Another option is Israel follows the overwhelming vote by the UN for a ceasefire.
One hopes it will learn that Hamas’ tactics don’t work. They backfire. And they lose one global sympathy.
Hamas lost control of Daef and Islamic Jihad. They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal, took hostages and then lost them, and are likely to lose physical control over Gaza for some time. There might have been an inkling of a strategy, but nobody on the ground was calling shots.
> They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal...
The response to that attack has killed ~15x as many so far, with plenty of civilians in that mix. Even the US is starting to message "hold up, that's a bit much" now.
Hamas’ leadership wants its villa bills paid. Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza. No power in Gaza, no villas in Doha.
> Republican promises to repeal Obamacare
This is nonsense. (I’m ignoring that it’s also in bad taste.)
The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity. Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.
The analogy is in America supporting the Mujahideen to pressure the Soviets and then watching that backfire as Al Qaeda.
Which will continue.
> Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza.
Those payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side. They don't need to be managing Gaza's water authority to remain one. They're much more effective as an insurgency than a government.
> The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity.
The same is true for Hamas, quite clearly.
> Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.
This is a weird assertion; all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas of this attack.
If they lose control over Gaza? No.
> payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side…they're much more effective as an insurgency
The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.
> same is true for Hamas, quite clearly
How? There is no loyalty test. Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies. You’re conflating separate situations that are fundamentally different because on the surface you like the opportunity to call the GOP terrorists. Which, ironically, undermines your broader argument.
> all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas
Extensive planning. Not necessarily by Hamas. Again, this was a tremendously stupid move. There were smarter plays, and hints Hamas was trying for them, but they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters, local infrastructure and operational control in Gaza.
Hamas has been out of control in Gaza before, it's hardly the first time. Insurgents don't need control over the area to be a serious pain for the occupying force.
> The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.
Their bureaucracy is largely focused on recruiting and funding the insurgent wing. Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers.
> Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies.
You keep asserting this without any evidence. What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?
Hamas is the proxy, for Iran, as are Hezbollah. Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response.
> they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters
They don't care. There's always more cannon fodder, especially after a war generates a new generation of refugees, orphans, and grieving relatives. We saw the same in Afghanistan; every civilian you kill means a family swearing vengeance.
Fair enough, I should have said influence versus control. It looks like Hamas won't have influence in Gaza after this war.
That doesn't mean there won't be insurgents. As you point out, there absolutely will be. In part because of this war. But I doubt they'll show loyalty to Hamas--their surviving leadership will be too far away.
> Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers
Al Qaeda's income fell off a cliff following the American response to 9/11. (Not after 9/11 per se.)
> What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?
Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.
Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.
I don't think the last decade of Hamas' rule shows them incapable at achieving their ends. (Islamic Jihad, on the other hand, seem like nutters.) Add to that the operational incoherence of the October 7 attack, and that Hamas lost its hostages, its sole source of leverage, and it's not difficult to conclude things went off piste.
> Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response
Yes and no. They're happy because it shows their strength, brings them to the negotiating table and makes their oil more valuable. (It also curtails Arab-Israeli normalisation.)
The international response has shown that Israel can do what it wants. The Arab states softly condemned. Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority chose self preservation. America sent through arms. The one PR battle the Palestinians need to win, sympathy in America, has gone backwards.
> We saw the same in Afghanistan
The Taliban took back ground control. Their fighting forces were preserved. That does not look like it will be the case in Gaza; Jerusalem is being far more brutal than we were in Afghanistan. It might be that's the only way to win. (If you're correct, that Hamas intended to kill thousands of Israelis and tens of thousands of its own, then this is a good thing.)
Hoist the "Mission Accomplished" banner! What happened next?
(Hint: It rhymes with "schistlamic plate".)
> Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.
I agree! I just don't think the Israeli approach is going to do the trick, and is likely actively harmful to that goal.
> Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.
PIJ is a rival to Hamas. They've fought from time to time, and coordinate attacks at other times. US intelligence describes it as a "tense relationship": https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/pij_fto.html
> The Taliban took back ground control.
As will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza. Barring a Holocaust-scale elimination campaign against the population, there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future.
Al Qaeda's leadership of the era died or went into hiding. The present offshoots have nothing to do with it; all that survived was the brand.
> PIJ is a rival to Hamas
So? They coordinated on this attack. PIJ launched munitions beyond their capacity to manufacture; they got them from Hamas.
> will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza
Very doubtful. Not Hamas. Something else, but not Hamas. (Maybe PIJ.) Point is, the leadership loses.
> there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future
What made Hamas formidable was its funding and access to Iranian weapons. The funds flew into Gaza with Israel's consent. And the munitions entered because Israel gave Hamas room. Whatever the endgame, it's unlikely to be one that just hands Gaza back to an Iranian proxy.
What would be historic is if this led to a long term reduction of terrorism in the region. However Israel has offered no explanation for why their attempt at brute force anti-terrorism will work better then every other attempt.
Also, there is no way to get rid of Hamas unless overall conditions that made it what it is today remain. Its desperately naive position that has been proven impossible over and over. Ie terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters, depending on from where you look on Iraq post 2003 invasion.
Maybe with different name, different folks, but cca same goal and methods. Or do you feel that Taliban or Al-Qaeda disappeared just because mightiest military in the world decided to kick their ass for a decade+?
Absolutely nobody has any incentive to listen to calls for ceasefire unless they are in mortal threat, which is what Israel is working on and what hamas started with. The restraint is gone - there is no reason for anyone to hold back because holding back now creates a worse future position.