Defence and da Fence
Sitting down to write about the International Court of Justice ruling on the Anti-terror fence/Apartheid Wall (depending on your personal bias), it was tempting to blast away at the absurdity of a court ruling against a basic self-defence measure, and talk about the success of limited entry and exit from the Gaza Strip, which has slowed the flow of suicide-bombers from there to a mere trickle.
But to do that would be futile.
Instead, it'd be more worthwhile to discuss whether a legalistic international approach to this problem is the right one. My hunch is that this dispute is most likely to be 'resolved' by playing down the stakes and reducing the number of participants. The more well-meaning-but-ultimately-counterproductive international bodies get involved, the more clogged the situation becomes. Besides, both parties tend to dig their heels in, accusing various international bodies of bias, running their own agenda, or just generally getting in the way, rather than moving toward compromise. Real dialogue is much more likely to be reached with a small number of participants from both sides, and a single, genuinely neutral facilitator.
What does not help at all is bodies like the ICJ beating their chest and blasting the Israelis for doing what any other nation would do to protect it's own people. The ruling completely ignores the reality of the conflict, and is more interested in creating headlines than doing anything to resolve the need for the fence to be built in the first place. The fact that Palestine is not yet a nation state (a result of decades of incompetence from Yassar Arafat rather than Israeli intrasigence) means that liability for its actions is minimal, and hence the ruling of the ICJ rings hollow.
If a solution (or at least manageable conflict) is to emerge, it will be when the EU, US, UN and ICJ say less, not more.
Palestinian boy standing near a blown up Jerusalem bus, placed near the Abu Dis barrier in east Jerusalem
But to do that would be futile.
Instead, it'd be more worthwhile to discuss whether a legalistic international approach to this problem is the right one. My hunch is that this dispute is most likely to be 'resolved' by playing down the stakes and reducing the number of participants. The more well-meaning-but-ultimately-counterproductive international bodies get involved, the more clogged the situation becomes. Besides, both parties tend to dig their heels in, accusing various international bodies of bias, running their own agenda, or just generally getting in the way, rather than moving toward compromise. Real dialogue is much more likely to be reached with a small number of participants from both sides, and a single, genuinely neutral facilitator.
What does not help at all is bodies like the ICJ beating their chest and blasting the Israelis for doing what any other nation would do to protect it's own people. The ruling completely ignores the reality of the conflict, and is more interested in creating headlines than doing anything to resolve the need for the fence to be built in the first place. The fact that Palestine is not yet a nation state (a result of decades of incompetence from Yassar Arafat rather than Israeli intrasigence) means that liability for its actions is minimal, and hence the ruling of the ICJ rings hollow.
If a solution (or at least manageable conflict) is to emerge, it will be when the EU, US, UN and ICJ say less, not more.
Palestinian boy standing near a blown up Jerusalem bus, placed near the Abu Dis barrier in east Jerusalem
Comments
Is the judgement by the ICJ against the existence of the wall or just its position on non-Israel territory?
If the latter, then the news services are misleading many of us, and critics of the judgement may be arguing against a decision of straw... Arty.
build such a wall.
But the Israeli state has, over many years, supported
(financially and militarily) the establishment of Israeli
settlements on land that is outside Israel's borders.
Now they want to build a wall around these settlements.
Come on people! Of course it's wrong.
If Israel wants to build a wall, to defend themselves,
then they should do it around their own border, and
not on someone else's land....
Israel can decide, unilaterally, without any negotiation
with Arafat or anyone else, to withdraw from settlements
not on Israeli land. Then, they can build a wall around
Israel if they want.