Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

[AlexL]

Breaking News -- Israel Under Attack 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by AlexL
correction

[stansfield123]

Does Israel REALLY have the military resources to wage war on three fronts? I understand that they're technologically far more advanced ... but do they have the numbers? Do they have the munitions to keep going for months? We've seen how fast armies go through ammo, in Ukraine. Can they really initiate a war against Syria and Hezbollah, without full US backing?

...because I can't imagine they have that backing. They only have US backing to the extent they stay passive, and respond only when attacked. Biden won't fully back them if they initiate war on three fronts.

[Boydstun]

1 hour ago, stansfield123 said:

. . . Can they really initiate a war against Syria and Hezbollah, without full US backing?

. . .

Why would they attack Syria (Assad)?

[DavidOdden]

I think it is analogous to NVA and the VC during the Vietnam war. Syria supports Hamas, and probably will do so materially. I expect that any Israeli attack on Syria will be in light of a substantial threat of an actual attack by Syria, rather than general philosophical "friend of my enemy" reasoning. If Iran joins the attack then we can conclude that this is a move to obliterate Israel, if Saudia Arabia recognizes Israel and sends troop to aid Israeli (one can fantasize...), that would indicate something totally different. An intermediate possibility is that Syria will decide to let Hamas handle it on their own, and if there is evidence for that decision, I expect Israel would not attack Syria.

[stansfield123]

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

Why would they attack Syria (Assad)?

Assad isn't really in charge of Syria. The Russians are in charge of Syria ... and the Iranians, by extension. Russia would probably have a say, but it's unlikely that they would object to Iranian proxies attacking Israel from Syria.

So, if Israel wants to get ahead of the threat, they would have to attack Iranian backed forces in both Lebanon and Syria. Attacking preemptively in Lebanon alone is not good enough.

Israel must avoid getting into the same situation Ukraine is in: a stalemate with a massive enemy, with western backers, especially the US, purposefully providing just enough support to preserve that stalemate. That's why I ask: can Israel act decisively on all three fronts without substantial US resupply? Even if western public opinion turns against them to some extent, and western politicians start looking for excuses to delay military aid ... the same way they are doing with Ukraine?

P.S. It's a question about procurement and supplies, really. I know South Korea could wage the war Israel is facing, and never run out of ammo. They have massive amounts, both in storage and production capacity. The US could too, obviously. Same with China or Russia (assuming Russia was fighting a war for its survival ... rather than a "special operation").

But I have no idea what Israel has. I know they have the 200 nukes and a lot of tanks, but nukes and tanks are pretty much irrelevant. If anything, having nukes is counter-productive, because people who have nukes may do what Putin did: make the mistake of thinking they make up for the absence of actual, useful military preparedness. Do they have the artillery ammo and the missiles?

Edited October 8, 2023 by stansfield123

[EC]

Or they could just take out Iran in one shot and then warn the rest of the terrorist "nations" that they are next if they even sneeze wrong, but that would be too easy and quick, and moral.

[AlexL]

Israel's War -- Update | Yaron Brook

 

 

[stansfield123]

Israeli PM's short speech to the nation, on Day 3 of the war:

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by stansfield123

[Boydstun]

 

Hamas Network of Tunnels Under Gaza

[stansfield123]

All the questions about Israel's military preparedness, answered:

The guy is a real pro, has similar ind-depth, strictly factual videos on various aspects of the Ukraine war, as well as on the military readiness of various nations.

While I'm here, I would also like to comment on Yaron calling Israel's conscription "evil". Here's something to understand, that I never heard Yaron clarify, about conscription in not just Israel, but all western democracies which have it at the moment: you can opt out by leaving the country when you come of age, and establishing residency some place else. They're not going to stop you at the airport, and they're not going to charge you with a crime and hunt you as a fugitive, the way the US did it during Vietnam, or the way countries like Russia still do it. You can even come back to visit friends and family any time you'd like, as far as I know, so long as you renounce your citizenship first.

So military service in Israel, Finland, etc. is not forced upon anyone: it is merely the price of citizenship. Which is very, very different.

[AlexL]

4 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

The guy is a real pro, has similar ind-depth, strictly factual videos on various aspects of the Ukraine war, as well as on the military readiness of various nations.

Thank you for the reference.

Quote

While I'm here, I would also like to comment on Yaron calling Israel's conscription "evil". Here's something to understand, that I never heard Yaron clarify, about conscription in not just Israel, but all western democracies which have it at the moment

1. "Yaron calling Israel's conscription "evil""

a. This is not all that Yaron ever said about conscription, the Israeli one in particular. In general, Yaron has called for the abolition of mandatory military conscription in all countries. He believes that voluntary militaries are (a) more efficient and effective, and (b) that they respect the individual's right to self-determination.

b. Yaron: 

Quote

46:23 taking civilians hostages as well uh conscription in Israel is an evil and is part of the problem of the lack of professionalism within Israel military often, but that's not the issue on the table right now the issue on the table right now is uh Israel needs to survive [...]

2. UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Netherlands and Denmark all rely exclusively on volunteers without any element of conscription currently.

 

[stansfield123]

21 hours ago, AlexL said:

a. This is not all that Yaron ever said about conscription, the Israeli one in particular. In general, Yaron has called for the abolition of mandatory military conscription in all countries. He believes that voluntary militaries are (a) more efficient and effective, and (b) that they respect the individual's right to self-determination

Small nations can't afford a large enough standing army to wage war against larger enemies. The beauty of the IDF is that it can multiply in size in a matter of one week, crush Hamas in a month or two, and then reduce back to where it was ... with all those reservists going back to their civilian jobs, where they are productive, rather than living off a government salary the way a professional soldier does.

As an aside, the reason why your country escaped Nazi invasion wasn't out of the kindness of Hitler's heart. It was due to Switzerland being able to maintain a STRONG neutrality. A neutrality that wasn't worth challenging.

That can't be done without a large reserve force, when a country is as small as Switzerland. A reserve force that isn't drawing a permanent salary (because that's untenable ... Yaron's talk of "standing armies are always more economical" is the typical simplistic nonsense he spews, there's no analysis or understanding behind it).

Quote

UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Netherlands and Denmark all rely exclusively on volunteers

No, they don't. They rely on NATO. These countries, with perhaps the exception of the UK (but doubtful) don't have viable militaries which could fight a war by themselves, the way Israel, South Korea, or even tiny Finland could. They are instead pieces in a larger whole. Some NATO members have large tank fleets, others air power, others strong navies, etc. None of them, excepting the US and perhaps the UK, France and Poland, aim for the capability to hold off a large invading army alone. Let alone to actually win against such an army alone.

Finland of course just joined NATO. This means they can now specialize to some extent: start neglecting parts of their military readiness, and focus on others. That should allow them to reduce the size of their reserve force (from literally every able bodied man in the country, to perhaps just a big chunk of them ... and hopefully some women too). Not eliminate it, however. Not unless someone from NATO is willing to station tens of thousands of professional soldiers in Finland (which they aren't, that would be incredibly costly).

As for Israel, it would love to join NATO. They haven't been invited. They must maintain a large scale military, that can hold off the whole Arab world. This can be achieved in one of two ways: dedicate 25-30% of GDP to paying a full size standing army that's half a million strong (larger than what the US maintains, these days), or use conscription to train everybody, place them in reserve, and call them up when needed. This second option allows them a military budget that's 4.5% of GDP.

Edited October 16, 2023 by stansfield123

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Small nations can't afford a large enough standing army to wage war against larger enemies.

Our subject was voluntary vs conscription-based army. A standing army may be voluntary, or conscription-based, or mixed.

US army is a standing army, but is relying solely on volunteers without conscription.

Standing armies, conscription-based: North Korea, Belarus, Iran, Cuba

Standing armies, mixed model (some positions are filled by volunteers, while others are filled via conscription): ex. South Korea and Israel.

3 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Quote

UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Netherlands and Denmark all rely exclusively on volunteers

No, they don't. They rely on NATO.

The subject was not on what/whom  they rely for their defense, but what kind are their OWN armies

[tadmjones]

What kind of country is it that its ‘own’ army is not for the purpose of its own sovereign defense?

[whYNOT]

The MSM media had a brief moment of support for Israel, as well they might. Their sympathy is already shifting, as I guessed. One has to be careful to steer away from both the neo-cons (the US must attack Iran!) and the media Leftists (Israel will commit/ was always committing "genocide" on innocent Gaza). Guilt -ridden Leftist Jews included in this latter popular refrain. The ready myth planted and disseminated by propaganda branches of terror groups in advance of this predictable IDF retaliation. Gazans could have been expelled into Egypt at every stage since its capture in that war, but despite several minor wars since, Israel stopped short of all-out offense and defeating Hamas conclusively, risking civilians.  

The global rage in cities and on campuses/etc. quickly turned today against "Zionist Israel" (little against the perpetrator, Hamas) has been growing unprecedentedly in later times--enough, self-contradictorily, to vindicate the original aims of Zionists who saw back then the alarming signs from within their civilised nations. If Israel were a safer haven, more world Jews, new Zionists, will be inclined and advised to go there now.

Nothing has changed. Since then until now, someone once opined: when the Palestinians lay down their arms, there will be peace; if the Israelis do, they will be wiped out. Proven once again last week.

As a whole, and impressed on them from youth, all life is respected by all Jews. Their lives simply are not, by the Arab/Muslim terror groups or their (some/many) civilian supporters (albeit, who carefully as possible must surely be left alone by the IDF as indeed they were/are mostly, despite the lying Gazan narrative and casualty figures). So to never lower themselves to the enemy's moral standards.

The altruism which the West reveres in others'  "heroic deeds", self-sacrifice, victimhood, even martyrdom is what the terrorists have always played up to. The annoying unwillingness of Jews to simply disappear but selfishly survive (and do well) opposes the western doctrine.

Sickening, the justifications presently made in the aftermath for Hamas/the Gazans. Some in the West openly anticipate an welcome the genocide of "the Zionists".

Unlike the argument in the West Bank, there has been no encroachment on Gazan territory by settlers, indeed a complete withdrawal of Israeli civilians and forces several years ago. They have had their chances at independence and successful self-rule and rejected them in order to be a forever Islamist enemy of the "Zionists".

"Apartheid Israel"? The "right of return"? Again, we've recently seen full vindication for why Israelis always understood they cannot open its borders to just anyone.

What came first? This "open-air prison", import embargoes, check points, walls and fences so vilified by the mindless had a primary rationale before the 'imprisonment' of Gazans, the protection of Israel -- first.  Hamas brutality justified that rationale again.

Edited October 17, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

15 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

As an aside, the reason why your country [Switzerland] escaped Nazi invasion wasn't out of the kindness of Hitler's heart. It was due to Switzerland being able to maintain a STRONG neutrality. A neutrality that wasn't worth challenging.

What exactly do you mean by "a STRONG neutrality. A neutrality that wasn't worth challenging"?

[whYNOT]

A (presumed) Muslim-Israeli lets rip on BBC Arab.

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by whYNOT

[Craig24]

Israeli explains why the pro-palestinian view is wrong:

 

[stansfield123]

On 10/17/2023 at 3:45 AM, tadmjones said:

What kind of country is it that its ‘own’ army is not for the purpose of its own sovereign defense?

A NATO member country, for example. Small and even medium sized NATO member countries' militaries are built to operate as part of NATO. Just as the US Navy aren't meant to fight China alone, the Dutch military isn't meant to defend its territory against Russian invasion alone. If a war breaks out, the Dutch military will have a few specific roles in the NATO effort to defeat Russia. These roles will not be performed in the Netherlands, they will be performed a thousand+ miles away.

So that's what their military is designed for. It's a small, mobile force (40K), meant to be used in three main roles: 1. first in support (logistics and surveillance), second as a navy and air force presence patrolling the Atlantic and Baltic coastline of Europe, and third as a mobile ground attack force. It is not designed to defend the Netherlands against an invasion. It would be incredibly ill fit to perform that task. It has neither the numbers nor the equipment to do that. It also doesn't train for it. For good reason: it's not a role it will ever find itself in, because no one is threatening to invade the Netherlands.

If, instead, the Netherlands was standing alone, with Russia on its border (or with countries aligned with Russia, in between them and Russia), their military would look very, very different. It would look very similar to Israel's, with every young person spending time being trained, and then entering a reserve force, ready to be called up at any point if war breaks out. Their military stockpiles would look very different too: instead of the high tech, expensive weapons they have (F35s, surveillance tech, assault helicopters, heavy transport planes), they would train for guerilla tactics, for digging in, they would be equipped with vast stockpiles of artillery and ammo, shoulder fired anti-tank and anti-air weaponry, etc.

If their military didn't look like that, and let's say Denmark was an ally of Russia ... the Netherlands wouldn't exist for very long

 

[tadmjones]

So a client state without its own means of defense.

[stansfield123]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

So a client state without its own means of defense.

No, NATO countries aren't "client states". NATO is a military alliance, in which countries commit to fighting threats together, rather than separately.

[human_murda]

On 10/17/2023 at 12:29 AM, whYNOT said:

Sickening, the justifications presently made in the aftermath for Hamas/the Gazans. Some in the West openly anticipate an welcome the genocide of "the Zionists".

The only alternatives are: either Israel genocides Palestinians or Israel doesn't genocide Palestinians. Hamas is not capable of genociding "the Zionists", no matter how many babies they allegedly beheaded.

On 10/17/2023 at 12:29 AM, whYNOT said:

What came first? This "open-air prison", import embargoes, check points, walls and fences so vilified by the mindless had a primary rationale before the 'imprisonment' of Gazans, the protection of Israel -- first.

Israel is much older than Hamas.

Edited October 23, 2023 by human_murda

[human_murda]

On 10/9/2023 at 2:25 AM, EC said:

Or they could just take out Iran in one shot and then warn the rest of the terrorist "nations" that they are next if they even sneeze wrong, but that would be too easy and quick, and moral.

Here's a better solution: nuke all Western nations. Maybe you can stop the 100th or how many ever wars the West has started in Asia.

[human_murda]

On 10/17/2023 at 10:49 AM, whYNOT said:

A (presumed) Muslim-Israeli lets rip on BBC Arab.

 

Israel bombs Gaza (which has a population density similar to cities) indiscriminately and spins it as "Hamas is using civilians as a human shield". If they wanted to actually kill militants, they should send soldiers, not missiles.

[whYNOT]

3 hours ago, human_murda said:

The only alternatives are: either Israel genocides Palestinians or Israel doesn't genocide Palestinians. Hamas is not capable of genociding "the Zionists", no matter how many babies they allegedly beheaded.

Israel is much older than Hamas.

Oh sure. Then we all (excepting the indigenous people) must all return to the places we came from.

First proving who and what "indigenous people" in pre-history and later times actually are today, after their nomadic wanderings, settling here and there, slave trade, early empires and their wars of conquest and expulsion - and so on.

Infinite regress? Everybody finishes up in Southern Africa. Happy?

Israel is certainly older than Hamas. Apparently, the early Hebrew tribes were older than Palestinians too.

Edited October 23, 2023 by whYNOT