Thanks for the compliment, but it was a sincere, not a snarky, question. And I didn’t really get a good answer from you, unfortunately. Care to try again?
I don’t understand the statement that the United States props up the economy of Saudi Arabia? Oil is a global market commodity and it is purchased privately, not by a government. That statement implies the US government is buying the oil, and paying a premium for it.
I also don’t see why it’s a disingenious question to ask. Either Israel has our back when we go into war or it doesn’t. You seem to think that it does, xtisme. All I’m asking is if there’s evidence of this in our current engagements.
Since the answer to my question appears to be “none”, I’m left wondering what’s the point in propping up an ally who’s too weak to fight for us. Maybe this is a better question to ask?
As always it falls to the person making the positive statement to provide substance: Attempt made. Fails and instead shows the strategic irrelevance of Israel
- Tourism is not a strategic interest:
- Trade is negligible
- Israel has never supplied forces fighting as an ally of the US and never will. Merely because US forces serve to fight Israel’s wars does not imply a reciprocal arrangement. The claim that it is an ‘ally’ is just another of those things people say.
This is no more than speculation and unlikely to be true: That Iran has divided resources attention between Iraq and Israel. More accurately, its committment to Iraq is unproven and its attention to the anti-Israel forces is carefully measured and no strain upon it.
A good example of the weaseling which support for Israel must take. What isn’t adequately discussed is that deviousness has become a signature move by which such supporters recognise themselves and make an identity.
It appears disingenious for 2 reasons: it’s just common sense, and you ignored 2 posters who explained it to you.
It’s common knowledge that Muslims in the Mid-East aren’t fond of the state of Israel.
It’s speculation based on the President of Iran and parliamentary members chanting “death to America” or some variant thereof. This is not idle chat from a single politician but organized political thought. Iran does not want democracy in the region because it threatens to spread into it’s own country which currently has a lot of underground political dissent.
Even if America withdrew its support of Israel and the Arabs drove the Jews into the sea. Would the plight of the Palestinians improve? I think not, the Arab powers that be would take everything of value, destroy everything else. The Palestinians would be left with the desert that was there in 1900. This is not anti-Arab bigotry just human nature. Those with power take what they want and keep others from getting power. Else they become a threat. The only known counter to this is Democracy, and even this only sometimes works.
I really didn’t know Israel has never assisted us in war before. Why would this be common sensical? Especially to someone who has been told over and over that Israel is an ally we desparately need.
I haven’t ignored anyone. I just didn’t appreciate xtisme’s dismissal of my question.
As if it matters, I lean more towards Israel’s side than against it, if only because I think it’s a lost cause for the Palestinians to keep fighting. But I still don’t understand how Israel is so important strategically if they are essentially handicapped by the forces around them. If someone could explain it to me respectfully, without all the hostility, I’d appreciate it.
If you can’t be that person, Magiver, then just back off.
Not only do we buy more of their oil than anyone else (which severely impacts the global market), we send them similar foreign aid packages for defense and such as we do Israel, hence the confusion.
Again, we cannot forever serve two masters.
The point is Iran is not giving a lesser committment to enemies of Israel on account of its (unproven) actions in Iraq, and vice versa. Consequently your point is not correct: That without the diversion of Israel, Iran will show more opposition to the US.
Israel is not handicapped, they are just a weapon (ally) that works best alone. As in air strikes against Iraqi or Syrian nuke plants.
They are important strategically because if any Arab (or Perisan) state ever defeats them they will gain much power in the region. Power to unite the region into a superpower that does not have the best interest of the West at heart.
It was a question that was either based in profound ignorance of the region or was a disingenuous “gotchaya!” sort of gambit. If you really don’t know that Israel is not too ‘weak’ to exert military force, then you need to learn about the region before challenging statements about it. If you already knew that Israel is perfectly capable of projecting military force, then other posters are 100% correct and your act of ignoring the geopolitical reaction to IDF troops flying the Magen David in Kabul is… weird.
Israel could place troops at our disposal, but the threat has to justify the blowback. This was all over the news during the first Gulf War, and it’s weird that you’re unaware of it.
You could also google “Osirak” or “Israel bombs Syria” for other tidbits.
A cursory glance at google hits will clear up your ignorance on this topic. The simple fact of the matter is that Israel is not handicapped by the forces around it, but it cannot join into any coalition without significant political fallout.
Hell, even a cursory knowledge of the region would inform you that Israel participated in the effort to stabilize Lebanon during and after its civil war, and was working in loose concert with both French and American peacekeepers.
Israel’s strategic advantages to us include but are not limited to:
-access to a first rate intel service with contacts all over the ME
-friendly ports in a volatile region. The US Sixth Fleet has facilities in Haifa, for example.
-friendly air bases in a volatile region
-and despite silly denials by… people like Sevastopol, the technological and trade dynamic between the west and Israel is dramatically limportant. Ignoring both the global economy and global technological progress is just weird.
-and of course that doesn’t even begin to touch on the fact that XT was exactly right when he listed tourism as a strategic asset. Israel is a land that has significant emotional and religious significance for something like three billions human beings. Ignoring the dynamic of morale makes as much sense as ignoring the dynamic of global trade.
If you don’t know then…well, you don’t. The reason Israel hasn’t sent troops into either Afghanistan or Iraq is because A) We don’t WANT them there for political reasons and B) THEY don’t want them there…for the same kinds of political reasons. I suppose one could also add a C) Israeli troops would be counter productive on both a political and military level and would likely inflame the entire region much more than it already is.
It’s disingenuous only if you really don’t know…which I assumed you did since this came up fairly extensively during the first Gulf War. In point of fact we had to apply fairly substantial political pressure on Israel to keep them OUT of the first Gulf War. Saddam et al were attacking Israel with the express intention of bringing them into the war, which would have (in Saddam’s calculation…and probably in reality) both inflamed the region against the US and broken the coalition, especially the those members from the region.
Let me know if you are still asking this question after reading my and others response. The short answer is that Israel is not ‘too weak to fight for us’, and the answer of ‘none’ is a bit more nuanced than that simple answer allows for.
Apologies…I assumed you were asking this question as a debating trick, already knowing the answer and using it because the short ‘none’ answer seems to say something that isn’t in fact true.
-XT
Or, what Finn said. Missed that post.
-XT
I wasn’t playing gotcha, goddammit.
And for what it’s worth, I went to Wikipedia before asking xtisme my question. Not finding any answers there, I went here. Was that so inappropriate?
Seeing as how I haven’t posted an opinion one way or another about Israel on this board (as far as I know), I don’t know why I’m not being given the benefit of the doubt.
It’s frustrating being talked at and condescended to, so I’m not posting any more questions about Israel ever again.
(The above addressed to FinnAgain. Apologies accepted, xtisme.)
Fair enough.
-XT
I think the problem Monstro is that you steped into a rather heated debate and hackles were raised all around.
Which isn’t really relevant. A strategic ally isn’t a drinking buddy, it’s somebody that can do something for you. Israel might be our bestest buddy, but if they can’t do anything for us they are strategically useless.
Israel doesn’t really have any ability to project power on a world level. Their armed forces, while formidable, are oriented strictly towards regional action. Outside of a few submarines, they don’t have a deep water navy, and I assume they have no logistical or organizational planning to project force outside of the immediate region. Realistically though, we don’t need Israel’s help in a regional war. We can whip all of the M.E. countries at once if we wanted to. This is irrelevant because, as noted previously, politically it is impossible for Israel to directly assist the U.S. in a regional war.
Admittedly, it is always better to have friends than not have friends, but I can’t come up with any realistic scenario in my mind where we would need Israel’s support. The only plausible scenario I can come up with is another arab alliance against Israel backed by another world power. At that point, it would be us aiding them, not the other way around.
Can you give me a realistic scenario where Israeli troops or logistical support could assist us?
I have to say though, I like your little shot at the Europeans. I mean, we’ve poured billions and billions of dollars worth of military aid into Israel, spent an enormous amount of political capital defending them, and they’ve contributed oh, 0 troops ever to any of our wars. That’s so much more helpful than the tens of thousands of European troops fighting alongside our troops.
Trade is nice, but Israel isn’t what you would consider a strategic trading partner. They offer no natural resources, control no major trade routes, is not geographically close to us, and just is a flat out small country. I see 13 billion worth of exports and 20 billion worth of imports. That’s half of our trade with France, for example, and 5% of our trade with Canada. By my calculations, Israel accounts for right around 1% of U.S. trade. I don’t know where that puts them, but it’s not in the top 15. If I had to guess, I would say between top 20 and top 30.
With a % of trade that small, and the lack of any significant resources I don’t see how you can call Israel a strategically significant trade partner. Sure, losing 1% of your trade isn’t great, but it would be barely noticeable.
This just doesn’t make sense. There’s no strategic benefit for having Israel as a tourism destination. Perhaps you can explain this more, but I can’t come up with any reason why this should be a strategic benefit.
I’m all about democracy, but that’s not really a strategic concern either. Israel is a tiny democracy in the grand scheme of things. They aren’t a bulwark against any sort of domino effect. If Israel became a fascist dictatorship or an absolute monarchy tomorrow, I don’t see any strategic effect on the U.S.
Let’s sum up your arguments:
**
Israel is a military ally**: Israel has never contributed a single troop or logistical support to any of our wars.
Israel is a strategic trade parnter: Israel is a minor trade partner accounting for 1% of total U.S. trade
Israel is a tourist desination: Since when is tourism strategically important?
Israel is a democracy: That’s nice, but where is the strategic benefit?
Amusingly enough, you missed the only real strategic benefit that Israel gives us, and that is intelligence. Obviously this isn’t something countries publish figures on, but I’d imagine that Israel has one of the best intelligence networks in the M.E.
Let’s look at the other side of the coin. What are our strategic costs in supporting Israel:
Monetary cost: We are giving Israel about 3 billion dollars a year in direct aid (10% of the total trade BTW). You cited Israel as a strategic trade partner, but it’s really the Arab countries that are the strategic trade partners due to their oil. Any benefit we have gotten from trade with Israel is dwarfed by the gigantic negative effect of the oil shock after the OPEC embargo in the 70s.
Regional political costs: Our support of Israel makes us enormously unpopular among the rest of the population of the M.E. It is a dark cloud that hangs over every political relationship we have with other countries in the region. This harms our efforts to strike beneficial agreements with other countries in the region. Even worse, it contributes to other countries in the region being actively hostile towards us. I doubt that Syria and Iran would become our best buddies overnight, but it would be much more difficult to inflame anti-USA opinion in those countries without the proxy of Israel.
Strategic regional cost: Every time something happens with Israel, the radical populations of moderate Arab countries are inflamed. Fundamentalist Islamic organizations benefit from this inflammation through increased recruiting and support, while moderate figures are weakened. There is a realistic, non-zero risk, that one of these times anger over Israel’s action will boil over into a popular revolt in Saudi Arabia or Egypt and result in the installation of a decidedly non-friendly regime. That would be strategically devastating due to Saudi Arabia’s oil and the importance of the Suez canal.
Global political cost: Our allies have different opinions on Israel than we do. We spend a significant amount of political capital from invisible things to backdoor wrangling to public things such as vetoing UN resolutions defending Israel. Without Israel, we could use this political capital to further our interests in other areas.
We spent a lot of time, effort, and money on backing Israel, and I don’t see how the strategic benefits come near making up for it.