Hammer and Tongs in Gaza

This fellow has a good point.

There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing. Then they’d really call for a ceasefire.

Do you know who’d agree? One Abraham Lincoln, for it was he who sent General Sherman to do much the same thing to the Deep South.

I don’t pretend it’s pretty, but I do say it works.


  1. VMI Warrior says:

    We'd pay to rebuild the infrastructure again anyway….

    For any Hamas (S) & Hezbollah (N) apologists, think of it in terms like the article does…we would NEVER tolerate daily artillery fire into our towns and cities, and the Jewish State has shown far more restraint than we would to defend our homes. They deserve the same latitude.

  2. tricycle says:

    Understandable thought process, but the author takes it a little too far when calling for the flattening of entire neighborhoods. In today's "connected" world, the blowback from such an action would be bad news for Israel. Occupation? Yes, absolutely. Infrastructure based solely on "good behavior"? Yes. Funny thing is, for all the rhetoric, Egypt has closed its border and denied civilians exit from Gaza.

    • DaveO says:


      You're right about the blowback. But – (always one of those!) – had Israel managed only to miraculously only stir the air slightly during all of its strikes, it would still be bad news for Israel in this connected world. When every humane measure is still considered failure, it's better to go all out and instill fear in the hearts of the enemy.

      Right now the best thing for Israel is to completely destroy Gaza. Israel needs the obstacles to slow down Egypt's army long enough to annihilate Iran.

      Only real question is how to extract the MFO?

  3. Doug says:

    The Palestinians are hated almot as much as the Israelis in the Middle East. They were tossed out of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan in the 1070s. The reason? The minute they set up shop they try and over throw the local government.

  4. VRMarine says:

    There may be a larger issue here, which is the conduct of war in general. Tricycle touches on it in his comment about the "blowback" that would occur if Israel conducted such an operation. In general, countries such as the US, Israel, England, Germany, and Australia have embraced "politically correct" war in which the military goes overboard to justify every offensive action and minimize collateral damage during defensive actions. Targets such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, which Hamas (and others) uses to store and launch its rockets, are somewhat left alone because of the political fallout that might occur.

    The enemy, whether Hamas, AQ, Hezbollah, or Syria, has no such reservations in their conduct of war. Indeed, Syria massacres its own people and razes villages to the ground without a peep from the international community. Additionally, Russia conducted a vicious campaign against Georgia a few years back too. Finally, if the 1980s are any indication, Iran would likely fight with a total war concept and not a "politically correct" one.

    As of this writing, Hamas is announcing that a truce is imminent. Yet, reliable reports indicate that the Iranians are shipping additional Fajr rockets to Gaza by way of Tuvalu-flagged Iranian ships that will meet up with Sudanese boats for eventual smuggling into Gaza. Thus, what has Israel achieved with the current operation? If Hamas is simply allowed to re-arm because of a silly "truce" where, or rather when, will firepower again be necessary to whack-a-mole?

    Israel should take the war to Gaza, further expose the Iranian connection, and force the world to actually recognize the existential threat that is the death-centered culture emanating from Hamas.

  5. Slater says:

    I believe in the Sherman way of Warfare, complete destruction and terms. Make war ugly and peace easy.

  6. Mike Burke says:

    While I can certainly sympathize with the Israelis, and agree they have an absolute right to retalia, I wonder if reducing the amount of land on which the Palestinians live over the last 30 years or sohas caused organizations like Hamas to prosper–I often think the great error made when Israel was founded was not making citizens of the folks already there–I have always thought the two-state solution is unworkable–Israel will always be so much more powerful. While I realize the history is maddeningly complex and the issues even more so, I wonder how much of this conflict between Israel and the Palestinians could have been avoided. I will now prepare for rtillery rounds from all of you. back to grading freshman composition papers.

  7. Doug says:


    I think this is one of the rare cases where hindsight does not supply a ready answer. If the UN had not created Israel there is a good chance the Jews already living there would have carved out their own state anyway and the same level of animosity would still exist.

    My personal thought is the Palestinians are upset about the loss of land, but it is more a matter of pride. Like most Arabs they have a very harsh, self-inflicted inferiority complex and this is complicated by how well Israel has done under the exact same conditions under which they live.

    The true joke of the matter is if the Palestinians got their wish and every Jew left the area, they would not be a succesful people. They would instead turn to killing each other in a continuuing fight for power.