Wednesday, January 14, 2009
1/14/2009 04:57:00 PM | 
Posted by
JoeSettler
Obviously I don’t know what’s next for Gaza, but the solution seems pretty obvious.
To begin with, it is estimated that there are around 15,000 active Hamas terrorists in their army, and we’ve only killed around a 1000 of them. The rest are hiding and blending in with their local civilian supporters.
So if we pull out now, then Gaza is left with most of their army intact and alive, and free to rearm and restock.
So that isn’t much of a solution.
Giving control over to Fatah is a bad idea because they already lost Gaza once, and the only reason they haven’t lost the West Bank yet is because of the IDF (and have we really not learned yet, not to trust one terrorist organization over another for our security).
Obviously the IDF will need to stay in Gaza to ensure that Hamas is unable to escalate and reestablish themselves.
Of course that becomes logistically difficult. It means either establishing heavily fortified bases or pulling in and out of Gaza on a daily basis.
Of course there is another solution.
We can take back our towns that we built (did you know that there were Jewish towns in Gaza before 1948, but they were destroyed by the Egyptians?) and rebuild them.
This is a model that has worked in the past and would work again in the future.
Obviously this government would never consider such a logical, militarily sound solution, but if they would, this would be it.
To begin with, it is estimated that there are around 15,000 active Hamas terrorists in their army, and we’ve only killed around a 1000 of them. The rest are hiding and blending in with their local civilian supporters.
So if we pull out now, then Gaza is left with most of their army intact and alive, and free to rearm and restock.
So that isn’t much of a solution.
Giving control over to Fatah is a bad idea because they already lost Gaza once, and the only reason they haven’t lost the West Bank yet is because of the IDF (and have we really not learned yet, not to trust one terrorist organization over another for our security).
Obviously the IDF will need to stay in Gaza to ensure that Hamas is unable to escalate and reestablish themselves.
Of course that becomes logistically difficult. It means either establishing heavily fortified bases or pulling in and out of Gaza on a daily basis.
Of course there is another solution.
We can take back our towns that we built (did you know that there were Jewish towns in Gaza before 1948, but they were destroyed by the Egyptians?) and rebuild them.
This is a model that has worked in the past and would work again in the future.
Obviously this government would never consider such a logical, militarily sound solution, but if they would, this would be it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I don't understand. It is ineffective to build a military outpost, which would require heavy fortification. On the other hand, it is effective to build a civilian outpost?
How would a town in Gaza stop the rockets? That would certainly require an adjacent military outpost to protect it. What additional benefit would a settlement have, in addition to a military outpost?
The short answer is that it's a matter of attitude.
A fortress by nature is a temporary defensive structure, and the primary thinking there is to defend the structure until it isn't needed. Pulling soldiers in and out unnecessarily places them in harms way and the army is always looking first how to not send them into a danger zone.
Living in our land (and Gaza had Jewish communities there until they were overrun and destroyed in 1948 by the Egyptians) is an attitude of ownership, and you thus look at it, and treat it quite differently.
Post a Comment