& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Tear down this wall, Mr. Bush!

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam khaN ndc, psc (Retd)
THE International Court of Justice has spoken its mind on what has come to be termed as the "Apartheid Wall" by a majority of 14-1 verdict, the lone abstention being the member of the Court from the United States.
The World Court's verdict, following the referral of the matter to it by the UN General Assembly last year, on the legality of Israel's four hundred forty-mile network of fences and walls, has been described as "one of the high-profile rulings in the Court's 58-year history." This is, as one analyst describes, a signal victory achieved for Palestinian rights.
An earlier challenge to the construction succeeded, although in a somewhat more limited manner, when in June this year the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the thirtykilometer section of the barrier, northwest of Jerusalem, must be rerouted since it imposed undue hardship on Palestinians.
The idea of the wall came about in November 2000, during the tenure of Mr. Barak, but was put into effect only last year. Concern for Israel's security was the ostensible reason for putting up the wall, but analysts suggest that it has actually very little to do with security and everything to do with politics.
The wall is an attempt to physically define, by circumscribing within it, the political boundaries of the future Palestinian state. This is what Avrham Tal, an Israeli analyst writing for Haaretz on July 12, has to say, "It
must be understood that the security rationale is not the primary rationale for the fence's necessity. Far more important is the demographic rationale. The security necessity for the fence will diminish, but the demographic necessity for the fence will remain valid, and intensify over time."
The configuration of the wall is such that it divides Palestinians from each other, particularly in Jerusalem, which will reinforce Israel's claim to a united Jerusalem as its capital. Similar is the case with the West Bank
Although only a quarter of almost four hundred and fifty miles of the projected wall has been erected so far, it has already left a deep scar, not only on the ground, but also in the hearts of the Palestinians. A western journalist describes the impact on the people of the affected territory thus, "More than 200,000 Palestinians are trapped on the Israeli side of the barrier or it cuts through their town. In the first phase of construction, barrier workers demolished 85
commercial buildings, destroyed at least 19 miles of water networks^
and uprooted 102,320 trees. Eighty-five percent of the land lost under the barrier's footprint came from Palestinian landowners, 15 percent from Israelis. Jayyus is just one of 51 villages isolated from most of their land. Twenty-five report no access to their land. The barrier's detours into the West Bank take almost 30,500 acres of land onto the Israeli side."
Although the Israel government claims that incidences of suicide bombings have reduced since the wall was put up, the reduction can be attributed to other factors such as
the stepping up of Israeli operations to kill Palestinian militant leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and incarceration of thousands of Palestinians, alleged to be involved in militant activity, in Israeli prisons.
The salience of the judgment is conspicuous in several features of the ruling that merit mention. First and foremost, it rejects the argument of Israel's security as a rationale for constructing the wall. It also rejects the argument, through the rebuff it delivers, both to the US and Israel that the matter, being political, Jay outside the jurisdiction of the
Court.
More importantly, the court has not only declared the wall illegal, it has also called upon the UN to initiate necessary steps to see that it is brought down.
But of even more significance is the fact that the Court has thought it fit to remind the nations of the world that they "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."
Therefore, it can be said that
failure to fulfill our obligation as referred above would tantamount to legitimising, what the World Court characterises as, "de facto annexation" of Palestine territory.
Israel has already expressed its intention to defy the ruling of the Court, whose judgment, albeit an advisory opinion, has the moral force of international law nonetheless. Israel's intention to continue with the construction of the wall is very much in keeping with its track record of violation of more than sixty UN resolutions since the country
was born. It has also invoked the US to exercise its right of veto as and when the matter went up to the Security Council.
The US has also rejected the World Court's ruling, out of hand, on the grounds that political issues cannot be made matters of legal arbitrations, saying, "We do not believe that that's the appropriate forum to resolve what is a political issue."
What one fails to understand is the anti-verdict stance of the United States when it had initially criticised and had actually thought of sanc-
tions of sorts against Israel for constructing the wall. The US desire to see a contiguous state of Palestine was evident in Colin Powell's reaction to the wall, when he said last month, "A Bantustan solution of the Palestinian problem wouldn't work and that there must be West Bank contiguity in a future Palestinian state."
Everyone acknowledges the degree of difficulty in implementing the World Court's ruling without a positive US role. It would be too much for the world to expect its current "leader" to take the lead in implementing what the world's highest court of law wants Israel to do -- tear down the wall.
It would not be wrong to say that the US administration has neither the gumption nor the will to implement what happens to be the view of the majority of the international community, expressed through the judgment of the International Court of Justice.
It is not difficult to guess why. After all, those that control the politics of Israel control the US administration too.
In spite of the impossibility, one would like to add to the voice of the vast majority in saying:
Tear down this wall, Mr. Bush!
The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.