Sure. They did that when they killed Sinwar. After that, they could have just continued to Mossad individual leaders in Hamas.
> Israel losing the media war was probably somewhat inevitable, the extreme disparity between worldwide Muslim population sizes and Jewish population sizes being a big factor
Not relevant to America.
Killing one enemy leader is insufficient to re-establish deterrence, with how severe the October 7 attacks were I don't think Israel can possibly accept any outcome that doesn't effectively remove Hamas from power in Gaza.
> Not relevant to America.
It still has some effect in America, but less so than other parts of the world.
They'd killed more than one at that point. Like, Hezbollah got the message pretty clearly.
However Hamas has yet to capitulate/surrender, Israel basically has no choice but to finish Hamas off if they won't surrender, not doing so would significantly weaken their deterrence capabilities and allow Hamas to rebuild. There are potential consequences to ceasefire agreements where an enemies leadership retains power[0] historically.
> Like, Hezbollah got the message pretty clearly.
They eventually got the message after Israel essentially eliminated the entirety of their leadership chart multiple levels deep and crushed Hezbollah's will to fight, the ceasefire Hezbollah eventually agreed to was effectively a surrender agreement.
Sure. Doesn't require starving civilians.
> after Israel essentially eliminated the entirety of their leadership chart multiple levels deep
Yeah. Do this.
Sure, and I don't see credible evidence that they are[0]. Just more of the same false narratives pushed by the all too common antisemitic UN officials[1].
[0] https://unwatch.org/hillel-neuer-on-sky-news-fabricated-u-n-...
[1] https://unwatch.org/legal-analysis-of-un-food-rapporteur-mic...
An NGO "Agence France-Presse has described...as 'a lobby group with strong ties to Israel'" [1] is not a credible source for disputing two separate groups at the UN, the IPF and--at this point--more than a few independent investigations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch#cite_note-GazaAFP-5
This doesn't make the information they are putting out false, the UN bias against Israel is well documented by many sources.
It makes it unreliable. If you’re claiming the IPC is an unreliable source, you need a reliable source to back you up on that. (And neither article actually cites any data that would undermine the IPC’s case.)
I’m genuinely open to being convinced. Another comment raised the issue of insufficient CDRs for IPC 5 status, which may or may not be relevant. But these UN Watch interviews are rally the base stuff, not argument.
Specifically pages 10-14 for an intermediate summary, or pages 29-30 for a shorter one, with chapter 1 providing the full details.
Curious to hear your thoughts if any
I think the most detailed rebuttal to the recent IPC claims is this one[0] backed by the COGAT[1] published aid data. There are other responses to prior IPC reports that go into more methodological details[2] as well. The impression I get overall is that the IPC is largely just cherry picking incomplete data to create a false narrative[3]. IPC forecasts also basically never end up being accurate historically either.
[0] https://govextra.gov.il/media/orumgksl/politics-disguised-as...
[1] https://gaza-aid-data.gov.il/main/#AidData
[2] https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/transparency-and-m...
[3] https://govextra.gov.il/media/sftjdsg2/cogat-humanitarian-ef...
This isn't necessary! Plenty of peoples have overcome cycles of revenge. There isn't something inherent to Israelis and Gazans that requires they metabolise past trauma into future violence.
Israel, the stronger entity, should've been the one to abstain first and attempt to understand and forgive, instead they kept building illegal settlements and driving more and more people out there homes. Israel made sure the embers stayed hot, and I can't think of any reason for that aside from hoping those hot embers produce a flame that justifies genocide and completely eradicating the Palestinian population.
The current leaders have largely been hell-bent on destroying Israel already...
There is no shortage of articles on the internet detailing how Israel is the one responsible for propping up Hamas.
And the current leaders of Iran are the fruits of what the USA/CIA sowed by toppling a popular democracy and replacing it with a despotic monarchy.
When have Palestinians had leaders that have been truly interested in peace?
> There is no shortage of articles on the internet detailing how Israel is the one responsible for propping up Hamas.
There's a lot more nuance to this issue as allowing funds to be transferred by Qatar was to some degree an attempt at improving the lives of Palestinians in Gaza.
> And the current leaders of Iran are the fruits of what the USA/CIA sowed by toppling a popular democracy and replacing it with a despotic monarchy.
I think you're underplaying the impact of radical Islam here.