Duck Season

Hei Lun said: Yes, let's compare Jews to Communists. There's a moral high ground.

You don't see the amazing similarity between the Berlin wall and the Israeli security fence? Wasn't the article simply comparing "fence" policy?

And this: I'm willing to debate the merits of the idea of a wall, but comparisons to Communists, calling the wall as Sharon's "monument to Israeli arrogance", and predicting that Israel "will conduct the pogroms" against Palestinians I consider to be outside the bounds of civil discussion.

Those are two seperate charges, and i'll treat them as such. First off, to Mr. Sharon's arrogance. While I believe he may have nothing but the best of intentions in mind, how can you not see the arrogance at work here? Maybe you should see photos of the fence first (click here or here). It's 25 five foot tall monument to steel and concrete. We've all heard the proverb that "good fences make good neighbors." This isn't a good fence, it's a militarized blight on the landscape, a constant reminder of Israeli power, affluence and military strength on the necks of every Palestinian. If demonstrating your wealth, power and resources in a monstrosity of engineering, and then believing this fence will *help* the peace process isn't arrogant, then I don't know what else to call it. (Merriam Webster defines arroagance as "a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims." The fence is a manifestation of Israeli superiority in the worst way.)

In theory, the fence, like communism, is a very good idea. In theory it certainly will keep suicide bombers out, since I can't even begin to imagine how to get around 25 foot fence which spans an entire regional border.

Where it is a complete failure is in the war for the peace. In this period of nervous calm the Public Relations battle is by far the most important one. The peace will come not by the death or containment of every terrorist, but when the weight of Palestinian society has been convinced that it can live peacefully aside Israel. There is nothing in this perverse expenditure of tax money which fosters peace. The majority of Palestinians will not attain a peaceful state of mind if they consider themselves to be in an Israeli fishbowl, entirely vulnerable to attack from a far superior foe. There is a lot of fear and animosity on both sides of this conflict, but these are emotions which are only overcome through intergration and trust. This fence is a big "fuck you" to any Palestinian who thought the Israelis would learn to trust the Palestinian people.

Let's not forget the serious political impact of the fence. As OpinionJournal reports:

If Mr. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expect Mr. Abbas to rise to the challenge, they will need to take steps to strengthen his political position. This will have to include addressing the issue of the unpopular Israeli security fence, which is being constructed well inside the borders of the West Bank and the existence of which is incompatible with any realistic vision of a permanent settlement.

****

The important thing as far U.S. policy is concerned is that there be no double standard on the issue of terror. The two sides have reached this moment of opportunity precisely because they believe Mr. Bush when he says terror won't be tolerated. If the Palestinians become convinced they cannot bomb their way to statehood, sooner or later a leader will arise who will make their independence a reality.

There is to be "no double standard on the issue of terror" is synonomous with "no double standard on the issue of trust." Dubya himself has said "it is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank." While Secretary Powell has said "you see it [the fence] going in ways that will make it very difficult to get to the next phases of the road map.'' The fence not only creates enough potential wake to drown Mr. Abbas politically, it's a violation of the spirit of trust needed to forge ahead in the peace process.

Let's not ignore the problems literally down the road I believe Secretary Powell was referring to, namely an Israeli land-grab: "international aid donors said in a recent report that the route of the wall, which brings a number of Jewish settlements on to the Israeli side, will involve the loss of more than 10 per cent of West Bank land." While "international aid donors" may be a problematic source in and of themselves, I think the land problem serves not to prove the Israeli arrogance, but to fuel the fears of those who wish to seek peace.

He also said: How credible do you find someone who predicts that the Israelis are going to massacre the Palestinians?

Hasn't each side been massacring the other? Isn't that the problem we're trying to resolve, a constant barrage of tit-for-tat violence which has caused an avalanche of death and destruction through the years? How does the wall settle that? It doesn't, it just serves to "function as a lightning rod for terrorists, a provocation in stone and steel."

(Non-waffling answer to your question: I think the conspiracy idea that the wall is a pretext for an Israeli war to end the Arab birth-gap is nuts. However, just because the doctor is off with the diagnosis doesn't mean he didn't attribute some of the symptoms correctly.)

NOTE: The opinion piece by Justin Raimondo in question has moved. It can be found here.