II. The Issues: Pondering the Fence

4. Episode Four: The Case for the Fence

The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs points out that Israel has faced an unprecedented wave of terror that no other nation has had to withstand in terms of suicide bombings. Over 100 of these attacks have claimed the lives of 900 Israelis and have left thousands of Israelis injured, not to mention the dozens of attempted attacks that the Israeli security forces have foiled.

It reiterates that the Palestinian leadership has either done nothing to stop the suicide bombers or have even encouraged them. This security vacuum therefore leaves Israel with no choice, but to find a way of protecting itself without having to fully occupy the Territories, which - by inference - would spell the end of the PA.

Hence, the fence is the best option, even if it is less than ideal.

The Ministry admits that the fence makes Palestinian lives more difficult. However, Israel contends that while inconveniences can be reversed, lives cannot. That logic forms the base of support for the construction of a fence that would protect as many Israelis from exposure to terror as possible.

Note that an electronic security fence has surrounded Gaza for years, and no major terrorist attacks have emanated from there.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Further note that no one on the critical side of the fence even mentions the Gaza fence, as if it did not exist. No one cries ‘apartheid wall’ about that fence.

Only one thing can explain this phenomenon of silence; acknowledging the existence of the Gaza fence admits that the system works.

Raise the Gaza issue - and people begin to consider that perhaps the success of that fence could be duplicated with the West Bank.

Prime Minister Sharon, who opposed the 'geder hafrada' (separation fence), originally proposed by Labor, initiated the building of the current barrier in June 2002, in the wake of public pressure and continuous terror attacks - despite Operation Defensive Wall – and during a total absence of diplomatic activity with the Palestinians.

In his recent speech in Herzliya, Ariel Sharon declared that speeding up the construction of the barrier would be part and parcel of his plan to disengage from the Palestinians. From his perspective, the PA has yet to rein in terror, and he no longer wants to wait for the Palestinians to fulfill their part of the Road Map bargain.

The head of the General Security Services has pointed towards the fence as already contributing to success of Israel's security forces in foiling terror attacks, such as the one planned for a Yokne’am school in December 2003.

If, indeed, Israel has no choice but to take unilateral steps towards disengagement, the security fence would play an integral role in marking the separation between Israel and the Palestinian controlled areas, but multiple openings in it would allow passage for Palestinians whose livelihoods depend on crossing the fence.

Advocates of the fence assert that. contrary to the claims of the opposition (see Episode Six), the wall is both legally justified and not a permanent imposition.

• For one thing, the fence is in line with Article 51 of the UN Declaration, regarding Israel’s right to assert its security needs.
• For another, no land is being confiscated, but is rather being temporarily seized, with due compensation being paid; in other words, the land remains legally in possession of the local inhabitants.
• Some Palestinians have even successfully petitioned to the courts to change the route of the fence in specific areas.
• Finally, uprooted trees are being replanted.

For a full list of points defending the fence, see http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0o170.

To Episode 5