US Relationship with Israel

SafeSurfer

Maybe not a conspiracy but a theory. The strategic US interest in Israel is as a maverick nuclear power. Israel could launch a devastating "first strike" nuclear attack on the USSR/Russia without a guaranteed Mutually Assured Destruction strike on the US.

kryogen

The US Israel relationship is one that bothers me greatly

Run_to_da_hills

IMO the US Israel relationship has been deteriorating in recent times.

It would not surprise me if the US was to soon turn on Israel.

Jonny7

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe not a conspiracy but a theory. The strategic US interest in Israel is as a maverick nuclear power. Israel could launch a devastating "first strike" nuclear attack on the USSR/Russia without a guaranteed Mutually Assured Destruction strike on the US.

Think about what you just wrote.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

IMO the US Israel relationship has been deteriorating in recent times.

It would not surprise me if the US was to soon turn on Israel.

Ha, not in your lifetime.

SafeSurfer

Jonny7 wrote: »

Think about what you just wrote.

Is this a comment?

Jonny7

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is this a comment?

Yeah I want you to think about your comment and why it makes no sense as a theory nor a fantasy.

Do you seriously not see it?

JustinDee

The region is the left overs of a cold war theatre which still runs. Both sides of the Middle East conflict have their allies, poking and prodding them. No conspiracy. Its not even hidden.
Israel is supported in trade, diplomatically, structurally and martially by the likes of US/UK/Euro side of the coin while its foes are likewise supported by Iran, Russia, China in much the same vein.

Plenty of crossing over diplomatically but the root core issues remain the same, with no thanks to the self-serving proxies now neck deep in the place.

SafeSurfer

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yeah I want you to think about your comment and why it makes no sense as a theory nor a fantasy.

Do you seriously not see it?

If you want to counter an argument then why not just go ahead and do it instead of being opaque.

If you are arguing that Israel would not launch a first strike because it would guarantee their own destruction and thus would not be countenanced then I would not agree with your proposition.

If anyone thinks that US support for Israel is because they are the only Middle Eastern democracy then they are deluded. The US has and is supporting regimes in countries that they consider to be of strategic importance regardless of hoe democratic or undemocratic they are. Take Mubarak's Egypt for example.

JustinDee

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The US has and is supporting regimes in countries that they consider to be of strategic importance regardless of hoe democratic or undemocratic they are

That goes for any country on any side of the coin in any area of Foreign Policy eg. Nasser's Egypt with USSR and Iran, Syria and Lebanon with Putin's Russia.
If people think a nation helps another purely out of kindness or kinship, then they are deluded.

Torakx

Well the USA argueably blew themselves up to blame someone else for an excuse to attack.
Whos to say they cant nuke China/Russia through a smaller country and let the blame stay there.
I dont see why Israel is immune to their shinanigans, at a later stage of their relationship.

Maybe Johnny knows,since it appears obvious to him we are missing something.

Chuck Stone

JustinDee wrote: »

The region is the left overs of a cold war theatre which still runs.

That's a very reductive analysis.

The 'red menace' was certainly used as an excuse to topple democratically elected governments to retain control of resources and suppress nationalist movements Iran being a prime example.

Now instead of the red menace we have the nuclear bogeyman being used to suppress development of Iran. There will be no settlement of the current US/Israel v Iran & co because none of them want it enough - especially the US/Israel (evidenced by their scuttling of approaches by Iran and attempts by 3rd parties).

JustinDee

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's a very reductive analysis.

The 'red menace' was certainly used as an excuse to topple democratically elected governments to retain control of resources and suppress nationalist movements Iran being a prime example.

Now instead of the red menace we have the nuclear bogeyman being used to suppress development of Iran. There will be no settlement of the current US/Israel v Iran & co because none of them want it enough - especially the US/Israel (evidenced by their scuttling of approaches by Iran and attempts by 3rd parties).

Its hardly reductive. Communism is only a singular tenet in connection with the Cold War. What was apparent then was in effect, trade blocs and military pacts, and there is no change whatsoever in the Middle East today.
Unfortunately, prefer to see one side of the story and blame it all on that side of the coin.

studiorat

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe not a conspiracy but a theory. The strategic US interest in Israel is as a maverick nuclear power. Israel could launch a devastating "first strike" nuclear attack on the USSR/Russia without a guaranteed Mutually Assured Destruction strike on the US.

It would seem that Russia and Israel have much more in common that people realize. Next to Hebrew and Arabic, Russian is the 3rd most widely spoken language in Israel. About 20% of Israeli's speak Russian.

Israel and Russia have a 5 year military agreement, since 2010. One element of which involves Israel supplying Russia with "drone" aircraft to the tune of $400m. The drones are build by Israeli companies in Russia.

Both Russia and Israel are opposed to the removal of the Syrian regime. At least they were the last time I looked! Russia and Israel stood openly against the Egyptian revolution. Even on Iran they aren't too far apart. Russia is as much concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions as Israel and will do its best to prevent this probability. Russia uses Iran as a bargaining chip with the US and EU, it's a handy thorn in the side of the US. Russia sees Iran as a threat to it's influence in Central Asia and it has always sought to prevent Tehran from becoming a major supplier of oil and gas to Turkey and Europe.

I'd be interested to see how many of Israel's population are of Russian extraction as opposed to American extraction and then weigh up exactly how much influence either the US or Russia have in Israel.

Runners might not be to far from the truth. The media might suggest the US have more influence in Israel and the anti-imperialist/anti-globalist CT angle would like to think so because it suits their agenda. But given the amount of actual Russian people in Israel if push came to shove, the truth may be quite the opposite.

Chuck Stone

JustinDee wrote: »

Its hardly reductive. Communism is only a singular tenet in connection with the Cold War. What was apparent then was in effect, trade blocs and military pacts, and there is no change whatsoever in the Middle East today.

So you've chosen to totally ignore my point and revert to your original post?

Unfortunately, prefer to see one side of the story and blame it all on that side of the coin.

Who's apportioning blame? Again, trying to explain away a complex situation by presenting the false dichotomy of having to side with 'communism' or 'capitalism' is reductive. Both the USSR and the US/west used the threat of each other to supress development and maintain control of regions, populations and resources.

Jonny7

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you are arguing that Israel would not launch a first strike because it would guarantee their own destruction and thus would not be countenanced then I would not agree with your proposition.

Why not?

If anyone thinks that US support for Israel is because they are the only Middle Eastern democracy then they are deluded. The US has and is supporting regimes in countries that they consider to be of strategic importance regardless of hoe democratic or undemocratic they are. Take Mubarak's Egypt for example.

What has this got to do with your theory of Israel launching a pointless attack on Russia that ensures the absolute destruction of Israel?

studiorat

Is Putin's tour of Israel over yet? I hope they wait till he goes home before they attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm3aFy5zUNA

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Well the USA argueably blew themselves up to blame someone else for an excuse to attack.
Whos to say they cant nuke China/Russia through a smaller country and let the blame stay there.
I dont see why Israel is immune to their shinanigans, at a later stage of their relationship.

Maybe Johnny knows,since it appears obvious to him we are missing something.

Because you are speculating based on what is possible not what is remotely even probable.

Let me play..

The UK could launch an all-out attack on Finland.

Could? yes
Probable? no
Conspiracy theory? no
Ridiculously improbable theory? yes

Is this the ridiculously improbable theory forums?... could be

SafeSurfer

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why not?



What has this got to do with your theory of Israel launching a pointless attack on Russia that ensures the absolute destruction of Israel?

Who mentioned a "pointless attack" on Russia?

The USSR almost attacked Israel over the Sinai in 1956 and again in 1973 during the Arab war.

I am not suggesting Israel would attack Russia just for the hell of it. But in a global conflagration using Israel for a proxy nuclear attack is, in my opinion a possibility.

Also why do you think Russia are concerned about the siting of the US missile shield? If effective Israel would not necessarily be destroyed.

Jonny7

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Who mentioned a "pointless attack" on Russia?

Yes its absolutely pointless. The very last thing the Israeli's will ever do is self-annihilate themselves.

The USSR almost attacked Israel over the Sinai in 1956 and again in 1973 during the Arab war.

The Cold War is over.

I am not suggesting Israel would attack Russia just for the hell of it. But in a global conflagration using Israel for a proxy nuclear attack is, in my opinion a possibility.

In the same way the UK attacking Finland is a possibility. Its just not remotely probable.

Also why do you think Russia are concerned about the siting of the US missile shield?

Because Russia naturally doesn't want a foreign missile shield close to its border if it can help it.

You're well over a generation too late for this kind of theory, the US doesn't want to "first strike" Russia with nuclear weapons.

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because you are speculating based on what is possible not what is remotely even probable.

Let me play..

The UK could launch an all-out attack on Finland.

Could? yes
Probable? no
Conspiracy theory? no
Ridiculously improbable theory? yes

Is this the ridiculously improbable theory forums?... could be

Thats a fair point i dont think its probable.
But then again alot of attacks have happened around the world that might not have appeared probable until it unfolded that way.

I do like to speculate though

JustinDee

Jonny7 wrote: »

The Cold War is over

Sure it is. Thats why NATO has been dissolved and there is not even a hint of the same alliances still thriving to this day . . .

Jonny7

JustinDee wrote: »

Sure it is. Thats why NATO has been dissolved and there is not even a hint of the same alliances still thriving to this day . . .

Why should they dissolve NATO? the infrastructure is in place, its been in use a hell of a lot more than the Russian army.

The Cold War is over, but the general spying, geopolitics, suspicions, manouveurs, posturing, stockpiling, etc that went on long before the Cold War is still continuing every day.

It will be a long time before NATO is dissolved and the last nuclear warheads are dismantled. Of course there was a time when no one thought it was remotely possible for a lasting peace to exist among the European powers, and later the US and Russia, so we're slowly making progress somehow.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yes its absolutely pointless. The very last thing the Israeli's will ever do is self-annihilate themselves.

No, the very last thing Israel will do is activate the "Samson Option".

But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing? 'That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'
- Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts

Do you agree with this statement?

The very last thing the Israeli's Iranians will ever do is self-annihilate themselves.

Jonny7

Do you agree with this statement?

No, its the statement of some military hawk. Same as similar US, Iranian, etc military hawks.

If you search you'll find off-the-wall quotes from anyone from just about any country.

The very last thing the Israeli's Iranians will ever do is self-annihilate themselves.

I absolutely agree. Yet there is no way the current unstable Iranian administration should develop nuclear weapons. There are a myriad of reasons for this.

Sadly the typical low-brow response to this is "b-but the Israeli's have them" and "its not fair". Playground rules for geopolitics

Tzar Chasm

Pakstan could be considered equally as 'unstable' as Iran, yet their corrupt crony government bends over and takes it from the US so its fine that they have a nuclear arsenal.

For true stability in the region someone other than israel needs to have nuclear weapons, I'd rather that be Iran than the Saudis

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

No, its the statement of some military hawk. Same as similar US, Iranian, etc military hawks.

No. Not "some hawk". I've gave you his name and title in the very same post you replied to: - Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

This is the relevant section of his quote again. Which of his claims do you find unrealistic and why?

We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you search you'll find off-the-wall quotes from anyone from just about any country.

The problem is that the Israeli leadership are the same "off-the-wall" "military hawks" that you describe. They have been said to base their decisions on their own "messianic feelings" according to a former head of Israel's Shin Bet.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sadly the typical low-brow response to this is "b-but the Israeli's have them" and "its not fair". Playground rules for geopolitics

???
Am I supposed to respond to your own personal interpretation of what the typical low brow response is??? If so, how?

SafeSurfer

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sadly the typical low-brow response to this is "b-but the Israeli's have them" and "its not fair". Playground rules for geopolitics

Maybe you could enlighten us as to the typical high brow response to nuclear arms proliferation.

Jonny7

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe you could enlighten us as to the typical high brow response to nuclear arms proliferation.

Well it's just common sense, there shouldn't be any proliferation, especially among unstable countries.

The argument that X country should weaponise because Y country has them can lead to countries A, B, C acquiring because country X has weaponised - proliferation.

Again, its all relative to the situation and the country involved. The world is quite rightly going to be a lot more worried and concerned if e.g. the Palestinians acquired nuclear weapons rather than if the Swedes were in the same process

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, the very last thing Israel will do is activate the "Samson Option".

Do you agree with this statement?

Creveld's statement is out of context here, he quotes Dayan in relation to a retaliation strategy. He quotes Dayan quiet a lot actually! At the time he (Creveld) thought the Second Inftifada was a credible threat to Israel's existence. Turned out it wasn't!


One of the failures of such a strategy (Massive Retaliation) is it's hard to be credible. That said Dayan was close to arming nuclear warheads during the Yom Kippur war. But again that was an actual attack on Israel. Rumors also abound about similar happening during the Scud Attacks on Tel Aviv where the assumption was the missiles were armed with poison gas.

He's also changed his opinion a little at this stage. Perhaps since the victorious IDF became the defeated IDF. Since 2006 hasn't had quite the same opinion of the IDF or how powerful they are.

The "messianic feelings" story misses the point a bit. It's actually "messianic feelings" toward Iran. It refers to an obsession the Israeli government have with Iran. However the Iranian regime has an equally obsessive relationship with Israel. You could say Ahmadinejad has the same "Messianic Feelings" toward Israel.

What's important about Diskin's comment is that it shows how increasingly the Israeli military are playing down the threat that Iran poses to Israel from a Nuclear standpoint.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Not "some hawk". I've gave you his name and title in the very same post you replied to: - Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Every time I try to look up the quote outside of the Guardian site it links me straight to hardcore sites like informationclearinghouse.info so I'm a little suspect on the context to say the least.

Whatever this professor said is up to him. I'm sure professors and historians in Russia have at some stage said that their country is capable of destroying the world several times over - and yes I am sure they have been taken out of context too.

We're talking about Israel launching nuclear missiles on Russia here. It's getting dragged into another "Israel is bad" debate again though I feel..

The problem is that the Israeli leadership are the same "off-the-wall" "military hawks" that you describe.

The current Israeli government is a hawkish one, it's widely recognised as so, even within Israel.

studiorat

Here's the original interview, translated from Dutch to German to Englandish. 2003. The context is obvious here.

http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/glosses/englishTranslationOfMartinVanCreveldInterviewInElsevier.html

[...]The methods by which Israel is currently combating the Intifada are doomed to failure. The chances for peace and the founding of a Palestinian state are visibly diminishing. A conversation with a pessimist, who, as he himself says, is reviled in his own country.

Interviewer: Your specialty is war. Is what's going on here war at all?

Creveld: Certainly, although the Palestinians have no government, no army, and no [nationality]. Everything is in chaos. That's why we won't win the war, either. If we could identify and eliminate every terrorist, we'd win this struggle within forty-eight hours. The Palestinian administration has the same difficulties. Even in Arafat decided to comply with our conditions and surrender tomorrow, it's virtually certain that the Intifada would continue.

Interviewer: Are there any similarities on the Israeli side?

Creveld: If the dispute lasts much longer, the Israeli government will lose control of its people. For people will say: "If government can't protect us, what on earth can they do for us? If the government can't guarantee that we'll be alive tomorrow, what good are they? We'll defend ourselves."

Interviewer: So Israel is beaten in advance?

Creveld: On that I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing." That certainly applies here. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We'll destroy ourselves.

As an aside Creveld's analysis of the Libyan revolution is worth a read. He seems very fond of the auld quote!