Very well said @Riemann. That echoed my own thoughts exactly.
I’m sorry but I don’t start from a position that the only way to defend against this happening again is an effort (that I believe will not succeed) to destroy Hamas.
This attack succeeded NOT because it was so brilliantly planned and executed; it succeeded because of Israeli security complacency and failures.
Israel could focus on examining how their security apparatus failed, fix it, and keep a higher level of attention to it. While degrading Hamas in ways that minimize collateral damage and that maintains a moral high ground. Gain international support. Isolate Hamas more. It’s not where the mindset is. It doesn’t address the anger. It would result in a change in leadership. It won’t happen.
But it would I think be the smartest play.
Israel has been isolating Hamas since 2007. It hasn’t worked. All that “isolating Hamas” will do is give them another decade to build up and radicalize Palestinians while raging at the blockade.
Hamas needs to be eliminated and the lives of individual Palestinians need to get better. That cannot happen so long as Hamas remains in power; they will continue to act in ways that force Israel to respond in ways that hurt Palestinians.
Didn’t it? Had there been any attacks anything like this before? Or had Israeli security operations and intelligence managed to prevent any such efforts from ever occurring all this time until now?
Under Bibi and his focus on protecting his own ass at any cost, his attention focused on satisfying his partners and undermining Israel’s democratic base, security execution got sloppy enough to let this happen.
Until then it worked.
To argue that Israel needs to “destroy” Hamas, you have to define what destroy means.
Is it killing all Hamas partisans in Gaza? A ground assault could have some success with that goal, with the cost of killing troops, killing innocent civilians, and creating future generations of those willing to take up the mantle.
Does destroy mean eliminate the possibility of future attack from Gaza? A ground assault reduces the chances in the short term, with all the sames costs as above.
Is it to prevent Hamas or a similar movement from holding or taking power? An assault is the exact wrong way to do that. It’s not the specific people you kill that have power, it’s the idea they represent, and that is reinforced by an assault.
The one goal that a ground assault will be very successful in achieving is vengeance.
It certainly seems to me like Netanyahu and his allies were tolerating Hamas and even smoothing the way for money to reach it. I agree Hamas should be destroyed, but from what I’ve read, many Israeli politicians indirectly helped Hamas stay in power.
To the contrary, I think allowing Hamas to continue to exist leaves a negative feedback loop in place with no possible good outcome.
Hamas holding power, dedicated to the destruction of Israel, necessitates a blockade for the protection of Israel. The blockade causes misery for Palestinians. They are exposed to constant anti-Israel propaganda, an easy sell because Israel are the enforcers of the blockade, even if Hamas are the ultimate cause. This creates a negative feedback loop to recruit more Palestinians to Hamas and require an even more impregnable blockade.
The only way out of this feedback loop is to remove Hamas. Of course Palestinians are not going to welcome the IDF as liberators. The removal will be painful. But removing Hamas is a prerequisite to opening up good choices for Palestinians, to allowing any path that leads to the ultimate removal of the blockade and peaceful coexistence.
Nobody is suggesting that all that’s required is the removal of Hamas and some magical positive outcome that has eluded us for 50 years will emerge. But I don’t see how it’s not a necessary first step.
Netanyahu’s policies since 2009 absolutely did help Hamas grow, yes. There were a few factors behind this:
-
A sense of complacency. Acts of terrorism from Palestinian organizations have grown less and less deadly over the years. With Gaza specifically, between the wall and Iron Dome the sentiment was that something like this could not have happened. So dealing with Hamas was not a priority.
-
Dealing with Hamas would require going into Gaza - something which Israel was extremely reluctant to do, because of the immense human cost of doing this.
That’s why in 2014 Israel limited itself almost exclusively to aerial strikes.
Those are the two big reasons - the ones that drove public opinion. The two additional reasons that have been brought up are:
-
According to a number of interviews I’ve read, the Israeli side misjudged Hamas’ sincerity in their ideological position. A number of people who were in military or intelligence positions have said that there was an expectation that Hamas wasn’t really serious when it said that it would work to eliminate Israel; that sure, they’d repeat that line to build support, but that they understand that this is not a realistic goal, and they will grind their teeth and work with the Israelis eventually. Sure, they’ll launch some rockets every so often, and Israel will retaliate, but they’ll only be doing it to keep up appearances; behind the scenes they’ll come to the table. What many of these interviews point out is that this was entirely due to wishful thinking. Hamas was always adamant, it will not rest until Israel has been wiped from the map. The negotiators on Hamas’ side were clear that they would not tolerate Israel’s existence.
-
as iiandyiiii quoted in another thread, there are allegations that Netanyahu and co. viewed Hamas’ control of Gaza as beneficial specifically in that it hurt the unified control of the Palestinian territories, and hoped to play Hamas against its rivals.
So for all of these reasons, Israel never went back into Gaza to remove Hamas, and it sent food, water, medicine, electricity, and money into the Gaza Strip through Hamas, which of course gave Hamas legitimacy.
@Riemann I swear half the time you’re posting my own thoughts but more eloquently than I can manage.
This entire post was stellar. I just wanted to mention that. Thanks for posting it.
I absolutely agree with your point. Hamas does need to be removed from power. What I’m questioning is the right way to do this. Killing a bunch of Hamas terrorists does not end the propaganda. There is an endless supply of pissed-off people ready to continue that, now with the added ammunition of “look what Israel just did.” The only way to remove them from power – not just the specific people, but those who share their ideals – is to give the Palestinians some hope, so they reject that mindset on their own.
What’s the second step? What specifically is needed before Israel and the Palestinians can move to that next step? If it’s killing the Hamas leadership, a ground assault doesn’t help. I don’t think killing a bunch of the low-level fighters helps either, without going the full genocide route.
There’s a reasonable discussion to be had if the benefits of destroying the infrastructure that Hamas uses to launch attacks is worth the cost in lives. I can understand the argument that it’s a necessary step, although I don’t agree right now. But without more specifics of what happens after the assault, it’s tough to judge.
Go block by block and destroy Hamas’ cells so that it has no capacity to operate. As you’re doing this bring humanitarian aid into the areas under your control and start talks with the Palestinian Authority to take over management, or find a local group that is willing to come to the table. Completely destroy Hamas while negotiating a two state solution.
How do you tell a Hamas fighter from an innocent civilian? For the sake of the innocent, I hope Israel has photos and files on everyone they are looking for and don’t just call any male over 14 a Hamas fighter. Does anyone who resists an invasion or occupation count as Hamas?
It’s a pretty textbook example of “you can’t kill an idea”.
Destroying the extremism that leads to Hamas having power isn’t a realistic goal. And I highly doubt that is actually the goal of Israel in this war.
I imagine this is now a top priority for Mossad, no matter how secure or well-hidden those leaders may be in Qatar.
Israel does have databases with information on some Hamas fighters, yes. Otherwise, it’s definitely possible that some could slip through the cracks by leaving their weapons behind and walking out with other refugees. As long as Hamas as an organization is destroyed, catching them isn’t an especially high priority.
…if you fire at soldiers they are going to fire back, yes.
That’s not what I asked (you snipped my question). Are Palestinians who fight invaders/occupiers in Gaza any less justified than, say, a Ukrainian in Ukraine?
Why does Qatar shelter these people? Especially after this.
I don’t get it.
It’s a worthy goal, but it’s not really possible. They will always have the capacity to operate if there are people who feel like they do.
What are the “cells” that are being destroyed? Hamas is operating out of basements and residential houses. Yes, you can destroy those (where civilians are also living), but that hurts the civilians, not Hamas who can just move to another house.
What on earth is this supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that all invasions (and thus all resistance) are on an equal moral footing, regardless of the circumstances?
Do you imagine that there are Palestinians who don’t know the reason that IDF forces are entering Gaza, and are just on vague general principles going to heroically defend their homeland without being Hamas supporters? Should the IDF conduct interviews before returning fire?
I really have no idea what point you’re trying to make.