Steve Huff has a very well-thought criticism of the late Israeli attacks on Gaza.

Like most of the liberal blogosphere, he criticized Israel. Yet this point made me wonder:

Sure, Israel has a right to defend its borders… and no one is denying them that right… but invading another territory and (clearly) killing indiscriminately is not a legitimate way to secure its homeland or reach its goals.

If one criticizes a real, contemporary action, it’s fair to expect a realistic alternative. What would be Israel’s “legitimate way” ?

Two alternatives were then given: the Nicaragua model, when Nicaragua went to the World Court after the Contras scandal; and the very successful Irish model, focused on police work from both British and Irish intelligence.

However legitimate historical examples, they simply don’t fit at all. Clearly, Nicaragua didn’t have the option of occupying Maryland; and the Irish problem was solved by the Irish themselves, when the people quit supporting the terrorist organization to the point of collapsing, letting regular intelligence work finish the job and bring criminals to justice.

Whether or not they fit the scenario is a crucial question since the main point was about an alternative way to defend itself from rocket attacks. Either Israel should complain about Hamas to the World Court, or Israel should sit with the Palestinian National Authority and talk about police work in Gaza, although PNA has no authority whatsoever over Gaza for more than 18 months.

Neither option will likely address the rockets raining down, even during the ceasefire (when no fire was actually ceased).

I hardly believe a military action will solve the fundamental Palestinian question. But among the criticism for Israel’s latest actions I have not found a realistic, down-to-earth, do-this-instead alternative.