The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is being asked to approve a Sense of the Assembly Resolution on a volatile political issue involving the claims of the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel. When a religious body seeks to make moral statements, it must be very careful not to be used to further political initiatives which actually may be counter to its own interest.

Unfortunately, the resolution as it has been developed is replete with misinformation, unsubstantiated exaggerations and half-truths. The integrity of the Assembly is at stake. The promoters of the resolution desire to advance a political position without regard to the veracity of its claims. In order that the delegates to the Assembly have all the tools for making a wise and reasoned judgment on this matter, I would like to offer the attached assessment. Facts should not be displaced by wrongly informed passion on an issue that is so complex. There are those who do not accept the concept of a Jewish State and will try to advance their own narrow agenda by disregarding accuracy, facts and misusing the good intentions of religious people.

I sincerely hope that you will seriously consider this appraisal of the resolution as presented and inform your deliberation in a way that will not undermine the moral impact of Disciples of Christ.

Respectfully,

The Rev. Canon Keith Roderick, D.D.

Secretary General, Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights

Canon for Persecuted Christians, Episcopal Diocese of Quincy

No. 0522

(Sense-of-the-Assembly)

TEAR DOWN THE WALL

Boldfaced & Footnoted for misinformation, half truths and gross exaggerations herein.

Please also read the actual Footnotes attached

Background Information

In June 2002, the State of Israel began an ambitious construction. Construction of a security barrier-also known as the “separation fence” and as the “Wall”-commenced and continues to this day.

According to Israeli plans, the barrier will be over 400 miles (650 kilometers) in length, at a cost not less than $1.6 million per mile ($1 million per km), and will exceed $1 billion for the entire project. The main barrier takes on many forms, including 8-meter high cement walls, 3-meter high electric and barbed-wire fences, and a combination of the two. The infrastructure of the barrier that also includes a buffer zone on both sides, surveillance cameras, trenches, and observation posts compounds what Israeli human rights activist Jeff Halper calls the “matrix of control” of settlements, by-pass roads and checkpoints.

The barrier violates multiple international conventions, agreements, and resolutions, including article2.4( of the United Nations Charter (prohibiting the use of force to violate territorial integrity)1, the Fourth Geneva Convention (prohibiting the destruction of land or property and the practice of collective punishment)2, and both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economical, Social, and Cultural Rights (defining rights of movement, property, health, education, work, and food)3. The barrier also is contrary to UN Security Council resolution 242 which calls for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict.”4

The barrier encroaches into the occupied Palestinian territories from along the entire perimeter of the West Bank5, frequently abutting or intersecting Palestinian villages, while leaving agricultural fields, shops, and family members on the opposite, Israeli-claimed side of the border6. In places like Qalqilya, the barrier loops prominently into the West Bank, enveloping entire Palestinian villages and creating ghettos with a single, narrow checkpoint guarding the entrances to these villages. It will result in Israel’s annexation of roughly half of the West Bank7, displacing and disconnecting Palestinians from their homes, families, neighbors, and fields. It is this encroachment and the resultant humanitarian crises that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled illegal in its June 30, 2004 ruling, even as it found the motivation for the barrier, based on security concerns, justified.

In a more broad-reaching ruling on the barrier, the International Court of Justice ruled on its legality in a July 9, 2004 verdict. In sum, the decision rendered the construction of the barrier contrary to international law8, recommended that the State of Israel end its construction and dismantles existing segments and that Israel pay reparations to those who have suffered loss as a result of the construction, and instructed the United Nations to pursue necessary means to address the illegality of the barrier. Both Israel and the U.S. disregarded this ruling and thereby dismissed the relevance of international law to Israel. The U.S. continues to provide more aid to Israel than to any other country in the world9.

The impact of the visually and spiritually offensive barrier on the Palestinian people has been more devastating than abstract facts can convey10.Homes have been demolished, water supplies have been cut off, fields have been razed, villages divided, and access to the other side has been cut off. Farmers have lost their fields or lost access to them11. Faithful communities-including Palestinian Christians-have been denied access to houses of worship. Families have been split. According to UN estimates, 680,000 Palestinians (30% of the West Bank population) are directly affected12. The Sabeel Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem reports that “Palestinians have been separated from their places of employment, their farmlands, hospitals, schools, places of worship and their families. In the first phase of the wall alone, 100,000 trees have been uprooted13; 35,000 meters of irrigation networks have been destroyed; and 75% of teachers and students living in the construction areas have had difficulty arriving at school.” These effects further deteriorate the quality of life of the Palestinian population14 in the occupied territories.

WHEREAS, the Israeli government, as part of its de facto policy of settlement and colonization15continues to construct the separation barrier, also known as the security fence and the wall, and plans to extend it to approximately 400 miles (650 kilometers) at a cost not less than $1.6 million per mile ($1 million per km), thereby rendering the internationally-endorsed Road Map for peace and other proposals pursuant to U.S. objectives for a negotiated two-state solution unachievable; and

WHEREAS, the wall unilaterally changes an international border without direct negotiations between partners16, annexes nearly 50% of Palestinian West Bank land7, and destroys the contiguity of Palestinian life and land17, rendering a Palestinian state unviable18; and

WHEREAS, the barrier succeeds in confiscating Palestinian agricultural fields, water, and other natural resources19, contributes to unemployment, and cuts populations off from such essentials of life as employment, education, health care, worship and family6; and

WHEREAS, the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled against the legality of the separation barrier on humanitarian bases20and the International Court of Justice has ruled that the barrier is, ipso facto, illegal8; and

WHEREAS, the barrier has had devastating effects on the lives and livelihoods of Palestinians living in the occupied territories14by destroying homes, fields,and mobility, severely obstructing health care, education, and even worship opportunities for Palestinians11; and

WHEREAS, history demonstrates that walls build barriers and limit the opportunity for people in conflict to be in contact with each other and reconcile their differing points of view, and the U.S. has previously demanded that walls of separation be torn down21; and

WHEREAS, The Common Global Ministries Board, mindful of all previous General Synod and General Assembly resolutions and all previous board resolutions and statements relating to the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and continuing to denounce violence on all sides, specifically affirms the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fully supporting the right of Israel to exist in peace with her neighbors within secure and recognized borders and at the same time asserting the same right to national sovereignty in a secure, recognized and viable state for Palestinians, who would control their borders22;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Global Ministries Board calls upon the Israeli government to cease the project to construct the barrier, tear down the segments that have already been constructed, and pay reparations to those who have lost homes, fields, property, and/or lives and health due to the barrier and its effects19as security for both peoples can best be achieved through an end to the occupation and efforts to encourage access and contact, rather than restricting and denying it; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Global Ministries Board urges the U.S. government to compel the Israeli government to abide by international law and agreements and withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Global Ministries Board calls upon the U.S. government to engage actively, fully and fairly in a peace process that will lead to the peaceful coexistence of two states: Israel and a future Palestine; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Global Ministries Board encourages members at all settings of the United Church of Christ and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) to engage in prayer, study, and dialogue with congregations and with Jewish and Palestinian persons and faith communities, about the barrier and to raise diligently with their governmental officials these concerns; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Global Ministries Board submits this resolution to the General Synod United Church of Christ and to the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), meeting in Portland, Oregon, July 23-27, 2005.

Common Global Ministries Board of the
United Church of Christand the
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

The General Board recommends that the General Assembly
ADOPT Business Item No. 0522. (Debate time 24 minutes

Footnotes referenced to Tear Down the Wall resolution

1. The barrier violates multiple international conventions, agreements, and resolutions, including article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter (prohibiting the use of force to violate territorial integrity)

Article 2.4 of the U.N. Charter prohibits violation of territorial integrity during an act of aggression. Arab countries violated this article in 1948, 1967 and 1973 when they invaded Israel. However, building a fence on the disputed territory that Israel was charged with administering since the 1967 War (per Resolution 242) does not break this UN article.

Moreover, the security barrier meets the two most fundamental principles in international law:

· Article 52 of the Hague Regulations (1907) and Article 27 of the Geneva Convention permits powers “to take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war…”

· The UN Charter, Article 51, gives every nation the right and obligation to defend itself from attack.

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…” Article 51 http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Terrorism violates the most fundamental moral and international laws. The barrier does not.

The barrier is a passive, non-lethal form of self-defense that does not wound, maim or kill but does protect people from being killed.

2. [The barrier violates] the Fourth Geneva Convention (prohibiting the destruction of land or property and the practice of collective punishment)

The fence is defensive in nature, without any purpose or intent of collective punishment. Its sole rationale is to deter suicide bombers and terrorists

3. [The barrier violates] both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economical, Social, and Cultural Rights (defining rights of movement, property, health, education, work, and food)

Terrorism, not the fence, violates the most fundamental moral and international laws. The purpose of the barrier is to restrict the movement of would-be terrorists that would continue terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

The fence, bypass roads and checkpoints only exist to protect Israelis from being murdered by terrorists. These obstructions did not even exist before the terrorist campaign began in September 2000.

Until that time, the land between Israel and the Territories was completely open, unobstructed by natural or human barriers. Israel had to set up counterterrorism measures like the fence and checkpoints to prevent terrorists from simply walking the few kilometers across open land into Israeli communities and committing mass murder. It was not built to control ordinary Palestinians or to ‘colonize’ them.

4. The barrier also is contrary to UN Security Council resolution 242 which calls for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict.”

Resolution 242 does not call for unilateral Israeli withdrawal. It calls for Israeli withdrawal only in the context of peace agreements and negotiation of new borders for Israel.

242 calls for “… application of both the following principles:

”Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent (1967) conflict;

”Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

--Resolution 242 http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/59210ce6d04aef61852560c3005da209!OpenDocument

Resolution 242 intentionally did not mention specific borders. They were to be determined by bilateral negotiations. Arab states refused to recognize, negotiate or make peace with Israel (Khartoum Conference, August 1967) so no borders were ever negotiated.

5. The barrier encroaches into the occupied Palestinian territories from along the entire perimeter of the West Bank,

The fence route follows the 1949 “Green Line” armistice lines very closely, deviating to incorporate existing Israeli population centers near the Green Line. While it does encroach slightly in numerous places, it does not do so “along the entire perimeter of the West Bank,” and in total, West Bank land on the Israeli side of the fence does not exceed 5%.

6. [The barrier is]frequently abutting or intersecting Palestinian villages, while leaving agricultural fields, shops, and family members on the opposite, Israeli-claimed side of the border.

Most of the fence route was built on public lands. When private land was needed, Israel either compensated owners or pays to rent the land. $22 million was budgeted for this purpose. To date, Palestinians have made claims for $2.2.

Only 5400 Palestinians are on the Israeli side of the fence, only 0.3% of the West Bank population. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2268

Israel has made every effort to decrease the inconvenience for the few Palestinians affected, by building gates for them to access their lands.

31 agricultural gates already exist; 20 to 30 more are in development. Israel has also frequently adjusted the route to respond to Palestinian needs. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2268

Most Palestinians have greater mobility because the fence gave Israel enough protection to allow removal of internal barriers. 30 out of 40 permanent checkpoints and 40 roadblocks were removed in June 2004. Jerusalem Post, June 14 2004

7. It [the barrier] will result in Israel’s annexation of roughly half of the West Bank

Israel’s original fence plan would have encompassed 16% of the West Bank. Its newest approved plan puts only 5% of the West Bank on the “Israeli” side. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2268

The fence is in no way an effort to “annex” the West Bank. The purpose of the fence is to protect Israelis. The fence was built to be moveable, and if and when negotiations resume and new borders are negotiated, Israel can move the fence as it did with the barrier it erected between itself and Lebanon.

Only 5400 Palestinians are on the Israeli side of the fence, only three-tenths of one percent of the West Bank population. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2268

8. the International Court of Justice ruled… the construction of the barrier contrary to international law

Most major western nations disagreed with the IJC’s decision and argued that the issue was not in the ICJ’s jurisdiction because the barrier is a political, not a legal issue.

The countries objecting to the ICJ ruling on the security barrier were: “United States, Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Federated States of Micronesia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland (for itself and in addition on behalf of the Member States and Acceding States of the European Union), Italy, Japan, the Marshall Islands, the Netherlands, Norway, Palau, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case;” U.S. House of Representatives Resolution H Res 713, July 13 2004

The UN General Assembly resolution asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion is actually a request for an endorsement of an already-stated political opinion of the GA. The ICJ lacks jurisdiction over the case because the GA has dictated the desired result. The court is not authorized to make endorsements of the GA's political opinions dressed in legal garb.” Laurence E. Rothenberg and Abraham Bell, legal experts, at http://jcpa.org/jl/vp513.htm

Several ICJ judges considered the judgment unfair and biased.

"The Court states that it 'is indeed aware that the question of the wall is part of a greater whole' and it would take this circumstance carefully into account in any opinion it might give. In fact, it never does so…the court's history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is "neither balanced nor satisfactory." ICJ Judge Rosalyn Higgins, Britain

“Palestinian terrorist attacks "are never really seriously examined by the Court, and the dossier provided the Court by the United Nations on which the Court to a large extent bases its findings barely touches on that subject.” ICJ Judge Thomas Buergenthal, USA (cited in Jerusalem Post,July 25, 2004)

9. The U.S. continues to provide more aid to Israel than to any other country in the world

Israel is America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East and it rightfully gets military and financial aid, but the US spends far more subsidizing the military defense of its allies in Europe, South Korea and Japan and to assist nations like Afghanistan. This assistance, however, is included in the defense budget instead of the foreign aid budget where Israel’s aid is included.

“The US spends approximately $90 billion a year to subsidize the defense of its allies in Europe and Japan according to data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 1996.”

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=436

“There are more than 80,000 American troops currently stationed in Germany alone. The cost of maintaining these bases is in the billions of dollars.” U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, April 8 2003

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/hl782.cfm

The Palestinians are hardly neglected. The US has helped them; the world community continues to provide them with more aid per capita that it provides to any other people in the world.

The United States has been a major donor to the Palestinian Authority and gave Palestinian groups $1.3 billion through its US AID program between 1993 and 2003, according to the Palestine Chronicle. January 5 2004

http://palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20040107135522110

Aid to the PA “is the highest per capita aid transfer in the history of foreign aid anywhere." Nigel Roberts, World Bank official in the Territories. February 29 2004

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=238542004

10. The impact of the visually and spiritually offensive barrier on the Palestinian people has been more devastating than abstract facts can convey

The fence is not huge or spiritually and visually offensive to both Palestinians and Israelis. While Israelis concede the fence disrupts the landscape, saving innocent lives has moral priority over visual beauty.

Less than 3% of the fence is cement wall and it is no more intrusive than the sound barriers built along US highways. It was built to prevent the constant sniper shooting on Israeli highways.

The other 97% of the fence is chain-link, not barbed wire, and resembles the chain link fences around American schoolyards; the surveillance cameras resemble playing field lights. The area involved is no greater than that of a 4-lane highway and looks equally benign.

The fence is no more dangerous than the fences other nations have built to keep out terrorists or illegal immigrants, such as the US-Mexico, Spain-Morocco, India-Pakistan, Poland-Belarus, and Belfast fences.

11. Homes have been demolished, water supplies have been cut off, fields have been razed, villages divided, and access to the other side has been cut off. Farmers have lost their fields or lost access to them

See footnote 6

12. According to UN estimates, 680,000 Palestinians (30% of the West Bank population) are directly affected

Only 5400 Palestinians are on the Israeli side of the fence, only three-tenths of one percent of the West Bank population. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2268

13. In the first phase of the wall alone, 100,000 trees have been uprooted

It is unclear how this claim was documented. What is documented is the fact that when any trees owned by Palestinian farmers have been in the way of the fence route, Israel carefully relocated and transplanted those trees for the farmers.

Israel has already transplanted 60,000 trees. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

14. These effects further deteriorate the quality of life of the Palestinian population

The fence has saved both Israeli and Palestinian lives. Deaths from terrorist attacks dropped 90% and life has improved for Arabs, Christians, Jews and Palestinians:

“Since the fence's completion in their areas last August, many Arab communities - especially those bordering Palestinian villages - have enjoyed a spike in both security and economic activity…. ‘God be blessed, the fence ended the parade of terrorists through this city and gave us an economic boom and increased security,’ says Umm el-Fahm City Manager Tawfiq Karaman.” Jerusalem Post, June 17 2004

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1087441302553&p=1078027574121

"’[T]here is 70 percent more nightlife in Jenin than a year ago….We are talking about the resumption of traditional Palestinian nightlife,’ explains [Hader]Abu Sheikh [Palestinian Legislative Council member in Jenin]. ‘Weddings, men sitting in cafes late at night, women visiting each other...’ Jenin is recovering - partly due to the controversial security fence that Israel credits with stopping Palestinian terrorism in its tracks.” Jerusalem Post June 4 2004 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1086230750499&p=1078027574121

15. the Israeli government, as part of its de facto policy of settlement and colonization… construct(ed) the…barrier.

Terrorism built the fence, a fact supported by many sources:

“The Palestinians and their suicide attacks are what forced Israel to build a fence.” Tawfik Abu Baker, Palestinian Parliament member, in Al Dastour, Jordan, Jan 7 2004

“Yasser Arafat, the PA and the militant fundamentalists are responsible for building this fence. No one else built it.” Dr. Ahsan Al Trabelsi, “Ilaf” website, Jan 13 2004

"All the efforts undertaken over many years, even decades, have unfortunately failed to bear fruit…So it is understandable that Israel should try to erect a protective barrier, which furthermore has shown it works, and I think that the criticism is far from the reality." Otto Schily, Interior Minister of Germany, Deutsche-Welle, September 14 2004 at http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1327916,00.html

16. the wall unilaterally changes an international border without direct negotiations between partners

There is not and never has been an ‘international border’ between Israel and the West Bank.

The Green Line is simply the defunct armistice lines drawn after the 1948 War. Both Israel and the Palestinians have legitimate claims to the West Bank and Gaza. Final borders were to be determined in bilateral negotiations, but the PA abruptly ended the negotiations and just weeks later, on Sept. 28 2000, launched its terrorist war against Israel.

“The issues of Jerusalem, the refugees and sovereignty are one and will be finalized on the ground and not in negotiations. At this point it is important to prepare Palestinian society for the challenge of the next step because we will inevitably find ourselves in a violent confrontation with Israel in order to create new facts on the ground. [...] I believe that the situation in the future will be more violent than the Intifada.” - Abu-Ali Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority, July 23, 2000 (two months before the outbreak of the current Intifada).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19a.html

17. [The barrier] destroys the contiguity of Palestinian life and land

This implies that Israel’s fence divides the West Bank into non-contiguous cantons. This is not the case (please see attached map of Israel’s fence route).

18. [The barrier] rendering a Palestinian state unviable

Most Palestinians have greater mobility because the fence gave Israel enough protection to allow removal of internal barriers. 30 out of 40 permanent checkpoints and 40 roadblocks were removed in June 2004. Jerusalem Post, June 14 2004

This freedom of movement makes any future Palestinian state more, not less viable. Conversely, unchecked and rampant terrorism emanating from a future Palestinian state could make that state unviable.

19. the barrier succeeds in confiscating Palestinian agricultural fields, water, and other natural resources

Israel did not confiscate land, trees or property to build the barrier.

The vast majority of the barrier was built on public lands. When private land was needed, Israel either compensated owners or pays to rent the land. $22 million was budgeted for this purpose. To date, Palestinians have made claims for $2.2 million.

20. “The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled against the legality of the separation barrier on humanitarian bases…”

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the barrier was legal and necessary for security reasons. Its concern was balancing humanitarian needs against security needs-not the legality of the barrier.

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled on complaints made by Palestinians that the fence was causing them hardship. The Supreme Court tried to balance the hardship claims against Israel’s desperate security needs, and ruled that the route of the fence be changed in certain areas to accommodate Palestinian needs. (Beit Sourik Village Council vs the IDF, June 24 2004 at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fencesct.html

21. “The U.S. has previously demanded that walls of separation be torn down…”

The US has never demanded that Israel remove the security barrier. To the contrary, the US government supports Israel’s right to defend itself as it did in the UC Congress’ Resolution 713 on July 15 2004:

“Whereas President George W. Bush said in October 2003 regarding Israel's right to self-defense that `Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland'; Whereas according to international law as expressly recognized in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, all nations possess an inherent right to self-defense; Whereas a security barrier, capable of being modified or removed, is being constructed by Israel in response to an ongoing campaign of terror; …”

22. [The Common Global Ministries Board asserts] the same right to national sovereignty in a secure, recognized and viable state for Palestinians, who would control their borders

Terrorism is the obstacle to peace and to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Throughout the Oslo process, the PA had only two obligations: to end terrorism and incitement. Instead of ending, both escalated.

During the past five years of violence, the Palestinian Authority has shown it is unwilling or unable to control the flow of terrorists across its boundaries with Israel. In the absence of an effective alternative and a neighbor that has proven unreliable in its peace obligations, Israel decided to secure its citizens from terrorism with a fence.

The security fence is not an obstacle to peace, as many Palestinians are trying to portray it. In fact, by providing a barrier to terrorism, it will help restore quiet to the region and thereby increase the chances of achieving peace. It will not create permanent facts on the ground that will affect the outcome of negotiations. http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/11/Saving+Lives-+Israel-s+Security+Fence.htm