> Again, it's really interesting to get these viewpoints.

Thanks, that's why I comment - I want people to get an Israeli perspective on things. Though I am a very liberal Israeli compared to the majority of the population, which is why I sometimes try to represent the consensus viewpoint as I understand it and not just my own. (I call that out when I do that.)

> 1) most people want a quagmire war that will never end trying to defeat a populist force fighting for their homeland. The US has lost every single war of this kind in the last 60 years. Why would Israel win one?

This depends on what you mean. If by "fighting for their homeland", you mean what Hamas means, which is to rule all of Israel, then... the US can afford to lose these wars. Israel can't. Physically can't. If Hamas gets what it wants, there is no more Israel, and probably no more Israeli Jews.

So it's an entirely different situation.

> 2) Iran can be militarily stopped from getting nukes, or that it matters.

First, I have no idea if it can or can't be stopped. Israel and the US is acting like it can, so hopefully they're right

> Even if Iran gets nukes, what will change? There is still MAD (there already was MAD between Israel's allies and Iran's allies). The whole world has largely moved past this issue, it seems, but you think it's very relevant.

If Iran has a nuke, even leaving aside the apocalyptic scenario of it just arming a terrorist group to attack Israel with it (which is possible), there's still a huge issue: Israel will then be able to act much like Russia does, which is invade and conquer neighboring countries, with the world being very afraid of direct confrontation because they're (rightly!) worried about nuclear war.

I find it interesting that you think the "whole world" has moved past this point - you're ignoring the actions of all of Iran's neighbors, who are signing historic agreements to help each other because they're all terrified of Iran. So no, I don't think anyone who has any skin in this particular game would agree with your assessment (and this includes most US security/etc experts. Don't forget that Iran doesn't just chant "death to Israel", they chant "death to Israel, death to America"!).

> 3) Hamas can be eliminated even though the Taliban weren't. These are really similar forces fighting really similar blockades, embargoes, and invasions, with very similar popular support. Why is this the albatross of the past 60 years of losing offensive wars against populist guerilla fighters?

I answered this earlier, but Israel doesn't really have an alternative, and comparing to the US is a huge misread of the situation. The US is basically not threatened by any of these armed groups in a "direct" manner. It can't be invaded.

Hamas is a group that has quite literally invaded Israel 6 months ago and killed 1000 citizens, grabbed 240 hostages, shot rockets at Israel (and these are being shot from minutes away, mind you, at most). It has pledged to do this again and again.

Or let me put it another way - there are still around 100k I think Israelis who are internally displaced. They can't go home, because their homes are right on the border with either Hamas or Hezbollah. Do you think if Mexico decided to attack the US, killed thousands of its citizens, and 100k Texans had to relocate for fear or Mexico... that the US would "lose" a war against Mexico like it did against the Taliban?

> 4) Hamas doesn't want freedom or had some kind of opportunity to better a completely embargoed, blockaded, and dietary restricted Gaza. This is a pretty surprising take honestly. What incentive does anyone have to run a business or improve any lot in life when your mortal enemy controls every import and export into your territory and even how much food you can have? What is the point of money or progress in such a world? You can't bring more stuff in from the outside until you destroy the blockade around you... I'd think anyone on any side here could see that.

I think you're extremely underselling the degree of freedom and opportuniy that they had.

Yes, there was a necessary blockade since Hamas promised to keep attacking Israel. A promise it almost immediately kept by firing rockets at Israel. So for one thing, it could've just... not done that, promised to stop attacking Israel, and tried to get an actual diplomatic peace with Israel. That's exactly the opposite of the purpose of Hamas, but a group that actually wants to improve its lot in life could've done that.

Secondly, Gaza received tremendous amounts of aid, and despite the blockade, did receive imports and had a not-terrible quality of life. This despite the fact that Hamas spent probably billions of dollars of its resources not to help Gazans, but to wage war (and to fatten the pockets of its leaders, who are literal billionaires).

Just look at the videos Hamas proudly put up of it taking water pipes, sent to Gaza to help get water to the people, and converting them to rockets to fire at Israel. They are literally taking aid that is supposed to help improve Gaza and using it to wage war.

Gazans incentives to improve Gaza is because they live there. They could choose a path of improving Gaza, making its economic conditions better, making their daily lives better, stop attacking Israel, and a few years of peace later, negotiate with Israel and Egypt to get some restrictions lifted. They actually did that to some extent, but all the while planning the massive October 7th attack, which has reset all expectations of them acting in a peaceful or rational manner.

Hamas has made it clear that they only care about attacking and destroying Israel. In that sense, I agree with you - if that is your only goal, then you don't have any incentive to improve Gazan's actual lives. I just think that that goal is fundamentally evil and stupid, and everyone's lives would be better if Hamas didn't pursue it.