Do Good Fences Make Good Neigbors?

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall," these sentiments were conveyed by an American poet Robert Frost over a hundred years ago. These words today encompass a greater wall than Frost's original thought. Israel has built and is building a fence around the occupied Palestinian territory and Israeli settlements. This paper will try to argue that the "security fence" built by Israel in the West Bank works against Israel's security. There will also be some discussion on the security objective of Israel and its discrepancies. There are various reasons for the lack of security. These include examination of prevention of suicide-bombers, the short-term security versus long term, Israel's international public image, and impact on the Palestinian population. The advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice will be discussed as well as the broader context of the ICJ's ruling. There is also international humanitarian law that needs to be considered and the rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court. The words "fence" and "wall" will be used interchangeably without bias even though the opposition calls it a "wall" and the supporters refer to it as a "fence."

Background to the Fence and the Oslo Peace Process
The background to the wall is important to examine in order to explain the desire for a wall by the Israelis. Clear understanding of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is also vital to an educated analysis. Though the intention of this paper is to discuss the wall, a brief overview is necessary of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Without going back too much into history, the initial discussion of conflict will begin from the year 1993.

The Oslo peace process began in the year of 1993. Many suggest that the Oslo Accords were a breakthrough for peace between Palestinians and Israel. The signs for peace during the time were optimistic. It was the first time the PLO and Israeli government acknowledged each other. Rabin, the Israeli prime minister and Arafat, chairman of the PLO signed the Oslo Agreement. Jordan signed a treaty to end hostilities with Israel. There were negotiations with Palestinians gaining control over West Bank and Gaza over a five year period. Others dismiss the entire peace process as a disguise for more land grab for the Israelis. Whichever the case may be, it was not exemplar of a peace process.

Many attribute Yitzhak Rabin's assassination by an extremist Jewish Israeli student as the first sign to the failure of the peace process. The prime minister that came after was dedicated to peace but failed to have enough strength to convince Israelis. Netanyahu won the election with a hard-line platform for Israel security. There was some progress between Arafat and Netanyahu, but no real success. Barak was elected afterwards on the grounds for bringing peace, but Sharon had different ideas.

In September 2000 Ariel Sharon visited Temple Mount where the Mosque Al-Aqsa is located. When soldiers arrived in the mosque, Palestinians felt that Israel was provoking them. Many attribute the uprising of Palestinians at the Mosque as the beginning of the second intifiada. Sharon claims that his visit was not to incite Palestinians, but merely to demonstrate Israeli sovereignty over the area. Some Israelis and Sharon tried to blame the violence that was to follow on the Palestinians. Many Palestinians found it difficult to accept Sharon's visit to Temple Mount as a simple display of sovereignty and a claim that "It was no provocation whatsoever... Arabs have the right to visit everywhere in the land of Israel, and Jews have the right to visit every place on the land of Israel," because Sharon has claimed that as long as he is alive there will never be a Palestinian state. There might be a discrepancy when interpreting the rights of Arabs and Palestinians to visit Israel versus Sharon visiting with armed militia.

This incident and the second intifada severed the delicate peace process. Almost overnight the peace process was back to square one. Barak was unable to contain the violence that erupted. He resigned and Sharon was elected.
In 2002 the wall was approved. After so many deadly attacks by the Palestinians, Israelis started construction on an "anti-terrorist fence." As of 2007, 58.04% has been constructed, 8.96% is under construction, and construction has not yet begun on 33% of the barrier. The idea of a fence may have begun with Yitzhak Rabin. He suggested it in the early 90s. There was also a grassroots effort called the "Fence for Life" that lobbied for the fence. The actual materialization of the wall, though, began with Sharon. Israelis claim that 95% of the wall is and will be a wire fence with the exception of urban areas such as Jerusalem and Qalqilya which have concrete wall. The wall has security measures around it that prohibit crossing it. There are warning signs attached to the wall that warns anyone getting close to the fence jeopardizes their life. Then again, the fence is electric, takes up a lot of space, has soldiers guarding it, and sand is placed as to detect footprints. It has hardly the guise of temporary construction.

Under the Guise of Security?

The true intention of the security wall is under scrutiny from many critics of Israel's policies. The government of Israel continuously proclaims that the wall built on the West Bank is for security reasons, most especially the prevention of suicide bombers infiltrating Israel from the West Bank since the second intifada started in 2000. The government also cites the virtual elimination of suicide-bombers in the areas where the wall has been completed. There is no doubt in the validity of elimination of suicide-bombers. The concern arises on the reasons for the construction of the fence. Though there are security benefits for Israelis with the construction of the wall, the pathway of the wall suggests that security was not the only or the primary consideration taken when the wall was planned and executed.
The already built wall and future plans are not located on the Green line nor Israeli territory. The Green line is the internationally recognized border. The wall is mainly on the occupied territory of West Bank. There are plenty of areas where the wall is a few kilometers from the Green line encompassing illegal Israeli settlements (sometimes referred to as neighborhoods) and future plans for expansion of already existing settlements in addition to natural growth of communities. The wall also encircles many Palestinian villages where only one gateway is built to enter and exit which is frequently closed. In addition to these enclaves, many Palestinian villages are now found outside of the wall, outside of the West Bank. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are cut off from their farmland where their livelihood depends. The critics of this wall emerge because of this collateral damage.
The Israeli human rights organization B'tselem issued a report in 2005 where they document various settlements and give case-studies for the true intention of the Israeli wall. They bring up various facts that compromises Israel's claim for security. The first is that if Israel claims that security was their primary reason for building the wall the way it is, more appropriately they claim the route was chosen for "topographic control," then the farther the barrier is from the Green line, the more Palestinian farmland is in the "seam zone" the more Palestinians are entitled to enter the area where there is no physical obstruction from Israeli territory where suicide-bombing could not be prevented. This is contradictory to the security objective. The second inconsistency arises with the not-so- temporary nature of the barrier. Though the government states it is temporary, why build walls around settlements with concrete? The third is the findings that the route chosen encompasses existing settlements and includes further settlements to be erected. If it was for security reasons, then why not build the wall closer to the settlements and construct shorter routes that will need fewer soldiers who are put in danger? If the objective is security-why infringe on human rights? Building the wall around future expanded territory, contradicts security objectives.
B'tselem uses a few case-studies. These include Zufin, Jayyus, Modi'in, Alfe Menashe, Ne'eve Yakov settlements. Some examples are Zufin, where it was found that it was clearly against the state's contention that they set the wall east of green line in order to give "warning space." The example of Zufin shows that the wall included areas for future settlements. There are plans for future housing and buildings. If they need the warning space why construct more settlements? Modi'in showed that inferior routes were constructed that did not benefit the settlers but the real-estate developers.
As shown, the reality that the routes taken were not built with the primary intention of security is the first factor in the case against the security of the wall. Noam Chomsky discusses this same issue in his article. He states,
Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks...even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means. It is also clear where such a wall would be built if security were the guiding concern: inside Israel, within the internationally recognized border, the Green Line established after the 1948-49 war. The wall could then be as forbidding as the authorities chose: patrolled by the army on both sides, heavily mined, impenetrable. Such a wall would maximize security, and there would be no international protest or violation of international law
He also believes that the wall is built primarily for building more settlements and connecting old settlements with Israel further making these settlements more permanent or "facts on the ground." The International Court of Justice also ruled against the construction of the wall on the grounds that it could not find enough evidence to support the present construction of the wall on the grounds of security. In other words, there was no justification for building the wall on Palestinian land and not on Israeli land.

Radicalization of the Population

There is another grave security threat that the barrier exacerbates. There has been severe proliferation of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalist groups. These new radicalized groups are just waiting to become members of these fundamentalist groups. The hardships faced by Palestinians tend to radicalize parts of the population, more hardship, more extreme measures. Many proponents of the Israeli wall like to point out that the wall was not built in a vacuum; one would argue the same for the need for a wall. It should come as no surprise that there is correlation between certain Israeli actions and propensity of some Palestinians for violence.
Farmers, who were making a living off the land and doing well, now have to find something else. It takes so long to reach the farmland and sometimes it is hilly and can be reached only by walking or by mules. Daily visits are necessary for good farming. The farmers lose their produce a lot of the time. They are making it almost impossible to cultivate land and make a living. Sometimes they are forced to sell it for cheap prices. Other times the Israeli government will not even acknowledge Palestinian ownership. Their children are moving into the villages and cities, disrupting family life. These farmers are harassed by the army. These people who could have just been farmers are now desperate and destitute, now more willing to take up arms against Israel with more drastic measures.
This radicalization of the Palestinian population leads in to another security risk the wall poses. Though the suicide-bombers are stopped from killing Israelis, the wall does not guard against rockets. As we saw in the Israeli war on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the Katusha rockets caused havoc in Israel. Militants have developed Qassam rockets and mortars to fire over the barrier in Gaza; what is there to stop them from doing the same in the West bank? In Gaza, grenades are also thrown over successfully and in June 2006, militants used an 800 meter tunnel dug under the barrier to infiltrate Israel, attack a patrolling Israeli armored unit, killing two Israeli soldiers and capturing another one. This incident was partly responsible for the Israeli war on Lebanon. In reality, the prevention of suicide-bombers just forces dedicated militants to use other means and tactics as seen in Gaza. This new ingenuity combined with extreme hardships suffered at the hand of the Israelis keep an inexhaustible number of Palestinians ready to die for their cause.
This cycle could be avoided with a little creativity on the part of the US. Both Chomsky and David Makovsky agree that the US has tremendous influence on many policies of Israel. The US could exert pressure on Israel in regards to the "security wall." Makovsky believes that a fence built the right way would be the best thing for Israel and the occupied territories. The fence could lay the groundwork for a two-state solution. The wall would outline the future of Palestine and possibly lead to negotiations for a long-term solution. He believes the wall could be used as a temporary cooling of both sides and may work to instill more trust for each other. Makovsky believes the US could really aid in the alleviation of hardships imposed on the Palestinians by the wall in regards to losing their jobs in Israel. The US could create jobs in the West Bank where the people will have incentives to stay there. These economic measures could lead to the West Bank becoming a viable state of its own further helping the eventual separation of the two states.
Makovsky's outline for a successful wall is not realized in reality. He states that if this wall is constructed incorrectly or takes substantial land from Palestinians and imposes stringent measures, the wall could damage the peace process and further negotiations. Makocsky also believed that the wall could help the Palestinian Authority fight terrorism, the reverse has occurred. The US has not done anything to alleviate the sufferings of Palestine, but instead defends Israel in the international community. Makovsky urges Israel to construct a fence that limits hardships, promotes economic viability of Israel, and even removing the illegal settlements. B'Tselem also urges Israel to remove the illegal settlements, give back the farmland, and move the wall to the green line.

ICJ Ruling and Israel's Public Image

The General Assembly asked the ICJ for ruling on the Israeli wall. Israel and the United States tried many measures to block the proceedings. All failed and the ICJ gave its advisory opinion. ICJ advisory opinion ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the wall was the only way Israel's legitimate security needs can be met. All but one judge ruled against the wall. This kind of international consensus is rare in the world. Though there were discrepancies with methodology, most agreed on the illegality of the wall despite the methods. The only judge who voted against the ruling that the Israel wall was in violation of international law is an American judge. Judge Thomas Buergenthal did agree on the illegality of the wall and Israeli occupation, but did not rule against Israel because of needs to defend itself.
The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids occupying power to transfer its civilian population into the occupied territory in order to prevent colonization and avoid harm to the occupied civilian population. Therefore separating Palestinians from the rest of West Bank is illegal. Connecting roads to Israeli settlements is illegal, because it is trying to achieve colonization. Also in the Fourth Geneva convention destruction of private property is illegal, unless it is "rendered absolutely necessary by the military." The destruction of private property by the wall is justified based on this, but if the settlements are illegal, any justification used should be invalid. Even if the wall was not harming the population, it is still illegal because the "security needs" of Israel are irrelevant if they are protecting illegal settlements. Transferring population is not temporary, but absolute; therefore any objective to defend is illegal even if it is tried to justify military need.
ICJ ruled illegal, because of this. Though under the Geneva Convention, protecting all those under its jurisdiction is legal and required, there are other ways such as evacuation or restricted access to West bank, not constructing illegal barriers nor destroying private property.
Ruth Wedgwood also questions the methodology of the ICJ in her article "The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Israeli Security Fence and The Limits of Self-Defense." She claims that ICJ should have had better or more cohesive evidence or methodology before ruling on this case. She points to all the same problems that Israel pointed to when it was trying to deter the advisory opinion in its first place. Richard Falk answers sufficiently to her big concerns in his article .
Wedgwood finds it problematic that Israel was not heard in the judiciary proceedings. They had a legitimate defense of security and an advisory opinion should have taken that into account. Falk proceeds to point out that though the advisory opinion board could have heard the Israeli side, it was not required. Israel forfeited its right to present its security rationale for building the wall. It is Israel's fault for refusing to participate in the advisory. Another big contentious issue for Wedgwood is that this ruling could upset the delicate roadmap for peace that the Quartet was sponsoring. The ICJ ruled that because it was not clear how their ruling would effect the roadmap, then it was not a legitimate reason to refrain from advising. Which part exactly is detrimental to peace: The building of the wall or issuing a ruling on an illegal wall?
Through an almost unanimous decision, Israel's actions are seen as illegal and hostile by the international community (besides the US). The General Assembly is almost always against Israel's actions. Most of the international organization such as UN as well as NGOs such as Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights, Yesh G'val, The Committee Against House Demolitions , and countless others who have won numerous peace awards condemn the wall. Amnesty International accuses Israel of restricting movement which leads to economic depression. The organization also states that there was needless destruction of Palestinian homes. They also call on Israel to end expansion on occupied territory. Other NGOs voice similar opposition.
Besides the great ally the US, most other nations find Israel actions damaging. Recently there was a poll done by BBC where people of all nations were asked which country threatened the world security and most voted was Israel. This wall has just caused more and more nations and people to look at Israel unfavorably. Israel's public image is severely damaged. This negative image also works against Israel's long-term goals of security and normalization.

Ending Notes

Though many Israelis feel justified in building this wall, the wall needs to be reconsidered for long-term peace. The wall will provide a short-term solution and as shown is very weak on the security deliverance. There are bigger issues at hand and they need to be explored before attributing success to the wall. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be resolved with a wall but by continuous efforts by the leaders despite obstacles and fanatics. This wall has caused much hardship to the Palestinians who already face many problems already. Israel could move the wall to the Green line to reduce the severe harm. Instead of gaining allies, the Israelis are converting allies into enemies with this wall. Israel must understand that not everything can be done by force especially peace.
The Israeli security barrier does not guarantee security. The route that was chosen is often times negligent of security but focuses on expansion of settlements. Israel's public image is severely tarnished and could prove to be irreparable. The destruction of Palestinian land by Israel, loss of jobs, loss of freedom of movement, and other hardships further encourage radical measures taken by regular people. The security fence also fails to deliver on stopping rockets and mortars. If normalcy and peace is what Israel values most, then their construction of the wall on the West bank gets them further and further from their goals.

Bibliography

2003. US blocks action against Israeli Wall. BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3192762.stm (accessed

April 12, 2006).

2004. Saving Lives: Israel's Anti-Terrorist Fence - Answers to Questions. State

of Israel. www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/terrorism-

%20obstacle%20to%20peace/palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/saving%20

lives-%20anti-terrorist%20fence%20-%20Answ (accessed April, 12, 2006).

Bartram, Darin R., Rivkin, David B. January 19, 2004. Israel's barrier: In defense of the

fence. International Herald Tribune.

"Break this vicious circle." Economist 369, no. 8345 (2003): 14-14. Academic Search

Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 13, 2006)

B'Tselem and Bimkom. "Under the Guise of Security."

B'Tselem publication. December 2006. Israel.

Chomsky, Noam. Monday, February 23, 2004. A Wall as a Weapon.

New York Times

Falk, Richard A. "Toward Authoritativeness: The ICJ Ruling on Israel's Security Wall.

American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 1. (Jan., 2005), pp. 42-52

Kofi Annan Statement. 2003. Transcript of Press Conference by Secretary General Kofi

Annan. United Nations. www.un.org/news/press/docs/2003/sgsm8581.doc.htm

(accessed April 12, 2006).

Kretzmer, David. "The Advisory Opinion: The Light Treatment of International

Humanitarian Law." American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 1.

(Jan., 2005), pp. 88-102

Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied

Palestinian territory. International Court of Justice. www.icj-

cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htm (accessed April 12, 2006).

Makovsky, David. "How to Build a Fence Partition without Partnership."
Foreign Affairs. March/April 2004.

McMahon, Janet. "Hague Conference Considers Ways to Implement ICJ Ruling

onIsrael's Wall." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 24, no. 1 (2005): 12-

14. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 10, 2006).

"Qalqilya Strangled by Israel's Wall." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 23, no.

8 (2004): 48-49. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 12,

2006).

Williams, Ian. "Except for U.S. judge, International Court Rules AgainstIsrael's Wall,

Occupation." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 23, no. 7 (2004): 8-9.

Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 12, 2006).

Wedgwood, Ruth. "The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Israeli Security Fence and the

Limits of Self-Defense." American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 1.

(Jan., 2005), pp. 52-61

Watson, Geoffrey R. " The Wall Decision in Legal and Political Context."

American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 1.

(Jan., 2005), pp. 6-26