Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy14
What's the value in insisting that one side act in the rational manner that it's capable of, towards an enemy that isn't capable of that same rationality?
If you accept the proposition that parties should work towards an end that is beneficial to them, and that there are two possible avenues (peace and conflict), and that a peaceful solution is impossible because one side is incapable of acting rationally, then what is the benefit to that rational party of acting in that rational manner.
Israel and Egypt were in conflict for a long time. Both actors are capable of acting rationally, and once both sides decided that they were ready to do so, they established a lasting peace. Are Hamas, Hezbollah, and the segments of that Palestinian population that support those groups capable of that same level of rationality? I don't know that they are.
ANYWAYS, I promised myself I wouldn't get mired in this cesspool of a thread...
|
I think you can act rationally against an irrational actor. There is a difference between don’t defend yourself and the level of destruction inflicted in Gaza. If Israel’s goal is to limit the number of Israeli casualties overtime I do not believe there current actions are accomplishing it. Unless they are going full on displace/exterminate and occupy in which case it would be barbaric but likely effective. It’s the current in between stage of causing mass civilian harm but no clear path to resolution that doesn’t really make sense.