Summary of US
Policy
Administration
Congressional
Action
Church Leaders'
Statements
SUMMARY OF US
POLICY
United States policy toward Israel's separation barrier has included
support of the barrier as related to Israel's right to defend itself
against Palestinian terrorist attacks. The US has also expressed concern about the
route of the barrier, where it deviates from the internationally
recognized Green Line, and stated that the barrier should not
prejudice final status negotiations related to borders. Administration
officials, including President George W. Bush, have emphasized that
the barrier is temporary and should be a security barrier, not a
political border and at various points, Administration officials have
expressed concern about the hardship that the barrier is causing for
average Palestinians. Congress introduced resolutions that supported
unconditionally the construction of the barrier, and condemned the
ruling by the International Court of Justice.
US
ADMINISTRATION
President George W. Bush:
“The barrier being erected by Israel as a
part of its security effort must be a security, rather than political,
barrier. And its route should take into account, consistent with
security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist
activities. As we make progress toward security, and in accordance
with the road map, Israeli forces should withdraw to their positions
on September the 28th, 2000. Any final status agreement must be
reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice
lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must
ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered
territories will not work.” May 26, 2005 [in press conference with
President Abbas]
“The barrier being erected by Israel as a
part of that security effort should, as your government has stated, be
a security, rather than political, barrier. It should be temporary
rather than permanent, and, therefore, not prejudice any final status
issues, including final borders. And its route should take into
account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians
not engaged in terrorist activities.” April 14, 2004 [quoted
during a meeting with Prime Minister Sharon]
“Israel should freeze settlement
construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily
humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final
negotiations with the placements of walls and fences.” November
19, 2003
“I think the wall is a problem, and I
discussed this with Ariel Sharon. It is very difficult to develop
confidence between the Palestinians and the Israel -- Israel -- with a
wall snaking through the West Bank. And I will continue to discuss
this issue very clearly with the Prime Minister. As I said in my
statement today, he has issued a statement saying he is willing to
come and discuss that with us. And I appreciate the willing to discuss
it.” July 25, 2003 [quoted during a meeting with President Abbas]
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State:
“Now, our position on settlement activity
has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have
obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase
settlement activity. We expect, in particular, that they are going to
be careful about anything -- route of the fence, settlement activity,
laws -- that would appear to prejudge a final status agreement, and
it’s concerning that this is where it is and around Jerusalem. But
we’ve noted our concern to the Israelis -- and David Welch and Elliott
[Abrams] did. We will continue to note that this is at odds with the
-- of American policy. So full stop we will continue to do that and
we have noted our concerns about it.” March 24, 2005 [interview
with LA Times]
“The
fence is -- continues to be a problem. And, first of all, the
President has made it pretty clear that he -- his vision of the
two-state solution would be one in which you didn't need a security
fence. But that said, the two primary concerns are that this not be a
fence that somehow prejudges an outcome, a territorial outcome. And
secondly, that it not infringe, or it infringes as little as possible,
on the lives of ordinary Palestinians. And that's been the nature of
the discussions with the Israelis and continues to be the nature of
the discussions.” November 13, 2003
President Bush envisions Israeli and
Palestinian states living as good neighbors “…in which there would be
no need for any kind of physical separation.” June 26, 2003 [told an
audience at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in
London]
Ambassador John Hanford, Ambassador
at Large for International Religious Freedom:
“Now, when it comes to the separation
barrier, we have been very concerned that this restricts the ability
of Palestinians, Christians, Muslims, both to worship freely, and we
are in close consultation with the government of Israel on the routing
of the separation barrier, especially with regard to human rights
issues, including religious freedom…”
“Even supporters of the barrier, people
that understand the security risks and have raised these other issues
with Israel have sometimes – we have sometimes been frustrated by our
inability to understand the logic of why the barrier has to cut
through properties, and these are the sorts of things that we raise.
We are urging the government to find ways to have the barrier and,
yet, allow access to choose a route or to allow access. As you know,
there have been problems where, as Chairman Hyde mentioned, annual
processions and religious activities are also greatly restricted by
the construction of the barrier. So Mr. Chairman, we’re raising these
with some successes, but sometimes we come away unable to understand
the insistence on the route being maintained.” June 30, 2006 [House
International Relations Subcommittee Hearing on Religious Minorities
in the Middle East]
See more details on US policy toward the barrier in a
section from the
2006
International Religious Freedom Report.
David Satterfield, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs:
“We had seen positive progress made by the
government of Israel in terms of the routing of the separation
barrier. We hope that progress continues. Jerusalem is an especially
sensitive area for the wall. We’re deeply concerned over aspects of
the routing of the barrier in that area. We’re also concerned about
any steps, whether it’s related to the wall or other actions, that
make starting and sustaining a process of rebuilding trust and
confidence harder, rather than easier.” January 27, 2005 [US
Institute of Peace Speech]
“The course of the separation barrier
under construction now remains a significant problem as well -- not in
its existence per se, as a separation barrier between Israel
and the territories of the West Bank, but because its planned route
inside the West Bank isolates Palestinians from each other and from
their land and their livelihoods, prejudices negotiations and, like
settlement activity itself, takes everyone further from the confidence
and trust necessary to achieve the president's vision of two states.”
January 12, 2004
Daniel Kurtzer, US Ambassador to
Israel:
“Mutual agreements
and direct negotiations between the parties are required for final
status issues, including the status of Jerusalem. Similarly, our
position on the route of the barrier construction has not changed. We
remain deeply committed to a just two-state solution, and a durable
Israeli-Palestinian peace. I assure you the United States Government
and I will do all we can to seize the opportunities afforded by
current circumstance to bring that about.” January 28, 2005 [letter
to CMEP]
Colin Powell, Former Secretary of
State:
“The president has
said on a number of occasions that the fence is a problem. . . . The
fence, if it continues to move into Palestinian regions, in parts of
the West Bank where Palestinians have their towns and villages, and
starts to create a fait accompli with respect to what a future
border might look like, that's the problem that the president has
identified. And that's, you know, when the loan guaranty affects the
settlement activity and the fence.” November 27, 2003
"As the president has made clear, the
fence is a problem. If you want to put a fence on something that is a
recognized border of a Green Line, then put a fence on your property
line. But the more you intrude into Palestinian areas, and the more it
looks like it could be a contiguous intrusion around large sections of
Palestinian land that would prejudge subsequent negotiations as to
what a Palestinian state may look like, that's a problem." October
4, 2003
Scott McCellan, White House Press
Secretary:
“The Israelis
have claimed that it [the fence] is purely a security measure, but
we've made it clear that we have some concerns about some of the steps
that were taken. And again, that is that if it led to a pretext for
taking land unnecessarily or it unduly burdened the Palestinian
people. We want steps to be taken to ease the plight of the
Palestinian people. We have been deeply concerned about the conditions
of life for the vast majority of Palestinians who seek peace and
oppose violence.” December 16, 2003
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
S.Res. 408 (108th
Congress)
-A resolution supporting the construction
by Israel of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist
attacks, condemning the decision of the International Court of Justice
on the legality of the security fence, and urging no further action by
the United Nations to delay or prevent the construction of the
security fence. (7/20/04)
-Introduced, but never voted on
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SE00408:@@@L&summ2=m&
H.Res. 713 (108th
Congress)
-Deploring the misuse of the International
Court of Justice by a plurality of the United Nations General Assembly
for a narrow political purpose. (7/13/04)
-Passed
-361 Yeas (214 Rep/147 Dem), 45 Nays (4
Rep/40 Dem/1 Ind), 13 Present (4 Rep/9 Dem)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HE00713:@@@L&summ2=m&
CHURCH
LEADERS
The following church leaders, from
Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions based both in the region
and in the United States, responded to the separation barrier and its
impact on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
Heads of Churches in Jerusalem:
"...With the construction of the wall many of our faithful are excluded
from the precincts of the holy city, and according to plans published
in the local press, many more will also be excluded in the future.
Surrounded by walls, Jerusalem is no longer at the center and is no
longer the heart of life as she should be. We consider it part
of our duty to draw the attention of the local authorities, as well as
the international community and the world Churches, to this very grave
situation and call for a concerted effort to search for a common
vision on the status of this holy city based on international
resolutions and having regard to the rights of two peoples in her and
the three faith communities..." September 29, 2006 (From
Status of Jerusalem Statement)
Pope John Paul II: "In reality, the Holy Land doesn't need walls,
but bridges." November 16, 2003
Archbishop Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury:
“The security fence
stands as a terrible symbol of the fear and despair that threaten
everyone in this city and country, all the communities who share this
Holy Land.”
January 27,
2004
Heads of Churches in Jerusalem:
“If the present Road Map for Peace is to bring
positive results, we believe the Separation Wall constitutes a grave
obstacle. For both nations the Wall will result in a feeling of
isolation. Moreover for many Palestinians it means the deprivation of
land, (some 10% more than that of the Occupation in 1967) livelihood,
statehood and family life. Occupation remains the root cause of the
conflict and of the continuing suffering in the Holy Land. . . .We
appeal to both Authorities—Israeli and Palestinian—and to all
Peace-loving peoples around the world, (who should make urgent contact
with their leaders, both Political and Religious), in an effort to
remove this impediment to a comprehensive and lasting Peace.”
August 26, 2003
US
Catholic Bishops:
“We, Catholic Bishops from Europe and the
Americas, came here to demonstrate the solidarity of Catholics
throughout the world with the Church of the Hold Land. . . .We have
seen the devastating effect of the wall currently being built through
the land and homes of Palestinian communities. This appears to be a
permanent structure, dividing families, isolating them from their
farmland and their livelihoods, and cutting off religious
institutions.” January 18, 2004
National Council of Churches:
The
General Assembly of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in
the USA, meeting at a time of continuing violent confrontation in the
Middle East with the breakdown of the Israeli - Palestinian peace
process, witnesses with deep distress the building of the Separation
Wall by Israel…[T]he Wall is resulting in the de facto imprisonment of
the Palestinian population, the denial of access by Palestinians to
emergency services, health care, food, employment, schools and water
resources, the curtailment of freedom of movement among the
Palestinian people, and the exacerbation of suffering. . .[T]he Wall
violates international law and eliminates hope for a peaceful
resolution of the Middle East conflict. . .[W]e, as people of faith,
are deeply troubled by the systematic violence against Palestinians,
and equally troubled by bombing campaigns against Israelis. . .[T]he
National Council of the Churches of Christ USA has historically called
for the breaking down of walls of division, based on our faith that
“Now in Christ Jesus, he has broken down the dividing wall that is the
hostility between us” (Eph. 2:14). . .[T]he General Assembly of the
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, meeting in
Jackson, Mississippi, November 4-6, 2003, calls for the tearing down
of the Separation Wall that is now being erected.”
November 6, 2003
|
