Operation pillar of cloud. Israeli assault on Gaza

[littlebabyjesus]

One of the things that served them well was having well motivated cannon-fodder at the time, which combined with the geography makes an invasion a rather unappealing idea.

I would think that they still have that. Whatever people's attitude towards the regime, there is a strong sense of national identity in Iran. There is no equivalent to the divisions in Iraq, as I'm sure you know. There is a strong sense of being Iranian, and another invasion of their territory would bring a strong response. Israel will know this.

 

[Balbi]

Cunning of Israel. 650 rockets in 6 days. I suspect their claim of keeping people safe is ensuring Israelis spend more time in shelters than the previous 10 months.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Cunning of Israel. 650 rockets in 6 days. I suspect their claim of keeping people safe is ensuring Israelis spend more time in shelters than the previous 10 months.

Yep, terrorising them in order to justify what they are doing. Also with so many reservists called up likehood that almost everyone will know someone involved in the IDF right now. Cunningly evil and psychologically affective.

 

[Balbi]

I mean technically, in those shelters, they're safer than they would be outside. Car accidents, crime - bet they've dropped significantly in the last six days. FOUR MORE YEARS FOR NETANYAHU. Shit.

 

[elbows]

i am talking about the iraq war which started in 2003. not the iran-iraq war of the 1980s.

Ah right. I still find it a bit tricky to assume that analysis of the Iraq war gives a proper picture of exactly how things went down and who the real winners were. Some of the deal-making was done rather quietly and our media barely touches on Iraq these days. It does seem to be accepted in many quarters that Iran came out of it rather well, but I dont know how far this point can be stretched. I'll have a sniff around and see if anything interesting has been written about this since I last looked.

Iran has a presidential election scheduled for mid 2013, not sure if that will play into things, havent heard much about the candidates yet. I wonder if the BBC will get a boner over the prospect of a 'more moderate' Iranian president like they did before Ahmadinejad got elected for the first time (Rafsanjani blah blah blah).

 

[Balbi]

Does anyone feel we're just on a loop back to 1967 for Israel?

 

[catinthehat]

Sorry hun but what you linked me too didn't say what you said it did.Which was:

So I tweeted Birgitta and asked her myself. I posted the tweets. She said it was a youth movement leader who made that comment. Did you read the tweets? Do you know who sent them to me?

To clarify - the statement of condemnation came from the Foreign Affairs Minister. The consideration of severance of ties wasn't in the statement but was in the info I got (there is a meeting scheduled on it - which of course may be in response to the call from the YM). My link was to the FA Min and you are correct - said nothing about the ties. Should have made that clearer - apologies. This evenings news headlined with the story that Iceland had condemned - my understanding is that the FAM is entitled to make the decision/statement on this as his area of responsibility. (My understanding - not a fact!) There is a demo planned for tomorrow outside the Israeli embassy - I suspect it will be pretty well attended and unlike in the UK the political class in Iceland can't hide.

 

[elbows]

I would think that they still have that. Whatever people's attitude towards the regime, there is a strong sense of national identity in Iran. There is no equivalent to the divisions in Iraq, as I'm sure you know. There is a strong sense of being Iranian, and another invasion of their territory would bring a strong response. Israel will know this.

Indeed, which is why I've always poured scorn on talk of invasion. If they ever contemplated such a thing it would only be after Iran's capabilities has been massively degraded after many years of crippling sanctions.

But I dont bank on any of this entirely removing from the table the option of limited strikes on some of their facilities. Its not been the first choice option for some important powers that be, and even Israel at its most rabid can choose to kick the option further into the future by declaring that the timescale for Iran's nuclear program has slipped.

 

[Pickman's model]

Does anyone feel we're just on a loop back to 1967 for Israel?

no

 

[elbows]

One day Israel might pick on someone their own size, and they'll be brutally put down.

Who would that be though? In terms of population size and self-sufficiency they are weak, but they have the fancy technology, nuclear bombs and most importantly powerful friends. Never say never, but the configuration of the game would have to change so much compared to where it is now that I find it hard to discuss even the theoretical possibility properly at the moment.

Given the behaviour and rhetoric we are used to from them it is certainly possible to imagine them making a huge mistake, but in a situation where friends or really powerful enemies applied immense pressure to them, they may be far more willing to compromise.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm trying to think of a mistake - in terms of military tactics - that Israel has made. Can't think of anything straight away. They have tended to start things they were confident they would win.

 

[ViolentPanda]

as opposed, presumably, to everywhere in iran getting bombed.

Not just carpet-bombing, but "heavy wool shag pile" bombing.

 

[Balbi]

I guess a changing global power, waning of the West, rising of the East could lead to Israel being a lot less secure of its position in the long term.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

A direct attack on the transport system?

 

[elbows]

I'm trying to think of a mistake - in terms of military tactics - that Israel has made. Can't think of anything straight away. They have tended to start things they were confident they would win.

Yes I suppose so. I should not confuse their lack of rhetorical & internal constraint with completely stupid recklessness. Perhaps the fact they are rather used to getting their own way could lead to mistakes due to arrogance, but their reliance on allies in some key regards probably limits the chances of them straying too far from the path.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm trying to think of a mistake - in terms of military tactics - that Israel has made. Can't think of anything straight away. They have tended to start things they were confident they would win.

they didn't do too well against hezbollah a few years back

 

[not-bono-ever]

dead IDF are bad for Israel - POWs are worse - its been done before and it does cause Israel to waver

 

[weltweit]

Cunning of Israel. 650 rockets in 6 days. ...

I assume you mean Israeli rockets, but Gaza have been firing lots also and it is one certain way to deplete Gaza's stockpiles without needing troops on the ground.

 

[elbows]

they didn't do too well against hezbollah a few years back

Oh yeah I forgot about that. It went badly enough that they setup a commission to look at it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winograd_Commission

The following article puts it down to a massive mistake by US & pals in believing their own hype about how much of a game-changer high-tech 'precision' weapons are in modern warfare. I expect they overstate this and it actually depends on the nature of the conflict in question.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/07...-lebanon-means-for-defense-industry-fat-cats/

 

[Balbi]

I assume you mean Israeli rockets, but Gaza have been firing lots also and it is one certain way to deplete Gaza's stockpiles without needing troops on the ground.

Sorry, those are IDF stats on rockets from Gaza. Indicating their 'defence' has made it more dangerous, but conversely, perversely, safer in their shelters.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

they didn't do too well against hezbollah a few years back

Ah yes. I'd forgotten that too.

 

[teqniq]

There's been a bit of a 'spirited exchange' at the White house daily press briefing between an AP reporter and spokesperson Victoria Nuland it would seem that she's been told not to express any sympathy for Gaza and does a bit of sidestepping. AP initially uploaded this to youtube but then took it back down. However it can still be seen here

 

[Hocus Eye.]

There's been a bit of a 'spirited exchange' at the White house daily press briefing between an AP reporter and spokesperson Victoria Nuland it would seem that she's been told not to express any sympathy for Gaza and does a bit of sidestepping. AP initially uploaded this to youtube but then took it back down. Hodwever it can still be seen here

I listened to that video and it was more about Nuland's refusal to criticise Turkey's condemnation of Israel's attack. The Americans are evidently worried by Turkey's attitude here but are still desperately hanging on to a pro-Israeli line. The AP reporter seemed to be trying to push her to counter Turkey's support for Israel but she was clearly put on the spot by this and hesitantly expressed sympathy for the dead on "both sides" in the war.

Perhaps Turkey can bring a bit of balance to the perceptions of Israel's position in the world.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Ah yes. All the same, for a US ally to say that at the very least shows, well it shows Israel won't be joining NATO any time soon.

Strikes me that Israel's support around the world is - US apart - wafer-thin. Even the mealy-mouthed UK could turn very quickly on them.

Turkey has long realised there's no value in either NATO or Europe for them. They're keen to be a ME player with links to East Africa to shore up their efforts to be a geo political player...

 

[Balbi]

That and there's no fucking way they're getting in the EU as long as Greece and Cyprus are there

 

[Kid_Eternity]

The massive shelling of Gaza by Israeli forces, which they say is in retaliation for rocket fire from Hamas, has predictably led to everyone in the western world assume their traditional positions. I don’t want to argue about which side is right or wrong, becauseclearlythe world is starved of that debate.

Yesterday the Jerusalem Post published an outrageous op-ed by former PM Ariel Sharon’s son, Gilad Sharon, arguing that for a “decisive conclusion” to this crisis, Israel needs to assume it citizens are “not innocent” and needs to “flatten all of Gaza”. There is even a comparison to the US nuclear strike on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2.

I’ll come back to the madness of the proposals later, but Sharon is right on one point: Israel is out of options. The latest attack on Gaza is a desperate gamble and the country’s die-hard supporters in the West need a different approach to secure the country’s long term future. There are two key reasons I say this.

Article.

 

[dylanredefined]

they didn't do too well against Hezbollah a few years back

They lost a tank battle ,but,were able to bomb the shit out of lebanon whenever they wanted too.
Hezbollah survived.

 

[Pickman's model]

They lost a tank battle ,but,were able to bomb the shit out of lebanon whenever they wanted too.
Hezbollah survived.

And iirc one or two rockets landed inside the zionist entity

incidentally, can you explain how hezbollah won a tank battle without tanks?

 

[Pickman's model]

Traditionally, both sides in a tank battle have, er, tanks, like at kursk. So it seems to me hezbollah's 2006 achievement must be unique in the annals of modern warfare.

 

[CNT36]

Newsnight mentioned four pre conditions Israel has put down for a ceasefire but I cannot find them online. One is about not letting Hamas rearm anyone know the rest? Blair was on again. Fucking tuss.