Israel The Promised Land?
On the 9th of November, Germany commemorated the fall of the Berlin wall, the destruction of which stands as a seminal moment in modern history, and one well remembered by an entire generation. The structure was described by President Kennedy in 1963 as an ‘offence not only against history but an offence against humanity’, and so the 20th anniversary of its dismantling could have stood as a validation of ‘the advance of freedom everywhere’ which Kennedy had called for.
The concept of building long stretches of wall to control or police a population is certainly nothing new, and well-known examples of other such structures abound in history, even in this country, where Hadrian’s Wall has stood for almost two millennia. Today, some people have claimed that a similar situation exists along the Israeli West-Bank Barrier. The initial point of comparison is of course self-evident. Both structures in question, in Berlin and along the West Bank, are walls, designed to control the movement of people. Whether or not the Wall of our times can be said to be ‘separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together’ in the manner described by Kennedy is certainly open to debate, and indeed the arguments abound.
The names given to the Israeli West Bank Barrier vary. Whether or not the wall is described as, for example, an ‘anti-terrorist fence’, or an ‘apartheid wall’ depends on the perspective of who is asked, especially in the region, the former being a more frequent description given by the Israeli government, and the latter a classification given by some in Palestine. That even the name given to this wall is controversial is perhaps symbolic of the divisive nature of the structure as a whole. Tensions run so high around it that to simply call it a ‘Wall’, as the International Court of Justice does, is apparently not enough for some.
To what extent, then, does Kennedy’s description of the Berlin Wall apply to this Wall? It would appear that the United Nations’ 2005 report echoes something of his theme of division. The report’s statement that the Wall ‘severs communities, people’s access to services, livelihoods and religious and cultural amenities’ mirrors the words of Kennedy somewhat, although understandably without the same rhetorical flourish. Furthermore, that the UN has described the Wall as illegal is surely cause for some concern.
Of course, the motive on the part of the Israeli government – the defence of its own citizens – is understandable, along with the desire to halt terrorist incursion and abate fear of further attacks. Debate continues as to exactly how effective the Wall has been to this end, however. The erection of a 440 mile barrier may provide a superficial block to the movement of ‘terrorists’, but there have been examples of the wall being bypassed.
Perhaps the clearest point of comparison between the two Walls, however, and a cause in fact for some cautious optimism, is the grassroots civilian desire for peace on both sides. That ordinary people around the world last month celebrated the collapse of the Berlin Wall is indicative of a desire for peace mirrored by sentiment around the Israeli West-Bank Barrier. There, a poignant example of both sides attempting reconciliation, bypassing the government, exists in the form of a peace movement which, via telephone, links individuals affected by the conflict on one side of the wall to the other. ‘Hello Peace’, caught the popular mood in the region a few years ago, so that by 2007, it had set up 1 million phone calls between Israelis and Palestinians.
On the twentieth anniversary of one reconciliation, it is touching to note that, in our time, while the same troubles exist, so too does the same desire for peace.
On the 9th of November, Germany commemorated the fall of the Berlin wall, the destruction of which stands as a seminal moment in modern history, and one well remembered by an entire generation. The structure was described by President Kennedy in 1963 as an ‘offence not only against history but an offence against humanity’, and so the 20th anniversary of its dismantling could have stood as a validation of ‘the advance of freedom everywhere’ which Kennedy had called for.
The concept of building long stretches of wall to control or police a population is certainly nothing new, and well-known examples of other such structures abound in history, even in this country, where Hadrian’s Wall has stood for almost two millennia. Today, some people have claimed that a similar situation exists along the Israeli West-Bank Barrier. The initial point of comparison is of course self-evident. Both structures in question, in Berlin and along the West Bank, are walls, designed to control the movement of people. Whether or not the Wall of our times can be said to be ‘separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together’ in the manner described by Kennedy is certainly open to debate, and indeed the arguments abound.
The names given to the Israeli West Bank Barrier vary. Whether or not the wall is described as, for example, an ‘anti-terrorist fence’, or an ‘apartheid wall’ depends on the perspective of who is asked, especially in the region, the former being a more frequent description given by the Israeli government, and the latter a classification given by some in Palestine. That even the name given to this wall is controversial is perhaps symbolic of the divisive nature of the structure as a whole. Tensions run so high around it that to simply call it a ‘Wall’, as the International Court of Justice does, is apparently not enough for some.
To what extent, then, does Kennedy’s description of the Berlin Wall apply to this Wall? It would appear that the United Nations’ 2005 report echoes something of his theme of division. The report’s statement that the Wall ‘severs communities, people’s access to services, livelihoods and religious and cultural amenities’ mirrors the words of Kennedy somewhat, although understandably without the same rhetorical flourish. Furthermore, that the UN has described the Wall as illegal is surely cause for some concern.
Of course, the motive on the part of the Israeli government – the defence of its own citizens – is understandable, along with the desire to halt terrorist incursion and abate fear of further attacks. Debate continues as to exactly how effective the Wall has been to this end, however. The erection of a 440 mile barrier may provide a superficial block to the movement of ‘terrorists’, but there have been examples of the wall being bypassed.
Perhaps the clearest point of comparison between the two Walls, however, and a cause in fact for some cautious optimism, is the grassroots civilian desire for peace on both sides. That ordinary people around the world last month celebrated the collapse of the Berlin Wall is indicative of a desire for peace mirrored by sentiment around the Israeli West-Bank Barrier. There, a poignant example of both sides attempting reconciliation, bypassing the government, exists in the form of a peace movement which, via telephone, links individuals affected by the conflict on one side of the wall to the other. ‘Hello Peace’, caught the popular mood in the region a few years ago, so that by 2007, it had set up 1 million phone calls between Israelis and Palestinians.
On the twentieth anniversary of one reconciliation, it is touching to note that, in our time, while the same troubles exist, so too does the same desire for peace.