The Segregation and Annexation W all: A Crim e against Hum anity “ I n its Opinion, the Court finds unanim ously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assem bly and decides by fourteen votes to one to com ply with that request. The Court responds to the question as follows: By fourteen votes to one, The construction of the wall being built by I srael, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem , and its associated regim e, are contrary to international law.” - - I nternational Court of Justice Advisory Opinion July 9 , 2 0 0 4 . I ntroduction: On Septem ber 28, 2000, then Likud opposition leader Ariel Sharon chose to m ake a m ost provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa com pound in Jerusalem ’s Old City, accom panied by as m any as 1000 I sraeli Special Forces units. As a consequence of this provocation the Palestinian Uprising or Second I ntifada erupted, a show of collective Palestinian dism ay at I srael’s illegal and prolonged occupation of Palestinian land and people. I nstead of recognizing the adversarial reality of this occupation, the governm ent of I srael, at the tim e headed by Prim e Minister Ehud Barak, initiated the construction of what cam e to be known by Palestinians, as the ‘Segregation and Annexation W all.’ The first sections of the Wall were built in the northern West bank city of Jenin in beginning of 2002. I srael’s ‘Wall’ is being built in such a way as to divide Palestinian population centers from their adjacent agricultural land and water resources, isolating Palestinian population centers from one another and restricting not only freedom of m ovem ent of individuals but also worsening an already crippled Palestinian econom y. The ‘Wall’ separates Palestinians from Palestinians and serves to secure illegal settlem ents built on occupied land. The m ost evident exploitation of I srael’s breach of convention is the im plem entation of new borders within the West Bank (including east Jerusalem ), an occupied territory. This actual annexation of land alongside the violations of basic hum an rights highlights I srael’s self- absorbed, unilateral and unconstructive-to-peace policies, with com plete disregard to com m on hum an values that would take into consideration the effect the ‘Wall’ has on Palestinians. So that as Hebrew University's Shlom o Avineri explains while, Prim e Minister Ariel Sharon has at last internalized the lim its of I sraeli power to im pose the ousting of Palestinians entirely, the rem aining option was sim ply to separate the Palestinians from I sraelis. This m ove m akes evident that withdrawal and construction of this Segregation and Annexation Wall in the West Bank, is m eant to give the I sraelis security and while its effect on Palestinians was unclear, it was left unexplored, one im agines, due to its irrelevance on I sraeli policy. The Segregation and Annexation W all Deconstructed Structure The Segregation and Annexation Wall's construction varies; around Qalqiliya it is pure concrete 8 m eters ( 2 5 feet) high and equipped with watchtowers while in other places it is part concrete and part fence or a series of razor wire and/ or electric fencing all of which includes a 7 0 - 1 0 0 m eter (approxim ately 2 3 0 - 3 3 0 feet) “ buffer zone” with trenches, roads, razor wire, cam eras, and trace paths for footprints. I n Bethlehem and Jerusalem , the Wall is m ade up of a com bination of these m aterials. Essentially the ‘Wall’ is a physical barrier consisting of a network of fences, walls, and trenches, unilaterally constructed by I srael on Palestinian lands. The m ain barrier takes on m any form s, including 8-m eter high cem ent walls, 3 - m eter high electric and barbed-wire fences, and a com bination of the two. According to I sraeli plans, the barrier will be over 4 5 0 m iles (7 2 0 kilom eters) in length, at a cost not less than $ 1 .6 m illion per m ile ( $ 1 m illion per km ), and will exceed $ 1 billion for the entire project. The infrastructure of the barrier that also includes a buffer zone on both sides, surveillance cam eras, trenches, and observation posts com pounds what I sraeli hum an rights activist Jeff Halper calls the “ m atrix of control” of settlem ents, by-pass roads and checkpoints. W hat’s in a Nam e? The nam e of the I sraeli Wall (com m only referred to as a "fence" by its supporters and a "wall" by its opponents) is itself a political issue. The m ost com m on nam es used by I srael are "separation fence" (gader ha'hafrada in Hebrew) and "security fence" or "anti-terrorist fence" in English, with "seam zone" referring to the land between the fence and the 1949 arm istice lines. Palestinians (including the m edia) m ost com m only refer to the barrier in Arabic as "Jidar Al-Dam wal Fasl Al-Unsuri", (racial segregation and annexation wall), and m any opponents of the barrier som etim es refer to it in English as an "apartheid wall". The United Nations and the international com m unity use inconsistent wording, including separation/ security and fence/ wall/ barrier. While the I CJ consistently used the word `Wall.' The W est Bank ‘W all’ The constructed and approved (solely by the I sraeli Knesset) extents of the ‘Wall’ roughly follow the 1949 Jordanian-I sraeli arm istice line, also known as the "Green Line". I n som e areas the route diverges from this line, particularly in areas with a high concentration of Jewish settlem ents: east Jerusalem , Ariel, Beitar I llit, Efrat, Gush Etzion, Em m anuel Karm el Shom ron, Givat Ze'ev, Oranit, and Maale Adum im . These divergences m ay be as m uch as 20 kilom eters from the ‘Green Line’. The ‘Wall’ violates m ultiple international conventions, agreem ents, and resolutions, including article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter (prohibiting the use of force to violate territorial integrity), the Fourth Geneva Convention (prohibiting the destruction of land or property and the practice of collective punishm ent), and both the I nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the I nternational Covenant on Econom ical, Social, and Cultural Rights (defining rights of m ovem ent, property, health, education, work, and food). The ‘Wall’ also is contrary to UN Security Council resolution 242 which calls for the “ Withdrawal of I sraeli arm ed forces from territories occupied in the recent [ 1967] conflict.” The Wall encroaches into the occupied Palestinian territories from along the entire perim eter of the West Bank, frequently abutting or intersecting Palestinian villages, while leaving agricultural fields, shops, and fam ily m em bers on the opposite, I sraeli-claim ed side of the border. I n places like Qalqilya, the barrier loops prom inently into the West Bank, enveloping entire Palestinian villages and creating ghettos with a single, narrow checkpoint guarding the entrances to these villages. Effectively Qalqilya has turned into a very large open air prison. The Annexation and Segregation Wall, upon its com pletion, will result in I srael’s annexation of roughly half of the W est Bank, displacing and disconnecting Palestinians from their hom es, fam ilies, neighbors, and fields. I t is this encroachm ent and the resultant hum anitarian crises that the I sraeli Suprem e Court, itself, ruled illegal in its June 30, 2004 ruling, notwithstanding its approval of the justification for the barrier based on security concerns. I n a m ore broad-reaching ruling on the ‘Wall,’ the I nternational Court of Justice ruled on its legality in a July 9, 2004 verdict. I n sum , the decision rendered the construction of the ‘Wall’ contrary to international law, recom m ended that the State of I srael end its construction and dism antles existing segm ents and that I srael pay reparations to those who have suffered loss as a result of the construction, and instructed the United Nations to pursue necessary m eans to address the illegality of the ‘Wall.’ Both I srael and the U.S. disregarded this ruling and thereby dism issed the relevance and authority of international law over I srael. The U.S. continues to provide m ore aid to I srael than to any other country in the world. The im pact of the visually and spiritually offensive ‘Wall’ on the Palestinian people has been m ore devastating than abstract facts can convey. Hom es have been dem olished, water supplies have been cut off, fields have been razed, villages divided, and access to the other side has been cut off. Farm ers have lost their fields or lost access to them . Faithful com m unities—Palestinian Muslim s and Palestinian Christians—have been denied access to houses of worship. Fam ilies have been split. According to UN estim ates, 6 8 0 ,0 0 0 Palestinians ( 3 0 % of the W est Bank population) are directly affected. The Sabeel Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem reports that “ Palestinians have been separated from their places of em ploym ent, their farm lands, hospitals, schools, places of worship and their fam ilies. I n the first phase of the wall alone, 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 trees have been uprooted; 3 5 ,0 0 0 m eters of irrigation networks have been destroyed; and 7 5 % of teachers and students living in the construction areas have had difficulty arriving at school.” These effects further deteriorate the quality of life of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories.