|
As part of their
plan designed to cement control over the territory of the West Bank
the Israeli government has been constructing a Wall (alternatively
known as a fence or barrier) inside the territory of the West Bank.
The Wall is designed to encircle illegal Israeli settlements which
are peppered across the West Bank territory. All included it will
annex up to 58% of the territory of the West Bank and close
Palestinian villages, towns and communities off from the rest of the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip by completely encircling them.
On 9 July 2004
the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in response to a request
by the UN General Assembly, declared that the “construction of a
wall inside the territory of the West Bank is illegal” and that the
Wall, and its associated regime, must be dismantled. Israel and the
USA rejected the Court’s findings while the EU (albeit belatedly)
and the non-aligned states have accepted the decision.
Despite some
difficulties in legal reasoning, the Court’s judgment has been
generally hailed by Palestinian civil society and international
human rights organisations as a landmark decision for the
implementation of international law on the question of Palestine – a
landmark which demands comprehensive implementation.
PCHR has produced a
list of Frequently Asked Questions which respond to some of the key
issues about the Wall and are reprinted below.
PCHR Documents/Links
The following is
recommended reading on the question of the Wall:
PCHR Position Paper: Securing the Wall from International Law: An
Initial Response to the Israeli State Attorney
(April 2005)
The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the legality
of the construction of a wall inside the territory of the West Bank:
(July 2004)
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Humanitarian Update Special Focus: Jerusalem
(June 2005).
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Humanitarian Update on the Wall
(March 2005).
PCHR’s joint intervention, with al Haq and FIDH, to the UN
Commission on Human Rights on the right to self-determination.
(March 2005)
Frequently Asked
Questions about the Wall.
Why does PCHR use
the term “Annexation Wall”?
There has been much
controversy over the name given to the structure being built by the
Israeli government inside the West Bank territory. The Israeli
military calls it a “security fence” while some NGOs call it a
“barrier”.
PCHR prefers to use
the language of the ICJ Advisory Opinion when referring to the
structure as a Wall but also recognises that the structure consists
of many different formats including ditches, electronic fences,
electric fences and walls.
PCHR also believes
that the variety of comments made by UN Special Rapporteur John
Dugard, among others that “[W]hat we are witnessing in the West Bank
is a visible and clear act of territorial annexation under the guise
of security” appropriately explain the intent and purpose of the
Wall better then words such as “barrier” which seeks to justify the
Israeli argument that the wall is to prevent infiltration from the
West Bank into Israel.
But the Israeli
military says the Wall is a temporary structure?
The Wall maybe
temporary – it will have to come down for the establishment of a
viable sovereign Palestinian state – but the suffering it imposes on
Palestinian civilian communities will resonate for generations.
Farmers denied
access to their land and livelihoods, students prevented from
attending University, families who can not see each other, political
parties which can not engage in political discourse, people who only
ever meet Israelis when they are armed and in uniforms – all of
these are victims of the Israeli Wall.
Peace is a state of
co-existence which must be founded on respect for human rights -
when you build Walls you create divisions, divisions which last far
longer then the structures which institutionalised them.
Why is this
International Court of Justice interfering – can’t the Israeli
Court’s assess what is legal?
The formulation of
the laws and customs of war are held by governments and people alike
to be so significant and important that they were developed in broad
agreement. In particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention was agreed
upon in response to the massacre of civilians, (particularly the
genocide against Jews, Gypsies and others) throughout the Second
World War. The Convention is designed to protect civilians.
Israel does not
recognize the applicability of the Convention despite the fact that
the UN Security Council and the High Contracting Parties (i.e.
signatories) to the Convention have all re-affirmed the
applicability of the Convention.
Because of the
grave humanitarian, legal and political crises provoked by the
construction of the Wall the United Nations General Assembly decided
that the ICJ, the foremost judicial body, should examine the
question of the construction of the Wall against international law
standards. The ICJ found the construction of the Wall to be
illegal.
The Israeli High
Court, on the other hand has traditionally acted to grant the
military and the government impunity from international legal
standards and authorised them to continue their activities.
The case of the
Annexation Wall is no different. For a full examination of the
failure of the Israeli legal response please see PCHR’s position
paper which responds in full to many of the Israeli claims,
Securing the Wall from International Law: An Initial Response to the
Israeli State Attorney (April 2005). |
