10.7.04
There are Judges in
One of the Israeli newspapers, Haaretz, put
the two events on the front page: the 100th anniversary of the death
of Theodor Herzl, the
founder of the modern Zionist movement, and the judgement of the International
Court of Justice, which declared the Israeli Separation Wall illegal.
This coincidence may seem fortuitous. What connection could there
possibly be between a historical anniversary and the latest topical event?
But there is a connection. It is expressed in one sentence written by Herzl in Der Judenstaat,
the book that became the cornerstone of Zionism.
This is what it said: “There (in
This sentence could easily be written today. American thinkers propound
the “clash of civilizations”, with Western “Judeo-Christian” culture battling
“Islamic barbarism”. American leaders declare that
Even the semi-official name of the barrier – the “Separation Fence” – emphasizes this tendency.
It is intended to “separate” between nations, between civilizations, and
indeed to separate culture (us) from barbarism (them).
These are profoundly ideological reasons, mostly unconscious, for the
building of the wall. On the surface, it seems to be a practical response to a
real and present danger. An ordinary Israeli will say: “Are you nuts? What are
you talking about? What has this to do with Herzl? He
died a hundred years ago!” But there is a direct connection.
This is also true for another aspect of the wall. In Herzl’s
day a phrase was coined that became the slogan of the Zionist movement in its
early years: “A land without a people for a people without a land.” That is to
say,
Anyone who tours the length of the planned path of the wall is struck by
one aspect that leaps to the eye: it has been determined without the slightest
consideration for the life of the Palestinian human beings living there. The
wall crushes them as a man steps on an ant. Farmers are cut off from their
fields, workers from the workplaces, pupils from their schools, sick people
from their hospitals, the bereaved from the graves of
their beloved ones.
It is easy to imagine the officers and settlers bent over the map and
planning the path – as though through an empty space, with nothing there except settlements, army bases and roads. They argue about
topography, tactical considerations and strategic objectives. Palestinians? What Palestinians?
The Israeli Supreme Court that handed down its decision last week
concentrated mainly on this point. It did not contest the generals’
pronouncement that the wall is necessary. If the generals say so, the court stands
to attention and salutes. Neither did the court decide that the wall must be
built on the Green Line, the internationally recognized border between
During the week that has passed since then, it became clear that the
army is ready to make some changes to the path of the wall, but not to change
its basic concept. The “improved” path still creates enclaves for the
Palestinians and limits their freedom of movement, if less than the former
path. Some of the farmers will be reconnected with their land. Nothing more.
Now comes the International Court of Justice and announces principles
that are much closer to those supported by the Israeli peace forces that have
demonstrated against the wall. It says that the wall itself is illegal, except
where it follows the Green Line. All the sectors built inside the occupied
territories violate international law as well as conventions and agreements
signed by
The court says that those sectors of the wall must be removed, the
situation restored to what it was before, and the Palestinian compensated for
the damage inflicted on them. All the countries of the world are called upon to
abstain from giving any aid to the building of the wall.
Will this have any impact on Israeli public opinion? I am afraid not.
During the last few months, the official propaganda machine has been preparing
the public for this day. The judges of the
Will it have an impact on world public opinion? Probably, though the
court’s “advisory opinion” is not binding and the court has no army or police
to enforce its decisions. There is no point in submitting it to the Security
Council, where it will automatically be shot down by an American veto. At any
time, and even more so on the eve of elections, an American administration will
be loath to offend the pro-Israeli lobby, both Jewish and Evangelical. The
But in the veto-free UN General Assembly there will be a wide-ranging
debate that will shine a spotlight on the real character of the wall. The
propaganda machine of the
The day before the judgement I was in a big tent at A-Ram, just north of
Inside the tent, the world premiere of a film took place. Its director,
Simone Bitton, an Israeli of North African origin
living in
In the film, Palestinians describe what the wall has done to them. A
Jewish Kibbutz member calls it a disaster for
But the most moving sequence of the film was purely visual, a sequence
without words. One sees green fields and olive groves stretching to the
horizon, and occasional villages with their soaring minarets. A crane lifts a
huge concrete slab into place on the wall. It hides a part of the landscape. A
second slab is raised and hides some more. The third slab blocks the landscape
entirely – and you realize that before your very eyes, another village has been
cut off from life forever, with the huge, 8-meter-high wall enclosing the
village from all sides.
But at the same moment a thought crossed my mind: After all, the same
crane that puts the blocks there can also remove them. It happened in
Perhaps it is an irony of history: the judges who represent European
culture demand that the wall be removed. If Herzl had
witnessed that, he would have been puzzled.