It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they
undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else.
Careful scrutiny is always in order. Israel's so-called security fence,
which is the subject of hearings starting today at the International Court
of Justice in The Hague, is a case in point.
Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist
attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were
an appropriate means. It is also clear where such a wall would be built if
security were the guiding concern: inside Israel, within the internationally
recognized border, the Green Line established after the 1948-49 war. The
wall could then be as forbidding as the authorities chose: patrolled by the
army on both sides, heavily mined, impenetrable. Such a wall would maximize
security, and there would be no international protest or violation of
international law.
This observation is well understood. While Britain supports America's
opposition to the Hague hearings, its foreign minister, Jack Straw, has
written that the wall is "unlawful." Another ministry official, who
inspected the "security fence," said it should be on the Green Line or
"indeed on the Israeli side of the line." A British parliamentary
investigative commission also called for the wall to be built on Israeli
land, condemning the barrier as part of a "deliberate" Israeli "strategy of
bringing the population to heel."
What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also - as
the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described Israel's war of
"politicide" against the Palestinians - helping turn Palestinian communities
into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like
symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination. . . .
[Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they
forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own
history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble
religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the
downtrodden?--Desmond Tutu, "
Apartheid in the Holy Land," Guardian, April 29, 2002]
[The International Court of Justice has said the barrier Israel is building
to seal off the West Bank violates international law because it infringes on
the rights of Palestinians. . . .
The nonbinding opinion also found that Israel was obligated to return
confiscated land or make reparations for any destruction or damage to homes,
businesses and farms caused by the barrier's construction.-- "UN
court rules West Bank barrier illegal," CNN.com, July 9, 2004]
[A recent report by the House of Commons international development committee
pointed to the leverage available through making European trade agreements
conditional on Israel's compliance with international law and security
council resolutions (all flouted by Israel).--Gerald Kaufman, "The
case for sanctions against Israel: What worked with apartheid can bring
peace to the Middle East," Guardian, July 12, 2004]
[150 nations voted in favour of dismantling the wall, 10 abstained, and six
- Israel, the US, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau -
rejected the motion.--Matthew Tempest, "UN calls for Israel to tear down wall," Guardian, July 21, 2004]
[The court's opinion leaves Israel entirely free to build a wall within its
pre-1967 borders.--Gregory H. Fox, "What the Court Really Said About Israel's Wall," Washington Post,
July 22, 2004]
[. . . since 1967 approximately 650,000 Palestinians have spent time in
Israeli prisons, which amounts to about 40 percent of all Palestinian
males--Gideon Levy, "A nation of
prisoners," Haaretz, August 22, 2004]
[Others, on the left, question why the US's six million Jews have the right
to become Israeli citizens while tens of thousands of foreign workers and
Palestinians who live there and speak Hebrew do not.--Conal Urquhart, "Fury as
Israeli writer criticises US Jews," Observer, May 14, 2006]