Igor Jadan. Wall to wall

Wall to wall
Igor Jadan

Publication date: February 24, 2004

On February 23, at the International Court of Justice a three-day hearing began in The Hague on the UN's request on the legitimacy of Israel's construction of an "anti-terrorism wall" in the West Bank. The interest in these hearings turned out to be so great that for the first time in history it is planned to broadcast from court hearings via the Internet live, and then recorded.

Of the 44 countries that voted to refer the case to the international court, 13 expressed their intention to testify directly in The Hague: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Jordan, Algeria, South Africa, Bangladesh, Belize, Madagascar, Senegal, Sudan and Cuba.

The parties are preparing for a great battle for public opinion. A support delegation for Israel of about 2,000 Jews from around the world has already arrived in The Hague, and its activists have been engaged in an outreach campaign on the streets. The mangled remains of a bus that was blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber in Jerusalem last month also arrived in The Hague. Numerous photographs and videos, as well as other materials about the Palestinian terrorist attacks, have already been sent. Naturally, they were supplemented by photographic materials about a new terrorist attack on a Jerusalem bus, which occurred on the eve of the opening of the trial. Among other things, the group responsible for promoting the construction of the “security wall” recommended painting the wall to improve its appearance. And just before the start of the hearings, as if by chance, Israel began dismantling an 8-kilometer section of the “protective wall.”

As for Israel's attitude to the trial itself, after intense debate over the level of its participation, Israel decided to limit itself to writing its opinion, but not to send a representative to the court. The chairman of the Israeli parliamentary commission on foreign affairs and defense explained this idea as follows: “Do not participate in court hearings, do not send any documents there and let this provocative idea die, suffocated in its own boredom . ”

However, everything suggests that three days of court hearings will not be boring. Thus, Arafat's press service in Ramallah published a call on all Palestinians to mark the beginning of the sessions of the International Court in The Hague with riots. A one-hour strike will be held in Palestinian cities from 12 to 1 p.m. School classes will be canceled and children will go to “protests.” Along the entire “protective wall,” Palestinians and activists of international organizations intend to hold demonstrations these days.

The leadership of the Palestinian Authority now seriously fears that a new terrorist attack carried out just before the start of the hearings could damage the educational campaign in The Hague. Therefore, it hastened to dissociate itself from the mentioned action, declaring through the mouth of the Palestinian Prime Minister that “terrorist attacks provide Israel with justification for the construction of a wall and repression . ” In Israel, opinions are expressed that the author of the explosion are Muslim radicals who have long been trying to trip up Arafat.

The Palestinian side will apparently concentrate its efforts on explaining the humanitarian consequences of the construction of the wall. According to Palestinians, many children were cut off from schools, and farmers were cut off from their plots of land. The Arab city of Qalqilya, according to its mayor, has become a “city in prison . ” Additional checkpoints lead to patients dying on the way to the hospital, etc. The Palestinians also complained that their representatives carrying documents to The Hague were detained at the Israeli airport, searched and their documents photographed. For Israeli outreach campaign strategists, such information could be of high value.

The Palestinian campaign was also launched directly in The Hague. All kinds of student leftists and Arab organizations have promised to hold protests against the construction of the “wall.” Members of the Israeli Knesset from the left-wing Arab bloc traveled to The Hague to speak before the International Court of Justice in support of the Palestinian position.

Other dovish circles in Israel, however, agree that this issue should be resolved within the state, and not brought up for international discussion. It became known that after consultations between the Israeli prime minister and his legal adviser, Sharon was forced to order a change in the “route” of the wall.

As mentioned above, the day before the trial began in The Hague, dismantling of an 8-kilometer section of the “security wall” was hastily begun in order to move construction to a less controversial location. On this occasion, one of the Israeli ministers said: “Israel resembles a criminal who is trying to cover up his tracks before the trial . ”

However, no matter how the hearings end, the wall designed to forever separate the two peoples will be built. The Palestinian state will be created, and the unfriendly neighbors will finally receive an “official divorce.” Meanwhile, it is difficult to find two peoples whose kinship would be as obvious, documented and mutually recognized as the kinship of Jews and Arabs . The point is not only that both are Semites (in other words, they have national languages ​​of Semitic origin). The kinship of Jews and Arabs touches on much more intimate areas of tribal myths about the common origin and subsequent division of the “house of Isaac” and the “house of Ishmael.”

Both peoples originated from a union of nomadic Semitic tribes. From the Bedouins - as they would say now. In both cases, the people, who at first despised agriculture (remember the dispute between the cattle breeder Abel and the farmer Cain) and sometimes lived in trade, sometimes in raids, seized a new territory for them, settled down and offered the religion of monotheism to the local agricultural idolatrous peoples. The jealous "God of the Desert" - the god of nomads. Unlike the victory of the Tatar-Mongols, the victory of the Semitic nomads turned out to be not only military and political, but also ideological.

It is significant that Judaism and Islam are two religions that mutually recognize that their followers worship the same deity and have similar creeds. Judaism sees Islam as a form of non-Jewish worship of the “true” (that is, in this case, the “Jewish”) god. Islam, in turn, recognizes the sacred nature of Jewish religious books. With Christianity, Judaism, for example, no longer has such closeness of dogmas. Despite the recognition of a certain common origin, within the framework of Judaism, Christian teaching is defined as “avodah zara” - idolatry.

Because of such closeness between Judaism and Islam, the now fashionable definition of the political dispute between Israel and the Palestinians as a “war of religions” looks very artificial. The religious positions of the two religions are so close that the “ideological war” of Judaism and Islam would be reminiscent of Swift’s war of sharp-pointed people with blunt-pointed ones . But besides the religious one, there is also a cultural affinity, a civilizational affinity between Jews - immigrants from Muslim countries (and this is half the population of Israel) - with the Arabs. There is also a historical memory of the times of the Catholic Inquisition, when the only countries where Jews found refuge were the countries of the Muslim East.

However, in practice it turns out that the closeness of the two peoples and the memory of centuries of cooperation are not enough to stop the bloody Arab-Israeli conflict, which has required the efforts of the world community to end for more than 50 years. Russia is also taking part in these efforts to the best of its ability.

As you know, the issue of Israeli construction of barrier structures was discussed twice by the UN General Assembly - on October 21 and December 8, 2003. As a result of the first discussion, a resolution was adopted condemning these Israeli actions. Russia, like the majority of UN member states, then voted for the adoption of such a resolution. on commentary The Russian Foreign Ministry's this matter states: “The construction of a separation wall in the Palestinian territories is a counterproductive step that undermines efforts to overcome the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation . ”

Subsequently, during repeated hearings on the construction of this wall by the UN General Assembly on December 8, 2003, it was decided to send a request to the Hague Court. Russia abstained in this case. This time, the official commentary noted that ” “the transfer of the issue of the legality of the construction of the security wall to the Hague Court can be interpreted as evidence that the international community has come to terms with the current situation in the occupied territories . Nevertheless, Russia's negative opinion on the construction of Israeli barrier structures was subsequently officially submitted to the International Court of Justice.

Russia apparently fears that consideration of the issue in the International Court could make it difficult for the parties to carry out peace negotiations. In addition, it is quite possible that Russia has additional reasons not to consider the Hague court the most appropriate place to consider issues relating to security and relations between states. In this sense, the Russian Federation, like the United States, has reason to fear international lawsuits similar to those brought to a Belgian court against Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, accused of war crimes.