Building a freedom fence
Room for talks. Far from a barrier to peace, the security fence is the opposite. Now Hamas and Islamic Jihad can hold the peace process hostage by initiating attacks every time progress seems possible. The fence would block that obstructionist strategy and, by taking terrorism off the table, give both sides more flexibility for serious negotiations. Anyone familiar with the Palestinians knows they will not negotiate seriously as long as they believe terrorism is winning for them.
The core of the Palestinian objection to the fence has three roots: The fence, establishing a de facto ratification of the permanence of Israel, undermines the Palestinians' refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli state. It also undermines their strategy of keeping Israel's population vulnerable to terrorists. And it dramatically reduces the Palestinian advantage in the media war, since the Israeli withdrawal would put an end to the televised pictures of Israelis fighting terrorists on the West Bank with tanks and helicopter gunships.
By contrast, the Israelis know that reducing Israeli casualties would strengthen their country's political will as well as its economic ability to sustain a war of attrition. It would also lessen Israel's need for retaliatory and defensive operations. Reduced Israeli casualties would also result in lower Palestinian casualties. At the same time, the completed fence would warn those Israeli settlers determined to remain outside: Live under Palestinian rule or be abandoned.
Any country facing a comparable security threat would build such a barrier, and no one would challenge it. Those who oppose the project, including Sen. John Kerry, are denying Israel the most elementary right of self-defense for its citizens, while ensuring that the current conflict will be longer and bloodier.
The Palestinians, of course, are trying to block the fence by going to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), using their automatic majority in the United Nations General Assembly and in the court, to put Israel in the dock. Fortunately, the vast majority of western countries, including 15 members of the European Union, 10 EU members in waiting, the United States, Canada, Russia, South Africa, and Cameroon, have joined Israel in submitting briefs to the ICJ contesting its authority to rule on the fence. The briefs invoke the traditional grounds that intervention by the court would violate the long-standing principle that the ICJ can claim jurisdiction only in disputes where the parties mutually agree in advance to abide by the decision.
The predisposition of the court, however, is to proceed with this trial and to condemn Israel. Just read the words of the Egyptian justice who has, before any hearing, stated his views that Israel's arguments are groundless and its actions illegitimate and that the court should convict Israel in order to prepare the grounds for imposing sanctions. Some court of justice!
Of course, it would have been preferable to have two states, a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel, through negotiations with the Palestinians, with benefits for both sides in exchange. Unfortunately, this is an impossible dream, but the present situation is a nightmare. In pursuing his unilateral disengagement, Sharon has taken an enormous risk, not only of losing his governing coalition but also of adopting a policy that risks being seen as an achievement of terrorism. Still, Sharon's security policies do retain the support of over 60 percent of the Israeli public. In this, he also deserves the support of America.
advertisement
