Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

As far as I know, there is not yet an article describing the Israel security wall. I was going to add something to Wikipedia:Requested articles, but I don't know what to call the article...

Should it be Israel or Israeli in the title?
Is it a wall? partition? fence? barrier?

Suggestions? Kingturtle 08:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would suggest Israel-Palestine Barrier, because all of wall, partition and fence are also barriers. CGS 08:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC).
What's wrong with Israel security wall? 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. -- Merphant 08:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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.

  • Most common 1 word terms in title:
    • 132 barrier
    • 117 wall
    • 107 fence (next only had 3 hits)

"Apartheid Wall"

"The Israeli West Bank barrier (also called West Bank Security Fence, West Bank wall, or the Apartheid Wall by critics" Proposterous! So, why don't we mention that Palestinians are commonly called ragheads in the opening lines of that entry. It's certainly every bit as true. Wetman 00:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • 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".

  • Most common 2 word terms in title:
    • 22 security fence
    • 18 security barrier (next only had 12 hits)
  • 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


"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. Daniel Quinlan 08:46, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Great stats.
I'd say Israel security wall or Israel security wall. 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. --Menchi 08:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'd go for "Israel security fence". 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 www.israelnewsagency.com/israelsecurityfence.jpg www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/Images/bitzua11.jpg ... reddi
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 spin is that it is a security fence, the other that it is a partitioning wall akin to the Berlin wall. Have fun with your article. :) Secretlondon 13:37, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
Of course both sides will produce appropriate pictures ;) Secretlondon 13:39, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
Heres the isreali's site on it www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/execution.htm Israel security fence. reddi
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.) -- Finlay McWalter 13:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yea, barrier may be better ... "Israel security barrier" with redirect of Israel security wall and Israel security fence ... it's officially (by the il.gov) called the "Seam Zone project". reddi
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. DanKeshet

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 Israel security wall or Israel security fence are best, but I could live with Israel security barrier since barrier was also a relatively common word used to describe the structure. Daniel Quinlan 21:32, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Well I started an article at Israel security fence since it doesn't seem like anyone else has yet. -- Merphant 00:57, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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. Kingturtle 01:01, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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. Martin 01:08, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As an FYI, english.aljazeera.net Aljazeera call it the apartheid wall while weekly.ahram.org.eg Al-Ahram 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. DanKeshet
"Seperation" would be equally bad, because some seem to be claiming that there won't be any significant seperation. Israeli West Bank barrier would be one option - which would also have the advantage of distinguishing it from similar undertakings in the Gaza Strip. Martin 01:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
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). Kingturtle 01:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
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. Moriori 01:40, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC).

Official name

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses the name: "anti-terrorist fence" and "security fence" in its official punlications, as well as the headlines. Check for example:

  • www.mfa.gov.il/mfa
  • securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/missionhome.asp?MissionID=45187& The Israeli Diplomatic Network: The Anti - Terrorist Fence
  • www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=32589.EN Anti-terrorist fence at Israeli Defence Forces website.

MathKnight 11:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The barrier comes under the Ministry of Defence, not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the official site in Hebrew www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/HEB/default.htm, I can find only "security fence" (but I didn't follow every link). --Zero 13:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which United Nations body?

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. --Delirium 03:52, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

I've no idea myself, I was summarising from news articles. Delirium's right, of course. Martin 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. -Penta 11:07, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ha'aretz calls it the separation fence, so perhaps Israeli separation fence is the most NPOV title. Opinions? -- 213.73.231.245 23:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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 Israeli security barrier (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 [blah]". --Delirium 22:05, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Zero deleted my side-remark that the Israelis deny Palestinian claims that the barrier will have various ill effects on the Palestinian population. www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/execution.htm here is the Israeli Defence Ministry website at which they specifically deny these claims. Adam 07:55, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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. --Zero 11:07, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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. Adam 11:16, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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. --Zero 11:38, 25 Jan 2004 (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. --Zero 11:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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 Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990. Obviously I need to be more provocative. Adam 11:49, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The official name of the Berlin Wall was obviously "The Antifascist Wall of Protection"... // Liftarn


If Gush-Shalom link have place, so does the link to the terror victims.

  • www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=383874&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y Terror victims want to attend fence hearing at Int'l Court: "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 Qalqiliya and Jerusalem, 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. --Zero 22:55, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here is the quete (article itself in Hebrew): 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 פיגוע) 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 [i.e., military, secret service, and Ministry of Defense, Danny]. 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 [it is actually a settlement, but who is counting, Danny], 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. Danny 00:33, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Anon and Danny. I added a sentence to the article. --Zero 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/wiki/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". --Zero 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 (Condorcet) vote on every part:

  • First adjective: Israeli, Israel, Israel-Palestine, West Bank
  • Second adjective (if any): security, partitioning, separation, apartheid, anti-terrorism, [none]
  • Noun: barrier, wall, partition, fence, applicance

Dissident 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. -- Dissident 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". --Zero 07:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What happened with the pictures? Some trouble with the server? // Liftarn

  • Dunno. The images won't come up for me either. Kingturtle 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). OneVoice 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. Mintguy (T)

??? evidently people were saying the same things about the Saudi Yemen barrier...that would damage a claim regarding uniqueness OneVoice 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."www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList4/F06BB484D900B227C1256E3E00324D96 (emphasis added) OneVoice 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 OneVoice 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.) OneVoice 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." www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/395324.html


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:

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

Orbis Tertius 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., 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? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 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. - Tεxτurε 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. --Penta 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. --Zero 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. Jayjg 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. --Zero 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. Jayjg 16:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't know why you bothered to copy all this stuff from the Israeli position. Not even the US supported these arguments. They are all discussed and dismissed in pages 14-21 of the ICJ ruling. --Zero 04:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The US did resist the ICJ to rule on the case as well as for what it ruled, a verdict which Powell called "illegitimate". And honestly, the ICJ ruling is whether a poor legal document, clearly noticed it is biased. MathKnight 10:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
'This was an advisory opinion, not an arbitration.' So it wasn't really a judgement but merely an advice? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Correct, though this is usually glossed over in the press, and attempts are often made to gloss over it here as well. Jayjg 02:35, 22 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? Svigor

The IDF won't have enough troops to properly patrol even 1/2 of the fence when completed. The fact is is that the IDF wants the wall to cut off more settlements (along with the popular majority in Israel), but cannot say so because the military is an arm of the government.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier/Archive_1&oldid=1089049429"