How to do Confrontation Analysis
This page will explain how to do Confrontation Analysis with a step by step guide on the stages (in the left column if viewing on a PC) and a guide to performing each step using the Dilemma Explorer program (on the right column if viewing on a PC). Further down the page the two columns will merge into one.
Steps in performing Confrontation Analysis
Confrontation Analysis involves the following steps
-
Decide the actions that the participants are in dispute about.
-
Build an options table with what each of the participants say they want to happen for each of those actions
-
Decide what will happen if nobody changes their mind. This is called the "Threatened Future"
-
Mark the targets of threats or promises.
-
Decide if any of the participants doubts another's position
-
Find the Dilemmas in the options table:
- Dilemmas with other participant's actions:
- Persuasion Dilemma
-
Trust Dilemma
- Dilemmas with the participant's own actions:
- Co-operation Dilemma
-
Rejection Dilemma
-
Sufficiency Dilemma
- Dilemmas with other participant's actions:
-
Look for the strategies that that the participants can take to eliminate their dilemmas. Express these strategies in terms of changes to the options table.
-
When the options table changes new dilemmas may be created or existing ones eliminated. Go to step 4 and iterate until no dilemmas remain. We then have a strong stable solution, which all parties can agree on.
Each of these steps is explained in detail in the sections below:
The Dilemma Explorer Excel tool.
Dilemma Explorer is a Excel tool using Macros. You must have a full copy of Microsoft Excel and have Macros enabled to use it. It is possible to do Confrontation Analysis without it (as explained on the left), but it really helps to use the tool as it speeds up the process of setting up the options table and automatically generates the Dilemmas that each party has. To get a copy email MichaelJYoung3@gmail.com and I will send one back to you.
1. Decide on the Participants
Who are the different participants in the confrontation?
Decide on the participants
🧭Determine the Number of Participants in the Confrontation
When analyzing a confrontation, it's important to identify the distinct parties involved. To ensure clarity and coherence, follow these guidelines:
🔍 Step 1: Identify All Participants
-
Begin by listing all entities directly involved in the confrontation.
-
If there are more than three, assess whether any participants share the same goals or positions.
🤝 Step 2: Group Aligned Participants
-
Participants with aligned interests or unified objectives should be grouped into a single entity.
-
This helps simplify the confrontation and reflect the actual dynamics more accurately.
🚫 Step 3: Avoid Overcomplication
-
It is uncommon for a confrontation to involve more than four distinct participants.
-
If you identify more than four, consider whether the situation can be split into multiple separate confrontations
🌍 Example: World War II
During the Second World War, there were seven major national entities involved. However, they were aligned into two primary coalitions:
🔄 Simplifying the Confrontation
At the highest level, the war was a confrontation between two unified blocs:
-
The Axis Powers
-
The Allied Powers
These coalitions acted collectively, especially in strategic decision-making and military coordination. Therefore, for top-level analysis, the confrontation should be considered as involving two participants.
🧩Sub-Confrontations
Within these blocs, there were smaller-scale confrontations and negotiations. For example:
-
Tehran Conference
-
Yalta Conference
These involved three Allied leaders—from the British Empire, the USA, and the USSR—discussing strategy and post-war planning. Such instances represent sub-confrontations within the broader conflict.
How to use the Dilemma Explorer Excel tool.
On the Dilemma Explorer Excel tool choose the option “Participants...” from the “Controls” menu: The following pop up will show: (click to enlarge)
2. Decide the actions
List the future actions the participants are in dispute about.
📝Decide the actions
🔍Identify Desired Actions
Make a list of the actions that the participants are in dispute about. These should be verbs or phrases with verbs and objects of the verbs. They are things the participants are saying (or otherwise communicating) they will do (or not do) in the future.
Create the list in the format Participant: Action. This should include actions that the participant will take or wants others to take. (Leave space under the "Participant" as other things may be added later)
✅Use Yes/No actions
Express each decision as a clear yes/no (binary) action assigned to the participant that actually does it.
🚫Avoid double negatives
Do not phrase decisions as “not doing” something. Instead, state the action positively, even if the participant’s preference is to avoid it. This will prevent the use of double negatives in the analysis.
⏩Look to the future
Focus only on future actions. We are not interested in what has already happened—list only the actions that should or should not happen going forward.
🛠️ How to Use the Dilemma Explorer Excel Tool
✍️ Enter Actions
In the white text column, type the action you want to record.
👤 Assign Participant
In the "Who does action" column, select the name of the participant responsible for the action from the drop-down menu
➕ Add a Row
To add another row, select "+ Show new row" from the Controls menu.
➖ Hide a Row
To hide a row, select "- Hide bottom row" from the Controls menu.
🔼🔽 Move a Row
To move a row up or down, select "↑ Move Row Up" or "↓ Move Row Down" from the Controls menu.
🧹 Blank a Row:
To blank a row, select "Blank a row" from the Controls menu. This will clear all cells in the row (including hidden columns) except for the “who does action” cell, which will remain unchanged.
🗑️ Delete a Row:
To delete a row, select "Delete Row" from the Controls menu. This will remove the row and shift any rows below it up one position.
Example
Let us consider the situation in Gaza on or soon after October 7th 2023. The main factors under dispute were:
-
Hamas wanted Israel to give back all it’s territory to the Palestinians, “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”
-
Hamas had been firing rockets at Israel, although this had not affected Israel’s position politically.
-
Hamas was looking for a way to attack Israel effectively (in a way that would have some effect politically), so it launched it’s 7 October attacks.
Let's look on these as the top level actions
3. Build an Options Table
List what each of the participants are saying they want to happen for each action
How to build an Options Table
Build a table with each row representing an action. Build it up as follows:
👤 Action Owner:
Add a column for the participant who can do the action
📝 Action Description:
Add a column for a description of the action (remember it is a verb or a phrase starting with a verb and an object for the verb)
👥 Participant Columns:
Add a column for each participant
✅ Participant Responses:
For each action, fill the top two thirds of the participant columns as follows (leaving space below):
-
✔️ Tick: If the participant wants the action to happen and is willing to do something about it
-
❌ Cross: If the participant does not want the action to happen and is willing to do something to prevent it.
-
➖ Dash: If the participant is indifferent, undecided, or does not care enough to take action. Note that if a participant is threatening or promising to do something only to bring pressure on another party then that participant's position should be a dash as they don't want to do the action as such, but only for its hoped effect on the other participant.
-
⬜ Blank: If the participant has not stated their position.
🛠️Using the Dilemma Explorer Excel Tool
-
The table includes columns for the action owner, the action, and each participant.
-
To record a participant’s desire for an action, click on the top two-thirds of the relevant cell in their column.
-
A drop-down menu will appear with four options:
✔️ Tick (supports the action),
❌ Cross (opposes the action),
➖ Dash (indifferent, undecided, threatening or promising),
⬜ Blank (no position stated). -
Select the appropriate option from the menu to capture each participant’s stance.
Example
In our options table we will add participant columns for Israel and Hamas:
4. Decide on the Threatened Future
List what each of the participants are saying will happen if nothing else changes
Add the "Threatened future" column
The next stage in building your options table is to introduce a new column (preferably on the left) to capture what each action owner claims will happen if no other changes occur.
🔍 Record the Threatened Outcome
For each action, note what the action owner says will happen by default.
Use the following symbols to indicate their statement:
✔️ Tick: The action owner says the outcome will happen.
❌ Cross: The action owner says the outcome will not happen.
➖ Dash: The action owner is undecided or says the outcome is uncertain.
⬜ Blank: The action owner has not stated what will happen.
⚠️ Note: How to Handle Threats
If the action owner is making a threat (e.g., “I will do X unless you change your mind”), mark the threatened future outcome with a ✔️ Tick—even if though their own position on the action is should be a ➖ Dash.
This distinction shows that the action owner does not want to do the action for its own sake, but is willing to carry it out to apply pressure on others.
📝 Review for Consistency
-
Ensure the threatened outcome column accurately reflects what each action owner has communicated.
-
This helps clarify the likely future if no agreement is reached, and highlights any pressure tactics being used.
🛠️Using the Dilemma Explorer Excel Tool
-
The table includes a column on the left titled "Threatened Future" (or "Stated Intention")
-
To record a participant’s desire for an action, click on the top two-thirds of the relevant cell in their column.
-
A drop-down menu will appear with four options:
✔️ Tick (supports the action),
❌ Cross (opposes the action),
➖ Dash (indifferent, undecided, threatening or promising),
⬜ Blank (no position stated). -
Select the appropriate option from the menu to capture each participant’s stance.
Example
In our options table we will add a column on the left hand side for the threatened future
5 Mark the targets of threats or promises
For actions that are done to bring pressure on others, mark what effects the action maker thinks they are having.
Mark rows with threats or promises with what the action maker thinks he is achieving
The next stage in building your options table is to:
-
Find rows where there is a threat or promise. i.e. an action to bring pressure onto others).
-
Mark in those rows in the bottom third of the target of the threat's position column what the action maker is saying he thinks will happen.
Mark with:
✔️ Tick: The action owner says he thinks the participant wants it to happen (enough to change its position in other areas)
❌ Cross: The action owner says he thinks the participant wants it NOT to happen (enough to change its position in other areas).
➖ Dash: The action owner thinks the threat or promise is having no effect. (i.e. it is not changing the other participant's position).
Colour the mark with the colour of the action maker.
🛠️Using the Dilemma Explorer Excel Tool
Click on the bottom third of the row of the threat and the column of the threat target.
Select a Tick Cross or Dash as appropriate.
Examples
In our options table we mark where Hamas' threats are trying to bring pressure on Israel
This option table shows three participants B does something to bring pressure on A that A doesn't like. But C doesn't like it either. We only put the small X in A's position, not in C's, as B did not intend to bring pressure on C, only on A.
6 Decide if any of the participants doubts another's position
Mark where a participant doubts another participant is willing or able to perform an action.
Decide on the doubts
For each of the actions decide if any participants doubts another's position.
If a participant says he thinks that the action owner is UNWILLING to perform the action in the way he has said:
-
Mark in the bottom third of the THREATENED FUTURE column with a tick or cross of the colour of the participant that does not believe the action taker. (To remember this, the participant doubts the action in the threatened future, hence it is in the threatened Future column).
If a participant says he thinks the action owner is UNABLE to perform the action in the way he has said:
-
Mark the bottom third of the WHO DOES ACTION column with a cross of the colour of the participant that does not believe the action taker. (To remember this the participant doubts if the target is able to do the action, therefore the participant does not have the action, so we put a cross under the "Who does Action" column.
🛠️Using the Dilemma Explorer Excel Tool
Click on the bottom third of the "Who does action" or "Threatened Future" cells (These are arranged so more than one party can do the doubting) and select what the doubting participant thinks will happen.
Examples
In our options table below we look at what happened when Israel attacked Gaza in order to destroy Hamas. This was done to make Hamas UNABLE to Attack Israel effectively. The situation changes to that illustrated below:
In the options table below we look at what happened with the 2003 US coalition invasion of Iraq. The US did not trust Iraq's promise not to build Weapons of Mass Destruction. They thought Iraq was WILLING to build weapons of Mass Destruction. They therefore invaded Iraq.
7 Look for any dilemmas that the participants have
Look at the options table and find if any of the five types of dilemma are present
The Options Table, as built above, is a concise and unambiguous description of the confrontation THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS WILL AGREE ON. The next stage in the analysis is to look for the presence of areas of tension (called dilemmas). The participants will hate having dilemmas and will do whatever they can to eliminate them. The ways to eliminate them can all be expressed as changes to the Options Table.
Note that the first two dilemmas, the Persuasion and Trust dilemmas happen due to other participants actions and the second three, the Cooperation, Rejection and Sufficiency Dilemmas happen on actions that the participant with the dilemma has.
The Dilemma Explorer program will automatically notice and mark the dilemmas, thus making this step of the process much easier, quicker and less subject to error. The dilemmas will appear as bars to the right of the option in the colour of the party with the dilemma. Clicking on the bottom third of the bar will automatically give a full description of the dilemma and the possible actions that can be taken to eliminate it.
7.1 Dilemmas with other participants' actions
The first two dilemmas, the Persuasion and Trust dilemmas, happen due to other participants actions.
7.1.1 The Persuasion Dilemma
Look at the options table and find all the persuasion dilemmas: This is a dilemma which a participant has with another participant's action.
A participant will have a Persuasion Dilemma if:
-
the action is owned by a different participant.
-
it's position is opposed (or could be opposed) to that in the threatened future. i.e.
-
if the threatened future is a dash or a tick and the participant's position is a cross
-
if the threatened future is a dash or a cross and the participant's position is a tick
-
-
the action is not doubted by the participant.
In our example above Hamas has a Persuasion Dilemma with Israel
Clicking on the bottom third of the Yellow coloured "Persuasion Dilemma" bar in Dilemma Explorer will give the following pop-up, which gives an exhaustive list of all the different strategies that Hamas could take to eliminate its dilemma. At the time of writing Hamas has attempted to pursue solely option B - it has attempted to introduce credible and sufficient threats.
Looking at things more generally:
[A] has a Persuasion Dilemma with [B].
[B] intends to [do something A doesn't like], against the wishes of [A]. [A], therefore needs a strategy to either:
A) CONVINCE [B] that it is in its interest not to [do something A doesn't like]
B) Introduce a credible and sufficient THREAT to deter [B]
C) Introduce a credible and sufficient REWARD to induce [B]
D) Change things so that it DOES NOT MATTER if [B] will [do something A doesn't like] or not
E) Make [B] UNABLE to [do something A doesn't like]
F) Introduce a doubt by finding reasons to believe that, despite it saying otherwise, [B] is INSINCERE and it will not or cannot [do something A doesn't like]
G) Find a way to DIVIDE [B] into two or more separate participants, and negotiate individually with those who will NOT [do something A doesn't like]
7.1.2 The Trust Dilemma
This is the other option that a participant can have with another participant's action. In this case two participants agree on what will happen but one does not trust the other to actually carry out the agreement - they think there will be a different outcome.
We will now look for the next type of dilemma: The trust dilemma occurs when a participant:
-
Does not own the action
-
Agrees with what another participant says about the threatened future:
-
But doubts that he will is willing and/or doubts that he is able to actually follow through. (These doubts are shown by small ticks in the bottom third of the Threatened future cells)
In the example of Saddam Hussain and the weapons of mass destruction we had:
Clicking on the bottom third of the blue coloured "Trust Dilemma" bar will give the following pop-up, which gives an exhaustive list of all the different strategies that the US could have taken to eliminate its dilemma. The US chose to perform action A, (to make it impossible for Saddam Hussain to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction). It did this by invading Iraq.
Scrolling to the bottom of the box will give us the following extra option G
Looking at things more generally:
We distinguish between willing and able because the actions needed to eliminate the dilemmas are different. If the participant thinks the action owner is UNWILLING then we got the following format for the strategies to eliminate the dilemma:
See the top row of the option table above:
[B] says it intends to [do something A wants him to do], agreeing with [A], but [A] thinks that [B] will not. [A], therefore does not trust [B] on this matter. [A] therefore needs a strategy to either:
A) CONVINCE [B] that it is in its best interest to [do something A wants him to do]
B) CONVINCE ITSELF that [B] will actually [do something A wants him to do]
C) Find actions that [B] could take to DEMONSTRATE IT IS SINCERE, thus eliminating the doubt on the willingness
D) Introduce a credible and sufficient THREAT to implement if [B] does NOT [do something A wants him to do]
E) Introduce a credible and sufficient REWARD to implement if [B] does [do something A wants him to do]
F) Change things so that it DOES NOT MATTER that [B] might not [do something A wants him to do]
If the participant thinks the action owner is UNABLE then a different set of strategies are needed, namely the following format:
See the middle row of the option table above:
[B] says it intends to [do something A wants him to do], agreeing with [A], but [A] thinks that [B] is not able to. [A] is worried that [B] will not be able to follow through on this matter. [A] therefore needs a strategy to either:
A) FIND A WAY for [B] to be able to [do something A wants him to do]
B) CONVINCE ITSELF that [B] can actually [do something A wants him to do]
C) Change things so that it DOES NOT MATTER that [B] might not [do something A wants him to do]
If the participant thinks the action owner is BOTH UNWILLING AND UNABLE then we get the following format:
See the bottom row of the option table above:
[B] says it intends to [do something A wants him to do], agreeing with [A], but [A] thinks that [B] does not want to and is not able to. [A], therefore does not trust [B] on this matter. [A] therefore needs a strategy to either:
A) Both one of:
- FIND A WAY for [B] to be able to [do something A wants him to do]
or
- CONVINCE ITSELF that [B] can actually [do something A wants him to do]
and also one of:
- CONVINCE [B] that it is in its best interest to [do something A wants him to do]
- CONVINCE ITSELF that [B] will actually [do something A wants him to do]
- Find actions that [B] could take to DEMONSTRATE IT IS SINCERE, thus eliminating the doubt on the willingness
- Introduce a credible and sufficient THREAT to implement if [B] does NOT [do something A wants him to do]
- Introduce a credible and sufficient REWARD to implement if [B] does [do something A wants him to do]
B) Change things so that it DOES NOT MATTER that [B] might not [do something A wants him to do]
7.2 Dilemmas with own actions
The other three dilemmas, the Co-operation, Rejection and Sufficiency dilemmas, happen on the participant's own actions.
These dilemmas occur because the effect that the participant is hoping his action will have is not happening.
They only occur if the participant also has a persuasion or trust dilemma with the other participant. If there are no persuasion or trust dilemmas then the other participant is powerless and can be ignored.
7.2.1 The Co-operation Dilemma
If another participant has a trust dilemma with you, you may have a Co-operation Dilemma your position needs to be trusted.
A participant can have a Co-operation dilemma if he is not trusted, but needs to be. The other participants may be doing things the participant doesn't want to ensure the trust.
A Co-Operation dilemma will happen if:
-
Another participant has a trust dilemma with you
-
You have a persuasion or trust dilemma with them
A good example of this is the Iraq war situation we have looked at above. Here Saddam is not building nuclear weapons, and is saying he is not, but the US believes he is, and is threatening to invade. Saddam has a problem that he is not trusted. This is a co-operation dilemma. Saddam tried to make the US trust him, for example by allowing the weapons inspectors to go anywhere and trying to prove to them that he had no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). But it was not enough. The US invaded anyway.
Clicking on the bottom third of the blue coloured "Co-operation Dilemma" bar will give the following pop-up, which gives an exhaustive list of all the different strategies that Saddam could have taken to eliminate his dilemma.
In the case of a general Co-operation Dilemma we get:
[B] has a Co-operation Dilemma with [A].
[B] has agreed with [A] to [do something A wants him to do], but [A] believes that [B] will not. [B] therefore needs a strategy to either:
A) CONVINCE [A] that it is willing to [do something A wants him to do].
B) Change things so that it DOES NOT MATTER to [A] if it happens or not.
C) Eliminate all Persuasion and Trust dilemmas with [A], to MAKE IT POWERLESS, when it can be ignored.
7.2.2 The Rejection Dilemma
If you hope to bring pressure on another participant by performing an action, and the other participant thinks you are not willing and/or able to do it, you have a rejection dilemma.
If
-
the threatened future is opposite to a participant's position
-
the participant doubts that the action owner is willing and/or able to do the action
-
the action owner also has a Persuasion or Threat dilemma with that participant
Then the ACTION OWNER has a REJECTION Dilemma with the Participant. It's rejection of the participant's position is not credible.
See the example below:
Clicking on the bottom third of the yellow coloured "Rejection Dilemma" bar will give the following pop-up, which gives an exhaustive list of all the different strategies that Hamas could take to eliminate its dilemma.
In the case of a general Rejection Dilemma we get:
[B] has a REJECTION dilemma with A
[B] is threatening to [do something A wants him to do]. Although this is against the wishes of [A], [A] is not worried as it thinks that [B] both will not and cannot [do something A wants him to do].
[B], therefore, does not have a credible or plausible threat. [B] therefore needs a strategy to either:
A) Find a way to make [A] BELIEVE this threat, turning it into a persuasion dilemma on [A] - This could include taking actions to show it is capable and an emotional commitment to [do something A wants him to do] to show it is willing.
B) Eliminate all potential Persuasion and Trust dilemmas it has with [A], thus MAKING IT POWERLESS, when it can be ignored.
7.2.3 The Sufficiency Dilemma
If you hope to bring pressure on your opponent by performing an action, and the other participant does not care about it enough to do anything different, then your action is not sufficient. You have a sufficiency dilemma.
If
-
the action owner has a Persuasion or Threat dilemma with another participant.
-
The action owner is attempting to bring pressure on that participant by making a threat or reward.
-
That participant the action owner is attempting to bring pressure on does not care enough to change their position.
Then the ACTION OWNER has a SUFFICIENCY dilemma.
See example below:
Clicking on the bottom third of the yellow coloured "Sufficiency Dilemma" bar will give the following pop-up, which gives an exhaustive list of all the different strategies that Hamas could take to eliminate its dilemma.
In the case of a general Sufficiency Dilemma we get:
[B] has a SUFFICIENCY dilemma with [A]
[B] is saying it is going to [do something to bring pressure on A] to bring pressure on [A]. However, this is not working as [B] believes it is indifferent to this. The action to [do something to bring pressure on A] is not sufficient to enact change. [B] therefore needs a strategy to either:
A) Find a way to INTENSIFY the action to bring sufficient pressure on [A].
B) Find a different THREAT to induce [A].
C) Find a different PROMISE to induce [A].
D) Tackle the underlying persuasion and trust dilemmas in other ways, thus removing the need to [do something to bring pressure on A].
8 Look for dilemma elimination strategies
The participants cannot abide having dilemmas. They will try to eliminate them in any way they can. The possible strategies they could take are identified by clicking on the bottom third of the dilemmas if using Dilemma Explorer, or by looking at the general strategies detailed above for the particular Dilemmas if not.
The net result is that the Options Table will change in some way. Options may be created or eliminated, or participant's positions on the different options will change. Another thing that may happen is that a participant may actually implement an irreversible threat they have been threatening. This will also change the options table.
8.1 Example dilemma elimination strategies
There now follows a few examples of different Dilemma Elimination strategies
8.1.1 Giving Up
[B] has a Persuasion dilemma. He is under pressure to do something about it. Supposing he just gives up, decides to live with the action.
Clicking on the Blue Persuasion Dilemma bar gives the following options:
Giving up is choosing option D) above. You are changing things so it does not matter. This will probably be accompanied by strong emotions as the fight is given up and self justification of the new position. However, by doing this you will eliminate the dilemma, and the options table will look as follows:
[B] may still not want this to happen, but he does not care enough about it to do something about it any more. His position on this is therefore represented by a dash, not a cross. There are no dilemmas so this is a strong stable solution.
8.1.2 Offering a reward
Supposing we have the same situation as at the beginning of 8.1.1 above, but we select option C - Introduce a credible and sufficient reward to induce A. The option table then changes to that below:
Supposing [A] is interested in the reward. The situation then changes to the above, with [A] gaining a Persuasion Dilemma
A now has a dilemma and has to consider how to eliminate it - his dilemma has the following structure
Supposing A chooses to accept the reward. This is taking option C above. A is also giving B a reward (not doing the top option) to eliminate his dilemma. We get the following situation:
Supposing A chooses to reject the reward. This is taking option D above (changing things so it does not matter). We get the following outcome.
9 Iterate
As the participants attempt to eliminate their dilemmas, the Options table will change and develop. The following may occur:
-
Participants may change their positions.
-
The options may be rewritten, perhaps with longer and clearer text, explaining more carefully exactly what the options entail. This is a good thing as the options table will form the basis of any final agreement, and it is good if that is as watertight as possible.
-
New options may be generated. This is often because threats or rewards are being contemplated.
-
Participants may unilaterally do things. It is usually best to negotiate about things (for example by threatening them first) before taking action, but it is the nature of things that things may happen. These unilateral changes will probably, but not always effect the options table.
If using Dilemma Explorer, the Options Table can be continually updated by clicking on the worksheet title at the bottom of the page and selecting "Move or Copy" from the menu. Choose "Make a copy". This will produce a history of the confrontation, as a series of spreadsheets.
9.1 Iteration Example: The Gaza conflict up to 2025
This is an example showing the development of the situation in the Gaza conflict in the Middle East. It shows how the Options Table changes over time.
This is the original situation. Once the Palestinians left Israel they vowed to reconquer the whole of the area. This demand has not changed over the years. The slogan was "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". This can be shown by the one row options table below:
The Palestinians (as represented by Hamas) had a Persuasion Dilemma. They want Israel to give all the land of Israel back to the Palestinians, but Israel refuses to do that. They chose to attempt to eliminate this by choosing a threat - firing rockets into Israel. They hoped that this would give Israel a Persuasion Dilemma. They hoped that the rockets would force Israel to change it's mind, and give land back to them.
Israel's response was to not negotiate i.e. to say that at the level of the negotiation taking place, they were not willing to give land back to the Palestinians. They choose to put a dash in their position. They also did things, like building the Iron Dome anti-rocket system, to make the rocket attacks less powerful. They elected to live with the rockets being fired. At the level of the confrontation this is represented by a dash.
Eventually, Hamas realised that the rocket attacks were not giving the political leverage Hamas had hoped, so Hamas started to attack Israel in other ways (suicide bombings etc.). These also did not have the effect Hamas wanted at first....
However with the attacks on October 7th 2023, Hamas performed an attack that Israel had to do something about. The attack was large enough to give Israel a Persuasion Dilemma. It did not want those sort of attacks repeated.
This lists the possible things that Israel could do about the attack. This will be seen in Dilemma Explorer by clicking the bottom third of the blue "Persuasion Dilemma" bar.
Israel chose option E) Make Hamas UNABLE to attack Israel effectively. It did this by launching the ground war in Gaza to destroy Hamas, thus making it unable to attack Israel effectively again.
