In an editorial, the New York Times tells Israel to “minimize the damage to civilian bystanders” and provides this rationale for its advice:

The military chieftains of Hamas and Hezbollah fully understand that their primitively armed guerrillas and limited-range unguided missiles are no match for Israel’s world-class military forces . . . What they more realistically hope for is that the inevitably fierce and devastating Israeli military response will hand them an opportunity to radicalize Arab politics and thereby pressure moderate Arab leaders to distance themselves from Israel and embrace the guerrilla cause.

[ . . . ] Most Arabs are not blaming Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking these Israeli raids. They are blaming Israel for carrying them out. That is not fair. But it is the way things work in the real world, and the provocateurs of Hamas and Hezbollah and their allies in Damascus and Tehran understand how to use it to their long-term advantage. Israel’s political and military leaders need to understand it too and not let themselves be drawn into the provocateurs’ game.

The Times is either unaware of, or chooses to ignore, the position of the Saudi government. Beyond this omission, the Times fails to take note of the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah have been launching their attacks from lands—Gaza and southern Lebanon—that Israel vacated. Withdrawal would be the most effective means of reducing civilian casualties—if it persuaded Israel’s enemies to put down their arms.

Clearly, dovish Israeli policies that would minimize collateral damage haven’t had their intended effect. Notwithstanding this fact, the Times is warning Israel that a course of action less constrained by concerns about civilian casualties will backfire. Perhaps so. But we know from experience that the approach the Times advocates backfired. Why, then, should it be continued?