The Hostile Entity
It’s about time.
The security cabinet on Wednesday voted to declare the Gaza Strip a “hostile entity,” approving among other things the disruption of power and fuel supplies to the Strip, as a response to the ongoing Qassam rocket fire at Israeli communities.
The ministers decided, however, not to disrupt Gaza’s water supply.
The security cabinet unanimously approved a number of sanctions to be imposed on the Gaza Strip should the rocket fire on southern Israel continue. The steps are designed to create “civilian levers” that will pressure Gaza’s Hamas rulers to bring the rocket fire to a halt.
A statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office after the meeting said that Hamas bore responsibility for the “hostile activity” emanating from the territory where the Islamic movement had seized power in June.
“Hamas is a terrorist organization that has taken control of the Gaza Strip and turned it into hostile territory,” the statement said. “This organization engages in hostile activity against the State of Israel and its citizens and bears responsibility for this activity.”
“The objective is to weaken Hamas,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak said during the meeting, according to one participant.
Barak also said that Israel is moving closer to a large-scale military operation in Gaza. “Every day that passes brings us closer to an operation in Gaza,” Barak was quoted as saying. He said an array of options would be considered before a major invasion.
The PMO statement also said that there would be restrictions on “the passage of various goods to the Gaza Strip,” but stressed that all steps “will be enacted following a legal examination, while taking into account both the humanitarian aspects relevant to the Gaza Strip and the intention to avoid a humanitarian crisis.”
Would have been nice to have seen this type of action a few years (and hundreds of Qassams) ago, but at least its a step in the right direction.
Updates (Israel time):
9:00PM: United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged Israel to
reconsider, warning that any cutoff of vital services would violate international law. I would love to know which international law obliges us to provide services to a population in an area we no longer occupy, and from which we are subjected to daily attacks.
If he is referring to collective punishment, I would have thought the palestinian residents of Gaza would not constitute protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which are defined in article 4:
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Am I missing something?
9:20PM: And here’s another thought: why aren’t Egypt supplying these services to their Arab brethren in Gaza? Israel is constantly helping out Jewish brethren from around the world without blinking an eyelid. Heck, we are even helping out others, such as the Sudanese refugees (who have been routinely killed by Egyptian soldiers while trying to enter Israel, to a deafening world silence might I add).
12:50AM: A few hours after Israel announced her intentions, the terrorists fired 2 rockets at Sderot. They just won’t let their own people’s welfare get in the way of some good ol’ fashioned Jew killing, will they?
Filed Under: Uncategorized
About the Author: An Australian immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave has been blogging since early 2003.
I know people don’t have much affection for Barak. I however, am very happy to see him as defense minister. He is a military man with knowledge of how to win if called upon to win. The question is, will he get that call? I don’t think Olmert will allow an Israeli victory in Gaza. He will only be willing to take half way measures that will wind up in world condemnation and a psychological victory for Hamas.
I of course hope I am wrong.
Stan
Stan, I suggest you research into Barak’s military “accomplishments” during the Peace for Galilee War with Lebanon and Syria back in 1982. Plus look at his political failures as prime minister, specifically his military decisions in that capacity, for which we are reaping the rewards on all borders.
There are better men than Barak but Olmert, Kadimah and Labor would never let them take the helm to do what has to be done.
Anyone with a labotomy would have designated all of the PA – not just Gaza – as a hostile entity 2 decades ago.
This is the government’s “Doh” moment. How long have we suffered before they were forced to proclaim the obvious, after so much useless (and ongoing) hesitation?
And for this you think Barak is a great generalisimo? Stand back and look at the forest – not just at the tree in front of you.
[...] yesterday’s decision to declare Gaza a hostile entity and disrupt electricity and fuel supplies, we are already seeing [...]
We probably agree on what action needs to be taken, and I certainly agree that calling the current declaration by the government is like “well duh”.
I respect Barak.
Barak is blamed for forging policy that was the majority opinion in Israel. When he ran for prime minister, he stated quite clearly that he was going to withdraw form Lebanon. The failed peace process he embarked on had the strong support of most of Israel. His actions as prime minister (right or wrong) represented the will of the people.
I believe (of course it can’t be proven) that under Peretz, we would not have seen the action against Syria, or the current movement against Gaza. I think Barak is strong willed and still quite pissed off over the treatment he got from the Palestinians when he extended a huge olive branch.
On a side note.
The huge olive branch he extended in many ways inversely defines the direction that must be taken.
Let me explain.
Many peace activists (such as myself) needed the unequivical offer of peace that he made to the Palestinians for moral reasons. By the same token the rejection of such a huge offer followed by terrorist attacks defines the nature of the two sides. It is clear that any thing short of military victory by Israel will sustain an unending war. I can only support this war knowing that the offer of peace failed.
There is a tendency to blame Oslo for the problems of today. That is easy to do because there is a progression one can point to. This blame is a little to easy an out. We have no idea what the situation would be if there was a different course that was followed. Who can say, who can even say what that course would have been?
I personally am satisfied with Oslo, from the standpoint (stated before) that huge sacrafices were offered for peace. I am satisfied with my current position that peace will only come through victory. There is no conflict within me over this.
From listening to Barak in interviews, I think he has a similar view.
Stan