Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

Israelis can potentially vote out Netanyahu in the next election. But how exactly would you propose to remove Hamas from power without a lot of civilian deaths? Hamas leadership prefers the current state of affairs because it has made them wealthy by taxing the populace and embezzling foreign aid. They have no incentive to agree to a peace deal or allow new multiparty elections. There doesn't appear to be any realistic solution short of a massive, forceful intervention by a neutral foreign coalition.

View on HN

It's a big problem, indeed. Prior to October 7, a large majority of Gazans supported having the PA take over control in Gaza. It's worth considering to what extent waning support and credibility with their own population was a motivation for Gaza in the attacks, given being seen to do something and goading Israel into making themselves be seen by the Gazan population as an obvious villain plays straight into Hamas' hands.

The biggest blow Israel could deal to Hamas would probably be to do the minimum to contain them, provide the PA with access and means, and let the PA deal with it with guarantees of meaningful concessions if/when the PA succeeds in meeting certain targets (that ought to carefully not mention Hamas, but mention things like demonstrating a functioning justice system and ability to secure the borders). To your point of a "neutral" foreign coalition, if granted access by Israel, the PA would potentially be in a position where it could ask for international assistance and try to frame it as allies coming to the aid of the population rather than an attack on Palestine.

But that would also first take an Israeli government that is serious about peace and negotiating concessions, and frankly the current Israeli government seems as caught up in seeing the continuation of the conflict as essential to their own power as Hamas.

In the meantime there's a real danger this will stoke up more radicalism not just in Gaza but in the West Bank as well.

>There doesn't appear to be any realistic solution short of a massive, forceful intervention by a neutral foreign coalition.

Has such a thing ever happened in history? I don't think it has, so it seems like fantasy. No one really seems interested in risking their or their children's lives policing some other group of people elsewhere in the world if they don't have some geopolitical interest in it.

> But how exactly would you propose to remove Hamas from power without a lot of civilian deaths?

Did you consider that massive civilian death could play into Hamas' hand? One of the insurgency techniques, where the action causes overreaction to amplify support ("action-reaction-revolution").

What happens in Palestine (a territory of the state of Israel plus the territories under the occupation) is called insurgency. To end the insurgency you can either withdraw, exterminate the insurgent population and/or convince the population to not support the insurgent.

Insurgency is always a fight for the legitimacy. The problem with this conflict is the fight for legitimacy happens not only between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, but also within these parties. Israel has official stance on supporting two state solution and un-official de-facto single state goal. Palestinians have Hamas, PLO, Islamic Jihad etc.

Is there any way Israel could undermine Hamas with prosperity? Make the lives of palestinians better, give back settlements, etc? Get average palestinians to think "wtf who are these terrorist asshats, Israel is a good neighbor."

Before the Sharon/Netanyahu/extremist takeover, Israel was serious about peace. But in the last two decades, Netanyahu has seen Hamas as an asset to undermine the PA, block moderates, and eliminate the 2 state option [1,2].

Israel has killed Hamas leaders who wanted to work towards peace [3]: >> After Israel assassinated Jabari, Reuven Pedatzur, a military analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reported: >> Our decision makers, including the defense minister and perhaps also Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, knew about Jabari’s role in advancing a permanent cease-fire agreement. … Thus the decision to kill Jabari shows that our decision makers decided a cease-fire would be undesirable for Israel at this time, and that attacking Hamas would be preferable.

An Israeli government that was actually interested in peace could halt and reverse the settlements in the West Bank, end the apartheid (e.g. military vs civilian courts for Palestinians, different class of citizenships, travel restrictions, prevention from visting Jerusalem's holy sites, etc.), the blockade of Gaza, etc. Treating Palestinians as humans (and not propping up Hamas) would likely go a long way towards undermining Hamas. Most Palestinians already didn't like Hamas - 70% wanted the PA in July 2023 according to the Washington Institute.

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up... [2] https://theintercept.com/2023/10/14/hamas-israel-palestinian... [3] https://theintercept.com/2023/11/17/hillary-clinton-hamas-is...

Israel should stop expanding settlements. Those only make a final peace deal harder to achieve. But that won't solve the Hamas problem. Hamas leaders don't care what average Gazans think nor will they voluntarily give up power. Prosperous Gazans already have to pay Hamas protection money, so more prosperity in Gaza means more resources flowing to Hamas to buy weapons.

The problem is that there is no "Israel should or shouldn't do" - countries don't have agency like that, their governments do. And those currently in power intentionally wanted to make a peace deal harder to achieve, because they don't want peace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com