Last week, the FT published 2 commentaries in as many days (1 from employee Martin Wolf, the other from Israeli professor Shlomo Avineri) calling for the Palestinian right of return to be dropped.
Now, on June 24, it has published a commentary from an Israeli praising the wall that is being built in the illegally occupied West Bank and devastating the Palestinian population and economy.
The commentary is entitled "Separation is better than conflict" by Gerald Steinberg, director of the programme on conflict management and negotiation at Bar Ilan University, Israel. It is reproduced in full below, with AMW commentary in brackets followed by facts about the wall.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1054966348987&p=1012571727285
Even after the publication of the long-awaited "road map" for peace, the terrorist campaign against Israel shows little sign of abating. As the attacks continue, few Israelis are looking to Washington and its latest peace plan for answers. Instead, the immediate response is to check the progress of the concrete barrier that is being built to separate the Palestinian and Israeli populations in the West Bank.
(The presence of the Israeli population in the West Bank violates international law, including UN Security Council resolutions and the Geneva Conventions, because it is occupied Arab territory. View relevant, binding Security Council resolutions at the link below.)
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=30
After the catastrophic failure of the Oslo peace process three years ago, the public has little faith in more summits, declarations and unfulfilled promises. Instead, it wants an immediate divorce, based on the unilateral construction of the separation "fence".
(No mention that the Oslo process failed because Israel was unwilling to offer the Palestinians a viable state and their legitimate rights. View the facts at the link below.)
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=279
Growing public attention has kept the barrier at the top of the national agenda, despite lukewarm support from many political leaders, including Ariel Sharon, the prime minister. The first 11km section separating Jenin from Netanya - the site of many terrorist attacks - has been completed and additional segments around Jerusalem should be finished soon. The rest, some 300km in length, is in various stages of construction but should be ready within the next 12 months.
When complete, the combination of a concrete wall, trenches, electronic sensors and patrol roads is expected seriously to impede terrorist access to Israeli cities. Indeed it will constitute a de facto border and, like other borders, official crossings will be included for the exchange of goods and, if conditions allow, the movement of workers, tourists and other visitors. Instead of merely walking across from Kalkilya to Kfar Saba, or from Ramallah to Modiin, Palestinians will require passports and visas, or their equivalent.
The separation barrier and disengagement process may not be perfect but they should be better than the brutality of the status quo. Israelis recognise that no barrier is impermeable and some terrorists may still get through, under and over (using missiles) but they also know that the military can develop appropriate responses in such cases. Israel's experience of patrolling borders with Lebanon and along the Jordan river shows that such barriers do a good job of reducing a country's vulnerability to terrorism.
The strategy promises to bring other benefits, too. One of the most important is to neutralise the demographic threat to the classical Zionist objective of preserving both the Jewish and the democratic nature of Israeli society. Without borders, the majority population in a single political entity between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river will soon be Arab and Jews would be a minority in a Palestinian and Islamic state. This would mean the loss of either the Jewish or the democratic framework, or both. When Mr Sharon recently acknowledged the costs of occupation, he was referring to the demographic and cultural dimension. If diplomacy and the road map fail to provide a solution, the only plausible alternative is the separation barrier.
(How can Israel be preserved as a Jewish and democratic state at the same time? An ethnocentric state immediately relegates others, in this case Palestinian Christian and Muslim citizens of Israel, to second-class status. View the facts about Israeli "democracy" at the link below.)
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=301
Another goal of the road map - to remove Israeli settlements from areas close to Palestinian cities and to allow territorial contiguity - can also best be accomplished through unilateral disengagement. In contrast, formal negotiations on settlements will become bogged down in the complexities of competitive bargaining, perhaps for years, while the conflict escalates. At this stage in the conflict, unilateral disengagement and withdrawal from settlements on the other side of the fence would not be a reward for terrorism, as some officials fear. Palestinians have learnt that Israel is not on the verge of collapse and voluntary closure of isolated settlements would be seen as increasing Israel's strength rather than as a sign of weakness. Israel's unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon three years ago, which ultimately boosted the credibility of Israel's military deterrent, is a case in point.
At the same time, such extensive disengagement will reduce the daily friction between the populations and allow for the removal of many of the checkpoints controlled by Israeli soldiers between Palestinian villages and cities. This is vital in moving towards a stable and non-violent two-state solution, as initially presented in the United Nations partition resolution of 1947.
(The partition resolution offered the Palestinians just under half of their homeland, not the 22% they are negotiating over now.)
Politically, disengagement will not be easy for any government. Efforts to close even small settlements with no security role will be difficult, in spite of the broad political support for such policies in Israel. The Palestinians and their proponents will continue to demonise such moves by using terms such as "apartheid" and "racism". Such language is foolish. Separation to create the potential for peaceful coexistence is certainly not "apartheid".
An Israeli policy of unilateral disengagement is also likely to prove unpopular among diplomats, who see their life's purpose as negotiating peace. But what is the alternative? The status quo is intolerable and the road map is - as was widely foreseen - all but dead in the water. For all its difficulties, unilateral separation is the only remaining realistic option for managing the conflict until the two societies can negotiate a lasting peace. From an Israeli and, ultimately, a Palestinian perspective, the quicker Israel gets on with it, the better for all.
Maps of the wall can be viewed at:
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=228
Facts about the wall:
ANNEXATION:
10%-15% of the occupied territories, a huge portion of very fertile land full of olive groves, greenhouses, vegetable fields and water resources. (1)
Palestinian land containing approximately 57 Israeli settlements, and inhabited by about 303,000 Israeli settlers. (2)
About 384, 918 Palestinians shall be effectively illegally annexed to Israel, or hemmed into the wall. (2)
"The wall is being used as a way of expanding Israel's territory," said John Dugard, the U.N. expert on rights in the Palestinian territories. "Israel responds that this is a temporary security measure but I think the reality is that this is a form of creeping annexation of Palestinian territory. I have seen portions of that wall, and it makes the old Berlin Wall look very small." (3)
ILLEGALITY:
The barrier is illegal under international law, said John Dugard, the U.N. expert on rights in the Palestinian territories. (3)
Even if we accept Israel's claim that the only way to prevent attacks is to erect a separation barrier, Israel is required to select the route that results in the fewest possible human rights violations. The planned route almost totally ignores this principle and is based on illegitimate considerations. In doing so, Israel breached its obligations under international law. (4)
The apartheid wall involves the illegal annexation of some of the most fertile lands in the West Bank and water sources, while pushing Palestinians further into Bantustans, cantons and enclaves, where Israel can ensure maximum control over Palestinian lives and land. (2)
Palestinians unlawfully transferred to the direct control of the Israeli State will not be granted residential status or citizenship, while Israeli settlers already enjoy full Israeli citizenship. (2)
AGRICULTURE:
Farming is a primary source of income in the communities that will be affected by its construction. The harm to the farming sector is liable to have drastic economic effects on the residents and drive many families into poverty. (4)
Many Palestinian land owners report having already been denied access to land traversed by the leveled alignment on which the Wall will be built; others are only allowed to cross by foot or donkey cart making it difficult to work agricultural land or to transport harvested produce to market. (5)
For hundreds of thousands of Palestinian farmers, the wall will represent a prison with no warden with no means of sustaining their families - to the point that will force many of them to simply leave their homes, and try living elsewhere as refugees. (1)
SECURITY:
Although most of the Palestinians who perpetrated attacks in Israel entered the country through the checkpoints situated along the Green Line, and not through the open areas between the checkpoints, Israel decided to erect the barrier before it solved the problems that were found in the operation of the checkpoints. Also, the IDF did not take any meaningful action in the seam area that would prevent Palestinians from entering Israel, and gave low priority to this objective in comparison with other objectives, such as attacking Palestinian Authority institutions and protecting the settlements. (4)
ETHNIC CLEANSING:
The prospect that the Wall's negative impact on living conditions will induce migration flows is of particular concern to many local inhabitants. (5)
This is an intention of quiet ethnic cleansing, the sort that cannot be photographed, but is nevertheless as effective and devastating. (1)
OTHER CONSEQUENCES:
It will cut off villages and towns from their farmland, centres of trade, education and culture. It will intensify the ongoing environmental destruction and degradation taking place in the occupied territories. It is also an attempt to legitimise the Israeli settlement policy. In short, it is intended to be a death blow to any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. (1)
The Wall may severely constrain the delivery of basic social services and commercial exchange, raising transaction costs and dampening investment through the creation of uncertainty. (5)
The educational system will also suffer because many teachers come from outside the community in which they teach. This is especially true in village schools. (4)
The Wall will also feature depth barriers,150 meters in length, to be erected a few kilometers east of the principal barrier in order to funnel access into communities east of the Wall through a limited number of checkpoints. The depth barriers and the circuitous route of the Wall will pose additional complications to many communities east of the Wall. (5)
SOURCES:
(1) Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc): Separating Palestinians from their land - the bigger picture.
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=294
(2) LAW, the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights & the Environment: We are here and they are there, October 2002.
http://www.lawsociety.org/wall/wall.html
(3) Associated Press: UN says security fence "illegal annexation", March 28, 2003.
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=309
(4) B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories - Human rights violations as a result of Israel's separation barrier, April 2003.
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=449
(5) Local Aid Coordination Committee - The impact of Israel's separation barrier on affected West Bank communities, April 30, 2003.
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=353
You can view AMW's full resources on the wall at:
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=25&topic=4
Write to letters.editor@ft.com and chief editor Andrew Gowers at Andrew.Gowers@ft.com
For letter-writing tips, go to:
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=9
If you want your letter to be considered for publication, say so and provide your full name, address and contact details.