I think you're leaving out an obvious alternative Gaza option - a version of the Gaza war that the Biden administration wanted Israel to fight, i.e. just one where Israel attempts to keep the proportionality threshold more or less in line with its previous Gaza wars, proactively tries to obey international law instead of having to be bullied into it, and makes a good faith attempt to enforce the laws of war against its soldiers.
It kills less Hamas combatants, but also kills less civilians and destroys less infrastructure. I don't think it would result in any fewer hostages being returned or rescued. It and the Hezbollah war restores roughly the same measure of deterrence that exists now.
And the modest upside is (i) it ranks a little bit lower on the global atrocity index of the 21st century (ii) Israel maintains somewhat better relations with other countries and (iii) maybe there's no genocide case at the ICC.
Also, you might alienate fewer rich American Jews in the donor class, an effect that will continue to have reprecussions for your highly subsidized state.
Debra's 69, but younger American Jews, who are mostly middle class liberals, are abandoning Zionism in droves. They will hold their new attitudes toward Israel for the rest of their voting and donating lives. Thanks, Bibi!
Also, it's sort of a separate issue, but if Israel ends up as a "pariah state", maybe something like South Africa in the 1980s, with economic sanctions imposed by the EU and the US (at least), I think that would make a bit of a dent in your economy. It's really only American goodwill (and the AIPAC / Mossad control of US politicians) that's preventing a scenario like that.
I couldn’t care less whether you are “skeptical” or not. The facts are the facts.
And the facts show that U.S. aid to Israel now represents a very small total of the annual Israeli budget. On the order of 3%. Which makes it on the order of 15%-20% of their defense spending.
And thanks to Hamas Oct 7th war initiation, in the last two years Israel’s own defense spending has temporarily skyrocketed, so even substantial additional U.S. military aid is not going to push the percentage way above the recent historical range,
So it’s a non-trivial amount, but your initial claim above that I correctly labeled false was that Israeli is a “highly subsidized state”.
As for sources, ask ChatGPT and it can easily point you at all kinds of sources.
The war has at least accelerated a likely inevitable process - making Israel toxic with the Democratic Party. The next Democratic nominee will be younger and will have grown up in a world where Israel was a regional power and has coccupied the WB and Gaza for their entire life. They won't even remember the Yom Kippur war if they were alive at the time. In a world where Democrats win half of the presidential elections, that's going to be a problem.
Even a sympathetic Democratic pol will have seen that Joe Biden crawled over broken glass to give Israel 95% of what it asked for and got nothing but contempt for it from Israel-supporting American Jews and the Israeli government. Can't tell you how many lawn signs I saw for "Trump - tov layehudim!" during the campaign.
The Biden administration's goal was to preserve regional stability, and it decided to do that by letting Israel go at it in Gaza while restraining it against Lebanon and Iran. I think it should have done the opposite, but this is not exactly the same thing as giving Israel 95% of what it wanted.
I don't really follow the argument in general or the specific example you give.
In general, Biden took a lot of heat from his base - not to mention Arab and Muslim voters - to keep supplying Israel with arms - arming what much of his base considered to be a genocidal party to a conflict. Then, he got flak from the right, including important Zionit donors for not giving Israel a fullthroated enough defense and for temporarily withholding a shipment of bombs until the US could determine that Israel was in compliane with US law on who the US could ship arms to. He kind of ended up with the worst of both possible worlds, but Gaza was just a shit issue for the Democrats in general - it split their base. There was no set of foreign policy moves that would have allowed Biden to triumph there.
As for the specific example, I don't see how Schumer criticizing Bibi was supposed to help Biden or Harris at all.
From a political perspective, he should have let/encouraged Israel go after Hizb'Allah, thus satisfying the Zionists and demoralizing the pro-Palestinian movement by provoking infighting between pro- and anti- Iran/Assad elements.
I was imprecise - I meant with regard to the Gaza War, specifically and by "giving Israel 95% of what it asked for" I meant things like weapons, supplies, and ammunition, and diplomatic cover.
Oct 7 literally proved why Israel could no longer fight that kind of war anymore
If you allow any of Hamas to survive, you’re guaranteeing another Oct 7 and more dead Jews and why should even a single Jew die for the benefit of a Palestinian?
Well, first, I don't think allowing Hamas to survives guarantees another October 7 anymore than allowing any of al Qaeda to survive guarantees a future 9/11 - October 7 and 9/11 required big screwups from the good guys that are just unlikely to repeat. Will they continue to be a terrorist organization implacably committed to Israel's destruction? Almost certainly. But it's the Israeli government's job to make sure they can't pull off another October 7. People do this weird math where if even one Hamas guy lives that means there's going to be an infinite amount of October 7s forever so therefore it's worth it to kill an infinite amount of Palestinians to make sure you get that last Hamas guy but it doesn't pencil out.
Second, seems pretty clear that some Hamas people will survive the war anyway. So the hypothetical alternative where Israel actually achieves that war aim doesn't exist.
Third, we appear to be discounting the probability of other Palestinian terror groups pulling off their own October 7s. Some of these Palestinian terror groups may be founded because of this war.
“But it's the Israeli government's job to make sure they can't pull off another October 7.”
Yes, that’s what they’re doing in Gaza. Right now.
Israel will never again allow there to be an armed organization on their border whose mission is to kill Jews. Just like we wouldn’t allow Mexico to host an armed network with an ideological mission to kill Americans.
Yeah, this is what I've thought: try get the ratio of Hamas/civilians killed as high as possible. This maybe slows the rate you kill Hamas (though depending on what's driving the ratio, maybe not even? I actually think this is an important question to understand what other options were available), and probably has more Israeli soldiers killed, but burns less capital with the rest of the world and, as a lib, I think killing fewer civilians is probably the most important benefit all on its own.
I don't know how that changes the course of the war, or even if it was really possible, but that seems like the most important question.
That is what they've done. ~20K combatants + ~20K civilians KIA, a ratio of 1:1. The lowest collateral damage for any comparable urban war ever according to actual military experts like John Spencer or Andrew Fox.
The claims of 100, 200, 300K killed are part of the Palestinian propaganda machine (which includes inserting these biased claims in Wikipedia) and have no factual basis.
Yeah, obviously the claims of way more than 100k killed are bogus, but NZ's post seems to buy the claim of a ratio of about 3:1, and though that analysis was performed earlier in the war, it seems reasonable.
Even if the numbers have improved, 20k combatants:30k civilians combat deaths, plus indirect deaths which are more likely to hit the young and the elderly, seems like it would still give a pretty poor ratio.
Wikipedia as a source? Seriously? Did you actually read that Lancet letter? It's transparent nonsense.
What can be said with certainty about the Israel-Gaza war?
(i) It was horrible for Hamas
(ii) It was horrible for Gazan civilians
(iii) It was horrible for Israeli hostages and their families
(iv) It was horrible for Israeli soldiers and their families
(v) Many people were killed from all of the above groups and we should be sad about all of them except (i).
(vi) War is hell. It should be avoided.
I do not accept that there is a great moral failure here, except insofar as Israel has demonstrated that it is no more saintly than other Western countries. This is upsetting to those of us who dream of Israel being a light to the nations but hardly abnormal by 21st century human standards.
In terms of strategy, it has indeed been chaotic and incoherent. The war was fought on the battleground of Hamas's choosing, fought at the time of Hamas's choosing, and while Hamas held Israel by the balls (hostages). That's a shit place to start a war and the big strategic failure was getting into that starting position. Heads should roll for that. Given the starting point, it was never going to be pretty.
Once Oct-7th had happened, however...
"Turn the other cheek" is not serious. Can you name a single other country that has done that in all of human history? Do you think America could have responded to Pearl Harbour or 9/11 with "We have seen enough blood. Nothing is to be gained by shedding more of it. Let's negotiate with Japan / Al Qaeda."?? (And Pearl Harbour was far less traumatic than Oct-7th for a host of reasons.)
Oct-7th was the start of a war that Israel had no choice but to fight and it had no choice in the primary war aim: eliminating the threat of Hamas.
In theory, a superior strategy might have been to secure a humanitarian zone in Gaza and then besiege the rest of the territory. This was my view on Oct-12-2023 prior to the ground invasion (https://bigthinkisrael.blogspot.com/2023/10/siege-is-humane-strategy.html) It sounds cleaner but might well have taken years and would Israelis have had the sang froid to stick with it when Hamas started releasing the severed fingers of hostages? Probably not.
My first time reading this blog and it seems like humbug unfortunately, hiding plain facts with nice prose.
If your self-declared enemies demonstrate to you clearly that they are a serious military threat to your civilian population, then a government's duty is to go to war, as the goals of war are defined by international law, namely to weaken your opponent's military capabilities. This is about as classic a war as it gets. In an ideal world, you wouldn't just weaken your enemy's military capabilities, but comprehensively destroy them militarily and politically, remove them from power, and drive them into insignificance, but of course it is not all or nothing. So far from having no strategy, Bibi and Israel have a completely reasonable strategy of weaken Hamas militarily, until the military threat they pose to Israel is reduced, and Israelis can live in relative safety.
It remains to be seen whether Hamas can be driven from power, as they have a civilian population who's culture and education leads them to hate Israel and Jews, even if they don't like Hamas or their tactics. It is clear that the first stage of war was limited heavily by Biden, and by a more doveish IDF and defence secretary. It is very possible that without any restrictions from the US, and with a more aggressive defence secretary and Ramatkal, the next stage of war will see the defeat of Hamas. This would be the cherry on the cake. But what Israel has achieved already in Gaza is monumental, and has left Israeli civilians far safer than they were pre-October 7. This is a classic war, it has gone remarkably well up North, it is going well in Gaza, with the majority of live hostages being released and Hamas severely weakened. Israel's deterrence has been improved, and there is a chance that things will get better.
In relation to civilian casualties, this is just an ethical question of how much preference one gives to one's own people, over the enemy population. If we prioritised Israeli's completely over Gazans, we would starve/bomb everyone there, without losing any soldier's lives. If we value our civilians equal to their civilians, we would not go to war at all as more civilians will die than not. Whilst you can't really argue about these sort of ethical questions without some shared framework, most people believe that one should prioritise the welbeing of one's family, friends, community and nation in concentric circles, and that governments have an ethical duty to prioritise their own civilians over foreign civilians, especially enemy populations. The liberal West, and the nebulous system of international law, start from a basis which emphasises the equality of civilians, rather than a more Israeli/conservative/nationalist position which prioritises ones own civilians. Thus every decision is a trade-off between enemy civilians and Israeli civililans. Understanding that the vast majority of Gazans despise Israel, are happy for Israelis to be murdered, and want their country liquidated, is enough to make most Israelis and conservatives very content that Israel's current balance is perfectly reasonable, and in fact far too skewed towards Gazan civilians.
In conclusion, the war is going well, it will probably get better, the strategy so far is the obvious, reasonable strategy to take, it has produced excellent results, ethically it is a classic case of prioritising one's own over the enemy, completely normal and reasonable, and Bibi is doing a stellar job to keep it going until the ניצחון המוחלט.
He can respond for himself, but I think that basically this is kind of an idea that is fixed in many Israeli/Zionist heads from previous wars where Israel did hold back and they just kind of stick with it now, because they haven't yet processed what happened.
And what exactly has happened that I am yet to process that would make 'reducing your enemy's military capabilities' not the appropriate response to an enemy which poses a military threat to your civilians? But I do happily plead guilty to having an Israeli and Zionist head.
Re the balance being too skewed towards Gazan civilians, the primary examples are:
1) Providing Gaza with humanitarian aid, electricity, water and fuel;
2) General IDF policy as to when military action is aborted to avoid civilian casualties, e.g. not carrying out strikes if there is a certain number of civilians likely to be harmed.
3) Warning civilians before attacking regions and giving them time to evacuate, thereby preparing Hamas and allowing them to flee as well.
All of these actions prioritise Gazan civilian wellbeing over Israeli security and the lives of its soldiers and civilians, and most Israelis, myself included, would see this as highly immoral.
I don't think the current government has taken these steps out of concern for Gazan civilians, rather for political reasons, mainly to placate Biden. Galant and the army leadership are different and have taken into account Gazan civilian suffering. Ganz even boasted, long before this war, that he risked Golani soldiers' lives so as not to harm Gazan civilians. Endangering your own to benefit the enemy strikes most Israelis as morally confused and twisted, rather than noble.
All of these things are just bare minimum requirements of civilized warfare. If you want to act like Mongol tribesman then you don't get to do it with tanks and missiles.
And where do you get this definition of 'civilised warfare' from? Most Israelis, Western conservatives and Americans would describe Israel's general current conduct as highly civilised and ethical.
I would love to know in which other example of 'civilised warfare', has one side supplied the other with food, electricity, water and fuel, risked its own soldiers to avoid harming enemy civilians, and warned enemy civilians and combatants before attacking?
1) Your thoughts are incoherent. You claim that Israel shows excessive regards for Palestinian casualties and when pushed for examples gave 3. I responded that these are baseline conditions of civilized warfare. You now respond by saying that X group considers Israel's war in Gaza to have met those standards but *that is only because Israel is doing these things you consider to supererogatory*. If Israel fought the war the way you wanted it to, even this small minority of global opinion you have identified would not be supportive.
3) In war, civilized countries are obligated to (a) ensure the civilian population does not starve (b) take into account proportionality in tactical decision making and avoid civilian casualties (c) try to fight outside civilian areas. These standards have generally been adhered to by European countries since the 1700s, with the major exception being WW2, but that *was a bad thing* not a model to emulate.
>However, it’s only true within the context of Zionism. Once we free ourselves from this silly, obsolete mental prison, there are whole vistas of tactics and strategy out there.
I was actually thinking that this war has very little to do with Zionism. Every action Israel has taken vis a vis the Gaza War is readily explained by the typical suite of actions you would expect Country A to take if it was attacked by genocidal maniacs in Country B. Even if everyone in charge of Israel abandoned Zionism on October 6, 2023, they would still have to respond with extreme violence to the attack on October 7. And some part of that response would come at the hands of the most violent and revanchist conscripts, who would commit war crimes. I don't think a Charedi or Arab government would respond any different! (Maybe worse!)
The odd thing about this war is that Israel just didn’t seem to have any strategy or concept of what to do. It’s clear that a combination of plan 5 and 1 would be most sound; after October, Israel had incredible diplomatic leverage to achieve core strategic objectives. Could Israel have forced the US to pressure the Saudis into a deal? Probs. Could they have taken the time to drum up international support to dismantle Hezbollah while beginning a similar planning operation in Gaza? Yes. Instead the went to war with no plans, objectives and its slowing becoming a quagmire
Regarding your first footnote, "mongoloid" is an antique term of medical art, dating from the days when you couldn't diagnose an individual with a genetic disorder without also being racist. It refers to the epicanthic folds symptomatic of Downs syndrome.
A guy like you who loves to toss around "retard" (which, tbh I find endearing, not that it matters...) really ought to know this stuff.
You're really walking the line of Betteridge's Law on this one!
Having fun reading your rightoid commenters doing their predictable schtick. Maybe you guys don't really get what this looks like from America. Maybe you don't care... but you should. All those cluster bombs etc are both fiscally and morally expensive, and we're looking to cut costs and burn bridges these days. If AIPAC ever loosens its grip on Congress and the Administration, you're going to have a hard time finding new sponsors.
A lot of Israelis/Zionists traumatized themselves by looking at Oct 7th footage on loop, and convinced themselves that (a) any military response would be acceptable (b) all fair-minded people would agree. It helps that they have innoculated themselves against constructive and unconstructive criticism through their mythological conception of antisemitism.
Well, as far as I can tell you've already lost the support of liberal American Jewish consensus opinion, and quite likely for a generation, if not for good. What you have now are Christian Zionists: hard-line Baptists and the like. While they are a more based lot, they're not the friends I'd want, because when scratched it turns out they really only care about accelerating their predetermined eschatological grand finale, which just happens to be set in your neighborhood.
Maybe it doesn't matter to you... but it seems to me there is an important difference between people sending you money and supporting your cause out of some mix of guilt and tribal affiliation (however misguided and sentimental) and people egging you on to start that one big final war ASAP.
I'm extremely skeptical that any democracy could possibly go with option 5 after a spectacle like October 7th, even if it's the wisest option (which I think it is). The popular demand to use violence to rescue hundreds of hostages after seeing friends and family massacred and their corpses paraded through streets, which the perpetrators livestreamed to be maximally sadistic, is always going to be too great. Unfortunate.
"Therefore, knowing what we know now, Israel could have pursued the following strategy. First, take out Hizb’Allah with all the pagers and bunker bombs and whatnot that we saw. Since Hizb’Allah attacked, there was no need even to rustle up a cassus belli for this. Secondly, with the whole deterrence and looking tough bit achieved, admit that Hamas won that round and do whatever deal has to be done. Third, invest the same time and resources that had been put into infiltrating Hizb’Allah into Hamas, and do the same thing in 2040, or whenever it was ready."
Unfortunately, Biden and Blinken explicitly vetoed attacking Lebanon in fear of escalating into "a regional war." And unfortunately Bibi caved to the pressure. Israel could have had a 1967 moment, but Bibi is no Churchill.
IMO Bibi only moved on Lebanon once the whole Biden debate fiasco occurred (late June 2024). Once Democrats became distracted by the election succession, it became clear there was no US commander in chief to punish Israeli belligerence, and the Israelis correctly predicted that Trump would win in November.
Great article. I wonder what the maximally hawkish or right-coded thing they could have done /without/ invading Gaza or endlessly bombing it would have been.
I ask because it's obvious to me that Oct. 7th was intended by Hamas to disrupt the status quo - so as opposed to chimping out and blowing everything up, the strategically optimal choice from Israel's perspective would have been to double, triple, quadruple-down on the status quo (blockade Gaza of arms even harder, slowly assassinate Hamas leaders over the years, settle the West Bank even harder, Abraham Accord reach out to Sunni states even more, etc. etc.). Obviously, Israeli public opinion didn't make this an option (the comments seem like a good illustration of a lot of smart people operating with low rationality - reminds me very much of 1930's Japan), which maybe is a strong argument against electoral democracy.
From an outside perspective, it actually seems to Netanyahu had something that was kind of working out for him and the Israeli right - Hamas unsurprisingly hated it and did something drastic and terrible to throw a wrench in the spanners - and Israel responded by blowing up the entire machine. I'm not sure if this is a right-coded or left-coded opinion...
Right, a version of #5 could have been implemented that would have given the Right everything they have wanted. This would have upset the Left who would have said that it vindicated their narrative that Bibi was working de facto as a Hamas ally, but it wouldn't really matter because Bibi had a 68 seat majority and could do what he wanted.
The problem is that the Right is mostly composed of numnutses whose thought process extends to shouting נקמה.
Yay, finally an excuse to share my can't-fail strategy for ending the Hamas/Gaza threat. Israel should have done this right away, but they can actually still do this now.
Phase 1.
1. Seal off the strip. nothing goes in, only people with somewhere else to go go out. This includes all aid aside from very basic food stuffs and medical supplies. The food should be intentionally made as bland and as nutritious as possible and should be in great supply. This requires taking and holding the Philadelphi corridor
2. Cut off internet access, cut the wires and jam the signals. Only one-way communication via mass air-dropping of cheap cell-enabled Chinese tablets that are fully locked up with only Netflix and an IDF information and propaganda app available. Let anyone who wants fly observer drones so they can be sure Israel isn't doing a genocide in the darkness.
3. No major air campaign, only drop bombs to attack very clear and obvious targets of opportunity and to support combat ops.
Phase 2.
1. Israel announces the goals and terms of the coming war. It is a war to destroy the war-making capability and nature of Gaza, permanently. It is not a war to return the hostages, as far as Israel is concerned, they are all already dead. Israel will not incentivize future-hostage taking by cutting a deal for them now. There are no negotiations possible with Gazan forces, and so Israel will not be listening to any offers from them or anyone else. Any Gazan who can get to Israeli lines with evidence of an ability to get somewhere else will be able to transit Israeli territory safely to their destination.
2. Israel begins ground combat ops. The IDF will take and hold the north-most three miles of the strip and clear it, thoroughly and carefully. All tunnels will be found and destroyed/sealed. Once cleared, a refugee camp will be built in the existing buildings and open ground.
3. Mass leaflet drop informing Gazans that they can come north to the refugee camp where they will get normal food, shelter, internet access, and as much of a normal life as can be provided.
4. Massive air campaign begins destroying Gazan military targets, ground incursions all along the coast and length of the strip to do the same.
5. Refugees coming into the Northern refugee camps are separated, Women and children to one camp, Men to the other, their belonging are safely stored in a central area that they only have access to when they leave. Men who are confirmed to not be militants and to not have participated in 10/7 get to join the other camp.
6. Take the next three miles, rinse and repeats.
Phase 3.
1. You now have the hard nut of Gazan military personnel concentrated into a tiny area of the strip with almost all civilians out. One time offer to any who surrender to get passage to Qatar or Turkey.
2. After offer expires, glass the area until no human could possibly still be living.
3. Make it easy for any Gazan living in the camps to leave to other parts of the world, offer travel funds.
4. Permanently annex Philadelphi corridor and 1km additional buffer strip along the envelope.
5. Full withdrawal everywhere else, the people in the camps can go home and do whatever they want.
6. No rebuilding aid goes in without Israeli inspection and approval.
Sounds great, but this is my point. The more elaborate the strategy, the more it requires a strong state that can enforce strategic discipline on different military and civilian departments, cope with popular discontent from both Right and Left, and stick to a plan over a long period while also reviewing and modifying elements as needed.
But we don't have a strong state, we have a weak state, and you can't just rustle a strong state out of the air when you need it.
Coalitional politics being what they are, it's very hard for any Israeli coalition to adopt any coherent approach to the war. Following any approach to its logical conclusion is going to cross some coalition partner's red line.
Honestly, I don't even know why Lapid and Bennet are so hot for elections - they couldn't last 6 months in power before their government collapsed and all they had to do was not allow chametz in hospitals on pesach. Do they think they'll be able to cobble together a coalition with Liberman, Bennet, and Mansour Abbas that can navigate the Gaza War for more than a week?
In 1967, the army had a plan to take out the Egyptian airforce and conquer the Sinai, and they psy-oped the population into thinking they were all going to die so that Moshe Dayan would be installed as defence minister and they could do what they wanted with no civilian interference. The plan worked so well that they even accidentally (probably...) psy-oped Jordan into invading as well, then picked up the Golan since why not.
Of course, it helped a lot that their plan could be rolled out in a week.
Absorbing 2 million Gazans into a population of 100 million Egyptians is not all that hard.
It’s about in per capita terms how many Ukrainians were taken in by Austria or Ireland since February 2022. In these two cases it’s been done pretty straightforwardly. Cultural similarity really matters.
I know nothing about Egyptian internal politics. But it’s a chronically poor country and I would assume that large amounts of cash from Israel and/or the rest of the west would make a big difference.
Israel should have not withdrawn the IDF from the Gaza in the first place. Pulling the settlements was fine but removing the IDF was an utter disaster for everyone involved, actually for the Palestinians even more than for the Israelis.
You mean keeping Israeli troops in Gaza until a final peace agreement with the Palestinians would have actually been signed? That could have worked, perhaps.
I couldn't stop thinking about what Jeremy Kauffman said "The answer is that Israel should accept more casualties in order to reduce harm to Palestinian civilians" it's good to see an elucidated take that gives valid critisism and offer some possible alternatives.
Putting aside the political constraints in this war - both the domestic Israeli demands and those of the Biden administration (who explicitly vetoed attacking Hezbollah multiple times at the beginning of the war, although Bibi should have listened to Gallant and done it anyway...)
- Option 3 may come to pass under Trump.
- Option 6: Conquer and depopulate territory, then use it as leverage to obtain political concessions. Israel used to understand this (see: 1967). In Gaza this could have looked like: expelling/evacuating the population south of the Netzarim corridor, then clear out remaining Hamas fighters and tunnels at leisure. Make clear to Hamas that no one goes back home to northern Gaza until the hostages come home. Annex the territory if need be. Loss of territory is the currency that matters to Islamists, not the lives of their own children.
- Re: siege, I heard that in Jewish law there is a rule about sieging a city on three sides to allow people to escape from the 4th side. On October 8, Israel could have cut off all food/water/electricity/aid entering via Israeli territory and only allowed Gaza to be supplied via Egypt. It's true that weapons could be smuggled in via Rafah, but several hundred thousand Gazans left Gaza via Rafah before the IDF conquered it and the border with Egypt was closed. Also as a matter of honor, it is suicidal to supply your enemy while they hold your civilians hostage.
Reading the author's "creative option" #4, I could only conclude that he hasn't been to too many soldiers' funerals or made too many shiva calls at their families. He would have encountered quite a different population from that shown in the clip & wouldn't have dared show it.
In general, his position seems to be that of an outsider judging a foreign tribe, the fate of which he doesn't share. A bit like the ICJ judges. Whereas an effective judge should be, to quote former judge Mishael Hashin, one that "dwells with his people".
I think you're leaving out an obvious alternative Gaza option - a version of the Gaza war that the Biden administration wanted Israel to fight, i.e. just one where Israel attempts to keep the proportionality threshold more or less in line with its previous Gaza wars, proactively tries to obey international law instead of having to be bullied into it, and makes a good faith attempt to enforce the laws of war against its soldiers.
It kills less Hamas combatants, but also kills less civilians and destroys less infrastructure. I don't think it would result in any fewer hostages being returned or rescued. It and the Hezbollah war restores roughly the same measure of deterrence that exists now.
And the modest upside is (i) it ranks a little bit lower on the global atrocity index of the 21st century (ii) Israel maintains somewhat better relations with other countries and (iii) maybe there's no genocide case at the ICC.
You're right, I did leave that out. It didn't occur to me. Probably indicative of something.
And what international laws should we expect Hamas to obey, exactly? Inquiring minds want to know.
Also, you might alienate fewer rich American Jews in the donor class, an effect that will continue to have reprecussions for your highly subsidized state.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/16/us-news/actress-debra-winger-says-she-has-debt-to-pay-over-jewish-upbringing-while-protesting-mahmoud-khalil-bust/
Debra's 69, but younger American Jews, who are mostly middle class liberals, are abandoning Zionism in droves. They will hold their new attitudes toward Israel for the rest of their voting and donating lives. Thanks, Bibi!
Your claim that Israel is today a "highly subsidized state" is false.
It used to be true, but it no longer is.
The percentage of American subsidization of Israel is now quite small.
Also, it's sort of a separate issue, but if Israel ends up as a "pariah state", maybe something like South Africa in the 1980s, with economic sanctions imposed by the EU and the US (at least), I think that would make a bit of a dent in your economy. It's really only American goodwill (and the AIPAC / Mossad control of US politicians) that's preventing a scenario like that.
I’m an American citizen, so even if your hypothetical came true, it wouldn’t put a dent in “my” economy.
And just because you make false assertions like your final one, doesn’t make them true…
Sources please! Military budget, in particular, is of interest to me. I'm working from statements like these:
https://www.state.gov/military-assistance-to-israel/
https://www.ajc.org/news/what-every-american-should-know-about-us-aid-to-israel
... which totals to $14 billion since your 2023-10-7 event. In 2024, Israel's total military budget looks to be about $28 billion:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-war-spending-2024-lifts-debt-burden-69-gdp-2025-01-21/
So you can understand how I'm a bit skeptical.
Dude, $12B of sales is not $12B of aid.
I couldn’t care less whether you are “skeptical” or not. The facts are the facts.
And the facts show that U.S. aid to Israel now represents a very small total of the annual Israeli budget. On the order of 3%. Which makes it on the order of 15%-20% of their defense spending.
And thanks to Hamas Oct 7th war initiation, in the last two years Israel’s own defense spending has temporarily skyrocketed, so even substantial additional U.S. military aid is not going to push the percentage way above the recent historical range,
So it’s a non-trivial amount, but your initial claim above that I correctly labeled false was that Israeli is a “highly subsidized state”.
As for sources, ask ChatGPT and it can easily point you at all kinds of sources.
The war has at least accelerated a likely inevitable process - making Israel toxic with the Democratic Party. The next Democratic nominee will be younger and will have grown up in a world where Israel was a regional power and has coccupied the WB and Gaza for their entire life. They won't even remember the Yom Kippur war if they were alive at the time. In a world where Democrats win half of the presidential elections, that's going to be a problem.
Even a sympathetic Democratic pol will have seen that Joe Biden crawled over broken glass to give Israel 95% of what it asked for and got nothing but contempt for it from Israel-supporting American Jews and the Israeli government. Can't tell you how many lawn signs I saw for "Trump - tov layehudim!" during the campaign.
The Biden administration's goal was to preserve regional stability, and it decided to do that by letting Israel go at it in Gaza while restraining it against Lebanon and Iran. I think it should have done the opposite, but this is not exactly the same thing as giving Israel 95% of what it wanted.
"The Biden administration's goal was to preserve regional stability"
Sorry, this is just false.
The Biden administration's goal was to maximize the chance of the Democrat candidate to win the November 2024 U.S. election.
Period.
Well, if not "Period" then at least 95% of the explanation for each and every one of their actions.
Including Schumer from the Senate floor telling the Israelis they needed to change their government.
Or are you claiming *that* action was to preserve regional stability?
I don't really follow the argument in general or the specific example you give.
In general, Biden took a lot of heat from his base - not to mention Arab and Muslim voters - to keep supplying Israel with arms - arming what much of his base considered to be a genocidal party to a conflict. Then, he got flak from the right, including important Zionit donors for not giving Israel a fullthroated enough defense and for temporarily withholding a shipment of bombs until the US could determine that Israel was in compliane with US law on who the US could ship arms to. He kind of ended up with the worst of both possible worlds, but Gaza was just a shit issue for the Democrats in general - it split their base. There was no set of foreign policy moves that would have allowed Biden to triumph there.
As for the specific example, I don't see how Schumer criticizing Bibi was supposed to help Biden or Harris at all.
From a political perspective, he should have let/encouraged Israel go after Hizb'Allah, thus satisfying the Zionists and demoralizing the pro-Palestinian movement by provoking infighting between pro- and anti- Iran/Assad elements.
I was imprecise - I meant with regard to the Gaza War, specifically and by "giving Israel 95% of what it asked for" I meant things like weapons, supplies, and ammunition, and diplomatic cover.
Oct 7 literally proved why Israel could no longer fight that kind of war anymore
If you allow any of Hamas to survive, you’re guaranteeing another Oct 7 and more dead Jews and why should even a single Jew die for the benefit of a Palestinian?
Well, first, I don't think allowing Hamas to survives guarantees another October 7 anymore than allowing any of al Qaeda to survive guarantees a future 9/11 - October 7 and 9/11 required big screwups from the good guys that are just unlikely to repeat. Will they continue to be a terrorist organization implacably committed to Israel's destruction? Almost certainly. But it's the Israeli government's job to make sure they can't pull off another October 7. People do this weird math where if even one Hamas guy lives that means there's going to be an infinite amount of October 7s forever so therefore it's worth it to kill an infinite amount of Palestinians to make sure you get that last Hamas guy but it doesn't pencil out.
Second, seems pretty clear that some Hamas people will survive the war anyway. So the hypothetical alternative where Israel actually achieves that war aim doesn't exist.
Third, we appear to be discounting the probability of other Palestinian terror groups pulling off their own October 7s. Some of these Palestinian terror groups may be founded because of this war.
“But it's the Israeli government's job to make sure they can't pull off another October 7.”
Yes, that’s what they’re doing in Gaza. Right now.
Israel will never again allow there to be an armed organization on their border whose mission is to kill Jews. Just like we wouldn’t allow Mexico to host an armed network with an ideological mission to kill Americans.
Yeah, this is what I've thought: try get the ratio of Hamas/civilians killed as high as possible. This maybe slows the rate you kill Hamas (though depending on what's driving the ratio, maybe not even? I actually think this is an important question to understand what other options were available), and probably has more Israeli soldiers killed, but burns less capital with the rest of the world and, as a lib, I think killing fewer civilians is probably the most important benefit all on its own.
I don't know how that changes the course of the war, or even if it was really possible, but that seems like the most important question.
The idea that Israel should trade Jewish lives for Palestinian ones is a moral atrocity, but more than that there’s just no reason for them to
That is what they've done. ~20K combatants + ~20K civilians KIA, a ratio of 1:1. The lowest collateral damage for any comparable urban war ever according to actual military experts like John Spencer or Andrew Fox.
The claims of 100, 200, 300K killed are part of the Palestinian propaganda machine (which includes inserting these biased claims in Wikipedia) and have no factual basis.
Yeah, obviously the claims of way more than 100k killed are bogus, but NZ's post seems to buy the claim of a ratio of about 3:1, and though that analysis was performed earlier in the war, it seems reasonable.
Even if the numbers have improved, 20k combatants:30k civilians combat deaths, plus indirect deaths which are more likely to hit the young and the elderly, seems like it would still give a pretty poor ratio.
Agree that there's a lot of uncertainty though.
Wikipedia as a source? Seriously? Did you actually read that Lancet letter? It's transparent nonsense.
What can be said with certainty about the Israel-Gaza war?
(i) It was horrible for Hamas
(ii) It was horrible for Gazan civilians
(iii) It was horrible for Israeli hostages and their families
(iv) It was horrible for Israeli soldiers and their families
(v) Many people were killed from all of the above groups and we should be sad about all of them except (i).
(vi) War is hell. It should be avoided.
I do not accept that there is a great moral failure here, except insofar as Israel has demonstrated that it is no more saintly than other Western countries. This is upsetting to those of us who dream of Israel being a light to the nations but hardly abnormal by 21st century human standards.
In terms of strategy, it has indeed been chaotic and incoherent. The war was fought on the battleground of Hamas's choosing, fought at the time of Hamas's choosing, and while Hamas held Israel by the balls (hostages). That's a shit place to start a war and the big strategic failure was getting into that starting position. Heads should roll for that. Given the starting point, it was never going to be pretty.
Once Oct-7th had happened, however...
"Turn the other cheek" is not serious. Can you name a single other country that has done that in all of human history? Do you think America could have responded to Pearl Harbour or 9/11 with "We have seen enough blood. Nothing is to be gained by shedding more of it. Let's negotiate with Japan / Al Qaeda."?? (And Pearl Harbour was far less traumatic than Oct-7th for a host of reasons.)
Oct-7th was the start of a war that Israel had no choice but to fight and it had no choice in the primary war aim: eliminating the threat of Hamas.
In theory, a superior strategy might have been to secure a humanitarian zone in Gaza and then besiege the rest of the territory. This was my view on Oct-12-2023 prior to the ground invasion (https://bigthinkisrael.blogspot.com/2023/10/siege-is-humane-strategy.html) It sounds cleaner but might well have taken years and would Israelis have had the sang froid to stick with it when Hamas started releasing the severed fingers of hostages? Probably not.
Your comments would benefit from an editor.
My first time reading this blog and it seems like humbug unfortunately, hiding plain facts with nice prose.
If your self-declared enemies demonstrate to you clearly that they are a serious military threat to your civilian population, then a government's duty is to go to war, as the goals of war are defined by international law, namely to weaken your opponent's military capabilities. This is about as classic a war as it gets. In an ideal world, you wouldn't just weaken your enemy's military capabilities, but comprehensively destroy them militarily and politically, remove them from power, and drive them into insignificance, but of course it is not all or nothing. So far from having no strategy, Bibi and Israel have a completely reasonable strategy of weaken Hamas militarily, until the military threat they pose to Israel is reduced, and Israelis can live in relative safety.
It remains to be seen whether Hamas can be driven from power, as they have a civilian population who's culture and education leads them to hate Israel and Jews, even if they don't like Hamas or their tactics. It is clear that the first stage of war was limited heavily by Biden, and by a more doveish IDF and defence secretary. It is very possible that without any restrictions from the US, and with a more aggressive defence secretary and Ramatkal, the next stage of war will see the defeat of Hamas. This would be the cherry on the cake. But what Israel has achieved already in Gaza is monumental, and has left Israeli civilians far safer than they were pre-October 7. This is a classic war, it has gone remarkably well up North, it is going well in Gaza, with the majority of live hostages being released and Hamas severely weakened. Israel's deterrence has been improved, and there is a chance that things will get better.
In relation to civilian casualties, this is just an ethical question of how much preference one gives to one's own people, over the enemy population. If we prioritised Israeli's completely over Gazans, we would starve/bomb everyone there, without losing any soldier's lives. If we value our civilians equal to their civilians, we would not go to war at all as more civilians will die than not. Whilst you can't really argue about these sort of ethical questions without some shared framework, most people believe that one should prioritise the welbeing of one's family, friends, community and nation in concentric circles, and that governments have an ethical duty to prioritise their own civilians over foreign civilians, especially enemy populations. The liberal West, and the nebulous system of international law, start from a basis which emphasises the equality of civilians, rather than a more Israeli/conservative/nationalist position which prioritises ones own civilians. Thus every decision is a trade-off between enemy civilians and Israeli civililans. Understanding that the vast majority of Gazans despise Israel, are happy for Israelis to be murdered, and want their country liquidated, is enough to make most Israelis and conservatives very content that Israel's current balance is perfectly reasonable, and in fact far too skewed towards Gazan civilians.
In conclusion, the war is going well, it will probably get better, the strategy so far is the obvious, reasonable strategy to take, it has produced excellent results, ethically it is a classic case of prioritising one's own over the enemy, completely normal and reasonable, and Bibi is doing a stellar job to keep it going until the ניצחון המוחלט.
How exactly is it too skewed towards Gazan civilians? What do you want Israel to do that it supposedly hasn't done out of concern for Gazan civilians?
He can respond for himself, but I think that basically this is kind of an idea that is fixed in many Israeli/Zionist heads from previous wars where Israel did hold back and they just kind of stick with it now, because they haven't yet processed what happened.
And what exactly has happened that I am yet to process that would make 'reducing your enemy's military capabilities' not the appropriate response to an enemy which poses a military threat to your civilians? But I do happily plead guilty to having an Israeli and Zionist head.
Re the balance being too skewed towards Gazan civilians, the primary examples are:
1) Providing Gaza with humanitarian aid, electricity, water and fuel;
2) General IDF policy as to when military action is aborted to avoid civilian casualties, e.g. not carrying out strikes if there is a certain number of civilians likely to be harmed.
3) Warning civilians before attacking regions and giving them time to evacuate, thereby preparing Hamas and allowing them to flee as well.
All of these actions prioritise Gazan civilian wellbeing over Israeli security and the lives of its soldiers and civilians, and most Israelis, myself included, would see this as highly immoral.
I don't think the current government has taken these steps out of concern for Gazan civilians, rather for political reasons, mainly to placate Biden. Galant and the army leadership are different and have taken into account Gazan civilian suffering. Ganz even boasted, long before this war, that he risked Golani soldiers' lives so as not to harm Gazan civilians. Endangering your own to benefit the enemy strikes most Israelis as morally confused and twisted, rather than noble.
All of these things are just bare minimum requirements of civilized warfare. If you want to act like Mongol tribesman then you don't get to do it with tanks and missiles.
And where do you get this definition of 'civilised warfare' from? Most Israelis, Western conservatives and Americans would describe Israel's general current conduct as highly civilised and ethical.
I would love to know in which other example of 'civilised warfare', has one side supplied the other with food, electricity, water and fuel, risked its own soldiers to avoid harming enemy civilians, and warned enemy civilians and combatants before attacking?
1) Your thoughts are incoherent. You claim that Israel shows excessive regards for Palestinian casualties and when pushed for examples gave 3. I responded that these are baseline conditions of civilized warfare. You now respond by saying that X group considers Israel's war in Gaza to have met those standards but *that is only because Israel is doing these things you consider to supererogatory*. If Israel fought the war the way you wanted it to, even this small minority of global opinion you have identified would not be supportive.
2) As to the facts you are wrong. A slight majority of Americans believe that Israel has gone too far https://www.axios.com/2024/02/02/americans-israel-too-far-gaza-poll In literally all other countries in the world, the overwhelming majority thinks this.
3) In war, civilized countries are obligated to (a) ensure the civilian population does not starve (b) take into account proportionality in tactical decision making and avoid civilian casualties (c) try to fight outside civilian areas. These standards have generally been adhered to by European countries since the 1700s, with the major exception being WW2, but that *was a bad thing* not a model to emulate.
>However, it’s only true within the context of Zionism. Once we free ourselves from this silly, obsolete mental prison, there are whole vistas of tactics and strategy out there.
I was actually thinking that this war has very little to do with Zionism. Every action Israel has taken vis a vis the Gaza War is readily explained by the typical suite of actions you would expect Country A to take if it was attacked by genocidal maniacs in Country B. Even if everyone in charge of Israel abandoned Zionism on October 6, 2023, they would still have to respond with extreme violence to the attack on October 7. And some part of that response would come at the hands of the most violent and revanchist conscripts, who would commit war crimes. I don't think a Charedi or Arab government would respond any different! (Maybe worse!)
I didn't explain that point well. I think I will rewrite it.
Hope so. This post does look in parts like you’re sacrificing sobriety of discussion for elevating your brand.
Well if it makes you feel better, I lost subscribers.
It doesn’t, for what it’s worth
😢
The odd thing about this war is that Israel just didn’t seem to have any strategy or concept of what to do. It’s clear that a combination of plan 5 and 1 would be most sound; after October, Israel had incredible diplomatic leverage to achieve core strategic objectives. Could Israel have forced the US to pressure the Saudis into a deal? Probs. Could they have taken the time to drum up international support to dismantle Hezbollah while beginning a similar planning operation in Gaza? Yes. Instead the went to war with no plans, objectives and its slowing becoming a quagmire
Regarding your first footnote, "mongoloid" is an antique term of medical art, dating from the days when you couldn't diagnose an individual with a genetic disorder without also being racist. It refers to the epicanthic folds symptomatic of Downs syndrome.
A guy like you who loves to toss around "retard" (which, tbh I find endearing, not that it matters...) really ought to know this stuff.
"dating from the days when you couldn't diagnose an individual with a genetic disorder without also being racist." ah yes, the good old days.
You're really walking the line of Betteridge's Law on this one!
Having fun reading your rightoid commenters doing their predictable schtick. Maybe you guys don't really get what this looks like from America. Maybe you don't care... but you should. All those cluster bombs etc are both fiscally and morally expensive, and we're looking to cut costs and burn bridges these days. If AIPAC ever loosens its grip on Congress and the Administration, you're going to have a hard time finding new sponsors.
A lot of Israelis/Zionists traumatized themselves by looking at Oct 7th footage on loop, and convinced themselves that (a) any military response would be acceptable (b) all fair-minded people would agree. It helps that they have innoculated themselves against constructive and unconstructive criticism through their mythological conception of antisemitism.
Well, as far as I can tell you've already lost the support of liberal American Jewish consensus opinion, and quite likely for a generation, if not for good. What you have now are Christian Zionists: hard-line Baptists and the like. While they are a more based lot, they're not the friends I'd want, because when scratched it turns out they really only care about accelerating their predetermined eschatological grand finale, which just happens to be set in your neighborhood.
That doesn't seem to me such a big problem. Either Jesus is coming back or he isn't, and if he is that's the least of our problems.
More to the point, they and their influence are in chronic and irreversible decline.
Maybe it doesn't matter to you... but it seems to me there is an important difference between people sending you money and supporting your cause out of some mix of guilt and tribal affiliation (however misguided and sentimental) and people egging you on to start that one big final war ASAP.
Not just liberals, either.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/trump-shouldnt-follow-netanyahus-lead/
I'm extremely skeptical that any democracy could possibly go with option 5 after a spectacle like October 7th, even if it's the wisest option (which I think it is). The popular demand to use violence to rescue hundreds of hostages after seeing friends and family massacred and their corpses paraded through streets, which the perpetrators livestreamed to be maximally sadistic, is always going to be too great. Unfortunate.
"Therefore, knowing what we know now, Israel could have pursued the following strategy. First, take out Hizb’Allah with all the pagers and bunker bombs and whatnot that we saw. Since Hizb’Allah attacked, there was no need even to rustle up a cassus belli for this. Secondly, with the whole deterrence and looking tough bit achieved, admit that Hamas won that round and do whatever deal has to be done. Third, invest the same time and resources that had been put into infiltrating Hizb’Allah into Hamas, and do the same thing in 2040, or whenever it was ready."
Gallant advocated for a Hezbollah First strategy like this https://www.timesofisrael.com/gallant-israels-greatest-missed-opportunity-was-not-attacking-hezbollah-in-oct-2023/ .
So he was defense minister during Oct. 7th?
He is clearly better at hindsight than foresight.
Unfortunately, Biden and Blinken explicitly vetoed attacking Lebanon in fear of escalating into "a regional war." And unfortunately Bibi caved to the pressure. Israel could have had a 1967 moment, but Bibi is no Churchill.
IMO Bibi only moved on Lebanon once the whole Biden debate fiasco occurred (late June 2024). Once Democrats became distracted by the election succession, it became clear there was no US commander in chief to punish Israeli belligerence, and the Israelis correctly predicted that Trump would win in November.
Great article. I wonder what the maximally hawkish or right-coded thing they could have done /without/ invading Gaza or endlessly bombing it would have been.
I ask because it's obvious to me that Oct. 7th was intended by Hamas to disrupt the status quo - so as opposed to chimping out and blowing everything up, the strategically optimal choice from Israel's perspective would have been to double, triple, quadruple-down on the status quo (blockade Gaza of arms even harder, slowly assassinate Hamas leaders over the years, settle the West Bank even harder, Abraham Accord reach out to Sunni states even more, etc. etc.). Obviously, Israeli public opinion didn't make this an option (the comments seem like a good illustration of a lot of smart people operating with low rationality - reminds me very much of 1930's Japan), which maybe is a strong argument against electoral democracy.
From an outside perspective, it actually seems to Netanyahu had something that was kind of working out for him and the Israeli right - Hamas unsurprisingly hated it and did something drastic and terrible to throw a wrench in the spanners - and Israel responded by blowing up the entire machine. I'm not sure if this is a right-coded or left-coded opinion...
Right, a version of #5 could have been implemented that would have given the Right everything they have wanted. This would have upset the Left who would have said that it vindicated their narrative that Bibi was working de facto as a Hamas ally, but it wouldn't really matter because Bibi had a 68 seat majority and could do what he wanted.
The problem is that the Right is mostly composed of numnutses whose thought process extends to shouting נקמה.
I think quadrupling down on the status quo is the plan as soon as the remaining living hostages are released.
Yay, finally an excuse to share my can't-fail strategy for ending the Hamas/Gaza threat. Israel should have done this right away, but they can actually still do this now.
Phase 1.
1. Seal off the strip. nothing goes in, only people with somewhere else to go go out. This includes all aid aside from very basic food stuffs and medical supplies. The food should be intentionally made as bland and as nutritious as possible and should be in great supply. This requires taking and holding the Philadelphi corridor
2. Cut off internet access, cut the wires and jam the signals. Only one-way communication via mass air-dropping of cheap cell-enabled Chinese tablets that are fully locked up with only Netflix and an IDF information and propaganda app available. Let anyone who wants fly observer drones so they can be sure Israel isn't doing a genocide in the darkness.
3. No major air campaign, only drop bombs to attack very clear and obvious targets of opportunity and to support combat ops.
Phase 2.
1. Israel announces the goals and terms of the coming war. It is a war to destroy the war-making capability and nature of Gaza, permanently. It is not a war to return the hostages, as far as Israel is concerned, they are all already dead. Israel will not incentivize future-hostage taking by cutting a deal for them now. There are no negotiations possible with Gazan forces, and so Israel will not be listening to any offers from them or anyone else. Any Gazan who can get to Israeli lines with evidence of an ability to get somewhere else will be able to transit Israeli territory safely to their destination.
2. Israel begins ground combat ops. The IDF will take and hold the north-most three miles of the strip and clear it, thoroughly and carefully. All tunnels will be found and destroyed/sealed. Once cleared, a refugee camp will be built in the existing buildings and open ground.
3. Mass leaflet drop informing Gazans that they can come north to the refugee camp where they will get normal food, shelter, internet access, and as much of a normal life as can be provided.
4. Massive air campaign begins destroying Gazan military targets, ground incursions all along the coast and length of the strip to do the same.
5. Refugees coming into the Northern refugee camps are separated, Women and children to one camp, Men to the other, their belonging are safely stored in a central area that they only have access to when they leave. Men who are confirmed to not be militants and to not have participated in 10/7 get to join the other camp.
6. Take the next three miles, rinse and repeats.
Phase 3.
1. You now have the hard nut of Gazan military personnel concentrated into a tiny area of the strip with almost all civilians out. One time offer to any who surrender to get passage to Qatar or Turkey.
2. After offer expires, glass the area until no human could possibly still be living.
3. Make it easy for any Gazan living in the camps to leave to other parts of the world, offer travel funds.
4. Permanently annex Philadelphi corridor and 1km additional buffer strip along the envelope.
5. Full withdrawal everywhere else, the people in the camps can go home and do whatever they want.
6. No rebuilding aid goes in without Israeli inspection and approval.
Done.
Sounds great, but this is my point. The more elaborate the strategy, the more it requires a strong state that can enforce strategic discipline on different military and civilian departments, cope with popular discontent from both Right and Left, and stick to a plan over a long period while also reviewing and modifying elements as needed.
But we don't have a strong state, we have a weak state, and you can't just rustle a strong state out of the air when you need it.
Coalitional politics being what they are, it's very hard for any Israeli coalition to adopt any coherent approach to the war. Following any approach to its logical conclusion is going to cross some coalition partner's red line.
Honestly, I don't even know why Lapid and Bennet are so hot for elections - they couldn't last 6 months in power before their government collapsed and all they had to do was not allow chametz in hospitals on pesach. Do they think they'll be able to cobble together a coalition with Liberman, Bennet, and Mansour Abbas that can navigate the Gaza War for more than a week?
In 1967, the army had a plan to take out the Egyptian airforce and conquer the Sinai, and they psy-oped the population into thinking they were all going to die so that Moshe Dayan would be installed as defence minister and they could do what they wanted with no civilian interference. The plan worked so well that they even accidentally (probably...) psy-oped Jordan into invading as well, then picked up the Golan since why not.
Of course, it helped a lot that their plan could be rolled out in a week.
Is this an example of a strong state or a weak state?
Option 3 would solve a lot of problems.
Absorbing 2 million Gazans into a population of 100 million Egyptians is not all that hard.
It’s about in per capita terms how many Ukrainians were taken in by Austria or Ireland since February 2022. In these two cases it’s been done pretty straightforwardly. Cultural similarity really matters.
I know nothing about Egyptian internal politics. But it’s a chronically poor country and I would assume that large amounts of cash from Israel and/or the rest of the west would make a big difference.
Israel should have not withdrawn the IDF from the Gaza in the first place. Pulling the settlements was fine but removing the IDF was an utter disaster for everyone involved, actually for the Palestinians even more than for the Israelis.
You mean keeping Israeli troops in Gaza until a final peace agreement with the Palestinians would have actually been signed? That could have worked, perhaps.
Yeah but that means basically never…
I couldn't stop thinking about what Jeremy Kauffman said "The answer is that Israel should accept more casualties in order to reduce harm to Palestinian civilians" it's good to see an elucidated take that gives valid critisism and offer some possible alternatives.
Isn't fantasy fun?
Putting aside the political constraints in this war - both the domestic Israeli demands and those of the Biden administration (who explicitly vetoed attacking Hezbollah multiple times at the beginning of the war, although Bibi should have listened to Gallant and done it anyway...)
- Option 3 may come to pass under Trump.
- Option 6: Conquer and depopulate territory, then use it as leverage to obtain political concessions. Israel used to understand this (see: 1967). In Gaza this could have looked like: expelling/evacuating the population south of the Netzarim corridor, then clear out remaining Hamas fighters and tunnels at leisure. Make clear to Hamas that no one goes back home to northern Gaza until the hostages come home. Annex the territory if need be. Loss of territory is the currency that matters to Islamists, not the lives of their own children.
- Re: siege, I heard that in Jewish law there is a rule about sieging a city on three sides to allow people to escape from the 4th side. On October 8, Israel could have cut off all food/water/electricity/aid entering via Israeli territory and only allowed Gaza to be supplied via Egypt. It's true that weapons could be smuggled in via Rafah, but several hundred thousand Gazans left Gaza via Rafah before the IDF conquered it and the border with Egypt was closed. Also as a matter of honor, it is suicidal to supply your enemy while they hold your civilians hostage.
Reading the author's "creative option" #4, I could only conclude that he hasn't been to too many soldiers' funerals or made too many shiva calls at their families. He would have encountered quite a different population from that shown in the clip & wouldn't have dared show it.
In general, his position seems to be that of an outsider judging a foreign tribe, the fate of which he doesn't share. A bit like the ICJ judges. Whereas an effective judge should be, to quote former judge Mishael Hashin, one that "dwells with his people".
So send them in instead.