[JohnPrine]

> 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

[Georgelemental]

> 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.