Apartheid wall is a political epithet sometimes used to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier. Some opponents of the barrier refer to it this way because they argue that its extension into the West Bank isolates Palestinian communities and consolidates the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. The barrier, it is argued, is part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which effectively constitutes a form of apartheid [1]. Although the Israeli government cites security concerns as the rationale for the construction of the barrier, opponents of the barrier claim that it also serves to separate, isolate and disenfranchise a particular ethnic group, and argue that it is therefore racially discriminatory. These concerns have been echoed by Israeli left wing groups such as Gush Shalom and more recently by the Israeli State Prosecution itself (referring only to the part built beyond the 1949 Armistice lines). According to a 2004 United Nation (UN) report, the land between the barrier and the Green Line is currently the home for over 49,400 West Bank Palestinians living in 38 villages and towns, and it is feared that they will eventually be expelled or forced to migrate.[2]. In January 2006, a UN report by John Dugard of the Human Right Commission in Geneva, stated that "the three major settlement blocs - Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel - will effectively divide Palestinian territory into cantons or Bantustans." Observing that 275 of the 670 km planned had been built, it criticized the transformation of Palestinian villagers into "internally displaced persons". It also declared that:
"The character of East Jerusalem is undergoing a major change as a result of the construction of the wall through Palestinian neighbourhoods. The clear purpose of the wall in the Jerusalem area is to reduce the number of Palestinians in the city by transferring them to the West Bank. This causes major humanitarian problems: families are separated and access to hospitals, schools and the workplace are denied. In November 2005, European Union missions in Jerusalem issued a report in which they accused Israel of embarking on the encirclement of the city by the wall in order to achieve 'the completion of the annexation of Jerusalem'." [3]
The same UN report also noted in its introduction that "in 2004, the International Court of Justice held that Palestinians should be compensated for damage they had suffered as a result of the construction of the wall. In the same year the General Assembly resolved that a register should be compiled to allow for the registration of claims for compensation. Unfortunately, little progress has been made with this register."
Opponents of the term reject both the "Apartheid" and "wall" designations, arguing that:
- Only seven percent of the barrier is walled, 93% is fenced.
- The goal of bantustans was to eliminate the rights of the majority South African black population, while the goal of the barrier is to protect Israeli civilians from terrorist infiltration and attack.
- The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the barrier is indeed defensive and accepted the Israeli claim that the route is based on security considerations (Articles 28-30).
- Apartheid was a system established to disenfranchise citizens, based on skin color, from their own country; however, West Bank Palestinians were never citizens of Israel, and Jews and Palestinians are not racially distinct.
- The barrier is clearly not intended to separate Jews from Arabs, as over 1 million Arabs on the "Israeli" side of the barrier are full citizens of Israel, and constitute 15% of Israel's population.
- Apartheid involved the forced removal of about 1.5 million South Africans to bantustans, but the barrier causes no transfer of population. None of the 10,000 Palestinians (0.5%) who will be left on the Israeli side of the barrier (based on the latest February, 2005 route)[1] will be forced to migrate.
- South African blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, but merely the reformation of the government; however, the majority of Palestinians in the territories dispute Israel's right to exist.
- Bantustans were created in order to force legal borders; however, the barrier is a temporary defensive measure, not a border, and therefore can be dismantled if appropriate.
- Apartheid was an outgrowth of imperialist, colonial policy; Israel's Jewish population consisted mostly of refugees with a deep historical relationship to the land.
- If this separation barrier is an expression of apartheid, then any number of similar defensive barriers around the world must also meet that definition.[2]
References
- ^ Peace under fire : Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement, ed. Josie Sandercock, et al. New York: Verso, 2004, p. 192.
- ^ UN 2005 report
- ^ "Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine - Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967