It's not hubris...

Its asinine. That's what this is.

In my original post, I simply asked a question. "When basic services like water and electricity are denied because the Hamas leadership cannot pay its bills, that is one thing... but when they are denied because Israel cuts off the supplies needed to provide those services, what is gained? What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt, when Hamas will do it all by themselves without any assistance from Tel Aviv? "

To answer my own question, I'd say that Israel is forcing Hamas, by the economic and fiscal constraints the "blockade" places on the "elected" government of Gaza, to choose between fighting the Israelis and providing for the people they depend on for support and who depend on them for basic governmental services, which they promised to provide prior to the election, if they want to remain in political power in Gaza.

If I gave the impression that I felt that Israel was intentionally using the "blockade" as a punitive measure against the Palestinians, then I assure you I was not. I was simply asking what Israel could hope to gain from taking on the role of "bad guy" in the medium of Palestinian (and, frankly, international) public opinion. The safest, least-costly means by which Hamas can be removed from actual political power in Palestine is to graphically demonstrate to the people of Palestine just how wrong Hamas is, at every possible level.

My opinion on the matter is that Hamas is so fundamentally flawed in its purpose, makeup and execution of purpose, that it not only CAN'T provide the basics... it actually makes life WORSE for those that live under its governance. If I was placing an underlying "opinion" within my question, it was this and this alone: Why place yourself (meaning Israel) in a position where you can face the risk of any action or policy contributing to the Hamas cause? Like the attack on the USS Liberty, I'm sure that the deadly raid that happened on the ship bringing aid to Gaza last month was 100% unintentional on the part of Israeli leadership (I understand that war is a risky and messy business... all the time)... but it underscores my further point that Israel is NOT infallible in her pursuit of peace and security, and that she needs to do all in her power to maintain the ground she has gained in the last 60 years in building relationships with foreign states and nations.

I'll give another example, one Jambo pointed out to me last week. Israel has the permission (yes, you read that right) of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to use Arabian air space in the event of Iran's completion of a nuclear device that could (more likely would) threaten Israel. That is a HUGE diplomatic achievement by the Israelis... to have gained that kind of cooperation (and cooperation it is) from the Saudis... and mistakes made during the execution of the "blockade" could, conceivably, jeopardize these gains, right? Furthermore, I find it almost comical that it is the Saudis that are funneling tens of millions of dollars into Hamas coffers every year... yet the Saudis will give such a huge concession to the Israelis, in light of the "threat" that the region perceives as coming from a nuclear Iran. Does this mean that the Israelis should target Saudi businesses or organizations that are assisting Hamas? Doesn't Saudi support of Hamas constitute a threat to Israel? Isn't it Israel's "right" to defend herself against ALL aggression, fiscal or otherwise, that threatens her peace and security? If the answer is yes, then Saudi Arabia is "partners" with Hamas and should be afforded the same level of response, right?

The obvious answer is that Israel can't afford to wage war on every nation, people, society or organization that works or contributes to the defeat of Israel... there are simply too many anti-Israelis out there right now. What she CAN do is work to provide a level of peace and security both within her borders and in the region by maintaining a strong and ready defense against attack AND a strong domestic environment that can be seen by all to be rich, diverse, prosperous and SAFE for those that choose to live under its protection. Tens of thousands of Palestinians already understand this (more and more of them are coming to that realization in the West Bank and Golan regions, too), and live peaceful, happy lives side-by-side with Israelis.

Look at the position Israel has taken since it recognized the PA as a representative governing body, even though it stems directly from Arafat's PLO... when the PA works with Israel, life under the PA (for Palestinians, in other words) gets better and better, as in Golan and the West Bank. When the PA fights against Israel, life sucks for the Palestinians... not because of Israel, but because of Hamas (as in Gaza or East Jerusalem). Do you see my point? There is no onus on Israel anymore... either the PA makes things happen in Palestine, or it doesn't. While life in Gaza is rife with anxiety and violence for the "common man", he can look at their brothers and sisters in Hebron or Bethlehem living in relative peace and security, with steady jobs, electricity and water on demand, and a level of free travel not available in Gaza at all (by order of Hamas more than Israel, by the way).

I NEVER suggested that the threats posed by Hamas and its continued rocket attacks and terror bombings should be ignored by Israel, nor that working effectively to reducing Hamas' capacity to launch these attacks isn't good policy, either. In fact, in the same original post, I made this point: "I'm not saying this isn't an issue that Israel has the RIGHT to determine it's own best course through... I'm simply asking if anyone else has questions about the rationale behind the course chosen. " Israel has every RIGHT to determine its own best course of action to maintain the safety and security of her citizens and property... in fact, it is her sovereign DUTY to do so. I have never debated or argued this. To suggest that I did is simply not true.

My questioning whether or not Israel has other roads they can follow to that end, however, is NOT an invalid or morally-questionable act on my part... which you suggested it was. In point of fact, I would show the most recent developments in Gaza as proof of MY position. Israel has changed the manner and means by which the embargo is enforced and enacted, and even Turkey (the most vocal of international "complainers" to be heard) has now reduced their bitching to only asking for an official "apology" for the accidental deaths during the boat raid. Israel has suspended (again) settlement construction in lieu of further "talks" with the PA (but not with Hamas alone). Willing to "give peace a chance" but ALWAYS ready to defend against (or respond to) attacks is as sound a policy as I think we are likely to find on this topic... and is very similar to the position I thought the Israelis should have promoted from the start, as I said over and over again.

There is a difference between recognizing the calls of Palestinians for "change" (in one form more than another) in the status quo of the last 40 years, and compromise with avowed terrorists like Hamas-bombers or rocket brigades. Were this not the case, then the man that shot Rabin in '95 was 100% correct in killing a real and measurable threat to Israeli national security. I feel that my opinion (and Rabin's actions) are reflected in the former, and your hard-line, all-or-nothing position is reflected in the latter.

Am I wrong?