Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
Even if Israel did that it would not lead to peace. It certainly wouldn't lead to Palestinians rounding up Hamas. It would almost certainly lead to Hamas collecting the dropped money with little or none going to Palestinians and most or all going to Hamas leaders. Anyone that tried to stop them would likely be killed. The time of winning Hearts and Minds is unfortunately long gone (not that Israel ever really made a sustained effort). It is really sad but the reality is the only solution is a military one at this stage. Hopefully, Israel pulls back from the bombing and focusses on a precision attack. It will mean more Israeli casualties in the short-term but likely less in the long-term.
|
It might not lead to peace, but it stands just about as good a chance of leading to peace as the current strategy does.
I think we just have to dispel these notions that there is “no choice” or that everything being done is the only thing that
could be done. That we should be so sure different ideas, as idealistic or impossible as they might be (Iron said as much), wouldn’t have the desired result when it’s not like the current strategy or anything in recent history is achieving that result either.
Like, if this isn’t leading to peace, why do we care if the alternative doesn’t? If Israel has already funnelled money to Hamas through their current strategy, why is money ending up with Hamas a counterpoint to trying a different strategy?
Worst case scenario, nothing changes. Best case scenario, you make in-roads and change perceptions within the Palestinian population that heavily outnumbers the members of Hamas. You make their propaganda less believable, and people start to believe they need terror groups like Hamas to lift Israel’s heel off of them less.
What’s the best case scenario with the current strategy of collective punishment?