Allan Topol: Israel's Security Fence: Everyone's a Winner
Allan Topol: Israel's Security Fence: Everyone's a Winner
About
Allan Topol
Allan Topol is a partner in a large Washington-based international law firm. He has a science and engineering degree from Carnegie Mellon, and a law degree from Yale University. For almost 40 years, he has been involved in issues at the height of the Washington power structure.
He is also a national bestselling novelist, using the thriller genre to explore international geopolitical and military issues. His 2001 novel, SPY DANCE, is about a former CIA agent on the run and Saudi Arabian oil. His 2003 novel, DARK AMBITION, deals with the corruption of power in Washington and China's threatening posture toward Taiwan. In January 2004, the novel CONSPIRACY will be released dealing with a foreign leader's attempt to influence an American presidential election and the possibility of renewed militarism in Japan.
[Have an opinion about the issues discussed in this column? Sound
off here.]
A number of voices have been raised in protest in the United States, Europe and the Middle East against Israel's construction of a security fence. Most of these stem from a knee jerk reaction: If Israel wants it, we have to oppose it. Careful analysis shows how misguided this opposition is.
To start with, even the visual depiction in the international media of a tall concrete wall is misleading. More than ninety-seven percent of the planned four hundred and eighty mile security fence consists of a chain link fence system. Less than three percent will be constructed of concrete. Moreover, these short concrete sections are intended not only to stop terrorists from infiltrating, but also to block them from shooting at Israeli vehicles traveling on main highways alongside the pre-June 1967 line.
This fence was not a concept which originated with Prime Minister Sharon or his government. In fact, Sharon was originally opposed to the idea. And right wing members of his government were vocal in their opposition.
Rather, it originated with the Israeli public, demanding that he Army do something to reduce the infiltration of terrorists. Since late September 2000, more than nine hundred people have been murdered in attacks by terrorists. The carnage of these attacks at cafes, on busses and in busy intersections has been replayed over and over on our nightly news. Bombs filled with nails to maximize the injuries and destruction of life. Indiscriminate massacre of Israeli Arabs, as well as Jews.
In the United States, we now expect our government to take all necessary steps to block terrorists from coming into the country. The Bush Administration has moved aggressively in the last week to cancel certain international flights, to photograph and fingerprint foreign visitors, and to increase vigilance on our borders with Mexico and Canada. Justifiably we don't want a repeat of nine eleven, or any terror attack in which a single American is killed.
For the Israeli public and their Army, the answer was easy. No terrorists have infiltrated from the Gaza strip to Israel in recent years because an electronic security fence already exists there.
The undeniable reality is that even with construction incomplete, the fence has reduced the infiltration of terrorists from the West Bank. From a security standpoint, erecting a physical barrier to separate Israelis and Palestinians on the West Bank is a no brainer.
But like everything else in the Middle East, politics always rears its ugly head. The Palestinians, as well as their Middle East and European supporters don't like fence because it confirms the reality that the West Bank will be divided more or less along pre 1967 lines and Israel is here to stay. The fence declares to the Palestinians in a definitive manner: you can forget about the delusion that one day you will retake all of Israel militarily, or demographically by the resettlement of huge numbers of Palestinians into Israel.
Similarly, the right wing members of Sharon's government abhorred the idea of the fence. They maintained the dream of one day having Israel expand to the Jordan River. That idea, also at odds with reality, would have created enormous demographic problems for Israel. The fence makes it clear that will never happen.
This is precisely why the fence is a good idea politically. It has forced each side at the poker table to reduce the stakes being played for. Both sides were fighting for the green line, i.e., pre 1967 border plus "something." Now that "something" has been radically reduced.
The stakes are now manageable. Of course it would have been better if the precise location of the fence had been negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians. The trouble is that negotiation takes two parties. When Arafat walked away from Camp David and commenced the intifada, negotiations ended. In hindsight, that was an incredibly foolish decision on his part. What the Palestinians were being offered with American guarantees of course wasn't everything they wanted; it was far more than they now have.
But these are details. Camp David was intended to reach a solution which split the West Bank along pre 1967 lines with some modifications. That is precisely what the fence does.
Israel has made extensive efforts to construct the fence in a way which will minimize hardship for the Palestinians and interference with their daily lives. But undoubtedly there will be a few cases of taking over private land as there is every time a highway is built in the United States. The solution is compensation for the owners, which Israel has committed to pay. A handful of olive groves pales in comparison with the death and suffering the decades long conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians have engendered.
Of course it would be better if there was no fence, and if Israelis and Palestinians could exist side by side in peace. It would be a better world if there were no guns or terrorists. That, unfortunately, is not our world.
All rational people now realize that the terms of the settlement between Israelis and Palestinians involve two states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. By endorsing the fence, Sharon has effectively eliminated the dreams of extremists on both sides. In this way, he has made a settlement much more attainable, while at the same time reducing the threat of terror for Israelis. It's time to recognize the benefits of the fence and stop quibbling about a few kilometers here or there.
