::: I'd say "barrier". In some places it's a fence, in some places a concrete wall. And there's more to it than just the physical wall - it's a system, with some depth - there are gates (which are a bit like airport security checkpoints married to bus terminii) and in many places a levelled strip. "Barrier" seems to me to capture that a bit better than either wall or fence (but then all the same things could be said about the Berlin Wall, and no-one called it the Berlin Barrier.) -- ] 13:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I think this paragraph is necessary as the article does not mention the daily experience of Palestinian workers going through checkpoints to cross the border. Their experience significantly changed since the building of the Wall, as before they could freely cross the border.
:::: Yea, barrier may be better ... "]" with redirect of ] and ] ... it's officially (by the il.gov) called the "Seam Zone project". ]


* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''':
:Israelis tend to call it "security fence", whereas Palestinians call it a '''seperation wall''' (note: '''seperation''', not "security wall") or, in some cases, '''apartheid wall'''. I don't think there's any way to use either term without seeming POV. Better would be to redirect, then to explain the different names in the first sentence. "barrier" is a good fudge, but I wouldn't even mind using the official name, because nobody actually uses it. ]


] (]) 23:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
My stats were of news sites via news.google.com, and that included a good number of (English web) Arabic news sites. I still think ] or ] are best, but I could live with ] since barrier was also a relatively common word used to describe the structure. ] 21:32, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
:'''Done.''' — ] (]) 09:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}


== Extended-protected edit request on November 30, 2023 (2) ==
Well I started an article at ] since it doesn't seem like anyone else has yet. -- ] 00:57, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}
:The word ''security'' is POV. I mean, one can argue that the wall is for Israel's security, but one can also argue that the wall is to nullify Palestine. Maybe it should be called ''West Bank wall''....like the ''Berlin wall'' is so named. ] 01:01, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->
The BBC call it a "barrier", so we wouldn't be alone in using that fudge. I think that's the best option, given Finaly and Reddi's points above. ] 01:08, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


:As an FYI, call it the '''apartheid wall''' while calls it a '''seperation wall'''. "Security" is more of an NPOV problem than "fence" or "wall" IMHO; nobody pretends that it's going to offer security for Palestinians, with IDF posted on both sides. ]


* '''What I think should be changed:
:: "Seperation" would be equally bad, because some seem to be claiming that there won't be any significant seperation. ] would be one option - which would also have the advantage of distinguishing it from similar undertakings in the Gaza Strip. ] 01:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


The page name should be changed from 'Israeli West Bank barrier' to 'Israeli West Bank wall'.
::Well, in truth, it is not completely a wall. Parts are just barbed-wire. Parts are just fence. So ''barrier'' the best word to use. However, ''security'' is POV. I'd like the name of this article to be ''Israeli barrier'' or ''West Bank barrier'' (to differentiate it with the possible ''Gaza Strip barrier'' of the future). ] 01:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


* '''Why it should be changed''':
:::Regardless of all the PsOV here, the 'fence' is only one component of a structure which also contains earth mounds, ditches, concrete slabs, barbed wire, lighting, CCTV, listening devices, no-mans-land, roadway, etc. The function of the structure as a whole can accurately be described as 'barrier'. The title of this page seems fair enough to me. ] 01:40, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC).


This is a contentious topic, with the two opposing sides proposing diametrically opposing names. The pro-Israel side calls it ‘security fence’ (which is ‘too technical and depoliticizing of the wall’<ref>https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49716470/Constructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_Social_Movements_and_the_Politics_of_the_Wall_Barrier_Fence-libre.pdf?1476890516=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConstructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_So.pdf&Expires=1701390446&Signature=LWQzcVKCPAH4WvqLsW87c9BW4q32vEniQZoYiMnhycd0r20Z3B9-FzrX6FKZvtJYBOp3C-qEjzA1zFuC0Bib0FjhIAdU9QfbSw5FmE1Espv3xjMcR7ySMbUVD2t38D3C2LP~Gy7fy4fHuRn15UEeckAo4Mr2F9nWC12kHaOMN7wpnPNInG-4yUHkcARH5Tv8MB-Zgtfm3qIY6fO684j6Zqephk-zlVVAldbCXdrKf5VXlDxO~wBx7LAkzTZjMr048gGo2H159S7ZddPKzd-D0E2ye3CVheSVYjPPM41JJyBCrMD4xpIs97X8-ZbHdeRcVS5NBAHmUIW5iD98Jj7dww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA</ref>) while the pro-Palestinian side calls it ‘apartheid wall’ ( which ‘needs a fuller understanding and accounting of the differences and similarities between the case of Israel and that of South Africa prior to 1994’<ref>https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49716470/Constructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_Social_Movements_and_the_Politics_of_the_Wall_Barrier_Fence-libre.pdf?1476890516=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConstructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_So.pdf&Expires=1701390446&Signature=LWQzcVKCPAH4WvqLsW87c9BW4q32vEniQZoYiMnhycd0r20Z3B9-FzrX6FKZvtJYBOp3C-qEjzA1zFuC0Bib0FjhIAdU9QfbSw5FmE1Espv3xjMcR7ySMbUVD2t38D3C2LP~Gy7fy4fHuRn15UEeckAo4Mr2F9nWC12kHaOMN7wpnPNInG-4yUHkcARH5Tv8MB-Zgtfm3qIY6fO684j6Zqephk-zlVVAldbCXdrKf5VXlDxO~wBx7LAkzTZjMr048gGo2H159S7ZddPKzd-D0E2ye3CVheSVYjPPM41JJyBCrMD4xpIs97X8-ZbHdeRcVS5NBAHmUIW5iD98Jj7dww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA</ref>). This is included in the ‘Names’ section and picking either of these names would be against Misplaced Pages’s neutrality policy. Below are the reasons why I think ‘Israeli West Bank Wall’ would be a more appropriate name than ‘Israeli West Bank barrier’.
=== Official name ===


Given how it is a contentious two-sided debate, it would be good to look at the most neutral perspective, which is the one of the international community. Both the ICJ and the UN have called it ‘wall’<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20040902090629/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2004/ipresscom2004-28_mwp_20040709.htm</ref><ref>https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/07/472712</ref>. Furthemore, both the ICJ and the UN have declared the wall illegal under international law, questioning whether the Israeli perspective on this topic should be put on the same level as the Palestinian.
The Israeli Ministry of ] uses the name: "anti-terrorist fence" and "security fence" in its official punlications, as well as the headlines. Check for example:
* http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa
*
* at ] website.
] 11:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I did an Ngram of the most common names: West Bank barrier, Israeli security fence, Israeli Wall, Apartheid wall<ref>https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=West+Bank+barrier%2C+Israeli+security+fence%2C+Israeli+Wall%2C+Apartheid+wall&year_start=1990&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3</ref>. It appears that ‘apartheid wall’ is the most used, but I agree that it is not neutral enough. ‘Israeli wall’ is the second most used, highlighting how ‘wall’ is overall more used. The terms ‘security fence’ and ‘barrier’ are significantly less used. Hence, renaming it ‘Israeli West Bank wall’ is more appropriate as it is the most common name and the one used by the most neutral of the actors at play (the international community).
The barrier comes under the Ministry of Defence, not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the official site in Hebrew
, I can find only "security fence" (but I didn't follow every link). --] 13:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


To those arguing that the structure is not only made out of the concrete wall but also includes fences and other types of barriers, I would like to point to the comment made by the user ‘Onceinawhile’, who wrote that ‘Whatever we do here it seems logical that it would follow how we have named the Trump wall<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Trump_wall</ref>, which similarly is not technically mostly “wall” and obviously had a much longer official name’.
== Which United Nations body? ==


Finally, the connotation of the word ‘wall’ is a lot stronger than the word ‘barrier’, which seems more technical and broad. The term wall more appropriately reflects the lived experience of Palestinians and the consequences of its structure in terms of limitations on their freedom of movement, their self-determination and their economic opportunities.
The article mentions the fence was condemned by "A United Nations report" as a "blatant grab for land." That doesn't sound like terminology someone like, say, Kofi Annan would use, so perhaps we should qualify this by saying who exactly issued the report. --] 03:52, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)


: I've no idea myself, I was summarising from news articles. Delirium's right, of course. ] 18:07, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


:: My gut says it was probably one of the, er...I have no idea what to call them. The strange "lobbying groups" funded and inside the UN to lobby the UN, like the "Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People". No firm evidence, though. -] 11:07, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''':
----


] (]) 23:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Ha'aretz calls it the '''separation fence''', so perhaps ] is the most NPOV title. Opinions? -- ] 23:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
:Changes like these need consensus. One ] editor alone cannot make this change. See ] for starting a move discussion — ] (]) 09:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2023 ==
It's a tricky issue. Basically, those who argue it is for security call it a ''security barrier'' or ''security fence'', those who argue it is for separation call it a ''separation barrier'' or ''separation fence'', and those who argue it is for apartheid-style separation call it an ''apartheid wall''. None of the terms is perfectly NPOV, really. I'd lean vaguely towards putting it at ] (its current location), as that's somewhat closer to its official title (and those who oppose it could take it as a wryly sarcastic name). We should mention the other names up-front though. Basically, put it at ''security barrier'', and say "Israel calls it a security barrier but some opponents argue its real underlying purpose is ". --] 22:05, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Israeli West Bank barrier|answered=yes}}
----


The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, together with the Swiss Agency for Development (SDC) established a CHF 1,6 Mio project to set up a “Barrier Monitoring Unit” (BMU) and, after three years, hand it over to the Palestinian Authority. Its stated purpose was to “improve access to land, livelihoods, and services for Palestinian communities affected by the West Bank Barrier”.
Zero deleted my side-remark that the Israelis deny Palestinian claims that the barrier will have various ill effects on the Palestinian population. is the Israeli Defence Ministry website at which they specifically deny these claims. ] 07:55, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


The justification for the unit derived from the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion and its subsequent adoption by the General Assembly, and from the expressed need for documentation of the barrier’s impact. The BMU provided data and assistance to many of the UN humanitarian agencies on the ground, as well as to international, local, and academic institutions, including the Palestinian Authority which had six ministries involved during the implementation phase. Together with UNOCHA, the BMU was the main mechanism by which humanitarian diplomacy on the barrier was implemented.
No they don't. I don't think you understand the language used on that page. What they claim is that "the route reflects a balance between the operational and humanitarian concerns". That's Israeli for "our security needs override your quality of life needs". Not the same thing at all. --] 11:07, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


The BMU aimed at building local capacity, transferring skill sets to partner organisations, and to individual stakeholders and beneficiaries. Stefan G. Ziegler initiator and manager of the BMU pursued research with internationally renowned partners, such as the Politecnico di Milano, the University of Bern, and the Graduate Institute in Geneva, and was particularly successful in strengthening advocacy efforts even beyond the project (see Broken-the-film.com further below). This included messaging about the barrier’s impacts at such places as the EU Parliament, the UN in New York, at Cornell University as well as with publications, for example, EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland. Stefan G. Ziegler realized the tremendous potential for capacity building and shared institutional learning. His participative action research approach became one of the outstanding motivational pillars of the collaboration with the BMU by its associates and stakeholders.
OK so you don't accept the sincerity of their denials, and neither do I. That doesn't alter the fact that they deny that the wall will divide Palestinian communities, cut farmers off from their land etc. They do deny it. If you want to refute their denials, fine. But you can't just delete the statement that they deny it. ] 11:16, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


A key achievement of the BMU was its methodology, the institutionalisation of an innovative advocacy approach, initially entitled the Academic Cooperation Palestine Project (ACPP). The BMU was commended for creating a ‘community of practice‘ as well as a model for future educational development as part of what became known as the ‘LearningAlliance’*.
:Please read it more carefully. It does '''not''' deny that any farmers are cut off from their land. It only claims that efforts are made to reduce it: "''attempts are being made to avoid separating owners from their lands. In circumstances where such a separation is unavoidable...''". So they admit it happens, the case is only based on the frequency and the necessity. They are hardly going to claim more than that when the Israeli press is full of stories about farmers separated from their lands. That page does not deny that any communities are divided, either. --] 11:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


*spelling of our Geneva based NGO is in one word LearnigngAlliance while in our Misplaced Pages entry it is in two. ] (]) 11:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Incidentally, the picture is of a section of temporary barrier and not what the final product looks like. If it's the temporary barrier between East Jerusalem and Abu Dis, it is currently being replaced by a 8-9m concrete wall. --] 11:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] 04:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024 ==
Fine, fine, fine, I dare say you are right. I am a little distracted today and sick of arguing with people. It's not my article anyway. Incidentally I am surprised no-one has bitten at ]. Obviously I need to be more provocative. ] 11:49, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Israeli West Bank barrier|answered=yes}}
----
In the effectiveness section, citation 70 (referring to Haaretz reporting) references Hamas and the barrier in Gaza, not the West Bank barrier. Since this article refers exclusively to the West Bank barrier, discussion regarding the Gaza barrier should be removed. ] (]) 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
:Why do you think the text in the source cited is referring to the barrier in Gaza, not the West Bank barrier? ] (]) 17:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
::Hamas is the governing body of the Gaza Strip where as the Palestinian Authority is the governing body of the West Bank. Though there is mention of the Islamic Jihad network in the West Bank, this article primarily refers to Hamas when discussing the effectiveness of military activities. ] (]) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
:::That does not answer the question I asked. ] (]) 03:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
::::The article cited refers to Hamas, who governs Gaza. This page is for the West Bank barrier. ] (]) 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::You are mistaken, that article is about Shin Bet saying attacks that originated in the West Bank decreased, but no longer because of this barrier. A. because no barrier in Gaza is referred to as a security fence by Israel, and b. the quote "But the main reason for the reduction in terrorist acts over the past year is the truce in the territories, as partial as it may be. The fact that Hamas, in general, stopped engaging in terror activities changed the picture. The Islamic Jihad network in the West Bank upgraded its capability and was responsible for the murder of 23 Israelis in 2005, but during that time, Hamas - the leading terror organization in recent years - has scaled back its engagement in terror. Its focus on the political arena and the preparations for the Palestinian parliamentary elections have limited its active involvement in terror to a large extent." makes it even more obvious. That article is from February 2006, prior to there even being a Hamas electoral win, or the battle with Fatah in Gaza and the West Bank and them taking over the governance of Gaza, and yes Hamas also is in the West Bank. Then and now. ''']''' - 14:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


== Grammar first sentence ==
The official name of the ] was obviously "The Antifascist Wall of Protection"... // ]


First sentence is both a run-on sentence and has grammar issues. One way to address is to split off"who often call it wall of apartheid" into a separate sentence. ] (]) 04:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

-----

If Gush-Shalom link have place, so does the link to the terror victims.
* : "The move by the Organization of Casualties of Terror Acts comes in response to the court's decision to allow the Arab League to be a party to the hearing. (16/01/04)"


-----

== Security Aspects of the Barrier ==

Too many addition have been deleted by Zero without good reason.

Such as:
: Maariv also queted Palestinian terrorists (January 23, 2004) claiming that the barrier have thwarted their suicide bombings attempts.

:Some sections of the barrier, near ] and ], consist of a high concrete wall in order to protect Israeli car travelings on the nearby highways from gunfire.

The barrier has security functions that cannot be denied or be ignored.

:: The gunfire claim is now in the proper place and I also moved some other things. please try to preserve the article structure (description in one place, official opinions in another place, legal stuff in another, etc). The reason I keep removing the Maariv "quote" is that I don't trust your report of it. Bring us a link to the article, or an equivalent one. --] 22:55, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

::: Here is the quete (article itself in Hebrew): http://images.maariv.co.il/cache/cachearchive/23012004/ART634947.html - the article is by Amir Rapoport. A quote from it: "The fence is making it difficult to commit a suicide bombing (orginal word: PIGUA &#1508;&#1497;&#1490;&#1493;&#1506;) inside Israel".

Here is a translation of the entire article. I did it quickly, and rather than fix it up to conform to English style, I tried to be as literal as possible so that there is no confusion. It is my translation.
:In a series of recently conducted investigations of active Palestinian terrorists, the bottom line was identical. "The fence makes it very difficult for us to get terrorist attacks out," those being investigated admitted. The people being investigated were arrested over the past few weeks in different regions of Samaria. One of them, a senior member of Islamic Jihad, said over the past few days that he was personally involved in attempts to get suicide bomber into Israel, but the fence prevented him from doing this.

:"The things that the Palestinians are saying in the investigations are further proof of the efficiency of the fence," say senior official in the defense system . In internal discussions conducted over the past few days in the Central Command, General Moshe Kaplinsky, Chief of Central Command, said that "The fence is even more effective in preventing terrorist attacks than I had estimated." The Central Command recently completed initial summaries of the effectiveness of the fence. These summaries show that in the first half-year since the fence was created, the section of fence stretching from Jenin in the north to Elkana in the center of the country , the fence has prevented dozens of terrorist attacks. The summaries also found that in most areas, terrorists even had difficulty reaching the fence, since the surrounding area was defined as a special security zone where movement (or traffic, ''Danny'') is forbidden. At the same time, the IDF has begun this week to collect testimonies and photographed materials from those areas in which the fence was erected, in preparation for the hearing on the fence in the International Court in the Hague next month. The materials being collected are intended to prove the effectiveness of the fence in preventing terror.

Hope this helps. ] 00:33, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Anon and Danny. I added a sentence to the article. --] 00:46, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

== Israel's Security Fence ==

I would like to suggest that we change the current URL <http://en.wikipedia.org/Apartheid_wall> for one more neutral. -- ANON.

It's not the current article name, it's only a redirect. The main name is "Israeli security barrier", which I don't like either. I think "Israeli separation barrier" would be more NPOV, or if necessary just "Israeli barrier". --] 10:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

== Vote for title ==

I think a vote for the name is in order here. I think the ideal solution is to do a separate (]) vote on every part:
*First adjective: Israeli, Israel, Israel-Palestine, West Bank
*Second adjective (if any): security, partitioning, separation, apartheid, anti-terrorism,
*Noun: barrier, wall, partition, fence, applicance
] 02:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

----
added to Oasis, please join us there for further discussion, Zero0000

----
The reason why I made the title change was because the vote seemed to be going nowhere. I think that the current name is the most neutral one can think of; the Palestinians can say that the wall separates them from their own people and land, while Israel can say that it separates them from the terrorists. -- ] 02:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is terrible, but nevertheless "separation" is better than "security". To those who think it is an anti-Israeli name I'll say that in Israel the most common name (used by government spokespeople as well) is GADER HA'HAFRADA, "the separation fence". --] 07:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

----

What happened with the pictures? Some trouble with the server? // ]
*Dunno. The images won't come up for me either. ] 06:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

----
Zero, this barrier is a barrier to separate two groups of people and to control the movement of people across the barrier. In this way it is similar to a number of other barriers and walls, some constructed along borders, some on political boundaries, some on armistice lines, some whereever the builders wished to place the barrier. Examples in order: US-Mixico barrier, Berlin Wall, North-South Korea, Great Wall of China (and Hadrians Wall, etc). ] 14:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For each of those examples one can say how it is dissimilar. It is certainly unique in the modern world in the flouting of international law. ] ]

??? evidently people were saying the same things about the ]...that would damage a claim regarding uniqueness ] 15:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

----
Does anyone have an IRCR source for the statement "The IRCR said that it would have many fewer objections if the barrier followed the Green Line,"??? If not, it should be removed. It seems to contradict this quote: "The ICRC's opinion is that the West Bank Barrier, '''in as far as its route deviates from the "Green Line" into occupied territory''', is contrary to IHL." (emphasis added) ] 15:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After reading the ICRC statement...its seems undeniable that the location is the issue....changed to page to be and exact quote ] 16:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note this item from the page regarding the UN resolution: "The construction by Israel, the occupying power, of a wall in the Occupied Territories '''departing from the armistice line of 1949''' is illegal under relevant provisions of international law and must be ceased and reversed." (emphasis added.) ] 16:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with the quotation now in the article, which agrees with what I had partly in paraphrase before. The comment about having less problems if the fence was on the Green Line was from Ha'aretz; exact text: ''ICRC official Balthasar Staehelin said that if the barrier were moved back to the Green Line - the boundary before Israel seized the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East War - "that would solve many of the problems as far as we are concerned."''


-----

Shouldn't we have a photograph that reflects better the reality that this Security Barrier is about 97% chain-link and not concrete walls? This site has some photographs we might be able to use:

http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/default.htm

] 07:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

''The barrier is not in fact a fence -- to call it that is highly misleading, as are narrow focus photos that show a fence but not the surrounding environs. While a photo of a pillbox is not representative, neither is a photo that doesn't show the ditches, razor wire, etc. that accompany the "chain-link fence". The site you mention does have photos of work in progress, e.g., http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/operational.htm. It's worth noting the description there: "a multi layered composite obstacle comprised of several elements ...". The full description looks accurate, and is of far more than a "chain-link fence". As this is an official Israeli site, the description is probably worth quoting in full, and I think it would pass NPOV muster.''

== ICJ Ruling ==

If Israeli government decided to ignore the court and not to protect itself, who did then? Who represented the Israeli side? Or does the court make all investigations by itself? --] 20:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:My understanding was that the Israeli government declared that the court had no jurisdiction over plans for defense. They are also not one of the nations that signed up to be bound to the courts rulings. - ]]] 20:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nobody really represented the Israeli side. At the hearings, only pro-Palestinian speakers showed up. Israel decided not to send anybody, nor did anybody who supported the Israeli position (which was, basically, that it wasn't an issue the court had any right to rule on). Supporters of that POV included the US and several major European countries.

And, to top it off, nobody really can enforce the ICJ's rulings. It has no enforcement powers. It can only '''ask''' the UN to do something.

Given that the chances of the UN '''doing''' anything are slim to none, this is mostly a PR victory for the Palestinians. How much of one? Nobody knows. Even the idea of it setting a precedent could be questioned, if it just gets ignored....Which seems quite likely, as neither the US nor many major countries wanted the court to even rule.

Why did nobody want them to rule? Because: A. The Israelis ''already'' see Europe and the UN as biased, and adding fuel to the fire is unlikely to help anybody; B. It creates a nasty headache, in that Israel is probably likely to take any attempt to enforce said ruling as an attack against their sovereignty, given that they never signed up to jurisdiction by the ICJ for ANYTHING; C. The UN is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If it does, any hope of the UN ever having any impact on the Middle East is gone. If it doesn't, Palestinian propaganda will say the UN is an Israeli puppet. --] 22:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

: Your summary is highly misleading. The oral arguments are a trivial part of the process. Most submissions to the court are done on paper and Israel submitted one of the largest documents. Other countries supporting all or part of the Israeli position (eg the USA) also made lengthy submissions. So to say that the Israeli side was not represented is simply false. --] 02:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::Your summary is also misleading. The ICJ is (I understand it) a court of ''arbitration''; i.e. two sides agree to arbitration and present their cases. Israel did not agree to arbitration, nor did it present its case to the court. Moreover, the ICJ simply has no jurisdiction in this area, a point affirmed by Israel, and I believe by the United States, Canada, the E.U., and even Russia. As for the actual court "case" being "trivial", and the submissions of various interested parties being the "meat" of the trial, I find this idea to be wildly at odds with norms of jurisprudence. ] 14:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::Sorry but you are wrong on all counts. This was an advisory opinion, not an arbitration. Advisory opinions do not require the agreement of the parties involved in them. The UN Charter (Article 96) clearly gives the UNGA the right to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion on legal issues of its choosing, so you are wrong about jurisdiction. In any case, the ICJ itself is the highest authority to decide on its jurisdiction and you can find this discussed in the judgment. Next, of the countries/groups you give none denied the ICJ's jurisdiction except for Israel. The others argued that the ICJ had the power to not give an opinion even if the UNGA asked for one and further argued that it ''should'' not give an opinion (not for legal reasons but on the grounds that it would complicate the peace process, or similar). Israel argued that the UNGA acted improperly in various ways when it asked for the advisory opinion but the court ruled against that (see the judgement for a lengthy discussion on it). The submissions are all visible at the ICJ web site. Your last sentence makes little sense to me. Most submissions to the ICJ are done in writing and some are briefly summarised verbally to the court. This is normal for that court. I don't believe there was anything said verbally to the court that was not also put in writing, but there was lots in writing not said verbally. Moroever, the legal arguments made by Israel in its written submission are considered at length in the court ruling, so it is simply wrong to claim that they weren't heard. --] 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


::::The UN Charter may give the ICJ the right to ask for an advisory opinion, but not in this case for a number of reasons. From the Israeli position paper: The request for the Advisory Opinion was outside the competence of the Emergency Special Session which made it. This Emergency Special Session was convened under the “Uniting for Peace” procedure. Under its own rules, this procedure is available only where “the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security”. In the current case there has been no such failure by the Security Council. To the contrary, less than 19 days before the Emergency Special Session adopted the Advisory Opinion resolution, the Security Council exercised this responsibility by endorsing the Roadmap in resolution 1515 and declaring itself to be “seized of the matter”. The issue of requesting an Advisory Opinion, it should be noted, was never raised before the Security Council.
::::Additionally, the Uniting for Peace procedure provides that it is only applicable when the General Assembly is “not in session at the time”. On this occasion, however, the General Assembly was meeting in regular session at the very time the Emergency Special Session was convened to consider the advisory opinion request. Moreover, the “Resumed” nature of the Emergency Special Session - convened on 12 separate occasions since April 1997 is clearly at odds with the intent of a procedure which envisages the convening of an emergency session to address a specific issue of immediate concern.
::::As regards the jurisdiction of the Court, its Statute as well as the UN Charter provide that an Advisory Opinion can only be given on a “legal question”. The question posed in this case is so vague and uncertain as to be incapable of being considered a “legal question”. It gives no indication whether the Court is being asked to find that a given situation is unlawful, or merely to assume its illegality. Further, it asks the Court to ascertain “legal consequences” without indicating for whom, even though legal consequences cannot exist in a vacuum.

::::In other words, UNGA does have a right to ask for an advisory opinion, but not under these circumstances. There are many other reasons why the ICJ should have realized that it should not have attempted to arbitrate in this matter, and would indeed have realized that, were it not a political (rather than judicial) body. ] 16:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==What about the cost?==
I've seen wildly varying estimates of the barrier's cost per mile and en toto, shouldn't the article contain a paragraph about the projected cost, actual cost, rising cost, etc? ]

== Links section ==

Do you think it is about time to start categorize the links? (such as "official Israeli position" , "official UN position" , news-press and pro-fence and con-fence)? ] 10:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

: Instead of that, how about just dividing them by source, such as "Israeli government", "Other governments", "United Nations", "Press", and so on? --] 13:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:: Fine with me. ] 14:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Opinions ==

Guys, quit it with adding yet more identical comments on the ICJ ruling. Currently there are far more negative than positive reactions in the article, which is a bias and a distortion. It would be easy to add dozens of positive comments from different governments, NGOs, etc etc. There isn't even a quotation from a Palestinian leader. --] 01:36, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Accuracy. picture ==

Since the barrier is a fence for over 95% of its length, "fences" should come before "walls". As well, "a very small part" is imprecise, "under 5%" is more accurate.

As for the picture, why is an un-representative picture being shown? Hardly accurate or NPOV. ] 03:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

: On the picture: we should have one of the wire barrier and one of the wall (preferably the Jerusalem portion, which is more significant both demographically and politically). Can you agree to two pictures? I can provide one of the Jerusalem wall taken by myself. Do we have one of the wire barrier? --] 10:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::I would agree to a picture of the concrete portions of the barrier if there were a similarly prominent picture of the wire portions. ] 14:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

: On the value 5%: the reason I removed it is that I don't believe it. I understand that the total constructed length of the barrier at the moment is about 250 km, so 5% would be only 13 km. There must be at least half that much at Qalqiliyia, and more than that much in the Abu Dis area and Bethlehem areas combined. I ''suspect'' that the 5% was calculated by dividing the ''existing'' length of concrete wall (existing when the calculation was made some time ago) by the ''projected'' final length of the barrier. Apples versus oranges. Or maybe it fails to include the long stretches of temporary concrete wall (2m high) in the Jerusalem area that are being progressively replaced by tall concrete wall. Either way, I can't see how it can possibly be true, but I can't find up-to-date statistics. Can you? --] 10:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::The numbers I've seen recently range 97% being fence to (today) seeing a claim that 93% is fence. I've never seen any numbers outside that range. Simply disbelieving those numbers isn't enough, one must have concrete (no pun intended) evidence that they are incorrect. I'll look for some numbers today, but your own personal skepticism is not reason enough to keep them out. ] 14:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::: I'm not "simply disbelieving them", I'm making a judgment based on seeing the concrete wall in all of the places I mentioned. Anyway, isn't it people putting numbers in the article who have to prove them? Can you find a source for the 5% that does not originate with the Israeli government? Where did your 7% come from? --] 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::::Have you measured the lengths you've seen? The figures I have been able to find so far say that the barrier is planned to run 400 miles 15 miles of that would be concrete, or 3.75%. The 7% number (actually, "over 93%" I believe) came from an op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer this morning. Phase A was 137km from Salim to Elqana, and 20km north and south of Jerusalem, of which 8km was concrete. Phase B was 80 km from Salim to Tirat Tzvi, none of which was concrete. The other phases are still under construction, and I can't get numbers for how much of the concrete sections have been built. As for a number which does not originate with the Israeli government, it may be fashionable in some circles to dismiss everything the Israeli government says out of hand as a lie, but that is neither reasonable nor NPOV. If I provide a link from an Israeli government (or any other) source, and you have a link that disputes that, then you are free to provide that. ] 16:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

: Actually I think that the question of fence versus wall is overblown. The wall looks more severe and must have a greater psychological effect on the people living near it, but the effect on the lives of the local population is the same in both cases. --] 10:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::If it's "overblown", then would you be willing to have the article talk only of a fence, and only include pictures of a fence? ] 14:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::: No, because it is not true. --] 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::::Ah. I guess the question isn't "overblown" after all. ] 15:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:01, 10 September 2024

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Former good articleWest Bank barrier was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 20, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 23, 2004.
Current status: Delisted good article
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconLaw
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!


Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Extended-protected edit request on November 30, 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

I think one more paragraph should be added to the sub-section 'Effects on Palestinians'.

Below is the paragraph:


Effects on Palestinians working in Israel


The wall significantly impacts the rights, freedom and mobility of Palestinian workers especially. It represents for Palestinians a complex system of control, surveillance and oppression. According to the Washington Post, about 70000 Palestinians cross checkpoints daily to work in Israel, mainly in construction sites. Security forces at checkpoints have the authority to turn back Palestinians without reason or, as often is the case, turn a short commute into an hours-long, humiliating journey. Workers leave their homes in the very early morning, some as early as 2am, and spend hours commuting, not returning to their homes until the late evening. The military checkpoints they need to cross are usually overcrowded, in poor conditions and characterized by long processing times. They are herded through congested steel cages and metal turnstiles and go through invasive security checks. They are not allowed to take their own tools, food and drinks with them, adding an additional financial burden. Several human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have reported human rights abuses inside checkpoints, including arbitrary arrests and unlawful shootings. The daily struggle and humiliation of going through a checkpoint is not only for workers but also for those communities that were cut in two by the presence of the separation wall. West Bank Palestinians who live on the Jerusalem side in areas like Nabi Samuel are forbidden to go to the Jerusalem site outside their homes and must cross a checkpoint to attend schools or go to work or to the hospital.


  • Why it should be changed:

I think this paragraph is necessary as the article does not mention the daily experience of Palestinian workers going through checkpoints to cross the border. Their experience significantly changed since the building of the Wall, as before they could freely cross the border.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

OwlzOfMinerva (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_%27separation%27_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/occupied/checkpoint/
  3. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_%27separation%27_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  5. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  8. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution#_ftn330
  9. https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Full-Report.pdf
  10. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution

Extended-protected edit request on November 30, 2023 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.


  • What I think should be changed:

The page name should be changed from 'Israeli West Bank barrier' to 'Israeli West Bank wall'.

  • Why it should be changed:

This is a contentious topic, with the two opposing sides proposing diametrically opposing names. The pro-Israel side calls it ‘security fence’ (which is ‘too technical and depoliticizing of the wall’) while the pro-Palestinian side calls it ‘apartheid wall’ ( which ‘needs a fuller understanding and accounting of the differences and similarities between the case of Israel and that of South Africa prior to 1994’). This is included in the ‘Names’ section and picking either of these names would be against Misplaced Pages’s neutrality policy. Below are the reasons why I think ‘Israeli West Bank Wall’ would be a more appropriate name than ‘Israeli West Bank barrier’.

Given how it is a contentious two-sided debate, it would be good to look at the most neutral perspective, which is the one of the international community. Both the ICJ and the UN have called it ‘wall’. Furthemore, both the ICJ and the UN have declared the wall illegal under international law, questioning whether the Israeli perspective on this topic should be put on the same level as the Palestinian.

I did an Ngram of the most common names: West Bank barrier, Israeli security fence, Israeli Wall, Apartheid wall. It appears that ‘apartheid wall’ is the most used, but I agree that it is not neutral enough. ‘Israeli wall’ is the second most used, highlighting how ‘wall’ is overall more used. The terms ‘security fence’ and ‘barrier’ are significantly less used. Hence, renaming it ‘Israeli West Bank wall’ is more appropriate as it is the most common name and the one used by the most neutral of the actors at play (the international community).

To those arguing that the structure is not only made out of the concrete wall but also includes fences and other types of barriers, I would like to point to the comment made by the user ‘Onceinawhile’, who wrote that ‘Whatever we do here it seems logical that it would follow how we have named the Trump wall, which similarly is not technically mostly “wall” and obviously had a much longer official name’.

Finally, the connotation of the word ‘wall’ is a lot stronger than the word ‘barrier’, which seems more technical and broad. The term wall more appropriately reflects the lived experience of Palestinians and the consequences of its structure in terms of limitations on their freedom of movement, their self-determination and their economic opportunities.


  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

OwlzOfMinerva (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Changes like these need consensus. One extended confirmed editor alone cannot make this change. See WP:PCM for starting a move discussion — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49716470/Constructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_Social_Movements_and_the_Politics_of_the_Wall_Barrier_Fence-libre.pdf?1476890516=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConstructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_So.pdf&Expires=1701390446&Signature=LWQzcVKCPAH4WvqLsW87c9BW4q32vEniQZoYiMnhycd0r20Z3B9-FzrX6FKZvtJYBOp3C-qEjzA1zFuC0Bib0FjhIAdU9QfbSw5FmE1Espv3xjMcR7ySMbUVD2t38D3C2LP~Gy7fy4fHuRn15UEeckAo4Mr2F9nWC12kHaOMN7wpnPNInG-4yUHkcARH5Tv8MB-Zgtfm3qIY6fO684j6Zqephk-zlVVAldbCXdrKf5VXlDxO~wBx7LAkzTZjMr048gGo2H159S7ZddPKzd-D0E2ye3CVheSVYjPPM41JJyBCrMD4xpIs97X8-ZbHdeRcVS5NBAHmUIW5iD98Jj7dww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
  2. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49716470/Constructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_Social_Movements_and_the_Politics_of_the_Wall_Barrier_Fence-libre.pdf?1476890516=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConstructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_So.pdf&Expires=1701390446&Signature=LWQzcVKCPAH4WvqLsW87c9BW4q32vEniQZoYiMnhycd0r20Z3B9-FzrX6FKZvtJYBOp3C-qEjzA1zFuC0Bib0FjhIAdU9QfbSw5FmE1Espv3xjMcR7ySMbUVD2t38D3C2LP~Gy7fy4fHuRn15UEeckAo4Mr2F9nWC12kHaOMN7wpnPNInG-4yUHkcARH5Tv8MB-Zgtfm3qIY6fO684j6Zqephk-zlVVAldbCXdrKf5VXlDxO~wBx7LAkzTZjMr048gGo2H159S7ZddPKzd-D0E2ye3CVheSVYjPPM41JJyBCrMD4xpIs97X8-ZbHdeRcVS5NBAHmUIW5iD98Jj7dww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
  3. https://web.archive.org/web/20040902090629/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2004/ipresscom2004-28_mwp_20040709.htm
  4. https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/07/472712
  5. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=West+Bank+barrier%2C+Israeli+security+fence%2C+Israeli+Wall%2C+Apartheid+wall&year_start=1990&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/Trump_wall

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2023

This edit request to Israeli West Bank barrier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, together with the Swiss Agency for Development (SDC) established a CHF 1,6 Mio project to set up a “Barrier Monitoring Unit” (BMU) and, after three years, hand it over to the Palestinian Authority. Its stated purpose was to “improve access to land, livelihoods, and services for Palestinian communities affected by the West Bank Barrier”.

The justification for the unit derived from the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion and its subsequent adoption by the General Assembly, and from the expressed need for documentation of the barrier’s impact. The BMU provided data and assistance to many of the UN humanitarian agencies on the ground, as well as to international, local, and academic institutions, including the Palestinian Authority which had six ministries involved during the implementation phase. Together with UNOCHA, the BMU was the main mechanism by which humanitarian diplomacy on the barrier was implemented.

The BMU aimed at building local capacity, transferring skill sets to partner organisations, and to individual stakeholders and beneficiaries. Stefan G. Ziegler initiator and manager of the BMU pursued research with internationally renowned partners, such as the Politecnico di Milano, the University of Bern, and the Graduate Institute in Geneva, and was particularly successful in strengthening advocacy efforts even beyond the project (see Broken-the-film.com further below). This included messaging about the barrier’s impacts at such places as the EU Parliament, the UN in New York, at Cornell University as well as with publications, for example, EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland. Stefan G. Ziegler realized the tremendous potential for capacity building and shared institutional learning. His participative action research approach became one of the outstanding motivational pillars of the collaboration with the BMU by its associates and stakeholders.

A key achievement of the BMU was its methodology, the institutionalisation of an innovative advocacy approach, initially entitled the Academic Cooperation Palestine Project (ACPP). The BMU was commended for creating a ‘community of practice‘ as well as a model for future educational development as part of what became known as the ‘LearningAlliance’*.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  04:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

This edit request to Israeli West Bank barrier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the effectiveness section, citation 70 (referring to Haaretz reporting) references Hamas and the barrier in Gaza, not the West Bank barrier. Since this article refers exclusively to the West Bank barrier, discussion regarding the Gaza barrier should be removed. SierraLinC (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think the text in the source cited is referring to the barrier in Gaza, not the West Bank barrier? Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Hamas is the governing body of the Gaza Strip where as the Palestinian Authority is the governing body of the West Bank. Though there is mention of the Islamic Jihad network in the West Bank, this article primarily refers to Hamas when discussing the effectiveness of military activities. SierraLinC (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
That does not answer the question I asked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The article cited refers to Hamas, who governs Gaza. This page is for the West Bank barrier. SierraLinC (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
You are mistaken, that article is about Shin Bet saying attacks that originated in the West Bank decreased, but no longer because of this barrier. A. because no barrier in Gaza is referred to as a security fence by Israel, and b. the quote "But the main reason for the reduction in terrorist acts over the past year is the truce in the territories, as partial as it may be. The fact that Hamas, in general, stopped engaging in terror activities changed the picture. The Islamic Jihad network in the West Bank upgraded its capability and was responsible for the murder of 23 Israelis in 2005, but during that time, Hamas - the leading terror organization in recent years - has scaled back its engagement in terror. Its focus on the political arena and the preparations for the Palestinian parliamentary elections have limited its active involvement in terror to a large extent." makes it even more obvious. That article is from February 2006, prior to there even being a Hamas electoral win, or the battle with Fatah in Gaza and the West Bank and them taking over the governance of Gaza, and yes Hamas also is in the West Bank. Then and now. nableezy - 14:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Grammar first sentence

First sentence is both a run-on sentence and has grammar issues. One way to address is to split off"who often call it wall of apartheid" into a separate sentence. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: