Invading Gaza would be a very bad idea
Israel has every right to defend itself against rocket attacks from Gaza. But the Israeli government should be careful that its response does not harm its own security rather than help.
Invading Gaza would be a very bad idea
Trudy Rubin, Inquirer Opinion Columnist
Israel has every right to defend itself against rocket attacks from Gaza. But the Israeli government should be careful that its response does not harm its own security rather than help.
Specifically, if Israel sends troops into Gaza in a repeat of the 2008 Operation Cast Lead the security costs to Israel are likely to outweigh the benefits. The regional context in 2012, in the wake of the Arab Spring, is far different than it was in 2008. Back then, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak gave tacit and open support to the Israeli operation, and also kept the Rafah exit from Gaza into Egypt closed.
Mubarak is gone. The current Egyptian president, Mohammed Morsi, desperately wants to keep the regional peace and maintain Egypt's peace treaty with Israel; so far he has kept Cairo calm, despite multiple Israeli airstrikes on Gaza (which appear to be far more carefully targeted than in 2008).
But in the new Egypt, Morsi is an elected leader, who has to consider public reactions. If Israel invades Gaza with large scale civilian casualties, and pictures of dying women and children, he will be under pressure from an enraged public, and from members of his own party. Street protests could mount.
Even as I write, Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyif Erdogan is arriving in Egypt, where he will probably take a strong public stance, alongside Morsi, against any Israeli invasion. Israel's relationship with Turkey fell apart over the last Gaza invasion, and its cold, but crucial relationship with Egypt could crash over a similar invasion now.
Similarly, Jordan's King Hussein, already under fire over the lifting of subsidies, will be under heavy public pressure to react to a ground incursion. And Syrian President Bashar al Assad, who kept the Golan Front calm during Israel's 2008 invasion of Gaza, may now choose to deflect attention from Syria's ongoing civil war by heating up the border with Israel.
As if this was not enough, Israel must reckon that an invasion of Gaza will ultimately strengthen the Hamas forces it is attacking. New Hamas leaders will emerge if old ones are killed, and Gulf states will pay for Gazans to rebuild. Moreover, Gazans' discontent with Hamas over their isolation will give way to anger over new casualties from an Israeli attack. And Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas will be further marginalized in the West Bank. (Ironically, his bid to have the U.N. General Assembly endorse a Palestinian state and grant the Palestinians observer status is probably the last chance to save the concept of a two state solution from an ignominious end).
So on all fronts, a ground invasion of Gaza is likely to boomerang, by strengthening Hamas, and weakening Israel's position in its neighborhood. Better to stop now and use Egyptian good offices to negotiate another ceasefire with Hamas. That offers no permanent solution, but at least it won't make a bad situation worse.
To Drumgoole: Your response is right on and more factual and informing than the article by Rubin.
I will take the liberty to add a few comments:
1. God promised His chosen people, the Jews, this land and fulfilled His promise in 1948.
2. God did not give the land to the Palestinians.
3. No one but the Jewish people have any right to this holy land per God's word, the Bible.
4. There will never be permanent peace in that region until the Lord returns to claim His kingdom.
5. In order to please God, the USA should continue to support Israel. They are the only true friend we have in the region.
Thanks again for your excellent response.
— oneway- God has nothing to do with this.
— daxtremesolja - First of all - as soon as Israel is responsible ( regardless of circumstance ) - for 1-drop of Arab or Islamic blood - a world alarm is set off announcing "WAR CRIMES" and "MASSACRE".... etc. The UN and ARAB LEAGUE want immediate cessation by Israel to "Stop the massacre". And then other countries ( US included ) start the NONSENSE CONCEPT OF RESPONDING WITH """ PROPORTIONALITY """. Meanwhile, after 19 months of real massacre - 33,000 murdered MEN WOMEN AND CILDREN in SYRIA.... the Arab League and the UN are impotent and docile. And thousands upon thousands more in Syria have "disappeared". Israel's "very bad" decision was giving back Gaza. Hamas orchestrated being "Democratically elected" only to be an oppressive grop itself. Was Hamas democratically elected to place rocket-launchers adjacent to playgrounds? Schools? Mosques? Civilian factories? This Hamas has done.— zen
- I'm a supporter of Israel, but too all of you jewish folk who voted for obama, this is what you get!— Imbaldy
- So somehow this whole thing is Obama's fault? — daxtremesolja
- Umm.... OBama is not really that old. How are you wrapping this up so that it's his fault? You must have been one of those kids on the stairwell smoking cigs when you should have been in your World History class. Maybe his birth certificate is buried under the dome of the rock? — bad joe s
- News flash => Israel NEVER TARGETS CIVILIANS. Civilian deaths are a terrible terrible byproduct of armed conflict. They occur no matter how careful weapons and explosives are aimed. Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other dogs deliberately - who all cowardly cover their faces - they indiscriminately target civilians. They and their ilk are hateful mongrels. Uncivilized. No culture. Add nothing positive or beneficial to society. Oppress their own people. Treat women like disposable garbage.— zen
- Jews and Muslims fighting? That's a new one. Let them blow each other off the face of the earth, and it be a much nicer place.— DoctorLoads
- "Israel" as it currently exists was created by European countries that didn't want European Jews in their midst. To create it required Europe and the UK to ignore that Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims were living there. Of course those Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims would fight to retain land that had been in their control since the 1800s. If Britain decided to repatriate some of its citizens in the US and declare the US to again be a colony, how would the people living here react? Much like the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are.— NorthPhillyTechie
- Your revisionist history is laughable. A partition plan by the UN was approved in November 1947, allowing both the Palestinians and the Jewish people to each have a nation. Had the Arab world including the Palestinians accepted that in 1947, Israel and Palestine would be side-by-side. The borders for both were not ideal, but the Jews accepted it and planned a nation, with infrastructure, leadership, etc. The Arabs planned a war--which they lost.
And twice in the last 12 years, Israel has pulled out of territory that was "occupied"--Gaza in 2005 and southern Lebanon in 2000. Both of these were followed within years by rocket launches on non-disputed sovereign territory, kidnappings on Israeli territory of its soldiers, and war. Unilateral actions by Israel have had a bad outcome both times--so what do you expect Israel to do? Again, the Palestinians have had opportunity to nation build but rather than lead and plan for a safe future, Fatah and Hamas have had a bloody mini civil war in Gaza (which Hamas won) followed by terror and aggression by Hamas against Israel.— newsreader215 - Perhaps the Palestinians should have accepted partition in 1948 but it was deeply un-fair and anti-democratic.
Palestinians were 2/3 of the population and they were told that they had no say and that a 1/3 minority (most of whom were recent arrivals) was going to get it's way.
The 1/3 minority were to be given rule over most of the land.
Where else in the modern Third World have natives agreed to giving the settlers most of the land?
When Israel makes mutual agreements with Arab neighbors there aren't rockets firing. Rockets came from southern Lebanon and Gaza because Israeli actions weren't peacefull. They just repositioned the troops and kept most of the occupation of Palestine and interference in Lebanon going.— PHILEXILE - Kept most of the occupation of Palestine:
Please tell me what you define as Palestine. Is that pre 1948 territory? Is that only Gaza and West Bank?
And 'interference in Lebanon'? Huh? Israel kept a buffer zone to prevent attacks against its northern border and its northern territories, for the years following the 1982 Lebanon invasion. It was largely effective, though dangerous for the soldiers who were in the buffer zone. They pulled out unilaterally after enough violence, and the UN agreed with Israel over territorial claims of Shebaa Farms, that Hezbollah argued over. Israel did not interfere with Lebanon's internal politics though it defended itself against rocket attack. The 2006 war began because Hezbollah invaded Israeli territory and abducted (killed) its soldiers on Israeli territory. Israel was not interfering nor provoking Lebanon or Hezbollah. And Hezbollah used the Iranian rockets to provoke Israel. I don't know what you are talking about, except to blame Israel for all the problems in the area.
And Palestinians had a total say in their own self determination in 1947 had they or the Arabs accepted partition. According to Wikipedia, Arab Palestine would have been 45% or so of the land, Jewish Israel would be 53% or so, and international would have been the rest (Jerusalem).— newsreader215 - Palestine meaning Gaza and the West Bank. When the Israeli troops and settlers left Gaza the West Bank was still occupied.
You're saying that in 1947 the Palestinians would have had self-determination if they had allowed others to determine what was going to happen to them.
Back in 1919 British Lord Balfour wrote:
" For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission [evidently the King Crane Commission] has been going through the forms of asking what they are. The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."
Partition meant: "We're just going to take most, not all, of your land and homes. A good number of you will be under our rule but those of you left? You can have self-determination on what we've left you."
Lebanon/Hezbollah I will agree is more grey. Hezbollah is not an innocent but neither is Israel.
I do not believe Israel is the source of all the problems. I do believe Israeli policy is the primary obstacle to peace. Peace will be risky for Israel but it will be risky for the Palestinians too. In a two-state peace along 1967 borders there will still be incidents of violence. There is still violence in South Africa and Northern Ireland.
— PHILEXILE - bannedrepublican.The US is a participant in the conflict. We arm,fund and enable Israel while opposing Palestinian independence and peace. I think Americans are entitled to their opinions.
oneway. Why do people with other beliefs have to be ruled by your belief? Your version of a God story is not everybody else's history or life.
zen. People know more about Israeli violence than violence in Syria because Israel is a much-publicized, much mythologized, heroic icon of American culture.
At the debates President Obama spoke emotionally about Israeli children who potentially could have been harmed by Hamas rockets and he said nothing, absolutely nothing, about the hundreds of Palestinian children who had been killed by Israeli arms. A year before at the UN while opposing Palestinian membership Obama spoke at great length about 13 Israeli deaths and said zero about over a thousand Palestinian deaths.— PHILEXILE - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Genesis 12:3 says it all. Works for me. — bad joe s
