discovolante wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2023 11:31 am
IvanV wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2023 10:37 am
EACLucifer wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2023 5:57 am
Agreed. Unfortunately, getting a coherent plan beyond "try to somehow win the next election and stay out of jail" from Netanyahu will be difficult. On the other hand, there are no good long term outcomes if the short term goal of destroying Hamas, forcing them to relinquish power or somehow forcing them to utterly change their nature is not met.
Agree absolutely with the first point, it's aligned with what I have been saying.
The difficulty that many have with your second point is that they do not believe that the removal or transformation of Hamas is a sufficient condition for a good long term outcome. I think that is what motivates Disco's concern.
Kind of, my first question (or the first part of my question) has been how do you define the 'defeat' of Hamas, which I suppose is another way of saying two things: how can you be sure the threat of Hamas or similar organizations has been removed, and how do you decide when to stop. It seems to be in both Israel and Gaza's interests to be able to determine that.
Its feasible to locate and destroy the great majority, if not all, of Hamas' infrastructure and military equipment. IDF troops can search street by street and locate tunnels and equipment stored within. It will also be possible for Israel to identify the senior leadership and have a good idea as to how many have been killed or imprisoned.
Similar battles were fought against IS during 2015-2017, particularly to retake the cities of Mosul and Raqqah. The campaign against IS was successful in that it is far less powerful than before.
That said, the war isn't over and IS is still active in Syria and Iraq, and it has adherents around the world, especially in North Africa. The Taliban was successfully removed from power in Afghanistan in 2001, only to return years later. Historians can debate as to whether that was due to the enduring strength of the Taliban, or because the US and allies lost the plot and were distracted by the invasion of Iraq.
So a realistic objective may be to reduce the level of threat rather than end the war.
The other side of the equation is obviously Hamas. To recap, my assumption soon after 7 October was that they carried out the massacres in an attempt to start a war which would a) involve other regional states and actors that have traditionally supported the Palestinian cause; and b) lead to the Israeli armed forces being weakened by a lengthy urban war in Gaza.
If those were Hamas' objectives then it looks as if the the war since October 7 has been a disaster. The IDF appears to have few casualties. Leaders of Arab states have of course stated their disapproval, but beyond that the governments have offered little more than thoughts and prayers. States like Saudi Arabia could have initiated economic sanctions etc, but they have done nothing. It looks like they are content to see the IDF attack Hamas (who they dislike far more than they dislike Israel). The only party that has offered more than thoughts and prayers has been the Iranian backed Houthi Movement in Yemen. But their involvement isn't going to result in much stress and lost sleep in Jerusalem.
It remains to be seen how the evident lack of international support might affect Hamas' strategies.