Islamic Jihad launches Rocket Barrage

[The Jonathanian States]

Yep, last time Israel sent ground forces in there, it faced a booby-trapped Gaza City.

Actually permanently occupying/annexing the area would be quite hard.....

I don't see exactly what you could do with it. While I wouldn't be surprised if they send missiles down into the city itself, I think they'll try occupation once more.

I think it might be more similar to Cast Lead, if at all.

Entering, destroying facilities, and backing out again.

[Transoxthraxia]

I don't see exactly what you could do with it. While I wouldn't be surprised if they send missiles down into the city itself, I think they'll try occupation once more.

I think it might be more similar to Cast Lead, if at all.

Entering, destroying facilities, and backing out again.

That's a possibility too. I don't think Hamas has a chance anymore, really. They've gone and more or less told the few allies they had to fuck off. Hopefully they'll collapse sometime soon.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Gaza is very densely populated. The IDF would need to commit itself to a long, urban-warfare campaign in the ruins of Khan Younis and Gaza City. I highly doubt therefore that they would be willing to reoccupy the strip.

Remember tensions have also been rising with Hezbollah in the North, Israel can ill afford to drag itself into a war of attrition.

They've occupied Gaza before, and most of the population, if I remember correctly, isn't exactly happy with the Hamas reign. And I'm confident in Israel's ability to, you know, fight a war on more than one front, because they've done so on multiple occasions, and won each time.

They certainly COULD. But it would be costly and probably counterproductive.

At most I think we would see limited military incursions centered around destroying infrastructure and killing militants. That or just a sustained air campaign..

[Transoxthraxia]

They've occupied Gaza before, and most of the population, if I remember correctly, isn't exactly happy with the Hamas reign. And I'm confident in Israel's ability to, you know, fight a war on more than one front, because they've done so on multiple occasions, and won each time.

They certainly COULD. But it would be costly and probably counterproductive.

At most I think we would see limited military incursions centered around destroying infrastructure and killing militants. That or just a sustained air campaign..

I wouldn't mind that either. What I'm more worried about is what the world's reaction will be. Since Jimmy Carter II won't support Israel in a decade, that means they have no official friends left. I'm assuming the EU and the UN will condemn any action taken against the Hamas, because, well, it's Israel.

[Lordieth]

Oo kill um Israel, oo kill um oo kill um. These militants deserve to die and the US should support Israel with air support. Their our allies it would be the right thing to do.

Because Isreal are absolutely infallible, of course.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

They certainly COULD. But it would be costly and probably counterproductive.

At most I think we would see limited military incursions centered around destroying infrastructure and killing militants. That or just a sustained air campaign..

I wouldn't mind that either. What I'm more worried about is what the world's reaction will be. Since Jimmy Carter II won't support Israel in a decade, that means they have no official friends left. I'm assuming the EU and the UN will condemn any action taken against the Hamas, because, well, it's Israel.

Perhaps. Though Israel is perfectly capable of doing what is necessary in spite of what Obama may say or do. He doesn't exactly have much credibility left with either his friends or foes.

[Agritum]

I wouldn't mind that either. What I'm more worried about is what the world's reaction will be. Since Jimmy Carter II won't support Israel in a decade, that means they have no official friends left. I'm assuming the EU and the UN will condemn any action taken against the Hamas, because, well, it's Israel.

Perhaps. Though Israel is perfectly capable of doing what is necessary in spite of what Obama may say or do. He doesn't exactly have much credibility left with either his friends or foes.

Well, Obama didn't give a shit to them when they yapped at his signing of diplomatic treaties with Iran, either.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Oo kill um Israel, oo kill um oo kill um. These militants deserve to die and the US should support Israel with air support. Their our allies it would be the right thing to do.

Because Isreal are absolutely infallible, of course.

Well yeah.
They keep it real all the time, so one would be remiss in not trusting in them.

[Quintium]

To all here who support the Palestinian authorities: this is why they're embargoed and treated badly by Israel.
They keep bringing it on themselves by attacking Israel, using women and children as human shields and then acting like victims.

[Viritica]

Obama will probably support the militants.

[Divair]

Obama will probably support the militants.

Wrong.

[Transoxthraxia]

Obama will probably support the militants.

No, Jimmy Carter II will stand back and do nothing, as per usual. Though he'll make a really inspiring speech on why isolationism is a good thing.

[Agritum]

Obama will probably support the militants.

Wrong.

But CAMERA taught me that no backing to Israel is backing to Hamas!

[Divair]

Obama will probably support the militants.

No, Jimmy Carter II will stand back and do nothing, as per usual. Though he'll make a really inspiring speech on why isolationism is a good thing.

Good. Foreign intervention is what caused the problem in the first place.

[Transoxthraxia]

No, Jimmy Carter II will stand back and do nothing, as per usual. Though he'll make a really inspiring speech on why isolationism is a good thing.

Good. Foreign intervention is what caused the problem in the first place.

How so?

[Divair]

Good. Foreign intervention is what caused the problem in the first place.

How so?

Foreign intervention created the borders of the Middle East while arming both sides. The Middle East is as is due to foreigners.

[Transoxthraxia]

How so?

Foreign intervention created the borders of the Middle East while arming both sides. The Middle East is as is due to foreigners.

Perhaps. Which roots back to colonialism, which of course, is nearly unanimously hated. But what's in the past can't be changed, I suppose. Foreign intervention now wouldn't be the worst idea, if done properly.

[Divair]

Foreign intervention created the borders of the Middle East while arming both sides. The Middle East is as is due to foreigners.

Perhaps. Which roots back to colonialism, which of course, is nearly unanimously hated. But what's in the past can't be changed, I suppose. Foreign intervention now wouldn't be the worst idea, if done properly.

It's never done properly. The Middle East suffers every time somebody from the outside attempts to intervene. The Americans, the Soviets, the Europeans, it doesn't matter. We've got far more pressing issues to deal with back at home that require our attention.

[Transoxthraxia]

Perhaps. Which roots back to colonialism, which of course, is nearly unanimously hated. But what's in the past can't be changed, I suppose. Foreign intervention now wouldn't be the worst idea, if done properly.

It's never done properly. The Middle East suffers every time somebody from the outside attempts to intervene. The Americans, the Soviets, the Europeans, it doesn't matter. We've got far more pressing issues to deal with back at home that require our attention.

No doubt. But you can't say that foreign intervention was all bad, at least, not in the Middle East. It created a homeland for the Jewish population.

[Divair]

It's never done properly. The Middle East suffers every time somebody from the outside attempts to intervene. The Americans, the Soviets, the Europeans, it doesn't matter. We've got far more pressing issues to deal with back at home that require our attention.

No doubt. But you can't say that foreign intervention was all bad, at least, not in the Middle East. It created a homeland for the Jewish population.

The Jews didn't need a homeland. They could've integrated very easily into a post-war Europe and into the United States. Antisemitism in the Arab world would be non-existent and Jews that want to live in the so-called "holy land" could do so without threat because there is no Israeli state to start escalation. The Middle East's current situation is a perfect example of just how much we can fuck up by intervening in areas we don't understand whatsoever.

[Viritica]

Obama will probably support the militants.

Wrong.

Why wouldn't he? He's given Israel the middle finger before.

Cause, you know, the ones launching rockets are the victims.

[Divair]

Wrong.

Why wouldn't he? He's given Israel the middle finger before.

Cause, you know, the ones launching rockets are the victims.

He's been in power for six years now. The Middle East hasn't changed. Why would he? Rhetorical question; he wouldn't.

[Transoxthraxia]

No doubt. But you can't say that foreign intervention was all bad, at least, not in the Middle East. It created a homeland for the Jewish population.

The Jews didn't need a homeland. They could've integrated very easily into a post-war Europe and into the United States. Antisemitism in the Arab world would be non-existent and Jews that want to live in the so-called "holy alnd" could do so without threat because there is no Israeli state to start escalation. The Middle East's current situation is a perfect example of just how much we can fuck up by intervening in areas we don't understand whatsoever.

Not at all. I argue that the Jews did need a homeland. You don't need to have a social science degree to understand that the Jews in Medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment-era Europe didn't assimilate for a reason; which is of course, Anti-Semitism. So how would their outlook, after centuries of persecution, change, and they would willingly assimilate into the European cultures in which they've lived parallel to for centuries? They wouldn't have assimilated. Giving them their own homeland was inevitable, in my opinion, because of their unique cultural identity and heritage.

Besides, they were there first, weren't they?

[Agritum]

The Jews didn't need a homeland. They could've integrated very easily into a post-war Europe and into the United States. Antisemitism in the Arab world would be non-existent and Jews that want to live in the so-called "holy alnd" could do so without threat because there is no Israeli state to start escalation. The Middle East's current situation is a perfect example of just how much we can fuck up by intervening in areas we don't understand whatsoever.

Not at all. I argue that the Jews did need a homeland. You don't need to have a social science degree to understand that the Jews in Medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment-era Europe didn't assimilate for a reason; which is of course, Anti-Semitism. So how would their outlook, after centuries of persecution, change, and they would willingly assimilate into the European cultures in which they've lived parallel to for centuries? They wouldn't have assimilated. Giving them their own homeland was inevitable, in my opinion, because of their unique cultural identity and heritage.

Besides, they were there first, weren't they?

Problem is, some Jews remained here in Europe after the war and, surprise surprise, they assimilated.

It's even more blatant with the ones in the US.

[Viritica]

Why wouldn't he? He's given Israel the middle finger before.

Cause, you know, the ones launching rockets are the victims.

He's been in power for six years now. The Middle East hasn't changed. Why would he? Rhetorical question; he wouldn't.

He's publicly called for Israel to revert back to the borders it had when it was first created. Which would reduce Israel to an 8 mile strip of land. Try and defend that. Oh, wait, you can't.

So, yeah, I don't find it hard to believe that he would.