If I follow your logic:

- Israel has to eradicate Hamas as its existence is too much of a threat ("there is no alternative")

- Hamas has embedded itself in the civilian population in Gaza so that they are indistinguishable

- therefore, Israel must eliminate all Gazawis to guarantee its security

So.. Will Israel kill millions to avenge the deaths of thousands?

You used the word indistinguishable, the other person used "deep". You are factually wrong since the ratio of Hamas to Gazan casualties does not represent random targeting even by the worst estimates. You also ignore the possibility of Hamas eventually giving up or some other diplomatic solution being reached.

We are a highly technical community, we should be able to debug the situation and find edge cases rather than trivialize it.

> You used to word indistinguishable, the other person used "deep". You are factually wrong since the ratio of Hamas to Gazan casualties does not represent random targeting even by the worst estimates.

True, I apologize for the misrepresentation; but reasoning is the same. At some point Hamas is too deeply ingrained in Gazawi society for Israel to perfectly excise it.

Hamas is the civilian government of Gaza and therefore includes firefighters, doctors, policemen, teachers. Israel does count them as members of Hamas and relies on statistical methods to select targets (ie you are on the same WhatsApp group as a member of Hamas, therefore you are likely to be a member, see the "Lavender" target selection program).

For a point of comparison, after Nazi Germany collapsed the Western allies had German civil servants fill questionnaires to assess their level of involvement; of 3.6 millions surveyed, just 1% were charged as "main culprits" (Hauptschuldige), whereas a third were designated as "followers" (Mitläufer), who basically contributed to the regime's crimes but nontheless got to keep their jobs after the war. I'd argue the allies were way too lenient on Germany, but the current Israeli approach (kill them all) is too extreme and will not work because its objectives are unrealistic.

> You also ignore the possibility of Hamas eventually giving up or some other diplomatic solution being reached.

I sure hope peace will be reached but Israel is waging a war without clear conditions of victory, leaving only total destruction of the enemy as their strategic objective. Think of the US trying to eliminate all the communist Vietnamese by compiling kill counts.

My impression is the war will end either when Gaza is drained of all of its population, or Israel tires of the war and reduces its stated objectives (probably this would involve a shift in government).

> We are a highly technical community, we should be able to debug the situation and find edge cases rather than trivialize it.

We can't solve everything with tech principles. Even in our field, probably the biggest thing separating a senior from a junior is humility and ability to connect with other people.

> For a point of comparison, after Nazi Germany collapsed the Western allies had German civil servants fill questionnaires to assess their level of involvement; of 3.6 millions surveyed, just 1% were charged as "main culprits" (Hauptschuldige), whereas a third were designated as "followers" (Mitläufer), who basically contributed to the regime's crimes but nontheless got to keep their jobs after the war. I'd argue the allies were way too lenient on Germany, but the current Israeli approach (kill them all) is too extreme and will not work because its objectives are unrealistic.

You're comparing the Allies' actions after WWII concluded with Israel's actions in the midst of conflict.

Are you forgetting the Dresden firebombings?

Are you really suggesting that Israel will continue to "kill them all" if Hamas surrenders? That's not even what Israel is doing now, although they have the military capability to do so if they wished.

I'm comparing the stated goal of Israel (dehamasification) with denazification.

The allies' strategic bombing campaign was intended to destroy industry and infrastructure and was not aimed at any political group in particular, whereas Israel can and does target precise buildings associated with Hamas (see the "Lavender" program that provides bombing targets).

> That's not even what Israel is doing now

There's no real way to know since Israel does not allow journalists in Gaza, but the international court of justice found there was sufficient possibility that an investigation should be carried out. Are you so much better informed than them that you can be sure?

During WW2, much rhetoric within and between the Allies was about eliminating the Nazi threat. Things change once there's a conclusion to a hot war and you can start evaluating people individually because they're not (hopefully) shooting back at you anymore.

The ICJ is empathetically captured by the suffering of innocent Gazans. Nevertheless, the suffering of innocent Gazans is not Israel's problem as Israel is trying to prosecute a war against Hamas, as long as Hamas is intentionally hiding behind and under civilians and civilian infrastructure, and as long as Israel isn't intentionally bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure without a justifiable military target behind or underneath them. The idea that the ICJ is going to second-guess every military risk-justification analysis of "we might hit this many civilians, or a hospital, or a mosque, to get a few known Hamas militants or a weapons cache" is absurd. I don't know if Israel is getting it right. I do know that the ICJ can't possibly get it right, because they will disbelieve everything Israel says, and believe most Hamas-influenced Gazan representations.

Israel could have carpet bombed Gaza without warning anyone to move, without doing roof knocking etc. But they did warn, and they got roasted by the international community for being so inhumane as to herd people out of their homes. Israel just can't win in the court of Palestine-sympathetic international opinion.

You asked whether Israel will kill millions to avenge thousands.

It doesn't seem as much like vengeance, as a refusal to continue to sit and do nothing while Hamas uses, or tries to use Israel for Qassam rocket target practice. (Iron dome and Iron Beam aren't perfect, and I'd expect low-flying IED drones if this conflict continues.)

The Gaza Health Ministry (which is basically Hamas propaganda) estimates 50k dead. How do you see the death toll getting into the millions, unless you think Israel is going to abandon its current tactics and start massive bombing campaigns in areas without warning people first, or unless the war goes on for decades?

> therefore, Israel must eliminate all Gazawis itself to guarantee its security

Guess why they're keeping the Palestinians on a run: to ransack the entire place for weapons caches or Gaza Metro entrances. And that's not eliminating the Gazan population, by the way.

I don't like it very much myself, but honestly, I do not see any other way of making sure Hamas does not rise up again.

> Will Israel kill millions to avenge the deaths of thousands?

Again: it's not about revenge any more, it's about preventing the repeat of 2006-2023 aka constant terror from Qassam rockets and other terrorism.

I wonder what would have happened if the Americans had taken the same approach with the Iraqis and the Afganis. As someone said, if your enemy is carrying a baby, you don't punch him through the baby, you punch around it.

The staggering number of civilian casualties, deaths and literal executions that have been inflicted in the name of peace must give the acting populace a pause. In the name of humanity. The place is just rubble now. How much more security could one country want? No one else has done something like this since the first world war.

> Guess why they're keeping the Palestinians on a run: to ransack the entire place for weapons caches or Gaza Metro entrances.

Let's say Israel finds all caches and tunnels, while not disturbing the population of Gaza (besides blockade, forced displacement and destruction of their homes), and then lets the population back in. Israel cannot tell Hamas militants from civilians, so some measure of Hamas will survive the event -- indeed, it might even reinforce anti-Israeli sentiment. What then would stop these leftover Hamas members from rebuilding whatever smuggling routes and weapon caches they had?

> Again: it's not about revenge any more, it's about preventing the repeat of 2006-2023 aka constant terror from Qassam rockets and other terrorism.

According to OCHAOPT Israel suffered 138 casualties on its own territory (ie excluding Gaza and the West Bank) from Palestinian attacks from 2008 to the eve of October 7. Would you say the current Israeli response (which itself inflicts terror) has been proportionate? Where would you place the threshold where it would no longer be an acceptable response?

> What then would stop these leftover Hamas members from rebuilding whatever smuggling routes and weapon caches they had?

Disbanding UNRWA, for one, and replacing it with UNHCR which is responsible for every other refugee situation in the world. It's time for the end of the special treatment of Palestinians, and that includes getting rid of inheriting the refugee status.

Following that, there must be strict accountability on all aids and their eventual disbursement in Gaza and the West Bank. No more diversion of construction materials to Gaza Metro, no more diversion of food aid and then re-selling it.

The final important thing to do is stop funding Hamas, and that one falls squarely on Israel, where Netanyahu has covertly funded Hamas to keep Fatah in check. When there's no money to pay for smuggled Qassam parts, there won't be any more smuggled Qassam parts.

> Would you say the current Israeli response (which itself inflicts terror) has been proportionate?

Yes. Israelis had to live 17 years in terror of rockets from Gaza. There's no way calling this acceptable in any form. Hamas and those backing it knew that eventually, Israeli patience would end one day and there would be hell to pay for it.

With all due respect, massacring civilians because “you have no other choice” is historically not an excuse holding up in courts.

Israel has enormous advantage over Palestinians and while I don’t mind them waging war with Hamas, indiscriminate bombing is not ok and never will be.

The word massacre is loaded and does not represent the typical reality in Gaza. Most estimates place the ratio of combatant to civilian casualties within the range for armed conflicts, nevermind guerilla warfare settings.

> With all due respect, massacring civilians because “you have no other choice” is historically not an excuse holding up in courts.

The thing is, under the rules of war, protected installations (such as residential areas or even hospitals) lose their protection if they are being abused by a warring party for military operations. Otherwise, it would be an open invitation for anyone to do what Hamas did - force the other party between either risking getting shot at or violating rules of war.

No one forced Hamas to embed themselves among civilians. They did that on their own.

> protected installations (such as residential areas or even hospitals) lose their protection if they are being abused by a warring party for military operations

You should maybe research where key millitary apparatus of the Israeli state is located. The headquarters of the IDF for example.

I am familiar with IDF headquarters, they are located in a clearly marked base, you can see it on Google Maps. This is similar to French army's Hexagone Balard in Paris or the Italian and Dutch armies HQ for example, from a cursory search, ask your local LLM for more.

Can you say the same about Hamas?

It's in a residential area. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. The whole area is heavily militarized, there are bases everywhere, citizens are automaticlaly enrolled into the IDF - every Israeli citizen in a certain age group can be considered a legitimate millitary target if you follow your logic.

The arguments you are using for attacking Palestinian infastructure and people are more than applicable to Israeli infastructure and population.

In international law people have the right to resist occupation through millitary means. In a small area under occupation then there is no means to create a millitary setup that matches what the 'good guys' consider to be legitimate.

If you want to be consistent then allow Palestinians to have a millitary, air space, airports, ports, navy, jets, nuclear weapons etc. And then you can fight them on equal terms.

Yes. Enable them in their effort to kill every jew

> No one forced Hamas to embed themselves among civilians.

Of cource Israel forced them to. "Force" means to use violence to let someone do certain things, i.e. if they don't do those certain things, they get violence. And looking at the records of the past decades, whatever Hamas (among everyone else in Gaza) did or didn't, Israel did violence to them. So whatever Hamas do, it's forced by Israel, since if they don't, Israel does violence to them.

On the other hand, no one is forcing Israel to bomb civilians right now. No one will do violence to them if they stop bombing.

Your one-sided definition of "force" is patently ridiculous on its face.

"Everything Hamas does is forced by Israel's actions, nothing Israel does is forced by Hamas"

As a belligerent occupying power, Israel has a legal obligation to protect the Palestinian population too, not just their own.

Slaughtering the Palestinian population to get at Hamas is a war crime no matter the excuses on tries to make to justify it.

Do rules of war apply here? Israel does not even consider Palestine to be a state.

All that has been said under this thread, including the sibling comment to this one, could be true at the same time. I see dissenting stances where the opinions are not.