We have had bank robberies before.
But if the new Bank President ordered security to leave the bank doors unlocked at night, and the guards unarmed, he would be at the very least an idiot.
Using your analogy, when you know there are accomplices inside the bank, some of whom are probably armed, and there is a team of WELL-ARMED robbers outside, is it wise to stand between these two forces at the front door with the vault door open and a backup guard at the vault gate?
Or are you better off using high-tech surveillance at the front door, hire independent surrogates at the front door monitoring entry, use third party guards at the vault gate and lock yourself, well-armed, inside the vault as the most solid line of defense.
The second option keeps you from having your back to a potential threat (inside the bank/Gaza), while still being able to monitor access (through the front door/Gaza-Egypt border), maintain security before threats can access your territory's threshold (the vault gate/Palestinian side security), and gives you absolute control of the most critical and secure point in danger of attack (just inside the vault door/Israeli checkpoint)
In your analogy, the Bank President would actually be Israel as they own the bank. Rice would be their biggest customer who is using her clout to influence the Bank President.
Is the customer to blame if the Bank President is so wimpy that they do whatever the customer wants?
And the Bank President didn't order security to leave, he changed security companies.
Is it the customer's fault, or even the Bank President's fault that the security guards ran away like wussies when the robbers showed up?