hypochondriac

Thanks for the response which is a better one than "I don't know." I think you’re mixing a few different things there. Yes, Netanyahu’s handling of the war has been heavily criticised — even by many Israelis — and it’s clear that the campaign has caused immense suffering in Gaza. But that doesn’t mean there was an obvious, workable alternative that would have achieved the goals of eliminating or weakening Hamas, rescuing the hostages and making Israel safer in the short to medium term at least. Saying “they should have gone after Hamas and protected civilians” is easy in theory, but Hamas deliberately embedded itself among civilians, used hospitals and schools, and operated from tunnels under residential areas. Any military response was always going to risk civilian casualties — tragic but that’s the brutal reality of asymmetric warfare, not necessarily evidence of genocidal intent. As for the claim about “US mercenaries” and “shooting starving Palestinians dead for sport”, as far as I am aware those reports are disputed. Quoting one doctor’s emotional account doesn’t make it an established fact. I’m not defending Netanyahu personally — he’s been divisive inside Israel and may well face accountability for his leadership. But my point still stands: critics often describe what Israel shouldn’t have done, yet when pressed for a realistic plan that would have dismantled Hamas, rescued the hostages, and prevented another October 7th without significant force, I haven't seen much.

That's your opinion not fact. Vetted Palestinian police already exist, UN deconfliction already runs, Egypt/Jordan liaisons are a phone call away. The only new piece is the Arab peacekeeping force, which is why it’s a month or so away.

It's a familiar refrain from many people I have come across that are very critical of Israel. They are quite happy to say what Israel shouldn't be doing but haven't been able to articulate a realistic alternative for what they should have done instead that would have made them safer. Nowhere have I said that you can't criticise Israel or its actions.

External security stays with the IDF, neighbourhood policing is done by vetted Palestinian civil police where they can operate, with UN cells and Egyptian/Jordanian officers embedded to keep humanitarian routes open. You can probably begin the plan I outlined after about a month or so. The IDF and the new peacekeeping force that Blair is involved with should probably have been planning for this eventuality a while ago.

Supposedly from a letter found in Gaza written by Sinwar: "If we are not ready to exploit the opportunity to the fullest, then the enemy will succeed in taking control of the turmoil and move to a counterattack or receive outside support, and then the situation will turn against us in the worst possible way. Therefore it is essential to be prepared for force flows, to develop the attack, expand it and reinforce to the maximum during the first six to ten hours in order to establish solid facts on the ground that will thwart any possibility of a counterattack." It seems that Sinwar certainly didn't want Israel to be able to strike Gaza in the way they have. I expect he would have considered their operation overall to have been a failure. If he was around to see it.

That says a lot. I don't think it's very credible to criticise the actions of Israel for making things less safe if you can't articulate in clear terms what realistic alternative actions they should have taken to make things safer.

There's no perfect answers but off the top of my head -Not Hamas and not an open-ended IDF occupation. A time-limited, Arab-led security mission under a UN mandate, paired with a Palestinian interim administration (PA-affiliated perhaps), and vetted Palestinian police doing day-to-day policing. Borders monitored by international/Egypt teams, with clear benchmarks.

@egg would genuinely be interested in your answer.

Agreed. I think that Israel's actions will cause more people to hate them but it will also have meant that those same people will have less capability to do anything about it.

This basically. Good post.

Do you think that the existence of Israel fuels Islamism?

Bin Laden cited about a dozen reasons for 9/11. Why are you so focused on one in particular? Would extremist Islamism exist without Israel?

Hold on you just answered my question with a question. I'd appreciate an answer first.

Indeed and thanks for the reply but I was asking egg.

Do you think that 9/11 would have happened and that Islamist extremism would exist without the actions of Israel?

What action should they have taken to make them safer than they are now?

Hold on so not only are Israel partially responsible for 9/11, they're also responsible for Islamist extremism! Who knew! If only those Jews weren't so awful eh? Islam is a religion of peace after all, it's just the evil Jews forcing them to get all murdery and rapey. October 7th is really their own fault when you think about it. They brought it on themselves.

Probably quite difficult to target them all when they're happy to effectively use Gazans as human shields. Also asking 7,000 to return isn't the same as all 7000 being alive and getting the message.

You mean the Jews aren't responsible for 9/11?

He invoked the 1982 Beirut siege as one grievance among many in a long list that included US troops in Saudi Arabia, sanctions on Iraq, and support for Israel. Al-Qaeda grew from the Afghan war and the 1990s US presence in the Gulf, not from a single Israeli siege.

Islamists want Israel removed from the face of the earth. They wanted that prior to October the 7th and they still want that. The only difference eis that now Qatar and Iran are thinking twice about what they can do and Hamas have been degraded significantly so they are less able to attack. Israel's action may result in an increased risk some time in the future-although the risk was already significant as proven by October 7th- but Hamas and its allies' capacity to do anything about it in the short to medium term is undeniably reduced. If Israel were smart they'd employ a buffer zone as I said to prevent any future attacks like October 7th.

They weren't safer prior to October 7th. The war has weakened their enemies considerably and will mean they should be a lot safer in the short to medium term. Arguably the capability of future generations of mad Hamas terrorists will be degraded as well without rogue nations funding them to the same extent although it's difficult to predict things so far away.

Yeah no chance of violence from Hamas. None whatsoever.

This sounds like a good idea. Bloody Israel preventing peace: Hamas has reportedly recalled around 7,000 members of its security forces from southern and central Gaza back into areas recently vacated by Israeli troops in Gaza City and the north. The order, sent via phone and text, called for a “general mobilisation” to “cleanse Gaza of outlaws and collaborators with Israel.” Armed units, some in uniform, others disguised as civilians, have redeployed across northern districts, setting up checkpoints and patrols. Hamas has also appointed 5 new governors, all former brigade commanders, to oversee the transition. This raises fears of renewed internal violence just as Trump’s ceasefire plan enters its next phase, which calls for Hamas to disarm

It will win them a load of attention and votes and make them completely unelectable. Arguably they weren't looking to get elected anyway, simply to act as a pressure group so from that perspective they are successful.