A fence of lies
Security fence route determined by leftist considerations; a response to Shaul Arieli
In his article published on Ynetnews, Shaul Arieli attacked the "security" fence from a moralistic point of view, claiming that its route is based on political rather than security considerations; namely, that it is built in order to annex to Israel areas that do not belong to it, according to his political views. The truth of the matter is that the fence is indeed being built along political lines instead of according to security considerations, but from the exact opposite direction.
If security were their main goal, there would have been no need to build such a long, megalomaniac and expensive fence around Israeli citizens, the targets and victims of Arab terror. It would be more effective to build the fence around the centers of terrorism activity.
Thus, for example, if the town of Jenin is defined as such it would be appropriate to surround it by a short and effective fence. And if, for example, the town of Jericho is not deemed a terror threat, there is no need to build a fence around it. The “carrot and stick” approach is much more effective and much less expensive if the goal is minimizing terror. However, this approach does not serve the political goal of the shamans of the "security" fence.
Self-righteous people are expected to demonstrate against surrounding Arab towns by barbed wire fences. They ignore the fact that this is exactly what they approve for the Jewish targets and victims of terror. It should be emphasized that the above-mentioned approach minimizes the need for fencing and limits it only to the main centers of terror.
Fence failed in Gaza
Others will argue that the fence has proven its contribution and effectiveness in fighting terror: Terrorist activities have diminished. Yet those searching for the truth may find it in a graph depicting the curve of terror along a timeline. They will immediately notice that reduction of terror started when operation “Defensive Shield” was carried out, not when a certain part of the fence was completed. Hence, attacking the enemy, rather than self-fencing, is the real solution for the terror threat. A “bunker-style” defense brings victory neither in soccer nor in the war on terror.
The situation in the Gaza Strip shows the failure of the fence: As expected, Arab terrorists have developed means to cross the fence, above it or under it, by Qassam rockets or by underground tunnels. Those who disregard it should visit the town of Sderot and talk with local residents who have been shelled for the last seven years, in spite of the "security" fence.
Another example of the lies and politics of the "security" fence: Even those who support the establishment of a Palestinian state and only minor border adjustments would agree to annexation of the narrow area between Highway 443 and the Green Line north of the Jerusalem Corridor. In any future agreement, this route must continue to serve as a highway between the coastal region and Jerusalem and as a vital road artery between the major cities of Israel. Fencing this important route by "security" fences does not serve this end, an outcome of the politically wrong concept of re-establishing the narrow and dangerous corridor to the capital.
Arieli wrote about morality. One can expect that in the future an official commission of inquiry will be appointed to investigate the flawed capital-media-government relationship that brought upon us the construction of a megalomaniac "security" fence and its moving back and forth according to political considerations that have nothing to do with security, while media brainwashing promoted the economic interest of contractors.
It is a kind of “golden calf” surrounded by shamans praising it: "This is your God, O Israel". It is a “golden hen” laying political “golden eggs” for leftists who wish to run away from Judea and Samaria, and economic ones for contractors who are making a fortune out of it. The billions invested in the "security" fence could have been used for achieving more real security as well as other military and social objectives that are much more vital and moral.
Dr Ron Breiman is the former chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel (2001-2005)
