asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Blade runner this is not a political thread or a political forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Israel-Gaza War: 2008 and Today
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
2006 Lebanon war?
solarz
Brigadier
Well I think if the rocket attacks continue, Iron Dome or no Iron Dome, the Israelis will have to use ground invasion to take out the attackers.
However, it could be a big psychological blow for Hamas once they realize that Israel can hit them with impunity, and they can't do anything in retaliation.
antiterror13
Brigadier
The cost of Iron Dome is US$50M per battery and $90K per missile. Very expensive compare to just "just" a rocket, which would be around $3-5K each
plawolf
Lieutenant General
We need to remember that Gaza has been under blocked for years now. Remember the Turkish relief convoy that tried to breach the Israeli cordon on which all those Turkish activists were killed? They didn't set sail for a merry jaunt. Israel has been blockading Gaza since before then, ever since Hamas came to power in Gaza through a decomcratic election.
That means that the flow of materials and supplies into Gaza has been vastly reduced and tightly controlled. For example, very little in the way of building materials was allowed through the official check points because of Israeli concerns about the possibility of things like piping being used to make rockets etc. That was massively hampered reconstruction, but as crude and oppressive as that tactic was, it seemed to have paid off somewhat, because Hamas was only able to smuggle a very small amount of materials to make rockets, and they did not seem to have been able to make all that many.
Already, the Israelis are claiming that over 80% of Hamas' rockets have either been expended or destroyed. And indeed, the number of rockets being fired into Israel has fallen markedly, with as few as 10 rockets being fired on some days now.
The real question now is what Israel's mission objectives really is in this conflict. If it's just to stop the rockets, well they have already done pretty much all they realistically can. Even if they went in on the ground and actually occupied Gaza and had Israeli troops patrolling the streets, they would not be able to make sure not a single rocket is fired.
There is a growing suspicion that Israel may be planning to try to overthrow Hamas, which would require the Israelis to go in on the ground. But to do so would require them to actually take and occupy Gaza instead of razing it all to the ground, and that will put a lot of Israeli lives on the line, and if past experience is anything to go by, Israel will have to pay a steep price in blood.
I do wonder if the imminent Nov 29 UN vote expected to overwhelmingly support granting Palestine Enhanced Observer Status has anything to do with this current conflict.
It does seem very co-incidental that Israel launches an air strike it knows will almost certainly start a full scale conflict over flimsy reasons just as it seems like Abas might actually go through with the threat to put the motion in front of the General Assembly instead of backing out at the 11th Hour again.
However, I am having trouble seeing a spin or angle that might make it beneficial for the Israelis to be fighting a war in Gaza as the vote is put to the UN.
The only thing that might make some sense is if Israel plans to oust Hamas and return Gaza to the control of Abas in return for him backing out on putting the vote to the UN again. But Abas would have to be stupid to take such a deal as that would make him look like a traitor to his people.
Fighting a war also seems like an awfully expensive way to put off an UN bid for the Israelis.
That means that the flow of materials and supplies into Gaza has been vastly reduced and tightly controlled. For example, very little in the way of building materials was allowed through the official check points because of Israeli concerns about the possibility of things like piping being used to make rockets etc. That was massively hampered reconstruction, but as crude and oppressive as that tactic was, it seemed to have paid off somewhat, because Hamas was only able to smuggle a very small amount of materials to make rockets, and they did not seem to have been able to make all that many.
Already, the Israelis are claiming that over 80% of Hamas' rockets have either been expended or destroyed. And indeed, the number of rockets being fired into Israel has fallen markedly, with as few as 10 rockets being fired on some days now.
The real question now is what Israel's mission objectives really is in this conflict. If it's just to stop the rockets, well they have already done pretty much all they realistically can. Even if they went in on the ground and actually occupied Gaza and had Israeli troops patrolling the streets, they would not be able to make sure not a single rocket is fired.
There is a growing suspicion that Israel may be planning to try to overthrow Hamas, which would require the Israelis to go in on the ground. But to do so would require them to actually take and occupy Gaza instead of razing it all to the ground, and that will put a lot of Israeli lives on the line, and if past experience is anything to go by, Israel will have to pay a steep price in blood.
I do wonder if the imminent Nov 29 UN vote expected to overwhelmingly support granting Palestine Enhanced Observer Status has anything to do with this current conflict.
It does seem very co-incidental that Israel launches an air strike it knows will almost certainly start a full scale conflict over flimsy reasons just as it seems like Abas might actually go through with the threat to put the motion in front of the General Assembly instead of backing out at the 11th Hour again.
However, I am having trouble seeing a spin or angle that might make it beneficial for the Israelis to be fighting a war in Gaza as the vote is put to the UN.
The only thing that might make some sense is if Israel plans to oust Hamas and return Gaza to the control of Abas in return for him backing out on putting the vote to the UN again. But Abas would have to be stupid to take such a deal as that would make him look like a traitor to his people.
Fighting a war also seems like an awfully expensive way to put off an UN bid for the Israelis.
cn_habs
Junior Member
The unit cost of an iron dome missile is 5 000 whereas a custom made rocket is 200. The system only protects urban areas anyway to minimize the cost with a claimed kill rate of 80+%.
This real life situation reminds me of another thread in the sinodefence forum where someone was hypothesizing if an infantry only defending force can defeat a combined arms attacking force. This is one real life example of a big fat 'NO' answer to that question.
The situation of the Palestinian fighters in the Gaza strip (especially Gaza city) versus the Israeli military is analogous to that of the Jewish fighters in the Warsaw ghetto versus the German military. There may be a lot of defiance and fighting tooth and nail by the defenders but there is no doubt that the attackers will win. In fact the Israeli military has much more of an intelligence and technology advantage over the Palestinian fighters than the German military had over the Jewish fighters.
The situation of the Palestinian fighters in the Gaza strip (especially Gaza city) versus the Israeli military is analogous to that of the Jewish fighters in the Warsaw ghetto versus the German military. There may be a lot of defiance and fighting tooth and nail by the defenders but there is no doubt that the attackers will win. In fact the Israeli military has much more of an intelligence and technology advantage over the Palestinian fighters than the German military had over the Jewish fighters.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I don't know about that, Hezbellah didn't do too badly against the Israelis in 2006, and it would have been even worse for Israeli if they actually tried to occupy territory instead of pulling out afterwards.
Pulling the enemy close, spreading him thin and bleeding him dry is how an infantry only force defeats a modern combined arms military. Recent example in point would be Afghanistan. The Taliban are getting creamed by the Americans at pretty much every engagement. But because the Americans are occupying territory, they are spread thin and the Taliban can get close to slowly but gradually bleed them. Now it is all but inevitable that the Americans will cut their losses and pull out as soon as they are able to.
If the conventional military only bomb from afar, there isn't a hell of a lot an infantry only force could do to fight back, other than lob homemade rockets ineffectually at the enemy I guess.
The Israelis won't be flattered by such a comparison, but it is uncanny how many similarities there are. However, I think we are wading into dangerous waters and it's best to stick to facts and the military stuff or else I can see this spiraling out of control into a big bowl of political and nationalistic mess if we continue down this road much further.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Well during the Lebanon war in 2006 the Israeli ground forces found themselves in a similar situation to what they faced before from 1982-2000, they simply could not hold the ground
For 18 years Southern Lebanon drained Israels militray but in 2006 Israel thought it was prepared enough to go in after Hezbollah and do a clean up, but nothing of the sort happened
Hezbollah infantry stopped the Israeli advance in its tracks, the aim was to reach deep into Lebanon and reach Latani river to complete their objective they did not come close so in that sense Hezbollah was successful because they stopped Israel from achieving its objectives
This is infact a perfect example where infantry and infantry alone stopped a armoured mechanized assault
And the proof is in the detail, after almost 3 decades of production the Merkava production line was shut down after its performance review was done to asses it's role in the 2006 war, Merkava was built after 1973 war so to protect its crew and on this occasion many crews died inside inside the tank, Merkava was hit on so many occasions it became the image of the war, either knocked out, overturned, burned or crippled
The conclusion is, When Israeli army faces a well organised determined foe they did not deliver, however the Israeli Air Force rains supreme in air to air combat, that's until they face a similar force in the sky's
For 18 years Southern Lebanon drained Israels militray but in 2006 Israel thought it was prepared enough to go in after Hezbollah and do a clean up, but nothing of the sort happened
Hezbollah infantry stopped the Israeli advance in its tracks, the aim was to reach deep into Lebanon and reach Latani river to complete their objective they did not come close so in that sense Hezbollah was successful because they stopped Israel from achieving its objectives
This is infact a perfect example where infantry and infantry alone stopped a armoured mechanized assault
And the proof is in the detail, after almost 3 decades of production the Merkava production line was shut down after its performance review was done to asses it's role in the 2006 war, Merkava was built after 1973 war so to protect its crew and on this occasion many crews died inside inside the tank, Merkava was hit on so many occasions it became the image of the war, either knocked out, overturned, burned or crippled
The conclusion is, When Israeli army faces a well organised determined foe they did not deliver, however the Israeli Air Force rains supreme in air to air combat, that's until they face a similar force in the sky's