The debate over the security fence currently under construction by the Israeli government is fundamentally flawed. Rhetoric is flying from those who endorse the building of the fence and those who oppose its construction. However, both sides ignore a solution that is far more practical and more in line with the Bush Doctrine.
According to the Sharon government's position, any means necessary to stem the flow of terrorists from the territories gained in the Six Day War of 1967 is appropriate. The fence, from their point of view, is merely a security measure literally blocking access to major Israeli centers of population by Arab terrorists. For the Israelis, it is simple: stop the suicide bombers from making their way into ?Israel proper.?
The idea of ?Israel proper? is the real difficulty for those who oppose the fence. They say that the fence is a de facto border. They object to the positioning of the fence as it winds its way through sections of land outside Israel?s 1948 armistice line. They claim that the ?48 lines, created after five Arab armies stormed into Jewish-held land upon the declaration of the State of Israel, have some magical resonance to them. Though never recognized as the official borders of the Jewish State, some objectors insist that the ?48 markers consist of the maximum line to which Israel should exist. Others opposing the fence have never recognized Israel?s right to exist in the first place, with or without borders. They insist that any barriers created by Israel inflict great damage to the Arab population and Arab sensibilities. They fear that the fence establishes facts on the ground that further ensure a permanent Jewish presence in the Middle East.
Both sides have ignored the real issues bearing on the construction of a security fence. Just as the United States understands that the best way of dealing with terror is to conduct a serious offensive war on terror, so too must Israel. President Bush has stated time and time again that, regardless of the precautions taken on homeland security, the best way to defeat the terrorists is to crush them before they get the opportunity to commit their heinous crimes. President Bush insists that hunting down those who seek to harm Americans and American interests is the first and best way to ensure the safety of the homeland. The War on Terror is the central commitment of the Bush presidency. The president understands that the only way to end terror is to defeat the terrorists and those who give aid and comfort to them. As part of the Bush Doctrine, the United States has put blood and treasure into the battle against evil.
Israel must do the same and the United States should, for its own purposes, not only support such a position, but encourage it. Israel needs to target terrorist leaders and eliminate them. Israel must break the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations by all offensive tactics necessary. This does not include a defensive security fence around the country. There might be some areas where it is proper to fortify a security zone with a barrier of a kind; however, encircling Israel in a self imposed wall is not the answer.
This position opposing the fence in no way supports those screaming to have the fence stopped because the fence somehow grabs ?Arab land.? This notion of a ?land grab? is preposterous. Rather than objecting to the fence because it takes in too much land, the Israeli government ought to fear that such a fence takes in too little land. Are the lines drawn by the fence defensible should it come to war? Does the fence incorporate the historic lands of Israel? The single answer to these questions is a resounding ?no?. The long term effectiveness of the fence is non-existent and the short-term fix it poses is deadly. The fence allows the terrorists? war to drag on, because it excuses the Sharon government from taking the kinds of actions required to end it.
As for those who object to the fence as unhelpful, inflammatory or whatever the fashionable adjective of the day might be, the question they must be asked is: why? The recent outrageous statements of Edgar Bronfman, the president of the World Jewish Congress, reflect the illogical reasoning of the U.S. State Department, certain elements in the White House and other Jewish leaders who are not only against the fence, but question the Bush Doctrine. Mr. Bronfman said the fence is ?potentially problematic? because the Arabs see it as a land grab. The president of the World Jewish Congress further stated, ?If the Palestinian suicide bombers only went to the settlements and told the whole world they [the settlements] were wrong, then the whole world would have had a case against Israel and there would be a two-state solution by now. Instead, they sent them into Israel proper, which is ghastly.? Suggesting the U.S. apply pressure on Israel to stop the fence and force the implementation of the so-called Road Map for peace in the Middle East, Mr. Bronfman and his fellow travelers have abandoned the Bush Doctrine.
?Israel proper? is a term used by Edgar Bronfman to delineate where it is acceptable to murder Jews. On one side of the line are Israelis whose murder is ?ghastly? and on the other side of the line are settlers whose murder bolsters a case against Israel. The sad news Mr. Bronfman fails to hear is that from the Arab/Muslim rejectionist point of view, all Israelis are ?settlers.? By engaging in this debate and incorporating the language of those who seek the destruction of Israel, Mr. Bronfman?s position, and that of his supporters, displays weakness and a lack of reason that threatens the very existence of the Jewish State.
While criticism of Mr. Bronfman?s words were voiced by many, the counter-arguments failed to grasp the fundamental problems with both Bronfman?s position and the stance of the Israeli government.
If Israel would conduct, as it should, an all out war on the terrorists and those who support them, there would be no need to construct a security fence. Not only would this issue be irrelevant, but so would the accusation that Israel was ?land grabbing.? The issue of Israeli borders should be settled through this same offensive war. Israel should annex the territories gained in the Six Day War of 1967 (a war provoked by Arab nations because Israel held the borders of ?48) and end the ongoing controversy of borders. After the defeat of the terrorists and those who support them, i.e., implementation of the Bush Doctrine, those who would today so viciously attack Israel as aggressors and land grabbers would be dramatically less in size.
The answer to the security issues facing the United States and Israel is the aggressive War on Terror begun by the Bush Administration. The same intensity used to fight this war should be exercised by Israel and backed fully by United States.
According to the Sharon government's position, any means necessary to stem the flow of terrorists from the territories gained in the Six Day War of 1967 is appropriate. The fence, from their point of view, is merely a security measure literally blocking access to major Israeli centers of population by Arab terrorists. For the Israelis, it is simple: stop the suicide bombers from making their way into ?Israel proper.?
The idea of ?Israel proper? is the real difficulty for those who oppose the fence. They say that the fence is a de facto border. They object to the positioning of the fence as it winds its way through sections of land outside Israel?s 1948 armistice line. They claim that the ?48 lines, created after five Arab armies stormed into Jewish-held land upon the declaration of the State of Israel, have some magical resonance to them. Though never recognized as the official borders of the Jewish State, some objectors insist that the ?48 markers consist of the maximum line to which Israel should exist. Others opposing the fence have never recognized Israel?s right to exist in the first place, with or without borders. They insist that any barriers created by Israel inflict great damage to the Arab population and Arab sensibilities. They fear that the fence establishes facts on the ground that further ensure a permanent Jewish presence in the Middle East.
Both sides have ignored the real issues bearing on the construction of a security fence. Just as the United States understands that the best way of dealing with terror is to conduct a serious offensive war on terror, so too must Israel. President Bush has stated time and time again that, regardless of the precautions taken on homeland security, the best way to defeat the terrorists is to crush them before they get the opportunity to commit their heinous crimes. President Bush insists that hunting down those who seek to harm Americans and American interests is the first and best way to ensure the safety of the homeland. The War on Terror is the central commitment of the Bush presidency. The president understands that the only way to end terror is to defeat the terrorists and those who give aid and comfort to them. As part of the Bush Doctrine, the United States has put blood and treasure into the battle against evil.
Israel must do the same and the United States should, for its own purposes, not only support such a position, but encourage it. Israel needs to target terrorist leaders and eliminate them. Israel must break the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations by all offensive tactics necessary. This does not include a defensive security fence around the country. There might be some areas where it is proper to fortify a security zone with a barrier of a kind; however, encircling Israel in a self imposed wall is not the answer.
This position opposing the fence in no way supports those screaming to have the fence stopped because the fence somehow grabs ?Arab land.? This notion of a ?land grab? is preposterous. Rather than objecting to the fence because it takes in too much land, the Israeli government ought to fear that such a fence takes in too little land. Are the lines drawn by the fence defensible should it come to war? Does the fence incorporate the historic lands of Israel? The single answer to these questions is a resounding ?no?. The long term effectiveness of the fence is non-existent and the short-term fix it poses is deadly. The fence allows the terrorists? war to drag on, because it excuses the Sharon government from taking the kinds of actions required to end it.
As for those who object to the fence as unhelpful, inflammatory or whatever the fashionable adjective of the day might be, the question they must be asked is: why? The recent outrageous statements of Edgar Bronfman, the president of the World Jewish Congress, reflect the illogical reasoning of the U.S. State Department, certain elements in the White House and other Jewish leaders who are not only against the fence, but question the Bush Doctrine. Mr. Bronfman said the fence is ?potentially problematic? because the Arabs see it as a land grab. The president of the World Jewish Congress further stated, ?If the Palestinian suicide bombers only went to the settlements and told the whole world they [the settlements] were wrong, then the whole world would have had a case against Israel and there would be a two-state solution by now. Instead, they sent them into Israel proper, which is ghastly.? Suggesting the U.S. apply pressure on Israel to stop the fence and force the implementation of the so-called Road Map for peace in the Middle East, Mr. Bronfman and his fellow travelers have abandoned the Bush Doctrine.
?Israel proper? is a term used by Edgar Bronfman to delineate where it is acceptable to murder Jews. On one side of the line are Israelis whose murder is ?ghastly? and on the other side of the line are settlers whose murder bolsters a case against Israel. The sad news Mr. Bronfman fails to hear is that from the Arab/Muslim rejectionist point of view, all Israelis are ?settlers.? By engaging in this debate and incorporating the language of those who seek the destruction of Israel, Mr. Bronfman?s position, and that of his supporters, displays weakness and a lack of reason that threatens the very existence of the Jewish State.
While criticism of Mr. Bronfman?s words were voiced by many, the counter-arguments failed to grasp the fundamental problems with both Bronfman?s position and the stance of the Israeli government.
If Israel would conduct, as it should, an all out war on the terrorists and those who support them, there would be no need to construct a security fence. Not only would this issue be irrelevant, but so would the accusation that Israel was ?land grabbing.? The issue of Israeli borders should be settled through this same offensive war. Israel should annex the territories gained in the Six Day War of 1967 (a war provoked by Arab nations because Israel held the borders of ?48) and end the ongoing controversy of borders. After the defeat of the terrorists and those who support them, i.e., implementation of the Bush Doctrine, those who would today so viciously attack Israel as aggressors and land grabbers would be dramatically less in size.
The answer to the security issues facing the United States and Israel is the aggressive War on Terror begun by the Bush Administration. The same intensity used to fight this war should be exercised by Israel and backed fully by United States.