There Are Judges
In The Hague
By Uri Avnery
15 July, 2004
Gush-Shalom
One of the Israeli
newspapers, Haaretz, put the two events on the front page: the 100th
anniversary of the death of Theodor Herzl, the founder of the modern
Zionist movement, and the judgement of the International Court of Justice,
which declared the Israeli Separation Wall illegal.
This coincidence
may seem fortuitous. What connection could there possibly be between
a historical anniversary and the latest topical event?
But there is a
connection. It is expressed in one sentence written by Herzl in Der
Judenstaat, the book that became the cornerstone of Zionism.
This is what it
said: There (in Palestine) we shall be a sector of the wall of
Europe against Asia, we shall serve as the outpost of civilization against
barbarism.
This sentence could
easily be written today. American thinkers propound the clash
of civilizations, with Western Judeo-Christian culture
battling Islamic barbarism. American leaders declare that
Israel is the outpost of Western civilization in the fight against Arab-Muslim
international terrorism. The Sharon government is building
a wall for the purpose, or so it says, of protecting Israel against
Palestinian-Arab terrorism. It declares at every opportunity that the
fight against Palestinian terrorism is a part of the struggle
against international terrorism. The Americans support the
Israeli wall with all their heart and their wallet.
Even the semi-official
name of the barrier the Separation Fence emphasizes
this tendency. It is intended to separate between nations,
between civilizations, and indeed to separate culture (us) from barbarism
(them).
These are profoundly
ideological reasons, mostly unconscious, for the building of the wall.
On the surface, it seems to be a practical response to a real and present
danger. An ordinary Israeli will say: Are you nuts? What are you
talking about? What has this to do with Herzl? He died a hundred years
ago! But there is a direct connection.
This is also true
for another aspect of the wall. In Herzls day a phrase was coined
that became the slogan of the Zionist movement in its early years: A
land without a people for a people without a land. That is to
say, Palestine is an empty country.
Anyone who tours
the length of the planned path of the wall is struck by one aspect that
leaps to the eye: it has been determined without the slightest consideration
for the life of the Palestinian human beings living there. The wall
crushes them as a man steps on an ant. Farmers are cut off from their
fields, workers from the workplaces, pupils from their schools, sick
people from their hospitals, the bereaved from the graves of their beloved
ones.
It is easy to imagine
the officers and settlers bent over the map and planning the path
as though through an empty space, with nothing there except settlements,
army bases and roads. They argue about topography, tactical considerations
and strategic objectives. Palestinians? What Palestinians?
The Israeli Supreme
Court that handed down its decision last week concentrated mainly on
this point. It did not contest the generals pronouncement that
the wall is necessary. If the generals say so, the court stands to attention
and salutes. Neither did the court decide that the wall must be built
on the Green Line, the internationally recognized border between Israel
and the territories it occupied in 1967, which is also the shortest
and most easily defended line. But it recognized the fact that the territories
contain a Palestinian population and demanded that their human requirements
be taken into consideration.
During the week
that has passed since then, it became clear that the army is ready to
make some changes to the path of the wall, but not to change its basic
concept. The improved path still creates enclaves for the
Palestinians and limits their freedom of movement, if less than the
former path. Some of the farmers will be reconnected with their land.
Nothing more.
Now comes the International
Court of Justice and announces principles that are much closer to those
supported by the Israeli peace forces that have demonstrated against
the wall. It says that the wall itself is illegal, except where it follows
the Green Line. All the sectors built inside the occupied territories
violate international law as well as conventions and agreements signed
by Israel.
The court says
that those sectors of the wall must be removed, the situation restored
to what it was before, and the Palestinian compensated for the damage
inflicted on them. All the countries of the world are called upon to
abstain from giving any aid to the building of the wall.
Will this have
any impact on Israeli public opinion? I am afraid not. During the last
few months, the official propaganda machine has been preparing the public
for this day. The judges of the International Court, it was said, are
anti-Semites. It is well known that all the nations, with the possible
exception of the United States, want to destroy the Jewish State. Some
years ago a jolly song was very popular: All the world is against
us / But we dont give a damn
So, to hell with them!
Will it have an
impact on world public opinion? Probably, though the courts advisory
opinion is not binding and the court has no army or police to
enforce its decisions. There is no point in submitting it to the Security
Council, where it will automatically be shot down by an American veto.
At any time, and even more so on the eve of elections, an American administration
will be loath to offend the pro-Israeli lobby, both Jewish and Evangelical.
The US will ignore the court and go on financing the wall.
But in the veto-free
UN General Assembly there will be a wide-ranging debate that will shine
a spotlight on the real character of the wall. The propaganda machine
of the Sharon government, aided and abetted by most of the worlds
media, has produced an image of the wall as a necessary means for the
prevention of suicide attacks inside Israel. The debate in the General
Assembly may help to publicize the real purpose of the monster.
The day before
the judgement I was in a big tent at A-Ram, just north of Jerusalem,
a town that is one of the principal victims of the wall. A hunger strike
of Palestinians and Israelis against the wall has been taking place
there. The place has attracted pilgrims from all over the country.
Inside the tent,
the world premiere of a film took place. Its director, Simone Bitton,
an Israeli of North African origin living in Paris, shows the wall as
it is.
In the film, Palestinians
describe what the wall has done to them. A Jewish Kibbutz member calls
it a disaster for Israel, a disaster of our own making. The Director
of the Ministry of Defense, General Amos Yaron (who was relieved of
his army command by the Kahan Inquiry Commission for his involvement
in the Sabra and Shatila affair) explains that the Palestinians themselves
are to blame for their suffering. After all, if they just stopped resisting
the occupation, there would be no need for the wall.
But the most moving
sequence of the film was purely visual, a sequence without words. One
sees green fields and olive groves stretching to the horizon, and occasional
villages with their soaring minarets. A crane lifts a huge concrete
slab into place on the wall. It hides a part of the landscape. A second
slab is raised and hides some more. The third slab blocks the landscape
entirely and you realize that before your very eyes, another
village has been cut off from life forever, with the huge, 8-meter-high
wall enclosing the village from all sides.
But at the same
moment a thought crossed my mind: After all, the same crane that puts
the blocks there can also remove them. It happened in Germany. It will
happen here. The decision of the judges of The Hague, coming from 15
different countries, has made a contribution to that.
Perhaps it is an
irony of history: the judges who represent European culture demand that
the wall be removed. If Herzl had witnessed that, he would have been
puzzled.