3 ms·

> We have absolutely zero credible evidence of tends of thousands of child deaths. Unfortunately we have. > Don’t start stupid wars This was indeed an insane

> We have absolutely zero credible evidence of tends of thousands of child deaths. Unfortunately we have. > Don’t start stupid wars This was indeed an insanely stupid move from Hamas. > Hezbollah (and Iran) has been rational Idk if I'd call that rational: they were afraid of going war against Israel and they mostly tried to appease it. Only do discover that appeasement doesn't really works well against expansionist superpowers.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> they were afraid of going war against Israel and they mostly tried to appease it Fear can be rational. Rational fear measures costs and benefits. It's balanced by grimmer trigger strategies [1], e.g. disproportionate retaliation. > appeasement doesn't really works well against expansionist superpowers Correct. Israel isn't a superpower. (Even so, you only don't appease an adversary if you know you can win. If there is no possible world in which you win, the correct move is to drop the organised response to preserve resources and go guerilla. Part of the reason for maintaining peacetime readiness is so that you have the option of grim triggering.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_strategy
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  > Israel isn't a superpower. On the middle east scene, the balance of power is so lopsided in favor of Israel that I stand with this qualifier even though I use it in a way that isn't the most common way (as a “global superpower”, which Israel isn't) > Even so, you only don't appease an adversary if you know you can win Winning can take many shape, you don't have to be able to eradicate an opponent to be better off than if you tried to appease him and lost everything. For instance even if Ukraine were forced to accept a peace deal that involve losing all of the occupied territories, they would be far better off than if Zelensky caved before the invasion. There's no doubt that the outcome for Nasrallah wouldn't have been worse had he declare open war on Israel directly after Oct 7th. The problem is that he though he had a lot to lose, when instead given Israel's long term plan he could only have improved his position.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the balance of power is so lopsided in favor of Israel that I stand with this qualifier even though I use it in a way that isn't the most common way You use it in a way that renders it meaningless. If Israel is a superpower so is Iran, and at that point we’re talking about one nuclear-ambitious superpower encircling a nuclear superpower, a situation that historically justified a whole lot more than bombing buildings. > he though he had a lot to lose He was wrong and got killed. Same as Sinwar. The difference is Hezbollah learned quickly; Hamas took longer.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      > If Israel is a superpower so is Iran There's an order of magnitude between those two in terms of military power. Iran has little ability to even hit a strategically important target in Israel, while Israel has the capability to destroy anything up in Iran. Comparing those two is as misleading as comparing the Iraqi military to the US right before the gulf war. > He was wrong and got killed. Same as Sinwar. The comparison is very poor: not only Nasrallah is dead, but his life's entire project has been defeated: Hezbollah has lost its military power and also its political power in Lebanon, the blow it took was crushing. On the other hand, Hamas still controls Gaza and will replenish its forces easily because they have full support from the population at this point (some sources even suggest that Hamas has gained more militants than it has lost in the war already, and even if it's not yet the case, there's no doubt it will in medium terms at least). Israel has been unable to convert its tactical victory into a strategic one against Hamas, whereas the defeat of Hezbollah is a strategic one (Jolani put the nail in the coffin by taking over Syria).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> they were afraid of going war against Israel and they mostly tried to appease it Fear can be rational. Rational fear measures costs and benefits. It's balanced by grimmer trigger strategies [1], e.g. disproportionate retaliation. > appeasement doesn't really works well against expansionist superpowers Correct. Israel isn't a superpower. (Even so, you only don't appease an adversary if you know you can win. If there is no possible world in which you win, the correct move is to drop the organised response to preserve resources and go guerilla. Part of the reason for maintaining peacetime readiness is so that you have the option of grim triggering.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_strategy

littlestymaar 2y ago
> Israel isn't a superpower. On the middle east scene, the balance of power is so lopsided in favor of Israel that I stand with this qualifier even though I use it in a way that isn't the most common way (as a “global superpower”, which Israel isn't) > Even so, you only don't appease an adversary if you know you can win Winning can take many shape, you don't have to be able to eradicate an opponent to be better off than if you tried to appease him and lost everything. For instance even if Ukraine were forced to accept a peace deal that involve losing all of the occupied territories, they would be far better off than if Zelensky caved before the invasion. There's no doubt that the outcome for Nasrallah wouldn't have been worse had he declare open war on Israel directly after Oct 7th. The problem is that he though he had a lot to lose, when instead given Israel's long term plan he could only have improved his position.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the balance of power is so lopsided in favor of Israel that I stand with this qualifier even though I use it in a way that isn't the most common way You use it in a way that renders it meaningless. If Israel is a superpower so is Iran, and at that point we’re talking about one nuclear-ambitious superpower encircling a nuclear superpower, a situation that historically justified a whole lot more than bombing buildings. > he though he had a lot to lose He was wrong and got killed. Same as Sinwar. The difference is Hezbollah learned quickly; Hamas took longer.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > If Israel is a superpower so is Iran There's an order of magnitude between those two in terms of military power. Iran has little ability to even hit a strategically important target in Israel, while Israel has the capability to destroy anything up in Iran. Comparing those two is as misleading as comparing the Iraqi military to the US right before the gulf war. > He was wrong and got killed. Same as Sinwar. The comparison is very poor: not only Nasrallah is dead, but his life's entire project has been defeated: Hezbollah has lost its military power and also its political power in Lebanon, the blow it took was crushing. On the other hand, Hamas still controls Gaza and will replenish its forces easily because they have full support from the population at this point (some sources even suggest that Hamas has gained more militants than it has lost in the war already, and even if it's not yet the case, there's no doubt it will in medium terms at least). Israel has been unable to convert its tactical victory into a strategic one against Hamas, whereas the defeat of Hezbollah is a strategic one (Jolani put the nail in the coffin by taking over Syria).