Comment by JumpCrisscross
2 years ago
> infrastructure and fighting forces were a means to a political and ideological end. They are closer to achieving those ends now than before October 7th
We are further from a Palestinian state, much less one run by Hamas, than before. I don’t see what desirBle ends Hamas has brought closer.
People have always complained about Israel. There is more complaining now. That’s not a qualitative difference. On the other side, Gaza appears to be heading towards no government or some form of occupation, whether by Israel or a coalition including Arab states. Its civil infrastructure and economy are wrecked; an entire generation has likely already suffered permanent health debilitation. One has to be incredibly rosy and chart a course forward entirely separate from the history of modern conflicts to paint a picture in which Hamas, let alone the Palestinian people, come out of this ahead of where they were in September.
We are further from peaceful coexistence and a two-state solution, but Hamas don't want that. They are, in my loosely held opinion, slightly closer to their actual revisionist objective, which is the annihilation of Israel. The sequence of events that causes this outcome are black swans, that have now increased in likelihood. For example, Sisi's regime being toppled in a populist uprising, leading to a situation where you have a Hamas-but-way-bigger regime that didn't have to exist. Or Gen Z and Gen Alpha's political influence in the US removing the diplomatic shield at the UN opening the way for sanctions, which inhibits Israel's ability to import key materials that power their defense industry. The relevant timescale is decades, where broad demographic trends dominate outcomes. Alliances of the moment and economic dominance are both fickle and change with the sands of time.
I will agree with you that there is a path forward where you are correct. Maybe Israel repeats what Russia did in Grozny. Hamas is defeated. Gaza is then rebuilt. Tensions then go down. It's possible.
> hey are, in my loosely held opinion, slightly closer to their actual revisionist objective, which is the annihilation of Israel
Agree. But we're closer to a two-state solution than the destruction of Israel.
> Gen Z and Gen Alpha's political influence in the US removing the diplomatic shield at the UN opening the way for sanctions
You're describing a political turning point decades away. And it doesn't lead to the destruction of Israel, just weakening its occupation. Also, Israel is a rich and vibrant economy. It wouldn't take that much for it to pivot to another security guarantor if the U.S. ditches it in 30+ years (when the relevant generations will be at the peak of their power).
> Hamas is defeated. Gaza is then rebuilt.
If Hamas is defeated fast, maybe. But again, Gaza would be rebuilt under occupation. And Israel wouldn't have been destroyed. Hamas--and the Palestinians' bargaining position--is weaker today than it was in September. Israel is, too. But not in as permanent a way as Gaza (and Hamas) are being dealt.