Comparing Trump’s Wall to the Israel-Egypt Barrier

Jon Hayes

{Editor's note - Jon is a young writer seeking to hone his chops a bit and is a founder of USS Sports Machine. Fresh and thoughtful voices are always welcome.}

Prime Minister Netanyahu has faced severe backlash by Israeli media after tweeting out his support for President Trump's wall along the border of Mexico, citing the effectiveness of the Israel-Egypt barrier. Though it was likely improper of Netanyahu to involve himself in such a messy situation considering the relationship between Israel and Mexico, it is important here to examine the accuracy of Netanyahu's statement. Did the Israel-Egypt barrier actually stop immigrants from entering Israel through the south? And if so, would it be as effective in the U.S.?

According to the Guardian, the Israeli-Egypt barrier cut illegal immigration from 2,295 in January to just 36 in December for a decrease of 98.4%. At first glance, this gives serious weight to the conclusion that building a wall would be the right move for the United States.

However, because the geography of the two areas are so different, something that worked for Israel may not necessarily work for the U.S.. It is certainly not an apples-to-apples comparison. In fact, in an interview with The Intercept, Magal, the company which helped build the Israeli border, claimed that the level of protection Israel uses is only effective in well-populated areas. Hagai Katz, who was speaking on behalf of Magal, went on to say that "If you’re in an open spaces, which is more like a desert in a way, not a lot of vegetation, and no nearby cities, then you know putting a fence for thousands of kilometers or miles it just doesn’t make sense”. The US-Mexico border, spanning both the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts, would fall squarely into the "doesn't make sense" category.

Despite Netanyahu's tweet, walls such as the Israel-Egypt barrier don't actually stop illegal immigration themselves, a major promise that Trump has made when speaking about the wall. Instead, what they do is slow down immigrants enough for patrolling border agents to catch them. This becomes increasingly evident by examining other barriers, such as the Israeli West Bank barrier. This barrier reduced lives lost by terrorist attacks from 117 in 2004 to only 45 in 2005, for a reduction of 60%. However, as reported by Haaretz, the Shin Bet and Israeli Defense Force actually contributed this reduction to their own improvement in their joint ability to act against terrorists.

Similarly John Kelly, chief of the Department of Homeland Security said in a recent Senate testimony that "A physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job. It has to be, really, a layered defense". He further stated, “If you were to build a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, you'd still have to back that wall up with patrolling by human beings, by sensors, by observation devices.”

Though it is not impossible for the U.S. to replicate Israel's success, the cost of building it and stocking it with the necessary personnel and technology will likely be much higher. And since unlike Israel, the U.S. isn't using it to stop terrorist attacks, they will need to decide if the price tag is worth it.