The goal of “total destruction of Hamas” cannot be met regardless of how much indiscriminate violence the Israelis use in Gaza. Netanyahu needs to tone back his goals unless his plan is the killing of all 2 million Palestinians. It’s similar to the total destruction of the Viet Cong, it was never going happen regardless of how many locals were slaughtered in the attempt.
The killing or expulsion of 2 million Palestinians is the only solution for the security of Israel. Everybody is hemming and hawing to avoid saying that.
By contrast, HAMAS proudly demands the killing or expulsion of 9 million Jews in Israel as the only solution that is acceptable for the Palestinians. And a very large part of the "world community" finds that acceptable.
Both sides are correct in their goals. These aren't directions which allow "compromise". The history of the Middle East is one of hostile populations expelled from their former homelands. Same as it ever was.
A long time ago, Machiavelli advised The Prince on how to rule a captured land.
“.....Machiavelli describes three ways to hold states that have been accustomed to living freely under their own laws. The first is to devastate them. The second is for the conqueror to occupy them. The third is to allow the state to maintain its own laws, but to charge taxes and establish an oligarchy to keep the state friendly. The third option is advantageous because the newly imposed oligarchy will work hard to secure the authority of the conquering prince within the conquered state because it owes its existence to the prince and cannot survive without his support. Thus, as long as the goal is not to devastate the other state, it is easiest to rule it through the use of its own citizens.
Complete destruction is the most certain way of securing a state that has been free in the past. A prince who does not take this route places himself in a position to be destroyed himself. No matter how long it has been since the state was acquired, rebellions will always revive the legacy of ancient institutions and notions of former liberty, even if the state has benefited from the prince's rule. This sense of tradition will unify the people against the prince.
On the other hand, cities or provinces that are accustomed to being ruled by a prince are easy to take over once the ruling family has been destroyed. People in such states are accustomed to obedience and do not know how to live in freedom without having someone to rule over them. Therefore, the new prince can win the province and hold onto it more easily.
In republics (or former republics), sentiments of hatred and revenge against the conquering prince will run strong. The memories of ancient liberty never die, so a prince will be better off destroying the republic or personally occupying the conquered state.....”
So, according to Machiavelli, Israel can either (1) completely and utterly destroy Gaza and its people, (2) occupy Gaza (preferably as a colony and bring in lots of its own people, (3) destroy the ruling families and appoint other locals to rule Gaza that will be beholding to Israel and do its bidding.
I think that Israel has been pursuing the complete destruction, at least of northern Gaza. It is now mostly rubble. The question is what will Israel do to the rest of Gaza.
Israel is also doing a good job of destroying the “ruling families” of Gaza, that is the Hamas political and military leadership. So a shift could be to find a Vidkun Quisling within the Palestinians of Gaza and put him(her) in charge of leading that conquered people.
Another shift could be to just take the land and establish all or part of Gaza as a colony of Israel, bring in settlers and put them in control of the best resources of Gaza.
As to Vietnam, the US was not about to utterly destroy the Vietnamese that opposed the government that Kennedy and Johnson backed. The US and South Vietnamese military were handcuffed and never allowed to totally destroy either the North Vietnamese (because of fear of China/Russia becoming involved) or occupy and colonize Vietnam. The US did try to set up governments that were beholding to WA DC.
In my mind the real issue is how do you civilize barbarians who have no respect for human life. Typically, you do it be being as or even more barbaric. Genghis Khan and many others who conquered ancient lands, did not hesitate at killing all who did not surrender. If they did surrender, then some would be killed, some would be enslaved and some spared and leaders established that served the great Khan with absolute obedience. Enslaving a conquered people has become politically impossible, and so killing those the don't surrender, or sparing a few minor leaders to serve and controlling the people are the only major options.
What happened on October 7 can be used to justify any cruelty Israel my wish to dish out. I think that turning at least northern Gaza into rubble and killing huge numbers of Hamas (especially leadership) was a wise response.
Can Israel kill all members of Hamas? Probably not. But it can destroy a large enough part of Gaza to rubble so that the rest of Gaza understands that they need to obey orders from Israel unless they want to die. Absolutely, and that may well be their plan.