Posted on 01/26/2004 12:42:16 PM PST by knighthawk
Israel's most urgent strategic need today is the completion of a comprehensive security fence along the edge of the West Bank. At home, failure to understand this vital effort is extraordinarily foolish. Abroad, those opposing this project are denying Israel the most elementary right of defence for its citizens while ensuring that the current conflict will be longer and bloodier.
Controversies about the precise route of the fence are a needless distraction from this urgent task. Protect Israel's own territory now and deal with other areas later. The current, more limited, plan for the fence's route would affect a very small portion of the West Bank and very few Palestinians.
But like everything about Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the fence issue has become wrapped in such bizarre mystifications, misperceptions and outright lies as to become unrecognizable. Indeed, it is a good case study of the double standards and utter nonsense which so often prevail in discussions on these matters.
Let's start at the beginning. Supposedly, the Palestinians want their own state, separate from and alongside Israel. Anything that sets off these two territories, then, is a step in that direction and is in their interests. But the Palestinian leadership campaigned against this fence, and indeed against the idea of permanent separation initiated by Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, for two reasons.
First, because the Palestinian leadership's main strategy is based on Israel's population being vulnerable to terrorism.
Second, because Yasser Arafat's goal remains the conquest of Israel rather than achieving an independent Palestinian state. A state, in his thinking, can be accepted only if it does not interfere with the continued struggle to get everything.
Much of the world has accepted the anti-fence argument. It is portrayed in cartoons as a tool of apartheid and even genocide or an attempt to grab large portions of the West Bank.
Such is the luxury of people who can pretend that the only problem in the Middle East is Israel's attempt to defend itself, ignoring the fact that there have been scores of attacks across what is actually an open border. Suicide bombers easily walk or are driven around scattered checkpoints, and explosives are smuggled through the same routes with relatively little difficulty or risk. Any country in the world faced with such a situation would build a barrier and no one would challenge that right.
Moreover, anti-Israel claims regarding the fence ignore the simple and obvious fact that the opposition to it within Israel has come from the right-wing. To them, the fence does not represent "seizing" 3% of the West Bank but in effect giving up 97%. Underneath all the double talk, their argument represents a cynical idea that they will get more support if everyone within Israel face risks equal to those of settlers who have chosen to live deep inside the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
But even from their standpoint, opposition to the fence is a serious mistake. By improving Israel's defences, such a barrier will open up forces and resources which will let the army better concentrate on defending those who live beyond it. And by reducing Israeli casualties, it will strengthen the country's political will and economic ability to sustain the war that has been forced on the country.
While the fence does symbolize Israel's willingness in principle to give up the vast majority of the West Bank, though, it is clearly a temporary measure against an immediate threat. This is easily demonstrated by precedent. For example, Israel has repeatedly dismantled expensive security structures -- in the Sinai and later in the West Bank -- when a perceived opportunity for peace and diplomatic agreements required such steps.
In addition, the fence is not being built eagerly for political reasons, but reluctantly for self-defence purposes. Israel has huge needs for spending in social services, education and every other sector of society. No one would want to waste money on a fence unless the danger was so daily that this option proved a necessity. If Palestinian attacks were to stop, or even if the Palestinian leadership would make a real attempt to prevent them, the fence project would be immediately stopped.
Aside from the political arguments, there are many ludicrous claims that such a fence would not be effective. People whose lives are not at stake and who are ignorant on such matters should be ignored in this case.
We are not talking about some barbed wire garden fence that can be snipped with metal clippers. It is to be built along the best strategically defensive route using state-of-the-art sensors and electronic surveillance equipment. As a result, nighttime no longer offers a cover for infiltrators. If terrorists or scouts approach, troops can quickly be rushed to the scene from installations; if anyone gets through, there will be an immediate warning on that spot and the pursuit can begin before they have gotten very far.
This is a method that has worked on the perimeter of the Gaza Strip and on the Lebanon border. The technology is so good that other countries, like India, are eager to buy it for their own border defences.
Will this mean the number of successful terrorist attacks within Israel and the immediately adjacent area will fall to zero? Probably not. It will "merely" mean that the overwhelmingly majority of attacks will be stopped with hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries averted.
And despite the complaints of the Palestinian leadership, it will be good for their people also. The fewer successful terrorist attacks in Israel, the less the need for Israeli retaliatory and defensive operations. Lower Israeli casualties will translate into lower Palestinian casualties.
Equally important, by showing that Arafat's terrorism strategy has failed, it would encourage Palestinians to end the war and engage in serious peace negotiations. As long as the killing of Israelis gives them the "satisfaction" of "vengeance" and the belief in the victory of armed struggle, the warfare and suffering will continue.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) in Herzliya, Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.