U.S./Mexican Security Barrier
Great article comparing the barrier Israel is erecting to protect itself from the West Bank with the hypothetical barrier the U.S. would build to protect itself from Mexico:
The Israeli West Bank barrier, when finished, will run for more than 400 miles and will consist of trenches, security roads, electronic fences, and concrete walls. Its main goal is to stop terrorists from detonating themselves in restaurants and cafes and buses in the cities and towns of central Israel. So, planners set the bar very high: It is intended to prevent every single attempt to cross it. The rules of engagement were written accordingly. If someone trying to cross the fence in the middle of the night is presumed to be a terrorist, there’s no need to hesitate before shooting. To kill.
As such, the Israeli fence is very efficient. The number of fatalities from terror attacks within Israel dropped from more than 130 in 2003 to fewer than 25 in 2005. The number of bombings fell from dozens to fewer than 10. The cost for Israel is in money and personnel; the cost for Palestinians is in unemployment, health, frustration, and blood. The demographic benefit—keeping out the Palestinians—is just another positive side effect for the Israelis.
No wonder the fence is considered a good deal by those living on its western side. But applying this model to the U.S.-Mexico border will not be easy. U.S. citizens will find it hard to justify such tough measures when their only goal is to stop people coming in for work—rather than preventing them from trying to commit murder. And the cost will be more important. It’s much easier to open your wallet when someone is threatening to blow up your local cafe.
Clive Robinson • June 13, 2006 7:40 AM
I am not sure that the fall in Anti-Israeli attacks is specifficly just to the wall.
I suspect the recent election and the run up to it had a considerable infulence on the number of attacks.
Likewise the fact that Israel had for a time backed off from destroying Palestinian property, and random cross boarder sniping might well have had an effect.
The thing to remember is that East Germany built a wall through Berlin, although it was considered almost impregnable, people still got across the boarder in one way or another. The economic cost of this wall supposedly contributed to the downfall of it’s Government.
Likewise the French built a large frotified wall along the Franco-German boarder to keep the Germans out after the first World War. It failed as well (the Germans went through Belgeium instead).
The problem with static instalations is that those who wish to circumvent them can take dynamic activities that the original Wall designers did not take into account.
Do I think it will be effective at any level, in the short term maybee in the long term not a chance.