Hacker News Reader

Comment by wolverine876 | Hacker News Reader

> it was very unclear whether this would lead to a wider, joint attack by other forces as well

I agree that it's easy to discuss rationally from the outside.

Hamas is not a threat to Israeli existence. Without extensive and far superior outside help, Hamas could not hold a square meter of Israeli (non-Gazan) territory).

Do you have insight into why Israelis talk about an "existential" war? I'm not dismissing their feelings - WTF do I know? - but I think it goes beyond expected overreaction and the exaggerations of a few fringe figures.

(And obviously, existential or not, Israelis will not want to experience future attacks like this Oct 7.)

View on HN

Israel is surrounded by nations which want to see Israel destroyed, and which have banded together in the past to attempt exactly that (e.g. the Yom Kippur War in 1973). If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack.

First, how realistic is that?

The most powerful neighbor, part of the Yom Kippur War, is Egypt, which in 1979 signed a peace treaty that nobody thinks they will violate. Jordan is a peaceful, cooperative neighbor. Lebanon is not capable but Hezbollah, in southern Lebanonon, is dangerous, of course - too dangerous for Israel to attack, probably, but to invade Israel and take territory? That is much different (and I don't know). Syria has just been through a long civil war. I'm not sure I see much potential at the moment.

Also, the US would openly fight on Israel's side.

But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk.

> If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack.

And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple. Escalation is generally considered a bad, amateur move in international relations. The trick is to accomplish your aim (deterrence) without creating a bigger problem. That's how you end up in major wars.

> But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk.

Yeah this was basically going to be my response to the first part of your response. Israel wants to be around for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. You can't accept existential risk, even if small, if that's your goal.

> And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple.

I agree. My comment was just trying to look at the question of why the initial invasion by Hamas was seen as an existential threat great enough to justify an all out counterattack. I don't know how to answer when enough is enough, and I could easily believe that Israel isn't even considering that question out of rage.

The damage to Israel's international reputation could outweigh any security it gains through deterrence - the fact that Hamas hasn't freed their hostages or stopped firing rockets suggests that they don't want Israel to stop fighting for this reason

> Israel wants to be around for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. You can't accept existential risk, even if small, if that's your goal.

There are exactly two ways of accomplishing this:

- Kill everyone else, total genocide, nuke their cities, don't leave a single potential future enemy alive ever, Final Solution;

- Make peace with your neighbors, get then to stop hating you.

For one, during this war Israel has been fired upon from Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, with Iran pulling many of the strings behind the scenes. The combined strength of these countries is definitely an existential threat.

Aside from that, the borders with Gaza and Lebanon are unlivable. More than 100,000 Israelis are displaced from their homes.

The international community does not care that Hamas is continuously committing war crimes, with respect to hostages, firing rockets at civilian population centers, and using human shields. They do not care that Hezbollah is violating multiple UN security council resolutions, including first and foremost 1701. They do not care that Yemen is firing cruise missiles at Israel from 1500 miles away and hijacking freighters with loose or no ties to Israel.

All the world cares about is how many rockets you need to store and how many militants you need to harbor to qualify as a legitimate target for the IDF.

It absolutely is existential.

> Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, with Iran pulling many of the strings behind the scenes. The combined strength of these countries is definitely an existential threat.

The only country listed that is any threat to Israel is Syria, and they haven't been on Israel's level for a long time, just went through a civil war, and can't even deter Israel from bombing Syria at will. Yemen and Iran don't have borders with Israel and have no means of fighting them.

The most serious threat is Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah's territory would be much more difficult to invade, and Hezbollah much more difficult to defeat, than Gaza and Hamas (as shown last time Israel attacked them). I don't know that Hezbollah has the capabilities to attack, take, and hold Israeli territory; I haven't seen anyone claim that.

> The international community does not care that Hamas is ...

I've seen the international community talk about it for decades, including now. I think this claim, made by other partisans too, is just a fabrication of victimhood and discredits Israel. Israel survives due to the support of the leader of the international order and most powerful country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com