The International Court of Justice has ruled in an advisory opinion that the construction of Israel's Apartheid Wall deep in Palestinian territory is illegal and unjustified by military necessity.
While events from Iraq currently occupy the centre of the media stage, the unrest in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories maintains its ubiquitous presence, resurfacing now and then, as spectacle in photographs of the bloodstained scene of an assassination or smiles at diplomatic press conferences – Sharon in Washington, the latest US envoy touring the region, Arafat costumed and unsteady. The ‘peace process’ is in limbo, led by a roadmap which doesn’t articulate a final destination.
Israel / Palestine comes to us as eruptions of violence from both sides, overwhelming military power directed at civilian neighbourhoods or as stone throwers and suicide bombers. These images come to us devoid of context. What the media cannot impart, are the daily realities faced by a population living under occupation since 1967.
The procedures of occupation are banal and unphotogenic, yet their consequences are an inescapable oppression. This oppression, created by mechanisms of control like checkpoints, curfews, incursions and closed military zones, strangles movement, economic, social and political life. The latest manifestation of Israel’s policy in the OPT is the construction of the Wall being built throughout the West Bank.
What’s so often lost amongst spectacle are the human faces of the victims of the wall. The reality of oppression is lost amongst media images of violence. In late 2003 I spent several days in a small village, Khirbet JBarra outside the West Bank city of Tulkarem. I lived in the home of Abu Salim a 1948 refugee who had toiled all his life to buy a small plot of land to grow olives and build a home for his family.
The Abu Salim family lived in a partly constructed house on their property. The parts under construction would be finished as each son was ready to marry and he would move in with his new wife. As international activists we came to stay in the house to help prevent its demolition by the Israeli Defence Forces. The property was far from the 1967 Green Line border between Israel and the territories yet it was scheduled for demolition to make way for the wall. Of several possible routes in the area the path of the Wall swerved maliciously towards this small property on the edge of town.
The family waited every day for the appearance of military vehicles and bulldozers. The eldest son had to contemplate calling off his engagement as he might have nowhere to live after the wedding. The father continued stubbornly with improvements and work on the house. Seemingly in denial. Each day was tense with fear and resignation. Of all these images however, one stands out most distinctly to me. Mrs Salim laughing at some dry joke made by her eldest son and then holding her face and beginning to cry. She cried, laughed and then cried again, exhausted and dragged through each emotion. Finally she rose and with a quiet dignity began to boil water for tea.
At the other end of the property the family had constructed a small tin shed. They planned to move here after the demolition of their house and try and rebuild their lives, disrupted like so many others by this decades old occupation.
The construction of the Wall has proved highly controversial because of its construction on occupied Territory and the anticipated drastic consequences for the Palestinian population, detailed most authoritatively by the UN’s Special Rapporteur for the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard.
The Wall will de facto annex vast areas of territory and cut off large numbers of Palestinians from their land or vital infrastructure. The controversy surrounding the construction prompted the General Assembly of the UN to pass resolution ES 10/13 demanding that Israel stop construction. When Israel failed to comply the Assembly called on the International Court of Justice to offer an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction. Hearings were held from the 23rd to the 25th of February this year and the court released its opinion on the 9th of July.
In a highly critical judgement the court ruled that:
"The wall, along the route chosen, and its associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order."
"The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of its various obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments."
"Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Furthermore, it must ensure freedom of access to the Holy Places that came under its control,"
What this will mean for ordinary Palestinians and Israelis at this juncture however, is very little. The Israeli government has already stated that it will ignore any adverse findings and continues with construction. Daily protests occur in the West Bank with Palestinian, Israeli and International activists struggling to prevent the destruction and appropriation of land. As always geopolitical and military realities disregard legal niceties.
The critical ICJ opinion of the Wall may prove significant in the future depending upon the reaction of populations and governments around the world. The ICJ’s 1971 ruling against South Africa’s occupation of Namibia prompted economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure against the apartheid government. Similar reactions to the ICJ’s ruling on the Wall could push Israel towards a settlement and contribute to peace and security in the region. Concerned citizens around the world need to call on their governments to implement such measures. Australia has obligations as a high contracting party to the Fourth Geneva Convention to act to ensure respect for the convention. The ICJ in its ruling outlined, at length, its view that other States had obligations to ensure respect for international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories:
"Given the character and the importance of the rights and obligations involved, the Court is of the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It is also for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 are under an obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention."
Without external pressure and sanctions, what is most likely is that Israel will continue with its policies, well funded by US aid, free of censure, carrying out a colonial project disguised in security and anti-terrorist rhetoric. If this continues real solutions will be nowhere to be found, buried amongst the rubble of destroyed homes and ruined lives.
Israel / Palestine comes to us as eruptions of violence from both sides, overwhelming military power directed at civilian neighbourhoods or as stone throwers and suicide bombers. These images come to us devoid of context. What the media cannot impart, are the daily realities faced by a population living under occupation since 1967.
The procedures of occupation are banal and unphotogenic, yet their consequences are an inescapable oppression. This oppression, created by mechanisms of control like checkpoints, curfews, incursions and closed military zones, strangles movement, economic, social and political life. The latest manifestation of Israel’s policy in the OPT is the construction of the Wall being built throughout the West Bank.
What’s so often lost amongst spectacle are the human faces of the victims of the wall. The reality of oppression is lost amongst media images of violence. In late 2003 I spent several days in a small village, Khirbet JBarra outside the West Bank city of Tulkarem. I lived in the home of Abu Salim a 1948 refugee who had toiled all his life to buy a small plot of land to grow olives and build a home for his family.
The Abu Salim family lived in a partly constructed house on their property. The parts under construction would be finished as each son was ready to marry and he would move in with his new wife. As international activists we came to stay in the house to help prevent its demolition by the Israeli Defence Forces. The property was far from the 1967 Green Line border between Israel and the territories yet it was scheduled for demolition to make way for the wall. Of several possible routes in the area the path of the Wall swerved maliciously towards this small property on the edge of town.
The family waited every day for the appearance of military vehicles and bulldozers. The eldest son had to contemplate calling off his engagement as he might have nowhere to live after the wedding. The father continued stubbornly with improvements and work on the house. Seemingly in denial. Each day was tense with fear and resignation. Of all these images however, one stands out most distinctly to me. Mrs Salim laughing at some dry joke made by her eldest son and then holding her face and beginning to cry. She cried, laughed and then cried again, exhausted and dragged through each emotion. Finally she rose and with a quiet dignity began to boil water for tea.
At the other end of the property the family had constructed a small tin shed. They planned to move here after the demolition of their house and try and rebuild their lives, disrupted like so many others by this decades old occupation.
The construction of the Wall has proved highly controversial because of its construction on occupied Territory and the anticipated drastic consequences for the Palestinian population, detailed most authoritatively by the UN’s Special Rapporteur for the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard.
The Wall will de facto annex vast areas of territory and cut off large numbers of Palestinians from their land or vital infrastructure. The controversy surrounding the construction prompted the General Assembly of the UN to pass resolution ES 10/13 demanding that Israel stop construction. When Israel failed to comply the Assembly called on the International Court of Justice to offer an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction. Hearings were held from the 23rd to the 25th of February this year and the court released its opinion on the 9th of July.
In a highly critical judgement the court ruled that:
"The wall, along the route chosen, and its associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order."
"The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of its various obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments."
"Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Furthermore, it must ensure freedom of access to the Holy Places that came under its control,"
What this will mean for ordinary Palestinians and Israelis at this juncture however, is very little. The Israeli government has already stated that it will ignore any adverse findings and continues with construction. Daily protests occur in the West Bank with Palestinian, Israeli and International activists struggling to prevent the destruction and appropriation of land. As always geopolitical and military realities disregard legal niceties.
The critical ICJ opinion of the Wall may prove significant in the future depending upon the reaction of populations and governments around the world. The ICJ’s 1971 ruling against South Africa’s occupation of Namibia prompted economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure against the apartheid government. Similar reactions to the ICJ’s ruling on the Wall could push Israel towards a settlement and contribute to peace and security in the region. Concerned citizens around the world need to call on their governments to implement such measures. Australia has obligations as a high contracting party to the Fourth Geneva Convention to act to ensure respect for the convention. The ICJ in its ruling outlined, at length, its view that other States had obligations to ensure respect for international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories:
"Given the character and the importance of the rights and obligations involved, the Court is of the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It is also for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 are under an obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention."
Without external pressure and sanctions, what is most likely is that Israel will continue with its policies, well funded by US aid, free of censure, carrying out a colonial project disguised in security and anti-terrorist rhetoric. If this continues real solutions will be nowhere to be found, buried amongst the rubble of destroyed homes and ruined lives.
e-mail:
