T. Belman. Currently, it is an embarassment for Israel that they haven’t been able to stop the attacks but at least no Jews have been killed so far. If Israel decided to fully invade and retake Gaza, many IDF soldiers would die and continue to die as the new occupation continued. It doesn’t seem worth it. We would be trading a bad situation for a worse one. Perhaps its time to start assassinating the leaders of Hamas whether they be in Gaza or elsewhere.
Both Israel and Hamas wanted quiet, they simply couldn’t agree on the terms for such a cessation of hostilities, settling instead of a series of minimal understandings.
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman sounds strong when he talks about a Gaza “military operation” and dealing Hamas “the harshest of blows.”
His words stoke the fantasy that Hamas violence, such as rockets and incendiary devices, would disappear if only the IDF would unleash its full military powers.
The Palestinian launch of two powerful rockets Wednesday morning – one that hit a home in the southern city of Beersheba and one that landed near the coast in the center of the country – almost seemed to be a way of egging Liberman on.
MK Michael Oren (Kulanu), Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, quickly noted that Hamas was exploiting Israel’s unwillingness for a full-out war, the kind that leads to victory.
Liberman has not even used the word, nor has he even made reference to a cease-fire, let alone peace.
His best assessment of an outcome from a military operation was four to five years of quiet, not even a decade. Liberman’s war-hawk talk has not included a strategy of how to end the threat from Hamas, but rather an assessment of the quagmire regarding Israel’s policy toward Hamas and the Gaza Strip in general.
It’s a quagmire fed by the perceived existential threats attached to the most basic of conditions for any form of a cease-fire. It is for this reason that the guns of the last war fell silent without any formal cease-fire agreement.
Both Israel and Hamas wanted quiet, they simply couldn’t agree on the terms for such a cessation of hostilities, settling instead of a series of minimal understandings.
The IDF is likely strong enough to defeat Hamas and if necessary reoccupy the Gaza Strip, which was under its military control from 1967 to 2005.
But Israel is not willing to pay the heavy diplomatic price such a step would cost, or the domestic price of the resulting loss of Israeli soldiers’ lives.
Nor can it risk meeting Hamas’s most basic demand – that it rescind all its border restrictions – including the naval and air blockades that were imposed in order to halt the free flow of arms into Gaza.
The military blockade pre-dates Hamas’s rule of Gaza, which began in 2007 when it ousted Fatah in a bloody coup.
Israel holds that this blockade is more vital now than ever, in order to prevent Iran from gaining the same military foothold on the southern borders that it holds near Israel’s northern border.
Hamas in turn has no desire sign its own death warrant by agreeing to Israel’s demand that it demilitarize the Gaza Strip. The terrorist group’s military wing, with its rockets and infiltration tunnels, remains the only form of an army that the Palestinians have.
Israel had hoped that the economic sanctions it has imposed on Gaza for the last 11 years would help lead to its domestic demise. Instead, those restrictions, plus Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s stricter economic measures, have led to a Hamas-led popular, low level violent uprising along Israel’s borders for the last half-year, with no end in sight.
Efforts by Egyptian General Intelligence Services chief Abbas Kamel to restore calm have intensified this week.
The security cabinet, which already met Sunday regarding Gaza, was expected to meet again on Wednesday.
Opinions there are harshly divided, between a limited military response, such as Liberman is advocating, and another round of sanctions and appeasements, such as has been done in the past.
What the ministers are unlikely to green-light is a plan – any kind of a plan – that will lead to full victory or defeat, thereby ensuring for now that the Gaza conflict will remain an endlessly repeating Groundhog Day.
I was expressing a hope. After all just a few months ago they offered to quadruple the present size of Gaza. They would benefit if ports and a new city or two would be built there, because it would be Western money…..And Egypt would be in control increase her economy; taxes, tourism, etc.etc.. Do you see how they just yesterday peremptorily ordered Hamas to cease with the border agitations.
They didn’t “ask” they ORDERED…..! We have to wait to see if they will be obeyed, and if not, what they’ll then do….
@ Edgar G.:
Egypt will not give up land. At most in my view it would build a port (s) that would be Egyptian but would also let some Gazans works there and use these ports.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
They don’t need to dread it if they can revive Sisi’s offer to add a part of thr Sinai to Gaza. Then they can all be cleared out and Israel can resettle in it’s own land again.
@ Ted Belman:
Yes of course, but after the preparation I advocate, their risk is correspondingly much lower……as I said at the beginning. And they’ll find the openings of the underground tunnels and areas, to fill with gas ot any kind they have for such purposes.
@ Sebastien Zorn: said
I was alluding to the same in my above commentary.
Actually I do not believe it is a ridiculous argument it is perhaps informed or deduced one. One Hamas is Sunni is Islamic Jihad is not. Hamas is now getting help from Iran and made up with them but Islamic Jihad is just like Hezbollah a straight out subsidiary of Iran and SHIA (this is a big deal). Hamas IS NOT A PROXY of Iran but more an ally of convince for both parties whose common enemy is Israel.
I read an article that said that Iran wants Israel to take out Hamas so that Islamic Jihad will take over and then Iran will be running Gaza directly. Seems like a ridiculous argument on the face of it. Hamas is already an Iranian proxy. If Iranian forces moved into Gaza directly, regardless of who the proxy is, then it would be time for all-out war to the finish and there is consensus on that, I am sure. Israel will never tolerate an Iranian military presence in the area. Israeli military occupation would have to resume. Much as Israelis dread that, i think that would be big progress. The important thing is to root out sedition in the education system at all levels. That’s what’s sapping Israel’s will to claim what is hers. I think that is true here in the U.S., as well. That and the courts, military, police, cabinet, etc. But, education is primary. Media is important, too.
I believe that the IDF, Lieberman, and Bibi are not looking long term on what it will take to resolve the Gaza Problem. It needs to be resolved by destroying Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Salafi terrorists in Gaza. They are a large number and doing this correctly would need a plan on governing Gaza, the diplomatic fallout and what do with Gazans on the day after.
Currently I believe Iran was behind the rocket that hit Beersheva and the one that missed Tel Aviv falling into the sea. Only Islamic Jihad and Hamas are known to have this type of rocket in Gaza. It is very possible that Iran hoped Israel would change the balance of power in Gaza and Islamic Jihad would take over if Israel delivers a heavy enough blow on Hamas. That way Iran would be running Gaza via its surrogate Islamic Jihad. Also if Israel is distracted by Gaza it will pay less attention to Iran in Syria.
Israel can from the air, only, inflict heavy heavy damage on Gaza. However, this would lead to a war of attrition possibly if no ground action is taken because unless the ground is taken, stopping all rocket fire is very difficult. Ground actions would lead to IDF causalities. In order to try and stop rocket fire from the air only Israel would need to knock down many high-rises in Gaza and start taking out the Hamas leaders when found. They will quickly go underground and quiet once a war starts. If Israel does not take the ground in Gaza and effectively eliminates the Hamas leadership the Iranians win as they will defacto take over Gaza.
At the moment no one in power in Israel wants a ground campaign to take over Gaza. Hamas and Iran know this. So the problem will remain in one form or another because currently the powers to be are not yet focused and dedicated to solving the problem but keep hoping it will go away just like with Bibi’s scandals.
Yes, I’ve said before that targeting Hamas leaders has been the most effective tactic in the past. Also, pals who launch terror balloons and other terrorists caught in the act need to be killed as a matter of policy. Bennett was just arguing with Eisenkot about that, as was leaked. At some point, Israel will need to retake Gaza and put the Pals under occupation but with Iran and Russia on the Syrian border and Hezbollah on the Lebanese side, it would be foolish to engage in a war of choice at this time. Not to mention, impossible with Eisenkot, and I don’t know who else, in charge?
Pretty shocking that Eisenkot is in charge, huh? Who has the power to remove him?
“The Moral Position of the IDF’s Chief-of-Staff”
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=34439
And LIeberman is just as bad. When did he turn into a dove?
“Lieberman slams Bennett over clash with IDF chief”
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5310876,00.html
@ Edgar G.:
Yes but ultimately the IDF has to put boots on the ground and enter.
TED- I don’t necessarily believe tht many IDF would die if they attacked Gaza. There’s an IAF you now and a good up and down bombing -after telling the population to take shelter, would do the world of good, and make Hamas keep their noses to the ground.The IDF could carry on for much longer than Hamas could stand t.
All tt needs is the resolve.