It's a straightforward conclusion from research on the dynamics of grievance-fueled violence. Basically, unlike Nazi Germany, the strength of Hamas is proportional to how many aggrieved civilians there are. Every airstrike that kills one fighter creates two more down the road, out of the aggrieved survivors. I'm pretty sure Hamas understood this and launched the Oct 7th attack with the goal of provoking the harshest possible reaction, and Israel played right into their hands.

Their strength in armaments almost doesn't matter; even if every tunnel is collapsed and every rocket launch site obliterated, even if a ceasefire is reached and the hostages returned, even if Hamas leadership capitulates, you still end up with two million angry people swearing revenge for the injustices they've suffered.

There are two stable equilibria that this can settle into: no grievances, or no surviving civilians. I think the former is the only hope although Israel is making all the wrong moves. I am sure there are right-wing hardliners who would push for the ethnic cleansing route, but most Israelis are peace-minded moderates who would never forgive that option, and so I really think that result would eventually collapse the state of Israel from the inside out, doing more damage than any Hamas rockets ever could.

The Nazis' rise to power was fueled by German grievances, in particular, with their opponents of long-standing, the French. How is it that research on the dynamics of grievance-fueled violence would not apply to Nazi Germany and lead to the same conclusion, that there are two stable equilibria that World War Two could have settled into: no grievances, or no surviving civilians?

The only path to a sustainable peace is an unconditional surrender, and the equivalent of Nurenberg trials for the genocidal regime in Tel Aviv.