Post Oslo the Palestinians have shown themselves to be in need of a entirely new society. No more half-measures. Nanjing level atrocities require Meetinghouse responses. They can pick through the rubble and select new leadership after they've enjoyed the harvest they have sown.
I would tend to go for COA-C, with this possible modification. The exile of Gazans is done after Gaza is leveled. It must be imprinted on the survivors’ psyche, otherwise they might begin to think that, with a bit more planning and barbarism, they could win next time.
The usual suspects of the International Community are already popping up with call for a cease fire. Israel is a "win fast or lose" force, the call up of the reserves and declaration of war is a testament to that as it cripples the nation economically while in effect.
I'll cliff dive off the "how did this happen" discussion. Hypothesis:
The IDF isn't anything like what we (and the Israelis) remember. As our U.S. citizen military has degraded in quantity and quality as our social fabric unravels, perhaps the IDF has degraded as well. The simultaneous breaching of the wall in so many places and the lack of any response for five plus hours is indicative of a failure in command structure (everyone's on leave on the fifty year anniversary of Yom Kippur) or incompetence (can't rule out both, so I won't). Call it Occam's razor, perhaps this Hamas hostage grab experienced "catastrophic success" with the lack of response, which allowed the true nature of the scorpion in the fable to come out, and a cascading series of horrific killings and rapes resulted. Any other explanations for how this happened have an awful lot of unexplainable anomalies for them to happen. But those are already being debunked as conspiracy theories, so we don't need to waste any time on them...(-;
The best option by far is option COA-C CARTHAGE. Here is why: Muslims tend to equate survival with victory, and any lesser action will be seen as a sign of weakness. Having said that:
Some of your base assumptions are too optimistic.
1. US support is not likely to last longer than 90 days, if that. Almost all democrats, progressives, leftists and all American Muslims are pro Hamas and do not consider Israel a legitimate state.
2. I fully expect Palestinians in the West Bank and Hezbollah to join the fighting on behalf of Hamas.
3. Other Arabs regard Palestinians as expendable cannon fodder. No Arab country will open their borders voluntarily. At best, Palestinians would have to be loaded on Western ships and taken to a country without a functioning government (Somalia? South Sudan?)
Having said that, if Israel can seize the border area with Egypt, clear out the Gazans in that immediate area, then clamp a total land, air and sea blockade for the next 60 days, that should work well enough, coupled with round-the-clock bombardment. Rather than risk street to street fighting with millions of combatants a la Stalingrad, better by far to let General Hunger and General Pestilence lead the attack. Israel, after all, has nothing to lose. Tge Palestinians and their allies/supporters cannot hatexthem any more than they already do.
How realistic is "Gazan civilians will be allowed to leave for other Arabic nations?" Specifically the part about other Arabic nations accepting them. My understanding was that they won't accept them *now*, so how do we get Egypt or whomever to do it as part of the COA?
Sometimes, even if you pride yourself on your Western Liberal (old meaning, not new) ideals, you still have to drop the nuke. Not saying to literally use nukes, but COA-C is still too soft for what the situation warrants, and what the survival of the current Israeli government will require.
I don't know how one could ultimately decapitate Hamas without creating opportunities for other failed Palestinian radicals and their international allies. A population in place in Gaza will always be a fixed constituency that will draw worse elements and outside agitators. It's not explicitly clear that Gaza isn't quite Israel and might then properly be made Israel so long as Gaza is Gaza (or Palestine). So I rather lean to some plan between B and C. How do you make the place into a national park - some place sparsely populated like South Dakota?
On the one hand, a forced and subsidized relocation project takes some burden off Israel who would obviously keep tight track of everyone being paid - but where do they go? If they go into Israel, that implies a two-tiered citizenship. If they go elsewhere, how would they be accepted? If they go elsewhere than Israel, they would be subsumed under governments that may or may not be capable of derailing Iran's meddling. I guess I need to understand the baseline of how Israel knows who is who inside Gaza. What is their status as residents of Israel, and by what provision are they not subject to the direct policing by domestic authorities of Israel?
I wish I could have saved you some time with your first couple of drafts. Coming from the perspective as a fellow tribe member there was never going to be any plan to didn't involve a complete de-hamasification of Gaza. Whether that will include the majority of the civilian population of Gaza is unfortunately in the hands of Hamas as well. Given their track record caring for their population's well being, the odds are not good.
Do to Gaza what the United States did to urban Japan. "Bomb them back into the Stone Age" as General Curtis LeMay said. Leave no structure standing and depopulate the strip. Once devastated, leave it as a reminder to terrorists.
The more hellish a War, the shorter, the fewer lives lost, and the longer the peace. Civil War US Genersl Sherman.
With BALLS (does Biden & Netanyu have them?) the US knows how to Gurantee a lasting Peacce.
It is not a product of "cease fires" but of Unconditional Surrender.
Post Oslo the Palestinians have shown themselves to be in need of a entirely new society. No more half-measures. Nanjing level atrocities require Meetinghouse responses. They can pick through the rubble and select new leadership after they've enjoyed the harvest they have sown.
I would tend to go for COA-C, with this possible modification. The exile of Gazans is done after Gaza is leveled. It must be imprinted on the survivors’ psyche, otherwise they might begin to think that, with a bit more planning and barbarism, they could win next time.
I want to say that was loaded with brevity but say Short & Sweet instead. COA-C is my vote. .
The usual suspects of the International Community are already popping up with call for a cease fire. Israel is a "win fast or lose" force, the call up of the reserves and declaration of war is a testament to that as it cripples the nation economically while in effect.
I'll cliff dive off the "how did this happen" discussion. Hypothesis:
The IDF isn't anything like what we (and the Israelis) remember. As our U.S. citizen military has degraded in quantity and quality as our social fabric unravels, perhaps the IDF has degraded as well. The simultaneous breaching of the wall in so many places and the lack of any response for five plus hours is indicative of a failure in command structure (everyone's on leave on the fifty year anniversary of Yom Kippur) or incompetence (can't rule out both, so I won't). Call it Occam's razor, perhaps this Hamas hostage grab experienced "catastrophic success" with the lack of response, which allowed the true nature of the scorpion in the fable to come out, and a cascading series of horrific killings and rapes resulted. Any other explanations for how this happened have an awful lot of unexplainable anomalies for them to happen. But those are already being debunked as conspiracy theories, so we don't need to waste any time on them...(-;
Apparently there is at least warnings in the North to SIP for 72 hours. I believe this might change the planning/ability for option C.
Hamas delenda est
The best option by far is option COA-C CARTHAGE. Here is why: Muslims tend to equate survival with victory, and any lesser action will be seen as a sign of weakness. Having said that:
Some of your base assumptions are too optimistic.
1. US support is not likely to last longer than 90 days, if that. Almost all democrats, progressives, leftists and all American Muslims are pro Hamas and do not consider Israel a legitimate state.
2. I fully expect Palestinians in the West Bank and Hezbollah to join the fighting on behalf of Hamas.
3. Other Arabs regard Palestinians as expendable cannon fodder. No Arab country will open their borders voluntarily. At best, Palestinians would have to be loaded on Western ships and taken to a country without a functioning government (Somalia? South Sudan?)
Having said that, if Israel can seize the border area with Egypt, clear out the Gazans in that immediate area, then clamp a total land, air and sea blockade for the next 60 days, that should work well enough, coupled with round-the-clock bombardment. Rather than risk street to street fighting with millions of combatants a la Stalingrad, better by far to let General Hunger and General Pestilence lead the attack. Israel, after all, has nothing to lose. Tge Palestinians and their allies/supporters cannot hatexthem any more than they already do.
COA-C seems the best choice. The savagery we’ve witnessed and Israel has endured should be met with equal vigor and determination.
I see COA Carthage has the lead. I guess men DO think often of the Roman Empire!
How realistic is "Gazan civilians will be allowed to leave for other Arabic nations?" Specifically the part about other Arabic nations accepting them. My understanding was that they won't accept them *now*, so how do we get Egypt or whomever to do it as part of the COA?
In re your opener, Patton: “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”
Sometimes, even if you pride yourself on your Western Liberal (old meaning, not new) ideals, you still have to drop the nuke. Not saying to literally use nukes, but COA-C is still too soft for what the situation warrants, and what the survival of the current Israeli government will require.
I don't know how one could ultimately decapitate Hamas without creating opportunities for other failed Palestinian radicals and their international allies. A population in place in Gaza will always be a fixed constituency that will draw worse elements and outside agitators. It's not explicitly clear that Gaza isn't quite Israel and might then properly be made Israel so long as Gaza is Gaza (or Palestine). So I rather lean to some plan between B and C. How do you make the place into a national park - some place sparsely populated like South Dakota?
On the one hand, a forced and subsidized relocation project takes some burden off Israel who would obviously keep tight track of everyone being paid - but where do they go? If they go into Israel, that implies a two-tiered citizenship. If they go elsewhere, how would they be accepted? If they go elsewhere than Israel, they would be subsumed under governments that may or may not be capable of derailing Iran's meddling. I guess I need to understand the baseline of how Israel knows who is who inside Gaza. What is their status as residents of Israel, and by what provision are they not subject to the direct policing by domestic authorities of Israel?
I wish I could have saved you some time with your first couple of drafts. Coming from the perspective as a fellow tribe member there was never going to be any plan to didn't involve a complete de-hamasification of Gaza. Whether that will include the majority of the civilian population of Gaza is unfortunately in the hands of Hamas as well. Given their track record caring for their population's well being, the odds are not good.
Do to Gaza what the United States did to urban Japan. "Bomb them back into the Stone Age" as General Curtis LeMay said. Leave no structure standing and depopulate the strip. Once devastated, leave it as a reminder to terrorists.
The more hellish a War, the shorter, the fewer lives lost, and the longer the peace. Civil War US Genersl Sherman.
With BALLS (does Biden & Netanyu have them?) the US knows how to Gurantee a lasting Peacce.
It is not a product of "cease fires" but of Unconditional Surrender.
I’m leaning to COA B. Simply in that it would be politically achievable, and solve the issue long term.
Also, I fear COA C would turn the area into bandit country. Settlements keep out those sorts of groups.