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/
|