Post by Salem6 on Feb 25, 2004 10:39:12 GMT
Palestine
The Independent
24 February 2004
IT IS no accident that the barrier now being built around Israel is
called the "wall" by the Palestinians and a "fence" by the Israelis.
Nor should it comes as any surprise that the Palestinians, backed by
most the Middle East and third world, is putting great emphasis on
the International Court of Justice's hearing in The Hague into the
legality of the wall, while the Israelis, backed by the British and
Americans, are refusing to participate.
In a less violent and viscerally divided region, the court in The
Hague would probably be the wrong place to look at whether the wall
(or fence) breaches the UN charter and the many resolutions on the
subject of Israel and the occupied territories. The mere fact that
the UN General Assembly has referred the case to the court is a
highly political act, and one which the UK and Europe, as well as
Washington, opposed. When the court issues its findings in a few
months' time, its decision will be used even more politically.
But for Israel to dismiss the Hague hearings, therefore, as partisan
and irrelevant is to miss the point. The construction of the 750km
boundary of barbed wire, watch-towers and guarded gates, cutting as
it does right through Palestinian areas, cannot be treated as simply
a mater of internal security, however great the justifiable anger
and concern felt by Israeli citizens at the suicide attacks upon
them.
The wall creates a boundary between the two peoples, one all too
resonant - in Europe at least - of the infamous Berlin Wall. Its
immediate effect is to divide Palestinian communities and encroach
upon their terrritory. Its longer-term effect would be to create a
new border enclosing some 90 per cent of Israel's illegal settlers
and make a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel well nigh
impossible.
The international community cannot ignore such an attempt to create
"new facts on the ground". If Israel really wishes to avoid a World
Court condemnation, it should immediately stop construction of this
edifice. The alternative is justified international condemnation,
increased isolation for Israel, and the prospects for peace receding
even further into the distance.
The Independent
24 February 2004
IT IS no accident that the barrier now being built around Israel is
called the "wall" by the Palestinians and a "fence" by the Israelis.
Nor should it comes as any surprise that the Palestinians, backed by
most the Middle East and third world, is putting great emphasis on
the International Court of Justice's hearing in The Hague into the
legality of the wall, while the Israelis, backed by the British and
Americans, are refusing to participate.
In a less violent and viscerally divided region, the court in The
Hague would probably be the wrong place to look at whether the wall
(or fence) breaches the UN charter and the many resolutions on the
subject of Israel and the occupied territories. The mere fact that
the UN General Assembly has referred the case to the court is a
highly political act, and one which the UK and Europe, as well as
Washington, opposed. When the court issues its findings in a few
months' time, its decision will be used even more politically.
But for Israel to dismiss the Hague hearings, therefore, as partisan
and irrelevant is to miss the point. The construction of the 750km
boundary of barbed wire, watch-towers and guarded gates, cutting as
it does right through Palestinian areas, cannot be treated as simply
a mater of internal security, however great the justifiable anger
and concern felt by Israeli citizens at the suicide attacks upon
them.
The wall creates a boundary between the two peoples, one all too
resonant - in Europe at least - of the infamous Berlin Wall. Its
immediate effect is to divide Palestinian communities and encroach
upon their terrritory. Its longer-term effect would be to create a
new border enclosing some 90 per cent of Israel's illegal settlers
and make a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel well nigh
impossible.
The international community cannot ignore such an attempt to create
"new facts on the ground". If Israel really wishes to avoid a World
Court condemnation, it should immediately stop construction of this
edifice. The alternative is justified international condemnation,
increased isolation for Israel, and the prospects for peace receding
even further into the distance.