zlacker

Here we run into the difficulties of the current media environment. With the Ukraine war, everyone and his dog is offering their tactical and strategic analysis. Here, not so much - just moral statements and talking points. So, while it doesn't seem plausible to me that Hamas would be able to repeat its attack again and again - it managed to create such a large attack because the IDF (or its political masters) f*cked up - I don't really have the analysis to back that up. What actually were Israel's military options? What could Hamas plausibly do under various scenarios?

I don't think the attack could be repeated as successfully even if Israel withdrew. And Israel clearly had justification doing something - but without an analysis of their options, it's hard to know what's justified - which is the heart of this case.

I agree that Israel's options are limited - in the absence of outside assistance. In fact, I don't see how Israel can solve the situation in the absence of a neutral outside security force. Here's why:

For a peaceful settlement, both populations need to be given hope.

- Israelis need hope of long term safety and security

- Palestinians need hope of self-determination and civil rights.

No deployment of Israeli forces satisfies both conditions. If Israel occupies Gaza, they deny the Palestinian hope. If they withdraw, they give up their own (which they won't do). Even if Hamas is destroyed, the PA is too weak to guarantee security for either Palestinians or Israelis, and Israel won't trust them enough to allow them to grow strong. Ergo, a neutral force is needed. But, that would require US co-operation, if not actual US forces, and I don't think Biden will risk it in an election year.

>>ajb+(OP)
Maybe not the US. In fact, probably not the US - the Palestinians would (perhaps rightly) view them as likely biased.

This sounds like the perfect task for a UN peacekeeping force. (Of course, after various "resolutions" over the years, the Israelis may view the UN as biased...)

>>Animal+x4
not only resolutions, and the UN's obsession with israel, but also the complete failure of UN peacekeepers between lebanon and israel as well. Israel won't hand their security to the UN over in any way - the UN has demonstrated they aren't fair to israel and aren't capable of acting as peacekeepers.

>>LegitS+se
It would likely have to be some kind of ad-hoc force, maybe authorised by the UN security council or general assembly for legal reasons, but where the composition was agreed by Israel and the PA. And not under the management of the UN.

>>ajb+1m
which UN force will enter gaza, fight door to door against booby traps and AT teams, the way Israel is doing currently, when the next round of rockets go off?

They won't. It's a fantasy.

>>LegitS+Rv2
The problem is that right now, Israelis feel like anything other than obliterating Gaza is a fantasy that cannot work. But see my comment here: >>39152982 There are only three ways it can end, two involve both sides showing some trust, and the third involves war crimes. Given the carnage to both sides means trusting each other is unlikely, that takes us down to the "fantasy" of trusting a third party, or war crimes. Take your pick.