Israel is No Longer Able to Deny the Political Drive Of the Segregation Wall

Israel is No Longer Able to Deny the Political Drive Of the Segregation Wall

It seems that Israel has reached a point where it believes that the denial of the true motivation, which steers the Segregation Wall project is no longer viable and that the  truth 'shall set them free' in a sense that they will no longer have to vary their list of  justifications but simply say 'we are building a border'. Ever since Israel leashed the Segregation Wall, it emphasized that its actions are solely based on security reasons and that it had no political agenda for building the Wall. The Israeli supreme court of justice backed the Israeli Army's claim that 'the appropriated Palestinian lands are designated for military purposes and aims to strengthen security level during the intensified terrorist attack on Israeli citizens'. However, the Israeli court underlined the fact that the only purpose of the Segregation Wall is based on 'security' and non-political objectives since Israel has no intention whatsoever to annex lands. Hence, Israel refused to react to petitions submitted by Palestinians and other international bodies claiming the Segregation Wall aims to protect the lives of Israeli citizens, disregarding the international court of justice (ICJ) ruling, which calls upon Israel to dismantle the Wall and make reparation for all damages caused by building the Segregation Wall including the ones in occupied East Jerusalem.

Recent developments in two Palestinian villages Azzoun and Jayyous (north of Qalqilyia district) constitute decisive evidence that the Israeli Segregation Wall intended to prop up Israeli existence in the occupied Palestinian territory. When residents of the two villages submitted petition against the route of the Segregation Wall back in 2002, the Israeli court turned down the Palestinian villager's petition and supported the Army's argument claiming that the Wall set-up aims to secure a bypass road that links several Israeli settlements in that area. The fact of the matter is that the route of the Segregation Wall was set to isolate Azzoun and Jayyous lands by diverting the route of the Wall to penetrate the West Bank borders eastward, away from the 1949 Armistice line. The only aim of this diversion is to coddle unapproved new master plan for Zofin settlement intending to expand the settlement's built-up area and establish an industrial zone, which led to reveal the political drive of the Segregation Wall; that is to annex as much Palestinian lands to constitute de facto realities before final agreement with the Palestinians is concluded. See Map 1

Map 1: Location of Zufin Settlement

The ICJ ruling of July 9, 2005 concerning the Segregation Wall acknowledged:

  • The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated rÃ??Ã?©gime, are contrary to international law;
  • Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem; 
  • ll States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; and to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in the Fourth Geneva  Convention' of August 1949;
  • 'The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation.

These Israeli plans to annex Palestinian lands by setting the route of the Segregation Wall away from the 1949 Armistice line compromised all Israeli claims regarding the 'security' aims which motivated the Segregation Wall and signify unremitting challenge to the international community's will to dismantle the Segregation Wall, including that of  the ICJ ruling of July 9, 2004.


Prepared by:
The Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem



Categories: Separation Plans