My solution, if I was in charge of Israel, would simply be to NOT order the army to destroy most of Gaza and kill tens of thousands of people, and to instead just focus on preventing incursions into Israel. I would also focus on stopping Hamas missiles by using the hugely effective anti-missile system that, conveniently, already exists.
I realise that this is not a perfect solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. It has many flaws in the long term and ignores a bunch of pressing issues. But it does have the benefit of not killing tens of thousands of people, and in that way is a hell of a lot better than the bloodthirsty rampage currently happening.
sooo prolong the problem so that when you are dead, your descendants have to deal with it and you will be free of the responsibility?
Do we forgive oct 7? what precedent would it set for other groups? that you can just go kill and rape people and there will be no response?
Self-defense is supposed to be proportional. If you're killing 30x as many people in "response", and most of them weren't in any way involved in the original attack, that's not justifiable.
No? In india 2019, there was a terrorist attack where the jihadist organisation jaish-e-mohammad blew up a bus carrying soldiers via ramming a car filled with IEDs into the bus killing 40 people.
In response, india did the balakot airstrikes, killing ~300 terrorists in a training camp [identified via the number of phones that were working in the area that was bombed.]
300 is clearly a bigger number than 40, so was the attack wrong? india used it as an excuse to kill more people than what should be considered a good proportional response!
Since that attack[and other operations], JeM and others became fairly inactive and terrorist attacks have gone down by an insane number, what used to be a daily occurrence and a reason to not attend local festival celebrations due to threat of bombs is now a rarity.
Proportionality has nothing to do with defence. Why on earth would u kill only a few terrorists as a response? Israels actions are fucked up but proportionality does not apply to defence. If a state is retaliating to a threat, why would it leave the threat alive, which would only cost lives of more of its people?
Israel's airstrike policy is bad and roof knocking is not enough, the way israel conducts war is wrong and there needs to be intervention that is able to chain israel while eliminating hamas, demilitarising palestinian jihadist groups and stabilising the region.
But proportionality has nothing to do with defence.
you can be disproportional if that means the threat ceases to exist.
> to instead just focus on preventing incursions into Israel.
So after Hamas invaded Israel, massacred over a thousand civilians (and they don't have the "collateral damage" excuse they just gruesomely raped and murdered people because they were apparently subhuman...) and kidnapped hundreds of others, Israel should have just said "aw-shucks.. well they won't get us next time". Really?
That would have actually been worse than the US government doing nothing after 9/11 besides introducing stricter TSA checks.
Now one might legitimately argue whether the reactions in either were necessarily that effective. But not doing anything would have been insanely absurd. You just can't except any non entirely dysfunctional government to behave that way.
It's a horrible situation.. but any suggestion or proposed alternative that wouldn't result in the destruction or significant weakening of Hamas is just not particularly useful (long-term at least).
I realise that this is not a perfect solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. It has many flaws in the long term and ignores a bunch of pressing issues. But it does have the benefit of not killing tens of thousands of people, and in that way is a hell of a lot better than the bloodthirsty rampage currently happening.