Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas' or the US dropping nukes in WW2 instead of bombing the Japanese Emperor. This is decent as far as wars go.
1) Israel didn't "have" to raze anything, they chose to.
2) "Beat Hamas" is an excuse for Israel to do what it wants, which is to raze entire cities.
> I prefer assassinations of leaders in wars over deaths of soldiers and especially civilians.
My guess: All of those leaders are responsible for more innocent civilian deaths in each conflict than Khamenei's entire reign.
To me, I am very conflicted about the assassination of Khamenei. Yeah, he did a bunch of bad stuff and was very destabilising in the region, but I need to draw the line at assassination. It was unnecessary. It is a slippery slope.
Except the first one, because the goal of that war was killing the civilians. They could have assassinated Hamas leaders just as easily, but then there would be no reason to bomb all those hospitals and children.
Trouble is, higher-ups are easily replaceable, and the rank-and-file True Believers may be even more willing to follow orders in the name of a dead tyrant than a living one.
Or not. Sic semper tyrannis. Best wishes to the people of Iran.
They didn't, they just had to stop funding them, as Hamas has been funded by Israel.
> In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas." He continued saying "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."
But "the Jews .. uhm, I mean Israel .. had it coming and they did it to themselves" is always a favorite, isn't it?
BTW, here's 120 Million funneled through te UN, which has dependent organizations (UNRWA) with ties to Hamas https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/news-...
https://unwatch.org/new-un-watch-report-exposes-hamas-takeov...
But hey, that's okay, because Israel is the problem, right?
The assumption in Israel was that it was beneficial to have Hamas retain something to lose, and not starve them dry outright. Of course that didn't pan out well, given what Hamas did in October 7th.
But saying Hamas was funded by Israel is an outright lie, and the irony it comes from the same people who blame Israel for not letting supplies into Gaza during war. So no matter if Israel does or does not, it's always to blame simply by being.
Israel did in fact do that. In fact there were several months of Israel not allowing any food or supplies whatsoever into Gaza. That was about a year ago. (It's possible Israel may have been supplying rival groups unfriendly to Hamas with food/supplies/weapons in secret, but all regular humanitarian aid was shut off.)