...seem to be the most naive,unaware,idiotic people on earth...not just Israel...everywhere...they don't live in the real world....very sad,and very dangerous people.

The usual unadulterated left wing nonsense. If israel fights Israel lives!

ADD Jew to professor and what do you get? Nincompoop.

What an overpaid moron. He may be Israeli, but he obviously doesn't know anything about Israel. Israel's enemies know that the only way they can defeat her is through "intelligent" academics like this guy. Oh, and professor, this isn't an academic journal. Stop writing like it is one.

History says that peace breaks out when one side gives up.

I believe that when an enemy states its intentions to wipe the other from the map, goes on a global spree to deny the Holocaust with oil money on authoritarian societies, that's motive enough to resort to force.

The current ones have professors without any brains. I guess a few hundred thousand attacks don't justify self-defense. Go back to Warsaw and tell them that the Germans just want to relocate them to work camps too.

nothing in this article examines even remotely the strategic interests of israel. nothing in this article examines the stated and active involvement of very hostile muslims actors surrounding the jewish state. the author's position on iran would lead to a huge strategic disadvantage for israel and her eventual demise. in his examination of a just war, the author leaves out the case of nazi germany. it is obvious that an allied attack on germany as soon as hitler started re-arming would have saved many million lives. yet, under the author's theories such a war would not have been just.

Author contends Israel did not fulfill objectives. If objective is to restore deterrence, Israel succeded. But furthermore, Israel could have obliterated these troublemakers into smithereens. It is Israel's humanity that we treat them with kid gloves. That does not mean we failed. We only use the tiniest bit of force necessary. However, we reserve the vast majority of our superlative capability only for extreme emergencies. But we need these capabilities to insure our survival. Our enemies deep down know how strong we are, and this is what allows us to live in relative tranquility in the den of wolves which is the Arab world. Look how the Arabs eat each other up alive in their own countries, and compare with the civilized existence of Israel. It is only the threat of extreme force which keeps the peace.

Alright then, so you will champion creating a Jewish country in Europe then? Seems to me you are adamant on the fact Jews do not belong in the ME. Although as citizens, usually second class in Arab countries, then perhaps Jews could stay in the ME? So you admit that Jews were persecuted in Europe Jarda? What then do you propose should be done for them? Or because they're Jews, nothing. I'm really trying to understand you. If I follow your logic, you'd not be opposed to creating a Jewish country in Europe, correct? What percent of the Czech Republic do you believe should be given to help establish this state Jarda? Or perhaps you'd like to exclude Czech Republic from your idea of a Jewish state in Europe.... I await your response that likely will never come.

Perhaps Israel should resort to their ancient ancestors method of war where they conquered everything and everyone in their path? Would that satisfy the author? What we see today is child's play compared to ancient Israel. Where does he think morals originated from? When has Israel gone on the offensive and attacked anyone unprovoked? I'm waiting . . . In the mean time, Iran continues to spin centrifuge's in order to produce bombs that will wipe Israel off the map. Can we "talk" them out of it? Change their minds? Do we wait until they are airborne before responding? What then?

This has to be the most bizarre article I have ever read about Israel. His analysis brings to mind Stalin's observation, which I paraphrase-- "Ideas so stupid, only an intellectual would believe them".

of an Arabic name: you know what's coming.......

I don't feel any need for jewish state. But any solution of relationship between Jews and Europians has to be found just between Jews and Europians. Even some Jewish state in Europe is possible then. Why should the problem of co-existence between those two be solved on expense of Palestinians. They have nothing to do with that. Shouldn't we give the Bohemian basin to the descendants of Marcomans? Their ancestors were here sooner than ours.

The author is an Israeli in sunny california. Thus he lives in land conquered several times over, and enjoyes protection of his democratic rights by the military giant USA. Next, he criticises Israel, someitmes justified, but doesnt bother to show the other side. An analysis might consider the differnece between the recent Gaza conflict, and the butchery in Syria, or Iraq or afghanistan.

"Triple I" or "inimid": Intellectually Induced Idiocy (Idiot). I am willing to take full credit....

All Israeli Wars are only ONE War. Its an EXISTENTIAL War, PREVENTING EXTERMINATION of Israel and the Israeli People. In Sweden we have this Word - " The Need/Crisis has no Law " !. The Civile Doctrine of - " Violance as a last Resort ", has no meaning in a War, as even HASHEM discriminate Violance in War and Civil Society. To sit an wait for the Wolves Attacks is sheer Idiocy and Foolishness And the loss in som of Israels conflicts under the CAN- Doctrine of Yours, are not the Fault of Military Force but, the intervention of Foolish and idiotic Politicians following the doctrine of Dispropornate Force, such people following Your Opinion of using Force. To be a Professor, does not mean that you have any Mature Insight and Understanding of Military Force and its use, either by Good or Evil Forces. Arn.Sweden.

How do "academics" come up with such asenine ideas is beyond me. Israel is addicted to wars? Next the professor will write that Jews are addicted to persecution. In both wars against Lebanon Israel was under artilery attack by terrorist, first by the PLO and then by Hizbollah. Both times Israel acted to restore security and both times Israel did not act decisively enough. The one thing I agree with is that Israel needs to deal it's enemies a devastating defeat in order for our enemies to desire peace.

It was eight wars, if you count the "Altalena" affair, the shortest civil war in history, that lasted one day. All those criteria are useless in that case since it was a skirmish wrapped in a war inside a confrontation within a dilemma and every single individual was needed, especially the wildest ones, the most warlike and unmanageable. They had to be let loose upon the enemy, like mad dogs. Moreover, one of them eventually was awarded…the Nobel Peace Prize!!! What if they had killed him that day? Why didn't they just bargain and tell them to go with their ship and invade some nearby island and turn it into a kingdom all their own, and then establish an alliance with the once and future Kingdom of Israel? All possible futures must always be taken into account.

pure rubbish. The Jewish State has been attacked by arabs six times and needed to defend itself from 22 muslim nations. If there is any group that is addicted to war, it is the muslim group. Their goal, in each of the six wars, was to drive the Jews into the sea. The article is long-winded and, I too, only read the title. From the muslim perspective, the military operations were based on pure but simple hate against the Jews. The muslims are losers, as long as they believe that their hate can solve problems.

Prof. Maoz has mixed up the Latin terms. Jus ad bellum means the situations in which war is justified. Jus in bello means what actions are justified in war.

I’m disappointed with Prof. Maoz’s article on several levels as I’ve read 2 of his books, “Networks of Nations” and Defending the Holy Land, admired both, and currently have his book “Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations” on order. Firstly, the language and construction of the article is terrible, which I simply hope is either bad editing or a misguided refusal to be edited. For example the meanings of “Jus in Bello” and “Jus ad Bellum” are reversed. Further he speaks of dyads (pair wise relationships) between nations drawing on his own NIPT theory from Networks of Nations as if the reader understands the underlying import. Further the paragraph mentioning proportional response should also have been either edited out or expanded as it doesn’t lead anywhere in the article, other than perhaps a suggestion, but one without substance. On a secondary level I find that he neglects to mention that looking at pair wise relationships is simply an analytical basis for finding group clusters and that the relationships generally are not only multilateral but multidimensional. In other words, though nations can act as individuals they also act as groups, and act according to a variety of interests. Additionally he invents pathologies of addiction which are simply rhetorical labels, not facts, so when he refers to “fightaholics”, “addiction” or must or can “syndromes”, one should simply strike out the terms and carry on. My third problem is the same one I had with his “Defending the Holy Land” – one of the better overviews of key military events in Israel’s history, but flawed with an elemental Israeli hubris, that being that Israel’s adversaries have no significant agency of their own. So I disagree that the Suez 1956 War was not a Just War for Israel in as much as Egypt was receiving large amounts of military hardware, was ramping up its rhetoric and was forming threatening alliances. France and Britain had a poor case for war, but not so Israel. The War of Attrition was Egypt’s call, and Israel’s response followed a tit for multiple tat pattern, as per the theories not of “Just War” but Robert Axelrod’s communication of deterrence model (See: Axelrod’s “Evolution of Co-operation”) . As for the two Lebanese wars I’m in disagreement with Maoz in that the initial actions were just, but agree with him that the prolongation of the conflicts were themselves poorly thought out and a result of a flawed decision making process. However my major disappointment is that Maoz fails to see that Netanyahu’s policies do fit on a positive basis into his own NIPT theory. Iran pursues a uni-dimensional relationship with it’s allies, indicative of a centralized dictatorship which under NIPT is most likely to go to war. Again, hubris that he only applies his analysis to Israel and not Iran. Netanyahu’s policy is to seek engagement on political, economic and security issues separately, on the basis that not tracks have to be successful at the same time. Indeed it is is the economic track that has been working with the West Bank and the grass roots of Gaza. By increasing the value of multilateral relationships, under Maoz’s NIPT, democracies are less likely to go to war. It is only when these relationships are devalued, according to Maoz's own theories, that the likelihood of war is increased.

Your mistake is believing the propaganda that Jews stole land from Arabs. Do some research and find out that most Jewish settlements in Israel are on land that Jews bought from Arabs or else inherited from the Ottomans, then the British government. Also, many Palestinians immigrated to Palestine from other areas. Jews have just as much moral right as Arabs to the land. Did you know that most Israelies were born in Israel? Peace requires acceptance of coexistence. People like you who glibly suggest that the Jews "get lost" or find another place are the real obstacles to peace.