Behind Israel’s wall

by Editor · August 17, 2005

A series in this newspaper on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land has raised the hackles of some readers who perceived anti-Semitic sentiments in its criticism of Israel’s government.

In articles about the situation of Palestinians in the West Bank, the manner in which Israel has erected a security wall and checkpoints was scrutinised and considered to be inequitable. Similar criticism has been publicly voiced by many leaders in the Catholic Church.

Criticism of the Israeli government is not intrinsically anti-Semitic, just as criticism of the theocracy in Iran is not intrinsically anti-Muslim.

Criticism of the Israeli government, even when it is robust, does not deny Israel’s right to statehood, nor does it imply acquiescence in acts of terror against Israel.

Alas, the Israeli government and its supporters often create an impression that it does. The recent stramash, reported last week, between officials of Israel’s foreign ministry and Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls serves as an illustration of this.

It is the duty of all Christians to speak out against injustices they see, and to address these by whatever is within their means. Christians cannot be asked to tolerate the intolerable. The Southern Cross saw an injustice in the way Israel’s security barrier harms ordinary Palestinian families and damages prospects for peace in the region.

Many Israeli civilians have been killed by indefensible acts of terror by radical Muslims. Israel’s government has the right to seek ways to protect its citizens from attack by suicide bombers. The notion of a security barrier being built to safeguard Israeli civilians is not objectionable in itself.

Indeed, if it was built along the internationally recognised boundaries between Israel and the Palestinian areas, there would be little cause for disapproval.

But the wall is not being built along these boundaries. It cuts deep into Palestinian land, often appropriating the property of the locals. Many farmers have been cut off from their land, and many have lost their jobs because the wall makes it impossible to commute to their places of employment. Whole communities have been divided by the wall. Residents of towns such as Bethlehem and Bethany are routinely denied access into (Arab) East Jerusalem where they work. Many have lost their jobs as a result.

There is no undue cynicism in the observation that the wall is not designed to protect lives, but to redraw agreed-upon borders and to facilitate the establishment of more illegal settlements in the West Bank, even as those in the Gaza are being abandoned.

The disempowerment of Palestinians will not help those moderate leaders with whom a negotiated settlement is possible. On the contrary, it fuels the fires of militant terrorist organisations such as Hamas, which finds it ever easier to recruit disillusioned youngsters willing to blow up themselves and innocent civilians.

Indeed, some observers believe that the Sharon government seeks to undermine moderate Palestinian leaders, so as to resist negotiations. The wall, the theory goes, forms part of what would be a particularly sinister political ploy.

The social, economic and political cost of the wall in its present form is enormous. It does not keep out suicide bombers, but will create only more of them.

The wall is an obstacle to peace in the Holy Land and therefore in the interest only of those who oppose an equitable settlement in the Middle East.