.
IMRA’s Dr. Aaron Lerner asks; “Why should analysts straightjacket themselves by refusing to even consider an ongoing occupation as an option?”
Ask this question a slightly different way; Why not re-take and re-settle Jews in Gaza? Ask further, was Sderot and the rest of the Negev under a constant level of bombardment when Jews lived in Gush Katif? Were Ashkelon and Ashdod being hit and under threat when there were Jewish towns and communities in Gaza? Aren’t Kassams, Katyushas and mortars now being launched on Sderot, Ashkelon and Negev Kibbutzim from areas formerly inhabited by Jews? And, after all, isn’t Gaza part of OUR Biblical, historical land?
Ask the question as Dr. Lerner asks it, or as asked here and the answer seems the same; “it is nothing short of dereliction of duty not to…” But then again, to ask these questions is to point out that the premises for the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif topple like a house-of-cards. The answers beg admission that to have expelled Gush Katif residents was, aside from being the most heinous crime committed by Jews against other Jews, was the most monumental dereliction of security and strategic responsibility in modern-day Israeli history. The perpetrators, whether still alive and in vegetative state, deserve to be prosecuted for treason and for dereliction of their solemn governmental responsibilities. MB
Weekly Commentary: Consider Reoccupying Gaza Without a Quick Exit, by Dr. Aaron Lerner (IMRA)
Full Text;
Is the fixation on the need for a quick “exit strategy” a matter of ideology or are the ramifications of not retreating quickly so costly that they swamp the benefits?
Many analysts have presented strong arguments for an effective reoccupation of Gaza but when they assume a priori, that a necessary condition for any occupation is that it ends quickly, they are left either abandoning the idea or relying on house-of-cards arrangements to retreat. Arrangements that could actually leave Israel in a worse position than it is in today.
But why should analysts straightjacket themselves by refusing to even consider an ongoing occupation as an option?
It may not be an ideal solution. But it could very well be the best viable choice available today.
A serious study would have to consider the goals of an ongoing occupation and how these goals might be satisfactorily met at the lowest possible costs.
The results could be surprising.
And when one considers the high costs Israel could very well face if it pursues the alternatives, it is nothing short of dereliction of duty not to entertain the option.
Related report; Former Gaza Collaborators: Invade Gaza and Finish the Job, by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu (Israel National News)