3 ms·

Deliberate misunderstandings or just a general incomprehension of how deterrence works. You use deterrence to prevent a bigger conflict. It's on Israel and its

Deliberate misunderstandings or just a general incomprehension of how deterrence works. You use deterrence to prevent a bigger conflict. It's on Israel and its leadership (Bibi) that they used the lull between their increasingly brazen attacks against their opponents as an excuse to launch a full scale invasion of a neighbouring country.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
Israel didn't start many conflicts, I have none in my head. This of course was also caused by an attack by Hamas and Hezbollah, which lead us to today.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  '56, '67 and '82 were all clearly initiated by Israel. That's half of their top 6, actually.
  - fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      I'm fully aware of the background. You're confusing the official spin on events with the basic, kinetic nature of the events themselves. A pre-emptive strike is still, by definition, initiated by the country taking that action.
      - fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
        And you are cleary using a false argument. GP said that the conflict werent started by israel while your argument is about who started the kinetic war. A conflict in these cases started before the first shot was fired, hence your take is just wrong.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Right, I was talking about kinetic engagements. Which are pretty much all that matter when one makes the mistake of stepping into these silly "who started it?" debates. As for who started the whole "conflict" in Palestine, metaphysically speaking -- we all know the answer to that question.
        fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
        The only forward is to agree both/all sides are to blame (and they are) and go from there. Anything else is just silly.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Can't agree with you in terms of the conflict's deep origins (pre-1947). However it seems we do strongly agree in terms of shared blame for the conflict's continuance at nearly every stage since then. And that's really all that should matter, at this juncture. In that vein, it seems we should also agree that there's no need for implications that it was Israel's neighbors who "really" started the 3 major wars in its post-independence history in which it explicitly (as in the whole Cabinet sitting down together and saying, "Okay, let's do this") initiated large-scale operations in the absence of any credible immediate threat to itself.
        DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        In the 1967 war, Israel claimed that it's attack was preemptive, but it actually seems most likely that Egypt was not going to attack Israel. The Israelis had massive military superiority over the Arab armies in 1967, and they knew it (at least, the Israeli leadership knew it). They expected the war to be a fast, lopsided victory, which is what it turned out to be.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

Israel didn't start many conflicts, I have none in my head. This of course was also caused by an attack by Hamas and Hezbollah, which lead us to today.

aguaviva 2y ago
'56, '67 and '82 were all clearly initiated by Israel. That's half of their top 6, actually.
- fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    I'm fully aware of the background. You're confusing the official spin on events with the basic, kinetic nature of the events themselves. A pre-emptive strike is still, by definition, initiated by the country taking that action.
    - fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
      And you are cleary using a false argument. GP said that the conflict werent started by israel while your argument is about who started the kinetic war. A conflict in these cases started before the first shot was fired, hence your take is just wrong.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Right, I was talking about kinetic engagements. Which are pretty much all that matter when one makes the mistake of stepping into these silly "who started it?" debates. As for who started the whole "conflict" in Palestine, metaphysically speaking -- we all know the answer to that question.
        fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
        The only forward is to agree both/all sides are to blame (and they are) and go from there. Anything else is just silly.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Can't agree with you in terms of the conflict's deep origins (pre-1947). However it seems we do strongly agree in terms of shared blame for the conflict's continuance at nearly every stage since then. And that's really all that should matter, at this juncture. In that vein, it seems we should also agree that there's no need for implications that it was Israel's neighbors who "really" started the 3 major wars in its post-independence history in which it explicitly (as in the whole Cabinet sitting down together and saying, "Okay, let's do this") initiated large-scale operations in the absence of any credible immediate threat to itself.
      - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        In the 1967 war, Israel claimed that it's attack was preemptive, but it actually seems most likely that Egypt was not going to attack Israel. The Israelis had massive military superiority over the Arab armies in 1967, and they knew it (at least, the Israeli leadership knew it). They expected the war to be a fast, lopsided victory, which is what it turned out to be.