|
|
|
|
|
Jewish World Review August 29, 2001 / 10 Elul, 5761
 |
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
SHOULD Israel build a fence and separate from the Palestinians? This has become the subject
of a lively international debate, one where nearly everyone, including the U.S. government
and Palestinians ("It is better to keep us from the Jews, for we hate them"), feel entitled
to add their two cents.
Here are mine: Although building a fence between the two populations might decrease the
volume of Palestinian violence against Israelis, it serves only as a tactic of mixed utility,
not as a grand strategy ("separation") for defining Israel's borders and preserving its
Jewish nature. Its limitations include:
Ineffectiveness against terrorism. Just this past Saturday, two
Palestinians cut through the electronic fencing surrounding Gush Katif, a Jewish town in
Gaza; this shows again how fences can be broken through. Terrorists can also go over a fence
in gliders, around it in boats, or under it in tunnels. They can ignore it by firing mortars
or rockets. They can pass through checkpoints using false identification papers. They can
recruit Israeli Arabs or Western sympathizers.
Uselessness against armies and missiles. Should Egypt's Third Army
start rolling or Iraqi Scuds come flying, a 12-foot fence will have no value.
Losing control over the neighborhood. Once a wall goes up, Israel
will effectively give up its influence over what happens in the Palestinian Authority,
including the importation of weapons and foreign troops.
Irrelevance to the problem of Israeli Arabs. One-sixth of Israel's
population is Muslim; its allegiance to the state is diminishing as rapidly as its size is
increasing. A fence obviously does not address the profound challenge this population
presents to the Zionist enterprise.
Sending the wrong signal. Hunkering down behind a fence that runs
roughly along the 1967 borders reinforces the prevailing Arab view that Israel is on the run
and will spur further violence.
In sum: A fence as a practical tool - maybe; as the basis for a policy of separation - no.
THAT SEPARATION has suddenly become popular in Israel points to a larger problem - a
too-eager search for the quick fix.
This eagerness first appeared with the Oslo process in 1993 when Israel in effect told the
Arabs, "Take territories and other benefits - but then leave us alone." This initiative
failed because its unilateralism reflected Israeli - not Arab - wishes to end the conflict.
Separation is very different in its specifics but similar in spirit ("Here are your borders -
now leave us alone"). It too will fail, for Palestinians will certainly reject their
assigned borders.
Nor is this the only quick-fix idea being bruited about. Others include:
Fortunately, it's not too late to adopt the right strategy. By reestablishing its reputation
for toughness, Israel can simultaneously improve its security position and release the Arabs
from the demons of their obsessive anti-Zionism - thereby permitting both parties to
disengage from the other and tend to their own gardens.
The implication for Western states is clear: urge Israelis away from quick-fix solutions and
implore them to return to the hard work of deterrence. This will tamp down Arab
aggressiveness, thereby benefiting all
By Daniel Pipes
These clever ideas are in reality disguised efforts to avoid reality. Ending the
Arab-Israeli conflict requires a willingness by Arabic-speakers to live in comity with a
Jewish state. This will be achieved not via a quick fix but by Arabs concluding that they
can never destroy Israel. That in turn will happen only if Israel reverts to the deterrence
policy that it famously deployed before 1993. Granted, that policy was slow, tedious,
painful, passive, and frustrating, but the decades proved that it worked quite well. In
contrast, ideas like unilateral concessions, a fence, waiting out Arafat, or looking to
international troops seductively offer solutions "without any real tribulation," as Steven
Plaut puts it. Sounds good, but the last eight years established how they harm Israelis and
Arabs alike.
JWR contributor Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and the author of several books, most recently Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes from. Comment by clicking here.
