Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it was very unclear whether this would lead to a wider, joint attack by other forces as well I agree that it's easy to discuss rationally from the outside. Hamas is not a threat to Israeli existence. Without extensive and far superior outside help, Hamas could not hold a square meter of Israeli (non-Gazan) territory). Do you have insight into why Israelis talk about an "existential" war? I'm not dismissing their fe…
Israel is surrounded by nations which want to see Israel destroyed, and which have banded together in the past to attempt exactly that (e.g. the Yom Kippur War in 1973). If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack.
The most powerful neighbor, part of the Yom Kippur War, is Egypt, which in 1979 signed a peace treaty that nobody thinks they will violate. Jordan is a peaceful, cooperative neighbor. Lebanon is not capable but Hezbollah, in southern Lebanonon, is dangerous, of course - too dangerous for Israel to attack, probably, but to invade Israel and take territory? That is much different (and I don't know). Syria has just been through a long civil war. I'm not sure I see much potential at the moment.
Also, the US would openly fight on Israel's side.
But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk.
> If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack.
And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple. Escalation is generally considered a bad, amateur move in international relations. The trick is to accomplish your aim (deterrence) without creating a bigger problem. That's how you end up in major wars.