Israel: We Are At War

Page 142 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,850
9,889
136
I think it shows a lot of weakness.

Bear in mind I don't think America is generally doing the right thing with regard to Israel, and I can think of one reason why this particular act is a sign of weakness, but if you want to share your thoughts it tends to help with the discussion forum format :)

IMO at the end of the day America is trying to play both sides, ie. looking kind-of humanitarian while also $$$ arms sales to Israel. With those objectives in mind, it's not a bad move.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
I was going to say the same. We look pathetic right now. Israel is just fucking with us and making us look extremely weak - America, beholden to radical religious ethnic cleansing maniacs.

The US being largely unwilling to buck Israel is unfortunately not exactly breaking news at any point in the last 70 some years.

I don't like how it looks but getting aid to the Gazan people is more important than how it looks.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,532
19,932
136
The US being largely unwilling to buck Israel is unfortunately not exactly breaking news at any point in the last 70 some years.

I don't like how it looks but getting aid to the Gazan people is more important than how it looks.
Well I don't think any of us that see how pathetic and stupid we look are saying that not getting aid into Gaza is better than this solution, but it's just that this is atrocious.

Well while Israel has been an apartheid state for decades, this is their first ethnic cleansing operation on this scale, so one would have hoped that the US had a fucking line they couldn't cross, but it appears there really isn't much of one, and that is fucking weak.
 

Young Grasshopper

Senior member
Nov 9, 2007
927
296
136
IMO at the end of the day America is trying to play both sides, ie. looking kind-of humanitarian while also $$$ arms sales to Israel. With those objectives in mind, it's not a bad move.

How about America not play both sides, and pick a side like they force other countries to do? Does the arms industry really need more money considering we give the Pentagon nearly a trillion a year?

Dropping a few pallets worth of aid is nothing more than grandstanding.

‘Hey let’s drop a few pallets worth of aid so it looks like we’re trying to help Palestine while sending Israel arms thru the back door’.

Amazing how this aid can’t just be driven in there by the truckload because Netanyahu ‘won’t allow it’. Kind of tells you who really controls our government.

This administration is full of foreign policy amateurs unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zor Prime

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
29,427
43,032
136
One advantage of this approach is that it basically says to Israel, "try me, dickheads, I dare you".
like the time they did this?

1709845679421.jpeg

they scared America soo much that they are getting billions of $ and arms every year
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,774
1,527
126
Bear in mind I don't think America is generally doing the right thing with regard to Israel, and I can think of one reason why this particular act is a sign of weakness, but if you want to share your thoughts it tends to help with the discussion forum format :)

IMO at the end of the day America is trying to play both sides, ie. looking kind-of humanitarian while also $$$ arms sales to Israel. With those objectives in mind, it's not a bad move.

It's not playing both sides, it's wanting to look like it's playing both sides for domestic consumption. I'm not concerned with looks, people in Gaza are dying and the situation has been unfair for a long time. Given that we give Israel a good amount of aid and a lot of those weapons, the culpability of what they are doing falls on us. We can easily flex our muscles and make Israel do better and if not stop funding them.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pohemi

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
3,989
2,236
136
-
Given that we give Israel a good amount of aid and a lot of those weapons, the culpability of what they are doing falls on us. We can easily flex our muscles and make Israel do better and if not stop funding them.
Whats incredulous is the US giving Israel 2000lb bombs which are total overkill for densely populated Gaza and kept on supplying them as the death toll climbed into the 10000s. The US would not even use 500lb bombs near civilian areas in Iraq. They KNOWINGLY were enabling Israels unfolding genocide. Biden should be hauled to the ICJ on that account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,498
7,556
136
The US being largely unwilling to buck Israel is unfortunately not exactly breaking news at any point in the last 70 some years.

I don't like how it looks but getting aid to the Gazan people is more important than how it looks.
I am deeply confused as to why we don't just open access via Egypt.
Do they want as much death as the Israelis do?

Not using a land border for trucked supplies is fucking madness.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,850
9,889
136
How about America not play both sides

Re-read what I wrote: I made it clear that I don't approve of America's handling of the overall situation.

like the time they did this?

View attachment 94991

they scared America soo much that they are getting billions of $ and arms every year

I have no idea what you are referencing here with that image, and as I indicated in my next post I am aware of the arms $$$.

It's not playing both sides, it's wanting to look like it's playing both sides for domestic consumption. I'm not concerned with looks, people in Gaza are dying and the situation has been unfair for a long time. Given that we give Israel a good amount of aid and a lot of those weapons, the culpability of what they are doing falls on us. We can easily flex our muscles and make Israel do better and if not stop funding them.

I agree with most of what you've said here. I've mentioned on this thread before that I've wondered about why exactly America is acting the way it is towards Israel and the only conclusion I've reached is that the arms $$$ is worth enough to them to keep their mouth shut, but what causes the seller to keep their mouth shut in business also applies at least to some extent to the buyer too, depending on the circumstances. The UK is also involved in arms sales to Israel but I doubt that the UK could in theory supply Israel with everything it wants to buy.

Perhaps this additional factor that others have suggested that I'm not really aware of (as I don't live in the US) that the US media is saturated with pro-Israel sentiment that maybe the government would have to fight a tide of bad press and probably decades of US foreign policy if it did a 180 on its Israel policy. Israel knows this so Israel knows it can take the piss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
3,989
2,236
136
Is this a fact? Israel got them from somewhere no doubt, I'm just questioning where.
In its investigation, The New York Times noted that '2,000-pound bombs posed a pervasive threat to civilians seeking safety across south Gaza,' while also drawing attention to the U.S. supplying Israel with 'more than 5,000' such munitions...

...the Times' report also highlighted the Biden administration's steadfast support of Israel in the war, noting that the U.S. supplied Israel with "more than 5,000 MK-84 munitions — a type of 2,000-pound bomb," since October...


and how pervasively were these bombs used?

‘Not seen since Vietnam’: Israel dropped hundreds of 2,000-pound bombs on Gaza, analysis shows

231101234912-01-israel-gaza-110123.jpg



 
Last edited:

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,850
9,889
136
It's the USS Liberty that Israel attacked in 1967, killing 34 Americans and injuring 171 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

It's not particularly relevant, is it? It looks like a cock-up at the very least on the Israeli side and perhaps too on the American side.

E.g.:
wiki said:
According to Israeli sources, at the start of the war on 5 June, General Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Air Force (IAF) chief of staff informed Commander Ernest Carl Castle, the American naval attaché in Tel Aviv, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal, including sinking unidentified ships. He asked the U.S. to keep its ships away from Israel's shore or at least inform Israel of their exact positions.[14][a]

American sources said that no inquiry about ships in the area was made until after the attack on Liberty. In a message sent from U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk to U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour in Tel Aviv, Israel, Rusk asked for "urgent confirmation" of Israel's statement. Barbour responded: "No request for info on U.S. ships operating off Sinai was made until after Liberty incident." Further, Barbour stated: "Had Israelis made such an inquiry it would have been forwarded immediately to the chief of naval operations and other high naval commands and repeated to dept [Department of State]."[15]

My feeling is here: you're in someone else's war zone my dude; if you don't want to get fired upon, either communicate your location and intention and confirm that they've received such information or GTFO! Yes, Israel should also check their targets more thoroughly, but war is war and mistakes will be made.

I haven't read the full article but it does appear to be a cock-up situation.

In the context of the US's current plan to provide sea-based support for Gaza aid, if I were the US I'd be telling Israel where I'm going to be and if there's even a sniff of an Israeli threat then the US will engage it.

I think people misunderstood my earlier post to be an extension of US the-best-military ego / rattling the sabre, and I don't think the misunderstanding is an unreasonable one. I guess the tone I intended to convey was more along the lines of: while the US is happy to profit from Israel's military ambitions, the US is getting sick of Israel's genocidal BS and going to try and look morally a bit better in the history books than a plain enabler of Israel, so it heads over to the Mediterranean Sea and ensures that the aid actually gets to the people who need it without any more of Israel's "oopsy, I just gunned down a load of civilians *again*! Silly me!". I do wonder though what America would do if it takes the kind of pains (I described earlier in this post) to make sure Israel has no room for "mistakes" and still gets attacked by Israel; but perhaps that's the excuse that Biden is looking for to allow a fundamental shift in foreign policy with regard to Israel.

I realise that America has been at least involved (with dubious levels of necessity) in many recent-ish global conflicts and I wonder if people are riding on the bias that America's involvement by default will be an assertion of dominance (e.g. its reaction to 9/11), which I think needs to be examined. Perhaps this is a question needing a thread of its own... perhaps it's far too simple a question in which to summarise global politics. <shrugs>
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
29,427
43,032
136
It's not particularly relevant, is it? It looks like a cock-up at the very least on the Israeli side and perhaps too on the American side.

E.g.:


My feeling is here: you're in someone else's war zone my dude; if you don't want to get fired upon, either communicate your location and intention and confirm that they've received such information or GTFO! Yes, Israel should also check their targets more thoroughly, but war is war and mistakes will be made.

I haven't read the full article but it does appear to be a cock-up situation.

In the context of the US's current plan to provide sea-based support for Gaza aid, if I were the US I'd be telling Israel where I'm going to be and if there's even a sniff of an Israeli threat then the US will engage it.

I think people misunderstood my earlier post to be an extension of US the-best-military ego / rattling the sabre, and I don't think the misunderstanding is an unreasonable one. I guess the tone I intended to convey was more along the lines of: while the US is happy to profit from Israel's military ambitions, the US is getting sick of Israel's genocidal BS and going to try and look morally a bit better in the history books than a plain enabler of Israel, so it heads over to the Mediterranean Sea and ensures that the aid actually gets to the people who need it without any more of Israel's "oopsy, I just gunned down a load of civilians *again*! Silly me!". I do wonder though what America would do if it takes the kind of pains (I described earlier in this post) to make sure Israel has no room for "mistakes" and still gets attacked by Israel; but perhaps that's the excuse that Biden is looking for to allow a fundamental shift in foreign policy with regard to Israel.

I realise that America has been at least involved (with dubious levels of necessity) in many recent-ish global conflicts and I wonder if people are riding on the bias that America's involvement by default will be an assertion of dominance (e.g. its reaction to 9/11), which I think needs to be examined. Perhaps this is a question needing a thread of its own... perhaps it's far too simple a question in which to summarise global politics. <shrugs>
i was being sarcastic that after israel attacked it that the US then started to send them more money and arms, anywhich way you are right, it's not relevant
 

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
3,989
2,236
136
It's not particularly relevant, is it? It looks like a cock-up at the very least on the Israeli side and perhaps too on the American side.

E.g.:

My feeling is here: you're in someone else's war zone my dude; if you don't want to get fired upon, either communicate your location and intention and confirm that they've received such information or GTFO! Yes, Israel should also check their targets more thoroughly, but war is war and mistakes will be made.

I haven't read the full article but it does appear to be a cock-up situation.
In case you missed it from earlier post, it was not a cock up.



The main Liberty wiki is open to manipulative editing and debunkable sources that leaves out much info and ignores the more credible personalities that conducted the more authoritative investigation (the Moorer report ) into the incident.

I think it is relevant in the sense of how Israel is capable of using its tremendous influence to alter US policy in its favor (even at the expense of US interests) and to manipulate any information about any events that may not reflect well upon it that may otherwise cause them severe setbacks. Those same fundamentals are at play in their Gaza onslaught.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
It's the USS Liberty that Israel attacked in 1967, killing 34 Americans and injuring 171 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident


just saw this come through, jfc ~

5 Gazans killed when hit by airdropped US aid packages​



Air drops of relief supplies on a constrained area are not desirable unless there is no other good alternative for quite a few reasons. Risk to people on the ground is certainly one of them.