The 'International Community' and the Apartheid Wall

[Violet_Crumble]

by Samer Elatrash
February 15, 2004

The twin spectres of "politicizing" the UN and damaging the "fragility" of non-existent peace talks between General Sharon and the decrepit Palestinian Authority are again being invoked, this time to scuttle the upcoming deliberations in the International Court of Justice at the Hague on the legality of Israel's separation barrier in the occupied West Bank. Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham announced his government's opposition to sending the matter before the International Court at press conference last month, opining: "it's not time for the court to take this as a legal question", and that the matter should be left to "discussions between the parties, as mandated by the (UN) Security Council." True, the 700 km long matrix of walls, electronic fences and trenches that threatens to bring about a humanitarian disaster in the already throttled West Bank raises some "legal questions", according to Canada's deputy ambassador at the UN Gilbert Laurin, who nonetheless points to "the highly charged environment" as grounds for opposing the hearings that are scheduled to start this February (1).

The US, Russia, and the EU member states have all sent in affidavits stating their opposition to the hearings, accepting Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's line that the matter of the barrier is " is a political, not judicial issue."(2) State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher explained that referring the barrier to the International Court was "inappropriate and may impede efforts to achieve progress towards a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians."(3)

Things are starting to look brighter for the Israeli government, which met the initial UNGA motion to refer the matter of the barrier to the Hague with the resolve to "persuade key states like the U.S., Russia and EU to object to the court hearings on the fence, to thereby invalidate any court ruling."(4) Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid spoke darkly of possible sanctions that may follow the Court's decision on the wall-"turning Israel into South Africa of today"(5)-and interim Attorney General Edna Arbel warned that parts of the route of the barrier would be indefensible before the Court (6). Although the court's recommendations are not binding-they will be sent to the UN Security council where a US veto awaits-the public relations aspect of the ruling would place further scrutiny on Israel's practices in the occupied territories, where it has set up, according the Israeli human rights group Btselem, a regime that "is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa."(7)

In South Africa, it was the persistent efforts of the anti-apartheid movement to internationalize their struggle and isolate the apartheid regime that brought about the end of apartheid. As Haaretz correspondent Gideon Levy points out, "The pressure on apartheid South Africa began with a decision of the same ICJ the fence has now been brought before"(8), when the court ruled against the apartheid regime in Namibia in 1971. As with the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation and apartheid in the territories has to be seen as a political struggle, which depends for its success on internationally isolating the occupation, and forcing on the Israeli government a political price for its presence in the territories that it will be unable to shoulder.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=4991

[Jim Sagle]

1. The "international community" needs a heart transplant.

[sweetcee]

3. That presupposes they have a heart;

they need a heart IMplant.

[Flagg]

5. Israel needs a brain transplant

[Les Claypool]

2. Thanks for the informing post.

:toast:

[sweetcee]

4. LOL

That post ain't nuthin' but shit!