Why the defensive shield is justified

Last Friday afternoon, I called my sister. Just like many of us who are writing our junior papers and theses, she is currently writing a research paper, but she is located at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in southern Israel. Five minutes into the call, an alarm bell went off calling students in the library to find the closest fortified room as the 72nd rocket to hit the country that week made its way potentially toward her campus. Two uneasy minutes later, my sister was back on the line and our conversation continued exactly where we had left off. It wasn’t until after the call when I returned to my seat in Firestone that I began to think about the oddity of my sister’s complacence. In the comfort of the Orange Bubble, I forgot what life is like in Israel. It’s a country where, in the span of the last two weeks, a bomb killed one woman and wounded 38 people, rockets destroyed kindergartens, schools and homes, and terrorists slaughtered a family in their sleep, including a three-month-old baby.

The intensity and frequency of this past week’s events serve as an unsettling reminder to Israelis of a reality they would rather forget. Only 10 years ago, during the Second Intifada, leaving one’s house to go anywhere bore a strikingly high probability of dying in a terrorist attack. In response to the public outcry, the Israeli government changed its strategy and identified the protection of its citizens as its most urgent task. Since then, the number of terrorist attacks has decreased by 90 percent and the number of Israelis wounded by those acts has decreased by 85 percent, a change that is mostly attributed to the construction of the defensive shield. I intentionally use the word “shield” as only 4.4 percent, roughly 20 of the total 456 miles, is composed of concrete wall, while the rest is chain-link fence. As such, the defensive shield is an effective means of protection for Israel. Thus, as I am sure many Americans would concede if this were to happen in their own backyard, calls to demolish the shield are unjustified until Israelis are assured of their safety and security.

Peculiarly enough, the Princeton Committee on Palestine decided to demonstrate against Israel and its security policies on the very same Friday I called my sister. On an otherwise politically numb campus, PCP has taken upon itself the extremely important agenda of promoting Palestinian human rights, which deserves high praise. However, I have always regretted, and still do, the way PCP goes about its goal. Let’s disregard, for the sake of potentially encouraging fruitful discussion, the ethical offense of feeding the Princeton community false facts (the shield was built in 2002 — not 1994, and Nelson Mandela was cited on the PCP’s pamphlets when the quotes on the pamphlets were not his). Just like in the hummus boycott debacle — with the damage to PCP’s legitimacy left only for its members to regret — it seems to me that PCP’s primary goal is to scandalize rather than to educate. I still cannot clearly see the logic that led the PCP to believe that taking hummus off the shelves would be the best battle to pick. Did it send a message and got positive media coverage? Arguably. Did it benefit Palestinian’s welfare or help educate our community and raise awareness? Probably not. There is much to criticize in regards to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians; it is simply unfortunate that in an attempt to spread its messages and opinions, PCP relies on coating these salient and important arguments with excessive dramatics, exaggeration and sensationalism. In my opinion, exposing the community to potent speakers such as Hanan Ashrawi, contacting politicians on either side or letting authentic personal stories shine through a sometimes overly-polished discussion, would do the PCP a much greater service.

Golda Meir once said, “Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.” This quote was pertinent in 1957 and continues to be pertinent today. I cannot possibly, in any exercise of my mind, fathom the hatred that motivates one to launch rockets from a Palestinian school compound into Israel, risking Palestinian children’s lives to attack Israeli children. Until I do, or until this hatred no longer exists to be fathomed, I will stand by Israel’s right and responsibility to protect its citizens. I truly hope that we can all use our time here to invigorate meaningful discourse, and maybe bring new ideas to the world, instead of resorting to propaganda and theatrics.

Ori Daniel is an economics major from Newe Monoson, Israel. He can be reached at odaniel@princeton.edu.