Comparative politics: concepts and methods

¶ … Israel's Security Policies Relating to the Building of the Wall

The problem is terrorism or rather in general terms, the lack of security for the state of Israel. Since its inception in 1948, the Jewish state has been subjected to numerous attacks from its Arab neighbors, each of which has, as its stated aim, the destruction of the state of Israel. Winning independence in 1948, after a bitter fight, it would be forced time and again to fight for its existence. Israel's reaction to the security problem over the years has been to build a series of fixed structures or walls to keep its enemies out. These structures have done more to increase the security of the State of Israel, than any other measures they have taken. This paper will attempt to analyze the alternatives that Israel faces regarding security and demonstrate why the decision to build the wall is the best alternative. We will also examine some of the history of Israel in order to support this thesis.

There are several possible approaches to the problem of Israel's security. One approach would be to invade those nations and areas that are providing safe haven to terrorists. Much like the United States (U.S.) approach to Vietnam in later years of that war, when incursions were authorized across the borders into Cambodia to pursue hostiles. This approach has been tried in the past by Israel. In addition to the four declared wars Israel had fought with its neighbors, there has been the 1982 invasion of Southern Lebanon and numerous incursions into the occupied territories.

Armed incursions have been very costly for Israel, both in economic terms and in political terms. Each time Israel uses armed force on the West Bank, global opinion of the Jewish state drops. The news media shows clips of IDF soldiers firing at Palestinians throwing rocks. This policy has also been hard to justify at home. Reservists have become outspoken about not serving in the occupied territories, something once unheard of in the Jewish state. The financial cost of this action has also hurt the already hard-hit Israeli economy, further increasing the tax burden.

The logical conclusion of this alternative is that to be successful, Israel must destroy all its enemies. This alternative is so extreme that it cannot be seriously discussed, however some have postulated that this is exactly what Mr. Sharon has in mind. "He has always harboured a very clear plan - nothing less than to rid Israel of the Palestinians." It would literally involve killing every Arab in the Middle East, for once Israel embarked on such an alternative, that is what it would take to end it. Even if it was successful, Israel would likely be a pariah in the world community, although again there are dissenting views. "Some believe that the international community will not permit such an ethnic cleansing. I would not count on it. If Mr. Sharon decides to go ahead, the only country that can stop him is the United States."

Operation Defensive Wall was partly in response to a March 27, 2002 suicide bombing at Netanya's Park Hotel, which killed 28 Israelis celebrating Passover and wounded a number of others. The intention was, "to deliver a devastating blow to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the various Palestinian paramilitary organizations." This operation was different than past Israeli actions against Palestinian paramilitary forces. Israeli forces occupied all but a small portion of the PA compound in Ramallah in order to physically isolate Yassar Arafat. Sharon and others began to speak publicly about Arafat's expulsion and Jewish forces systematically destroyed PA security facilities.

PA ministries and civil agencies were ransacked, vandalized and sometimes looted as well. Private property, public facilities, commercial establishments, non-governmental organizations and offices maintained by the various Palestinian political factions sustained extensive damage, and were in many cases looted or destroyed altogether. Such actions typically occurred not in the course of armed conflict, but well after the military established control.

The reaction to this incursion by Israel was further violence by Palestinians in the occupied territories. Following Operation Defensive Wall, the Israelis were able to take advantage of intelligence gained during the operation to frustrate a number of terrorist attacks. While the number of successful attacks decreased, the terror did not end. There was not an appreciable decline in the number of attempted attacks.

Another possible approach would be to offer financial incentives to its neighbors. This is something Israel already does to some extent, supported by the United States. It has much better trade relations with Egypt, Jordan and Syria than in the past and the U.S. is the single largest financial supporter of the Palestinian Authority. It is unlikely there is enough money in the world to buy off the terrorists however, but over time Israel could work to improve conditions on the West Bank and Gaza. This could undercut recruiting efforts by Hamas and Hizbollah over the long-term, but it is unlikely to produce any near-term results. The economic cost of this would be staggering and unlikely to accomplish much in the short-term. This alternative could buy Israel some much-needed capital in the court of world opinion, but not enough to justify it.

Another alternative would be to withdraw to the pre-1967 border and abandon the Jewish settlements on the West Bank. This would involve relocating massive numbers of Jewish settlers and abandoning property that took decades to develop. This alternative would have an incredible effect on Israeli morale and might tear the Jewish state apart.

Another alternative would be for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. This would involve abandoning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. After 30 years these settlements have become as much a part of Israel as its original territory. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which an Israeli politician could survive after implementing such a policy. The economic consequences would also be enormous, as these settlements provide much of the agriculture output of the country. There is also the question of water. According to a prominent anti-war web site, these lands are on the western part of the large water reservoir originating in the West Bank, whose waters flow under the ground also to the centre of Israel. Out of 600 million cubic metre of water that this reservoir provides in a year, Israel withdraws about 500 million. Control over the water sources has always been a central Israeli motivation for maintaining the occupation.

Giving back this land could rob Israel of this very precious natural resource, so scarce in the Middle East. Returning this much territory could also make Israel appear weak in the eyes of its enemies and is unlikely to be effective.

A final alternative is to end all military action, remove the fence and attempt to negotiate a just solution for everyone. The Bush administration has signaled its willingness to be engaged in a solution, and could have a strong influence on any outcome. While this alternative is much more feasible than it would have been prior to the death of Yasser Arafat, it still would be difficult to succeed using just negotiation. It is likely that the terrorist attacks would continue, throwing the economy into shambles. Expenditures for the IDF could likely be reduced somewhat, but not by a significant amount. Politically, it would be unpopular at home, but popular abroad. It is very unlikely that it would succeed. What is likely if this alternative was adopted is that terrorist attacks would change this process into a combination with the first alternative, which is exactly where Israel is now, and that doesn't seem to be working very well.

The years between 1949 and 1956 saw Israel the subject of one provocation after another from its Arab neighbors, each of which was trying to destroy them. On October 29, 1956, Israel attacked Egypt in retaliation for various provocations and the Egyptian seizure of the Suez Canal. British and French forces later assisted by attacking Egyptian airfields, and the U.S. initially indicated it would not censure Israel for its actions, but that turned to disapproval after Israel's success in capturing the Sinai Peninsula. The war lasted a week and left the world with a different perception of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Its international standing improved dramatically and this was to become an important asset in Israel's dealing with its Arab neighbors during the following years.

On June 5, 1967, facing an Arab buildup on its borders that numbered over 340,000 men and 2,000 tanks against its 264,000 men and 800 tanks, Israel drew first blood and attacked the Egyptian Air Force, catching many of its planes on the ground. The Six-Day War was over in the first two hours. Ironically, the war was in part provoked by false information about Israeli intentions provided to the Syrians by Soviet intelligence. The intent of the Soviet Union was to start a long, drawn-out war into which the United States would be drawn, weakening its position in Vietnam.

On October 6, 1973, Israel was attacked by the combined forces of Egypt and Syria. It was Yom Kipper, the most sacred day in the Jewish calendar. Egypt began as Israel had, with an air attack. On the ground, Israel was outnumbered six to one, fielding only about 200,000 soldiers against a combined force of over 1,150,000 Arab troops. Once again, the Soviet Union was involved, sending over 1,000 tons of weapons and ammunition to Egypt and Syria during the early days of the war. The United States was forced to intervene. On October 13, President Richard Nixon ordered an airlift of military supplies, enabling Israel to sustain its forces. After initial success, the war had gone against the Arabs and eventually Egyptian President Anwar Sadat appealed to the Soviet Union to save them. Following negotiations in Moscow on October 21, U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger flew to Tel Aviv where he obtained Israeli Prime Minister Golda Mier's agreement for a cease-fire. By October 22nd, the war was over.

Since the end of formal hostilities in 1973, the attacks on Israel from its hostile neighbors have been replaced by shadowy groups that rely more on terror tactics than infantry and tanks. First the PLO, which led to Israel's invasion of Southern Lebenon in 1982 and subsequently Hizbollah, which was formed in 1983, and Hamas in 1988. Both of these groups had, as their stated intention, the murder of every Jew and the destruction of the state of Israel and its allies. It was after twenty years of these terrorist tactics, and the lives of hundreds of innocent Israelis, that Israel began to consider building a fence around its borders. It would be almost another ten years before it finally implemented this tactic.

Israel's decision to build a wall separating itself from external threats has become a controversial one. Seen within Israel as the best chance to reduce or eliminate terrorism, and solidify the border between the Jewish state and the Palestinian state, it is viewed by much of the outside world as a symbol of oppression. According to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the fence, "is not a political border. It is not a security border but rather another means to assist in the war against terror, and greatly assist in stopping illegal aliens." Palestinians, however, have a different view, seeing the fence as a prison that would encircle them and leave Israel with control over entry in and out. According to Michael Tarazi of the PLO's negotiations support unit,

This just confirms that the Wall is not to separate the West Bank from Israelis, it's to separate Palestinians into their reservation. It means that the Israelis will take control of our border with Jordan and what remains of the best agricultural land we have. The Wall near the green line has already taken a lot of our best land and now they are going to do the same with what remains in the Jordan valley.

Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a frequent writer about the Middle East, has called it "politicide against the Palestinians -- helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination." He further states that, "it is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies -- made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel."

This is the problem for the United States. In most of the world, Israel is viewed as a proxy state for the U.S.; certainly support of Israel is no secret. Since the inception of the Jewish state, the U.S. has been its constant ally. Therefore, whatever Israel does is seen as operating with the tacit approval of the U.S.

The current structure being erected is not the first attempt to protect Israel from attacks by building fences. On May 29, 1938, the British under the leadership of Sir Charles Taggert began building a wall along the Lebanese border that was designed to protect Jewish settlers and British soldiers from attacks by Arab bands. This wall was called the Taggert Wall after the British counter terrorism expert who had gained his experience as a member of the British police force in India. He came to Palestine to coordinate the various security services, and erected a security fence along the northern border to prevent the infiltrations of terrorists. The structure managed to anger both the Jewish and Arab settlers, as it crossed pastureland and private property. After the threat from outlaw bands was over, the wall was dismantled. Later, in 1983, after the Israeli Defense Forces occupation in southern Lebenon was ended, a wall was built on the same border.

In 1993, in an attempt to prevent suicide bombers from entering into Israel from Gaza, Prime Minister Rabin ordered a fence erected to close off this area. The Jewish and Arab populations were effectively sealed off from each other. Roadblocks were set up and Arab workers were prevented from crossing the border to work in Israel. "The wall Israeli General Vilnai built around Gaza has dampened security problems, but he says that cooping up Gaza residents will bring political and economic costs. 'The flow of workers to Israel must continue,' he says."

In May of 2002, as the frequency of suicide attacks increased, the Israeli government decided to begin building a partial fence along the green line (pre-1967 War) borders with the West Bank. As early as 1994, under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, plans for the fence were discussed in Israel. A similar fence built in 1993 had been successful in preventing infiltration from the much smaller Gaza strip. Many in Israel continue to be angry over the delay, saying that hundreds of lives could have been saved had the fence been built in 1994 when it was originally proposed. In a speech in June 2003, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak criticized the Israeli government for dragging its feet and not building the Wall sooner.

Construction on the fence began in July. The Wall will follow the Green Line, roughly the border before the 1967 war which separates Israel from the West Bank. In certain areas, however, the line will cut east into the West Bank to cover large Jewish settlements. In addition to the fence itself, there will be electronic monitoring devices placed around it and guardhouses at periodic intervals. In areas of high population, the fence is replaced by a wall to prevent Palestinians from shooting through the fence.

On October 1, 2003, the Israeli cabinet voted to extend the West Bank security fence, with the Ministry of Defense for the first time, publishing its planned route for the entire 250-mile section of fence along the western edge of the West Bank. Prime Minister Sharon went on Israeli television and told the world that he planned to extend the fence around the West Bank, separating the Jordan Valley from Jordan.

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly reacted with several resolutions calling for an end to the Wall and the Israelis reacted by saying it would ignore the resolutions. On October 26, 2003, Palestinians living near the fence were ordered to obtain special permits in order to continue living there. In November, the fence was condemned by both the European Union and Secretary General of the UN, and the next month the UN General Assembly passed a resolution to send this issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague to determine legality under international law. On July 9, 2004, the ICJ ruled that the barrier was illegal under international law and must be torn down. Palestinians who had been harmed by the fence were ordered to be compensated. Later that month, on July 19th, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution adopting the Court's ruling. Israel ignored these actions by the UN.

On July 16, 2004, Ambassador John Danforth, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, speaking against the proposed resolution, issued a statement saying,

The resolution before us and the opinion of the International Court of Justice it endorses point away from a political solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict that would embody the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. We must reject the resolution.

If there is to be a solution to the tragedy of the Middle East, it must be political, entailing the agreement by both parties to a reasonable compromise. The judicial process is not the political process, and the International Court of Justice was not the appropriate forum to resolve this conflict.

The nature of a political solution is balance. The claims of each side must be accommodated, or there can be no agreement.

The resolution before us is not balanced. It is wholly one-sided. It does not mention the threat terrorists pose to Israel. It follows a long line of one-sided resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, none of which has made any contribution to peace in the Middle East. Last year, the General Assembly adopted more than twenty such resolutions.

The Bush administration immediately challenged the World Court's authority by questioning whether international law should even be applied to Israeli-occupied territories. White House spokesman Scott McClellan stated, "We do not believe that it is the appropriate forum to resolve what is a political issue." U.S. policy has been that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction and should never have considered the issue. It was one of only eight countries in the 191 member General Assembly to vote against seeking an advisory opinion from the ICJ.

Faced with these various alternatives, what is Israel to do and how should the United States use its influence? None of the alternatives presented above appears to have much chance to succeed and are likely to lead Israel back into the current situation, in which it uses force and attempts to negotiate at the same time. Faced with this situation, the alternative of building the Wall appears to be the one with the most chance of success.

Every nation has a right to protect its borders. In these days of global terrorism, a country allowing free access across its borders is inviting disaster, as we have seen in the Middle East. This Wall has the chance to close Israel's borders, with a combination of physicality and high-tech. International law should allow a nation the right to close its borders, particularly during this time of an international war on terrorism.

The bottom line is whether or not the Wall will work. As much opposition as there is to this Wall outside of Israel, if it can be demonstrated to its citizens that it will work, global public opinion will not matter much. During the thirty-four months from the beginning of the violence in September 2000 until the construction of the first segment of the security fence at the end of July 2003, terrorists carried out 73 attacks in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1950 wounded. In the eleven months between the erection of the first segment at the beginning of August 2003 and the end of June 2004, only three attacks were successful, and all three occurred in the first half of 2003.