how israel reacts to attacks

[helloboy]

firstly, please stop relegatin all members of both sides to eithe one pole. Stop seeing all Israelis as the supporters of the attacks and all palestines as terrorist supporters. This is not true.

Next, both Israel and Palestine have become a farce. What used to be centers of greatness now lands of nonsense.


With all this nonsense oing on I am astounbded by still how many people there are that take ffaith in the common "Abrahamic God."

Next, that land belonged to dinosaurs and atheistic civilizations before any of the folks fighting for it today even started claiming it.

Honestly, do you think that God exists???//?

[Sniper]

Arnf...

I think it would be reasonable to expect that if a missile were to hit Tel Aviv, that Damascus would be the target of retaliation.

[Jeffmet3]

[ QUOTE ]
Arnf...

I think it would be reasonable to expect that if a missile were to hit Tel Aviv, that Damascus would be the target of retaliation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I think that inernational support, specifically from Russia and maybe even France will be important for Israel.

The regime's in Iran and Syria are ticking timebombs.

Hopefully, the world will realize this, and prepare likewise.

North Korea should be on a far lower priority that Iran/Syria. Give them aid, give in to Russia/China plans in return for their support in the Middle East.

This is a major crossroads and hopefully it will be handled well. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be the current support in our nation for doing what needs to be done to secure the region.

Although it will be tragic, a "Pearl Harbor" or "Lusitania" might be coming, and hopefully it isn't too late.

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
If it had been that simple, Ray, all military bases in Syria would have been bombed by US warplanes and cruiser missiles during this weekend. As they weren't, i.e. US (and most others) sees a point in not reacting disproportionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the news that syria (or even terrorists from syrian soil) lobbed missiles into manhattan.

I am pretty sure the US dropping 2 a-bombs on japan in WWII wasn't quite "proportionate."

Could you imagine america's response if hezbollah had the capability of sending missiles from lebanon that could land in america? The entire country of lebanon would have been carpet bombed by now.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it had been that simple, Ray, all military bases in Syria would have been bombed by US warplanes and cruiser missiles during this weekend. As they weren't, i.e. US (and most others) sees a point in not reacting disproportionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the news that syria (or even terrorists from syrian soil) lobbed missiles into manhattan.

I am pretty sure the US dropping 2 a-bombs on japan in WWII wasn't quite "proportionate."

Could you imagine america's response if hezbollah had the capability of sending missiles from lebanon that could land in america? The entire country of lebanon would have been carpet bombed by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were a GI getting ready to invade the Japanese home islands, the dropping of the bomb was plenty proportionate. Interesting how a cessation of hostilities occurred immediately thereafter, and how a society that glorified suicide bombers(kamikazes) became a benign and productive one relatively quickly. Perhaps disproportional force has its merits and isn't applied enough in the Middle East.

[Cyrus]

Your points about proportionality are well taken. Let me add this, which is not unrelated to game theory:

If A is attacked by B and A reacts disproportionately but does not eliminate B, then the next time that B intends to attack he will know what to expect from A. Which means that either B will refrain from attacking (in which case, deterrence works), or B will attack more massively than originally intended, since the response will be devastating but not conclusive) in any case. In other words, the escalation of by one side raises the stakes for both sides, for the whole conflict.

...I dare not add the assumption that both sides are rational. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Your points about proportionality are well taken. Let me add this, which is not unrelated to game theory:

If A is attacked by B and A reacts disproportionately but does not eliminate B, then the next time that B intends to attack he will know what to expect from A. Which means that either B will refrain from attacking (in which case, deterrence works), or B will attack more massively than originally intended, since the response will be devastating but not conclusive) in any case. In other words, the escalation of by one side raises the stakes for both sides, for the whole conflict.

...I dare not add the assumption that both sides are rational. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Reminds me of what my father said (in the context of business)...

If you are going to hit a man, you better make damned sure that he can't get back up.

[mackthefork]

Be careful what you wish for now, it cuts both ways after all.

Mack

[PokrLikeItsProse]

Israel seems pretty freaked out. They have relied on having military superiority as a deterrent for so long, but they can't keep their neighbors as technological primitives forever. Israel needs a permanent solution.

Both Israel and its opponents seem to see compromise as a sign of weakness, so are loathe to give in on any point. Any solution in the region will probably have to involve the United Nations acting from above, bolstered by troops which, quite frankly, will have to include a lot of US forces. Then, neither side loses "face" more than the other. Guaranteeing the borders of Israel and a newly-formed Palestinian state seems like a better use of American military might than the woeful, misplanned (or unplanned) effort in Iraq.

I have heard stories (no documentation) that Israel has deported Palestianians who advocate a non-violent Gandhi-like resistance. Not sure if it's true, but I can see why they would fear such a thing.

[Chris Alger]

The current Israeli terrorism in Lebanon isn't about reacting to "attacks," it's about Israel defending its right to kidnap, to drag people from their homes at night and hold them indefinitely without charge, evidence or trial.