One of the Israeli newspapers, Haaretz , put the two events on the front page: the 100 thanniversary of the death of Theodor Herzl , the founder of the modern Zionist movement, and thejudgement of the International Court of Justice, which declared the Israeli Separation Wallillegal.
This coincidence may seem fortuitous. What connection could there possibly be between ahistorical anniversary and the latest topical event?
But there is a connection. It is expressed in one sentence written by Herzl in DerJudenstaat , the book that became the cornerstone of Zionism.
This is what it said: “There (in Palestine ) we shall be a sector of the wall of Europeagainst Asia , we shall serve as the outpost of civilization against barbarism.”
This sentence could easily be written today. American thinkers propound the “clash ofcivilizations”, with Western “Judeo-Christian” culture battling “Islamic barbarism”.American leaders declare that Israel is the outpost of Western civilization in the fightagainst Arab -Muslim “international terrorism”. The Sharon government is building a wallfor the purpose, or so it says, of protecting Israel against Palestinian-Arab terrorism. Itdeclares at every opportunity that the fight against “Palestinian terrorism” is a part of thestruggle against “international terrorism”. The Americans support the Israeli wall withall their heart and their wallet.
Even the semi-official name of the barrier – the “Separation Fence” – emphasizes thistendency. It is intended to “separate” between nations, between civilizations, and indeedto separate culture (us) from barbarism (them).
These are profoundly ideological reasons, mostly unconscious, for the building of thewall. On the surface, it seems to be a practical response to a real and present danger. Anordinary Israeli will say: “Are you nuts? What are you talking about? What has this to do withHerzl ? 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 thatbecame the slogan of the Zionist movement in its early years: “A land without a people for apeople without a land.” That is to say, Palestine is an empty country.
Anyone who tours the length of the planned path of the wall is struck by one aspect thatleaps to the eye: it has been determined without the slightest consideration for the life ofthe 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 theirschools, sick people from their hospitals, the bereaved from the graves of their belovedones.
It is easy to imagine the officers and settlers bent over the map and planning the path – asthough 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 onthis point. It did not contest the generals’ pronouncement that the wall is necessary. If thegenerals say so, the court stands to attention and salutes. Neither did the court decide thatthe wall must be built on the Green Line, the internationally recognized border betweenIsrael and the territories it occupied in 1967, which is also the shortest and most easilydefended line. But it recognized the fact that the territories contain a Palestinianpopulation and demanded that their human requirements be taken into consideration.
During the week that has passed since then, it became clear that the army is ready to makesome changes to the path of the wall, but not to change its basic concept. The “improved” pathstill creates enclaves for the Palestinians and limits their freedom of movement, if lessthan 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 muchcloser to those supported by the Israeli peace forces that have demonstrated against thewall. It says that the wall itself is illegal, except where it follows the Green Line. All thesectors built inside the occupied territories violate international law as well asconventions and agreements signed by Israel .
The court says that those sectors of the wall must be removed, the situation restored towhat it was before, and the Palestinian compensated for the damage inflicted on them. All thecountries of the world are called upon to abstain from giving any aid to the building of thewall.
Will this have any impact on Israeli public opinion? I am afraid not. During the last fewmonths, the official propaganda machine has been preparing the public for this day. Thejudges of the International Court , it was said, are anti-Semites. It is well known that all thenations, with the possible exception of the United States , want to destroy the Jewish State.Some years ago a jolly song was very popular: “All the world is against us / But we don’t give adamn…” So, to hell with them!
Will it have an impact on world public opinion? Probably, though the court’s “advisoryopinion” is not binding and the court has no army or police to enforce its decisions. There is nopoint in submitting it to the Security Council, where it will automatically be shot down by anAmerican veto. At any time, and even more so on the eve of elections, an Americanadministration will be loath to offend the pro-Israeli lobby, both Jewish and Evangelical.The US will ignore the court and go on financing the wall.
But in the veto-free UN General Assembly there will be a wide-ranging debate that willshine a spotlight on the real character of the wall. The propaganda machine of the Sharongovernment, aided and abetted by most of the world’s media, has produced an image of the wall asa necessary means for the prevention of suicide attacks inside Israel . The debate in theGeneral Assembly may help to publicize the real purpose of the monster.
The day before the judgement I was in a big tent at A-Ram, just north of Jerusalem , a townthat is one of the principal victims of the wall. A hunger strike of Palestinians and Israelisagainst the wall has been taking place there. The place has attracted pilgrims from all overthe country.
Inside the tent, the world premiere of a film took place. Its director, Simone Bitton , anIsraeli of North African origin living in Paris , shows the wall as it is.
In the film, Palestinians describe what the wall has done to them. A Jewish Kibbutz membercalls it a disaster for Israel , a disaster of our own making. The Director of the Ministry ofDefense , General Amos Yaron (who was relieved of his army command by the Kahan InquiryCommission for his involvement in the Sabra and Shatila affair) explains that thePalestinians themselves are to blame for their suffering. After all, if they just stoppedresisting the occupation, there would be no need for the wall.
But the most moving sequence of the film was purely visual, a sequence without words. Onesees green fields and olive groves stretching to the horizon, and occasional villages withtheir soaring minarets. A crane lifts a huge concrete slab into place on the wall. It hides apart of the landscape. A second slab is raised and hides some more. The third slab blocks thelandscape entirely – and you realize that before your very eyes, another village has been cutoff 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 theblocks there can also remove them. It happened in Germany . It will happen here. The decision ofthe judges of The Hague , coming from 15 different countries, has made a contribution to that.
Perhaps it is an irony of history: the judges who represent European culture demand thatthe wall be removed. If Herzl had witnessed that, he would have been puzzled.