Israel must increase military pressure while pursuing a diplomatic solution
Yuval Diskin
Published: 22.07.14, 13:43
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
22 Talkbacks for this article
1. I respectfully disagree
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (07.22.14)
Forget the "diplomatic solution;" it's only a fantasy and a product of Jewish wishful thinking. Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the rest of the rabble in Gaza are not in the least bit interested in a "diplomatic solution." They are exclusively interested in the destruction of the State of Israel. Any "diplomatic solution" they agree to would simply be for the purpose of crawling into a corner, licking their considerable wounds, and living to fight another day. We have to destroy Gaza; we have to eradicate the terrorists. Only then might there be something upon which whomever is left in Gaza can build upon. We should devote our energies to cleaning up Gaza. Then, once we annex Judea and Samaria -- a virtual certainty now -- instead of repatriating West Bank Arabs to Jordan, we can help the "palestine" authority build something tangible in Gaza. But you don't negotiate with vipers, you kill them. Because if we don't destroy them now, root and branch, we will only go through this same dance two years from now, when they will have recovered sufficiently and re-armed with longer-range missiles, to pursue their goal of destroying the State of Israel and exterminating the Jews. If they want to play a game, it has to be under Israel's rules. No mercy. They are the Amalekites.
2. little detail
Zorro ,   Boston   (07.22.14)
You may want to read the Hamas charter and plans about israel before having rosy dreams of piece and a Gaza Riviera with those guys there I wish I could even belive in the possibility of a Gaza " Monaco" under Egyptian protectorate status of some type The problem is the radical Islam poison, the Arabs are the first ones who perish drinking it
3. I like it (end)
Robert ,   USA   (07.23.14)
4. I agree, NATO protection for Gaza, for Gaza demilitarization
Steve Benassi ,   Silver Bay, MN USA   (07.23.14)
...and $50B investment to rebuild Gaza, with a final peace deal based on international law.
5. Strategic peace plan
Nadya ,   California,USA   (07.23.14)
An excellent proposal and well thought out. Yes Hamas may want Israel's destruction, but I'm sure they realize that's not going to happen so hopefully they'll be open to Plan B. And as Mr. Diskin suggested they would be hard pressed to refuse such a generous offer and be able to explain that to their citizens.
6. To: Facebook Nada Husseini
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (07.23.14)
"No water, no escape, no sleep, many with no house and on top they are being shelled" But you're fine with terrorist groups firing tens of thousands of missiles and mortars at Israeli civilians, is that what you're saying? By definition, terrorists' actions are ALWAYS illegal. Israel is a sovereign state and, as such, as an affirmative duty to protect and defend its borders and its civilians. Your crocodile tears for the "palestinians" -- but didn't Jordan kick out nearly one million "palestinians" in 1972? Aren't you the hypocrite! Why aren't you petitioning your tiny half-British, half-Iraqi "king" and his Kuwaiti bride to take them back, or to accept "palestinians" from Gaza?
7. Cleansing period
Jay ,   OC, CA   (07.23.14)
"...to stay in the area for a year or two in order to cleanse..." Could it be contracted to the Egyptians? Let them do the mop-up. I think that Mr. Abbas will look better to come as the liberator with $ billions to rebuilt than riding on the back of an Israeli tank. Either way your plan has my vote !
8. Short history
Ari Rusila ,   Jyvaskyla, Finland   (07.23.14)
When the UN proposed the establishment of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab – the Jews accepted the proposal and declared their independence in 1948. Immediately same year Arab armies attacked against newborn Israel. Transjordan annexed the area intended for an Arab state, and renamed itself the Kingdom of Jordan, calling the annexed area the “West Bank”. Egypt took over Gaza. The West Bank and Gaza (controlled by Jordan and Egypt from 1948 to1967) came under Israeli control during the Six Day War of 1967 when Arab armies again tried to invade and liquidate Israel. Looking recent history it seems that first Arabs occupied some areas and have whole time violently tried occupy the rest but failed, so there could be some base to claim that instead Israel the Arabs could better be described as occupiers or better say wannabe occupiers. I understand Israeli actions through their security concerns and they really have good reasons for their concerns. Israel has also returned most of the land that it captured during the 1967 war in exchange for peace and normal relations; e.g. as a result of the 1978 Camp David accords — in which Egypt recognized the right of Israel to exist and normal relations were established. BTW during 1948-1967 occupation no Arab suggested making the West Bank and/or Gaza into yet another Arab state, this idea (as well Palestinian identity) started to develop after 1967, when Israel was again attacked by the Arabs and took these areas.
9. To: No. 5
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (07.23.14)
Do you really think that Hamas worries much about what ordinary Gazans need or want, or that they pay attention to what they think? These people have been brainwashed -- I mean, really -- what kind of people sell their children to be suicide bombers or send their four- and five-year olds to terrorist summer training camp? The grossly obese Widow Rantizi, for example, while living in the lap of luxury herself, is known to have used her considerable powers of persuasion to tell poor Gazans that their duty is to sacrifice their children and, if necessary, themselves, in order to destroy the "Zionist entity." Of course, she does not quite see the need to lead by example. She thinks she is too "important" to even contemplate sacrificing her fat self. Of course Israel is here to stay. The firepower you see Israel using in Gaza is a minuscule fraction of what Israel can easily unleash. Israel is utilizing the minimum to achieve as much as it can without unduly affecting the civilians in Gaza (to the extent there are any, given the brainwashing to which they have been subjected). It is a terrible fact of war that civilians die. That is but one of the reasons that one does not reward the aggressor for its aggression. Germany lost 30 percent of its land mass following World War II. Italy lost the entire province of Istria. Japan lost Iwo Jima (which was restored to it in 1968) and ninety percent of the island of Okinawa, which remains territorial United States to this day. To stop short of completely destroying Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of that rabble is NOT in anyone's best interests, least of all civilization's. It is occasionally necessary to destroy something completely in order to build something better in its place. Sadly, that is particularly true in the case of Gaza. Ultimately, Israel's affirmative obligation is to the people of Israel. That means, no more missiles and mortars from Gaza. If civilians in Gaza die in the process, that is unfortunate, but it is also a fact of war. Hamas is engaged in perpetual war against Israel; they will never recognize the right of the State of Israel to simply be, and they will always do what they can to effect that. That is why they must be destroyed. And that is why any civilians who die in Israel's determination to achieve peace and quiet and security for its citizens are necessary. I do not care if the entire population of Gaza is destroyed; the blame accrues exclusively to Hamas and the other terrorists. Have you even bothered to consider the carnage that would have ensued had Israel not had Iron Dome. No carnage to the Israelis, to be sure. But Gaza would be reduced either to a pile of rubble or to a glowing cinder. Think about that for a while, please. The Allies achieved peace by reducing Germany to ruins. Why would you hold Israel to a different objective?
10. Jihadists are not interested in diplomacy
CJK   (07.23.14)
jihadists are only interested in expelling infidels from all lands they consider to be part oftheir waqf. jihadists do not accept any western notions of agreements with infidels. they only accept sharia law. were hamas to accept any agreement with israel it would be based on taqiya and be regarded by them as a temporary hudna. israel has no choice but to defeat hamas militarily and then hope for an egyptian style secular rule which could then be supported economically. the disengagement from gaza which i supported at the time has turned into a total disaster which must be reversed.
11. to 10
sara ,   jerusalem   (07.23.14)
jihad means to do effort to make a change to the best side so your readin thinking posting here is jihad .. the same is my posting here .. in history it is dificult to reverse events .. in diplomacy the effort to make change of the situation without violence ..any one can accept it if it is fare or near the fare ..or at least without killing .. it is not moslem and infidle . it is human right to live
12. Mini-Marshall plan
YK ,   Ottawa, Canada   (07.23.14)
Mini Marshall plan following a complete de-militarisation. The problem is that a Marshall plan will only work after the beneficiary acknowledges full defeat and abandons any aggressive intentions (e.g., Germany and Japan) .
13. Gaza solutions
Chaim-que ,   USA   (07.23.14)
The shin bet after working for so many years with palestinian prisoners in Israel. Know very much about them. One of these things is that hamas people have very long resistance and endurance, why not, they are tretaed with good food and respect at israelies detention camps. Their fear is how the palestinian population will accept or not their acts. Here is where Israelis need to work better.
14. To No. 9.
Bertram ,   London, UK   (07.23.14)
As always, you are sufficently articulate to present a superficially persuasive argument. More often than not it is a result of omission rather than commission. Just two points (working backwards). First, you say the Allies achieved peace by 'reducing Germany to ruins'. True, but the Allies knew full well - before the war ended - that Germany. An economically strong Germany would be a bastion for peace. A reunited democratic Germany, despite understandable misgivings, was a good thing - for everyone. So why doesn't Israel have a policy which pursues that end with Gaza? Secondly, Hamas 'will never recognize the right of the State of Israel to simply be'. That was also true of Egypt and Jordan. Enough said.
15. Increasing number of Iron Dome batteries
Miron ,   USA   (07.23.14)
square of current will half rocket threats. Improving interceptor speed and precision 2x will reduce rocket threat 10 fold. Both actions will increase military pressure on Hamas a lot more than any prolonged incursion. And give Israel techies more time to come up with approaches to hunt down rocket launching crews and rockets in Gaza. Israel is in the position to experiment with forms of warfare with Hamas to her advantage. As I said years ago, time is not on Hamas's side.
16. I agree, NATO protection for Mecca,for Iran demilitarization
Steve Benassi ,   Silver Bay, MN USA   (07.24.14)
17. no. 4 - everything you predicted turned out to be wrong
why should anyone address any wishful thinking you dream up
18. he changes his versions and should at what he did NOT do
Daniel ,   TA - IL   (07.23.14)
leftwingers like him should take a deep look in the mirror. a few weeks ago he was singing a song which would have allowed the hamas to be even better prpeared and armed. He should be ashamed, just like the rest that told us to open our border to these creates of unbelievable hatred
19. 14
yonatan Allon ,   adelaide/Israel   (07.24.14)
So you think Israel does not have a policy which pursues that end with Gaza?Think again.Jordan and Israel are still technically at war.As far as Egypt is concerned-when aid money ceases then they will be at war with Israel, it's in their nature because they are Arab.Enough said..
20. 4
yonatan Allon ,   adelaide/Israel   (07.24.14)
No such thing as international law.
21. 16 not mine.
Steve Benassi ,   Silver Bay, MN USA   (07.24.14)
22. To No. 19
Bertram ,   London, UK   (07.24.14)
It is one thing to voice an opinion when what you say cannot be verified . It is another to make a statement of fact when it be so easily checked. Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty on 26 October 1994 and are therefore not at war, either technically or otherwise. As for your phrase "it's in their nature because they are Arab", it's beautiful example of out and out racism which, if 'Jewish' was substituted for 'Arab' would cause - rightly - complete outrage. Apart from that, a good talkback.
Back to article