The article analyzes the Israeli government's preference regarding its dealings with Hamas in Gaza over the past 15 years, particularly in light of the violent clashes observed after October 7. It highlights how successive Israeli governments have favored limited military operations over comprehensive strategies that might eliminate Hamas from power. In doing so, they have acknowledged that short rounds of conflict may be politically and strategically more favorable than protracted campaigns that would entail heavy costs both financially and in human life.

Moreover, the article draws a parallel between this ongoing situation in Gaza and former President Trump’s stance towards Iran. Trump appears to prefer exhausting diplomatic negotiations before considering military action, echoing a wider pattern observed in international relations where leaders choose to manage conflict rather than escalate it. This approach aligns with the historical preference exhibited by the Israeli leadership, which ultimately seeks short-term resolutions rather than long-term solutions.

The implications of these choices are significant, suggesting that while immediate military responses may satisfy short-term political goals, they also risk prolonging the cycle of violence and uncertainty in the region. The decisions taken by both Israeli leaders and Trump reflect a fundamental tension in foreign policy: the balance between diplomacy and military intervention.