Third in a series
The separation barrier that the Israeli government has built between Israel proper and the West Bank is difficult to address because of moral, practical and political concerns. But before I tackle this subject, I need to mention the use of language.
Words in and of themselves have connotations that extend beyond their demonstrative definitions. (A demonstrative definition is the neutral definition of a word that one would find in a dictionary. A word's connotation is the emotional reaction that people attach to that word.) Proponents of the separation barrier will call the structure a "fence" while opponents deem it a "wall." Obviously, the latter term is more negative than the former.
So, why do I use the term "separation barrier"? I believe that, in a journalistic context, this phrase is the most accurate and appropriate. I've never seen the barrier personally, but I have viewed it through television news programs, pictures and documentaries. In some places, the barrier is indeed a wall -- a solid structure made of concrete or other similar material. In other locations, it is a fence -- nothing more than layers of barbed wire. So it would be inaccurate to use either "wall" or "fence" to describe the barrier as a whole. A "separation barrier," on the other hand, can refer to either a wall or a fence, and it occupies the most neutral space between "wall" and "fence." I imagine these reasons are why most neutral news organizations, like I do in this post, use "separation barrier" in their reports. (If anyone can suggest a term that is more accurate and neutral, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.)
---
At first, I supported the instillation of the separation barrier wholeheartedly. Following the second Palestinian intifada, I believed that a wall was the only plausible method to prevent suicide bombers from killing Israelis. Although I hated the idea of putting a wall between peoples, I knew that the Middle East operates under a different set of rules than the West. (Thomas Friedman calls them "Beirut Rules.") It's hard to be an idealist when you're dead.
So far, the barrier seems to have been effective. According to Israeli statistics, the number of attacks from the West Bank have fallen to close to zero. Palestinian militants there have also admitted that it is more difficult to attack Israelis. (See here for sources.) The case in support of the barrier seems cut-and-dry.
Or does it? Just because one event follows another does not mean that the second event was caused by the first. Correlation does not always imply causation. There are other variables, like the cease-fire agreement in December 2005. Since Yasser Arafat died in 2004 and Hamas gained a majority in the Palestinian Authority's parliament in 2006, the Palestinians have been more interested in fighting each other -- Fatah versus Hamas -- than Israel. It's reasonable to say the barrier has prevented some attacks, but it's impossible to know exactly how many. You can't prove a negative.
So, Israel has gained some security -- but at the expense of Palestinians' quality of life. The examples -- restrictions on travel, humiliating searches at checkpoints and land confiscation, among others -- are well-documented and numerous. (See here.) These actions only enrage Palestinians and make peace that much harder to reach.
And here is the crux of the issue: If the separation barrier followed the path of the Green Line exactly, then I would still support it wholeheartedly. (It would be a necessary security measure until the Palestinian Authority can make peace and police its own people.) But the wall is being constructed much further into the West Bank -- most likely to annex future Palestinian land that currently contains Israeli settlements. If Israel's only motive was to protect its citizens in Israel proper, then the government would have constructed the wall along the Green Line. But the deviation reveals this second motive.
The present path of the separation barrier -- and not the structure in and of itself -- damages Israel's negotiating ability. The actions of the government's right and left hands are contradicting each other: The right hand supports a future Palestinian state in the West Bank while the left hand is building more settlements there. This is hypocritical, and it causes Israel to seem as though it is negotiating in bad faith. If Israel wants to build a wall and set borders unilaterally while the Palestinians sort out their many issues (see the first post in this series), then the country should set its border as the Green Line separating Israel and the West Bank.
Israel needs to:
-
Immediately stop building any new settlements in the West Bank;
-
Inform current settlers that they (and their settlements) will be under Palestinian jurisdiction and control once that state is formed;
-
Offer to relocate existing settlers from the West Bank to Israel proper at the expense of the Israeli government before a Palestinian state is declared;
-
Move all parts of the separation barrier so that it follows the Green Line; and
-
Withdraw completely from the West Bank at a mutually agreed-upon time with the incoming government of the future State of Palestine.
The entire series: Part VI: Israel and Syria; Part V: The Right of Return; Part IV: The Palestinians Need a Viable State; Part II: Israel Needs Electoral Reform; Part I: Fix the Palestinian Authority
Now Available: E-Book download: "Letters from Israel: An American journalist’s adventures in the Holy Land."
Every little bit helps! Any donations to help us keep writing are much appreciated:
Related posts:
i agree with every point you have stipulated for actions to be taken,but unfortunately one major problem still exsists with rethdrawing such west bank jews from these settlements.the major problem lies with these right wing fanatics is that this land belongs to the children of david.the last time land concestions were even talked about Iscaak Rabeen was assisnated at practically point blank range by 1(which can only mean the obvious).to these people giving away a piece of aritz israel is blasfmy.its very well to stipulate what needs to happen,but as you stated in your second synopsis,these people do take up a large piece of the political spectrum,how ever much a minority.yet in a country where it is so difficult for 1 political party to gain an un equivable majority how can any party take up a stance with out jepordising their seats.now natrualy its most logical to feel the need to just inform these settlers that they will fall under palestinian jurastriction if they choose to remain behind,but how can the israeli goverment just leave these people behind if and when a palestinian state is formed.at presant these settlers are protected by the israeli defense force.the army is similtaneously protecting arabs from the extremist settler mobbings as well.if israel would withdraw from the west bank i can assure you that many of these settlers would choose to stay,as well perform revolts and potentialy violent protests movements may arrise from such descisions.as well as that the hatred that has been building from west bank tensions would most definatly spill blood with out the army there to prevent such an anslaught.now i for 1 am fully pro the two state solution.but how do we prevent such an out come.which could potentially only worsten israeli palestinian relations.it seems to me that the most tenson causers happen to be from the smaller extrmist groups on both sides of the fence.how do we disallow a few bad grapes from rotting the bunch.i personaly can’t seem to find the solution ..perhaps you may have an idea… lior ben moshe(Quote)
Lior,
Your point about the zealotry of the settlers is very valid. I fear what would happen to Israeli leaders, like Yitzak Rabin, if the country were to leave the West Bank. My response, at this point, is to say that Israel would need to have electoral reform first (see my second post in the series) in order to minimize the electoral power of the extremists. Then the government would need to increase security measures to protect against reprisals. Over time, the threats from zealots would decrease. (I’ll discuss ways to minimize extremism in Israel and among the Palestinians in a future post.)
If I were the Israeli government, I would not mind leaving the settlers behind because the settlers themselves made the choice to live there. They made the choice, so they would have to endure the consquences if they choose to remain.
I was not aware that the IDF currently protects Palestinians from extremist settlers. I find that to be very encouraging.
I’ll post more thoughts as I continue this series. Samuel J. Scott(Quote)
I’m sure the IDF isn’t doing it for the sake of the Palestinians so much… Jeff(Quote)
Jeff,
I’m not sure what your point is: That the IDF protects Palestinians for reasons other than their own sakes? Or that the IDF doesn’t really actively protect them in the first place? Samuel J. Scott(Quote)
My point is that I think there are probably motives other than Palestinian welfare for the IDF’s “protection” of Palestinians from nutty settlers — such as the violence and bad press that could ensue from a settler attack on Palestinians. Remember Hebron? It is also in the IDF’s interest to prevent vigilantism for the same reasons it is in any “police” force’s interest. Jeff(Quote)
Regardless of the IDF’s intentions, the end result is still positive: The Palestinians are protected from extremist settlers. And the Middle East seems to be a place where ends are more important than means — but that’s a random philosophical note. Samuel J. Scott(Quote)
No argument here that the result is positive, but I don’t agree that it’s “encouraging,” as you stated. Jeff(Quote)
Well, the fact that fewer Palestinians will be attacked by settlers (because of the IDF presence) means that less conflict will occur in general. In a sense, that’s encouraging. Samuel J. Scott(Quote)
Touring the Barrier « Samuel J. Scott // Mar 12, 2008 at 17:22
An Honest Question « Samuel J. Scott // Apr 9, 2008 at 17:06
One State? « Samuel J. Scott // Dec 16, 2008 at 09:29
Israeli Advertising « Samuel J. Scott // Jul 13, 2009 at 11:35
Freedom of Religion « Samuel J. Scott // Oct 7, 2009 at 11:49
I’m curious what your take is on our current day events, and how you feel about settlements (namely, Ms Clinton’s suggestion of far less or none of them) and what the Obama administration seeks to accomplish. Lese(Quote)
In the West Bank | Considerations // Feb 3, 2010 at 19:01
West-Bank Settlements | Considerations // Feb 9, 2010 at 20:16
Israel Travel | Flights to Israel | Israel Packages | Considerations // Aug 2, 2010 at 16:33