And do you really think our current unquestioning support of Israel will achieve that end?
Seems more likely to me that it will inflame passions against the US and US-friendly governments like Saudi Arabia and thereby further de-stabilize the Middle East.
spoke-, what part of “This may mean pressuring Israel some too - in the name of both friendship and of American best interests” did you read as “unquestioning support”?
I saw that remark, but our politicians aren’t doing that. They are frmly fixing themselves on Israel’s side-- contrary to the wishes of 70% of the electorate, as noted above.
Complete horseshit. Rather like saying that the collapse of Japan would effect the US no more than if Outer Mongolia went tits up, from a strategic perspective.
-XT
Well let’s start with the question you asked: “What do we gain from our financial and military support of Israel”? I assume from your response that you acknowledge that the goals mentioned in my post are indeed in America’s best interests and would be served by support as I’ve defined it.
There are separate questions that can follow:
To what degree is our support of Israel beyond that as so defined?
In what way should it be changed?
Now I readily admit to my biases. I am a strong supporter of Israel, of Israel’s desire to live with some security from attacks, be they from state or non-state actors, and of Israel’s need to defend itself.
But I can still see that both Israel’s and America’s long term best interests would be served well by an American administration that pressured an Israeli administration harder to make some very politically uncomfortable decisions. The simple fact is that without such pressure no Israeli administration is not going to cave to the popular will against appearing weak. (Was that too many double negatives? Try it this way: No Israeli politician will get far or stay in power long without acting tough when attacked; US pressure would give them the political cover they need in a democracy.) Major concessions need to made to form some separate deal with the Fatah-led side of the fence while ignoring and isolating the Hamas-led side as much as possible. Isael needs to do better to appreciate that every dead civilian is a resource sought by Hamas and avoid giving them that resource as much as is possible, even if that allows the re-arming of Hamas. If Israeli leadership won’t do this without pressure then that pressure should be applied.
Here we can agree.
Why support Israel? Because tanks are rolling into Gaza, and tanks are kickass, particularly the Merkava MK4.
:ninja:
Tanks are for wusses. Real ninjas rely on stealth and a well-aimed shuriken.
Ha. That :ninja: was an attempt to emulate other websites that actually use a ninja emoticon to denote sarcasm, because (even though as a war buff the Merkava tank is indeed “kick ass”) the notion of Israeli tanks rolling into Gaza is “not so kickass”.
This situation is getting pretty scary.
If Israel fell into the ocean tomorrow, what would the negative strategic consequences be?
Speak for yourself pal. It’s no more than a pustule, if it died and dropped off nobody would notice.
We would have one less friendly nation in a region that is strategically vital to the US. We’d have one less ally in the event of a war (and an ally who would actually be helpful in a fight…not to disparage the abilities of most of our Euro buddies). We’d have one less trading partner. Granted, we don’t trade a lot, but we do trade. We’d have one less friendly nation (to US citizens) for tourism in the region. There would be one less democracy in the world…and there aren’t exactly a plethora of them about, especially in the ME.
Etc etc. Anyone who thinks Israel could just go away without any strategic impact on the US at all has either not been paying attention or has some kind of agenda. Such as…
:rolleyes: I’m sorry (well, ok…I’m not), but this pretty much says it all right there…and says it all in a way that makes it clear this poster isn’t exactly speaking from an unbiased perspective, to put it gently.
-XT
Looking at current events Iran would probably focus on the United states in Iraq. Currently it is fighting a proxy war with Israel through the Palestinians and a proxy war with the US through Iraq. Israel should take any traceable munitions from Hamas and return them to their rightful owners.
Beyond those already mentioned it must be noted that waving a magical wand and having made Israel never having been (read Chabon’s Yiddish Policeman’s Union if you want one fantasy alt-universe of that) or making it just go poof into the sea are not realistic ways for Israel to become no more. There would be a process involved. A very disruptive violent region-wide process before Israel could be adequately cleansed.
But play out the fantasy drop into the sea: the forces that are aligned to keep the conflict roiling would still need their boogeyman - indeed without Israel they’d focus on keeping America in conflict in the region by whatever goading was needed. The Palestinians would remain in sqallor. Somehow that would be America’s fault.
Lots of well preserved floating corpses?
(Due to the salt content…)
If Israel disappeared, Iran would have hegemony over the region, which is not the scenario our erstwhile so-called allies (that sell us vast oceans of oil) like Saudi Arabia would want, nor would we.
To me, the crux of the problem with the USA is its simultaneous propping up of economies of countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. How does the rest of the ME view that conundrum?
Probably like the hypocrisy that it is. We cannot serve two masters forever.
How many troops has Israel provided for either the War in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Please…I know you are a smart poster and you know this is a pretty disingenuous question to ask. However, for the peanut gallery I’ll answer…they have provided exactly as many as we have ASKED them too. Just like in the first Gulf War.
But you knew that, didn’t you? And I’ll go out on a limb here and say, you know exactly why that is, too, ehe? And it’s not because of some supposed lack of support by Israel to the US…no?
-XT
They can’t because of the political aspect of it. No Islamic government would cooperate with Israeli troops.
That is a big problem for the theory of “Israel as ally.” Unlike just about any other ally, Israel really can’t supply troops or even staging areas, bases, etc. for any U.S. action, at least any U.S. action against Muslim countries/peoples, because it would confirm what the Muslims have been spouting all along, that the Americans were really just fighting proxy wars for the Israelis (and, because it would guarantee that any basing rights elsewhere in the region would be revoked). So Israel “has to” stand on the sidelines, whistling innocently, while America fights wars that certainly further Israel’s interests by diminishing hostile Muslim states (and unfortunately, sometimes, emboldening other hostile Muslim states). Sometimes the U.S. gets hit with a double whammy when Israel then claims markers for its “restraint” in not joining in.
I don’t see a problem per se with the U.S. allying with (i.e., sponsoring) Israel at a particular time – though there are certainly arguments for and against.
The problem with U.S. policy is that every party and politician and Administration takes the position, and uses language suggesting, that alliance with Israel is to be perpetual, total, and never to be revisited. See for instance Obama’s statement to AIPAC that U.S. support for Israel is “unshakeable” and his noting that “support for Israel goes beyond party in this country.” Obama at AIPAC – Mother Jones Well why should the parties agree, on this one issue only, that they can’t and won’t ever differ? Is it so unthinkable that something about Israel, or its neighbors, or the region, or its relationship with/actions toward the U.S. could change in a way that would affect the “value” of the “alliance?”
How can any alliance be prospectively deemed permanent? History shows us no examples of this. The current top ally of the U.S. is the U.K., with whom it fought two wars not all that long ago. The EU consists of member states who managed to kill some tens of millions of each other within recent memory. Iraq was a sponsee of the U.S. well into the '80s, a bitter enemy thereafter, and now supposedly a friend.
This isn’t just a problem of the U.S. locking itself into a vaguely groupthink denial that it could ever under any circumstances do anything other than totally support and subsidize Israel. Taking this position also changes the very dynamic between the U.S. and Israel by denying even the possibility that the U.S. would ever distance itself from Israel. People written a blank check don’t always take that as an incentive to be on their best behavior, and telling your junior partner that you’re going to support him no matter what tends to rob you of leverage, if we are assuming (as I do) that all alliances among sovereign nations are and need to be somewhat in the nature of an arms length ongoing negotiation in which each party keeps at least some cards close to his chest.