II. The Issues: Pondering the Fence

6. Episode Six: Nay Sayers to the Wall

Some pundits have observed that the political spectrum is not a flat line but more like a circle where the extreme left and extreme right touch each other. This imagery befits the peace process. Just as far right Israelis and radical left Palestinians were united in their opposition to Oslo, they also unite in opposing the fence. Far left Israelis see eye to eye with all Palestinians on their form of opposition, seeing the wall as a threat towards a viable Palestinian state, while the far right Israelis object on the grounds that the fence constitutes surrender to terror.

The Left

The far left questions the goal of the fence and sees one clear outcome: creating a fact on the ground leading to the unilateral annexation of Palestinian lands, which would forever destroy the peace process. Moreover, they oppose any fence, even one on the Green Line, because it would create bad neighbors, increasing the sense of isolation and oppression among Palestinians.

Gush Shalom contends that the barrier constitutes a violation of sections of the Universal declaration of human rights as well as the 4th Geneva Convention, to wit:

"(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights - article 17)
"Private property cannot be confiscated"
[Hague convention IV, article 46(2)]
“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.”
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights- article 13)

The Right

Sharon's right flank is filled with opponents of the fence. One would think, “What could be better than a fence that virtually ensures the annexation of settlements throughout the territories?" However, one would be missing the point of the nationalist camp to assume that a potential land grab lightens their hearts.

Firstly, this camp rejects the notion that the barrier would bring security. It might keep out the terrorists for a while, but it does not lessen their motivation one iota. Rather, the terrorists would be on a learning curve, eventually figuring out how to overcome it. "We can't go over it, we can't go around it, we can't go through it, we'll have to go under it," might become the terrorists' slogan. Over time, they would figure out the routine of the patrols and the weak spots of the barrier, just as Mexican smugglers have figured out how to outwit the US Immigration and Naturalization Service; illegal immigration has fallen by a few percentage points at best. Thank goodness Mexicans just want to work and not blow up buses in El Paso, Texas. Also, consider the Korean border, under which North Korea has reportedly built some 20 tunnels that could carry 300,000 troops in the South in one hour.

Moreover, the barrier itself runs counter to the historic strategy of keeping Israeli forces mobile, turning them instead into sitting ducks. The only example of a static defense was the notorious Bar Lev Line in the Sinai, which collapsed in the Yom Kippur War. The IDF should be proactive to preempt terror long term and not just react to each new threat. If the best defense is a good offense, the barrier isn't it.

Finally, the barrier represents a retreat for the national camp, because its very existence would imply a concession of the land beyond it. Settlers caught on the other side would be left no choice but to leave, an idea anathema to the Greater Israel movement. In short, they see the wall as a form of surrender to terror.

Activities