I will start of by saying, this is a great response and a great post. So thank you for that. I also largely agree with everything you are saying here, with a few exceptions.
I agree - another "Hamas" will replace the current one, that is inevitable. The strategy of "trimming the grass" unsurprisingly failed miserably. Israel took their eye of the situation and wound up in a security situation that allowed Hamas to complete the October7th attacks. It was almost inevitable that something like that would happen - and Hamas probably went a little further than they had planned. This is also why I don't think Netanyahu just stops because Sinwar is dead, and as long as he can hold the threat of "Hamas" as a rallying-banner, I don't think the west gets involved to the point they should to help Gazans.
I mostly agree. Netanyahu is unquestionably the biggest obstacle to peace. There was a proposal on the table where Hamas leadership was exiled from Gaza, but that was - rather naturally - rejected as fantasy. Unfortunately, I think that is what has to happen for Netanyahu to stop. I don't see a situation where an emboldened Netanyahu stops without total victory in some shape or form. "Hamas" as an organization is probably done. It feels like it's just a question of how long does the war have to last for him to get what he wants at this point.
I think this is the point where we mostly differ actually. Because I agree it wouldn't change Isreal's colonization policy, but it would give breathing room for political opportunities and dissenting voices. The US was very close in getting the Saudis involved in negotiations for Palestinian independence in 2023 - that project was basically torpedoed by the aftermath of October 7th, and will take a long time to rebuild. I think it was the best plan for peace we have seen in 20 years, but of course it would have brought the Saudis closer to Israel too - which the Iranians aren't too keen on. Before this conflict, the "Biden policy (not actually his, but w/e)" to Palestine was considered a possible pathway to a two-state solution. Now however, after October 7th his handling of the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster.
In an effort to avoid igniting the region and being forced into a war with Iran he has given far too much support to Netanyahu in hopes that this would somehow make Netanyahu listen to calls for restraints. It was a strategy a lot of foreign policy experts and many of his own advisors were strongly against. I have no idea why he thought that would work - especially not in an election year with Trump breathing down his neck. He painted himself into a corner, and now he can't make any moves because Israel are basically threatening him with a war against Iran.
I get that surrender is "meaningless", I don't necessarily disagree in a larger strategic sense, but I think we are at a point where the needs of the population right now is more important. The number one priority right now should be to end the conflict so that Gaza can receive humanitarian aid. It won't "solve" anything, that isn't the point either, but when that happens a handful of political opportunities will open up - and some of them will be taken. A huge issue when dealing with extremism - in all forms - is that extremists tend to immanentize the eschaton. The idea that nothing matters other than the ultimate goal, it is a common theme in both jewish and islamic extremism. The idea that we are on a set path towards an inevitable result. Jurgensmeyer writes extensively about this in "Terror in the mind of God". The problem is, that it isn't true. Change and progress can happen, but it always next to impossible to see it while in the midst of conflict and unfortunately extremists tend to be born in conflict.
Last edited:
