Israeli -West Bank & Gaza–Israel ,the inhumane wall
Israeli -West Bank & Gaza–Israel,the inhumane wall
Effects on Palestinians
The barrier has many effects on Palestinians including reduced freedoms, reduction of the number of Israel Defense Forces checkpoints and road closures, loss of land, increased difficulty in accessing medical and educational services in Israel,[72][73] restricted access to water sources, and economic effects.[74]
Reduced freedoms
In a 2005 report, the United Nations stated that:
An often-quoted example of the effects of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, a city of around 45,000, which is surrounded almost on all sides by the barrier. One 8 meter-high concrete section of this wall follows the Green Line between the city and the nearby Trans-Israel Highway. According to the BBC, this section, referred to as an "anti-sniper wall," is intended to prevent gun attacks against Israeli motorists on the Trans-Israel Highway.[76] The city is accessible through a military checkpoint on the main road from the east, and a tunnel built in September 2004 on the south side connects Qalqilyah with the adjacent village of Habla. In 2005, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to change the route of the barrier in this area to ease movement of Palestinians between Qalqilyah and five surrounding villages. In the same ruling, the court rejected the arguments that the fence must be built only on the Green Line. The ruling cited the topography of the terrain, security considerations, and sections 43 and 52 of The Hague Regulations 1907 and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as reasons for this rejection.[29]
In early October 2003, the IDF OC Central Command declared the area between the separation barrier in the northern section of the West Bank (Stage 1) and the Green Line a closed military area for an indefinite period. New directives stated that every Palestinian over the age of twelve living in the enclaves created in the closed area have to obtain a "permanent resident permit" from the Civil Administration to enable them to continue to live in their homes, approximately 27,250 people in all. Other residents of the West Bank have to obtain special permits to enter the area.[37]
Loss of land
Parts of the barrier are built on land seized from Palestinians,[76][81] or between Palestinians and their lands[82] In a 2009 report, the UN said that the most recent barrier route allocates more segments to be built on the Green Line itself compared to previous draft routes of the barrier. However, in its current route the barrier annexes 9.5% of the total area of the West Bank to the Israeli side of the barrier.[83]
In early 2003, 63 shops straddling the Green Line were demolished by the IDF during construction of the wall in the village of Nazlat Issa.[84][85] In August 2003, an additional 115 shops and stalls (an important source of income for several communities) and five to seven homes there were also demolished.[86][87]
According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), 15 communities were to be directly affected, numbering about 138,593 Palestinians, including 13,450 refugee families, or 67,250 people. In addition to loss of land, in the city of Qalqilyah one-third of the city's water wells lie on the other side of the barrier. The Israeli Supreme Court says the Israeli government's rejection of accusations of a de facto annexation of these wells, stating that "the construction of the fence does not affect the implementation of the water agreements determined in the (interim) agreement".[29]
The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) estimates that in the north of the West Bank about 80 per cent of Palestinians who own land on the other side of the barrier have not received permits from the Israeli authorities, and hence cannot cultivate their fields.[88]
Israel has built a barrier in the Jordan Valley near the Jordanian border. A plan to build another barrier between the West Bank and the Jordan valley was abandoned because of international condemnation after the 2004 International Court ruling, instead instituting a restrictive permit regime for Palestinians.[89] However, it has changed the route to allow settlements to annex parcels of land.[90] The existing barrier cuts off access to the Jordan River for Palestinian farmers in the West Bank.[91] Israeli settlement councils already have de facto control of 86 percent of the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea[92] as the settler population steadily grows there.[93] In 2013, Ehud Barak, Israeli Defense Minister at the time, proposed that Israel should consider unilateral disengagement from the West Bank and the dismantling of settlements beyond the separation barrier, but maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley along the West Bank-Jordan border.[94]
Health and medical services
Médecins du Monde, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have stated that the barrier "harms West Bank health".[95] Upon completion of the construction, the organizations predict, the barrier would prevent over 130,000 Palestinian children from being immunised, and deny more than 100,000 pregnant women (out of which 17,640 are high risk pregnancies) access to healthcare in Israel. In addition, almost a third of West Bank villages will suffer from lack of access to healthcare. After completion, many residents may lose complete access to emergency care at night. In towns near Jerusalem (Abu Dis and al-Eizariya), for example, average time for an ambulance to travel to the nearest hospital has increased from 10 minutes to over 110 minutes.[96] A report from Physicians for Human Rights-Israel states that the barrier imposes "almost-total separation" on the hospitals from the population they are supposed to serve.[97] The report also said that patients from the West Bank visiting Jerusalem's Palestinian clinics declined by half from 2002 to 2003.
Economic changes
In 2013, the World Bank cited estimates of costs to the West Bank economy attributable to "barriers" combined with "checkpoints and movement permits" of USD $185m and $229m.[98] Foreign Affairs contributor David Makovsky estimated the number of West Bank Palestinians who lived on the Israeli side in 2004 as "fewer than one percent" but noted that a larger number living in enclaves like Qalqiliya adjacent to the fence were also adversely affected.[99] The Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem says that "thousands of Palestinians have difficulty going to their fields and marketing their produce in other areas of the West Bank. Farming is a primary source of income in the Palestinian communities situated along the Barrier's route, an area that constitutes one of the most fertile areas in the West Bank. The harm to the farming sector is liable to have drastic economic effects on the residents – whose economic situation is already very difficult – and drive many families into poverty."[100][101]
Legality
United Nations Security Council
In October 2003, a United Nations resolution to declare the barrier illegal where it deviates from the Green Line and should be torn down was vetoed by the US in the United Nations Security Council.[102]
On May 19, 2004, the UN passed Security Council Resolution 1544 reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law. In a special emergency session of the General Assembly, the United Nations asked the International Court of Justice [ICJ] to evaluate the legal status of the barrier. Israel chose not to accept ICJ jurisdiction nor make oral statements, and instead submitted a 246 page written statement containing the views of the Government of Israel on Jurisdiction and Propriety to the Court.[103]
International Court of Justice
In a 2004 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, "Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall". The Court asserted that "the construction of the wall, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law."[23][104]
So in the July 9, 2004 advisory opinion the ICJ advised that the barrier is a violation of international law, that it should be removed, that Arab residents should be compensated for any damage done, and that other states take action to obtain Israel's compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention. The ICJ said that an occupying power cannot claim that the lawful inhabitants of the occupied territory constitute a "foreign" threat for the purposes of Article 51 of the UN Charter. It also explained that necessity may constitute a circumstance precluding wrongfulness under certain very limited circumstances, but that Article 25 of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) bars a defense of necessity if the State has contributed to the situation of necessity. The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian's national right to self-determination; and land confiscations, house demolitions, the creation of enclaves, and restrictions on movement and access to water, food, education, health care, work, and an adequate standard of living in violation of Israel's obligations under international law. The Court also said that Israeli settlements had been established and that Palestinians had been displaced in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[105] On request of the ICJ, Palestine submitted a copious statement.[106] The UN Fact Finding Mission and several UN Rapporteurs subsequently said that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin.[107]
Israeli supporters of the barrier stood in the plaza near the courthouse, holding the portraits of 927 terror victims. The organization Christians for Israel helped bring the No. 19 bus, on which eleven civilians were killed, to the Hague.[108]
On June 30, 2004, even the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that a portion of the barrier west of Jerusalem violated the rights of Palestinians, and ordered 30 km (19 mi) of existing and planned barrier to be rerouted. However, it did rule that the barrier is legal in principle and accepted the Israeli government's assertion that it is a security measure.
On September 15, 2005, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered the Israeli government to alter the route of the barrier to ensure that negative impacts on Palestinians would be minimized and proportional.[110]
Opinions of the barrier
United Nations
In December 2003, Resolution ES-10/14 was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in an emergency special session.[111] 90 states voted for, 8 against, 74 abstained.[111] The resolution included a request to the International Court of Justice to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question.[111]
The court concluded that the barrier violated international law.[48] On 20 July 2004, the UN General Assembly accepted Resolution ES-10/15 condemning the barrier with 150 countries voting for the resolution and 10 abstaining.[112][113] 6 countries voted against: Israel, the US, Australia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. The US and Israel rejected both the verdict and the resolution.[114] All 25 members of the European Union voted in favour of the resolution after it was amended to include calls for Israelis and Palestinians to meet their obligations under the "roadmap" peace plan.[115]
Palestinian opinions
The Palestinian population and its leadership are essentially unanimous in opposing the barrier. A significant number of Palestinians have been separated from their own farmlands or their places of work or study, and many more will be separated as the barriers near Jerusalem are completed. Furthermore, because of its planned route as published by the Israeli government, the barrier is perceived as a plan to confine the Palestinian population to specific areas.[124][125] They state that Palestinian institutions in Abu Dis will be prevented from providing services to residents in the East Jerusalem suburbs, and that a 10-minute walk has become a 3-hour drive in order to reach a gate, to go (if allowed) through a crowded military checkpoint, and drive back to the destination on the other side.[126]
More broadly, Palestinian spokespersons, supported by many in the Israeli left wing and other organizations, say that the hardships imposed by the barrier will breed further discontent amongst the affected population and add to the security problem rather than solving it.
In his November 2006 interview with Al-Manar TV, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Salah said that the barrier is an important obstacle, and that "if it weren't there, the situation would be entirely different."[127]
The Palestinian National Authority has accused the U.S. of rewarding construction of the barrier and replied, "[t]he U.S. assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall."[128]
For over five years (2005-2010), hundreds of Palestinians and Israeli activists gathered every week to protest the barrier at the town of Bil'in.[129] A number of Palestinian protesters have been killed by the IDF while protesting.[130] Covert operatives of the Israeli government have posed as protesters and threw stones in the general direction of the IDF to create a pretext for arresting protesters.[131] Protesters posed as members of the fictional "Na'vi" race of the major motion picture "Avatar" during protests following release of the movie, in an effort to compare the Palestinian struggle with that of the fictional Na'vi race, who must defend themselves and their homeland against foreign invaders.[132]
Between 23 December 2013 and 5 January 2014 a major demonstration against the wall was staged in London, in the grounds of St James's Church, Piccadilly. The demonstration was entitled "Bethlehem Unwrapped", and featured a large section of replica wall, reproducing both the fabric of the Israeli wall, and the graffiti to be found on it. Protesters staffed the wall in order to explain the demonstration to visitors and passers-by. Large signs were erected, drawing attention to intentional protest against the wall. Particular reference was made to the International Court of Justice judgement of 9 July 2004 that the security wall contravened international law. The demonstration took place just days after the death of Nelson Mandela, and prominence was therefore given on billboards to Mandella's statement "The UN took a strong stand against apartheid...We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians".[133] The replica wall, which was 8 metres tall (the same height as the actual wall) was constructed as an art installation by Justin Butcher, Geof Thompson, and Dean Willars, who also credited Deborah Burtin of Tipping Point North South. They invited visitors to add additional graffiti, particularly in the forms of prayers for peace.[134] St James' Church, which allowed the demonstration on its grounds, and permitted its own church building to be almost entirely hidden by the wall, issued a public statement supporting the right of Israel to defend its borders, but condemning the wall, and the suffering which it caused to Palestinian peoples.[135] The church statement drew attention to the request of the World Council of Churches for all Christians to oppose the wall.[136]
Other International opinions
The Red Cross
The Red Cross has declared the barrier in violation of the Geneva Convention. On February 18, 2004, The International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the Israeli barrier "causes serious humanitarian and legal problems" and goes "far beyond what is permissible for an occupying power".[137]
Human rights organizations
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other Human rights groups have protested both the routing of the wall and the means by which the land to build the wall was obtained.[138] The Israeli women of Machsom Watch regularly monitor events at checkpoints and report their findings. In a 2004 report Amnesty International wrote that "The fence/wall, in its present configuration, violates Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law."[139]
They continue:
World Council of Churches
On February 20, 2004 the World Council of Churches demanded that Israel halt and reverse construction on the barrier and strongly condemned "violations of human rights and humanitarian consequences" that resulted from the construction of the barrier. While acknowledging Israel's serious security concerns and asserting that the construction of the barrier on its own territory would not have been a violation of international law, the statement called on "member Churches, Ecumenical Councils of Churches, Christian World Communions and specialized ministries of churches to condemn the wall as an act of unlawful annexation."[136]
European Union opinion
According to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, the EU considers the barrier to be illegal to the extent it is built on Palestinian land.[146]
Canadian opinion
it opposes the barrier's incursion into and the disruption of occupied territories. Considering the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) to be "occupied territory", the Canadian government considers the barrier to be contrary to international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It opposes the barrier and the expropriations and the demolition of houses and economic infrastructure preceding its construction.[147]
source-wikipedia
Comments
Post a Comment