Case Studies of Israeli–Palestinian Environmental Cooperation in the Greater Bethlehem Area

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Case Studies of Israeli–Palestinian Environmental Cooperation in the Greater Bethlehem Area View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Springer - Publisher Connector GeoJournal DOI 10.1007/s10708-016-9708-0 Unpacking the complex nature of cooperative interactions: case studies of Israeli–Palestinian environmental cooperation in the greater Bethlehem area Kyra Marie Reynolds Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In the last few decades, a growing number Ultimately, these factors are making such interactions of theorists have suggested that the natural environ- limited, unstable and/or prone to collapse. The paper ment can be a platform for promoting cooperation concludes that only by conducting in-depth multi- between former adversaries and can perhaps con- tiered and context-specific analyses of cooperative tribute to peacebuilding. However, environmental processes and subsequently finding ways to overcome cooperation has not lived up to these claims. In many the identified barriers can we move towards more cases, such cooperation has largely been ineffective successful environmental cooperation. and/or inequitable. Therefore, there is a growing awareness that we cannot be overly optimistic at the Keywords Environment Á Cooperation Á Israel Á first signs of ‘cooperation’. It is argued that this reality Palestine results from the great complexity inherent in cooper- ative interactions. This paper explores the nature of such cooperation in two Israeli–Palestinian case Introduction studies. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is one of the longest-running protracted conflicts in the modern era Alongside concerns pertaining to the emergence of and is currently characterised by a political stalemate. water wars and natural resource conflicts in the 21st However, there is also a willingness by some at the century, the last few decades has witnessed a surge in local level to cooperate. Therefore Israel/Palestine academic literature expressing the potential of the provides an ideal case study. The findings of the paper environment in facilitating cooperation and amicable illuminate the complex nature of environmental benefit-sharing between conflicting parties (Phillips cooperation and reveal that even with the presence et al. 2006). Some even contend that such cooperation of good intentions, cooperation at the subnational level can contribute to peacebuilding by spilling over from is impacted by the broader socio-political structures areas of so-called low-politics (in this case the and contexts within which it is embedded. In these environment) into areas of high-politics (e.g. Agges- case studies, this is negatively affecting both the tam and Sundell-Eklund 2014). However, despite this nature and scale of the processes and outcomes. optimism, environmental cooperation/peacemaking has not lived up to such expectations and has often been ineffective and/or unfavourable. This paper, & K. M. Reynolds ( ) recognising this issue as the product of the complexity School of Geography & Environmental Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, County Londonderry, UK inherent in the nature and conduct of environmental e-mail: [email protected] cooperation, seeks to problematize and unpack this 123 GeoJournal complexity. After laying out the literary context to of the geographic features of specific basins with a which it contributes, it explores the nature of cooper- multiplicity of historical, political, economic, social, ation in two Israeli–Palestinian cases of environmental strategic and cultural factors’’ (p. 202). Within this cooperation in the greater Bethlehem area. Such already complicated context, one must add the range of exploration, by identifying obstacles and limitations self-interested actors engaged in the cooperation, each encountered in cooperative interactions, sets the coming to the table with their own interests and platform for future studies to suggest ways of agendas, political standings, developmental stage, enhancing the processes and outcomes of such coop- perceptions, power position and reputations (e.g. Victor erative projects. 2006). In sum, cooperation faces many barriers- strategic, political, technical and economic- that influ- ence the capacity and willingness of actors to engage in Literature review cooperative interactions (Elhance 2000). In light of these factors, agreements, conventions, and river basin Since the mid-1980s, in response to alarmist notions of organisations (RBOs) are not necessarily accurate ‘resource wars’ and environmentally induced violent indicators of cooperation, as is often assumed (e.g. conflict that dominated environmental security liter- Mirumachi and Allan 2007). They are often nothing ature, a more liberal counter-discourse emerged which more than ‘paper tigers’, sinks for donor funds, or argued that the environment is more often an inducer regimes that preserve or further inequity (Zeitoun of co-operation rather than conflict, and that it could be 2008), result in asymmetric gains, further economic a potential catalyst for promoting stable rela- development under the rubric of promoting cooperation tions/peacebuilding (Martin et al. 2011). Indeed, Wolf at the expense of the environment (e.g. Sneddon and et al. stated in (2005), that in the previous 50 years, Fox), and methods which fail to have the presumed spill there had been 507 conflict-related transboundary over effects and thus promote broader cooperation and events over water compared to 1228 cooperative dialogue at larger political and societal levels (e.g. events. They contend that ‘‘water has…been a pro- Carius 2006). In light of these many faces of cooper- ductive pathway for building confidence, developing ation, Mirumachi (2007) outlined a 5-level scale which cooperation, and preventing conflict, even in particu- assesses the intensity of cooperation in various cases. larly contentious basins’’ (p. 94). Aside from negoti- These levels are distinguished from one another based ations and signed agreements, other oft cited evidence on the presence/absence of 4 things: joint action, of the potential for environmental cooperation has believing that the other party will contribute to been the formation of transfrontier conservation areas collective action, intention to contribute to collective (TFCAs) or ‘Peace Parks’ (e.g. Ali 2007). Some action, and common goals. This recognises that not all scholars have thus come to believe that the environ- cooperation is of equal value. ment ‘‘provides a window of opportunity for cooper- It is now also recognised that the presence of ation and coexistence between former adversaries’’ cooperative type interactions does not automatically (Coskun 2009: 103). However, these transformative mean the absence of conflict. In fact, cooperation can views have been accused of being overly optimistic be laden in conflict (Selby 2013). Zeitoun and and of being too hasty with their optimism at the first Mirumachi (2008) claim that: signs of cooperation. Correspondingly, environmental The examination of either conflict or coopera- cooperation literature appears to be becoming increas- tion…refutes the reality of the vast majority of ingly aware that not all cooperation is favourable or contexts where cooperation and conflict coexist, effective, thus acknowledging the need to scrutinise and perpetuates the paradigm that any conflict is the nature of cooperative interactions. These realities, ‘bad’ and that all forms of cooperation are I argue, stem from the complexity inherent in coop- ‘good’ (p. 297). erative processes. Elhance (2000) contends that, ‘‘hydropolitics by its The above statement suggests that conflict and coop- very nature is one of the most complex arenas of eration are not necessarily negative and positive interstate relations’’ (p. 202). This stems from the fact respectively. Indeed, they assert that there are ‘‘less that each context brings with it ‘‘unique combinations ugly faces of conflict and less pretty faces of 123 GeoJournal cooperation’’ (p. 299). Yet they claim that these are settler-colonial project aiming to establish a Jewish overlooked, as are the political aspects of these national homeland in historic Palestine, thereby creat- interactions. Cooperation, then, is not always positive. ing a long-running conflict with the native Arab In fact Zeitoun and Mirumachi (2008) claim that it inhabitants of the region. Although a peace process ‘‘may serve to veil or perpetuate conflict’’ and may began in Oslo in 1993, it subsequently collapsed in even ‘‘deepen it’’ (p. 312). A lot of this potential for 2000 with the eruption of the Al-Aqsa intifada (e.g. negative ‘cooperation’ stems from the fact that it often Coskun 2009). Since that time, there has been a takes place in situations of highly asymmetrical power political stalemate and the conflict continues. However, and economic relations where the hydro-hegemons whilst state-level officials still view water-management can use ‘soft power’ to achieve their strategic goals at as a security issue embedded within ‘high politics’, at the expense of the hegemonised (Zeitoun and Warner the same time there are local level actors willing to 2006; Mirumachi and Allan 2007). Soft power allows cooperate on such issues (Coskun 2009). The presence powerful parties to frame inequitable cooperation in a of a local willingness to cooperate makes it surprising cooperative light (Zeitoun et al. 2011). Hence, Zeitoun that previous studies of environmental cooperation and Mirumachi (2008) encourage cooperation theo- have largely looked at state-level
Recommended publications
  • Bethlehem 1 Cluster
    º¹DP UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs October 2005 Qalandiya Camp Closed Villages Project - Villages isolated fromÇ theirQalandiya natural centers º¹ ¬Palestinians without permits (the large majority of the population) village cluster Beit Duqqu P 144 Atarot ### ¬Ç usalem 3 170 Al Judeira Al Jib Closures ## Bir Nabala Beit 'Anan Jenin BethlehemAl Jib 1 cluster Ç Beit Ijza Closed village cluster ¬ Checkpoint ## ## AL Ram CP ## m al Lahim In 2000, villagers would access Bethlehem Ç#along# Earthmound Tulkarm Jerusalem 2 #¬# Al Qubeiba road 60 for their services. In 2005, road 60 and 367 Ç Qatanna Biddu 150 ¬ Partial Checkpoint Nablus 151 are closed to palestinian traffic making these villages Qalqiliya /" # Hizmah CP D inaccessible by car.ramot In ordercp Beit# Hanina to cope,# al#### Balad a local school Ç # ### ¬Ç D Road Gate Salfit has been created¬ and villagers walk to Beit Fajar for Beit Surik health services. /" Roadblock These villages are inaccessible by car Ramallah/Al Bireh Beit Surik º¹P Under / Overpass 152## Ç##Shu'fat Camp 'Anata Jericho Village Population¬ Constructed Barrier Jerusalem Khallet Zakariya 80 173 Projected Barrier Bethlehem Khallet Afana 40 /" Al 'Isawiya /" Under Construction Total Population: 120 Az Za'ayyemProhibited Roads Hebron ## º¹AzP Za'ayyem Zayem CP ¬Ç 174 Partially Prohibited Restricted Use Al 'Eizariya Comparing situations Pre-Intifada /" Totally Prohibited and August 2005 Closed village cluster Year 2000 Localities Abu Dis Jerusalem 1 August 2005 Closed Villages 'Arab al Jahalin
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Jerusalem” Has Jerusalem (Including the 1967 Rehavia Occupied and Annexed East Jerusalem) As Its Centre
    4 B?63 B?466 ! np ! 4 B?43 m D"D" np Migron Beituniya B?457 Modi'in Bei!r Im'in Beit Sira IsraelRei'ut-proclaimed “GKharbrathae al Miasbah ter JerusaBeitl 'Uer al Famuqa ” D" Kochav Ya'akov West 'Ein as Sultan Mitzpe Danny Maccabim D" Kochav Ya'akov np Ma'ale Mikhmas A System of Settler-Colonialism and Apartheid Deir Quruntul Kochav Ya'akov East ! Kafr 'Aqab Kh. Bwerah Mikhmas ! Beit Horon Duyuk at Tahta B?443 'Ein ad D" Rafat Jericho 'Ajanjul ya At Tira np ya ! Beit Liq Qalandi Kochav Ya'akov South ! Lebanon Neve Erez ¥ ! Qalandiya Giv'at Ze'ev D" a i r Jaba' y 60 Beit Duqqu Al Judeira 60 B? a S Beit Nuba D" B? e Atarot Ind. Zone S Ar Ram Ma'ale Hagit Bir Nabala Geva Binyamin n Al Jib a Beit Nuba Beit 'Anan e ! Giv'on Hahadasha n a r Mevo Horon r Beit Ijza e t B?4 i 3 Dahiyat al Bareed np 6 Jaber d Aqbat e Neve Ya'akov 4 M Yalu B?2 Nitaf 4 !< ! ! Kharayib Umm al Lahim Qatanna Hizma Al Qubeiba ! An Nabi Samwil Ein Prat Biddu el Almon Har Shmu !< Beit Hanina al Balad Kfar Adummim ! Beit Hanina D" 436 Vered Jericho Nataf B? 20 B? gat Ze'ev D" Dayr! Ayyub Pis A 4 1 Tra Beit Surik B?37 !< in Beit Tuul dar ! Har A JLR Beit Iksa Mizpe Jericho !< kfar Adummim !< 21 Ma'ale HaHamisha B? 'Anata !< !< Jordan Shu'fat !< !< A1 Train Ramat Shlomo np Ramot Allon D" Shu'fat !< !< Neve Ilan E1 !< Egypt Abu Ghosh !< B?1 French Hill Mishor Adumim ! B?1 Beit Naqquba !< !< !< ! Beit Nekofa Mevaseret Zion Ramat Eshkol 1 Israeli Police HQ Mesilat Zion B? Al 'Isawiya Lifta a Qulunyia ! Ma'alot Dafna Sho'eva ! !< Motza Sheikh Jarrah !< Motza Illit Mishor Adummim Ind.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case of Israeli “Democratic Colonialism”31
    73 “The Frontier is where the Jews Live”: A Case of Israeli “Democratic Colonialism”31 Nicola Perugini32 The frontier is where Jews live, not where there is a line on the map. Golda Meir Space and law, or rather the space of law and law applied to space were among the primary elements of Israeli colonial sovereignty in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and of the forms of subjugation it employs to express this force. Through colonial practices that have systematically violated the borders of the very same international legislation that enabled ‘temporary’ Israeli occupation, and through the legal regularization of these violations, the landscape of the OPT has been gradually transformed into a legal arena in which colonial sovereignty works by means of a mixed system involving the application –and mutual integration– of increasingly complex laws and constant ‘innovations’ in government instruments and practices affecting Palestinian movements and areas. This historical process has become even more evident after the Oslo Accords, when the institutionalization of the separation between Israelis and Palestinians –without decolonization33– resulted in increased Israeli compartmentalization of the Palestinian landscape and the refinement of its techniques in doing so. Like other colonized peoples, the Palestinians do not live so much in a real system of “suspended sovereignty” (Kimmerling 1982: 200) as in a situation where Israeli colonial sovereignty is continuously undergoing refinement, in a spatial and peripheral frontier in which the colonial encounter (Evans 2009) is the moment of the creation, application and re-activation of the colonial order. In such a context, what is interesting is not so much the question of the legality or illegality of the practices and rules that reify the occupation so much as that of their logic and of how they came into being through space.
    [Show full text]
  • Bethlehem Factsheet.Indd
    Geopolitical Status of Bethlehem Governorate Jabal (mountain) Abu Ghneim, which sits opposite the town of Beit Sahour, was classified until 1991 as a “green area” by the Israeli occupying state, when the Israeli government approved the expropriation of the land and re-zoned it to a building area. In March 1997, the Israeli government announced it would build 6,500 housing units to accommodate 30,000+ Jewish residents. The first building phase was for 3,500 units, 500 of which were financed by the Israeli government and private investors financed the rest. As a result, more than 60,000 pine trees were uprooted and an entire ecosystem was destroyed. Geopolitical Status of Bethlehem Governorate 1 Lead-up Between the current millennium and the one before it, Bethlehem city has witnessed unprecedented changes to its life, in terms of the ruling periods. It started out early in the 20th century when the city was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire until it went under the British Mandate, the Jordanian rule, the Israeli Occupation to the time when the Palestinian Authority took control on parts of what became known as the Bethlehem Governorate. Table 1 list the ruling periods over Bethlehem. Table 1: Ruling periods over Bethlehem (1516-Present) Years Controlled by 1516-1917 Ottoman Empire 1918-1948 British Mandate 1949-1967 Trans-Jordan and later on the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 1967-1995 The Israeli Occupation The Palestinian Authority assumed partial control, but Israel 1995-to date continued to occupy the majority of the Governorate, (see table 3) Bethlehem 1917 Bethlehem 1970 Geopolitical Status of Bethlehem Governorate 2 Bethlehem 2000 Bethlehem 2006 Geopolitical Status of Bethlehem Governorate 3 The Israeli Segregation Plan in the Occupied Palestinian Territory An Overview In June 2002, the Israeli Government launched its policy of unilateral segregation between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) by establishing a Segregation Zone along the western terrains of the occupied West Bank.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Consequences
    Shir Hever The Economy of the Occupation A Socioeconomic Bulletin The Separation Wall in East Jerusalem Economic Consequences № 11-12 * January-February 2007 Shir Hever Economy of the Occupation ___________________________________________Socioeconomic Bulletin № 10-12 The Separation Wall in East Jerusalem ___________________________________________Economic Consequences January-February 2007 Published by the Alternative Information Center (AIC) http://www.alternativenews.org/ Jerusalem Beit Sahour 4 Queen Shlomzion Street Building 111 Main Street PO Box 31417 PO Box 201 Jerusalem, Israel 91313 Beit Sahour, Palestine Phone: 972-(0)2-624-1159; 624-1424 Phone: 972-(0)2-277-5444 Fax: 972-(0)2-625-3151 Fax: 972-(0)2-277-5445 Graphic Designer: Tal Hever Printer: Latin Patriarchate Printing Press Photograph on the Cover: Niv Hachlili, September 2004 The AIC wishes to acknowledge the generous support for its activities by: Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, Broederlijk Delen, the Catalan Government through the help of Sodepau, Comite Catholique Contre La Faim Et Pour Le Developemment (CCFD), Diakonia, Inter-Church Organisation for Development Cooperation (ICCO), the Irish Government through the help Christian Aid, Junta Castilla-La Mancha through the help of ACSUR Las Segovias. Table of Contents: ___________________________________________ 1.) Introduction 4 2.) The Situation in East Jerusalem before the Wall 5 3.) The Wall 8 4.) The Recent Shifts in the Labor Movements in Israel and the OPT 10 5.) Labor Movements in Jerusalem and the Quality of Life 12 6.) The Seeds of Discontent 15 7.) Conclusion 19 25 Bibliography 30 ___________________________________________ Special thanks to Rami Adut for his many contributions to this research from its very beginning and especially for his help in compiling the data for the study, for Yael Berda for sharing her expertise and for OCHA for allowing the use of their maps.
    [Show full text]
  • West Bank Closures
    Deir NHidahllaamish (Neve Zuf) Al Mazra'a ash Sharqiya Access to Jerusalem 'Atara L E B A N O N Deir Abu Mash'al Jibiya Ateret 466 Gilgad West Bank Barrier 'Ein Samiya Planned and constructed Burham West Bank Closures - SJhuqbea rusalem Kobar 465 Kafr Malik Netiv Hagedud 60 April 2007 M E D I T E R R A N E A N Qibya Beitillu Abu Shukheidim 'Atara Silwad S E A Jammala Yabrud Shabtin Nehali'el JERUSALEM CLOSURES Bir Zeit 'Ein Siniya Deir 'Ammar Camp Deir 'Ammar Budrus Deir Jarir 449 Niran Checkpoints 13 Nili Jifna Na'ale Dura al Qar' Kokhav Hashahar Partial Checkpoints 1 Al Mazra'a al Qibliya Ofra Roadblocks 4 At Tayba 446 Al 'Auja Road Gates 7 Ni'lin Deir Qaddis Abu Qash Al Jalazun Camp 'Ein Yabrud Kharbatha Bani Harith Yitav Earth Mounds 11 Ras Karkar 466 Al Janiya Bet El Surda Earth Walls 0 Al Midya 455 Talmon W e s t Nilin Rammun 449 B a n k Trenches 0 Rimmonim Modi'in Illit Nahal Zori Bil'in Beitin Road Barriers 0 Hashmon'im Mattityahu 'Ein Qiniya Kafr Ni'ma Dolev 463 a e S Shilat At Tayba Badiw al Mu'arrajat TOTAL 36 Lapid Deir Ibzi' d Bet El DCO Yitav a e Kfar Ruth D Deir Dibwan G a z a 'Ein 'Arik Saffa Al Bireh Nwemeh No'omi S t r i p Ramallah - Al Bireh 458 Beit 'Ur at Tahta Khirbet Kafr Sheiyan Pesagot Burqa Beituniya 90 Makkabim An Nuwei'ma Beit Sira Al Am'ari Camp 457 'Ein ad Duyuk al Fauqa I S R A E L Maccabim Kharbatha al Misbah Beit 'Ur al Fauqa 443 Kochav Ya'akov Beituniya Ma'ale Mikhmas 'Ein as Sultan Camp Beit Horon Kafr 'Aqab Deir Quruntul Mikhmas Beit Liqya At Tira Rafat 'Ein ad Duyuk at Tahta Mitzpe Ilon Qalandiya Camp
    [Show full text]
  • Al Khader Town Profile
    Al Khader Town Profile Prepared by The Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem Funded by Spanish Cooperation Azahar Program 2010 Palestinian Localities Study Bethlehem Governorate Acknowledgments ARIJ hereby expresses its deep gratitude to the Spanish agency for International Cooperation for Development (AECID) for their funding of this project through the Azahar Program. ARIJ is grateful to the Palestinian officials in the ministries, municipalities, joint services councils, village committees and councils, and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) for their assistance and cooperation with the project team members during the data collection process. ARIJ also thanks all the staff who worked throughout the past couple of years towards the accomplishment of this work. 1 Palestinian Localities Study Bethlehem Governorate Background This booklet is part of a series of booklets, which contain compiled information about each city, town, and village in Bethlehem Governorate. These booklets came as a result of a comprehensive study of all localities in Bethlehem Governorate, which aims at depicting the overall living conditions in the governorate and presenting developmental plans to assist in developing the livelihood of the population in the area. It was accomplished through the "Village Profiles and Azahar Needs Assessment;" the project funded by the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation for Development (AECID) and the Azahar Program. The "Village Profiles and Azahar Needs Assessment" was designed to study, investigate, analyze and document the socio-economic conditions and the needed programs and activities to mitigate the impact of the current unsecure political, economic and social conditions in Bethlehem Governorate with particular focus on the Azahar program objectives and activities concerning water, environment, and agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Shrinking Space: Urban Contraction and Rural Fragmentation in the Bethlehem Governorate
    UNITED NATIONS Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory SPECIAL FOCUS MAY 2009 Photo by Steve Sabella Steve Photo by SHRINKING SPACE: URBAN CONTRACTION AND RURAL FRAGMENTATION IN THE BETHLEHEM GOVERNORATE This report on the Bethlehem governorate docu- plan ning and development at the governorate level. If ments how the central-urban core is constricted by a Barrier construction goes ahead as planned in the west- combination of Israeli infrastructure, including the ern part of the governorate, the rural hinterland will Barrier, selements and selement outposts. In the be cut off, reducing access to land and water resources. eastern governorate, administrative restrictions (Area Some 21,000 Palestinian residents will face additional C, closed military areas and nature reserves) also limit restrictions on access to markets, health services, and the potential for urban expansion, graz ing, and for higher education in the Bethlehem urban area. P. O. Box 38712 East Jerusalem 91386 l tel. +972 (0)2 582 9962 l fax +972 (0)2 582 5841 l [email protected] l www.ochaopt.org TIMELINE 1947: UN Partition Plan envisages Bethle- hem and Jerusalem as belonging to neither the proposed Arab nor Jewish state, but a corpus separatum under international trusteeship. 1948: Bethlehem communities lose land as a result of 1st Arab-Israeli War: three refugee camps set up in Bethlehem for Palestinian refugees. 1967: June War: Israel occupies West Bank. Bethlehem land annexed to the Jerusalem municipal boundary expanded by Israel. Settlement con- struction begins. 1993: General closure imposed on West Bank. Permits required for West Bank ID holders, including residents of Bethlehem, to enter East Jeru- salem & Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Jerusalem Badiw Al Mu'arrajat Lapid Deir Ibzi' Janu4a55ry 2006
    Talmon Bet El Rammun The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concRerinminmg thoen leimgal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Nahal Zori MattityaMhoudi'in Illit 455 UN Office for the CoBoil'irndination of Humanitarian Affairs Beitin Dolev 'Ein Qiniya At Tayba WEST BANK Kafr Ni'ma Bet El DCO West Bank Closures - Jerusalem Badiw al Mu'arrajat Lapid Deir Ibzi' Janu4a55ry 2006 R a m a l l a h 449 Gaza Kfar Ruth R a m a l l a h Deir Dibwan JORDAN No'oImSRAiEL 'Ein 'Arik Ramallah EGYPT Saffa Al Bireh Nwemeh Beit 'Ur at Tahta Khirbet Kafr Sheiyan Pesagot Burqa 60 Makkabim Beituniya Maccabim An Nuwei'ma 3 Beit Sira 457 Al Am'ari Camp 'Ein ad Duyuk al Fauqa Kharbatha al Misbah Beit 'Ur al Fauqa 90 443 Beituniya W E S T B A N K B A R R I E R Ma'ale Mikhmas Kochav Ya'akov 'Ei(np lasn nSeudltan Camp Beit Horon & built) Deir Quruntul Rafat Kafr 'Aqab Beit Liqya At Tira Mikhmas 45 'Ein ad Duyuk at Tahta Jerusalem Airport Qalandiya CamSpha'ar Bunyamin Industrial Zone Giv'at Ze'ev Qalandiya Beit Nuba Qalandiya Jericho (Ariha) Beit Duqqu 437 Al Judeira Jaba' Atarot Jaba' (Tajammu' Badawi) Beit 'Anan Al Jib Atarot Industrial Area 458 Beit Ijza Bir Nabala Geva Binyamin Mevo Horon Ar Ram & Dahiyat al Bareed Giv'on Hahadasha Deir al Qilt Aqbat Jaber Camp Kharayib Umm al Lahim Al Ram Neve Ya'akov Jerusalem Al Qubeiba Governorate
    [Show full text]
  • Protection of Civilians - Weekly Briefing Notes 23 – 29 November 2005
    U N I TOCHA E D Weekly N A Briefing T I O NotesN S 23 – 29 November October 2005 N A T I O N S| 1 U N I E S OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS P.O. Box 38712, East Jerusalem, Phone: (+972) 2-582 9962 / 582 5853, Fax: (+972) 2-582 5841 [email protected], www.ochaopt.org Protection of Civilians - Weekly Briefing Notes 23 – 29 November 2005 Of note this week • Palestinian workers and traders with valid permits were allowed access to Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Higher numbers of workers crossing through Erez crossing in the Gaza Strip was reported. 1. Physical Protection Casualties 30 20 10 0 Injuries Deaths Children Women Palestinians 22 1 0 0 Israelis 8000 Internationals 0000 • 23 November: The IDF killed one 22-year-old Palestinian during clashes in Jenin city (Jenin). 11 Palestinians were also injured. Prior to the clashes, three IDF soldiers were injured in the city during clashes with Palestinian gunmen. • 24 November: Two Palestinians were injured during confrontations between the IDF and Palestinian stone throwers in Jenin city. • 24 November: One Palestinian was injured in Kafr Qalil (Nablus) when the IDF responded to stone throwing with tear case canisters and rubber-coated metal bullets. The IDF were surrounding a Palestinian house at the time. • 24 November: One Israeli was injured when Palestinian gunmen opened fire at his vehicle as it was traveling along Road No. 55 near Qalqiliya. • 25 November: One Palestinian was injured by the IDF during a demonstration organised by Palestinians, international and Israeli activist against the construction of the Barrier in Bil’in (Ramallah).
    [Show full text]
  • Gush Etzion 2015 040315 Plan B Revised
    western Bethlehem villages 2015 west bank united nations relief and works agency refugee communities in the ‘Gush Etzion’ settlement area for palestine refugees in the near east www.unrwa.org 5km to Jerusalem Old City 62,000+ 67% 25,000+ growth in settler Al Walaja Palestinians in Israeli settlers residing in over Pop: 2,503 (75% refugees*) 15 settlements and outposts population over last 8 communities in areas west of Bethlehem 10 years Battir Key issues Wadi Fukin Pop: 4,865 (77% refugees*) Pop: 1,432 (92% refugees*) Barrier 56 kilometers of the Barrier’s route is located within Bethlehem governorate. If completed Husan Pop: 6,807 (18% refugees*) as planned, the Barrier will separate Bethlehem’s rural hinterland from its urban center, with Western villages becoming Palestinian enclaves within the settlement bloc. Nahhalin Settlement expansion Al Jab’a Pop: 8,372 (6% refugees*) Pop: 1,099 (9% refugees*) The Etzion bloc (Gush Etzion) is one of the main settlement areas in the West Bank. Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. The transfer of an occupying power ‘s civilian population into a territory it occupies Khallet Sakariya (incl. Khallet al Balluta) Pop: 227 (4% refugees*) is prhobited under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneval convention. Land conscation Map Legend Western Bethlehem has been subjected to some of the largest land appropriations in the West Bank by Barrier Israel. In August 2014, the Israeli authorities declared around 4,000 dunums as state land for settlement Constructed Planned Route expansion. This follows an earlier seizure of nearly 1,000 dunums to retroactively ‘legalise’ an outpost.
    [Show full text]
  • Israeli Archaeological Activity in the West Bank 1967–2007
    ISRAELI ARCHAEOLOGICAL ACTIVITY IN THE WEST BANK 1967–2007 A SOURCEBOOK RAPHAEL GREENBERG ADI KEINAN THE WEST BANK AND EAST JERUSALEM ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE PROJECT © 2009 Raphael Greenberg and Adi Keinan Cover: Surveying in western Samaria, early 1970s (courtesy of Esti Yadin) Layout: Dina Shalem Production: Ostracon Printed by Rahas Press, Bar-Lev Industrial Park, Israel Distributed by Emek Shaveh (CPB), El‘azar Hamoda‘i 13, Jerusalem [email protected] ISBN 978-965-91468-0-2 CONTENTS FOREWORD 1 PART 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND EXCAVATIONS IN THE WEST BANK SINCE 1967 Introduction 3 Israeli Archaeology in the West Bank 3 Note on Palestinian Archaeology in the West Bank 7 Israeli Archaeology in East Jerusalem 8 Conclusion 10 PART 2. CONSTRUCTING THE DATABASE A. Surveys 11 Survey Motivation and Design 12 Survey Method 12 Definition of Sites 13 Site Names 14 Dating 14 Survey Database Components 15 B. Excavations 18 Basic Data on Excavations 19 The Excavation Gazetteer 20 Excavated Site Types and Periods 21 C. GIS Linkage and Its Potential 22 Case No. 1: The Iron Age I Revisited 23 Case No. 2: Roman Neapolis 26 Case No. 3: An Inventory of Mosaic Floors 26 D. Database Limitations 28 Concluding Remarks 29 References (for Parts 1 and 2) 30 PART 3. GAZETTEER OF EXCAVATIONS, 1967–2007 33 PART 4. BIBLIOGRAPHY 151 PART 5. INDEX OF EXCAVATED SITES 173 PART 6. DATABASE FILES (on CD only) FOREWORD The authors will be the first to concede that modern been subsumed in a particular view of Jerusalem’s political boundaries—the Green Line, the Separation significance in history.
    [Show full text]