The only winner in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (7)
sorted by:
When has a surprise attack on the homeland ever been a negative for the current regime?
Well, if the government is properly unprepared to the point that they lose the war, then it's pretty bad. Normally, then the entire government collapses.
A surprise attack might help initially, but you've basically risked the entire government on the assumption that you will win, or won't make yourself look stupid.
The rulers of Syria and Iraq changed hands after the Six Day War for example. The Greek Militarist coup was unseated by the failure to defend against the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The Argentinians failed to defend "Las Malvinas" once the British showed up, and their poor performance led to the collapse of their government as well.
It's a bit of a gamble, honestly.
And to be clear. The Political Left aren't just going to forget that the Israeli right could benefit from this. The Left never simply stops attacking. And hitting the judiciary the way Netanyahu did was and unforgivable crime that did real damage to their power structure.
Churchill won his war and was still deposed.
I wonder if this will come back to haunt Bibi.
I'm not confident that "Bibi" (seems way too affectionate) actually strengthened Hamas, so much as tried to keep them divided from the PLO.
Seems far more likely to me that the Biden Regime, and the flood of American dollars and weapons into the black market have made this far more likely than anything Israel did.
Netanyahu supporting Hamas is inline with Israel's history of supporting it.
“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, told the Wall Street Journal in 2009.
Raccoon: "Help! The hares and rabbits are fighting again! What are we gonna do about it?"
Wolves & fox: " ... We're having hasenpfeffer ..."
...Reuters? Well yeah, the journos always win when death's involved, they're modern-day vultures, but-
Oooh, you meant the person in the article. That makes sense too.