Could Israel win a Prolonged War?

Besides trolling, what does this segment contribute to this discussion?

Doesn't that simply define your posts? I notice that you are attempting to assert a position of authority. Well, its not really verifiable as to whether you were a tank commander or a gas station attendant from your posts. I don't see any special insight on display.

And in fact, since you've attempted to assert your personal credibility as a trump, I think that opens the door to looking at your overall posting record, which is really the only thing we can know about you.

The overwhelming majority of your forty or fifty posts since you signed onto this Board have been to Israel or middle eastern threads, where you simply boost Israel relentlessly and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having a Hezbollah mind set or attack them for 'Godwinism' on the flimsiest grounds. I and others have had to call you on this repeatedly.

You've started a total of two (2) threads, including your Vinland opus, for which you offered a single post each. Well, that's not impressive.

So this seems to be what you are: A basically single issue poster drawn to the Israeli/middle east topics with a penchant for personal attacks on other posters, and very little apparent interest or meaningful contribution anywhere else.

With no disrespect, I ask how are you not a troll?

A slightly more careful than average troll, I grant you, whose attacks are deliberately intended to skirt the guidelines, but a troll nevertheless.

This is a wide ranging Board which explores realistic and unrealistic alternative history scenarios and hypotheticals. People argue, often with great passion.

But frankly, your narrow focus, your tactics and your attitude does yourself and everyone else a disservice. Personally, I have no sense that I could have an honest discussion with you. It is clear that your opinions seem to be reflexive and established well in advance, and all I really have to look forward to from you is the next cheap shot. That doesn't appeal.

You are free to put me on ignore, and I am entirely prepared to do likewise.
 

Gwax23

Banned
Doesn't that simply define your posts? I notice that you are attempting to assert a position of authority. Well, its not really verifiable as to whether you were a tank commander or a gas station attendant from your posts. I don't see any special insight on display.

And in fact, since you've attempted to assert your personal credibility as a trump, I think that opens the door to looking at your overall posting record, which is really the only thing we can know about you.

The overwhelming majority of your forty or fifty posts since you signed onto this Board have been to Israel or middle eastern threads, where you simply boost Israel relentlessly and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having a Hezbollah mind set or attack them for 'Godwinism' on the flimsiest grounds. I and others have had to call you on this repeatedly.

You've started a total of two (2) threads, including your Vinland opus, for which you offered a single post each. Well, that's not impressive.

So this seems to be what you are: A basically single issue poster drawn to the Israeli/middle east topics with a penchant for personal attacks on other posters, and very little apparent interest or meaningful contribution anywhere else.

With no disrespect, I ask how are you not a troll?

A slightly more careful than average troll, I grant you, whose attacks are deliberately intended to skirt the guidelines, but a troll nevertheless.

This is a wide ranging Board which explores realistic and unrealistic alternative history scenarios and hypotheticals. People argue, often with great passion.

But frankly, your narrow focus, your tactics and your attitude does yourself and everyone else a disservice. Personally, I have no sense that I could have an honest discussion with you. It is clear that your opinions seem to be reflexive and established well in advance, and all I really have to look forward to from you is the next cheap shot. That doesn't appeal.

You are free to put me on ignore, and I am entirely prepared to do likewise.

Clint has been putting forward good arguments in support of Israel's ability to wage a prolonged war.

He hasnt made any personal attacks either. It appears you cant counter his points so your resorting to his Alternatehistory.com posting records to somehow belittle his character and make him out to be unqualified for any sort of discussion on these matters.

Even if he was "Single Issued" whos gives. People come to these forums for different reasons. If I was fascinated by the Peruvian basket weaving industry of the 30's maybe I would post more about that field in order to discuss, share opinions, and gain more knowledge from others. Thats what a forum is for.

Accusing him of trolling because he has a different opinion than yours and his post repertoire isnt as up to par with your own is childish and lame. Let alone trying to personally attack him (Oh the hypocrisy). His last post was in response to your personal attacks it seems even more ironic.

But go ahead go look at my posting records now. Dig up some old posts, maybe ones where I make neutral to positive statements about Israel and claim that I am a troll and unfit for civilized discussion because I am clearly "Narrow Minded" and "Single issued"

Also dont know Clint. Just an outside observer. Before you accuse me of either being him or a friend of his.
 

Yonatan

Banned
Doesn't that simply define your posts? I notice that you are attempting to assert a position of authority. Well, its not really verifiable as to whether you were a tank commander or a gas station attendant from your posts. I don't see any special insight on display.

And in fact, since you've attempted to assert your personal credibility as a trump, I think that opens the door to looking at your overall posting record, which is really the only thing we can know about you.

The overwhelming majority of your forty or fifty posts since you signed onto this Board have been to Israel or middle eastern threads, where you simply boost Israel relentlessly and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having a Hezbollah mind set or attack them for 'Godwinism' on the flimsiest grounds. I and others have had to call you on this repeatedly.

You've started a total of two (2) threads, including your Vinland opus, for which you offered a single post each. Well, that's not impressive.

So this seems to be what you are: A basically single issue poster drawn to the Israeli/middle east topics with a penchant for personal attacks on other posters, and very little apparent interest or meaningful contribution anywhere else.

With no disrespect, I ask how are you not a troll?

A slightly more careful than average troll, I grant you, whose attacks are deliberately intended to skirt the guidelines, but a troll nevertheless.

This is a wide ranging Board which explores realistic and unrealistic alternative history scenarios and hypotheticals. People argue, often with great passion.

But frankly, your narrow focus, your tactics and your attitude does yourself and everyone else a disservice. Personally, I have no sense that I could have an honest discussion with you. It is clear that your opinions seem to be reflexive and established well in advance, and all I really have to look forward to from you is the next cheap shot. That doesn't appeal.

You are free to put me on ignore, and I am entirely prepared to do likewise.

Dear DValdron:

I have been on this forum for quite a while now, and we had a few arguments, yet IIRC you have never called me a troll. I hope that means you at least believe that I am, infact, an Israeli and that I was, infact, in the IDF. I can attest that Clint has been an IDF tank commander.

I know this because he is my brother.

I would appreciat it if you would stop using cheap insults at his record of posting and actually, you know, started to argue with him on the merit of his posts.

As for the topic at hand, I simply cannot understand how so many of you beleive Israel cant fight a long war, yet almost NONE of you has doubted the arab nations ability to do so. many here believe the arab armies can "pull a russia" and send wave after wave of soldiers (with what weapons? how many tanks, planes, etc? what types? I know the rate at which Israel, Russia, China and the USA can build tanks, and that is no where near WW2 levels.) untill Israel literally runs out of bullets.

Yes, Israel cannot keep its entire reserve force mobilised for a year or more. that is only natural. yet somehow Snake here thinks a country of less then 8 million people getting swarmed by every army in the region at the same time with the intention of either killing or dislocating the entire population is some how a nation of cowards and bullies. or that if Israel loses in such a war then the IDF isnt a very good force because it couldnt win.

then other people get into arguments about nukes, pilot qualities etc and its all so pointless.

Do any of you have even the first clue about how wars in general are waged in the modern age? what is the difference between the operational doctrine of a Syrian artillery battery and an Israeli one? or the specific loadout of Syrian light infantry? or how about the positioning of Syrian artillery? I could tell you that during the majority of my service I had 119 artillery pieces aimed at my base specifically. I knew which units they were, thier rate of fire etc.

Do any of you know the difference between the MK 3 and MK 4 Merkavas? which one is better suited for desert combat and which one for the Golan?

How many scuds Syria has, thier positions, the nature of combat in an area covered with chemical weapons?

Do you have any idea as to the logistical nightmare that a combined arab force would present, as they would have to bring ammo for so many different weapons etc?

Do you honestly believe they will fight regardless of causalties? even if it gets in the high 10's of thousneds or low hundreds? are you so racist towards arabs that you view them with such utter contempt, like they were animals or barbarians with no notion of self preservation or even giving a shit about thier own people?

In this scenario Israel is with its back against the wall, it cant give up untill every bullet has been fired and every tank ran out of gas. the arabs have no such impetus. neither can they maintain their forces in the field forever. definatly not in any consentrated manner.
 
I suspect the Arabs could not fight prolonged wars. With the exception of the Saudi's the rest use mostly out dated planes and tanks. They also tend to have abysmal tactics based more around soviet ones. We saw this with Iraq, they use typical soviet mass formation tactics which do not work well. Lets look at the fact also the Arabs tend to lose heart fast once thumped by any major loss.

Also after the first few months if the Arabs as usual are losing massive numbers it'll soon dawn on them they won't have an army left by years end and we will get a cease fire soon after. The Arabs would have to have evolved more in their strategic and tactical thinking and so far as I can tell they have not. Israel seems fairly good at learning from it's mistakes and tends to be less demoralized by losses. Lets also not forget often arab leaders are scared of their own armies half the time and internal politics tends to keep them from success. Sadat feared his own army so much he gave an opening to the IDF's air forces unwittingly.
 
My prediction is that in a war where outside supporters have sworn off intervention (significant supplies or attempts to stop it), the Arab mechanized and armored forces would not last too long, though would take many Israelis down with them. However, while Israel would win some stunning victories at first, they would start to get bogged down as they start taking Arab cities. There, the superior quality of the Israeli army wouldn't count for as much, and then the casualties would start racking up. And of course, the longer that the war goes on, the more likely that the Arabs game would improve would go on, and if the Arab armies are successful in improving their tactical performance, they will eventually beat Israel. Which of course would nuke the Arab states as a final "Fuck You" to them.
Sadat feared his own army so much he gave an opening to the IDF's air forces unwittingly.
Actually, Sadat refused to transfer forces from the East Bank of the Sinai to deal with the Israeli breakthrough because of political considerations do to do with the eventual ceasefire settlement, not due to suspect loyalties in his army.
 
Dear DValdron:

I have been on this forum for quite a while now, and we had a few arguments, yet IIRC you have never called me a troll. I hope that means you at least believe that I am, infact, an Israeli and that I was, infact, in the IDF. I can attest that Clint has been an IDF tank commander.

I know this because he is my brother.

I would appreciat it if you would stop using cheap insults at his record of posting and actually, you know, started to argue with him on the merit of his posts.

As for the topic at hand, I simply cannot understand how so many of you beleive Israel cant fight a long war, yet almost NONE of you has doubted the arab nations ability to do so. many here believe the arab armies can "pull a russia" and send wave after wave of soldiers (with what weapons? how many tanks, planes, etc? what types? I know the rate at which Israel, Russia, China and the USA can build tanks, and that is no where near WW2 levels.) untill Israel literally runs out of bullets.

Yes, Israel cannot keep its entire reserve force mobilised for a year or more. that is only natural. yet somehow Snake here thinks a country of less then 8 million people getting swarmed by every army in the region at the same time with the intention of either killing or dislocating the entire population is some how a nation of cowards and bullies. or that if Israel loses in such a war then the IDF isnt a very good force because it couldnt win.

then other people get into arguments about nukes, pilot qualities etc and its all so pointless.

Do any of you have even the first clue about how wars in general are waged in the modern age? what is the difference between the operational doctrine of a Syrian artillery battery and an Israeli one? or the specific loadout of Syrian light infantry? or how about the positioning of Syrian artillery? I could tell you that during the majority of my service I had 119 artillery pieces aimed at my base specifically. I knew which units they were, thier rate of fire etc.

Do any of you know the difference between the MK 3 and MK 4 Merkavas? which one is better suited for desert combat and which one for the Golan?

How many scuds Syria has, thier positions, the nature of combat in an area covered with chemical weapons?

Do you have any idea as to the logistical nightmare that a combined arab force would present, as they would have to bring ammo for so many different weapons etc?

Do you honestly believe they will fight regardless of causalties? even if it gets in the high 10's of thousneds or low hundreds? are you so racist towards arabs that you view them with such utter contempt, like they were animals or barbarians with no notion of self preservation or even giving a shit about thier own people?

In this scenario Israel is with its back against the wall, it cant give up untill every bullet has been fired and every tank ran out of gas. the arabs have no such impetus. neither can they maintain their forces in the field forever. definatly not in any consentrated manner.

If you read what I'm actually saying it's not really what you're saying I said. Rather I'm saying that we don't know how either do but I'd predict the Arabs would find it easier to sustain an inglorious victory over Israel in such a situation than vice-versa. Arabs who are subject to another 1967-style peace at the expense of wholesale carving up of their countries *will* fight like mad bastards. And it's worth noting that Iraq fought for eight full years against Iran when it had to do so.

I suspect the Arabs could not fight prolonged wars. With the exception of the Saudi's the rest use mostly out dated planes and tanks. They also tend to have abysmal tactics based more around soviet ones. We saw this with Iraq, they use typical soviet mass formation tactics which do not work well. Lets look at the fact also the Arabs tend to lose heart fast once thumped by any major loss.

Also after the first few months if the Arabs as usual are losing massive numbers it'll soon dawn on them they won't have an army left by years end and we will get a cease fire soon after. The Arabs would have to have evolved more in their strategic and tactical thinking and so far as I can tell they have not. Israel seems fairly good at learning from it's mistakes and tends to be less demoralized by losses. Lets also not forget often arab leaders are scared of their own armies half the time and internal politics tends to keep them from success. Sadat feared his own army so much he gave an opening to the IDF's air forces unwittingly.

Iraq and Iran might disagree with that assertion.
 
Do any of you have even the first clue about how wars in general are waged in the modern age?

I do. Granted I`m not from Israel, but I could tell you a fair bit about what Indonesia can and can`t do.

But then again I think Israel would win in a prolonged war, so what would I know.
 
I do. Granted I`m not from Israel, but I could tell you a fair bit about what Indonesia can and can`t do.

But then again I think Israel would win in a prolonged war, so what would I know.

Except that the argument Israel can win one tends to come with the argument Arabs can't wage one. In which case I wonder what exactly people think the Iran-Iraq and Yemeni Wars were?
 

Yonatan

Banned
I do. Granted I`m not from Israel, but I could tell you a fair bit about what Indonesia can and can`t do.

But then again I think Israel would win in a prolonged war, so what would I know.

Apologies, I did not mean to say "any of you", I ment DV only... should realy edit that....
 
Israel supported the Yemeni Royalists with parachute drops of weapons etc, and the Saudis provided the money. Iraq was liberally supplied with weapons by the Soviets, Europeans and US.

In a prolonged war I think Israel could strike at economic targets but not be struck in return. I also think Israel could conduct a bit of a blockade of it`s neighbours with aircraft, navy ships, subs and mines, but again it`s own defences would be tight against this sort of threat.

The War or Atrittion saw this to an extent, when the cross canal fighting got too heavy Israel would conduct very deep attacks with aircraft and commandos. But Egypt didn`t conduct strikes deep into Israel in return.
 
Israel supported the Yemeni Royalists with parachute drops of weapons etc, and the Saudis provided the money. Iraq was liberally supplied with weapons by the Soviets, Europeans and US.

In a prolonged war I think Israel could strike at economic targets but not be struck in return. I also think Israel could conduct a bit of a blockade of it`s neighbours with aircraft, navy ships, subs and mines, but again it`s own defences would be tight against this sort of threat.

The War or Atrittion saw this to an extent, when the cross canal fighting got too heavy Israel would conduct very deep attacks with aircraft and commandos. But Egypt didn`t conduct strikes deep into Israel in return.

And why did they get too heavy if the Israelis were able to conduct a conventional protracted war all hunky dory? If Israel was in fact so capable then it's worth asking why it adopted tactics to short-circuit one if it was in fact winning it.
 

Yonatan

Banned
If you read what I'm actually saying it's not really what you're saying I said. Rather I'm saying that we don't know how either do but I'd predict the Arabs would find it easier to sustain an inglorious victory over Israel in such a situation than vice-versa. Arabs who are subject to another 1967-style peace at the expense of wholesale carving up of their countries *will* fight like mad bastards. And it's worth noting that Iraq fought for eight full years against Iran when it had to do so.



Iraq and Iran might disagree with that assertion.

You said if Israel starts losing and resorts to nuking the middle east then its a nation of cowards and bullies. because... it was losing?
Maybe I didnt quite understood what you ment, but it didnt realy make much sense in the way you put it.

in responce to Israeli use of nukes you said:

"If Israel also does this because its armies are on the brink of collapse, it winds up looking like a nation of cowards and bullies who finally were incapable of accepting limits to their own power."

I fail to see the logic here, given the fact NATO was planning on using nukes in case the soviets pushed too far into europe. does that make every country in NATO a nation of cowards and bullies who couldnt accept limits to their own power?

If the answer is yes, I will accept your opinion and move on. if no, then please explain how is this different then Israel being invaded on all sides by every army in the region, hellbent on destroying Israel and expelling/killing all the Jewish inhabitants (at worst) or allowing the Jews to remain as an opressed minority (at "best").

If you want to argue about how long nations in the region can keep a war footing, I will gladly give you my opinion and we can have a civil discussion.
 

Pangur

Donor
And why did they get too heavy if the Israelis were able to conduct a conventional protracted war all hunky dory? If Israel was in fact so capable then it's worth asking why it adopted tactics to short-circuit one if it was in fact winning it.

At a guess because 1: The shorter the war the less people they loose 2: To avoid as much disruption to their economy as possible

There is huge difference between prudent preparation for some thing and doing it.
 

Yonatan

Banned
And why did they get too heavy if the Israelis were able to conduct a conventional protracted war all hunky dory? If Israel was in fact so capable then it's worth asking why it adopted tactics to short-circuit one if it was in fact winning it.

The war of attrition at no point threatened Israel proper. it was a series of small skirmishes and the occasional raid (such as operation Rooster 53, where Israel stole an Egyptian radar, in order to study it).
 
You said if Israel starts losing and resorts to nuking the middle east then its a nation of cowards and bullies. because... it was losing?
Maybe I didnt quite understood what you ment, but it didnt realy make much sense in the way you put it.

in responce to Israeli use of nukes you said:

"If Israel also does this because its armies are on the brink of collapse, it winds up looking like a nation of cowards and bullies who finally were incapable of accepting limits to their own power."

I fail to see the logic here, given the fact NATO was planning on using nukes in case the soviets pushed too far into europe. does that make every country in NATO a nation of cowards and bullies who couldnt accept limits to their own power?

If the answer is yes, I will accept your opinion and move on. if no, then please explain how is this different then Israel being invaded on all sides by every army in the region, hellbent on destroying Israel and expelling/killing all the Jewish inhabitants (at worst) or allowing the Jews to remain as an opressed minority (at "best").

If you want to argue about how long nations in the region can keep a war footing, I will gladly give you my opinion and we can have a civil discussion.

Because it happens to be dependent on a mass suicide option as its last resort. Despite that for instance Rhodesia was dismantled without at least initially Robert Mugabe showing what a dick he was. Israel having to resort to nuclear weapons would show that when it comes to doing what the Arabs did in 1949, 1956, 1967, and in the War of Attrition, that is losing a war on the battlefield, its only mentality is "Taking you with me" instead of manning up and blaming its generals and politicians for its defeat and scapegoating minorities like a normal Middle Eastern state.

NATO had no choice but to do that because NATO was never willing to pay for a large conventional army. The Samson Option is the option of a state that feels itself entitled to carve up its neighbors and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing and ethnic removal on a whim.
 

Yonatan

Banned
Because it happens to be dependent on a mass suicide option as its last resort. Despite that for instance Rhodesia was dismantled without at least initially Robert Mugabe showing what a dick he was. Israel having to resort to nuclear weapons would show that when it comes to doing what the Arabs did in 1949, 1956, 1967, and in the War of Attrition, that is losing a war on the battlefield, its only mentality is "Taking you with me" instead of manning up and blaming its generals and politicians for its defeat and scapegoating minorities like a normal Middle Eastern state.

NATO had no choice but to do that because NATO was never willing to pay for a large conventional army. The Samson Option is the option of a state that feels itself entitled to carve up its neighbors and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing and ethnic removal on a whim.

In 1948, 56,67 and 73 Israel was not threatening to occupy the arab nations invading it. sure, it took territory in 67, but at no point was Israel attempting to, say, annex all of Egypt and put Egyptian citizens on planes and ships out of the country or massacare them wholesale.

Out of cutiosity, what do you think an arab occupation of Israel would look like?
 
@DValdron

Fisrt of all, I did not attempt to assert a position of authority. You were doing so, by using my low number of posts(I joined two weeks ago but somehow that seems fair to you), and by caliming that I have no idea when it comes to military matters and you don't care to "educate" me.

Secondly, since attempting to discredit my understanding of military matters did not work for you, you attempt to portray me as a troll for having opened 2 threads about subjects which I admitted to not know enough about(and therefore were in the form of questions to begin with), and for participating (along with you) in two threads regarding the Israeli military or military history. Two subjects that I have extensive knowledge about.

Thirdly, you accuse me of calling out anyone who disagrees with me of having a Hezbollah mind set or attack them for 'Godwinism', when you are the only one I have mentioned that looks at matters from only one perspective about an issue(that is, that you look at only one side of the equasion when you give a possible solution). I never said you support Hezbullah, only that you look at things without considering both sides equally. I did not accuse you of Godwinism without reason, since as a non-American one hears less about the defeat myth in regards to the Vietnam war. In the same thread you were also called out in post #5 of comparing a future conflict between Israel and Lebanon to the finale solution. You then defended your claim. In the same thread I've explained this already, but you were convinced that my mistake was intended. Despite the fact you yourself mistaken my post about the arms purchase in the 1973 Yom Kippur War with that of the 2006 war despite my post being relatively clear, mentioning the name of the operation, and equipoment not in IDF frontline use for some years, yet you are still sure I am here with less then honest intentions.

The only claim you have brought to this discussion is that based on 2006, you do not believe Israel can fight, let alone win, a prolonged war. I have tried to give you a clearer understanding of events and military protocols, by informing you that your base for your opinion is flawed, that since 2006 was not declared a war at the time, training and spare munitions in the amount of roughly 2-4 days of actuall war munitions were used, as war time reserves were still under lock and key.

You accuse me of having a reflexive and established well in advance opinion. Have you thought it might be the other way around?

And lastly, I do not believe in putting someone on an ignore list. If a person is to be ignored, it is up to the forum's mod/admin. I have no intention of ignoring you if I see that you come to a discussion in good faith. This is a thread that asks about the ability of Israel and it's Arab nighbords to fight a prolonged war. If you have any reason to believe in a certin answear, bring your arguments. If you believe an opponents arguments are invalid or simply not true for some reason, bring your arguments.

If you want to continue our discussion, you can PM me, but in the mean time, lets get this thread back on track.
 
In 1948, 56,67 and 73 Israel was not threatening to occupy the arab nations invading it. sure, it took territory in 67, but at no point was Israel attempting to, say, annex all of Egypt and put Egyptian citizens on planes and ships out of the country or massacare them wholesale.

Out of cutiosity, what do you think an arab occupation of Israel would look like?

I think that such an occupation would result in the mass expulsion of Israel's Jews and begin the next phase of wars: the Palestinian Wars of Liberation which would be a running sore on the region worse than Yemen. The thing people forget in this scenario is if Israel goes in 1967, Arafat and Fatah are still going to show up when Palestinians realize how little their fellow Arabs ever meant their "sincere" protestations on their behalf.

And Israel was in fact engaging in precisely this, what with repeatedly taking Arab territory where the reverse never happened until Operation Badr made Israel realize it was going to have to cough up *something* to show it could actually negotiate a peace.

And Israel was not threatening this with the Egyptians, but it certainly has done things like this with Palestinians, who unfortunately were subject to the reverse from both Arab states *and* Israel.
 

Yonatan

Banned
I think that such an occupation would result in the mass expulsion of Israel's Jews and begin the next phase of wars: the Palestinian Wars of Liberation which would be a running sore on the region worse than Yemen. The thing people forget in this scenario is if Israel goes in 1967, Arafat and Fatah are still going to show up when Palestinians realize how little their fellow Arabs ever meant their "sincere" protestations on their behalf.

And Israel was in fact engaging in precisely this, what with repeatedly taking Arab territory where the reverse never happened until Operation Badr made Israel realize it was going to have to cough up *something* to show it could actually negotiate a peace.

And Israel was not threatening this with the Egyptians, but it certainly has done things like this with Palestinians, who unfortunately were subject to the reverse from both Arab states *and* Israel.

So, other then the Palestinians who we can both agree got the shit end of the stick from everyone ever, you agree Israel has not, in fact, ever threatened to destroy other nations or occupy them?

Further more, do you agree that the prospect of having yourself and your entire famlity deported, your nation destroyed and most if not all of your assets siezed does not sound fun for the average Israeli and that with that in mind, the option of using nukes (in a tactical capacity, not the "burn down cities and nuke the aswan dam" capacity) might start to make some sense?
Im not asking you to justify it, the same way im not asking you to justify expelling the entire Jewish population, im asking if it makes sense in a military capacity to you?


PS: I honestly do not see Israel using nukes on anything short of being WMD'd first. whoever came up with the concept of the Samson option is an idiot, I dont care if he is a proffesor or not.
 
So, other then the Palestinians who we can both agree got the shit end of the stick from everyone ever, you agree Israel has not, in fact, ever threatened to destroy other nations or occupy them?

Further more, do you agree that the prospect of having yourself and your entire famlity deported, your nation destroyed and most if not all of your assets siezed does not sound fun for the average Israeli and that with that in mind, the option of using nukes (in a tactical capacity, not the "burn down cities and nuke the aswan dam" capacity) might start to make some sense?
Im not asking you to justify it, the same way im not asking you to justify expelling the entire Jewish population, im asking if it makes sense in a military capacity to you?


PS: I honestly do not see Israel using nukes on anything short of being WMD'd first. whoever came up with the concept of the Samson option is an idiot, I dont care if he is a proffesor or not.

No, I'm disagreeing with this because for instance occupying the West Bank carved the most densely populated and modernized sections of the Kingdom of Jordan from Jordan, while occupying both the Sinai *and* the Gaza Strip was carving a lot of territory off of Egypt. The threat might be overblown as Israel sees it, but from an Arab POV the two attempts to grab the Sinai and the grab of the West Bank *would* create a mentality of imminent existential threat regardless of the reality.

I agree that it's certainly an action that makes sense from an Israeli POV, and I believe that no state ever voluntarily self-terminates so it's hardly wise or just to blame Israel for not doing what no other state has ever done.
 
Top