The point is that it’s possible for relations to improve over time even when previous generations were bitter enemies. There are plenty of other examples in history apart from WW2.

Investing heavily in Palestine is likely Israel’s cheapest option for stability in the long term. They certainly aren’t going to bomb their way to stability.

If they had gone after Hamas leadership specifically with targeted operations while increasing humanitarian aid, rather than terrorizing the entire population of Gaza, they would have had the world and likely a decent percentage of Palestinians on their side. Instead they have utterly and completely botched it and put themselves in a terrible situation strategically.

> Investing heavily in Palestine is likely Israel’s cheapest option for stability in the long term. They certainly aren’t going to bomb their way to stability.

Even that is non trivial. Money going into Gaza first goes through Hamas. After buying arms and building expensive tunnels, and paying its men, the leftovers go to the rest of the population.

> gone after Hamas leadership specifically with targeted operations while increasing humanitarian aid, rather than terrorizing the entire population of Gaza

The aid was going first to fighters, then to stockpiles, then to the people. To the extent it could be traded for weapons it was. Now we’re seeing allegations UNRWA employees participated in the October 7th attacks [1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/un-aid-i...

So you're telling me they have an easy way to bait Hamas into exposing themselves by using humanitarian aid as a honey pot?

If the humanitarian aid organisations themselves are Hamas, then you could just arrest them.

They're in a different territory that has no Israeli presence. That's like saying the US could've just arrested the members of ISIS..

This myth that Hamas can be destroyed and that if they are, everything will be alright, is completely disproven by the fact that there is no Hamas in the West Bank and Israeli extremists continue to perpetrate crimes there.

There's also the myth that settlers are responsible for all Palestinian grievances. There are no settlers in Gaza since 2005.

Gaza has been effectively under blockade since then too. Maybe that's a contributing factor? Or maybe there are other common factors?

Hamas is trying to kill as many Israelis as it can, maybe that's a contributing factor to the blockade.

Where are you getting the idea that tbere is no Hamas in the West Bank? There are very much Hamas militants there that would love nothing more than to commit another Oct. 7th.

With the support of IDF collaboration (and funding from private US organizations). Downvoters don’t like the facts I guess.

Ethnically cleansing a population is not right or moral in any case whatsoever.

Hamas's stated aim and goal is to destroy Israel and ethnically cleanse Palestine of the jews "from the river to the sea".

When somebody tells you they want to destroy you, over and over for years, and then builds up terror factories and uses it to intentionally target women, children and elderly civilians on Oct 7, maybe -- just maybe, Israel has no choice other than to deal with Hamas as they are.

It’s their prime minister who has no choice. As soon as war ends, he is out.

Oct events could have been prevented by military presence at the border.

<< Israel has no choice other than to deal with Hamas as they are.

Maybe. Recent drone strike in Lebanon suggests that Israel is rather capable to strike surgically if it is so desires. In Gaza, it does not appear to strike surgically suggesting it made that choice for a reason.

There is always a choice and few would fault just plain self-defense. Based on the existing rubble, current situation is closer to overkill, which does not win Israel support.

Something to consider.

Hamas are people who kidnap babies and hold them hostage. Something to consider.

> Germany and Japan were conquered and unconditionally surrendered

Israel has already done that to Palestine, many decades ago, but they failed to do anything like the Marshall Plan to invest in the occupied lands and create a lasting peace.

If we hope to learn from WW2, we should consider the postwar history of Eastern Europe. Like Israel, the Soviets also failed to invest in the lands they occupied, instead trying to suppress rebellions with violence. Now all of those nations are Russia's enemies.

>Like Israel, the Soviets also failed to invest in the lands they occupied

Don't know about Israel, but you definitely know nothing about the Soviets.

Please omit swipes from your comments here, as the guidelines ask. If you know more than someone else, you're welcome to provide correct information, but please don't post putdowns.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Soviets also failed to invest in the lands they occupied

Soviets occupied lands more developed than them. They did not fail to invest, they looted the lands, for example the Uranium from Czechoslovakia [1].

[1] https://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-historiques-de-l-electr...

There are two ways to get peace. One is for one side to completely dominate the other at massive cost, and with risk of blowback even after domination. The other is for cooler heads to prevail. Plenty of examples from history of both. And supposedly we had, as a modern world, decided that we prefer the latter path to peace over the former. Hence the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, etc.