Should we cut off their power?
Uri Orbach thinks Gaza blackouts are a good idea; Ariella Ringel-Hoffman isn’t so sure
| In praise of blackouts/ Uri Orbach |  | Immoral and ineffective/ Ariella Ringel-Hoffman | | | | |
It’s hard to know whether cutting off the Gaza Strip’s power supply would help to minimize Qassam fire. It’s hard to know, but it’s worth a try.
Israel must explain to Gaza residents, the Palestinians who elected Hamas, that those who support Qassam fire on Sderot will simply sit in the dark. It’s moral, it’s right, and it’s even “proportional,” if you want to start working on arguments to present to the High Court of Justice.
If people in Sderot are not sleeping at night, Gaza residents should go to bed early. There would be no power, but the signal would be clear.
Yet they’re already screaming out. They, along with Palestine fans in our midst, are already yelling that this is a crime and how dare we shut off their lights. Yet this is the minimum Israel must do in order to punish this terror-supporting nation. This should come on top of the elimination of Qassam launchers, the razing of homes used as launching sites, and the other regular things.
Less electricity will mean more work. Two hours of darkness here, an hour without television there, cottage cheese that goes bad in the fridge, and we’ll see the Palestinians directing some of their energies to the local electricity market.
The time has come for their workshops to busy themselves with building generators instead of rocket launchers. The time has come for the Palestinians to use their declining hours of electricity to start smuggling flashlights and candles.
The Hamas government in Gaza is responsible for the firing of Qassams at Sderot, and therefore the Hamas government would have to find ways to get electricity from other sources.
Indeed, we always wanted to be a light unto the nations, but there are some cases where darkness can also prove beneficial.
The Israeli government is allowed to decide on a second disengagement from Gaza. Considering the reasons and circumstances, this would be legitimate. It is also legitimate that while doing this Israel will stop supplying the hostile entity of Gaza, as we refer to it these days, with power, water, fuel, and food. Indeed, enemy countries do not supply all those things to each other.
However, Israel cannot start this move – neither in phases nor on and off – as long as it closely and strictly maintains the siege imposed on the Strip, prevents the development of a seaport, disrupts any attempt to rebuild the airport, deepens the walls along the border with Israel and makes them higher, and sabotages any attempt to open the Strip to free movement to the other side as well.
The alternative Israel leaves to the hostile entity, as it’s referred to these days, is to sit quietly and go hungry, while also sitting in the darkness as long as the Qassam fire continues. This alternative is not merely inhumane (and that should be enough,) it is also ineffective (for those who measure their moves in terms of a cost-benefit analysis.)
Using the euphemistic term disengagement cannot make the act that hides behind it look better. Across the border, on the other side of the Israeli power lines, live tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands (depending on the extent of blackouts) of children, women, elderly, and sick. Not only Hamas and Islamic Jihad members.
Manipulating the power means massively hurting a population that has become hostage. Much of them are innocent. Not every Palestinian who lives in Beit Hanoun or Beit Lahia is a legitimate target.
The Hamas government in Gaza is responsible for the firing of Qassams at Sderot, and therefore the Hamas government would have to find ways to get electricity from other sources.
Indeed, we always wanted to be a light unto the nations, but there are some cases where darkness can also prove beneficial.
