FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Court Serves Israel’s Interest

by NEVE GORDON

Jerusalem.

Socrates was the first thinker to contend that it is better to suffer injustice than to perpetrate it. Those who carry out injustices, he argued, corrupt their own souls and are ultimately ruined from within. The great Greek philosopher consequently maintained that society helps the criminal by imposing upon him or her a penalty, since the punishment serves to cleanse the soul and thus allows the lawbreaker to live a more just life. Accordingly, courts of law that mete out sentences — insofar as they follow universal principles of justice — not only protect society from offenders, but also save offenders from themselves.

It is precisely in the context of Socrates’ teachings that Sharon’s government and United Nations Security Council should understand the ruling regarding Israel’s separation barrier. Although the International Court of Justice (ICJ) claimed that Israel is in breach of international law and is therefore guilty of wrongdoing, its decision is, paradoxically, also pro-Israeli.

Let’s begin with the facts. The so-called separation barrier is made up of a series of fences, trenches, walls, and patrol roads, which are not constructed on the internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, but rather deep inside Palestinian territories. The length of the proposed barrier, which winds around Jewish settlements and surrounds Palestinian villages, transforming them, as it were, into islands, is about 650 km — more than twice the length of the international border. It often runs in between Palestinian communities, thus undermining the argument that the barrier is being built to separate Israelis from Palestinians and in this way to ensure the security of the former.

Rather, the barrier is being employed as a mechanism to expropriate Palestinian land and create facts on the ground that will affect any future arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians. As in the case of the Jewish settlements, it is being used to annex Palestinian territories and has in effect become a barrier against peace, rather than a barrier against terrorists.

In its ruling the ICJ made clear that the barrier’s repercussions on basic rights are appalling. According to the ICJ, “the wall, along the route chosen, and its associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order.”

Thus, the ICJ recognized that the separation barrier, which was ostensibly built to satisfy security needs, is being used as an extremely efficient weapon of dispossession. It took into account that over 875,000 Palestinians will be directly affected by the barrier, amounting to 38 percent of the West Bank population. Children are already unable to reach schools, adults are unable to reach work, and patients do not have access to hospitals. The economic ramifications have been just as bad, inflicting further suffering on a whole society, 50 percent of which, as the World Bank has claimed, are already living under conditions of grinding poverty — defined at less than US$2.1 per day. All of which suggests that the Palestinians’ basic rights to freedom of movement and livelihood as well as the rights to education, health and even burial are being systematically abused.

While the Court did not say as much, its ruling also suggests that there is a qualitative difference between a barrier whose function is to demarcate a border between two countries, and a barrier used to create a prison. Israel, so the verdict implies, has built a prison, placing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians “behind bars” and thus punishing a whole population.

Yet, the ICJ’s ruling not only aims to protect the Palestinians from collective punishment, but also hopes to protect Israel from itself. By trying to stop the construction of a barrier that violates the basic rights of hundreds of thousands of people, the judges are also attempting to cleanse Israel, which, according to international law, has turned into a criminal state.

While the Court’s ruling has no claws, it should be understood as an opportunity. The U.S. together with other members of the Security Council should use it in order to insist that Israel dismantle the separation barrier and immediately enter diplomatic negotiations with its Palestinian neighbors. Getting the two parties back to the negotiation table is the only way to reach a viable peace. Only peace — and not barriers or military might — can put an end to the vicious cycle of violence plaguing the Middle East.

NEVE GORDON is a member of Ta’ayush, Arab-Jewish Partnership and is editor of From the Margins of Globalization: Critical Perspectives on Human Rights (forthcoming Rowman and Littlefield). He can be reached at neve_gordon@yahoo.com

More articles by:

Neve Gordon is a Leverhulme Visiting Professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies and the co-author of The Human Right to Dominate.

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail