Israeli West Bank barrier
The Israeli West Bank barrier, comprising the West Bank Wall and the West Bank fence,[1][2] is a separation barrier built by Israel along the Green Line and inside parts of the West Bank. Israel describes the wall as a necessary security barrier against Palestinian political violence; whereas Palestinians describe it as an element of racial segregation and a representation of Israeli apartheid,[3][4][5] who often call it "Wall of Apartheid".[6] At a total length of 708 kilometres (440 mi) upon completion, the route traced by the barrier is more than double the length of the Green Line, with 15% of its length running along the Green Line or inside Israel, and the remaining 85% running as much as 18 kilometres (11 mi) inside the West Bank, effectively isolating about 9% of the land and approximately 25,000 Palestinians from the rest of the Palestinian territory.[7]
The barrier was built by Israel following a wave of Palestinian political violence and incidents of terrorism inside Israel during the Second Intifada, which began in September 2000 and ended in February 2005.[8] The Israeli government cites a decreased number of suicide bombings carried out from the West Bank as evidence of its efficacy, after such attacks fell from 73 between 2000 and July 2003 (the completion of the first continuous segment) to 12 between August 2003 and the end of 2006.[9][10] While the barrier was initially presented as a temporary security measure at a time of heightened tensions, it has since been associated with a future political border between Israel and the State of Palestine.[11]
The barrier has drawn criticism from Palestinians, human rights groups, and members of the international community, who have all argued that it serves as evidence of Israel's intent to annex Palestinian land under the guise of security.[12] It has also been alleged that the construction of the wall aims to undermine the Israeli–Palestinian peace process by unilaterally establishing new de facto borders.[13] Key points of dispute are that it substantially deviates eastward from the Green Line, severely restricts the travel of many Palestinians, and impairs their ability to commute to work within the West Bank[14] or to Israel.[15] The International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion finding that the barrier qualifies as a violation of international law.[16][17] In 2003, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that charged Israel's building of the barrier to be a violation of international law and demanded its removal by a vote of 144–4 with 12 abstentions.[18]
The walled sections of the barrier have become a canvas for graffiti art, with its Palestinian side illustrating opposition to the barrier, Palestinian resistance, their right to return, as well as human rights in general.[1]
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.[112]
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.[113]
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."[26][114]
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.[115] On request of the ICJ, Palestine submitted a copious statement.[116] 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.[117]
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.[118]