If someone wanted to attack the us because we are bombing their country, they should target the pentagon or a military base. Our soldiers aren't hiding in hospitals and grammar schools

If you want to avoid civilian deaths you need to take into account the future.

If all hostage takers know there is never anything to gain by taking hostages, they will take fewer hostages.

Same with using children as human shields.

You literally save children lives in the future by disregarding present children lives and bombing the terrorist anyway.

That's the core game theoretical idea of "you don't negotiate with terrorists, ever, no exceptions" and when you credibly commit to that at any cost they stop taking hostages.

People who try to tell us we should actually think of the children or the civilians in hospitals (hopefully unwillingly) helps present day and future day terrorists around the world.

Never bend the knee to any blackmail, but you must to be known, credibly, to never do that for that to work.

The massive mistake that some left wingers makes is they think screaming at Israel while ignoring Hamas' part in all this will somehow magically save lives.

It will not.

You contribute to changing the calculus for Hamas so they win by maximizing civilian casualties and forcing Israel to do collateral damage. In other words, you make it a win/win for them to get Palestinians killed.

Violence and attrocities lead to more violence and attrocities.

Your game theory says politics is better.

Serbs are represented in Bosnia, so they are not being written off.

I do not believe post WW2 Japan and Germany are an accurate comparison the way Bosnia is. The German and Japanese populations might not have been eager to change, but they ready and accepting of the need to change; they did not actively resist occupation the way that Hamas did/will continue to do. Germany and Japan had no massive internal ethnic conflicts or historical grievances inside the countries preventing them from changing; their most popular political factions were not proposing to fight the occupation and actively work against it. I believe more accurate modern examples are Bosnia and North Ireland on the side of having political factions involved in the government, or Iraq and Afghanistan with having popular political factions excluded from the government. I don't think that's an exhaustive list, and I'd be more than willing to examine other examples.





I just said they aren't in charge: they are both doing their own things, they are not monolithic. I am not suggesting that the military wing be allowed to continue. I am saying that whatever entity ends up occupying Gaza will struggle to destroy it on their own; it is far easier to destroy it if the other wings of Hamas, as well as the citizens of Gaza, are involved in destroying the military wing.










I did not suggest you cannot destroy their will to attack. I suggested that actively involving Gazans in government by allowing their most popular political faction to participate will incentivize them to not only turn away from attacking, but also actively work against those who want to continue attacking.









I fully grasp that elements of Hamas have done this. Once again, they are not monolithic.









Once again, I never said that Israel should continue letting Hamas fire rockets at them, or to continue doing Oct 7s. I am arguing that a more effective way of preventing such attacks is to rid Hamas of the elements that enact these attacks, instead of trying to exterminate all all of Hamas.

We are talking retaliation when they shoot rockets at you from schools or hospitals, which political solution to guarantee that can never happen again do you have in mind?

Nothiing will magically save lives. Ignoring hamas' part would be a huge mistake but so is any conviction that Israel's actions are helping Israel.

You have no guarantees. Retaliation doesn't get you guarantees. It makes the problem worse. That's why your game theory tells you to 'retaliate' with politics. The people who want to kill really hate politcs. Politics can rob them of their support.

What does that mean today, on the ground in Gaza, you are sovereign commander of the Israeli war effort, what do you order?

what is Israel doing that you wouldn't be doing, and what should it do that it isnt doing, to "rid Hamas of the elements that enact these attacks"?

Game theory is about them hiding in hospitals and schools when they shoot rockets, not about solving the whole problem.

Once they gain nothing, ever, by using human shields, because you utterly disregard that you already solved that problem.

You don't make the problem worse, you remove one of their tactics.

It means not engaging in the upcoming campaign and moving to political solutions.

Not giving Israel money for weapons would save lives right now or no

So stopping bombing and occupation of Gaza right now, removing troops, and allowing the Hamas military to rebuild a capacity to strike Israel?

Meanwhile trying to convince what, Gaza to have elections? And what do you do when they stall, if you removed the threat of violence from the table, why should they do anything that you ask exactly?

No they have enough money to buy as many weapons as they need on their own, and if you are out of the picture you can't put strings now or in the future to their behavior.

I think that's where you go wrong with your game theory. If your applying game theory then you apply it to the whole 'game'. You can't just pick a tiny bit that suits.

In any case I don't know why you think hamas don't see it as a win if isreal kills human shields

I have no idea why you think I need game theory explained to me or where you saw me insult someone for referencing it. This is a politics forum. It’s not actually typical to use game theory when calculating the efficacy of literally thousands of children being murdered. I might say I find it morally reprehensible, but that’s not an insult.

Labeling anyone who calls for a ceasefire an “antisemite” might apply well to your last paragraph though.

Reading is hard etc

Right now Israel is killing how many people a month? 10k?


Stopping our support of them will

Increase deaths
No change deaths
Decrease deaths

?

I didn't mention removing troops, I said not launching this new offensive. I don't really know what is the best solution short term, and I am quite positive all short term actions suck. I have been focused on arguing long term solutions: 2 states with Hamas involved in the government. What do you think the optimal short term solution is?

Gaza should eventually have elections, yes.

How has the threat of violence been removed from the table if Israel stops the campaign they are about to embark on? There's been immense violence in Gaza recently, and that threat is still on the table.




I did not try to explain game theory to you. I said that I believe your characterization of the current discussion as game theory means the discussion is nuanced and with depth.

I then compared it to the thing you compared it to in your post: Victor's banning over insulting people, which is not nuanced, has no depth, and is actively discouraging discussion.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I think passionate defense of human rights is more worthy of discussion than theoretical gameplay with real people’s lives.

They might see it as a win because the west is full of weak people who don't understand game theory and/or don't care too much about guaranteeing Israeli security against terrorism at any cost who will ask for a ceasefire after enough children are killed.

Which is basically as saying that people who don't support indiscriminate bombing of targets where terrorists hide, no matter how many civilians are there, help terrorists. Not only Hamas, but terrorists worldwide in the present and in the future.

If we all stay togheter compact against terrorism never even blinking when a terrorist hiding among civilians is bombed, they stop because they don't see it as a win anymore.

But anyway in the meanwhile, terrorists are getting killed, so you at least accomplish that, and you keep doing that as long as you know the position of a terrorist in Gaza.

That's not game theory rather "a dead enemy won't be able to kill your guys in the future".

Passionate defense of human rights is great. That can occur without insulting posters and continually breaking rules.

It's real people lives even if you call a ceasefire and we are back at Hamas being able to pull a 10/7 again in a couple of years.

I understand you don't care much about the human rights of Israeli not to be kidnapped and taken hostage or slaughtered like animals at music festivals, but other people do.

And we value Israeli lives a lot more than Palestinian lives because that's what being an ally means, in practice.

Then Victor isn’t wrong.

And who is “we”? They should identify themselves along with you itt.

I don't see any solution if you mean the hostages still held by Hamas.

As for the rest, currently Hamas isn't able to do much if anything into Israeli territory so that problem is (short term) solved.

Israeli should keep going to destroy as much capacity of Hamas (or anyone taking its place) to ever hurt them again in the future and never stop until there is an unconditional surrender.

Worst case scenario they don't fully eradicate all weaponry, technology, tunnels and so on but they do remove many still in existence which is a strictly better outcome for Israel future security anyway.

We need complete unconditional surrender of Hamas (all branches), anyone ever connected to Hamas fully denied any role in reconstruction (optimally all exiled if they surrender, no need for any more violence if they surrender), and then we (international community) must step up with a ton of money and help whatever is left of gazean Palestinians build from 0.

With UN blue helmets for 10+ years and the like.

Until the whole of Hamas unconditionally surrender, Israel should keep looking for them anywhere they hide.

Edit additional: ofc if at any point a portion of Hamas or some groups in Palestinians society start to accept the idea Hamas complete eradication is the only way forward, they must be helped and taken in the winning side and rewarded appropriately