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.
- Sure, but they don't really have a great track record of actually being able to kill IDF soldiers and it is doubtful that other Arab countries will join them. If they do, Israel will defeat them, once again, and will be in a stronger position for West Bank negotiations. It is a bad strategy for them.
- Opinions on Israel and the middle east... THAT is a bad idea.— sillybilly
- Israel should invade and not stop until every last Hamas person is dead. You have to win the war before you can win the peace.— fgomarty
- ''WOKMASTER'',What exactly is a ''Seculaar''Nation?— GREEKPICNIC
- For decades this conflict is like the constant drip of Chinese water torture. The Israel hating left squeals outrage if Israel considers "disproportionate response". The only path to lasting peace is the annihilation of one side or the other. Israel will hopefully finally see this as go time. Disproportionate response by employing overwhelming force is the only response that makes sense if an end to perpetual conflict is to be achieved. It can bring and end to what will otherwise result in Israel's death by thousands of paper cuts. Besides lasting peace for Israel it would deliver a staggering blow to the world's most destructive human debris. The infestation known as Islam.— jgalt52
- Is see we have the typo police weighing in. Profound observation. Any other words of wisdom, GreekPicnic?— wokmaster
- They can have at it as long as the U.S. stays out of it Hopefully we have learned to avoid ground wars in the Mideast. A 100 years from now the religious fanatics on both sides will still be fighting over a few square miles of useless desert.— bmayer1865
- "Besides lasting peace for Israel it would deliver a staggering blow to the world's most destructive human debris. The infestation known as Islam."
Yea WW3!!! Surely our troops wouldn't be called up to help out. If that is/was the case, it's an absolute certainty that jgalt52, his children and grandchildren would all be first in line to fight the war.— wokmaster - Trudy Rubin's analysis is correct. However, we are past the 2008-2009 Israeli bombing of Gaza analogy. Hamas today is recognized by major Arab states and Turkey as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. And that recognition has effectively nulified the U.S., European, and Israeli dessignation of Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Hamas has been gaining international recognition with a recent visit by the Emir of Qatar, a visit planned by Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan, and the visit this week by the Egyptian prime minister. And all that recognition by U.S. allies while Hamas is listed as a "terrorist organization" by the West. Under U.S. law, the U.S. is supposed to punish Qatar, Turkey and Egypt with sanctions as terrorist supporting states. The U.S., however, won't dare to push its Israel-imposed on the U.S. terrorist designation of Hamas on its Middle East allies because it doesn't want to shoot itself in the foot!
The current Hamas - Israel battle, therefore, is Hama's Arab Spring against Israel. All Arab Springs were achieved with bloody sacrifices,
Hama's Arab Spring has achieved something that was unthinkable until now: The official trashing of the U.S., European and Israeli designation of itself as a "terrorist organization!"
Nikos Retsos, retired professor— Nikos Retsos - So according to this MORON from the stinky Inky the Israelis should just sit there and play catch of all the rockets from the Religion of peace... who are receiving their missiles from Iran ....Can't wait till this paper goes the way of the TWINKY— fbpdplt
- We can't expect Israelis to live with Palestinian rockets but Palestinians are supposed to live with Israeli occupation?
Did the conflict begin with Hamas's rockets? No. Israel was killing people in Gaza decades before any rocket was ever fired.
Of course it's tragic that Israeli civilians feel threatened but is it right that Israel gets to oppress the Palestinians and there are no consequences?
— PHILEXILE - What occupation? Both sides were offered statehood back in 1948 and the poor little ol' muslims chose WAR so they could have it all. They lost. When you start a war and lose, there is a price to pay. Next you'll want Israel to give the Golan Heights back so that the Syrians can shell them from a higher elevation? Oh boo-hoo-hoo for lost land.
Jordan is the Palestinian land since there's more of them there than there are Jordanians. Do the Jordanians carp about being occupied? - NO.— bad joe s - "The poor little ol' Muslems chose war...." Christian Palestinians opposed the imposition of Israel, so did secular ones. India was opposed to partition as was nationalist China. Mexico refused to vote for it. Gandhi said he wished the Arabs were non-violent but that there cause was just.
When Palestinians mourn for land they lived on 60 years ago that's "boo-hoo-hoo", but American and European Zionists mourning for a fabled tribal kingdom 2000 years ago is noble?
When Syria was in the Golan Hights they could have shelled much of northern Israel but they didn't. They only occassionaly shelled certain specific places.
Why? Those places were in dispute.
The point isn't that the Syrians and Palestinians are always right and Israel always wrong. The point is that it's a complicated, tragic, situation with right and wrong on both sides.— PHILEXILE - If I were an Israeli I'd be a little dubious of advice coming from half a world away.— bannedrepublican
I'm sure the right wingers on here would be very understanding if they were a peaceful Palestinian business owner having to wait at check points for hours each day to enter Israel.— wokmaster
