Olmert’s meaningless attack on Gaza

Caroline Glick knows, say, ten thousand times more about Israel than I do, yet her analysis of the meaning of the Israeli incursion into Gaza this week is essentially the same as what I’ve said in my brief comments (see this and this). She sees the operation an unserious gesture, a response to one particularly unacceptable act—the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier—that in no way signals an abandonment of Olmert’s overall policy of surrender, and is meant to cover up the fact that it is a surrender. Since the withdrawal from Gaza, she writes, there have been hundreds of Palestinian rocket, missile, and mortar attacks on Israel from within Gaza, yet Olmert has

refused to send forces into Gaza to contend with the transformation of Gaza into a strategic threat to Israel because doing so would involve acknowledging that his plan to retreat from Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem will turn Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Hadera, Afula and Be’ersheva into frontline communities. He refused to send forces into Gaza because doing so would demonstrate that Israel cannot defend its cities from their outskirts.

In other words, he has not taken action against Gaza because to do so would be to admit that the Gaza withdrawal and the projected West Bank withdrawal are only strengthening the position of Israel’s enemies. Further, Olmert has made it clear that, unlike Sharon’s incursion into the West Bank in April 2002, the operation in Gaza is not aimed at uprooting the terror infrastructure or re-asserting Israeli control. Indeed, even as Olmert engages in this purely temporary act, he is proceeding with the forcible removal of Israeli communities from Judea and Samaria, thus signaling to the Palestinians that they have nothing to fear from him. This is a useful article that places in perspective the entire direction of Olmert’s suicidal policy.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 30, 2006 07:30 AM | Send