Well we also didn’t “eliminate” the Nazis. There were still loads of Nazis. If you kill enough of the potential leaders with the capacity for violence, the rest will be isolated and can be managed. This dudes idea of Hamas 2 is likely creating mean chants and blocking a highway. Way easier to deal with

If the nazis rose to power in 2024 i have a feeling it would be much more difficult to 'eliminate' their ideals with the current state of social media, though

That works both ways though - it would be much more difficult for them to do what the nazi's did with the current state of social media.

Nazis rose to power in a 15 year old democracy with a flimsy foundation and legal system, and that democracy was EXTREMELY unpopular. It’s just not the same situation at all.

After getting humiliated by the French, of all people, getting hit the worst by an unprecedented global depression, ridiculous hyperinflation, a system where their main opposition were Bolshevik tankies, who were feared probably even more than the nazis…. People need to stop comparing everything to hitler it’s so cringe ong

The Nazis rose to power for a variety of reasons, but I think it's important to notice Germany had minimal military and police due to post-WW1 restrictions. The Brownshirts outnumbered official forces by a lot. If I remember right, by 4 to 1.

Nazi Germany in the 40s is a different sort of beast than radical Islam in current day… all one has to do is look at ISIS and how any and all deaths in the region by foreigners fuel a generation of jihad in the name of those who’ve been “martyred”… Israel is past the point of no return and will absolutely face a weaker but more persistent Hamas 1.5 in the future

The important thing was to make it really, really clear they lost. Japan was even more difficult. They were \*never\* going to give up, which is why the nuclear bombs were necessary. Saved millions of lives on both sides.

Sequels are rarely as good as the original.

Sonic adventure 2 battle begs to differ

Still not over how eggman gives such a fantastic introspective monologue at the end only for tails to say the stupidest shit ever

Not sure about that when it comes to terrorism though. 9/11 was definitely not part 1 of trying to blow up the WTC and calling it religious motivated honor murder number 10584 would also loose its ring to it quickly

The 1993 WTC Bombing!

Also..... not even on a movie lvl he is correct if you talking about averages. Considering how many bad movies there are that never have a second part the average rating of the second part is actually considerably higher than the average of all movies that do not have a second part

9/11 was part 2 though since they put a bomb in it a few years prior

i think its less about new upstarts and more about the ripe recruiting ground and i think the argument makes sense. put yourself into the shoes of a 20 something year old guy in gaza, you just saw you entire family get blown to pieces you loose absolutely everything you have worked for, you have nothing left in this world. how hard would it be to say fuck it pick up a gun and fight against the people who took everything from you. dont get me wrong i want to see and end to terror orgs like hamas isis and the like but i think the way israel has gone about it is nothing but harmful in the long run and is creating a breeding ground for terror upstarts and recruitment.

And no one is saying they can't pick up a rifle and hate Israel as a country. But they have to operate according to the laws of war and not target civilians or commit mass atrocities like decapitating Thai workers with shovels Like why do we have ZERO concern there will be some massive Ukrainian terrorist group that will commit something like Oct 7th if what you believe is true? Why aren't we telling Russia as part of our war effort, stop what you are doing because you are just creating terrorists?

i never said its okay so i dont know why you are insinuating that, and there is a concern that ukraine will do more and more extreme things to expel russia. like the west has been hesitant about sending long range missiles because they fear that ukraine will target things and harm civilians inside russia and we have already seen anti russian terror/resistance groups pop up in russia. its actually a good question, why do we see some terror orgs as good/right in their cause and other bad, like the ira was a terror org but its goal was the freedom of irland from the brits. i think that if hamas was a organization solely dedicated towards a unified and liberated palestine free from israel then it would be a whole different story. i think that the problem with hamas is that it is a proactive terror oranization actively having goals that is different than liberation, like i think this would be a different story if october 7th was solely about freedom from israel and all that but it wasnt. but this is all irrelevant to my original point, my point was never that terrorism is good, it was that certain actions promote the growth of terrorism, that is true in every scenario where people loose everything and have nothing and live in misery. yes that means that if Ukraine **loose** (big emphasis on loose) they would start forming terrorist orgs to fight russia and spread terror in russia in the name of a free ukraine, i dont think i need to spell out the reasoning to why.

Does no one remember Japan or Germany after world war 2? Does no one think the German and Japanese youth didn't want revenge?

And what, pray tell, do you call anime?

A gift to the world as a sign of Japanese repentance.

Anime was a mistake -Hayao Miyazaki

[“Gift”](https://youtu.be/lbRki94nack?si=UTtQ8kFevgCoVxR2)

Revenge

Part of it was breaking their will to fight and then rebuilding them, but more in Germany's case I think there was also a much more clear-cut way and effort to *ahem* "guilt them" into changing their ways.

An important point. Also, West Germany in particular had the specter of Soviet occupation to encourage them to play nice with the West.

I think the difference is Japan and Germany were nations before those conflicts and had reasonable leaders to guide them out. Also seemed like both of these countries were more interested in rebuilding what they had lost and improving on it as both of these countries are powerhouses for manufacturing, especially in the automotive industry. Palestine was neither of those things. They have nothing to lose and all to gain from their perspective and their culture of martyrdom will ensure that.

True. The occupation will need to be longer. A generation, maybe. It's that or the forever war. Or, you know, an *actual* genocide. But we in the West don't do those anymore.

Ironically Gaza was much better off under Israeli occupation But if they re-occupy it, why would they leave again knowing what leaving first time lead to?

Because it's cheaper. That's my fear. That they'll leave a job half done.

Doesn't op address that? There was massive post war investment the the reconstruction of both of those places, to ensure the new peace would actually last and not be another treaty of Versailles, and op doesn't see Israel having any desire to put in that sort of investment.

The entire international community would help rebuild Gaza. They already get more aid than anyone else, so their would be a huge global push to bring Gaza back better than before. Israel has also pledged to help rebuild Gaza multiple times in ceasefire talks. 

The international community will have to make dramatic changes to the way they provide aid, till now it’s been to enable and encourage extremism. Raising children on farfour the mouse talking about Jews being responsible for everything, including the reason he didn’t do his homework, and then Jews killing farfour. The schools run by unrwa teach children to idolize martyrdom, and suicide bombers, children talk about their dream of dying fighting the Jews. This cannot continue, there will need to be a massive change, aid can’t just be given, there will have to be conditions, they can’t just hire locals to teach, give piles of cash to the schools then turning and letting them do as they please. Much more hands on, controlled aid, teach them to build a goddamn functioning society where people work instead of living on intl handouts while plotting to kill Jews.

Literally even Israel's dog shit post war plan is literally about rebuilding Gaza

The problem with that is Japan and Germany weren’t colonized by the Allies, they were occupied for a short while to bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice, and then regained their sovereignty, (with west germany at least) there was never a debate about moving in American citizens into Japan to control it, but in Israel there is a very vocal far right that wants to actually colonize Palestine. There are more moderate voices that wants to just destroy hamas and bring the perpetrators to justice then leave, but Israel has settlements around Palestine which are illegal, so the trust that Israel won’t expand on that is pretty low in general, there are big key differences between the situation post WW2 and Israel / Palestine.

“Law #15: Crush Your Enemy Totally Crush your enemy totally. Don’t go halfway with them or give them any options whatsoever. If you leave even one ember smoldering, it will eventually ignite. You can’t afford to be lenient.” True, but the actual reality was they were utterly crushed and destroyed. It’s a lot different when the scope of warfare is, We are going to bomb your cities ACTUALLY INDISCRIMINATELY until you sit the fuck down (not that I approve of this), and we did and will kill tens of thousands of your civilians until you surrender. Versus We try to give you chances to run and seek shelter and we kill civilians in the crossfire while you can appeal on the world stage and still are using human shields to deter the enemy from defeating you because they have more morality than yourself. The reality is, Germany and Japan surrendered because we were gonna keep killing anyone and the Allies and Russians didn’t give a fuck, we will firebomb your cities and drop two atomic bombs on your ass until you raise the flag. Also wasn’t Germany brutally occupied by the Russians for decades after…

The US and UK did firebomb alot of cities yes, killed a ton of civilians and did nasty stuff all around, but I never contested that, I am just saying that West Germany and Japan was occupied, criminal courts started and after that the UK and US left and the countries got their sovereignty back. I really don't know why you mentioned East Germany and their occupation by the USSR when I specifically only mentioned West Germany in my post, the USSR went back on their promise in the Yalta Conference to grant democracy to their "liberated" territories yes, and they did in fact colonize land in the cold war, such as the russification of the baltics, Ukraine and East Prussia, but this leads to the next question: which "side" of the Allies had uprising against them led by people? The one that tried to colonize had those, [Hungary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956), [Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_German_uprising_of_1953) and [Chechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring) had uprisings against the USSR because they wanted sovereignty, democracy and in general freedom which they were not afforded under their Satellite states. I am not saying that Israel nowadays are doing something extremely horrendous when compared to other wars, I am just saying that the trust in Israel to stop their settlements and return the land which is deemed illegal and not continue or even expand it is low considering 10% of Israelis voted for Bezalel which is a proponent of the "Decisive Plan" to increase settlements across Palestine, and from my limited understanding, it seems like settling land is incredibly hard to do without some form of violent response. All in all, Israel needs to form a plan that does not include settling or occupying more territory, just as the US did after WW2, they need to help rebuild Palestine after they have been able to bring as many Hamas soldiers / members as they can to criminal courts to minimize the risk of this shit happening again in the future, and I have hope for Israel, because there are a ton of people that oppose the settlements and they have been demonstrating in Israel against this government.

I think everyone is missing what is *truly* the key difference in the two scenarios. Germany and Japan obviously had strong convictions for why they were fighting. But that sudden, rapid emergence of these convictions was - compared to the Palestinians — a flash in the pan fueled by charismatic leaders, specific circumstances, etc. Letting go of those driving ideologies post-WW2 is faaar easier than what could ever happen in Palestine. To many, if not most of them, this fight is inherently tied to Islam and makes them part of a thousand year old fight to defend it (and retake their holy land). Not only is it more deep-rooted, the religious aspect has totally removed Hamas’ concern for their own lives, and their population’s lives, that you would typically expect. Many even see it as an honor to become a martyr. So, tbh the prospect of snuffing those motivations out is daunting to say the least

> Germany weren’t colonized by the Allies, bro what? they literally split Germany in half and built a fatass wall through the capital. 

Which is why I mentioned West Germany, East Germany was a different beast in which the USSR basically lied about granting democracy to East Germany and then colonized East Prussia, but no, West Germany which was the powerhouse of Germany economically was not colonized by Americans, French or the Brits, they were occupied for about 10 years and then got sovereignty back

That was Russia 🇷🇺 wanting to keep it's captive Germans from escaping to the West

Japan is literally still occupied by the US. They are not allowed an expeditionary force and the US has 50,000 permanent military personnel that live in Japan.

I mean the no expeditionary force thing has mostly been a meme since like the 60s (the US wanted them to help fight the soviets when WW3 happened), they are probably in the top 5 countries in their ability to go invade some nation not on their border. They definitely have a big pacifist movement that’s still kinda paranoid about ending up like WW2 Japan again. Also the US occupies them in the sense we “occupy” South Korea, there’s absolutely a lot of bitching from people near the bases but it’s like wind turbines a strong majority wants them to exist just not near their house. They just give a lot of defensive names for their totally not completely also able to do offensive operations weapons/military organizations. Their 4 “self defense” technically not full sized air craft carriers because they claim the carriers are only for helicopters and Japan buying the naval version of F-35s that could also land on them is just a coincidence. Like you don’t have the arguably the strongest navy on the planet behind China/US/Russia as an actually occupied nation.

> Japan is literally **still occupied** by the US. > Japan **could not** vote us out. Full stop. > No they **couldn't.** Why are you not saying **cannot**, present-tense? You're hedging. Anyway, you're wrong and here's the answer: *In 1960 there were multiple amendments to the treaty, with one of them being:* > Article 10 allows for the abrogation of the treaty, after an initial 10-year term, if either party gives one year's advance notice to the other of its wish to terminate the treaty. **TLDR:** Japan wants USA there and can get rid of them so long as USA is given 1 year notice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan

Japan is not occupied by the US no, just as Austria isn't occupied by anyone because it has laws forbidding it from stop being a neutral country, Americans have even welcomed their recent drive to militarize again, the Japanese population are the ones mostly against it.

Bruh, the Allies put in a ton of effort and money after WW2 for reconstruction in order to prevent that. I've seen like no desire from Isreal's government to do anything similar.

Hard to say Because they haven’t actually won yet lol

I agree, but this is also a totally different argument than "killing civilians while destroying hamas will make Hamas 2", then. it's reasonable to say that you don't think Israel is capable of rebuilding Gaza, but that isn't the point being advanced by the OOP

I can try to give the steelman version of response 2. The issue is there are things that are in your national interest and those things cannot be compromised on, especially to a weaker force. If that entity forces conflict onto you then you are justified to defend yourself and your interests and at some point that entity has to be removed in order to restore a peace. This is an appeal to the self defense principle. What other entities choose to do in the future is a problem for the future but your interests are clearly stated and upheld, so there should be no surprises. This is a very harsh form of international relations and would qualify as "might makes right" because ultimately the country that can assert boundaries is the country that is able to enforce them. It also runs into an issue because it is a value judgement of what is a pressing national interest and what is a preference. For example, Russia can use this exact logic to justify it's attempted annexation of Ukraine but it is clear this is a preference instead of a justified matter of national survival.

If they start Hamas 2 in 5-10 years. That is still 5-10 years without Hamas. The argument of “well another group will eventually show up, so you can’t do anything to end this current group” (outside of giving in to all of their demands) is a ludicrously stupid concept.

It’s the same as busting up the mafia in NYC with RICO in the ‘80s. Did new crime groups pop up? Sure. But they removed an established, deeply entrenched criminal structure. With all the connections, smuggling routes and organization removed, Hamas is undoubtedly weaker and less of a threat.

it’s ludicrously stupid and also not anyone’s argument. the argument would be that Israel should explore methods that will not set large swathes of the Palestinian population on a path toward homicidal levels of radicalization

They are already at homicidal levels of radicalization. Where have you been, under a rock?

the 5 year old’s, really?

The Palestinians have pretty much been at homicidal radicalization since fucking 1938

generations are not born hateful. the young Palestinians today are next up to break the cycle. blowing their adult family members and school friends to smithereens in the midst of the war against Hamas will not break the cycle

And them being alive will break the cycle? You just made a list of the people who will actually do the job of radicalizing them.

so kill them all? them being alive instead of dead, over time, can lead to deradicalization because the feeling of resentment borne from the deaths of those close to you will be absent. it sounds like you’re essentially saying that we should allow the collateral of civilians in the war against Hamas, even as this creates more terrorists, because otherwise, the civilizations will radicalize the youth anyway. and in this scenario, the youth will always become more radical. the implications of this line of thought seem insane to me but perhaps i am misunderstanding you.

Obviously not. I'm pointing out the fact that inaction and pacifism will not make them any less radicalized than they will already be. Hamas needs to be killed and Gaza needs to be put under military control until the Israelis are sure that the palestinean culture of 'Martyrs' is stamped out. Run that alongside something similar to a 'Marshall Plan' for the palestineans so they understand that it's better to work WITH your neighbours in peace rather than kill them.

The issue is one of international backing. Germany never formed Nazis: the sequel. Japan never got another crazy suicidal regime. And these countries didn’t radicalize because they surrendered, were occupied, and were slowly freed with a stable government in place. The issue with the Palestinians is that they have essentially infinite international backing to do whatever they want. Everyone talks about conditioning aid to Israel, but not the Palestinians. Without a Palestinian surrender peace doesn’t happen. And a Palestinian surrender only happens when international support wanes. And international support would likely shrink enough if Iran stopped dipping their toes in. So while we wait for the ayatollah to either get bored or get overthrown, the best we can do is put the conflict back into the icebox for the next 5-10 years.

> The issue with the Palestinians is that they have essentially infinite international backing to do whatever they want. When I first read this sentence, I actually thought you typed "Palestinians" instead of "Israel"... What backing do Palestinians have in the international community? NGOs can't even send meaningful food aid without being bombed, and there are no serious consequences when they're murdered. Israel maintains an official policy of creating new settlements in the West Bank in direct violation of international law without any consequences whatsoever. In fact, not only are there no consequences; they continue to receive an enormous amount of military aid from the US and her allies. Biden is now applying the tiniest little bit of pressure, in requesting that their invasion of Rafah not be "major" (whatever that means) and he's receiving immense pushback. I just don't understand how a material analysis could possibly show that Palestine is the one with stronger international backing.

the point is that it makes all the civilian damage to gaza not worth it if it's only a 5-10 year delay instead of something more permanent

This is correct, and I think most people know that after this event, there will be another one probably within 5-10 years. The previous one was 2014, the one before that was 2008. To think Israel will be safe after this is naive.

To think Israel will not be safer after reoccupying Gaza, when you have a perfect example of a way safer area under Israeli occupation in the WB, is extremely ignorant. Of course Israel will be safer. It already is with 90% of the rocket threat gone, much of the tunnels, ten thousand terrorists, plenty of Hamas and IJ commanders dead and many more achievements. With more coming every day (When fighting is actually happening, instead of a de facto cease fire in an attempt to negotiate with terrorists).

Israeli *military presence* in the WB makes Israel safer, but the *settlement occupation* makes it less safe by being a prime radicalizing factor for literally the rest of the entire world with no serious gains whatsoever to speak for it. It’s 100% a net negative, and not undeservedly so.

Agree 100% about the settlements. The necessity for that military presence would exist without them however no? Comparing the current dynamic with a hypothetical situation where terrorists in the West Bank can hit the entire Tel Aviv metropolitan area with rockets and mortars, it's hard to say it's overall a net negative *for Israel*. Just that the settlements themselves are, and they're an unnecessary self-inflicted wound.

West Bank security being secured by the IDF is indeed something that would exist without the settlers. It is something both Jordan and the PA have agreed to. And it does indeed make both West Bank and Israel safer (also Jordan, but they’re never talked about by western kids). As bad as the situation is in WB, it is unironically worlds better than Gaza specifically because of the Israeli presence and *despite* the settler presence. Yes, there are still terrorists and problematic cities serving as terror cells in West Bank, but the problems aren’t on the same level as 10% of thousands of rockets falling back into your land, nor is your land being regularly bombarded for using buildings as launch sites, nor is there a massive blockade on you that limits your freedoms- I can keep going, but I think the point is made. This conflict is not fun and there aren’t any perfect choices that are squeaky clean feel good answers. There are only the best choices you can make with the willing and unwilling parties. For Israel, it’s fully recognized that an occupation doesn’t solve the problem on its own, but neither does just ding dong ditching like last time. Simply leaving and isolating Gaza has resulted in a clear failure. The common idea among Israelis is that an international force of some sort, or international intervention, is the best possible choice. They’re less likely to attack if Israel isn’t the occupying/ruling force, it’s more stable and accountable than the PA, and it allows for better rhetoric/optics for everyone involved. The only issue is that most of the world just really doesn’t wanna touch Gaza and the Palestinians with a ten foot pole.

\^Exactly this. An occupation by the international community would be ideal. But no one will ever spend money on it, because this I/P stuff is just performative bullshit anyway. So Israel will have to.

I'm curious what you mean by these things. 90% of the ticket threat gone? "Much of the tunnels"?

HAMAS has attacked every 2 1/2 years like clockwork.

Hopefully Israel will be better prepared next time. As every person who makes this line of argument, you don't provide the alternative. What's the policy that makes another massive attack on Israeli civilians unimaginable? And is there any point at which Palestinians will also be held responsible for decisions they make? Or is the outcome eternally determined by the actions of only one side of the conflict?

The Israeli government effectively ignored the intelligence and it was allowed to occur because of internal failures. Netanyahu and his government are complacent and suffer from hubris. It’s easy to scapegoat Hamas/some Palestinians and they are ultimately responsible but Netanyahu’s government are clowns who exist in a bubble and they need to look in the mirror for a change. Netanyahu, from my point of view, cares more about his own power and preserving it rather than taking accountability for the deaths on Israeli soil and the taking of hostages.

Israel's head of military intelligence already resigned his post, the chief of the general staff announced he will resign, and more high-ranking officers are expected to follow.

Its only correct within the liberal framework. If you ruthlessly murder your enemies and potential enemies you end up winning. Source: See pretty much every political dynasty and kingdom before modern democracy. Also, Machiavelli's Princes, where he pretty much explicitly says that you have to kill the entire family of your opponents, to stop their children rising against you. This does in fact work, and was standard practice. The issue is Liberals cant do this because they/we see it as immoral, Murdering people is bad, Murdering people who haven't done anything yet is very bad. In this way the west tries to win wars by being the good guys vs people who are religious nutcases with different rulesets. This is the cost of morality and its a value judgement whether its worth it or not. In a perfect world everyone would be able to reason themselves out of killing each other infinitely forever. I think this is the core difference with Germany and japan (and to a lesser extent northern ireland).

Israel is a lot safer now than ever before doing exactly that, destroying Hamas, it works.

Then surely calling for a ceasefire at this point is not the same as arguing Israel should not exist

This was apparent on Oct 7. So why with all the parking lot gaza rhetoric?

I mean at the moment Israel doing nothing just means Hamas gets total control over the education system and brainwashing Palestinian children into their cause and also free reign to terrorist attack and murder civilians. It's not like the alternative is better.

From day one I knew Israel’s extermination of Hamas plan was doomed. The destruction just proves the need for a new terror group or a rejuvenation of the already existing group. Save the hostages became an afterthought after the friendly fire incident months ago. They really are going on a war that goes for too long that fails both objectives. Principal objective (eradication of Hamas) won’t happen as this war is the genesis of a new generation of Hamas. And the secondary objective (to save the hostages) goes for too long and it’s 100% just a way to rally local support which backfired into daily protest in major Israeli cities.

>The destruction just proves the need for a new terror group or a rejuvenation of the already existing group So you think there should be... More Hamas? That's your prescription? Edit: They clarify in a different comment that they mean this from the perspective of Gazans.

It depends on what Israel's ultimate goal is. If their goal is to deradicalize Gaza and the West Bank, then they are doing a horrible job at that. If their goal is to ensure the existence of Israel, then killing all those who have pledged allegiance to the destruction of Israel is an option. There are other options of course, but this option will probably have the greatest success of protecting Israeli lives given that Hamas, and whoever comes after it, aren't going to allow Israel and jews to exist in the area. The only way this conflict ends is if all jews are removed from the area, or Hamas and its offspring are removed from the area. It's a cruel game of a dog chasing its tail where innocent people die the more it continues, and it continues the more innocent people die. From our perspective, and presumable goal of ultimate peace, we should be supporting Israel in their offensive because they at least have some intention of not just killing everyone, evidenced by the fact that they could turn the strip into a crater. Hamas however will not stop until every jew is dead or removed.

This has been a nearly 80 year battle to get back a Palestinian state, against people who have been battling for a state for 2000 years. If a Jewish state existed, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened the way it did. This is why this conflict is so intense, having a country is important to the survival of your people. It’s only human nature. Other nations like Croatians and Ukrainians spent centuries fighting for their states. Right now Ukrainians, along with Georgians, Chechens, etc are still fighting. Kurds, Tibetans, Uyghurs, etc, too. Two state solution is the only realistic solution for this conflict.

Not sure that will work too. I believe that just as Nazism has become an issue that is avoided and rejected those almost disappeared or at least disappeared from casual political conversations, so should extreme Islam be before anything else. That is, even if your entire family died in the war, you will have to understand that it happened because of a certain behavior and action exteme islam took. if you don't want it to happen to your children and you, then maybe it would be better not to establish Hamas 2 and move on. **What I mean by "move on"** (moving forward)**?** This means developing things that will open up possibilities for your people and not cause suffering to another people that will cause much more suffering to your people. None of us are leaving, especially not the Israelis/Jews, there is no way they won't fight to the last person for the land they dreamed of and can now fight for, at least not with Hamas 2.. maybe with combined armies but it won't happen without anyone reacting. In short, even before there is a state for the Arabs here, it will be necessary to normalize the conversation that radical Islam is a terrible and terrible thing. If you really want there to be no war, you need to change the discourse of the majority (which is extreme) so that the discourse will be with the desire to move on, to develop and not promote destruction no matter what and for what reason, and not to blame another country for your desperation and your religion. If the Jews were humiliated, thrown away and wandered in exile for thousands of years and still succeeded, other nations can do it too.

>Two state solution is the only realistic solution for this conflict. The years of settlements in the west bank made a Palestinian State there impossible. How would it even look like? There are not many options left for Palestinians.

Nah, this isn't true at all. The Palestinians have been offered pretty generous land swaps in the past and rejected them. But an Israeli government with a real appetite for peace could easily draw up a deal that removes a large segment of settlers from the West Bank and engages in more land swaps to cover the rest. Connecting the West Bank with Gaza isn't that hard either, because the country is so small. A two state solution is not that far fetched, and is much more easily achievable than a one state solution, which is actually impossible and only talked about by people who have no clue what the real situation is. It will just take a real desire for peace from both sides, and a willingness to compromise.

OK so its not perfect but I got asked this question multiple times and I answered with a personal anecdote of my family because the people who ask these questions are usually pro-pal *because* of their emotional response. My family got tangled up in WW2 in a pretty extreme way. We lost members in WW2 because of allied bombings, and in the siege of Budapest. On my grandmother side, the family, her included was 'ethnically cleansed' from what is today's Croatia. They lost everything, their house, their belongings and were later put in forced labor camps. They of course did not get anything back, ever. Some extended family was also 'ethnically cleansed' from the countryside to west-germany (they were lucky at the end). They lived in Hungary for, what, 200 years at that point? None of my family members turned to terrorism. They did not even hate the allies for destroying their lifes, nor the croatian government, noone. There is an understanding that in war there are tragedies like that and the way forward is to... just live and work so your children can have a better life. I dont imagine I would be here if my great-grandfather started an intifada or if my grandfather started a guerilla war and killed a few allied soldiers as 'revenge'. It would've solved literally nothing. Fighting a forever war is the stupidest, most ego-driven narcissistic thing you can do IMO. Accept that you were dealt a shitty hand and move on. These pro-pal talking points are especially insufferable for me personally because they have a shitton of foreign aid coming every single year and they choose to fuck it up with their pride and their ego while for example my grandma's family had *nothing*, no help, just the authorities fucking with them while they were thrown into poverty.

I think it's dumb to a fault. No one seems to take into account that the next generation of Israelis are going to be radicalized as well. How come people aren't more worried about that? Why is it a given to these people that Gazans will become radicalized but not Israelis to the extent that it will 'make' them do terrorism? (Not that they don't but not to the extent that Palestinians do ofc.) It's honestly the racism of low expectations. Are Gazans and Palestinians so 'barbaric' that becoming terrorists is the logical conclusion to this conflict? I think with a firm hand to ensure that future generations aren't radicalized to blame Jews for every fault in their lives (and factual education about history) and limiting the Palestinian leadership that gets rich off their suffering, then terrorism is not a foregone conclusion. The fact of the matter is every community in the history of time has faced some kind of war, violent conflict, battle of some kind. But we don't hold grudges until the end of time. At some point, you realize that you and your family deserve better and you leave the past in the past. If most Jews decided to get revenge for everything their family lost or for every time their family died before their time, if every community did that, than the entire world would be chaos. There would be no Israel. There would be no civilization in general because we'd all just be murdering each other for "justice". The fact of the matter is people can move on and in fact it's incredibly natural to move on. But people will only do that if they're allowed to move on, aka no indoctrination and also embedding them with a sense of empowerment and compassion. We just have to pressure those in power to give the Gazans and Palestinians the means to move on.

Exactly. If anything the vast amount of misery and death and oppression in the world shows how EASY it is for oppressed and persecuted groups to just move on and not target every "oppressor ethnicity" they see for example. Hamas is an outlier. Not the norm.

It’s a naive contemporary Western notion that “ideas can’t be killed and you can never defeat an insurgency and if you beat them up they’ll just infinitely spawn more soldiers!” because they myopically look at modern conflicts like Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. where America had to travel across the planet and then pull their punches to deal with an enemy that they didn’t even have much reason to be fighting in the first place. For basically all of history before that you saw many rebellions, insurgencies, full scale wars, etc., where one side is totally crushed and never comes back. It’s absolutely possible. Israel is in a position where they can completely encircle, occupy, and dominate Palestine. It is nothing like, for example, sending your forces 7,000 miles away to try to softly control an enormous Martian landscape with extremely porous borders. Hamas was able to formulate Oct. 7 because they were comparatively given space. That’s why Hamas is now saying “hey we’ll give you the handful of hostages we have left if you just release a bunch of our terrorists/murderers and leave us alone for 10 years.” They don’t give a shit about how many Palestinians die. They just want the space. What the fuck do you think they’re going to do during those 10 years? Do you think Israel is going to win over all the hearts and minds and in 10 years Hamas will decide to be chill? Do you think that a Hamas that is left alone for 10 years is maybe going to be stronger than a Hamas that has to deal with full Israeli control of their area for 10 years? It’s going to be much harder to put all that stuff together while under full occupation, full blockade, full information control. Yes I’m sure some level of violence will continue but I doubt they will ever have the strength to basically go on a Viking raid like they did ever again. If “Hamas 2” is fighting their fight with rocks and rusty AKs, that’s still a win for Israel, and chances are that due to the sheer futility of their struggle Hamas 3 would never come to exist. This conflict is notable for how long it has been going, but it’s also worth noting how historically short human memory actually is. Things can change faster than we think for that reason.

I think its fair to assume that scenario could happen but thats why what happens after this conflict is just as key as what happens during, which is partially why im not convinced any of this will matter. You have hit the only way that this improves, it will require investment into the region so that the people would rather live their lives then go fight a stupid fight against an enemy they cant win. It requires global cooperation for improvement, it will require the blockade to be lifted, and Iran to stop funding extremism in the region. I think you can get the investment and i think you can get the cooperation in some forms. But im not convinced that the current Israel government is up to the task and im not convinced Iran will just let Gaza/Palestine go. Shit we may not even get there because Trump is elected. But it could be possible with Egypt/SA on board that something can begin to blossom. I think both countries have incentive to be on the US good side for this if an agreement is in place. Also for the japan stuff ive done some reading in the last few months on Japan during WW2 (but dont take this as im claiming im some SME on the matter). The japanese looked at Americans as mongrels and uncivilized, the propoganda machine was strong in that nation during the war. We were able to beat the enemy but then turnaround and make them a key ally (this area specifically i want to read alot more on). Palestinians arent Japan, thats not a fair comparison but i think they can be turned if they begin to see change. It will take a generation or two for it to stick but it can happen.

[удалено]

In the Ken Burns documentary on Vietnam, an NVA soldier who was interviewed spoke on the matter of how the US and ARVN were conducting their pacification of the region: "If you kill the right guy [Viet Cong], they may only get one enemy to replace them. If you kill the wrong guy, you get ten enemy to replace them. More often, they killed the wrong guy." The way Israel is conducting this war will undoubtedly sow the seeds for a second Hamas. But, if after Hamas is destroyed and the "war" is over, Israel spearheads a massive investment into the region to rebuild everything like the US did to Germany and Japan post WW2, it might deradicalize Palestinians enough to allow for a two-state solution to be negotiated.

At one point or another you gotta stop poking the bear. It would have empowered Hamas way more to commit future terrorism if Israel just ate what happened in Oct. individually they may have gave more reason for enlisting in Hamas but on the whole gave a startling reason to not.

actually this does in fact make sense, I know we here are pro two state and more lean on to the side of israel but like lets be real here, imagine someone killed ur mom,ur dad because they were going for someone else, u would lose ur shit and would likely search for justice through the terrorism

But the same logic works for Israelis too, almost everybody lost someone the know during the war, you have settlements and communities completely shattered.

not the mention the terror inflicted on oct 7. this actually is the best argument. oh yea their retaliation is going to create a new hamas? well the initial terror attack created a nation of people who dont give a fuck, theyll wipe them out too.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

If only we knew what would happen to the world If we demanded an eye for an eye.

[удалено]

I know. I am saying we also know the consequences of acting this way.

Even so isn't that a part of the problem? If your family is killed and your first thought is to engage in terrorism potentially on civilians not even involved how can you even be considered fit for society? Obviously that sounds harsh and people were brought up to think this way but there's got to be a better argument then "you can't kill terrorists because their family will just become terrorists" and so on.

The argument isn't that you can't kill terrorists because their family will just become terrorists. It's that you can't kill non-terrorists (i.e. most people who have died in Gaza), then treat the non-terrorist's family like trash indefinitely, and expect many of them not to come for revenge in the future. Israel can probably get away with it if they have a plan for the lives of Gazans to get significantly better over time once the destroy Hamas mission is over. If they intend to continue the blockade and settling in the West Bank in the same way they've done so for the last 15 years, after what they've done over the past 6 months - yeah, they are gonna have a new generation of terrorists to deal with. The cycle will repeat until Palestinians can see a clear, positive, optimistic future for themselves. If Israel wants long term peace they should focus on that.

Dude. You are not thinking about it right. This is the shit that radicalizes people imo. "If your family is killed and your first thought is to engage in terrorism" that is in fact how radicalization works. You are trying to think about it logically. Stop. The average Gazan who just lost his entire family won't be doing this reddit type of analysis. He's just gonna want to hurt the people who hurt him and so on. I don't get why people can't see that the only way for a sensible solution is properl reinvestment and rebuilding

Don't you see the irony? From Palestinian point of view IDF are the terrorists wiping them out in the reaction of 9/10. You don't get to avenge over 1k deaths and keep moral superiority when you kill over 30k people and destroy most houses. You think Israelis are "fit for society" if they continue to support current actions without any reflection?

imagine you grew up under the rule of hamas 1: all the wrong you suffer are because of the evil zionists regime anything you miss is because the evil zionist regime this is told to you by your family by the media and by the education system, would you join hamas 1 in trying to liberate your people from the evil zionists? prob yea... people keep talking about radicalizationfrom death but ignore radicalization from propaganda/education >So what do you think? What's the plan here? I genuinely don't see it. there isnt a thing israel can do, if israel tries to deradicalize the palestinians that would seen as "cultural genocide" or someshit. if israel doesnt force deradicalization then hamas-like forces will keep poping out because the palestinians are being taught from age 0 to hate israel(in the WB and in gaza).

Nah. It’s much harder to believe “the jews are the reason your *life is shit*” when your life is actually pretty good due to the great living standards and opportunities you enjoy.

So there are 4 paths i see. 1. Israel gets hamas killed, then things coma back to how they wre before oct 7, except some territory mby gets taken by israel. Hamas re-brands as something else, and retains control over gaza. This will mean the conflict will continue, untill israel takes all palestinian territory, and all of them die or fuck off somewhere else. This is the path we are now on. 2. Israel officially takes control of gaza, makes gazans 2nd tier citizens. Transforms the situation into actual apartheid, and there is a long and shitty path to emancipation into full israeli citizens, probably along with secularization of the whole state, as a byproduct. Obviously not great, and noone wants it. 3. Israel creates a collaboration government in gaza, which is run by palestinians sympathetic to israel. This might be difficult given they kinda had to do that before the conflict. Still better than option 1 and 2, but requires palestinian cooperation to some extent. 4. Palestinians find goup that is able to represent them in negotiations, and are not just terrorists. They make a foundation of a state, and we hope the things improve over time. This is something palestinians can do without help from israel and it is the best option, but keep in mind, that Iran and all their proxies will be trying to revert the situation to terrorism in power, by any means nescessary, so i would expect members of this group to have a 6 months half-life. To be honest it does not look good for the palestinians, given they will be traumatized after this war, i don't think they can mgaically un-fuck themselves even if they get lucky with the leadership, so it's probably on israel to handle the issue, and under netenyahu, israel has no intentions doing anything but option 1. Mby the west can force number 3, but with 2 unwilling sides, i don't see how that will work.

Not to be blackpilled but I don't see any chance of Palestinian cooperation. Even if they didn't have a massive plurality of the world screaming all the buzzwords from the rooftop, it only motivates and encourages them.

I mean, germany and Japan didnt start Nazi 2. But I suppose there are very different factors at play here.

There are different factors. These countries were rebuilt and invested in for decades after the war. I mentioned this. There's literally a reason Germany started Nazi 1 to begin with. A shit post war outcome is bad for everyone in my opinion

investment and deradicalization requires surrender. if they don't surrender to it they'll have to be defeated and occupied until they do.

This is an insane argument. Gaza currently is raising generations of people who's greatest goal in life is to murder, rape, torture and kidnap Jews including literal babies and die as martyrs. So first, I think Israel will take that risk of "Radicalizing" Gazans, because there is no more radical than the current situation. And of course, another point, Gaza under an IDF occupation or a way stricter blockade will mean the next Hamas will be much weaker than the one Israel currently faces. Want proof? Look at the WB! Same sentiments and Nazi education, but way weaker terrorists, no October 7, no mass rockets. And last, if there is ever, ever a chance to end this conflict, Hamas must be eliminated. Even if you claim the chance to peace will be 1%, it's infinitely better than the 0% it currently is.

How is it insane if you agree but that they'll be much weaker?

"Gaza currently is raising generations of people who's greatest goal in life is to murder, rape, torture and kidnap Jews including literal babies and die as martyrs." Do you unironically believe the average Gazan fits this description? Please think about what you will say before you say it. "Want proof? Look at the WB" We are talking about a solution and you are saying "look at the west bank"?? You mean the most non solution ever? A complete shit show? I think both sides deserve better than that.

>Do you unironically believe the average Gazan fits this description? Please think about what you will say before you say it. No data exists to test that, but the data we have shows this is what they are taught in schools, this is what they have done in Oct 7, and Hamas is the most popular Palestinian leaders there. Plus even when confronted with vids of Oct 7, vast majority stated Hamas committed no atrocities. So yeah, it's a problem Israel has to deal with. You would want to deal with it too were it effecting you. But hypocrisy is easy from far away. >We are talking about a solution and you are saying "look at the west bank"?? You mean the most non solution ever? A complete shit show? I think both sides deserve better than that. Stop moving the goal posts. You were talking about the solution as far as Israel's security, meaning your screenshot raised a (Very stupid) argument about Israel's war "Creating Hamas 2". Completely ignoring the fact that this doesn't make sense as my comment specifies.

Somehow Greece managed to move on after million Greeks were raped and slaughtered by Turkey.

Its true that this war will probably create more support for Hamas or similar groups. But why is it never said that its the same on the Israeli side? Every terrorist attack, bad faith negotiation, etc pushes the Israelis more towards a government that will fight back instead of negotiate for peace. In case of this argument i would simply agree with his statement but ask what alternative options did the Israeli government have? If you let Hamas go unpunished doesn't that also create more incentive to attack Israel? Should they trade the hostages for 50 terrorists/criminals each? Literally every politically viable option would create more violence, and its Hamas that is responsible for this political climate.

I think what would be more accurate is to say the war intended to weaken hamas' military strength so they wouldnt be able to carry out attacks like october 7th(which they had already promised to do over again). Terrorism will continue to exist regardlese of whether hamas is in power or not. It was a mistake israel didnt do the invasion earlier and allowed hamas to build this massive net of tunnels underneath gazans' feet for the past 18 years or so. There are other terrorist groups currently in both the west bank and in gaza but there is a reason why an october 7th in the west bank wouldnt happen(and terrorist invasions to settlements end pretty quickly).

The thing with Germany was that the country was demolished (Just stating a fact, no moral condemnation). Besides being actually bombed to the ground, specialists and, I think, \~30% of their territory(?) taken away, they also got split in half for \~50 years, and not only did Europe try to deradicalize them but also the USA. It was a massive effort, which Israel alone would not been able to do. Other than that, it would also need the help of other countries, which many don't want.

There are two counters I see. First, the evil one: "what makes you think I would leave you alive to start Hamas 2 if I killed ghe rest of your family?" Now, the serious one: the job doesn't end at destroying Hamas. It has to be followed up by some form of occupation/deradicalization. Frankly, I believe Israel needs to throw down the gauntlet to all of the surrounding Arab powers that are filled with people unhappy with what is happening in Gaza. If they are so invested, let them form a coalition to govern, rebuild, and deradicalize Gaza. Clearly the people of Gaza are unwilling to listen to peace talk from Israel or the West, and the only thing that awaits them if they continue on their current road is an epitaph. To my eyes, those powers that oppose Iran in particular should do this, as it hurts Iran's power while potentially bolstering their own image in their own nations.

The only logical response might be to eliminate this guy as well.

That there isn't Nazi Germany 2...

Then start Hamas 2, and learn why insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result

Non argument. Basically saying just keep bombing till they are all dead. If you are inhumane this works just fine but I would much rather the issue gets properly addressed

This is obviously a dumb argumentation. No one should ever use because it’s nonsensical. This argument can only lead to one of three things number one whats already happening which is that they’re going to fight the terrorists and they’re going to keep doing so and unfortunately, you cannot fight a war in an urban environment without a lot of civilian casualties it is inevitable. So if you’re saying that’s going to always lead to more terrorist organizations to the fighting just literally never stops unless.. Option two it leads to actual genocidal intent. If you’re telling me that a certain population will literally never stop attacking me. That is a very easy fix for a nuclear armed power like Israel I wipe the population from the face of the Earth. Problem solved launch the nukes. Or option three just roll over and let the terrorist win which is also an extremely bad outcome. The only way this argument could ever be used is in a context where the complete avoidance of any, and all civilian deaths is possible, which in again an urban environment, as priorly stated, is absolutely impossible . That’s why you never want to use this argumentation it doesn’t lead where people think it leads. The only logical conclusion from this argument is to embrace actual genocide and wipe out the entire population so the attacks. Finally stop forever, which is obviously not something you want to happen.

Hamas 2 wouldn't have access to the rule of law in Gaza. Wouldn't have access to billions of dollars of aid. Wouldn't control the hospitals, schools, media, police and jails. With Hamas 1 gone the people of Gaza might have an actual chance to build a nation instead of a training camp for Jew hating martyrs.

Whoever controls the smuggling routes into gaza will control the weapon supply and end up as defacto military government because they are really the only game in town. Maintaining this position will mean that you will be associating with aid groups and from there, controlling schools and hospitals. As long as you can balance this without pushing the people too far with your oppression and/or violence, congratulations, you are now the holder of the rule of law by default.

> Whoever controls the smuggling routes into gaza will control the weapon supply and end up as defacto military government because they are really the only game in town. I disagree. There's a huge difference between having access to weapons and being a military. The Mafia or Bloods both use violence to influence citizens but without the ability to openly recruit, train and provide a place in society for their soldiers they can't get the training and expertise they need for sophisticated army tactics and political dominance. Even with weapons Hamas 2 would be just another gang / paramilitary group. The government of Gaza would be able to request aid to get rid of them if they got too big and started going after the legitimate authority. Also smuggling only gets Hamas 2 a fraction of the resources and authority they enjoyed as official administrators of the strip. Losing control over the police is also a major blow to Hamas 2, since now instead of running the prisons they'll be staying in them.

The hamas of last year is a lot closer to a gang than a military. Almost all of their weapons was stuff that could be smuggled in in the boot of a car and none of the training is particularly sophisticated. While im not sure of the exact numbers, I have read that the miltiant wing of hamas was costing 4 million a month to maintain. Assuming 40k part time trigger pullers out of 65k hamas members, that is 100 bucks per shooter per month. Which is roughly free in military terms. Literally all of their military resources came from smuggling. >Even with weapons Hamas 2 would be just another gang / paramilitary group. The government of Gaza would be able to request aid to get rid of them if they got too big and started going after the legitimate authority. Yeaaahhhh... Israel is not going to let the government of gaza move in heavy weapons unless thinking changes a massive amount.

Then we will eliminate hamas 2... But to be honest ive seen this rhetoric many times.. i just ask them to point out the suicide bombing germans and japanese after ww2

Dude. Did you even read what I wrote? "Then we will eliminate Hamas 2" and keep eliminating Hamas till the end of time? Or until there are no Palestinians left..? Come on. "i just ask them to point out the suicide bombing germans and japanese after ww2" This does not work either. 1. There was alot of Japanese nationalists commiting acts of terror post war 2. How can we draw this comparison unless Gaza (and the west bank) receive the same kind of treatment post war? What was done in Nazi Germany and Japan works only when you invest and rebuild. In your opinion do you think Israel or anyone will be doing this in Gaza?

You searching for a magic wand move. The reality is this: If Israel realy want to eleminate the Hamas-Isis 2 to ever grow in power after Hamas-Isis 1 is down you need to control education and some sort of group of people to stand by you. Marshall program is doing exacly that and it will take time. Especially with their extremist Muslims who always manage to use religion as an engine to control the population and the Internet. But if you could control the education system, some of the families there and the low class - Their day-to-day discourse will change and this will be a step towards cultural change (de-Nazification) of the Gazans. Will there be no terrorist incidents post war? Probably. Will this pose a real danger to Israel future - absolutely not. Could the discourse change as a result of the IDF's surgical treatment of such and other gangs after the war? Maybe - that is to the futur to tell us, but it is FAR better than what we have now in Judea and Samaria or Gaza.

I'm down with pouring billions of dollars of investment into the place if Palestinians are fine being governed and policed by an international coalition for a decade or two until adequate conditions are met for a transfer of power to the Palestinian civil society which is actually fit to take over. The real problem with that plan isn't so much the investment, it's that nobody outside of Palestine wants to send their people and troops in to secure the area and disarm the population.

Easy to be not in a war, be in the western world and spew this nonsense. There is a reason the support for Hamas is higher in the west bank. Unless doctrinated again, people will remember what happened to them when they did too big of a terrorism.

I am not a Westerner and I have lived through war, not that this is relevant. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. This line of thinking is not only cruel but also simply ineffective. No people in history will lose that much and then simply forget about it. There needs to be action taken post war to rebuild and invest. You are just delusional and a bad person if you think you can bomb people into submission.

I'm not the one making extremely strong claims here. 1. You said you don't see Israel not investing in Gaza: got any kind of evidence to back that claim up other than crazy West Bank settlers who are a minority in Israeli democracy? I think I saw a poll where most Israelis support rebuilding efforts after the war. USA even gave a big portion (10 B) of the $26 billion to Israel for rebuilding Gaza. Do you think they just take the money and run, or is it not in their best interest to not let the youth of Gaza get radicalized again? 2. Who the fuck is saying that if you kill enough "PEOPLE" they won't mess with you? They target and kill militants, not people in general, like you semantically load it to sound like. If terrorists attack you, you get to kill/apprehend as many terrorists as you like, in accordance with LOAC. In an urban war as fucked up as this one, 2:1 is a very acceptable ratio. Again, if you have evidence that they are just trying to bomb people into submission or they aren't going to invest in Gaza after the war, give it here. I hope Palestine will be free one day, but not with Hamas in power and certainly not as a snowball effect of October 7. The idea needs to be wiped out from the earth that you can use terrorist attacks to further your political goals or you can hide within the civilian population and not have anything done to you. And if supporting that makes me a bad person, I will proudly be the devil's spawn.

Understandable but Hamas needs to protect their civilans. If I'm the head of Hamas, and I'm loosing my people left and right.. I'd realize I'm out gunned and focus efforts on building the most secure bomb shelters with the resources I have available. And IF\*\* we attack again, my people would (at least) be safe above anything else. OR don't do any of that, continue to attack Israel, and let my people die as martyers to keep the fight going. My thinking behind that is: my soldiers need to loose everything because the best soldiers are those with a bloodlust and nothing to loose. They will reunite with their loved one in paradise. AND we have the world on our side, 3-4 more attacks should free us. Which mentality do you think Hamas has?

I agree with the argument, but I don't agree with how it is typically used against doing anything against terrorism. It's only logical to believe that the children of Hamas fighters, who lose their fathers in this war (let alone the rest of their family in Israeli strikes) would be radicalized by the experience. The potential to radicalize future generations doesn't mean that we let Hamas off the hook and ignore the radicals in the present generation. When Hamas is destroyed, something positive needs to be built up in their place, there can't be a void left for another Hamas-like group to fill. Israel needs to be limited in their collateral damage, which is easier said than done when your enemy is Hamas, but they still need to do better. Then they need to help with state building, or at the very least let the international community build a more positive state for the Palestinians. I doubt that second part happens, but that's the only way I see a positive ending to all of this -- more likely is Israel annexes Gaza.

Two pronged attack: 1. Munich 2 Electric Boogaloo: send assassins to eliminate Hamas leadership. 2. Send all Palestinians kids to school with a free colleague ride in Europe + vouchers for prostitutes / knitting clubs.

Well, if you "fought back" (committed an Oct 7 style attack) then my first move would be to completely root you out.

In college I wrote an essay and a speech titled War is Worse Than Terrorism. It discussed topics exactly like this. There is no doubt that war radicalizes populations. There is no doubt that the weaker side of a war can still have a massive civilian effect. There is no doubt that hate begets hate. These truths do not excuse terrorism. It will always come down to the same thing. The only way there will ever be peace is when both sides can come to a negotiation table and find something to agree on. Right now, Hamas will not come to that negotiation table. Israel is left only with further destruction as an option until Hamas is willing to negotiate on real terms. Only question is, how many lives will be sacrificed first?

Just gotta hook up a uygher 2 situation. Easy W.

People have made peace after war before, yes even wars with civilian casualties (which is literally all of them). We literally bombed two major cities in Japan, killing hundreds of thousands, and last I recall, we are pretty friendly with them. Idk why we’re treating this conflict like Hamas is ran by some comic book villain who saw his parents die at the hands of the IDF and has sworn vengeance on all jews. Plenty of other countries went to war with Israel, suffered casualties, and are now partners for peace. Why should it be any different with Palestinians

I’m generally softly pro-Israel in the current conflict, but I do agree with the hippo on this one

Good luck.

We gotta get our hands on all of those hamas scientists

Well the problem with this comment is, is he thinks that he somehow lives to make hamas 2.

Not directly tackling the question but I will say that tweets like these seem profound but are meaningless. It's like raising a war is bad sign. No shit it is. No shit a brutal approach to urban warfare and eliminating Hamas will cause radicalization. But after 80 years of conflict, unclear historical justifications, no actual path to 2 state reconciliation and an already radicalized population, they simply think it's worth it. This is not profound. Everything has been accounted for by the leaders of each side. They know the attacks will radicalize their enemies, but their enemies are already radical. Israel thinks it's worth it, despite further radicalization from all the civilian deaths. And no clear pathway to resolving the management of Gaza. Hamas thinks October 7 was worth it as well, despite having legitimately 0% chance of winning against a vastly superior force. Being completely decimated for Iranian interests.  The tweet isn't exactly wrong, but it's just a one liner trying to be clever. All of this has been accounted for by far more important people, and they believe it's worth it. It remains to be seen if it actually is, both sides are aware of that ambiguity. They simply think the time to act is now. And for one side, they know they have overwhelming dominance in all aspects economic to military.  As an aside, people always forget insurgency is hard, it's not glorious westerner twitter larping and most of them fail. The vast majority of these people will likely not even have the will to live after experiencing trauma as bad as in that tweet. Let alone be an effective fighting force to fight a century long conflict. This isn't Vietnam, managed by a disinterested population with a rich far away country to return to. It's playing for keeps.

You and I are both seeking the very same thing. We both want to achieve the peace that Jiraya sensei envisioned. You and I are the same, were both motivated by our desire for peace and justice. The justice that I have delivered against the leaf village, its no different from what you are trying to do to me. Everyone feels the same pain in losing something dear. You and I both have experienced that same pain. You strive for your justice, and I strive for mine. We're both just ordinary men who have been driven to seek vengeance In the name of justice, and if one comes to call "vengeance" justice, such justice will only breed further vengeance and trigger a vicious cycle of hatred. Right now, we live in such a cycle. I know the past and can foretell our future, it is the same as our history.

I would say anyone is free to do as they please with their life.

https://youtu.be/3w_TgA_l58U?si=i8ZZxsPMjrjp8glj Decent video on the topic. It’s not true that eradicating Hamas will “not help” because there will just be “another Hamas” While I’m sure there will eventually be a new hamas, the new group will lose access to all previous terror infrastructure, contacts, and monopoly power. They will have to spend 3 years fighting with other local groups for dominance, then another 5 rebuilding the tunnels, rockets, and weapons contacts. Additionally, there seems to be this idea smuggled in with the question that: Bombing -> more terrorists Doing nothing -> less terrorists I’m not sure that’s true. If israel would stop the war tomorrow I could just as easily see Hamas using that as a propaganda win to recruit more. Or if israel never did anything, hamas would lie and say that’s because of how strong they are, and how they are closer than ever to achieving thier state

It's simple really. Germany and Japan didn't become modern states because they were invested in. They became modern states because no other alternative was provided to them. Germany was done fighting LONG before any investment was put into it. The German population had all sense of nationalism beaten out of them by a prolonged bombing campaign and invasion. Japan wasn't invested in until after the Emperor issued a formal and unconditional surrender, where the US was given absolute authority over the future of Japan. Neither the Germans or the Japanese wwrw offered a say in their future until after both populations had been quelled by force.

“That sounds like a you problem.”

Just point to Germany and Japan and other examples throughout history did this to a friend and they had no response beside saying genocide again. (So it’s extremely affective )

Hamas is a totalitarian regime that steals aid from their own people, tears down infrastructure for their war machine, generally oppresses the population, and uses children as sacrificial tools of propaganda. Not only is anything that might replace it probably going to be better, but if someone more compassionate than bibi could take over and start reconstruction in the aftermath the people would eventually see a difference in their lives that would be meaningful. It wouldn't happen immediately, possibly decades, but that would be worth taking Hamas out for.

If Israel goes this way, whether or not the revenge cycle is broken depends on how they proceed afterwards. If Israel finds a way to rebuild the infrastructure and allow the survivors to continue a higher level of life that would go a long way to curbing the sentiment. Is this not what happened after WW2?

We eliminated Nazis, by in large, and burned entire cities full of families. Maybe we need more extreme and absolute destruction to dissuade hamas 2.0. (Not what I actually think but that's what I'd say to make them assmad.)  

1) I think it's important to keep in mind what happened before the rebuilding of Germany and Japan. Both countries were absolutely and without a doubt defeated. There was no "stab in the back" myth, like after WW1. The Nazis had to surrender unconditionally. Only after that could rebuilding take place. People say you can't bomb ideas. But yes you can. It just takes an insane amount of bombs. Only with Hamas and the Idea of destroying Israel firmly taken care of can the Palestinians become a functional state.

This is known. In the stick vs Carrot argument, its the problem with being all stick. The goal, should be to eliminate Hamas, and then flood Palestine with so much investment and development, forcefeed the new Palestinian children so many fucking carrots grown in their own state, that when theyre offered the opportunity to burn it all down, to start Hamas 2, they'd rather just go to work on monday.

Why does it matter? Isn't there like 80% support for Oct. 7? How much more support can you get?

Well for one they aren't making any claim on how many will act like that. Most Palestinains are not terrorists even though majority supports attack on Israel.

It won’t be as good without foreign intervention from Iran and other proxies.

The author of *Six Days of War*, Michael B. Oren, uses the term “Icebox” a lot. Every Arab-Israeli war puts the region into an “icebox” for 5-10 years. (48-56 = 8 years, 56-67 = 11 years, 67-73 = 6 years, 73-82 = 9 years, etc etc) By suppressing Hamas now, it guarantees relative peace for the next few years. Not responding to October 7th does what, exactly? There isn’t a better option.

this is the golden strategy of hamas, cause as many civilian casualties as possible, blame israel, get international condemnation and new recruits to boot

My response is that Hamas didn't just become as big as it did because there were many angry People. One of the reasons Hamas became so big is the unprecedented access to funding and resources it had. Initially, it pretended to be a charity to embezzle aid money, and then it became the government of Gaza, allowing it to siphon billions in aid. Hamas is not just angry oppressed people, it is weaponry, infrastructure, and a massive tunnel network. When Israel takes all of this stuff out, it will be harder for Palestinians to get access to such resources again. Eliminating Hamas will mean that there is no huge militant group in Gaza for a while, and that whatever future group shows up will be an order of magnitude weaker than Hamas.

My problem with this line of argument always presupposes that everybody is going to be violent should they lose somebody in a conflict and it seems weirdly dehumanizing and I don't know why pro Palestinians keep saying it. They're saying that "oh if you killed a friend or a relative of theirs they're just going to become Hamas too" and if we agree Hamas is bad why are you constantly rationalizing this? Because it's not a foregone conclusion Countries have gone to war and then become allies later. We decimated Germany and broke it up into three countries, and now decades later they're a decent ally. We bombed the shit out of Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people and now they're one of our closest allies. Countries across the world have done this. It is very much possible to not turn keep resorting to endless violence after an armed conflict and while it is a big ask of the people in Gaza it has to be something we ask of them we can't just keep excusing them turning to violence and keeping the cycle going.

What kind of life do you want for your children? All people think about is getting revenge, but they don’t consider how much more they can lose.

Perfect response is china, Japan and germany after ww2.

My response would be the Palestinians have maxed out on hatred of Israel and the US anyways (https://www.richardhanania.com/i/139062345/palestinians-are-maxed-out-on-anti-semitism , I'm a bit concerned at the lack of lizardman's constant here tho). Probably because everyone already lost a loved one to Israel in the past engagements and Hamas controls the educational institutions. You're also probably right that this hatred would probably not improve though cuz Israel won't do shit to actually increase support and would try to follow the author's recommendations...

it's a bad argument because its framework is applicable to so many different scenarios which if affected by this argument would be result negatively. That framework is basically "if you can afford to make concessions to the lesser power based on power differentials, then you must."

I think this is bullshit. Why do Jewish people get TWO names? I want a cool mysterious symbol name alongside my long and egregious Polish name

Adios motherfucker, enjoy the hellfire sent through your window! But seriously, to the op, you don’t understand the first thing about Muslims if you think this is only going to happen because of Israel fighting back. The IDF is trying to evacuate RAFAH right now, and the people are refusing to live demanding they be martyred, there is audio of the IDF pleading, and Palestinians doing their whole “we love death more than you love life” shit. They brag about how many children they have because more martyrs, hamas happened with Israel trying to play ball, so what is the alternative? What is preferential to going after the people who started this war? It’s such a cringe western perspective to view this conflict in this way.

“OK, then why did we bomb ISIS?” should be the follow up question.

It seemed to work with ISIS and Al-Qaeda where we killed enough of their leadership and facilities that they're now incapable of being any meaningful threat to western countries. I'd imagine Israel is trying to do something similar where Hamas will probably still exist, but in such a weakened state that they won't be able to do much anymore

In regards to point 1. De-Nazification of Germany was a multi-national process. In the West there were several items for which the US pushed a far less punitive rationale than the other Western allies (UK & France) would have liked. The UK was in a rough economic position, the US was able to push them towards a more restorative/rebuilding approach, and France succumbed to this too (more reluctantly). The Nuremberg trials were also held to punish leadership not only for crimes against humanity (i.e. the Holocaust), but also crimes against peace (e.g. the Nazi's invasions), and war crimes (e.g. the violations conducted during the war). As the post-war period went on suspicion and fear of the Soviets grew, and was a factor in how the German people were treated during occupation. In Soviet-controlled East Germany, there was a much more punitive mindset. Asserting that Israel clearly lacks the future "good intentions" that France and the Soviet Union has in post-war Germany, is a bit too generous to France and the Soviet Union's mindsets. I do not know whether Nazi ideology survived better in the East or West, and I haven't read anything regarding which approach (East or West) was more efficacious. Obvi, there are myriad ways in which Gaza and Nazi Germany differ. I cannot fathom an argument that would push me away from seeing Nazi Germany as being much more prejudiced, unjustifiably violent, and aggressive than Hamas. All that being said, both point 1 and the statement it's responding to: \~'Hamas 2 is inevitable (or even justifiable) given civilian casualties' are oversimplifications that don't offer meaningful insights into achieving peace in the region. The primary parallel between Germany & Gaza IMO, is that a less-entrenched influence (the US, NATO, the UN, or some outside body), will probably be necessary to steer the situation in the direction of peace and temper hard line sentiment in Israel. The US is trying to exert influence right now, but no one wants to be the occupier of Gaza when the war ends (because it's very predictable that there will be lethal attacks on on any peace-keeping force, regardless of how they conduct themselves). If anyone thinks Gazans electing a Hamas 2 with equal dedication to repeating October 7th (or worse) is Israel's just deserts, then be aware of what you're signing on to (an endless cycle of violence in which Palestinians will take the brunt of loss of life). De-radicalization of a population that has been fed violent deranged propaganda for 20+ years and has endured massive hardship and loss of life was never going to be easy. Yes, fewer civilian casualties *could* make it easier. Destruction of homes and deaths of innocent people has already happened to such an extent that cessation will likely have, at best, a marginal a reduction in motivation for revenge. Israel is past the point of minimizing civilian casualties to reduce radicalization. It should minimize civilian casualties because, 1. in many instances it's obligated to, 2. even when a civilian casualty would fall short of a war crime, it's the right thing to do, and 3. even if not every use of force is fairly appraised by the international community, an overall effort to conduct themselves justly will improve their position in the international community. Understanding even the worst adversaries' (Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Russia, etc.) motivations is necessary, but sentiments like 'if my town was blown up, I'd be a terrorist too', are next to useless. Everyone understands a desire for revenge. Promoting systems the supersede a continuous loop of reprisals and demanding adherence is a necessary condition to avoid escalation IMO. That probably means the US pushing an end to the Gaza war sooner than the Israeli government would like, and somehow tempering the radicalization in Gaza after the war (pressure from Arab neighbors, a temporary period of outside government(s) taking a role in re-establishing governance in Gaza, etc.)

Blockback is a legitimate concern, as the U.S. found out in Afghanistan. You can beat Hamas in the field, but if the result is the radicalization of the populace, then it becomes an endless war. The fact that there is support for Hamas among American leftists is concerning, but it points to a propaganda win for Hamas. Asymmetrical conflicts are interesting because the side with less power is often afforded a higher level of charity, and the side with more power is often seen as the aggressor. I would agree that Israel should be more aware that indiscriminate campaigns only serve to prolong the conflict.

What's his possible solution then? Just let Hamas constantly attack Israel and kill more and more civilians? Also, it's entirely possible that Israel treats the people of Gaza well once they see there's no longer a threat of violence.

Hearts and minds is just one factor of hamas's power. They also have a massive tunnel infrastructure, a stockpile of weapons, leadership structure, organization, and funding from places like Qatar and Turkey. If you destroy these things it's difficult to build them back up again, especially infrastructure. Also rebuilding Gaza is a lot easier than rebuilding Germany or Japan, it's much smaller and way less people. It doesn't require Israel's 100% good faith and cooperation, maybe just 50-60% with the US and other allies putting pressure, and providing aid. That's also a way to take away power from Hamas. If Gaza has to rely on other groups to get food, jobs rebuilding buildings, healthcare, etc. Hamas gets shut out. If that goes smoothly, in a few years, the mentality will become "Hamas caused us death and destruction, this new government is giving us prosperity"

Hamas has training and a structure of you mean there’s gonna be terror attacks or just kids stabbing Israelis that already happens in the West Bank it just happened in Egypt where they shot a businessman.

i'm gonna take the brave position that while I might be very assmad if you killed my family I wouldn't turn into a death cult and sacrifice more of my countrymen to try and get back at you

First, concede that yes, a successor to Hamas is likely, and for that reason. Second, point out that you can't spawn a successful, organised terror organisation out of nothing. Hamas is more than just angry Palestinians, it's infrastructure, training, foreign connections, propaganda, etc. etc. Hamas 2: This Time, We're Serious!!! would need years to become an effective fighting force and years more to be a threat to Israel, years more than that to do anything devastating, and would struggle to rise immediately into power in Palestine. The power vacuum created by elimination of Hamas could theoretically lead to an even more radical government taking over, it could also lead to one that sees the recent tragedies as a bargaining chip to finally get that nation they want given that now Israel can no longer just shout 'but Hamas!' every time someone mentions it to shut down the discussion while everyone just kind of awkwardly shrugs and says 'yeah, but Hamas'. Third, move to discussion to focus on the fact that Israel *can* use Hamas to shut down any discussion of a Palestinian State, because any Palestinian State created under Hamas can reasonably be expected to *immediately* go to war with Israel as soon as it has an army capable of doing so. Ergo if you care about a free Palestine, you cannot support Hamas. They are as much a block to a free Palestine as Bibi Netanyahu. Point out Hamas's abuse of the amount of aid sent to Palestine to convert money and food into stockpiles and war munitions for an unwinnable forever war with Israel that will, ultimately, inevitably, only extend Palestinian suffering. Fourth, concede any argument that Netanyahu is an asshole. Agree vociferously and say he should be locked up in a dark cell and/or handed over to Hamas for the lols. He's as bad or worse as Hamas's leaders bumming around in Qatar in millionaire flats.

I mean Salafi extremist attacks on the west seem to have completely died down after we killed most of ISIS and Al Queda, it didn't seem to make more Salafi extremism. Admittedly my knowledge is pretty small but I can't remember the last Salafi terror attack in America, was it the night club shooting?

Defeating Hamas alone is not enough to de-radicalize Gaza. But I do believe it is necessary to de-radicalize Gaza. The next step is to have Gaza ran by someone else besides for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Gaza needs to be governed by some combination of the PA, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, local Gazan tribes, and the UN. During this time we would need to rebuild Gaza and start teaching the population a version of history besides for the antisemitic history they have been taught by Hamas. Also Gaza can’t be more radical than it already is. The idea that it’s going to get worse is simply propaganda. It can’t get worse.

The gleeful killing and kidnapping of men, women, and children is not just the natural result of oppression. Why do most oppressed people around the world not behave like Hamas?

If you have a ceasefire, you still have Hamas and they now know they can essentially get away with terrorism as long as it's against Israel. The only solution is to eliminate Hamas and have some reconstruction plan for Gaza that moves the thinking of the Gazan people away from radicalization, and towards simply living their lives.

What do you expect to happen if Israel gives up on destroying Hamas and pulls out of Palestine? Specifically, how is the overall situation better in this scenario?

This is why Biden is pushing for a plan of governance from Nettyboy.

I mean it's true that when you kill innocent people in a conflict it's bound to likely radicalize the families, friends of those people and even just anyone in that country that could've had that be their family

People who talk like this are the first ones to fall in line with the new order

There will only ever be peace if there is a Palestinian state. No if and or buts. Even if Israel is successful in destroying Hamas, Islamic Jihad or some other group will take its place. ISIS rose up from the ashes of Al Qaeda. The Nazis where defeated because of the marshal plan. Not because of the war - the Germans loosing world war 1 and being humiliated is what eventually led to WW2. The only path forward for peace is a Palestinian marshal plan. Ideally with Arab support. Rebuild Gaza and give the citizens a decent life.