Obviously if Israel used nuclear weapons, they would completely destroy Gaza, but there would be political ramifications, so it’s probably not an option.
So what is the minimum level of “pain” to Hamas/Palestine that Israel needs to achieve victory through military means?
As a layperson I suspect collapsing all the tunnels would destroy Hamas ongoing military capabilities.
If that weren’t enough, Israel might attack all the public services to cause an existential threat to the Palestinians themselves (which sounds cruel, but can still be much more readily fixed than the way we beat Japan).
Genocide, or forcing them into other nations in an ethnic cleansing campaign. This isn’t the kind of situation that can be solved militarily short of one side exterminating or exiling the other.
And no, that’s not a call for genocide; it’s pointing out the limited usefulness of military force here.
I disagree, I think forceful coercion that does not require total genocide is possible, as it has been for most conquered people throughout most of recorded history. But I’m open to hear other opinions
And that’s what we see right now in Israel. If the Palestinians being ground down to the point they are now isn’t victory, the next level is eliminating them entirely. Conquered people are normally restive and rebellious essentially indefinitely, unless they are outright destroyed. Britain wasn’t able to eliminate resistance to its rule across its empire despite centuries of trying and quite a bit more ruthlessness than the Israelis are likely to employ.
There has been a near total blockade of Gaza for near on a decade. Multiple bombing campaigns. That has not changed the situation at all. Those “forceful coercion short of genocide” example that you can think of required the occupier/attacker to say “behave yourself. if you don’t we’ll be very nasty. If you do, we will a,low you to do xyz”
Israel has nothing to offer, except more bombings. Or a removal of the blockade. Which is not palatable to them politically.
You know , I think future historians might see Ariel Sharon’s stroke as one of the most ill timed one in human history.
Negotiate with the West Bank as a separate entity. See if a peace can be worked out there and get them to declare their disassociation from Hamas and Gaza. Further isolate Hamas and demonstrate that such a peace is possible. Hamas is already learning that governing is more difficult that fighting. Let the people in Gaza raise their expectations by demonstrating a functional Palestinian state at peace - even if uneasy - with Israel.
It all depends what you mean by ‘victory’. Hamas seems willing to risk the lives and living standards of its current population as a way to achieve Freedom from domination by Israel. Much like a Queen sacrifice in chess- massive current losses with the intention that in time the US will stop its absolute support for Israel and Europe and elsewhere might become more openly sympathetic to the Palestinians. There is also the psychological tendency to believe that as so much has been sacrificed over the past sixty years, it cannot be wasted now. So Israel are very much in an impasse- whatever they do worsens their long term situation. If they bomb the Gaza strip into the stone Age, anti-Semitism will rise over much of the world on the back of anti-Israeli feeling. If they retreat, then that encourages Hamas.
IMHO eventually this will be settled by both sides wearying of the fight and deciding (as with Sinn Fein IRA and the UK Government) that reconciliation is possible. That requires politicians who are both Wise and Wily- able to make the right decisions and carry their backers with them. Neither side seem to produce such leaders currently.
What it will take is for Hamas to stop the stupidity of thinking that Israel can be eradicated and for Israel to stop the stupidity of thinking that their land grab in the West Bank can be permanent. It may take another generation or two. Such sea changes do occur.
It is thinking like that that continues the impasse. As with Ireland it has to be accepted at some stage that there are different possible views of the situation and neither side has acted totally honestly. It may be necessary to wait for the right moment and the right leaders.
Even if Gaza was flattened and the population expelled (ignoring what that would do to world opinion) the land would still belong to the Palestinians. It would remain a bone of contention.
The problem isn’t with Israeli leaders, it’s with the Israeli electorate. Which has gotten substantially more hard line over the past two decades, as a result of demographic changes (immigration of ex-Soviet Jews, and extremely high fertility among the ultra-Orthodox).
Maybe mass murder is an exaggeration, but things are not going to get better for the Palestinians any time soon.
Playong devil’s advocate here, perhaps the best hope of peace is a fundamental shift in Arab governance as is happening currently in Iraq, Iran and Syria. Should Israel find itself in the position it was fifty years ago with aggressive states all around them (imagine a caliphate covering much of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan to the north, and another including Egypt and the Gulf to the south.
A negotiated peace might then seem a very good idea to an Israeli electorate.
You think being surrounded by enemies would make them softer on enemies within their border? Not so sure myself. It might go the other way, Hamas emboldened and Israel more ruthless.
I don’t see ISIS lasting or Egypt falling to Islamists personally.
I don’t think either side can win a military victory. I think the only two realistic long term options would be a diplomatic solution between both sides, or neighboring Arab states (Egypt/Jordan respectively) being involved in a solution in which they get the land of Gaza/West Bank and also have to deal with all the refugees/negatives associated with trying to integrate those peoples. The second solution would probably require very large payments to those other Arab states to make it close to worth their while and there are reasons Israel would be hesitant to go that route as well.
There are a few other less realistic options like the two sides fighting until the end of human civilization/until the collapse of the State of Israel, or Israel committing mass genocide and depopulating the Palestinian territories.
Good points, but the evidence is that Israel does not want a resolution and it does not want to completely destroy the Palestinians in Gaza.
The strategy appears to be that of a mother cat with a mouse. She keeps the mouse sufficiently alive to focus the attention of her kittens on it’s reactions to her torture.
Israel is controlled by the most brilliant political and military minds in the world. It’s actions in Gaza are the implementation of a deliberate strategy. Obviously that strategy is not a military victory (destruction of the enemies will and ability to fight). Israel is just torturing the mouse for propaganda purposes. Unfortunately, for this strategy, the mouse eventually dies.
The best strategy open to the Palestinians is to choose one of the paths of passive resistance. If 100,000 people from Gaza and another 100.000 from the West Bank start crossing the boarder to reclaim Palestinian land, Israel would be powerless to stop them. Israel cannot murder them all.
