|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Israel / Palestine |
|
UN Rights Expert: Security Fence Is Illegal Annexation |
Current rating: 0 |
by haaretz via gehrig
(No verified email address) |
27 Mar 2003
|
|
UN human rights expert says the purpose of the "wall of separation" goes beyond protecting Israel from suicide attacks and is actually form of annexation, especially if recent proposed changes in its location enclose even more of the West Bank. |
UN rights expert: Security fence is illegal annexation
By The Associated Press
GENEVA - The security fence between Israelis and Palestinians, which Israel claims is needed for protection represents "de facto annexation" and is illegal under international law, a United Nations human rights expert said Thursday.
"The wall is being used as a way of expanding Israel's territory," said John Dugard, the UN 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."
Dugard, a South African lawyer, was speaking shortly before he was due to address the UN Human Rights Commission to report on the human rights situation in the territories.
He said the current plans for the barrier already would enclose an estimated 7 percent of Palestinian land, and proposals made earlier this week to extend it to protect a Jewish settlement in the heart of the West Bank would take much more land.
"I have seen portions of that wall, and it makes the old Berlin Wall look very small," Dugard said. "It has gone largely unnoticed in the West, but this is de facto annexation."
Only a few miles of the barrier - built of electronic fences and concrete blocks - have so far been completed.
Yaakov Levy, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, insisted the wall is not political.
"The security fence is one of a series of defensive measures that Israel was forced to take after repeated overtures to the Palestinian leadership to resolve the security crisis had been rebuffed," Levy said.
"Its location has been determined purely by security considerations and Israel's leadership has clearly stated that it has no political significance."
Dugard, who prepared his report without formal contact with the Israeli government - which rejects his mandate - said the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories has worsened dramatically since his last report a year ago. Although Israel has a legitimate right to protect itself from terrorists, it has reacted too strongly, he said.
"Israel has succeeded in gaining tremendous sympathy for its argument that it is engaged in defensive action in response to Palestinian suicide bombers, and I think one must acknowledge that Israel does have real security concerns," he said.
"But the action taken by the Israelis has been disproportionate. I point to the fact that there has been considerable loss of life ... This has often been justified as 'collateral action.' But collateral deaths have become the rule rather than the exception of the present conflict."
Levy said Dugard's report was "politically influenced" and fails to take account of the security situation.
The Israeli actions are "a reluctant response to a concerted wave of Palestinian terrorism emerging from civilian populated areas," he said.
---
@%< |
