Oddly enough, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune printed this heartfelt and common-sense essay on the necessity of a security fence between the Israelis and the Palestinians:
In fact, it is easier to pass from the West Bank to Israel than from the United States to Canada simply because there is no border, not even a white picket fence. The Israeli public finds this lack of a border troubling, to say the least, especially because fenced areas in the Palestinian territories have been surprisingly quiet. The Gaza Strip is a case in point: No suicide bomber has ever come out of the Gaza Strip because the entire area is fenced.
People who oppose the building of the fence, especially here in the US, do not really understand the political implications or the motivation for the fence:
For all its faults, Sharon’s government didn’t want to create this border. By building this fence the government is acknowledging the creation of a separate Palestinian state and abandoning the settlements beyond it — two actions it would rather avoid. The fence, suggested by the Israeli left, is built by popular demand on land taken from both Jewish and Palestinian villages that lay across the border.
In case anyone still does not understand this, building the fence is a de facto recognition of Palestine as a separate state. Nations do not build fortified borders within their own territory. Sharon, far from being the concentration-camp builder that the wacko left would have you believe, just recognized the two-state solution and has all but spoken aloud his sacrifice of Jewish settlements in Palestine. He didn’t want to build the wall because he didn’t want to reward the suicide bombers. He no longer has any choice. What angers the Palestinians (and the extreme left in the US) is that it also keeps the Palestinians from their true, unspoken aim: overrunning all of Israel and pushing the Jews into the sea. It also hurts the Palestinians economically, for which the Palestinians can blame no one but themselves.