Please explain the Middle East crisis

[Captain_Amazing]

@Sevastopol

Makes for an interesting sort of alliance doesn’t it? When exactly has Israel contributed troops to a US war or cause?

By intelligence support I assume you mean: “Keeping quiet so as not to be a wet blanket.”

Are there still no takers on the challenge to list the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate? Perhaps I’ve underestimated my own powers of creation.

By intelligence support, I mean intelligence prewar on Iraqi communications, monitoring Iraqi communications, and infiltration of and monitoring insurgent groups. You know, intelligence support.

Here are the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate:

1. Loss of a market for both civilian and millitary goods
2. Loss of a listening post in the Middle East
3. Loss of naval basing and repair facilities at Haifa
4. Loss of prestige internationally as a result of betraying an ally
5. Loss of domestic support, for the same reason and also because Israel is well thought of in the US
6. Further Middle East instability as Israel, now without a major ally, takes a more aggressive foreign policy stance
7. A setback in US foreign policy, which is to encourage and support liberal democracies.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Least Original User Name Ever

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html we are all terrorists according to US code.

Not according to the section of US code you cited, at least.

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

6. Further Middle East instability as Israel, now without a major ally, takes a more aggressive foreign policy stance

How could Israel possibly take a more aggressive foreign policy stance?!

(N.B.: The disposition of the OT’s is not “foreign policy” strictly speaking.)

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

The pro Israelies reject any and all discussion that questions their motives or actions. Even the implication that the region is less secure is summarily rejected. How is this a discussion. I feel about Israel like I feel about gun ownership. If it hadnt been alowed to happen the world would have been safer. But it is too late to change that. Although some Arab nations disagree. The guns are there and Israel is there. I believe it is way past time to hold mideast discussions. They should include all the mideast but not US or Europe Or Russia and china. They must define on the international level their grievances and aims.
The UN is too political and would insert world opinion,which could lead discussion astray.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

Heres an addendum. I believe that Israels response has been way overboard. They are making everybody less safe. Most nations are seeking Abombs. Im time they will get them. I dont think it can be stopped. I suspect that in blind hatred and somekind of perverted idea of justice they will be used. It could be the distruction of us all. Every little imagined affront that is responded to in force puts us that much closer. Every skirmish makes the end closer. I take almost no military action as just.The cost is too great. Peace can only be gotten at the table facing each other. Til then,every action is serrious and a threat to us all.
When I was a kid and told my dad my brother did it. He said we are talking about you. That is another matter. When nations say they did it first, i wonder if we will ever grow up and accept our responsibilities for what we do. Nobody forced Israel to bomb Lebanon. They chose to. There were other options. I do not tyhink it was wise. This is my totally uninformed opinion. My crime is I am a peacenik and try to find peaceful solutions. They almost always exist.

[Jackmannii]

@Sevastopol

I completely agree with the subsidy to the US arms industry. OTOH the US has plenty of reliable allies in the region, so I can’t give you that one.

And speaking of “reliable allies” (and arms sales), the U.S. has announced plans that would reward those nations. And to add a little perspective on arms sales to Mideast governments, here’s an interesting report. You’ll note that Israel ranks third among nations in the region in purchases of arms and allied equipment and services from the United States.

@Sevastopol

But most of all you are correct to repudiate Jackmannii’s wishy-washy stuff.

Your sarcasm detector is on the fritz, I see.

[Sam_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

How could Israel possibly take a more aggressive foreign policy stance?!

Are you kidding? You’re aware that Israel is only using a very tiny part of its military force against Lebanon, right? I know the media doesn’t portray it as such, but Israel has actually been very surgical in its bombings.

You want to see what open warfare in the Middle East looks like? Go study the Iran/Iraq war. If Israel wanted, it could simply pummel Lebanon back into the stone age, killing hundreds of thousands.

Israel could react to violence in Gaza the way Kuwait dealt with Palestinians - round up hundreds of thousands of them, and simply kick them out of the country. Or it could deal with them the way some Arab countries have dealt with their insurrectionist populations - Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds to quiet them down. He destroyed the entire Marsh Arab culture.

Israel could respond to terrorist bombings by rounding up and executing the terrorist’s entire extended family and friends. That’s also a favorite trick of dictators.

Israel could respond to attacks from Hezbollah by firing missiles at Iran or Syria. Nukes, if it had to.

Israel could send out assassination squads to start picking off leaders of countries antagonistic to them.

Israel could decide to simply annex southern Lebanon, expel the indigenous people, and move in settlers.

Israel could ethnically cleanse every Palestinian from its country and annex Gaza and the West Bank.

Israel hasn’t done these things because A) unlike Iran and Syria, it’s a civilized nation that really wants peace and doesn’t want to kill people it doesn’t have to, and B) because with the U.S. at its back, its very existence is not currently threatened.

Take away the U.S., make Israel’s situation more precarious, give the Arabs around it a little more reason to be aggressive, and suddenly you have a fight for Israel’s very existence. And under those circumstances, Israel will use every tool it has at its disposal to survive - including the 100 to 200 nuclear weapons it is reputed to have. Any country would do the same if faced with annihilation.

[jimmmy]

@Sevastopol

Makes for an interesting sort of alliance doesn’t it? When exactly has Israel contributed troops to a US war or cause?

Israel absorbed the Scuds that Saddam fired at them during the First Gulf War. They did not retaliate or respond – which I think we can all agree, is a very un-Israeli thing to do. They did this at the behest of Bush I and realized like Saddam that their involvement would splinter the international alliance.

Imagine any country - say the U.S. - getting hit by 39 Missiles (some hit Tel Aviv) and not responding to serve a greater international good.

---

I would make the point that I think that Hezbollah and the current conflict is best viewed as a piece of the Israeli-Iranian conflict. Yes it is born of the history of the PLO and the troubles of the Palestinians (& is why Israel entered Lebanon in 1982 and satred the dominoes falling) … but the current events and the Iranian arming and support of Hezbollah has everything to do with Iranian Shiite Revolutionary Radicalism & much less to actually due with Al Queda-stlye Islamicism or Palestinian aspirations.

[Sevastopol]

@Captain Amazing

By intelligence support, I mean intelligence prewar on Iraqi communications, monitoring Iraqi communications, and infiltration of and monitoring insurgent groups. You know, intelligence support.

Goodo.

@Captain Amazing

Here are the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate:

1. Loss of a market for both civilian and millitary goods
2. Loss of a listening post in the Middle East
3. Loss of naval basing and repair facilities at Haifa
4. Loss of prestige internationally as a result of betraying an ally
5. Loss of domestic support, for the same reason and also because Israel is well thought of in the US
6. Further Middle East instability as Israel, now without a major ally, takes a more aggressive foreign policy stance
7. A setback in US foreign policy, which is to encourage and support liberal democracies.

1. No
2. So what
3. So what
4. Gain in prestige internationally for grasping the nettle.
5. Not a loss to the US
6. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - how could Israel be agressive without the US alliance?
7. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - foreign policy is the means not an end.

[Sevastopol]

@jimmmy

Israel absorbed the Scuds that Saddam fired at them during the First Gulf War. They did not retaliate or respond – which I think we can all agree, is a very un-Israeli thing to do. They did this at the behest of Bush I and realized like Saddam that their involvement would splinter the international alliance.

Imagine any country - say the U.S. - getting hit by 39 Missiles (some hit Tel Aviv) and not responding to serve a greater international good.

. To his/her credit Captain Amazing answered a question directly. I happen to think not well, but directly. Learn from good example.

It appears 'No" is the answer to my question. Which is a surprise. I expected lovers of military history to innundate replies of Vietnam/Kosovo/Grenada/&etc. Not “no, never” How odd. What are the two things we hear about Israel?:

• The close alliance with the US; and
• The superb training/skill &etc of Israeli armed forces.

Those 2 in combination raise an obvious question. Yet, “No”? How odd.

[Shodan]

@Sevastopol

Goodo.

1. No
2. So what
3. So what
4. Gain in prestige internationally for grasping the nettle.
5. Not a loss to the US
6. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - how could Israel be agressive without the US alliance?
7. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - foreign policy is the means not an end.

Cite, please. Your mere assertion is less than worthless.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

@Sevastopol

1. No
2. So what
3. So what
4. Gain in prestige internationally for grasping the nettle.
5. Not a loss to the US
6. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - how could Israel be agressive without the US alliance?
7. Doubtful. Not a loss to the US - foreign policy is the means not an end.

@Sevastopol

To his/her credit Captain Amazing answered a question directly. I happen to think not well, but directly. Learn from good example.

To his/her credits, Jimmy and Captain Amazing actually gave full sentence responses instead of a bullshit monosylabic bullet list. I especially found the ‘so what’ responses informative. :dubious: ‘Learn from the good example’.

-XT

[Sevastopol]

@xtisme

To his/her credits, Jimmy and Captain Amazing actually **gave full sentence responses **instead of a bullshit monosylabic bullet list. …

(my emphases)

@Captain Amazing

Here are the losses to the US should its relationship with Israel terminate:

1. Loss of a market for both civilian and millitary goods
2. …

These are a full sentences?

…Gain in prestige internationally for grasping the nettle…

These words are monosylabic (sic)?

Ahem. My rejoinder to CA has as much backing as the assertions themselves. Make of them what you will. Inquire further. Discuss. Quarrel; I will back thee.

[WindFish]

@Sevastopol

Makes for an interesting sort of alliance doesn’t it? When exactly has Israel contributed troops to a US war or cause?

I would argue that the Israeli strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 benefitted the U.S. since it (1) set back Saddam’s nuclear weapons program and (2) did not risk U.S. entanglement in the region.

The recent events of the 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath may clarify what a mess the U.S. could wade into otherwise.

[monavis]

I am far from an expert on the Mid east situation but from what I have read and heard it seems to me the majority of Jews and Arabs would like a peaceful settlement,but a few radicals from both sides have the intention of not letting such a thing happen.

To me, Hezbollah and the radical Iranian leader are of the same mind as the Nazi’s there only purpose is to get rid of the Jewish people. Hezbollah had no reason to capture the Soldiers except to inflame the Israeli’s( being that they are a puppet of Iran).

It was the radical Party of Sharon who were responsible for the death of Rabin. Now learned to be a big mistake. It was the closest ever to having peace.

Now Israel feels it is fighting for it’s very existence,because of the radical statements of the Iranian leader.

Monavis

[monavis]

I am far from an expert on the Mid east situation but from what I have read and heard it seems to me the majority of Jews and Arabs would like a peaceful settlement,but a few radicals from both sides have the intention of not letting such a thing happen.

To me, Hezbollah and the radical Iranian leader are of the same mind as the Nazi’s there only purpose is to get rid of the Jewish people. Hezbollah had no reason to capture the Soldiers except to inflame the Israeli’s( being that they are a puppet of Iran).

It was the radical Party of Sharon who were responsible for the death of Rabin. Now learned to be a big mistake. It was the closest ever to having peace.

Now Israel feels it is fighting for it’s very existence,because of the radical statements of the Iranian leader.

Monavis

[Jackmannii]

@Sevastopol

These words are monosylabic (sic)?

“No”, in addition to being monosyllabic, is a childish expression of denial, pointedly expressing your contempt for facts.

@Sevastopol

Ahem. My rejoinder to CA has as much backing as the assertions themselves.

It’s already been demonstrated just a few posts back via specific cite that Israel (as well as numerous Arab nations) provides a market for U.S. military goods, as was stated by Captain Amazing. Your rejoinder is therefore ludicrous.

@Sevastopol

These are a full sentences?

No, (but to paraphrase you) they at least are a grammatical.

[XT]

@Jackmannii

“No”, in addition to being monosyllabic, is a childish expression of denial, pointedly expressing your contempt for facts.

Well, I did miss that second ‘l’ in monosyllabic so he MUST be right in his assertions (this of course leaves off the well known fact that I cna’t splle four shiht)…

-XT

[Sevastopol]

So xtisme’s persuaded of the foolishness of making criticisms about writing style, and in such a few posts.

J’ii you’ll note my earlier post where I agree with N’Special about the market for American arms. I’m interested to see if you believe that the special relationship terminating would cause Israel to cease purchasing US armaments.

[Jackmannii]

I still haven’t seen any cites to back up your “responses”. Contribute some and there can be a further discussion.

As it is, I have no interest in doing much in the way of further research so that you can come back with “No” and “So what”.

One piece of reading for you - Jay Nash’s compendium “Spies” discusses the historical role of Mossad (the Israeli spy agency) in briefing both American and European governments about Arab terrorists entering their countries. So much information was imparted to the French at one point that they complained about not having enough agents to track all the suspects on their soil.