Yes, during the worst of the bombings, not suicide bombers came from the Gaza Strip, due to the wall and checkpoints. The separation fence and checkpoints will keep them out of Israel if the Palestinians get the West Bank. But the fence won’t stop rockets. You’re asking Israel to allow the Palestinians to launch rockets from what is effectively the next block over. All of Israel would be vulnerable. BUT–it would stop the hatred of Israel and the enlistment of terrorists?

No. It would encourage the enlistment of terrorists, because the Palestinians would show that terrorism is working. It got them Gaza and their own state. Why stop now? Now, they can have it all—“Palestine” before 1948.

Israel took a gamble in Gaza. They withdrew two years ago. The Palestinian response was to elect terrorists as their leaders, smuggle in tons of weapons and explosives, and fire rockets on a daily basis into Israeli towns. Please explain to me why Israel should do the same thing in the West Bank when the example of Gaza has yet to be solved.

The United States would never stand for Mexican terrorists lobbing missiles into San Diego on a daily basis. Why should Israel have to?

You want a safe Israel? Then forget about withdrawing from the West Bank until the terrorism stops.

You bring up the ’67 war. Back then, the occupation was necessary to protect Israel from conventional military invasion: tanks and infantry pouring across the border and wiping Israel out. That threat no longer exists. The fear now is that a pullout would result in Palestine becoming a Grand Central Station of anti-Israeli terrorism and a base for rocket attacks, obviously serious concerns. But I don’t believe a continuing military occupation is the best way to deal with these threats.

I think you misunderstand my point about the occupation bringing about Hamas. What I was trying to point out was that Hamas didn’t even exist until the first intifada. If Israel could have safely pulled out of the territories before 1987 then Hamas might never have come into being, or at least be weaker than it is now.

Ending the occupation now would hardly make Hamas disappear, and yes, I know that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Yet Hamas need recruits. A Palestinian who has to go through checkpoints manned by foreign soldiers is more likely to become angry enough to join Hamas than a Palestinian who never sees the Israelis. This is why I believe that, purely in terms of dealing with terrorism, military occupations become counterproductive over time. (This isn’t to say that the occupation is the sole cause of all anti-Israeli terrorism. But it is a major factor.)

So I conclude that Israel’s best option is to withdraw from the West Bank. A good security wall – landmines galore! – would defend Israel from terrorist infiltration. (As I understand it, even during the worst of the suicide bombings the bombers almost never came from the Gaza Strip. I ascribe that to the barrier Israel already had around the Strip.) And occasional military strikes could deal with rocket attacks. Hardly an ideal situation, but the least bad option among a lot of crummy alternatives.

I could be wrong: maybe the only way to deal with missile attacks will be through permanent occupation. But I think withdrawing is a gamble worth taking. Israel’s present policy seems to boil down to spending a lot of blood and treasure on the occupation while vainly hoping that a Palestinian Sadat will somehow emerge.

If Israel was not so restrained and did not fight by the strictures of Jewish morality there would be no Muslim Arabs left in Gaza now, they having been killed or driven out to Egypt. And if the Arabs in Judea and Samaria contiued terrorism the same thing would happen to them. That’s the Arab way (see the Syrian destruction of Hama in 1982, and the Kuwaiti expulsion of all Palestinians in 1991 for having sided with Saddam’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait). Isn’t it nice that the Israelis act according to Jewish morals, and not the Muslim ones that justify indiscriminate murder?

So pardon me if I shed no tears for any bullshit excuses that are made for terrorism today.

And by the way, if Israel followed the Indian/Pakistani example, all the Arabs in Israel would be expelled to Gaza and the West Bank. That’s not an example I would use in this situation.

And gee, what’s the common thread between the India/Pakistan situation, and the Israel/Palestinian situation? Why, it’s the Muslim inability to live under the bailiwick of any other religion.

Note, too, that Hizbullah and Hamas came into being partly as a result of Israeli occupation.

The “occupation” that Hamas is trying to end is the “occupation” of Muslim lands by Jews. Read the Hamas charter. They’re not trying to kick Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza. And they’re quite open about it. This is from last month.

Hamas on Thursday called on the UN to rescind the 1947 decision to partition Palestine into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs.

The group said in a statement, released on the 60th anniversary of the UN vote, that “Palestine is Arab Islamic land, from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem… there is no room in it for the Jews.”

Of course, there’s also their charter, which essentially says the same thing. Hamas didn’t come into being because of the Israeli occupation of the lands captured in 1967. They came into being to destroy Israel. Period. Don’t buy into their lies. Read the charter. And listen to their spokesmen.

When a Muslim terrorist group says they’re going to kill you, believe them. They’re not exaggerating.

That’s the best anyone can realistically hope for with Israel and Palestine. (Not an exact parallel, but close enough.) Terrorism wasn’t a major security problem for Israel before ’67. The Gaza strip is the model Israel should be following — responding to attacks with air strikes and temporary military incursions, if necessary — rather than continuing the occupation until the end of time.

Note, too, that Hizbullah and Hamas came into being partly as a result of Israeli occupation. Occupations can reduce terrorism in the short term, but in the long run they become counterproductive.