Stratfor Is Smarter Than You:The Gaza Incursion

Definetely the smartest paragraph. I’ve read all day.

Utimately, it must be remembered that Hamas – even with all its rockets intact- is not a strategic or existential threat to Israel. Israeli territory around Gaza is lightly populated compared to the rest of the country, so from a geopolitical perspective the rocket fire is just a nuisance. It thus makes little sense for the IDF to commit its forces on a strategic scale, and to incur significant losses, in pursuit of a nonstrategic objective.

Damn Stratfor. Those anti-Israeli intelligence analyst using their “logic” and “facts”. Anti-semites, all of them!


12 thoughts on “Stratfor Is Smarter Than You:The Gaza Incursion

  1. I would think that the people that live with the daily barrage of rockets fired from the Gaza Strip consider it more than just a nuisance.

    I would also think that a group that publicly states they intend to destroy you could be considered an existential threat.

    Just some thoughts that come to mind while reading the “smartest paragraph” you read all day!

  2. The rockets Hamas fires into the sparsely populated southern most region of Israel are rudimentary, unguided, and slightly more powerful than a bottle rocket. This is why despite the 20 or so rockets fired into southern Israel by Hamas per day , I can count the number of fatalities on one hand and the number of injuries on two.

    But more importantly, much like a Hamas unguided missle, you’re missing the point.

    If Hamas muscled together all of their force and might, they’d make little more than a cosmetic dent in Israel.

    Hamas has less money than Israel
    Hamas has less troops than Israel
    Hamas has less weapons than Israel
    Hamas has less advanced weapons than Israel
    Hamas doesn’t have any nuclear capability like Israel.

    So tell me, how is Hamas going to wipe Israel off the map? Hamas couldn’t even occupy Israel if they opened the front door and invited them in with orange juice and waffles.

    Terrorists, which Hamas clearly is, don’t use terrorism to destroy countries, they use it to destroy public confidence. My argument, isn’t that Hamas is right and Israel wrong. My argument is that Hamas’ terrorism is more effective than Israel’s brute force.

    For all their rhetoric and chest pounding, Hamas is a mosquite who feeds on the blood of the Palastinian people. The more bloodshed Israel causes, the stronger Hamas becomes.

  3. Possibly you are correct about Hamas (at this point) but Hezballah was also at some point.

    The nation-states that are arming Hamas with their “bottle rockets” possibly see there could be some real pain if they decided to take a more direct path to Israel’s destruction than using “mosquite” surrogates. From this perspective these nation-states understand Israel’s “brute force” very well and may pause before doing something really stupid.

    Having said all of the above, the loss of life is very tragic.

  4. Not only are you wrong, but the exact opposite of what you said is true.

    Foreign governments have been using the Palestinian conflict as a proxy war for multiple decades now. Why fight a battle when you can give someone else weapons to fight it for you? Not only do foreign governments fail to suffer any damage when Israel levels a Gaza neighborhood, they benefit from it.

    Terrorism is more about public relations than conflict. I know it sounds crass but its true. When Arab countries see Palestinian women and children bloodied and dead on TV, they get angrier and more willing to support their anti Israeli government or an anti israeli terrorist group. This includes both politically and financial aid. Yassar Arafat didn’t get rich because of his keen talent for picking stocks.

    Moreover, the more a country is focused on an external enemy, the easier they are to control. When we were in the midists of “the war on terrorism” did anybody care about the rising deficits, the decreasing value of the dollar , or out of control health care costs? No.

    If you think this conflict is seriously about wiping Israel off the map you are sorely mistaken. Once Israel acquired nuclear weapons any serious threat to their governments sovereignty was eliminated. This is on top to the billions of dollars in financial and weapons assistance Israel recieves from US each year.

    Most importantly, any outright attack on Israel would lead to a massive and forceful US intervention. If you want to see American conservatives and liberals take to the street with shared cries of regime change of a foreign country, invade Israel.

  5. Possibly these nation-states now use “proxy groups” to destroy Israel after trying directly three times (’48,’67,’73) and having their military forces totally destroyed in 4 or 5 weeks tolal for all three wars.

    I would think it would be very difficult to dialogue with implaccable hatred without appearing very weak; thugs understand “brute force” much better.

    I do not agree with you concerning “wiping Israel off the map”. At least two nation-states confronting Israel are doing every thing they can to acquire their own nuclear weapons and at some point would pass one of these weapons on to their “proxy groups” to actually use. If they can willingly send their daughters into Israel with a bomb strapped on them, why do we think they would not use a nuclear weapon if they had access to one.

  6. Seriously, do you even know what you’re arguing now?

    Your last post makes my argument for me. There is no government that can or would attack Israel head on. Which is why they use terrorism. But like I said terrorism isn’t a tool intended to destroy countries or overthrow governments. Hence my, and stratfor’s original point, Gaza is a geopolitically irrelevant target.

    The threat of a nuclear dirty bomb is a convient but unfortunately for you incorrect argument.

    First, if foreign governments wanted to sneak a nuclear bomb into Israel, they could just buy one of the thousands of ex soviet loose nukes for sell on the black market.

    Second, there’s no reason to believe a dirty bomb would be snuck in through one of the most heavily guarded borders between Gaza and Israel, instead of one of the many thousand entry points into the country.

    Third, you assume, incorrectly I believe, that the point of this conflict is to truly destroy Israel. Foreign leaders have much more to gain by keeping the conflict going instead of resolving it one way or another. (See my “wag the dog” arguments above.)

    Your problem, like many pro Israel supporters, is that you see every action Israel takes as a referendum on whether Israel is “right” or “wrong”. Your comments about Arabs being “thugs” who are fueled by pure hatered is clear proof of this. But this isn’t a pro israel or pro palestine debate. Utimately this isn’t a philosophical critque of Israel its a critique of Israeli military tactics.


    Is why should Israel kill hundreds and injury thousands of Palestinians because Iran? Murdering innocent civilians and subjecting millions to abject poverity because you want to send a message only sends the message that “Israeli’s are murders” I certainly don’t believe this is true. In fact Hamas and other terrorists organizations have plenty of cupable blame in this entire situation. But events like this take the focus and places it solely on Israel.

  7. I am not “arguing” with you but rather just expressing my perspective of your post.

    I do agree with you that there is no nation-state near Israel that can or even would attack Israel head-on. Possibly that is from their past experiences in trying it.

    Why do you think one of these nation-states would attempt to “sneak” a “dirty bomb” into Israel when they have two sets of surrogates perfectly willing to fire one into Israel with their “bottle rockets”!

    You are possibly mixing up who I was referring to as a “thug”. I was speaking specifically to Hamas, the elected “officials” of Gaza. These “thugs” were elected by the “people” of Gaza in my view fully understanding what that meant; just look to the West Bank, they did not elect these thugs as their officials and they have actually had some significant foreign investment in the last year.

    I do believe Israel has the clear high moral ground in this conflict. I might add, speaking to Israel’s military tactics, that they give away the element of surprise by warning civilians time and again before attacking a specific target which is usually where Hamas has stored weapons and is using these citizens as shields.

    I don’t think Israel worries too much about the focus and “blame” of the media. May be why they are still a nation-state after 60 years!

  8. Alright, I appreciate the discussion so don’t consider this as hostility; but I think you’re mixing things up.

    As you admitted above, there is no country that can or would attack Israel head on. This is why they use indirect tactics like terrorism.

    But as I said above, and you agreed with, terrorism is not a tactic that is meant to or capable of destroying a country or overthrowing a government.

    Which is why the only credible argument you have left is the nuclear threat. But as I said above, your nuclear argument is flawed for several reasons, which you failed to respond to.

    This is why in the bigger picture, Hamas and Gaza are an irrelevant geopolitical target. This doesn’t mean Israel should totally ignore Hamas or let attacks go unanwsered. But this does very very much change the context in which these attacks should be viewed and responded to. Not only is this kill hundreds of Palestinians for every Israeli dead tactic inhumane and ineffective its counterproductive to Israel’s long term safety.

    As much as we can pontificate, predicate, or make excuses you still haven’t provided a single solid argument for why Israel’s disproportinate use of force is justified or appropriate.

  9. Well to respond to your closing statement, I suppose using “disproportinate force” as you characterize it is justified and appropriate because from Israel’s prospective it definitely holds down casualities in the military and that has always been part of their military tradition. You could say Israel mitigates this “disproportinate force” by giving clear warnings time and again before attacking a “civilian” target. So if your premise is Israel should fight with one hand tied behind their back to assauge world opinion they are doing that at some risk to their soldiers, its just the media is not giving much coverage to that.

    Maybe they should do what our military did by “imbedding” the media in small units thus creating much reporting on the “shock and awe” aspect of modern warfare. By creating a few media “heros” in front line combat units we got very favorable coverage when we used “disproportinate force”!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s