This is a very interesting developement because as anyone who has debated an Israeli apologist on this site, or on others knows, they always claim it was just done to stop terrorists, and that does not represent annexation. The Israeli government is also backing off the claim that the fence is temporary, or that it can be moved.
More from Haaretz.
Israel has acknowledged for the first time that not just "security" considerations were instrumental in determining the route of the West Bank separation fence.
Responding to a petition brought to the High Court by the residents of the Palestinian village Azun in the northern West Bank, the state asked for the fence to be left on its original route, previously ruled to be unsuitable, as it would be very expensive to move.
The state's position marks a fundamental change in its legal arguments. Initially, the state claimed security concerns were the sole motivation for erecting the fence, and there were no other considerations..........
The state's new stance also highlights a major policy change regarding the "temporary" nature of the fence. Until now, the state has claimed that the fence was a short-term measure, and it was possible to move or dismantle the barrier. ............
Please bookmark for future reference, since they also still claim that disengagement in Gaza is only a prelude to desisengagement on the West Bank despite the fact that both Dov Weisglass and Ariel Sharon admitted that it is being done as a prelude to annexation. Also if anyone still has an account at "Democratic Underground, you should post this there, Admittedly such post might tend to get you kicked off the site. It is run buy prolikud dlcers, and they won't even coutenance true stories coming from Haaretz. I have been kicked off for posting stuff about the Temple Istitute's threat to the Dome of the Rock. An article written in Haaretz no less.