For those of you interested in Israel advocacy, one of the hardest jobs is attempting to disprove an article which is patently not true. So it continues with a very poor excuse for news from Reuters.
A Reuters article titled 'Israel plans West Bank roads just for Palestinians' begins by saying 'Israel plans to pave new roads in the West Bank exclusively for Palestinians while Jewish settler vehicles keep to the existing network, a senior Israeli security source said on Thursday.'
When they actually quote the 'un-named source' he (she or it, we are not told) actually says "We want to ease access to various Palestinian communities," the source said. "There is no intention of bringing about a separation of Israeli and Palestinian traffic. Palestinians will continue to make use of the roads they use today."
Now correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that directly contradict the opening sentence to the article? Firstly, the source says there is no intention of separating Palestinian from Israelis and secondly says that new roads will be built for Israelis, not 'exclusively for Palestinians'.
The problem with these articles is many people read the headline and the opening paragraph and little else (for those of you who are still reading, you may well be the exceptions). The next few paragraphs actually completely contradict the emphasis of the article dictated by the opening.
Of course, this is all without mentioning a very important and glaring absence in the article. The writer gives no reason for this move and only suggests that "Palestinians condemned the idea as a form of apartheid." No Israeli explanation is given, nowhere does it mention the very real security concerns that led to this decision (if indeed this ever will happen, the article is extremely hazy on facts). The fact that Israel has 'occupied' the West Bank for almost 40 years and never approached this idea should beg the question, why now?
The article obviously has no intention of explaining it but it is down to the frequency of attacks on Israeli vehicles. If it is Apartheid then why would Israel only get around to this policy 40 years later? Also, even if this plan does come to fruition it will not affect the Palestinians one iota. They will continue using the same roads as before, free of less traffic, and the Israelis will have roads from and to their communities.
It is called 'disengagement' and I seem to remember the world cheering when Israelis were pulled from their houses to implement this policy. Did the world call it 'apartheid' then?