The objective in battle is to break the morale of the enemy--kill enough of them that they run or quit fighting. At beginning of WWII, whether or not the morale of an entire country could be broken by destroying its cities and killing its civilians in large numbers was an open question and opinions differed. The German air attacks on Britain were intended to break its will to fight, but they had the opposite result. Did the Allied air attacks on Germany and Japan break their will? That question is still being debated.

Can Israel inflict so much damage on Gaza that it will break their will to fight? Is that even one of Israel's objectives?

Presumably Israel has defined objectives in this war beyond revenge/retaliation, which has not had any apparent deterrent effect in the past. Maybe the thought is that if the suffering in Gaza is great enough then the people will repudiate Hamas.

Historical analogies are by nature imperfect but the one that keeps coming to my mind is the constant state of asymmetrical warfare that existed on the American frontier in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Indians had legitimate grievances arising out of European settlement, of course. But their tactic of raiding, scalping, murdering and mutilating settler families, including women and children, (i.e. terrorism) did nothing to increase sympathy for their cause (in the words used in the Declaration of Independence "to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions"). The settler/militia response was to destroy the Indians' infrastructure--by burning their villages and crops, killing their livestock, etc. Many Indian children and noncombatants, who had not personally been involved in the attacks on settler families, suffered and died as a result. Did that tactic ultimately break the Indians' will to fight? Debatable. But eventually they were so reduced that they were no longer a significant threat.

One major difference with the Gaza situation is that the European American population was rapidly increasing and the American Indian population was rapidly decreasing. Demographics were on the side of the whites. Gaza has one of the highest fertility rates in the world--thus a rapidly growing population and a very large and growing population of young males--the most dangerous and uncontrollable of humans.

This is not state on state warfare, like WWII. Gaza likely can't be defeated and forced to surrender, the way Germany and Japan were, then occupied and brought out of fascism and into democracy. And there are just too many people in Gaza to win by killing so many of them that they become impotent, as was a strategy with the Indians.

How then does Israel win? It seems to me the priorities should be rescuing the hostages (sadly, probably not possible for most of them), eliminating Hamas leadership (probably largely achievable), eliminating or at least reducing the ability of Gaza to fight back (will be very difficult because they fight by terrorist tactics), and securing Israel against any future attacks (more secure barriers, better intelligence).

It's a very difficult situation for Israel, to say the least.


[Post edited by Joey Wahoo at 10/14/2023 1:03PM]