What would you suggest Israel do instead, given the ongoing threat Hamas poses?
Whatever the solution, or at least, path forward, is, it is never 'more aggression', especially from a position of power.
Things were looking optimistic during the Oslo talks, I don't see a reason why we can't get back to that state of affairs with enough steady work over a 30-year timeframe.
The alternative, an invasion, is also a multi-decade investment, by the way. You can't just remove Hamas and not occupy for decades if you don't want another Hamas to emerge.
I want the US to force their hand to stop the invasion. Then Netanyahu's reckoning will come with the Israeli population. Likud needs this invasion to happen to distract the population from accountability. But if the US forces them to not invade, that reckoning can come sooner.
> What happens if Israel does what you say but are still suffering attacks?
That's where the DMZ and continued investment in missile defense comes in. Heck, get some security assurances from the US as part of a ceasefire agreement with Hamas. There should be creative solutions.
You know what I mean. I am obviously not claiming that a DMZ can be perfectly impenetrable. I'm talking about one that's actually manned, and one that is significantly better than what is currently in place, to the point that a repeat attack is sufficiently unrealistic.
> The US can't force anything either.
Yes they can. Israel relies on them for their security umbrella and trade relationships. US has an extreme amount of leverage, if only it would use it.
That didn't work for Ukraine.
Even ignoring cost, a few percent of rockets get through, and the technological gap is narrowing thanks to Iran. I think the damage could drastically increase as Hamas starts using faster rockets and guidance systems.
Hamas has basically won because (IMO) the Gaza strip is nigh untakable without turning it into a smoldering crater with civilian blood.