Allan Topol is a partner in a large Washington-based international law firm. He has a science and engineering degree from Carnegie Mellon, and a law degree from Yale University. For almost 40 years, he has been involved in issues at the height of the Washington power structure.
He is also a national bestselling novelist, using the thriller genre to explore international geopolitical and military issues. His 2001 novel, SPY DANCE, is about a former CIA agent on the run and Saudi Arabian oil. His 2003 novel, DARK AMBITION, deals with the corruption of power in Washington and China's threatening posture toward Taiwan. In January 2004, his new novel CONSPIRACY was released dealing with a foreign leader's attempt to influence an American presidential election and the possibility of renewed militarism in Japan.
[Have an opinion about the issues discussed in this column? Sound
off here.]
Last week, Israel's Supreme Court ordered the army to remove a portion of the barrier it is constructing along the West Bank and to reroute other sections to reduce the burden on Palestinians. The lawsuit was brought by Palestinians who are affected by the barrier and are living in eight villages near Jerusalem. The Israeli Ministry of Defense immediately issued a statement that it would comply with the Court's order.
The Court's ruling only affects a small portion of the barrier, which consists almost entirely of an electronic fence with coils of razor wire. About five percent consists of the twenty-foot concrete wall usually depicted by the media.
In general, the Court condoned the building of the barrier as justified by Israel's security interests. The unanimous decision by the three judges concluded that Israel has a genuine security reason for building the barrier, for which it can expropriate land on the West Bank. At the same time, the Court ruled that the Defense Ministry "has a legal duty to balance properly between security considerations and humanitarian ones."
This remarkable decision is an incredible example of a Middle Eastern country functioning as a genuine democracy and upholding the rule of law. Chief Justice Barak, writing for the Supreme Court, was clearly troubled by what the Court had decided. He explicitly recognized that in the short term this decision would not make easier Israel's struggle against terrorists. "But there is no security without law," he wrote.
It's astounding to imagine Palestinians being able to go into the Israeli courts and obtain relief. Palestinians were both pleased and surprised by the ruling, and indeed they should be. Nowhere else in the Middle East and in very few countries in the entire world, would the institutions of the government permit a balancing of this type between human rights of foreigners and national security.
Israel has been living through a difficult time since the beginning of the intifada. Its decisions have sometimes been harshly criticized in the United States and in Europe, and everything it has done has not been perfect. On the other hand, there is no doubt that suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks have diminished markedly since Israel has begun construction of the barrier. All of that makes this decision even more remarkable.
Consider some other countries in the region. The governments of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia routinely trample the civil rights of their own citizens. No court would dare defy the government on these matters. In fact, the judiciary is merely an extension of the ruling powers.
This Israeli court ruling comes at the time when President Bush has launched his initiative to encourage Arab governments to move toward democracy. It comes at a time when we are seeking to develop democratic institutions in Iraq, where formerly a cruel tyrant ruled and substituted murder, torture and rape for the rule of law. The Israeli democracy, reflected by this Supreme Court opinion, is one that other Middle Eastern nations should seek to emulate.
Most important, the Palestinians should learn the lesson that stable democratic institutions-meaning a legislature and courts-are the bricks and mortar to build a society. From the moment Prime Minister Sharon announced his intention to withdraw from Gaza, Palestinian leaders should have moved to develop the democratic institutions to lay the ground work, first in Gaza and then in the West Bank, for an economically viable democratic state.
Instead, under the leadership (lack thereof might be a more apt term) by Chairman Arafat, no constructive actions have been taken along those lines. Instead, there has been bitter internal fighting with guns, not words, among various Palestinian factions. The tragedy is that they are about to miss a great opportunity to begin building a strong state.
The Palestinian experience, mirrored in other Arab countries, shows one of the real difficulties of democracy. The people with guns can't always get their way. That's one of the lessons from the Israeli Supreme Court decision. The Israeli army has the guns, but it can't get its own way on where to build the security barrier.
In Justice Barak's words, "A democracy must sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so…the rule of law and individual liberties constitute an important aspect of her security stance."
These words should be disseminated by Arab television stations. They're more constructive than stories about the beheading of another hostage.
