Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier

Security argument

Too much attention is given to Israel's security argument in the lede, which was outright rejected by the ICJ ruling. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree, the international community clearly stated that the wall is illegal under international law. This perspective should be prioritized and be at the beginning of the article, rather than presenting the Israeli and Palestinian persepctive as having equally strong claims and portraying this as an 'equal' debate. OwlzOfMinerva (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding on to this, an underdeveloped aspect in the current version of the article is the claim that the building of the wall was mainly due to Israel's desire to create a new de facto border in an attempt to annex its settlements. 85% of the wall is constructed inside the West Bank, beyond the Green line [1]. The main beneficiaries of the Wall were the settlements (once again, illegal under international law [2]), as half of the 500.000 settler population now lives in the seam zone, (the area on the west side of the Wall but East of the Green line). This argument appears even more credible when we consider how, together with the various barriers, a new network of security roads was built. These roads are only accessible to Israeli citizens and go to the settlements that remain on the East side of the Wall. [3]. OwlzOfMinerva (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on November 30, 2023

• 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

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

• 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 Wikipedia’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

Arabic name of Security Wall

What is the Arabic name? Does the Security Wall correspond with the structure labeled "Al Geish" in Google Maps? Vagabond nanoda (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The Arabic name is الجدار الإسرائيلي في الضفة الغربية. "The Israeli wall in the West Bank". And yes, in some of the maps (as Google Maps) the road near the fence is called "Al Geish ("the army") probably because it is a road for army use only. Agmonsnir (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2023

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”. [1]

The justification for the unit derived from the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion [*16-original citation] and its subsequent adoption by the General Assembly, and from the expressed need for documentation of the barrier’s impact. [2] 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. [3]

The BMU aimed at building local capacity, transferring skill sets to partner organisations, and to individual stakeholders and beneficiaries. Stefan G. Ziegler [4] 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. [5] 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‘[6] as well as a model for future educational development as part of what became known as the ‘LearningAlliance’*. [7]

• spelling of our Geneva based NGO is in one word LearnigngAlliance while in our Wikipedia entry it is in two. 2A01:CB15:337:CF00:28AB:8808:14D:17F9 (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

 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

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)