Building a wall to end violence
Scott Flipse
Pro Bono
Last weekend's pictures from Jerusalem made me sick to my stomach. The type of violence experienced by Israel cannot continue if there is any hope of permanent peace. I have come to the conclusion that the current cycle of terrorism, retaliation and failed negotiation cannot be supported much longer. A new approach has to be taken.
I visited Israel a decade ago as part of congressional study tour. After a long day in Jerusalem, the group went to Zion Square, not far from where the suicide bombers did their last deeds. We sat at an Italian café, drinking German beer, listening to Jewish music, and talking to a group of young Palestinians. It was a beautiful night. No one thought our evening would be marred by violence.
I returned from that trip more sympathetic to Palestinian demands for justice and a homeland. Though I realized the situation was layered with centuries of complexity, I believed then that Israel's security did not require building settlements in the West Bank. I was convinced that only through negotiation with Yasser Arafat could a permanent solution be found.
At the time, I was right. But current events have rendered my former views moot, particularly the last one.
Yasser Arafat is no longer the way to peace in the Middle East. For the past decade, Arafat promised to restrain terrorism and offered Israel security, legitimacy and peace. In return, Israel would have to give up control of territory for a Palestinian homeland. This "land-for-peace" formula was the staple the peace process and was enshrined in the Oslo Accords in 1993.
If Israel balked or moved too slowly in granting concessions, Arafat unleashed a new series of terrorist attacks, claiming that Palestinians were tired of Israel's foot dragging. He used the threat of additional violence to wring more concessions during the next round of negotiations.
This process played out in Arafat's favor. He visited the White House more than any other world leader. He even had victory in his grasp during last year's Camp David talks. He was offered unprecedented concessions by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. A Palestinian state was at hand. But Arafat balked, figuring he could get more concessions. Violence erupted. The talks failed.
Arafat is to blame for the failure of the Camp David talks. His negotiation ploy backfired. The rejection of Israel's offer undermined his leadership. The current wave of violence unleashed forces he can't control anymore. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are gaining support from average Palestinians. These organizations, which the Bush Administration has labeled as terrorist, are committed to the destruction of Israel — a sentiment that is widespread among Palestinians. Palestinian TV features a children's program that starts with the song "When I wander into Jerusalem, I will become a suicide bomber." Palestinian parents proudly send their children off to bomb Israeli pizzerias, discos, buses and bars. Palestinians danced in the street when the World Trade Center was bombed. Peace is no longer at hand. Violence is taught and celebrated.
There is only one way for peace to grow in the Middle East — strike the terrorist groups as hard as possible, with all possible force, and then pull out and build a wall.
This seems like a radical proposal. But I've heard it seriously discussed in the august corridors of the Council of Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution — two organizations not particularly known for their extremism.
The strategy, as best I can summarize it, would go like this: Israel would mount a massive and lighting attack on Arafat's police and party structures, weapons depots, training camps, communications and propaganda facilities with a simultaneous attack on the headquarters of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.
Instead of occupying the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli troop would withdraw, dismantling vulnerable settlements, and building a wall of separation between Palestinian and Israeli territory. There will be those who say a wall will not stop terrorism, but no one notices that in the recent wave of suicide attacks not one has come from Gaza. Why? Because there is already a wall in place.
This plan ends the cycle of violence and concession that has been Arafat's method of negotiation for the past decade. For that reason alone it has merit. It is also attractive because it creates a de facto Palestinian state. Palestinian and other Arab nations can no longer decry Israel's occupation. Its success or failure of the new state would rest squarely on their shoulders. If he wants to stay in power, Arafat, or his successors, would have to deal with the more radical elements among his own people.
Invade, destroy and retreat. Consolidate borders, abandon settlements, build a wall and wait.
Wait for a new generation of Palestinian leaders who will sign a peace treaty that can be enforced and kept. It might take a year, it might take a decade, but when it does the wall comes down and real peace happens.
Scott Flipse is Associate Director of the Washington Semester and a Pew Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He can be reached at flipse.1@nd.edu.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, December 10, 2001
