[Polybius]

I have read May 2004 thread and I disagree with you. Your argument, and the argument of Israeli government, is - let's get out and hide behind the wall, when they strike us, we will strike back hard. The problem here is that you and they know that Israel will be attacked and innocent lives will be lost. First, Arabs given free reign in Gaza will be able to acquire more sophisticated weapons, and will be able to hit Israel that much harder. Second, Israel will never be free of responsibility of what is happening in Gaza, any response will be limited. So, in effect, Israeli government is paying for peace - or even promise of peace - with Jewish blood. Thus, it is immoral since their primary obligation is to protect lives of Israeli citizens. In their defense I can only say that every people deserve their government.

Since I am neither Jewish nor Israeli but am a strong supporter of Israel, I am analyzing the situation from a purely military perspective without any of (what I consider) the irrelevant emotional overtones of the situation.

Manning a strong defensive position is not "hiding". It is simply what professional military men have done for ages from Hadrian's Wall, to the Korean Military Demarcation Line to the mine field and bunker and tank traps defenses of U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo where I served.

Whatever problems may come from Gaza's Palestinians, they are severely aggravated by having Israeli civilians living in Gaza. They serve no useful military purpose there and, as a practical matter, are a drain to the Israeli military that must divert forces to protect them.

If you are looking for absolute Peace, there is only one solution and that would be to totally exterminate the Palestinian population of Gaza.

Since that is not going to happen, the answer lies in the time-honored combination of a strong defense combined with strong offensive military capabilities and the political and military freedom to use that offense.

Istraeli civilians in Gaza further neither offense nor defense and, in fact, detract from both of them.

As a recent example, consider the problem of Fallujah.

When the U.S. was trying to fight in Fallujah with civilians that they wanted to spare, the offensive options were limited.

When the Fallujah civilians (they would now be the Israeli Gaza settlers) were no longer there, the offensive options greatly increased, Fallujah was flattened and the enemy was massacred.

What "sophisticated weapons" could Gaza project into Israel that they do not already have now?

Right now, you have nuisance weapons manned by militias. Any attack by a greater degree of sophistication of weapons would entail involvement by the Palestinian Government itself which would then open up all of Gaza's infrastructure devastating attack by Israel since it would constitute acts of war by one Government on another instead of attacks by militias whose actions the Palestinian leaders can now claim (truly or falsely) to be uninvolved with.

As an Israeli example, look at the northern border of Israel where that situation now exists and thing are rather quiet.

[chukcha]

Your example of Fallujah does not work here, since militants and their targets are already separated in Gaza.

Gaza move is clearly not military - it is political. As the matter of fact, many in IDF were against moving out of Gaza, because they will not be able to monitor Pals acquisition of more sophisticated weapons - anti-aircraft missiles, Katyusha rockets, etc.. With Israel out it would be up to Egypt to control flow of weapons via tunnels. I am not sure who is going to control port of Gaza, but clearly it would be open to all kind of abuse.

Militarily and politically, it is not a good strategy.