4 ms·

This is a common, but very flawed misunderstanding of the situation in Israel, by analogizing it to 9/11. (Many Israelis were pushing this narrative at the star

by edanm 3y ago

This is a common, but very flawed misunderstanding of the situation in Israel, by analogizing it to 9/11. (Many Israelis were pushing this narrative at the start of this, btw, but that doesn't make it true.) This wasn't just a terror attack, like 9/11 was. It was an invasion. Thousands of armed militants breached the border and invaded Israel, then killed more than a thousand Israelis. The militants were inside Israel for a few days after. In addition to the ground invasion, Hamas shot rockets into Israel, and has continues to shoot rockets at Israel this entire time. This wasn't a terror attack. It was an invasion and a declaration of war. In addition to all of that, for the first few weeks after this invasion, it was very unclear whether this would lead to a wider, joint attack by other forces as well. It is very hard for people in the US, and for most Westerners, to really understand what it's like to be afraid of losing a war. Israel probably would've survived even if this war turned into a combined attack by not just Hamas, but by Hezbollah and possibly even others. (Who, btw, are also shooting at Israel every day, just not doing it enough to really be considered another combatant.) The response to 9/11 was maybe an overreaction. But 9/11 was not a real threat to the US , and this was fairly clear. This is an entirely different situation - there is a sworn enemy of Israel on its borders, proving they have the capability to kill thousands of citizens, and claiming they're going to do this over and over. That's a situation that a country can't live with, which is why Israel's reaction is not an overreaction - it's what any country on earth would do. Notes: 1. This doesn't mean that everything Israel does is ok - there are different ways of prosecuting a war, Israel could still be doing it in a very immoral way and be consistent with everything I said above (I don't think that's true, but it's orthogonal to my point in this comment). 2. This comment also doesn't say anything about whether or not Hamas is "justified" in invading Israel, nor does it claim that "history started on October 7th" or anything silly like that. Of course there's context to this whole situation. (It should be needless to say but I'll say it anyway - there is no excuse for Hamas's deliberate targeting of civilians, and no excuse for the slaughter they committed. Still, that's also orthogonal to the point I'm making in this comment.)

wolverine876 3y ago
> it was very unclear whether this would lead to a wider, joint attack by other forces as well I agree that it's easy to discuss rationally from the outside. Hamas is not a threat to Israeli existence. Without extensive and far superior outside help, Hamas could not hold a square meter of Israeli (non-Gazan) territory). Do you have insight into why Israelis talk about an "existential" war? I'm not dismissing their feelings - WTF do I know? - but I think it goes beyond expected overreaction and the exaggerations of a few fringe figures. (And obviously, existential or not, Israelis will not want to experience future attacks like this Oct 7.)
- JohnPrine 3y ago
  Israel is surrounded by nations which want to see Israel destroyed, and which have banded together in the past to attempt exactly that (e.g. the Yom Kippur War in 1973). If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    First, how realistic is that? The most powerful neighbor, part of the Yom Kippur War, is Egypt, which in 1979 signed a peace treaty that nobody thinks they will violate. Jordan is a peaceful, cooperative neighbor. Lebanon is not capable but Hezbollah, in southern Lebanonon, is dangerous, of course - too dangerous for Israel to attack, probably, but to invade Israel and take territory? That is much different (and I don't know). Syria has just been through a long civil war. I'm not sure I see much potential at the moment. Also, the US would openly fight on Israel's side. But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk. > If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack. And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple. Escalation is generally considered a bad, amateur move in international relations. The trick is to accomplish your aim (deterrence) without creating a bigger problem. That's how you end up in major wars.
    - JohnPrine 3y ago
      > But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk. Yeah this was basically going to be my response to the first part of your response. Israel wants to be around for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. You can't accept existential risk, even if small, if that's your goal. > And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple. I agree. My comment was just trying to look at the question of why the initial invasion by Hamas was seen as an existential threat great enough to justify an all out counterattack. I don't know how to answer when enough is enough, and I could easily believe that Israel isn't even considering that question out of rage. The damage to Israel's international reputation could outweigh any security it gains through deterrence - the fact that Hamas hasn't freed their hostages or stopped firing rockets suggests that they don't want Israel to stop fighting for this reason
selimthegrim 3y ago
Haven’t we been here before in 1956?

by edanm 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago

> it was very unclear whether this would lead to a wider, joint attack by other forces as well I agree that it's easy to discuss rationally from the outside. Hamas is not a threat to Israeli existence. Without extensive and far superior outside help, Hamas could not hold a square meter of Israeli (non-Gazan) territory). Do you have insight into why Israelis talk about an "existential" war? I'm not dismissing their feelings - WTF do I know? - but I think it goes beyond expected overreaction and the exaggerations of a few fringe figures. (And obviously, existential or not, Israelis will not want to experience future attacks like this Oct 7.)

JohnPrine 3y ago
Israel is surrounded by nations which want to see Israel destroyed, and which have banded together in the past to attempt exactly that (e.g. the Yom Kippur War in 1973). If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  First, how realistic is that? The most powerful neighbor, part of the Yom Kippur War, is Egypt, which in 1979 signed a peace treaty that nobody thinks they will violate. Jordan is a peaceful, cooperative neighbor. Lebanon is not capable but Hezbollah, in southern Lebanonon, is dangerous, of course - too dangerous for Israel to attack, probably, but to invade Israel and take territory? That is much different (and I don't know). Syria has just been through a long civil war. I'm not sure I see much potential at the moment. Also, the US would openly fight on Israel's side. But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk. > If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack. And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple. Escalation is generally considered a bad, amateur move in international relations. The trick is to accomplish your aim (deterrence) without creating a bigger problem. That's how you end up in major wars.
  - JohnPrine 3y ago
    > But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk. Yeah this was basically going to be my response to the first part of your response. Israel wants to be around for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. You can't accept existential risk, even if small, if that's your goal. > And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple. I agree. My comment was just trying to look at the question of why the initial invasion by Hamas was seen as an existential threat great enough to justify an all out counterattack. I don't know how to answer when enough is enough, and I could easily believe that Israel isn't even considering that question out of rage. The damage to Israel's international reputation could outweigh any security it gains through deterrence - the fact that Hamas hasn't freed their hostages or stopped firing rockets suggests that they don't want Israel to stop fighting for this reason

selimthegrim 3y ago

Haven’t we been here before in 1956?