You don't win a game of whack-a-mole by refusing to whack the moles just because they keep moving from hole to hole or hiding among the non-moles either. This is the essence of the conundrum for Israel.
As I've said here elsewhere, this conflict only ends when the Palestinian people start killing Hamas instead of licking their boots. If they can insurgency against the better-armed IDF, they can insurgency against Hamas too. In fact, they live in the same neighborhood as Hamas and know where they sleep at night, so it's a lot easier to kill Hamas terrorists than it is to kill IDF soldiers.
"If they can insurgency against the better-armed IDF, they can insurgency against Hamas too. In fact, they live in the same neighborhood as Hamas and know where they sleep at night, so it's a lot easier to kill Hamas terrorists than it is to kill IDF soldiers."
I agree with the need to whack the moles. But it wasn't members of the general populace that took on the IDF. It's a lot to expect that the Palestinian populace will rise up en masse to take on Hamas. As both you and Mercer have pointed out things have to get pretty bad before reaching the breaking point.
Maybe the Israeli response will be enough to force that this time. But I wouldn't count on it, as I am sure that you aren't.
Civilians would be murdering Hamas members, who are not civilians, but Hamas would be murdering civilians to protect itself from the civilians rising up against them. If the Palestinian civilians are already dying from IDF counter-attacks, why not die killing Hamas terrorists instead? Because at least when Hamas dies off the IDF bombs stop. If they keep fighting the IDF in the name of Hamas, the IDF counter-attacks never stop and peace never becomes possible. That's the game theory approach. The Palestinian civilians are dying either way, so why not die fighting against Hamas terrorists until they are finished off (a lot easier than finishing off the IDF) and then there can be a peace worked out from there with potential statehood at the end of the tunnel. The solution is pretty fucking simple to me (as a non-Palestinian) and the Sunnis abandoning AQI to end the Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq (and the insurgency campaign against the US/Iraqi government) is a great example. Had the Sunnis and Shia just kept killing each other there wouldn't have been five years of relative peace until ISIS came over the border in 2013. In fact, a protracted Sunni-Shia civil war would have given ISIS a lot more shelter in Iraq had it still been going on in 2013.
Although I understand your reasoning it seems to me it would just devolve into civil war in Gaza and I'm not sure which side would win. Hamas is surely better armed and organized. That would give them the edge.
It’s like the crusading Jesuits rationalizing that it’s okay to kill you in an effort to save your souls by conversion to Christianity because if I didn’t even try, your soul is damned anyway so it doesn’t matter. It’s ratiocination run amok.
If you refuse to whack the moles because you're afraid of accidently whacking non-moles, then you'll never beat the moles.
The non-moles have a vote here too. They're not getting the moles out of their neighborhood on their own accord. If the men of Palestine can find the courage to fight an insurgency against a much better armed IDF, they can find the courage to kick Hamas out of their neighborhood with violence. It is because they are too timid and loyal to Hamas that the moles living among them (Hamas terrorists) keep getting whacked by the anti-moles (Israel), with high levels of non-moles (Palestinian civilians) getting hit as an unintended consequence. If Palestinians kick out Hamas, the bombs stop falling in their neighborhood and a real peace solution becomes a possibility. The problem is that there are too many Palestinian men licking Hamas' boots instead of killing them.
Just imagine that the hostage taker is inside of your house and shooting wildly at everyone else inside while holding the hostage and it'll make more sense. In the scenario you're thinking about, the hostage taker only poses a threat to the hostage and not to the police and other civilians around them.
No, your scenario still entails shooting the hostage. I mean, if you want to kill the hostage in an attempt to save other hostages, then say so. Because again, there are one million child hostages and washing your hands of their potential deaths isn’t the civilized thing either.
I've been balls deep in a counter-insurgency campaign and an Iraqi civil war. I speak to this stuff from experience. When the Sunnis in Iraq abandoned Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni-Shia civil war stopped and so did the insurgency campaign against the US and Iraqi government. This shit in Israel only stops when the Palestinians are willing to kick out Hamas the way Iraqi Sunnis kicked out AQI there. Until then, a terrorist group remains in control of a place that will never become an independent nation so long as said terrorist group (Hamas) remains in power over them with no Palestinian military group challenging them for power so they can negotiate a 2-state solution in good faith.
“War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” - William Tecumseh Sherman
I am not sure Israel COULD do it, even if they were "allowed."
Because it will involve the deaths of thousands of innocent people. That’s not a significant ask to make.
You don't win a game of whack-a-mole by refusing to whack the moles just because they keep moving from hole to hole or hiding among the non-moles either. This is the essence of the conundrum for Israel.
As I've said here elsewhere, this conflict only ends when the Palestinian people start killing Hamas instead of licking their boots. If they can insurgency against the better-armed IDF, they can insurgency against Hamas too. In fact, they live in the same neighborhood as Hamas and know where they sleep at night, so it's a lot easier to kill Hamas terrorists than it is to kill IDF soldiers.
"If they can insurgency against the better-armed IDF, they can insurgency against Hamas too. In fact, they live in the same neighborhood as Hamas and know where they sleep at night, so it's a lot easier to kill Hamas terrorists than it is to kill IDF soldiers."
I agree with the need to whack the moles. But it wasn't members of the general populace that took on the IDF. It's a lot to expect that the Palestinian populace will rise up en masse to take on Hamas. As both you and Mercer have pointed out things have to get pretty bad before reaching the breaking point.
Maybe the Israeli response will be enough to force that this time. But I wouldn't count on it, as I am sure that you aren't.
The problem is that like the Sunni-Shia Civil War you address above it will lead to civilians on either side murdering each other.
Civilians would be murdering Hamas members, who are not civilians, but Hamas would be murdering civilians to protect itself from the civilians rising up against them. If the Palestinian civilians are already dying from IDF counter-attacks, why not die killing Hamas terrorists instead? Because at least when Hamas dies off the IDF bombs stop. If they keep fighting the IDF in the name of Hamas, the IDF counter-attacks never stop and peace never becomes possible. That's the game theory approach. The Palestinian civilians are dying either way, so why not die fighting against Hamas terrorists until they are finished off (a lot easier than finishing off the IDF) and then there can be a peace worked out from there with potential statehood at the end of the tunnel. The solution is pretty fucking simple to me (as a non-Palestinian) and the Sunnis abandoning AQI to end the Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq (and the insurgency campaign against the US/Iraqi government) is a great example. Had the Sunnis and Shia just kept killing each other there wouldn't have been five years of relative peace until ISIS came over the border in 2013. In fact, a protracted Sunni-Shia civil war would have given ISIS a lot more shelter in Iraq had it still been going on in 2013.
Although I understand your reasoning it seems to me it would just devolve into civil war in Gaza and I'm not sure which side would win. Hamas is surely better armed and organized. That would give them the edge.
It’s like the crusading Jesuits rationalizing that it’s okay to kill you in an effort to save your souls by conversion to Christianity because if I didn’t even try, your soul is damned anyway so it doesn’t matter. It’s ratiocination run amok.
If you refuse to whack the moles because you're afraid of accidently whacking non-moles, then you'll never beat the moles.
The non-moles have a vote here too. They're not getting the moles out of their neighborhood on their own accord. If the men of Palestine can find the courage to fight an insurgency against a much better armed IDF, they can find the courage to kick Hamas out of their neighborhood with violence. It is because they are too timid and loyal to Hamas that the moles living among them (Hamas terrorists) keep getting whacked by the anti-moles (Israel), with high levels of non-moles (Palestinian civilians) getting hit as an unintended consequence. If Palestinians kick out Hamas, the bombs stop falling in their neighborhood and a real peace solution becomes a possibility. The problem is that there are too many Palestinian men licking Hamas' boots instead of killing them.
This is not a very different sentiment from shooting tue hostage to shoot the hostage taker.
Just imagine that the hostage taker is inside of your house and shooting wildly at everyone else inside while holding the hostage and it'll make more sense. In the scenario you're thinking about, the hostage taker only poses a threat to the hostage and not to the police and other civilians around them.
No, your scenario still entails shooting the hostage. I mean, if you want to kill the hostage in an attempt to save other hostages, then say so. Because again, there are one million child hostages and washing your hands of their potential deaths isn’t the civilized thing either.
I've been balls deep in a counter-insurgency campaign and an Iraqi civil war. I speak to this stuff from experience. When the Sunnis in Iraq abandoned Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni-Shia civil war stopped and so did the insurgency campaign against the US and Iraqi government. This shit in Israel only stops when the Palestinians are willing to kick out Hamas the way Iraqi Sunnis kicked out AQI there. Until then, a terrorist group remains in control of a place that will never become an independent nation so long as said terrorist group (Hamas) remains in power over them with no Palestinian military group challenging them for power so they can negotiate a 2-state solution in good faith.