Israeli Apartheid?

[gumboot]

if you had been paying any attention to the Israel/Palestine conflict over the last 20 years..you wouldn't NEED any sources.

go to Meretz
go to the Gush Shalom
go to the New Israel Fund
go to Americans for Peace Now
go to the Association for Civil Rights in the Occupied Territories

its all there my friend. I didnt just pull these things out of my @$$.

If you don't have anything useful to add to the OP please refrain from posting in this thread. There's plenty of others for your bickering.

Thanks for the sources, I'll look them up.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

On brief glance, it appears FireGarden's OP dealing with "harfrada" relates to the separation of Israel from Palestinian territories, which in itself doesn't consitute apartheid. I see FireGarden also brought up the topic of South Africa creating bantustans. However, this does not compare to Israel/Palestine as far as I can see because the separation of Palestine/Israel was an action by the international community, not an action by a previously entirely contiguous Israel attempting to expel Arabs.

Bantustans here could probably refer to the actual situation in the West Bank right now. Palestinians don't have free movement within the West Bank itself (which they had a great deal of in the 1980s). The settlements (which are illegal according to international law) and Israeli policy in regards to those settlements have effectively separated many Palestinian communities from each other. Since the beginning of 1990 the Israeli settlers in the West Bank have more than doubled.

Here's a pretty revealing map of the current situation.

A brief commentary of different proposals for territorial negotiations (Israel Committee Against House Demolitions).

 

[Confuseling]

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Marx.

Or perhaps;

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme - Twain.

Personally I'm not really sure how much categorising this as Apartheid adds - it's rather like the Nazi comparison writ small, in that it's probably simply too emotive and polarising to do anything for discussion. The Israelis are brutalising the Palestinians - there you go. Simple and to the point.

(Interesting thread though. Sorry about Godwin)

 

[gumboot]

Bantustans here could probably refer to the actual situation in the West Bank right now. Palestinians don't have free movement within the West Bank itself (which they had a great deal of in the 1980s). The settlements (which are illegal according to international law) and Israeli policy in regards to those settlements have effectively separated many Palestinian communities from each other. Since the beginning of 1990 the Israeli settlers in the West Bank have more than doubled.

Here's a pretty revealing map of the current situation.

A brief commentary of different proposals for territorial negotiations (Israel Committee Against House Demolitions).

Thanks. More useful information!

 

[gumboot]

Personally I'm not really sure how much categorising this as Apartheid adds - it's rather like the Nazi comparison writ small, in that it's probably simply too emotive and polarising to do anything for discussion.

I think it's a justified comparison given that apartheid is now a clearly defined crime in International Law. It's worth examining the facts to determine if, and to what extent, Israel's actions actually constitute apartheid.

 

[Confuseling]

I think it's a justified comparison given that apartheid is now a clearly defined crime in International Law. It's worth examining the facts to determine if, and to what extent, Israel's actions actually constitute apartheid.

Ah - I didn't actually realise that, implicit as it was in your OP.

Carry on.

 

[ddt]

Thank you for all the links. I shall read up. On brief glance, it appears FireGarden's OP dealing with "harfrada" relates to the separation of Israel from Palestinian territories, which in itself doesn't consitute apartheid. I see FireGarden also brought up the topic of South Africa creating bantustans. However, this does not compare to Israel/Palestine as far as I can see because the separation of Palestine/Israel was an action by the international community, not an action by a previously entirely contiguous Israel attempting to expel Arabs.

What would be most useful, and most valuable, would be information about Israeli discrimination against Israeli Arabs.

The use of the word Apartheid about Israel usually refers to the treatment of the Occupied Territories, not to the Israeli Arabs - likewise the use of the word "bantustan", as highlighted by lupus_in_fabula's post (great map btw; most that I've seen before had less distinguishing colors).

Now, one may argue that the WB Pals are not Israeli citizens. But as the map shows, the Israeli settlements encroach and partition in such a way the Pal. areas that the same situation develops as in South Africa: the Palestinians are relegated to small areas which are not viable to function as an independent state. Offering such areas statehood is as false as what SA did with the bantustans. So, you arrive at the same situation as in SA. And for all intents and purposes, Israel is responsible since 1967 for the WB residents. So, from a practical point of view, I don't think it matters very much whether they ever formally have been Israeli citizens or not; Israel doesn't give them the option of becoming citizen of another viable state.

<derail>
The settlements keep growing, year after year; see the Excel sheet at this BTselem page. Note also that they grew fastest during Barak's tenure.
</derail>

If you think the above argument not convincing enough, and that what Israel is doing on the WB is "only" a violation of the Geneva conventions, let's take a look at East Jerusalem. The Guardian article Fiona linked to gives some insight how Israel weaseled with the borders:

The Israelis drew a line on a map - a new city boundary - between Beit Hanina's lands and most of its homes. The olive groves and orchards were to be part of Jerusalem; the village was to remain in the West Bank.

The population was not so neatly divided. Arabs in the area were registered as living in the village - even those, like Rhateb's parents, whose homes were inside what was now defined as Jerusalem.
[...]
Four decades later, the increasingly complex world of Israel's system of classification deems Said Rhateb to be a resident of the West Bank - somewhere he has never lived - and an illegal alien for living in the home in which he was born, inside the Jerusalem boundary.

I think that clearly classifies as apartheid.

Those who got classified as residents of East Jerusalem got permanent resident status and the right to Israeli citizenship (which most of them didn't apply for). However, Israel has become ever more creative in designing convoluted rules for renouncing someone's Jerusalem permanent resident status. I'll look for some links on this later.

 

[gumboot]

Now, one may argue that the WB Pals are not Israeli citizens. But as the map shows, the Israeli settlements encroach and partition in such a way the Pal. areas that the same situation develops as in South Africa: the Palestinians are relegated to small areas which are not viable to function as an independent state.

I'm not sure that it's really comparable to South Africa at all. South Africa artificially created fake states for those they wished to oppress in order to claim those people were not their responsibility. Israel appears to be doing the exact opposite - encroaching on foreign territory they have no right to and acting like it belongs to them.

More pertinent, I think is the information that Israeli Arabs are not given the same rights to settle in these illegal settlements that Israeli Jews are.

Offering such areas statehood is as false as what SA did with the bantustans.

Israel has no claim to these territories and no right to "offer" them statehood at all.

So, you arrive at the same situation as in SA. And for all intents and purposes, Israel is responsible since 1967 for the WB residents. So, from a practical point of view, I don't think it matters very much whether they ever formally have been Israeli citizens or not; Israel doesn't give them the option of becoming citizen of another viable state.

My understanding is that much of the West Bank has been occupied by the IDF since the 1967 war. This would constitute occupation under the laws of armed conflict in these areas, therefore as per the OP they would constitute "Israeli territory" and discrimination against Palestinian Arabs in this territory would constitute apartheid. One aspect that would make this a bit trickier is it would need to be demonstrated that other Palestinians were treated differently. I am pretty sure there is no requirement in the Laws of Armed Conflict that an occupying power must treat the population of the occupied territories just the same as their own citizens, however they would need to treat everyone in the occupied territories equally.

It becomes something of a messy situation once you include settlement of citizens in the occupied territory which is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

If you think the above argument not convincing enough, and that what Israel is doing on the WB is "only" a violation of the Geneva conventions, let's take a look at East Jerusalem.

This isn't about being "convinced". I'm trying to gather a clearer picture of the situation. Personally, given the ICC's rather limited jurisdiction and international support, I would consider violation of the Geneva Conventions as more serious than violation of ICC crimes.

Those who got classified as residents of East Jerusalem got permanent resident status and the right to Israeli citizenship (which most of them didn't apply for). However, Israel has become ever more creative in designing convoluted rules for renouncing someone's Jerusalem permanent resident status. I'll look for some links on this later.

Certainly East Jerusalem looks like a very damning case for Israel. They have annexed it for themselves, yet are not behaving in a fair and equal manner with regards treatment of the locals.

Thanks for taking the time to offer some more insight. Much appreciated.

 

[ddt]

I'm not sure that it's really comparable to South Africa at all. South Africa artificially created fake states for those they wished to oppress in order to claim those people were not their responsibility. Israel appears to be doing the exact opposite - encroaching on foreign territory they have no right to and acting like it belongs to them.

I acknowledge Israel comes from "the other way round": whereas SA "relinquished" parts of its territory, Israel wants to annex bits and pieces of others' territory. But what's left for the "others" (WB Pals in Israels case, blacks in SA case) is the same: here and there a patch of land, unviable for an independent state.

More pertinent, I think is the information that Israeli Arabs are not given the same rights to settle in these illegal settlements that Israeli Jews are.

BTW, did someone already provide a link to an article on that specifically?

Israel has no claim to these territories and no right to "offer" them statehood at all.

No, it hasn't, and "offer" was maybe a bit clumsy. Israel now occupies and controls the area. Without Israels consent, a Palestinian state in viable borders in the West Bank doesn't happen. Even if Obama would, next week, recognize a Palestinian state on the whole of the West Bank, I don't think Israel would comply and retreat its troops - short of a US threat to nuke Tel Aviv.

My understanding is that much of the West Bank has been occupied by the IDF since the 1967 war.

The whole West Bank.

This would constitute occupation under the laws of armed conflict in these areas, therefore as per the OP they would constitute "Israeli territory" and discrimination against Palestinian Arabs in this territory would constitute apartheid. One aspect that would make this a bit trickier is it would need to be demonstrated that other Palestinians were treated differently. I am pretty sure there is no requirement in the Laws of Armed Conflict that an occupying power must treat the population of the occupied territories just the same as their own citizens, however they would need to treat everyone in the occupied territories equally.

It becomes something of a messy situation once you include settlement of citizens in the occupied territory which is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Agree. There are now around half a million settlers, a gross violation:

By the end of 2007, the number of settlers in the West Bank stood at 462,000. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, in September 2007, 271,400 settlers were living in the West Bank, excluding Jerusalem. In addition, based on growth statistics for the entire population of Jerusalem throughout 2007, the settler population in East Jerusalem is estimated at 191,000.

I agree 100% that it is no apartheid to treat Israeli citizens within Israel differently than WB Pals in the WB. But with this number of settlers, the case becomes tenuous for the treatment of Israeli citizens living in the WB compared to the Pals.

ETA: This BTselem page has some interesting info that is pertinent to this:

The Israeli administration has applied most aspects of Israeli law to the settlers and the settlements, thus effectively annexing them to the State of Israel. This has taken place despite the fact that, in formal terms, the West Bank is not part of the State of Israel, and the law in effect there is Jordanian law and military legislation. This annexation has resulted in a regime of legalized separation and discrimination. This regime is based on the existence of two separate legal systems in the same territory, with the rights of individuals being determined by their nationality.

So, in the WB, Israeli law applies to Israeli settlers, whereas Jordanian law and military legislation applies to WB Pals.

This isn't about being "convinced". I'm trying to gather a clearer picture of the situation. Personally, given the ICC's rather limited jurisdiction and international support, I would consider violation of the Geneva Conventions as more serious than violation of ICC crimes.

Well, violations of the Geneva Conventions abound in mass. As to international support for the ICC: I'd cheer the day that an ICC judge says its jurisdiction applies to non-signatories too. International law has a concept that treaties that are signed by nearly every state apply to non-signatories too.

Thanks for taking the time to offer some more insight. Much appreciated.

You're welcome.

 

[gumboot]

I acknowledge Israel comes from "the other way round": whereas SA "relinquished" parts of its territory, Israel wants to annex bits and pieces of others' territory. But what's left for the "others" (WB Pals in Israels case, blacks in SA case) is the same: here and there a patch of land, unviable for an independent state.

True.

BTW, did someone already provide a link to an article on that specifically?

Yes, they did.

The whole West Bank.

According to this map large portions of the West Bank are under Palestinian control.

Agree. There are now around half a million settlers, a gross violation:

Without question. The scale of settlement is quite alarming. I think Israel's disengagement from Gaza demonstrates that the potential will exists for Israel to disengage from the West Bank, the problem is if you look at the effort Israel expended to force its citizens out of Gaza, I believe it is actually impossible for Israel to force its settlements to close in the West Bank - the government simply does not have the military strength nor financial capital to do it. It is a major dilemma. Perhaps assistance from the UN is needed.

I agree 100% that it is no apartheid to treat Israeli citizens within Israel differently than WB Pals in the WB. But with this number of settlers, the case becomes tenuous for the treatment of Israeli citizens living in the WB compared to the Pals.

Particularly given those citizens are there illegally anyway!

ETA: This BTselem page has some interesting info that is pertinent to this:

So, in the WB, Israeli law applies to Israeli settlers, whereas Jordanian law and military legislation applies to WB Pals.

Yes, I was going to comment that Jordan's previous annexation of the West Bank certainly does not help matters!

Well, violations of the Geneva Conventions abound in mass.

Sadly so. And as wars are increasingly fought in high density urban areas against non-state entities, these violations will only continue to rise.

As to international support for the ICC: I'd cheer the day that an ICC judge says its jurisdiction applies to non-signatories too. International law has a concept that treaties that are signed by nearly every state apply to non-signatories too.

Yes. Sadly the ICC has a long way to go before it reaches that level. (Most of the Geneva Conventions are customary law already).

 

[ddt]

According to this map large portions of the West Bank are under Palestinian control.

That map lumps together Area A and Area B. In Area B, Israel still has "security control". And I'm also not sure how diligent the IDF is with the territorial integrity of Area A.

Without question. The scale of settlement is quite alarming. I think Israel's disengagement from Gaza demonstrates that the potential will exists for Israel to disengage from the West Bank,

I'm not quick to jump to that conclusion. Someone posted on one of these threads a discussion from the UK Commons; one of the MPs noted that immediately after the 6,000 Gaza settlers were evacuated, 12,000 settlers extra came to the WB, including most of the former Gaza settlers.

the problem is if you look at the effort Israel expended to force its citizens out of Gaza, I believe it is actually impossible for Israel to force its settlements to close in the West Bank - the government simply does not have the military strength nor financial capital to do it. It is a major dilemma.

Simply: one at a time. The Israeli government could start with clearing the "outposts", the settlements that are even illegal under Israeli rules. They could gradually move from most unwanted to eventually the less unwanted settlements, and the Israeli population would grow used to that.

Like many call that the Palestinians need a Mandela, or a Gandhi, as their leader - and I agree with that - the Israelis need a De Gaulle, someone with enough standing and prestige and the guts to say: we're moving out - like De Gaulle did with Algeria.

Perhaps assistance from the UN is needed.

Not more of my tax money. I don't think money is the problem, but the political capital.

Yes, I was going to comment that Jordan's previous annexation of the West Bank certainly does not help matters!

The UK was the only country that recognized that annexation. So you could argue whether in the WB Jordanian law should apply or Ottoman/British mandate law.

The fact remains that that quote establishes apartheid. The WB, excluding (expanded) Jerusalem, is not claimed as annexed by Israel. So there is legal unity. Still, Israel applies Israeli law to the Israeli citizens living there, and Jordanian law to the indigenous population. That's apartheid. The same law should apply to all equally.

Sadly so. And as wars are increasingly fought in high density urban areas against non-state entities, these violations will only continue to rise.

Amen.

Yes. Sadly the ICC has a long way to go before it reaches that level. (Most of the Geneva Conventions are customary law already).

Give them time. The GCs are from 1947, the ICC is less than 10 years old.

 

[Skeptic]

Thanks for the response. This would tend to suggest not government discrimination, but discrimination by individual citizens. Would you be amble to cite some examples of what sort of thing happens? Is it universal across Israel, or more prominent in certain areas?

The situation of Israeli Arabs is currently, by and large, similar to that of American blacks in the 1970s. Yes, there's discrimination and racism against them. No, there isn't Apartheid. But the important issue is in what direction are things going.

It is always possible things will go down the drain, even down to a civil war, due to extremists on both sides gaining strength. But, such a possiblity aside, the number of Israeli Arabs in business, academia, medicine, engineering, architecture, -- in all walks of professional life -- has vastly increased over the last 20 years (to say nothing of 40 years). For example, in the past an Arab physician was a novelty; today, nobody gives it a second thought. What's more, contact between Jews and Arabs is far greater than it was then. One very interesting point is that the number of Arab WOMEN now working outside the home -- unheard of even 20 or so years ago -- had greatly increased.

So is there discrimination? Yes. Apartheid? No. And the general direction is less discrimination, more inclusion, and has been for many years. Yes, as said, all this can change tomorrow -- this is the middle east -- but, as they say, it's "true for the time of the writing".

 

[Allen773]

If Israel is not an apartheid state, they have done a poor job of demonstrating otherwise to the world.

 

[gumboot]

Just a reminder to keep things on topic please.

 

[FireGarden]

How about the Bedouin, many of whom served in the IDF?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220802287936&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

A group of British Conservative MPs will be touring the unrecognized Beduin villages of the Negev on Tuesday, and will be asked by representatives of those villages to pressure Israel to change its policy toward them.

[...] According to a press release of the Regional Council for Unrecognized Villages, the MPs will visit the unrecognized village Wadi Na'am, "and will hear about life alongside the toxic waste dump and chemical factories of Ramat Hovav, about the establishment of a power plant in the village center and about living without basic services such as water and electricity."

Here's what Jonathan Cook wrote about Adi Na'am in 2004:
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0213.htm

Officially the state justifies its aggressive approach on the grounds that the Bedouin are too scattered to be connected to services. The irony is not lost on Bedouin leaders like Labad Abu Afash, the mayor of the unrecognised village of Wadi Al-Naam, near Beersheva.

In the late 1970s the state built the Negev's main electricity sub-station in the very centre of the village, with volts surging over the heads of the 3,000 inhabitants even though none of their homes is connected to the supply. "We can feel the electricity humming in our heads but we are not allowed to benefit from it,' he says.

Similar criteria are not being enforced on the more than 100 tiny Jewish communities that have sprung up all over the Negev in recent years. Some have barely more than a dozen families but are instantly connected to public services.

I've discussed the Bedouin on this forum (link later) and I know that there are Bedouin towns/cities which are recognised and do have schools, electricity, etc. Literacy has been improved quite a bit.

They're mentioned here:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1990_1999/1999/7/the bedouin in israel

Here's a JNF advert:
http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=advertorial

Blueprint Negev answers the need for Jews in the Diaspora looking to make aliyah the pioneering way. Nefesh B’Nefesh has been very successful in bringing highly qualified North American immigrants to Israel, yet many settle in established communities, seeking an English-speaking population. We are working with them to set up English-speaking communities in the Negev, such as Carmit, and allow the Diaspora Jew to change the quality of life and image of the Negev. It doesn’t get more pioneering than that.

Maybe the Bedouin should start a Beduoin National Fund. I wonder if they would get government support.

http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=advertorial2

At Haruv, 22 families have founded a community with the goal of growing to 210. Their vision is one of religious and secular Jews living side by side, sharing community resources and activities.

[...] At Carmit, JNF is working with Nefesh B’Nefesh to establish an English-speaking community where Diaspora Jews can change the quality of life and image of the Negev.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefesh_B'Nefesh

Nefesh B'Nefesh is an organization that encourages immigration by Jewish people to Israel from North America and the United Kingdom. As yet they do not assist immigrants from other English-speaking countries such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Which has been modified, trivially, since the last time I linked to that wiki page:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123329&referrerid=6535

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246513,00.html

In less than 18 months the cornerstone will be laid to mark the beginning of construction of a new community in the Negev, called Carmit, designated for wealthy, young American immigrants who want to make Aliyah and live in style.

Are there Arab villages built so that an organisation can encourage the immigration of Arabs to Israel. Why not? If there is no difference between Jew and non-Jew in Israel.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Education

The Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education notes that the Israeli government spends an average of $192 per year on each Arab student compared to $1,100 per Jewish student. The drop-out rate for Arab citizens of Israel is twice as high as that of their Jewish counterparts (12 percent versus 6 percent). The same group also notes that there is a 5,000-classroom shortage in the Arab sector.

wiki also links to a HRW report, 2001:
Israeli Schools Separate, Not Equal
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2001/12/04/israeli-schools-separate-not-equal


There is at least one mixed school in Israel. I've only been able to find the first one to open:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4121695.stm

Nestled in the lush, mountainous Galilee region of northern Israel, a school working to a radical and experimental curriculum is quietly changing the dynamic between Arab and Jewish neighbours.

[...] Established in 1997, it was the first mixed school in Israel to host fully integrated classrooms teaching in both Arabic and Hebrew.

All that said, I wouldn't regard Israel within the 1967 borders as being under a system of apartheid. There is discrimination, and there is a certain amount of seperateness. But that seperateness isn't justified by law. In fact, there are laws against it. The JNF gets heat in Israel, as well as in the rest of the world. I'll look up some court cases if no-one else links them. (The JNF also gets support, of course).





Does this beach count as a topic of discussion:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...aches-to-appease-israeli-settlers-846948.html

The Association of Civil Rights (Acri) in Israel is challenging what it says is the frequently imposed ban by the military on Palestinians seeking to swim or relax at beaches in the northern Dead Sea. The salt-saturated sea is the only open water accessible to Palestinians from the otherwise landlocked West Bank.

The petition says that the Israeli military is using the Beit Ha'arava checkpoint on Route 90 – the only open access route in the occupied West Bank for travel to the Dead Sea – to turn back Palestinians, mainly but not exclusively on weekends and Jewish holidays.

Acri says that the ban is to appease Israeli settlers operating concessions along the Dead Sea's northern shore. They fear losing Jewish customers if there are large numbers of Arabs using the beaches in territory seized by Israel during the Six Day War in 1967.

 

[Thunder]

Lets remember folks...the whole point of "Apartheid" is seperation of peoples based on race and ethnicity. Different standards of justice..different standards of government support and funding. Different standards of rights and privelages. And often time literal physical seperation between peoples.

How can anyone honestly say that when it comes to the situation in the West Bank..Israel does indeed enforce a system of Separation/Apartheid/Hafrada?

I firmly believe that anyone who denies this is either highly ignorant of the situation over there, in conscious denial, a liar, or a flaming bigot. There is no away around it.

 

[Texas]

I firmly believe that anyone who denies this is either highly ignorant of the situation over there, in conscious denial, a liar, or a flaming bigot. There is no away around it.

If you were a Christian I would tell you to climb down from your cross but since you are not just climb down from your high horse.

 

[Texas]

I will spell this out as clearly as I can.

Israel itself, is NOT an Apartheid state. Non-Jews have full civil rights. There is, however, widespread discrimination against Arabs and Muslims in the private sector of society, including businesses, housing, employment, education, etc.

Now, as far as the West Bank is concerned...this IS an Apartheid regime.

There are seperate roads for Jews and Arabs. Seperate towns. Seperate schools. Seperate cities. Everything is seperate.

As far as the condition of these seperate things? One cannot even compare. The quality of life of Jews is waaaay better then the Arabs.

Until the formation of the Palestinian Authority, Israel had one laws for the Jews..and one law for the Arabs.

Israel refused to issue permits for Arab building. They would demolish Arab construction in the name of "defense" when it was only for building Jewish homes.

Israel also FORBIDS Arab Israeli citizens from living in the Jewish settlements..which are paid for by the tax dollars of ALL citizens!! They pay taxes..but cant live there. Nice.

So....with all these restrictions..with all this discrimination....Israel does indeed treat the West Bank like an Apartheid state. Though they dont call it "Apartheid". Its called Hafrada.

AS to the roads it once again comes down to palistinians attacking Isrealis in the West Bank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#Roads

Roads

Checkpoint before entering Jericho, 2005.The West Bank has 4,500 km (2,796 mi) of roads, of which 2,700 km (1,678 mi) are paved.

In response to shootings by Palestinians, some highways, especially those leading to Israeli settlements, are completely inaccessible to cars with Palestinian license plates, while many other roads are restricted only to public transportation and to Palestinians who have special permits from Israeli authorities.[29][30][31] Due to numerous shooting assaults targeting Israeli vehicles, the IDF bars Israelis from using most of the original roads in the West Bank. Israel's longstanding policy of separation-to-prevent-friction dictates the development of alternative highway systems for Israelis and Palestinian traffic.

Israel maintains about 500 checkpoints or roadblocks in the region.[32] . As such, movement restrictions are also placed on main roads traditionally used by Palestinians to travel between cities, and such restrictions have been blamed for poverty and economic depression in the West Bank.[33] Since the beginning of 2005, there has been some amelioration of these restrictions. According to recent human rights reports, "Israel has made efforts to improve transport contiguity for Palestinians travelling in the West Bank. It has done this by constructing underpasses and bridges (28 of which have been constructed and 16 of which are planned) that link Palestinian areas separated from each other by Israeli settlements and bypass roads"[34] and by removal of checkpoints and physical obstacles, or by not reacting to Palestinian removal or natural erosion of other obstacles. "The impact (of these actions) is most felt by the easing of movement between villages and between villages and the urban centres".[34]

However, the obstacles encircling major Palestinian urban hubs, particularly Nablus and Hebron, have remained. In addition, the IDF prohibits Israeli citizens from entering Palestinian-controlled land (Area A).

As of August 2007, a divided highway is currently under construction that will pass through the West Bank. The highway has a concrete wall dividing the two sides, one designated for Israeli vehicles, the other for Palestinian. The wall is designed to allow Palestinians to freely pass north-south through Israeli-held land.

 

[a_unique_person]

AS to the roads it once again comes down to palistinians attacking Isrealis in the West Bank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#Roads

The roads lead to settlements where only Jews can live.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723.shtml

One of the uses of settlements, the creation of apartheid.

Daniella Weiss moved from Israel to the West Bank 33 years ago. She has been the mayor of a large settlement.

"I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality," Weiss told 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon.