Jump to content

Iran Military Re-Arms


Recommended Posts

On 9/4/2020 at 10:51 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

Interesting legal backflips.  Here's a legal piece back from 2010 about the Israeli blockade.  Is it legal?  Yes, under international law, Israel legally can blockade Gaza,

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-flotilla-gaza/qa-is-israels-naval-blockade-of-gaza-legal-idUSTRE65133D20100602

So in order, legally, to end the Israeli blockade of Gaza and break the log jam in Palestine, one of four things must happen - 

1.  Israel itself must agree to the entrance of outside forces into Gaza.  

2. The U.N. must pass a resolution ordering Egypt and Israel to alter the peace treaty you describe, in order to allow passage of outside forces into Gaza under UN mandate.  

3.  Some outside Power in the future must physically break the blockade of Gaza while ignoring protests from Israel and/or Egypt.

4.  Hamas must decide on its own to end its own existence as a terrorist outfit.

Of these four - 

(3) has already been attempted, so has to be rated as probable at some future point as well.

(2) is impossible under a GOP U.S. Administration.  But, given the drift left in the Democrats, it does seem possible if, for example, AOC was to become President later this decade.  

(1) and (4) seems equally unlikely to occur, if it is assumed that in both cases the parties themselves must do so without a third force applying pressure, (economic WRT Israel, military WRT Hamas).

 

So, by process of elimination, (3) seems the most likely in the next decade, followed by some form of (2) under a hard Left US Administration after Biden.  (3) seems most likely to be either the Turkish Navy reprising the 2010 debacle, or, more likely Iran systematically attack the Israeli blockading forces of Gaza from bases in Syria as part of some overall struggle with Israel in Syria. 

So, the question then is, if Israel and Iran are in some limited engagement in Syria in which Iran is not attacking Israel directly, what is the position of the West should the fighting spill over to the blockade of Gaza? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On 9/6/2020 at 6:01 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

NATO can only allow Israel to join when Israel itself agrees to a viable settlement in Palestine in which NATO forces themselves will participate in carrying through, (Israel cannot be trusted to do so on its own).  Any previous inquires by Israel into getting NATO's security for free, while at the same time maintaining its illegal policies in Palestine that are inimical to basic NATO values, this would have been a non-starter.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Interesting legal backflips.  Here's a legal piece back from 2010 about the Israeli blockade.  Is it legal?  Yes, under international law, Israel legally can blockade Gaza,

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-flotilla-gaza/qa-is-israels-naval-blockade-of-gaza-legal-idUSTRE65133D20100602

So in order, legally, to end the Israeli blockade of Gaza and break the log jam in Palestine, one of four things must happen - 

1.  Israel itself must agree to the entrance of outside forces into Gaza.  

2. The U.N. must pass a resolution ordering Egypt and Israel to alter the peace treaty you describe, in order to allow passage of outside forces into Gaza under UN mandate.  

3.  Some outside Power in the future must physically break the blockade of Gaza while ignoring protests from Israel and/or Egypt.

4.  Hamas must decide on its own to end its own existence as a terrorist outfit.

Of these four - 

(3) has already been attempted, so has to be rated as probable at some future point as well.

(2) is impossible under a GOP U.S. Administration.  But, given the drift left in the Democrats, it does seem possible if, for example, AOC was to become President later this decade.  

(1) and (4) seems equally unlikely to occur, if it is assumed that in both cases the parties themselves must do so without a third force applying pressure, (economic WRT Israel, military WRT Hamas).

 

So, by process of elimination, (3) seems the most likely in the next decade, followed by some form of (2) under a hard Left US Administration after Biden.  (3) seems most likely to be either the Turkish Navy reprising the 2010 debacle, or, more likely Iran systematically attack the Israeli blockading forces of Gaza from bases in Syria as part of some overall struggle with Israel in Syria. 

So, the question then is, if Israel and Iran are in some limited engagement in Syria in which Iran is not attacking Israel directly, what is the position of the West should the fighting spill over to the blockade of Gaza? 

 

Neither Turkey or Iran have the capability to break the blockade, let alone any interest in that.

It is also evident that you do not really know how this blockade works. In the absolute worst case, Israel could temporarily lose its ability to commit to an offensive in Gaza. But its blockade cannot be militarily broken. It is maintained by regional units, what the British refer to as "territorials". 

The blockade, first, is not a full one. In fact, it's more economical restrictions than anything else. Gaza still trades globally, and its people can travel in and out. When Hamas acts nicely, many restrictions are lifted and life becomes almost like pre-blockade. There are no IDF troops in Gaza either. Even during tensions. So what exactly does it mean to break the blockade? It means invading Israeli land proper, and occupying the entire country.

The most likely attempts at a failed solution are diplomatic ones, not military ones. And of course none can force either Israel or Egypt to alter the agreement.

 

If the west used to support Israel in its policies towards the Palestinians, then today they're even more supportive of Israel. Up until a month ago, there was peace between Israel and 2 Arab countries, with one of whom there was a crisis.

Today that's 4. The largest and most powerful bloc that lobbied against Israel and for Palestinians was the Arab bloc that only recently started upgrading relations with Israel in droves.

 

9 hours ago, glenn239 said:

NATO can only allow Israel to join when Israel itself agrees to a viable settlement in Palestine in which NATO forces themselves will participate in carrying through, (Israel cannot be trusted to do so on its own).  Any previous inquires by Israel into getting NATO's security for free, while at the same time maintaining its illegal policies in Palestine that are inimical to basic NATO values, this would have been a non-starter.

Israel already agreed to many different settlements brokered by the US. 

NATO cannot offer an alternative settlement. You still haven't explained how any foreign military will be able to do anything of value.

And last but not least, you explained earlier how Israel's policies ARE legal. You cannot claim otherwise in the same comment. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 The largest and most powerful bloc that lobbied against Israel and for Palestinians was the Arab bloc that only recently started upgrading relations with Israel in droves.

 

Disagree. The most powerful bloc that lobbies against Israel is Marxism.

In short most journalists, most academics, etc. Now you could argue that much Arab money went to those and that would now trickle down.

I also not very optimistic about what is happening with current peace declarations. it seems to be much rushed due to Trump electoral needs I think we have to know the details.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Disagree. The most powerful bloc that lobbies against Israel is Marxism.

In short most journalists, most academics, etc. Now you could argue that much Arab money went to those and that would now trickle down.

I also not very optimistic about what is happening with current peace declarations. it seems to be much rushed due to Trump electoral needs I think we have to know the details.

 

 

The details are not crucial here. The Arab League in 1967 passed the Khartoum Resolution, in which the league pledged to maintain a policy of the "Three no's". 

In reversed but chronological order:

No negotiations with Israel.

No recognition of Israel.

No peace with Israel.

Almost all members of the Arab League have already violated the first rule. A few countries, plus several muslim non-Arab ones, have recognized Israel. And 3 have officially signed a peace treaty with Israel.

In the Arab world, peace with Israel is an almost irreversible policy. You either commit to it fully and enjoy the fruits of wider international backing and approval, or cancel it and face the ire of the world.

It's a lot like a band  The Arab public will disapprove of peace with Israel, in the majority, but cancelling it retroactively will not restore local approval ratings.

Applying a band aid will benefit you. Removing it quickly is painful though. And restoring it after removing it won't cancel the pain, nor will it really be beneficial to you anymore.

Marxist academics are a threat to Israel, and to every country they infest. However, they are not the ones populating international forums. They're mostly populating starbucks.

Soon there will be no large cohesive bloc that opposes Israel politically, and the only opposition will be countries that have an interest in a conflict with Israel, like Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Pakistan, basically all these shithole countries that have nothing to offer to the world to make others take their claims seriously.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2020 at 9:08 PM, lucklucky said:

Disagree. The most powerful bloc that lobbies against Israel is Marxism.

In short most journalists, most academics, etc. Now you could argue that much Arab money went to those and that would now trickle down.

I also not very optimistic about what is happening with current peace declarations. it seems to be much rushed due to Trump electoral needs I think we have to know the details.

 

 

Current peace deals are a good thing for Arab-Israeli relations overall, but also reflect the fact that, as predicted, the Saudis and Israelis can find common cause against Iran.  The best course forward, IMO, is to expand the number of Arab countries recognizing Israel and exchanging embassies, (preferably in Jerusalem, but Tel Aviv otherwise) while at the same time increasing pressure on Israel to let the West into Palestine to resolve the dispute.  If Israel still does not yield even as this proceeds, then economic pressure has to ramp up to a level it cannot tolerate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2020 at 6:46 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Soon there will be no large cohesive bloc that opposes Israel politically, and the only opposition will be countries that have an interest in a conflict with Israel, like Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Pakistan, basically all these shithole countries that have nothing to offer to the world to make others take their claims seriously.

 

 

You are not understanding current trends in the US on the Left.  In terms of the emerging blocs in the Middle East, the concern is a Sino-Iranian axis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2020 at 8:11 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Neither Turkey or Iran have the capability to break the blockade, let alone any interest in that.

Turkey already did try to break the blockade and Iran will no doubt have already done all sorts of vulnerability analysis of it.   Seems odd that you'd argue Turkey will not do in the future what it's already done in the past, or that Iran would be bombed by your airforce in Syria without noticing ways it could, at some favorable point in the future, start to retaliate.   

Politically, as you are perfectly aware, the blockade is unsustainable into the distant future.

Quote

It is also evident that you do not really know how this blockade works. In the absolute worst case, Israel could temporarily lose its ability to commit to an offensive in Gaza. But its blockade cannot be militarily broken. It is maintained by regional units, what the British refer to as "territorials". 

The primary diplomatic threat would be a hard Left US administration in 2024 or afterwards.  The military threat would be Iran and the base of operations to watch out for is Lebanon, but also Syria.   Why Iran might have a motive is that – and you must not be aware of this – Israel and Iran are struggling for influence in Syria and Lebanon, and anything that is a diplomatic and military weakness for Israel could be exploited eventually.  A lesser possibility is a fall-out with Egypt, which seems to be drifting these days out of the Western sphere.  (Back in the 1980’s fear of the Israeli Air Force was ample reason for Egypt to keep to the peace accord, but increasingly as the years go on the IAF is becoming a paper tiger).

Quote

If the west used to support Israel in its policies towards the Palestinians, then today they're even more supportive of Israel. Up until a month ago, there was peace between Israel and 2 Arab countries, with one of whom there was a crisis.

The fact that the UAE has recognized Israel is because they view Iran back by the Sino-Russians as a serious regional hegemonic threat.  So, while it is a good thing that this diplomatic breakthrough has occurred, you should not confuse that with Israel’s security position overall having improved.    

Quote

NATO cannot offer an alternative settlement. You still haven't explained how any foreign military will be able to do anything of value.

Israel cannot be trusted to maintain an unbiased attitude in policing the West Bank.  US forces can.   

Quote

And last but not least, you explained earlier how Israel's policies ARE legal. You cannot claim otherwise in the same comment. 

The Israeli blockade had been kabuki theatred into being legal.  That does not mean that countries that have a policy to challenge that blockade need to pay it any respect.  For example, one perfectly viable response with all sorts of maritime legal status is counter blockade, or breaking of a blockade.  The problem for Israel is that if, let’s say Iran, were to limit itself to actions to break the Gaza blockade, Israel won’t have much sympathy in the West to support it, because the West needs to make an effort just to tolerate the situation as it exists already.

Step 1 - Iran sends an unarmed merchant ship to Gaza, which is boarded and siezed by Israel.

Step 2 - Iran sends an armed merchant ship to Gaza, which is sunk by Israel.

Step 3 - Game on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Turkey already did try to break the blockade and Iran will no doubt have already done all sorts of vulnerability analysis of it.   Seems odd that you'd argue Turkey will not do in the future what it's already done in the past, or that Iran would be bombed by your airforce in Syria without noticing ways it could, at some favorable point in the future, start to retaliate.   

Politically, as you are perfectly aware, the blockade is unsustainable into the distant future.

The primary diplomatic threat would be a hard Left US administration in 2024 or afterwards.  The military threat would be Iran and the base of operations to watch out for is Lebanon, but also Syria.   Why Iran might have a motive is that – and you must not be aware of this – Israel and Iran are struggling for influence in Syria and Lebanon, and anything that is a diplomatic and military weakness for Israel could be exploited eventually.  A lesser possibility is a fall-out with Egypt, which seems to be drifting these days out of the Western sphere.  (Back in the 1980’s fear of the Israeli Air Force was ample reason for Egypt to keep to the peace accord, but increasingly as the years go on the IAF is becoming a paper tiger).

The fact that the UAE has recognized Israel is because they view Iran back by the Sino-Russians as a serious regional hegemonic threat.  So, while it is a good thing that this diplomatic breakthrough has occurred, you should not confuse that with Israel’s security position overall having improved.    

Israel cannot be trusted to maintain an unbiased attitude in policing the West Bank.  US forces can.   

The Israeli blockade had been kabuki theatred into being legal.  That does not mean that countries that have a policy to challenge that blockade need to pay it any respect.  For example, one perfectly viable response with all sorts of maritime legal status is counter blockade, or breaking of a blockade.  The problem for Israel is that if, let’s say Iran, were to limit itself to actions to break the Gaza blockade, Israel won’t have much sympathy in the West to support it, because the West needs to make an effort just to tolerate the situation as it exists already.

Step 1 - Iran sends an unarmed merchant ship to Gaza, which is boarded and siezed by Israel.

Step 2 - Iran sends an armed merchant ship to Gaza, which is sunk by Israel.

Step 3 - Game on.

1)Turkey has merely allowed allegedly civilian ships to sail into Israeli waters. This was not a military incursion.

2)Iranian forces have been bombed for at least 6 years now in an organized campaign. They have attempted to retaliate several times - always doing no damage but suffering many casualties in return.

3)You assume it is even in the interest of either Turkey or Iran to somehow help the Palestinians break free from some cruel unjust siege totally not related to Hamas's activities. They hate the Palestinians, and only use them as political tools. 

Iran's objectives for Gaza's terror groups are not to break the siege, but to apply pressure on Israel and surround it, forcing it into a multi-front war when Iran's ready to commit. Whether the Gazan terrorist groups, militias, and gangs, break the siege, or all die in the process, is irrelevant to them.

So the bottom line is they don't care and never will.

4)Yes, the Palestinian issue in Gaza is an unsustainable one. I think Israel should take a much more aggresive approach, both militarily and economically. But I am also aware that time is on our side due to recent events. The only real source of legitimacy they drew, came from the Arab world. Now it's gone.

Also, as years pass, Hamas gradually becomes less aggressive, more moderate, and more responsive to dialogue. 

5)Egypt may drift eastward, but not toward Iran. Egypt and Iran are silent enemies.

6)The US has long been accused by the Palestinians and Europeans alike, of being biased toward Israel. If you're talking about their approval, it may not exist.

7)Israeli policies versus the Palestinians don't have much sympathy in the west because it created the notion that they lead to a dead end that annoys everyone who wants change.

Israeli policies towards Iran are seen positively in the west, including seizure of cargo ships.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

1)Turkey has merely allowed allegedly civilian ships to sail into Israeli waters. This was not a military incursion

You'd indicated that Turkey had no interest in challenging the blockade, which is unusual given the fact that Turkey has actually challenged it.

Quote

2)Iranian forces have been bombed for at least 6 years now in an organized campaign. They have attempted to retaliate several times - always doing no damage but suffering many casualties in return.

Israel has been bombing the Iranians in Syria, much like the water pumps on Titanic were frantically pumping.  You're not suggesting that Iran is weaker relative to Israel than it was six years ago, are you, due to some pinprick raids in Syria?   Looks to me like, with some exceptions, (F-35) the gains have been mostly in Iran's favor.

Quote

Iran's objectives for Gaza's terror groups are not to break the siege, but to apply pressure on Israel and surround it, forcing it into a multi-front war when Iran's ready to commit. Whether the Gazan terrorist groups, militias, and gangs, break the siege, or all die in the process, is irrelevant to them.

Iran's objective, as is obvious, is to break Israel's hegemony in Palestine without actually coming to serious blows with Israel.  As such, and given that breaking the siege of Gaza is an objective in harmony with breaking Israel's stranglehold on Palestine, it should be fairly self-evident in both Israeli and Iranian circles that Gaza is a potential future hotspot.

Quote

4)Yes, the Palestinian issue in Gaza is an unsustainable one. I think Israel should take a much more aggressive approach, both militarily and economically. But I am also aware that time is on our side due to recent events. The only real source of legitimacy they drew, came from the Arab world. Now it's gone.

As I stated before, the purpose of Western policy should be to rescue Israel from fringe opinions such as yours, before your fanaticism drags Israel into disaster.

Quote

Also, as years pass, Hamas gradually becomes less aggressive, more moderate, and more responsive to dialogue. 

That will presumably be because they sense opportunity against Israel's domination by doing so.

Quote

5)Egypt may drift eastward, but not toward Iran. Egypt and Iran are silent enemies.

Egypt seems like a non-player for the most part to me.

 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In related news:

Iran: Where Have All The Moslems Gone

 

Quote

Iran is not as religious, or Islamic, as its Shia Moslem religious dictatorship likes to think. To determine the true religious feelings of Iranians GAMAAN (Group for Analyzing and Measuring Attitudes in Iran) used its experience with online anonymous surveys to determine just how religious Iranians are and how many still consider themselves Moslems. ........ The results were a shock, at least to the government. While the government insists that 99 percent of Iranians are Moslem, the survey found that only 40 percent were. Breaking that down further 32 percent of Iranians are Shia, five percent Sunni and three percent Sufi (a more mellow Islam hated by Islamic extremists). Other religious preferences included 8.8 percent atheists, 5.8 percent agnostic 2.7 percent humanist and seven percent non-denominational “spiritualists.” Not surprisingly eight percent were Zoroastrian, a native Iranian religion older that Judaism and eliminated in the 7 th century by invading Islamic armies. Since then a small number of Iranians continued to practice Zoroastrianism in secret inside Iran and openly outside of Iran...............Another 1.5 percent said they were Christian, 0.1 percent Jewish, 0.5 percent Bahai, 3.3 percent “other” and 22.2 percent declared they had no religious beliefs at all. Overall 78 percent of Iranians believed in God while 90 percent of Iranians admitted to growing up in or still practicing some religion. A third of Iranians admitted they regularly consume alcoholic beverages, something forbidden to Moslems. Less than 40 percent observed the daily schedule of Moslem prayers and about the same percentage observed the fast during the holy month of Ramadan. The rest would claim an illness and this was widely tolerated. Trying to enforce the fast on that many Iranians was seen as an impossible task. Even so 68 percent believed that religious practices should not have the rule of law and 72 percent opposed the law or custom mandating that women wear hijab (hair covering) outdoors.

https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/articles/20200915.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, lucklucky said:

It is really strange some persons have no problem that US is "biased" towards their countries but has problem when is "biased" towards Israel....

The immediate future for global relations is spheres of interest in which the major players need to police their own spheres more so than they need to stick their noses into places where they have few interests.  So, for the West, we need to be more concerned with the conduct and situation of our allies on the frontier of our sphere than we do what's going on in places that are of little concern to us.  The Baltic States, Poland, Rumania, Turkey, Israel.  These are border posts of the Western frontier, and this is where we need to focus our attention.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JWB said:

In related news:

Iran: Where Have All The Moslems Gone

 

https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/articles/20200915.aspx

Quite a few of the Persians here in North Vancouver are openly Zoroastrians and talk about the "occupation" by the Islamist's of Iran. Others are Ismaili, which is also a generally peaceful version of Shia Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2020 at 7:41 PM, glenn239 said:

You'd indicated that Turkey had no interest in challenging the blockade, which is unusual given the fact that Turkey has actually challenged it.

Turkish citizens have challenged it. Unsuccessfully. It doesn't matter how many civilian ships are sent - they won't breach the blockade. 

And even if one ship manages to slip by and dock (after which it will be sunk and its passengers stranded in Gaza), it will have little to no significance to anyone. The blockade will continue as it was. 

Or do you really think that 1 breach will end the blockade and force a land division, an entire navy and an air force to permanently back away from Gaza?

On 9/15/2020 at 7:41 PM, glenn239 said:

Israel has been bombing the Iranians in Syria, much like the water pumps on Titanic were frantically pumping.  You're not suggesting that Iran is weaker relative to Israel than it was six years ago, are you, due to some pinprick raids in Syria?   Looks to me like, with some exceptions, (F-35) the gains have been mostly in Iran's favor.

Iran has become stronger despite the airstrikes. But it goes to show that Iran cannot just retaliate on demand.

Relative to size of population and economy, even if Iran was given a decade of preparations, they would still lose more material, resources, and manpower, than Israel. By far.

 

On 9/15/2020 at 7:41 PM, glenn239 said:

Iran's objective, as is obvious, is to break Israel's hegemony in Palestine without actually coming to serious blows with Israel.  As such, and given that breaking the siege of Gaza is an objective in harmony with breaking Israel's stranglehold on Palestine, it should be fairly self-evident in both Israeli and Iranian circles that Gaza is a potential future hotspot.

Gaza is known to be a hotspot. But their occasional fits were contained.

On 9/15/2020 at 7:41 PM, glenn239 said:

As I stated before, the purpose of Western policy should be to rescue Israel from fringe opinions such as yours, before your fanaticism drags Israel into disaster.

I am holding fringe opinions? Not at all. The party I voted for is consistently 2nd place with at least 30% of the votes. It's by definition not fringe.

I am also not a fanatic. I believe in technocracy and a cool headed, scientific approach to every aspect of governance and foreign policy.

On 9/15/2020 at 7:41 PM, glenn239 said:

That will presumably be because they sense opportunity against Israel's domination by doing so.

Israel's "domination" has remained unchanged. If anything, the Palestinians are now more isolated than ever, and Israel is more popular than ever.

On 9/15/2020 at 7:41 PM, glenn239 said:

Egypt seems like a non-player for the most part to me.

Against Iran, yes. But recent events have led Egypt to become more militarily ambitious. It is a dormant giant in the fight against Iran.

Should there be a need for a gulf war, involving a ground element inside Iran, a path was already paved for acceptance of Israeli military support, and the Arab League will act in a more coordinated way incorporating, among others, Egypt with its vast ground army and impressive air force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2020 at 12:24 AM, Simon Tan said:

Disagree. The cultural rot of Western culture is much more of a concern. 

Agreed.  A bit of fiddling while Rome burns in the West these days.  The indoctrinated discipline of the police and the armed forces is still strong, thankfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

MZ Or do you really think that 1 breach will end the blockade and force a land division, an entire navy and an air force to permanently back away from Gaza?

I think that the siege of Gaza is a political millstone around Israel’s neck, and that it needs to resolve at some point.   For Israel the blockade has been painless so far.  In Lebanon in 1982 and onwards it was demonstrated that the Israeli population has a limited tolerance for friendly casualties, and maintaining a blockade exposes friendly forces.

Quote

Relative to size of population and economy, even if Iran was given a decade of preparations, they would still lose more material, resources, and manpower, than Israel. By far.

Currently, sure.  Years from now, less and less so.  The trend is clear.  But that does not worry you, does it?  Because you hope the Americans will attack Iran and solve your problem for you, right?  That’s your big solution to this hole Bibi is digging, right?

Quote

I am also not a fanatic. I believe in technocracy and a cool headed, scientific approach to every aspect of governance and foreign policy.

You literally just said that an American occupation of Gaza to the purpose of rooting out the rockets and Hamas, done without Israeli permission, would be considered a hostile act.  That’s neither technological, nor cool headed, nor scientific.  

I agree that most Israelis respond rationally to stimulus, which is why I’ve come to the conclusion that the West must pursue a two-track policy with Israel.  On one hand, we must take responsibility and share the security burden in Palestine along with, and for, Israel, building political alliances with Israeli leaders to that end.  On the other, we need to call out Israeli non-cooperation and non-compliance with increasingly significant political and economic consequences.  This way, in Israel, the rational actors you mention can isolate the fringe and the hardliners voted out of office so that a solution can move forward.

Quote

Israel's "domination" has remained unchanged. If anything, the Palestinians are now more isolated than ever, and Israel is more popular than ever.

For Israel, the fact that the Palestinians are more isolated is bad, not good.  Things are moving in the wrong direction.  Israel is now more reliant on the United States than ever, and Israel is more on the Right in US politics than ever too.  The Left in the US is not as pro-Israeli as the Right.  If Trump wins, Israel gets 4 more years of strong relations with Washington.  But, if Trump loses, it's a question mark.

Quote

Should there be a need for a gulf war, involving a ground element inside Iran, a path was already paved for acceptance of Israeli military support, and the Arab League will act in a more coordinated way incorporating, among others, Egypt with its vast ground army and impressive air force.

Ten shades of crazy in that paragraph.  The Saudis are going to invade Iran when they can’t even conquer Yemeni rebels?  The Gulf States are politically fragile and in no mood for war with Iran.  Oil prices are crashing and with it goes the entire basis of stable government in these kingdoms.  Iran, in turn, does not want nor need war with the Gulf States in order to push through with its policies in Iraq and Syria.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2020 at 8:17 PM, glenn239 said:

I think that the siege of Gaza is a political millstone around Israel’s neck, and that it needs to resolve at some point.   For Israel the blockade has been painless so far.  In Lebanon in 1982 and onwards it was demonstrated that the Israeli population has a limited tolerance for friendly casualties, and maintaining a blockade exposes friendly forces.

The blockade around Gaza and the security belt inside Lebanon are two different things. Israeli troops were inherently more exposed in Lebanon than they are around Gaza. 

Palestine's unprecedented, almost inhuman incompetence and incoherence, is Israel's "millstone around the neck". Israel has a very clear interest in comprehensive peace with all its neighbors, and while the rest of the Arab world is cooperating, the Palestinians are proving to be a major obstacle in that path. 

On 9/22/2020 at 8:17 PM, glenn239 said:

Currently, sure.  Years from now, less and less so.  The trend is clear.  But that does not worry you, does it?  Because you hope the Americans will attack Iran and solve your problem for you, right?  That’s your big solution to this hole Bibi is digging, right?

You are inconsistent. You complain of an alleged Israeli plot to get the US to fight a war in Iran on Israel's behalf, yet you actively push for American intervention in one of the world's most hostile environments?

What's the difference here exactly?

On 9/22/2020 at 8:17 PM, glenn239 said:

You literally just said that an American occupation of Gaza to the purpose of rooting out the rockets and Hamas, done without Israeli permission, would be considered a hostile act.  That’s neither technological, nor cool headed, nor scientific.  

But then, you wouldn't approve of Israeli military intervention in the US to secure an election, for example, would you?

American policy versus Palestine is quite clear, and since Trump entered office, has been very effective.

The pressure campaign against Palestine has now driven them to announce new elections, in which the ultra conservative, ultra corrupt tyrant Mahmoud Abbas could be ousted by someone else. It certainly doesn't help that they're already hunting down his only real political rival and family, but it's still a step in the right direction. The Palestinians are reacting to the pressure campaign exactly as we want them to. They are losing the game of time.

On 9/22/2020 at 8:17 PM, glenn239 said:

I agree that most Israelis respond rationally to stimulus, which is why I’ve come to the conclusion that the West must pursue a two-track policy with Israel.  On one hand, we must take responsibility and share the security burden in Palestine along with, and for, Israel, building political alliances with Israeli leaders to that end.  On the other, we need to call out Israeli non-cooperation and non-compliance with increasingly significant political and economic consequences.

Israel is an ally, not a puppet. The moment you initiate a campaign of economical pressure on Israel, is the day your alliance ends. 

The US has a LOT to lose by alienating Israel. It's not a one way street where only Israel loses. Make a wrong move and it's a mutual defeat in the best case.

So far, in the history of Israeli-American cooperation on the Palestinian issue, Israel's approach has been more active and decisive than the American approach. Trump's election introduced a convergence of policies and nothing else. All his decisions regarding Palestine have been accepted by Israel, if not proposed by Israel.

On 9/22/2020 at 8:17 PM, glenn239 said:

  This way, in Israel, the rational actors you mention can isolate the fringe and the hardliners voted out of office so that a solution can move forward.

Israelis value their democracy far too much to allow foreign interference of the scale you propose.

The V15 case was a particularly memorable one. Israelis frowned upon it, to say the least, and that was small change misappropriated by mistake, not a matter of policy.

On 9/22/2020 at 8:17 PM, glenn239 said:

For Israel, the fact that the Palestinians are more isolated is bad, not good.  Things are moving in the wrong direction. 

Wrong. Palestine reacts to the change of wind in a positive way for us. Their former alliance with the Arab world has emboldened them, and was their card against Israel. It was their only ace, but a strong one, because they knew Israel needs peace with the Arab League. They literally have nothing to pressure Israel with, and they react as expected from someone who ran out of options.

On 9/22/2020 at 8:17 PM, glenn239 said:

Israel is now more reliant on the United States than ever, and Israel is more on the Right in US politics than ever too.  The Left in the US is not as pro-Israeli as the Right.  If Trump wins, Israel gets 4 more years of strong relations with Washington.  But, if Trump loses, it's a question mark.

If that "left" wins, Israel will still be relieved because America will be too busy fucking itself over that it won't be able to ruin relations with its allies. Can't beat others if you're busy beating yourself.

On 9/22/2020 at 8:17 PM, glenn239 said:

Ten shades of crazy in that paragraph.  The Saudis are going to invade Iran when they can’t even conquer Yemeni rebels?  The Gulf States are politically fragile and in no mood for war with Iran.  Oil prices are crashing and with it goes the entire basis of stable government in these kingdoms.  Iran, in turn, does not want nor need war with the Gulf States in order to push through with its policies in Iraq and Syria.

Iran, too, has finite resources. If it keeps arming Hezbollah and deploying more militias in Syria, it will eventually run out of slave labor, money, and material.

What I may say now is probably crossing the border of OPSEC, but Iran's entrenchment in the region may be irrelevant, and even beneficial for Israel in the attrition warfare between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

MZ Israel is an ally, not a puppet. The moment you initiate a campaign of economical pressure on Israel, is the day your alliance ends

And Israel go and ally with whom?  Russia?  Iran?  China?  Turkey?  Egypt?  The Saudis?  Hilarious.  Oooh, the big Iranian-Israeli coalition is coming if the US puts the pressure on Bibi.    Seriously, get real.  If the US starts putting pressure on Israel, Israel has no other options.

Israel is the size of Denmark but seems to have a chip on the shoulder the size of a superpower.   I think it’s best for the West’s own security situation to strip Israel’s rhetorical leverage by taking on the Palestine security burden and then forcing Israeli compliance with the UN.  Otherwise, if Israel is left in the clutches of its own fanatics, it will veer into an increasingly dangerous situation and drag us into its Biblical era bullshit.  Fuck Bibi.  The US needs to remove him from office, set him up in a nice retirement villa, and make it clear to the new Israeli leadership that the drift is over and the West is serious about settling the Israeli-Pali dispute for real.  No more talks and delays that go on for 30 years with no progress except further annexations and land grabs.

Quote

American policy versus Palestine is quite clear, and since Trump entered office, has been very effective.

We’ll see.  Enough talk for now.  Time to let it ride for now and see what comes of the next few years. 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

And Israel go and ally with whom?  Russia?  Iran?  China?  Turkey?  Egypt?  The Saudis?  Hilarious.  Oooh, the big Iranian-Israeli coalition is coming if the US puts the pressure on Bibi.    Seriously, get real.  If the US starts putting pressure on Israel, Israel has no other options.

Neither Israel nor the US can afford to lose one another as an ally. And both see great benefit in making concessions to increase trust. But unlike most allies, the US-Israel relations require very few concessions to make them work.

51 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Israel is the size of Denmark but seems to have a chip on the shoulder the size of a superpower.   I think it’s best for the West’s own security situation to strip Israel’s rhetorical leverage

This leverage is one of geography, military might, scientific capability, and trustworthiness. It's not a rhetorical one. None in the region is nearly as strong, trustworthy, or advanced as Israel is. That's why all Arab allies are considered temporary allies, while Israel is a permanent one.

51 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

by taking on the Palestine security burden and then forcing Israeli compliance with the UN. 

Is Israel in non-compliance "with the UN"? You'll also have to explain what "compliance with the UN means.

51 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Otherwise, if Israel is left in the clutches of its own fanatics, it will veer into an increasingly dangerous situation and drag us into its Biblical era bullshit.  Fuck Bibi.  The US needs to remove him from office, set him up in a nice retirement villa, and make it clear to the new Israeli leadership that the drift is over and the West is serious about settling the Israeli-Pali dispute for real. 

Even Bibi is capable of making peace with the Palestinians. For much of his career, he supported a 2 state solution in both words and actions. 

But just like any former Israeli leader, once you get "no" for an answer several times, after dedicating years to start negotiations with a party infinitely weaker, on humanitarian grounds alone, you start losing hope and eventually just give up on the whole process. 

Bibi did right when he just accepted Trump's plan and made peace with Bahrain and UAE.

He's also known as the man who imposed the longest settlement construction freeze and harshest policy against settlers yet. But it wasn't enough.

Gantz, his main political rival, has a more sound approach to Israel's security issues, but none believes even he can bring the peace with the alleged Palestinians.

None can make peace with Abbas. Even the Arab leaders have given up on him because they want the Arab Peace Initiative to progress and they see that their only obstacle is Abbas.

51 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

No more talks and delays that go on for 30 years with no progress except further annexations and land grabs.

There is progress. Abbas is aging. He's been sick before and can be sick again. His greatest gift to this world will be his rotting corpse. I give him maybe 20 years. In the meantime, Palestine's situation is in constant decline and he's to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Neither Israel nor the US can afford to lose one another as an ally. And both see great benefit in making concessions to increase trust. But unlike most allies, the US-Israel relations require very few concessions to make them work.

 

No, you are very very wrong.  Israel needs the US.  The US does not need Israel.  If every Israeli picked up and moved to the West tomorrow, the US policy in the Middle East would do just fine.   Even better for it.  Israel is a complication, an obligation, a problem.  It brings nothing to the table for the West geopolitically but, because Israel is the best example of Western values and principles in the region and is a population worth sticking up for, it'll suck us in.  I think of Israel like a child.  The parents must protect the child.  But, the child can also need a good spanking sometimes and a reminder of whose in charge.   Parents do not make "concessions" to children when it comes to the safety of the children.  

What I worry with in Israel is that fanatics on our side, (both the neocon "Let's make Revelations come true Biblical" nutcases in the US as well as Israeli hardliners) will try to drag the West into some big Middle East war.  What the West really needs to do is find an equilibrium where Iran, the Gulf States, and the Israelis can all live in peace.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

 

No, you are very very wrong.  Israel needs the US.  The US does not need Israel.

The only reason the US is a superpower is because it has many allies. Take away Israel and the US loses its permanent foothold in the middle east. 

Lose Germany, France, and UK, and it loses its major sources of income in the European continent.

It has many allies that shifted during the years, and many allies that remain neutral and cannot be counted on. 

Israel is in a league of only few whose commitment to the alliance is unwavering.

Israel's main contributions to the west were felt in its early days, when it was warring with its neighbors. But because it has created and maintained a sphere of stability, it is hardly felt nowadays.

The Suez for example, security in the east med, dominance over Syria and Lebanon who may be hostile parties in the east med, a passive deterrent against regional US allies shifting alliances or sudden hostilities, biggest contributions to the global war on terror and extremism.

Lose Israel and the region will become far more susceptible to falling to the influence of eastern superpower.

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

 Even better for it.  Israel is a complication, an obligation, a problem.  It brings nothing to the table for the West geopolitically but, because Israel is the best example of Western values and principles in the region and is a population worth sticking up for, it'll suck us in. 

Same goes for literally every other US ally. Every single one of them. And yet, the US wouldn't be a superpower in the fantasy of isolation that you promote.

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

I think of Israel like a child. 

Seeing what's going on in the US, I think that's what most of the world thinks of them.

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

The parents must protect the child.  But, the child can also need a good spanking sometimes and a reminder of whose in charge.   

The US is not in charge. It's a friendship. An alliance. Not a relationship of master-slave. Think like that and you'll quickly lose allies.

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Parents do not make "concessions" to children when it comes to the safety of the children.  

So you support an American intervention in Iran.

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

What I worry with in Israel is that fanatics on our side, (both the neocon "Let's make Revelations come true Biblical" nutcases in the US as well as Israeli hardliners) will try to drag the West into some big Middle East war. 

You mean the American-Palestinian war that you advocate for? 

That would be the wet dream of Hamas and you fell right into their trap. Imagine all the friendly fire incidents from the proximity of American troops to Hamas, and the lack of fluid comms on the tactical and operational level.

When the IDF is forced into retaliating but now there are Hamas, Americans, and civilians everywhere, it becomes much more difficult, and Hamas could now bank on American soldiers being killed, not only civilians.

And then of course American credibility would fall to an absolute 0.

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

What the West really needs to do is find an equilibrium where Iran, the Gulf States, and the Israelis can all live in peace.    

To do that the IRGC needs to be eliminated. That would technically mean a war with Iran, but unfortunately there are some people who think this war will require a ground element.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well on the nature of Allies, what does Israel really do for the US? It keeps Syria and Iran in Syria in line, certainly. Its done good work against ISIS. But these are all regional concerns, which Israel would be doing anyway. Israelis power projection capability is distinctly limited. The furthest it has ever gone in combat is Entebbe, which I dont mock but was a very limited engagement.

So it gets intelligence from mount Hermon, which im sure is valuable. But with the British signals base on Mount Troodos in Cyprus, its already got plenty of capacity in that regard.

 Both Britain and France are capable of out of area operations. Britain bust its nuts in Afghanistan, France continues to do good work in Africa. Israel doesnt do that, and doesnt really seem very interested in developing the capability to do so.

 

Incidentally, i think Israel SHOULD do so. I would like to see them develop a squadron of Frigates to help police the Gulf of Aden and the Persian Gulf. TBH, I think the Arabs would rejoice at that right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...