Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 13 March, 2008

Is the fixation on the need for a quick “exit strategy” a matter of ideology or are the ramifications of not retreating quickly so costly that they swamp the benefits?

Many analysts have presented strong arguments for an effective reoccupation of Gaza but when they assume a priori, that a necessary condition for any occupation is that it ends quickly, they are left either abandoning the idea or relying on house-of-cards arrangements to retreat. Arrangements that could actually leave Israel in a worse position than it is in today.

But why should analysts straightjacket themselves by refusing to even consider an ongoing occupation as an option?

It may not be an ideal solution. But it could very well be the best viable choice available today.

A serious study would have to consider the goals of an ongoing occupation and how these goals might be satisfactorily met at the lowest possible costs.

The results could be surprising.

And when one considers the high costs Israel could very well face if it pursues the alternatives, it is nothing short of dereliction of duty not to entertain the option.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) (Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava) Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730 INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il Website: http://www.imra.org.il

This entry was posted on Friday, March 14th, 2008 and is filed under opinion.