1) You started by taking for granted the main goal of this war is returning the hostages. But it can't be! The release of the hostages may be a goal of negotiations, of a rescue operation or international campaign. But the goal of the war is the victory, by definition. We may discuss and disagree what victory means. But ONLY getting back our hostages, even all of them, clearly is NOT a victory.
2) With my first point in view, I would reshape your table:
- the first line on the left should read "Israel looses the war"
- I don't like the meek framing of the three following lines (we may be sire as hell from our previous experience Hamas will start shooting rockets at us; our standing as a regional superpower will be ruined; darned "International community" will never let us resume the war) but I will let them be
- the last line is OK
I want to add several more lines to this side of the table. Three of them are the opposite to what I would have placed in the "benefits" on the right side of the table. But as we don't have "benefits", here goes:
- large part of underground terror infrastructure in Gaza remains intact, ready to be used by Hamas the moment we move out
- unknown but probably large amount of weaponry and munition, as well as the means to assemble even more, remains in the hands of terrorists
- about a half or more of hardened, trained terrorists remain at the stones throw distance from our villages; we are talking about continuing to live side by side with 15-20 thousands of terrorists, protected only by the fence that already proved ineffective
- the last is the cost that somehow is taken out of public narrative in all of such discussions: even with no final conditions known we are talking about releasing of THOUSANDS of convicted terrorists into Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem! Some in Haifa or Tel Aviv may be less concern about it than I am in Ma"ale Adumim. Yet it is strange blindness as only yesterday a terrorists from Jerusalem injured 4 people in the central region, one of them still between life and death.
3) Now for the right side of the table. The first line is obvious. The second is not clear. What does she (you?) mean by "more military mistakes" that is not covered by the following points? Solder causalities, "innocent palestinian" causalities, and hostages killed by mistake are all covered. It looks like she is trying to make the list on the right longer :)
- there are 3 (three!) separate lines referring to the suffering of Gaza citizens (humanitarian crises, infrastructures destroyed, more Gazans killed). Seeing as she didn't even mention thousands of terrorists let loose on the Jews in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and most probably on all citizens of Israel, I have some questions about this selective compassion...
- I didn't understand why you didn't cancel the line "more rockets on us" on the right with the line "may use ammunition against us if they don't abide by ceasefire" (here should be my derisive laugh - as if they ever did!)
- continued displacement on both sides. Errrr. Does she really thinks Jews will be free and willing to return to Gaza border villages knowing thousands of terrorists with a lot of arms intact are just over the border? As for the Gaza residents - I can't care less, but Molly obviously does. But she should realize there is nowhere to return for the large part of them, and it would take years to rebuilt anyway, so several more months wouldn't change much. On the other hand, if Hamas is really defeated and expelled, there may be more actors willing to invest in rebuilding of Gaza.
- the last line, about international anti-Semitism is a classic - for her, Jews are hated because of what they do, not because of what - who - they are.
4) Lastly I want to address your conclusion. You say you finally understood. Well, I didn't. When the right was horrified of what Rabin, Peres and than Sharon did, they were horrified of the very specific consequences of these actions. As history showed, their (our) opposition to these actions was based on understanding of reality rather than on irrational fears. But when it comes to the opposite, I am yet to hear coherent explanation of what, exactly, is the frightening the left so much that they are willing to burn down the country.
Oh, and I am sure you recognized my clumsy English and inability to express my thoughts shortly. I am Ira Zelickman from FB
Hi Ira. Thanks for the kind of comment I have grown to know you by.
1. You are confusing the exercise with the government's decision making. We were not listing the government's goals for continuing or ending the war but Molly's. Molly was only representing herself as someone who wants the government to end the war now and we can say that the demonstrators shouting for the war to end NOW so that the hostages can be released NOW.
2. "Israel loses the war" is certainly a potential cost for Alternative A (and I would say, it is certain consequence of A). But, even if Molly were to agree to put that point under A, it could also be listed under B because even continuing the war, there is no guarantee for Israel to win it, so it would end up being cancelled out in any case.
We don't have benefits in this table because benefits don't help us make a decision (because we want all of the benefits of both alternatives without the costs of either) and because, as you note, because the benefits of one side are the costs of the other, so it doesn't help us decide. Only costs do. If you want to check this out with a personal decision, we can do this on Zoom or whatsapp video.
You are right -- leaving underground terror infrastructure intact can definitely be added to A. In that vein, under B would be unable to locate all tunnels and we achieve victory falsely believing we have eliminated all underground sources of threat to our security. Ditto for the weaponry point.
The issue of the fence is covered in discussion about how to reduce the costs of leaving Hamas not totally destroyed.
3. These points are all hers. She is not trying to make the Alternative B list longer -- we did that one first. It is not a matter of which list is longer -- it is a matter of the essence of each list. I have had people make very lengthy lists on one side with only one or two points on the other side but because of the values represented by these costs, they chose the shorter list.
You are correct -- we could have cancelled rockets and weapons used against us.
I agree with you about Israelis being unwilling to return home until the threat is eliminated. But, again, this can be taken care of in the ways to reduce the cost of ending the war prematurely. Not that I agree with this -- this is Molly's list and not mine. And about the Gazans and what happens with them, I would reword what you write as a cost of ending the war ASAP: fewer foreigners willing to contribute to rebuilding Gaza. I think I did discuss how keeping Hamas in control will ultimately not allow local leadership who care more about Gazan lives than killing Jews to arise.
And I forgot to add that point about antisemitism in my own discussion -- I don't think anyone cares what we do -- they hate us because they hate and will use anything we do as an excuse to further that hate.
4. What I did understand (I did not say agree with, but understand)-- and perhaps that is more clearly described in Part II of this two-part article -- is that all discussions with Israeli leftists about what any Israeli government does regarding our neighbours is based on the fact that they (leftists) see us as occupiers. They are not going to move from that position as long as they believe we have no right to be in any part of the Land of Israel. They are going to continue to seek to be kind to those who want to kill us.
Again -- I understand that that point underlies their call for the war to end now in order to bring the hostages home now (that is what they are calling out on the streets, not what the government is saying -- keep this straight). I do not understand why they do not see the danger in what they believe. I do not understand how they can have witnessed (or, like in the case of Avi Dabush, personally experienced) the inhuman atrocities committed by Gazans who are not Hamas militants and still believe that we have to be kind to them, offer them a state by giving up land to them, etc.
I am going to make a few changes to my article because of things you discussed in this comment. Thanks.
1) "You are confusing..." No I am not. Because Molly is not the one making decisions - government does. So the honest question anyone must asking oneself before taking to the streets with demands is "What would I do if I was PM". Any other question is deliberately childish
2) Winning the war: The difference is that stopping the war now means losing the war now, without question. Continuing the war is going on with the hope of winning. Sure, we may still lose. But it is not the same as capitulating without even trying to end the war on our terms. The same is true about terror infrastructure, weapons and live terrorists - the moment we stop everything that is left is left. Every day IDF continues reduces what is left.
You again left out the threat of terrorists released in exchange for hostages! Is the subject so painful that our mind blocks it?
3) I would reword what I said originally. If there are all these plagues of Gazans in the right column - let's add the plagues of Jews sure to follow as a result of exchange deal to the left, shall we?
- the danger of terror attacks on Israeli and diaspora Jews by thousands of released terrorists
- incised threat of abduction of Jews by Arabs in Israel and around the world (if it pays off, why not to do it again?)
- growing sense of insecurity for Israeli Jews
- collapse of national moral and self-respect
4) If the modern left sees Israel as an occupation force in ALL of Israel and doesn't recognize the right of Israel to exist, than these who call them "traitors" are right? They are really aiming to destroy the State of Israel? I hope not. And I am sure it was not the view of the left-wing founding fathers. But these who really feel in such way are basically contradicting themselves: if you see Jews as occupiers, yourself included - why you continue to stay here?
1. Your question is a legitimate one for a different article. And I may use it for a different article.
2. and 3. You are arguing with Molly. That was not my goal in this exercise. My goal was to identify what she would say while doing this exercise. When writing up my reflections on what came out while doing this, I did not go into all the details you did. Perhaps I should have. Seeing your comments here makes me think that this exercise would best have been done, not with one person, but with a group, some of whom are leftists and some right wing. That would have ensured that ALL potential costs would have been raised.
4. I don't think the modern left sees us as occupying ALL of Israel, nor do I think they deny the right of Israel to exist. I think they think that if we give them more land and a separate state, they will be satisfied with that. That is where they delude themselves -- like Molly said in the article, she recognizes that the two-state-solution is not for the near future but for some far future (when they will accept us being here). And that is what my left wing friends believe, not just a more recent friend like Molly, but my long time friends -- decades long friends -- which is why I no longer talk with them about this topic because we have a lifetime of topics to talk about and we don't want to risk our friendship. And that is what I find so hard to understand -- how they keep deluding themselves after Oct 7th.
I see a lot of problems in this experiment.
1) You started by taking for granted the main goal of this war is returning the hostages. But it can't be! The release of the hostages may be a goal of negotiations, of a rescue operation or international campaign. But the goal of the war is the victory, by definition. We may discuss and disagree what victory means. But ONLY getting back our hostages, even all of them, clearly is NOT a victory.
2) With my first point in view, I would reshape your table:
- the first line on the left should read "Israel looses the war"
- I don't like the meek framing of the three following lines (we may be sire as hell from our previous experience Hamas will start shooting rockets at us; our standing as a regional superpower will be ruined; darned "International community" will never let us resume the war) but I will let them be
- the last line is OK
I want to add several more lines to this side of the table. Three of them are the opposite to what I would have placed in the "benefits" on the right side of the table. But as we don't have "benefits", here goes:
- large part of underground terror infrastructure in Gaza remains intact, ready to be used by Hamas the moment we move out
- unknown but probably large amount of weaponry and munition, as well as the means to assemble even more, remains in the hands of terrorists
- about a half or more of hardened, trained terrorists remain at the stones throw distance from our villages; we are talking about continuing to live side by side with 15-20 thousands of terrorists, protected only by the fence that already proved ineffective
- the last is the cost that somehow is taken out of public narrative in all of such discussions: even with no final conditions known we are talking about releasing of THOUSANDS of convicted terrorists into Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem! Some in Haifa or Tel Aviv may be less concern about it than I am in Ma"ale Adumim. Yet it is strange blindness as only yesterday a terrorists from Jerusalem injured 4 people in the central region, one of them still between life and death.
3) Now for the right side of the table. The first line is obvious. The second is not clear. What does she (you?) mean by "more military mistakes" that is not covered by the following points? Solder causalities, "innocent palestinian" causalities, and hostages killed by mistake are all covered. It looks like she is trying to make the list on the right longer :)
- there are 3 (three!) separate lines referring to the suffering of Gaza citizens (humanitarian crises, infrastructures destroyed, more Gazans killed). Seeing as she didn't even mention thousands of terrorists let loose on the Jews in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and most probably on all citizens of Israel, I have some questions about this selective compassion...
- I didn't understand why you didn't cancel the line "more rockets on us" on the right with the line "may use ammunition against us if they don't abide by ceasefire" (here should be my derisive laugh - as if they ever did!)
- continued displacement on both sides. Errrr. Does she really thinks Jews will be free and willing to return to Gaza border villages knowing thousands of terrorists with a lot of arms intact are just over the border? As for the Gaza residents - I can't care less, but Molly obviously does. But she should realize there is nowhere to return for the large part of them, and it would take years to rebuilt anyway, so several more months wouldn't change much. On the other hand, if Hamas is really defeated and expelled, there may be more actors willing to invest in rebuilding of Gaza.
- the last line, about international anti-Semitism is a classic - for her, Jews are hated because of what they do, not because of what - who - they are.
4) Lastly I want to address your conclusion. You say you finally understood. Well, I didn't. When the right was horrified of what Rabin, Peres and than Sharon did, they were horrified of the very specific consequences of these actions. As history showed, their (our) opposition to these actions was based on understanding of reality rather than on irrational fears. But when it comes to the opposite, I am yet to hear coherent explanation of what, exactly, is the frightening the left so much that they are willing to burn down the country.
Oh, and I am sure you recognized my clumsy English and inability to express my thoughts shortly. I am Ira Zelickman from FB
Hi Ira. Thanks for the kind of comment I have grown to know you by.
1. You are confusing the exercise with the government's decision making. We were not listing the government's goals for continuing or ending the war but Molly's. Molly was only representing herself as someone who wants the government to end the war now and we can say that the demonstrators shouting for the war to end NOW so that the hostages can be released NOW.
2. "Israel loses the war" is certainly a potential cost for Alternative A (and I would say, it is certain consequence of A). But, even if Molly were to agree to put that point under A, it could also be listed under B because even continuing the war, there is no guarantee for Israel to win it, so it would end up being cancelled out in any case.
We don't have benefits in this table because benefits don't help us make a decision (because we want all of the benefits of both alternatives without the costs of either) and because, as you note, because the benefits of one side are the costs of the other, so it doesn't help us decide. Only costs do. If you want to check this out with a personal decision, we can do this on Zoom or whatsapp video.
You are right -- leaving underground terror infrastructure intact can definitely be added to A. In that vein, under B would be unable to locate all tunnels and we achieve victory falsely believing we have eliminated all underground sources of threat to our security. Ditto for the weaponry point.
The issue of the fence is covered in discussion about how to reduce the costs of leaving Hamas not totally destroyed.
3. These points are all hers. She is not trying to make the Alternative B list longer -- we did that one first. It is not a matter of which list is longer -- it is a matter of the essence of each list. I have had people make very lengthy lists on one side with only one or two points on the other side but because of the values represented by these costs, they chose the shorter list.
You are correct -- we could have cancelled rockets and weapons used against us.
I agree with you about Israelis being unwilling to return home until the threat is eliminated. But, again, this can be taken care of in the ways to reduce the cost of ending the war prematurely. Not that I agree with this -- this is Molly's list and not mine. And about the Gazans and what happens with them, I would reword what you write as a cost of ending the war ASAP: fewer foreigners willing to contribute to rebuilding Gaza. I think I did discuss how keeping Hamas in control will ultimately not allow local leadership who care more about Gazan lives than killing Jews to arise.
And I forgot to add that point about antisemitism in my own discussion -- I don't think anyone cares what we do -- they hate us because they hate and will use anything we do as an excuse to further that hate.
4. What I did understand (I did not say agree with, but understand)-- and perhaps that is more clearly described in Part II of this two-part article -- is that all discussions with Israeli leftists about what any Israeli government does regarding our neighbours is based on the fact that they (leftists) see us as occupiers. They are not going to move from that position as long as they believe we have no right to be in any part of the Land of Israel. They are going to continue to seek to be kind to those who want to kill us.
Again -- I understand that that point underlies their call for the war to end now in order to bring the hostages home now (that is what they are calling out on the streets, not what the government is saying -- keep this straight). I do not understand why they do not see the danger in what they believe. I do not understand how they can have witnessed (or, like in the case of Avi Dabush, personally experienced) the inhuman atrocities committed by Gazans who are not Hamas militants and still believe that we have to be kind to them, offer them a state by giving up land to them, etc.
I am going to make a few changes to my article because of things you discussed in this comment. Thanks.
1) "You are confusing..." No I am not. Because Molly is not the one making decisions - government does. So the honest question anyone must asking oneself before taking to the streets with demands is "What would I do if I was PM". Any other question is deliberately childish
2) Winning the war: The difference is that stopping the war now means losing the war now, without question. Continuing the war is going on with the hope of winning. Sure, we may still lose. But it is not the same as capitulating without even trying to end the war on our terms. The same is true about terror infrastructure, weapons and live terrorists - the moment we stop everything that is left is left. Every day IDF continues reduces what is left.
You again left out the threat of terrorists released in exchange for hostages! Is the subject so painful that our mind blocks it?
3) I would reword what I said originally. If there are all these plagues of Gazans in the right column - let's add the plagues of Jews sure to follow as a result of exchange deal to the left, shall we?
- the danger of terror attacks on Israeli and diaspora Jews by thousands of released terrorists
- incised threat of abduction of Jews by Arabs in Israel and around the world (if it pays off, why not to do it again?)
- growing sense of insecurity for Israeli Jews
- collapse of national moral and self-respect
4) If the modern left sees Israel as an occupation force in ALL of Israel and doesn't recognize the right of Israel to exist, than these who call them "traitors" are right? They are really aiming to destroy the State of Israel? I hope not. And I am sure it was not the view of the left-wing founding fathers. But these who really feel in such way are basically contradicting themselves: if you see Jews as occupiers, yourself included - why you continue to stay here?
1. Your question is a legitimate one for a different article. And I may use it for a different article.
2. and 3. You are arguing with Molly. That was not my goal in this exercise. My goal was to identify what she would say while doing this exercise. When writing up my reflections on what came out while doing this, I did not go into all the details you did. Perhaps I should have. Seeing your comments here makes me think that this exercise would best have been done, not with one person, but with a group, some of whom are leftists and some right wing. That would have ensured that ALL potential costs would have been raised.
4. I don't think the modern left sees us as occupying ALL of Israel, nor do I think they deny the right of Israel to exist. I think they think that if we give them more land and a separate state, they will be satisfied with that. That is where they delude themselves -- like Molly said in the article, she recognizes that the two-state-solution is not for the near future but for some far future (when they will accept us being here). And that is what my left wing friends believe, not just a more recent friend like Molly, but my long time friends -- decades long friends -- which is why I no longer talk with them about this topic because we have a lifetime of topics to talk about and we don't want to risk our friendship. And that is what I find so hard to understand -- how they keep deluding themselves after Oct 7th.