Why? Who cares what Hamas thinks at this point. The point is to simply get the hell out of the situation as much as possible and place Israel in the best strategic position. Stopping walking down dark alleys is a good idea even the muggers aren’t going to celebrate your choice.
You really think that would work? The Israelis feel very, very differently about the West Bank (or “Judaea and Samaria”) than the British felt about India.
In a nut shell, yes…I think it would work. I’m not saying it would be popular with many Israeli citizens, but without the constant attacks I think Israel would be in a much weaker position wrt the West Bank. Democracies seem to respond to that kind of pressure…eventually. Its much more difficult to keep a democratic population to a hard line when threats are removed…and much easier for said population to TAKE a hard line when the threats are very real and quite immediate. Take away the constant suicide bombings, shellings, assassinations and other threats from the Palestinians toward Israel and its a whole new ball game.
Personally, were I in change I’d tell the world to take a hike, annex the whole bloody lot and give the folks there who were non-Jewish a choice…go to Jordan or become Israeli citizens. Good thing I’m not in charge, ehe? 
-XT
I didn’t make that clear enough. In the eyes of the Palestinians, when Israel acts unilaterally, it’s in the wrong. Period. Never mind the reason. Sometimes Israel is acting wrongly. Sometimes it isn’t. From the Palestinian perspective, at least the Hamas perspective, nothing Israel does on its own behalf can be justified, because Israel has no right to exist. The Palestinian govt. is now in large part controlled by a party that has no interest in accepting a permanent two state solution. They want an “eliminate Israel” solution, that’s always been the goal, and it’s going to get them destroyed.
D’oh! Response to Apos.
I would do the same. But, as has been pointed out in this thread and others, that would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Not immediately, but in one or two generations.
Well, not being Jewish this obviously wouldn’t concern me. Perhaps its vitally important to the Jewish citizens that they maintain an absolute majority as far as religious demographics goes. I’m not seeing why its important, but conceed that other may not feel that way. Frankly though, I’d think peace would be a pretty good incentive…better to (perhaps) give up an absolute majority wrt religion (or I assume perhaps they are thinking in terms of voting) if it also does away with all those pesky suicide attacks, random bombings, shellings, etc etc…
Of course, this assumes that in one or two generations it would be an issue…or would happen at all.
-XT
I’m sure you thought this comment highlighted the ridiculousness of Israel blaming the Hamas government for the assault and capture of the soldier - but it’s a better analogy than you realized.
Serbian officials were complicit in the Princip assassination plot - iin fact the chief of Serbian Army Intelligence coordinated the conspiracy.
Regardless of whether they planned this attack, Hamas leaders have been content to let the situation fester and have invited the invasion and thus more suffering by the people they’re supposed to represent.
Actually, the Israelis (and many non-Israeli Jews) think of “Jewish” as primarily a national identity, not a religious identity. The Zionists of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, thinking in those terms, conceived of a “Jewish homeland” as an idea every bit as reasonable as a united and independent Poland or Greece or Romania, not as something silly like a united independent homeland for Catholics or Methodists.
I think it’s largely an ethnic concern, though religion obviously plays into that, at least for many. The foundation of the modern state of Israel owes itself in no small part to the not unjustifiable belief that the Jews needed self-determination. They needed a place where the majority wouldn’t try to eliminate or oppress them, because they would be the majority.
Guys, I realize that. Of course, ‘ethnic Jew’ kind of runs the gammet of ethnic types. There are black Jews and white Jews…and every shade in between. And there are Arabic Jews. In fact, a large percentage of the ‘Jewish’ population in Israel is from local Palestinian stock (Palestinian here meaning the old Ottoman Palestine protectorate).
Sorry I was sloppy with my terminology…I just think of ‘religion’ as the binding force when discussing ‘Jewishness’.
Personally I think its a rather silly arguement. If they want to keep the Jewish faith as the state religion, fine and dandy (as long as they allow freedom of religion, which I think they do). Allow current Palestinians the choice of leaving or becoming full citizens and forget about all that other tripe. It reminds me of folks who are worried in the US that the hispanics are going to take over when we become the majority ethnic group. What the hell do you think we are going to do with the country?
-XT
Marry our white daughters, pollute our bloodlines for all time, and supplant Christianity with Papistry, of course!
Well, yes. Other than that though…
-XT
I wasn’t wrong, was I? 
Israel’s future is is disengagement one way or the other. Behind a big friggin wall if need be, through a negotiated peace if possible. Returning to the specific current situation … why exactly is Olmert responding this particular way now? How does this help him get there better or safer?
Buzzing the Syrian President’s house? Ratcheting in on Gaza? Over a single soldier?
To best get him back alive? Be real. Giving back channels a while longer to work would have given better odds of that. A military action will cost Israeli lives. This isn’t Saving Private Ryan.
To illustrate to Hamas the consequences of continued embrace of terror tactics now that they are government? Does he think that this will, in either the short or longer term, result in Hamas renouncing terror, when this happens just as they give on the two other major points?
To further destabalize Hamas’ ability to succesfully govern? As if they needed much help.
For domestic consumption?
To scare Iran that Israel is not afraid of flying where it wants to?
No question, Hamas is uninterested in securing a future for the Palestinian people and their endorsement of this action was assured of provoking some response. But Olmert is a thinker, and I don’t understand what message he is sending to whom and why right now.
Thoughts?
Not really. Here’s a map of the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 ( I’ll trust we can consider this cite not overly pro-Palestinian 
) :
Historically the Jordan river was pretty much the standard dividing line where the geographic region of “Palestine” ended and as you can see what became Transjordan was not originally considered part of the proposed Palestine Mandate. Rather it was to be a Arab tribal area under loose British hegemony. Now as it happens in 1918-1922, the Transjordan ( at least what became the Transjordan section ) was in fact formally incorporated into the mandate territory. But it never really was incorporated adminsitratively. The Hashemite prince Abdullah, moving north from the Hijaz with Bedouin forces ostensibly to support his brother Faisal’s ( failed ) bid for the throne of Syria, entrenched himself firmly in the Transjordan after WW I. It not being politic ( or easy ) to expel the ostensibly friendly Hashemite dynast, Britain seperated out Transjordan for him.
Culturally the East Bank agriculturalists were at that time pretty much the same folks as what would come to be called the Palestinians, but by the time that Palestinian nationalism was firmly awakened in the 1960’s, they had differentiated themselves. At any rate the real military power in the early 20th century was in the hands of pro-Hashemite Bedouin from the desert fringe.
So the notion that Jordan IS Palestine, really isn’t accurate.
Well, no doubt they would argue they already have ;). Egypt once held Gaza, but more importantly Jordan claimed suzerainty over the West Bank until 1988. Israel could have just given that area back to Jordan and let them deal with the headache, but obviously for a variety of reasons ( some very sound, some less so ), they had no interest in doing so. But after 1988 king Hussein surrendered his claim to the PLO and washed his hands of it ( as much as was possible given the demographic reality of Jordan, anyway ).
- Tamerlane
But don’t forget, the only reason those Palestinians live in Jordan is because they fled there to get away from the Israelis.
Another, closer map of Sykes-Picot:
- Tamerlane
This is poorly worded. The actual Mandate of Palestine was created in 1922, with the Transjordan a seperate section. Before that it’s precise legal status was more nebulous, but was incorporated into a proposed mandate. Generally, as with colonial powers everywhere, the British were in the habit of promising mutually incompatible things to different people at different times. During WW I and in the several years afterwards, what borders would be where was pretty up in the air. Just as an example at one time Britain intended to outright annex southern Iraq, set up a puppet state in the center and France was to get the north around Mosul.
But at any rate, my point was that even if you stretch Palestine to encompass the East Bank ( also a reasonable boundary ) now in Jordan, the notion that the Arabs made out because 77% of the land that was originally promised to the Jews was given to them, doesn’t really hold up as an argument. It wasn’t ever really a serious option that the Jews ( who hadn’t settled there in any numbers ) would get the Transjordan.
- Tamerlane
I’m really not following why your responses are on topic to me then. I’m not saying anything about Hamas. Of course they won’t be satisfied. I’m talking about Israel’s own strategic position. Israel has to do what is strategically smart GIVEN that there is a large terrorist organization out to screw with them.