“The Fence is Reversible, Human Lives Are Not”

“The Fence is Reversible, Human Lives Are Not”
Vol: 28 Issue: 24 Saturday, January 24, 2004

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Friday at the World Economic Forum held in Davos that Israel would be willing to make changes to the barrier fence it is erecting between Israel and the Palestinian-controlled territories.

Shalom said he had informed UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan of Israel’s willingness to move the fence. However, he also said that the barrier – a complex of walls, barbed wire fences and guard towers – had been successful in reducing terrorist attacks in Israel and should exist throughout the negotiating process so that attacks could not be launched.

Asked whether Israel would be willing to move the fence back to the border before Israeli advances in the 1967 war, Shalom said, “We won’t even need it anymore. We don’t like this fence. We didn’t build the fence from 1967 to 2002.”

Until an agreement is reached, as Shalom noted, “The fence is reversible; human lives are irreversible.” Hard to argue with that kind of logic. But the UN is not above taking on the hard arguments.

The UN is still backing efforts to haul Israel before the World Court at The Hague to try and force it to pull down the fence so the Palestinian terrorists won’t have such a hard time attacking Israel. Of course, that isn’t the way they are going to present the case. Instead, they plan to argue that the fence puts an undue hardship on Palestinians wanting to enter Israel to work.

This is where logic breaks down again. The Palestinians still want to destroy the ‘Zionist State’ and replace it with an Arab state — the ‘one-state solution’ that PA Prime Minister Ahmed Quriea revived as a protest to Israel’s security barrier.

In an interview to the PA-friendly UK Guardian, Yasser Arafat tested the waters, saying that, “time is running out for the two-state solution” because “of the impact of Israel’s security barrier”. The Guardian, evidently having spent the last thirty years in a cave, called it an;

“. . .[U]nprecedented warning from a man who has devoted the past 30 years to achieving a state in the West Bank and Gaza next to Israel came as momentum builds in Ariel Sharon’s embattled government for a “unilateral disengagement” from the most heavily populated Palestinian areas.”

‘Unprecedented warning’? It is precisely what the Palestinians have been demanding since the beginning of the three year old war it started against the Jews; an end to ‘Israeli occupation’ — so what’s the problem?

Arafat continues to head a terrorist movement that, to this day, has never officially revised its foundational Charter that calls for the destruction of all Israel and its replacement with an Arab state.

Arafat’s ‘unprecedented warning’ has forty years of precedence, but in the UK, Arafat remains a hero struggling against the evil Israeli juggernaut ‘occupying’ Palestinian land, while the Israelis are desperately trying to disengage.

Try and get a mental picture of this: Israel is attempting to flee behind its fence with the Palestinians crying, “No fair! Stay here and occupy us so we can continue to fight against the occupation,” to the approving nods of the UN diplomats allegedly seeking a ‘peace’ between the two sides.


Arafat posed another of his famous rhetorical questions in the Guardian interview; “Will they solve their problem by withdrawing unilaterally?” he bleated. While no interview I’ve read ever attempted to answer one of his meaningless rhetoricals, I’m gonna give it a shot.

“Well, Yasser, yeah, they will. Israel’s ‘problem’ is that you keep sending guys into Israel to blow themselves up, if it will kill a few Israelis in the process. Their problem isn’t that they don’t want peace, or even that they don’t want you to have your state. They don’t want you to kill them.” Seems logical enough to me.

Withdrawing ‘unilaterally’, as Arafat puts it, means three things. First, it will end the hated ‘occupation’ — an occupation that the Israelis hate as much as the Palestinians do.

Second, it means that, once Israel is secure behind the barrier fence, the Palestinian side will have no choice except to set up their state.

Thirdly, and most importantly, it will keep out the terrorists that seem determined to kill everybody in sight in order to justify their existence.

Arafat continues to argue that the fence amounts to a ‘land grab’ by the Israelis, despite the fact Israel is willing to move the fence pretty much anywhere it needs to in order to pacify Arafat’s never-ending series of demands, and has promised as much to the United Nations. All Israel wants in return is a cessation of hostilities. The fence will accomplish that, which is why Arafat objects to it. The price, a cessation of hostilities, is too high a price for Arafat to be willing to pay.

The next objection is even more illogical. Arafat complains that, a) he wants a Palestinian state free of Jews; b) he wants Arabs who fled what is now Israel in 1948 to come back to live IN Israel; and c) he wants freedom of passage for Palestinians to come into Israel to work.

Apart from the unfairness of his demands for ethnic cleansing of the Jews from his territory expecting Israel to accept 4.5 million hostile Arabs into its country, there is the issue of freedom of passage for Palestinians to come work in Israel.

Mexico City and Ottawa would love to demand open borders for their nationals to come work in the USA, but the bad ol’ Americans keep insisting that they should control their own borders. The UN isn’t insisting that America answer to the World Court for it.

And secondly, if Arafat & Company are successful in taking over the Jewish State, where are they gonna work THEN?

This should even be obvious enough for the thick-headed morons at the UN, but somehow, it is no clearer to them than it is to the idiots advocating the destruction of their own Golden Goose.

There is no work in Palestine because Arafat looted the treasury and destroyed their economy. The Guardian published — without comment — Arafat’s insistence that the Palestinian leadership remained “committed to peace” and that the way forward was for a “strong push from the international community and the rapid deployment of UN forces or observers”.

With a barrier fence in place, and with Arabs on one side, and Israelis on the other, what will the UN ‘observers’ get to observe? Palestinians looking through the fence, longing to come to Israel? They could have had their state in 1998, but Arafat refused the offer and started a war. He refuses to stop until he wins. Doing things Arafat’s way, the only way to end the war is for Israel to commit national suicide. And that is the ONLY solution that world opinion favors.

What, exactly, is wrong with setting up a barrier fence between two hostile countries to prevent bloodshed? If there is an answer that doesn’t require believing it is the Palestinians who really want peace, I can’t find it.

Arafat told the Guardian that the prospects for a two-state solution are in danger if Israel presses on with its wall is a reflection of a growing conviction among Palestinians, expressed this month by Qureia, that if Israel continues to build walls and fences in ‘occupied territory’, they may be ‘forced’ to abandon the goal of an independent Palestinian state in favor of equal rights in a “single democratic state”. Israel has offered to move the fence. What’s the problem?

The Guardian then quoted Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who unwittingly exposed the truth about the PA’s objections to the fence. They quoted him as saying, “If the Israelis withdraw unilaterally, the Palestinian authority will collapse.”

Why is that? Let me try to answer. If the Palestinian Authority achieves statehood, it will have no political reason to continue to attack Israeli targets. There will be no ‘occupation’ to fight against, and no excuse to blame Israel for the collapse of the Palestinian economy.

It will have to prove itself as a viable government. Which is why Erekat knows it will collapse. The PA is a monster that feeds on anti-Israeli hatred.

The fence will starve it to death.

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s