Here's another approach for Israel to consider - not retaliating: George Heitmann

Israel strikes Gaza City
on August 01, 2014 at 6:30 AM, updated August 01, 2014 at 6:31 AM
Here's a different policy approach for President Netanyahu to consider: Declare a one-year moratorium on retaliation regardless of provocation.

By George Heitmann

The retrospective view always benefits from the knowledge of how things turned out.  At the decision moment, the future may be imagined but not known.  This, of course, is all true. 

Here, we'll discuss the "imagined future" as it was at the time the decision was made, trying not to be too influenced by the knowledge of how it all unfolded, but certainly not ignoring any lessons history may have to offer. 

Economists posit a rule of rational behavior.  We should decide to do something only if the additional benefits of the action are expected to exceed the additional costs. 

This is the rationality principle underlying benefit-cost analysis and it would seem an appropriate guide to action.  We recognize that not all actions are rationally undertaken, that all benefits and costs may not be recognized, and that expectations are not always realized. 

To this rational decision making guide, I'll add the historical principle that if an action repeatedly leads to an undesired outcome, it is stupid to continue taking the faulted action. 

Perhaps this all sounds too theoretical.  We'll illustrate with some examples.  Should we have known that Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were ventures not likely to have added benefits that would exceed the additional costs in life and treasure? 

The French did not succeed in Vietnam, nor the British in Iraq, nor both the British and Soviets in Afghanistan. 

In retrospect, we see that those earlier precedents incurred additional costs that exceeded marginal benefits.  Were there lessons that might have been absorbed by the American president of the moment?  I think there were, but others might disagree. 

We can, maybe, agree that given the actual outcomes, America did not realize a political or economic gain worth the costs in any of those faraway places.

Let's turn to the war now raging in Gaza.  From the War of Independence in 1948 through the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, Israel has fought four conventional wars to maintain its right to exist. 

In those several wars, Israel not only maintained that right but expanded its territory, at least in part to better defend that right. 

Three of those wars could be considered wars of necessity.  Since that time, the wars have become, at least debatably, wars of choice.  Of course, this distinction is somewhat arbitrary, and decision makers usually see "necessity" as the force compelling the "choice". 

The two Lebanon (1982 and 2006) and the Gaza (2008-2009) wars were, from the Israeli perspective, retaliations against the missile attacks, kidnappings, and terrorist activities of Hezbollah and Hamas.  So, too, was the more limited incursion into Gaza in November 2012. 

The provocations were real and did lead to the loss of some Israeli lives.  The retaliations led to an even greater loss of Israeli lives as well as exacting a "high blood cost" on enemy combatants and bystanders, importantly including women and children. 

Outside observers, in America and Europe, especially weep for the innocent. The "high blood cost" policy designed to make the enemy reconsider its hostile activities has not achieved that purpose; the missiles still rain down. 

It has, however, in the United States and still more so in Europe, adversely affected public opinion.  Although militarily successful, the propaganda war is being lost.  In benefit-cost terms, the added costs have far exceeded the marginal benefits.

Might these historical precedents have influenced the benefit-cost analysis preceding the decision to invade Gaza again?  Apparently not; the same mistake has been repeated. 

Remember the definition of "stupidity"; repeat what you've done before without success expecting that this time the result will be different.  There are now 700 Palestinians and 30 Israelis who would likely still be living if constraint had been exercised.  And, the missiles still rain down!

Here's a different policy approach for President Netanyahu or some future leader to consider: Declare a one-year moratorium on retaliation regardless of provocation. 

It will likely cost a few Israeli lives, but far fewer than those lost in the past few days. 

Is there any hope that such a moratorium will lead to a long run solution?  Probably not. 

But, in benefit-cost terms, the additional costs, a few lives lost, will be more than compensated by the additional benefits, many lives saved.  I'll settle for that.  Also, it's good PR.

George Heitmann is Professor Emeritus of Management Science at Penn State University's University Park campus and Professor of Economics at Muhlenberg College in Allentown.