LIMITACIONES DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN

In June 2002 the Israeli government began erecting a nearly 400-mile barrier in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank to protect Israelis from suicide attacks. The northern part of the barrier closely followed the Green Line (the pre-1967 boundary between Israel and the area that is now the Palestinian Authority), but much of the rest of its route involved great loops eastward into Palestinian territory in order to protect Israeli settlements. Most of the barrier is a fence in a 200-to-900-foot zone of military tracks and ditches, but some parts are 26-foot-high concrete walls. The barrier has become extremely controversial. Those opposed to it argue that it breaches international law and violates human rights. Those who support it argue that it is needed for security reasons.

PROS

Israel’s security barrier is in breach of international law. In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the wall was in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention because its construction violates property rights and helps maintain illegal settlements. Since it restricts freedom of movement and the right to an adequate standard of living, health, and education, the wall also violates human rights conventions. Finally, the Court ruled that the barrier’s route could allow Israel to annex territory, jeopardizing the Palestinian right to self- determination.

CONS

The ICJ opinion is advisory and, therefore, largely sym- bolic. In this case, the UN General Assembly asked the Court to comment on a resolution that was already anti- Israel, so the form of the request prejudged the decision. Sadly, the ICJ has allowed itself to be politically manipu- lated. Moreover, Israel does not acknowledge the jurisdic- tion of the ICJ and is therefore not bound to implement its rulings. The Occupied Territories were never part of a recognized state, and so the various international con- ventions do not apply there. Finally, the Oslo Accord between Israel and the Palestinians stipulates that dis- putes be settled by negotiation, not by unilateral appeal to external bodies. For these reasons Israel boycotted the

Any short-term security gain will be counterbalanced by growing Palestinian resentment, which could result in a greater number of suicide attacks in Israel. Israelis and Palestinians must learn to live side by side, but building a 26-foot-high wall sends a clear message that Israel is hostile to the Palestinians. East Jerusalem, in particular, has been relatively peaceful, but the wall there will split communities and disrupt everyday life. It boldly declares that shared sovereignty is no longer a solution for the city both sides claim as their capital. A better way to radicalize the inhabitants of East Jerusalem would be hard to find.

The route of the barrier effectively means that Israel has annexed Palestinian territory. Palestinian leaders assert that the route could lead to the annexation of almost half of the cultivatable land in the West Bank. Most Western governments have criticized the barrier because part of its route departs from Green Line, the internationally recognized border. The route is not based on security considerations. It is clearly political, concerned with tying Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories to Israel. It also violates property rights, because Israel has taken thousands of acres from Palestinians for the wall and the wide strip of access tracks beside it.

The security wall impedes Palestinians’ everyday activi- ties. A great number of Palestinians have jobs, use hos- pitals, and attend schools on the Israeli side of the wall. To go to school or work they must use designated gates that are often far from where they live. That takes time as well as money. Moreover, Palestinians need hard- to-obtain passes to enter Israel. Poverty is widespread, and sick people have died because of problems getting through checkpoints.

Even the Israeli High Court has said that the govern- ment should not provide security to West Bank settlers at the expense of Palestinian rights. In 2004, the Court forced the government to reroute the wall because of the “severe and acute” injury it brought to tens of thousands of Palestinians along the proposed route.

ICJ hearings. So did the United States and the European Union, both major players in the peace process. They, too, believe that the case could undermine peace talks. Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself and protect its people. The barrier will prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from crossing into Israel. Nine hundred Israelis died in suicide attacks before the barrier was in place. If there were no terror threat, there would be no need for a barrier. A measure that can save the lives of count- less innocent people demands our support. Israel should complete the barrier as soon as possible.

The security barrier merely connects Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Civilians in these settlements deserve as much protection against terrorist attacks as anyone else. While the estimates that half of the West Bank could be annexed are blown out of proportion, Israel acknowl- edges that the barrier does sometimes depart from the Green Line and therefore includes parts of the so-called Palestinian territory. Yet “the barrier is not intended as a political border between two entities, but merely as a hurdle between terrorists and their victims,” as former Israeli defense minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer put it. Its route is dictated solely by security considerations, for example, the need to prevent snipers from having a clear line of fire on roads Israeli settlers use.

The security barrier reduces tensions because it separates Israelis and Palestinians. In time, procedures for enter- ing Israel will become more routine. A system of tunnels and viaducts will connect all Palestinian territories. The barrier will allow Israel to remove its heavy military pres- ence from the West Bank, along with the checkpoints, roadblocks, and searches that made Palestinian life so difficult even before the barrier.

The main priority of the Israeli government should be security for its people and for Palestinians. The barrier does cause some problems, but protecting Israel from suicide attacks is of primary importance. Israel’s High Court agreed that a barrier was a legitimate means of providing security and that it served a real military need. The government has rerouted the barrier to take the Court’s concerns into account.

1|The Debatabase Book

By carving up the West Bank, Israel is preventing the development of a viable Palestinian state. The barrier and the settlements it protects will ensure that the Palestin- ian people remain desperate and that their government will be unable to control its own territory effectively. Yet Israel’s long-term interests are served by promoting the development of a stable, viable Palestinian state. Only a strong Palestinian government that can give its people an economic future and enforce its decisions will be able to negotiate a lasting peace with Israel.

The barrier harms Israel’s international image and weak- ens its support in the United States, a crucial ally. The United States will not allow Israel to use US loan guar- antees to pay for the wall’s construction. The barrier stirs memories of the Berlin Wall, and global media coverage has been mostly negative. Stories of pregnant women dying on their way to the hospital because of the wall damages Israel’s cause in the international community.

The Palestinian Authority must show that it can be trusted to run a viable state before Israel relaxes its secu- rity measures. Fatah’s corruption and ineptitude led to 10 years of misrule and increased poverty that the Islamic militant group Hamas exploited in the 2006 parliamentary election. The Palestinian government has been and remains unwilling or unable to restrain terror- ists. At present, Israel has no partner for peace and must be free to protect its citizens as best it can.

The barrier does not hurt Israel’s international position. The United States has accepted Israel’s right to build a security barrier, and President Bush has also agreed that any future peace settlement must respect the existence of some Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Some coun- tries are strongly anti-Israel and will use any excuse to criticize the Jewish state. In any case, precedents exist for erecting such a security barrier—for example the Peace Walls in Belfast, Northern Ireland, or the security fences erected by South Korea and India against potentially hostile neighbors.

PROS CONS

Sample Motions:

This House would bring down the wall.

This House would dismantle the Israeli security wall. This House believes that high fences make bad neighbors. This House would reconsider its security policy.

This House would cry, “Tear down this wall.”

Web Links:

• Economist.com. < http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2119356> Special report on Israel’s security barrier. • International Court of Justice. <http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm> Legal opinion on the construc-

tion of the barrier.

• Israel News Agency. <http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israelsecurityfence10020.html> Justification for constructing the barrier. • Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. < http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp513.htm> Article explaining Israel’s position.

Further Reading:

Ben-Ami, Schlomo. Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press, 2006. Kershner, Isabel. Barrier: The Seam of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Sorkin, Michael, ed. Against the Wall: Israel’s Barrier to Peace. New Press, 2005.