Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Israel decides they want to attack Gaza again!

Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
Woo! Surley this violence will stop Palestinians being angry at Israel, after only recently getting Gaza back. For fucks sake.

This.
An Israeli cabinet minister has said that a military operation in the Gaza Strip is "inevitable" and called for tens of thousands of Nato troops to be deployed there afterwards....

...She said he added that "the results of such a [military] action should be the entry of 30,000 Nato forces to deploy in Gaza" so as to prevent any further armed build-up...

...Efraim Sneh, the deputy defence minister from the left-wing Labour party, rejected Lieberman's idea.

Nato troops in Gaza "wouldn't provide a solution but rather worsen the problem" because Palestinian fighters would probably regard them as an enemy, just as they do Israel, Sneh told Israel Radio.

Well, looks like one man in Israel knows what will happen. Thanks, Captain Obvious. Lucky he isn't in power eh, or the situation might not be as bad! Then we couldn't have "justified" Israeli slaughter of Muslims!

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A respectable source would be nice. :rolleyes:

    I would hate to see Israel have to go back into Gaza. And like the present Israeli Prime Minister, and like past Israeli PMs I'd like to see Israel withdraw from large sections of the West Bank. But until the Palestinians commit to disarming terrorist groups committed to the destruction of the State of Israel my heartfelt support remains with Israel and the great men and women in the IDF.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    A respectable source would be nice. :rolleyes:

    I would hate to see Israel have to go back into Gaza. And like the present Israeli Prime Minister, and like past Israeli PMs I'd like to see Israel withdraw from large sections of the West Bank. But until the Palestinians commit to disarming terrorist groups committed to the destruction of the State of Israel my heartfelt support remains with Israel and the great men and women in the IDF.

    Yeah, I love supporting people who deliberatley target civilians too. It feels so right.

    Perhaps if, Israel wasn't illegally occupying land, this wouldn't happen? Say, just use the proven skill of MOSAD to take out leading extremists? Or would that be sensible.

    Respectable source? Few and far between. Al Jazeera is more respectable than half the stuff linked to on here - Sky News, CNN, etc - it's just they report stories that often get little more than a glance from other sources.

    Most of Palestine wants one thing - the goddamn conflict to end so they can try to rebuild thier lives without random bombs and shelling on thier homes. However, the longer that continues the more Palestinians will support those who fight back.

    Israel should learn this. Try to win Palestinians friends, then the war may well end. But as each new generation is born into the conflict, the less the chances of that happening.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A respectable source would be nice. :rolleyes:

    Al Jazeeraa is actually quite a respected news source.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would hate to see Israel have to go back into Gaza. And like the present Israeli Prime Minister, and like past Israeli PMs I'd like to see Israel withdraw from large sections of the West Bank.
    Is that why they keep building new illegal settlements all over the place?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Is that why they keep building new illegal settlements all over the place?

    And settlements are not necessarily forever, settlements were dismantled in Gaza. Anyway over a million Arabs live in Israel as equal citizens. The bulk of the West Bank should (and hopefully one day will) form part of a Palestinian State; Muslims live in Israel, why shouldn't Jews live in a Palestinian State?

    For strategic defensive reasons a 100% withdrawal from the West Bank is an impossibility - but withdrawing from significant sections of the West Bank is a realistic prospect. (And things did look promising what with the success of Kadima but the success of Hamas and their ensuing actions destroyed much of that hope). But, at the end of the day significant withdrawals from the West Bank are in Israel's best interests.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    For strategic defensive reasons a 100% withdrawal from the West Bank is an impossibility

    I don't see why. It isn't as if Israels only Airbase or Military base is there is it?

    If only Britain could have gotten away with saying that withdrawing from our Empire was impossible for defensive reasons, eh?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For strategic defensive reasons a 100% withdrawal from the West Bank is an impossibility
    That's just bollocks and you know it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just wait till Israel does air strikes on Iran later in the year and we'll see what happens.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The word now is that the US itself might get involved. Not in a land invasion, because they're fucked up badly enough as it is with Iraq, but a few missile or even air strikes.

    Thing is, Iran has the capability and means of sinking a US aircraft carrier. If that were to happen all bets are off.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The word now is that the US itself might get involved. Not in a land invasion, because they're fucked up badly enough as it is with Iraq, but a few missile or even air strikes.

    Thing is, Iran has the capability and means of sinking a US aircraft carrier. If that were to happen all bets are off.

    I think Israel will do it, that way if anything comes up in the UN (which it will) the US could protect it. I really really hope they wont though because it will really open a worms nest.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not only they will probably do it, but they might even use nuclear weapons according to the Sunday Times the other week...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Sunday Times is likely to be wrong... there's no benefit to the US to using nukes and a heck of a lot of costs.

    Also whilst Iran has the theoretical capability to sink an aircraft carrier, in reality this is only likely to get past the defences if the entire US Fleet is drunk and partying. Iran's conventional forces are starved of replacements and realistic training... Even Iraq handed them on a platter and look how quickly its conventional forces folded when faced by the US.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Times article said it'd be the Israelis using the nukes, not the Americans. To clarify, they were talking about small bunker-busting 'battlefield nukes', about 1/15th of the power of Hiroshima. But it would still be an incredibly dangerous development.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry I thought you were following on from your previous point.

    However same still holds. Israel still hasn't confirmed it has nukes (everyone is 99% sure they have but they refuse to confirm or deny) so using them would tend to spoil a long-held policy.

    And again there is no benefit when conventional weapons can do the job, but a lot of costs.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    However same still holds. Israel still hasn't confirmed it has nukes (everyone is 99% sure they have but they refuse to confirm or deny) so using them would tend to spoil a long-held policy.

    Of course, Olmert's appeared to admit that Israel possessed nuclear weapons, when he included the country in a list of nuclear states. He was asked whether Israel's 'nuclear arsenal' undermined the West's objections to a nuclear Iran.

    "Israel is a democracy and does not threaten anyone ... Iran explicitly, openly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map," he replied. "Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?"

    I would take that as an admission but you are right, there has been no government edict on the matter.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If Dubya's government and military is to be believed, bunker-busting nukes can do jobs no conventional bomb can manage: namely to destroy heavily fortified infrastructures very deep underground.

    It's still a disgrace and extremely worrying that some nations might consider first use of nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    It's still a disgrace and extremely worrying that some nations might consider first use of nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict.

    I wouldnt call our disagreement with Iran a 'conventional conflict'.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But it is perfectly possible to have conventional wars with fully armed nuclear nations. It doesn't really matter if the object of a war with Iran is to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. It would still be a conventional conflict.

    The point remains that nuclear weapons must never be used first. They must be used as a last resort and only to neuter a nuclear attack from another nation.

    The second a country uses a nuclear weapon to destroy a bunker or clear a battlefield, simply because it is convenient or it does the job better, we will be opening a Pandora's Box that will make the Cold War seem like a picnic.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But it is perfectly possible to have conventional wars with fully armed nuclear nations. It doesn't really matter if the object of a war with Iran is to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. It would still be a conventional conflict.

    Conventional now perhaps were invading or attacking a country on the basis of allegations or dodgy information are the norm, but its hardly conventional in the longer term view.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Aladdin wrote:
    It's still a disgrace and extremely worrying that some nations might consider first use of nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict.

    You forget this is probably one of the worst rouge nations about with a reasonable armed forces, who have used them against Civilians many times... you are supprised they would consider using nukes?

    I wouldn't put it past Israel to use nukes as a first strike weapon. I am just hoping above all, that they choose not to. I daresay the fate of the world will lay in thier choice. Because if they really piss of Iran, I can see the whole Mid East flaring up into a massive warzone. Followed by lack of oil for the west, a depression striking when everything fails therefore, alot of countries with less "favourable" relationships with Israel just launching a ton of whatever ordinance at them because they started the mess.... and so forth.
Sign In or Register to comment.