Netanyahu tells Israel ‘We are at war’ after Hamas launches an unprecedented attack, killing at leas

Tail waging the dog, as usual with US/Israel

 

Hmmm.. you would think if the IDF was doing a good job of hitting Hamas targets, they'd be begging for a ceasefire.

 

The concern though is that this leads to an issue of moral hazard. Let's say that there is an optimal time to end the war, in theory. Netanyahu has three alternatives: end the war earlier than necessary to achieve the optimal outcome, end the war at exactly the time to achieve optimal outcomes, and end the war later than necessary to achieve the optimal outcomes. The best solution for Israel would, by definition, be to end the war at the exact time to achieve the optimal outcomes. However, for Netanyahu, who gets to stay leader while the war goes on (or at least raises the possibility of such), the individually-optimal outcome might be to let the war drag on for longer so that he can stay President and not go to trial for corruption.

The goal of eradicating Hamas is not achievable via non-war methods in the short- or even medium-term. It is also not achievable via war methods. The leadership of Hamas is shielded and has their own version of a moral hazard situation (where they directly profit from the existence of the war even if it harms Gaza).

Here are the goals that are achievable: removing Hamas as the government of Gaza (essentially already done), returning the hostages (this has not really been achieved efficiently via war and is likely more of an intelligence and diplomatic mission with the threat of violence in its most optimal form), and destroying the infrastructure on which Hamas relied (essentially already done). So the question remains: what is the goal of the next few months? Is it really being done in Israel's interests or Netanyahu's? Do we simply have two sides, both with substantial moral hazard issues in regards to their leadership, resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary violent deaths?

I'd suggest that the reluctance to provide anything concrete about how this actually ends by either side gives us our answer to that question.

 

Considering that the goal of Hamas is make martyrs of Palestinian civilians why would they be begging for a ceasefire since they have been rather successful insofar of that objective is concerned and although they have lost a significant number of fighters there are still plenty holed up in the network of tunnels beneath the Gaza strip.

 

And with the last election 18 years ago, half the population in Gaza under 18, and estimates of two thirds of the populace women and children, it's pretty safe to infer that probably half or more of the people killed did NOT vote for Hamas.

There's no more point to this conversation, and that is not intended to be rude though it will certainly seem like it is. We just won't see eye to eye.

In summary, you're OK with the amount of civilian death and suffering in Gaza. I am not. It's subjective as to whether it is productive - another area where we won't agree. History will inform us.

 

So it seems like you are opting out, but not before mischaractering my views and dehumanizing me - “I’m OK with civilian death” blah blah blah.

No, I am not “OK” with it. But I’m not OK with Oct 7th either. This is what happens when you declare war on another country (territory / whatever)

Through all of this you have not articulated an alternative course of action, other than “2 state solution” which Palestinians have never supported.

Have you ever asked yourself why bordering Egypt, or other middle eastern countries have not stepped in to help the Gazans?

 

Your questions are irrelevant. They don't excuse the Israeli tolerance for, and causation of, massive civilian death and suffering as a response to a terrorist act.

Nor is it mischaracterizing your position at all. Unless I am wrong, you support this Israeli action in Gaza. Which means you consider the collateral damage an unfortunate, but either necessary or tolerable, side effect.

Does it help if I phrase it differently? You are willing to tolerate such civilian death and suffering? You accept that it will happen? It's the same thing, really.

Me, I consider the civilian casualties shameful and unacceptable. You.....well......you can put it in your own words.

 

So you oppose all war, including all wars ever engaged in by the US?

 

That's a bit of a subject change, isn't it?

I certainly oppose THIS military operation. Which IMO cannot actually necessarily even be called a war.

The analysis generally breaks down to analysis of cost, benefit, the probable outcomes of alternatives and an attainable objective, the last of which IMO is not present here.

 

Nice post. I think, though, if you follow the recent resignations from the government, the signs are pointing to the need to form a new government sooner than later. I’m definitely no expert, it that is how I see it.

 

Unless, the Hamas goal is as much blood as can flow from its people to bolster its PR campaign. Others have posted articles on this already, but here’s this summary:

 

If that's the case why is Israel indulging Hamas by doing exactly what they want? That would seem to make Israel pretty stupid right?

 

Because Israel is focused in its goals, and doesn’t care what BBC has to say about them. Right or wrong.

 

So its goals are aligned with Hamas? Does that mean we are funding terrorism by supporting Israel?

 

It's all so terrible.

On one side, HAMAS - Death to all Jews and all that support them. Kill all you want Bibi / IDF, you are just strengthening our cause for the next round.

On the other - speculation on my part but, I agree with those that consider Bibi wants to drag this thing out as long as possible. He now understands
the Oct. massacre has lost him much political capital, so much so, according to some Jewish press reports, that he is toast at the conclusion.
So of course he wants to "fix" the unfixable. But he will never eliminate all vestiages of Hamas or Hezbolla. He's making it worse now.
Jews of conscious better consider that the current state of affairs, if allowed to continue, may result in a wider conflict.

And Bibi (and his wife) have that fraud and court case hanging over their head, it will be interesting if Bibi really "meant" all his bullshit about being a Jewish patriot and he is only concerned about what is in the best interest of the nation, or is he just another "Trumper", ................it's all about me.

 

Actually if we stopped supporting Israel we would be demonstrating that the Hamas strategy of sacrificing Palestinian civilians has been successful.

 

So, if I follow, we have to keep giving them money and weapons to do exactly what Hamas wants, and if we dont, Hamas wins.

 

Hamas wins when antipathy to Israel increases and what better way to create antipathy then to sacrifice Palestinian civilians especially women and children.

 

I would say antipathy towards Israel has increased a lot since their military campaign post 10/7, and will only increase the more they slaughter people and commit defacto genocide (and dejure war crimes). So how is Hamas not winning with Israel pursuing this course? You guys are arguing that Israel should play into their hands. I dont get it.

 

You can say Hamas wont agree to a ceasefire, but Israel doesnt have to keep bombing them or have the IDF in Gaza either. They can just stop the war themselves. They were getting rockets fired at them before 10/7. That was literally the status quo prior, and they were more or less ok with it, given their Iron dome money and the general ineffectiveness of the rocket attacks to begin with. In all their other limited incursions, they didnt need an accord with Hamas to stop.