[Aardwolf]

Well of course, but just because we know what the "right thing" is doesn't mean they're going to do it. "Mind control" isn't a thing, but diplomacy is, and it seems a lot more feasible to persuade the right guys in Israel than it would be to persuade the right guys in Hamas.

Edit: By "of course" I mean: Yes, Nation A (Hamas analog) shouldn't do the bad thing they are doing; but since that's already happening, it falls to Nation B (Israel analog) to not do something even worse.

[zookeeper]

Yeah why not rolleyes on my comment asking for clarification after you making that wowzer of an ethical point about how everyone should be dead right now. That is really appropriate. Welcome to my ignore list.

I didn't roll eyes at you asking for clarification, I rolled eyes at you demanding me to "explain this really really well, or I can dismiss the entirety of your views from this moment on", which was indeed a way of asking for clarification, but a particularly unfriendly one.

If this isn't the forum to discuss it, then don't bring this up in the first place. If you make a point in here, you should be able and willing to elaborate on it. You either participate in a discussion fully, or not at all.

I didn't want to elaborate in this thread since it's almost completely unrelated to the actual topic of the thread, and I was very much expecting myself and whoever else participated on that tangent to soon enough be told that we're derailing the thread, which I believe we absolutely would have.

[SpardaSon21]

To move back to the social contract and why Israel is forced by it to attack the launchers, if Israel does not, that's basically the end of Israel as we currently know it.  To disregard one of the primary principles of the social contract, namely protection from outside threats, is to basically declare it null and void.  With no social contract governing Israel, it becomes the job of the people to restore it by whatever means are necessary, which is everything from peaceful protest (unlikely since that relies on a functioning social contract) to a violent popular revolution or even a military coup (more likely in my opinion).

[Aardwolf]

If Israel does not [attack the launchers], that's basically the end of Israel as we currently know it.

Explain how.

But first, take the following into consideration:

• The counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire; it did not save (m)any Israeli lives.
• Predictions of X event having Y effect on diplomacy amount to "I think this is how the group psychology would work out"; there is no certainty to be had.

protection from outside threats

I would argue with this as well, but I'd be repeating myself.



Edit: And I'm still waiting on an explanation of why you (the people who are disagreeing with me on a "social contract" basis) choose to interpret Nation A as "a society" and Nation B as "a different society", rather than treating it as all one society.

[SpardaSon21]

I did explain how, and it has nothing to do with diplomacy or even saving lives.  The nation of Israel is bound by the social contract to retaliate against those who attack it.  The people of Israel have subordinated several things to the nation of Israel, security among them, and in this instance security means responding to outside threats.  If the nation of Israel does not provide for communal security by retaliating against outside assaults, then it becomes the duty of the individual to provide for his own security.

Or, the version for those who don't know what the social contract is (like you, Aardwolf): The government doesn't respond to rocket attacks against its people in a forceful manner.  The people rightfully get angry at their leaders for not protecting them, and then Bad Things happen inside Israel.

However, all this is predicated on the notion that people can and should respond to violent attacks unleashed upon them as an essential part of necessary self-defense.  If you do not believe in the rights of the attacked to defend themselves from attack, then there's no way I nor anyone else here can you convince you of our viewpoint, and neither will you convince us of yours since our bases are so incompatible.

[Grizzly]

Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?

[Spoon]

Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?

They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.

[swashmebuckle]

Pretty sure the social contract in Israel/Palestine just reads "Sign here to be part of the problem and get ****ed over _________ (no signature required)"

[Dragon]

They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.

And you know why it's crazy? Because it's self-destructive for Hamas. Besides, it's not that they care about saving lives. Their entire point is "destroy Israel", except they can't even do that without becoming obsolete/their people realizing they're crap. Their existence is only rationalized by fighting with Israel, was this to stop, they'd cease to exist shortly afterwards.

Obviously, the very best solution would be Hamas saying "OK, screw this, we're going home. Sorry for the mess.". Israel would be, at that point, probably be willing to let them just stop firing and walk away. Except they aren't going to do that. They're an usual example of a bunch of tyrannical bigots. Kept together by primitive lust for power over other people, pretty much for power itself. This is fueled by blind devotion to their own interpretation of religion (it's actual teachings be damned, they're devoted to their own views, which they validate by bending an existing holy text to support them) and hate towards everything they don't understand, especially other religions. The only way to dislodge that kind of "government" is by violence. It's just a matter of directing this violence against actual members of the oppressive government and not against random people on the street.

[Grizzly]

They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.

Will it stop the situation as it is currently in the west bank, with people being detained without charges for six months or more? Will it stop stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper? There's a whole lot of stuff going on there that doesn't fit the "social contract" narrative, amongst other things.

[Mongoose]

The counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire; it did not save (m)any Israeli lives.

Do you actually have a source on this, and/or a reasonable expectation that the operation won't accomplish this, considering it's the primary purpose of said operation?

[Dragon]

I wouldn't say anything like this until this op concludes. It's not looking like much so far, but it could bring results yet.

Will it stop the situation as it is currently in the west bank, with people being detained without charges for six months or more? Will it stop stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper? There's a whole lot of stuff going on there that doesn't fit the "social contract" narrative, amongst other things.

Probably, Israel would lose it's primary justification against acting like a prick towards Palestinians in general (let's face it, it does do that from time to time). Right now, any support for Palestinians in general is greatly inhibited by Hamas' actions. Should the Hamas stop it's bombardment and go for a peaceful resolution (or, more likely, be stomped flat either by IDF or an uprising), and Israel continue acting like it does, people would probably start noticing and asking questions whether it's really justified (especially considering West Bank, which is much less violent than Gaza). And US defending of Israel's interests can only go so far.

[InsaneBaron]

To move back to the social contract and why Israel is forced by it to attack the launchers, if Israel does not, that's basically the end of Israel as we currently know it.  To disregard one of the primary principles of the social contract, namely protection from outside threats, is to basically declare it null and void.  With no social contract governing Israel, it becomes the job of the people to restore it by whatever means are necessary, which is everything from peaceful protest (unlikely since that relies on a functioning social contract) to a violent popular revolution or even a military coup (more likely in my opinion).

EXACTLY what I was trying to get at. If the President failed to deploy the US armed forces against an outside attack, we wouldn't have a US government for very long.

[Aardwolf]

those who don't know what the social contract is (like you, Aardwolf)

Did you ignore the thought experiment I described earlier? The one right before Spoon accused me of trying to kidnap the topic?

Go back and read it, and tell me that you would rather lose 10 randomly selected friends, family, and loved ones, than lose only 1 of them. Or, if you're not a horrible person, tell me why you don't think it's logically correct to substitute ("your friends, family, and loved ones", "groups chosen by a coin toss") in place of ("people", "nations"). Or, maybe actually learn from it.

And yes, I did leave out "for no good reason" vs "self-defense", because I remembered why I made it 0:1 versus 10:0 in the first place: so that team "heads" could claim self-defense.

However, all this is predicated on the notion that people can and should respond to violent attacks unleashed upon them as an essential part of necessary self-defense.  If you do not believe in the rights of the attacked to defend themselves from attack, then there's no way I nor anyone else here can you convince you of our viewpoint, and neither will you convince us of yours since our bases are so incompatible.

Do you know why I included that bit about the counterattack not saving (m)any lives? The bit you deemed irrelevant, because "self defense"? It's because if the action doesn't actually make anyone safer, it doesn't qualify as defense. Either contest my claim that it doesn't make anyone safer, or stop claiming "self defense".

The counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire; it did not save (m)any Israeli lives.

Do you actually have a source on this, and/or a reasonable expectation that the operation won't accomplish this, considering it's the primary purpose of said operation?

Ah, finally someone contests that claim. Congrats on finally understanding that it is indeed relevant, because with it I can prove that Israel's action of "self defense" is "defense" in name only.

To answer your question: It is a reasonable conclusion, one which I came to several pages ago. Based on the reasonable assumptions that the rate of fire of these rockets is not horrendously slow, and that it takes at least a few minutes for the counterattack to hit, I concluded that by the time the airstrike hits, most of the rockets will have already been launched, and the few extra rockets the airstrike destroyed would not likely have made the difference in either rate or volume of fire necessary to overwhelm the Iron dome system, or score (m)any "lucky hits" in lower-coverage areas.

[Scotty]

To answer your question: It is a reasonable conclusion, one which I came to several pages ago. Based on the reasonable assumptions that the rate of fire of these rockets is not horrendously slow, and that it takes at least a few minutes for the counterattack to hit, I concluded that by the time the airstrike hits, most of the rockets will have already been launched, and the few extra rockets the airstrike destroyed would not likely have made the difference in either rate or volume of fire necessary to overwhelm the Iron dome system, or score (m)any "lucky hits" in lower-coverage areas.

So not only have you been willfully ignoring everything we've said to date, you've been doing it based on your own assumptions supported by.... what, exactly?  Your extensive military training?  Your intimate familiarity with rocket launch systems?  Your on the ground experience with Hamas' rocket sites?

[Aardwolf]

It's not my fault you didn't read the post where I first presented that hypothesis (or forgot it, whichever).

If you had reason to disagree with those assumptions, or the way I used them to draw that conclusion, why didn't you contest it earlier?

[Spoon]

Will it stop the situation as it is currently in the west bank, with people being detained without charges for six months or more? Will it stop stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper? There's a whole lot of stuff going on there that doesn't fit the "social contract" narrative, amongst other things.

Of course it would. Just think about it for a second. Why does Israel does these things? Right, self defense. Preventing terrorist attacks etc. Look at what America does and continues to do to fight terrorism. Of course a lot of these things are not exactly kosher and its not as if Israel isn't without blame. But if you wanna pull an Aardwolf and make things really simple, then you could firmly say that a lot of the **** going on would come to a quick end if the Arabic/Islamic world would stop being such jerks to the Jews and would stop with their endless terrorist acts.
Also what dragon said above me.

And you know why it's crazy? Because it's self-destructive for Hamas. Besides, it's not that they care about saving lives. Their entire point is "destroy Israel", except they can't even do that without becoming obsolete/their people realizing they're crap. Their existence is only rationalized by fighting with Israel, was this to stop, they'd cease to exist shortly afterwards.

Obviously, the very best solution would be Hamas saying "OK, screw this, we're going home. Sorry for the mess.". Israel would be, at that point, probably be willing to let them just stop firing and walk away. Except they aren't going to do that. They're an usual example of a bunch of tyrannical bigots. Kept together by primitive lust for power over other people, pretty much for power itself. This is fueled by blind devotion to their own interpretation of religion (it's actual teachings be damned, they're devoted to their own views, which they validate by bending an existing holy text to support them) and hate towards everything they don't understand, especially other religions. The only way to dislodge that kind of "government" is by violence. It's just a matter of directing this violence against actual members of the oppressive government and not against random people on the street.

While you are partly true about Hamas as an organization. I think you are severely underestimating how much Hamas is supported by the Palestinian people themselves.
Disbanding Hamas won't instantly make the troubles go away. You'd need to reeducate a whole society full of people on all the hate they've been taught from childhood. You'd need to get them to agree that being a martyr suicide terrorist isn't a glorious thing, that Jews don't need to all burn to death and that the state of Israel can just, ya know... exist.
All of that **** combined with Islamic zealous jihad nonsense won't vanish just because a single terrorist organization packs up and leaves. As long as they keep poisoning every new generation with these doctrines of hatred this **** will continue on and on and on.

If the Palestinians would really want proper peace, it would have happened a long time ago.

[Scotty]

Let's go in descending order of how recently I've explained why you're still not getting it.

I have been describing both.  You continue to misunderstand that the number of lives does not matter for ****.  Period.  It could be one Israeli life for zero Palestinian lives, and the calculus would be the same.  It could be one Israeli wounded for a thousand Palestinian lives, and the calculus would be the same.

I do not contest that lack of retaliation would lead to less Israeli deaths by way of the retaliatory operations.

I declare complete and utter bull**** that there's nothing lost from surrendering the initiate to retaliate.

Israel still exists because it projects force.  When it ceases to project force, it will cease to exist.  That is not a reasonable course of action for Israel to take, because it directly contravenes every good bit of sense that a governing body could exercise.

Your solution is morally reprehensible.

That's what I said, yes.  The world is an ugly, stupid place.  It's not that I don't care (and rather resent the insinuation that I don't), it's that I recognize that individual lives are less important than matters of national survival.

This is a classic case of short term gain versus long term suffering.  You advocate short-term (70 years) gain.  I'm advocating the survival of a state and the millions of people in it.  If you feel like being crude about it, it's also a case of the ends justifying the means.

And all of this dances around one of the most important issues that you apparently don't understand: self-defense.  I'll quote MP-Ryan's far more eloquent discourse on the subject, in case you glossed over or skimmed it on your way to making your point:

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.

Israel is the only place in the entire goddamn world where this sort of thing results in people blaming Israel.  It's victim blaming at the national level, and it's complete and utter bull****.

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.

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.

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."

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.

I count no less than seven times that I've explained to you exactly why Israel cannot do what you think it should.  MP-Ryan has chimed in a similar number of times.  Mongoose has also expressed how utterly inane that is.

I will say it for the (at least) eighth time: The actual number of rockets, where they are located, and how much real damage they do is completely and utterly ****ing useless as a baseline for the response.  I have declined to contest your point because it's stupid.  You have recently pointed out on your very own how little you base it on, and how little you actually know about the situation, and admitted to the entire thread that it is, in fact, a stupid assumption.

So, again:

[karajorma]

Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?

They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.

I think the suggestion that Hamas stopping firing rockets would lead to peace is about as naive as the one that peace would follow Israel stopping retaliation.

[headdie]

Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?

They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.

I think the suggestion that Hamas stopping firing rockets would lead to peace is about as naive as the one that peace would follow Israel stopping retaliation.

yup  as it stands peace would take a substantial change in both the political and social dynamic of the situation on both sides of the conflict