[Phantom Hoover]

The stakes here are not 'a dozen or a hundred' lives. In civilian lives alone they are well into the hundreds already.

[zookeeper]

I explicitly did not contest that assertion.  I did not contest it because that assertion is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Israel cannot afford to gamble on the idea that not retaliating won't invite more attacks.  It's a chance that any government in their situation would be stupid to take, because it risks tens of thousands of lives in exchange for a dozen or a hundred now.

Governments in hostile environments cannot afford to gamble with their existence if an alternative presents itself.

That's all just gut feeling though, you can't really demonstrate that not retaliating would increase the chances of more attacks.

One could just as well argue that civilian casualties from retaliation worsens relations with friendly countries (or a part of Israel's own population), decreasing the aid they're willing to lend in time of crisis. Thus, retaliation would be gambling with their existence and lives in that case too.

I think your idea of the necessity of retaliation as a deterrent is terribly similar to the idea of "tough on crime" being a necessity. I mean sure, if you're soft on crime then obviously that will just invite more crime and thinking otherwise is really naive, right? Except that we know that's not really how it works; increasing deterrent doesn't lead to much less crime, nor does decreasing deterrent lead to much more crime. And I'm not comparing military retaliation and being tough on crime, but the reasoning behind them, which I think is simplistic and faulty in a similar manner in both cases.

EDIT: "changes" -> "chances"

[Aardwolf]

Israel cannot afford to gamble on the idea that not retaliating won't invite more attacks.  It's a chance that any government in their situation would be stupid to take, because it risks tens of thousands of lives in exchange for a dozen or a hundred now.

Governments in hostile environments cannot afford to gamble with their existence if an alternative presents itself.

No. I assert that retaliation is neither necessary nor sufficient as a measure to prevent future attacks, because future attacks cannot be prevented. The only sufficient means to prevent future attacks is to stop existing. If nothing else is sufficient, nothing else is necessary.

A more reasonable argument (and maybe the one you were thinking) would be that retaliation would reduce the likelihood of attacks within some implicit timeframe. In which case you are already dealing with uncertainties. It is no longer a "safe move" versus a "gamble".




I strongly suspect it is possible to construct a scenario (i.e. an initial course of action and subsequent decision-making strategy for Israel), wherein Israel doesn't counterattack, and wherein the probabilistically most likely Israeli death toll within some timeframe (PMLIDTWST) is not worse than the PMLIDTWST under "normal" behavior (i.e. with the airstrike).

Do you believe no such scenario exists?

[Scotty]

Do you believe no such scenario exists?

You have developed a habit of taking an idealistic position, and then framing it in the terms of the discussion with the implication that because it would be reasonable in a perfect world, it must be reasonable in our decidedly imperfect world and should be treated as such.

There is a scenario in which Israel not retaliating against acts of war perpetuated by its neighbors would not result in Bad Things for Israel.

That scenario is not certain, nor do I (and obviously the government of the state of Israel) believe it to be particularly likely.  The stakes in this decision are the lives of millions of people and Israel's existence as a sovereign nation.  Taking the chance that non-retaliation would not be harmful is irresponsible in the highest order when confronted with the instability and history of the region.

EDIT: re: the "tough on crime" bit.  The analogy falls apart when you realize that police officers do not spend every hour of every patrol day surrounded by lethal criminals that want the police force destroyed.

[Phantom Hoover]

What really troubles me about your attitude, Scotty, is how the (grossly disproportionate) number of Palestinian civilian deaths don't even seem to enter into the equation for you. Those people, in your assessment, are simply an unfortunate cost of the apparently unshakeable imperative that Israel must retaliate against these attacks in this manner. You project the subject into big abstract assertions about war and realpolitik and on the way you completely lose sight of the children blown apart by shells.

[Scotty]

I don't like that part one bit.  I hate the entire situation that makes it happen.  Hell, I don't even particularly like Israel, but it was mandated to exist by the UN and as a sovereign nation it maintains the ability and more importantly responsibility to defend its borders or provoke further depredation by neighbors that have sworn to destroy it.

The concept that Israel would stop bombing Gaza if Gaza would stop lobbing rockets in its general direction (and that if it didn't there'd be a real international incident) is something that Hamas is unable to contemplate due to its need to retain forceful government over Gaza.  While the fault doesn't lie entirely with Hamas, Hamas sure as hell perpetuates the violence in a tangible manner and invites the retaliation without care for its own citizens.

[Phantom Hoover]

You claim you hate it, sure, but it doesn't actually seem to have factored into your decision making. You claim Israel has no other option than to stamp out Hamas no matter how many innocent Palestinians to get in the way; but when you're asked why there are no other options, all you can do is make vague stipulations that this would fatally undermine Israel's sovereignty, backed up by calling anyone who disagrees 'naïve'.

[Scotty]

I haven't claimed Israel has no other option than to stamp out Hamas in the slightest.  I have, however, claimed that Hamas cannot afford to make peace with Israel because it would fatally undermine their powerbase.  Hamas agrees.

I've stated (repeatedly) that Israel cannot suffer acts of war without response.  Hamas is the tiny guy that tries to punch a trained boxer.  He might even get a little bit of a hit in, but no one should be surprised when the boxer punches back.  Instead we get "Oh no, that guy's poor teeth!  If only that boxer would let the little guy punch him, this would all turn out better."

[Phantom Hoover]

Yeah. Because some of us don't consider some axiom of revenge an adequate excuse for a heap of dead civilians.

[MP-Ryan]

Yeah. Because some of us don't consider some axiom of revenge an adequate excuse for a heap of dead civilians.

I feel like a number of people who espouse this argument miss the point spectacularly.

Hamas is firing live weapons at the civilian population centers of Israel with the intention of targeting the civilian population.  Israel is firing live weapons at weapon infrastructure and Hamas leadership, militants, and logistics while taking as much care as possible (to the point of firing dud munitions first as a warning before live missiles go off) to avoid killing the civilians that the Hamas targets INTENTIONALLY surround themselves with.

I don't like all kinds of things that Israel does, and it think its behaviour is just as much a disgraceful impediment to a two-state solution - which is the only possible solution short of complete genocide for the forseeable future - as that of Hamas.  That said, the entirety of what's happening in Gaza right this moment lies squarely on the shoulders of Hamas.  They stop firing rockets this second, Israel will quit firing weapons at legitimate targets that also caused civilian deaths in Gaza - because if they don't, they lose all international support.  Ending this is completely on Hamas.

And no, just ignoring the attacks on your civilian populace is not a viable option.  For one, it greatly emboldens Hamas and increases their support level immensely - Hamas loses support during the peace process because they sabotage it, but so long as they're hitting Israeli population centers, they retain support.  For two, the risk of civilian deaths in Israel, whom Hamas is explicitly targeting remains very real.

No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it.  It's patently unreasonable.  And I'll go one further - all those assholes who think its a great idea to disrupt the Gaza blockade, to support the delivery of controlled goods into Gaza?  Congratulations, you are the reason ground offensives become necessary, because that's one of the myriad of ways Hamas gets armed in the first place.

The problem is Western powers will always and rightly side with Israel when Hamas starts shooting at it, and this notion that Israel should stop defending itself, that restrictions on Gaza, etc are unnecessary just furthers that.  It distracts from the problem.  The moment Gaza ceases to be a violent threat to Israel is the moment international pressure suddenly lands on the Israelis to do something more reasonable with the Gaza strip.  You want to see an end to the conflict between Israel and Gaza?  Quit the counter-productive support of Hamas.

The 'heap of dead civilians' is the responsibility of the people perpetuating the conflict and locating their strike positions in places literally surrounded by civilians.  What Israel is doing is not revenge, and like I said, no other country would be expected to act any differently in similar circumstances.  You think Britain would sit on its hands if the pIRA suddenly went active, got its hands on a bunch of rockets, fortified a chunk of Northern Ireland, and start launching rockets at London?  I don't bloody well think so.

[Hellzed]

Last time I talked with Palestinians (a doctor and a psychologist from the West Bank, who emigrated to France in the early 2000s, one having studied in prison after throwing rocks to Israeli soldiers when he was a teenager) they did not care that much about Israel.
They both recalled daily water service cuts, natural gas service cuts, fuel shortage, power grid failures, lack of medication... Also, obtaining any  document (ID, passport) was a hassle, because it needed to go through both Palestinian and Israeli authorities (the later having a habit of blocking the delivery process).

Whether the IDF is actually using attrition warfare against the West Bank and Gaza to fight terrorism, or these issues are only caused by Palestinian long standing economic issues, I don't know. But as long as the IDF will control whatever commodities that go in and out of Palestinian territories, Palestinian people will blame Israel for this.
The only way I can see out of this war is the sanctuarization of some aspects of Palestinian territories economy. They need economic growth, but most importantly they need to know this growth cannot be halted by a political turnaround from any side.
It would mean that these goods and services (food, water, energy, construction materials, access to work -in Israel if needed-, health services, real estate) could not under any circumstances, be interrupted as retaliation to acts of terrorism. And of course, in order to work, it would have to be overseen by Israeli-Palestinian joint commissions. If these commissions were to be elected, both Israeli government and and Palestinian authority would have to back candidates who would not block the system. Control administrations recruiting both Israeli and Palestinian civil servants would also be needed.
After some time, in order to protect a system that restores a "normal" life style, Palestinians would start to take real actions against terrorism themselves, and later, hatred would start to fade away.

Now this is why such a solution would never work : on both sides, people working in common administration would be labelled traitors (even if it's just about water production or common vegetables market).
Some Palestinians would see the initiative as Israel trying to break their "resistance". Some Israelis would quickly realise that massive arrival of Palestinian workers in lower wages positions lowers global wages in the country. Then, they would also realise that the common administrations are robbing the country from its economic sovereignty. I'm not sure Israelis would be happy to participate to common administrations budget a lot more than Palestinians do (necessary to make it work) and have exactly the same political weight (necessary to keep peace). All I can imagine is Palestinians killing Palestinian terrorists, and Israeli governments going through waves of social panic and repression, from farmers to low-wage workers and colonists... Peace would not be cheap...

[Aardwolf]

The concept that Israel would stop bombing Gaza if Gaza would stop lobbing rockets in its general direction (and that if it didn't there'd be a real international incident) is something that Hamas is unable to contemplate due to its need to retain forceful government over Gaza.  While the fault doesn't lie entirely with Hamas, Hamas sure as hell perpetuates the violence in a tangible manner and invites the retaliation without care for its own citizens.

Hamas' recruiting power is dependent on Palestinians hating Israel. Take away the constant killing of Palestinian civilians, and you take away the constant supply of fresh Hamas soldiers. Retaliation is counterproductive.

[Scotty]

The concept that Israel would stop bombing Gaza if Gaza would stop lobbing rockets in its general direction (and that if it didn't there'd be a real international incident) is something that Hamas is unable to contemplate due to its need to retain forceful government over Gaza.  While the fault doesn't lie entirely with Hamas, Hamas sure as hell perpetuates the violence in a tangible manner and invites the retaliation without care for its own citizens.

Hamas' recruiting power is dependent on Palestinians hating Israel. Take away the constant killing of Palestinian civilians, and you take away the constant supply of fresh Hamas soldiers. Retaliation is counterproductive.

MP-Ryan just explained, with far more eloquence than I am capable of mustering the patience to express, exactly why this line of reasoning is utter bull****.

[Aardwolf]

MP-Ryan just explained, with far more eloquence than I am capable of mustering the patience to express, exactly why this line of reasoning is utter bull****.

No he hasn't, no it's not, and calling my line of reasoning "utter bull****" is dangerously close to a personal attack.

And no, just ignoring the attacks on your civilian populace is not a viable option.  For one, it greatly emboldens Hamas and increases their support level immensely - Hamas loses support during the peace process because they sabotage it, but so long as they're hitting Israeli population centers, they retain support.  For two, the risk of civilian deaths in Israel, whom Hamas is explicitly targeting remains very real.

Hamas also gains support when Israel bombs stuff. If Israel stops bombing stuff, support for Hamas can only decrease. The Iron Dome is working great, and Israel can afford those casualties. Yes I just said that. The casualties Israel would sustain in the ~15 years it takes for would-be Hamas recruits to realize "hey, Israel stopped killing us", would be far less than the total casualties both sides would sustain if they keep at this for another ~70 years (and possibly less than the Israeli casualties alone).

[Scotty]

I called your line of reasoning bull****.  That's very clearly arguing the position, not the person.

What you either do not understand the significance of or refuse to accept the ridiculousness inherent to the course of action is that you are essentially advocating that Israel allow Hamas to kill its citizens with impunity for as long as it takes Hamas to get bored.  That is utterly unacceptable, on more levels than I care to name.

[Mongoose]

MP-Ryan just explained, with far more eloquence than I am capable of mustering the patience to express, exactly why this line of reasoning is utter bull****.

No he hasn't, no it's not, and calling my line of reasoning "utter bull****" is dangerously close to a personal attack.

Attacking someone's arguments does not equate to attacking the person making them.

The Iron Dome is working great, and Israel can afford those casualties. Yes I just said that.

Now THIS is utter bull****.  One of the most fundamental duties of any government is to protect its citizenry from external threats.  As has been repeatedly stated in this thread, Hamas is actively targeting Israeli civilians with rocket attacks.  Israel is absolutely right to hold a zero-tolerance policy towards such strikes, as any country would be.  In contrast, Hamas is actively putting its own citizenry in harm's way by placing their missile sites in crowded civilian areas.

[Polpolion]

MP-Ryan just explained, with far more eloquence than I am capable of mustering the patience to express, exactly why this line of reasoning is utter bull****.

No he hasn't, no it's not, and calling my line of reasoning "utter bull****" is dangerously close to a personal attack.

And no, just ignoring the attacks on your civilian populace is not a viable option.  For one, it greatly emboldens Hamas and increases their support level immensely - Hamas loses support during the peace process because they sabotage it, but so long as they're hitting Israeli population centers, they retain support.  For two, the risk of civilian deaths in Israel, whom Hamas is explicitly targeting remains very real.

Hamas also gains support when Israel bombs stuff. If Israel stops bombing stuff, support for Hamas can only decrease. The Iron Dome is working great, and Israel can afford those casualties. Yes I just said that. The casualties Israel would sustain in the ~15 years it takes for would-be Hamas recruits to realize "hey, Israel stopped killing us", would be far less than the total casualties both sides would sustain if they keep at this for another ~70 years (and possibly less than the Israeli casualties alone).

No, that line of reasoning is utter bull****. You know what happens when a government fails to respond to hostility? Look at Iraq. Sectarian bickering has prevented any real government or military action to protect northern Iraq and now they'll be lucky if they can prevent ISIL from gaining further ground even with the US, Iran, and Russia throwing equipment at them. And they're still weeks away from actually solving the blocking issues with parliament, not to mention their actual military. With Israel there's this whole ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. If retaliatory air strikes are what was causing Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel, there never would've been rocket attacks to begin with. I'm not saying Israel would do as poorly against incursions as Iraq, but a "do nothing" retaliation policy would not bring the conflict any closer to conclusion. The animosity Palestinians feel towards Israelis won't go away even if Israel decides to trust Hamas and completely open up the closed areas.

The only way for this situation to end without more horrible bloodshed and general humanitarian catastrophes is if both the Palestinian authorities and Israel are willing to make fundamental diplomatic compromises.

[Scotty]

And, as previously pointed out, that isn't going to happen.  Until then, the only rational response Israel can realistically muster without either compromising its very purpose as a state entity is to continue to retaliate against rocket attacks.

[Aardwolf]

Fine, let me call your argument in some thread "utter bull****" and see how you like it.



Did none of you read the sentence after "Yes I just said that"?

The casualties Israel would sustain in the ~15 years it takes for would-be Hamas recruits to realize "hey, Israel stopped killing us", would be far less than the total casualties both sides would sustain if they keep at this for another ~70 years (and possibly less than the Israeli casualties alone).

advocating that Israel allow Hamas to kill its citizens with impunity for as long as it takes Hamas to get bored.

This is where all the pieces of my argument come together.

• Hamas didn't kill any Israelis. You want to count that one guy who had a heart attack? Fine. Idgaf.
• The thing you repeatedly declined to contest: The counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire.
• Therefore not counterattacking would not significantly increase Hamas' kill count.
• Therefore the number of Israeli casualties over a ~15 year period will be "small".
• Regardless of how large either number is, the number of Israeli casualties over a ~70 year period will be greater than the number of Israeli casualties over a ~15 year period.

Let that last one sink in. Israel is going to get more Israelis killed by counterattacking than would have been killed otherwise.

Disagree with that? Well then you should've contested my earlier claim about the short-term efficacy of the counterattacks.

[Scotty]

I love the parts of this conversation where you outright ignore everything I've said for the last two pages based purely on numbers of rockets.

I'll say it again: the number of rockets fired is totally irrelevant.  Absolutely, completely, totally, wholly irrelevant.  Even leaving aside the initial kidnapping and murder incident that touched off this entire incident, the number of Israeli deaths to date is similarly irrelevent.

You are advocating that a sovereign nation do nothing when faced by constant, dedicated, deliberate, and malicious bombardment of the population within its borders.

**** that.

What you continually fail to grasp is that I'm not arguing numbers, here, and neither is MP-Ryan.  We're arguing principle, and the principle of the situation is that a state cannot allow its citizens to come to harm through inaction.  That is the entire reason for a state to exist.  Israel can no more not respond to these rocket attacks than you can decide not to flinch after getting punched in the fact, because flinching means you're a pussy and deserve to get punched again.

If you don't understand how the numbers are totally ****ing worthless here, there's nothing to gain from further discussion.