[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2303-2304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SECURITY FENCES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I am so sick and tired of listening to the 
whining about this fence and walls in Israel. First, when I heard the 
complaining about the wall in Israel, I wondered whether they were 
complaining about the wall around Jerusalem itself. Walls and fences in 
the Middle East are as historic as the land itself.
  I was just in Germany, and in pretty much every city they have a 
castle or a walled fort. That is true all over Europe, Austria, and 
other places. Walls and fences have been there historically, and they 
were not to keep people from leaving. They were to keep people from 
getting in. They were built in areas where there were disputed 
territories, or they would not have needed a wall if people were not 
going to attack them.
  In Rome, we see all sorts of walls in different parts of the Roman 
Empire. It is a historic tradition in Europe. And, of course, there is 
the Great Wall of China that goes for thousands of miles and is fairly 
famous. When we look at our own country, let us say the border with 
Mexico where we have a fence that goes along the border with Mexico, or 
let us say gated neighborhoods in the United States, are we suddenly 
going to ban gated neighborhoods? Is the rule when we want to put a 
fence around our yard or security system at our house in order to keep 
people from intruding, are we going to say suddenly we need to unlock 
our doors and we can put no fences up in our own yards? It is the same 
basic principle of security and the right to protect your property and 
the people that live in it that is leading to all this whining about 
the fence in Israel.
  Furthermore, some would add that it is disputed territory. The fact 
that somebody else has designs on the territory does not mean that you 
cannot put up a fence. Let us take our border with Mexico. There are 
some in the country of Mexico that believe that us getting California 
through a war where we had a clear overt pressure was kind of 
controversial, not to mention the Gasden Purchase where we more or less 
forced Mexico to sell us Arizona and New Mexico, or where we pushed 
settlers into Texas and Texas declared their independence and we did a 
fast recognition to bring Texas in. There are many Mexicans who do not 
believe that border is legitimate, but does that mean we do not have a 
right as a Nation, since we recognize those States, we freely associate 
and recognize them that way, that we do not have a right to put a fence 
there to protect ourselves from terrorists, illegal immigrants or 
drugs? Of course we have that right; and so does Israel have that 
right.
  Since September 2000, Palestinian terrorists have launched more than 
18,000 attacks, killing more than 800 Israelis and wounding 5,600. Such 
a high number of attacks seem inconsistent with the Palestinian 
Authority's commitment under the Oslo Accords and Road Map to curb 
terrorist activities. Without a true partner in peace, Israel alone has 
been left to defend itself.
  One of the best methods of protecting the citizens of Israel is a 
security fence. In the last 3 years, not one of the 122 homicide 
bombers that killed 454 people in Israel infiltrated from Gaza. Gaza is 
separated from Israel by a security fence.
  Despite this, there has been outrage and wide criticism when they 
have tried to put a fence at the West Bank. This case, which has now 
been taken to the court in front of the United Nations, is clearly 
within Israel's domestic jurisdiction, which demands that a government 
protects its citizens.

[[Page 2304]]

  Highlighting this necessity was a bombing of a Jerusalem bus that 
just killed eight and injured 60. This homicide bombing occurred just 
before the international court began hearing the case against the 
fence. The need for additional security and the need for the fence in 
Israel has never been more clear. I am sick and tired of the whining 
and hypocrisy of many around the world who have built their own fences, 
built their own walls for thousands of years, and now want to stop 
Israel from defending itself.
  Shortly after achieving independence in 1948, the newly formed State 
of Israel was set upon by its Arab neighbors. Despite an overwhelming 
opposing force, the fledgling country defeated its attackers. Since 
that time, Israel has been buffeted by harassment and violence in 
varying degrees of intensity. In each attack, whether by neighboring 
states or terrorist groups, Israel has admirably safeguarded its people 
and defended its borders.
  While Israel has long worked to protect its people, Palestinian Arabs 
have only recently shown a willingness to dismantle terrorist networks 
and confiscate illegal weapons. Unfortunately, whether through complete 
duplicity or half-hearted enforcement of their commitments, terrorist 
attacks against Israelis continue. Regrettably, there is no sign of any 
serious effort on the part of the Palestinian Authority to take any 
action against terrorists.
  Since September 2000, Palestinian terrorists have launched more than 
18,000 attacks, killing more than 800 Israelis and wounding 5,600. Such 
a high number of attacks seem inconsistent with the Palestinian 
Authority's commitment under the Oslo Accords and Road Map to curb 
terrorist activities. Without a true partner in peace, Israel alone has 
been left to defend itself.
  One of the best methods of protecting the citizens of Israel is the 
security fence. In the last three years, not one of the 122 homicide 
bombers that killed 454 people in Israel infiltrated from Gaza. Gaza is 
separated from Israel by a security fence.
  Despite the proven effectiveness of the Gaza security fence, Israel's 
recent decision to build a similar security fence around the West Bank 
has been roundly criticized. In an effort to half the construction of 
the fence, a suit has been filed in the International Court of Justice. 
This case is unprecedented in the history of the court. The court was 
set up to adjudicate international disputes between two members of the 
United Nations. In this case, the dispute is not between two U.N. 
members--the Palestinian Authority is not a member of the United 
States. The actual U.N. member involved, Israel, has not agreed to the 
hearing.
  This case falls squarely within Israel's domestic jurisdiction which 
demands that the government protect its citizens. Highlighting this 
necessity was the bombing of a Jerusalem bus that killed 8 and injured 
60. This homicide bombing occurred just before the International Court 
began hearing the case against the fence. The need for additional 
security and the need for the fence has never been more clear.
  Opponents argue that the fence poses undue hardship to Palestinian 
Arabs by limiting their employment opportunities or separating them 
from other Arabs and each other. Certainly, the fence poses a hardship 
to Palestinian Arabs. The extra security will undoubtedly cause 
difficulties when moving from the West Bank into Israel but the Israeli 
government has done its best to be as accommodating as possible. In 
most places, the fence follows the pre-1967 border. Israel has provided 
passageways for Palestinian Arab farmers to tend their fields, 
replanted trees uprooted by fence construction, and protected a water 
reservoir used by West Bank farmers. In recent days, Israel has 
shortened the fence citing among its considerations the impact on 
Palestinian Arabs living near the fence.
  As obliging as Israel has been in constructing the security fence, 
Israel should never be forced to sacrifice its security for 
convenience. Palestinian Arabs tired of Israel's security measures need 
only demand that their leaders live up to their commitments to rein in 
terrorist groups based in the West Bank and Gaza.
  It is unfortunate that opponents denounce Israel for protecting 
itself while ignoring the terrorist attacks that precipitated the need 
for the fence. At $1.6 million per mile, I am sure that Israel would 
prefer to spend its money elsewhere. Unfortunately, the current level 
of terrorist activity precludes Israel from doing that.
  Israel does not wish harm upon its neighbors. Since its 
establishment, it has only wished to live in peace. Regrettably, 
Israel's neighbors have never shared this vision. Relentless attacks 
have forced the Israelis to take steps that seem punitive but only 
serve to defend the State of Israel and its citizens.
  I applaud Israel's security measures. Israel simply has done what the 
United States of America does everyday, which is protect its citizens 
from forces that would harm or destroy them.

                          ____________________