Top reservists: Roadblocks in W. Bank do more harm than good

Haaretz 14:06 12/02/2008
By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent

A group of top Israel Defense Forces reserve officers are set to unveil Wednesday a new position paper according to which the 550 roadblocks in the West Bank serve to increase the motivation to commit terror attacks, and removing a significant portion of them would help calm the security situation and undermine Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip. Former MI heads, Civil Administration heads, and commanders of divisions, brigades and regiments operating in the West Bank and Gaza, said in the paper addressed to Defense Minister Ehud Barak that even though roadblocks prevent terror attacks in the short term, they induce frustration and infringe on basic human rights of Palestinians, thereby fueling terror in the long term. The signatories will take part in a conference in Jerusalem's Van Leer Institute on Wednesday, and outline an alternative plan to the current web of roadblocks, which is based on a more flexible deployment of forces and pinpointed intelligence.

The officers say that in parallel to an increased use of temporary roadblocks, Israel should advance the construction of the separation fence and instruct the IDF to work in closer cooperation with the Palestinian security forces. Following his promise to the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas last summer to reduce the number of roadblocks, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appointed Defense Minister Ehud Barak to review the issue of mobility in the West Bank, but the revision is still underway. Last August it was reported that Barak had asked the security establishment to "consider new operational paths," and that he "gives it time to conform to the new policy." The paper passes harsh judgment on the IDF's roadblock policy, which it says does not distinguish between terrorists and civilians. The desire to prevent terror at any cost, combined with a lack of specific real-time intelligence, affects a large proportion of Palestinians, it is argued. The writers also say that the political strata are aware of the strategic damage this policy invites, but are refrain from disputing it for fear of being perceived as promoting a lenient position on terror.