Comment by timeu
2 years ago
After an initial military response, take their time and specifically plan and target the terrorists who were responsible and organized the attacks on the 7.10. Yeah this will obviously take way longer and is harder than levelling Gaza but would avoid eventually bringing the entire world against you and producing much more terrorists than before. At the same time also try to make sure that the civilians in Gaza get humanitarian aid, so you remove the breeding ground for terrorism. This approach was also suggested by Jocko Willink retured Navy Seal (https://youtu.be/3O4dW24az98)
But the mistakes happened way before by moving troops away from the Gaza border to West Bank to protect illegal settlements and also supporting Hamas as an opposition to PLO. Don't get me wrong. Don't get me wrong the world would be a better place without Hamas however your policy has to be strategic and not emotional (i.e. revenge)
The problem is that Gaza is a hornet's nest
Hamas members are entrenched in civilian buildings and tunnels, and they are well equipped to attack tanks, and they wouldn't hesitate to blow themselves up
it would be suicide for the IDF to do a slow invasion of Gaza, the IDF doesn't have such a big army, and this would drag along and allow hamas leaders to run away, and would allow hamas to regroup.
also, the more time passes, the more it gives hezbollah and other actors to attack.
maybe the US army would have enough foot soldiers to invade by foot and check every street, but again, with human shields and guerilla tactics, it's not sure it would be that much better, because US militaries are probably not really trained enough to deal with such a big hornet's nest that is gaza.
What about the hostages?
What about border security?
Doing what you say would basically be letting Hamas have their win. It would absolutely embolden them to plan an execute further attacks.
The game theory is absolutely clear here. When an attack of this magnitude is carried out, you need to respond with overwhelming force to cutoff the possibility of further escalation. Stop it cold.
When Hamas invaded Israel and massacred civilians en masse, an invasion of Gaza was made inevitable. Restraint here is the significant effort that has been taken by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties.
> What about the hostages?
Legit question and there would have been negotiations happening to exchange hostages for prisoners (like it was done in the past)
> What about border security?
What about it? I didn't say that Isreal should not secure its border. The entire reason why Hamas was successful in the first place was because the border was not secured because the troops were moved and Israel's security services didn't take the warnings and threats seriously that Hamas was planing such an attack.
> The game theory is absolutely clear here. When an attack of this magnitude is carried out, you need to respond with overwhelming force to cutoff the possibility of further escalation. Stop it cold
First, I don't think game theories applies in this conflict and second when did this ever work in the past? At least I would argue that the "war on terror" after 9.11 was anything but successful. Actually compared to the current reaction of Israel the reaction of the US after 9.11 looks very restraint.
> Restraint here is the significant effort that has been taken by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties.
That's a bold claim, looking at the number of civilian deaths in that relative short period of time. Yes I know that the numbers come indirectly from Hamas but they were relatively accurate in the past when they were confirmed afterwards. Most people say Hamas to blame for this because they hide behind civilians. However I would argue that it's neither morally right nor strategically smart to killing dozens of civilians for one Hamas operative. Also Israeli officials were quoted with: "We’re focused on maximum damage and not accuracy" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/right-now-it-i...).
How many repeat 9/11s have there been?