Submitted by Sergey Kadinsky, Feb 26, 2008 22:10

In response to the endless barrage of Kassam rockets at southern Israel, Hillel Halkin reduces Israel's choices down to two- a strict eye-for-an-eye policy, or talking to Hamas. Both of these solutions are short-sighted, and will not eliminate the threat Hamas poses to the security of Israel. When Israel fires rockets back at Gaza, or demolishes neighborhoods in Gaza, Hamas can still emerge from the ruins and hold a victory parade. Likewise, talking to Hamas will only embolden it to demand further concessions in return for nothing- not even recognition of Israel's existence nor the return of Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

In 2005, Mr. Halkin strongly supported the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which is why he is not even mentioning a third option- permanent reoccupation. With a permanent Israeli presence, Hamas would not be able to emerge triumphant from the ruins, because it would be under constant surveillance. It would also understand that by firing rockets at Sderot, it is like asking to be reoccupied.

The former Gush Katif settlements served as a permanent monitor on the Palestinian population, controlling its movements, providing a speedy response to attacks, and keeping the terrorist resistance divided. At the same time, the settlements also provided jobs to the Palestinians. The 2005 disengagement was proven to be a blunder, and it is not too late to reverse this mistake.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.