Retaliatory strikes is the norm in Israeli strategy with the Palestinians and Hezbollah. It's a kind of tit-for-tat game with sometimes the 'mowing of the lawn'. I think they have gotten used to the game too.

And the cynic would say the retaliatory bombing of Gaza is done for to keep Hezbollah not to engage. Or at least, that's how the hawks see it. Of course, this strategy doesn't help to solve the conflict, because the end state is perpetual war state, just safe enough that Israeli voters are fine and don't want peace/two state solution. And since I'm accused of not thinking this from the Palestinians as the culprits here too, well, an islamic movement that see all the killed Palestinians as martyrs is perfect for this perpetual war. They will happily look at the timeline being similar as to pushing out the Crusader states.

Hence the right-wing government and an islamic resistance movement just embrace each other. Bibi supported Hamas and I'm sure that if Israel would have a government wanting to find a two-state solution, Hamas wouldn't like it either as the compromise would de facto be not so glorious to Palestinians.

But coming back to the thread's topic, to 'support Israel' being conservative makes itself then the assumption that supporting the other side, the Palestinians, as being leftist is the way how to simplify and basically dumb down the whole problem. Such divisions don't help to actually at all in reaching some kind of solution to problem in the Middle East when both the interests of Israel and the Palestinians (and the regional nations) should be taken into account.

In a similar way you can dumb down the discussion not only in foreign policy, but for example energy policy and thus environmental policy. It's seems like making everything about the 'culture war' doesn't help at all, just shuts down discussion.

"Conservatism?" To conserve the status quo (ante).

The oppressor always desires peace in the form of a completely pacified, oppressed population – perpetual status quo. E.g. Nazi Wehrmacht & Paris, France in 1940, respectively; PRC & Tibet since 1951, respectively; US-client state of Israel & Palestinian territories since 1967, respectively; ... Russia & Crimea/Donbas, Ukraine since 2014-22, respectively; etcetera.

Religious conservatives have their reasons for supporting Israel. The US has used Israel for all sorts of things in the region - both liberal and conservative administrations, but conservatives have certainly also considered this useful. Conservatives who are, say, anti-semitic, are likely to be even more anti-Muslim/Arab. (yes, not all Palestinian's are Muslim). You also have a classic liberal-conservative split in analyzing causes, I think. Liberals - systematic, chronic abuse and disidentifying the population from its government. Conservatives - focus on the recent horrible acts. Of course people on both side can manage to do both, but I think there are tendencies. Collateral damage is viewed differently between liberals and conservatives. So, whatever is happening to the people of Gaza does not have the naked evil of what happened in the first attacks by Hamas. And Hamas is the Palestinians to Conservatives more than to Liberals - speaking in very broad strokes, exceptions abound.

In other words there are similarities to debates about punishment for crimes and who is responsible.

For myself I find the whole thing painful. Which is a wussy response given the extreme pain and worse for those actually invovled. But it seems like if you talk to anyone and you do not see the issue as simple and there is the one team to be extremely critical of period, you are in for being called a Nazi or some kind of colonialist. .

And this trickles down into practical matters. For example, for those on Israel's side, there is only one possible response to the Hamas attack and any suggestion, even exploratory that anything else could be done is anti-semitic. There are equivalents on the other team.

And this trickles down into practical matters. For example, for those on Israel's side, there is only one possible response to the Hamas attack and any suggestion, even exploratory that anything else could be done is anti-semitic. — Bylaw

So you think there is just ONE way to fight a war? One way to use military power?

Just to give an example why this isn't so, just look at the statistics how the US and the Soviet Union fought an insurgency in Afghanistan:

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:

Length: 9+ years
Soviet losses: 14 400 killed
Afghan mujahideen losses: 75 000 - 90 000 killed
Civilian casualties: 560 000 - 200 000 deaths, 5+ million civilians externally displaced (refugees outside of Afghanistan)

US invasion of Afghanistan:

Length: 19+ years
US losses: 2 420 killed
Taleban losses: 53 000 killed
Civilian casualties: 46 000 deaths

Even if the killed enemy combatants are at the same scale, do notice the difference between civilian losses. And compared to the 5 million refugees who mainly live in Pakistan and Iran, the US air lift evacuated 122 000 people out of Afghanistan. So yes, there are differences in how you fight a war.

So you think there is just ONE way to fight a war? One way to use military power? — ssu

I think if you read that sentence in context, you'll see that I meant precisely the opposite. That I encounter that kind of oversimplification, from those on Israel's side, and similar versions for those on the other side.

For myself I find the whole thing painful. Which is a wussy response given the extreme pain and worse for those actually invovled. But it seems like if you talk to anyone and you do not see the issue as simple and there is the one team to be extremely critical of period, you are in for being called a Nazi or some kind of colonialist. .

And this trickles down into practical matters. For example, for those on Israel's side, there is only one possible response to the Hamas attack and any suggestion, even exploratory that anything else could be done is anti-semitic. There are equivalents on the other team.

Oversimplification is a way to control the discourse.

Oversimplification is a way to control the discourse. — ssu

Yes, and it's easy. You have one main reaction and you aim it at anything, those who agree, those who don't, those who see it as more complex. No nagging doubts, nothing of importance to work out. And then in today's climate, you divide the world into Team A and Team B, with me or against me, evil or good, sane or insane, smart or a moron. Of course there have always been these tendencies and certainly for many who are directly involved in an issue or conflict. But now all the armchair generals and couch potatoes have the same utterly clear binary choice well and good made. And there is no possible Team C or D in the schema.

:up: