The bright red letters stand out starkly against the ugly grey cement. The wall that is slicing through East Jerusalem is some thirty feet high, but casts its shadow for miles. There is little the Palestinians hemmed in on both sides of the wall can do to oppose it. So, the wall is dotted with marks where rocks have been thrown at it in anger, and covered with graffiti.
Some graffiti writers ask if the builder of this wall can be a "man of peace". Some ask how a people whose history is full of ghettos can now be building one. And someone decided to remind us all, in those blood-red letters, that it was "Paid by USA".
You can feel the wall when you're near it, a pressure bearing down on you, gradually pressing you down farther and farther. Walking beside it, on either side, you can see Palestinians trying to live their lives under this weight. It isn't easy. The construction of the wall has separated many people from their families, from their places of work, from fields and grazing areas and from medical services. In Qalqilya, the town has been surrounded by the wall, the route of the barrier looping to encircle it. Many people, those who can, have fled Qalqilya. This is only the beginning. The longer the wall stands, the more pronounced the damage to Palestinian lives will become.
There has been a marked reduction in attacks on Israeli civilians in recent months, and it would be foolish and disingenuous to suggest that the wall doesn't play a part in that. It is equally disingenuous to suggest, as Israel does, that the route of the wall was determined by its security needs. Israel's High Court itself recognized that portions of the wall did more damage to the Palestinian population than could be justified by security needs. But the court, always reluctant to interfere in security matters, affirmed Israel's right to build its wall in Palestinian territory.
The International Court of Justice at The Hague begged to differ. Their view, upheld even by the lone dissenting judge (the American judge, not surprisingly) was that the wall was a violation of Israel's responsibilities as an occupying power (Justice Buergenthal, who dissented, questioned whether the court had sufficient evidence to measure Israel's security needs against this violation). The Court's full ruling, invoking as it did the Fourth Geneva Convention, also reminded the world that Israel's project of settlement in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is also illegal, stripping away Israel's characterizations of the territories as "disputed", rather than "occupied".
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=6044