|
Israel's Security Fence |
|
|
Israel's Security Fence |
|
|
Security Fence |
Israel is a small country with neighbors who have repeatedly attacked her. About 70 percent of Israel's population and 80 percent of its industrial base are situated in the narrow coastal plain between the disputed territories of the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea. Over and over, Palestinian Arabs have crossed into Israel to kill and injure civilians, including innocent women, children and old people. Over and over, Israelis driving home or to work have been shot by snipers from vantage points in Palestinian Arab villages. What may be difficult to visualize if you do not live in Israel is that Arab villages in the West Bank are often just hundreds of feet from Israeli roads and population centers. Many Israelis are within rifle shot of snipers while homicide bombers can walk to their targets.
The Palestinian Arabs committed themselves in the Oslo peace process and in the 2003 Road Map to dismantle terrorist networks and confiscate illegal weapons. Terrorist attacks against Israelis continue and there is no sign of any serious effort on the part of the Palestinian Authority to take any action. Since attempts to negotiate an end to terrorism by diplomatic means have repeatedly failed, Israel is building a fence to physically block access to its vulnerable population.
Such a fence already encloses Gaza and consequently attacks originating from Gaza have been rare. Israel has similar barriers along its borders with Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. The United States has a similar fence along stretches of the Mexican Border to prevent illegal immigration, not a deadly problem like Israel faces from terrorists.
|
|
Security Fence |
When completed, the zone of the fence is a 60- to 100-yard-wide combination of barbed wire or chain-link fences, ditches, roads, 25-foot-high concrete walls, concertina razor wire, watchtowers, cameras and electronic sensors. Despite the many pictures being shown in the international media of a tall concrete wall, more than 97% of the planned 720 km. (480 mile) security fence will consist of a chain-link fence system. Less than 3% of the fence will be constructed of concrete. The short concrete sections are intended not only to stop terrorists from infiltrating, but also to block snipers from shooting at Israeli vehicles traveling on main highways alongside the pre-June 1967 line.
The security fence forms a strip approximately the width of a four-lane highway. At its center is the chain-link fence that supports an intrusion detection system. This technologically advanced system is designed to warn against infiltrations, as is the dirt "tracking" path and other observation tools.
The route of the fence is generally along the Green Line, the truce lines left over from the 1948 War of Independence. In some places, the fence deviates from that line in order to enclose areas of Jewish towns that are east of the line, especially around Ariel in the narrow waist of central Israel. A map of Israel shows Ariel's strategic location 12 miles inside the West Bank and opposite Israel’s narrowest and most heavily populated waist line. In that area Israel is only 10 miles across, from the Green Line to the Mediterranean Sea at Herzliyah, a town roughly between Netanya and Tel Aviv.
Ariel dominates access to the Trans-Israeli Highway that links Israel lengthwise from north to south. Kfar Saba, Petah Tikva and Rosh Ha’Ayin are 15 miles away. The names of these Israeli communities are familiar to television viewers as the scenes of mass-casualty attacks by Palestinian homicide bombers coming in unhindered from the West Bank.
Palestinian Arabs say the barrier already has divided Palestinian land, forcing people to exploit gaps to work, buy supplies or visit family. The security fence no doubt causes hardship for some Palestinian Arabs. It will limit employment opportunities in Israel for some, for others it may split farms or separate farm land from the owner's home. These are all problems brought about by terrorism, terrorism that is widely supported by Palestinian Arabs.
The Palestinian Arabs have referred to the barrier as a "land grab", outraged that construction around Jewish settlements does not follow the Green Line. The fence is not a political border and its status is open for negotiation if there is ever a stable, trusted government among the Palestinian Arabs. Meanwhile, polls suggest that the project has the overwhelming support of the Israeli public which sees the barrier as vital to their security. Still, some Israeli's oppose the project for reasons that differ across the political spectrum.
No, it is not. The Berlin Wall, erected August 13, 1961 by the Communist East German government, had the purpose of keeping citizens of East Berlin from defecting to the West. They were eager to flee the harsh conditions of the Communist east for the prosperity and freedom of the West. The Berlin Wall was an act of desparation after the tide of defectors became a flood.
Israel's security fence is intended to keep dangerous terrorist infiltrators out of Israel, just the opposite of the Berlin situation. Furthermore, Israel welcomes peaceful Arabs -- about 20% of the Israeli population is Arab. At the same time, the Palestinian Arabs reject any Jewish presence and want no Jews living in any area they control, including areas of historic or religious significance to Jews.
Like the phrase "Berlin Wall" this is another attempt to link Israel's security fence, a reaction to terrorist killers, to repugnant actions taken by other governments for sinister reasons. There is nothing apartheid about Israel or the security fence. The fence does not restrict Palestinian Arabs to certain quarters or separate them from other Arabs. It does prevent free access to Israeli population centers, channeling traffic through military control points. Why? Because all other methods have failed to stop terrorists from preying on Israeli civilians. If the fence succeeds in its purpose, Palestinian Arabs will benefit because it will reduce the need for Israeli military operations and the deployment of troops in Palestinian Arab towns. Other security measures, such as curfews and checkpoints, that Palestinian Arabs object to may become unnecessary or be dramatically scaled back.
As with other issues involving Israel, most international voices have condemned Israel for protecting itself while ignoring the terrorist attacks that motivated Israel. In a special emergency session on October 21, 2003, the UN General Assembly approved a non-binding resolution, sponsored by the European Union, demanding that Israel halt construction of the security barrier and remove what has already been built. Syria, backed by the Arab League, put the issue to the General Assembly, instead of the Security Council where it would face a US veto. The vote carried 144-4, with 12 abstentions. Israel promptly announced that construction would continue. The United States made mixed statements, sometimes seeming to support Israel, other times threatening sanctions if the fence goes forward. In November 2003 a report from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan detailed harm allegedly done to Palestinian Arabs, said to result from the fence, while saying nothing about terrorism against Israelis.
In December 2003, the General Assembly passed a resolution already deciding that the fence violates international law. Lacking a basis for such a determination, the UN General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague by a vote of 90 to four, despite strong opposition from Israel and the United States. On February 23, 2004 the ICJ -- the so-called World Court, a 15 judge panel affiliated with the United Nations -- held three days of hearings on the legality of the fence. Although the court's opinion is not binding, anti-Israel forces hoped the judicial body would issue recommendations that would lead to a Security Council resolution condemning the fence. Even a failed resolution, perhaps vetoed by the United States, would represent a public relations victory.
Arab countries and others normally aligned with Palestinian Arab interests appeared before the ICJ to argue against the legality of the fence. Israel and some 49 countries presented written briefs on the fence to the ICJ. Over 20 of these countries wrote questioning the court's jurisdiction in a political dispute between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, both of whom have equal legal right to West Bank land. Among the objecting countries were the US, Russia, a number of European countries, Australia, Canada and smaller countries such as Cameroon. Others questioned the fact that India, Saudia Arabia, the United States and other countries have fences to control their borders, but only Israel has been subject to scrutiny by the United Nations and the ICJ.
The court is expected to issue its advisory opinion in a matter of weeks after the hearings conclude.
| MORE ON CURRENT EVENTS |