Stand for Israel

Five Myths About Israel’s Security Fence

1. The fence is not only unjust—it doesn’t work.
The truth: Wherever a section of the fence has been built, there has been a quantifiable drop in the number of successful terrorist attacks.

A case in point: 90 percent of the 480 people murdered in Palestinian terrorist attacks originating in Samaria from 2000 to 2005 were killed before the fence was built in that area. Attacks there have dropped precipitously since the fence was erected. By limiting the number of entry points into Israel, the fence has allowed the IDF to more closely scrutinize those trying to enter—and has saved innumerable lives in the process.

2. The fence is Israel’s attempt at a “land grab.”

The truth: The security fence follows roughly the path of the “Green Line”—the line formed by the truce that followed the 1948 War of Independence. Where it deviates from this path it does so to protect Jewish populations east of that line—with the obvious rationale that, while Arab populations can and do exist within Israel, Jews left under Arab control would be threatened with extinction.

The fence has always been considered a temporary structure that can be moved or dismantled. But this can happen only if and when a Palestinian government emerges that has renounced terror as a weapon and has shown itself willing and able to stop the terrorists in its midst from attacking Israel. That day has yet to come. Until it does, Israel must defend itself.

3. The fence enforces an “apartheid”-style system.

The truth: Those recommending divestment from Israel often note that this tactic was used with success in ending the brutal apartheid system in South Africa. The same critics often claim that Israel’s security fence enforces an apartheid-style system upon Palestinians.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Under apartheid, the black majority in South Africa was completely disenfranchised—unrepresented in government, unable to vote and legally segregated from whites in almost all areas of social life. In contrast, Arabs in Israel, who make up 20 percent of the population, have the right to vote, are represented at all levels of government and have the same rights as Jewish citizens.

The “apartheid” slur is just that—another way for Israel’s enemies to discount the fact that Israel is the Middle East’s only democracy and compare the Jewish state’s self-defense measures to the brutal discrimination of an evil regime. The comparison is false. The purpose of the fence is to save Israeli lives. Anything else is a distortion.

4. The fence inconveniences Palestinians who own property or must work on the Israeli side but live on the Palestinian side

The truth: The fence does cause a certain amount of inconvenience—despite Israel’s efforts to minimize it.

But we must keep our priorities straight. Acknowledging that the fence has been effective in stopping hundreds of Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israelis—attacks that continue despite promises of peace from a new Palestinian leader and pledges of truce from terrorist organizations—how can anyone justify placing Palestinian convenience before Israeli lives?

Those who insist Israel dismantle the fence without offering real, practical suggestions about stopping terrorist attacks are, in effect, recommending that Israel sacrifice its people to someone else’s illusion of peace. Israel cannot afford to placate its enemies with the lives of its men, women and children—too much Jewish blood already has been shed. Meanwhile, most of those crying “tear down the wall” make their pronouncements thousands of miles from the immediate and daily threat of terror.

A comment I heard recently sums it up:

“If your home and family were continually threatened with murderous violence from angry neighbors… would you not think of building a fence to protect them? I would be out with the hammer and nails today.”

And so, undoubtedly, would the vast majority of those who protest so loudly at Israel’s attempts at self-defense.

5. The fence is a massive concrete wall that overwhelms the landscape

The truth: Most media reports on the fence are accompanied by pictures of a towering, imposing concrete wall standing a good deal higher than everything around it.

In fact, these sections of the security fence make up only about 3 percent of its total area. The other 97 percent is chain link fence, often augmented by barbed or razor wire and electronic sensors meant to prevent tampering.

The concrete sections of the fence are built in areas at highest risk of terrorist attack. Some tall sections are built along the paths of roads to prevent sniper fire on Israeli vehicles.

Those pictures of the concrete area of the fence are often used by Israel’s foes to feed the myth that the fence is a “Berlin wall” or “apartheid wall.” This distortion makes for better copy—but it in no way reflects the reality of how and why the fence was built.

Conclusions

Every country protects its borders and restricts in some way the flow of people through these borders. Israel is no exception.

But Israel’s situation is unique in one key aspect. Since its founding in 1948 it has been under constant threat from its neighbors. The security fence was built to address this threat and to protect Israel from the scores of Palestinians who seem willing, even eager, to sacrifice their own lives to kill innocent Israelis. Yet simply by taking reasonable measures to protect its citizens, Israel is routinely subject to harsh criticism.

Israelis know the fence does not represent an ideal state of affairs. They want normal lives, but know from painful experience that “normal life” as most of us understand it is impossible when one lives with the constant threat of terrorism.

Perhaps one day a Palestinian government will emerge that has both the ability and the desire to eliminate terrorism in its own back yard. When it does so, Israel will not have a fence. But until that day, cries for Israel to “tear down the wall” are unjustified, unwelcome and smack of anti-Semitism.

The last word goes to one of the thousands of Israelis whose lives were devastated by terrorism. Fanny Haim, whose husband was murdered in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem in 2004, spoke these words to the judges at the World Court in The Hague at the hearings about the legality of Israel’s fence. The World Court voted to declare the fence illegal. But the moral strength of her words puts the judges to shame:

“…If there had been a fence all along the length of the state, then maybe I, just like you, could kiss my husband this evening. Do not judge my country; do not restrain it from preventing additional people from becoming victims. Today, I am burying my husband; don’t you bury justice.”