The oikophobia concept is fasinating and underused in foreign policy debates. We often forget that critiquing American power isn't the same as advocating for a world without it. The alternaties are genuinely worse, even if acknowleging that feels uncomfortable for some.
One thing that confuses me about how Gaza is discussed here (and generally) is that following October 7 there was a general consensus that it was reasonable for Israel to fight Hamas, that 'Gaza not controlled by Hamas' was an acceptable war aim for Israel.
Over time that consensus evaporated, as the cost in civilian lives of Israel's pursuit of the goal became clear. But wasn't it obvious from the beginning that it would play out in this fashion? Or was there an idea that Israel had the arrows Thucydides jokes about, arrows that "would be worth a great deal if they could pick out brave men from cowards" (or in this context, combatants from civilians)?
But what if the Biden administration had declined to support the war in the first place, what if Biden had told Netanyahu, "No, you don't get to do this, it's going to be too ugly, negotiate to get the hostages back, or write them off as dead."
Would SH and MD argue that this would have been the correct approach from the beginning?
In short, maybe it makes more sense to criticize the Biden administration for approving of the war at all, than for the fact that it dragged on so long.
But Israel did have a right to respond militarily against Hamas. It just didn't have the right to do so, as even Biden said, in an "indiscriminate" and "over the top" way that defied even minimal expectations of proportionality. It was not inevitable that this was going to be as ugly as it was, that part was something the US had some control of and it chose not to use its leverage. That would have been much easier than using our leverage to prevent the war in the first place, which would have been a nonstarter domestically and in Israel, considering that the Israeli public was in full revenge mode.
I guess what I am curious about is -- since you believe Israel had a right to respond militarily -- what in your view would have been an appropriate objective for their response?
It can't have been 'defeating Hamas' since that would have entailed what you characterize as indiscriminate killing of civilians, and fair enough.
But I can only think of two other possible military aims for Israel: (i) revenge (which isn't even really a military aim, it's more of a domestic politics aim) and (ii) doing enough damage to Gaza that Hamas's capability to make another attack like Oct. 7 is degraded for the foreseeable future.
I don’t understood what ‘proportionality’ means in this context, is it like there was an appropriate number of combatant or civilian casualties, beyond which it would be the ‘right’ moment to call it quits and do a prisoner exchange?
Either Israel was going to defeat Hamas or not. Maybe that goal was unattainable from the outset. But anyone who thought it could be done without huge numbers of civilians killed seems to me not to have been thinking very clearly? (Note, I’m the last person to suspect Biden of clear thinking so I wouldn’t put much value on his words.)
The oikophobia concept is fasinating and underused in foreign policy debates. We often forget that critiquing American power isn't the same as advocating for a world without it. The alternaties are genuinely worse, even if acknowleging that feels uncomfortable for some.
One thing that confuses me about how Gaza is discussed here (and generally) is that following October 7 there was a general consensus that it was reasonable for Israel to fight Hamas, that 'Gaza not controlled by Hamas' was an acceptable war aim for Israel.
Over time that consensus evaporated, as the cost in civilian lives of Israel's pursuit of the goal became clear. But wasn't it obvious from the beginning that it would play out in this fashion? Or was there an idea that Israel had the arrows Thucydides jokes about, arrows that "would be worth a great deal if they could pick out brave men from cowards" (or in this context, combatants from civilians)?
But what if the Biden administration had declined to support the war in the first place, what if Biden had told Netanyahu, "No, you don't get to do this, it's going to be too ugly, negotiate to get the hostages back, or write them off as dead."
Would SH and MD argue that this would have been the correct approach from the beginning?
In short, maybe it makes more sense to criticize the Biden administration for approving of the war at all, than for the fact that it dragged on so long.
But Israel did have a right to respond militarily against Hamas. It just didn't have the right to do so, as even Biden said, in an "indiscriminate" and "over the top" way that defied even minimal expectations of proportionality. It was not inevitable that this was going to be as ugly as it was, that part was something the US had some control of and it chose not to use its leverage. That would have been much easier than using our leverage to prevent the war in the first place, which would have been a nonstarter domestically and in Israel, considering that the Israeli public was in full revenge mode.
I guess what I am curious about is -- since you believe Israel had a right to respond militarily -- what in your view would have been an appropriate objective for their response?
It can't have been 'defeating Hamas' since that would have entailed what you characterize as indiscriminate killing of civilians, and fair enough.
But I can only think of two other possible military aims for Israel: (i) revenge (which isn't even really a military aim, it's more of a domestic politics aim) and (ii) doing enough damage to Gaza that Hamas's capability to make another attack like Oct. 7 is degraded for the foreseeable future.
Is it goal (ii) that you would support?
I don’t understood what ‘proportionality’ means in this context, is it like there was an appropriate number of combatant or civilian casualties, beyond which it would be the ‘right’ moment to call it quits and do a prisoner exchange?
Either Israel was going to defeat Hamas or not. Maybe that goal was unattainable from the outset. But anyone who thought it could be done without huge numbers of civilians killed seems to me not to have been thinking very clearly? (Note, I’m the last person to suspect Biden of clear thinking so I wouldn’t put much value on his words.)