What is included in my trial?
During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.
Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.
Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the “Settings & Account” section.
What happens at the end of my trial?
If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for 65 € per month.
For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the “Settings & Account” section. If you’d like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.
You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many user’s needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.
Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.
BainbridgeBorn on October 25th, 2023 at 21:06 UTC »
From what I remember the IDF admitted they can’t totally 100% destroy Hamas
batmans_stuntcock on October 25th, 2023 at 18:27 UTC »
I do agree that operations like this have failed almost universally, even if hamas is not an effective military force they would probably just be replaced by another group. But I'm not sure about the other things they say, according to this analysis, after the Israeli military flattens Gaza they can put in UN troops made up of arab/muslim nations, and then go on back to the status quo?
I'm not a military expert but like he says previous rounds of urban combat in the region like the siege of mosul and the US assault on Faluja produced huge civilian casualties, and these were much less densely populated places compared to Gaza, in the second one there was at least some sort of effort to let women and children out of the city as well (but not male civilians iirc). So you could have high tens or even 100,000 civilians killed. There is also some talk of a prolonged war that lasts months or even years.
Maybe elites might, but that is something people don't forget about quickly, especially when it's all over the news and social media outside the west and even the most autocratic government has some level of accountability to the population. I really don't think any Arab/Muslim government would be able to be involved without huge public pressure and maybe risking some sort of delegitimizing, especially coupled with the level of food and fuel inflation that has hit the most populous countries without major hydrocarbon exports like Egypt, Pakistan, etc. That is before a likely scenario where there is local resistance to any force.
Generally I doubt the US would be able to go ahead with the status quo after that violence on that scale, and this is before talking about the threat of conflict between Israel and Hezbollah escalating into a regional war with Iran and Iranian aligned non-state militias when there is less domestic appetite for a large, costly war than ever among young people, there are credible reports that Iran is a nuclear latent country as well. The deal with Saudi Arabia is dependent on the US giving the Saudis Nuclear capability and some sort of NATO like security guarantee, which the US has been very reticent to do, at the same time the Saudis seem to be hedging, somewhat of a détente with Iran locally and closer ties to China globally. I feel like this is wishful thinking based on things that might have been true in the 90s when US power was at its height, I really hope cool heads prevail on this.
cataractum on October 25th, 2023 at 14:26 UTC »
Submission Statement
Short and sweet piece by John Sawers - a former MI6 chief - who argues that Israel is unlikely to destroy Hamas, which has a political base and strong support from Iran.
It lays out some almost trite points, but which need emphasising. Urban warfare is hard. It will involve mass casualties, and civilian deaths. Then, there's the question of: what comes after? Sealing Gaza is mentioned as an option that is currently being canvassed. But then there's the question of who will administer Gaza? The PA is near defunct, more a contractor than a government. Egypt has no appetite. Israel has no appetite (and it wouldn't be accepted - i can imagine daily terrorist attacks given what's happened).
What's also important is that given this is Israel, the visibility of everything they do is heightened considerably. Even at this early stage of the conflict, we've seen sustained protests, and surging antisemitism all around the world. Depending on how bad it gets, this could have lasting consequences for the Jewry.
There are some silly aspects to this article. The first is talk of "regime change" for Iran, and the poor analogies to the Soviet Union and China. It's wishful thinking. Iran's grand strategy is to create a buffer between China and the US/West by using these two as counteracting forces, so that the region can grow (with Iran having growing influence). The Islamic militias are an important part of that. The second is how the "middle east is changing for the better" because of the Abraham Accords. I don't think you will ever have peace without solving the Palestinian problem, and beliefs to the contrary is deluding ourselves. We already saw that with the Egyptian border guard killing an Israeli just because she was Israeli, and an Egyptian police officer killing another in Egypt for the same reason.