Briefing: Israel’s Security Barrier
The construction of Israel’s security barrier remains one of the most controversial developments to face the region in recent years. Known by many names - the security fence; the separation fence; the separation barrier; the wall; the separation wall; and the Apartheid wall, just to name a few - it is hailed by the Israeli government as having significantly reduced the number of suicide attacks and is reviled by its critics for blighting the lives of many Palestinians.
It is an issue that provokes claim and counter claim. This briefing seeks to give an overview of the issue and assess its significant impact on security and human rights.
Why was it constructed?
The idea of a security barrier between Israel and the Palestinian Territories was first seriously put forward by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in 1992, as a way of protecting Israeli citizens from terrorist attacks and providing Palestinians with a clear demarcation of their borders.
This proposal was first put into action in Gaza in 1994, where a barrier was built along the 1948 armistice lines (the Green Line), separating Gaza from Israel.
This barrier has proved far less controversial than the West Bank Barrier due to its adherence to the ‘Green Line’, Israel’s de facto border before the 1967 ‘Six Day’ War; seen by the majority of the international community as the legitimate basis for its final borders (prior to 1967, none of Israel’s neighbours recognised these borders; however, today they are accepted by Egypt and Jordan as the result of peace treaties).
The idea of a security barrier for the West Bank was raised again by Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000, but his election defeat that year put a hold to the process. However, Barak’s successor, Ariel Sharon, though initially sceptical, moved to make the West Bank barrier a reality after a massive wave of terrorist attacks that followed the declaration of the Second Intifada in September 2000.
Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) states that the decision to build the security fence was taken only after all other options had failed to stop the deadly terrorist attacks. The Israeli government argues that they had, and always will have, the obligation to defend its citizens against terrorism.
The security barrier is being built in stages and even though it is not yet complete, it is widely believed to have played a major role in reducing the number of suicide attacks within Israel.
Israel’s security services have found that the chance of a suicide bomber successfully reaching their target is greatly reduced the further they have to travel. Previously, many successful bombers were able to travel just a few miles to their targets from bases in the West Bank. In many areas, as a result of the security barrier, this is no longer possible and the detection rate of attempted bombers has increased dramatically. This progress has led to reduced tensions as there are less and less army incursions into occupied territory that would normally follow a suicide attack.
This improved security for Israel, however, has come at a major cost for many Palestinians; separating them from their land, and reducing their freedom of movement.
What is it made of?
Once complete, for 94% of its projected length, the security barrier will consist of a combination of a 10ft chain linked fence, barbed wire, a 6-8ft ditch, security cameras, a patrol road, and guard posts at intervals along the route.
Fence Section of the Security Barrier
Most people’s perception of the security barrier though is of a massive concrete wall. But once complete, only around 6% of the security barrier will take this imposing form. The security rationale behind the wall section is to make it more difficult for terrorists to shoot at targets on the Israeli side of the barrier, and requires such a structure.
Regardless of its composition, its purpose is as a barrier to prevent movement, and this affects both suicide bombers and civilians. The wall section, perhaps inevitably, has gained the most international media coverage, but it does not portray the whole reality.
The real answer to the vicious debate over whether the barrier is a wall or a fence is that it is both: mostly fence, partially wall.
What is the route?
Some of the most important concerns surrounding the barrier project relate to its route. The route of the barrier partially follows the ‘Green line’, the pre-1967 borders, however it does make deviations, some small in order to accommodate local topography and some large to protect major Israeli settlement blocks built in the West Bank. It is these deviations from the ‘Green line’, more than the barrier itself, which spark most of the controversy and humanitarian issues surrounding the project.
There has been a great degree of debate within Israel over the barriers route. On February 18 2005 the Israeli cabinet approved a new route for the barrier that reduced the route’s deviation into the West Bank. However, this new route has been altered following Israeli Supreme Court Judgments and further cabinet decisions.
The barrier was severely criticised in a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with its route ruled contrary to international law. Israel disputes this decision claiming that the ICJ wrongly argued that Article 51 of the UN Charter, the main basis for Israel’s legal case, only applies to the actions of states. Article 51 affirms:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
A series of Israeli Supreme Court rulings over the past few years, in cases brought by Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups, have firmly established the principle in Israeli law that the barrier is only legal as a security measure and only allowed if the disruption caused to Palestinians is proportionate to the security threat to Israel.
These rulings have caused the route of the barrier to be redrawn many times. For example, on 4 September 2007, the Israeli High Court of Justice ordered the army to change the route of the security barrier around the Israeli neighbourhood of Modi’in Illit. It was ruled that the barrier, as it had been planned, would cause disproportionate harm to Palestinians living in the small village, Bill’in. So far, there have been over a hundred petitions dealt with by the Supreme Court.
Revised Barrier Route: February 2009
The length of the barrier as approved by the Israeli government is 703 kilometres (436 miles) long. According to the Israeli human rights Group, B’Tselem, approximately 58.04% has been constructed, 8.96% is under construction, and construction has not yet begun on 33% of the barrier.
The barrier may not be fully constructed until 2010. If fully implemented, most Palestinians will be on the eastern side of the fence, but it could also place thousands on the western side; dramatically affecting their day-to-day lives.
The Israeli government insists that the barrier is not meant to be a permanent border, or to create ‘facts on the ground’, but that it can be moved in the context of peaceful negotiations and highlights the fact that the route has already been moved in response to court judgments. Yet given the tendency for temporary structures around the world to become permanent, Palestinian anxiety is understandable.
There is already considerable political discussion in Israel that the barrier might form the basis of a future border of a Palestinian state, but the Israeli government dismisses this and categorically states that any future official border will be determined by direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
The current UK policy on Israel’s security barrier is very clear. Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said “we have no objection to the construction of a barrier to protect civilians on condition that it is built on internationally acknowledged borders or within Israeli territory. But we believe that the construction of this barrier on occupied territory, with the destruction of property and hardship that it entails, is unlawful.” TUFI believes this analysis is fair: recognising Israel’s right to self-defence, but pushing for it to be done humanely and lawfully.
Bookmark this page with: