• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Only in this particular operation. But the war had to get this far for them to conduct it. So the cost is exponentially higher.

        • Monomate@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          If you were one of the parents/relatives of the kidnapped israelis, would you still think it was not worth it?

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            No, but I’m fully aware I’m a hypocrite there. I think most people are when it comes to their loved ones. If I was family of the hostages, I wouldn’t care how many innocent people died to get them back. I’d support the IDF.

            If I was the family of the nearby Palestinians, I wouldn’t care about the hostages, and I’d let them die if it meant my family would be safe. I’d support Hamas.

            This is why geopolitics can’t be personal. The best decision is not one that you insert yourself into, because you have a much higher threshold for acceptable collateral if it’s your own family on the line.

            At the same time though, this is also a lesson in why a ceasefire is crucial. You put yourself into everyone’s shoes, and you understand why this needs to end. Everyone’s families and loved ones are dying or in captivity, and it’s perpetuating a cycle of violence. It needs to end. Israel has the power to withdraw from Gaza and pursue purely diplomatic means, and it should.

            • Monomate@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              In the end of the day, it’s the law of the strongest. It’s no accident that Israel hoard a lot of weapons of war and build defensive systems like the Iron Dome. It’s a show of power for a very simple goal: deterrence. I don’t think Israel really though of using all their weapons, but just having them makes every one the enemy nations that surround them to think twice before attacking them. Well, Hamas did not think twice. And they cannot say they didn’t saw it coming.

              Israel accepting a ceasefire deal would be nice for saving lives and all, but would leave them vulnerable for future missile attacks from Hamas. A nation will always think of its own citizens first. Maybe the Hamas already counted with this reaction of Israel, and though that other Arab countries would form a coalition to fight Israel simultaneously. Well, it didn’t pan out. Deterrence worked after all.

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            If a cease-fire with a prisoner exchange was literally on the table but rejected by Israel, I’d pick the option where a bunch of innocent blood isn’t spilled to secure a release.

            • Monomate@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              So, the ideal solution for you is a return to the status quo, but with the Hamas getting away with it. Plus a bonus: multiple prisoners released just for returning the hostages to their homes, from where they should never have been kidnapped from in the first place. And, the cherry in top, the Hamas still having the capability of launching missiles whenever it pleases. What a great deal! (for the Hamas only, of course)