XMCArs,
The article I sent yesterday represented a well elaborated "rightist" point
of view concerning terrorism. The one below, which has Israel as a setting,
represents a well argued "leftist" perspective. I think that both articles
do make a nice counterpoint and are well written in their own terms. And,
both, somehow are representative of the way people respond towards these
issues. I wanted to put them here as a follow up to our ongoing discussions
on contemporary problems. Until here my excursus on attitudes towards
terrorism and back to the MCA paper.
David
Let's dismantle the fence
By Yoel Esteron
It's terribly hot. Perhaps because of the oppressive heat it's
difficult to remember how it came to be that the Israeli majority supports
the fence. Was it something that MK Haim Ramon (Labor) said? Was it
something that MK Yossi Beilin (Yahad/Meretz) didn't say? The left was
opposed to a fence, but then it turned out that the right was in favor; or
maybe it was just the opposite. The suicide attacks have driven all the
Israelis crazy, and rightly so. And former prime minister Ehud Barak said
that there's no choice.
In the final analysis, people who during cooler days understood that
building a separation fence, or wall, is an act of despair made do with a
lukewarm battle for the "route." With a shrug of their shoulders they
supported the fence, on condition that it was built along the "route." Thus
was born a new magic word, which of course disappeared into thin air.
Whoever allowed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to build a fence should have
known that the route would not be that of Peace Now.
The Israelis saw the fence tearing Palestinians away from their
families and their lands - and kept silent. The center and the left, and not
only the right, are submissively accepting "security considerations." The
pathetic demonstrations here and there against the fence have only
emphasized the silence and the submissiveness. The few demonstrators have
been labeled with some dubious image, as anarchists from the outer fringes.
All the others stayed home with their air conditioners.
Who has even seen a piece of the fence with his own eyes? It is
nearby, yet as far away as the fence that India built in Kashmir. If Mina
Tzemach or Camil Fuchs conduct a survey, it will turn out that most of the
Israelis have already "disengaged" from the centers of friction, and above
all, from Jerusalem. If that is the case, what does the "Jerusalem envelope"
have to do with them? And where exactly is Bat Hefer and its fence? For most
Israelis, the fence is a rumor.
The High Court of Justice gladdened the heart of anyone whose
conscience bothered him. A poor consolation. Look, there are justices in
Jerusalem, and they have ordered the government to move the fence in
northwest Jerusalem so that the Palestinian villages won't be cut off from
their fields. A decision that is respectable, reasoned and just, and which
misses the main point because even the High Court cannot ask the real,
critical question: Is there any need at all for a fence?
Ostensibly, the answer is clear. We need a fence in order to stop
terror, at least until there is peace between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. It is difficult today to oppose this pure logic, without being
suspected of suffering from sunstroke. It's too late already - the fence has
been under energetic construction for months. The High Court decision may be
a "black day," according to Colonel (res.) Danny Tirza, the man who planned
the route, but tomorrow is another day.
The fence is tempting. It's as attractive as the slogan: "They are
there and we are here." The fence may prevent the next attack for a while -
who can argue with the security experts? Even the High Court unquestioningly
accepts the pronouncement of the head of the Israel Defense Forces in the
territories. But it exacerbates the Palestinians' hatred and despair. It
will create 10 terrorist attacks in place of the attack it prevents.
Life without a fence was terrible, but at least it created a sense of
urgency; that we have to do something to stop the killing; to solve the
conflict; to make peace. The fence creates an illusion that we can "manage"
the conflict instead of resolving it, another dubious invention of recent
years.
The Israeli majority has given up. That is the true significance of
its indifference toward the fence. It is hiding on the coastal plain, and
longing for a little quiet after years of terror. Even the peace camp is
willing to make do with little - with a crumb from the High Court.
Meanwhile, it is allowing the right to continue the settlement enterprise in
the West Bank without interference, a dunam here and a dunam there, and
imposing the suffering of the occupation on millions of Palestinians.
Anyone who wants to live without terror, to live in peace, has to
oppose the fence. Not when peace, or the messiah, comes. Now. Anyone who
supports the fence, or remains silent, cannot console himself that he is
supporting a route that is reasonable. Anyone who doesn't oppose the fence
is in effect accepting Sharon's fence.
The result will be more and more terror that circumvents the fence;
the longer the occupation continues, the more horrible the terror. The fence
will not stop it for long, it will only make it more sophisticated and more
terrible. Here is an urgent proposal to the agenda for Israelis from the
center and leftward: Let's dismantle the fence.
David D. Preiss
home page: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~ddp6/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:59 PST