October 16, 2003

Americans Killed / The UN takes on The Wall (Part 2)

[Bethlehem, West Bank] Yesterday three Americans were killed as they traveled through Gaza in an official convoy. The folks were going to Gaza to interview Palestinian candidates for educational scholarships. Terrible. I'm very sorry it happened, and my heart goes out to their families. As my heart goes out to all the Palestinian and Israeli families who have had brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters killed.

I've read several articles and received several emails from people suggesting that the Americans were bombed in response to the US veto of the resolution against the Israeli security wall. My gut instinct is that this is not the case. I'm not sure why Americans were targeted, but I don't think it had anything to do with the US and the UN. Did the US veto bother Palestinians? Not the ones that I know and talked with. It was totally expected, and therefore my local community had no hope for the resolution passing. As far as I can tell, my Palestinian friends have lost all faith in UN resolutions. I would hazard a guess that not a single Palestinian lost one minute of sleep over the US veto. It's not a topic of discussion at work or during my bus rides. Not one person mentioned it. I brought it up several times, but it was totally a dead subject. Everyone expected the inevitable US veto -- it was a foregone conclusion. A US veto is situation normal. How many times has the US stepped in to make sure that Israel can continue its policy of illegal growth into the Palestinian territories -- dozens, a hundred?

I think the American veto is much more discouraging for me. In my naiveté, I expect America to do the right thing. I expect American policy to be fair and objective. But I see the security wall cutting through my neighbor's property, splitting the community, and I can see it is wrong. There is no question in my mind that the security wall and settlements are wrong, simply because they are built on occupied and confiscated land. I would have no complaint whatsoever with the wall if it was built around Tel Aviv or around the internationally recognized borders of Israel. Daily I watch the settlements grow larger and the fence grow longer into the West Bank -- and then MY country vetoes the resolution against it. If it had to be vetoed, I wish it were some other country -- like China. But China didn't veto it. In fact, China "strongly deplored the continued construction of the separation wall and expansion of settlements, actions which were not acceptable." Why can China (and the rest of the world -- see below ) see these thing, but the US can't? I'm disappointed that it's always the US veto. I love America. I've visited and lived in a lot of countries, and there's not one that I love as much as America. But I sure can't agree with our position on this issue. Blindly supporting illegal activities doesn't make a darn bit of sense to me.

People ask what's it like being an American living in the West Bank. Do I feel safe? Am I frightened? How am I treated? I can honestly say that my time spent with the people here has been great. The Palestinian community has treated me very well. They have welcomed me into their homes, they have treated me as family, and they have called me "brother." Christian or Muslim, town or village, they have been incredibly welcoming. Much more than I expected. I can't think of any other people who have been as hospitable as Arabs.

Anyway, I'm not saying that I've had no bad experiences with Palestinians. I've had a few. The worst by far, was on the day that my beloved America started bombing Iraq. I had several encounters with angry Palestinian men that day. One businessman was furious enough to say that he would kill me. He lashed out for quite a while -- repeatedly insulting me. At the time I was not with anyone I I knew. But other Palestinians around us told the man to keep quiet. He tried to rally the small crowd against me, but they would have none of it. Even on the day the US was bombing Iraq, the community here was restrained when it involved an American in their midst, and they told him to leave me alone. I've had other other encounters with Palestinians that weren't exactly pleasant too -- like old men stopping me on the street to yell at me a few minutes in Arabic. I'm the closest thing to America that these old men will ever see, so I consider it part of my responsibility to let them vent on me a while. I think it comes with the territory. I think the old men are probably complaining about the same things that I am. I've been stopped with raised machine guns by both the police and members of various "political" parties. I was questioned by both at length on several occasions, but I've never been mistreated or harmed physically. And the questioning was usually over a cup of tea. Now when I'm stopped, I know the right names to drop, and I'm quickly sent on my way.

So do I think that this bombing in Gaza introduces a new militant approach to target Americans? I doubt it. I could be wrong, and things like that could change quickly, but I don't get the feeling that Americans are being singled out. I don't know why Americans were the victims of the terrible bombing in Gaza, but my guess is that it was an isolated incident. But it only takes one crazy guy...

OK, back to the UN vote on the Israeli security wall. What did the UN delegates say before the US vetoed the resolution? Almost universally, they denounced Palestinian terrorism and noted the right of Israel to a secure state. But they also condemned illegal Israeli settlements, roads, security walls, and land and water confiscation within the Palestinian Territories.

The following comments about the security wall are taken from UN PRESS RELEASE SC/7895.) (Note: I have only included comments that relate to the security wall.)

Israel: The fence would improve the daily life of Palestinians, by reducing Israel’s involvement in Palestinian areas and enabling the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints. Local Palestinians had been engaged and consulted throughout the planning process, with a view to ensuring access to schools, health resources and so on. There had been full respect for private land with regard to relevant humanitarian and local law, and no change in its legal status.

US (The Council President): The wall was not really consistent with the United States view of what the Middle East one day had to look like. Recognizing Israeli security concerns, he said that if the wall was going to be built, it was important not to intrude on the lives of the Palestinian people and not to prejudge the outcome of negotiations.

Permanent Observer for Palestine: Israel, the occupying Power, was committing an immense war crime against the Palestinians as it built an expansionist wall in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, involving the confiscation of thousands of dunums of Palestinian land and the illegal, de facto annexation of expansive areas of occupied land. Establishment of the wall was illegal and went hand in hand with Israeli settlement activities, he continued. The occupying Power had illegally transferred more than 400,000 Israeli settlers to Palestinian territory in more than 200 settlements built on more than 8 per cent of Palestinian land. A separate infrastructure and road network had been established, which enabled the settlers to exploit natural resources and water and to terrorize the people. All that had been carried out in spite of the prohibition of such colonization under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the First Additional Protocol. He said Israel’s claim that the wall was a security measure to prevent suicide bombings was incredulous and illogical, as Israel could build walls along the armistice line. In reality, the whole issue had revolved around one thing -- land and the designs to illegally conquer more land at the expense of the Palestinian people. All had been sustained by the illegitimate protection, funding and unlimited armaments provided by basically one source.

Syria: Said the Israeli representative’s statement had contained many lies, part of a campaign to distort reality. The proof was he did not say a word about where the wall was erected, namely, on the occupied Palestinian territories. The track of the wall was far removed from the 1967 borders and was a way to create a de facto border. Israel was violating the most famous of international laws, namely, the inadmissibility of annexing territory by force, and also violating Security Council resolution 242.

United Kingdom: On the question of the fence, he said he was deeply concerned about its route; if built, it should be along the Green Line. It would have a negative impact on the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Israeli settlements had an equally negative effect.

Spain: The construction of the wall on Palestinian land was illegal and harmful to the peace process.

Bulgaria: Strongly opposed construction of a security wall that did not follow the Green Line, involved confiscating land, blocked free movement of people and goats, and undermined the Palestinians’ hope for the Road Map. That wall was unacceptable, he said.

Russian Federation: An important component for Israel’s exit strategy was cessation of illegal acts, such as the construction of the wall and illegal settlements, which must be immediately halted.

Mexico: The methods Israel was using were illegitimate. The wall, along with incursions into refugee camps, heightened the climate of confrontation. Walls that made the lives of Palestinians more difficult could have no justification under the Road Map. The wall strayed from the Green Line; independent non-governmental organizations had deemed the wall an obstacle to peace, and to the exercise of the human rights of the Palestinians. Israel must halt construction of the wall, as well as unjustified incursions.

Chile: Said that the Road Map was in crisis by restrictions on Palestinians, expansion of settlements and by the wall under discussion. He condemned the wall as it was counterproductive to a negotiated settlement and flouted international law.

Guinea: The stated will of Israel to press forward with the building of the separation wall was of serious concern. That illegal practice was likely to increase feelings of frustration and hate and was the expression of a policy of “Bantustanization”, as well. He urged Israel to put an end to the “deplorable practice” and work to restore to the Palestinian people the territories that had been arbitrarily taken from them.

France: France had publicly noted its opposition to the construction of a wall that deviated from the Green Line, as well as its opposition to the settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. The wall, with its planned route cutting through Palestinian territory, was illegal under law, could not be justified in the name of the fight against terrorism, had inadmissible humanitarian consequences, and ran contrary to the Road Map.

Germany: Urged the Government of Israel to halt its continuing settlement activities and to stop the construction of the security fence.

China: Strongly deplored the continued construction of the separation wall and expansion of settlements, actions which were not acceptable. Israel should halt the building of a separation wall and expansion of settlements, as well as stop extrajudicial killings and respect the rights of Palestinians.

Angola: Said the separation wall was the most conspicuous initiative in a climate that was not conducive to peace in the Middle East.

Pakistan: Said that the construction of the wall was illegal, entailed suffering for the Palestinian people, and minimized the possibility for a just and equitable solution in the Middle East. The wall would become a serious obstacle to a peace process based on the Road Map. All Council resolutions, as well as the Road Map, agreed on the need for Israel’s withdrawal from all of the West Bank. The intention was not to prevent terrorism but to prevent a settlement in the Middle East based on land for peace. It was designed to further entrench the settlers and lead to annexation of land, something that was prohibited by international law.

Cameroon: Wondered whether arrests, seizure of goods and people, continued construction of the separation wall and settlements did not undermine the peace process. The Secretary-General had expressed concern about the continuation of the wall’s construction deep into Palestinian territory.

Permanent Observer for the League of Arab States: Said the construction of the wall was just the beginning of the annexation of areas of the West Bank by Israel, since it cut deeply into Palestinian territory. The wall would result in the total destruction of the Palestinian economy and create a new generation of refugees -- its real objective was expansion. It was a direct threat to the two-State solution, as well as any hope of a just and lasting peace.

Malaysia: speaking on behalf of the Nonaligned Movement, said the movement was extremely concerned at the long-term effect of Israel’s settlement policies and construction of the wall in occupied Palestinian territory. Implantation of Israeli colonies in East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza was in violation of international law, in particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention. Construction of the separations was severely undermining the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian State. The wall was more than a “security wall”, it was a devious way to create facts on the ground and impose a unilateral solution. He said he noted with grave concern that the wall was not being built in accordance with the Armistice Line of 1949. It was designed to engulf settlements. Besides the massive confiscation of land, valuable subterranean water reservoirs had also been annexed. The extensive impact of the wall demanded the immediate action of the Council, particularly its members with the power to influence Israel. He called on the Council to adopt a resolution calling for the destruction of the wall and preventing its completion.

Iran: Said that what the world was witnessing in the West Bank was “a visible and clear act of territorial annexation under the guise of security”. The wall, once completed, would stretch for hundreds of kilometers, with wide buffer zones, trenches, barbed wires, electric fence, a two-lane patrol road, and “no-go” areas of 70 to 100 meters wide. That was what the Israelis deceitfully called “simply a fence”. In addition to the effects on the lives of the Palestinians, the decision on the wall and new settlement was further proof that the Israeli regime had never been serious about peace; its goal was to draw the border arbitrarily and to sabotage the possibility of establishing a viable Palestinian State. He said that the Israelis’ desire to “stick to the completion of the racist wall”, coupled with the settlement expansions, sought to ensure the defeat of any efforts aimed at enabling the Palestinians to one day have a viable State.

Yemen: Even though the Government in Tel Aviv was justifying its policy of aggression using pretexts of self-defense, it was clear that building the expansionist wall had nothing to do with self-defense, but with further annexation of the occupied areas. If Israel truly aspired to peace, the path did not lie in the confiscation of land and sowing sentiments of hatred and discord.

Egypt: Some said that the wall was being constructed to protect Israeli security and that of its settlements in the occupied territory, he said. If Israelis wanted to live securely and isolate themselves, why not build a separation wall along the ceasefire lines of 1949?

Cuba: Said a totally unacceptable obstacle to peace -– the building of the separation wall in the occupied territories –- had been added to the long list of aggression, illegal settlement and State terrorism caused by Israel’s consistent rejection of resolutions passed by the Security Council and General Assembly. The building of the wall constituted a violation of international law. The international community had always refused to recognize illegal Israeli settlements, he said. The surreptitious annexation that was occurring today also required action by the international community. The wall was being built in Palestinian territories, affecting farmlands, natural resources and water. It was a clear territorial expansion on the part of Israel, revealing Israel’s true position which went against that of peace.

Jordan: Expressed condemnation of recent Israeli actions, including the building of the separation wall, which must be stopped immediately.

United Arab Emirates: Despite all of the international appeals, the Government of Israel had started the second phase of the separation wall, flouting contempt for the legal, political and moral obligations in the peace agreements and international law. The separation wall would result in de facto annexation of thousands of acres of private and public Palestinian lands, including water and natural resources, in addition to the other Arab and Palestinian lands, which had been seized by Israel in previous decades. Most dangerous had been the recent Israeli attempt to illegally and illegitimately annex East Jerusalem.

Japan: Expressed regret over Israel’s decision to extend it and requested that country to refrain from carrying on its construction.

Bahrain: Said Israel was continuing its expansionist policy and creation of a fait accompli by construction of the separation wall. Continuation of construction would lead to a de facto separation of Palestinian territory from other territories and confiscation of land. Israel was flouting international appeals, resolutions and anything that would make viable the establishment of a Palestinian State. Creation of the separation wall would not provide the security Israel was hoping for or prevent suicide attacks, he said. If Israel wanted peace, it would end its occupation of Palestinian territories and go back to the 1967 borders.

Qatar: Said Israel continued to violate United Nations resolutions, whether they were from Assembly or the Council. Israel’s decision to build the separation wall had been condemned by the international community as it would negatively impact on the lives of the Palestinian people and their free movement. According to the World Bank, the separation wall would take up 12 per cent of the West Bank. The wall, which was more dangerous that the Berlin Wall, would have a negative impact on the negotiating process and on a lasting settlement.

South Africa: supported the draft resolution to demand the cessation and reversal of the construction of the separation wall. That activity was the latest in a decades-old effort to expand the territory of Israel, which included spending large sums to encourage the settlement of 230,000 settlers in Palestine. The building of the wall was a clear act of territorial annexation under the guise of security.

Saudi Arabia: Said recent events confirmed the aggressive nature of Israel, which had shown that it meant to annex or Judaize more Palestinian territory. The racist wall of separation was started under the pretext of security, but it was part of Sharon’s plan to erase the Green Line, to annex the settlements and divide remaining Palestinian territory. Israel would not have continued such activity except for the silence of the Council and the acceptance of double standards. He called on the Council to fully assume its responsibilities by deciding on the illegitimacy of the construction, calling for its immediate end, and the calling on Quartet to fully assume its responsibilities concerning the Road Map, including the use of forces to intervene between the two parties and ensure their compliance with that peace plan.

Argentina: Defense must be exercised in conformity with international law. Israel must refrain from excessive force in densely populated areas and halt collective punishment. According to the Road Map, settlement activities in occupied territories should stop, including the so-called natural growth, and the dismantling of settlements should commence. Construction of the wall was a violation of international law. He called for an end to the ongoing construction, especially in tracks that did not follow the Green Line.

Libya: Said the wall was part of a long-term plan by Israel to annex occupied territories, a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter. It was also an attempt of Israel to reaffirm its annexation of East Jerusalem. Israel was continuing its expansion of illegal settlements, and such acts would be a cause for resistance, as all people under occupation resisted it. He condemned every form of terrorism. However, calling resistance to occupation terrorism was an excuse used by all colonizing Powers against all those who resisted them. The essential problem was the problem of the occupation of Palestinian territories.

Tunisia: Said the Security Council was again meeting to review Israeli actions against the Palestinian people and Israel’s flouting of international law. Tunisia had followed with concern various reports, both official and informal, on the Israeli Government’s construction of a separating wall in flagrant violation of international law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention. The wall flew in the face of the Road Map, he said. The attempts to impose a fait accompli upon the Palestinian people would only lead to further despair and frustration.

Brazil: The construction of a separation wall, as well as the Israeli announcement of new settlement activities, further discouraged the levels of mutual trust and confidence, he said.

Indonesia: Said the latest report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People had noted that the construction of the wall was located as deep as six kilometers inside the West Bank and that vast areas of lands had been bulldozed and seized. Israel’s construction of the wall was capable of derailing the Middle East process, and plunging the region into a deeper cycle of violence.

Turkey: The structure being built aggravated the dire conditions of the Palestinian people. Moreover, the wall was damaging to the political, security and socioeconomic processes envisioned in the Road Map. Any evidence of improvement in the daily lives of the Palestinians who struggled for their survival would reflect positively on the security situation and create a platform for contacts that were to be resumed between the two sides, he said. The wall, on the other hand, was a blunt tool punishing a whole people and casting doubt on the intentions of the State of Israel.

Observer for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC): Said the form of apartheid Israel practiced against Palestinians fulfilled all elements of the crime as defined under the 1976 apartheid Convention. In their final communiqué on 30 September after their annual coordination meeting in New York, the OIC Foreign Ministers had condemned the building of the expansion wall, which involved the confiscation of Palestinian land; the isolation of Palestinian villages, towns and cities; and the destruction of Palestinian property and livelihood. He said Israel had unequivocally and consistently failed to adhere to its obligations as the occupying Power vis-à-vis the Palestinian civilian population. The impunity being granted it served to encourage further violations of the Geneva Conventions and The Hague Regulations, including through grave breaches. The Council bore responsibility for further bloodshed, he concluded, if it failed to act and instead allowed Israel to continue with its construction of the wall, its settlement policies and its illegal occupation of Palestinian and Arab territories. Again, that occupation was the root cause of the present conflict. The only way out was for the Council to compel Israel to stop its campaign against the Palestinian people and its colonial settlement policies and to return to the conference table.

Italy: Speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union was strongly opposed to the construction of a separation wall in the West Bank and urged Israel to stop its construction along with other illegal activities, such as the confiscation of land or demolition of houses. The fight against terrorism must be carried out in full respect of the principles of international law.

Norway: Regarding the wall, he said his Government would have preferred to see no wall erected between Israelis and Palestinians, as it was hard to see the fence as a means to sustainably address security problems. That could only be done by ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel. However, if the Government of Israel chose to continue construction of the wall, it must be built on the Green Line, and not on the West Bank.

New Zealand: The construction of the separation wall served only to undermine the peace process. He urged Israel to reconsider its decision to proceed with the wall. Although extremists were using violent attacks to disrupt peace, assassinations, settlement policies and heavy-handed military responses helped ensure that that tactic would succeed.

Lebanon: Said the wall would undermine the territorial integrity of the would-be Palestinian State and prevent access of Palestinians to Jerusalem, which should be their capital. The wall was actually a system of integrated works that was so expensive it had to make use of foreign loan guarantees. It was part of the Israeli expansionist policy that had resulted in much suffering for the Palestinian people, including the displacement of 4 million of them, most of whom were blocked from returning to their homes. Settlements were another illegal part of that policy, he said. Contrary to its statement, a wall similar to the one now being built in the West Bank did not help Israel willingly abandon its occupation of Lebanon. Israel had been forced out by both Lebanese and international opposition after decades.

Sudan: Hoped for a just and firm position on the situation in the occupied territories that would restore the credibility of the Council in the face of Israel’s contempt for its resolutions. The construction of the expansionist wall was an unbearable slap in the face of international legality, and, through it, Israel was driving the last nail in the coffin of the Road Map.

Nepal: Israeli settlements and construction of the separation wall brought Palestinians to despair. The construction of the wall within the Palestinian territory was absolutely unacceptable. It was time, maybe, to deploy international forces along the 1967 borders while the parties negotiated a final settlement.

Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People: Said Israel was persisting in the unlawful building of a wall which in many places was east of the Green Line. The wall sealed off a number of Palestinian communities and undermined the continuity of a Palestinian State, prejudging the final outcome of status negotiations. The Israeli authorities also wanted to proceed with the “enveloping of Jerusalem wall”. The Committee had constantly expressed its concerns about the construction, although it understood Israel’s right to construct security structures on its own territory, he said.

Permanent Observer for Palestine: Responding to the statement of Israel, said that it was not true that the wall was Israel’s only option. The wall could be built on the Green Line or within Israel. The representative had not given any security reason for the wall not being built in that manner. It was also false that no Palestinians would suffer isolation due to the wall or that Israel was in support of the Road Map, he said. Israel was actually rejecting any negotiated settlement by the construction of the wall.

For more Wall information,

Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network (PENGON)

Oct 11, 2003 The UN takes on The Wall
April 04, 2003 The Wall
Jan 03, 2003 Abu Dis Wall