Quite in line with what I argued earlier, the idea that radical loonies are in charge of anything is just a guise — Tzeentch

Is it a disguise? The Likud party had as it charter "From the River to the Sea" Israel without any Palestinian state ever existing.

How is that a disguise? I think it's quite straight forward and consistent from them.

In Israel Netanyahu is considered a 'moderate', if you can believe that.

And when interests align he uses the loonies as a lightning rod. That's why he has his rabid ministers saying the most outrageous shit.


Essentially Washington uses the same trick, but it uses Israel. Their interests align with that of Israel, and they have Israel to say and do all the things that would be erm... 'embarassing'... to have to say and do themselves.


Netanyahu receiving 50+ standing ovations in US Congress was a bit of an eye-opener to me. Netanyahu seems to believe he has US Congress in the palm of his hand, but US Congress may as well be playing to his shitty megalomaniac/narcissistic personality.

Loonies are easy to control, much like emotionally-possessed citizens. They're irrational and delusional, so it's just a game of affirming their delusions.

It turns out one nation's looney is another nation's moderate, who has loonies of his own. :lol:

What a lovely, dysfunctional shitshow.

Netanyahu receiving 50+ standing ovations in US Congress was a bit of an eye-opener to me. — Tzeentch

It wasn't too long ago that 2000+ Americans were killed in American soil and it sparked a war that at least initially had widespread support. Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe.

Oh please. It's a rare occasion when the US faces blowback from its cynical foreign policies.

Maybe if that happened a little more often the US public wouldn't be so oblivious to the ruin their nation brings on the world, hm?

In Israel Netanyahu is considered a 'moderate', if you can believe that. — Tzeentch

That's how bad things have gone in Israel, Tzeentch.

Also do notice that the Labour party is now a tiny party and not the force it was earlier.

Essentially Washington uses the same trick, but it uses Israel. Their interests align with that of Israel, and they have Israel to say and do all the things that would be erm... 'embarassing'... to have to say and do themselves. — Tzeentch

Please give example of this. Because I think Israel is and has been quite an independent actor.

Netanyahu receiving 50+ standing ovations in US Congress was a bit of an eye-opener to me. — Tzeentch

You should view what American politicians say on AIPAC conferences. That's actually also an eye-opener.

Netanyahu seems to believe he has US Congress in the palm of his hand, but US Congress may as well be playing to his shitty megalomaniac/narcissistic personality. — Tzeentch

But the US Congress is in the palm of his hand. Of course it can be squigly and difficult to hold. But the loyal devotion to Israel is a bipartisan issue: both parties want to have good relations with Israel because they fear having bad relations will alienate their own voters. Not the Jewish Americans, but the Evangelists. That's why both parties are so in favour of Israel. I think that Netanyahu was one of the first to understand this, because other Israeli politicians thought of the US had been such an ally because of the Cold War and the threat of Soviet Union. But it wasn't just that and Bibi understood. As I've said, Bibi is a lot more than just an Israeli politician, he understands how US politics works and is basically also an American politician.

The issue is that Israeli politicians want to draw a picture of the relations being fragile and problematic, which they actually aren't. That's just a way to influence Washington. But in truth, we've seen just this year in April just how the US came to the defense of Israel. And we surely know that it will do the same, hence this alliance is solid.

But the US Congress is in the palm of his hand. — ssu

You may believe that - many do - but I don't see it that way.

I disagree with those who portray Israel as the beneficiary in this relationship.

While Israel is carrying out US policy in the Middle-East, it is inching itself closer and closer to the geopolitical abyss.

One day in the not-so-distant future the US will retreat to its island, and Israel will be left to pay the price of decades of belligerence by itself.

At that point it will become clear who was played by who.

It wasn't too long ago that 2000+ Americans were killed in American soil and it sparked a war that at least initially had widespread support. Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe. — BitconnectCarlos

Hmmm... but what did Israel do for the US actually in the War on Terror?

The only thing it might have done is give intelligence... which likely played more to their interests. Which isn't to fight Sunni Islamists, but Israel's own enemies, the Palestinians and Iran and it's henchmen, which actually fight also the Sunni Islamists.

But did Israel help the US in Iraq?

Of course not.

But did Israel help in Afghanistan, in the longest war the US fought and lost?

Of course not.

Did Israel help in the fight against ISIS?

Of course not.

Did Europe help in Iraq?

Some countries did.

Did Europe help in Afghanistan? In the response to 9/11?

Yep. A lot more countries than just NATO members. In the end there were more NATO personnel than were US personnel. Were they consulted before bugging out of Afghanistan done by the Trump-Biden adminstrations? Of course not. And European countries also lost soldiers in Afghanistan: UK: 457, Canada: 159, France: 90, Germany: 62, Italy: 53, Poland: 44, Denmark: 43, Spain: 35, Romania: 27, Netherlands: 25, Czech Republic: 14, Norway: 10, Estonia: 9, Hungary: 7, Sweden: 5, Latvia: 4, Slovakia: 3, Finland: 2.

But of course, that doesn't mean a Goddam fuck to you that your allies did participate in your invasion of Afghanistan, whereas Israel fighting it's own war of existence makes you state: " Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe."

You may believe that - many do - but I don't see it that way.

I disagree with those who portray Israel as the beneficiary in this relationship. — Tzeentch

We disagree again.

While Israel is carrying out US policy in the Middle-East, it is inching itself closer and closer to the geopolitical abyss. — Tzeentch

The US and Israel might agree on some policies, that is true. But if it's in the interest of Israel and also the US is fine with a policy, is it really then "Israel carrying out US policy".

Just state how is Israel carrying out US policy in the Middle-East that wouldn't be benificial to itself?

But if it's in the interest of Israel and also the US is fine with a policy, is it really then "Israel carrying out US policy". — ssu

Well, I don't believe it is in Israel's interests, because I don't think Israel will survive the moment the US leaves it to pay the bill.


To put it differently, I believe the US realizes fully that it has helped create an utterly unsustainable geopolitical situation for Israel, but is content to keep Israel on this course because it suits American interests.

After all, if the US cannot maintain control of the Middle-East, then why should it care about what happens to Israel afterwards?

But of course, that doesn't mean a Goddam fuck to you that your allies did participate in your invasion of Afghanistan, whereas Israel fighting it's own war of existence makes you state: " Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe." — ssu

I generalize of course, but for whatever reason the Europeans here tend to understand e.g. Islamic violence in terms of blowback so, basically, whatever Islamic violence befalls a people it is in some sense deserved. Chickens coming home to roost. If only the West would de-escalate then the muslim terror groups would smile at the West's change of heart and there would be peace again. Maybe we need to give them Israel. Then they'll be happy. Give the radicals what they want and stop funding Israel and hopefully they'll stop too.

I feel bad for the Europeans because with the decline in Christianity they're left without much guidance and they're facing a people who have a strong sense of purpose.

I generalize of course, but for whatever reason the Europeans here tend to understand e.g. Islamic violence in terms of blowback so, basically, whatever Islamic violence befalls a people it is in some sense deserved. — BitconnectCarlos

What blowback? Within Islam there's a lot of totally different struggles going on, which then splash even on our shores and then there's the question of migration in general. Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one specific conflict that soon will have gone for a Century. Separate is the Sunni Islmamism that started with Al Qaeda. Then there's Sunni-Shia struggle we've seen in Iraq and Syria. And then there's the now quite institutionalized Iranian revolution that is something like Marxism-Leninism was for the Soviet Union, which has picked Israel in it's crosshairs (and vice versa).

So umm, yes, you generalize. Perhaps a bit too much in this case.

I feel bad for the Europeans because with the decline in Christianity they're left without much guidance and they're facing a people who have a strong sense of purpose. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh for crying out loud, Christianity has withered for a long time starting from the 19th Century, so that cannot be the problem.

Besides, I've experienced a huge political and cultural transformation in my country, where actually people went for and the politicians changed their stances in a week or so after February 22nd 2022. Seldom you see such a huge change from a neutral country still suffering from "Finlandization" as it tried to keep good relations with Russia, then simply stop and change the course altogether.

And furthermore, what the right-wing media doesn't report is that a lot has changed in Europe: Sweden has changed it's migration policies, Denmark has all the time been very negative towards migration. There's a huge change happened in the discourse of migration... except in the UK. And East Europe want to have literally nothing to do with it. And nobody's talking about Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Kosovo or Albania, which have indeed the large muslim populations. Well, they've had them starting from the fall of East-Rome in 1453.

Nope, you think that Europe is like the Post-Brexit Keir Starmer lead UK. Well, it isn't.

Hence the narrative of the "Culture Wars" gives a false description especially if one makes the mistake of talking about Europe as one single entity. It simply isn't that. It would be like if we would generalize and talk about "North America" as one single entity. Well, Canada is different from the US and both of them are far different from Mexico. But of course I could say: "Oh, North America has no strong sense of purpose..."

Well, I don't believe it is in Israel's interests, because I don't think Israel will survive the moment the US leaves it to pay the bill. — Tzeentch

You underestimate the Jewish people far too much.

Really, not everything revolves around the Americans.

Within Islam there's a lot of totally different struggles going on, which then splash even on our shores and then there's the question of migration in general. — ssu

You didn’t prove they are “totally different struggles” or “separate”. One can distinguish to some extent national and religious roots, and major actors in various conflicts plaguing the Middle East but they heavily interact and influence each other materially and ideologically. Maybe there is not one clash of civilisation but many.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one specific conflict that soon will have gone for a Century. — ssu

Then there's Sunni-Shia struggle we've seen in Iraq and Syria. — ssu

And then there's the now quite institutionalized Iranian revolution that is something like Marxism-Leninism was for the Soviet Union, which has picked Israel in it's crosshairs (and vice versa). — ssu

Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been intertwined with the conflict between Iran (as leader of the Shias) and Saudi Arabia (as leader of the Sunnis) for decades. For such Sunni and Shia regimes, supporting the Palestinian cause is also about securing domestic legitimacy and enhancing regional influence. By advocating for Palestinians, such regimes attempt to gain the moral high ground and appeal to the broader Muslim population, which often sympathizes with the Palestinian struggle. This dynamic fuels the rivalry and on both sides there are attempts to outdo the other in showing support for Palestine

https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/11/between-swords-of-iron-and-the-al-aqsa-deluge-the-regional-politics-of-the-israel-hamas-war/

Separate is the Sunni Islmamism that started with Al Qaeda. — ssu

From Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people”:

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.
(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.
When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.
(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040615081002/http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been intertwined with the conflict Iran (as leader of the Shias) and Saudi Arabia (as leader of the Sunnis) for decades. — neomac

The Sunni Shia conflict started in earnest with Iraq and later with the civil war in Syria. It hasn't intertwined actually so much. For example for a long time Isrealis went as tourists to see (naturally from their side) from the Golan Heights the Civil War in Syria. That you can sit comfortably on a hill and watch the fighting on the other side of the border tells that ISIS wasn't targetting Israel (which btw. has created a lot of conspiracy theories in the Middle East). The Sunni Islamists simply left their wounded on the border where Israeli troops picked them up and moved them to a Israeli hospital.

Innocent looking at first: Israeli tourist viewing the battles inside Syria from the Golan Heights.

For such Sunni and Shia regimes, supporting the Palestinian cause is also about securing domestic legitimacy and enhancing regional influence. By advocating for Palestinians, such regimes attempt to gain the moral high ground and appeal to the broader Muslim population, which often sympathizes with the Palestinian struggle. — neomac

Yes, just like Saddam Hussein then launched Scuds to Israel because ...why not. A populist move to gain support of the "Arab street" which people occasionally try to do.

Yet what has been the response this time? Some angry rhetoric from the Turkish leader and some angry rhetoric from other countries. And well, that's about it...

So these are quite different conflicts, even if the actors intertwine as you say.

From Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people”: — neomac

Why wouldn't OBL too go for the Arab street too? Yet I think that Al Qaeda was first and foremost interested in toppling the current monarchies and leaders in the Middle East.

And of course note that this is a "letter to the American people”. Naturally here OBL doesn't say what he says to his followers, things like it's all right to kill even American civilians, women and children. Which made Al Qaeda different from a lot of groups. In 1996 Osama bin Laden said about the Americans the following:

The ordinary man knows that [Saudi Arabia] is the largest oil producer in the world, yet at the same time he is suffering from taxes and bad services. Now the people understand the speeches of the ulemas in the mosques--that our country has become an American colony. They act decisively with every action to kick the Americans out of Saudi Arabia. What happened in Riyadh and [Dhahran] when 24 Americans were killed in two bombings is clear evidence of the huge anger of Saudi people against America. The Saudis now know their real enemy is America.

So if Osama was against Al Aqsa being in the hands of Israelis, he was more against Mecca (and Medina) being in the hands of Americans, actually. But naturally, why not also mention the plight of Palestinians when agitating terrorism?

I'm just being realistic.


What I'm seeing in Ukraine and what I'm seeing in Israel are quite similar patterns, except that every factor is even worse for Israel.

Israel has a population of roughly 7 million, and is housing a number of Palestinians roughly equal to that on the soil which it occupies.

Furthermore, it is sitting on the most hotly-contested piece of real estate in world history, and is surrounded by several hundred million Arabs who all have a bone to pick with Israel on account of historical grievances, illegal occupations of foreign land, the appalling treatment of the Palestinians and its generally belligerent attitude towards the rest of the region.


Just like with Ukraine the only question is whether the US will come to its aid to save it from destruction.


In 1991 the answer to that question could have very well been 'yes', however today we see the US is under pressure from a united bloc which includes a peer competitor (China).

If the US had to divert its resources to fending off several hundred million Arabs in a quagmire of unimaginable scale, it would be curtains for the US empire. (To be clear, this would not be a conventional war) Note that the eventuality of existential conflict between the Arab/Muslim world and Israel is probably reason the US has no formal defense agreements with Israel.


As I noted before, the US is in the process of losing its grip on the Middle-East. When that happens, Israel loses its purpose and instead becomes a liability. When geopolitical interests no longer align, any ties the US may hold to Israel become purely sentimental and those won't survive long.

Given the growing status of Israel as an international pariah state and the impopularity of US support for it, it will be easy for the US to decouple from it.


Israel will become another US "ally" that has outlived its usefulness, and may then safely die.

I'm just being realistic.


What I'm seeing in Ukraine and what I'm seeing in Israel are quite similar patterns, except that every factor is even worse for Israel.

Israel has a population of roughly 7 million, and is housing a number of Palestinians roughly equal to that on the soil which it occupies. — Tzeentch

Realistic?

- Israel has a nuclear deterrence and enjoys military superiority over all of it's neighbors. The futility of Iran's missile attacks showed this. The sole Superpower will also defend it, as it happened during Biden's watch.

- Israeli losses in this conflict, especially after the initial attack that gain total strategic surprise have been minimal. Israel can perfectly contain the Palestinians and has the ability to continue military operations in Gaza (and the West Bank). It's not at all burdened by war like Ukraine (or Russia).

- After the October 7th attacks views have hardened in Israel and there's support for the hardliners. Those that don't like Likud and the hardliners are much more likely to simply migrate away from Israel than create a strong opposition against the current administration.

- Israel not only enjoys US support, but also support from other countries in the West. It also has still peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. There is no desire on the Arab side to join Iran and organization it has sponsored.

- There is no true sanctions or boycotts against Israel that hit the country hard.

So I guess your "realism" just bubbles up from your hatred about the US or something.

Israel has a nuclear deterrence [...] — ssu

So did apartheid South Africa.

[...] and enjoys military superiority over all of it's neighbors. — ssu

It probably would lose even a dragged out conventional war because of its small population and strategic depth, but in all likelihood the conflict Israel will be faced with will be unconventional, and it will have to fight a massive insurgency within its own borders at the same time.

Israel certainly does not enjoy military superiority in that area. It has suffered defeats against Hezbollah in the past, and the balance of power today is probably closer than it was back then.

The sole Superpower will also defend it, [...] — ssu

I've given you reasons as to why I believe that won't be the case. The scale of the conflict will be too large for the US to intervene, unless it wants to throw away its entire empire.

The US is not the sole superpower, by the way.

Israeli losses in this conflict, especially after the initial attack that gain total strategic surprise have been minimal. — ssu

It's fighting Hamas, whose only weapon is desperation. And they were unable to defeat Hamas, despite committing war crimes en masse.

If you believe Israel's performance in its fight against Hamas should give it any confidence for the future we must be watching two different conflicts.

Those that don't like Likud and the hardliners are much more likely to simply migrate away from Israel than create a strong opposition against the current administration. — ssu

Yes, Israelis have been leaving the country in their tens of thousands since the conflict in Gaza broke loose - more damage than Hamas could ever hope to inflict through physical violence.

It appears many Israelis are seeing the writing on the wall.

Israel not only enjoys US support, but also support from other countries in the West. — ssu

No one is going to come to Israel's aid if shit truly hits the fan. The scale of that conflict will be way too large for any western power to risk their hide on. The Europeans can't, the US won't.

There is no desire on the Arab side to join Iran and organization it has sponsored. — ssu

On the contrary, almost the entire Middle-East has a bone to pick with Israel on various grounds. It is illegally occupying territory that belongs to several other countries, including Jerusalem. It is being ran by genocidal war criminals.

Genuine reasons abound, not to mention opportunism.

Israel certainly does not enjoy military superiority in that area. It has suffered defeats against Hezbollah in the past, and the balance of power today is probably closer than it was back then. — Tzeentch

This is simply false and your confusing things.

It can win the conventional armies and air forces of it's neighbors. What Israel cannot do is to venture out into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt and occupy those countries. That ability it doesn't have. Or will or stomach even to try. But it certainly can defend the areas it got in the Six-Day war.

And that's it.

That's the real objective For Likud.

It's from the River to the Sea. Not further.

And it's small, basically tiny airspace can give it the ability of defending projectiles from long range ballistic missiles to drones and mortar fire. What Hezbollah can do is to create a nuisance, not a potential threat that can destroy the ability of the IDF to defend itself and the country. And this is why there is no peace: the current environment can be indeed the "new normal" for politicians like Bibi.

Oh for crying out loud, Christianity has withered for a long time starting from the 19th Century, so that cannot be the problem. — ssu

It is the problem. It's an ongoing problem.

What happened on 10/7 was - and I don't use this word lightly - straight-up demonic. Yet you have a large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified. Hostage posters get torn down all the time. Why? Because Israel supposedly commits the cardinal sin of our day - they are "racist." They are the oppressors. And the "oppressed" have every right to resist (and the oppressor has no say in how resistance is carried out), so the reasoning goes. No distinction is to be made between e.g. a 6 year old Israeli girl and the state of Israel. They are all the "occupiers." The "colonists." It is the 6 year old Israeli girls fault for being born in Israel and then choosing to live there. Apparently by doing so she becomes the oppressor and the oppressed will resist as they are entitled to. 10/7 was an unspeakable tragedy that deliberately targeted the Israeli peacemakers and revealed the rot within the palestinian societies as many palestinian civilians gleefully breached their neighbor's fences that day to commit unspeakable crimes against their neighbors. not the israeli government -- their own neighbors. ones working towards peace & integration.

This type of moral reasoning is straight up demonic yet it's become a feature in a culture today. I see it all the time here in the TPF. I see it on college campuses. As religious morality moves out, something needs to replace it. And what has replaced it is often very ugly & perverse.

Of course religious people can still be morally perverse and the non-religious can have a decent head on their shoulders. I speak in generalities.

It can win the conventional armies and air forces of it's neighbors. What Israel cannot do is to venture out into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt and occupy those countries.

:100:

It's from the River to the Sea. Not further.

Which in all fairness has already been achieved at some points.

Israel is the size of a post stamp. It has zero strategic depth. You also seem to acknowledge Israel has no prospects of going on the offensive, so how exactly do you envision Israel standing any chance in a prolonged war?

Hamas alone was able to drain Israel's air defense system to critical lows in a couple of days. Hamas - they're nobody on the military power scale.

Against modern swarming tactics Israel's air defense would stand no chance. At that point, it becomes a sitting duck.

How do you envision this war playing out?

Israel's tiny airspace and coastline make its supply routes chronically vulnerable. Its overall lack of size means every inch of Israel is within striking distance of the enemy - energy production, food production, everything. Not to mention it would probably have a gigantic insurgency on its hands in the Palestinian territories.


It would need a US intervention, but what is the US going to do? Stick its head into an Afghanistan-like quagmire x100? That's the BRICS wet dream - for the US to commit to the mother of all forever wars trying to protect Israel.

It is the problem. It's an ongoing problem. — BitconnectCarlos

Well over for 100 years... so I'm not holding my breath.

What happened on 10/7 was - and I don't use this word lightly - straight-up demonic. Yet you have a large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified. — BitconnectCarlos

A large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified? Really????

Perhaps we have to consider just what "a large portion" of the World is.

Don't you remember that even Hamas itself acknowledged that there were "some faults" on attacking civilians? Yep, even they admitted it:

See Hamas says October 7 attack was a ‘necessary step’, admits to ‘some faults’

Which in all fairness has already been achieved at some points. — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed. Yet annexing territory is one of the most difficult things for any state to get acceptance from other states. Just look at the response of Russia annexing parts of Ukraine. Or Morocco with Spanish Sahara.

Israel is the size of a post stamp. — Tzeentch

Hence it's easy to defend.

It has zero strategic depth. — Tzeentch

Hence the urge for "Pre-emptive" attacks: simply fight on your neighbors territory. As Israel has done.

Hamas alone was able to drain Israel's air defense system to critical lows in a couple of days. Hamas - they're nobody on the military power scale. — Tzeentch

When you achieve strategic surprise, then Hamas was able to do October 7th. The lack of air defense equipment was not the only thing lacking then on October 7th. But Israel today isn't what it was pre- Oct 7th.

Against modern swarming tactics Israel's air defense would stand no chance. At that point, it becomes a sitting duck. — Tzeentch

Incredible bullshit. Where general @Tzeentch gets his facts I don't know.

Somehow it has gone past your radar that Iran attacked Israel with 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles on the evening of April 13th this year. That's over 300 stand off weapons used in one coordinated attack. Oh but for you "Israel's air defense would stand no chance".

Because why?

Don't need to give a credible logical answer!

Swarming attacks, drones, cruise and ballistic missiles represent a severe threat when you don't have systems to counter them. Hence during Desert Storm the Scuds launched by Saddam Hussein went actually through the Patriot defenses in 1991 unlike the propaganda given at that time said. That's over 30 years ago! The Turkish Bayraktar drones were successful in 2022 at the start of the Russian assault because the Russian Ground Based Air Defense (GBAD) was shut down in order to avoid shooting down Russian aircraft. The drones that Azeris used against Armenians were successful because Armenian GBAD systems from the Cold War era were designed only to shoot down targets of the size of conventional combat aircraft. But you can fix them to acquire smaller targets too, actually, as Ukrainian Gepards have shown.

The drone swarm hype is really...hype. Because you have the technology to counter them. And Israel not only has that tech, it has shown in combat that it can defend against a huge stand off attack. It's "postage stamp" size is beneficial here, as I said. In fact, for Iran the attack against Israel was devastating as it crippled the country's own deterrence, and actually also the deterrent of Hezbollah. OK, they've massed a huge conventional rocket force. But that doesn't do much. It cannot dream of wiping out Israel's nuclear deterrence... or large part of it. Yes, it can do some damage, but that isn't enough as a credible deterrent. It's Iran that really has to rethink it's doctrine and strategies again.

And of course now not only has Israel endured an attack like this, it has had ample time to rearm. And basically any military operations it takes against Hezbollah means it has rearmed itself.

It would need a US intervention, but what is the US going to do? Stick its head into an Afghanistan-like quagmire x100? That's the BRICS wet dream - for the US to commit to the mother of all forever wars trying to protect Israel. — Tzeentch

Why would it be an Afghanistan-like quagmire? As I've stated, Israel won't occupy it's neighboring states. I think they learnt that lesson from "Peace for Galilee" hence any operation into Lebanon will likely also have a planned withdrawal.

And what BRICS wet dream? Again in your mind you think BRICS is some defense arrangement... as if Brazil, India or South Africa see the US as a military threat. :rofl:

Perhaps you really don't get what actually non-alignment means. It doesn't actually mean that your are against others. Really, the only countries that look at the US as a military threat and hope for it's demise are Iran, North Korea, Russia and in some way China.

(And perhaps some people in the West who see the US as the origin of all evil)

Hence the urge for "Pre-emptive" attacks: simply fight on your neighbors territory. As Israel has done. — ssu

You're contradicting yourself. According to your own views Israel cannot go on the offensive, thus cannot rely on pre-emptive attacks to protect itself.

Somehow it has gone past your radar that Iran attacked Israel with 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles on the evening of April 13th this year. That's over 300 stand off weapons used in one coordinated attack. Oh but for you "Israel's air defense would stand no chance".

Because why? — ssu

Because the purpose of that strike was to maintain credible deterrence while avoiding escalation.

That's why they signaled their attack far in advance, and even communicated the details of the strike with the US.

Still the Israelis required the help of various allies to stop this strike, and still the strike actually succeeded in hitting Israeli targets.


Ukraine has made it quite clear how vulnerable modern air defense systems are to modern tactics, and Israel would crumble like a crouton under the types of attacks that Ukraine is enduring.


It's simple math. Iran produces a thousand drones for the cost of a single modern anti-air missile.

The air defense system that can combat that with any degree of cost-effectiveness has yet to be invented.

We haven't even started talking about the rest of their arsenal.

The drone swarm hype is really...hype. — ssu

This is just a silly thing to say when literally every military in the world is investing in large-scale use and combatting of drones.

Drone warfare has greatly undermined lynchpins of Western air defense systems like Patriot, since the drones are too cheap and numerous to effectively combat them.

Why would it be an Afghanistan-like quagmire? — ssu

As you have said yourself, Israel cannot go on the offensive, and neither can the US. So it's a forever war.

So what is the US going to do? Sit there and hope the war ends someday while wasting billions?

You really haven't thought this through have you?


The US and cronies couldn't even get rid of the Houthi's missile threat, even though they are threatening a crucial trade bottleneck. Why?

Because they cannot commit to anything outside the Pacific that is directly related to China. The days that the US empire can "walk and chew gum at the same time" are over, even if Lloyd Austin would have you believe otherwise.

Everybody knows it. China knows it. The Russians know it. The Iranians know it. Hezbollah and Hamas know it.

And Israel knows it, which is why it is panicking and trying to lobby US Congress to commit to war with Iran. Even they see the writing on the wall.

as if Brazil, India or South Africa see the US as a military threat. — ssu

Obviously they do. Imagine not seeing the US as a military threat.

The US has invaded less important countries over nothing. You bet your ass they view the US as a threat.

Everyone in their right mind should, and that's simply based on historical awareness. Potential great/regional powers like many of the BRICS doubly so, because US strategy is principally interested in stopping such powers from rising.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been intertwined with the conflict Iran (as leader of the Shias) and Saudi Arabia (as leader of the Sunnis) for decades. — neomac

The Sunni Shia conflict started in earnest with Iraq and later with the civil war in Syria. It hasn't intertwined actually so much. For example for a long time Isrealis went as tourists to see (naturally from their side) from the Golan Heights the Civil War in Syria. That you can sit comfortably on a hill and watch the fighting on the other side of the border tells that ISIS wasn't targetting Israel (which btw. has created a lot of conspiracy theories in the Middle East). The Sunni Islamists simply left their wounded on the border where Israeli troops picked them up and moved them to a Israeli hospital. — ssu

I was talking about the strategic conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran as aspirational leaders of respectively Sunnis and Shias, and more widely of the Muslim world, which ends up in several related proxy wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Also the Israeli-Palestinian conflict plays a role in this conflict, because Hamas (as Iranian proxy) is an expression of the Iranian political influence and material power projection in the Arab world, it compromises the normalisation of relations between Saudis and Israelis, and its Islamist ideology challenges the legitimacy as Arab monarchies like the Saudis. Besides, depending on how other proxy wars (in Iraq, Syria, Yemen) go the political pressure and security threats on both the Saudis and Israel may vary, decrease or increase.

Yes, just like Saddam Hussein then launched Scuds to Israel because ...why not. A populist move to gain support of the "Arab street" which people occasionally try to do.

Yet what has been the response this time? Some angry rhetoric from the Turkish leader and some angry rhetoric from other countries. And well, that's about it...

So these are quite different conflicts, even if the actors intertwine as you say. — ssu

If we want to take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a thermometer to assess the cultural clash between the West world and the Middle-Eastern Muslim world, we can’t discount different roots (pluri-centennial conflict between Sunnis and Shias) and rival actors (Iranian mullahs, Saudis, Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden, etc.), as I acknowledged. But we can’t discount the fact that the Palestinian condition and Western imperialism have been object of bitter grievance in the Muslim world and have been exploited by different actors and despite their competition within the Muslim world. That’s why I was talking about “many cultural clashes”

You're contradicting yourself. According to your own views Israel cannot go on the offensive, thus cannot rely on pre-emptive attacks to protect itself. — Tzeentch

No I'm not. Your simply not understanding, it is as simple as that.

Israel has the ability and likely the objective to destroy an armed force that attacks it or will likely attack it (hence the pre-emption). That ideally takes those famous six days or some weeks. But not years. It cannot solve the internal problems of Lebanon and it simply cannot be a "benign occupier" that would be tolerated. In truth there are footage of Israeli tanks roaming into Lebanon with locals clapping their hands. They were doing this because they were fed up with PLO in Lebanon. But it didn't last long until Israel's tactics of fire first and ask questions later made the local population hate them.

Yet Israel has learnt from Lebanon, that it cannot stick around as an occupying force. It can destroy the weapon systems, eliminate the enemy forces, but that's it. And if you would (which you likely don't) follow the debate in Israel and with it's military (usually with retired high ranking officers making the critique), this is even what Bibi's government is actually rightly criticized now: that it doesn't have a plan after Hamas active members are destroyed in the way that they don't pose an imminent threat anymore.

Drone warfare has greatly undermined lynchpins of Western air defense systems like Patriot, since the drones are too cheap and numerous to effectively combat them. — Tzeentch

You have absolutely no idea of air defense or weapon systems like the Patriot. And you simply don't read what I write.

For starters, Patriot isn't to defend against drones. And no armed forces that deploys the Patriot system (or similar like S-300 or S-400) will only have them as GBAD is an integrated system. Patriot, a weapon system from the 1950's was made to shoot down high flying aircraft and only later was the system designed to act as an anti-ballistic missile defense. Drones are engaged with cheaper weapon systems and usually with AAA systems. A Cold War SPAAG like the Gepard can indeed shoot down drones, if it's target acquisition is programmed to pick up small targets.

Unlike you seem to think that drones are sime kind of miracle weapon. They aren't. They have been used quite extensively even in the 20th Century. And a major user and pioneer of drone warfare has been Israel itself. Classic Israeli successes in using drones are for example the destruction of Syrian Air Defense in the Bekaa Valley during Peace for Galilee and some naval engagements that Israel has had with it's Arab counterparts.

As you have said yourself, Israel cannot go on the offensive, and neither can the US. So it's a forever war. — Tzeentch

It cannot occupy, hold the land for long of it's neighbors. That is different from going on the offensive. It does go on the offensive... basically daily. How many times Israel has made air strikes in Syria during the Syrian Civil war and even before it? Multiple times, so many times I've lost count. Hence it can indeed go on the offensive.

And do understand that the current Israeli leaders are perfectly OK with a forever war. That every now and then they have to make a military operation against their foes. It doesn't ruin their economy. The fight with the Palestinians hasn't ruined Israeli economy. The people aren't demanding peace with the Palestinians on the streets ...at least not in large numbers.

Obviously they do. Imagine not seeing the US as a military threat.

The US has invaded less important countries over nothing. You bet your ass they view the US as a threat. — Tzeentch

Now @Tzeentch seems to be in his la-la-land dream. Seems you have absolutely no idea of just what neutrality means for a country. No idea.

(30th July, 2024) President Joe Biden spoke today with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil to discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues, including the emerging political situation in Venezuela following the July 28 presidential election. President Biden thanked President Lula for his leadership on Venezuela. The two leaders agreed on the need for immediate release of full, transparent, and detailed voting data at the polling station level by the Venezuelan electoral authorities. The two leaders shared the perspective that the Venezuelan election outcome represents a critical moment for democracy in the hemisphere, and they pledged to remain in close coordination on the issue. The presidents also committed to deepen cooperation between our two countries on accelerating the clean energy transition and to continue advancing the Partnership for Workers’ Rights, which they launched together on the margins of last year’s United Nations General Assembly to empower workers and combat some of the most significant issues facing working people.

And then the US Indian relations:

The relationship between the United States and India is one of the most strategic and consequential of the 21st century. The United States supports India’s emergence as a leading global power and a vital partner in promoting a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region. The 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue between the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and their Indian counterparts is the premier recurring dialogue mechanism between the United States and India. Through the 2+2 mechanism, U.S. and Indian officials advance a wide range of initiatives across the breadth of the United States-India partnership.

Defense and Security

The United States and India have established a strong defense industrial cooperation that looks at opportunities for co-development and co-production of important military capabilities for both our countries.

Earlier this year, the United States approved a pathbreaking manufacturing license for the co-production of GE F414 engines in India.

Looking to the future, the United States and India have launched an educational series that prepares startups and young innovators to contribute to the defense industries in both countries. The United States and India also cooperate through the bilateral U.S.-India Counterterrorism Joint Working Group and the Defense Policy Group.

No I'm not. Your simply not understanding, it is as simple as that.

Israel has the ability and likely the objective to destroy an armed force that attacks it or will likely attack it (hence the pre-emption). That ideally takes those famous six days or some weeks. But not years. It cannot solve the internal problems of Lebanon and it simply cannot be a "benign occupier" that would be tolerated. In truth there are footage of Israeli tanks roaming into Lebanon with locals clapping their hands. They were doing this because they were fed up with PLO in Lebanon. But it didn't last long until Israel's tactics of fire first and ask questions later made the local population hate them.

Yet Israel has learnt from Lebanon, that it cannot stick around as an occupying force. It can destroy the weapon systems, eliminate the enemy forces, but that's it. And if you would (which you likely don't) follow the debate in Israel and with it's military (usually with retired high ranking officers making the critique), this is even what Bibi's government is actually rightly criticized now: that it doesn't have a plan after Hamas active members are destroyed in the way that they don't pose an imminent threat anymore. — ssu

This is a long-winded way of saying Israel has no way of decisively defeating its adversaries, and therefore no long-term solutions for the problems that plague its borders, which was exactly my point.

Drones are engaged with cheaper weapon systems and usually with AAA systems. A Cold War SPAAG like the Gepard can indeed shoot down drones, if it's target acquisition is programmed to pick up small targets. — ssu

Mhm. And what do you reckon is the effective engagement range of AAA firing against low-flying drones?

See the problem yet, genius?

It cannot occupy, hold the land for long of it's neighbors. That is different from going on the offensive. It does go on the offensive... basically daily. How many times Israel has made air strikes in Syria during the Syrian Civil war and even before it? Multiple times, so many times I've lost count. Hence it can indeed go on the offensive. — ssu

You've already said it yourself - it cannot go on the offensive in any way that achieves long-term solutions to its problems.

Bicker about terminology all you want, but this is obvious.

And do understand that the current Israeli leaders are perfectly OK with a forever war. — ssu

Oh, they might be ok with it. But they will also lose that war in the long-term.

It doesn't take a genius to see where it will leave Israel once US power wanes and some Arab power grows to be a regional power. It will be curtains.

And then the US Indian relations: — ssu

You don't believe all that nonsense, do you?

Those are just words.

Of course the Indians are going to play nice as long as the US is powerful.

Just because they view the US as a threat, doesn't mean they are going to pick a fight with it.

Perhaps you should look into US involvement in Pakistan and Bangladesh - the two vital trade corridors that connect India to the rest of the world. Maybe then you'll understand what the Indians really think of the US and why they've chosen to align to BRICS instead.

This is a long-winded way of saying Israel has no way of decisively defeating its adversaries, and therefore no long-term solutions for the problems that plague its borders, which was exactly my point. — Tzeentch

Never has anybody thought of "decisively defeating" its adversaries. What would that mean?

Israel has already succeeded to make a peace deal with the largest Arab neighbor it has, Egypt. And also with Jordan. And it has simply is OK with Lebanon and Syria being failed states, as long they don't portray an existential threat for Israel. A drone here or there, a cheap rocket fired into Israel isn't an existential threat.

It's objective is first to survive, which it meets. It doesn't have peace, but still it can keep it's Apartheid system up, which is far enough for the Likud party.

And what do you reckon is the effective engagement range of AAA firing against low-flying drones? — Tzeentch

A simply ZU-23-2 has an effective range to 2200 meters and larger guns usually to something like 5 kilometers. A gatling-gun type system can be far more devastating for even a swarm of drones. Let's just remember that first uses of drones were to be practice targets or tow a target sock for AAA. And altitude you ask? Well, usually AAA can shoot ground targets too, so low flying drones can fly as low as possible.

Oh, they might be ok with it. But they will also lose that war in the long-term. — Tzeentch

And your consistently failing to describe the way that somehow they would lose the ability to control the area they have taken in 1967. Or earlier. How will Israel perish you fail utterly to say, only repeat that in the long run they will lose.

It's objective is first to survive, which it meets. It doesn't have peace, but still it can keep it's Apartheid system up, which is far enough for the Likud party. — ssu

Sure, but geopolitically its days are numbered.

It can survive, for now. How long can it survive?

It is surrounded by Arab nations which have been artificially kept down by US power (regularly with Israel's help). The US could do that because it was the unipole, which it no longer is.

When the US is no longer able to keep regional players in the Middle-East down, and Israel has no prospects of either expanding or becoming a normal country in the region, it's just a matter of time before it's strangled geopolitically.

The problem for Israel is that it has given its neighbors every possible reason imaginable to not treat it kindly when the balance of power shifts.

A simply ZU-23-2 has an effective range to 2200 meters and larger guns usually to something like 5 kilometers. A gatling-gun type system can be far more devastating for even a swarm of drones. Let's just remember that first uses of drones were to be practice targets or tow a target sock for AAA. And altitude you ask? Well, usually AAA can shoot ground targets too, so low flying drones can fly as low as possible. — ssu

Just like tanks, AAA systems are limited by line of sight and cannot shoot through buildings, terrain or dense canopy.

Practical engagement ranges for low-flying targets will rarely exceed 2,000m, simply because geography generally doesn't allow for anything more.

And that's assuming fire-control radars are able to accurately distinguish low-flying drones from terrain features. (We see many videos of drones just loitering above Israeli troops)

Now, Israel is a tiny country, but if you have to create a defense network out of 2km bubbles I think you see the problem. This is simply not what AAA was designed for.

And your consistently failing to describe the way that somehow they would lose the ability to control the area they have taken in 1967. Or earlier. How will Israel perish you fail utterly to say, only repeat that in the long run they will lose. — ssu

- It's a tiny country with zero strategic depth
- It is beset by adversaries on all sides
- Has no hard connection to its strategic allies or foreign markets
- Half its territory belongs to other countries
- Has illegally annexed a site which is holy to some 2 billion Muslims, and repeatedly and deliberately provokes them.
- Is committing widespread atrocities
- Is governed by radical loonies
- Is occupying a people roughly equal its own population

In what world is it not obvious Israel is not going to survive the test of time?

I can't give you a detailed step-by-step, because this isn't going to happen tomorrow. I'm just following the trend that the US is losing its grip on the region and a regional power will take over.

That's all it takes for Israel's vulnerabilities to become critical, because only via complete US dominance of the region can it keep its sea and airspace uncontested.

Ironically, Israel might turn itself into a fortress. A giant Gaza 2.0, if you will. But that is no solution either. The power balance will only shift further and further against it, until eventually it caves.

It is surrounded by Arab nations which have been artificially kept down by US power (regularly with Israel's help). The US could do that because it was the unipole, which it no longer is. — Tzeentch

Artificially kept down? Have you any knowledge of Lebanese or Syrian history and the state their in? Oh, it's just the US that has put them there (of course by your thinking). You might put the blame more on the French than the US, actually.

And how is the US keeping down Egypt or Jordan or Saudi-Arabia by military and economic assistance? Or that's the way it's artificially keeping these countries down???

The only country that you might rightfully proclaim to be kept down by the US is Iraq, which in their wisdom the Saudis told older Bush would be exactly the kind of quagmire as it became if after the Gulf War the Allies would have marched into. Which younger Bush did anyway and created the exact result, which basically benefited only Iran.

The problem for Israel is that it has given its neighbors every possible reason imaginable to not treat it kindly when the balance of power shifts. — Tzeentch

How does it actually shift? By Egypt and the other neighbors having rapid growth, solving their structural problems and having booming economies and a highly educated labour force that then could make them to create armed forces that are capable of defeating the IDF?

Now, Israel is a tiny country, but if you have to create a defense network out of 2km bubbles I think you see the problem. This is simply not what AAA was designed for. — Tzeentch

Yeah, well, AAA or any kind of Air Defence isn't designed how you think. And btw they would be 4 km bubbles. And that's just the GBAD, then there's the air force and it's fighters.

Your idea was literally done by the UK to defend against the V1 flying bombs with simply putting AA batteries next to each other on the southeastern coast of England and creating a "wall of AAA" as you think. Still, it was intended to defend London, the target big enough for either V1 or V2 to accurately hit.



Even this example tells the obvious: GBAD is intended to defend specific targets, bases, HQs, manufacturies, urban areas etc. Not farmland or the desert. Israeli Iron Dome calculates immediately if a Hamas rocket is going to hit an urban area or some specific target and won't engage those hitting the desert or empty farmland. This is basic 1.0 tactics in deploying air defense assets: you deploy them to defend possible targets, not just everything. And with the small size of Israel, nearly everything can be defended.

During Iran's attack the drones were the least effective weapon system. Majority of cruise missiles are subsonic and only few are hypersonic. Here's a "swarm" of seven US cruise missile tracked in flight in a tight formation:



And this is how in reality the Israeli Air Force has shot drones out from the sky:



So I'll just repeat: drones aren't a miracle weapon as some hype them to be.

In what world is it not obvious Israel is not going to survive the test of time? — Tzeentch

In a world that doesn't believe in whimsical replacement theories like you. Israelis have far enough incentives to defend their country. Somehow you seem not to understand this, perhaps being yourself a citizen of a country that faces no existential threat from it's neighbors. It might hard for you to fathom this. For Israelis it isn't hard at all.

The Israeli right has convinced, unfortunately, enough of the Jewish citizens that there cannot be peace with Palestinians, that this is the reality they will endure. That attempts to have a peace deal will only backfired. That's the Likud line. That the peace they have with Egypt and Jordan is the best they can have. And perhaps that it's better to have Lebanon and Syria as failed states rather than united countries.

And actually people like you only strengthen these kind of attitudes with saying that the country is doomed, which reeks to islamofobia.

Artificially kept down? Have you any knowledge of Lebanese or Syrian history and the state their in? Oh, it's just the US that has put them there (of course by your thinking). You might put the blame more on the French than the US, actually. — ssu

The French? Haha.

The US' vast amount of interventions by various means in the Middle-East had as its goal to prevent regional powers from rising, and it has been very successful at that.

This is obvious. If you're expecting me to give you page-long history lessons on every single country it invaded or otherwise destabilized you're mistaken.

How does it actually shift? — ssu

Mainly via consolidation of power and the acquisition of modern weaponry. They don't need to grow in any other regard - they have massive populations compared to Israel, and Israel is pinned down by minor players like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yeah, well, AAA or any kind of Air Defence isn't designed how you think. — ssu

You're the one advocating dotting the entire Israeli landscape with 2 km AA bubbles. Making such arguments and then holding up the pretension of understanding by referring to WW2 is not very convincing.

And btw they would be 4 km bubbles — ssu

No, they wouldn't. AAA relies on line-of-sight, and engaging targets at equal elevation rarely happens at ranges exceeding 2 kms simply because of geographical factors. (Terrain-hugging drones, remember?)

The idea that the Israelis are going to dot their entire country with 2 km AA bubbles (or even 4 km ones) is just not a serious argument. The whole principle of modern air defense is to have long-range overlapping systems to avoid defeat in detail. AAA is used for close protection of military units, and sometimes as a last line of defense for important structures. Not area coverage.

So I'll just repeat: drones aren't a miracle weapon as some hype them to be. — ssu

Every nation in the world is currently scrambling how to understand, combat and use drone technology.

No one used the term 'miracle weapon', but this is just the reality of modern warfare.

When crappy, dirt-cheap Iranian drones can defeat anti-air systems that cost billions to produce, we can speak of a revolution in warfare.

Besides, you keep referring to how effectively Iran's strike was repelled, but you ignore the context of that strike which I already told you. The Iranians were not seeking to do massive damage, but to send a message while avoiding escalation and potentially dragging the US in.

Israelis have far enough incentives to defend their country. Somehow you seem not to understand this, perhaps being yourself a citizen of a country that faces no existential threat from it's neighbors. It might hard for you to fathom this. For Israelis it isn't hard at all.

The Israeli right has convinced, unfortunately, enough of the Jewish citizens that there cannot be peace with Palestinians, that this is the reality they will endure. — ssu

I never said they wouldn't try to defend themselves. I'm saying in the long run it isn't going to matter considering their circumstances. They are geopolitically and strategically utterly compromised, as I've shown you per the list of essentially unsolvable issues that Israel has.

And actually people like you only strengthen these kind of attitudes with saying that the country is doomed, which reeks to islamofobia. — ssu

:yawn: Zzz....Baseless insinuations of racism reeks of intellectual exhaustion and doesn't bode well for whatever else you have to bring to the table.