Comments on: The Myth of the Gaza Withdrawal

By: Yehoishophot Oliver

Yehoishophot Oliver — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:30 +0000

You neglect to explain the reason that rockets were falling on the Jews living in Gush Katif: Because Arik Sharon gave the Arabs autonomy in Gaza in a "peace deal". Until then the army was patrolling Gaza, and there were no constant rocket attacks. The response to the rockets should not have been to expel Jews en masse from their land, but to retake military control of Gaza, seeing that the arabs had not, in fact (surprise!) decided to make peace. But according to your logic, you should expel Jews from Sderot and hand it over to the Hamas/PLO, because… that way the Jews there will be in less danger! While we're at it, maybe suggest expulsion en masse of all Jews living in the Holy Land to nice, peaceful places like Australia. And then you can compare the number of Jews killed while living in the Holy Land and while living in Australia, and the expulsion will have been justified!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:12:56 +0000

עמנואל שחף You post as a smart ass, Emanuel PTSD for the Gaza population is dire, but we need to care for our own, and no, there really is no peace with Hamas, and you know it

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:09:00 +0000

This is a balanced and lucid article of assessments, and its conclusions should be pondered calmly. Neither staying nor leaving were "good" options for Israel. What's missing is the context of Iran (which Sharon knew), and the one we are witnessing with Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, which Sharon had no way to predict.

By: Levi Kofman

Levi Kofman — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:07:53 +0000

if you were interested in an honest dialogue, didn't overlook half of the facts and distort the remainder, then this discussion would be some what constructive and civilised.

By: Marc Goldberg

Marc Goldberg — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:49:57 +0000

Hi Levi I think that you need to keep your comments constructive, this is a place for civilised debate not simply name calling.

By: Levi Kofman

Levi Kofman — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:05:30 +0000

You really are a delusional idiot. Nothing you say is rational or makes any sense.

By: Levi Kofman

Levi Kofman — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:05:30 +0000

You really are a delusional idiot. Nothing you say is rational or makes any sense.

By: Marc Goldberg

Marc Goldberg — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:57:39 +0000

Nehemia what you're saying is that you think we should swap the 'likelihood' of an armed conflict for a return to an actual armed conflict in Gaza.

It's the failiure to recognise the fact that Israel was engaged in a guerilla war that has led to the mindset that we would have been better off staying.

An army that remains in theatre in the wake of offensive operations stops being an offensive striking force and becomes a bunch of static targets, the guerrilla then gets to choose when and where to strike leaving the occupying force reduced to ineffective sweeps and searches.

That is the reason that we pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and then again in the wake of Cast Lead and the reason the generals aren't interested in reoccupying the Strip.

By: Nehemia Stern

Nehemia Stern — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:43:54 +0000

It's true, I think the disengagement from Gaza was a mistake. You're article, that based itself primarily on casualty rates, does not offer a compelling alternative view. Casualty rates historically are not a good barometer for judging the long term success or failure of policy.
I'm not a general, I don't have a degree in strategic studies. It just seems like common sense. Before the disengagement rockets couldn't reach Ashkelon, now they can reach Tel Aviv. That's a major difference. We've had one war and two other minor engagements since the pullout from Gaza. On the face of it it seems as if the disengagement makes armed conflict more likely. In the end I think that's the litmus test for sound policy.

By: Levi Kofman

Levi Kofman — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:40:35 +0000

to determine whether the withdrawal was a mistake or not one would have to ask whether radical groups like hamas have become stronger both diplomatically and militarily since 2005? Has israel become weaker or stronger on the military and diplomatic fronts? Failure to address this question is dishonest at best.

By: Marc Goldberg

Marc Goldberg — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:58:26 +0000

Nehemia in my article I asked the question was the withdrawal a mistake. The idea that it was a huge mistake and that we have suffered a constant barrage of rockets implies that had we stayed in Gaza we wouldn't be suffering rockets and our situation would be much improved, clearly that is not the case.

I think you believe that the withdrawal was a catastrophe, bearing in mind the attacks that the IDF were suffering before the withdrawal, the fact that the lethality of Kassams was greater then than it is now and the fact that even when the IDF was in the Strip they found it impossible to put an end to rockets being fired on Israel I can't understand why you cling onto this narrative.

By: Nehemia Stern

Nehemia Stern — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:54:21 +0000

And it seems to me that operation cast lead is a 'direct' result of the disengagement. So you really need to include the casualty rate for that conflict as well. If nothing else….out of respect for the casualties.

By: Nehemia Stern

Nehemia Stern — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:46:35 +0000

"This idea that we should never have left Gaza isn't supported by the situation on the ground at the time that we left."
Ah okay, so that's a different claim one that you didn't really make a compelling argument for. You claimed that because of the body count we are better off now than we were in 2005. That is the claim which subjective and incorrect (since you admit that a casualty rate is only one factor in judging policy). It isn't hard to make a far more compelling case for the opposite claim.

Maybe write a different article explaining why the disengagement 'seemed' liked a good idea in 2005. Although it would be viewed similarly to articles that try to understand why appeasement seemed like a good idea in 1936.

By: Michael Davison

Michael Davison — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:31:19 +0000

I doubt that 100% of the Palestinian voters cast their ballot for Hamas. Can we pick and choose between those who did and those who didn't?
I have no love for the Palestinians, their cause or their means, but I can't make such a general condemnation as you do. One funny thing about generalizations, though… they're always wrong, at least for some of the population.

By: Levi Kofman

Levi Kofman — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:56:24 +0000

The so called "situation on the ground" comes from a combination of overlooking and ignoring key facts and distorting the facts that you don't overlook and then play dodge ball when confronted.