BARUCH KIMMERLING
The ICJ ruling and Israel's fence
JERUSALEM
It is very unlikely that this "legal advisory opinion" of the court will cause any change in Israel's decision to build the so-called security fence or wall. In fact, promptly after the United Nations sent the issue of the separation fence to the court last December, the Sharon government, supported by the Bush administration, declared it would not respect any decision of the court. The UN asked the court to prepare a legal opinion on the ramifications of construction of the wall inside Palestinian territories. The Israeli government perceived that the legality of the fence was backed by the ruling of the Israeli high court of June 30. The Israeli court indeed ordered a change in the route of approximately 18 miles (from a total projected length of 410 miles) in the West Bank fence. This ruling was supposedly made in order to ease the immense hardships experienced by Palestinians living in the most problematic areas of the fence's route. However, the court affirmed legality of the construction of the fence and the rest of its route by affirming that "the current route adequately represents Israel's security requirements." The pretext for building the fence was security and the desire to keep suicide bombers out of Israel. However, a careful analysis of the fence route shows that it is only one fragment of a larger plan to draw the future borders of Israel and to incorporate the majority of the settlements and settlers, while dividing the Palestinian population into four separate enclaves. The issue of borders is currently a cause of some confusion within Israel because of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's commitment to evacuate the Gaza settlements, as well as a few small isolated West Bank settlements. The right wing went into a panic because, for the first time since 1967, a leader who identified with their cause had committed himself to dismantling settlements in historic Palestine. Centrists and non-radical leftists welcomed the plan -- not without suspicion -- because they perceive it as a crack in the major taboo against uprooting settlements and as a possible precursor to withdrawal from all or most of the occupied territories. As a part of Sharon's so-called Disengagement Plan, the pulling out of 17 settlements in the Gaza Strip in fact will not end the occupation there, as Israel would retain control over Gaza's airspace, its territorial sea, and all border crossings. Presumably, the Israeli army and security services would continue to operate there as well. The real result of Sharon's plan would be to turn the Gaza Strip into a vast concentration camp under Israeli surveillance. This type of Palestinian "sovereignty" could then serve as a model for part of the West Bank. Still, Sharon's own government has not approved even this arrangement and it is not guaranteed to receive a parliamentary majority even with the hesitant support of the Labor Party. From this perspective, the Gaza withdrawal and the border fence are complementary policies of one larger plan, whose ultimate aim is to attain control over the maximum amount of Palestinian territory while minimizing the number of Arab inhabitants. In pursuit of this aim, the border fence will enclose all the major settlement blocs (about 60 settlements), including many, such as Kiryat Arba and Ariel, that lie deep inside Palestinian territory. The fence, when completed, will result in the de facto annexation of at least 20 percent of the West Bank. Additionally, it seems that Israel will retain the Jordan Valley up to a narrow strip of about 6 miles west of the Jordan River. Permanent or not, such a "border" not only makes the everyday life of the Palestinians unbearable, it will prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Presumably, this is the additional hidden purpose of the enterprise -- to force Palestinians off the land by "voluntary" ethnic cleansing. No Palestinian leadership -- with or without Yasser Arafat -- can accept such a "border," and the cycle of violence will continue. The only acceptable border for Palestinians, after they already gave up 78 percent of historic Palestine, is the pre-1967 border. This should be the trade-off deal with the original demand for return to a whole Palestine. Sharon's scheme to unilaterally reshape the border by building fences is a guaranteed prescription for continuation of mutual slaughter.
Baruch Kimmerling is professor of sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of "Politicide," and co-author with Joel Migdal of "The Palestinian People: A History." © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
