This article was written before Operation "Cast Lead" was launched. Three days later, it seems that Israel led by Olmert-Livni-Barak in the first war in the second Lebanon (Gaza) behaves just like Israel led by Olmert-Livni-Peretz in the second war in the first Lebanon. And now, Israel is losing its momentum while the enemy increases the range of its attacks; Israel is seeking a truce - like UN Resolution 1701 in 2006 - that will enable the enemy to prepare itself for continuing its war. Israel is losing its deterrence, while the enemy is resolved and determined. Israel is supporting terror instead of fighting against those who use terror so effectively as their weapon.

The basic duty of a government is to protect the citizens of the state, as recognized in an unwritten understanding
The current government, as the former one, abuses its office and should be removed.
between the state and its citizens. The citizens agree to certain restrictions in return for fulfilling this duty, including obeying laws, military service and payment of taxes. When a government does not fulfill this duty it transgresses this understanding, weakens the citizens' willingness to bear these restrictions, and harms the intricate relations which are crucial to a democratic society. The current government, as the former one, abuses its office and should be removed.

A visit in the south of Israel reveals that it is not the "Gaza periphery region" but the "bombarded from Gaza region"; and it is enlarging from one day to the next due to the Olmert-Livni-Barak administration's failures.

The Gaza Strip is not a state. It is an entity governed by a hostile regime which lauds attacking Israeli civilian and military targets. Citizens are killed and injured, while many others are shock- and anxiety- stricken, and normal life is totally disrupted even "when there were no casualties and no damage was caused"; even when the government evades acknowledging this reality as war - this is the reality.

There is no doubt that many people who do not take active part in the war live in the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, they elected Hamas in relatively democratic elections. There is no indication of protest against this regime even today. It appears that the general public supports Hamas.

The State of Israel stutters when dealing with Hamas. Some people demand a war whose purpose is to overthrow Hamas, without considering the consequences; not only the lives of Israeli soldiers and civilians, as well as the lives of the enemy civilians, but also political and moral misdeeds. The government of Israel may turn the IDF's casualties into the silver platter upon which the establishment of a Palestinian State is served.

The danger embodied in transferring Gaza to the rule of the Palestinian Terror Authority is greater than leaving Hamas in power. IDF soldiers should not serve as the tools for the establishment of a Palestinian State. If this is the desired outcome of the war, then it would be an immoral war which should not be initiated.

Others, those who advocated the "disengagement" in particular (what is left of that is only the expulsion of Jews), advocate Israel's continued involvement in Gaza; and the absurdity of humanitarian gestures granted to enemy citizens, even if it risks the lives of Israeli soldiers and civilians - as was evident in terror attacks carried out on the border crossings. Furthermore, this policy reinforces the Hamas. As Israel provides the needs of the population in Gaza it exempts the regime there from its responsibility to its citizens and allows it to strengthen for war, as the Hizbullah did.

It is possible that a war is unavoidable. Nevertheless, it cannot be initiated without complying with the following preliminary conditions. The first is assessment of risk - something which had to be done already - including all the implications regarding Israel's civilians, the enemy, other fronts, and Israel's deterrence. It is unclear whether such assessment was carried out prior to the war in Lebanon in 2006.

The second condition, which is not less important, is determining the objectives of war. The objective of the war should be breaking the Hamas military force, but not overthrowing it. The objective cannot be to overthrow Hamas in order to transfer the rule to Abu Mazen. Hamas is favored if choosing between these twin organizations - Hamas and Fatah.

Hamas is an undisguised, declared enemy to whom the political price offered is low. Fatah is an enemy whose goals are identical to those of the Hamas, but it is presented as moderate and Olmert-Livni-Barak are willing to
Hamas is favored if choosing between these twin organizations - Hamas and Fatah.
pay it a deadly price, against Israel's interests.

In war, a siege of the enemy and preventing resupply, including to the civilians under the enemy rule, has been an accepted means to overpower an enemy throughout history. Britain did not refrain from a marine siege of Germany and bombings from the air, even of civilian and economic targets, in order to bring an end to the war and to achieve peace. A normal country does not provide food and humanitarian aid to its enemies; and certainly not fuel, electricity and cement used in the enemy's war machine.

The conclusion is that the siege of the Gaza Strip should be tightened, instead of endangering the lives of Israeli civilians and soldiers in fueling the enemy. A humanitarian gesture can be granted on specific occasion, such as medical equipment and gas for generators in hospitals. However, Hamas and those self-righteous individuals acting on its behalf need to understand that the responsibility for preventing a humanitarian disaster is upon Hamas, as the Gazan government. If it wills, it can ease the siege by handing over Kassams in return for food and halting the "smuggling" of weapons, which is actually an unrestricted supply from Egypt.

To conclude, perhaps tightening the siege would prevent a bloody war in the Gaza Strip. This is also the right way to free Gilad Shalit.