The latest issue that has surfaced in Israel’s war against Arab terrorism is its security wall in Judea and Samaria. Now in the process of being erected at a cost of millions of shekels and designed to protect Israelis from Palestinian terrorists, the wall is so politically popular that Ariel Sharon and the Likud party are even willing to risk displeasure from President Bush and the United States.
As much as one can understand the desire of Israel’s people to grasp at what looks like a unilateral solution to terrorism, the security fence could turn out to be a costly blunder of historic proportion. At best, it may be only a temporary measure and ultimately doomed to failure.
To begin with, the whole concept of walling one’s enemies out has rarely if ever been a military success. The ancient Chinese and the pre-World War II French, among others, could both tell Ariel Sharon something about that. Fences can be breached, tunneled under or destroyed by a determined enemy. Checkpoints can be defeated by disguise and subterfuge. And no fence Israel could build can stop a mortar or rocket attack.
From a military standpoint, the fence limits the IDF’s mobility and flexibility, one of its chief assets. It forces the IDF into a garrison mode, necessitating excess manpower to patrol and maintain the fortress lines. Not only that, but there is small guarantee that it will stop terrorists.
The wall in Gaza, cited by the fence’s proponents is somewhat successful because of geography; Gaza is farther away from Israel’s major population centers than say, Ramallah. Even Gaza’s fence is far from foolproof. A few months ago, Al Aksa terrorists infiltrated Israel from Gaza and murdered four IDF soldiers at their base in Beersheba. And rocket attacks on S’derot are a common event.
From a political standpoint, the security fence is an even bigger disaster. However much the Arabs protest Israel’s security fence, nothing could suit them better than for Israel to build it. For one thing, it’s obvious that the fence is intended to demarcate a border and separate Israel from the Palestinians. By retreating behind this border, Israel is handing Arab terrorists another victory, similar to Lebanon. It shows the Arabs that terrorism against Israel’s civilians pays, and that Israel can be defeated in a war of attrition. It encourages future conflict.
It has also created a symbol for the Arabs that money couldn’t buy – that of the ‘apartheid wall.’ It is something for them to rally the troops with, both in Judea and Samaria and overseas in Europe. Small wonder they were able to push through a Security Council resolution demanding that the security fence be scrapped, knowing that Israel would be put in the position of defiance. However much we discount the UN, getting a resolution of this type passed was a major victory for Israel’s foes. And given the UN’s anti-Israel obsession, further resolutions, the continued isolation of Israel and even sanctions may not be too far off.
Instead of walling itself off, ostrich-like, from its enemies Israel may need to consider the long term in a different light. That may mean facing the fact that peace with the Palestinians is unattainable for quite some time, no matter what concessions are offered. It also may mean that finding a solution may involve some internationally unpopular actions.
There is nothing, really, to stop Israel from annexing the land it needs for its security and simply removing the Arabs to the other side of the border, perhaps even to Gaza itself. There is also nothing to stop Israel from destroying the Palestinian Authority, confiscating its weapons and imprisoning its leaders.
The main problem, after all, is moving terrorist enclaves away from Israel’s coastal plain and population centers. This is very different from building a multi-million shekel fence, mostly along the Green Line. For those areas that remain adjacent to Israel, minefields and antipersonnel devices are both cheaper and more effective than a fence.
India’s army has experimented with such fields in Kashmir and found them to be enormously effective. Any mortar or rocket sites could be handled by the air force.
As for the inevitable public relations fall out, Israel may just be better off taking the hit and ending this war — for that is what it is-in a decisive fashion. The media goes on to another story after a while, and UN resolutions are, well, UN resolutions.
What is certain is that the longer this war lasts, the more isolated Israel will become, the more innocent Jews will be victims of Arab terrorism and the more gambits will be tried to force Israel into concessions it shouldn’t make. Geneva is only the beginning, unless Israel does something decisive.
Destroying the Palestinian Authority and removing the threat from Israel’s borders is decisive. Building a fence isn’t.
Advertisement