Opposing Viewpoints of Israeli Wall
The conflict in the Middle East between Israel and her neighbors has led to many attempted solutions by both parties, all of which have failed. One of the latest attempts by Israel has been constructing a wall separating their country from the West Bank, in an attempt to keep terrorists out of Israel. The wall that Israel constructed separating the West Bank from Israel has prompted different viewpoints from the governments of Israel, Palestine and the United Nations, and America.
The government of Israel’s viewpoint on the wall is that it is beneficial to their state. They believe it is legitimate for self defense, ensures a Jewish majority, and stops suicide bombers from entering Israel. According to acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the wall is for the safety of the state of Israel. He wants to move all the Jewish settlers to the Israeli side of the blockade to keep them in Israel and beef up Jewish settlements (Olmert’s 2006).
Furthermore, the government of Israel wants to ensure a Jewish majority in their state. Haim Ramon, the Israeli Cabinet minister for Jerusalem claims that the barrier will make the Israeli capital city of Jerusalem more Jewish. "The government did well in determining the fence route without including Shuafat and Qalandia in Jerusalem," Ramon said. "I don't think anybody is sorry about this." Shuafat and Qalandia are Palestinian settlements in the Eastern part of Jerusalem (Associated Press 2005).
Moreover, Israel believes that the wall stops suicide bombers from entering the country. Zeev Boim, Israel's deputy defense minister claims the fence is only to stop terrorism. “The fence was put up because of security needs, to stop terrorism," he told Israel Army Radio.
In addition, “It obliges us to establish a barrier wall which is the only thing that can minimize the infiltration of these male and female suicide bombers,” said Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who has emphasized that “the fence is not political, [and] is not a border.” (Associated Press 2005) As a result, the government of Israel believes that the wall is necessary for the well-being of their state.
These last two statements have to do with a lot of political pressure put on Israel by the international community which sometimes claims that the wall is a political border meant to separate Jews from Arabs.
In contrast, both Palestine and the United Nations oppose the wall. They feel that because the wall abuses human rights, was voted against in The Hague1, and violates various international laws it should be taken down. “When the barrier is completed this year, Palestinian settlement Qalqilya's only entrance - or exit - will be an Israeli checkpoint just 26 feet wide. Agriculture has traditionally acted as an economic shock absorber during hard times, employing people when they lost jobs elsewhere. But wall construction has cut people off from that shock absorber.” Furthermore, over 500 schools have closed in the territory because the teachers have not been able to reach the students (Norton and Gaouette 2003).
Moreover, the International Court of Justice in The Hague voted that the "security wall" Israel is building in the West Bank is illegal, which supports both the Palestinian and United Nations viewpoints. The Court claimed that the wall was contrary to international law which the United Nation supports (Suri 2004). “The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a resolution demanding that Israel comply with a world court decision and tear down the barrier it is building to seal off the West Bank. But a defiant Israel vowed to continue construction.” (Shahil 2004)
In addition, Palestine and the United Nations believe that the wall violates a wide range of international laws. A major violation of the so called Apartheid Wall is the unilateral demarcation of a new border in the West Bank that amounts to effective annexation of occupied land. Furthermore, destruction for and building of the Wall has amounted to numerous additional violations of the IV Geneva Convention. The Wall also breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economical, Social, and Cultural Rights, both of which Israel has signed (FAQS 2003). As a result, the Palestinian government and the United Nations oppose the Israeli fence.
The American government has a viewpoint that differs from Israel’s and the United Nation’s and Palestinian’s stances on the wall. While they generally are in support of the wall, they also feel it could have some consequences. It was a common debate among United States politicians. The American government clearly realizes that the wall has both pros for Israel and cons for Palestine.
While President Bush has spoken favorably of the wall at times, he also feels that the wall could potentially be a problem. On July 25th, 2003, the President had the following to say regarding the wall, “I think the wall is a problem...it is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank.” (ATEP 2003) This quote proves that while public perception is that America is completely in favor of the wall, they realize there could be negative consequences.
However, America does believe that Israel has a right to defend itself. This is the reason that at The Hague vote, U.S. judge Thomas Buergenthal was the only judge to vote in favor of the wall. He was also backed by the white house who released a statement saying that The Hague convention was not the appropriate place to discuss the wall (Suri 2004). Judge Buergenthal had the following to say regarding Israel’s right for self defense:
Israel claims that it has a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks to which it is subjected on its territory from across the Green Line and that in doing so it is exercising its inherent right of self‑defence (Buergenthal 2004)
Israel’s right to protect itself from threats both inside and outside of their borders is the main reason that Judge Buergenthal voted in favour of the wall.
In addition, America uses statistics to show support for the wall. Terrorist attacks were common in Israel before construction of the wall began. “During the 34 months from the beginning of the violence in September 2000 until the construction of the first continuous segment of the security fence at the end of July 2003, Samaria-based terrorists carried out 73 attacks in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1950 wounded. In the 11 months between the erection of the first segment at the beginning of August 2003 and the end of June 2004, only three attacks were successful, and all three occurred in the first half of 2003.” (Israel’s Security 2006) The Israeli government felt a wall was necessary and the American government supported them by giving the Israeli government arms and funds to help construct the blockade (FAQS 2003).
Furthermore, since the construction of the wall, the number of terrorist attacks on Israel has decreased percentage wise. The number of attacks has declined by more than 90%. The number of Israelis murdered and wounded has decreased by more than 70% and 85%, respectively, after erection of the fence. See the figure for the exact number of Israelis who have been wounded or killed since the beginning of the wall. The figure shows the amount of people wounded or killed both in areas with and without the barrier. This bar graph makes it obvious that there have been significantly less attacks in the walled regions. As a result, the government of the United States realizes that there are both pros and cons to the wall Israel has constructed.
In conclusion, it is obvious that the world is torn on whether there should be a blockade separating Israel and the West Bank. With such conflicting opinions across the globe, there appears to be no easy answer as to whether the wall should stay or be torn down. This debate further complicates the conflicts in the Middle East. With no clear solution to the problems in the Middle East, peace appears to be a distant thought.
What do Israelis think?
Eliezer Eiseman- From New Jersey, living in Israel for 5 years: “I think it is awful what these Arabs have to go through. However, that being said, if a thousand Arabs are inconvenienced to save a life, then it is worth it. It’s like at an airport, do I like waiting in line for 2 hours at security? Of course not, but if no terrorists get on my plane then it is worth it.”
Michael Katz- From Ukraine, Living in Israel for 18 years, “A wall is the best way to outline our borders. It not only provides security, but it also sends the message that this is our territory.”
Majdi Hosein- Israeli Arab, born in Israel, “In general, a wall would be a good thing. But in this case, Israel made a fake border looking at it from only one side. If both sides agree to a border, then a wall can be built. Right now, the wall is inhumane since it divides villages and separates families.
Yanir Shelef- Former Israeli Soldier, born in Israel “I think that like between all normal countries there needs to be a border, especially if there is a conflict. The fence helps reduce and prevent terror attacks by so much, and that saves so many lives. If there was no terror - we would love not to have a fence, but since there is such a horrible war of terror against us - for now that's the only way to save lives and maintain a normal life here. Basically - it's an anti-terror fence, and it works.
Works Cited
Buergenthal, Thomas. “Declaration of Judge Buergenthal.”
“FAQS.” 4 Oct. 2003. FAQS.
“Israel Official: Wall to Ensure Jewish Majority.” 2005. Associated Press. 11 July 2005.
“Israel’s Security Fence.” 2006. Jewish Virtual Library.
Norton, James and Gauette, Nicole. “Palestinians Say Wall is a Noose.” The Christian Science Monitor. Article # 1906. (March 2003). 27 Feb 2003
“Olmert's Sweeping Plan to Withdraw Behind Wall Draws Fire From the Right.” 2006. Israel Insider. 10 March 2004.
Shahil. 21 July 2004.
“The Separation Wall.” 25 July 2003. American Task Force on Palestine.
Suri, Sanjay. “Palestinian Win Rises Higher Than Israeli Wall.”
