3 ms·

That is only a cheap excuse. The indignation towards Israel encouraged its attackers to continue holding back hostages. And some countries really made a bad imp

• talldayo 2y ago
  > And what leverage would Israel have? To increase their military response? If their intention was to destroy all forms of international support for Israel, then sure. But it would make more sense to heed their allies call for a ceasefire and an end to excessive and unnecessary civilian casualties. If both sides turn this into a game of brinkmanship, then no third-parties will want to support anyone. That's part of the problem Israel has carved out for themselves in the Dahiya doctrine; disproportionate response only ends with escalation, never deterrence.
  • raxxorraxor 2y ago
    The intervention brought results and no other honest country would not react to such an attack. As I said, I believe some of the more indignant countries should be careful to not look like fools themselves. That is nothing anyone would want to appease. edit: The intervention to rescue the hostages wasn't "extremely violent". On what ground can you even make that judgement?
    • talldayo 2y ago
      > The intervention brought results The kind of results other countries want to promote? Think on that. If Israel hadn't codified extreme violence against civilians, these operations would likely have a lot more support internationally. Why would other countries support rescue operations that result in hundreds of innocent casualties? How would that kind of cooperation be distinct from terrorism, under the Dahiya doctrine?