Why the fence is necessary for Israel

The 15 foot-high steel wall is a startling sight for all who approach. The teams of ferocious guard dogs, powerful search lights and frequent towers littered with squads of armed soldiers don't help. But enough about the American wall which is quietly being expanded on the Mexican border.

On Wednesday Oct. 15, the United States vetoed the Palestinian-backed Security Council resolution condemning Israel's building of the 370 mile fence between Israel and the West Bank. It is about time that we allow Israel to do what we ourselves do. Israeli Ambassador Gillerman was correct in saying: "If there were no Palestinian terror, no barrier would be necessary." The fence is essential to Israel's security, but must be built on the '67 Green Line in order to be truly successful.

Much has been written about the fence -- that it is a barrier, a defensive separator, and a wall reminiscent of apartheid -- and yet so many misunderstandings exist about it. As a fellow studying terrorism for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a D.C. pro-democracy anti-terrorism think tank, I have learned that the wall is vital to Israeli national security.

In Tel Aviv, this past summer, I saw a resilient Israeli public whose daily routine involves being searched before entering any mall, cafe, or movie theater. A public that must constantly deal with waves of suicide terrorists is naturally inclined to feel extremely vulnerable.

In Gaza I saw the disparate and hopeless faces of Palestinians who are living in brutal conditions tired of Israeli occupation. The fence is being built to ameliorate this problem -- the status quo cannot continue. The Bush administration, which had hoped to ignore the problem by redirecting National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice from her assignment on the Road Map to the rebuilding process in Iraq, received a major wake up call on October 15th, when three U.S. diplomats were killed in their car by a radio-controlled bomb in Gaza.

Few are aware that the fence was actually first proposed to the public during the 2002 elections by Amram "Unilateral Withdrawal" Mitzna, the ex-leader of the Labor party. Initially the right opposed the separation claiming that it was unnecessary and would lead to a worsening of the economic condition for both sides; surprisingly, immediately following his landslide victory, Sharon started pushing for the fence.

Clearly human life takes precedence over the worsening of the already terrible economies in Israel and the occupied territories. As the intifada has continued, and more and more Palestinians have supported continued terrorism, Israelis have come out in support for the plan of unilateral withdrawal -- build a fence around Israel, completely leave the occupied territories and defend Israel's borders as intensely as possible.

The fence (not wall or that ludicrous and completely fictitious comparison with the apartheid wall) is absolutely necessary for Israeli security. I was in Gaza and saw the fence, and, with few exceptions, it is a fence. In the 34 months since the intifada started, not one successful terrorist has entered Israel through Gaza. One could then deduce by the 100 percent success rate in stopping terrorist attacks from Gaza that a fence can help save innocent lives.

The fence will likely have a negative psychological effect on the Palestinian people. However, a physical barrier between Israel and the West Bank is essential to protect Israeli civilians. This is a matter of life and death for hundreds, not whether or not someone will be bothered knowing that they are separated by a fence. Hopefully one day the fence will be useless and will be torn down because the Palestinians and Israelis will love each other, but that day is in the distant future. For now, the goal is to reduce the carnage on both sides.

Recently the construction of the fence has gotten bogged down because of right wing parties in the Israeli Knesset, which hold power in Sharon's cabinet. They are pushing for the fence to go two miles into Palestinian territory potentially incorporating some major settlements -- the largest of which is Ariel with 18,000 settlers.

Although it is certainly true that in terms of security, the settlements would be safer if they were incorporated into the continuous fence, the Palestinians will certainly see this as an example of Israelis encroaching on their land. In terms of advancing the fence into the occupied territory, the negative costs clearly outweigh the positive benefits. So, in an attempt to appease the security desires of the "right" and to not cause more hatred among the Palestinians, Sharon should build isolated fences around the major settlements leaving them unconnected to the major fence on the '67 line.

It is important that Sharon stops delaying and takes the necessary steps to complete the fence on the Green Line, since it is useless as long as it is unfinished. If it takes increased American pressure and the withholding of the loan guarantees, then so be it. The completion of the fence will save lives and must be completed in haste.

Ilya Bourtman is a sophomore History major from Marblehead, Mass. He is also an Undergraduate Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.