Israel comes under heavy rocket fire from Gaza, suspected terror infiltration

Not good for Israel:

 

I don't understand what their objective is... can't they see this is only going to guarantee more terrorism? Not to mention escalate the war to a regional conflict. Yemen is already launching rockets or missiles at Israel, and there will probably be more countries joining in soon. Turkey is threatening to send troops in as well now. This is not protecting Israeli life. This is condemning them to further death and suffering.

 

How could he not respond to a proposal that would have given Palestinians what they claim they want?

A map is not a proposal, by the way. Map or no map, Abbas could have at least try to negotiate. He did not.

But it's touching how you defend a known murderer, holocaust denier, and conspiracy theorist. I'll forever cherish this "aww" moment.

 

Please explain how would a Fatah-Hamas unity government work if there are no Hamas members in the government?

 

Did they get him?

 

Israel says they did, Hamas denies a commander was there:

 

I ordinarily don't enter into discussions about disputed facts during a war where each side will have their motive to push a particular narrative. But with regard to the bombing of the Palestinian refugee camp, it really doesn't matter whether there was an underground tunnel housing a Hamas commander. The idea of flattening an entire block of residential buildings housing refugees (many many of them children) in the hope of killing a Hamas commander and some Hamas fighters is totally repugant. And a war crime.

 

Since this is during a war they'll probably never completely determine who did what to who:

 

I am afraid of Netanyahu's possible plan for Gaza. I'm telling the world what to do to avoid that plan, and get rid of Netanyahu.

As I said, the UN should have immediately acknowledged that Israel has an imperative to disarm Hamas. How to go about doing it, we don't know yet, but we acknowledge that Israel must act. They should have told Israelis that.

Then, the Israeli people, who are enraged, and fearful right now, would have felt reassured the world was behind them in fixing their vulnerability. And they would be much more likely to throw Bibi out. But the UN didn't do that. They derided and alienated Israel immediately. Well, now the Israelis are driven to Bibi. And the world gets Bibi's plan. People are doing the opposite of what they should if their true interest is in saving lives.

 

Here's the link to post #2258:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/baseless-claim-israeli-media-probe-233152724.html

 

Israeli clowns?

 

Those are elites. Ordinary Israelis saw where the world stood on their vulnerability. So the UN basically made a people who were already enraged and fearful, feel alone as well. Of course the world is going to get whatever Bibi's plan is now. Oh yeah these "statesmen" are interested in peace and saving lives...

 

Hamas isn't operating in a vacuum. They are one of many militias inspired, funded, armed, and directed by the theocratic government of Iran. As a veteran, the downplaying of this regime's attacks on the US over the years, to the point of my fellow citizens actually cheering one of their militias is what makes me most bitter.

First, during my 2004 Iraq deployment, I started seeing Iranian backed militias, like the al-Mahdi group in southern Iraq, and others in the east, start attacking us, and making it very difficult to establish security.

I remember at the time thinking, "Oh crap, we are about to be at war with Iran too". Not that I wanted that, but I could clearly see we were being attacked by another country in a land that wasn't theirs either. But my leaders did something strange, and basically allowed the Iranian regime to attack and kill our soldiers, without even diplomatically calling them out.

Later, in my next deployment, the situation with the militias was even worse. And now Iran was funneling in/training to build EFP's (which were dramatically increasing our casualties) with the Sunni terrorists (that were being facilitated into Iraq by both Syria and Iran to fight the Americans) and other insurgents that spawned from the former Baathists. The situation was further destabilizing.

But still, my leaders said nothing, and even started negotiating with Iran on nuclear weapons.

Then comes my flurry of posts on this forum, as a veteran now, warning Obama of the results of their withdrawal from Iraq at that time, and in that way. I said in many posts, while being ridiculed as a warmonger, that the result is going to be total influence in Baghdad by Iran, and an emboldening of terrorists that will create terror the likes the world hasn't seen.

And that's what happened. I didn't know they would be called ISIS, but I believe they began their reign of terror in Benghazi, and Obama and Clinton covered that up. Then we had to go back to Iraq, and Syria to destroy them, and we are still there (except way more vulnerable).

But the Iranian militias, their Iraqi pawns in Baghdad, and Assad also had a problem with ISIS and other Sunni terrorists. They got in a big fight with them too. But despite their differences, they share the overarching vision of overrunning Israel and killing them all. They make no secret of this goal. People need to realize that a big part of the violence in Syria and Iraq is a fight between Shia and Sunni extremists to determine which gets to be the one to liberate Jerusalem (of which the Iranian theocracy, with assistance from several actors against ISIS, has won).

Even in the face of all of this, my leaders still won't call Iran out.

Then we start fighting the Russians in Europe, and once again here are the Iranians supplying Russia terror drones, and probably anything else they can in furtherance of upsetting the American goal. Still, my leaders pretend they are negotiating with Iran.

Now here we are with the Israel situation. We got 2 Iranian backed militias that completely surround Israel. They have been armed to the teeth by Iran over the last 2 decades. Iranian militias are in position in Yemen to fire on Israel and the small contingent of US forces we sent back to deal with ISIS. But ISIS isn't the threat now. It is very clear that Iran, over 20 years, have finally almost accomplished their goal of a land bridge to connect their militias from Iran, through Iraq, to their militias in Lebanon and Gaza that already surround Israel.

And what currently is the only thing preventing that land bridge? Our forces in Syria and Iraq. That's why they are being fired upon. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that these militias are shooting at us out of anger for what's happening to the Palestinian people is very, very naive imo.

And still, except for a couple of lunatics who want WW3 apparently, it's kid gloves for Iran.

I would urge my fellow citizens to realize that 2 things can be true at the same time. We can have a bunch of corrupt warmongers as leaders, and have legit enemies who want to destroy us at the same time.

I say these things not to encourage war with Iran. Quite the opposite. I believe this facade of a relationship with Iran is what is leading to war. We need to start being real about our relationship with Iran to both Iran, and the world. We need to be clear to avoid war. And we have to swallow some bitter pills of our own, starting with public acknowledgement of what we did to Iran in 1953.

 

Firstly, I agree with many of your points points and certainly your first person perspective of events in Iraq (and by extension Afghanistan). However that said I also see a certain inevitability inevitability about how the US and its allies failed in their efforts to create 'relatively' stable and function states following their military campaigns in both countries which I believe need to be taken into account.

To begin, and in hindsight both efforts at nation building were doomed from the onset for very specific reasons and attempting to 'nation building' in both cases was largely an exercise in jumping down a well. Getting in is easy, getting out again not so much. And the primary reason for this is that both nations lacked certain essential ingredients for a successful nation building exercise. Primarily? You cant build a successful nation state where one did not exist previously. Nation building is an organic process that involving the inhabitants of a specific region. It's not something that can be imposed on them arbitrarily by outsiders.

Looking back at history I can only think of one great exercise in nation building that was successful and that was the post war reconstruction of Germany and Japan. And that was successful for some very basic reasons;

1) First and foremost The people of both Germany and Japan shared a singular, distinctive and collective national culture, language and history. Citizens of Germany and Japan identified themselves first and foremast as 'German' and 'Japanese' foremost. Iraq and especially Afghanistan never really have, not to the extent needed to truly unify them as a nation state. The Sunni/Shia divide and tribal and ethnic divisions have always plagued Iraq since its foundation. Afghanistan? For generations now it's been nothing more than a name on a map.
2) Prior to the war both nations had modern and relatively (relatively) prosperous economies and effective/efficient public institutions which were utterly devastated by the war. As a result German and Japanese citizens had a deep collective 'buy in' to any project likely to restore their societies to something approaching the pre-war 'norm'. Iraq folded quickly and without the utter devastation caused by WW2. Afghanistan? Nuff said.
3) There were no external polities with a vested interest and the capacity to undermine the rebuilding process of the Axis powers. (Even though they were rivals both the US and Russia benefited from having all the pieces put back on the board before they started a new game in earnest. Iraq and Afghanistan? One word four letters, starting with the letter I. Point being it takes far less effort and resources to critically destabilize an already fractured and dysfunctional State than it does to critically destabilize a unified one.

So now we enter the TARDIS.

In hindsight (how clever am I) as far as Iraq and Afghanistan go the least bad option in both cases was get in, achieve a specific set of objectives then get out. Because both interventions were always going to turn into a **** show in the long term regardless of the West's best efforts. In the case of Iraq the best opportunity was the First Gulf war. IMO George Bush Seniors critical mistake was not toppling Hussein when he had the chance then. His decision not to was akin to the allies pushing Hitler back to the borders of Germany and then calling it quits. George Bush Juniors much more catastrophic mistake was going in again later in the apparent expectation (IMO driven by some hugely misguided foreign policy objectives and what appears to have been a not inconsiderable amount of hubris) that the US could 'change' things and reorganize middle eastern politics along lines of their own choosing. IMO? In 1991 go in, defeat and depose Hussein then appoint a new transitional government asap. One that's done get out within a couple of years. Ongoing aid after that point is targeted and delivered at arms length by third parties. Not going to change much but at least you save western money and lives and they have a chance, however small of making it work. And if it doesn't - it''s their fault. That alternative makes the 1991 war more expensive but requires a longer intervention but it would have avoided the cast gold crap show we got after 2003.

Afghanistan? Much, much harder because 9/11 and it's aftermath clouds everything. But again in hindsight get in and get out asap. Establish a dialogue with all parties telling them in advance we are coming if they don't assist on short notice BUT that if they do assist us in eliminating the Taliban (give them a list) then the West will also leave immediately after this has been achieved. Ongoing humanitarian assistance can follow, to be divided as far as is humanly possible evenly amongst the various vested interest group provided in turn there is ongoing co-operation in denying ant-west terrorist groups access to the country. Worst possible outcome? The end game would be no different to what we have now. In fact that probably would have been the end game but again at far, far less cost in lives and money than trying to stay put did.

That leaves Iran. Post 1979 the Islamic Republic had enormous popular support. Attempts to remove it by force would have seen a situation like we had in Afghanistan writ large i.e. enormously bloody and enormously expensive. Now though? Through nobodies fault but their own the leaders of the Republic have pissed away popular support and Iran today is ripe for revolution (again). The clerics know this and while initially the regime may have had the backing of most Iranians in their attempts to destabilize Western interests in the middle East and to destroy Israel that is no longer the case now. All reports I've seen indicate a large majority of the population oppose the regimes continuous conflict with the west and even have little if any appetite for the destruction of Israel. The opinion's I've seen quoted by reporters seem to indicate most Iranians have adopted a 'whats the point' attitude. (Current Gaza situation not withstanding.)

So given the above my last point I guess is that while yes, we can acknowledge our past wrongdoings in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east that won't change what is. I also agree with you that the relationship with Iran is a facade. But going back to the point I made earlier about how it 'takes far less effort and resources to critically destabilize an already fractured and dysfunctional State than it does to critically destabilize a unified one'. Iran is very close now to being that fractured and dysfunctional state. That makes it vulnerable and ans I said above its leaders know it. Now we have leverage and IMO that leverage should be very carefully considered in our messaging to Iran. Done right it's entirely possible we have some ability to force them to wind back their interventions in other nations (or else).

That's it for now.

 

That's the comparison.

 

Also not good for Israel:

 

Mariupol looked way worse than Gaza...so far.

 

Have you been to Mariupol? Or do you judge the city by a few destroyed houses, filmed from the right angle?

Mariupol video. Filmed three weeks ago.

 

How long is a 'little pause':

 

It wont help Israel's Eurovision score but if Israel wants to win the war more than getting a "like" out of you...
We estimate Hamas actually live in Gaza, even recruited from Gazans - and gets support from Gazans, we also saw in Hamas movies that "civilians" participated in the Oct 7th massacres, rape and kidnapping.
So
They can flee when we tell them to flee or they can stay fight and die, those poor sick lonely ppl that can't flee I do feel sorry about but Israel mission is to take out Hamas, not to keep Gazans safe.

 

Gaza number are "verified" by Hamas......terror organization who's only weapon is civilian casualties.

 

I'm Israeli and you give yourselves waaaay too much credit, I already posted gradiute to America for standing with us - but we would conquer Gaza even if you didn't.

Hamas is using everything in Gaza including Ambulances, to think Hamas will burn children to death but will never lie is called being "Progressive" ?

 

We'll finish Hamas in Gaza and then you will have time to explain you meant 180 degrees from the above.

 

No one can match the Jews in exterminating civilians. Even Hitler was less bloody than the Jews. .... However, there is another nation of sadists - the Ukrainians. They used to exterminate Jews with gusto. For example, you can read about Babi Yar or Jewish pogroms in Ukraine.
Today, however, these two nations, Jews and Ukrainians, are ready to kiss each other. Jews supply Ukrainians with ammunition and weapons, Jewish military instructors teach Ukrainians how to kill more civilians and what it takes. The Jewish government has been financing all the sadistic operations of the Ukrainians against civilians since 2014. All in all, you have found each other.

 

If a Russian says so it must be true