NPR

epwc wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 3:26 am Them brambles and nettles are fucking lethal

Enzedder wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2024 5:54 pm Drone targets Israeli prime minister's house

But the useless buggers missed. Wouldn't it have been great to remove both of the evil buggers in one week? (Not sure if I have ever even thought that before).

Guy Smiley wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 2:37 am

epwc wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 1:40 am In the circumstances I think it’s unfair to call the (clearly morally superior) Israelis genocidal maniacs, especially as they would never perpetrate on another people the suffering that their forefathers did.

There must be a better, maybe softer term than genocide to describe what they’re doing?

I believe their own term for it is trimming the weeds.

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 8:16 am
If you start trying to find what actual Israelis are saying, what IDF soldiers are saying, auto translating from Hebrew. They're completely comfortable calling for the mass slaughter of everyone in Gaza and their replacement with Israeli settlers. It's a mainstream Israeli view.

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 9:44 am

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 10:46 am

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 9:44 am

There is a dark humour to Starmer's repeated canned line "Israel has the right to defend her borders" (not at "my father was a toolmaker" levels of repetition but getting there) ... err chief, quite a lot of the problem is Israel cannot decide where its borders are, some Israelis talk about settling South Lebanon.

The UK outsourced its foreign policy to the US State Department from Blair onwards. Massive foreign policy disasters have come from this. The UK gets not much out of the arrangement, not even the vague hint of a trade deal. Those with not so long memories will know it was controversial to ask for a ceasefire to this conflict in the UK ("hate marches" etc), which then became okay to say when the US took that position.

Heath and Thatcher took far stronger positions against Israel for far less. Full arms embargos and the banning of any US shipments transiting through the UK. Thatcher (who was pro-Israel, the first UK PM to visit Israel) said their invasion of Lebanon was "barbaric", opposed all settlements on Palestinian land, implemented a full UK arms embargo that lasted from 1982 to 1994 and refused to return the calls/letters of Israeli PMs that complained. Pre-Blair the UK position on the madhouse was pro-Israel but anti much of what they get up to. The world didn't cave in on US-UK relations.

Calculon wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 11:01 am

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 10:46 am

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 9:44 am

There is a dark humour to Starmer's repeated canned line "Israel has the right to defend her borders" (not at "my father was a toolmaker" levels of repetition but getting there) ... err chief, quite a lot of the problem is Israel cannot decide where its borders are, some Israelis talk about settling South Lebanon.

The UK outsourced its foreign policy to the US State Department from Blair onwards. Massive foreign policy disasters have come from this. The UK gets not much out of the arrangement, not even the vague hint of a trade deal. Those with not so long memories will know it was controversial to ask for a ceasefire to this conflict in the UK ("hate marches" etc), which then became okay to say when the US took that position.

Heath and Thatcher took far stronger positions against Israel for far less. Full arms embargos and the banning of any US shipments transiting through the UK. Thatcher (who was pro-Israel, the first UK PM to visit Israel) said their invasion of Lebanon was "barbaric", opposed all settlements on Palestinian land, implemented a full UK arms embargo that lasted from 1982 to 1994 and refused to return the calls/letters of Israeli PMs that complained. Pre-Blair the UK position on the madhouse was pro-Israel but anti much of what they get up to. The world didn't cave in on US-UK relations.

so what's the reason for UK governments becoming more pro Israel since thatcher's time? I don't really follow UK politics but i gather the tories are even more pro israel than labour

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 11:14 am

Calculon wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 11:01 am

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 10:46 am
There is a dark humour to Starmer's repeated canned line "Israel has the right to defend her borders" (not at "my father was a toolmaker" levels of repetition but getting there) ... err chief, quite a lot of the problem is Israel cannot decide where its borders are, some Israelis talk about settling South Lebanon.

The UK outsourced its foreign policy to the US State Department from Blair onwards. Massive foreign policy disasters have come from this. The UK gets not much out of the arrangement, not even the vague hint of a trade deal. Those with not so long memories will know it was controversial to ask for a ceasefire to this conflict in the UK ("hate marches" etc), which then became okay to say when the US took that position.

Heath and Thatcher took far stronger positions against Israel for far less. Full arms embargos and the banning of any US shipments transiting through the UK. Thatcher (who was pro-Israel, the first UK PM to visit Israel) said their invasion of Lebanon was "barbaric", opposed all settlements on Palestinian land, implemented a full UK arms embargo that lasted from 1982 to 1994 and refused to return the calls/letters of Israeli PMs that complained. Pre-Blair the UK position on the madhouse was pro-Israel but anti much of what they get up to. The world didn't cave in on US-UK relations.

so what's the reason for UK governments becoming more pro Israel since thatcher's time? I don't really follow UK politics but i gather the tories are even more pro israel than labour

UK Arms Industry benefits

Calculon wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 11:01 am

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 10:46 am

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 9:44 am

There is a dark humour to Starmer's repeated canned line "Israel has the right to defend her borders" (not at "my father was a toolmaker" levels of repetition but getting there) ... err chief, quite a lot of the problem is Israel cannot decide where its borders are, some Israelis talk about settling South Lebanon.

The UK outsourced its foreign policy to the US State Department from Blair onwards. Massive foreign policy disasters have come from this. The UK gets not much out of the arrangement, not even the vague hint of a trade deal. Those with not so long memories will know it was controversial to ask for a ceasefire to this conflict in the UK ("hate marches" etc), which then became okay to say when the US took that position.

Heath and Thatcher took far stronger positions against Israel for far less. Full arms embargos and the banning of any US shipments transiting through the UK. Thatcher (who was pro-Israel, the first UK PM to visit Israel) said their invasion of Lebanon was "barbaric", opposed all settlements on Palestinian land, implemented a full UK arms embargo that lasted from 1982 to 1994 and refused to return the calls/letters of Israeli PMs that complained. Pre-Blair the UK position on the madhouse was pro-Israel but anti much of what they get up to. The world didn't cave in on US-UK relations.

so what's the reason for UK governments becoming more pro Israel since thatcher's time? I don't really follow UK politics but i gather the tories are even more pro israel than labour

_Os_ wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2024 9:38 pm

Uncle fester wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2024 6:52 am Couple of reasons for this.

1. Gaza might be tiny but it is extraordinarily densely populated.

The Gaza Strip is 41 kilometres (25 miles) long, from 6 to 12 km (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide, and has a total area of 365 km2 (141 sq mi). With around 2 million Palestinians on approximately 365 km2 (141 sq mi) of land, Gaza has one of the world's highest population densities.

2. The US delivered an unholy amount of firepower upon the Vietnamese but they still lost that war. Why? Because they didn't understand that they were fighting an insurgency. You can't defeat an idea with bombs and bullets.

3. The IDF and Israel lack real commitment. They could put boots on the ground but instead prefer to watch and monitor from the skies or with patrols that zoom through. Essentially their approach has been to build a great big prison and throw away the key bar ad hoc monitoring, while everybody in Israel gets on with life. That worked fine as long as the only option available to Palestinians was crude rockets that didn't hurt anybody.

True. But ...

The comparison to Gaza in a military sense is far closer to Mariupol 2022 than Vietnam. The big mouth analysts who got Ukraine wrong (you know who they are), are now saying something close to what you are, that Hamas can never be defeated. It's bullshit though, size does matter, Gaza isn't North Vietnam. Hamas is surrounded on a postage stamp (really the analysis could end there). Gaza is flat as a pancake and tiny, pushed up against a coast the defender doesn't control, all like Mariupol and terrible for the defender. Gaza has some tunnels, just like Mariupol had large Soviet nuclear bunkers, that prolongs the fight but doesn't win it. If the IDF take a sector, holds it, takes the next, etc. Then Hamas is fucked. A year is surely long enough, even taking into account the ridiculous population density and resulting slower progress.

Your point 3 then explains it, and comes back to my point for whatever reason the IDF either isn't able or willing. They've failed and should be talking, but they refuse. We now get what we see on the daily news. Hamas have prepared for this battle for a long time, whatever strength they have has also had a year of real experience. If Hamas is never squeezed they empty everything they've got onto the IDF then melt back into the population. Reckon you're correct on the overuse of force multipliers, in that vid of Gaza there's a tiny hand held drone floating by one of the semi-naked Palestinian men they're using to detect mines at gunpoint in a combat zone (filmed by the IDF, and an extremely obvious war crime: cannot treat a POW like that, cannot treat a civilian like that). Taking and holding ground needs young men willing to get into bayonet range and more of them than the defenders have (3:1 is the ever popular ratio).

Your Vietnam comparison works more with Hezbollah and the Houthis. The Houthis still regularly hit shipping, B2 stealth bombers are being used against them now. Netanyahu is trying to claim he's bombing Lebanon to make it free of Hezbollah, but that's never going to work because Hezbollah is generated by Lebanon. Israel is also using AI in a dumb way for acquiring targets, they've bombed civilians in Christian villages, which we see because unlike in Gaza Western media isn't banned from entering by Israel. You'll get something out of reading up about the Clean Break report, if you don't know about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_B ... _the_Realm
Netanyahu is trying to repeat the Clean Break. Bombing and regime changing the ME into becoming Western aligned and supportive of Israel. Get rid of Saddam and there's a liberal democracy that supports Israel and the West. Spoilers: there's actually total chaos then an absolutely huge strategic win for Iran.

Calculon wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 12:07 pm so what's the reason for UK governments becoming more pro Israel since thatcher's time? I don't really follow UK politics but i gather the tories are even more pro israel than labour

Uncle fester wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 12:30 pm The fücking damage the neo-cons have done to this world.

Uncle fester wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 9:37 pm They will end up as a mirror image of Russia, forever extending "buffer zones" to "ensure their security".

_Os_ wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 6:45 am

Uncle fester wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 9:37 pm They will end up as a mirror image of Russia, forever extending "buffer zones" to "ensure their security".

They want the opposite of a buffer zone in Gaza. They want Gaza depopulated and turned into another West Bank, where Israelis are living cheek by jowl with Palestinians separated by walls/military check points/apartheid. Not convinced there's enough Israelis up for living in a shithole, but that's the crazy plan of cabinet ministers. They think a West Bank outcome guarantees security. The ICJ advisory opinion in July was that the Israelis are guilty of apartheid in the West Bank. They seem to think if the two state solution is taken off the table, foreigners will be okay with Palestinians having no rights and be okay with apartheid so visceral there's literal walls/checkpoints/separate roads (which shocked Tutu and why he said it was worse than SA).

Lebanon they definitely want a buffer. IDF haven't done much on the ground yet, literally a few locations, push in about 500m put a flag on an abandoned house/attack the UN/find a small weapons cache. Hezbollah are doing things which showcase their capabilities, a lot of it existed in theory but had never been seen before. They shot a cruise missile at Tel Aviv (Mossad HQ probable target), Hezbollah don't just have one. The theory was they could shoot missiles from Northern Lebanon/Syria and hit targets in Southern Israel, they do one attack after Israel hits Beirut to show Israel they have that capability and could escalate. Hezbollah definitely has intact C2, cannot do what they are otherwise.

Uncle fester wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 7:06 pm For Gaza and West Bank, they want the Palestinians to "go away". How that comes about is a matter of disinterest for most Israelis (source: I work with them daily). The younger they are, the most extreme they are and bold about voicing that extremity. I am reminded of this series frequently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australian_Wars

Uncle fester wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 7:06 pm For countries neighbouring Israel, they definitely want buffer zones. They have it already with Syria. They have it with Lebanon too but some of the buffer zone is on their own territory so not ideal for them. They are quite happy to destroy Lebanon as a viable state in order to achieve this. Egypt is different. They consider Gaza to be the effective buffer zone and Sinai can be cut off from Egypt relatively easily. They don't take Jordan particularly seriously.

Guy Smiley wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2024 1:40 am Let's see how your theory pans out Os... how capable are Iran and how far are they prepared to go?

Guy Smiley wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2024 1:40 am Explosions in Tehran... IDF claims it is carrying out 'precise strikes on military targets', an interesting phrase to use as they seem unable to do that in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.

Let's see how your theory pans out Os... how capable are Iran and how far are they prepared to go?

Spoiler

Show

_Os_ wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:20 pm Calculator is enjoying my posts, another one for him …

How is Israel going to strike back against Iran?

Israel has a policy of escalation dominance, they always one up their opponent in the belief the opponent backs down (but now Houthis/Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran … aren’t backing down). The expectation of some is they try to outdo Iran’s ballistic missile strike which broke Israeli/US missile defence, with something larger and more spectacular. There’s reasons that won’t happen though.

1st of April, Israel attacked an Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing an Iranian general. Iran responded through a drone and missile attack on 13th of April (the largest single drone attack in history), that was almost entirely intercepted. Israel didn’t respond through escalating, but by destroying an S-300 radar. It’s publicly known that Iran and the US held talks the month after through intermediaries, on avoiding further escalation, neither want escalation unlike Israel. The speculation is Iran and the US were indirectly talking during the incident (there’s an Oman backchannel). That’s why the US (and it was mostly the US) got an Iranian drone turkey shoot (unlike Iran’s second ballistic missile strike), because the Iranian response was given to the US beforehand. Israel was only allowed to hit an Iranian radar in response to a massive Iranian attack, they had to listen to the US and not escalate because without the US they cannot defend themselves against Iran.

Israel later went for Hezbollah (and other incidents, assassinating the Hamas political leader in Tehran at the end of July), which from Iran’s point of view was escalation. The response was Iran’s second ballistic missile strike. Iran’s military doctrine is built around three areas (its “forward defence” strategy): proxies, ballistic missiles, and advanced nuclear technology. The first two are obvious, the third not so much, Iran pursues a nuclear hedging strategy getting as close to having nukes as possible, improving their tech and capabilities, without ever getting nukes. The goal is having the advantages of having a nuke (because everyone knows they’re close/capable) without the downsides of having a nuke (more sanctions etc). It’s the opposite of Mad Mullahs rushing to nuke Israel they're often presented as, and something closer to coldly rational people mastering uranium enrichment and ballistic missile technology then letting others work out the rest.

When Trump withdrew from the (Obama era) US nuclear deal with Iran (JCPOA) in 2018 and adopted a maximum pressure posture, with the probable goal of regime change (the Saudis supported the Trump plan too, which heightened that perception for Iran). That gave Iran's nuclear programme a lot of momentum inside the regime, and enrichment was boosted. What is happening now is larger than what caused that change in threat perception. Hezbollah being attacked followed up by a massive airstrike on Iran, would radically alter Iranian calculations.

The hard part of making a bomb is fissile material, Iran now has a stockpile of 60% enriched Uranium which isn’t far from the 90% weapons grade. Bliken has stated Iran could now produce weapons grade material in a week. Iran also started tooling for producing Uranium metal (part of the weaponisation process), when they started boosting their enrichment. Any change in the threat perception from the point of view of Iran potentially pushes them towards nukes: If the Saudis started a suspicious nuclear programme (threatens the nuclear advantage part of their strategy), if Iranian proxies were massively weakened (threatens the proxies part of their strategy), if there were strikes on their nuclear facilities (threatens the nuclear advantage part of their strategy). Anything that looks like a possible threat to the Iranian regime could trigger nukes.

Because of Iran’s human capital, industrial capacity, how advanced their nuclear programme is, and their main allies all having nukes. It’s a very short journey for Iran to actually build weaponised nukes, estimates are about 6 months most of which could be conducted in secret. Problem is, there’s then potential for a chain of proliferation. The Saudis will not accept Iran having advanced ballistic missiles and nukes. The Turks will not accept not having nukes if Russia/Israel/Iran/Saudis all do, maybe Egypt won’t either. The US isn’t going to sanction Turkey/Saudi/Egypt like it does NK or Iran, for one thing part of the point in making Egypt/Saudi/Jordan/Lebanon allies is bribing them not to attack Israel. So other US allies potentially then seek nukes to improve their security position: Taiwan/South Korea/Japan/Poland. It starts looking a bit out of control.

Which all means there’s a strong chance Israel’s attack is limited to some military targets Iran can shrug off, similar to how Iran’s targets in Israel were of a military nature. The US has almost certainly been telling Israel not to go full Gaza genocide on Iran like it already has on Lebanon (what did Netanyahu say "I will turn Beirut into Gaza" or some shit?). If so that’s twice Israeli escalation dominance didn’t happen against Iran, twice they backed down after a massive attack. If Israel doesn’t do that and goes full Netanyahu instead, it has to deal with a potential Iranian retaliation which is something along the lines of a nuclear test. Then long term, a nuclear armed Iran that has already defeated Israeli/US missile defence once and has enough missiles for a saturation attack. And after that a significantly more dangerous ME the US has little hope of policing.

_Os_ wrote: Fri Oct 18, 2024 10:47 am

I'm sure one of us will come back to it. Lots of big talk from Israel about hitting nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure, the Iranian regime. Post up your call before the strike.

epwc wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:36 pm “We can support Israel and stand against the extremism of Israel’s government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... e-solution

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:49 am

epwc wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:36 pm “We can support Israel and stand against the extremism of Israel’s government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... e-solution

The "extreme Israeli government" has nothing on their electorate. I've now spent about two weeks surfing the Israeli internet, total insane asylum, most crazy place on the internet I've ever seen. Polling confirms most of them are out to lunch.

For their own good, sanction them up to their eyeballs.

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:49 am For their own good, sanction them up to their eyeballs.

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:49 am

epwc wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:36 pm “We can support Israel and stand against the extremism of Israel’s government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... e-solution

The "extreme Israeli government" has nothing on their electorate. I've now spent about two weeks surfing the Israeli internet, total insane asylum, most crazy place on the internet I've ever seen. Polling confirms most of them are out to lunch.

For their own good, sanction them up to their eyeballs.

inactionman wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:30 am The more I see of this the more intractable it all feels.

epwc wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:33 am

inactionman wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:30 am The more I see of this the more intractable it all feels.

Who would have thought that South Africa would be able to move on from apartheid, sure it's not perfect but it's not daily bloodshed between blacks and whites.

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:38 am

epwc wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:33 am

inactionman wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:30 am The more I see of this the more intractable it all feels.

Who would have thought that South Africa would be able to move on from apartheid, sure it's not perfect but it's not daily bloodshed between blacks and whites.

Religion isn't as big a deal in S Africa as in the Middle East. Book Bashers are always decades/centuries behind where they should be to make peace with their neighbours.

inactionman wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:30 am

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:49 am

epwc wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:36 pm “We can support Israel and stand against the extremism of Israel’s government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... e-solution

The "extreme Israeli government" has nothing on their electorate. I've now spent about two weeks surfing the Israeli internet, total insane asylum, most crazy place on the internet I've ever seen. Polling confirms most of them are out to lunch.

For their own good, sanction them up to their eyeballs.

If I lived in a country whose immediate neighbours wanted their complete destruction (no France jokes svp) I'm not sure I'd be too level-headed.

That's not to say their views are fair or reasonable, or that they haven't visited certain things upon their own heads.

The more I see of this the more intractable it all feels.

epwc wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:41 am Mate, colour is at least as intractable problem as religion.

Have you read The Sneetches by Dr Seuss (lets not raise the issue of possible anti semitism)? People just need something, anything to coalesce around

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:46 amNo, it's not. Religious zealotry trumps all other choices when it comes to refusing to take a stupid, racist head out of an arse!

epwc wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:47 am

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:46 amNo, it's not. Religious zealotry trumps all other choices when it comes to refusing to take a stupid, racist head out of an arse!

Not sure on that, look at the US

Uncle fester wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:45 am

inactionman wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:30 am

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:49 am
The "extreme Israeli government" has nothing on their electorate. I've now spent about two weeks surfing the Israeli internet, total insane asylum, most crazy place on the internet I've ever seen. Polling confirms most of them are out to lunch.

For their own good, sanction them up to their eyeballs.

If I lived in a country whose immediate neighbours wanted their complete destruction (no France jokes svp) I'm not sure I'd be too level-headed.

That's not to say their views are fair or reasonable, or that they haven't visited certain things upon their own heads.

The more I see of this the more intractable it all feels.

Palestinians or the wider middle east?

inactionman wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:30 am

_Os_ wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:49 am

epwc wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:36 pm “We can support Israel and stand against the extremism of Israel’s government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... e-solution

The "extreme Israeli government" has nothing on their electorate. I've now spent about two weeks surfing the Israeli internet, total insane asylum, most crazy place on the internet I've ever seen. Polling confirms most of them are out to lunch.

For their own good, sanction them up to their eyeballs.

If I lived in a country whose immediate neighbours wanted their complete destruction (no France jokes svp) I'm not sure I'd be too level-headed.

That's not to say their views are fair or reasonable, or that they haven't visited certain things upon their own heads.

The more I see of this the more intractable it all feels.