On February 23, 2004, arguments will be heard at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on the question of Israel’s anti-terrorism security fence. B’nai Brith’s Canada Israel Committee for Public Affairs (CIPAC) has already submitted a formal legal brief on this issue to relevant legal departments of various governments, including Canada’s.
CIPAC recognizes, however, that the court of public opinion has also latched onto this issue. These talking points have therefore been prepared for you so that you can become involved in de-bunking the myths and misconceptions that you may encounter.
If you have any further queries, please contact our advocacy department at (416) 633-6224, X 140.
1. PROPAGANDA: “Israel’s fence construction is not really necessary. It is deliberate ploy by Israel to prevent progress toward peace.”
TRUTH: The construction of the anti-terrorist security fence is vital to Israel’s security. Conceived as a temporary defensive measure in the war against Palestinian terrorism, its only raison d’être is to save Israeli lives. Between 30 September 2000 and February 2004, more than 920 Israelis have died in Palestinian terror attacks, and more than 6,134 have been wounded, many of whom have sustained life-long injuries.
Terrorists from the West Bank have infiltrated Israeli cities and towns, specifically targeting civilians on buses, in restaurants and cafés, in institutions of higher learning, and in shopping malls. They have inflicted their bloody terror on families sitting down to commemorate a Passover Seder. The terror has been indiscriminate, killing soldier and civilian alike, young and old, female and male. In fact, many more civilians have died from Palestinian terror than members of Israel’s Defense Forces: of the total-to-date 920 recorded murders since September 2000, 274 are from Israel’s security forces, and an incredible 646, or 70%, account for civilian deaths. Nor have Palestinians spared their fellow Arab brothers and sisters, many of whom have also died in Palestinian terror attacks.
Amongst the casualties are not only Israelis, but citizens from Canada, Europe, United States, South America, China, and elsewhere. Toronto native Canadian-Israeli citizen Yehezkel Goldberg, 42, father of seven, was amongst the eleven people murdered on the streets of Jerusalem in the 29 January 2004 suicide attack by members of Yasser Arafat’s Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade. Israel’s Foreign Ministry reacting to the bombing made clear that the “anti-terrorist security fence could have prevented this massacre”. Even before its completion, the fence thwarted more than 50% of the attempted terrorist attacks against Israel. Virtually no terrorists have infiltrated from the Gaza Strip into Israel in recent years, because an electronic security fence already exists there.
It must be pointed out that fatality statistics alone do not offer an accurate picture of the terror challenges faced by Israelis each day. The number of terror attacks thwarted by Israel’s security establishment is rarely cited in international media. The security fence is a last resort measure by Israel against years of Palestinian terrorism, and follows over 20,000 documented terror attacks since September 2000. In 2003 alone, Israel documented 3,838 terror attacks—and this number represents a significant decline from the total 5,301 terror attacks recorded in 2002. The reduction in attacks is not a result of any Palestinian decision to reduce their terror operations, but rather is a function of Israel’s operational successes and tactical innovations.
Israel, like any other nation, not only has the right, but the obligation, to defend its citizens from terror. Only once terror against Israel has ended, can Israel return to the task of negotiations.
2. PROPAGANDA: “The Palestinians are doing everything in their power to prevent terror. The fence will undercut Palestinian security efforts.”
TRUTH: Palestinians are themselves responsible for Israel’s fence. Despite repeated Palestinian promises to the contrary—promises initially made over a decade ago in the 1993 Oslo Accords and then more recently re-iterated in their acceptance of last year’s Road Map peace plan — terror groups continue to receive direct encouragement and support from the Palestinian Authority.
There exists a preponderance of evidence documenting PA terror activity. One such report shows that as late as September 2003 orders for terrorist attacks came directly from Yasser Arafat’s headquarters. Most recently Yasser Arafat has given refuge to some 30 Palestinians that, at the time of this writing, are holed up in his Muqata’a compound in Ramallah. Among these are terrorists considered to be part of the upper echelon of Fatah’s Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, wanted for their direct involvement in suicide attacks against Israel.
A comprehensive program of state-sanctioned incitement is evidenced throughout Palestinian society: in official PA media, educational textbooks, and regular Friday sermons glorifying “martyrdom”. This ongoing support for terrorism has permeated all aspects of Palestinian life — spilling over from the political arena into social and cultural spheres, even permeating sporting events where teams are frequently named in honor of suicide bombers. Young children are indoctrinated to seek shahada (“martyrdom”), through the use of propaganda tools such as music videos and song. One recent example is that of the PA incorporating — without Microsoft’s knowledge or permission — the music from the popular Microsoft video game Halo into its newest hate video; through the use of superimposed imagery, the video conveys the impression that Israeli soldiers are shooting Palestinians one by one.
Palestinian organizations have even in some cases refused aid where anti-terror provisions have been required. For example, the Non-Governmental Organization Network, a coalition organization consisting of 89 Palestinian aid groups, has advised its members to refuse U.S. government financial support because of the requirement calling on the recipient organizations to sign a document stating that funds will not be channeled to “terrorists”. Toward this end, the Palestinian Red Crescent gave up its $300,000 a year in U.S. government funding, by refusing to sign the anti-terrorist document.
If Palestinians were fulfilling their obligations to cease terror operations, then construction of the security fence would not be necessary. In the absence of a reliable “peace” partner, Israel has no choice but to take every possible step to ensure the safety and security of its citizens.
3. PROPAGANDA: “The fence is an ‘apartheid wall’ (alternately described as a ‘Berlin Wall’) that will separate Palestinian families, and cause undue hardship on Palestinians traveling to and from work, going to school, and visiting friends.”
TRUTH: Despite the media’s widespread graphic depiction of the fence as a “tall concrete wall”, less than 3% will actually be constructed of concrete — and only then with the intended purpose of preventing terrorists from shooting at Israeli vehicles traveling on main highways alongside the pre-June 1967 line. The remaining 97% of the planned 720 km. (480 mile) security fence, which has an approximate width of a four-lane highway, will consist of a technologically-advanced chain-link fence system, designed to warn against infiltrations.
Israel has taken great pains so as not to unduly inconvenience the Palestinian population. The Palestinians will not be prevented from going about their daily lives. Dozens of crossing points have been set up to allow the free movement of people and goods. The Palestinians will not be cut off from their commercial centers and livelihoods. Special gates will allow farmers to reach their fields. Precisely to take into account Palestinian humanitarian concerns, Israel is currently reviewing the routing of its fence, and has communicated that it is prepared to make slight alterations to facilitate Palestinian travel, so long as it does not compromise in any way Israel’s security. The inconveniences to Palestinians which unfortunately will occur, must be measured against the lives which ultimately will be saved.
Despite Palestinian claims of “apartheid”, the security fence has nothing to do with racial separation. It has everything to do with preventing acts of terrorism. Israel does not wish to rule over the Palestinian people, and has demonstrated again and again its willingness to negotiate, so long as it has a “partner” fully committed to dismantling terrorist networks, ceasing its hatred of and incitement against Israel, enacting a constitution, reforming its political system, and making a 100% effort to halt terrorism.
Neither is the construction of the fence modeled after the “Berlin Wall”. It does not create a barrier between Palestinian and fellow Palestinian. Rather it attempts to temporarily separate Palestinians and Israelis, to ensure security for both. The fence is not an attempt to restrict the movement of the Palestinians; its sole objective is to restrict the movement of terrorists from entering Israel.
It must also be pointed out that there exists both Arab and Jew on either side of the planned West Bank fence. Israel has integrated into its population its Arab citizens, which form 20% of the country’s total population. The Palestinians, however, have signaled their unwillingness to live alongside the Jewish residents of the West Bank and Gaza, and continue to demand that the territories be judenrein — free of Jews.
4. PROPAGANDA: “Israel’s intent is to build a fence that will create facts on the ground, leading to the establishment of a permanent border.”
TRUTH: The fence, which runs near the northern part of the 1967 Green Line, will not establish a border, nor create permanent facts on the ground that will affect the outcome of negotiations.
The overriding consideration at this time is the urgent need to save Israeli lives. The route of the fence was therefore determined primarily by security needs and local topographic considerations. The routing was also devised precisely to take into account Palestinian concerns and make maximum use of public lands wherever possible. When private lands are used, they remain the property of the owners, who receive compensation for their use. Palestinians have the right to appear before Israel’s Supreme Court to challenge any land misappropriations.
Building the fence only along the pre-June 1967 lines (the former “Green Line”), would be precisely what the Palestinians are now claiming: an attempt by Israel to bypass negotiations and to create a permanent border. The exact opposite is true. Israel has repeatedly communicated that the final border will be determined solely by negotiations. Moreover, the outcome of final negotiations should not be pre-judged so as to conform to the former “Green Line”, the armistice line which separated Israel and Jordan during the period 1949-1967. It should be remembered that those borders, described by Abba Eban as the “Auschwitz borders”, were deemed by many, including the crafters of the November 1967 United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, as “indefensible”.
In actual fact, Security Council Resolution 242, which began as a British draft resolution, did not insist on a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines. Rather, it stipulated a withdrawal from "territories" (i.e., some territories) not “the territories” (which would imply all the territories), to "secure and recognized boundaries". Israel has had valid claims to title in this territory based not only on historic claims but also on valid security concerns. These are issues that will be determined at such time that negotiations resume, and not by the construction of Israel’s security fence.
5. PROPAGANDA: “The United Nations’ referral of the fence issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion is a positive development. The ICJ will render a fair judgment on the matter.”
TRUTH: On December 8, 2003, the United Nations General Assembly in an emergency special session adopted a resolution (90 in favor; 8 against; 74 abstentions) requesting that the ICJ render an advisory opinion regarding the “legal consequences” of Israel’s fence construction. The very fact that those which voted to refer the matter are Arab states and countries that automatically back the Arab position against Israel reflects the inherently biased nature of the entire process. It is instructive that amongst those countries supporting the ICJ’s involvement are North Korea, Cuba, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, and Sudan. It reflects as well the increasing politicization of the UN itself — an institution which has historically ostracized Israel and which to this day excludes Israel, the only UN member state, from participating in the coveted decision making body known as the Security Council.
The very states that vow to destroy Israel can now make a case before the ICJ against the security fence’s construction, thus undermining Israel’s sovereign right to protect its citizens against terrorism. The Arab League, representing 22 Arab nations — the preponderance of which are neither democratic nor founded on the rule of law—has signaled its intention to submit its opinion before the Court, thus de-legitimizing the authority of the ICJ and turning the entire proceeding into a three-ring circus. Further making a mockery of the Court’s proceeding is the decision to allow testimony from 56 Muslim states, representing the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is openly antagonistic to Israel. It is significant to note that on 30 January 2004, the deadline for formal ICJ submissions, at least 30 nations had filed against the authority of the ICJ to rule on the legality of the fence: among them, reportedly, are Canada, the United States, Australia, fifteen members of the European Union and ten members-in-waiting, Russia, South Africa and Cameroon. The fact that so many nations took such a position further casts doubt on the hearing itself, which will go forward nevertheless as scheduled on 23 February 2004.
As a final note, the ICJ rejected an Israeli request to disqualify an Egyptian judge from the tribunal, which will rule on the legality of its fence. Israel had wanted Judge Dr. Nabil Elaraby to step down, citing his earlier job as legal adviser to the Egyptian government and what it described as a prejudicial newspaper interview in 2001. Dr. Elaraby, in a recent interview with Egypt’s newspaper al-Ahram, stated that he has already decided to convict Israel for the building of its anti-terror fence and recommend sanctions, the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronoth reported. “There is historical and international evidence that demonstrates that this action of Israel is illegitimate,” Elaraby said in the interview. “I believe that Israel's arguments in this suit will be groundless, and that Israel will be in a position where it will be possible to impose sanctions upon it for the first time, if the International Court of Justice decides to convict it.” By a vote of 13-1, the court ruled that Elaraby would remain on the bench, thus illustrating the a priori bias of at least one of judges and making the whole ICJ process suspect.
Not only is the ICJ an inappropriate venue for such a matter, but the question put before the Court ignores completely the raison d’être for the fence: Palestinian terrorism. No court can impose its opinion as to how a sovereign, democratic nation must defend itself from terror. No court has ever intervened in this manner in relation to any other country. Israel is once again negatively singled out by the international community, its very existence undermined and called into question.