Hamas-Israeli War 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is a general reminder to all present to remain polite and courteous, focusing on the subject matter rather then the personalities.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Because there is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of mass usage of PGMs in Gaza. Provide evidence that at least a majority of munitions dropped in populated areas are unguided and then we can talk.
Well this link maintains that “half of the air-to-ground munitions that Israel has used in Gaza in its war with Hamas since October 7 have been unguided, otherwise known as dumb bombs”.

This is from “a new US intelligence assessment” so one can’t say that it’s a lie or “terrorist” propaganda. May not be the “majority” you mentioned but half not an insignificant number.

 

wild_Willie2

New Member
Israel is dammed if they do and damned if they don't but everybody has an issue with fighting a "moral war" in an urban environment.

Retired Colonel John Spencer, who is a combat veteran who now teaches at West Point is interviewed about fighting morally under the impossible urban circumstances that Israel is facing. He is making the controversial case that the Israelis are doing more than any other modern military to limit civilian casualties, including discussing the issue of 50% "dump bomb" usage by Israel.

You can see if he's persuasive for yourself:

https://soundcloud.com/war_college%2Fcan-you-fight-a-moral-war-in-1
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Well this link maintains that “half of the air-to-ground munitions that Israel has used in Gaza in its war with Hamas since October 7 have been unguided, otherwise known as dumb bombs”.

This is from “a new US intelligence assessment” so one can’t say that it’s a lie or “terrorist” propaganda. May not be the “majority” you mentioned but half not an insignificant number.

Yes but it does not prove anything regarding the usage of unguided bombs in populated areas, which is likely a very small minority.
Either @2007yellow430 meant that Israel is to blame for using unguided bombs regardless of target, which in turn indicates he understands nothing about the subject and instead should be asking questions, not making assertions. Or he meant that Israel is to blame for using unguided bombs on populated areas which is an unfounded claim in itself, which in turn might indicate lack of understanding of the topic as a proper examination would involve pursuing relevant nuance.

I urge you to read the article you have linked. It actually includes quite a few refutations to either of these possible claims.
Some examples:

“I’m extremely surprised and concerned,” said Brian Castner, a former Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) officer who now serves as Amnesty International’s senior crisis adviser on arms and military operations.
Credibility destroyed.

It’s bad enough to be using the weapons when they are precisely hitting their targets.
It is, in fact, very good when a weapon hits a target precisely.

death toll rises in Gaza, where more than 18,000 Palestinians have been killed over the last two months, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health.
Quoting poor sources = poor methodology = poor credibility.

It is not clear what kinds of unguided munitions the Israelis have been using, though experts noted that the Israeli military has been using M117 bombs that appear unguided. The Israeli Air Force posted photos of fighter aircraft armed with what looked like the M117 bombs on X in October, Castner noted.
An expert should know what kinds of unguided munitions are used, shouldn't he? I'd be very disappointed if an "expert" was invited only to look at pics from Twitter posts that Google Lens would better analyse in 2 seconds.

Basically this story is a whole bunch of overly general statements that ultimately end up contradicting one another.
 

2007yellow430

Active Member
Yes but it does not prove anything regarding the usage of unguided bombs in populated areas, which is likely a very small minority.
Either @2007yellow430 meant that Israel is to blame for using unguided bombs regardless of target, which in turn indicates he understands nothing about the subject and instead should be asking questions, not making assertions. Or he meant that Israel is to blame for using unguided bombs on populated areas which is an unfounded claim in itself, which in turn might indicate lack of understanding of the topic as a proper examination would involve pursuing relevant nuance.

I urge you to read the article you have linked. It actually includes quite a few refutations to either of these possible claims.
Some examples:


Credibility destroyed.


It is, in fact, very good when a weapon hits a target precisely.


Quoting poor sources = poor methodology = poor credibility.


An expert should know what kinds of unguided munitions are used, shouldn't he? I'd be very disappointed if an "expert" was invited only to look at pics from Twitter posts that Google Lens would better analyse in 2 seconds.

Basically this story is a whole bunch of overly general statements that ultimately end up contradicting one another.
look at the level of destruction, the amount of lives lost.,those are accurate. Almost 30k of which approximately 8 k are kids. The injured number is close to 150k with at least 1/3 are kids. If indeed Israel is looking to reduce casualties it’s doing a poor job. Couple that with destruction of medical facilities and grossly inadequate food and other necessities importation. All of these are under Israeli control. Draw your own conclusions.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
look at the level of destruction, the amount of lives lost.,those are accurate. Almost 30k of which approximately 8 k are kids. The injured number is close to 150k with at least 1/3 are kids. If indeed Israel is looking to reduce casualties it’s doing a poor job. Couple that with destruction of medical facilities and grossly inadequate food and other necessities importation. All of these are under Israeli control. Draw your own conclusions.
The only 2 conclusion I drew are:
1. That you're suspiciously accepting of unverifiable claims made by a literal terrorist organization while equally suspiciously skeptical of verifiable claims made by a liberal democracy fighting against brutal terrorism.

2. The implication of conclusion #1 on your worldview and biases.
 

2007yellow430

Active Member
The only 2 conclusion I drew are:
1. That you're suspiciously accepting of unverifiable claims made by a literal terrorist organization while equally suspiciously skeptical of verifiable claims made by a liberal democracy fighting against brutal terrorism.

2. The implication of conclusion #1 on your worldview and biases.
1. deaths are at least undercounted. NBC was verified these numbers. Expect to seehuge increases when this is finally over. there is video of Israeli snipers shooting unarmed women fleeing the violence. These claims are verified. It’s interesting to note that only the US and Britain (who abstained) took positions in the U.N. Security Council against an immediate ceasefire. I’d say these are verifiable, would you?
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
deaths are at least undercounted. NBC was verified these numbers
Provide source.

there is video of Israeli snipers shooting unarmed women fleeing the violence
Prove.

It’s interesting to note that only the US and Britain (who abstained) took positions in the U.N. Security Council against an immediate ceasefire. I’d say these are verifiable, would you?
Why is it interesting?
 

KipPotapych

Active Member
In the next stage - incursion of Rafah, civilians will first all return to their homes north of Rafah, and the IDF will operate on a vacated area.
I am not sure how people can be serious talking about this, and specifically “return to their homes” part.


For the number of killed, judging by the infrastructure damage alone, the number has to be sufficiently large. However, there have been various reports over time to suggest that the numbers released by the “Gaza’s Ministry of Health” or “Palestinian Health Authorities”, whatever they call themselves, aren’t far off and likely even lower than the actual. For example, this is back from November, as one example (“more than 10,000” have been reported killed at that time):

Asked about Palestinian civilians, American officials have emphasized that they do not have the ability to verify any toll, and said that Hamas uses civilians as human shields.

They have, though, made broad assessments. On Tuesday, the U.S. national security spokesman, John Kirby, told reporters, “There have been many thousands killed, and each one is a tragedy.” On Wednesday, Barbara Leaf, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, told a House committee that U.S. officials thought the civilian casualties were “very high, frankly, and it could be that they’re even higher than are being cited.”



There have been numerous articles stating the same. For example:



Pretty sure I even read an actual study published in one of the respected medical journals claiming that the numbers are generally reliable. I’ll look if I can still find it.

In my opinion, the only question that matters is how many of these casualties are actual civilians because Israel doesn’t even dispute the numbers per se, but claims that they are all terrorists (hyperbole on my part). Common sense suggests that most of them aren’t and a great majority has to be kids (and women).

The main problem, it seems, however, is that any provided reasonable and often factual information to the Israelis is often refuted as lies and propaganda, anti-Israel bias, etc. This is based on my own personal experience, so basically anecdotal evidence. I have personally been called an antisemite at least twice over the past few months just because I was talking about what seemed to me to be common sense (while supporting Israel, but not necessarily the way the things are done). I am not going to go into my personal life, but I can say that people who used the term towards me should definitely know better. Overall, it is almost impossible to have a reasonable conversation on the subject because it is met with raised voices and almost outright hostility.

Another example is a recent article by the Washington Post titled US Isolated at G-20 as Gaza Crisis Worsens. Basically Argentina is the only country that supported the US stance on the issue. Back in October, pretty much the entire world stood with Israel. Nowadays, pretty much the entire world claims that what Israel is doing is not entirely reasonable, and there are various degrees of such expression. Some people I talked to make it sound like there is some kind of anti-Jews conspiracy and almost the entire world is participating. And then there is some completely crazy stuff that evolves from that and it comes from otherwise reasonable people.

I agree 100% with Yellow, the issue is going to be very amplified years down the road and there will be a lot more to deal with. Note that I am not claiming to know a solution, but I am claiming that this is going backfire badly in the future. It will also and already did backfire on the US support of the current Israeli policy.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes but it does not prove anything regarding the usage of unguided bombs in populated areas, which is likely a very small minority.
Either @2007yellow430 meant that Israel is to blame for using unguided bombs regardless of target, which in turn indicates he understands nothing about the subject and instead should be asking questions, not making assertions. Or he meant that Israel is to blame for using unguided bombs on populated areas which is an unfounded claim in itself, which in turn might indicate lack of understanding of the topic as a proper examination would involve pursuing relevant nuance.
Do you have anything on the distribution of bomb strikes, guided vs unguided, and locations, populated vs unpopulated? If as much as nearly half of all air launched ordinance is unguided, I'm having a hard time believing that in something as densely populated as Gaza such a high proportion of strikes hit unpopulated areas. Personally I see nothing likely about only a small minority of unguided ordinance being used in populated areas. Based on my observations Israel resorted to widespread use of unguided ordinance as the war went on and as availability of guided ordinance became lower. They weren't an equally high proportion on day 1 and day 101 of the war. In other words unless you have reason to think that as the war went on Israel shifted the focus of the fighting away from populated areas, even basic logic suggests that unguided bombs would get used in urban areas with increased frequency. But perhaps I'm wrong, do you have something to show that what you suggest is indeed the case?
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
might wish to review this also. An Israeli peace group’s comments:

Here you go.

Art
1. The link is to Xinhua's website, not NBC. It simply repeats the Hamas claim but does not verify it in any way, let alone claim any higher number.

2. The sniper in the Al Jazeera video is not Israeli. In fact, there was no sniper shown at all, or any shooting incident.

3. The link is to Btselem's main page, not an article. And Btselem is a political group, not peace group.

So far you failed to not only verify but even respond to verification requests regarding all 3 questions so I must consider this an admission that these were all false, which begs the question - why spread falsehoods instead of just asking more informed people?


I am not sure how people can be serious talking about this, and specifically “return to their homes” part.
People set up makeshift homes in Rafah. They can relocate these to their previous areas of residence. If their homes were destroyed - let that be a lesson to:
1. Not kidnap other people.
2. Not murder other people.
3. Not support terrorist organizations.
4. Not let terrorists set up combat infrastructure in and under your house.


For the number of killed, judging by the infrastructure damage alone, the number has to be sufficiently large. However, there have been various reports over time to suggest that the numbers released by the “Gaza’s Ministry of Health” or “Palestinian Health Authorities”, whatever they call themselves, aren’t far off and likely even lower than the actual. For example, this is back from November, as one example (“more than 10,000” have been reported killed at that time):

Asked about Palestinian civilians, American officials have emphasized that they do not have the ability to verify any toll, and said that Hamas uses civilians as human shields.

They have, though, made broad assessments. On Tuesday, the U.S. national security spokesman, John Kirby, told reporters, “There have been many thousands killed, and each one is a tragedy.” On Wednesday, Barbara Leaf, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, told a House committee that U.S. officials thought the civilian casualties were “very high, frankly, and it could be that they’re even higher than are being cited.”
Somewhat indicative, still largely vague. There are some forms of casualties that Hamas intentionally seeks to hide. For example its own casualties, and Palestinians that it kills. Over 10,000 terrorists were claimed killed, but Hamas counts these as civilians.
We have also linked here videos of multiple instances of Hamas gunning down their own civilians, and their own rockets falling short and killing dozens at a time.

In one famous incident, and perhaps the only verifiable metric available to me - Hamas claimed the IDF struck al Ahli hospital and killed 500. It was later revealed to have been a PIJ rocket that killed about 30 people. All links exist in this thread in the early pages.
So Hamas inflated casualties there by 16.6, and attributed them to the IDF when in fact that was a Palestinian attack.

So what am I to do with the current claims? Perhaps just divide them by 16.6?
I think it should be sufficiently clear by now that terrorists are in fact not trustworthy people.

In my opinion, the only question that matters is how many of these casualties are actual civilians because Israel doesn’t even dispute the numbers per se, but claims that they are all terrorists (hyperbole on my part). Common sense suggests that most of them aren’t and a great majority has to be kids (and women).
First, the classification of kids is wrong. Hamas considers anyone under 18 to be kids, but their child soldiers typically go under 16, and I've seen quite a few going as low as 14.
Second, if we go back to previous conflicts in Gaza, we see that this is the first war in which the IDF does not give a civilian casualty estimate. The reason is quite simple: There is no agency operating across all AOs collecting data, for many reasons. The closest possible is Hamas themselves.
There are other methods to identify casualties, but these require long pauses.

Generally I see the point of debating casualties. The IDF irrefutably puts in tremendous efforts to minimize casualties at its own risk while Hamas puts great effort to maximize civilian casualties. Every civilian casualty is a tragedy but one ultimately caused by Hamas.
Insinuations that the IDF deliberately causes civilian casualties first must be corroborated with significant evidence, and second is typically driven by some interest to further the older than time blood libel that Jews are murderers.
Yellow tried making that case, and miserably failed.


The main problem, it seems, however, is that any provided reasonable and often factual information to the Israelis is often refuted as lies and propaganda, anti-Israel bias, etc. This is based on my own personal experience, so basically anecdotal evidence. I have personally been called an antisemite at least twice over the past few months just because I was talking about what seemed to me to be common sense (while supporting Israel, but not necessarily the way the things are done). I am not going to go into my personal life, but I can say that people who used the term towards me should definitely know better. Overall, it is almost impossible to have a reasonable conversation on the subject because it is met with raised voices and almost outright hostility.
Try to consider that basically every Israeli you meet online has served in the army and has at least a few acquaintances that were killed in terror attacks or during military operations, almost always ultimately because the IDF used certain tactics aimed at reducing civilian casualties, e.g. sending in troops instead of dropping a bomb. Sometimes close friends, sometimes distant relatives, someone in their neighborhood, or they themselves got some memorable injury.
Also try to consider that almost everyone they meet on the internet tries to insinuate they are some evil murderers and gaslight them about what their military service was. Eventually their replies turn automatic and they leave. If you were called an antisemite, it's likely because you made a claim that was repeated or generated by, let's say, a less objective source or based on something that counters their experience. What makes it more difficult is that at least 90% of anti-Israel sentiment is pushed by actual antisemites. So the sad reality is whenever talking to Israelis - take into account this hyper-caution.


Another example is a recent article by the Washington Post titled US Isolated at G-20 as Gaza Crisis Worsens. Basically Argentina is the only country that supported the US stance on the issue. Back in October, pretty much the entire world stood with Israel. Nowadays, pretty much the entire world claims that what Israel is doing is not entirely reasonable, and there are various degrees of such expression. Some people I talked to make it sound like there is some kind of anti-Jews conspiracy and almost the entire world is participating. And then there is some completely crazy stuff that evolves from that and it comes from otherwise reasonable people.
That was expected. Israel generated significant backlash even on October 7th as well, with now trends of denying the massacre or aspects of it like the mass rapes that occurred. Time for sympathy has ended. Now it's election season and many candidates need to appease their local muslim population.
Local muslims give heightened significance to Rafah because Rafah is particularly important to Hamas. It is their last bastion and contains a significant number of hostages, so it is in their interest to prevent an operation there.
It's also worth considering the political games here. Ultimately everyone knows the US will veto any anti-Israeli resolution, and Israel wouldn't care about it regardless, so might as well score a few cookie points with the radical islamists.
There's also the fact that the morally clear and just are a minority in this world. That's my opinion at least.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Do you have anything on the distribution of bomb strikes, guided vs unguided, and locations, populated vs unpopulated?
No and that's exactly my point - that one cannot make such grand claims based on non-existent information.

If as much as nearly half of all air launched ordinance is unguided, I'm having a hard time believing that in something as densely populated as Gaza such a high proportion of strikes hit unpopulated areas. Personally I see nothing likely about only a small minority of unguided ordinance being used in populated areas. Based on my observations Israel resorted to widespread use of unguided ordinance as the war went on and as availability of guided ordinance became lower.
First let's define populated:
During every stage, the IDF sought to evacuate Gazans to other areas to reduce casualties. Evacuations are gradual. Some strike campaigns were conducted before any evacuation could take place, especially early ones that were the most intensive in this war. By the end of a stage, many areas of an AO were pretty much depopulated.

Second let's define accuracy:
In less populated or depopulated areas, unguided bombs are possible to use, and these are still very accurate through CCIP. Israeli pilots are exceptionally well trained especially for bombing missions and have shown exotic capabilities such as throwing SDBs and JDAMs at specific areas and angles of a building to achieve specific, beyond-nominal effects. I remember linking a short thread by an ex IAF pilot here.
If the target is a group of buildings and not something specific underneath, CCIP is more than enough, and its accuracy can be increased further by selecting certain attack profiles.

Third let's talk about the RoE:
Every strike asset, every maneuvering force, is accompanied by legal advisers who have to sign off on decisions. The type of used munitions depends on said advisers who first have to examine the strike parameters. So by definition, if an unguided bomb is used, the targeted area itself must have been first classified as a low-populated area as confirmed by up-to-date intel.

So the use of unguided bombs is something very logical and desirable.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
No and that's exactly my point - that one cannot make such grand claims based on non-existent information.
Sure. To be clear, your claim that use of unguided bombs "is likely a very small minority" is also unfounded?

First let's define populated:
During every stage, the IDF sought to evacuate Gazans to other areas to reduce casualties. Evacuations are gradual. Some strike campaigns were conducted before any evacuation could take place, especially early ones that were the most intensive in this war. By the end of a stage, many areas of an AO were pretty much depopulated.
You first make a statement that made me smile with anticipation. "Let's define". You then proceed to not define much of anything. Please, complete your claim. Define what constitutes unpopulated. For bonus points please let me know what factors you consider whether evaluating if an area currently existing in real time qualifies as populated or unpopulated based on actual information available to an outside observer.

Second let's define accuracy:
In less populated or depopulated areas, unguided bombs are possible to use, and these are still very accurate through CCIP. Israeli pilots are exceptionally well trained especially for bombing missions and have shown exotic capabilities such as throwing SDBs and JDAMs at specific areas and angles of a building to achieve specific, beyond-nominal effects. I remember linking a short thread by an ex IAF pilot here.
If the target is a group of buildings and not something specific underneath, CCIP is more than enough, and its accuracy can be increased further by selecting certain attack profiles.
Very informative. Can you actually define accuracy? Because you haven't done that.

Third let's talk about the RoE:
Every strike asset, every maneuvering force, is accompanied by legal advisers who have to sign off on decisions. The type of used munitions depends on said advisers who first have to examine the strike parameters. So by definition, if an unguided bomb is used, the targeted area itself must have been first classified as a low-populated area as confirmed by up-to-date intel.
You're assuming the system described works as intended. It may very well not.

So the use of unguided bombs is something very logical and desirable.
This may be so. I would argue that use of unguided bombs is a substitute for guided bombs and therefore only potentially logical and desirable given the context of unavailability of guided munitions.

For context, let me "define" for you what it means to define a term since this seems to be part of the problem. To define something is to provide a set of exclusionary criteria that allow you to separate what constitutes X vs what doesn't, where X is the thing you want to define. In other words given the set of all things in the world, a definition is the thing that allows you to isolate a subset of all instances of the "thing" you're trying to define. Given this information, please define the term "populated" and then the concept of accuracy as it pertains to airstrikes.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Sure. To be clear, your claim that use of unguided bombs "is likely a very small minority" is also unfounded?
In the context of populated areas it is a founded claim, with the rationale deriving from understanding the RoE, which was publicly debated on numerous occasions and is therefore understandable to the public.

You first make a statement that made me smile with anticipation. "Let's define". You then proceed to not define much of anything. Please, complete your claim. Define what constitutes unpopulated. For bonus points please let me know what factors you consider whether evaluating if an area currently existing in real time qualifies as populated or unpopulated based on actual information available to an outside observer.
Population density at any given moment in any given area is something known only to the IDF and potentially other agencies - none of which share precise data with the public. The methodology of matching strike parameters to any given level of population density is not public knowledge.
What we do know is, one, the RoE which I've mentioned earlier, and open source information indicating whether and at what capacity evacuation occurs. For example in the weeks preceding the ground incursion into northern Gaza we have seen a mass evacuation, and later and into the ground campaign itself we have seen additional evacuation waves facilitated by the IDF. Other indicative forms of open source information are the perceived level of threat to troops on the ground - For example a more relaxed posture indicates a more liberated area, as well as reports from the ground and unit concentrations. A high concentration that includes reservists might indicate evacuation efforts in the area, typically facilitated by reservists.

The levels of population we can be aware of are roughly whether an area is completely, pre-war levels populated, somewhat depopulated indicated by unquantifiable evacuations, largely depopulated as indicated by intuitively significant evacuations (e.g. first mass evacuation pre-incursion), and nearly depopulated as indicated by reports on the ground and potentially (and less reliably) combat footage.
The less populated an area is - the more justifiable unguided munition usage becomes.
While we cannot quantify things with excellent resolution, we can have a 'feel' for things by analyzing indicative information patterns.
For example we can say with high certainty that Rafah is highly populated, based on reports from all sides, as well as up-to-date satellite imagery. We can similarly say that northern Gaza was recently largely depopulated and is now repopulating due to reports from all sides that people are returning there.
Another indicative tool is to understand principles of warfare. A warring party will always seek to reshape a first line of buildings in an urban area in some way. It could be demolition to destroy combat positions, or it could be to take them for its own combat needs. We also know that given the luxury of initiative, an attacking party will always attempt to direct a population/combatant flow of the enemy in a favorable way, considering that such flow is a given. So we can say that with reference to a city in general, some of its outskirts will necessarily be less populated at least at some point.

In the context of the whole Gaza strip, to determine whether an area is populated or not, I do not rely on OSINT, rather just IDF statements. There is no OSINT source that I'm aware of that tracks this metric, and I am not an analyst myself.

ery informative. Can you actually define accuracy? Because you haven't done that.
If you are referring to precise numbers, don't expect ones. These are irrelevant and change between missions. What we need to understand are general statements:
1. More densely populated with civilians = more accuracy required, and vice versa.
2. IDF has a range of munitions with multiple tiers of accuracy, and they are used according to mission parameters.

You're assuming the system described works as intended. It may very well not.
The article from December cited 29,000 aerial munitions dropped on Gaza. Since then the number has certainly gone up, even if not necessarily significantly. Considering the statistics at play, the "system not working as intended" from time to time is a negligible factor.
As of February 13th, the IDF claims to have eliminated over 10,000 Hamas terrorists in Gaza (or close to 12,000 including those who infiltrated Israel + in J&S).
As of February 18th, Hamas claims 28,000 total Palestinian casualties in Gaza.
If we believe both claims, then there are supposedly 18,000 Palestinian civilian casualties. Now let's assume that:
1. Hamas certainly didn't kill its own civilians (despite the evidence).
2. All casualties are from air strikes alone while ground troops activity and artillery are entirely excluded.
3. The IDF did not conduct any airstrikes after the reported 29,000.

That is 0.62 killed civilians per aerial bomb ranging from 250lbs to over 5,000lbs. This is a tremendously low casualty rate for such a destructive weapon, especially in an urban area. This is not something you can achieve if the "system is not working as intended" by default. If that is the case, then it may indeed not work - extremely rarely.

This may be so. I would argue that use of unguided bombs is a substitute for guided bombs and therefore only potentially logical and desirable given the context of unavailability of guided munitions.
They are very expensive after all. It's not just about stocks.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Joint ops footage. Fighting with hatches open in such an area is suboptimal to say the least. A turret that was in development for several years already should be rushed into service.

IDF presents Rafah operation and evacuation plan to war cabinet. Honestly nothing prevented it from being approved a month ago. Just political feet dragging.

Barkat (minister of economy and industry) met with his Saudi counterpart in UAE. Honestly, I think Hamas only made Israeli-Saudi peace even more likely and easier to achieve. The reality of the red sea attacks forced upon the two an interim economical resolution in the shape of a land corridor through Jordan, and Saudi Arabia only requests a commitment, not de facto creation, of a 2 state solution.
This is very much similar to the Israeli-UAE normalization where Israel announced annexation plans, UAE said normalization only if Israel backtracks, Israel backtracked and now there's normalization.

Netanyahu says 'Total Victory' weeks after incursion to Rafah. This confirms to me that the only war goal relayed to the IDF is the elimination of Hamas in a working capacity (i.e. cells will exist, but not as a cohesive organization). Netanyahu delayed approval of a Rafah op. He delayed the release of a strategic plan (although having one in the first place is quite atypical for him), and now he delays an explanation of what the IDF will do regarding Gaza, e.g. what posture it will take, once the ground campaign ends.

Hezbollah reportedly launched 2 SAMs toward an Israeli Hermes 450 drone. One was shot down by a David's Sling interceptor, after which another was launched and shot down the drone.
SAMs shooting down other SAMs is a rare occurrence but it has happened before. A few years ago an Arrow 2 system shot down a Syrian S-200's missile on a ballistic path.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
You can see if he's persuasive for yourself:
Music to the ears of someone some no doubt. Yes he’s made a strong case but there are others who would disagree with him; including those on the receiving end of Israeli fire. Most of whom I would add aren’t Hamas or “terrorists”.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Music to the ears of someone some no doubt. Yes he’s made a strong case but there are others who would disagree with him; including those on the receiving end of Israeli fire. Most of whom I would add aren’t Hamas or “terrorists”.
They are free to make their case as well, which so far didn't happen.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
What’s very different from this war and previous clashes/incursions is the level of public consciousness its spread to various people around the world. South Africa, countries in South Asia and others are to be expected but Sami reindeer herders in remote Norway is unexpected to say the least.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top