The question people ask is: what is the plan? A long and difficult operation that highly risks the lives of hostages will turn Israeli people more and more against the war (support for ground operations has declined enormously in Israel and it is easy to predict it will keep declining). So it is not a politically correct move for Netanyahu anymore because it will no longer present him as the hero of the war and the one who destroyed Hamas. The situation has changed. He can’t go on with his old plan as if nothing has changed. He might sacrifice Israel’s public opinion for the long-term benefit of igniting anger among Palestinians to make sure there will always be an organization like Hamas and so the necessity for far-right in Israel’s politics will be felt for a long time. Again this is a wrong calculation. It unites more Jews and Muslims and all other people around the world to find a practical solution to the conflict (Netanyahu has lost the world’s public opinion sooner than expected). He doesn’t plant the seed of future tensions, he is paving the way for peace-seekers around the world to gather and find a solution. So one asks what his plan is. The answer probably is that he doesn’t know himself either. He is in the middle of chaos and tries to do whatever he can to save himself.
Then the question is why some world leaders side with Netanyahu’s show to “irreversibly damage Hamas”. They know very well this is merely a show. Destroying tunnels and infrastructure will not stop the ideology but still, they fail to stand against him. The answer is that there are two elections next year. Netanyahu is confident these two countries will remain cautious for their own sake.
Sunak has proved he is a man who is willing to do whatever it takes to be elected. If he is told to destroy the entire environment to boost his chance in the election, he doesn’t hesitate. One wonders why Starmer doesn’t take advantage of it and doesn’t present himself as the one who stands by his principles. When the other side is very eager to do whatever to win the election, the opposite side should naturally move toward more moral stances. Elections are supposed to be a choice between two different mindsets. Those who distrust politicians of the main parties should have a representative in the election. It is difficult to understand why Labour doesn’t try to win their trust in situations like this by supporting Jews and other peace activists. I’m not labour or conservative. I’m wondering why both sides make politically and morally wrong decisions.