What should Israel do with Gaza?

[Anonymous]

If nothing else, the Ukraine-Russia situation has shown that to give up your a arsenal leaves your people vulnerable and little recourse to effectively fight back. Hamas would be foolish to give up all their weapons with no way to fight back, regardless of how ineffective fighting back us been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would not call a 6 month ceasefire that apparently neither party held to a "long truce."

I would love nothing more than to have the Palestinians have a thriving society in Gaza but I just dont believe that it can happen, even if Israel completely lifts the blockade, given the culture of hatred, the teaching of children to hate, and the glorification of violence.

The currently use what aid they do get for weapons and tunnels, not for schools and hospitals. How and why would that change?

Gaza does not have access to electricity approximately 12 hours of the day. Israel controls their access to electricity and water. Israel prohibits construction materials from entering Gaza. Israel will not permit Gaza to have an airport or a seaport. Israel limits the freedom of movement of people in Gaza. Israel dictates to Gaza's fishermen where they can and cannot fish.

How do you propose that Gazans build anything under these conditions? They literally cannot build schools and hospitals if they wanted to, because Israel does not allow construction materials in legally! The "culture of hatred" is not the problem here. It's a good red herring, but it's not the problem.

Given the extensive tunnel system and the extensive weapons and missiles, they clearly have access to some materials, even if Israel is not providing them with this access.

You bring up exactly the point I wanted you to- people in Gaza who want to defy Israel will do what they want anyway. They build their tunnels, they get their rockets, etc.

Do you think that the people who want to build schools and hospitals want to do so illegally, with the help of terrorists and whoever else has the means to sneak materials in? Do you think this is possible?

So imagine you are a regular person in Gaza. Against all odds, Hamas manages to fight and defy Israel in any way that they can. Secular leaders are able to do... nothing. They cannot build anything. They cannot help anyone. They cannot give you any alternative solutions. Your choices are to starve or fight. What do you choose?

Israel, by making life in Gaza ridiculously difficult, only serves to make Hamas stronger, to make them seem like the only option. I suspect that Israel does not even want any other viable organizations.

And without taking Hamas out of power, how do you suggest lifting the blockade for the regular people of Gaza without simultaneously strengthening Hamas and the people who want to defy and destroy Israel? Particularly when it was the civilian of Gaza who elected Hamas and continue to support them?

Wait- are you conceding that Israel's current actions are strengthening Hamas? If so, then Israel has no good options.

What should Israel's goal be at this point? Should it be to stop the rocket attacks, or destroy Hamas?

If it to stop the rocket attacks, then it should negotiate with Hamas.

If it is to destroy Hamas, then it should allow livable conditions in Gaza and wait for Hamas to fail on its own. Hamas is an Islamic extremist organization. Islamic extremism thrives under some particular conditions- foreign intervention, war, harsh living conditions, a sense of persecution. You can't just kill off Islamic extremists, because as long as there are angry young men to take the place of the angry young men you've killed, they will continue. It's not very effective at governing. So if they are under peaceful conditions where they just fail at governing, they will eventually lose popularity. It could take years, it could take months. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Peace is the only answer.

But I don't think Israel actually wants Hamas to fail. I think they want to use Hamas as an excuse to give absolutely no concessions to the Palestinians, forever.

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Israel should respond to every rocket attack with a devastating artillery barrage. Keep killing the Palestinians until they quit or are all dead.

That is the current strategy. How's it working?

Actually, that's not the strategy, and that's why the current strategy isn't working.

Palestinians interpret restraint as weakness.

500 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilian. You call that restraint? Do you really support mass murder?

[Anonymous]

If it is to destroy Hamas, then it should allow livable conditions in Gaza and wait for Hamas to fail on its own. Hamas is an Islamic extremist organization. Islamic extremism thrives under some particular conditions- foreign intervention, war, harsh living conditions, a sense of persecution. You can't just kill off Islamic extremists, because as long as there are angry young men to take the place of the angry young men you've killed, they will continue. It's not very effective at governing. So if they are under peaceful conditions where they just fail at governing, they will eventually lose popularity. It could take years, it could take months. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Peace is the only answer.

But I don't think Israel actually wants Hamas to fail. I think they want to use Hamas as an excuse to give absolutely no concessions to the Palestinians, forever.

So you think Israel's response should be to sit and hope that, instead of using unfettered access to build stronger, deadlier weapons and use them against Israel, Gaza's response to the improved living conditions gained in response to Hamas' aggression is to turn around and kick out Hamas? That Gazans are able to overcome a sense of persecutions and the effects of decades of war and harsh living conditions before Hamas can build and launch those weapons? And that they should sit quietly under a barrage of rockets (at best) for a generation or two until that happens? I don't think that's realistic.

[Anonymous]

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

Exactly. And until someone answers this question, peace isn't possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

I find Israel is partially responsible for the conditions that led to Hamas' power. Now it has to deal with it. It can either negotiate with Hamas and push forward with an imperfect, risky peace process, or it can have war forever. Obviously you think war forever is the more viable option. I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

I find Israel is partially responsible for the conditions that led to Hamas' power. Now it has to deal with it. It can either negotiate with Hamas and push forward with an imperfect, risky peace process, or it can have war forever. Obviously you think war forever is the more viable option. I disagree.

Sure, Israel is partially responsible. And of course Israel has to deal with it, probably by negotiating with Hamas. But what should Hamas bring to the table, is the question I'm asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If it is to destroy Hamas, then it should allow livable conditions in Gaza and wait for Hamas to fail on its own. Hamas is an Islamic extremist organization. Islamic extremism thrives under some particular conditions- foreign intervention, war, harsh living conditions, a sense of persecution. You can't just kill off Islamic extremists, because as long as there are angry young men to take the place of the angry young men you've killed, they will continue. It's not very effective at governing. So if they are under peaceful conditions where they just fail at governing, they will eventually lose popularity. It could take years, it could take months. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Peace is the only answer.

But I don't think Israel actually wants Hamas to fail. I think they want to use Hamas as an excuse to give absolutely no concessions to the Palestinians, forever.

So you think Israel's response should be to sit and hope that, instead of using unfettered access to build stronger, deadlier weapons and use them against Israel, Gaza's response to the improved living conditions gained in response to Hamas' aggression is to turn around and kick out Hamas? That Gazans are able to overcome a sense of persecutions and the effects of decades of war and harsh living conditions before Hamas can build and launch those weapons? And that they should sit quietly under a barrage of rockets (at best) for a generation or two until that happens? I don't think that's realistic.

I don't think it's realistic to expect that blasting an occupied territory until they cry uncle is going to lead to security. Israel is working very hard to build a generation of Gazans who despise Israel. Is that going to lead to safety? The only true way for Israel to have "security" is to literally kill everyone in Gaza. I also think it's unrealistic to believe that basic concessions will lead to Hamas having a military capacity that will compete with Israel, one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Israel helped create this situation, and now has to put the safety of its people at risk in order to move forward. Too bad, but that's the situation it created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

I find Israel is partially responsible for the conditions that led to Hamas' power. Now it has to deal with it. It can either negotiate with Hamas and push forward with an imperfect, risky peace process, or it can have war forever. Obviously you think war forever is the more viable option. I disagree.

Michael Oren has a proposal for demilitarization of Gaza, easing of the blockade, opening border crossings, and rebuilding infrastructure. If the argument is that Hamas' weapons are 1) largely ineffective and 2) that the tunnels were not meant for attacks, then why do they need them?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-gaza-disarmament-20140722-story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

I find Israel is partially responsible for the conditions that led to Hamas' power. Now it has to deal with it. It can either negotiate with Hamas and push forward with an imperfect, risky peace process, or it can have war forever. Obviously you think war forever is the more viable option. I disagree.

Sure, Israel is partially responsible. And of course Israel has to deal with it, probably by negotiating with Hamas. But what should Hamas bring to the table, is the question I'm asking.

Let's review: Hamas fires rockets and builds tunnels. All they can bring to the table is to refrain from doing this. Under an agreement with Israel, if they reneged, so could Israel. Ta da!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it is to destroy Hamas, then it should allow livable conditions in Gaza and wait for Hamas to fail on its own. Hamas is an Islamic extremist organization. Islamic extremism thrives under some particular conditions- foreign intervention, war, harsh living conditions, a sense of persecution. You can't just kill off Islamic extremists, because as long as there are angry young men to take the place of the angry young men you've killed, they will continue. It's not very effective at governing. So if they are under peaceful conditions where they just fail at governing, they will eventually lose popularity. It could take years, it could take months. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Peace is the only answer.

But I don't think Israel actually wants Hamas to fail. I think they want to use Hamas as an excuse to give absolutely no concessions to the Palestinians, forever.

So you think Israel's response should be to sit and hope that, instead of using unfettered access to build stronger, deadlier weapons and use them against Israel, Gaza's response to the improved living conditions gained in response to Hamas' aggression is to turn around and kick out Hamas? That Gazans are able to overcome a sense of persecutions and the effects of decades of war and harsh living conditions before Hamas can build and launch those weapons? And that they should sit quietly under a barrage of rockets (at best) for a generation or two until that happens? I don't think that's realistic.

I don't think it's realistic to expect that blasting an occupied territory until they cry uncle is going to lead to security. Israel is working very hard to build a generation of Gazans who despise Israel. Is that going to lead to safety? The only true way for Israel to have "security" is to literally kill everyone in Gaza. I also think it's unrealistic to believe that basic concessions will lead to Hamas having a military capacity that will compete with Israel, one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Israel helped create this situation, and now has to put the safety of its people at risk in order to move forward. Too bad, but that's the situation it created.

You're being disingenuous. Hamas doesn't need an army. All it needs are better rockets, which are easy to get with unfettered access to supply streams. And I can't imagine a country in the world that would put its citizens at risk like that without meaningful attempts to mitigate that risk. Be realistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

I find Israel is partially responsible for the conditions that led to Hamas' power. Now it has to deal with it. It can either negotiate with Hamas and push forward with an imperfect, risky peace process, or it can have war forever. Obviously you think war forever is the more viable option. I disagree.

Sure, Israel is partially responsible. And of course Israel has to deal with it, probably by negotiating with Hamas. But what should Hamas bring to the table, is the question I'm asking.

Let's review: Hamas fires rockets and builds tunnels. All they can bring to the table is to refrain from doing this. Under an agreement with Israel, if they reneged, so could Israel. Ta da!

But would it be too late for Israel if their security if significantly compromised in the meantime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

I find Israel is partially responsible for the conditions that led to Hamas' power. Now it has to deal with it. It can either negotiate with Hamas and push forward with an imperfect, risky peace process, or it can have war forever. Obviously you think war forever is the more viable option. I disagree.

Sure, Israel is partially responsible. And of course Israel has to deal with it, probably by negotiating with Hamas. But what should Hamas bring to the table, is the question I'm asking.

Let's review: Hamas fires rockets and builds tunnels. All they can bring to the table is to refrain from doing this. Under an agreement with Israel, if they reneged, so could Israel. Ta da!

Ok, just spitballing: Hamas could turn over people responsible for bombing Israel. It could dismantle its offensive wing. It could agree to outside inspection, without restriction, of weapons caches and of areas (like abandoned schools) where they've found rockets.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

I find Israel is partially responsible for the conditions that led to Hamas' power. Now it has to deal with it. It can either negotiate with Hamas and push forward with an imperfect, risky peace process, or it can have war forever. Obviously you think war forever is the more viable option. I disagree.

Michael Oren has a proposal for demilitarization of Gaza, easing of the blockade, opening border crossings, and rebuilding infrastructure. If the argument is that Hamas' weapons are 1) largely ineffective and 2) that the tunnels were not meant for attacks, then why do they need them?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-gaza-disarmament-20140722-story.html

Hamas would still want weapons and internal tunnels for defensive purposes. Israel should absolutely try to negotiate demilitarization. I doubt that Hamas would accept it, but Israel should at least try.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Israel's goal is security. It has no interest in governing Gaza or fighting with Gaza. How does Israel open the blockade and still maintain security? Thats the question that has not been answered.

I find Israel is partially responsible for the conditions that led to Hamas' power. Now it has to deal with it. It can either negotiate with Hamas and push forward with an imperfect, risky peace process, or it can have war forever. Obviously you think war forever is the more viable option. I disagree.

Michael Oren has a proposal for demilitarization of Gaza, easing of the blockade, opening border crossings, and rebuilding infrastructure. If the argument is that Hamas' weapons are 1) largely ineffective and 2) that the tunnels were not meant for attacks, then why do they need them?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-gaza-disarmament-20140722-story.html

Hamas would still want weapons and internal tunnels for defensive purposes. Israel should absolutely try to negotiate demilitarization. I doubt that Hamas would accept it, but Israel should at least try.

And if Hamas rejects it, what choice does Israel have?

(I am asking these questions in all seriousness. I am a huge supporter of Israel but HATE the current situation and find the deaths on both sides to be horrible but I honestly see no alternative)