|Whose side are you on?|
The leftist mindset is
nearly always opposed to building walls to keep people out (and often against
building anything at all). The leftist solution to any kind of conflict is to
force the feuding parties into close proximity so that familiarity can breed
love and mutual respect. They are ignorant of the fact that the option of
disengagement is at the core of civil society - that no-one can initiate force if everyone has the option
It is no coincidence that Australia's
government-employee infested capital (Canberra) forbids its citizens from
putting fences in front of their houses. Even picket fences (Little Johnny's
symbols of suburban utopia) are banned by the hard-core local hand-in-pocket
government. Boundryless real-estate is a powerful reminder that your land is
their land, and that your wealth is their wealth. You must not disengage
yourself from the collective. Resistance is futile.
If the walls are to keep people in of course, the situation
changes. Leftist governments usually need
walls to keep their populations imprisoned, and then they become the darlings
of the left. But in societies built on capital and hard work,
walls are generally bad - because they prevent theft.
Maybe this explains why there is so much opposition to the wall currently
being built in the Middle
East, where a local tribe, unable to get on with any of the
neighboring tribes, has decided to build a wall to to keep out the others.
Keeping the suicide bombers on their own side of the wall is a pretty good
approach to security, but nothing in life ever runs quite to plan. One would
have expected organizations such as Suicide Bombers Inc to have
objected to the wall (pole-vaulting is difficult wearing a 40Kg explosive
vest), but the mouthpiece of the world's largest public
service, the International Court of Justice, has objected too. The ICJ
ruling, after five months of procrastination, was that the wall was illegal
under international law.
Your ABC reports
The court argued that by slicing through the West Bank the
security barrier amounted to a de-facto annexation of Palestinian
Most of us thought this happened some time ago, but news must travel slowly
in UN. Apparently
'international law' makes no judgment about occupying other states, but merely
on the infrastructure which the occupiers build. Maybe they should appoint a
committee of architects?
So the left is horrified to see another wall keeping people out, but the Israeli government is
determined to keep building it anyway. And in spite of the denials of Israeli
officials, this wall will become a de-facto national border. Palestine will receive some
kind of recognized statehood in the future, and the wall will put some
Palestinians in the Israeli side. To their chagrin, it will sever their
social, religious and economic ties with the rest of Palestine. They will be
forced to trade with the Jews,
and integrate into the Israeli social structure, health and education systems.
The funny thing is, though they don't realize it yet, they will be the lucky