Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Israel warned the people of northern Gaza to vacate and move south. The United Nations told Israel not to make that warning. The UN’s reaction demonstrated to me that Israel’s warning was the right thing to do. Obviously, Israel intends to rain down destruction on the northern portion of the Gaza Strip from which the Hamas attacks originated. According to news reports, many have heeded the warning.
To me, the strategy seems right, even brilliant. In a war against an ideology, make the war about territory. After all, the stated goal of Hamas is to eliminate Israel and take the territory from the Jewish people.
Accept the invaders’ (terrorists’) premise that the war really is about territory. They made it about territory (and terror), so eliminate the so-called Palestinians from the territory from which the invasion was launched. I hate the fact that innocent Palestinians will potentially be killed, but do they remain as innocents when they had been warned and if they fail to heed the warnings? Doesn’t their remaining demonstrate support for the terrorists that comprise Hamas?
Yes, moving is hard. Innocent people (to the extent they exist) become refugees forced from their homes. War is hell. But at least they have been warned and given the opportunity to save themselves.
Military forces know how to take territory as opposed to merely taking out selective ideologues.
Am I being naïve?
Discussion (41)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Oddly- the Ukrainian people had no trouble deciding whether to stay or leave. Maybe because they were not forced to stay?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Didn't that change to some degree after the war was underway?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
When it comes to war, it's lots easier for the guilty to condemn the innocent.
And no, I don't believe you are being naive at all.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Whether it should be about territory is a good question.
Land-for-peace deals don't always work so well. Witness the source of the idea of land-for-peace in Ukraine. As far as I can tell, the people advocating the most persistently for such a thing are the same people who are receptive to a lot of other Russian propaganda, to the exclusion of contrary sources. Land ownership is hard to undo. Peace settlements are relatively easy to undo.
The deal in Gaza has obviously not worked. So although it will be hard, maybe it's best to undo it altogether.
It's interesting, also, that Vladimir Putin, when asked recently about the endpoint for the "special military operation" in Ukraine said that the war is not a war for territory. Is this a way of him trying to back down and prepare the way to exit the conflict? Hard to say. I'm sure he wants to get out of it what he can, but territory is important.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Getting people to move makes it about people as well.
From PBS:
You're seeing five of 41 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.