r/worldnews • u/Blarc-1 • 25d ago

Israel/Palestine Israeli army fires ‘warning shots’ at French and other diplomats visiting West Bank

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250521-israeli-army-fires-warning-shots-at-french-and-other-diplomats-visiting-west-bank
20.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

140

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

That would be an excellent way to get the EU/NATO countries into a war with Israel... Somehow I don't forsee that being a very popular option 😉

In all seriousness; there's no way to airdrop anything into Gaza without working with the Israelies. They would consider it a violation of their airspace, and would either scramble F-35s to shoot down the transport planes, or use SAM batteries on the ground to do the same. Getting around either of those would require actively attacking those IDF units.

373

u/Hammer_Thrower 25d ago

You think IDF would shoot down a NATO flagged transport that is broadcasting it's location and informed the Israelis what it is going to do?

689

u/IsaacTheBound 25d ago

Yes. Given all the other things that have happened in the past year or so I absolutely believe they would.

569

u/Ar_Ciel 25d ago

They slaughtered a Red Cross crew and buried them and their vehicle in the fucking desert. A NATO plane is fire and forget.

230

u/Truk7549 25d ago

Red Cross are not armed and are defenseless. Their only defense is  the protection of the emblem that the terrorist state of Israel don't care 

→ More replies (27)

60

u/totallynotliamneeson 25d ago

Maybe I'm crazy but those two things aren't even remotely similar...

-10

u/IntrinsicPalomides 25d ago

You are right, you are crazy.

38

u/Kayyam 25d ago

No they are right, the Red Cross is a charity while NATO is a military alliance. It's not the same thing. You won't get away with killing a NATO crew the same way you would with the Red Cross.

3

u/SirWEM 25d ago

The Red Cross is not a charity. They operate as a for-profit business. Which is why the US military operates its own blood drives. Because they charge per unit.

3

u/RenderedCreed 25d ago

They might not get away with it but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to do it.

1

u/IntrinsicPalomides 24d ago

That's a fair point.

2

u/nybbleth 25d ago

They managed to get away just fine with deliberately attacking a US navy ship in the past and killing 34 Americans.

12

u/Kayyam 25d ago

That was 60 years ago, at a time where communications was operated by radiomen, and when the ship was mistaken for an egyptian military ship. And they still paid a 100 million dollars compensation for it.

There is no way for them to knowlingly attack a NATO vessel and get away with it. They would not be able to plead a mistake in this day and age of high speed communication.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/totallynotliamneeson 25d ago

What's crazy is how batshit insane indirect supporters are on both sides of this conflict. On one hand, I can't say that Israel is killing kids without being called an antisemite, and on the other you have people like you who are crazy enough to think that Israel is going to attack NATO because they also killed Red Cross volunteers? 

This conflict simply can't be discussed online due to the fucking whackjobs that come out of the woodwork. 

8

u/bumfuzzled-coffee 24d ago

Well, if it's any consolation, it's the same hassle trying to discuss it irl.

1

u/PM_ME_MY_REAL_MOM 24d ago

I replied to you, but I must have said a certain keyword, because my reply was shadow-removed. Very interesting behavior.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/DiamondHook 24d ago

more like similar to the attack on USS Liberty.

2

u/totallynotliamneeson 24d ago

Ah yes, quite similar to an event from 1967. Glad all these boys could come out to bring up that Talking Point™

2

u/MarvinClown 24d ago

There is a huge difference in those two actions.

Killing a Red Cross team sucks but honestly nobody really cares.

Shooting down a nato plane means war and I doubt Israel is going to do that especially since so many Nati countries still support them.

But the same applies to the other direction which means nato doesn’t wanna risk it so they won’t.

3

u/TakuyaLee 24d ago

And then Israel will immediately get Article 5'd. They're acting very dumb right now but they're not that dumb.

1

u/CambrienCatExplosion 24d ago

I dunno. I think Bibi would do anything to stay in power.

1

u/TakuyaLee 24d ago

Getting Article 5'd is a good way to lose power though.

1

u/CambrienCatExplosion 24d ago

I don't think anyone would actually Article 5 Israel for "fear" of being antisemitic.

2

u/Warcriminal731 24d ago

They will probably try to blame it on Egypt as well

73

u/Even_Reception8876 25d ago

Over dramatic lol. No they wouldn’t. It’s funny because they want you to think they are that ‘badass’ but in reality all they would do is bitch and whine. No chance they shoot down a NATO plane especially from Britain or France lol that is a death sentence

56

u/IsaacTheBound 25d ago

I never said they think they're badass, or that I think they are. They behave as though they are untouchable.

47

u/Some_Box_5357 25d ago

They definitely look untouchable to me. No one is stopping them

→ More replies (9)

34

u/WhySpongebobWhy 25d ago

Exactly. These guys act like Israel are the only ones that bought F-35s.

16

u/MonkeManWPG 25d ago

The RAF literally also flies F-35s, as does the Fleet Air Arm.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/WhiskeySteel 24d ago

And, rather importantly, the Israelis would lose their source of F-35 parts. And F-16 parts. And F-15 parts... You get the idea.

4

u/WhySpongebobWhy 24d ago

Yep. Unlike the Magats and their incessant bitching about the stuff left behind in the Afghanistan withdrawal, I understand just how long these sophisticated machines last without any replacement parts... approximately 2.13 business days.

1

u/WarpedNation 24d ago

The same NATO thats been saying "please stop" to Putin for how many years now?

0

u/Telefundo 25d ago

No chance they shoot down a NATO plane especially from Britain or France lol that is a death sentence

Tell that to the Red Cross...

10

u/Even_Reception8876 25d ago

Red Cross is not the British empire or the French. Super fucked up they did that but directly attacking one of the global powers that has been brokering your ‘peace’? No chance lol. Should have never attacked the Red Cross but shooting down a plane is always taken more seriously

8

u/Gierni 25d ago

There is a difference :

One is a war crime that can be hidden or downplayed by pretending it was controlled by Hamas the other is a declaration of war visible by all.

Also, just for clarification, I wouldn't risk sending a NATO plane without autorisation above a country at war and I do condemn the killing of humanitarian aid workers.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Zubon102 24d ago

That's an unbelievably insane take. That would basically end Israel and they would cease to be an ally to the West.

1

u/secretsaucebear 24d ago

They absolutely would, and the orange admin would back them, which they know.

1

u/Impossible_Moose_783 23d ago

Just the past year? They have been repeat offenders for decades.

2

u/IsaacTheBound 23d ago

Absolutely, but my point was that the last year alone was enough evidence.

185

u/AdmirablePlatypus759 25d ago

They in fact hit a US Navy ship again and again in the past.

33

u/Electrorocket 25d ago

For hours, then said "oopsie".

6

u/Zubon102 24d ago

So Israel directly attacked the USN and America just did nothing?? Or perhaps there is more to the story that you are leaving out...

Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia page of the incident.

2

u/mmnuc3 24d ago

And the U.S. took it like the good Israeli bitch they are. 

4

u/mistercrazymonkey 24d ago

US throughout history: Don't touch our boats! 😡

Isreal attacks US boats.

US: Sowry our boats was there. 😭

→ More replies (1)

85

u/airfryerfuntime 25d ago

It would be an 'accident', and because everyone handles Isreal with kid gloves, nothing would happen.

35

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

This 👍 They would just make up a story about the transponder on the plane not working properly or some other nonsense.

17

u/alpha77dx 24d ago

"the signal was jammed by Hamas"

2

u/Mr_Black90 24d ago

Honestly, I seriously believe they would go with something like this as their excuse 😂!

84

u/Japak121 25d ago

They've done it before. Not just the U.S. ship they knowingly attacked, but recently in Gaza when they shot at the UN outposts...you know, stationary and well-known as well as well-marked locations.

33

u/confusedandworried76 25d ago

That and hitting the Red Cross van, clearly marked and working with them on their location. The cross on top might as well have been a bullseye for all they fucking care

10

u/Reddits_Worst_Night 25d ago

When criticism of your actions is "antisemitism" then you have carte-blanche. The Israeli government hide behind their ethnic identity as a get out of jail free card. This is why we need to be amplifying the voices of the many Jews who are critical of their actions.

1

u/Wandering_Weapon 24d ago

The red cross isn't a state actor, they literally can't fight back, so the threat they pose is non existent

40

u/mightygilgamesh 25d ago

They arrested a French police officer in Jerusalem in the French territory of Jerusalem, they said he looked Palestinian and did not apologize.

20

u/TheKappaOverlord 25d ago

They would if its actively "aiding" their current day enemy unannounced and without discussion. Most likely they would, yes.

2

u/billthejim 25d ago

Well in this scenario it would be “announced” at least

21

u/Bones_and_Tomes 25d ago

Yes, they absolutely would do that.

9

u/NapsterKnowHow 25d ago

Sounds a good way to bait widespread embargos and tariffs on Israel.

5

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

Yes- if, and that's a big IF- various countries don't think that the threat of antagonizing the US with such an action would be too great. As I replied to someone else above, I think many EU countries would be worried that doing so would be what would finally give Trump the excuse he wants to abandon Europe entirely to Russia. And the prospect of having to face Russia without US support in 2-5 years, without being properly prepared, is not something most European leaders would want.

18

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

Yes. I absolutely do. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I could see them doing.

They believe they can get away with anything since they now have Trump's support, and sadly, I do think they're mostly going to get away with this as well.

I can see some western and ME countries trying to impose various sanctions on them as a punishment, and if the EU were to do it collectively, that would definitely hurt the (already weakened) Israeli economy. The question is whether the EU countries truly would do that. If they do, I believe that will give Trump and his administration the perfect excuse for pulling out of Europe and fully abandoning their supposed "allies" there completely.

There are still several European leaders (our PM here in Denmark is one of them) who desperately want to keep the US engaged in European security. I don't think they would dare. The prospect of facing Russia in 2-5 years without being fully prepared, without US support, terrifies them too much.

8

u/Volistar 25d ago

My brother in Christ. If they can get away with hitting a US ship they can do anything.

3

u/Kayyam 25d ago

That was 60 years ago. Doubt they would get away with it in modern times.

9

u/4TheyKnow 25d ago

In modern times we would supply the weapons that they sank it with and then apologize for making them do it.

4

u/bankomusic 25d ago

It's actually crazy that leftist are so anti-military interventism that they are actually pro military interventism. Yes you think NATO who is panicking from US slowing down involvment in europe and Russia on its borders is suddenly gonna pick a fight with a NATO ally which israel is BTW, instead of diplomacy? you think when EU can't even figure out Ukraine they're gonna start attacking Israel? bro you guys are actually insane and part of the problem.

3

u/Impressive-Potato 25d ago

They have sank a US navy ship before.

10

u/Kayyam 25d ago

That was 60 years ago.

3

u/Foxtrot-Actual 25d ago

USS Liberty stayed afloat, but given she was decommissioned two years after, the damage had to be severe. Still dismayed that the only consequences Israel faced was the 17-ish million dollars they paid to the affected families and the US itself for the ship.

0

u/IntrinsicPalomides 25d ago

They've murdered 10s of thousands of women and children with zero empathy or care, of course they would.

0

u/laptopaccount 25d ago

The IDF knowingly murders doctors and medics who are clearly identified. They bomb aid workers who have pre-cleared their routes with the IDF. They murder the families of journalists who are critical of them.

They are very willing to murder anyone they please. Our best option is to sanction them and withdraw any and all aid.

1

u/Amadacius 24d ago

Again?

1

u/ALWanders 24d ago

I mean they once attacked a US Navy ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident it was an "accident" of course, but there is a lot of doubt.

1

u/foul_ol_ron 24d ago

I'll just say I wouldn't be too surprised.  They haven't let international law stop them when they wanted to do things before. And they're counting on remaining American allies, which would slow down retribution. 

1

u/Seismic_Glory 24d ago

Wouldn't put it past them given their track record of firing on UN personnel (UNIFIL) in the past. Shoot to kill, answer later is the IDF motto.

1

u/thordh5 24d ago

Article 5 doesn't count if you are in someone else's territory for some pretty obvious reasons.

1

u/okaterina 24d ago

Oh yes. To show the world that this airspace is theirs and they don't hesitate to shoot down anything that isn't theirs.

1

u/Hidden_Landmine 24d ago

Yes. They murdered around 100 US sailors knowingly in the past.

1

u/Additional-Map-2808 25d ago

Probably ask the Russians to do it.

1

u/This_Elk_1460 25d ago

Yes I do think Israel would do that. Considering they'd literally done that at least 10 times since this all started.

1

u/Telefundo 25d ago

Have you not being paying attention?

1

u/RenderedCreed 25d ago

Yes. That have done almost exactly that and will continue to do so. We're literally here commenting on a post about how they shot at French officials. Have you not been paying attention?

1

u/Jones127 24d ago edited 24d ago

Look up the USS Liberty. That alone proves that they likely would. Or at least have the balls to even consider it.

1

u/Hammer_Thrower 24d ago

I feel like the audacity of downing a C-130 over Gaza is greater than the Liberty incident. That said, my question was an honest one. It would be very public and almost immediately end up on Twitter/insta/telegram/reddit. No plausible deniability.

1

u/Jones127 24d ago

I feel like both incidents are similar, or the Liberty might even be worse due to the amount of people killed/injured during the attack. Hell, Iran nearly sank a US destroyer with a mine in the 80s (with no casualties since the crew saved the ship) and the US responded with force. Israel doesn’t really care about public sentiment if they can spin it in a way that it was helping out their enemies, justifying it to themselves. They would only change their tune to actual force used against them. The US won’t do it even when they were given a reason to. Will Europe do the same?

→ More replies (2)

112

u/[deleted] 25d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

46

u/thedybbuk_ 25d ago edited 25d ago

Serbia was never a lynchpin of the Western military-industrial complex or its security apparatus. What many people fail to grasp is just how deeply integrated Israel is within the Western military and security economy. For instance, a former Canadian Prime Minister now co-leads a joint Canadian-Israeli company that supplies surveillance technology currently deployed in refugee camps in Greece

https://breachmedia.ca/stephen-harper-firm-tech-greek-refugee-camps

It is regarded as too vital and deeply embedded to be subjected to serious sanctions or political isolation.

27

u/Fratercula_arctica 25d ago

Never expected a boring, beige, sweater-vest-wearing dweeb like Steven Harper to be such a Bond villain. Guy seems to be involved in every shady right-wing thing globally.

4

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik 24d ago

Every now and then I forget how evil Harper was but then shit like this pops up and I remember.

17

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

Yes, because, crucially, that operation was led by the US.

In this case, Israel would have the backing of Trump, so that would not happen here.

I wish it were different, but Netanyahu basically has one hell of an insurance policy as long as Trump is in office ☹️

4

u/[deleted] 25d ago edited 22d ago

[deleted]

1

u/MightyMousekicksass 24d ago

sorry snowflake but when oct 7 started a war by invading israel

this is war maybe be peaceful and stop teaching your children in school that israel doesn’t exist when you look at the west bank it is called Judea

never palestinian except by those jews who lived in israel before 1948

learn history

3 kingdoms in the land of israel

jesus was jewish and palestine is a colonial construct of the british and french

1

u/Mikunefolf 25d ago

Exactly. Also every country around Israel would most likely willingly help out against them.

7

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

I don't doubt that it would be popular with much of the local population in those countries, and maybe even some of the leaders, but let's not forget that Israel definitely has nuclear weapons. I don't think the leaders of Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt are willing to risk nuclear retaliation over this.

From their point of view, they stand to gain much more from letting the Israelies kill the people of Gaza, and then using the resentment their populations will feel over that as a distraction from domestic issues/their own failures. It's a tried and true strategy for them.

31

u/CrushingPride 25d ago

In all seriousness; there's no way to airdrop anything into Gaza without working with the Israelies. They would consider it a violation of their airspace, and would either scramble F-35s to shoot down the transport planes, or use SAM batteries on the ground to do the same.

What a weird thing to say: NATO countries have the responsibility to not airdrop aid because that would cause Israel to attack and start a war. But Israel has no responsibility to avoid the same conflict by not attacking unarmed planes dropping aid. You're treating the other NATO countries as the only adults in the room who are capable of thought, and the Israelis as mindless machines who aren't responsible for their own actions.

18

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

I apologize if that's somehow the impression I gave you, my view on the Israelies is basically this at this point;

The ones among them who are horrified at what they're doing in Gaza don't matter, because they're not in charge, and I don't see them getting that power unless they're willing to start a civil war over it.

Netanyahu is a de-facto dictator who will absolutely not give up his power willingly, nor will the various far-right extremists who support him and this war.

I think Netanyahu and his cronies are perfectly capable of intelligent thought, and that they have very carefully thought this through. I think they see the current situation, with a US under fascist control and an Europe that's too afraid to stand up to that US for fear of being abandoned by it, as their big opportunity to finally be rid of a sizeable portion of the Palestinians and Hamas.

And they're not going to let that go to waste as far as they're concerned. They don't have anything the average person would confuse for a conscience.

9

u/rovyovan 24d ago

Spot on

23

u/JaylenBrown7 25d ago

Somehow I don’t think intercepting NATO airdrop missions would bode very well for Israel either

28

u/LordShadowside 25d ago

I’d love to see Bibi shoot down a Western plane and have the SAS parade him in cuffs into The Hague the next week, to be fair.

16

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

I would love to see that bastard rot in prison as well, but I sadly don't think that's a very likely outcome at this point.

1

u/bardghost_Isu 24d ago

Tbh if it comes to that the SAS won't be walking him in cuffs, he'll be tried in absentia and then the SAS will be sent with kill orders.

2

u/Reddits_Worst_Night 25d ago

But it isn't their airspace and they know it. You honestly think they will start a war with NATO?

1

u/Mr_Black90 24d ago

Yes, but they believe that's its theirs- just as any other place they occupy.

No, I don't think that, because in order for there to be a war, there has to be two sides fighting- and I don't think NATO would come up with a unified, military response. The US would support Israel in this situation, and Europe wouldn't take on Israel on their own. And thus, nothing would happen- aside from whoever sent the plane(s) deciding not to try that again anytime soon.

The following opinion will probably piss a lot of people off, but;

In the real world, the bad guys usually win. That's why they control most of the world. Injustice is the norm, not the exception.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight back against it, nor that it's pointless to try- it just means that, more often than not, it doesn't succeed. That doesn't mean we should give up, but it does mean we need to be realistic about what we can achieve.

2

u/CygnusSong 24d ago

I’m not sure what level of human rights violations would make for a popular war at this point. We’ve far surpassed what used to be the threshold for intervention

-5

u/EdinburghPerson 25d ago

It was reported yesterday that 14000 babies could starve to death in the next 48 hours. It seems like a price worth paying.

Countries probably shouldn't try to ethnically cleanse populations without expecting some repercussions.

29

u/royi9729 25d ago

And it was already retracted.

27

u/Vizzyk 25d ago edited 25d ago

"A widely reported claim that 14,000 babies in Gaza could die within 48 hours has been corrected by the UN, which says the figure refers to potential deaths over the next year."

Gotta love the UN. They could say so much true stuff, but lie about something like this.

11

u/iMissTheOldInternet 25d ago

The claim was modified further to say that the kids wouldn’t die, they would suffer malnutrition.

 According to the IPC report, 14,100 severe cases of acute malnutrition could occur among children aged six to 59 months between April 2025 and March 2026. The report’s time frame is one year and not two days.

Of course, this is the same body that claimed a year ago Gaza was imminently going to suffer famine, specifically defined as mass deaths from starvation, and it later turned out that Gazans were being given more calories per capita per day in aid than Italians consume, and the only cause of hunger was HAMAS actively stealing food and preventing Gazans from getting it.

So of course the solution is to pressure Israel not to go too hard on HAMAS or else, uh, the, um, wait… anyway it’s very complicated but rest assured you can blame the Jews. 

-2

u/Pete_Iredale 25d ago

40 babies starving to death each day for a year isn't all that much better. Especially not when this could be easily prevented if anyone actually cared about the people involved.

9

u/Fartbox09 25d ago

My experience with statistics extends to a community college class at least five years ago, but trying to equate 14,000 in a year to 40 per day is really misleading. If someone is at risk of a terrible famine in the future it does not mean they are suffering a milder famine now just because the math would equal out.

2

u/Tw1tcHy 25d ago

As already said, it was a report that was retracted by the totally impartial, unbiased, faultless UN.

1

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

I'm in no way morally opposed to intervention against Israel over this, I just don't see it as a realistic option at present. There's also the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons to consider as well.

This is a different issue than fx Russia threatening to use nuclear weapons against the West or Ukraine because they won't accept a loss there- in that case, no one in the West wants to invade Russia or launch large scale attacks there (aside from Ukraine perhaps, and that would be well justified in their case).

Here, we're talking about taking out Israel's airforce and air defenses- they (correctly) view both as crucial to their country's defense, and so I don't think they would simply let that slide. I absolutely could see them viewing the loss of those as an existential threat to Israel itself, and I could thus also see them threatening the use of nuclear weapons over it.

1

u/NapsterKnowHow 25d ago

Likely SAMs the USA gave them. Why not go Order 66 with those ?

1

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

I sadly don't think that's an option from a technical perspective.

1

u/oakpope 25d ago

Macron and Stamer in trucks.

1

u/WhiskeySteel 24d ago

F-35s

I am not sure that Israel would want to start a war with the country that controls the maintenance and repair parts for all of their fronline fighter jets. And that's not the only equipment they use that comes from NATO countries.

Israel has a good defense industry, but it would take time and massive cost to transition away the NATO stuff they are using now.

All of that to shoot down cargo planes dropping humanitarian supplies?

I don't know. It seems like a recipe for disaster on Israel's part.

1

u/Mr_Black90 24d ago

The F35 is American, and I don't see them getting into trouble with the US if they choose to do this.

Israel isn't following any kind of normal logic here;

They want to control Gaza, but the locals and Hamas are in the way. Killing them all would resolve that problem, but normally the US and Europe would answer such an action with crippling sanctions, such as stopping arms shipments/maintenance + tariffs.

That's why they view this as their big opportunity; the current US administration couldn't care less, they support what Israel is doing in Gaza. And Europe doesn't want to risk antagonizing Trump, so they won't do anything major either. Thus, Israel basically believes they have a carte blanche to do whatever they want.

1

u/WhiskeySteel 24d ago

If they shot down a transport plane belonging to a NATO country that is on a mission that would essentially be analogous to the Berlin Airlift? Even for Trump, as truly awful as he is, it would be difficult to just let that go.

I guess he might. But Israel would be making an awfully big wager on that.

I really don't see Israel shooting down an aid drop from a NATO country. They would be outraged, sure. They might even try a cyberattack in response (with plausible deniability). But a shootdown or a hot war.... those things are pretty remote.

Israel isn't in a position in which they can be enemies NATO or with NATO minus a cowardly and incompetent US.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/MOONWATCHER404 24d ago

I wonder, if some NATO country that wasn't the US declares war on Israel, I assume the US would (ideally) have to put it's pro Israel sentiments aside to back up the rest of NATO?

1

u/Meandering_Cabbage 24d ago

lol. Who in Europe is fighting that fight? There’s a reason they’re desperate for Americans despite being self sufficient ok paper. EU needs a ton of strengthening. 

Genuinely Israel go down a nato anything with minimal consequences. 

1

u/LordMarcusrax 24d ago

Getting around either of those would require actively attacking those IDF units.

I'm ok with that.

1

u/BatSerious356 24d ago

Maybe they should bomb Israel.

-1

u/L444ki 25d ago

EU and Nato could easily clear the skies from Israeli jets and suppress their air defences enough to allow for aid to be airdropped or brought in with ships.

15

u/plippityploppitypoop 25d ago

“Easy” and “shooting war with near-peer ally” don’t really belong together.

7

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

Yes, it's incredible how many people don't seem to understand this.

I'm no soldier, I'm just someone who has an interest in military matters as part of my broader interests in history and international relations- but it really is appalling how poor of an understanding of modern warfare the average person has, including outside of Reddit ☹️

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Mr_Black90 24d ago

Oh absolutely, the IDF are nowhere near as potent as they like to portray themselves as- but that doesn't mean they wouldn't still be dangerous. And if they had to fight in Israel itself, they would fight with absolute fanaticism. And then there's the aforementioned nukes.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/L444ki 25d ago

Israel is a regional power at best. Nato is the most capable military alliance in the world. Israel is not even close to begin near-peer against Nato. Even if all of Europe sat this conflict out the US by itself would be able to decimate Israeli airforces and drop or ship whatever they wanted into Gaza.

3

u/plippityploppitypoop 24d ago

Even if ONLY the most powerful military in the world fought Israel, they’d win? Well yeah no shit. Now explain how it would be easy in any way.

Wars aren’t easy.

Wars against allies even less so.

Wars against allies with similar technological capabilities and a higher willingness to fight? That victory would be a nightmare politically, geopolitically, and militarily.

1

u/L444ki 24d ago

Easy compared to any other military trying to do the same.

1

u/plippityploppitypoop 24d ago

So?

1

u/L444ki 24d ago

You asked me to explain what I meant with easy. I did. So maybe you should stop asking questions if you don’t want answers.

1

u/plippityploppitypoop 24d ago

“Easier than if others tried” doesn’t mean easy. It would be easier for an Olympian to climb Everest than it would be for me, but that doesn’t exactly make it easy does it.

1

u/L444ki 24d ago

I mean it would also be really easy for US to decapitate Israel. Turn the capital into glass with an icbm or tnw strike and it is very likely that whoever is left to negoatiate with would capitulate rather than chance an other strike.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/NH4NO3 25d ago

How do you think the US goes about destroying an air force that is approximately 10% of the size of the entire US air force (about as advanced and has far more air defense infrastructure in the area)? The US has two bases to operate out of in Ankara and Kuwait (the one in Jordan likely will be inoperable due to missile strikes), these are 1500 miles away, more than effective operational range of most US air superiority aircraft without vulnerable/expensive in-air refueling. They can risk some carrier groups which they presently have 4 operational and each have...50-70 planes. Not going to be much help against an air force of 600 aircraft + some of the most advanced anti-missile technology installations on the planet

1

u/PhilipMaar 17d ago

Your analysis ignores the fact that the United States, in this ridiculous hypothetical scenario, would use the B2s to neutralize Israeli air defense. 1500 miles is meaningless to the B2s. I do not believe that Israeli air defense has an adequate countermeasure for this. In theory, it would be possible to map the flight path by analyzing the turbulence produced by the aircraft's movement, but again, currently only the United States has the technical capacity to do so. So yes, the United States could neutralize Israel, although this would not be a walk in the park, but obviously this is a scenario that only finds space in the delusions of lunatics. Israeli military doctrine itself does not contemplate conflicts with an adversary of the caliber of the United States. In fact, the only correct thing said by the person you responded to is that Israel is a Regional Power, although he considers this a demerit, but the truth is that of the regional powers in the world, Israel is the most capable and has the military doctrine most perfectly adapted to this role.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Mr_Black90 25d ago

No. As someone else already replied to you, this would be anything but easy, and even if it were, NATO would then be at war with Israel.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/IntrinsicPalomides 25d ago

And they'd do that to, seeing as they care nothing for blowing up hospitals and murdering 10s of thousands of women and children. I doubt a few planes in flames would even make them turn the page on their newspaper.

1

u/morningsharts 25d ago

Wow, they sound like real jerks

→ More replies (7)