A wall is a wall, that's all, that's all

Rich Hailey is less than convinced by my recent article on the benefits of walls.  In response to his response, I find that I have some things to say. The great wall worked well as long as it was in the hands of a stable dynasty. The Israeli government, with its constantly shifting alliances, and multiplicity of priorities cannot be termed a dynasty, nor does it represent a consistent, stable philosophy of government. Rather, it is a constantly shifting balance of conflicting viewpoints, where priorities change rapidly Well, I would certainly hope that Israel is past dynastic politics (although I do remain a philosophical monarchist; it never hurts to remind people that not everythingcan be decided by popular vote).  Nonetheless, I do not think that the Knesset is much less stable (and certainly less bloody) than the Ming court.  Do we foresee a shift in Israeli politics to the point where the security of Israel is no longer of concern to its government?  Or a shift where hundred of thousands of "Palestinians" would be admitted without concern over whether they can be controlled, or at least expelled again?  If so, let us admit now that Israel has failed as a nation, just as we would concede that for any nation whose government was willing to let its territory be overrun by murderous, unassimilated barbarians. The maginot line would have worked if the Belgians had done their part. The spectacular failure of the Maginot line lies not in the rapid collapse of Belgium, but in the fact that a wall represents a static defense, and if the attacking army chooses to avoid the fence, all the resources spent on building maintaining and manning the wall are completely wasted. The configuration of any Israeli wall would of necessity copy that of the Maginot line, since encirclement is impossible, and the territories surrounding Israel are all either hostie, or at best partially neutral. The attacking army (in this case the Wehrmacht) did not have the choice to avoid the wall until after the collapse of the Belgian army.  In fact, the Maginot Line stood; the unfortified Belgian army did not (the capture of Eben Emael represented a bit of luck of the Germans' part, and a lot of incompetence on the Belgians').  I freely concede that a fortification plan that relied on, say, the Egyptian army's restraining "Palestinian" terrorists would be so close to stillborn that there would be no point in discussing it. Yet I see no more than a bare assertion that complete encirclement would be "impossible".  It should be recalled that when I originally wrote on the subject, I explicitly included the entire Israeli boundary.  Possibly I have misled the other parties in this discussion; the generality seem to be discussing only a wall against the West Bank.  So, let me say again on this point:  I am discussing fortifying the entire Israeli border, not of sticking a 100-meter section of wall outside of Ramallah. The Berlin wall was a success because it kept the refugees in East Berlin The Berlin wall was built not only to keep refugees in, but to keep out Western influences. In this second role, the wall was an utter failure. But more importantly, and the reason I listed it, was that the Berlin wall, by its very existence became a symbol of brutal repression, and it was this which doomed the wall to failure. Building such a wall In Israel would suffer from the same flaws, as it would be characterized as an attempt to ghettoize the Palestinians. Not to mention the sheer impossibility of routing the wall to please all interested parties, unless you picture a wall through the center of the temple mount. Also, you note that the number of escapes plummeted with the erection of the wall. What you fail to consider is that the driving forces behind the escapes remained present, and the refuges kept trying. How much more motivated are the palestinians, who will undoubtable see this wall as a pen to keep them out? That the Berlin Wall failed to keep Western influence out of the Warsaw Pact, I agree.  However, I do not think that the Israelis are frantically trying to avoid being drowned in a sea of Arabic cultural influences; quite the opposite, the various Arab regimes are desparately to keep Western notions of freedom, democracy, and equality away from their subjects.  If a "Green Wall" utterly fails to do so, I would consider that an advantage, not a disadvantage. The driving forces behind "Palestinian" terrorism will indeed remain for many years to come, I am sure.  That, after all, is why I suggest a wall; neither its construction, nor any other conceivable action, will suddenly remove them.  If in fact it did, then the "Green Wall" could be torn down the next day, its purpose having been served. As for the "Palestinians" seeing this wall as a pen to keep them out, it is.  It's not intended to be a tourist attraction; it's a statement (and more than just a statement) that, since the "Palestinians" generally, and the "Palestinian" leadership in particular, have proved to be vicious animals, we are penning them up like any vicious animals, to prevent them from harming human beings. Let us  not delude ourselves here:  the alternative to the "Green Wall" appears to be ethnic cleansing, whether that it to be seen as a euphemism for genocide, or for mass uprooting and transfer of populations.  The latter undoubtedly will happen, no matter where a "Green Wall" is built.  What we wish to avoid is a situation where all Israelis are forced out of Israel, or where all "Palestinians" are forced out of the West Bank, alive or dead. In addition, refugees generally don't have access to rockets, nor would they be interested in lobbing them over the wall, wreaking havok while remaining safely on their side of the wall. But I'm certain a terrorist would love the idea. Neither the Great Wall nor the limes were viewed as mere cover to cower behind, but as fighting platforms to give  punitive expedition a secure base to operate from.  I've already stated that a "Green Wall" must serve the same purpose. Finally, the US Mexican border. I threw this in as an example of how a semi permeable barrier, such as the one that would be required in Israel, is a complete failure at its intended purpose. I reiterate:  the U.S.-Mexican border isn't a semi-permeable membrane, it's a network of holes.  The issues in building a "Rio Grande Wall", like those involved in building a "Green Wall", are not restricted to the engineering or the military.  To take just one of them; the inside (Israel, the U.S.) will be cut off from its principal source of cheap unskilled labor, whilst the outside (the West Bank, Mexico) will lose not only income, but a relief valve.  I've noted this already. Finally, even though you try to avoid this point, each wall failed in its stated purpose, although to be fair, some met with a degree of success before absolute failure. In this floating world, everything is impermanent:  gam ze ya'avor.  The Maginot Line failed, but did not fall apart, at the first touch; the Berlin Wall was successful at one of its purposes for decades; the Great Wall and the limes for centuries.  If the "Green Wall" gives us fifty years in which to decide what to do next, it will have served its function. John "Akatsukami" Braue Saturday, April 13, 2002

Home