Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: (x zanà) Denial of Palestinians' Freedom of Movement in the West Bank

Denial of Palestinians' Freedom of Movement in the West Bank 
Since the beginning of the second intifada, in September 2000, Israel has
imposed restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank that
are unprecedented in scope and time. As a result, the fundamental right of
West Bank Palestinians to freedom of movement, their exercise of which was
limited in any event, has become a privilege that Israel extends to them
as it deems fit. Indeed, Palestinian travel in the West Bank is now an
exception, which must be justified to the Israeli authorities, and almost
every trip entails uncertainty, friction with soldiers, much waiting, and
often great expense. 
Israel combines a number of means in implementing the
restrictions-on-movement regime. The means include fixed and temporary
checkpoints, 47 of which control Palestinians' movement inside the West
Bank , 455 physical obstructions on roads, and the Separation Barrier.
Certain areas are under siege: entry is possible only through checkpoints
and is subject to checks and possession of a permit. On 312 kilometers of
main roads in the West Bank , vehicles bearing Palestinian license plates
are forbidden or restricted. 
The restrictions on movement that Israel has imposed on Palestinians in
the West Bank have split the area into six major geographical units:
North, Center, South, the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea, the
enclaves resulting from the Separation Barrier, and East Jerusalem . In
addition to the restrictions on movement from section to section, Israel
also severely restricts movement within the sections by splitting them up
into subsections, and by controlling and limiting movement between them. 
The geographic division of the West Bank has far-reaching implications on
every aspect of Palestinian life. For example, the restrictions impede
access to medical facilities, both of the medical staff and the patient.
The difficulty in getting to work, the constant lack of certainty, and the
greater expenses resulting from the restrictions gravely affect the
economy and trade in the West Bank . The restrictions impair family and
social ties. Other negative ramifications include a decline in the supply
of infrastructure services and in law enforcement in areas under the
responsibility of the Palestinian Authority. 
The legal perspective 
Israeli officials contend that the restrictions on movement in the West
Bank are a necessary response, limited in time, to security threats facing
the state and its citizens. The State of Israel has the right, even the
duty, to protect its citizens. It may also be that some of the
restrictions were needed at first. However, it appears that Israel
continues to apply these means even after the temporary and specific
security need has passed, and use them to achieve other objectives, among
them controlling and regulating the movement of Palestinian vehicles to
separate them from the settlers and other Israelis on roads in the West
Bank, and to create a rapid and convenient road network for the settlers.
In addition, this separation results in the de facto annexation of these
roads by Israel . 
A substantial proportion of the restrictions is intended to serve these
improper interests, rendering the restrictions illegal. Furthermore, even
if all the restrictions were intended to achieve legitimate security
interests, many of them would violate the principle of proportionality,
and therefore be illegal. 
Israel contends that the restrictions on movement are imposed as part of
its ongoing battle against security threats, and are not intended as
punishment. However, the vast majority of the victims of the restrictions
are not suspected of personal involvement in any terror activity. Based on
the results of Israel 's actions and taking into account that most of the
restrictions have continued for seven years, the conclusion is inescapable
that the restrictions constitute collective punishment, which is
absolutely forbidden by international humanitarian law. 
Recommendations 
For the above reasons, B'Tselem calls on the government of Israel and the
defense authorities to: 
immediately remove all the permanent and sweeping restrictions on movement
inside the West Bank, including the parts of the Separation Barrier that
protrude into the West Bank . In their place, Israel should concentrate
along the Green Line or inside Israel the means used to protect Israelis; 
act immediately to evacuate all the settlements in the West Bank . Until
this is done, Israel must safeguard the lives of the settlers, giving
preference to means that restrict their freedom of movement and not that
of the Palestinians, the protected residents of the occupied territory; 
verify, before any temporary restriction inside the West Bank is approved,
that the restriction is indeed needed for a legitimate security purpose
and that the resultant harm to the Palestinian population will be
proportionate. Such a restriction must be incorporated in a written order
that specifies the nature of the restriction and the period of time it
will remain in force. 
da
http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/20070807_Ground_to_a_Halt.asp
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 Denial of
sergio, guarda che non riesci a dimostrare che gli ebrei stavano
meglio in URSS che in Israele.

 sergio, guarda che 
zanàfesso, guarda che il thread è sulle porcate che devono subire i
palestinesi nella West Bank occupata da Israele 
-- 


 palestinesi nella West Bank occupata da Israele
beh, sai com'è, quando si alza il gomito e non si hanno argomenti, si
fanno di queste figure meschine...

 palestinesi nella West Bank occupata da Israele
aha. e quindi prendiamo atto che non hai niente da rispondere a chi ti
scrive che l'URSS ha appoggiato Paesi che volevano distruggere l'unico
Stato del Medio oriente che ha accolto dei profughi.

 aha. e quindi prendiamo atto che non hai niente da rispondere
no, prendiamo atto che non si fanno domande che non c'entrano un cazzo
con l'oggetto del post e che giustamente a chi lo fa lo stesso non si
risponde.

 scrive che l'URSS ha appoggiato
su pagliaccio parafascista, mostra un qualsiasi documento sovietico
dove si auspica la distruzione di Israele .

 dove si auspica la distruzione di Israele .
io intanto mostro un documento votato dai perfidi sovietici dove si
approva la nascita di Israele:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

 dove si auspica la distruzione di Israele .
ora rileggi con calma. Ho parlato di appoggio sovietico a Stati che
erano in guerra con Israele Egitto e Siria  (i cui eserciti, come
spieg Wiesenthal, erano provveduti di copie del Mein Kampf e dei
Protocolli).
Hai documenti che provano il contrario?

 erano in guerra con Israele Egitto e Siria
e non hai parlato di geopolitica, per cui ogni grande potenza ha degli
alleati in ogni regione del mondo, indipendentemente dalla simpatia o
meno per gli abitanti di questo o quel paese...

 meno per gli abitanti di questo o quel paese...
quindi l'URSS comunista ha votato a favore della nascita di Israele
non certo per simpatia verso gli ebrei. E l'idea che esista una
qualche naturale affinità tra ebrei e comunisti è una solenne
fesseria. Per me (e per i sefarditi in fuga da Paesi alleati
dell'URSS) non è esattamente una novità, eh.

 fesseria.
non è naturale, è fattuale: se io comunista combatto il nazismo, tra
le conseguenze positive della mia lotta c'è quella di porre fine allo
sterminio degli ebrei messo in opera dai nazisti. Auschwitz l'hanno
liberata i soldati di Baffone, che ti piaccia o meno...se ci sono dei
sopravvissuti, lo devono a lui, che ti piaccia o meno...