How would it have been around 1B? Seriously, are the Israeli's firing at interceptor/incoming ratios of 10:1?
Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
that general is talking shit. and he is exaggerating for political reasons.
That might be the case, do not know much about the costs (I thought they were in hundreds of thousands per missile). Which would still make it considerably costlier than the drones (tens of thousands per drone), but not at 1B.
Well yes, but drones weren't taken out by interceptors but by jets using cheaper short range missiles like ASRAAM and AIM-9
any that got through would have got iron dommed and not arrow 3/davids sling.
David's Slings purchase price per missile in 2022 was 950kUSD. Arrow 3 was 2.9 million USD in 2019. Expect that price to have risen slightly.
If Israel used a 2:1 ratio of interceptor to incoming, we just about reach 500 million. And 2:1 is very generous for dumb ballistic missiles. 1 billion is the kinda figure ballpark if the US started spamming SM-3's.
Mine too
I am not even going to dignify with an answer. Such a stupid response with obvious answers
You quoted another poster quoting a figure that he himself hasn't provided the breakdowns for.
Please provide a breakdown of how, (it doesn't need to be wholly accurate), costs would rack up to 1 Billion.
The answer is that it is pretty fair enough to lose territory when you lose a war - and you lose the moral high ground too when it's a war you started. I would have no sympathy at all. But...
The problem with that reasoning is the 1948 war was not started by the Palestinians (who did not exist as a national identity at the time because national identity was not a thing in the Ottoman Empire.) It was started by other Arab leaders for their own reasons. The future Palestinians were pretty much caught between Israel and the Arabs. Had that war not happened, history might have been very different. It's a great tragedy.
The October 7 War, on the other hand, was started by Iran. Once again the Palestinians were left in the lurch. The difference here is that Hamas were willing partners.
Last edited:
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/h16o8qtea
The staggering cost of Israel's defense against Iran's missile attack: '4-5 billion shekels per night' Brig. Gen. Reem Aminoach, economic advisor to former IDF chief of staff, tells the Ynet studio about the high cost of activating the defense systems in Israel overnight, and the relatively low price paid by Iran
Which I've already said here, is an absolutely made up number for political reasons. No Air defense system in the world can sustain that cost.
Oh ffs, this multi billion cost thing is being reported all over the news outlets 
Okay, yeah, when it comes to military stuff -> Popular Media is really not a good source.
Okay, yeah, when it comes to military stuff -> Popular Media is really not a good source.
Please provide links and evidence to prove this.
SM-3s were used according to cnn. The amount they used aren't known but considering not many ballistics were used I doubt it would be that many.
For the hundreth times 1:
Europeans deciding in 1948 to give land that is not theirs ( in the private sense) to europeans jews that never lived there. Giving 55% of the land to 30% the jew population which were 90% europeans. Try that to any country and see if there is no war. Of course the jews were elated, why start a war?
For the hundreth times 2:
Despite if they were a state (definitely they were/are a country), it has nothing to fo with the nakba and its genocide and ethnic cleansing. Killing and stealing their land as private citizens and not allowing to return to their land while allowing any jew in the world to arrive in israel and become a citizen. A clear point of appartheid
Try to do this in any modern country. Try in europe to kill and kick out non christian citizens and not allowing to return just because
For a billionth times
The war from october 7th didnt start that day, the war had been sustained for decades killing hundreds if not thousands of palestinians a year, keeping stealing their land, kiddnapping thousands even kids without trial and torturing and raping. This had been done before the ayatollahs in iran, before hezbollah and before hamas, which the latest had been a symptom that israel and netanyahu allowed to fester and fed because they wanted a 10/7 to be able to have and excuse for what is happening now
People, Just-fecking-learn-a-thing of what had happening in this conflict. Is nothing that had explained hundreds of times
Last edited:
Suez War, Six Day War, First Lebanon War.
That has to be one of the most disingenuous bullshit posts in this thread.
by 1949 Israel already held 22% more Palestinian territory than that resolution stated. Then they added to it during the six day war. Then a long period of slower illegal displacement and settlement. And now an attempt at basically eradicating Palestine.
Israel has never had any intention of following 181.
Israel's in huge mess, externally and also internally.
Are you sure about that one? You seem not to know a lot about the whole story.
I’d step away from the thread and do some reading first. Your posts are so factually incorrect to border on the unhinged.
Highly recommend The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi and Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations by Ronald Bergman.
And so are most of the other countries in the middle east to which this thread title refers to.
gotcha. the military side is indeed interesting.
I saw reports saying that Iran launched both ballistic and cruise missiles, so that might be that.
Then enlighten me. Which of the major wars in the region did Israel start?
1948 first Arab Israeli war?
1956 Suez crisis?
1967 Six day war? (You can argue here that Israel did a preemptive strike but it's a fact that the Arab alliance would have attacked Israel if they didn't.)
1973 Jom Kippur war?
well it's a fact isn't it? you don't need to argue anything they did it. It is however not a fact like you claim that they'd have been attacked without it.
As @B20 posted earlier, Suez 1956, the Six-Day War, and Lebanon 1982 are clear cut cases of Israel initiating the conflict. Of course in each case Israel had a casus belli, and 1967 may have been the most legitimate although it’s not an established “fact” that Egypt was going to go to war, we can’t know for certain. In any case almost every act of war is preceded by some sort of justification, and this is no less true for those wars initiated by the Arab powers.
In addition to the above, Israel has bombed Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, and Tunisia outside of direct hostilities, and engaged in numerous other clandestine operations around the world whose legality is, let’s say, doubtful. Again you can argue whether or not each case is justified on its own merits, but the broader pattern is one of Israel taking the initiative.
(edit): I would add that, in the context of this thread, it is certainly Iran that went looking for a conflict with Israel after 1979. But even then the growth and apparent intractability of the confrontation between the two cannot be understood without reference to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.
Last edited:
Was it the Europeans who decided or was it not the UN Partition Plan for Palestine who decided....
The land which was partioned by UN Mandate had historical links to both Palestinian and Jewish people over thousands of years.
The establishment of the State of Israel is highly complex and highly contentious.
And let's remember the events of WW2 that resulted in a large number of Jewish people being displaced across Europe with no homeland.
What was supposed to happen to them.
But to suggest that it was simply a land grab by the Europeans is not strictly accurate.
@B. Munich
I'll just say it's interesting that the unique genocide of the Holocaust makes support for Israel your staatraison, and at the same time you equate Gaza with Dresden and Palestinians with Germans during Nazi rule. Does the sacred line against "relativisation" not apply when the Nazi comparison is being made against non-Westerners?
I'll just say it's interesting that the unique genocide of the Holocaust makes support for Israel your staatraison, and at the same time you equate Gaza with Dresden and Palestinians with Germans during Nazi rule. Does the sacred line against "relativisation" not apply when the Nazi comparison is being made against non-Westerners?
Like I said, go and do some reading, understand the conflict and then come back here with better knowledge of the understandably complicated history of Palestine (Ottoman Palestine, to British Mandatory Palestine, to the current nations of Israel and Palestine).
You are simply a troll at this point and there's not point arguing with people with such uninformed, yet bizarrely entrenched, views.
Just finished the Bergman book last week, it’s completely mental isn’t it?
I’d step away from the thread and do some reading first. Your posts are so factually incorrect to border on the unhinged.
Highly recommend The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi and Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations by Ronald Bergman.
You can see it that way. However, then you neglect the Egypt aggression by closing the straits of Tiran and the Suez canal, which eventually lead to an attack of combined French, British and Israel forces.
I didn't include the Lebanon war as this thread is about the regional players.
I have sympathy with Israel as the country is surrounded with neighbors which openly admit (or admitted) for many years to extinguish the state of Israel. Israel made many mistakes over the years, which in such circumstances are inevitable. But so did the Palestinians.
After over 75 years this conflict couldn't be resolved. It's an huge failure of the international community which didn't come up with a solution both sides can live with.
I don't know what motivates Iran in all of this, but may be they are paranoid like Israel since most of the Arab nations and Israel are against Iran. Iran uses these proxy wars to gain an upper hand or balance. Perhaps if they get their nuclear weapons they will feel secure and stop funding terrorist organisations.
Many countries have laws which others don't agree with. I'm living in Thailand and here you will go to jail for many years, if you criticize the king. The monarchy is an extremely sensitive topic here and so is the Holocaust and antisemitism in Germany.
I think everybody knows admit this. If people don't like it's fine but they better don't organize congresses with a clear antisemite agenda in Germany.
The allies deemed the bombardments of German cities as legitimate, because of the support or toleration of the Nazi regime by the German population.
A significant amount of Palestinians still support Hamas as without this support they couldn't hold out that long. Therefore, I said the population isn't as innocent as many here claim.
Could the Germans who did not tolerate Nazis actually do anything to get the Nazis out. I doubt it.
You are looking at it from a Western viewpoint, they don't view them as terrorist organizations or anything close to that. They are their allies and they aren't under their control like it's portrayed in the West. Having nuclear weapons won't stop them from being allies.
The worst support they provide hasn't even been to any of those organizations, it's to Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
Israel and the US will be wanting to use their more advanced systems for testing purposes here. If Iran was doing this every night they'd revert to using whatever is cheapest for the job.
Their most "advanced" stuff doesn't warrant that. Arrow 3 is the most expensive Israel has. USN doesn't have hoards of SM-3's in that region.
Again, the canal and straits issues, along with the regular Egyptian-sponsored “infiltration” from Gaza, provided the casus belli for Israel. But it doesn’t then inevitably follow that a war launched in partnership with two imperial powers with their own agendas, and resulting in a six-month occupation of Gaza and the entire Sinai Peninsula, was the only legitimate means of solving these problems.
While the Lebanese state isn’t an active player, it has been an arena where the other regional players have occasionally fought their mutual conflicts. Israel’s invasion and occupation of 1982 brought it into conflict with the Palestinians (obviously), Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian-backed militias, and the Syrian army directly. It also involved an alliance with a quasi-fascist and extremely brutal Christian militia.
Most likely not because a significant part of the population supported the Nazis. Not only in Germany but also in many occupied countries.
And that's exactly my point. Hamas must have significant support within the population of Gaza to hold on to power for over 15 years, built the tunnel systems sand stockpile weapons and rockets. Even until today they must enjoy strong support as the IDF despite all the force they used wasn't able to destroy Hamas. Again without the support of the local population Hamas wouldn't have survived this onslaught.
Therefore the conclusion that at least significant parts of the population in Gaza isn't as innocent as many here claim.
Wasn't the 1982 Lebanon war the result of the PLO moving to South Lebanon and continuously staging attacks on North Israel for several years?
Ok I did not know that Nazis had that much support in Germany. But normal people cannot oust a terrorist organisation like Hamas. What do you think will happen if they stood up to them. They would be dead. Also a lot of the population of Gaza is very young, they can't be considered guilty of anything.
Lastly people in Gaza are only concerned with surviving right now, supporting Hamas won't be on their radar when they are fighting for food.
Now that is fanciful in the extreme isn't it.
For what purpose are they working so hard to develop their nuclear weapons capability.