Israel's Wall and the International Community

by Jeff Halper

There is no question that the "Separation Barrier," the "Security Fence,"

the Wall being built by Israel in the Occupied West Bank constitutes a

grave violation of both fundamental human rights and international law. The

fundamental issue revolves around the relationship between ""military

necessity" and "proportionality." Israel certainly has an obligation to

protect its citizens from violent attacks, but as an Occupying Power it

also has a responsibility to protect the safety, well-being and rights of

the Palestinian civilian population under its control. The route of the

Wall, extending many miles deep into Palestinian territory, is obviously

intended as a political border, not as a security barrier.

Even the Israeli

government's own Attorney General admits the route of the Wall cannot be

defended in an international court. Rather than a linear defensive barrier

running along the border of the West Bank, the Wall is a complex matrix

that literally imprisons thousands of Palestinians in enclaves encircled by

24-foot high walls, electronic fences, watchtowers manned by armed Israeli

soldiers and patrols of guard dogs. In a brief presented to the

International Court, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel argues that

Wall's route and its other mechanisms of control are not necessary,

proportionate or legitimate security measures.

As a result, the Wall violates the basic provisions of the Fourth Geneva

Convention, a key component of international law which protects civilians

living under occupation. It divides families, destroys communities,

obstructs people's very freedom of movement and, ultimately, drives them

from the country. It violates prohibitions on confiscating private property

in Occupied Territories. By alienating farmers from their land, it prevents

them from earning a livelihood. Overall, it violates Israel's legal

obligations to ensure the well-being of the civilian population under its

control, including its right to liberty, security of person, mental and

physical health and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. As

such the Wall constitutes a form of collective punishment levied against

civilians innocent of any crime.

The Wall also violates political provisions of international law which

forbids the acquisition of territory by force and thus prohibits an

Occupying Power from making its occupation permanent. The route of the Wall

unlawfully exploits the security provisions of international law to protect

and annex illegal settlements. By impinging on Palestinian territory it

violates their right to self-determination. Indeed, it violates the

international prohibition of apartheid as an aggravated form of racial

discrimination.

Israel's Wall poses a threat and a challenge to all of us. Human rights and

international law, formulated largely against the backdrop of the

Holocaust, affirm that suffering and oppression can no longer be considered

"internal affairs" of particular countries. We are all responsible for what

happens everywhere. What made the Berlin Wall so significant for us all?

What elevated it beyond a local obstruction to movement between two sides

of a particular city? What motivated President Kennedy to declare: "We are

all Berliners." The idea that there are certain fundamental rights, certain

fundamental conditions of life that, if violated, compromise the very

essence of human existence. To the degree that the international community

accepts responsibility for the well-being of people everywhere, you as a

part of civil society have a responsibility to oppose the Wall.

If Kennedy were alive today, he might travel to the besieged, walled-in

city of Qalqiliya to pronounce: "We are all Palestinians."