Last week, Common Ground organized a week of activities called "Palestinian Solidarity Week: Overcoming Barriers to Common Ground." Through a combination of lectures and films, the week was designed to raise awareness about various obstacles to the peace process, both physical and metaphorical. We created a simulation of one of these obstacles - the wall which the Israeli government is building in the West Bank of Palestine - on the Main Green on Wednesday and Thursday. Now we would like to elaborate how the wall undermines the basic human rights of Palestinians, and obstructs the possibility for peace in Palestine/Israel.
Many have tried to downplay the detrimental impact of the wall by describing it as a "fence." By evoking the image of something benign and small, this terminology severely misrepresents the true nature of the barrier. Indeed, most of this so-called "fence" is really a complex system of electric fencing, razor and barbed wire, trenches, dirt roads, sand paths to trace footprints and watchtowers for armed guards to survey the area, spanning on average 60 meters in width. The sections of the barrier around highly populated areas, like Qalqilya and East Jerusalem, are concrete, often six to eight meters high - roughly three times the height of the Berlin Wall. When completed, the barriers will be 416 miles long and its construction will have cost the Israeli government over $2 billion.
Just as the euphemism "fence" does not accurately portray the barrier's physical nature, it also minimizes the wall's devastating impact on the daily lives of Palestinians. The wall creates a prison-like reality for Palestinians in which their ability to move, work and access basic resources like water and arable land is severely restricted and sometimes non-existent. The wall cuts Palestinians off from their livelihood, seriously hindering their ability to survive. According to Amnesty International, more than 50 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank are unemployed and most live under the poverty line of $2 per day. The World Bank has identified the occupation and its barriers to movement as the main hindrance to the Palestinian economy. The construction of the wall flagrantly disregards not only Palestinian human rights but also the 1967 Green Line. Only 20 percent of the wall is being built on the internationally recognized border between Israel and Palestine, while the rest juts into the West Bank, expropriating land in order to include Israeli settlements. When asked whether the barrier runs along the Green Line, Amos Yaron, director general of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, admitted: "It's the Green Line where there are no settlements. And it passes inward of the Green Line where there are settlements." The barrier ultimately annexes more than 15 percent of the West Bank.
Israel does face serious security concerns and it - like all states - has the right to defend itself. However, international law mandates that security measures be consonant with respect for basic human rights. In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (the main arbiter of international law) ruled that the barrier was illegal under international law and demanded that construction cease. The court held that the barrier violates the prohibition of collective punishment (because it impacts entire communities of Palestinians rather than only those who carry out terrorist activities) and unduly interferes with the right to movement, to work and to adequate standards of living. To argue that Israelis' right to security warrants the violation of Palestinians' human rights would inscribe a hierarchy of human life in which the lives of Israelis are seen as somehow more valuable than those of Palestinians.
Furthermore, the barrier actually undermines Israeli security by exacerbating a situation of despair, hopelessness and humiliation for Palestinians, which can make violence seem like the only option. In this way, it perpetuates the cycle of violence in which Israeli oppression comes to "justify" Palestinian suicide bombings, thus instigating further oppression and further terrorism. Israel has the opportunity to break this cycle by acting in accordance with its professed commitment to democracy and human rights. A more effective, humane and sustainable security measure would be for Israel to end its occupation - also condemned by international law - and withdraw to its internationally recognized border.
It is important to understand that opposition to the wall is neither pro-Palestinian nor anti-Israeli. These dichotomous labels are not useful for a discussion so deeply connected to the fundamental human dignity of all people. A democratic, peaceful and just coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis must be based on a foundation that values the lives and rights of both peoples. As one of the many oppressive mechanisms of the occupation, the wall fundamentally jeopardizes prospects for peace and justice in Palestine/Israel.
Chelsea Sharon '06 and Mary Elston '07 would like to thank all those who engaged in open-minded discussion last week.
