Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Jesus!
Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion
- Thread starter PR1Berske
- Start date
Jesus!
johnwesley
Member
If you want your spin salty then these two certainly do that and make out that the Iranian response was a masterclass of a measured, calculating riposte.
www.middleeasteye.net
And this...
How Iran attacks exposed Israel's weakness
The weekend strikes showed that Israel needed others to defend it and is not free to choose how to strike back
www.middleeasteye.net
And this...
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
My exact position is that Israel has the right to defend itself.
Whether the government of my country should join in is another issue.
Imo considering Israel's actions in Gaza, it's long occupation of West Bank taking over land from Palestinians this country should not be supplying Israel with arms or any military aid.
I repeat that does not mean Israel does not have the right to defend itself.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
No I think the point is instead that the several hundred (thousand?) missiles fired into Palestine should have been impeded.
Or do you disagree?
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
The 'right to defend itself' has, unfortunately, become a meaningless phrase. No supporter of Israel seems prepared to define it or put limits on it. When you yourself are an attacker and somebody responds to your attack when does defence end and offence begin? Tricky question with difficult answers. Whatever the answers are, however, Israel has long since departed from any idea of defence, unless the unlimited ability to attack anyone anywhere as a deterrence is allowed.
2hats
Dust.
Maybe. Maybe not. The reported damage is not inconsistent with independent multi-spectral immediate-post-attack imagery. Very light. Maybe this was intended? Maybe this was a consequence of the ABM? Only those who designed the attack know exactly what they sent and where they aimed them. Possibly (probably) the US/Israelis can also reconstruct this information (via means of forensics, flight data and espionage).
Perhaps the missiles had no warheads. Perhaps those warheads have poor design/QC and are unreliable (likewise the rest of the package). Perhaps they were all disrupted (ABM/EW) and the result is a scatter of essentially kinetic projectiles. Likely the Israelis are not interested in dispelling any advantageous confusion of ideas in the public realm (cf FAA fusing, 1982).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's not just gromit saying this. A few rent-a-gob 'experts' have been saying similar. This was a measured response from Iran, intended to signal to its own people as much as anyone that Israel's strike on Damascus (which did kill people) would not go unanswered.
Iran has said as much in its statements since, declaring that it considers the matter 'settled' following this. Ball is now in Israel's court, but we should remember that it was Israel that started this. (And yes, schoolground idiocies like 'he started it, Miss' are appropriate here. International affairs are being conducted at that level - human supidity writ large.)
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Does Iran have that right too?
How about Palestine?
Or is it only Israel?
Wars have gone on for decades as feuds labeled as right to defend perpetuates tit for tat responses ad infinitum.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I tend to agree. IMO we shouldn't get drawn into abstract arguments about what countries as collective entities do and do not have a right to do. We don't have to accept these as the terms of debate. And as you point out, in practice, the 'right to defend' yourself invariably takes the form of an attack in one form or another.
ska invita
back on the other side
Giving all their tax money to the military to do whatever they want with it is literally the social contract in the US.
ska invita
back on the other side
Meanwhile out of the horses mouth....
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
I gave up conflating apples with oranges when I was a child.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I was trying to reply to this,
When I had posted that Israel should not be supplied weapons or military support.
It's example of what littlebabyjesus says in next post about the debate being framed. With the Palestine/ Israel issue it's difficult to say anything critical without being regarded as unreasonable.
Opposing arms sales to Israel - then one is saying it's ok for Iran to fire missiles at Israel.
I was trying to frame my answer in way that does not lay me open to this kind of accusation.
The debate is framed imo that when someone like Starmer/ Sunak for example says Israel has a right to defend itself. Then the subtext is this country should supply arms and military assistance. That's taken as a given imo.
It's like pointing out the discrepancy between the money and effort put in by Israels allies to fend off Iran rocket attack and the same countries sitting there whilst Gaza is destroyed. Point this out and one is told everyone knows this but that's not how real world politics works. This imo slips into supporting the status quo.
littlebabyjesus is right on the notion of how debate is Framed. It's the way debate is framed that Id say is one of the more important issues.
I'm not disagreeing with your post or having a go at you btw. Just trying to clarify what I mean
barlimo
Well-Known Member
Israel invariably goes right over the top. Gaza being the worst example of excess possible. I dread to think of what their response to the attack is going to be.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
The Israeli government really need to be told now that, if they do respond with the sort of thing that is being reported in the Israeli press, that they are on their own - no military support, ambassadors expelled, no protection in the UNSC and sanctions imposed. Even the pathetic concerns expressed by our own government are being ignored, never mind the concerns of the wider region.
johnwesley
Member
So the truth slowly leeches out 99% my arse. Ok so do the calculations. 9 stuck the airbase. 99% got stopped. If 9 is all of the 1% there must have been at least 900 projectiles. Alexei Sayle wasn't wrong - they lie and they lie and they lie. If this got totally serious Hezbollah and indeed Hamas could flood the skies with cheap rockets to bleed out the air defences and Iran could land any number of ballistic missiles on serious targets puuting paid to the myth of Israeli invulnerability. Plus the Iranians boarding an alleged Israeli vessel was a literal shot across the bows. My Twitter seems to think the crater at the air force base was freshly dug rather than being bomb damaged. Surely the air base ought to the best defended assett in the country ? This looks like a warning Israel would do well to heed.
US officials believe that at least nine Iranian ballistic missiles hit Israeli air bases on Sunday, evading air defences, although the damage appeared to be minimal.
Israel, the United States and their allies on Sunday shot down 99 per cent of more than 100 drones and dozens of cruise and ballistic missiles in an unprecedented show of force.
But at least five ballistic missiles were not intercepted, hitting the Nevatim air base in the Negev desert in the south of Israel, damaging a C-130 cargo plane, an out-of-use runway and empty storage facilities, an unnamed US official told ABC News. Four other missiles appeared to have hit another airbase in the Negev, causing significant damage.
US officials believe that at least nine Iranian ballistic missiles hit Israeli air bases on Sunday, evading air defences, although the damage appeared to be minimal.
Israel, the United States and their allies on Sunday shot down 99 per cent of more than 100 drones and dozens of cruise and ballistic missiles in an unprecedented show of force.
But at least five ballistic missiles were not intercepted, hitting the Nevatim air base in the Negev desert in the south of Israel, damaging a C-130 cargo plane, an out-of-use runway and empty storage facilities, an unnamed US official told ABC News. Four other missiles appeared to have hit another airbase in the Negev, causing significant damage.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
iran didnt even use their best missiles, apparently.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
weird this. this is the only mention of the unnamed base in the article and it says significant damage. wonder what they kept there? i think the littleness of the mention might point to the bigness of the importance of this.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
IDF chief of staff says Israel will respond to Iran missile attack
General gives clearest confirmation yet that Israel will hit back but it is unclear what form response will take
johnwesley
Member
Bingoman
Well-Known Member
Not sure what this is about
www.yenisafak.com
Hezbollah says Israeli soldiers killed, injured in bomb explosion near Lebanese-Israeli border | Middle East
Attack follows Israeli strike on residential building that injured 9 people in southern Lebanon
www.yenisafak.com
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Doubt it - those fools are on about "restoring deterrence" by fear, and such a strike wouldn't do that plus would extremely risky for anyone involved plus its hard to see how they'd get there anyway given that most of the region would not allow overflights.
Firing a Jericho off at somewhere in Iran is more likely, it would give the Iranian leadership (and everyone else in the region) a minute or two of wondering whether the payload was nuclear or not. I doubt (more in hope than anything) it would be, indeed it might not actually have a conventional warhead either but I am sure the message would be that the next one will be the real thing.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
have you got the thread starter on ignore?
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
not me
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Yes, there's a deeply offensive a-symmetry to that. A murderous a-symmetry.
And when a state is set up by the forced removal of the long term majority inhabitants of that state... and we end up in a situation where criticising that establishment is deemed to be antisemitic, it's a world of ideological a-symmetry. A newspeak rabbithole madness that enables further slaughter. Jews ceased to be a majority in Palestine probably at some point in the 3rd century - a staggeringly obvious point that is almost lost in official discourses in Britain and beyond. The history of populations in Palestine is obviously complex, but there is nothing in there that should let slip from the view that these were long term Palestinian lands.
Similar threads
