Unintentionally misleading? Moi? John Brau acuses me of just that in this post
His points and my responses:
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. In short, as you point out, the wall is only as good as the men commanding it.
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 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?
As far as your extrapolation goes, it is not worth much as the agendas of the two groups are completely different, as are their tactics, methodologies, and available technologies. Refugees were trying to escape; terrorist would try to inflict damage. Unless the wall is made absolute, completely restricting the flow of Palestinians into the Israeli sector, terrorists would still slip through. 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.
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. Rather than laughing at the idea, look a little deeper. The Israeli wall would be more than a fortification. If it were only that, it would have a greater possibility of working. However, it will be more of a control point, attempting to regulate passage between the two areas. In that capacity, the US Mexican border is an apt example of how easily such a barier can be penetrated. Granted, the Israeli wall would cover a shorter area, and would be correspondingly more effective, but there's always a way around the wall, as I mentioned above.
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. What this should tell us is that a wall may at best represent a temporary solution, and at worst, a complete waste of time and resources.
Posted by Rich at April 13, 2002 12:47 AM