Day after partially opening it, the army closed the Beitin-Ramallah road.

[Jefferson23]

Reason provided: Palestinian drivers did not obey a stop sign erected to favor settler traffic

Published:
27 May 2015


Repaved Beitin Road, closed to Palestinian traffic. Photo: Iyad Haddad, B'Tselem 26.5.2015

In the last few days, the Israeli authorities completed the reopening of the road that connects Palestinian villages Beitin and others in the northeast Ramallah District with the city of Ramallah via the DCO checkpoint. Due to existing restrictions in the DCO checkpoint, the opening allowed access to Ramallah only for the use of private vehicles and in one direction only. However, this partial improvement in the freedom of movement of Palestinian area residents was short-lived: only one day after the much-publicized reopening of the road, the army blocked it off with rocks. The grounds given were that some of the Palestinian drivers did not obey a stop sign placed on the road in order to give the right of way to Israeli settlers from Beit El. The original closure of the Beitin junction to Palestinians was in order to allow Beit El settlers exclusive use of the road on their way to route 60.

The repaving of the road, which the army blocked with a dirt pile 15 years ago, was recently completed. On Monday, 25 May, the Palestinian DCO notified the Beitin village council that the road was now open for traffic. Although the Beitin road used to be the main route for 60,000-70,000 Palestinians to reach Ramallah, the army placed a stop sign at the exit from the village to the road, so that the 6,000 settlers of Beit El would receive the right of way. It should be noted that the settlers waged a campaign against reopening the road to Palestinians. The next day, 26 May, the Palestinian DCO passed the Beitin village council a message from the Israeli DCO that the road had temporarily been reclosed as Palestinian drivers were not obeying the stop sign.

The Israeli DCO demanded that the local councils of the villages using the road place additional stop signs before the junction and speed bumps along the road, and that until such a time, the road would be reclosed. The DCO asked that the Beitin council block the road itself, but as the council replied that it did not have the proper engineering equipment to do so, the army blocked the road with rocks and stated it will reopen once alterations have been made.

Harming all Palestinian motorists in the northeast Ramallah District because some drivers committed a traffic offense is unacceptable. However, the major problem lies with the Israeli authorities’ manipulative use of the promise to reopen the Beitin road after 15 years. Reopening the road will not, in itself, significantly improve access to the city of Ramallah as long as the authorities continue to forbid public transport and commercial traffic through the DCO checkpoint, and even the exit of private Palestinian vehicles through it (except those holding VIP cards). Forcing tens of thousands of Palestinian drivers on the Beitin road to give right of way to several thousand settlers from Beit El symbolizes the Israeli policy to favor the interests of settlers over the Palestinian population in the West Bank.

in full: http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20150527_beitin_road_blocked_again

[oberliner]

1. People should obey stop signs

That's just a safety issue.

[guillaumeb]

2. Only one response so far. Interesting.

The parade of posts continue. What they share is that they all provide evidence that the State of Israel practices apartheid. The apartheid is practiced in Israel proper as well as in the stolen land that Israel "administers".

Administer is such a bland, neutral word. Saying that Israel is "administering the territories" sounds better than saying that Israel is stealing every resource from the Palestinians that it can.

And by writing the word "apartheid" I might be attacked because the country of Israel is not the country of South Africa, and the word apartheid is an Afrikkans word. The word means separateness, the state of being separate. And if "Israeli only" roads, settlements, buses, etc. do not qualify as an apartheid like system, what does it represent?

The last sentence: "Forcing tens of thousands of Palestinian drivers on the Beitin road to give right of way to several thousand settlers from Beit El symbolizes the Israeli policy to favor the interests of settlers over the Palestinian population in the West Bank. " says it all.


Excellent post Jefferson

[Jefferson23]

3. Israeli officials so own this fucking mess..they created it. As you have noted, the responses

are telling. The irony of the STOP sign excuse, how I wish they would, stop it.

[azurnoir]

4. can't inconvenience settlers ya know

[Israeli]

7. Now that is it in a nutshell azurnoir.....

here is what happened :...

The road connecting Beitin and other Palestinian villages northeast of Ramallah to the city of Ramallah gained much less media attention - hardly any at all. Fifteen years ago, during its effort to suppress the Second Intifada, the army blocked this road to Palestinian traffic and reserved it for the travelling of settlers only - and not just ordinary settlers, but residents of the Beit El settlement, where many leaders of the “Judea and Samaria Council" live. The Palestinians needed to take longer and more difficult routes in order to get to the city. This week the army announced that, “as part of easing the living conditions of the Palestinians", it will allow Palestinian traffic on this road for the first time in fifteen years – though only for private cars, only in one direction, and only provided that Palestinians drivers "give right of way to settlers’ cars". After one day and following a stormy demonstration by the Beit El settlers, the army announced that “the experiment failed”, and military bulldozers were sent to pile rocks and once again block Palestinian access to this road.

plus ....

All this happened on the day that Prime Minister Netanyahu met in his bureau with the European Union’s Federica Mogherini. The distinguished guest asked the PM to manifest “a positive attitude conductive to the reopening of negotiations”. Netanyahu responded with the surprise announcement that he would be prepared to discuss the demarcation of the "settlement blocs" in which the State of Israel would be allowed to build and extend settlements. Until now, Netanyahu (like his predecessors) rejected out of hand any demand to define the boundaries of these "blocks" - because any attempt to demarcate them drew howls and outcries of protest from settlers who were left out.

Had Netanyahu really changed tack? Or is it convenient for him to make proposals regarding hypothetical negotiations with the Palestinians, knowing that there is virtually no chance of such negotiations taking place? One of the key conditions which Palestinians put for resuming negotiations with Israel is a complete freeze of construction in all settlements, blocks or no blocks. In such negotiations the idea of a territorial exchange might come on the agenda. The Palestinians might consent to the annexation by Israel of some portions of West Bank territory, containing some settlements - provided that Israel cede in exchange some land within its pre-’67 territory, equal in its size and quality. Following such an agreement, an understanding might be reached that Israel will build legitimately on land which it would retain, and that the Palestinians could also start building on land earmarked to be passed over to them... All of this does not seem a very realistic vision under the current Netanyahu government, whose very narrow parliamentary majority depends on several extreme right-wing nationalists.

Indeed, Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel of the Jewish Home Party rushed to protest: “If indeed the Prime Minister told the EU representative what the media reported, this offer creates a dangerous precedent and is clearly contrary to the first clause of the Cabinet Program – stating that the Jewish People have an unquestionable right to a sovereign state in Eretz Israel, our national and historical homeland ". Netanyahu did not seem really disturbed by the criticism of Ariel. Indeed, it might have even given him a greater credibility towards the Europeans. Will this be enough to halt European projects which Netanyahu does not like, such as marking settlement products entering the European market or even blocking them altogether? And how would it affect the French intention to submit the famous draft resolution to the Security Council? The French Foreign Minister is next in line among the distinguished visitors expected to call on Netanyahu next month.

Source: http://adam-keller2.blogspot.co.il/2015/05/an-international-roller-coaster.html

[azurnoir]

8. ah more talking the talk(s) while knowing

walk will never be walked

[Israeli]

10. Netanyahu has ways of putting critics of the occupation to sleep

His proposals on discussing the borders of the settlement blocs is the latest plank in a strategy crafted in 1996.

By Hagit Ofran

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s most recent proposal — negotiations on the settlement blocs — is nothing but a sophisticated trap. He can tell his ministers the talks are designed to win the Palestinians’ acquiescence for more construction in the settlements, without establishing a Palestinian state and ending the occupation.

He can also present this initiative to the opposition and Israel’s friends abroad as talks on the future border between Israel and a Palestinian state. In fact, this initiative is geared toward buying quiet both at home and abroad, without paying a political price.

Experience shows that Netanyahu’s method has several principles: pretending to strive for peace, presenting an initiative that the Palestinians can’t possibly agree to, and blaming them while creating facts on the ground aimed at torpedoing any chance for a two-state solution.

Under the first principle, there has to be some diplomatic process, any kind of negotiation, with the world mobilizing to ensure some success while easing the pressure on Israel. The existence of a diplomatic process makes it harder for the left to oppose the government; any opposition comes mainly from the right. When the process fails, the public perceives it as a failure of the left, justifying the right’s path.

Under the second principle, the initiative must seem expressing a sincere desire to attain peace. But it has to be crafted so that the Palestinians can’t accept it, due to its real meaning.

This is what happened when Netanyahu first became prime minister in 1996 and embraced the Oslo Accords, after having been a chief opponent. Netanyahu said he would stick to that path but in his own way, adding a principle of reciprocity: “If they give, they’ll get; if they don’t, they won’t.”

This principle sounded reasonable, but it let Netanyahu declare anytime that the Palestinians weren’t delivering, so they didn’t deserve receiving anything in return. A stone-throwing incident or inflammatory words could always be a pretext for inaction.

This is what happened when Netanyahu signed the Hebron agreement with Yasser Arafat in 1997 and the Wye River Memorandum in 1998. In fact, these deals were redundant because they addressed the implementation of interim stages that had already been agreed on in 1995 and Israel was procrastinating in carrying out, including a withdrawal from Hebron. According to the Oslo Accords, the two sides were supposed to discuss the conflict’s final resolution and sign an agreement by May 1999, but Netanyahu never even started serious negotiations.

Under Netanyahu’s third principle, when an initiative fails the Palestinians are to blame. This is what happened when they refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Netanyahu knew that this condition — which sounds reasonable to Israeli ears — couldn’t be accepted by the Palestinians as a precondition. So as long as the Palestinians reject this, Netanyahu can portray them as rejecting the peace process.

A similar move was his freezing construction in the settlements for 10 months in 2009 and refusing to extend the period. The Palestinians refused to negotiate as long as construction continued, so Netanyahu could blame them.

The offer to negotiate the borders of the settlement blocs is yet another similar trap. Netanyahu has never presented a map of the blocs he’s referring to, having declared in the past that Hebron and Beit El would remain in Israel. If we go by the route of the separation barrier, 85 percent of the Israelis outside the 1967 borders (including Jerusalem) — 470,000 people — live in such blocs.

In contrast, the blocs according to Palestinian negotiators — based on a map they produced at the Annapolis talks — contain only 59 percent of the Israelis outside the 1967 borders; 325,000 people. This is a gap of 145,000 settlers and nearly 100,000 acres.

If Netanyahu’s goal is to obtain the Palestinians’ consent to continued Israeli construction in some settlements, without receiving assurances on borders, he’s deceiving everyone. The Palestinians can’t agree to construction in places that ruin any chance of establishing a viable state.

If he intends to discuss borders, the dialogue must include East Jerusalem and land swaps. If Netanyahu can reach an agreement on borders and Jerusalem, he can reach an agreement on a permanent two-state solution. It would be foolish to agree on borders without obtaining anything in return and completing the entire deal.

But Netanyahu has no interest in a resolution; this is only a trap. A diplomatic process is the best formula for putting the opposition to sleep. The left must avoid this trap and oppose his initiative of discussing settlement blocs.

Hagit Ofran heads Peace Now’s Settlement Watch project.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.659009

[azurnoir]

11. It'a all about appearances

[King_David]

9. Seems that way..

Adam Keller really has his finger on the pulse with this one.

[Little Tich]

5. Some drivers ignore a stop sign, and the IDF closes the road? WTF? n/t

[Jefferson23]

6. ANY excuse to keep them down...yes. n/t