Jump to content

Talk:West Bank barrier/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Sentence in lede should be deleted

The first sentence is: The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a separation and security barrier that was built by the Israeli government despite Palestinian opposition in the West Bank or along the Green Line.

The second sentence is: "Israel considers it a security barrier, while Palestinians call it a racial segregation or apartheid wall." The sentence is redundant because all the names were already given (for further names see here). Not to mention that two names are given for the Palestinian POV while security for what is never described. Security because of wild lions? Melting glaciers? All of that is discussed in the two subsequent paragraphs. KamelTebaast 19:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. The first sentence does not mention the Palestinian point of view. The repetition is necessary in English to present that point of view in a nice sentence. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Since it names the names in the second sentence, the here should be deleted in the first. Secondly, the second sentence is stating the Palestinian POV, why not write the Israeli? I don't believe it NPOV by suggesting the following:
The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall is a separation and security barrier that was built by the Israeli government despite Palestinian opposition in the West Bank or along the Green Line. "Israel considers it a security barrier against terrorism, while Palestinians call it a racial segregation or apartheid wall. KamelTebaast 22:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand you. If you are still arguing that the second sentence is redundant, I already answered you why it is not. Or do you propose something else? Your last post was a bit incoherent. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
In my proposed sentence above, I: 1) deleted--> (for further names see here) <--, and 2) added the words --> against terrorism <--. KamelTebaast 14:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The current lede is far too wordy. I suggest starting with this and editing from here: (note: footnotes deleted... need to be added back) Silent Statute Gent (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The Israeli West Bank barrier (or wall) is a separation barrier built by Israel on or near the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line") during the Second Intifada uprising. The barrier is mostly a "multi-layered fence system" of about 708 kilometres (440 mi) upon completion which cuts at times 18 kilometres (11 mi) eastward into the West Bank isolating about 9% of the land and 2% of the population.
Israel considers it necessary to stop the wave of violence that the uprising had brought with it. The Israeli government argues in defense of the wall, that between 2000 and July 2003 (completion of the "first continuous segment"), 73 suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, while from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out.
Palestinians call it a racial segregation or apartheid wall and claim it seeks to annex Palestinian land under the guise of security, undermining peace negotiations by unilaterally establishing new borders. Opponents object to a route that in some places substantially deviates eastward from the Green Line, severely restricts the travel of many Palestinians and impairs their ability to commute to work within the West Bank or to Israel. The International Court of Justice found the barrier to be a violation of international law, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that condemned the barrier by a vote of 150-6 with 10 abstentions. Silent Statute Gent (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Good job, Silent. It is much cleaner, rather than forcing so much POV in the opening sentences. However, I have one issue. In the Palestinian perspective, it includes international opinions [with the ICJ questionable at best] while the Israeli position does not. At the least, I suggest that we add that the Israel Supreme Court backs the legality of the barrier. KamelTebaast 16:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, great, would somebody who is able make the changes above, as amended? The current text on the article page is just... bad writing and bad paragraph layout. Silent Statute Gent (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani This edit of yours according to the edit summary claims to implement a consensus that was reached in this section. However, you removed a lot more things, that were recently added after long discussion. Assuming a good faith mistake, I'd ask you to undo that edit asap. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I reread the whole relevant sections on this, looked at the lead sentence, and it was still irremediably stupid. No one proposed taking out 'built by the Israeli government'+'in the face of Palestinian opposition'. But that is profoundly silly in a defining sentence. Who built it, to what end, over whose objections, is immaterial to defining what it is. The rest is self-evident or clarified below.
Read the lead of Great Wall of China (The Great Wall of China is a series of fortifications made of stone, brick, tamped earth, wood, and other materials, generally built along an east-to-west line across the historical northern borders of China) which I suppose if cast the same way would run, the Great Wall of China was built by the Chinese over objections by the barbarians, in order to keep the Chinese secure but the barbarians regarded it as a form of apartheid.
I thought I was cutting the Gordian knot. But since I made the edit, it of course must be reverted. Not by me. Anyone's free to do that, though I suggest they try to see that by removing all of the contention and reduplication, it is far more readable than the suggestions, based on phrase by phrase arguments, we have so far.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israeli West Bank barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding Nationalism and Sovereignty

Hello users, I'd like to add a section titled ===Nationalism and Sovereignty=== under the Effects on Palestinians section. My proposed edit would read as follows. The barrier is not only a physical symbol of separation but an ideological one that imposes Israeli sovereignty and calls into question Palestinian national identity. Although the barrier is argued to defend against Palestinian terror attacks, it has taken the form of a physical separation between Israelis and Palestinian civil society. This was done by grouping Hamas, other military branches, and all Palestinians into one category. As said in an interview in 2002 by then Chief of Staff, Shaul Mofaz, "We have defeated militarily the Palestinians, but we have not succeeded in defeating their mind." This effectively characterizes an us versus them ideology that is embedded within the increase in checkpoints, gate closures, and loss of land inflicted on the Palestinians. It makes the enemy "the Palestinians" with no distinction from the militaristic branches thus referring to Palestinian civil society as well. By reconstructing the definition of sovereignty and asserting it through the separation barrier, Israel is able to elevate its status over the Palestinians and physically separate them from their other territories, which infringes on their collective national identity and makes the prospects of a Palestinian state less likely. (Ben-Eliezer, Uri; Feinstein, Yuval (2007). ""The Battle over Our Homes": Reconstructing/Deconstructing Sovereign Practices around Israel's Separation Barrier on the West Bank" (PDF). Israel Studies. 12 (1). Indiana University Press: 171-192.)Hibbahj4 (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Boring rhetoric. Heard it a hundred times. There are over 100,000 Palestinians in Israel right now. The barrier doesn't separate the Israeli and Palestinian population. If an Israeli wants to visit the West Bank and cross the barrier, he can. There are tens of thousands of settlers east of the barrier. If a Palestinians wants to visit Israel, he can, with an entry or work permit, and those permits were not first issued when the barrier was constructed. The barrier did not separate the West Bankers from the Gazans, it was the Hamas coup in 2007 and limitations of movement were implemented already in the 90s during the first Intifada. The "us vs. them" ideology exists since the 30s. The barrier also doesn't make the prospects of a Palestinian state less likely, some say it does exactly the opposite, drawing the limit of Israeli sovereignty expansion into the West Bank. I also can't access the source you provided.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm failing to see how an argument that repeatedly comes up means that it has no merit. If anything this would signify that there is material there that needs to be addressed, which this article is failing to do so without some discussion on the matter of sovereignty and nationalism. To completely dismiss it because you've heard it a hundred times does not mean it does not play a role. Furthermore, to say that the barrier doesn't separate the Israeli and Palestinian population is far from the truth even with the permits which only some people can get and the process itself at the checkpoints is discriminatory and has a high degree of harassment. The very purpose of a wall is to separate, so I don't see how you could negate its very obvious purpose of separating the two populations especially considering that high walls, military units, and watch towers that all signify a powerful entity dictating the movement of another entity. Asserting power over another group effectively subordinates the other thus creating separation which again is apparent in the giant wall that exists. In addition to that, the wall does not follow the Green line and therefore cuts into Palestinian territory further making the realities of two-states less likely. If land continues to be stripped then in what land will there be a state? Just because the us versus them ideology was already existent does not mean that the wall does not reinforce that very notion. Also to reiterate, my point was to show the realities of how sovereignty and nationalism are effected by the barrier. Regardless of whether I support a two state solution or one-state or something completely different, there are arguments that the wall hinders that especially considering the "Jerusalem Wrap" separates tens of thousands of Palestinians from their territory by keeping them on the western side of the barrier which again puts into question their national identity as I was trying to point out and detracts from their ability to become a cohesive population to make up a state. You also pointed out the Hamas coup which again makes the same mistake as previous Israeli generals have in lumping together the actions of Hamas and Palestinian civil society as one and enforcing the same treatment on both. I am obviously willing to make changes to what I said, but to dismiss it completely is counterproductive. Hibbahj4 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this is a waste of time. I hate to say it, but what you wrote here is disconnected from reality. This is not reality, but a narrative, with flaws in literally every sentence. I have no interest in spending my time on it. As I"ve said, I"ve heard it a hundred and debunked it a hundred times. You can't show a narrative as reality and as far as I can say, I don't think that either Palestinian or Israeli narratives should be in the article, and I have yet to read the entire article. I"ll wait for someone else to comment before I"ll continue to discuss this.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Even if you don't like his proposal, and I don't either, he sounds like he's coming from a place of caring so I think it's worth an explanation. You're right about one thing- that the barrier doesn't follow the Green Line. Israel doesn't consider the 1949 Armistice Line to have any legal validity, and they're technically right about that. But they don't think it will complicate a two-state solution. The barrier is built around existing settlements blocks which will be included in Israel in any peace deal, and the barrier actually limits Israeli building further into the West Bank. The assumption is that a Palestinian state won't come until there is peace, and when there is peace there won't need to be a security barrier. Because that's why the barrier exists- to prevent Israelis from being killed. Its path was not planned to separate Palestinians, rather its path was designed based on what would be the most efficient way to protect Israel proper and existing settlement blocks from infiltration, and to protect Israeli infrastructure including roads from drive-by attacks, sniper fire, and molotovs. The vast majority of the barrier is chain-link fence, only vulnerable areas where attacks were common during the 2nd Intifada are guarded by those large gray walls and watchtowers you see in pictures. When the wall was built the number of Israelis killed in terrorist attacks declined dramatically-- suicide bombings completely stopped until the bus bombing a few years ago, and those were by far the deadliest form of terror during the intifada, killing hundreds of Israelis, the vast majority of them civilians. The international community, which is not particularly pro-Israel, considers the wall illegal, but the gov of Israel prioritizes the lives of its citizens over keeping the international community happy. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli West Bank barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israeli West Bank barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo

Hello, can someone with editing privileges on this locked page please change the final word of the following sentence to "began".

On 23 June 2002, the Ariel Sharon Government definitely approved the plan in principle[27][40] and work at the barrier begun.

It's in the Timeline section. Youtryandyoutry (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Done - GalatzTalk 16:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israeli West Bank barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


Not a sentence

The Israeli Supreme Court says the Israeli government's rejection of accusations of a de facto annexation of these wells, stating that "the construction of the fence does not affect the implementation of the water agreements determined in the (interim) agreement".

Could someone untwist the above and figure out what was mean to be said.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Israeli West Bank barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on Israeli West Bank barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

map is 7 years old

The map of the wall is almost 7 years out of date, perhaps an updated version could be made? Brinerustle (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dead reference: http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1087441302553
Most recent archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20041015022943/http://www.jpost.com:80/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1087441302553
80.109.45.186 (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done and thank you so much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

I recommend adding File:Bethlehem Banksy.jpg

to the Arts, Books and Films section ZaBanker (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor ZaBanker:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
-1, The mural doesn't show any part of the wall/barrier so it is unclear what its relation to the subject is. ImTheIP (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Why were the wall's other names removed?

The wall has several, recognised names, including the "apartheid wall". These names have been removed from the introduction ("The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall or fence is a separation barrier in the West Bank or along the Green Line"), which suggests a pro-Israeli whitewashing effort. On what basis were the names removed? Why is "fence" (the preferred Israeli term) allowed but not Palestinian terms recognised as such by outlets like Al Jazeera? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FishAndCrisps (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"writing 101"

"it has been argued"? This isnt a high school book report. nableezy - 04:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Writing 101 sounds at least community college level. MOS:LEAD allows attribution in the body and more general phrasing in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
It is terribly worded and Im going to fix that in a bit. nableezy - 15:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
No suggestions, just a declarative statement you'll fix it? Got it. Very excited to see what turns out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
As opposed to you just breaking it to begin with? nableezy - 16:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename

I think an RM is overdue here. This Ngram compares West Bank barrier, Israeli West Bank barrier, and Israeli Wall. Any other names worth comparing? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

K. I'll bite;) Aw, "derogatory". Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Interesting, I did not expect that as the commonname.
The article says it's called that by Palestinians, pretty sure the result is not just Palestinians.Selfstudier (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
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. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It's possible the most common name might be just "the Wall" but the ngram picks up both I guess, looking at the earlier years and could be others as well, it's a bit non-specific.Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
With the Trump wall, that was and is a border wall, this case is a bit different, it's more like a settlement wall.Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree that an RM appears to be necessary. Dan Palraz (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Given the above, it seems like a move to simply "West Bank barrier" would be supported by both stronger overall usage, and the obvious precepts of WP:CONCISE, with no obvious implications for any of the other WP:CRITERIA. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure. "West Bank barrier" would be a correct name, but it would also lose the country which built it and controls it in every way. It's not a Palestinian barrier. Zerotalk 12:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternative name

Why only wall is given as an alternative name.The structure is 90% fence.I propose to remove it or add fence --Shrike (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Something is an alternative name when it is used by sources. The barrier is widely called a "wall" (eg [1], [2]). Something is not POV just because you dislike it. nableezy - 16:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The barrier called fence too [3], [4] so why not add it --Shrike (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
No, that source shows that it is called an anti-terror fence by Israel. And that should be included in the Names section. It does not support that it is called a fence as a commonly used English name. At least no more so than "apartheid wall" is, which also is not included in the lead. nableezy - 18:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The source keep using fence it only tells that Israel call it "anti-terrorist" Even our article states that in MOS of major publicatin the barrier should be used so addition of Wall is inappropriate -Shrike (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Then add fence if you think its supported, jesus. nableezy - 18:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You should also add "apartheid wall", as that's the Palestinian term for it. Shrike's suggestion is pro-Israeli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FishAndCrisps (talk • contribs) 22:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm raising this point again. It's ridiculous that a 30-foot cement barrier is a "fence". FishAndCrisps (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree! I think if we truly want to follow Wikipedia's neutrality policy we have to look at how the most neutral actor (the international community) of the conflict calls it. Both the ICJ and the UN, other than declaring it illegal under international law, have consistently called it 'wall' [5][6] OwlzOfMinerva (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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 [7]. The main beneficiaries of the Wall were the settlements (once again, illegal under international law [8]), 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. [9]. OwlzOfMinerva (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Bank_barrier/Archive_10&oldid=1244922893"