Photo Credit: Uri Lenz/Flash90
Israelis celebrating a settlement dedication ceremony in the area known as E1, aka Mevasseret Adumim, September 07, 2009.

With Israel’s announcement that it plans to proceed with construction in Area E-1, east of Jerusalem, earlier falsehoods about that land reemerge. Thus, Ha’aretz reports that construction in E-1

would effectively bisect the West Bank and sever the physical link between the Palestinian territories and Jerusalem.

Similarly, the New York Times reports:

Construction in E1, in West Bank territory that Israel captured in the 1967 war, would connect the large Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem, dividing the West Bank in two. The Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem would be cut off from the capital, making the contiguous Palestinian state endorsed by the United Nations last week virtually impossible.


So is it true that construction in E-1 would bisect the West Bank, and severing Palestinian contiguity, and cutting off Palestinian areas from Jerusalem? The answer is no. As CAMERA pointed out in 2005 (“The Contiguity Double Standard“):

Palestinian contiguity in the West Bank would be no more cut off with the so-called E-1 corridor than would Israeli contiguity if Israel were to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, even with slight modifications.

Here’s why. First, take a look at this map of the region:

As CAMERA earlier explained:

The black X marks the approximate location of the new neighborhood near Ma’aleh Adumim. To the west of the X is Jerusalem. The red line surrounding the X is the planned route of the security barrier, which will encircle Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem.

Those who charge that Israeli building in Ma’aleh Adumim severs north-south contiguity disregard the fact that Palestinian-controlled areas would be connected by land east of Ma’aleh Adumim (marked on the map) that is at its narrowest point ~15 km wide.

Moreover, Israel proposes to build tunnels or overpasses to obviate the need for Palestinians to detour to the east through the corridor.

Ironically, many of those who argue for greater contiguity between Palestinian areas, at the same time promote Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 boundaries, which (even with minor modifications) would confine Israel to a far less contiguous territory than that of the West Bank. As shown on the map above, there is a roughly 15 km wide strip of land separating the Green Line (and the Security Fence) from the Mediterranean Sea (near Herzliya). Also shown is the circuitous route necessary to travel via this corridor between northern and southern Israel. (e.g. from Arad to Beit Shean.)

Nor is it true that the construction would cut off Palestinian areas from Jerusalem. Access to Jerusalem through Abu Dis, Eizariya, Hizma and Anata is not prevented by the proposed neighborhood, nor would it be precluded by a string of neighborhoods connecting Ma’aleh Adumim to Jerusalem.

Originally published at CAMERA.


Previous articleThe Working Class and the Government Class
Next articleFrom The Voice of Her Students: In Memory of Mrs. Chaya Newman
CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, is the foremost media-monitoring, research and membership organization promoting accurate, balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East. CAMERA holds the media accountable with proven effect, and is responsible for thousands of published corrections and countless other improvements. Its analyses can be read online at, on Facebook at CAMERAorg, and on Twitter at @CAMERAorg.


  1. The world hates Israel, Israel should just do what they need to do to survive and flourish. Just rename Jordan back to Palestine and stand on the premise that the "Palestinian people" already have their country. Stop sending aid to Gaza, retake the Sinai.

  2. Stephen Bennett – tell me two things please.

    First name one single legal claim for the Arabs to Gaza. Bet you won't even attempt it.

    Second – according to the Geneva Convention to be an occupying force one has to be the government. Are you really attempting to claim that we are the government in Gaza? Really?

    We are the only people that occupy a place that we legally own and do it without a single person being present. What a frigging miracle

  3. You seem incredibly hostile Loren. I will do my best to answer your ill-informed questions.

    Firstly, for you to ask me to supply legal precedence when Israel continuously and relentlessly demonstrates total disregard for the international rule of law and due process smacks somewhat of hypocrisy. Still, that is the Israeli modus operandi: Others must obey the rules; Israel will pick the ones that suit its aims.

    As you well know, Israel relinquished all rights to Gaza with the 'Disengagement' plan, completed August 2005. This plan was a brilliant piece of propaganda since it persuaded the Israeli people that Gaza had been handed to the Palestinian Authority in return for peace.

    However, Israel remained in control of Gaza's coastline and airspace and reserved the right to undertake military operations when necessary; it continued to provide (control) Gaza with water, communication, electricity, and sewage networks; existing customs arrangements with Israel — under which imports from Israel to Gaza are not taxed, exports from Gaza to Israel are taxed, and Israel collects customs duties on foreign products entering Gaza—will remain in force and the Israeli currency will continue to be used.

    Now, I don't know about you, but in my book, that's not 'disengaging'. What that is, is clearing out all the Jewish people so that the remaining people can be summarily controlled without harm to one's own people.

    However, because the Palestinian Authority in Gaza does not believe it has sufficient control of the area at this time, foreign observers such as the International Committee of the Red Cross,[5] Human Rights Watch[6] and various legal experts[7] have argued that the disengagement will not end Israel's legal responsibility as an occupying power in Gaza (

    So in fact Loren, it seems that Israel has a LEGAL responsibility to the people of Gaza. And are they going to honour this responsibility?

    I'm sure you will cite the election of Hamas as a defence for the current atrocities. But unfortunately, that's how democracy works. Many did not want the Muslim Brotherhood to gain further power in Egypt, but in the first free election in over 3000 years, that's what the people wanted. In Gaza, they wanted Hamas (despite Israel and the US meddling to try and get Fatah elected). The Israeli response – to blockade the strip has been seen by everyone as an illegal act.

    And please don't try the old 'Geneva Convention' trick. According to The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories.

    If you want others to use the uphold the Law, so too, must you. Like I said earlier, Others must obey the rules; Israel will pick the ones that suit its aims.
    That is so Israel.

  4. No surprise that the gaza based nazi owned haaretz and the Episcopal owned NY Times as always joined forces to attack Israel with canards and lies, and were forced – albeit on the obituary page – that they lied. Not surprising from a media in the US that has attacked the very existence of Jews since the Shoah, and the publisher of Ha'aretz who has openly penned an editorial stating "the cure for world peace is for all Jews to intermarry," thereby eradicating Jewry. I am just grateful neither is Jewish.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...