All sounds mostly correct. Firstly one minor note: You likely underestimate the number of combat soldiers because among reservists combat soldiers are far more likely to be called up.
On another note, my preferred strategy for Israel in Gaza, and possibly the only way out of the quandary you point out, is to continue holding the areas they currently have, which are already cleared of civilians, most critically the philedelphi corridor and Rafah crossing.
They then never officially end the war in Gaza, and make clear that they will only do so if Hamas unconditionally surrenders. They continue to bomb Hamas targets using planes artillery and tanks when intelligence indicates suitable targets, but cease all new manoeuvring.
Without an official end to the war Gaza can't rebuild and Hamas will struggle to rearm, especially if Israel controls philedelphi. Manpower issues for Israel significantly decrease.
But without any active manoeuvres there's nothing to feed the news cycles, so pressure on Israel is likely to reduce.
Eventually domestic pressure is likely to rise to the point where Hamas surrenders.
Now this is essentially the same strategy as a siege, where you try to make things so untenable for the besieged that they eventually give up, but in a modern setting where having people starving to death all over the place isn't tenable.
You still need to cause enough misery to the civilian population that they get fed up of the war, but that has to be done much slower. It is most definitely a cruel option, but it is what needs to be done if Israel does want to win the war. I agree it's perfectly reasonable to reject this. But I think it's important to accept that war does inherently require cruelty to win, especially when facing an enemy like Hamas, and there's no magic path which can win the war whilst never doing anything ethically questionable.
Israel should just to whatever is required to get the hostages back, which means leaving Hamas in de facto control. Once that is done, they can revisit the question of if/how to get rid of Hamas. They cannot allow Hamas to significantly rearm and they should absolutely establish buffer zone. But, beyond that I’m not sure. As long as Hamas doesn’t pose a military threat, it is the Gazans who will suffer from their continued presence, and that’s not high on Israel’s priority list.
In your very detailed comparison, you miss the obvious: Sri Lanka is an island of land in the ocean. Israel is an island of Jews in an ocean of Muslims.
I don't think the situation for the IDF is as dire as this article makes it out to be but I do agree that their current tactics are unworkable. They really need to start leveraging the Gaza population itself in their efforts. And for that to work, they need to dangle a carrot, not just a stick. And they need to start thinking long-term. Anyway, Trinquirer covers this far better than I ever could.
All sounds mostly correct. Firstly one minor note: You likely underestimate the number of combat soldiers because among reservists combat soldiers are far more likely to be called up.
On another note, my preferred strategy for Israel in Gaza, and possibly the only way out of the quandary you point out, is to continue holding the areas they currently have, which are already cleared of civilians, most critically the philedelphi corridor and Rafah crossing.
They then never officially end the war in Gaza, and make clear that they will only do so if Hamas unconditionally surrenders. They continue to bomb Hamas targets using planes artillery and tanks when intelligence indicates suitable targets, but cease all new manoeuvring.
Without an official end to the war Gaza can't rebuild and Hamas will struggle to rearm, especially if Israel controls philedelphi. Manpower issues for Israel significantly decrease.
But without any active manoeuvres there's nothing to feed the news cycles, so pressure on Israel is likely to reduce.
Eventually domestic pressure is likely to rise to the point where Hamas surrenders.
Now this is essentially the same strategy as a siege, where you try to make things so untenable for the besieged that they eventually give up, but in a modern setting where having people starving to death all over the place isn't tenable.
You still need to cause enough misery to the civilian population that they get fed up of the war, but that has to be done much slower. It is most definitely a cruel option, but it is what needs to be done if Israel does want to win the war. I agree it's perfectly reasonable to reject this. But I think it's important to accept that war does inherently require cruelty to win, especially when facing an enemy like Hamas, and there's no magic path which can win the war whilst never doing anything ethically questionable.
Israel should just to whatever is required to get the hostages back, which means leaving Hamas in de facto control. Once that is done, they can revisit the question of if/how to get rid of Hamas. They cannot allow Hamas to significantly rearm and they should absolutely establish buffer zone. But, beyond that I’m not sure. As long as Hamas doesn’t pose a military threat, it is the Gazans who will suffer from their continued presence, and that’s not high on Israel’s priority list.
This has always been about three things: hostages, hostages, and hostages.
Israeli public opinion is highly sensitive to the presence of its citizens in Gaza tunnels. Particularly female hostages the younger they are.
This is why (paradoxically) the IDF tolerated more battlefield casualties than hostages it ever could have recovered.
Hamas knows this too which is why they seized so many hostages on October 7, maybe an order of magnitude more than they expected to.
In your very detailed comparison, you miss the obvious: Sri Lanka is an island of land in the ocean. Israel is an island of Jews in an ocean of Muslims.
Lol. There are about 70 million Tamils (in Tamil Nadu) right above LTTE's stronghold in Jaffna
Another useful addition to this work might be Roger Trinquirer's magnum opus: Modern Warfare. There are free copies online: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/Modern-Warfare.pdf.
I don't think the situation for the IDF is as dire as this article makes it out to be but I do agree that their current tactics are unworkable. They really need to start leveraging the Gaza population itself in their efforts. And for that to work, they need to dangle a carrot, not just a stick. And they need to start thinking long-term. Anyway, Trinquirer covers this far better than I ever could.
I've read an reread this article many times. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate all of your hard work.