Iran Military Re-Arms

[Yama]

 

Like Trump, Khrushchev was more like embarrassment than a real danger.

For the most part, yes. And to be fair to Khrushchev he was, to a fair degree of my admiration, a reformer. A Stalinist reformer, but nobody is perfect.

 

And then we have the Cuban missile crisis, brought on partly because he wouldn't listen, and partly because when he did listen, it was to entirely the wrong people.

 

Khruschev's fault there was to think that since USA had nuclear missiles next to USSR, it was only fair that he deployed nuclear missiles next to USA. Silly Nikita, international politics are not fair.

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

You're even worse than Glenn because his opinions aren't just the state sponsored ones, unlike yours.

 

Here's a hint - look at a map of the middle east. Israel is only a tiny fraction of it. Iran militarily invaded Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Gaza, Iraq, and basically every gulf country other than Qatar.

 

If you don't see Iran's colonialist, expansionist campaign of creating a global islamic state, beyond its wars with Israel, then you're either blind, stupid, or both. I have substantial evidence to believe you're both.

Iran has no such plans. They're well aware that 90% of the Islamic world would never accept their religious leadership. Shia mindset is strongly based around being oppressed minority.

Iran's leadership has very real and justified fear of two things:

1. That they're invaded and regime changed

2. That domestic population gets tired of the shitty economy and bad human rights situation and overthrows them

 

Their response to that threat is military adventurism to create conditions that all those nations who might invade them instead bog down on various proxy wars. Also those proxy wars demonstrate how messed up neighbouring countries are compared to Iran and justify (and perhaps even create national pride) theocratic rule.

So far, they have been brilliantly successful in 1. and maybe not so much in 2.

Their reasons are irrelevant. They've invaded many countries and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Their victims could not give a shit whether Iranian leadership suffers from paranoia or not.

 

If you're a halfway normal country with a halfway decent government, the government won't be overthrown. Iran has normal people, but has a totally shitty government, so their path towards a regime change is pretty worrisome for the Ayatollahs.

Shame. Iranians are somewhere in the top 5 most advanced cultures in the middle east. Higher than KSA for sure. If only they could get another regime change...

 

I really don't understand why they don't create a democratic elitocracy with a super corrupt leadership. That way they could keep their wealth AND remain stable.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Like Trump, Khrushchev was more like embarrassment than a real danger.

 

For the most part, yes. And to be fair to Khrushchev he was, to a fair degree of my admiration, a reformer. A Stalinist reformer, but nobody is perfect.

 

And then we have the Cuban missile crisis, brought on partly because he wouldn't listen, and partly because when he did listen, it was to entirely the wrong people.

Khruschev's fault there was to think that since USA had nuclear missiles next to USSR, it was only fair that he deployed nuclear missiles next to USA. Silly Nikita, international politics are not fair.

 

His conclusion was right, but backed by a faulty premise. The first premise was Kennedy was weak and wouldn't do anything. And secondly the Missiles would be successfully hidden under Cuban palm trees till they were replaced and ready to fire.

 

From a pragmatic point of view Krushchevs gamble worked. He saved the Cuban revolution and removed nuclear missile from Turkey. Unfortunately Cuba didn't thank him for it, and the perceived capitulation in his part finished off relations with China

 

That is without noticing it brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war of course. Any right or wrong on his part completely secondary to the possible consequences.

[glenn239]

Portland's area of unrest is a half dozen square blocks in a city of over half a million. Much like where I live in Manhattan back in March, most of the city isn't touched at all by the unrest; it is specific neighborhoods and streets. I only know of one store that had a window broken in all of the lower east side. But if you turn on Fox News, sure, Portland is obviously Gaza.

 

I also think politically there is nothing in common between Palestinians and Portlandia - that is such a farcical comparison it's like saying "If you liked the movie 'Twister', you'll LOVE 'Gone with the Wind!'".

 

ANTIFA = Hamas

Mayor of Portland = Palestinian National Authority

Governor of Oregon = Israel

Trump and Fed security forces = NATO

 

What Might Zuk is saying is that in order for Trump to get ANTIFA out of Portland, he needs to respect the wishes of the Governor of Oregon and deal with the Mayor of Portland as an equal to the President. That's what he's saying. That in order to get Hamas out of Gaza, the USA needs to respect the veto of Israel and deal with the PNA as if it has any ability to control Hamas. It's complete nonsense. In order to get ANTIFA out of Portland, Trump needs to ignore any resistance from the governor of Oregon, treat the mayor of Portland as a useless and powerless figurehead of no value whatsoever, and deploy federal forces in Portland without any restriction from either.

Edited September 2, 2020 by glenn239

[Stuart Galbraith]

Glenn please, just stop. You're scaring the children.

[bojan]

 

ANTIFA = Hamas

Mayor of Portland = Palestinian National Authority

Governor of Oregon = Israel

Trump and Fed security forces = NATO

...

Except NATO has no jurisdiction of any sort to mess in the middle east.

[glenn239]

Glenn please, just stop. You're scaring the children.

 

You want to treat the Americans as the butlers and the Israelis as the kings. Do you think the Americans will ever catch on?

[glenn239]

 

 

ANTIFA = Hamas

Mayor of Portland = Palestinian National Authority

Governor of Oregon = Israel

Trump and Fed security forces = NATO

...

Except NATO has no jurisdiction of any sort to mess in the middle east.

 

 

Right, no analogy is perfect. But, when MZ tells me that the Palestinian Authority is to deal with Hamas, he's essentially saying that the mayor of Portland can and will deal with ANTIFA. Um, no, the mayor of Portland can't deal with ANTIFA. Portland needs outside help, the Feds, to shake off the problem. Same with Gaza. The civilian administration is too weak, puppets of the insurgents. MZ must be a joker to try to pretend the PA can deal with Hamas.

[glenn239]

 

Their reasons are irrelevant. They've invaded many countries and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Their victims could not give a shit whether Iranian leadership suffers from paranoia or not.

 

 

You want to make Iran the focus so that Israel can continue its bullshit in Palestine. How many more years do you think that dog and pony show goes before the West tires of it?

 

If you're a halfway normal country with a halfway decent government, the government won't be overthrown. Iran has normal people, but has a totally shitty government, so their path towards a regime change is pretty worrisome for the Ayatollahs.

 

 

Now you're into fantasies of regime change in Iran bailing Israel's ass out from its increasingly untenable position? Have you completely lost your mind?

 

I really don't understand why they don't create a democratic elitocracy with a super corrupt leadership. That way they could keep their wealth AND remain stable.

 

 

I asked you a question. If the United States were to occupy Gaza without Israel's permission, what would you want Israel to do about that? Stuart types that you'd appreciate it. Would Israel welcome such a move? The US Navy moves in and sends the Israeli blockade home, the US military lands in Gaza at the head of a coalition and spends a couple months cleaning out the terrorists. Israel takes rocket attacks, but in the end its done. Does Israel thank the US for that?

Edited September 2, 2020 by glenn239

[Mighty_Zuk]

Glenn you're always saying I "say something" that I'm not really saying, only to justify your twisted logic.

[glenn239]

Glenn you're always saying I "say something" that I'm not really saying, only to justify your twisted logic.

 

You must be off your rocker if you think a revolution or regime change is going to happen in Iran, or if you think the United States is going to go to war with Iran as your satrap.

 

You also didn't answer the question. If the US occupied Gaza to the purpose of removing Hamas and restoring the city on the world stage, would you view that act by the US as a friendly move towards Israel, or a hostile one? Do you selectively not understand English? The question is quite straightforward, yet you do not answer. You would consider the move to be hostile, correct?

Edited September 2, 2020 by glenn239

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

 

Their reasons are irrelevant. They've invaded many countries and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Their victims could not give a shit whether Iranian leadership suffers from paranoia or not.

 

 

You want to make Iran the focus so that Israel can continue its bullshit in Palestine. How many more years do you think that dog and pony show goes before the West tires of it?

If you're a halfway normal country with a halfway decent government, the government won't be overthrown. Iran has normal people, but has a totally shitty government, so their path towards a regime change is pretty worrisome for the Ayatollahs.

 

Now you're into fantasies of regime change in Iran bailing Israel's ass out from its increasingly untenable position? Have you completely lost your mind?

I really don't understand why they don't create a democratic elitocracy with a super corrupt leadership. That way they could keep their wealth AND remain stable.

 

I asked you a question. If the United States were to occupy Gaza without Israel's permission, what would you want Israel to do about that? Stuart types that you'd appreciate it. Would Israel welcome such a move? The US Navy moves in and sends the Israeli blockade home, the US military lands in Gaza at the head of a coalition and spends a couple months cleaning out the terrorists. Israel takes rocket attacks, but in the end its done. Does Israel thank the US for that?

1)Iran is not a potential threat like, for example, Turkey or Pakistan. It's a real threat in that it currently has significant military capability on Israel's borders, even 2 borders actually, and has in numerous occasions materialized that threat. There were active wars between Israel and Iran, you know.

 

I live in Haifa, where Hezbollah concentrated most of their artillery fire in 2006. During my service and lifetime I've been many times to the Israeli south, particularly Sderot and the Kerem Shalom area that are intensively bombarded roughly every week. Even stumbled upon a huge cluster of IED balloons during a trip to the south, luckily descending only after I already left.

 

IMO, anyone who threatens me for no reason, forfeits any sympathy permanently. I think the government should take certain humanitarian measures regarding Gaza and J&S, and maintain current policies towards Lebanon and Iranian forces in Syria, but if something were to happen to Hamas, Hezbollah, IRGC, and PIJ, or their supporters, I wouldn't mind.

 

 

2)Untenable position? Israel's relations with the Arab world may not be normalized in full just yet, but it's very far from the coalition-wide declarations of war and " 3 No's" of 40 years ago.

 

The only ones left behind are Palestine and Iran, with Iran actually being redeemable because it was once an ally of the west.

 

 

3)The only way the US can occupy Gaza without Israeli permission is via Egypt, and even then the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty has a limit on the total number of combat units in the Sinai, so the US really cannot do it without Israeli permission. And if there was a way to do it, it would greatly harm ties because it would be seen as an attempt to meddle in Israeli affairs.

 

If Israeli leadership would see a positive outcome to an occupation of Gaza, it would do it. But as I've told you many times, it cannot be done in a vacuum. It has to be done in cooperation with the PA to ensure that there's a stable, experienced, competent (the PA really isn't competent but is the best chance the Palestinians have anyway) government. Israel and the US both possess the necessary military might, and are both pretty much aligned on how to handle the Palestinian problem.

 

If the US did it, it would not have any higher chances of forming a local government than Israel, and that's largely because the PA is still the only option.

 

If the US would invade without Israeli permission, it would actually be an invasion into Israel first. Allies do not perform military actions against one another.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Glenn please, just stop. You're scaring the children.

 

You want to treat the Americans as the butlers and the Israelis as the kings. Do you think the Americans will ever catch on?

 

On the contary, Ive been clear, many, many times, that the Butler has already put his notice in. The Kings have yet to take note of that fact. So If you want to bend that completely out of shape, be my guest, you will anyway.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[glenn239]

MZ If the US would invade without Israeli permission, it would actually be an invasion into Israel first. Allies do not perform military actions against one another.

 

 

There you go, was that so hard? Your answer is “hostile”, because you apparently are claiming that Gaza is Israeli territory.

 

If the US did it, it would not have any higher chances of forming a local government than Israel, and that's largely because the PA is still the only option.

 

 

No need for further elaboration, the situation is quite clear. US moves are to be subject to Israeli veto in Palestine. You have hit upon one of the fundamental realities that require changing in order for the problem to be solved; progress can never be made in Palestine until the West is willing to confront Israel head on with increasingly crippling sanctions for non-conformity with international planning. That way, Israelis themselves during elections can decide exactly how badly they want to suffer economically for Bibi's asshat expansionist policies. OTOH, Israel does have valid security issues so international forces do have to accept security responsibilities as part of the peace process. But, before that can happen, what has to be done is for the West to politically crush the annexationists in Israel and make sure the moderates are dominant.

Edited September 3, 2020 by glenn239

[glenn239]

MZ 1)Iran is not a potential threat like, for example, Turkey or Pakistan. It's a real threat in that it currently has significant military capability on Israel's borders, even 2 borders actually, and has in numerous occasions materialized that threat. There were active wars between Israel and Iran, you know.

 

 

Dangerous to your star fleet Commander, not to this battle station.

 

MZ, you’ve been posting here for years telling me every time I’ve warned that you’re headed into bad weather, how weak and stupid Iranians are and how easily you can beat them with both hands tied behind your back with your mighty Israeli air force. Now you’re telling me Iran poses a grave military threat to Israel? I guess my answer is, so when did 2016 finally manage to get you on the phone?

 

I live in Haifa, where Hezbollah concentrated most of their artillery fire in 2006. During my service and lifetime I've been many times to the Israeli south, particularly Sderot and the Kerem Shalom area that are intensively bombarded roughly every week. Even stumbled upon a huge cluster of IED balloons during a trip to the south, luckily descending only after I already left.

 

 

Talk to Stuart on that one. I’m sure he’ll be on a plane tomorrow to help you guys out directly. That, or you will discover the actual frontline combat value of feckless internet jingo warriors types and their flaccid opinions far from the sound of guns. :^)

 

Myself, I don’t think the West should lift a finger to help Israel until Israel gets serious about resolving the Palestinian issue. You’ve long wanted to play with Iran, and now you can see their team bus pulling up to the field. A little late for you to be trying to reschedule the match, no?

 

IMO, anyone who threatens me for no reason, forfeits any sympathy permanently. I think the government should take certain humanitarian measures regarding Gaza and J&S, and maintain current policies towards Lebanon and Iranian forces in Syria, but if something were to happen to Hamas, Hezbollah, IRGC, and PIJ, or their supporters, I wouldn't mind.

 

 

That's fine, but I think that the US should demand access to Gaza and the West Bank for US security forces as the first precondition for any support against Iran. If we support Israel, Israel joins NATO and meets all UN resolutions in Palestine, including WRT shared jurisdiction in Jerusalem. Failure by Israel to comply should have as a consequence the United States undertaking a policy of strict neutrality in any conflict where Iranian actions keep symmetrical to Israeli actions. As a general rule of thumb, I don't think an Iranian Shia Crescent is really that difficult an Iranian foreign policy for the West to live with. We don't need Iraqi oil, and we really don't GAF who calls the shots in Syria. If Iran has a problem with Israel's expansionist policies in Palestine, and its disregard of international law in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria, of what concern is that to us?

Edited September 3, 2020 by glenn239

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

MZ If the US would invade without Israeli permission, it would actually be an invasion into Israel first. Allies do not perform military actions against one another.

 

There you go, was that so hard? Your answer is hostile, because you apparently are claiming that Gaza is Israeli territory.

If the US did it, it would not have any higher chances of forming a local government than Israel, and that's largely because the PA is still the only option.

 

No need for further elaboration, the situation is quite clear. US moves are to be subject to Israeli veto in Palestine. You have hit upon one of the fundamental realities that require changing in order for the problem to be solved; progress can never be made in Palestine until the West is willing to confront Israel head on with increasingly crippling sanctions for non-conformity with international planning. That way, Israelis themselves during elections can decide exactly how badly they want to suffer economically for Bibi's asshat expansionist policies. OTOH, Israel does have valid security issues so international forces do have to accept security responsibilities as part of the peace process. But, before that can happen, what has to be done is for the West to politically crush the annexationists in Israel and make sure the moderates are dominant.

Gaza is not Israeli territory. But since it's not a sovereign, yet, its waters are within Israeli territorial waters.

 

Therefore, without permission, it would have to either pass through Israeli waters, i.e an invasion, or break the 1979 Camp David Israel-Egypt treaty, also an invasion.

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

MZ 1)Iran is not a potential threat like, for example, Turkey or Pakistan. It's a real threat in that it currently has significant military capability on Israel's borders, even 2 borders actually, and has in numerous occasions materialized that threat. There were active wars between Israel and Iran, you know.

 

Dangerous to your star fleet Commander, not to this battle station.

 

MZ, youve been posting here for years telling me every time Ive warned that youre headed into bad weather, how weak and stupid Iranians are and how easily you can beat them with both hands tied behind your back with your mighty Israeli air force. Now youre telling me Iran poses a grave military threat to Israel? I guess my answer is, so when did 2016 finally manage to get you on the phone?

I live in Haifa, where Hezbollah concentrated most of their artillery fire in 2006. During my service and lifetime I've been many times to the Israeli south, particularly Sderot and the Kerem Shalom area that are intensively bombarded roughly every week. Even stumbled upon a huge cluster of IED balloons during a trip to the south, luckily descending only after I already left.

 

Talk to Stuart on that one. Im sure hell be on a plane tomorrow to help you guys out directly. That, or you will discover the actual frontline combat value of feckless internet jingo warriors types and their flaccid opinions far from the sound of guns. :^)

 

Myself, I dont think the West should lift a finger to help Israel until Israel gets serious about resolving the Palestinian issue. Youve long wanted to play with Iran, and now you can see their team bus pulling up to the field. A little late for you to be trying to reschedule the match, no?

IMO, anyone who threatens me for no reason, forfeits any sympathy permanently. I think the government should take certain humanitarian measures regarding Gaza and J&S, and maintain current policies towards Lebanon and Iranian forces in Syria, but if something were to happen to Hamas, Hezbollah, IRGC, and PIJ, or their supporters, I wouldn't mind.

 

That's fine, but I think that the US should demand access to Gaza and the West Bank for US security forces as the first precondition for any support against Iran. If we support Israel, Israel joins NATO and meets all UN resolutions in Palestine, including WRT shared jurisdiction in Jerusalem. Failure by Israel to comply should have as a consequence the United States undertaking a policy of strict neutrality in any conflict where Iranian actions keep symmetrical to Israeli actions. As a general rule of thumb, I don't think an Iranian Shia Crescent is really that difficult an Iranian foreign policy for the West to live with. We don't need Iraqi oil, and we really don't GAF who calls the shots in Syria. If Iran has a problem with Israel's expansionist policies in Palestine, and its disregard of international law in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria, of what concern is that to us?

If the US doesn't give a fuck about Syria or Iraq, why should it give a fuck about the situation in Gaza or the West Bank?

 

Your whole idea is that Israel should not be an ally of the US and vice versa. I disagree. But if both stopped being allies, why even intervene in each other's affairs?

[glenn239]

MZ Gaza is not Israeli territory. But since it's not a sovereign, yet, its waters are within Israeli territorial waters. Therefore, without permission, it would have to either pass through Israeli waters, i.e an invasion, or break the 1979 Camp David Israel-Egypt treaty, also an invasion.

 

 

 

I see what you mean. You're saying that Egypt and Israel control the international waters off the Gaza strip on a legal technicality, and in order to not be considered an invasion of Israel or Egypt, the West would need either the permission of Egypt or Israel to move ships directly to Gaza. Between those two choices, Egypt is probably the easier route to access with bribes and such, would you agree?

Edited September 4, 2020 by glenn239

[glenn239]

 

If the US doesn't give a fuck about Syria or Iraq, why should it give a fuck about the situation in Gaza or the West Bank?

 

 

Because Syria and Iraq are not in the Western sphere and will not be in the Western sphere for the foreseeable future, while Palestine is in the Western sphere because of Israel itself. What you're asking is a bit like wondering why you clean up dog shit in your own back yard, but not in your neighbour's backyard.

[glenn239]

MZ I disagree. But if both stopped being allies, why even intervene in each other's affairs?

 

 

Personally I’ve gained the impression you’d rather have Israel die on that hill rather than have Israel compromise to join NATO and gain its security umbrella. Who am I to question your choices? All I’m saying is that Israel is worth the effort, but to help Israel we’ll first need to ruthlessly purge from its political leadership the fringe, so that the moderates are in charge and a stable domestic strategy can be implemented going forward. I don't think you're the majority in Israel. I think your on the hard right fringe. Our duty in the West is to create the political conditions in Israel to marginalize your viewpoints and open up the political opportunity for the West to help Israel in spite of its own hard Right.

 

I think one round of mild international sanctions against Israel, a gentle shot across the bow that the West has run out of patience and Bibi and his stupid policies have to go, this would probably break the domestic deadlock and leave the moderates in control after the next election. That is the first step to the West being able to make Israel secure. Frankly, I blame the USA for allowing things to get to this point in Palestine, for a similar reason that I blame parents with indisciplined and unruly children for their unwillingness to spank them when the child acts up. The US has been running around the Middle East in dumbfuck wars squandering its military and political capital stupidly in Iraq and elsewhere, and meanwhile, the situation in Palestine goes from bad to worse.

 

Your whole idea is that Israel should not be an ally of the US and vice versa.

 

 

No, my observation is that the West can only make Israel secure after Israel itself decides to bring the West in to help it fix Palestine for real. You're clearly over your head and floundering, and your desperation posts about Iranian regime changes and offensive alliances between Israel and the US? These are just nonsensical clown college. The West has little interest in preventing an Iranian dominated Shia crescent along the Euphrates and no interest whatsoever in a war with Iran as your mindless satrap. What difference is a Shia crescent to us? Your rhetoric aside, what Israel is engaged in is, as a two bit weak tertiary power, a struggle for influence in Syria and Lebanon, (probably Jordan in the future too) in which you don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning against far stronger countries. The west has no pony in that pull, so I don’t think the West should bail you out unless the Iranians start attacking Israel directly.

 

Optimally, the pressure of Iran on one side and the West on the other will force Israel to allow US troops into Palestine to create security. I’d be all for building up Gaza into a modern city to encourage Palestinian migration from the West Bank to Gaza. Kids will vote with their feet for a better apartment, right? Right. If the Palestinians can be encouraged to move to Gaza, then the Israelis can move into the empty spaces.

Edited September 4, 2020 by glenn239

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

MZ Gaza is not Israeli territory. But since it's not a sovereign, yet, its waters are within Israeli territorial waters. Therefore, without permission, it would have to either pass through Israeli waters, i.e an invasion, or break the 1979 Camp David Israel-Egypt treaty, also an invasion.

 

 

 

I see what you mean. You're saying that Egypt and Israel control the international waters off the Gaza strip on a legal technicality, and in order to not be considered an invasion of Israel or Egypt, the West would need either the permission of Egypt or Israel to move ships directly to Gaza. Between those two choices, Egypt is probably the easier route to access with bribes and such, would you agree?

Yes that was what I argued, but Egypt is not a relevant party here. There's another technicality that you missed and that is the Camp David accords. Egypt is not the only one to authorize entry to Gaza. Israel is also involved in every route.

To enter Gaza from Egypt, you can only do so via a land border in the Sinai.

Egypt is limited by a treaty with Israel on what type of units enter the Sinai, and the quantity. This also means if Egypt invites allied forces into its territory, they cannot deploy to the Sinai without Israeli approval.

 

There is no way to enter the Gaza strip as a military unit of any kind, without acquiring an approval from Israel, period.

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

MZ I disagree. But if both stopped being allies, why even intervene in each other's affairs?

 

Personally Ive gained the impression youd rather have Israel die on that hill rather than have Israel compromise to join NATO and gain its security umbrella. Who am I to question your choices? All Im saying is that Israel is worth the effort, but to help Israel well first need to ruthlessly purge from its political leadership the fringe, so that the moderates are in charge and a stable domestic strategy can be implemented going forward. I don't think you're the majority in Israel. I think your on the hard right fringe. Our duty in the West is to create the political conditions in Israel to marginalize your viewpoints and open up the political opportunity for the West to help Israel in spite of its own hard Right.

 

I think one round of mild international sanctions against Israel, a gentle shot across the bow that the West has run out of patience and Bibi and his stupid policies have to go, this would probably break the domestic deadlock and leave the moderates in control after the next election. That is the first step to the West being able to make Israel secure. Frankly, I blame the USA for allowing things to get to this point in Palestine, for a similar reason that I blame parents with indisciplined and unruly children for their unwillingness to spank them when the child acts up. The US has been running around the Middle East in dumbfuck wars squandering its military and political capital stupidly in Iraq and elsewhere, and meanwhile, the situation in Palestine goes from bad to worse.

Your whole idea is that Israel should not be an ally of the US and vice versa.

 

No, my observation is that the West can only make Israel secure after Israel itself decides to bring the West in to help it fix Palestine for real. You're clearly over your head and floundering, and your desperation posts about Iranian regime changes and offensive alliances between Israel and the US? These are just nonsensical clown college. The West has little interest in preventing an Iranian dominated Shia crescent along the Euphrates and no interest whatsoever in a war with Iran as your mindless satrap. What difference is a Shia crescent to us? Your rhetoric aside, what Israel is engaged in is, as a two bit weak tertiary power, a struggle for influence in Syria and Lebanon, (probably Jordan in the future too) in which you dont have a snowballs chance in hell of winning against far stronger countries. The west has no pony in that pull, so I dont think the West should bail you out unless the Iranians start attacking Israel directly.

 

Optimally, the pressure of Iran on one side and the West on the other will force Israel to allow US troops into Palestine to create security. Id be all for building up Gaza into a modern city to encourage Palestinian migration from the West Bank to Gaza. Kids will vote with their feet for a better apartment, right? Right. If the Palestinians can be encouraged to move to Gaza, then the Israelis can move into the empty spaces.

Again can't multi-quote on mobile so I'll answer, as always, in points, hopefully you'll know to connect each point to different sections of your own post. Chronologically ordered, obviously.

 

 

1)You've gained many impressions that are utterly wrong even though I dedicated an entire post to showing my core ideologies so that pointless questions will no longer arise. And yet here I see that you'd always prefer to read only 20% of my comment and then reply with something totally incomprehensible because the remaining 80% were vital enough for full understanding. Cherry picking serves none but lowly politicians.

 

2)In the Israel-NATO relationship, it was Israel that wanted to enter NATO, not the other way around. NATO saw Israel's request as odd, because its laws forbade Israel from acquiring any form of assistance in the treaty's framework, but would obligate Israel to aid others. Basically it would only give and not receive.

Israel still persisted in its requests as a sign of good relations with the west and a will to help.

To this day, the main obstacle to an Israeli accesion to NATO is Turkey.

 

2008, the case for Israel in NATO:

http://gees.org/articulos/the-case-for-israel-full-membership-into-nato

 

2016, opening a liasion's office in NATO:

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/israel--nato-connection

 

3)You can't just intervene in the domestic politics of allies. That's stuff you do to enemies. We'll get rid of Netanyahu on our own. And if he manages to cling forever to the throne, then he's our problem, not yours. Israel's foreign policy is mostly determined by many professional organizations within the government that are almost untouched by the PM. So, again, if he's your problem, he's a tiny nuisance at best.

 

4)Sanctions on Israel are only going to alienate the US and give Israelis a new perception that they have no allies in this world. 2 points are particularly important here:

1. Israel is already under the economical sanctions of almost the entire Arab/muslim world, which is a substantial economical bloc to say the least.

2. Israel had major allies before, like France or the UK, and it all ended with sanctions. To this day they're not considered particularly trustworthy by Israelis.

 

Israelis consider the Americans as the only true allies that will remains friends through good and bad times alike. As soon as sanctions come, it's all shattered and there's no fixing that for a very long time.

 

Furthermore, it would only strengthen the political right, which asserts that the world will hate us no matter what, so we might as well just make sharp painful moves.

 

The political center that wants Israel to be more attentive to the world and be more integrated on the global stage, would suffer a blow it could not recover from in many years, because they draw their political strength from the idea of international approval, secularism, and technocracy.

 

5)I'm not a hard right fringe. I'm aligned with the libertarian center-left if you're into such categories. But you're right that I'm not a majority. Israel's society is so diverse that I don't think there was ever a single party that got more than 50% of the votes.

 

6)I do not want an offensive military alliance against Iran. I think Israel can secure itself from an Iranian nuclear weapon on its own, and that everything we can do on our own, we do. That's literally why we're the only (at least that I remember) valuable western ally of the US that does NOT have foreign troops on its soil.

But since it's a clear interest of NATO to keep Iran away from anything nuclear, I at least expect some sort of offer to help, which we can later decline.

 

7)Preventing a Shia crescent is one of the top priorities of the west, or at least should be. The war on terror was one phase, in Afghanistan and Iraq. But a greater threat of terrorist organizations with one central command is only growing stronger by the day, and its influence is not to be ignored.

The purpose of the western bloc is to maintain a cohesive, unmovable alliance of democracies that resist external tyrrany, and spread democracy outward. Non-NATO bastions of democracy are South Korea, Israel, Japan, and Australia.

But matters can improve in the middle east. Egypt and Jordan became objectively more progressive, even if not by too much, following peace with Israel. The UAE is a local bastion of relatively progressive thought in the gulf region.

Oman, Bahrain, are also advancing. Saudi Arabia is too big to move like that, but it's also somewhat opening up and the best kind of influence is between friends/allies, not scaring others to change.

Lebanon is a progressive country in Arab terms, and Iranian people are also progressive.

 

Iran's ayatollah regime is threatening to destabilize every somewhat progressive and potentially future democratic country in the middle east.

 

A democratic, progressive middle east is a global interest, and it's definitely what the west stands for.

 

8)Israel has no need to influence anything in Syria and Lebanon. It was content with Assad's rule when internal conflicts didn't spill into Israel, and before foreign forces came to exploit the situation to expand the front against Israel.

Without Hezbollah, Israel and Lebanon will have peace. Without IRGC in Syria, Israel will have the quiet border it always wanted.

All these external threats, 99% of whose attacks were thwarted, are Iran-controlled organizations.

Israel's interests are to keep Iran away from its borders. I don't see why that's such a difficult wish especially when Israel is not asking for any international help on the matter.

Saying Iran is not directly attacking Israel is like saying the USSR would not have a casus belli if American troops were firing Pershing missiles from Turkey instead of Minutemen from US soil.

 

9)You are grossly misunderstanding the situation in Gaza. As I've said many times before - Israel tried the whole "occupy Gaza to install a new government" thing. The PA ruled for decades in Gaza until in 2007 it was violently overthrown in a war with Hamas, despite joint Israeli and American military backing for the PA (specifically Fatah's military). A war that Hamas could not win without a substantial public support. Yep, they were loved back then by the public, because the PA was considered overly corrupt. And when an Arab tells you that, you know shit's bad.

In fact, the only reason why the PA is even alive in the West Bank, is because of Israeli military support.

 

Back in 2005, when Israel disengaged from Gaza, and the PA was the leadership and there was no blockade, everyone, including Israel, thought Gaza could be turned into a mini-Singapore. Massive Israeli aid came in to jump start the economy and construction projects. In less than 2 years the situation got so bad Israel considered a blockade to be the only option, and with a massive international support at that.

 

You force Hamas and PIJ out and rebuild Gaza? Rogue terrorists will tear it down. Build a huge tower? Someone will bomb its foundations built for years in mere seconds.

You need a political resolution FIRST, and one that lasts.

If you paid enough attention, the US always installed new governments based on pre-existing political movements/parties. No such party exists in Palestine other than the PA, which will not budge to any request from either Israel or the US. The US is seen as just as illegitimate an entity as Israel is, in Palestine.

 

Trump's peace treaty was boycotted by the Palestinians in January 2018 IIRC. Long before first details were even leaked, and despite over $50 billion pledged for development. More than enough for a mini Singapore. And if you think that's a left versus right thing, then you must also remember Abbas similarly boycotted Obama's peace treaty in 2014, and Obama was the least favorable president to Israel in decades!

 

 

From someone living in the area, following politics closely, the solution should not be military alone. And while America should intervene for its own sake, it should only intervene politically.

 

Right now the political ground is changing, and time may be on OUR side this time:

1. The situation is ripe for a change of leadership. Previously silent on this arena, some contenders are now throwing their hats in, contenders that are considered considerably more moderate than rabid dog Abbas who likes to shout and yell at everyone who even dares to help him.

2. UAE is being followed by other countries in a normalization process, which simultaneously closes some funding for the Palestinians, and reduces their political support. Perhaps the only real ace the Palestinians had was them being an obstacle to the Arab Peace Initiative. Now that it's basically gone, they have nothing to negotiate with. Now all they have is the demographic threat.

 

10)None will ever move to Gaza. The whole place is considered a Hamas-made humanitarian disaster. It's massively over-populated, while the West Bank at least enjoys from a much better quality of life and even better population density.

 

The only real sustainable solution will be to transfer Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan.

 

As for moving into empty territories, that's called settlements, and is heavily frowned upon by the international community.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thats really interesting, I never knew Israel had asked to join NATO. Does this just date back to 2008, or was there an intent before then?

[Mighty_Zuk]

Thats really interesting, I never knew Israel had asked to join NATO. Does this just date back to 2008, or was there an intent before then?

Officially? I do not know. The answer depends on my google-foo which should be as good as yours.

 

Unofficially? Yes, by different political figures. But it's not a widely talked about topic so info on that is scarce, and may resurface only if and when Israel actually joins.

 

Since 2002 Israel participated in NATO exercises, until the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident, following which Turkey vetoed any Israeli participation in NATO exercises. In 2016 the veto was nullified and exercises resumed.

 

In 2012 there was a proposal to integrate only the Israeli navy into NATO, but it did not progress much for an unknown reason, despite at least 1 minister of defense completing a term since then, who supported Israel's admission to NATO since 2006.

[Josh]

Thank you for that, this is fascinating. I had no idea.