Since the Israeli West Bank barrier went up in 2002, comparisons to the Berlin Wall have not been hard to find. Yesterday’s historic anniversary naturally invites a revisitation to the analogy.
Legality is actually one of the most potent differences between the two cases. The Berlin Wall didn’t violate international law. In fact, the East Germans built it a bit removed from the border to ensure it didn’t encroach on West German territory. Contrastingly, the Israeli barrier is illegal. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled so in 2004. The UN General Assembly voted 150 to 6 in favor of the ruling. As the ICJ advisory opinion states:
The Court notes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (i.e. the part of the West Bank lying between the Green Line and the wall) some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and has been traced in such a way as to include within that area the great majority of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem). The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.
In other words, the Israelis were not as cautious about respecting their international legal obligations as the East Germans. In the Berlin Wall case, adherence to international law was deemed a strategic necessity. In the West Bank barrier case, ignoring law is deemed a strategic necessity. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in 2004:
…tailoring [Israel’s] foreign policy to look good to the UN is a truly pointless endeavor. After all, it followed the UN’s advice in its withdrawal from Lebanon and look at the trouble that got them.
Second, building the wall on the so-called “green line” would in effect reward terrorism by essentially agreeing to the 1967 borders without a negotiation. Israel would surely make that retreat as a reward for peace, but it can’t as a reward for violence.
Though an argument can also be made that ignoring the law makes things like this more likely:
(h/t to the FPA Israel blog)
