Option 2 is my definition of evil. It is what Machiavelli would suggest.
But it also has a non-emotional flaw: other countries’ populations see that evil and hate it. It directly reduces worldwide acceptance of the country itself. Sure, they are immune to kinetic consequences while the US supports them. But the US shows signs of struggle against Iran now. It doesn’t look like their protection is eternal. Drones might one day counter carrier groups like aerial drones countered air bases.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to seek a diplomatic solution - like not treating half the population like cattle and establishing an apartheid state that makes the Dutch blush?
And Israel literally has firsthand experience of what it is like being treated like cattle. It hasn’t been that long since the end of WW2. They should know better than to step in the footsteps of the real Nazis. They know exactly what it looks like. Surely, they know that they have become the baddies.
Option 2 is unquestionably evil, but it’s not for its own sake. It is instrumental evil to achieve - supposedly - something else.
I think it’s risky to pursue that strategy. As you say, other countries and their citizens really don’t like it. But look at what is happening so far: strong words… from only a few countries. Sanctions… but very limited sanctions, from only a few countries. Netanyahu’s gamble is simply that they can murder and force out the Palestinians slowly enough that nobody makes a big enough fuss while it’s going on, but fast enough that it’s complete before the US realises how monstrous of a thing they are doing.
US protection isn’t eternal. But how much do you bet that it will run out before there are less than 1,000 Palestinians left in Israel? It’s far from a certainty, right? So no matter what you think makes more sense, there will be people - and clearly there are people - who think something else. And it just so happens that they’re in power in Israel.
Option 2 is my definition of evil. It is what Machiavelli would suggest.
But it also has a non-emotional flaw: other countries’ populations see that evil and hate it. It directly reduces worldwide acceptance of the country itself. Sure, they are immune to kinetic consequences while the US supports them. But the US shows signs of struggle against Iran now. It doesn’t look like their protection is eternal. Drones might one day counter carrier groups like aerial drones countered air bases.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to seek a diplomatic solution - like not treating half the population like cattle and establishing an apartheid state that makes the Dutch blush?
And Israel literally has firsthand experience of what it is like being treated like cattle. It hasn’t been that long since the end of WW2. They should know better than to step in the footsteps of the real Nazis. They know exactly what it looks like. Surely, they know that they have become the baddies.
Option 2 is unquestionably evil, but it’s not for its own sake. It is instrumental evil to achieve - supposedly - something else.
I think it’s risky to pursue that strategy. As you say, other countries and their citizens really don’t like it. But look at what is happening so far: strong words… from only a few countries. Sanctions… but very limited sanctions, from only a few countries. Netanyahu’s gamble is simply that they can murder and force out the Palestinians slowly enough that nobody makes a big enough fuss while it’s going on, but fast enough that it’s complete before the US realises how monstrous of a thing they are doing.
US protection isn’t eternal. But how much do you bet that it will run out before there are less than 1,000 Palestinians left in Israel? It’s far from a certainty, right? So no matter what you think makes more sense, there will be people - and clearly there are people - who think something else. And it just so happens that they’re in power in Israel.