Canada's leftwing Zionist

Letters

This letter was originally published in the National Post, March 6, and is reprinted with permission.

Editor: The security fence separating the West Bank from Israel is the physical manifestation of a new low point in the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. Like every other obstacle to the free movement of innocent people, this barrier is an abomination. But while the construction of the fence is regrettable, I object to the loaded and politically charged responses of some individuals and organizations, particularly those on the left of the political spectrum. I don't wish to be associated with those views.

It has become fashionable on the left to portray those who blow up Israeli children in pizza parlors and ice-cream stands as freedom fighters, and to condemn all efforts to stop them as further evidence of oppression.

Somehow the legitimate claim for a Palestinian state justifies unspeakable horrors on an almost daily basis, yet the legitimate right of a multi-party democracy to defend itself from these attacks is called "state-sponsored terrorism" and even compared, in the cruelest of ironies, to the horrors of Nazi Germany. I can't understand how outrage over the security fence somehow exceeds the outrage over planting a bomb in a bus full of children and innocent civilians.

Misinformation abounds over nearly every aspect of the West Bank security fence. Israel's critics have been quick to pounce on the fence as a propaganda goldmine. Even portraying the fence as "The Wall" in many news stories is provocative when in fact 95 per cent of this barrier is chain link fence, not the imposing concrete barriers we see in almost every newscast.

Perhaps the least plausible of the conspiracy theories is that the fence is really a land grab by Israel and amounts to the permanent annexation of the best, water rich and arable lands. And that the placement of the barrier was done in such a way that it would punish those affected by causing the maximum possible inconvenience and humiliation.

In the first place, the fence intrudes onto only 15 per cent of West Bank territory. If it were considered to be a new and permanent barrier, why would Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, settle for such a modest gain? Even the most charitable of Sharon's critics accuse him of harboring much more expansive territorial ambitions.

As for being permanent, such barriers have already been relocated or removed by way of peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. I believe the way to make that happen here is simply to eliminate what makes it necessary.

On the second point, Israel maintains that virtually every twist and turn of the fence was moved, changed and altered as much as possible to accommodate the legitimate concerns of innocent civilians. There is no denying that the fence imposes serious hardship on an already beleaguered Palestinian population, but I do not accept that it was designed in such a way that it would maximize inconvenience.

The unfortunate reality is that the Israeli government decided to build the fence because no other strategy employed so far has been effective in protecting Israel's citizens from the endless string of murderous suicide bombings. The fence works.

As for the West Bank, the figures speak for themselves. Successful attacks have dropped from 17 in 2002 to five in 2003 in the areas where the barrier is now in place.

I wonder how Canadians would react if there were even one such incident where madmen were systematically attacking our children? A physical barrier to stop these murderers at the border may seem like the most practical and least violent option until meaningful negotiations for peace begin.

Pat Martin, MP
Winnipeg Centre

^TOP