Trump Floats Possible Defense Treaty Days Ahead Of Israeli Elections

[Stuart Galbraith]

Id like Israel in NATO. But to do that it first needs to deal with its border disputes, something it seems wholly unable to do. For the record, i think Israel would be a lot more useful to NATO than Turkey. But that it seems unable to recognise the advantage it would bring, it will clearly never happen.

[Mighty_Zuk]

I don't think the West is a good fit for an alliance with Israel. Ideologically, the relationship would be fraught with danger due to Palestine and Israeli military actions in the region in general.

 

MZ - what's your take on Bibi not winning that election? With war clouds over Iran, I thought Israel would have gone with his military instincts?

Bibi is not the only candidate who can create a strong political posture against Israel's current foes. I've always voted against Bibi, and this election is no different.

 

Plus, Israel has far bigger problems to deal with than Iran. For me, the religious parties blackmailing Likud into infringing on the human rights of secular people, is of utmost importance.

 

Gantz will do a great job, I am sure of that.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Id like Israel in NATO. But to do that it first needs to deal with its border disputes, something it seems wholly unable to do. For the record, i think Israel would be a lot more useful to NATO than Turkey. But that it seems unable to recognise the advantage it would bring, it will clearly never happen.

The biggest hurdle ahead of Israel's acceptance into NATO is Turkey. It always was.

[Nobu]

Depending on the aforementioned details, the proposed defense treaty could potentially be a first step toward the nuclear de-weaponization of Israel and Israelis, and the reeling of them back in to NPT.

 

An intriguing proposal from the standpoint of a future regional security arrangement brokered by Washington and backed by American power alone.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Id like Israel in NATO. But to do that it first needs to deal with its border disputes, something it seems wholly unable to do. For the record, i think Israel would be a lot more useful to NATO than Turkey. But that it seems unable to recognise the advantage it would bring, it will clearly never happen.

The biggest hurdle ahead of Israel's acceptance into NATO is Turkey. It always was.

You are undoubtedly right, but NATO has always avoided admitting nations with disputed borders. I would guess the last would be West Germany.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Israel already punches far above its weight. The UK is still trying to figure out if it even needs to have any military at all. In Poland ball sense, Israel is our younger former british colony sibling that weve always looked after. meanwhile Dad (UK) cant decide if he wants to leave the nursing home or not to go out to a football game let alone more serious stuff like get into a barfight. at this point were worried hell break a hip if he gets into another spat with Argentina Ball.

It would be rather more accurate to say we want a military, the politicians have not figured out whether to be a leading role or a bit player like all the other Europeans are. Something of a conflict with how we envisage our position to be post Brexit.

 

We have been in that position since the end of WW2 to be fair. The mantra 'punching above our weight' is nothing new. I think it may have started with Harold Wilson.

 

Israel does not punch above its weight. Regionally, for itself, yes it does. For America, what precisely has it done militarily for the US since staying out of the 1991 Iraq war? Nothing. If the intelligence trawl from it was anywhere near what it gets from the UK. we would probably shut down RAF Troodos tomorrow and welcome the saving.

 

In the war on terror, Israel has not lifted a finger a jot to help the US. Yet they get all the plaudits, and the Europeans who have done all the bleeding get the order of the Purple Raspberry. I dont blame Israel for standing out, im just suggesting the US position on this absolutely doesnt make sense.

Quite a few misconceptions. The UK's massive reduction in ground fighting capability and outright neglect of the remainder of the ground forces, started long before anyone even thought about a Brexit.

 

Actually now we see a lot of renewed attention for the ground forces, while the navy and AF are not getting weaker.

 

So it'a fair to doubt Brexit's role. I would not credit Brexit for this shift in priorities either, as it so far seems disconnected. I believe it may only be connected with the Tempest.

 

 

You're also wrong on numerous accounts about Israel's supposed role.

 

First, although the US may benefit from the UK more in terms of intelligence, by sheer volume, that does not mean the US does not benefit tremendously from Israel.

There's hardly any place for comparison when the UK and Israel are so far apart, and it's safe to say the UK does not come even close to Israel in the volume of transferred data relating to middle east affairs.

 

Second, Israel indeed did not participate in the NATO led coalitions, primarily because those are NATO missions and NATO did not accept Israel's entry requests.

 

But if you think Israel is anywhere but the frontline of the war on terror, then you're sorely mistaken.

 

How many missions did the UK have in the middle east?

 

It had the war in Afghanistan, where it occupied territory and conducted peace keeping operation until 2014.

 

It had the war in Iraq, where it similarly occupied territory and conducted peace keeping operations until 2009.

It returned in a very limited force, barely an SoF operation, in 2014 to pick off ISIS HVTs.

 

And it also has various missions under the UN. That's it.

 

Israel, during that time, fought at least 3-4 times as many wars in Gaza and J&S.

It also had 2 wars in Lebanon (one of them in 1982 when the war on terror had only begun).

 

And now it conducts operations against Iranian terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq.

 

Or should I understand from you that PLO, Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, DFLP, IRGC, PMU, ISIS, and whatever Iran also has, are NOT terrorists, but the Taliban and some rogue Iraqi civilians are the big terrorist entities?

 

I see that right now Israel is bombing a whole lot of different terrorist groups across the middle east. How is the UK contributing at the moment to the war on terror?

 

Imagine a middle east without Israel... you'd probably see a big Warsaw-pact era red bloc, including Saudi Arabia. And maybe half a dozen US Army bases in Israel to deal with local terrorists, just as it has in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

It's also nice of you to say you've done all the bleeding, when the war on terror had claimed many thousands of Israeli lives.

I was using the quote boxes so this would be easier to pick through, but the Tanknet server threw a benny and ive had to do it like this. Its in order though, so I hope you can pick up on the answers to your points.

 

 

Ive no disagreement, but the army is still shrinking. There are also manning problems in the RAF and to a lesser extent the Navy as well. They were having to get guys approaching retirement to fill out the ranks of the QE. That is before we get onto the point about aging equipment.

 

Well im not really am I? I mean no disrespect to Israel or the IDF, but even Montenegro lost more servicemen fighting in Afghanistan than Israel. Granted there were practical reasons why Israel could not participate. But im not the US president trying to inflate the importance of Israel in the war on terror. There may be good reasons for this, but team player it is not and never has been. The last alliance im aware Israel undertook was for the 1956 Suez Campaign.

 

RAF Troodos. Its so high up, its even been hacking drone feeds from IDF drones.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-britain-spied-on-idf-drone-operations-for-years/

 

Then where is it? OK, so it does a good job of busting Hamas, but its done very little in the war against ISIS that I can see.

 

Im sorry, I dont understand the question. Air Missions, ground missions? Think of me as greatly obtuse and you wont go far wrong.

 

Actually we still have troops in Afghanistan to this day in a training role We also have SF in Syria, if the loss of a British soldier with the American SF community to friendly fire is any guide.

 

If you have evidence they have undertaken significant actions against ISIS, then I for one am happy to be corrected.

 

If we are going to go that far back, I can bring in the UK peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since 1974, the UK Peacekeeping effort in Beiruit in 1982, and both the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars. I seem to recall Israel had some nice things to say about the British SF community for stopping Scud missiles falling on Tel Aviv. The Idea Britain hasnt been playing a role in the middle east since the day it supposedly stepped out with the East of Suez rule simply does not stand up.

 

The Taliban were the petri dish in which the worlds worst terrorist threat metastasized. I dont believe we should mock efforts to keep the Taliban in their box, because any terrorist group that establishes in Afghanistan under their watch is going to be a threat to Israel too. Yes, the PLO were a threat, nice one for dealing with that. Show me the rest that are a significant threat to Europe and the CONUS. Israel has done a nice job at dealing with threats to itself, im not detecting much participation in the wider war on terror that even the minor European military powers have participated in.

 

Well the RAF is current running an operation over Cyprus, intitially with Tornado's and latterly Typhoons and Lightnings against ISIS. There is as I suggest still a SF presence on the ground even though its not talked about. Again, if you can demonstrate Israel is doing a better job of keeping ISIS in its box, im happy to eat humble crow. To my mind the only concern the Israeli Government seemingly has is the Syrian Government and Hama's. Of limited concern to US and European security. I submit we are helping you more than you are helping us at this point.

 

I do not want to see a middle east without Israel. Ive never suggested such a thing. Im suggesting that if Israel is the big ally of the US that its purported to be, it needs a lot more out of area capability than it has, and a demonstrable will to use it. It doesnt, nor will it have. Israel is virtually irrelevant when it comes to confronting Iran in the Gulf for example.

 

Look at the list of Americans and Europeans that died in Afghanistan. Stop pretending that Israel is the only nation on earth that really gives a damn about combating terrorism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/military

 

As pointed out before, thats not including the wounded. Canada took something like 5000 wounded. We took something like 2000.

 

 

If Israel wants to be an ally of the US, it needs to do as France and Britain have done and develop an out of area capability. Either military bases, or warships that can actually go to the Gulf and back. If it does not, its use as a military ally is distinctly limited. For the record I think Israel SHOULD do that, and I for one would welcome it developing a decent out of area maritime capability. But that is not going to happen.

1. The war on terror was not limited, and is still not limited, to Afghanistan.

Otherwise I can argue the UK did not contribute anything to the war on terror because it had 0 activity in specific areas where the US did have activity.

 

2.Indeed Israel did not ally with other nations for joint offensive military ops since 1956, but that is because of an Israeli policy of fighting its wars alone, and France's and UK's insistence on involvement.

 

Your arguments actually resemble those of Russian media quite a lot. You concentrate on the high profile empty gestures between states, but ignore the low profile but highly meaningful gestures, simply because one 'looks' better to the public than the other.

 

I mean, if we were talking about South Korea in a hypothetical scenario in which SK decided it can maintain its security on its own and opted against basing US forces, then you'd condemn them as bad allies, while I would praise them for not depending on foreign assistance so much.

 

 

3. And what capability does the UK gain from basing in Cyprus? Sure, it got impressive EW capabilities there, but it still does not give it the capability to have continuous presence in Syrian, Lebanese, and Iraqi airspace, with all the airborne capabilities that it involves.

It's one thing to overlook from a hill. It's another thing to actually be there in the middle of it all.

 

 

4.That is because its war with ISIS went mostly below the public's radar until it ended. And yes, it was classified for a long time.

Two things you may need to know:

A. ISIS exists in Egypt's Sinai, not only in Syria and Iraq.

B. ISIS's geographical location and local enemies greatly affect its decision making and targeting policies.

 

ISIS in Syria did not threaten Israel. It did have a few incidents in which it fired into Israel or at Israeli troops, after which the IDF responded harshly.

 

But ISIS in Egypt DID threaten Israel. Despite having the entire Egyptian army to fight, it did have the ability to hurt Israel at minimal risk by focusing artillery on Eilat, Israel's southern resort city and an important part of Israel's tourism industry.

 

Over the years, the IAF conducted over 200 airstrikes in the Sinai, by Egypt's request. And of course it had provided substantial intel to Egypt.

Additionally, the intel gathering efforts of the IDF in Syria and Iraq, have resulted in a lot of valid early warning against terror attacks in Europe, and a lot of intel for the US to use against ISIS targets.

 

 

5. ISIS is not the main terrorist entity in the middle east. Neither is the Taliban. The war on terror spans the entire middle east. Saudi Arabia and UAE are contributing in Yemen. The US contributes everywhere. Israel contributes in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, and Sinai. Today's UK's contribution is un-felt.

 

 

6. So now the only parties that matter are European nations? If it's not the US and Europe that are threatened, then it doesn't matter? Exactly how expendable are Israelis to you? Absolutely disgusting. I do not see you as expendable, but perhaps it's time to match our expectations.

 

7. Iran is the biggest manufacturer and exporter of terror in the middle east, period.

The Taliban may have served as an example to emulate, in their early years, but they're not the ones doing most of the investment today via manpower, money, and resources, to setup terrorist networks across the region. They're a very small actor now.

 

Iran can already threaten parts of Europe, and a lot of the major economical assets of the middle east.

In a multidimensional effort of increasing the range of its missiles and increasing their military reach via basing rights (e.g Hezbollah in Lebanon), it could have already threatened the entire Europe long ago, and all the middle eastern economical assets as well.

 

The main party standing between Iran and their objective is Israel. Otherwise they'd already have their land bridge between Iran and Lebanon.

Iran is already threatening much of the world, including the entire west, when it's shutting down oil production in the KSA. Imagine if it started doing the same for natural gas in Israel and Egypt.

 

Another dimension you've forgotten is the multiplication rate of terrorism. The Taliban is only one group that infected Afghanistan alone.

If Iranian terrorism is left unchecked, it would ravage the entire middle east and the west's ability to influence the Arab states to restart the Arab Spring in a more positive way (so far it's been mostly destructive and unsuccessful), would evaporate.

 

8. The UK and US doing more for Israel in the war on terror than the other way around? Laughable.

If the US ever gets to the point of fighting Iran head on, it would meet a far more geographically contained threat, with its regional allies more secured.

The US's contribution is the sanctions regime against Iran that cripples its ability to support its expansion.

 

I see it as an equal relationship. And even if it isn't equal, it doesn't matter much because the US's influence is far greater than tiny Israel.

 

9.Israel is irrelevant when confronting Iran in the gulf, because it's too far away, and its economy, population, and military are too small.

Israel IS ramping up its naval capabilities, as it is replacing some of its smaller missile boats with densely weapon packed 2000-ton corvettes, and also increasing its submarine fleet.

 

It has long been rumored to conduct covert ops via its submarines in the gulf, but as I've said, they're covert.

 

The UK does not have much influence in the gulf as it too struggles to deploy enough ships to deal with Iran's seizure of tankers. Neither could it do anything against Iran's recent attacks against the KSA.

It does have some impact, but then we see that the UK only does some work in the gulf, but does little to nothing elsewhere against other Iranian activities.

 

 

10. Israel already has extensive long range offensive capabilities far out of proportion with its size (economy, territory, population), but to shape its armed forces for expeditions, or long term remote naval deployments, is impossible. Another factor here is that gulf states would support a UK task force by allowing them to dock and refuel, but would refuse such a thing to Israel.

That would be akin to expecting Greece to build aircraft carriers.

[Colin]

Id like Israel in NATO. But to do that it first needs to deal with its border disputes, something it seems wholly unable to do. For the record, i think Israel would be a lot more useful to NATO than Turkey. But that it seems unable to recognise the advantage it would bring, it will clearly never happen.

I am a Israeli supporter, but israel does not belong in NATO and really Turkey should not be there either, sort of made sense in the Cold war era, but not now. Israel issues are different than the defense of Europe and to many of the countries there have "issues" with Israel, better Israel forms or becomes part of a more informal defense alliance.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Depending on the aforementioned details, the proposed defense treaty could potentially be a first step toward the nuclear de-weaponization of Israel and Israelis, and the reeling of them back in to NPT.

 

An intriguing proposal from the standpoint of a future regional security arrangement brokered by Washington and backed by American power alone.

For many reasons Israel would not de-nuclearize in the foreseeable future.

[Nobu]

One reason why Israel and Israelis might want to consider doing so comes from someone by the name of Matthew. For those who live by the nuclear sword.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Nobu

[rmgill]

You are undoubtedly right, but NATO has always avoided admitting nations with disputed borders. I would guess the last would be West Germany.

 

Greece/Turkey Cyprus?

[rmgill]

One reason why Israel and Israelis might want to consider doing so comes from someone by the name of Matthew. For those who live by the nuclear sword.

Those without swords can still die upon them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

You are undoubtedly right, but NATO has always avoided admitting nations with disputed borders. I would guess the last would be West Germany.

 

Greece/Turkey Cyprus?

 

 

That did not become an issue till after Greece and Turkey joined. Greece and Turkey both joined in 1951.

https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/greece_and_turkey_join_nato_london_22_october_1951-en-c193a825-2f1c-4e12-b26d-d35fabc6559f.html

Turkey as we know invaded in 1974.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

 

 

Israel already punches far above its weight. The UK is still trying to figure out if it even needs to have any military at all. In Poland ball sense, Israel is our younger former british colony sibling that weve always looked after. meanwhile Dad (UK) cant decide if he wants to leave the nursing home or not to go out to a football game let alone more serious stuff like get into a barfight. at this point were worried hell break a hip if he gets into another spat with Argentina Ball.

It would be rather more accurate to say we want a military, the politicians have not figured out whether to be a leading role or a bit player like all the other Europeans are. Something of a conflict with how we envisage our position to be post Brexit.

 

We have been in that position since the end of WW2 to be fair. The mantra 'punching above our weight' is nothing new. I think it may have started with Harold Wilson.

 

Israel does not punch above its weight. Regionally, for itself, yes it does. For America, what precisely has it done militarily for the US since staying out of the 1991 Iraq war? Nothing. If the intelligence trawl from it was anywhere near what it gets from the UK. we would probably shut down RAF Troodos tomorrow and welcome the saving.

 

In the war on terror, Israel has not lifted a finger a jot to help the US. Yet they get all the plaudits, and the Europeans who have done all the bleeding get the order of the Purple Raspberry. I dont blame Israel for standing out, im just suggesting the US position on this absolutely doesnt make sense.

Quite a few misconceptions. The UK's massive reduction in ground fighting capability and outright neglect of the remainder of the ground forces, started long before anyone even thought about a Brexit.

 

Actually now we see a lot of renewed attention for the ground forces, while the navy and AF are not getting weaker.

 

So it'a fair to doubt Brexit's role. I would not credit Brexit for this shift in priorities either, as it so far seems disconnected. I believe it may only be connected with the Tempest.

 

 

You're also wrong on numerous accounts about Israel's supposed role.

 

First, although the US may benefit from the UK more in terms of intelligence, by sheer volume, that does not mean the US does not benefit tremendously from Israel.

There's hardly any place for comparison when the UK and Israel are so far apart, and it's safe to say the UK does not come even close to Israel in the volume of transferred data relating to middle east affairs.

 

Second, Israel indeed did not participate in the NATO led coalitions, primarily because those are NATO missions and NATO did not accept Israel's entry requests.

 

But if you think Israel is anywhere but the frontline of the war on terror, then you're sorely mistaken.

 

How many missions did the UK have in the middle east?

 

It had the war in Afghanistan, where it occupied territory and conducted peace keeping operation until 2014.

 

It had the war in Iraq, where it similarly occupied territory and conducted peace keeping operations until 2009.

It returned in a very limited force, barely an SoF operation, in 2014 to pick off ISIS HVTs.

 

And it also has various missions under the UN. That's it.

 

Israel, during that time, fought at least 3-4 times as many wars in Gaza and J&S.

It also had 2 wars in Lebanon (one of them in 1982 when the war on terror had only begun).

 

And now it conducts operations against Iranian terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq.

 

Or should I understand from you that PLO, Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, DFLP, IRGC, PMU, ISIS, and whatever Iran also has, are NOT terrorists, but the Taliban and some rogue Iraqi civilians are the big terrorist entities?

 

I see that right now Israel is bombing a whole lot of different terrorist groups across the middle east. How is the UK contributing at the moment to the war on terror?

 

Imagine a middle east without Israel... you'd probably see a big Warsaw-pact era red bloc, including Saudi Arabia. And maybe half a dozen US Army bases in Israel to deal with local terrorists, just as it has in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

It's also nice of you to say you've done all the bleeding, when the war on terror had claimed many thousands of Israeli lives.

I was using the quote boxes so this would be easier to pick through, but the Tanknet server threw a benny and ive had to do it like this. Its in order though, so I hope you can pick up on the answers to your points.

 

 

Ive no disagreement, but the army is still shrinking. There are also manning problems in the RAF and to a lesser extent the Navy as well. They were having to get guys approaching retirement to fill out the ranks of the QE. That is before we get onto the point about aging equipment.

 

Well im not really am I? I mean no disrespect to Israel or the IDF, but even Montenegro lost more servicemen fighting in Afghanistan than Israel. Granted there were practical reasons why Israel could not participate. But im not the US president trying to inflate the importance of Israel in the war on terror. There may be good reasons for this, but team player it is not and never has been. The last alliance im aware Israel undertook was for the 1956 Suez Campaign.

 

RAF Troodos. Its so high up, its even been hacking drone feeds from IDF drones.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-britain-spied-on-idf-drone-operations-for-years/

 

Then where is it? OK, so it does a good job of busting Hamas, but its done very little in the war against ISIS that I can see.

 

Im sorry, I dont understand the question. Air Missions, ground missions? Think of me as greatly obtuse and you wont go far wrong.

 

Actually we still have troops in Afghanistan to this day in a training role We also have SF in Syria, if the loss of a British soldier with the American SF community to friendly fire is any guide.

 

If you have evidence they have undertaken significant actions against ISIS, then I for one am happy to be corrected.

 

If we are going to go that far back, I can bring in the UK peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since 1974, the UK Peacekeeping effort in Beiruit in 1982, and both the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars. I seem to recall Israel had some nice things to say about the British SF community for stopping Scud missiles falling on Tel Aviv. The Idea Britain hasnt been playing a role in the middle east since the day it supposedly stepped out with the East of Suez rule simply does not stand up.

 

The Taliban were the petri dish in which the worlds worst terrorist threat metastasized. I dont believe we should mock efforts to keep the Taliban in their box, because any terrorist group that establishes in Afghanistan under their watch is going to be a threat to Israel too. Yes, the PLO were a threat, nice one for dealing with that. Show me the rest that are a significant threat to Europe and the CONUS. Israel has done a nice job at dealing with threats to itself, im not detecting much participation in the wider war on terror that even the minor European military powers have participated in.

 

Well the RAF is current running an operation over Cyprus, intitially with Tornado's and latterly Typhoons and Lightnings against ISIS. There is as I suggest still a SF presence on the ground even though its not talked about. Again, if you can demonstrate Israel is doing a better job of keeping ISIS in its box, im happy to eat humble crow. To my mind the only concern the Israeli Government seemingly has is the Syrian Government and Hama's. Of limited concern to US and European security. I submit we are helping you more than you are helping us at this point.

 

I do not want to see a middle east without Israel. Ive never suggested such a thing. Im suggesting that if Israel is the big ally of the US that its purported to be, it needs a lot more out of area capability than it has, and a demonstrable will to use it. It doesnt, nor will it have. Israel is virtually irrelevant when it comes to confronting Iran in the Gulf for example.

 

Look at the list of Americans and Europeans that died in Afghanistan. Stop pretending that Israel is the only nation on earth that really gives a damn about combating terrorism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/military

 

As pointed out before, thats not including the wounded. Canada took something like 5000 wounded. We took something like 2000.

 

 

If Israel wants to be an ally of the US, it needs to do as France and Britain have done and develop an out of area capability. Either military bases, or warships that can actually go to the Gulf and back. If it does not, its use as a military ally is distinctly limited. For the record I think Israel SHOULD do that, and I for one would welcome it developing a decent out of area maritime capability. But that is not going to happen.

1. The war on terror was not limited, and is still not limited, to Afghanistan.

Otherwise I can argue the UK did not contribute anything to the war on terror because it had 0 activity in specific areas where the US did have activity.

 

2.Indeed Israel did not ally with other nations for joint offensive military ops since 1956, but that is because of an Israeli policy of fighting its wars alone, and France's and UK's insistence on involvement.

 

Your arguments actually resemble those of Russian media quite a lot. You concentrate on the high profile empty gestures between states, but ignore the low profile but highly meaningful gestures, simply because one 'looks' better to the public than the other.

 

I mean, if we were talking about South Korea in a hypothetical scenario in which SK decided it can maintain its security on its own and opted against basing US forces, then you'd condemn them as bad allies, while I would praise them for not depending on foreign assistance so much.

 

 

3. And what capability does the UK gain from basing in Cyprus? Sure, it got impressive EW capabilities there, but it still does not give it the capability to have continuous presence in Syrian, Lebanese, and Iraqi airspace, with all the airborne capabilities that it involves.

It's one thing to overlook from a hill. It's another thing to actually be there in the middle of it all.

 

 

4.That is because its war with ISIS went mostly below the public's radar until it ended. And yes, it was classified for a long time.

Two things you may need to know:

A. ISIS exists in Egypt's Sinai, not only in Syria and Iraq.

B. ISIS's geographical location and local enemies greatly affect its decision making and targeting policies.

 

ISIS in Syria did not threaten Israel. It did have a few incidents in which it fired into Israel or at Israeli troops, after which the IDF responded harshly.

 

But ISIS in Egypt DID threaten Israel. Despite having the entire Egyptian army to fight, it did have the ability to hurt Israel at minimal risk by focusing artillery on Eilat, Israel's southern resort city and an important part of Israel's tourism industry.

 

Over the years, the IAF conducted over 200 airstrikes in the Sinai, by Egypt's request. And of course it had provided substantial intel to Egypt.

Additionally, the intel gathering efforts of the IDF in Syria and Iraq, have resulted in a lot of valid early warning against terror attacks in Europe, and a lot of intel for the US to use against ISIS targets.

 

 

5. ISIS is not the main terrorist entity in the middle east. Neither is the Taliban. The war on terror spans the entire middle east. Saudi Arabia and UAE are contributing in Yemen. The US contributes everywhere. Israel contributes in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, and Sinai. Today's UK's contribution is un-felt.

 

 

6. So now the only parties that matter are European nations? If it's not the US and Europe that are threatened, then it doesn't matter? Exactly how expendable are Israelis to you? Absolutely disgusting. I do not see you as expendable, but perhaps it's time to match our expectations.

 

7. Iran is the biggest manufacturer and exporter of terror in the middle east, period.

The Taliban may have served as an example to emulate, in their early years, but they're not the ones doing most of the investment today via manpower, money, and resources, to setup terrorist networks across the region. They're a very small actor now.

 

Iran can already threaten parts of Europe, and a lot of the major economical assets of the middle east.

In a multidimensional effort of increasing the range of its missiles and increasing their military reach via basing rights (e.g Hezbollah in Lebanon), it could have already threatened the entire Europe long ago, and all the middle eastern economical assets as well.

 

The main party standing between Iran and their objective is Israel. Otherwise they'd already have their land bridge between Iran and Lebanon.

Iran is already threatening much of the world, including the entire west, when it's shutting down oil production in the KSA. Imagine if it started doing the same for natural gas in Israel and Egypt.

 

Another dimension you've forgotten is the multiplication rate of terrorism. The Taliban is only one group that infected Afghanistan alone.

If Iranian terrorism is left unchecked, it would ravage the entire middle east and the west's ability to influence the Arab states to restart the Arab Spring in a more positive way (so far it's been mostly destructive and unsuccessful), would evaporate.

 

8. The UK and US doing more for Israel in the war on terror than the other way around? Laughable.

If the US ever gets to the point of fighting Iran head on, it would meet a far more geographically contained threat, with its regional allies more secured.

The US's contribution is the sanctions regime against Iran that cripples its ability to support its expansion.

 

I see it as an equal relationship. And even if it isn't equal, it doesn't matter much because the US's influence is far greater than tiny Israel.

 

9.Israel is irrelevant when confronting Iran in the gulf, because it's too far away, and its economy, population, and military are too small.

Israel IS ramping up its naval capabilities, as it is replacing some of its smaller missile boats with densely weapon packed 2000-ton corvettes, and also increasing its submarine fleet.

 

It has long been rumored to conduct covert ops via its submarines in the gulf, but as I've said, they're covert.

 

The UK does not have much influence in the gulf as it too struggles to deploy enough ships to deal with Iran's seizure of tankers. Neither could it do anything against Iran's recent attacks against the KSA.

It does have some impact, but then we see that the UK only does some work in the gulf, but does little to nothing elsewhere against other Iranian activities.

 

 

10. Israel already has extensive long range offensive capabilities far out of proportion with its size (economy, territory, population), but to shape its armed forces for expeditions, or long term remote naval deployments, is impossible. Another factor here is that gulf states would support a UK task force by allowing them to dock and refuel, but would refuse such a thing to Israel.

That would be akin to expecting Greece to build aircraft carriers.

 

1 As well as all the above, its flying Chinooks in Africa on behalf of the French against Boko Haram. Once again, Im not aware Israel has had any dealings with Africa beyond training the military of the late Idi Amin, or contacts with the Apartheid regime. I dont criticise those choices (Israel saw fit certainly to regret the former), other than to relate its done nothing in Africa since

2 You answer my point. What use is a nation that is obsessed with going its own way without alliances in a military alliance? Its completely contrary to Israeli history, other than that single example. Which did not end happily for all concerned.

3 It does still have an airbase there, RAF Akrotiri. We have been using it to undertake the air patrols over Syria against ISIS.

https://airforcesmonthly.keypublishing.com/2019/05/21/lightning-to-cyprus-first-deployment-for-uk-f-35b/

4 Thats a fair point about air strikes in Sinai, but Im not sure its particularly fair to be conflating ISIS with those Islamic forces that were there. The last I checked they had more linkage with the muslim Brotherhood than any connection to ISIS. If you can illustrate this is the case, Ill happily take that on board though.

5 Hang on a second, it was only a few short years ago they had advanced to the borders of Baghdad. It was the Iraqi military, aided by the Kurds and the Americans and its allies, that pushed them back. You cannot just airily say they were no threat to Israel just because you didnt do anything about it. You didnt HAVE to do something about it because we had.

6 I dont believe I suggested anythign of the sort. You are the one suggesting that we havent done anything and our efforts are irrelevant. Here is the point, you act on behalf of your security. Fine. You dont dont act on behalf of anyone elses security. So why should Israel be a good alliance member for the US, when you only ever act on behalf of your own security? An alliance requires reciprocity, Israel, for the reasons you describe, does not. If you dont act on behalf of the security of Europe or the US, then why should they act on behalf of yours? That is the core of what an alliance means.

7 I dont disagree. So where are the israeli warships patrolling the gulf? Where are you tankers refueling US Warplanes? Where are your Hawkeyes, providing radar coverage? YOur drones, your submarines. You suggest that Iran is a threat, I quite agree. So why is it only a threat in your front yard, and not all through the middle east, as in Yemen, or the Persian Gulf? The threat Iran poses is not just to your own frontiers you know.

As for the Taliban, failed states are a threat to every nation in the 21st Century. A collapse of order is usually followed by the swift realisation that they provide a useful location for terrorists to relocated to, train, use as a logistics hub. this is precisely what happened in Afghanistan, and it happened in Syria too. In that context, the Taliban were a threat, and still remain a threat.

8 How many Al Qaeda did Israel strike around the world? So again, this isnt true. Localised you are great at dealing with YOUR threats. Im not detecting much interest in moving beyond that. Fair enough, but again, why does this make an alliance viable, when its going to commit you to doing things like that? This is what America expects from an alliance you know.

9 Well you can fly F35's up to their doorstep, so its not irrelevant is it? It could do a lot more. It just isnt. Again, im not criticising Israels choices, im just again pointing to the obvious problem, what use is Israel to the US when it wont deal with any problems beyond its doorstep? The furthest the Israeli military has gone was the Entebbe raid. That was over 40 years ago.

10 if you wanted to, you could use American underway replenishment ships. I dont suppose the Saudi's would be so proud as to refuse to refuel those, particularly if you are adding to their regional security. Yes, I know you wont, for very good reasons. Im saying Israel could if it chose to.

 

 

If Israel wants to be a solitare player, thats fine. Im not criticising them for this choice. But a solitare player does not an alliance make. Which makes this proposal by the US frankly ridiculous. Its like offering Sweden Nato Membership.

[bojan]

Slovenia and Croatia Stuart.

For someone so welcoming everyone into NATO you are mighty ignorant about those new members.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Israel's potential contributions to the US, as I've already said, are its airborne units in Europe.

3 brigades capable of long range airborne assaults will be ready in a few years (currently 2).

Sizable portions of the Israeli air force will also be ready to respond to any emergency in Europe. That is part of the reason behind Israel's recent exercises in Europe.

 

Israel used to be a base of operations for the US, in that it used to house the 6th fleet.

But that later became redundant because Israel's independent military capabilities created an aura of relative stability.

The largest threats in Israel's vicinity have dissipated, and the remaining ones are forced to be entirely preoccupied with Israel, as Israel's policy turned from weakening rivals to eliminating them (in the past, preservation of Hamas's rule in Gaza was deemed necessary to prevent a deeper humanitarian crisis, while in 2006 the destruction of Hezbollah was not an objective due to the urgency of the war).

 

If 40 years ago every one of Israel's neighbors could be seen as a threat to Europe and the US, then today that's no longer the case.

 

Israel's current contribution in security to the western hemisphere, is conducting the largest ongoing anti-terror campaign in the world. But it would be really useful if any capable nation would join in.

 

Israel needs a weakened Iran. The US also needs a weakened Iran. Both can work to that end.

Iran's proxies are not merely threats to Israel. Any US military operation would be threatened from all directions by various proxy groups, and even without direct military contact, Iranian militias such as the PMU and Hezbollah are undermining the US's influence in Iraq and Lebanon, and strengthening Iran's influence.

 

Israel is not shy of alliances. They were just not really needed in the high profile form.

It needed allies to resupply from, and in return would supply valuable intel during the cold war. Its enemies, so far, were not powerful enough for Israel to request physical aid.

 

But now you can see that Israel is trying to form alliances in the gulf, to extend the grand area of operations against Iran. Here, too, European countries are irrelevant. But the gulf states and the US are.

 

The gulf states need an eastern bulwark against Iranian influence. But Jordan is too militarily weak to do anything but internal security, and Egypt is too far away.

 

Also, when within the frameworks of an alliance, Israel may be persuaded to spend its resources to conduct missions in the interest of the US as well.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Mighty_Zuk

[Nobu]

An Israel that can say no. What men like Morita envisioned, Israelis are working toward. I may not like that they are ahead of Japan in doing so, but I also respect it.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Nobu I admit, 50% of the time I just have no idea what you're saying.