AMMAN, 27 February 2004 — “Palestinian suffering must not be reduced to that caused by the Israeli (Separation) Wall,” a top Hamas leader commented in an Arabic TV interview, as Palestinians prepared to put their case before the International Court of Justice on Monday.
But we should not underestimate the opportunities presented by Israel’s vulgar construction of the multifaceted barrier that is deemed to annex vast swathes of Palestinian land and is likely to preset the boundaries of a future Palestinian state. The wall, as many rightly say, is an impediment to any real prospect, if one existed, of a contiguous Palestinian state. It violates international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, in addition to whatever flimsy agreements have been signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
But the wall, as heartless as it may sound, also represents an opportunity, for it redeems some of the sins inflicted by Oslo. Amongst its deadly blows, the Oslo accords and its political broods had sidelined international law and its relevance to the Palestinian portion of the Arab-Israeli conflict; it invented a new frame of reference, so feeble and easy to exploit in favor of the stronger party — Israel — and at the expense of the weaker and more vulnerable side.
The Al-Aqsa intifada, now in its fourth year, has done plenty to change the median that governed the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. It once again helped the conflict to resurface internationally; it rehabilitated a frame of reference of international law that Israel with the unintended help of the PA and the blessing of the United States cast aside.
As a result, there was wave of sympathy for Palestinians throughout the world, including Europe and North America.
Even Washington’s rush to shelter Israel from any international action was to lead to an international response, exemplified in the courageous actions of thousands of volunteers who traveled to the occupied territories to serve as “human shields” in defense of the civilian population.
Despite Israel’s allegations, the intifada is not the brainchild of an individual but a natural and collective response to oppression. It successfully pulled the PA out of its isolation, presenting its leadership and the various other Palestinian political parties with a historic chance to refocus their efforts and to take the Palestinian case to the world, despite Israel’s insistence on marginalizing any meaningful contribution by anyone except the United States.
Though the world media focused on particular aspects of the uprising that involved violence and counter violence, many failed to see the Palestinian people’s re-emphasis of values, focusing on international law. Oslo and the succeeding agreements expired in terms of relevance and even applicability, since demographics and illegal Jewish settlements created a new reality.
But the PA and various Palestinian factions failed to grasp the importance of re-internationalizing the conflict, which was reduced to a mere dispute between two independent entities that simply bickered over the details of implementing comprehensive “peace” agreements. The PA renewed, verbally and otherwise, its commitment to Oslo and the wretched political arrangements it produced, while other Palestinian groups’ resolve to respond to Israel’s killing of civilians by blowing up Israelis squandered the chance of redeeming the past and its costly mistakes. Unfortunately, Arab governments steered away from meaningfully backing the intifada, to the point that the Arab street’s occasional emotional outbursts were met with brute force. Jordan banned political marches altogether.
But the UN General Assembly’s resolution on Dec. 8, 2003, calling for the ICJ to give a legal ruling on Israel’s Separation Wall and the angry response it generated in Israel and among its patrons once again highlighted Israel’s disregard for the role of international law. “Why is Israel so angry over a nonbinding ruling by the ICJ?” I was asked in an interview with Greek Public Radio. Given Israel’s record of defying international law, the Jewish state’s overtly anxious response seemed truly perplexing.
It’s simple. The mere “legal opinion” of the International Court of Justice is likely to be based on legal considerations, not political ones; it is unlikely to pay tribute to Oslo or be intimidated by the imbalance of power in the region, made even more imbalanced by the mighty will of the United States; it is likely to render irrelevant an edifice of factors that aided Israel in its war on the Palestinians. If justice is to be served at The Hague, then only international and humanitarian laws will and should be examined and honored. As far as Israel is concerned, this is a great liability.
Moreover, validating international law at The Hague, along with the shelved UN resolutions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, will most likely unearth long-buried sins of the past, one by one. Unlike the road map, these resolutions have little room for maneuver and misinterpretation. And if there is such a space, then why not let the ICJ give its opinion, again, now that there is a legal precedent?
Palestinians are fully qualified to stand up to the rising challenge, backed by pro-peace and justice forces worldwide. And as far as reducing Palestinian suffering to that caused by the wall goes, as suggested by the Hamas leader, I agree, the wall is all but one phase in a continued episode of suffering and dispossession decades old. But if the wall contains a window in which the world can see the hidden reality of a bitter conflict, then why shut it, why hide from it, why blow it up?
— Ramzy Baroud, is a Palestinian-American and head of research and studies at Aljazeera.net English.
