Peace on the Fence? Israel's Security Culture and the Separation Fence to the West Bank

Abstract

This article examines the role of the separation fence as a metaphorical reflection within Israeli society. Two points of view examined are the construction of the separation fence and the historical idea of separation. Since the founding of Israel, the goal of the political maxim has been to construct internationally approved borderlines. Starting from a historical perspective and continuing to modern day, the development and establishment of various differentiation concepts, the latest in the form of a separation fence, are represented within Israeli society. The search for a boundary and security is questioned as a possible psychological and social bonding component of Israel. Different approaches to the design of the state border are subjected to the sociology of space, as understood in a short analysis by George Simmel. The construction of the separation fence is the political implementation of the Delimitation Theories. Questions regarding recognized borders, security in the country, and the determination of the Palestinian population's identity are fundamental for Israeli society. The separation fence is the physical expression of these perceptions. Fear, as a collective theme, plays an important role in this debate, and the prospect of a future boundary is a step closer to positively influencing social sense. The need for Israeli security is linked to the search for identity and cohesion. Separation is also linked to Israeli identity, an identity that functions as a basic cohesion of Israeli society. The separation fence can serve as a solution to the historic, territorial conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. However, the separation fence provides no possible solutions for global changes in the Middle East. Against the background of the American withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the regional rise of Iran the purpose and function of the separation fence is, and remains, determined solely by Israeli society.

Notes

“Via Grenzziehungen [soll] überhaupt erst eine Gruppe entstehen, die im Extremfall aber nur in den Aktionen der Grenzziehung als solche eine Gemeinsamkeit bekommt.”

”So ist eine Gesellschaft dadurch, dass ihr Existenzraum von scharf bewussten Grenzen eingefasst ist, als eine auch innerlich zusammengehörige charakterisiert.”

Moshe Zimmermann (1996) argues that the concept can be enforced simply because of the ultimate separation of ethnic and religious criteria.

”Es stellt sich jetzt die Frage, wie sich Identität herausbilden und manifestieren kann in einer Welt ohne Grenzen.”

”Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Terrorangriffen [der zweiten Intifada] betrieb Sinngebung, stärkte Identitäten und schuf kulturelle und innergesellschaftliche Solidarität.”

”Golda Meir took a preposterous position by denying that Palestinian people exist at all.” (Shlaim 2000)

The discussion stretches from advocates of a territory in the borders of 1967, by the majority in the left party spectrum, up to a refusal above all in the circles of the settlement movements. Ariel Sharon, in particular, is a big supporter of the settlers in the West Bank (Makovsky 2004; Flottau 2009).

”Die Juden als Gemeinschaft – der Staat Israel – haben aus der Erfahrung der nationalistischen Vernichtung und aus zweitausend Jahren Verfolgung die Konsequenz gezogen, dass die eigene Sicherheit und das Überleben Vorrang haben gegenüber der Frage der politischen Moral.”

Thus, the result of the Likud bloc lay at 29.39% in 2003. The new establishment of the Kadima party under Ariel Sharon is another indication of high support for his politics. He received, 22% of the vote in 2006. In addition, 9% of the Likud provided in the choice in 2006 for a support remaining widely solidly of Sharon in comparison to 2003. The elections of 2009 were an unequivocal confession of the politics pushed by Sharon. Kadima received 22.5% and the Likud 21.6% of the vote. http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_res.htm (accessed 8 February, 2011).

”This unique border situation is assumed to influence the individual, his comprehension and conceptualization of reality, and the interrelationship between individual and collective processes” (Shalit 1987).

”The memory of the Holocaust was a powerful psychological force that deepened the feeling of isolation and accentuated the perception of threat.” (Shlaim 2000) “Through a dialectical process of appropriation and exclusion, remembering and forgetting, Israeli society has defined itself in relation to the Holocaust.” (Zertal 2005)

Refer to both the Middle East conflict determining trauma, “Holocaust” and “Nakba” (Achcar 2010).

The surveys of Ephraim Yaar and Tamar Hermann showed an agreement of 57% within the Israeli population in June 2002. Yaar, Ephraim and Tamar Hermann. June 2002. Peace Index. Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research, Tel Aviv University, Available online at http://www.tau.ac.il/peace/

Peres represents the image of the new Middle East without borders. As a model, European integration on the base of economic cooperation serves him in terms of Jean Monnet.

According to the Peace Index, approval with the politics of “Unilateral dissolution” was already at 60% of the Israeli population in 2001. Yaar, Ephraim and Tamar Hermann. May 2001. Peace Index. Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research, Tel Aviv University, Available on-line at http://www.tau.ac.il/peace/