Those who question the legality of the barrier make the following arguments: The barrier has been found to be illegal by the legal arm of the United Nations (the International Court of Justice). At various locations, the selected route of the barrier required the demolition of homes and the expulsion of the residents of those homes, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The barrier and Israel's series of checkpoints have made life nearly impossible for residents of the West Bank, constituting collective punishment. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention categorize collective punishment in occupied territories as a war crime. At various locations, the selected route of the barrier required the demolition of Palestinian property, in violation of article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. The barrier is an attempt to establish de facto borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state, in effect annexing large parts of West Bank and all of East Jerusalem, in violation of numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The barrier attempts to separate Palestinians from their means of livelihood and from interaction with others and it, therefore, qualifies as apartheid. Apartheid is illegal as per the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and is considered a crime against humanity (see also: Israel and apartheid). The barrier is constructed inside of the West Bank, making it completely in violation of international law. The barrier differs from all other protective barriers built by any other state (such as the Berlin Wall, or the US-Mexico border) in that it is not constructed on the border between states but rather crosses the occupied territories in numerous locations, and with existing/expanding settlements, divides the occupied territories into 4 or 5 cantons. Israel defends the security barrier by arguing that: The barrier and its route are solely security measures that will have no bearing on future peace negotiations. The land is not subject to the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions explicitly allows structures to be built for purposes of self-defense. The Israeli Supreme Court is reviewing the route on a continuous basis and has forced it to change. StandWithUs, a pro-Israel advocacy organization, defends the security fence by pointing out: Israel did not begin building the fence until 2003 when terrorism reached unprecedented levels. The fence is similar to barriers that dozens of other democracies have built to keep out terrorists or illegal immigrants,