Middle East on fire - Part XVII

Air strikes are far more accurate - if you think of the 'flight' of the bomb as being from the time it leaves the ground to the time it comes back down again, an air-dropped missile is being directly guided and still possible to call off for the overwhelming majority of its flight, and then guided by computers for the rest of it. This means you can normally be sure that you're hitting what you think you're hitting (OK, you can't distinguish friendly soldiers from enemy soldiers easily, but you can at least tell that you're hitting soldiers rather than a forest or something), and that the missile will actually land where you want it to - it's never just being left to fall. By contrast, an artillery shell is being fired from tens of miles away, by somebody who can't actually see the target, and once it's gone, it's gone - the only way to make corrections is to note where the first shell lands and adjust the aim of the second shell. In fact, it's quite unusual for even mortar fire to be directed spot-on with the first round in a combat situation, because that depends on perfection both from the infantryman on the ground and the mortar team - it probably says something that I still remember just that happening once.
 
Well, honestly, I don't know if Israel gives a damn about these things like minimizing civilian casualties. And their air strikes don't seem to be hitting militants only either.
 
It's impossible to avoid civilian casualties when you're firing into a living, populated city - nevertheless, what they're doing at the moment is probably the least damaging way of actually striking back. There's a large difference between that and blatantly disregarding the lives of the people in the Gaza Strip.
 
Of course it is easy to say that the militants are civilians, so that often blurs the reality of the situation. We can never trust sources coming from inside Palestine, since they are controlled by Hamas, and they aren't at all friendly and want to win a propaganda war, which they are very adept at and the west seems to buy into it every time.
 
Just back from the shelter, a nice time to post here...

Question for the military geeks (I'm looking at you Flying Pig). I looked at a map of the Gaza strip, and it seems that it is never wider than 10 km. Now I know that WWII artillery had a range of >10 km. So I expect modern Israeli artillery to have at least that range as well. So why are they not just setting up artillery at the border and using that instead of air strikes. It seems a more economical alternative.

Because then the world will denounce Israel.
And, it won't do that job as good as the air strikes do.


Well, honestly, I don't know if Israel gives a damn about these things like minimizing civilian casualties. And their air strikes don't seem to be hitting militants only either.
Oh please..
You are talking about the most humane army in the modern world.
The reason we haven't yet destroyed every terrorist group in Gaza is the civilian damage.
We let organizations who fire rockets at us exist only because we don't want to cause a huge civilian damage on their side.
We send fliers to the areas that are about to be bombed, calling the people to get away.
And the Hamas tells the people to rip those fliers, of course
Imagine that France or Germany were fired by terrorist organizations in a specific region.
Don't you think they would have invaded that region and tear it apart?
Didn't America and Britain invade Afghanistan with land force in order to stop a terrorist organization? They did.
So stop spamming that nonsense.
We try to do our best while our enemies gather children and cameras around them.
And you can watch this video.
 
Well, honestly, I don't know if Israel gives a damn about these things like minimizing civilian casualties. And their air strikes don't seem to be hitting militants only either.

You could make an argument that Israel reacts disproportionately, but the IDF does go out of its way to limit civilian casualties during their reaction.

If a neighbouring country were firing rockets towards Amsterdam, you'd strike back to stop it. Even if your treatment of that neighbouring country is part of the reason they're firing rockets in the first place....
 
Oh, I was not blaming them or anything, but as far as I can see (according to current counts of my news agency), they are hitting civilians at least 50% of the time, and kids at least a quarter of the time. I was just wondering if the accuracy of artillery bombardment would be much worse.
 
Absolutely. Not nice tactics at all.

So they do this. So? They're operating from a very weak military position.

The problem is to so arrange things that the population of Gaza has no grievance against Israel. Do this and any support for Hamas would disappear.
 
Be careful not to romanticise the people of Gaza - remember that most of them are openly racist, view Jews as subhuman and the very notion of Israel as reason enough to attack them.
 
Absolutely. Not nice tactics at all.

So they do this. So? They're operating from a very weak military position.

The problem is to so arrange things that the population of Gaza has no grievance against Israel. Do this and any support for Hamas would disappear.
Why do you think so?
It's hard to say, but Arabs seems to have a weakness for anti-Israeli movements...
Even in Egypt, where we had a very nice peace agreement, they support those Muslim Brothers...
Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not organizations which we can really make peace with.
Them and their supporters don't want Israel on the map.
The Fatah, on the other hand, is an organization we can actually talk to.
 
Yes. I think a strategy with some chance of success is to sidestep the extremists and make friends with the local Gazan population.

On the other hand Hamas want the reverse. They're happy for the local population to take the brunt of the Israeli response. This can only increase their local support.

The difficult thing is for the IDF to separate the Hamas operatives from civilians. Yet it is what they must do. And be seen to do so.
 
I'm glad that Egypt is stepping up to its role as protector of the Palestinians, but I hope that they don't anything stupid that'll weaken their military capability for the future and get their civilains killed.

They aren't. They want to appear to support them but they aren't actually friends with Hamas anymore. I'd say what is happening now could be the first step towards a Palestinian state (since nobody seems to notice how peaceful the West Bank has become or that Israel is starting to withdraw from it).
 
I've even heard of a blog that posted a picture of a father holding his bleeding child up to an ambulance in Gaza, but some Israeli blogger discovered the picture was actually from Syria. :shake:
 
Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not organizations which we can really make peace with.
Them and their supporters don't want Israel on the map.
The Fatah, on the other hand, is an organization we can actually talk to.

Fatah are as much of a band of terrorists as Hamas is, if not more so. The only reason why Fatah is represented as reasonable is because Hamas is Pro-Iran while Fatah is pro-Saudi Arabia, which, for Israel, is more comfortable from a foreign policy perspective because of USA's alliance with both Saudi Arabia and Israel.
 
Since Hamas' power is a result from Israeli aggression in the first place, the most likely outcome is not a weakening of its position. Meanwhile ordinary Gazans and, to a lesser extent, Israelis suffer the consequences of this undeclared "war'.

I can't respond to this. Probably because these are bare assertions and do not require any sort of refutation.
 
I've even heard of a blog that posted a picture of a father holding his bleeding child up to an ambulance in Gaza, but some Israeli blogger discovered the picture was actually from Syria. :shake:

I saw somebody 'sharing' a picture on facebook from the Israeli foreign ministry, saying that a picture going round of an injured girl wasn't from Gaza - couldn't help but feel that it was fundamentally missing the point.
 
"The point" is not the only thing they are missing. :mischief:
 
The lack of nuance on this thread is quite disconcerting. If Israel is to have peace, such "invasions" prior to elections should be seen for what they are. The overall population of Gaza is civilian, yet under Israeli embargo, whether a number of Gazans are firing rockets (with minimal damage, by the way) or not.

As for Israel "withdrawing" from the West Bank, that must be some news tidbit that's been ignored by the media. As is, most West Bankers need to cross checkpoints - whether they need to enter Israel to work or simply to get where they need to go on the West Bank, and illegal colonists' settlements are still growing. The West Bank is quiet, because it's under control, and Israel has no threat to fear from that direction.

What Israel should be concerned about is the absence of any real peace in the long term if it keeps reacting to missiles being shot across the border (nothing new) in this manner, not caring to upset relations with its immediate neighbours, such as Egypt - which has shown remarkable restraint on its part, considering the radical feelings expressed by some.
 
Fatah are as much of a band of terrorists as Hamas is, if not more so. The only reason why Fatah is represented as reasonable is because Hamas is Pro-Iran while Fatah is pro-Saudi Arabia, which, for Israel, is more comfortable from a foreign policy perspective because of USA's alliance with both Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Fatah seems to have largely given up on terrorism, though, while Hamas just released a video threatening to carry out suicide attacks against bus stops and cafes and singing "flatten Tel Aviv".

In other words, it is possible to negotiate with Fatah, but the only constructive approach to Hamas is killing them all.
 
Back
Top Bottom