7 ms·

I've been here a long time. This may actually win the award for most ridiculous comment ever written on HN. To argue that a main should willingly sacrifice thei

I've been here a long time. This may actually win the award for most ridiculous comment ever written on HN. To argue that a main should willingly sacrifice their people for... what exactly? Why do you think these systems were built? To keep their people from "actually dying." Another route could be to indiscriminately return 10x fire for every indiscriminately fired inbound rocket. Would that be an appropriate response? I mean, it could "push for a peaceful resolution faster."

BobbyJo 6y ago
It wasn't an argument that one side should allow people to die, it was an argument that high mutual cost deters conflict and encourages diplomatic engagement. Which is true, see: nukes.
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  Deterrence presumes rational actors. One side in this conflict is rational. The other side, decidedly irrational, acting not in their best interests, harming themselves and many others specifically to attack the rational actor. Aside from that, the real issue is that the irrational side has not yet conceded that they lost their war, 70+ years ago, against the rational actor, who had established a state. They instigated that war, as they did not wish the rational actor to have that state. They are aided in their irrationality by various NGOs, and have managed to perpetuate and sustain their presumed victimhood, by attacking, with literal impunity, the rational actor. Now, here, you are suggesting that maybe, the rational actor should be restricted in their response to the irrational actor as it may bring the rational actor to the negotiating table. Which of course, completely neglects all the times the rational actor sat at the negotiating table with the irrational actor, hammered things most of the way out, and watched the irrational actor breach every single agreement. So ... What we have here has nothing to do with rational actor deciding enough is enough, and developing tech to reasonably neutralize the threat the irrational actor poses. Arguing against this de minimus effort, as it might bring the rational actor back to the table (in your mind) if they had to rely on sticks and stones ... is pretty much the definition of ludicrous. The rational actor has tried, for 70+ years, to get the irrational actor to work with it. And has been met with bloodshed, the irrational actor targeting civilians, which, is a real war crime, as compared to the BS alleged by the irrational actor, in their attempt to get the world to ostracize the rational actor. Exactly how, would this time be different? What would the irrational actor offer to jump start discussions? Because it is obvious from the last 70+ years that the underlying thesis of "land for peace" has not worked. A different approach was, and is needed. As much as I hate giving Trump credit, what he did was to change the parameters, which allowed other nations to get off the ledge with the irrational actor. This is, in turn, putting pressure on the irrational actor to begin acting rationally. Those actions need to continue. This all said, implying you wish to disarm a people who have armed themselves specifically to prevent mass slaughter at the hands of a losing side irrational non-nation state actor ... yeah ... not really a sound argument in any context.
  - BobbyJo 6y ago
    I wasn't suggesting anything other than what I said. When the cost of conflict is high, people are less likely to want it. I personally don't have any strong opinions on the conflict in Palestine, especially not anything prescriptive. The one response I'll give your perspective is: I think a better way of framing it is organized vs fragmented as opposed to rational vs irrational. Israel has a stable, empowered, central authority, while Palestine does not. To call the latter simply 'irrational' ignores the fact that it isn't a single entity, and may be composed of many rational actors with differing incentives. Even a single person can act rationally at all points in time and still appear irrational over some window. The more chaotic an environment, the less rational it's constituents will appear over a given window of time or geography.
  - dfadsadsf 6y ago
    I understand your point of view but I am not sure current state is sustainable and that Israel is rational actor long term. Israel depends on several things to be true and any one or two of them being false probably means end of state 1. Israel has much stronger economy than neighboring states. Hi tech army is expensive 2. Strong internal cohesion with no widespread protests/division or civil war. 3. Modern weapons systems are exclusively available to Israel 4. Strong US support with both money and political cover 5. Arabs not becoming majority in Israel thru demographics 6. Arab states continue to be in shitty state Specifically 3 may not be true for long with China investing in military capabilities 4 is not assured with woke anti-colonialism ideology and AOC/Tlaib/Ilhan increasing influence on Dem party. All Palestinians need to do is not to give up. Israel need to win every single time as there is no recovery from loss. There is argument that strategically Israel is at the strongest moment and it can get most concessions from Palestinians now. In future it may end up in much worse bargaining position.
- bsaul 6y ago
  It always amazes me how some people are unable to accept the fact that there are extremists ideologies in this world. The fact that you think that it’s possible to solve a conflict with diplomatic talks, no matter if the ideology in front of you is capable of sacrificing its own children in suicide bombings to kill other civilians ( which not even the nazis or the japanese kamikaze did), in a pure act of hate, should let you think twice about the best tactic. Sometimes, it is really impossible to talk some sense to some people. It’s just very hard to accept for us, but it just is, and history has proved that sometimes force is , unfortunately, the wisest choice.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Why not exterminate the Palestinians, then?
    - sgregnt 6y ago
      Because the extremists sort-of hold the civil population as their hostages.
  - BobbyJo 6y ago
    That's a bit of an unrelated tangent no? I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that force is never warranted.
  - mantap 6y ago
    I'm sure that if the Palestinians were granted either citizenship in a Palestinian state or equal citizenship in Israel, there would be many fewer ideologues in the region.
    - Papirola 6y ago
      that shows how little you know of and understand the problem.
      - bigfudge 6y ago
mcguire 6y ago
This came up way back in the 1980s with the "Star Wars" project. What is the purpose of an anti-ballistic missile defense system? Is it intended to protect our citizens from enemy aggression, or to protect our citizens from the results of our aggression? Why would the Israeli government want to do anything to resolve the Palestinian situation when they gain so much from allowing it to continue at a low level?
dang 6y ago
> This may actually win the award for most ridiculous comment ever written on HN. In that case you broke the site guidelines by replying, and so perpetuating the flamewar, leading to hellish places like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26460291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26460291. Please note: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." That's our version of "Please don't feed the trolls". The GP comment was egregious and deservedly flagged. Discussion can and should stop there. It's the reasonable and/or semi-reasonable replies to egregious comments that actually turn these threads into conflagrations. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

BobbyJo 6y ago

It wasn't an argument that one side should allow people to die, it was an argument that high mutual cost deters conflict and encourages diplomatic engagement. Which is true, see: nukes.

hpcjoe 6y ago
Deterrence presumes rational actors. One side in this conflict is rational. The other side, decidedly irrational, acting not in their best interests, harming themselves and many others specifically to attack the rational actor. Aside from that, the real issue is that the irrational side has not yet conceded that they lost their war, 70+ years ago, against the rational actor, who had established a state. They instigated that war, as they did not wish the rational actor to have that state. They are aided in their irrationality by various NGOs, and have managed to perpetuate and sustain their presumed victimhood, by attacking, with literal impunity, the rational actor. Now, here, you are suggesting that maybe, the rational actor should be restricted in their response to the irrational actor as it may bring the rational actor to the negotiating table. Which of course, completely neglects all the times the rational actor sat at the negotiating table with the irrational actor, hammered things most of the way out, and watched the irrational actor breach every single agreement. So ... What we have here has nothing to do with rational actor deciding enough is enough, and developing tech to reasonably neutralize the threat the irrational actor poses. Arguing against this de minimus effort, as it might bring the rational actor back to the table (in your mind) if they had to rely on sticks and stones ... is pretty much the definition of ludicrous. The rational actor has tried, for 70+ years, to get the irrational actor to work with it. And has been met with bloodshed, the irrational actor targeting civilians, which, is a real war crime, as compared to the BS alleged by the irrational actor, in their attempt to get the world to ostracize the rational actor. Exactly how, would this time be different? What would the irrational actor offer to jump start discussions? Because it is obvious from the last 70+ years that the underlying thesis of "land for peace" has not worked. A different approach was, and is needed. As much as I hate giving Trump credit, what he did was to change the parameters, which allowed other nations to get off the ledge with the irrational actor. This is, in turn, putting pressure on the irrational actor to begin acting rationally. Those actions need to continue. This all said, implying you wish to disarm a people who have armed themselves specifically to prevent mass slaughter at the hands of a losing side irrational non-nation state actor ... yeah ... not really a sound argument in any context.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  I wasn't suggesting anything other than what I said. When the cost of conflict is high, people are less likely to want it. I personally don't have any strong opinions on the conflict in Palestine, especially not anything prescriptive. The one response I'll give your perspective is: I think a better way of framing it is organized vs fragmented as opposed to rational vs irrational. Israel has a stable, empowered, central authority, while Palestine does not. To call the latter simply 'irrational' ignores the fact that it isn't a single entity, and may be composed of many rational actors with differing incentives. Even a single person can act rationally at all points in time and still appear irrational over some window. The more chaotic an environment, the less rational it's constituents will appear over a given window of time or geography.
- dfadsadsf 6y ago
  I understand your point of view but I am not sure current state is sustainable and that Israel is rational actor long term. Israel depends on several things to be true and any one or two of them being false probably means end of state 1. Israel has much stronger economy than neighboring states. Hi tech army is expensive 2. Strong internal cohesion with no widespread protests/division or civil war. 3. Modern weapons systems are exclusively available to Israel 4. Strong US support with both money and political cover 5. Arabs not becoming majority in Israel thru demographics 6. Arab states continue to be in shitty state Specifically 3 may not be true for long with China investing in military capabilities 4 is not assured with woke anti-colonialism ideology and AOC/Tlaib/Ilhan increasing influence on Dem party. All Palestinians need to do is not to give up. Israel need to win every single time as there is no recovery from loss. There is argument that strategically Israel is at the strongest moment and it can get most concessions from Palestinians now. In future it may end up in much worse bargaining position.
bsaul 6y ago
It always amazes me how some people are unable to accept the fact that there are extremists ideologies in this world. The fact that you think that it’s possible to solve a conflict with diplomatic talks, no matter if the ideology in front of you is capable of sacrificing its own children in suicide bombings to kill other civilians ( which not even the nazis or the japanese kamikaze did), in a pure act of hate, should let you think twice about the best tactic. Sometimes, it is really impossible to talk some sense to some people. It’s just very hard to accept for us, but it just is, and history has proved that sometimes force is , unfortunately, the wisest choice.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Why not exterminate the Palestinians, then?
  - sgregnt 6y ago
    Because the extremists sort-of hold the civil population as their hostages.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  That's a bit of an unrelated tangent no? I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that force is never warranted.
- mantap 6y ago
  I'm sure that if the Palestinians were granted either citizenship in a Palestinian state or equal citizenship in Israel, there would be many fewer ideologues in the region.
  - Papirola 6y ago
    that shows how little you know of and understand the problem.
    - bigfudge 6y ago

mcguire 6y ago

This came up way back in the 1980s with the "Star Wars" project. What is the purpose of an anti-ballistic missile defense system? Is it intended to protect our citizens from enemy aggression, or to protect our citizens from the results of our aggression? Why would the Israeli government want to do anything to resolve the Palestinian situation when they gain so much from allowing it to continue at a low level?

dang 6y ago

> This may actually win the award for most ridiculous comment ever written on HN. In that case you broke the site guidelines by replying, and so perpetuating the flamewar, leading to hellish places like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26460291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26460291. Please note: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." That's our version of "Please don't feed the trolls". The GP comment was egregious and deservedly flagged. Discussion can and should stop there. It's the reasonable and/or semi-reasonable replies to egregious comments that actually turn these threads into conflagrations. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html