It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dontreally
I think I understand Natanyahu's strategy now. When Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, they'll be having to worry about simultaneous attacks from Irans Shabab missiles, Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south. By getting rid of Hamas' missile capabilities and destroying their government facilities/training centers/bomb factories etc, Israel freed themselves from having to allocate military resources to attending to a southern barrage of missiles from Hamas.
Clever tactic. I don't see Israel entering Gaza for a ground offensive. They've done what they needed to do.
Originally posted by dontreally
I think I understand Natanyahu's strategy now. When Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, they'll be having to worry about simultaneous attacks from Irans Shabab missiles, Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south. By getting rid of Hamas' missile capabilities and destroying their government facilities/training centers/bomb factories etc, Israel freed themselves from having to allocate military resources to attending to a southern barrage of missiles from Hamas.
Clever tactic. I don't see Israel entering Gaza for a ground offensive. They've done what they needed to do.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by MDDoxs
There's no contradiction.
Israel is a victim of Hamas terrorism. Hamas has shot 12,000 rockets at Israel in the last 10 years. Before the recent operation, Hamas had shot over 700 missiles at Israeli towns since the start of 2012.
This recent operation was justified by the continuance of Hamas' terrorism. Israel has been extremely reserved in their responses, given most nations would simply not tolerate this sort of terrorism against their populations.
That doesn't mean there couldn't have been a long-term strategy which simply anticipated a situation that would exist when Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities; by disabling Hamas, they've somewhat freed themselves from the additional concern of having to deal with a stronger southern front.
When Israel attacks Iran, Israel knows their biggest problem will come from a fusillade of Shahab 3's from Iran and missile attacks from Hezbollah.
Israel had every right to take out Hamas' missile capabilities.
Originally posted by OperationIraqiFailure
I guess my post goes unanswered then.
Israel.....fired.....first.
My proof?! Of course:
Israel fired first
Notice, the first report on the bottom of the live update is dated
"Nov. 14th."
That's truth, staring you in the face, dontreally. I would love to hear your rebuttal, sir.
Lima-1, out.
But Israel also wanted to deplete a Hamas arsenal it sees as part of Iran's preparations in case of war with Israel.
The latest fighting brings to the forefront one of the pivotal questions posed by the revolutions that swept across the Arab Middle East in the past two years: Where would key Arab and Muslim players stand in case of a confrontation between Iran and the West, particularly if Israel and the Palestinians became one of the epicenters of fighting?
In case of a war with Iran, however, specifically one involving Israel, what would Turkey, a NATO member but withering critic of Israel, do? What could the West expect from Egypt, with its president's Muslim Brotherhood ties? What about Qatar, a strong backer of Hamas but an important U.S. friend in the region?