The much ballyhooed security fence designed to seperate Palestinians from Israel is finally under construction at the northern edge of the West Bank. The first section seems to adhere mostly to the Green Line, with slight deviations. This has led to a storm of criticism, ranging from the insightful to the laughable about how, where, and why the fence is being erected.
According to Yassir Arafat, the fence is an exercise in fascism. He appears to be upset that Israel is not being more accomodating to the suicide bombers he has been sending out his controlled territory into Israel proper. I'm trying to contort my mind to discover the twisted reasoning that could support such a contention. Forget all the nonsense about "non-political security" fence, what Israel is building is a de facto border. It is not fascist for a nation to have borders and protect them. Sure, the fence is the final nail in the coffin for the "New Middle East" of open borders and economic cooperation, but Arafat pretty much buried the idea with his own embrace of terror and indoctrination against peace.
According to Yossi Sarid, the fence is invalid, because it does not adhere strictly to the 1967 borders. One would have to agree that with political leaders such as this, Israel does not need external enemies. Its one thing for foreign diplomats, far removed from the topography of the West Bank to fetishize the Green Line, but its completely another for anyone who will have to live with the final borders. The Green Line is simply an untenable border, and an invitation to constant conflict. At times it appears that the Israeli Left is most concerned with the reception of their policies in European op-ed pieces than in actually crafting a lasting peace.
According to the settlers, the fence will inevitably lead to a border and evacuation of the settlements on the wrong side of the fence. Well, they're right - but for the most part that's a good thing.
Finally, the Jerusalem Post has the most trenchant criticism in comparing the building of the fence to the withdrawal from Lebanon.
The "wait and hurry up" syndrome is rearing its head again concerning the building of a separation fence. Like the withdrawal from Lebanon, there is a wide consensus that it should be done. But like that withdrawal, the rushed implementation could cause serious and lasting damage.
The Post has it right - the fence needs to be placed east of the Green Line, encompasing the settlement blocs necessary for a more secure border. At the same time, Israel can state its clear intention to transfer the lands east of the fence to a future Palestinian state. In effect, the current government plan, placing the fence close to the Green Line and trying to diminish its political aspects, sends precisely the wrong message. To Palestinian radicals it sends the message that violence can drive Israel to a unilateral retreat to the '67 borders without any significant Palestinian concessions. To Palestinian moderates and the wider world, it sends the message that Israel is not committed to evacuating isolated settlements necessary for a workable long-term solution. A fence east of the Green Line, with a clear political message sends the right message. Palestinian violence has a cost - the lands between the fence and the Green Line have gone off the table - but Palestinian cooperation can have a clear reward - a viable Palestinian State.
No comments:
Post a Comment