The border security fence is comprised of many sections totaling scores of miles. Some sections are concrete, others sheet metal. The barrier is three layers deep in parts, fifteen feet high and surrounded by razor wire. The area around it is lit by spotlights, monitored by cameras, motion detectors and magnetic sensors, and patrolled by armed guards with attack dogs.

But enough about the USA border with Mexico, let's talk about Israel...
     From an overheard conversation

I used to be against the fence as a counter-terrorist measure. I still don't believe that fencing oneself into a self-imposed ghetto is a viable substitute for an honest, all-out war, without which Israel will never live in peace. Nevertheless, I have to admit that the fence, although unfinished, is already working.

The good news comes from the progress report on the fence construction issued by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on November 28. For a visitor from a galaxy far, far away, the close attention paid to a measly fence by the distinguished leader of a powerful international body, would serve as a sure sign that our planet has attained advanced stages of paradisiacal harmony and must be immediately co-opted into some benevolent intergalactic federation. Hopefully, before our naive visitor boldly goes where no extraterrestrial has gone before, someone will enlighten him on the pitiful state of our earthly affairs: the planet hasn't seen a day of peace in centuries; vast areas of our world are being decimated by hunger and epidemics; mass murders continue non-stop; mass murderers and their appeasers are honored as promoters of peace; and the majority of humans are as unable to tell a sick fantasy from reality, lie from truth, evil from good, as a deaf person to distinguish between a muezzin's call for prayer and Chopin. Nevertheless, the hostile attention of humankind remains focused on the fence - simply because there is a chance that it might help Israel save the lives of its citizens.

An article in the New York Times on November 28th reports that, according to Kofi Annan, "the barrier had caused serious socio-economic harm to the Palestinian people by restricting the movement of goods and people and limiting their access to land, jobs and markets." I think it's good: Israel has finally found the resolve to cause the enemy if not real harm, then, at least, an inconvenience, no matter how insignificant. When the so-called "Palestinians" are inconvenienced enough, the war will inevitably end; what's necessary is to press on until we reach that point. Our enlightened visitor from outer space, after having been briefed on our affairs, would probably praise Israel for employing such gentle means of warfare. Kofi Annan however applies stricter, albeit lopsided standards: "Israel's right to defend itself should not be carried out in a way that is in contradiction to international law and that increases suffering among the Palestinian people."

Had this Annanism been intended as criticism of international law, I would've agreed with it wholeheartedly: unlike the Torah, international law is grievously flawed. Therefore, since it does not come directly or indirectly from God, it will be either amended or ignored.

I am afraid, however, that Mr. Annan meant instead to introduce a novel, revolutionary approach to war: Israel is entitled to self-defense, but only to the extent that its actions cause absolutely no discomfort to the enemy. Meanwhile, the enemy is not bound by any restrictions whatsoever and is free to murder Israelis whether they are wearing military uniforms or diapers. Unlike out hypothetical ET, Kofi Annan knows that the misnomer "Palestinian people" denotes not a people, but a terrorist organization that has been created as a pan-Arab weapon against Israel and has caused more death and destruction than Al Qaeda.

Of course, Israel made a tragic mistake when it failed to nip the vile myth of the "Palestinian people" in the bud and end it as soon as it started in 1967. By now, it's most probably too late, and the carefully orchestrated suffering of non-existent "Palestinians" will forever remain on the criminal record of the Jews, along with the murder of Jesus and the matzo recipe listing Gentile blood among its most essential ingredients.

While I am critical of the fence because it is a de facto surrender of territory to the enemy, the "Palestinians" condemn it as a "land grab". This sounds as if they were historically entitled to any land at all, whether in Israel or anywhere else in the world. However, even if they did have rights to any parts of Gaza, Judea, or Samaria, it would be only reasonable that they lose them as they continue their war against Israel: in the ideal world of Kofi Annan and his United (in their anti-Semitism) Nations, the season on Jews would always be open. However, the real world, as we all know, is controlled by Jews and, therefore, is not perfect. Israel has the temerity to defend itself once in awhile, causing terrible inconveniences to its enemies.

In another demonstration of the usefulness of the fence, the latest Arafat mouthpiece responding to the moniker "prime minister" has threatened to cancel his talks with Prime Minister Sharon unless Israel halts the construction of the fence. Considering that no negotiations can transform terrorists into statesmen, Israel should respond by doubling its construction efforts.

A few weeks ago, the Jerusalem Post reported that the British foreign minister described the way his government felt about Israel's security fence as "loathing". Since Jack Straw must know, at least as well as Colin Powell, that a recklessly raised eyebrow can spell the difference between war and peace, my first thought was, "The Brits are going to nuke the fence!" But that of course was not possible: the fallout might adversely affect the made-in-England kingdoms of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, so subtler means had to be employed to undermine Israel's desperate attempts to save the lives of its citizens.

Yet I wonder if envy was lurking beneath the loathing. After all, Great Britain, along with the rest of Europe, have missed the moment when a wall or something equally drastic might have saved them from Islamization. Or might it? The face of Europe is changing right before our eyes. Europeans who would like to live in a Muslim country, no longer need to move. Worse even, they don't need to move a finger: if the mountain doesn't come to Mohammad, Mohammad comes to the mountain. As a result, Europeans who wouldn't like to live in a Muslim country are in deep trouble. The continent that gave birth to Judeo-Christian civilization is becoming more hostile towards it by the day.

Amidst the ongoing slaughter of the Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's Day of 1572, Henri IV declared Paris worthy of a mass and converted to Catholicism, thus saving both his life and his throne. A day is looming when Jacques Chirac or one of his successors will decide, under similar circumstances, that Paris is worthy of a namaz five times daily. I wonder whether the Notre Dame de Paris will meet the fate of the Afghan Buddha statues or will continue standing like Al Sophia of Constantinople.

The United States saved Europe from Nazism. The United States saved Europe from Communism, which was more difficult since Communism has been much more popular both here and in Europe than Nazism ever was. Now, Europe is succumbing to Islam, the most dangerous of the three ideologies of hate and murder, and the United States, paralyzed by self-imposed politically-correct impotence, isn't doing anything to stop it.

A child somewhere in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, after having learned about jihad for the first time in her life, is probably asking her father right now, "Why don't the infidels defend themselves with all their terrible weapons?" and the father explains confidently, "Because Allah, in His bottomless goodness, has rendered them blind and stupid."

Do you have a better explanation?

Let's face the terrible truth. This country is not immune to Islam either. Mosques are spreading across its face like metastasizing cancer. Do you think any of them has offered even a single prayer to Allah asking for American victory in Iraq? If you can believe that, then you must believe that it is just a statistical quirk that every single traitor caught during the war in Iraq is a Muslim.

The only country in the world that cannot afford Islamization is Israel. For the rest of the world, surrender to jihad will result in a gradual descent into new Dark Ages with no hope for a Renaissance. For Jews, both in Israel and in Diaspora, it will mean a quick descent into a new Holocaust. The world doesn't mind. The world is sick and tired of being controlled by Jews and wishes to finally free itself of the Jewish cabal.

That's perfectly doable. Two societies succeeded in accomplishing just that in the recent past: the Germans and the Arabs. Germany was destroyed to the ground. The Arab world is a living example of the most abysmal human stagnation. I wonder which judenrein model the world will choose.

The most ironic aspect of this ongoing surrender is that from the cultural, economic, technological, military and every other perspective, our enemies are cavemen - often, literally. Israel is perfectly capable of forever shutting down at least one front of this jihad, but the rest of the world won't let it: they would much rather have it the other way around.

The decision to split the country in two with a fence could only be made in utter desperation. It means surrendering precious territory to an enemy who has no right to it and wouldn't be able to defend it either in battle or in court - provided that truth would matter more to that court than it does to the United Nations. Yet, the fence can achieve even more than saving Israeli lives. It can render the PLO inefficient as an Arab weapon against Israel. And when a weapon becomes obsolete, the owner stops maintaining it. Thus the security fence, combined with appropriate policies of the Israeli government, may, at least in theory, become the PLO's final undoing.

Israel is one of the oldest and, at the same time, one of the tiniest nations on the planet. China, the most populous nation in the world, is also among the oldest, although Qin Shi Huangdi, the first emperor of China, ruled almost eight centuries after Saul, the first king of Israel. During turbulent periods of their history, the Chinese also resorted to building a wall to defend their country from invaders. Take a look at the map of China today: the Great Wall of China is entirely located within the country, much closer to its capital Beijing than it is to China's border. Obviously, it means that it has served its purpose. The ugly fence that Israel has been forced to build to thwart Arab terrorism also has a fighting chance, unless it becomes yet another bargaining chip in useless negotiations with the enemy.

Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant. To read other articles by the author, go to http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/

_________________________End of Story___________________________