5 dec 2016
Israel cannot have both, US Secretary of State John Kerry said, in unprecedented comments, Sunday, at the annual Saban Forum hosted by the Brookings Institution, in Washington DC.
“There is no status quo. It is getting worse,” said Kerry, according to Al Ray, referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “It is moving in the wrong direction.”
Kerry, who has described himself as an “unapologetic friend of Israel”, said that Tel Aviv is, nonetheless, “ignoring all our warnings regarding settlements”.
“There is a basic choice that has to be made by Israelis, by the leadership of Israel,” he said, “and that is are there going to be continued settlements, is there going to be a continued implementation of settlement policy, or is there going to be separation and the creation of two states?”
Still, the top diplomat said that the “tipping point” between the alternatives had not yet been crossed.
The comments are some of the sternest to date from the US, Israel’s staunchest ally on the international stage.
The Obama administration recently agreed to increase Israel’s foreign military financing to $3.8 billion per year for the next decade, from $3.1 billion.
But Israel cannot broker a separate peace with the Arab world if it does not move toward a Palestinian state, Kerry said.
“That is a hard reality,” Kerry said.
Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu has long insisted that his government is committed to a two-state solution, but Palestinians have criticized his policy of settlement expansion as a major impediment to the realization of their state.
As recently as March of 2015, shortly before his re-election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he would not allow a Palestinian state, if re-elected, effectively reneging on his 2009 endorsement of a two-state solution.
During the 2013 Israeli-Palestinian peace talks led by US Secretary of State John Kerry, Israeli officials announced and, eventually, carried out in full force, plans to build thousands of additional homes in illegal settlements across the occupied West Bank, while continuing to further seize lands, demolish homes and agricultural resources and, thus, leaving scores of Palestinian families severely disenfranchised and without so much as a roof over their heads to shelter them from inclement weather.
Gazans were already surviving on a mere 8 hours per day of electricity when the Palestinian negotiating team finally resigned in protest, in mid-November. Israel, soon after, made quite clear its position on securing peace with Palestinians when Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, during a meeting with young Likud Party supporters, boasted:
“I was threatened in Washington: ‘not one brick’ [of settlement construction] … after five years, we built a little more than one brick…”
Asked about ‘peace talks with the Palestinians”, the PM reportedly replied, according to +972 online Israeli magazine: “about the – what?” to which his audience responded with a round of chuckling.
Netanyahu also vowed, in recent days, that he would never allow the Palestinian people to have East Jerusalem as their future capital and pledged to build “thousands” of settler units across the city.
Kerry emphasized that settlements are a “barrier to peace” with the Palestinians.
“Out of the mouths of ministers, in the current government, have come profoundly disturbing statements publicly,” he said, referring to statement dismissing a Palestinian state. “This is the predicament. This is where we find ourselves,” he added.
“There is no status quo. It is getting worse,” said Kerry, according to Al Ray, referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “It is moving in the wrong direction.”
Kerry, who has described himself as an “unapologetic friend of Israel”, said that Tel Aviv is, nonetheless, “ignoring all our warnings regarding settlements”.
“There is a basic choice that has to be made by Israelis, by the leadership of Israel,” he said, “and that is are there going to be continued settlements, is there going to be a continued implementation of settlement policy, or is there going to be separation and the creation of two states?”
Still, the top diplomat said that the “tipping point” between the alternatives had not yet been crossed.
The comments are some of the sternest to date from the US, Israel’s staunchest ally on the international stage.
The Obama administration recently agreed to increase Israel’s foreign military financing to $3.8 billion per year for the next decade, from $3.1 billion.
But Israel cannot broker a separate peace with the Arab world if it does not move toward a Palestinian state, Kerry said.
“That is a hard reality,” Kerry said.
Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu has long insisted that his government is committed to a two-state solution, but Palestinians have criticized his policy of settlement expansion as a major impediment to the realization of their state.
As recently as March of 2015, shortly before his re-election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he would not allow a Palestinian state, if re-elected, effectively reneging on his 2009 endorsement of a two-state solution.
During the 2013 Israeli-Palestinian peace talks led by US Secretary of State John Kerry, Israeli officials announced and, eventually, carried out in full force, plans to build thousands of additional homes in illegal settlements across the occupied West Bank, while continuing to further seize lands, demolish homes and agricultural resources and, thus, leaving scores of Palestinian families severely disenfranchised and without so much as a roof over their heads to shelter them from inclement weather.
Gazans were already surviving on a mere 8 hours per day of electricity when the Palestinian negotiating team finally resigned in protest, in mid-November. Israel, soon after, made quite clear its position on securing peace with Palestinians when Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, during a meeting with young Likud Party supporters, boasted:
“I was threatened in Washington: ‘not one brick’ [of settlement construction] … after five years, we built a little more than one brick…”
Asked about ‘peace talks with the Palestinians”, the PM reportedly replied, according to +972 online Israeli magazine: “about the – what?” to which his audience responded with a round of chuckling.
Netanyahu also vowed, in recent days, that he would never allow the Palestinian people to have East Jerusalem as their future capital and pledged to build “thousands” of settler units across the city.
Kerry emphasized that settlements are a “barrier to peace” with the Palestinians.
“Out of the mouths of ministers, in the current government, have come profoundly disturbing statements publicly,” he said, referring to statement dismissing a Palestinian state. “This is the predicament. This is where we find ourselves,” he added.
2 dec 2016
As the UN General Assembly calls again on Israel to leave the Golan Heights and declares Israeli jurisdiction on 'the Holy city of Jerusalem' to be 'null and void,' the Jewish state prepares to go up against three UNSC resolutions aimed against it.
The UN General Assembly adopted six resolutions on the situation of the Palestinians on Wednesday, including a demand for Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights.
The move comes a day after the new President of the UN General Assembly, Peter Thompson, was seen wearing a Palestinian scarf whilst at a UN committee hearing.
The resolution, called UNGA Resolution A/71/L.8, was put forth by over 35 countries, including Bahrain, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and the Palestinian delegation, amongst others.
The resolution calls for peace talks between Syria and Israel and Lebanon and Israel to be restarted immediately, calls for the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, and determines that Israel being in the Golan Heights and Israel’s de-facto annexation of the Golan Heights represents a key stumbling block to regional peace.
It was passed in the UN General assembly by a vote of 103 for, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the United States), and 56 abstentions.
The resolution is one of six anti-Israel resolutions passed Wednesday, another being on the status of Jerusalem (A/71/L.22). In it, the UN expressed “its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever”.
The representative from Israel said in the assembly following the vote that “it was shameful how some countries had yet to accept the existence of Israel and abused the General Assembly to spread baseless allegations,” and that the resolutions seek to provide a “biased narrative.”
She continued, saying “since 2015, terror attacks against Israelis had claimed the lives of 42 citizens and injured over 600 and yet today’s resolutions made no mention of those victims.”
“Furthermore, the resolutions under discussion did not mention the internationally recognized terror organization Hamas. No one should delude themselves: supporting the resolutions and the inherent bias against Israel would not advance the cause of peace. Rather it would only make peace harder to achieve,” the representative added.
The US delegation meanwhile, said the US was “profoundly troubled by the submission of a disproportionate number of one-sided resolutions that had been designed to condemn Israel.”
The delegate continued, adding that “it (is) manifestly unjust that the United Nations, an institution founded on the idea that all nations should be treated equally, was so often used by Member States to treat Israel unequally.”
Lambasting the UN, the delegate continued, saying “three United Nations bodies in particular reflected the bias and unnecessary costs of such resolutions and wasted limited resources. Costing approximately $6.1 million in 2015, they did nothing to contribute to peace in the region.”
The US however did reiterate that it views the settlements as a stumbling block for peace.
Syria for its part, thanked the member states who voted for the resolution, saying the vote “sent a clear message to Israel that its killing, settlement expansion and forcible annexation of land ran counter to international principles.”
The next round: The UN Security Council
Meanwhile, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is expecting a tough fight against several anti-Israel resolutions which are due to be voted on at the UN Security Council before US President Obama leaves office.
There are three initiatives which especially worry Israel; initiatives from New Zealand, the Palestinians, and France.
New Zealand
New Zealand, which will be vacating its position on the council soon, wants to put forth a resolution which will require Israel to condemn settlement construction, condemn violence and incitement from both the Israelis and the Palestinians, condemn the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and call for an immediate re-start of negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. A draft resolution is expected to be submitted in the coming days
The Palestinians
The Palestinians are trying to pass a resolution which will term the Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal. Israel is worried that such a decision will prepare the groundwork for sanctions, and be a precursor for an indictment against Israel at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
France
The French resolution calls for an international peace conference, which Israel has already expressed its opposition to. The opposition is premised on the fact that the initiative calls on a time table for discussions, and that should no agreement be reached, France will automatically recognize a Palestinian state.
Israel believes that the US will use its veto power over the French and Palestinian initiatives, yet is unsure as to US action towards the New Zealand initiative. This is because the New Zealand initiative does not seem to be unilaterally condemning one side or the other for incitement and violence.
While Israel is working primarily with the Americans in the Security Council, Israel is also working with other countries as well.
US Secretary of State is expected to discuss the issue at the upcoming Saban Forum.
The UN General Assembly adopted six resolutions on the situation of the Palestinians on Wednesday, including a demand for Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights.
The move comes a day after the new President of the UN General Assembly, Peter Thompson, was seen wearing a Palestinian scarf whilst at a UN committee hearing.
The resolution, called UNGA Resolution A/71/L.8, was put forth by over 35 countries, including Bahrain, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and the Palestinian delegation, amongst others.
The resolution calls for peace talks between Syria and Israel and Lebanon and Israel to be restarted immediately, calls for the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, and determines that Israel being in the Golan Heights and Israel’s de-facto annexation of the Golan Heights represents a key stumbling block to regional peace.
It was passed in the UN General assembly by a vote of 103 for, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the United States), and 56 abstentions.
The resolution is one of six anti-Israel resolutions passed Wednesday, another being on the status of Jerusalem (A/71/L.22). In it, the UN expressed “its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever”.
The representative from Israel said in the assembly following the vote that “it was shameful how some countries had yet to accept the existence of Israel and abused the General Assembly to spread baseless allegations,” and that the resolutions seek to provide a “biased narrative.”
She continued, saying “since 2015, terror attacks against Israelis had claimed the lives of 42 citizens and injured over 600 and yet today’s resolutions made no mention of those victims.”
“Furthermore, the resolutions under discussion did not mention the internationally recognized terror organization Hamas. No one should delude themselves: supporting the resolutions and the inherent bias against Israel would not advance the cause of peace. Rather it would only make peace harder to achieve,” the representative added.
The US delegation meanwhile, said the US was “profoundly troubled by the submission of a disproportionate number of one-sided resolutions that had been designed to condemn Israel.”
The delegate continued, adding that “it (is) manifestly unjust that the United Nations, an institution founded on the idea that all nations should be treated equally, was so often used by Member States to treat Israel unequally.”
Lambasting the UN, the delegate continued, saying “three United Nations bodies in particular reflected the bias and unnecessary costs of such resolutions and wasted limited resources. Costing approximately $6.1 million in 2015, they did nothing to contribute to peace in the region.”
The US however did reiterate that it views the settlements as a stumbling block for peace.
Syria for its part, thanked the member states who voted for the resolution, saying the vote “sent a clear message to Israel that its killing, settlement expansion and forcible annexation of land ran counter to international principles.”
The next round: The UN Security Council
Meanwhile, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is expecting a tough fight against several anti-Israel resolutions which are due to be voted on at the UN Security Council before US President Obama leaves office.
There are three initiatives which especially worry Israel; initiatives from New Zealand, the Palestinians, and France.
New Zealand
New Zealand, which will be vacating its position on the council soon, wants to put forth a resolution which will require Israel to condemn settlement construction, condemn violence and incitement from both the Israelis and the Palestinians, condemn the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and call for an immediate re-start of negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. A draft resolution is expected to be submitted in the coming days
The Palestinians
The Palestinians are trying to pass a resolution which will term the Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal. Israel is worried that such a decision will prepare the groundwork for sanctions, and be a precursor for an indictment against Israel at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
France
The French resolution calls for an international peace conference, which Israel has already expressed its opposition to. The opposition is premised on the fact that the initiative calls on a time table for discussions, and that should no agreement be reached, France will automatically recognize a Palestinian state.
Israel believes that the US will use its veto power over the French and Palestinian initiatives, yet is unsure as to US action towards the New Zealand initiative. This is because the New Zealand initiative does not seem to be unilaterally condemning one side or the other for incitement and violence.
While Israel is working primarily with the Americans in the Security Council, Israel is also working with other countries as well.
US Secretary of State is expected to discuss the issue at the upcoming Saban Forum.
19 nov 2016
An Israeli newspaper has revealed that the Israeli government intends to build more than 30,000 housing units in east Jerusalem after US president-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office in January 2017.
According to the new Israeli plans, 15,000 housing units will be built in place of the Jerusalem-Qalandiya airport, and other thousands will be in the industrial zone of Qalandiya (Atarot) and hundreds in Ramot and Gilo settlements.
Meir Turgeman, deputy head of Israel's municipal authority in Occupied Jerusalem, told Kol Ha'ir newspaper that these settlement plans had been frozen over the last two years because of pressures by the international community and the outgoing US administration.
But now, he says, he is filing the construction plans for approval by the Israeli competent authorities.
According to the new Israeli plans, 15,000 housing units will be built in place of the Jerusalem-Qalandiya airport, and other thousands will be in the industrial zone of Qalandiya (Atarot) and hundreds in Ramot and Gilo settlements.
Meir Turgeman, deputy head of Israel's municipal authority in Occupied Jerusalem, told Kol Ha'ir newspaper that these settlement plans had been frozen over the last two years because of pressures by the international community and the outgoing US administration.
But now, he says, he is filing the construction plans for approval by the Israeli competent authorities.
The US authorities released a Palestinian prisoner and transferred him to Mauritania on Friday.
The Palestinian Prisoner Society (PPS) said that 60-year-old Rashed al-Zaghari was released after three years of negotiation, without stating the parties that mediated his release.
Zaghari, from Deheisheh refugee camp in Bethlehem, had been in a US jail for more than 16 years on allegations of detonating an airliner in 1982.
He was before that in Greece’s prisons before his extradition to the US. He already completed his prison term in the US in 2013, but he remained in detention because he had nowhere to go if released.
Israel reportedly declined a US request to let him return to his home in the West Bank at the pretext he had no documents to verify his identity.
The Palestinian Prisoner Society (PPS) said that 60-year-old Rashed al-Zaghari was released after three years of negotiation, without stating the parties that mediated his release.
Zaghari, from Deheisheh refugee camp in Bethlehem, had been in a US jail for more than 16 years on allegations of detonating an airliner in 1982.
He was before that in Greece’s prisons before his extradition to the US. He already completed his prison term in the US in 2013, but he remained in detention because he had nowhere to go if released.
Israel reportedly declined a US request to let him return to his home in the West Bank at the pretext he had no documents to verify his identity.
17 nov 2016
While the United States presidential election bitterly divided the American public, most Israelis were sanguine about the race. Both candidates – Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton – were keen to end eight years of icy mistrust between Barack Obama, the outgoing president, and Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Israeli prime minister should – at least on paper – be happier with Trump.
Netanyahu, elected four times, has always faced off with Democratic incumbents. Now he has not only a right-wing Republican in the White House but a Republican-dominated Congress too.
Standing guard over the relationship will be Sheldon Adelson, a US casino magnate who is Netanyahu’s most vocal supporter. It will not be lost on Trump that the billionaire is one of the Republican Party’s main financiers.
Netanyahu was among the first to congratulate Trump by phone. The US president-elect reciprocated by inviting him for talks “at the first opportunity”. And yet Netanyahu is reported to be anxious about a Trump White House. Why?
It is certainly not because of Trump’s stated policies on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
He has backed moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a move that, if implemented, would make the US the first western state to recognize the city as Israel’s capital. It would effectively rubber-stamp Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, the expected capital of a Palestinian state.
Previous Republican candidates have made the same promise, but Trump looks like the first who might carry it through. A nervous Palestinian leadership warned at the weekend they would “make life miserable” for him if he did.
A Trump policy statement issued just before the election could have been written by Netanyahu himself.
It dismissed a two-state solution as “impossible”, blaming the Palestinian leadership for rewarding terrorism and educating children in “hatred of Israel and Jews”. It suggested that Israel would have a free hand to expand the settlements.
There were hints too that US military aid might be increased above the record $38 billion over 10 years recently agreed by Obama. And the statement proposed a crackdown on all boycott activities, even those targeting settlements. “The false notion that Israel is an occupier should be rejected,” it concluded.
So why the nerves in Tel Aviv?
However hawkish Netanyahu appears to outsiders, he is relatively moderate compared to the rest of his Likud party and his government coalition partners.
The prime minister has won favour at home by presenting himself as an embattled leader, but one best placed to look out for Israel’s interests against a hostile White House. Now with the battlefield gone, Netanyahu’s armor risks making him look both clumsy and surplus to requirements.
There is another danger. Trump’s advisers on the Israel-Palestine conflict are closer to settler leader Naftali Bennett, the education minister, than Netanyahu. After Trump’s victory, Bennett crowed: “The era of a Palestinian state is over.”
The Israeli prime minister could find himself outflanked by Bennett if the Trump administration approves settler demands to annex most or all of the West Bank.
Netanyahu’s realization of his Greater Israel dream may prove pyrrhic.
Israel’s complete takeover of the West Bank could trigger an irreversible crisis with Europe; the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, forcing the military and financial burden of the occupation back on to Israel; and a full-blown intifada from Palestinians, battering Netanyahu’s security credentials.
The creation of a Greater Israel could also damage Israel by reframing the Palestinian struggle as a fight for equal rights in a single state. Comparisons with earlier struggles, against South African apartheid and Jim Crow in the US deep south, would be hard to counter.
But Netanyahu has an additional reason to fear an imminent Trump presidency.
There were few US politicians Netanyahu had a better measure of than Hillary Clinton. He knew her Middle East policy positions inside out and had spent years dealing with her closest advisers.
Trump, by contrast, is not only an unknown quantity on foreign policy but notoriously mercurial. His oft-stated isolationist impulses and his apparent desire to mend fences with Russia’s Vladimir Putin could have unpredictable implications for the Middle East and Israel.
He might tear up last year’s nuclear accord with Iran, as Netanyahu hopes, but he might just as equally disengage from the region, giving more leeway to Iran and Russia. The effect on the international inspections regime in Iran or the proxy wars raging in Israel’s backyard, in Syria and elsewhere, would be hard to predict.
In short, Trump could kill Netanyahu with kindness, turn Israel into a pariah state in western capitals and leave it exposed strategically.
In addition, becoming the poster child of a controversial and possibly short-lived Trump presidency could rapidly transform Israel into a deeply divisive issue in US politics.
The adage – be careful what you wish for – may yet come to haunt Netanyahu.
– Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
The Israeli prime minister should – at least on paper – be happier with Trump.
Netanyahu, elected four times, has always faced off with Democratic incumbents. Now he has not only a right-wing Republican in the White House but a Republican-dominated Congress too.
Standing guard over the relationship will be Sheldon Adelson, a US casino magnate who is Netanyahu’s most vocal supporter. It will not be lost on Trump that the billionaire is one of the Republican Party’s main financiers.
Netanyahu was among the first to congratulate Trump by phone. The US president-elect reciprocated by inviting him for talks “at the first opportunity”. And yet Netanyahu is reported to be anxious about a Trump White House. Why?
It is certainly not because of Trump’s stated policies on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
He has backed moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a move that, if implemented, would make the US the first western state to recognize the city as Israel’s capital. It would effectively rubber-stamp Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, the expected capital of a Palestinian state.
Previous Republican candidates have made the same promise, but Trump looks like the first who might carry it through. A nervous Palestinian leadership warned at the weekend they would “make life miserable” for him if he did.
A Trump policy statement issued just before the election could have been written by Netanyahu himself.
It dismissed a two-state solution as “impossible”, blaming the Palestinian leadership for rewarding terrorism and educating children in “hatred of Israel and Jews”. It suggested that Israel would have a free hand to expand the settlements.
There were hints too that US military aid might be increased above the record $38 billion over 10 years recently agreed by Obama. And the statement proposed a crackdown on all boycott activities, even those targeting settlements. “The false notion that Israel is an occupier should be rejected,” it concluded.
So why the nerves in Tel Aviv?
However hawkish Netanyahu appears to outsiders, he is relatively moderate compared to the rest of his Likud party and his government coalition partners.
The prime minister has won favour at home by presenting himself as an embattled leader, but one best placed to look out for Israel’s interests against a hostile White House. Now with the battlefield gone, Netanyahu’s armor risks making him look both clumsy and surplus to requirements.
There is another danger. Trump’s advisers on the Israel-Palestine conflict are closer to settler leader Naftali Bennett, the education minister, than Netanyahu. After Trump’s victory, Bennett crowed: “The era of a Palestinian state is over.”
The Israeli prime minister could find himself outflanked by Bennett if the Trump administration approves settler demands to annex most or all of the West Bank.
Netanyahu’s realization of his Greater Israel dream may prove pyrrhic.
Israel’s complete takeover of the West Bank could trigger an irreversible crisis with Europe; the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, forcing the military and financial burden of the occupation back on to Israel; and a full-blown intifada from Palestinians, battering Netanyahu’s security credentials.
The creation of a Greater Israel could also damage Israel by reframing the Palestinian struggle as a fight for equal rights in a single state. Comparisons with earlier struggles, against South African apartheid and Jim Crow in the US deep south, would be hard to counter.
But Netanyahu has an additional reason to fear an imminent Trump presidency.
There were few US politicians Netanyahu had a better measure of than Hillary Clinton. He knew her Middle East policy positions inside out and had spent years dealing with her closest advisers.
Trump, by contrast, is not only an unknown quantity on foreign policy but notoriously mercurial. His oft-stated isolationist impulses and his apparent desire to mend fences with Russia’s Vladimir Putin could have unpredictable implications for the Middle East and Israel.
He might tear up last year’s nuclear accord with Iran, as Netanyahu hopes, but he might just as equally disengage from the region, giving more leeway to Iran and Russia. The effect on the international inspections regime in Iran or the proxy wars raging in Israel’s backyard, in Syria and elsewhere, would be hard to predict.
In short, Trump could kill Netanyahu with kindness, turn Israel into a pariah state in western capitals and leave it exposed strategically.
In addition, becoming the poster child of a controversial and possibly short-lived Trump presidency could rapidly transform Israel into a deeply divisive issue in US politics.
The adage – be careful what you wish for – may yet come to haunt Netanyahu.
– Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
16 nov 2016
Magal Security Systems built the walls around Gaza and the West Bank. Now, its sights are set on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Bloomberg reports that, since Donald Trump was elected as the next U.S. president, shares in Magal Security Systems Ltd., which trades under the name Yehud on the Nasdaq stock exchange, rose 19 percent.
Magal is an Israeli company best known for its involvement in building [PDF] the militarized wall that severs the Gaza Strip from the rest of Palestine. It also greatly contributed to constructing the apartheid wall around the West Bank. Magal constructs similar barriers throughout the world. [PDF]
In August, Magal Chief Executive Officer Saar Koursh stated that his company would want to build Trump’s proposed wall, if he were elected. The day Trump was elected Magal shares rose a staggering 9.9 percent.
“It seems clear that Trump is going to put more investment into security on U.S. borders,” Koursh told Bloomberg on Monday.
Earlier this year, Koursh attributed Magal’s overall rising profits to yet another site of humanitarian disaster.
“The border business was down, but then came ISIS and the Syrian conflict,” Koursh said. “The world is changing and borders are coming back big-time.”
Bloomberg reports that, since Donald Trump was elected as the next U.S. president, shares in Magal Security Systems Ltd., which trades under the name Yehud on the Nasdaq stock exchange, rose 19 percent.
Magal is an Israeli company best known for its involvement in building [PDF] the militarized wall that severs the Gaza Strip from the rest of Palestine. It also greatly contributed to constructing the apartheid wall around the West Bank. Magal constructs similar barriers throughout the world. [PDF]
In August, Magal Chief Executive Officer Saar Koursh stated that his company would want to build Trump’s proposed wall, if he were elected. The day Trump was elected Magal shares rose a staggering 9.9 percent.
“It seems clear that Trump is going to put more investment into security on U.S. borders,” Koursh told Bloomberg on Monday.
Earlier this year, Koursh attributed Magal’s overall rising profits to yet another site of humanitarian disaster.
“The border business was down, but then came ISIS and the Syrian conflict,” Koursh said. “The world is changing and borders are coming back big-time.”