Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale.israele
Titolo: La Knesset respinge tre proposte di dirottamento del muro

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/385520.html
Tre parlamentari dell'opposizione hanno proposto delle leggi perché il
famoso muro passasse lungo la Linea Verde, cioè il confine del 1967 (e con
un tracciato del genere sarebbe inattaccabile dal punto di vista legale,
visto che ogni stato ha il diritto di fortificare il proprio confine), ma le
proposte sono state respinte.
Tra parentesi, ricordatevi di Ran Cohen, visto che è uno dei possibili
successori di Yossi Sarid alla segreteria del Meretz.
Ne aveva parlato Giuseppe Franchetti Lunedì sera, osservando però che Ran
Cohen è ben noto in Israele, ma un signor nessuno all'estero. A giudicare
però da Ha-Aretz, direi che alla Knesset si batte bene.
Ciao.
Knesset rejects three bills to alter route of separation fence
 
By Gideon Alon, Haaretz Correspondent
 
The Knesset plenum on Wednesday rejected three bills filed by members of the
opposition on the route of the West Bank separation fence.
 
The three bills each suggested alternative routes to the one the fence is
currently following. The bill proposed by Meretz MK Ran Cohen, which was
rejected by a majority of 53-2 with 4 MKs abstaining, suggesting building
the fence along the 1967 Green Line border.
Cohen accused the Sharon government of "security, financial and diplomatic
crimes" for deciding to build 740 kilometers of fence, some 400 kilometers
longer than the original Green Line. He said the current route of the fence
is "anti-security, encourages additional acts of hatred and terrorism." He
also accused the government of wasting NIS 4 billion on the fence.
The bill proposed by MK Danny Yatom (Labor) was rejected by 58-9 with 6
abstentions and a third bill by MK Matan Vilnai (Labor) was voted down by a
majority of 57-23 with 3 abstentions. The two bills were very similar to
Cohen's proposal.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and many
other ministers all attended the Knesset debate in order to vote against the
proposals. Representatives from coalition partners Shinui, the National
Religious Party and the National Union also voted against the bills.
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/385169.html
Ze'ev Schiff, analista militare di Ha-Aretz, spiega qual tracciato avrebbe
scelto lui per il muro, in modo da minimizzare l'impatto sulla popolazione
palestinese.
Purtroppo, gli tocca concludere l'articolo dicendo che non è che l'Europa
sarebbe più comprensiva verso Israele se il muro ricalcasse la Linea Verde.
Ciao.
A fence that minimizes harm
 
By Ze'ev Schiff
 
 
 
American officials have advised Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia to
tone down his campaign against the separation fence a bit and exploit the
situation to begin negotiations that would end with the Palestinian
Authority receiving all the territory outside Israel's pre-1967 borders. In
such negotiations, he could accept those sections of the fence that lie on
the pre-1967 border and reject the other sections.
 
 
 
 
That is precisely why former prime minister Ehud Barak opposes building the
fence on the pre-1967 border. The only thing Israel can give the
Palestinians in exchange for concessions on their part, he argues, is
territory. Therefore, it is a mistake to make this concession in the context
of building a protective fence, rather than in the context of comprehensive
negotiations. In his opinion, it is better for the fence to protrude into
the West Bank, so that Israel will have something to concede in the
final-status negotiations.
Israel's attention has been focused more on tactical defensive
considerations since the original route of the fence was approved in July
2002. Recently, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that small adjustments
might be made in the route, but they will not be determined by Arab
pressure, and certainly not by pressure from the International Court of
Justice in The Hague, which is perceived as hostile to Israel - or as one
Foreign Ministry official put it, the only thing the court's judicial panel
lacks is a Hamas representative to send the suicide bombers. One can
therefore only regret that these adjustments, whether due to the attorney
general's objections to the route in certain places or to other causes, were
not previously discussed in depth by all the relevant parties.
The adjustments in the fence's route ought to conform to the following
principles: The fence is a temporary construct meant to defend Israel
against terrorism, infiltration and those who move to Israel illegally
(thereby exercising the "right of return" via the back door). Its
construction should cause the absolute minimum of harm to the Palestinians,
who must be able to continue leading normal lives. Its goal should not be to
put Palestinians into pens or to facilitate military activity in Palestinian
areas. Finally, as few Palestinians as possible should be on the Israeli
side of the fence.
The first decision should be not to build the planned "eastern fence," which
is supposed to run the length of the Jordan Valley and corral West Bank
residents into one large pen. This fence, which the Israel Defense Forces
appear to have no interest in, will cause Israel enormous diplomatic and
public relations damage. The border with Jordan is sufficiently well
defended on both sides. The eastern fence is unnecessary - and not just
because of the attorney general's objections to the confiscation of
privately owned lands in the area. This opposition effectively halted
construction of the fence in the area of Taysir, south of Tirat Zvi.
Another change should be the elimination of double fences surrounding
Palestinian villages, which were built out of considerations of military
convenience or settler traffic on the roads. Two typical examples are Baka
al-Sharkiya and its environs and, especially, the city of Qalqilyah. In the
Qalqilyah area, the fence makes at least three "bulges" eastward. Several
neighborhoods and villages in the area of the fence around Jerusalem are
trapped in a similar situation.
Regarding the road to Jerusalem, everything possible should be done to
ensure that Route 443 is protected from the north, which is where all the
attacks on the road have come from, but there is no need for a fence south
of the road. And with regard to defending Ben-Gurion airport, the fence
should be tailored to protect the airport without crudely separating
Palestinian villages from their lands.
Another change relates to the fence's enormous intrusion into the West Bank
in the direction of Ariel, Karnei Shomron, Immanuel and Kedumim. These
settlements should be protected by putting a fence around each one. They
should not be connected to the defense of the coastal strip, which is the
terrorists' preferred target.
Will these changes produce greater understanding in Europe for the steps
that Israel is taking to defend itself? Unfortunately, the answer is "no."
The dominant line in many places is that Israel has no right even to defend
itself.
