I think the idea of a “great outcome” to this situation sailed out the door when Hamas butchered what may yet turn out to be a thousand civilians. It’s already an unfathomable tragedy. Israel’s top priority now must be to ensure that Hamas is never capable of such an act ever again.
Correct. The reason that Hamas hasn’t previously been destroyed is that Israel did not have the stomach for the sort of lengthy occupation required. Hamas just made an occupation the lesser evil.
Does top priority mean only priority? That it is worth any price and any future consequences?
It’s also of course pretty academic. Even if the upper echelons of Israeli military intelligence, who know far better than anyone in this board what is required to eliminate Hamas, unanimously say “no it’s not possible”, the result is the same. There is a going to mass occupation of the Gaza Strip by the IDF and an attempt to destroy Hamas. Nothing else is an option politically.
No, it means top priority. If I meant only priority, then I would have said so.
It may just be political rhetoric but this is what Israel’s prime minister has said:
“We will take mighty vengeance for this black day,” the Israeli leader said in a televised address. “We will take revenge for all the young people who lost their lives. We will target all of Hamas’s positions. We will turn Gaza into a deserted island. To the citizens of Gaza, I say. You must leave now. We will target each and every corner of the strip.” - SOURCE
If I were Hamas leadership, I’d hold the hostages in the same buildings as myself and other military leaders, and be sure that Israel knew this.
What a shitty biased translation. He 100% did not say “we will turn Gaza into a desert island”. He said “we will turn Hamas’ positions in Gaza into ruins”. He also did not say “We will target each and every corner of the strip”; it’s misleading in the same exact way - he said he will target Hamas positions in every corner of the strip.
But expecting unbiased coverage of Israel from Al Jazeera is like expecting unbiased coverage of the election from Fox.
Already debunked in the MPSISMs thread.
Thanks for the correction.
Again.
This is actually the third time I’ve had to correct mistranslations of that particular quote; you quoted the second time, and the first is in Whack-a-Mole’s closed “ethnic cleansing” thread.
I think you wear blinkers. In this sentence you equate Hamas and the Palestinians as the same. I do not defend Hamas. I do defend the right of the Palestinian people to a life of dignity and self-determination. I’m not at all clear you believe in either of these things.
I agree with what some other people have said; Israel can destroy Hamas. But doing so will not end the conflict. Another group will end up replacing Hamas and resume attacking Israel.
That said, Israel might decide this is as good an outcome as they can achieve. If Hamas is eliminated, it will probably be several years while various claimants organize themselves and vie for control.
Moderating:
Attack the post and not the poster.
This approach, if it maintains as the approach, seems preferred to the full scale re-occupation one. It is not going completely eliminate Hamas but it will degrade them substantially, while causing fewer other deaths than any attempt to completely eliminate them would by multiple orders of magnitude. The pressure to hunt them down can continue as an ongoing process without realization that actual elimination is something that can only be achieved by other Palestinians.
Meanwhile, after an appropriate period of time, non-violent Palestinian leadership, Fatah or other, are best offered a path to something real and meaningful.
As you point out, there is a collateral damage cost borne by the Palestinians when Israel has to operate in Gaza. That’s something you’d hope Hamas would consider before they butcher 700+ Israeli civilians in cold blood, but their disregard for life is not limited to Israeli lives, as they prove again and again.
This is the approach that Israel has had since withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, aside from occassional forays back in (but no last occupation). Unfortunately destroying Hamas’ buildings has done little to stop them (and, since Hamas operates out of civilian buildings, it has also not minimized casualties). That plus isolation has been Israel’s strategy thus far, but clearly that has not shaken Hamas’ hold on Gaza.
What will need to happen now is that Hamas’ capability to control Gaza needs to be removed, and that will require an occupation.
I like Al Jazeera. They give me a different (and more international) perspective than most of my news sources. But their coverage is Israel is always negative. I’m disappointed their translation is so misleading, even so.