PDA

View Full Version : Impact of Arab Revolutions on Israel



Officer of Engineers
29 Jan 11,, 07:14
There is Arab unity. Unity against the Oppressors ... and Israel made peace with the Oppressors.

kuku
29 Jan 11,, 07:24
Just make peace with whoever comes to power, as long as they were not actively supporting the oppressors, no one would mind.

Ironduke
29 Jan 11,, 07:27
This is a crisis - dangerous opportunity. I believe Israel will be able to come to a mutual understanding with the revolutionary forces sweeping the Arabic world - after all, they all wish for democracy, human rights, and freedom.

Officer of Engineers
29 Jan 11,, 07:30
This a revolution. THERE IS NO ONE IN CHARGE. Revolutionaries never remember their friends but always their enemies. Israel was Iran`s ally during the Iran-Iraq War.

Castellano
29 Jan 11,, 07:33
Yeah, I never found a most racist people than the "Arabs", though I've never been in China.

First of all, Israel never had anyone but Opressors to make deals with.

Second, the deal by which Israel gave the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a piece of paper is not "peace".

Ironduke
29 Jan 11,, 07:36
Yeah, I never found a most racist people than the "Arabs", though I've never been in China.

First of all, Israel never had anyone but Opressors to make deals with.

Second, the deal by which Israel gave the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a piece of paper is not "peace".
The Arab governments use the issue of Israel to oppress their own people. A tiny sliver of land, drawn out to be the hook-nosed Proctols of the Elders of Zion - it is the current leadership in the Arab/Islamic world that has perpetuated the dangerous myth of Zionist conspiracies to secure their own power over their people.

Time to throw the perpetuators of these dangerous falsehoods out so democracy, freedom, and human rights can emerge in the Arab world and a true peace with Israel can be found.

Castellano
29 Jan 11,, 07:50
Time to throw the perpetuators of these dangerous falsehoods out so democracy, freedom, and human rights can emerge in the Arab world and a true peace with Israel can be found.

EXACTLY what I think, and wish for.

Ironduke
29 Jan 11,, 07:56
EXACTLY what I think, and wish for.
Mubarak should be hung up like Mussolini as far as I'm concerned - if he flees the country to avoid the rope and save Egypt any more trouble - he can live in Switzerland with what little life he has left.

The noose is tightening around his neck - I'd love to watch him drop. Time to get the Saddam Hussein treatment.

Where is Egypt's Juan Carlos?

Time for the revolution to spread to Arabia. Hang those princes from some date palms. Get the Indian and Pakistani boys they kidnapped and enslaved to get out their racecamels to trample them down. Have some of the eastern European women they kidnapped and enslaved slip some poison in their whiskey or stab them in coitus.

With a few exceptions (King Mohammed of Morocco) - most of these kings and princes (the Arab world is monarchic, de facto) do not practice the religion they claim - their claim is false. They use it as a weapon against their own people, and use it to brainwash their populace that Israel is their enemy (it is definitely not).

I'd love to see these corrupt tyrants get the same treatment they have inflicted on millions of their own people.

I'm rubbing my hands in glee. :) I wanna see some necks break.

Rastagir
29 Jan 11,, 08:19
Time to throw the perpetuators of these dangerous falsehoods out so democracy, freedom, and human rights can emerge in the Arab world and a true peace with Israel can be found.

I couldn't agree more.

However, I always doubt how you can make people understand democracy and human rights when their entire experience is build on something else.

On the one hand, I am hopeful because in the case of Tunisia and now Egypt, the people are the ones demanding reforms (and not imposed to them by an outsider). On the other hand, I am not so sure that people born and raised and living under a different regime can actually adopt the principles and enforce a pure democracy. There is always the danger of misinterpreting democracy for anarchy or just swapping the head honcho with another power-monger and opperssive regime.

Mihais
29 Jan 11,, 08:34
What you seem to miss while rubbing the hands with glee is that there is no need for the Arab regimes to struggle to hard to brainwash the people.The desire to remove the governments can coexist with the antipathy towards Israel.Human rights,democracy are just political ideologies.Arab honour however was tarnished by the defeats.The Israelis have beaten the (still) ruling elites because they were too dumb to shoot straight(and what's vital in this ecuation is that masses think so).Those defeats will be considered just another sin of the oppresor class.

Mihais
29 Jan 11,, 08:47
I couldn't agree more.

However, I always doubt how you can make people understand democracy and human rights when their entire experience is build on something else.

On the one hand, I am hopeful because in the case of Tunisia and now Egypt, the people are the ones demanding reforms (and not imposed to them by an outsider). On the other hand, I am not so sure that people born and raised and living under a different regime can actually adopt the principles and enforce a pure democracy. There is always the danger of misinterpreting democracy for anarchy or just swapping the head honcho with another power-monger and opperssive regime.


I'll tell you bluntly.They can't.You need some sort of middle class,educated ,INTERESTED and ACTIVE in politics.Otherwise the democracy is just an empty suit.The poor are only good for being corrupted during elections or ignored in the rest.The rich can easily turn into an oligarchy.You don't build democracy over night.It takes decades.During those decades you need dedicated elites that work towards the education of the public. That's why elections per se solve nothing.It takes only 1 or 2 electoral cycles to work around the system,unless there is real substance among the electorate.

Btw,the Arab revolutions,just like the French or the Bolsheviks before them,are very prone to export.And we have yet to figure who will win the internal struggle between the various factions among the (supposed) victorious revolutionaries.That fight is a given.

S2
29 Jan 11,, 08:55
"...Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss..." Pete Townshend 1971

Skywatcher
29 Jan 11,, 08:57
The Israelis aren't exactly very high on the list of allies to the regimes', sir.

Heck, I think they even come after China and Italy of all people.

S2
29 Jan 11,, 09:03
You've gone off half-cocked all night on this "vanguard of the revolution" thingy. Whole new board. Twenty threads or so. Mobilize the internet. Still, as Mihais has pointed out, this is a dangerous situation for everybody concerned and the potential for manipulation is sky-high.

It is spontaneous and there's a boatload of energy out on the streets but one look at Lebanon or, better, Iran tells me as soon as the old guard have been tossed we're going to have a whole bunch of mighty pissed-off semi-literates looking conspiracies ahatchin' everywhere while blaming FOREIGNERS for all their ills.

And ills there'll continue to be. Ain't no magic wand that'll be waved to turn their hovels into some oasis paradise. And no patience for the determined long-term march of a thousand miles to get there from here.

Mihais
29 Jan 11,, 09:06
Skywatcher,only for public consumption.Of course they don't really care about the Israeli or,for that matter,the Palestinians.But here's some food for thought.All of them worked with the Israelis to suppress the ''freedom fighters''.We call those fundamentalists.Of course such things are not solved in the bazaar for everyone to see.

tantalus
29 Jan 11,, 14:58
these revolutions have a clear appreciation for democracy, whatever happens, this growing recognition is a positive development. Although I agree with the attitude in the thread regarding cynism towards what can be achieved, it really depends on what you hope to achieve, then one can measure if events are success or a failure


originally posted by Mihais
The desire to remove the governments can coexist with the antipathy towards Israel
true, this could be positive or negative for Israel, but I dont think Israel's peace with Egypt will have any effect (or very little) on how they are viewed by the revolutionaries


Originally posted by Castellano
I never found a most racist people than the "Arabs", though I've never been in China.
300 million arabs, 1.3 billion chinese, could be a record for the most people insulted (or implied) relative to words used, and not especially nice either

nolanp01
29 Jan 11,, 15:18
I come from a rather mixed background with some family in Israel, others from Iraq. In a sense I do tend to receive a lot of feelings from both end of the stick.

Now at this moment Israel has a win/win scenario, the new government may pursue status quo, but perhaps they will not. Should anything cause a full cease on trade in the Suez Canal, Israeli forces will be most likely maneuvered to the area.

Israel wants peace, recognition and allies. This is generally true for most nations, however when one man on the Arab side of the fence yells hatred to the other, the Israeli side will return those sentiments in full.

I know enough Israelis and jewish friends that would rather see the Arab world wiped from this world. As such, their government may represent that at times.
As for the Israeli-Egyptian 'friendship', it will only exist as long as it's valuable and they will not hold out a helping hand.

Perhaps Egypt will have a democratic nation, but democratic nations can go to war none the less. To be a democracy simply refers to a government where the people have the say, if the people want war, they will have war.

bigross86
29 Jan 11,, 17:08
So I've been following the Egyptian riots, but not too much over the weekend. Here's my thoughts on the subject;

1: It seems that Mubarak might not be on his way out, but is definitely going to leave with his power lessened. Mubarak has been overall friendly to Israel, so that might not sit right with the protesters after the riots are over, or they may not care. It's extremely naive to assume that if Egypt is a democracy, they will automatically love Israel as another democracy. Matter of fact, I will not be surprised if when this is all over there is more security on the border than before. In 1973 we had the entire Sinai as a buffer zone, now we have much less.

2: With any luck, this revolution will spread to Lebanon and Syria as well. Once again, to hope that just because dictators are overthrown there will be peace is a childish hope. However, specifically in the case of Lebanon/Syria, anything is better than Hezbollah/Assad.

3: While I understand the position of this board, titled the World Affairs Board, I honestly don't think that there's much that we can do, especially in places like Egypt where the internet has been shut down. I support the revolutions, but I was quite shocked when I logged in and noticed that we had overnight changed to a revolutionary newsletter. I personally like the way it was before, with anyone feeling free to say what they like and not being channeled towards specific areas of discussion. We have enough people here from enough places in the world that even without the new banners, forum, threads, etc... the riots would have gotten plenty attention, and there already were a couple threads on the subject when I checked yesterday.

In summary: The only real option we have available to us as members of WAB is to discuss this, since I think we are actually fairly limited when it comes to influencing governments and foreign policy. As human beings we should be as supportive of those seeking democracy, freedom and equal rights, but not be so naive as to believe that even if the revolutions are successful that there will be peace or that this will be a Cinderella story where everyone's living conditions will better overnight. Most chances are that the situation will stay exactly the same.

As for myself, and I said this 2 weeks ago when Lebanon went up in flames: I sure as hell hope things stay relatively quiet, because if they don't, I will probably be very absent around here for a while. One of the beautiful things about tanks is that we're usually at the forefront of these kinds of things, and if the shit hits the fan, you can be damned sure I'll be called up to the reserves

rj1
29 Jan 11,, 18:23
I'd love to see these corrupt tyrants get the same treatment they have inflicted on millions of their own people.

I'm rubbing my hands in glee. :) I wanna see some necks break.

The Shah may get deposed. Doesn't make the Ayatollah that follows any better.

Skywatcher
29 Jan 11,, 18:38
Skywatcher,only for public consumption.Of course they don't really care about the Israeli or,for that matter,the Palestinians.But here's some food for thought.All of them worked with the Israelis to suppress the ''freedom fighters''.We call those fundamentalists.Of course such things are not solved in the bazaar for everyone to see.

I strongly concur.

Skywatcher
29 Jan 11,, 19:17
Yeah, I never found a most racist people than the "Arabs", though I've never been in China.


What's that supposed to mean?

astralis
29 Jan 11,, 19:50
this thread demonstrates some -very- american idealistic thinking-- the idea that revolutions against a dictatorship is always a good thing, soon democracy and human rights will come, let freedom ring!

there is nothing further from the truth. revolutions have a -very- big tendency to be seized by the most extreme, by the most organized, and by the most ruthless. this is not an "arab" thing, see what happened during the french revolution. see what happened to the parliamentarians during the chinese revolution. here, the most extremist will be the religious organizations. if mubarak goes i am very nervous as to what the new egypt will look like. even if it -does- become a democracy, this will be a place where anti-israeli feeling will run wild, and where the muslim brotherhood will have a significant voice.

tantalus
29 Jan 11,, 20:02
Originally posted by astralis
this thread demonstrates some -very- american idealistic thinking-- the idea that revolutions against a dictatorship is always a good thing, soon democracy and human rights will come, let freedom ring!

there is nothing further from the truth. revolutions have a -very- big tendency to be seized by the most extreme, by the most organized, and by the most ruthless. this is not an "arab" thing, see what happened during the french revolution. see what happened to the parliamentarians during the chinese revolution. here, the most extremist will be the religious organizations. if mubarak goes i am very nervous as to what the new egypt will look like. even if it -does- become a democracy, this will be a place where anti-israeli feeling will run wild, and where the muslim brotherhood will have a significant voice.
the outcome is not alwalys good, but democracy should alwlays be favoured over dictatorship, this is not just about the geopolitical issue with Israel, but about the right of the egyptian people to determine their life and to have their rights, there are risks, but they must be accepted
You say you are nervous, there are good reasons to be, but we must accept these risks and support it, there are risks to not supporting it and that is to deny the rights of millions of egyptians, if their democratic governments in the future do not follow international law, then they can be held accountable, they should have the choice to determine their future

Mihais
29 Jan 11,, 20:36
the outcome is not alwalys good, but democracy should alwlays be favoured over dictatorship, this is not just about the geopolitical issue with Israel, but about the right of the egyptian people to determine their life and to have their rights, there are risks, but they must be accepted
You say you are nervous, there are good reasons to be, but we must accept these risks and support it, there are risks to not supporting it and that is to deny the rights of millions of egyptians, if their democratic governments in the future do not follow international law, then they can be held accountable, they should have the choice to determine their future

Fascinating piece of the idealism Astralis talked about earlier.I agree about the ''rights'' part.Not because I believe in some hoo-hah ''people have rights'' speech.But simply because the Egyptian people seems willing to take those rights by force,from those that held them at bay by force.Might is right.

Support democracy.Fine in principle.But what about interests.For example,do you think you benefited personally from the Western control over the Arab regimes in the last 50 or so years?Hint,there is something about fuel price,the lil' thing that determines a good chunk of all prices,since all goods and services need a ride.

International law,accountability.Fine speech again.But how do you manage that?Strictly talking about Egypt,Suez is still the choke point it was for the 100+years.What are you going to do?Establish an embargo if they do something nasty?Fight them?Or just issue a piece of paper?

tantalus
29 Jan 11,, 21:42
Not because I believe in some hoo-hah ''people have rights'' speech

do you think you benefited personally from the Western control over the Arab regimes in the last 50 or so years
complicated question but yes I have benefited immensly by western control of Arab regimes, I benefit immenesly, due to being born in a western country, from the staus quo, that does not make it right


Fascinating piece of the idealism

International law,accountability.Fine speech again.But how do you manage that?Strictly talking about Egypt,Suez is still the choke point it was for the 100+years.What are you going to do?Establish an embargo if they do something nasty?Fight them?Or just issue a piece of paper?
if they have the right and do determine the creation of a democratic system, then everything else will come as a secondry consequence which will have to be dealt with, solutions to potential future scenarios and outcomes have no say in the right of the egyptian people to self-determination.

Some broad dismissal of me being wrong because it is idealistic offers little substance, what you are referring to is an underlying philosophy that governs how I rationalise the situation, you have your own. I assume you refer to idealism inferring that I thought that democracy will paint a rosey picture and everything will work out in some ideal form, I never said such, infact I acknowledged the opposite can happen, it is not idealistic, just a point of view, such as yours, calling me idealistic is misguided.

T_igger_cs_30
29 Jan 11,, 21:58
WOW, 32 threads opened, a front page situational report.......a little OTT dont you think............... Not really likeing the way the site is leveling out on this one........ oh well lets wait and see what develops.............. anyone want to open a book on how many get banned before this is done?......:biggrin:

Castellano
29 Jan 11,, 22:08
300 million arabs, 1.3 billion chinese, could be a record for the most people insulted (or implied) relative to words used, and not especially nice either

Insulted, only if the 1.6 billion people you are talking about are racists.


I actually followed the framing of the thread, which, if you noticed, basically stated "Arab" Unity = Israel is F_cked; which is codeword for Genocide; which in turn reminded me of the Arab League with the help of the Chinese government enabling a racial Genocide in Darfur.

If we are gonna go for the Genghis Khan school of thought, and I disagree with the whole premise, at least let's call this stuff for what it is.

Castellano
29 Jan 11,, 22:20
What's that supposed to mean?

It means exactly what I stated. But maybe you want to challenge my observation.

Mihais
29 Jan 11,, 22:27
Tantalus,we are of course all about sharing views.By calling you an idealist I did not mean to insult you.This stuff about what's right and what's not is a long talk that has little place here.Suffice to say that while many people may think like you now,they might not like so much to live with the consequences.Noble ideas are fine,but wealth and standard of living tend to mold peoples in different shapes.It's not that I'm all about cynicism and I see conflicts everywhere:rolleyes:. But I've seen ideas come and fade ,however basic needs of a human being remain the same.

We'll live and we'll see.Right now we're just placing bets.


p.s Btw,I did not called you wrong.

tantalus
29 Jan 11,, 22:52
Mihais, :)
I am ofcourse something when a classification has to be applied, I just dont think an idealist is an appropriate term, I have outlined why I feel so

right and wrong?
your correct, its not the right place and it would be a long talk, too long


Suffice to say that while many people may think like you now,they might not like so much to live with the consequences.Noble ideas are fine,but wealth and standard of living tend to mold peoples in different shapes
very very true, I speak only for myself


We'll live and we'll see.Right now we're just placing bets.
we are placing bets regarding the outcome, but irrevelent of the outcome, I still think the best course of action at this time is to support democracy, for the reasons I outlined, - you see, we cant know the outcomes, and even if we could, and they were negative ones in the outcome, I still maintain that democracy should be supported, now I understand where we disagree, you are wondering what the outcome will be, so as to decide the best course of action, I am technically not, I would support democracy and deal with the consequences as appropiate, I just wanted to be clear, I hope I am, that the betting aspect is only secondary to my standpoint on the issue, so even if the outcomes prove negative in the end (although in the long run I feel democracy is the best option no matter what), I would still say that the correct decision at the time was to support democracy, my position is a stubborn one as I dont see it open to correction when we see the outcome, because simply I view it as the appropiate decision independent of the outcome in this type of scenario where the people by popular demand desire it so.

Iam not trying to further the arguement with you on the issue Mihais, I just wanted to be clear regarding my own reasoning

edit -
p.s Btw,I did not called you wrong
true, my bad, you raised specific questions, I did address them, but you didnt imply that, my bad

Mihais
29 Jan 11,, 22:56
Insulted, only if the 1.6 billion people you are talking about are racists.


I actually followed the framing of the thread, which, if you noticed, basically stated "Arab" Unity = Israel is F_cked; which is codeword for Genocide; which in turn reminded me of the Arab League with the help of the Chinese government enabling a racial Genocide in Darfur.

If we are gonna go for the Genghis Khan school of thought, and I disagree with the whole premise, at least let's call this stuff for what it is.

I think they need to issue launching codes for the R-bomb.

Come on, even if IDF(which incidentally has more combat power than the Arab League+Iran combined) goes bust,there's still little chance for the Holocaust.First,there are the Israeli nukes.Second ,there is the option of another exile.So even in theory there could be some sort of population displacement.Still a far cry from mass killings.
Btw,C,did you hear there is a new warrior order called the Knights of Sion?You could fit in very well:biggrin: (that's a joke,if someone doesn't get it).

bigross86
29 Jan 11,, 23:30
Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

As of 2007 (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060728_gulf_iran.pdf), the regular Iranian Army was estimated to have 465,000 personnel (235,000 conscripts and 230,000 professionals) plus around 350,000 reservists for a total of 815,000 soldiers

Israel has (http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291284986151.pdf) 187,000 active personnel and 445,000 reserve personnel for a total of 632,000 soldiers.

How does that fir your claim that the IDF
incidentally has more combat power than the Arab League+Iran combined?

To me, 200,000 soldiers is a decent sized advantage, even if they are untrained men with AK-47's

Skywatcher
29 Jan 11,, 23:32
It means exactly what I stated. But maybe you want to challenge my observation.

So Arabs and Chinese are somehow more racist than say the Germans and Japanese and countless others?

Skywatcher
29 Jan 11,, 23:35
Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

As of 2007 (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060728_gulf_iran.pdf), the regular Iranian Army was estimated to have 465,000 personnel (235,000 conscripts and 230,000 professionals) plus around 350,000 reservists for a total of 815,000 soldiers

Israel has (http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291284986151.pdf) 187,000 active personnel and 445,000 reserve personnel for a total of 632,000 soldiers.

How does that fir your claim that the IDF ?

To me, 200,000 soldiers is a decent sized advantage, even if they are untrained men with AK-47's

Well, a 25% combat advantage isn't very much if you have to travel 1000km to get at the other guy, who has Merkava IVs and F-15Es while the best you have to tool around is in T-72s and F-14s. It just means more mouths to feed.

Ironduke
29 Jan 11,, 23:39
Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

As of 2007 (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060728_gulf_iran.pdf), the regular Iranian Army was estimated to have 465,000 personnel (235,000 conscripts and 230,000 professionals) plus around 350,000 reservists for a total of 815,000 soldiers

Israel has (http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291284986151.pdf) 187,000 active personnel and 445,000 reserve personnel for a total of 632,000 soldiers.

How does that fir your claim that the IDF ?

To me, 200,000 soldiers is a decent sized advantage, even if they are untrained men with AK-47's
Ben, the Arabs and Iranians have weak logistical capabilities in attacking Israel. If every single Islamic state in the world were, through some strange twist of fate, to gang up on Israel in some warped anti-Protocols of the Elders of Zion jihad, Israel can sit back and pick them off one at a time.

It's as if China were to send over 300,000,000 troops to the United States in cargo ships that generally deliver goods made in Chinese factories to LA, Seattle, San Fran, Vancouver, San Diego, etc.

300,000,000 is effectively zero if the US just picks off one cargo ship at a time, sinking 50,000 soldiers per cargo ship with a single guided bomb. The United States would thus be protected by the breadth of the Pacific and have to fly 6000 sorties minimum from aircraft carriers, Pacific Islands, Hawaii, and the West Coast of the United States.

Asymmetrical warfare at its finest.

The analogy isn't entirely correct with regards to Israel - I use it to make my point.

A push to eliminate Israel takes overt planning and preparation, which means the advantage lies with Israel, in my opinion. With the exception of insurgent and guerilla warfare, conventional warfare against Israel takes time and preparation that is as clear as night and day to see. That is how Israel won every Arab-Israeli war.

Mihais
29 Jan 11,, 23:46
Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

As of 2007 (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060728_gulf_iran.pdf), the regular Iranian Army was estimated to have 465,000 personnel (235,000 conscripts and 230,000 professionals) plus around 350,000 reservists for a total of 815,000 soldiers

Israel has (http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291284986151.pdf) 187,000 active personnel and 445,000 reserve personnel for a total of 632,000 soldiers.

How does that fir your claim that the IDF ?

To me, 200,000 soldiers is a decent sized advantage, even if they are untrained men with AK-47's


BR,you can't be serious.I say just this:OIF. And come on,a little appreciation is due.I valued one of yours to be worth 3-4 of theirs.I make your PR and you jump on me?:biggrin:

Btw,you did nice with similar number ratios a while back.You tell me you are lesser men then your daddies and granpa's?Are they much improved wrt manpower?

bigross86
30 Jan 11,, 00:17
How hard would it be for Iran to stage it's troops out of Syria/Lebanon and use them as Forward Operating Bases? The distance between Syria/Lebanon and Israel is much shorter than the distance between Iran and Israel, I guarantee you. If Iran was to lend even half of it's military might to Syria and Lebanon it would not be a question of picking them off one by one, it would be massive waves of oncoming enemy soldiers.

Unfortunately, and this is how it's been for quite a while now, Israel depends on quick and decisive US action in an all out war, for resupply of war material if nothing else. Unfortunately, with the current administration in the US, I don't see the same decisiveness as the Operation Nickel Grass airlift.

Let me get this clear: I am not by a long shot stating that another holocaust will break out. However, according to Rabinovich (http://books.google.com/books?id=o-x8GDaaOQoC&dq=isbn:0805241760&hl=en&ei=-KdETevNAoLo4AaLj4CSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA), in 1973 there were approximately 1 million troops aggregate poised against the IDF from Egypt, Syria and Expeditionary forces, while Israel had approximately 415,000 soldiers. In 1973 Israel lost over 2,000 soldiers in 19 days.

Now let's look at modern numbers. We've already established that Israel has 632,000 soldiers and Iran 815,000. Lebanon has 60,000 and Syria has 480,000. (These are all numbers from Wikipedia and other internet sources, so they need to be taken with a grain of salt, but they are more or less accurate, one would assume). Toss in Hezbollah with another 10,000 combatants. So let's look at the revised forces, with half the Iranian Army sent to join in the fun. The IDF's 632,000 Vs a combined 957,500. Let's figure that the entire Syrian and Lebanese armies won't be sent, only 75% will be sent, and that Israel will only have 25% available since they still need forces to protect the Egyptian border and for the Palestinian uprisings that will surely accompany an all out assault by 3 nations on Israel: Now we have the IDF's 474,000 Vs a combined 822,500 (assuming Hezbollah uses their entire strength). The IDF is now outnumbered by almost 400,000 soldiers, even if they are untrained men with AK-47's.

Let's take it one step further, and Mubarak is actually overthrown and Egypt decides to ignore their peace treaty with Israel. Egypt adds another 947,500 soldiers to the mix. 75% of that will be 710,625. Now we're looking at the IDF's entire 632,000 vs 1,533,125. Israel is outnumbered by almost 900,000 troops, even if they are untrained men with AK-47's, which they won't be, since Egypt has M1 Abrams tanks and other advanced gear.

Give the almost 1:3 disadvantage Israel will be at given this extreme scenario, even the fact that Israel has Merkava 4 MBT's and F-15I and F-16I fighters won't make that much of a difference. Do you think the US will send forces to stand by Israel's side? Doubtful. Your container ship theory doesn't work here, either, since it can be easily defeated with a coordinated attack. In 1973 the Syrians almost broke through the entire IDF lines and had the route to Haifa and further south wide open to them. Moreover, as opposed to 1973, Israel does not have the entire Sinai as a buffer zone, nor the Suez Canal as a natural obstacle.

Edited to add: How many Expeditionary forces will join the fray? 1973 saw 100,000 of them, assumedly many from Iran. Since this number is not really quantifiable, we can arbitrarily subtract 50,000 Iranian soldiers from the 1973 level and still have 50,000 Expeditionary forces that will join to fight against Israel. Being outnumbered by nearly a million troops is nobody's version of a walk in the park.

Now that we have the numbers right in front of us, do you see why Israel has every right to be worried?

bigross86
30 Jan 11,, 00:22
BR,you can't be serious.I say just this:OIF. And come on,a little appreciation is due.I valued one of yours to be worth 3-4 of theirs.I make your PR and you jump on me?:biggrin:

Btw,you did nice with similar number ratios a while back.You tell me you are lesser men then your daddies and granpa's?Are they much improved wrt manpower?

OIF and an invasion of Israel would be massively different, if only because of the vast difference in size between Iraq and Israel, and the presence of the Palestinians, a natural enemy that would seize the advantage and cause chaos and havoc inside Israel proper, drawing IDF troops away from the borders, something else OIF lacked.

It's not a question of lesser men or not, it's a question of logistics over anything else. Iran can stage out of it's vassal states in Syria/Lebanon while Israel is dependent on a massive airlift from the US, which I've raised doubts about given the current Administration.

Just as a side topic, how many people in the UN will condemn Israel for senseless violence or a preemptive strike in case of war? Let's get realistic here. Aside from the belligerents I can count on Erdogan in Turkey and Chavez in Venezuela to jump in against Israel almost immediately.

Bigfella
30 Jan 11,, 01:21
this thread demonstrates some -very- american idealistic thinking-- the idea that revolutions against a dictatorship is always a good thing, soon democracy and human rights will come, let freedom ring!

there is nothing further from the truth. revolutions have a -very- big tendency to be seized by the most extreme, by the most organized, and by the most ruthless. this is not an "arab" thing, see what happened during the french revolution. see what happened to the parliamentarians during the chinese revolution. here, the most extremist will be the religious organizations. if mubarak goes i am very nervous as to what the new egypt will look like. even if it -does- become a democracy, this will be a place where anti-israeli feeling will run wild, and where the muslim brotherhood will have a significant voice.

Yup.

This is one of those 'be careful what you wish for' moments. Our best hope is that the people who eventually take charge metaphorically have posters of Erdogan on their walls rather than Khomenei (or Mullah Omar). Erdogan may be the baddie de jour in the US & Israel (and among Turkey's committed secularists), but there are islamists who see him as proof that democracy & political islam can coexist. I'm hoping some of them end up in charge, but assuming there are any more regime changes I'm not confident that will be the case.

paintgun
30 Jan 11,, 05:29
Revolutionaries never remember their friends but always their enemies.

This is exactly the first thing that come up in my mind.
The revolution will bring change if they are able to maintain their momentum and make Mubarak step down though they are short of an opposition figure. Will this spread wider to the Arab world ie Jordan, Yemen is yet to be seen.
But this change is not necessarily a good thing for Israel, or the world, and i concur heavily on the fluffy fuzzy euphoria of figthing oppression for freedom and democracy. Like the case of Iran, many said if Ahmedinejad step down, Iran will not suddenly turn up to be a new good boy in the middle east and make friends with every one.
This incident and ongoing protests in Egypt have to be examined and watched closely by Israel, and if things indeed spread wider, prepare for a storm of change.

Israel, the US, and the western world (pardon the generalizing) are really short on trust in the Arab and muslim world. I am confident 7 out of 10 average Joe muslims here in my country (the so called moderate and democratic) will hate the US or Israel for no apparent reason or excuse (pardon the generalization again).

I believe that might also be the case in other muslim countries, just hope that i'm wrong

Officer of Engineers
30 Jan 11,, 07:20
i actually followed the framing of the thread, which, if you noticed, basically stated "arab" unity = israel is f_cked; which is codeword for genocide; which in turn reminded me of the arab league with the help of the chinese government enabling a racial genocide in darfur.Crapface, I would strongly appreciated if you do not re-interrupt my freaking words and try to say what i never said in the first place!

I know you pretend to know a hell of a lot but you know less than crap all when it comes to military matters!

Arab disunity has always been an Israeli strong-point. That strong point more than likely is now gone!

Ironduke
30 Jan 11,, 07:23
Arab disunity has always been an Israeli strong-point. That strong point more than likely is now gone!
I would say the disunity had subsided in the heat of the revolutionary fervor. Right now the Arab people are one, but the divisions will no doubt resume. I do not see a United Arab States arising out of this movement.

Ironduke
30 Jan 11,, 07:31
How hard would it be for Iran to stage it's troops out of Syria/Lebanon and use them as Forward Operating Bases? The distance between Syria/Lebanon and Israel is much shorter than the distance between Iran and Israel, I guarantee you. If Iran was to lend even half of it's military might to Syria and Lebanon it would not be a question of picking them off one by one, it would be massive waves of oncoming enemy soldiers.
Ben - the analogy I wrote was just that -- the moves by the Arab actors and Iran would have to be exactly coordinated for it to succeed. The anti-Israeli Arab actors and Iran can indeed wreak havoc and chaos inside Israel.

You've addressed the issues of the Palestinians - I think it is time to bring this issue to the fore. I think there should be a more hurried, negotiated agreement in which there are land swaps with heavily Israeli areas adjacent to the Israeli border inside the West Bank, in exchange for Arab-populated towns adjacent to the West Bank in Israel.

Israel has spent too long holding onto territory it can never integrate into the Israeli state - if one holds people as if they are sand, they will slip through your fingers. As far as the Israeli state is concerned, the occupation of the West Bank is like a cancer that is eating Israel alive. Time for a strategic withdrawal.

I believe it needs to be a joint Israeli-Jordanian move in securing the situation in preventing outside actors such as Syria and Iran from meddling in the process. This process should be fully funded and supported by the US and EU. It will be painful, but I believe it is one of the best strategies in dealing with this situation.

If Israel seizes the moment and divorces itself from the Palestinian issue in a pragmatic and practical fashion (as I believe my proposal would accomplish), then Israel has undercut the democratic revolutionary forces in the Arab states that have a bone to pick with Israel, and badly undercut the legitimacy and reputation of Al-Qaeda/Jihadi-sympathizing elements in those states that shape public opinion against Israel, thus making it possible for Israel to switch from Western-backed dictators (e.g. Egypt) to genuine democratic leaders (whom I believe El-Baradei as having the potential of being).

While the Israeli-Jordanian initiative is underway, undertake limited mobilization in the northern areas to prevent Iranian-backed elements in Syria and Lebanon from undertaking actions that would disrupt and destabilize northern Israel and its position in the Golan Heights, and enable Israel to carry out policies in the West Bank.

Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate Palestinian factions would also need to have their legitimacy and reputation strongly reinforced by Israel, Jordan, the US, and the EU in this process.

It's a shell game - Israel has a card to play here, there are many correct ones, but one of them is an ace.

I believe it would be a win-win, positive-sum policy for Israel, Jordan, the West Bank Palestinians, the Arab democratic revolutionary forces, and would check the ambitions/strength of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah of Lebanon, and Assad of Syria.

Officer of Engineers
30 Jan 11,, 08:12
I do not see a United Arab States arising out of this movement.Neither do I but by the same token, the Israelis can no longer count on an uncoordinated Arab effort.

bigross86
30 Jan 11,, 08:48
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to get across. Looking at the extreme worst case scenario, Israel is in a very, very bad position when it comes to the numbers game.

I'm actually very surprised the Palestinians haven't taken note and started rioting themselves...

Rastagir
30 Jan 11,, 08:54
This is one of those 'be careful what you wish for' moments. Our best hope is that the people who eventually take charge metaphorically have posters of Erdogan on their walls rather than Khomenei (or Mullah Omar). Erdogan may be the baddie de jour in the US & Israel (and among Turkey's committed secularists), but there are islamists who see him as proof that democracy & political islam can coexist. I'm hoping some of them end up in charge, but assuming there are any more regime changes I'm not confident that will be the case.


I am sorry, but being from a country that has troubles with Turkey I can assure you that regimes like Erdogan's are less than desirable round this corner of our world.

I, myself, hoped that a change in Turkey's leadership might turn them around and be a breath of change, that we could find some middle ground and resolve differences. And there is change, but I am not sure I like the change I am seeing.

Just read the posts of some Erdogan's supporters in here and you will immediately know what I am talking about. And now imagine the very same thing going on in the entire Middle East.

Bigfella
30 Jan 11,, 10:14
I am sorry, but being from a country that has troubles with Turkey I can assure you that regimes like Erdogan's are less than desirable round this corner of our world.

I, myself, hoped that a change in Turkey's leadership might turn them around and be a breath of change, that we could find some middle ground and resolve differences. And there is change, but I am not sure I like the change I am seeing.

Just read the posts of some Erdogan's supporters in here and you will immediately know what I am talking about. And now imagine the very same thing going on in the entire Middle East.

I understand your point, but I'm thinking about the full range of possibilities here. Assuming that any given repressive regime goes one of the strong possibilities is that organized Islamist groups with zero interest in democracy take hold. Worse, they could be led by revolutionaries. However bad Erdogan may seem, he is positively cuddly compared to the Iran & Afghanistan. I'm not talking about my ideal regime - that is wildly unlikely. I'm talking about one of the more palatable propects among a bunch of unpleasant ones.

Keep in mind that while regimes like Egypt have fed the masses anti-Israel & anti-western tripe to keep them distracted, they have effectively minimized the outward impact of this. I fear that in the short term regimes with popular support in the Arab world may prove harder to live with than most of the dictatorships we currently decry (just as secular dictators in Turkey were easier for the west & Israel to deal with that Erdogan is proving to be). If that is going to be the case I'd rather an open political structure than a populist dictatorship. In a number of places (including at least one Maghreb country) 'Erdogan' factions in Islamist political groups have represented a moderate development that permits the possibility of democracy. I'd love all these nations to suddenly become models of Jeffersonian liberalism, but I'll take Erdogan over Khomenei any day.

Ironduke
30 Jan 11,, 10:33
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to get across. Looking at the extreme worst case scenario, Israel is in a very, very bad position when it comes to the numbers game.

I'm actually very surprised the Palestinians haven't taken note and started rioting themselves...
Ross - would like you to further your personal stance on this issue. What are your personal thoughts on the idea of territorial transfers based on adjaceny of Jewish and Arab populations to Israel and the West Bank, respectively? Do you think a joint Israeli-Jordanian security operation, strengthening the legitimacy of the Abbas faction, as a means to undercut Iran and its allies and dampen any anti-Israeli direction the Arab democratic revolutionary movement could take?

Rastagir
30 Jan 11,, 10:58
I understand your point, but I'm thinking about the full range of possibilities here. Assuming that any given repressive regime goes one of the strong possibilities is that organized Islamist groups with zero interest in democracy take hold. Worse, they could be led by revolutionaries. However bad Erdogan may seem, he is positively cuddly compared to the Iran & Afghanistan. I'm not talking about my ideal regime - that is wildly unlikely. I'm talking about one of the more palatable propects among a bunch of unpleasant ones.

Keep in mind that while regimes like Egypt have fed the masses anti-Israel & anti-western tripe to keep them distracted, they have effectively minimized the outward impact of this. I fear that in the short term regimes with popular support in the Arab world may prove harder to live with than most of the dictatorships we currently decry (just as secular dictators in Turkey were easier for the west & Israel to deal with that Erdogan is proving to be). If that is going to be the case I'd rather an open political structure than a populist dictatorship. In a number of places (including at least one Maghreb country) 'Erdogan' factions in Islamist political groups have represented a moderate development that permits the possibility of democracy. I'd love all these nations to suddenly become models of Jeffersonian liberalism, but I'll take Erdogan over Khomenei any day.


Ι get what you are saying. My problem is that I see a certain inability from the West in dealing with "Erdogan-like" regimes. I see the US and Europe at a loss in how to deal with shifting realities and, ultimately, having no clear plan of action, choosing instead of buying more time and waiting to see what happens next.

I might be biased but, in my mind, an ally who is working against you is much more dangerous and difficult to deal with than a clear enemy. As you said, Egypt was comparatively "easy to deal with" and, to you, Egypt becoming more like Turkey than Iran is a much more appealing prospect. But the way I see it, there are much more clear choices availiable in the case of Iran than there are in the case of Turkey (or any Turkey).

What I am trying to say is that we face a new challenge and I am not so sure that we have developed a way of dealing with it, as was the case in "Khomenei-like" regimes. And, to be honest, I am not so very hopeful of "the possibility of democracy" you mention.

Bigfella
31 Jan 11,, 03:02
Ι get what you are saying. My problem is that I see a certain inability from the West in dealing with "Erdogan-like" regimes. I see the US and Europe at a loss in how to deal with shifting realities and, ultimately, having no clear plan of action, choosing instead of buying more time and waiting to see what happens next.

I might be biased but, in my mind, an ally who is working against you is much more dangerous and difficult to deal with than a clear enemy. As you said, Egypt was comparatively "easy to deal with" and, to you, Egypt becoming more like Turkey than Iran is a much more appealing prospect. But the way I see it, there are much more clear choices availiable in the case of Iran than there are in the case of Turkey (or any Turkey).

reminds me of a famous LBJ quote 'I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in'. Summarizes it nicely.

The choices may be clearer with Iran, but I'm focussed on outcomes. Comparatively the outcomes with revolutionary Islam in Iran & democratic Islam in Turkey have been chalk & cheese. Knowing that iran is dangerous hasn't stopped it from being dangerous. Perhaps you'd be happy to have another Iran across the Med. I'd rather deal with democartic islamists myself.


What I am trying to say is that we face a new challenge and I am not so sure that we have developed a way of dealing with it, as was the case in "Khomenei-like" regimes. And, to be honest, I am not so very hopeful of "the possibility of democracy" you mention.

What makes you think we have developed a way of coping with an Iran-style regime? Iran is more powerful now than it has been for a VERY long time. If that is success I'll take 'failure' with an Erdogan-style regime any day.

Agree with the 'possiblity of democracy'. I fear badness.

Rastagir
31 Jan 11,, 07:25
reminds me of a famous LBJ quote 'I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in'. Summarizes it nicely.

And what happens when he is in the tent, pissing in the tent? :P


The choices may be clearer with Iran, but I'm focussed on outcomes. Comparatively the outcomes with revolutionary Islam in Iran & democratic Islam in Turkey have been chalk & cheese. Knowing that iran is dangerous hasn't stopped it from being dangerous. Perhaps you'd be happy to have another Iran across the Med. I'd rather deal with democartic islamists myself.

I am not exactly happy to have another Iran in the Med, I can assure you of that. What I am not happy about is reading posts which contain chest thumping and veiled threats against my country (and others) and the whole "we don't need you, we don't want you, and we can destroy you anytime we want" instead of the whole "zero-problems policy" they are supposed to represent. And all that covered under the mantle of democratic Islam.

As I said before, however, this might be just a difference of perspectives and I don't exclude that I might be biased on the whole issue. To you, Iran is infinitely more dangerous than Turkey. To me, is quite the opposite.

Bigfella
31 Jan 11,, 07:36
And what happens when he is in the tent, pissing in the tent? :P



I am not exactly happy to have another Iran in the Med, I can assure you of that. What I am not happy about is reading posts which contain chest thumping and veiled threats against my country (and others) and the whole "we don't need you, we don't want you, and we can destroy you anytime we want" instead of the whole "zero-problems policy" they are supposed to represent. And all that covered under the mantle of democratic Islam.

As I said before, however, this might be just a difference of perspectives and I don't exclude that I might be biased on the whole issue. To you, Iran is infinitely more dangerous than Turkey. To me, is quite the opposite.

I don't doubt that you have good reason to dislike Turkey & its current government. I suppose my question would be which you would see as more dangerous if you were both neighbours with similarly good (or bad) histories. Alternatively, if both nations were equally distant which would you see as a bigger threat to security? I'm not talking about the best option here, just the least worst of what I see as the likely outcomes.

Rastagir
31 Jan 11,, 08:06
I don't doubt that you have good reason to dislike Turkey & its current government. I suppose my question would be which you would see as more dangerous if you were both neighbours with similarly good (or bad) histories. Alternatively, if both nations were equally distant which would you see as a bigger threat to security? I'm not talking about the best option here, just the least worst of what I see as the likely outcomes.


Leaving bias aside and thinking like an Australian... I believe that you are right. (And no, I do not mean this as a "derogatory term or an insult", far from it). Iran has an infinitely farther reach.

But when you have a country that sees itself as the new leader of Islamic nations, has no qualms of coming at odds with former allies just to win popular support and is not directly opposite you but intergrated in your own power structures... I don't know. To me it comes a very close second.


Again, to reinforce a point: I have absolutely no problem with Turkish people. Some of my best friends are Turks. I have a problem with two faced policies.

Chogy
31 Jan 11,, 16:18
When I hear the word "Revolution", I think as much (if not more) about Che Guevara, Castro, numerous other tin-pot dictators that have come and gone, rather than those revolutions which had an uplifting and beneficial outcome. What good is a democracy when the tens of millions of poor simply vote bread, houses, free medical care, and cars for themselves without any realistic expectation of delivery?

"Democracy" as an automatically beneficial thing is entirely overused, IMO. Give be a benign dictatorship/monarchy any day over an unstructured, non-representative democracy. I am not feeling optimistic at the moment... Also, I am a bit puzzled at the automatic assumption that Israel is in the cross-hairs. Those currently rioting are thinking more about their own domestic ills (I'd suspect) rather than combatting the Zionists.

Wayfarer
01 Feb 11,, 05:46
Didn't want to start a new thread about this, but read a recent Stratfor report that cited Hamas insurgents moving into Egypt because Egyptian military forces had been withdrawn from the border of the Gaza Strip.

Red Alert: Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood | STRATFOR (http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110129-red-alert-hamas-and-muslim-brotherhood)

If anything, the propensity for the revolution to be hijacked by Islamists is very high.


"Democracy" as an automatically beneficial thing is entirely overused, IMO. Give be a benign dictatorship/monarchy any day over an unstructured, non-representative democracy.

Democracy at home and dictatorship aborad :biggrin:

I honestly think that Americas age of interventionism will be drawing to a close, as there is nothing they really can do in this situation without having far-reaching consequences. Ahmedinjad is having a field day watching the Mid-East go up in "democratic flames".

Let history take it's course, as self-determination is the only real long term path for these countries. Whilst there is an inherent risk of radical Islam taking control of the ruling apparatus, we have to sit back and watch the counter-revolutionaries at work, should such an eventuality occur. America should build ties with more moderate and more secular parties and candidates, establishing first the diplomatic connection, then the fiscal if necessary. Democracy can't be the same secular form in every nation, regardless of how successful or unsuccesful it is, and we have to take into account that democracy in some nations will have heavy Islamic influences, as is the case with Turkey.

Whilst Obama is being criticized for lack of action, there honestly isn't much he or America for that matter can really do. If they support Mubarak, they risk widespread backlash from the Middle East, especially from the "rational demographic" that the American left constantly highlights in dealings with Islamic nations. If they support the revolution, they risk supporting radical Islam.

It's a lose-lose situation, and bigross has really made a case for Israel having to be on it's toes.

Rastagir
01 Feb 11,, 07:01
What good is a democracy when the tens of millions of poor simply vote bread, houses, free medical care, and cars for themselves without any realistic expectation of delivery?

I guess it depends on your point of view. If you DON'T have all these essentials and see no light at the end of the tunnel under the current boss, a change of leadership, at least, brings hope.

Now, if this hope is unfounded or based on fault assumptions is another matter entirely.


"Democracy" as an automatically beneficial thing is entirely overused, IMO. Give be a benign dictatorship/monarchy any day over an unstructured, non-representative democracy.

Again, it depends on the people. The U.S. has been built on the idea of democracy. It's a part of it's culture. And it works. Problem is, not every nation on earth has the same cultural base. This is why, I believe, you can't "export democracy".

On the other hand, I cannot recall any "benign dictatorship/monarchy" where the people on the bottom don't suffer. The ideal image of a benign monarch/king/dictator/head honch is exactly that: an ideal, totally unrealistic.



I am not feeling optimistic at the moment... Also, I am a bit puzzled at the automatic assumption that Israel is in the cross-hairs. Those currently rioting are thinking more about their own domestic ills (I'd suspect) rather than combatting the Zionists.

It can go either way. It is equally possible that the Egyptians want the essentials, things western nations take for granted and are in no mood of a d*ck-waving contest with Israel or anyone else and the event where they put the blame of their oppression or lack of said essentials on someone else.

bigross86
01 Feb 11,, 08:45
A recent survey showed that something like 90% of Egyptians don't approve of peace with Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood has said that one of the first things they will do is put the peace treaty to a referendum.

Sadat was assassinated because he signed the treaty, and Mubarak has been ruling with an iron fist which has kept the peace alive. Once Mubarak is gone, things are open to change.

Double Edge
01 Feb 11,, 09:20
When I hear the word "Revolution", I think as much (if not more) about Che Guevara, Castro, numerous other tin-pot dictators that have come and gone, rather than those revolutions which had an uplifting and beneficial outcome. What good is a democracy when the tens of millions of poor simply vote bread, houses, free medical care, and cars for themselves without any realistic expectation of delivery?
You might want to read this (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers44/paper4308.html)


"Political Transformation" Not "Revolutionary Transformation" Seems to be Driving Force of Turbulent Unrest.

This may be a debatable assertion in a rapidly unfolding Arab turbulent landscape but yet briefly merits to be recorded as any misreading of the underlying urges that define this Arab turbulence can distort policy formulations of the United States as the predominant power in the Middle East.

On present indications no evidence is forthcoming which suggests that the Arab masses current turbulence is being driven by impulses seeking "Revolutionary Transformation". This upsurge has not been preceded by or crafted by any Arab political opposition groupings espousing a revolutionary change, other than the "regime change" of oppressive regimes which have throttled them for decades.

Therefore it is "Political Transformation" that is being clamored for on Arab streets. The Arab masses whether in Tunisia, Egypt or in other Arab countries where this turbulence is likely to unfold, seemingly stems from political suppression, denial of economic activity, abuse of power by authoritarian regimes and the dominance of security establishments. This is echoed by a noted academic from the American University in Beirut



"Democracy" as an automatically beneficial thing is entirely overused, IMO. Give be a benign dictatorship/monarchy any day over an unstructured, non-representative democracy. I am not feeling optimistic at the moment... Also, I am a bit puzzled at the automatic assumption that Israel is in the cross-hairs. Those currently rioting are thinking more about their own domestic ills (I'd suspect) rather than combatting the Zionists.
Ben has already answered the bolded part. On the news here commentators (a previous indian ambassador to Egypt) were referring to the large investments the US has made in Mubarak over the years would come into question.

Some were critiquing this dependency on just one person rather than the people of that country. But the TINA (There is no alternative) factor played a large role here.

paintgun
02 Feb 11,, 13:03
"Democracy" as an automatically beneficial thing is entirely overused, IMO. Give be a benign dictatorship/monarchy any day over an unstructured, non-representative democracy. I am not feeling optimistic at the moment... Also, I am a bit puzzled at the automatic assumption that Israel is in the cross-hairs. Those currently rioting are thinking more about their own domestic ills (I'd suspect) rather than combatting the Zionists.

Sir, if there was ever a peace between Israel and Arabs, it's a political one

Double Edge
02 Feb 11,, 13:30
There is Arab unity. Unity against the Oppressors ... and Israel made peace with the Oppressors.
Here ya go.

First article i came across that goes into the uncertainty faced by Israel as a result of this new development. It will be double jeopardy if Jordan succumbs as well.

Israel Shaken as Turbulence Rocks an Ally (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/world/middleeast/31israel.html)

By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: January 30, 2011


JERUSALEM — The street revolt in Egypt has thrown the Israeli government and military into turmoil, with top officials closeted in round-the-clock strategy sessions aimed at rethinking their most significant regional relationship.

Israel’s military planning relies on peace with Egypt; nearly half the natural gas it uses is imported from Egypt; and the principle of trading conquered land for diplomatic ties began with its 1979 peace treaty with Egypt. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has met with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt more than with any other foreign leader, except President Obama. If Mr. Mubarak were driven from power, the effect on Israel could be profound.

“For the United States, Egypt is the keystone of its Middle East policy,” a senior official said. “For Israel, it’s the whole arch.”

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because Mr. Netanyahu has ordered his ministers and their officials to stay publicly silent on Egypt while events there play out.

Many analysts here said that even if Mr. Mubarak were forced to leave office, those who replaced him could maintain Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, since it is the basis for more than $1 billion in annual aid to Cairo from Washington and much foreign investment.

But others noted that the best-organized political force in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which is hostile to Israel and close to Hamas, the Palestinian rulers in Gaza whose weapons-smuggling the Egyptian government works to block.

As the government evacuated the families of envoys from Egypt over the weekend, public affairs broadcasts and newspapers in Israel focused on the unfolding events there. Most of the predictions were dire. Two of three newspapers with the largest circulations, Yediot Aharonot and Maariv, had identical front-page headlines: “A New Middle East.”

It was an ironic reference to the phrase used frequently in the 1990s by President Shimon Peres and other advocates of coexistence who argued that if Israel made peace with its neighbors, a more prosperous and enlightened region would bloom. Events of the past five years — the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s influence in Iraq and the shift by Turkey toward Iran and Syria — have turned many Israelis rightward, fearing that the more time passes the more the region is against them.

Israelis worry that Jordan is in a precarious state and a successful overthrow in Egypt could spread there. And if the Muslim Brotherhood were to gain power in Egypt, that would probably mean not only a stronger Islamist force in Gaza but also in the West Bank, currently run by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, as well as in Jordan, meaning Israel would feel surrounded in a way it has not in decades.

If Egypt also turned unfriendly, that would quite likely stop in its tracks any further Israeli talk of peace negotiations with the Palestinians, officials and analysts said. A peace treaty with the West Bank would involve yielding territory and military control to a relatively weak Palestinian Authority. Trading land for peace with autocrats like Mr. Mubarak, some analysts say, is not a sound basis for enduring treaties.

There has long been concern that popular sentiment in Egypt is anti-Israel. Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Cairo, wrote in the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, “The only people in Egypt who are committed to peace are the people in Mubarak’s inner circle, and if the next president is not one of them, we are going to be in trouble.”

Mr. Mubarak has just named Omar Suleiman, his right-hand man and the country’s intelligence chief, as his vice president; Israelis would be reassured if he were to inherit power. Other establishment figures, while less friendly to Israel, would most likely maintain some kind of continuity. But Israelis feared that nothing was certain.

They noted that if Mr. Mubarak were to go, Mr. Netanyahu could be left without an ally in the region. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has been highly critical of Israel since the Gaza war two years ago and even more so after Israeli commandos killed nine Turks aboard a flotilla trying to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza last May. King Abdullah II of Jordan, while honoring his country’s peaceful relations with Israel, has been critical of Mr. Netanyahu since he took office two years ago and has declined to meet with him as well.

For the military here, a serious change in Egypt means a strategic shift in planning. Giora Eiland, a former national security adviser and a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said even if Egypt did not cancel its peace treaty with Israel tomorrow or in five years, a government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood would mean “you can’t exclude the possibility of a war with Egypt.”

“During the last 30 years,” he said, “when we had any military confrontation, whether in the first or second Lebanon wars, the intifadas, in all those events we could be confident that Egypt would not try to intervene militarily.”

Dan Schueftan, director of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa, said thanks to its treaty with Egypt, Israel had reduced its defense expenditure from 23 percent of its gross national product in the 1970s to 9 percent today and made serious cuts in its army. The relationship with Egypt also allowed Israel to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, since Egypt covered Gaza from the south.

Despite Mr. Mubarak’s supportive relations with Israel, many Israelis on both the left and right are sympathetic to the Egyptians’ desire to rid themselves of his autocracy and build a democracy. But they fear what will follow if things move too quickly.

“We know this has to do with the desire for freedom, prosperity and opportunity, and we support people who don’t want to live under tyranny, but who will take advantage of what is happening in its wake?” a top official said. “The prevailing sense here is that you need a certain stability followed by reform. Snap elections are likely to bring a very different outcome.”

Israeli analysts also noted that Egypt had worked hard to oppose Iranian ambitions, and the loss of Egypt as a counterweight would have consequences.

Mr. Schueftan of the University of Haifa made this point, saying, “If this cornerstone is removed or even in doubt, the overall picture for Israel changes and the threats become much more realistic than before.”

Isabel Kershner contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

astralis
02 Feb 11,, 13:57
BR,


A recent survey showed that something like 90% of Egyptians don't approve of peace with Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood has said that one of the first things they will do is put the peace treaty to a referendum.

Sadat was assassinated because he signed the treaty, and Mubarak has been ruling with an iron fist which has kept the peace alive. Once Mubarak is gone, things are open to change.

unfortunately this is why i think israeli foreign policy has been absolutely brain-dead the past few years. there was always going to be a period of instability when mubarak went, even if this was peacefully in his sleep some 10 years from now as uncontested ruler. now that mubarak is likely to wash out in a revolution, you can be sure that the period of instability will be prolonged. the end result will be an egypt that will not be half as friendly as mubarak's regime was-- and that's being optimistic.

israel did not negotiate when it was in an unparalleled position of strength, now it will face a significantly worse security situation. israeli defense expenditures will most certainly increase, as will deployments close to the sinai. depending on how the new egypt looks, this could range from uneasy continued adherence to the status quo (but without the proactive egyptian attempts at mediation, and certainly without the egyptian blockade of hamas) to latent hostility to open hostility/support for hamas (although i do not think it will be as bad as that).

this in turn will effect IDF training cycles. there's going to be a renewed focus on conventional warfare, which will impact counterinsurgency/counterterrorist training.

moreover the PA just promised some elections, that will introduce more uncertainty. i really hope israel can get its s**t together and for once stop pandering to the ultra-orthodox. if abbas and fayyad goes, and if king abdullah of jordan grows weaker, israel will be in its worst security situation since 1973.

friedman has an article on this today, i'll post it a bit later.

snapper
02 Feb 11,, 14:09
astralis Sir, do you therefore suggest that this may actualy encourage Israeli/Palestinian agreement?

bigross86
02 Feb 11,, 16:44
unfortunately this is why i think israeli foreign policy has been absolutely brain-dead the past few years.

No arguments here. That's why my friends and I are thinking up ways to shore up Israeli PR. PR is but one part of a comprehensive foreign polict which has been virtually non-existent for longer than I can remember.


israel did not negotiate when it was in an unparalleled position of strength, now it will face a significantly worse security situation. israeli defense expenditures will most certainly increase, as will deployments close to the sinai. depending on how the new egypt looks, this could range from uneasy continued adherence to the status quo (but without the proactive egyptian attempts at mediation, and certainly without the egyptian blockade of hamas) to latent hostility to open hostility/support for hamas (although i do not think it will be as bad as that).

With any luck, the Sinai will remain demilitarized for quite a while just because of the Status Quo. Egypt's support when it comes to Gaza and mediation in general will almost certainly be lost, though.


this in turn will effect IDF training cycles. there's going to be a renewed focus on conventional warfare, which will impact counterinsurgency/counterterrorist training.

This will impact training away from Counter terror back to conventional warfare (although for armor the focus is almost entirely conventional, anyway), but with luck, there won't need to be units posted on the Sinai border, since it's at least 200 km in a straight line from the Suez Canal to the Israeli border. If Israel steps up it's intel, we'll have a relatively decent warning if troops enter the Sinai, hopefully enough to get troops down to the border.


moreover the PA just promised some elections, that will introduce more uncertainty. i really hope israel can get its s**t together and for once stop pandering to the ultra-orthodox. if abbas and fayyad goes, and if king abdullah of jordan grows weaker, israel will be in its worst security situation since 1973.

Amen, brother! I've been fighting for that for a while now. Unfortunately, after the leaks last couple of weeks, it seems Abbas will almost definitely be out. I posted earlier in this thread how Israel hangs on a precarious thread, with even a potential 1 million EXTRA soldiers arrayed against us.

The main question here, if hostilities do break out, will be just like in 1973, resupply. In 1973, Nixon was decisive and Operation Nickel Grass came around in time. As someone that seems to be in the know in certain parts of DC, can you see Obama being as decisive and sending a resupply airlift right away? It's a well-known fact to both Israel and her enemies that our war-stocks are not that deep and will run out quickly, especially in a war on all fronts

astralis
02 Feb 11,, 16:57
snapper,


astralis Sir, do you therefore suggest that this may actualy encourage Israeli/Palestinian agreement?

with immense US pressure and in a short timeframe. israel must negotiate before any new government in egypt starts re-arranging security affairs. abbas must negotiate while he still has domestic power.

astralis
02 Feb 11,, 17:09
BR,


No arguments here. That's why my friends and I are thinking up ways to shore up Israeli PR. PR is but one part of a comprehensive foreign polict which has been virtually non-existent for longer than I can remember.


unfortunately, this requires more than PR work. this also requires substantive foreign policy decisions. most of the good decisions involve trade-offs that increase israel's short-medium term risk for a dramatic improvement on long-term risk.

israel has not been willing to make these trade-offs. if israel doesn't change course soon, your country will enter a prolonged period of heightened security risk.


If Israel steps up it's intel, we'll have a relatively decent warning if troops enter the Sinai, hopefully enough to get troops down to the border.


either way, israel will need to up its intel/defense spending.


Amen, brother! I've been fighting for that for a while now.

it really worries me, the extent that the ultra-orthodox can control israeli defense/domestic policies. israeli negotiation with abbas had broad support for -years- and nothing was done. it is one of those "can't believe i'd be saying this" moments, but ariel sharon was the last israeli politico who not only had a vision of the israeli future, but was willing to gamble politically to make it happen.

israel needs to reduce the palestinian issue as much as possible just so it will have the resources to handle a potential problem with egypt next door. quibbling about settlements is small beans by comparison.


As someone that seems to be in the know in certain parts of DC, can you see Obama being as decisive and sending a resupply airlift right away? It's a well-known fact to both Israel and her enemies that our war-stocks are not that deep and will run out quickly, especially in a war on all fronts

i don't foresee any cobbling together of the '67 or '73 alliances. the US these days is simply far too involved in the area for that to occur. regarding resupply, though, obama's foreign policy doesn't deviate from the mean in that he will provide for israeli self-defense. he'd do that anyway, even if he was dead-set against it-- if he didn't, his own party (let alone the republicans) would eat him alive.

note how quickly USAF scrambled to help israel in the lebanon war. we even gave strategic advice, although this was ignored, to the IDF's sorrow.

bigross86
02 Feb 11,, 17:36
BR,

unfortunately, this requires more than PR work. this also requires substantive foreign policy decisions. most of the good decisions involve trade-offs that increase israel's short-medium term risk for a dramatic improvement on long-term risk.

BR,israel has not been willing to make these trade-offs. if israel doesn't change course soon, your country will enter a prolonged period of heightened security risk.

The hope is that if the FM realizes that other people are doing their own work better than they are, they will try and do something to fix themselves. A sort of shot across the bow, as it were.

I am all for a lasting peace with the Palestinians, and the sooner we can get that, the better everyone's situation will be, especially Israel's, both foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, I'm not the PM, and I've got the feeling neither Israel nor the Palestinians would like my version of peace: Straighten up and fly right, or I'll make your life a living hell, I don't care whose side you're on.


BR,either way, israel will need to up its intel/defense spending.

I don't quite want to get into specifics here, but with the situation in Darfur and the influx of Sudanese refugees into Israel, our intel on the border won't need as much shoring up as you'd expect. Not only that, but we have cameras that can see the dust plume of a tank (or battalion of tanks) from quite some distance. Moreover, it should be plenty obvious to almost anyone looking if troops start crossing the Suez Canal.

Of course, this is all dependent on the Sinai remaining de-militarized. If it's not, things look entirely different, and yes, we will need to station troops by the border.


BR,it really worries me, the extent that the ultra-orthodox can control israeli defense/domestic policies. israeli negotiation with abbas had broad support for -years- and nothing was done. it is one of those "can't believe i'd be saying this" moments, but ariel sharon was the last israeli politico who not only had a vision of the israeli future, but was willing to gamble politically to make it happen.

This is true, and if he hadn't had a stroke the entire Middle East might look different today. Unfortunately, he did have a stroke, and after that came Olmert who was a total tool, and now we have Bibi. How ironic that given one Hawkish PM, the US now looks back with nostalgia to another Hawkish PM.


BR,israel needs to reduce the palestinian issue as much as possible just so it will have the resources to handle a potential problem with egypt next door. quibbling about settlements is small beans by comparison.

Unfortunately, fundamentalists are kind of hard to deal with, no matter whose side they're on...


BR,i don't foresee any cobbling together of the '67 or '73 alliances. the US these days is simply far too involved in the area for that to occur. regarding resupply, though, obama's foreign policy doesn't deviate from the mean in that he will provide for israeli self-defense. he'd do that anyway, even if he was dead-set against it-- if he didn't, his own party (let alone the republicans) would eat him alive.

If Egypt goes to the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think that a Lebanon-Syria-Egypt alliance is possible? Egypt still is the big boy in the Arab World, something Iran still refuses to admit. Do you think it's possible that Iran could swallow some of it's pride and agree to stage troops out of Syria and Lebanon to aid in the destruction of Israel, or are we actually more useful alive as a scapegoat and excuse to keep building nukes?


note how quickly USAF scrambled to help israel in the lebanon war. we even gave strategic advice, although this was ignored, to the IDF's sorrow.

I wouldn't know about all that, I was busy dealing with things on a very immediate and tactical level...

rj1
02 Feb 11,, 17:49
If Egypt goes to the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think that a Lebanon-Syria-Egypt alliance is possible? Egypt still is the big boy in the Arab World, something Iran still refuses to admit. Do you think it's possible that Iran could swallow some of it's pride and agree to stage troops out of Syria and Lebanon to aid in the destruction of Israel, or are we actually more useful alive as a scapegoat and excuse to keep building nukes?

Isn't a lot of the problem with the different Arab factions is they don't really get along with one another well to start with?

astralis
02 Feb 11,, 17:54
BR,


If Egypt goes to the Muslim Brotherhood, do you not think that a Lebanon-Syria-Egypt alliance is possible? Egypt still is the big boy in the Arab World, something Iran still refuses to admit. Do you think it's possible that Iran could swallow some of it's pride and agree to stage troops out of Syria and Lebanon to aid in the destruction of Israel, or are we actually more useful alive as a scapegoat and excuse to keep building nukes?


i don't expect egypt going to the muslim brotherhood. they will have a voice but they won't be the only one. then there's the issue of a US-trained, US-armed military to contend with; if egypt violates any agreements they'll have to completely revamp their military from ground-up. that's no good for unit cohesion or logistics, to say the least; and if the egyptian military disagrees...

lebanon is too messed up to be worth much other than a staging ground. syria does not have the power to challenge israel, even in concert with other powers. syrians know this, too, because they said nothing when israeli jets bombed the beejeezus out of a syrian nuclear facility in 07.

iran won't do anything because iranian troops are too visible and would invite US retaliation. and they don't need to; they have hezbollah to do their dying for them.

the most immediate threat to israel is the possible proliferation of terrorist groups all along the periphery. the biggest potential threat is an openly hostile egypt, although this will probably take at least a decade to materialize fully.

it's a very bad strategic loss for israel, regardless. optimistically the strategic situation for israel has reverted to roughly 1979, pessimistically, to the end of the '73 war.


I wouldn't know about all that, I was busy dealing with things on a very immediate and tactical level...

it's open source now; we advised a simultaneous amphibious landing towards the north, trapping hezbollah in a vise. however, the IDF chief of the time was, IIRC, a rah-rah air force guy whom thought airpower alone was enough. the end result was that you guys pushed hezbollah slowly upward, hezbollah had more than enough fallback positions and time to create more positions as needed.

overall the US was quite unhappy with israel, not only did the US burn up a lot of stamps on the international stage buying the IDF time, we restocked the IDF and found our military advice ignored. it was one of those wars where no one was happy at the end, not the israelis, not the US, not the lebanese, not hezbollah.

bigross86
02 Feb 11,, 18:05
we advised a simultaneous amphibious landing towards the north, trapping hezbollah in a vise. however, the IDF chief of the time was, IIRC, a rah-rah air force guy whom thought airpower alone was enough. the end result was that you guys pushed hezbollah slowly upward, hezbollah had more than enough fallback positions and time to create more positions as needed.

I wonder how much amphibious capability Israel has.

Yes, Halutz was an airpower guy, which is why we had so many casualties, since he had now idea how to actually run a war.

In 1973 there was a tankie as CJCS. Hasn't been one since. Halutz was CJCS in Lebanon, there probably won't be another zoomie for a long time, either...

rj1
02 Feb 11,, 18:06
This is exactly the first thing that come up in my mind.
The revolution will bring change if they are able to maintain their momentum and make Mubarak step down though they are short of an opposition figure. Will this spread wider to the Arab world ie Jordan, Yemen is yet to be seen.
But this change is not necessarily a good thing for Israel, or the world, and i concur heavily on the fluffy fuzzy euphoria of figthing oppression for freedom and democracy. Like the case of Iran, many said if Ahmedinejad step down, Iran will not suddenly turn up to be a new good boy in the middle east and make friends with every one.
This incident and ongoing protests in Egypt have to be examined and watched closely by Israel, and if things indeed spread wider, prepare for a storm of change.

Israel, the US, and the western world (pardon the generalizing) are really short on trust in the Arab and muslim world. I am confident 7 out of 10 average Joe muslims here in my country (the so called moderate and democratic) will hate the US or Israel for no apparent reason or excuse (pardon the generalization again).

I believe that might also be the case in other muslim countries, just hope that i'm wrong

Don't really think your generalization is wrong. The problem is that if it's not wrong and what you state comes to its logical conclusion, who in the western world will come to Israel's aid? The Europeans sure as hell aren't. The UN won't. U.S. maybe but a lot of our electorate would be very antagonistic toward it.

bigross86
02 Feb 11,, 18:17
I think it's fairly safe to assume that there are no countries that will send troops to fight for Israel. However, just like in 1973, there will very likely be a mass influx of expatriates that will come to fight.

According to Astralis, an airlift is almost certain. The question is, what countries will fall in with the plan? In 1973, due to Soviet pressure, only Portugal allowed US planes to land. Should the shit hit the fan, how many countries will cave to oil embargo threats?

rj1
02 Feb 11,, 18:37
However, just like in 1973, there will very likely be a mass influx of expatriates that will come to fight.

1. How many of those are there?
2. How many of them view Israel as "their state" to "keep existing"?

World's a completely different place than it was in 1973. The younger generation of American Jews for example I don't see raising a finger because based on studies done they see themselves as Americans only and Israel as nothing special, and 60-year-olds can't fight.


According to Astralis, an airlift is almost certain. The question is, what countries will fall in with the plan? In 1973, due to Soviet pressure, only Portugal allowed US planes to land. Should the shit hit the fan, how many countries will cave to oil embargo threats?

Wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure a sub-Saharan African country (Ethiopia? Djibouti?) or Cyprus or Poland would allow U.S. airplanes to do an airlift operation.

Double Edge
02 Feb 11,, 18:37
No arguments here. That's why my friends and I are thinking up ways to shore up Israeli PR. PR is but one part of a comprehensive foreign polict which has been virtually non-existent for longer than I can remember.
But how are you going to overcome pre-existing biases when it comes to reporting on Israel. You can put out all the PR you want, the trick remains in getting various media outlets to actually run your PR as objective reporting rather than propaganda. Even if you stress what you did its just going to get ignored and they will concentrate on the damage you wrought and say how bad you are. It's difficult to change mindsets after so long :frown:

My way of getting the news is simple, interact with Israelis who have more than a passing interest to whats happening around them, but most will not bother.

bigross86
02 Feb 11,, 19:43
1. How many of those are there?
2. How many of them view Israel as "their state" to "keep existing"?

World's a completely different place than it was in 1973. The younger generation of American Jews for example I don't see raising a finger because based on studies done they see themselves as Americans only and Israel as nothing special, and 60-year-olds can't fight.

There are plenty expats that would come to fight, just like in 1973. There are a good couple thousand at least that are doing their after army trips (like I did to OZ/NZ) and many more that have emigrated for education/work. I've got at least a dozen friends that I can name right now that are in schools or jobs overseas. Another thing is that American Jews can't maintain their "I doante to Israel" piety if Israel isn't there anymore.


Wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure a sub-Saharan African country (Ethiopia? Djibouti?) or Cyprus or Poland would allow U.S. airplanes to do an airlift operation.

How hard would it be to get some folks close enough to an airfield to cause trouble and havoc with incoming/outoing traffic? Better to do it on a USAF base on the European continent, unless they aren't allowed to land on or overfly the continent. Interesting to see where Turkey will fall down on this one, if push comes to shove


But how are you going to overcome pre-existing biases when it comes to reporting on Israel. You can put out all the PR you want, the trick remains in getting various media outlets to actually run your PR as objective reporting rather than propaganda. Even if you stress what you did its just going to get ignored and they will concentrate on the damage you wrought and say how bad you are. It's difficult to change mindsets after so long :frown:

My way of getting the news is simple, interact with Israelis who have more than a passing interest to whats happening around them, but most will not bother.

The only real solution we have is to work harder and make sure we do our job right. If we do our job right, there will always be the undecided's that see what we write and will be swayed.

rj1
02 Feb 11,, 20:54
There are plenty expats that would come to fight, just like in 1973. There are a good couple thousand at least that are doing their after army trips (like I did to OZ/NZ) and many more that have emigrated for education/work.

A good couple thousand? Earlier you were pessimistic discussing the plight of the IDF because they were outnumbered by 900k. A couple thousand is a drop in the bucket.


Another thing is that American Jews can't maintain their "I doante to Israel" piety if Israel isn't there anymore.

It's one thing to donate 10 dollars to a cause. It's another to ask someone to shoot a gun and potentially die for it. The traditional notion of volunteering is completely absurd to most of the people that make up modern western civilization.


The only real solution we have is to work harder and make sure we do our job right. If we do our job right, there will always be the undecided's that see what we write and will be swayed.

Undecideds that are capable of being swayed are moderates and moderates in modern politics are always overwhelmed by the extremes.

bigross86
02 Feb 11,, 22:24
A good couple thousand? Earlier you were pessimistic discussing the plight of the IDF because they were outnumbered by 900k. A couple thousand is a drop in the bucket.

Having however many there are is better than not having them, no?


It's one thing to donate 10 dollars to a cause. It's another to ask someone to shoot a gun and potentially die for it. The traditional notion of volunteering is completely absurd to most of the people that make up modern western civilization.

You need to be immersed in the Jewish American mind frame to understand this concept, but plenty teenagers that were on Birthright Israel will come. Almost every single Jewish American kid that came to study in Israel for a year will come. They don't need to carry rifles, they can volunteer and do other stuff and free more riflemen up. In the IDF every single soldiers qualifies with a rifle, even the lowest clerk and cook.


Undecideds that are capable of being swayed are moderates and moderates in modern politics are always overwhelmed by the extremes.

And there are also moderates that become extremes when given a cause, especially teenagers, as we can see all over the Middle Eastern world. Another voice in favor of Israel never hurts. If we subscribe to the methodology of "it's useless, better give up before we even try", then there truly is no point

Dreadnought
02 Feb 11,, 22:30
Am hoping that many countries around the world are watching Egypt. The days of rulers forced upon the people are coming to an end. Hoping the Iranian youth are watching Eqypt closely. Its readily apparent their government is.

Mihais
02 Feb 11,, 22:42
Which Iranian youth?The ones that revolted?Or the ones that stood for the regime?I can guarantee you that you won't find many elders in the Pasdaran and Basij.Nor for that matter in the rural areas that had nothing to do with the revolt.

Mihais
02 Feb 11,, 22:46
One thing that to a degree surprises me is that there were no US and Israeli flag burning.For that to happen during ME riots means only that there is a great hunger.Thus only the next target matters.
They'll remember,though.To be fair I can understand them and sympathize with them.To a point.

astralis
04 Feb 11,, 02:59
BR,

i've been hearing noises about netanyahu striking now while everyone's "distracted" by the egypt crisis. man, if that happens...

Ironduke
04 Feb 11,, 07:06
BR,

i've been hearing noises about netanyahu striking now while everyone's "distracted" by the egypt crisis. man, if that happens...
That would be a very bad move -- extremely destablizing to the entire world.

Netanyahu sees the crisis as it is - a "dangerous opportunity". He can effectively prevent the advancement of the ultimate resolution of the Palestinian issue in a fair and amicable manner, so that Israel can retain control over the West Bank.

But there's a catch-22 in the Israeli-Palestinian issue -- if the Israelis cede on the West Bank, will it embolden the Arabs on making further concessions on Israeli territories and the Golan Heights?

I believe he needs to pursue a strategy that is favorable to Arab democratic moderates (in Egypt, Yemen, etc.) who are at the frontline in this revolutionary movement - undertake decisive in the West Bank with regards to resolving the issue once and for all, bunker down in Golan, and undercut the Iran-Syria nexis and undercut their influence on the Arab revolutionary movement.

I think Israel has a card to play - if what you've posted is Netanyahu's strategy, he is as deluded as Mubarak.

bigross86
04 Feb 11,, 07:49
I actually read something slightly different, that if the Palestinians in Jordan end up kicking out the King, then in effect the Palestinians will have a homeland (Jordan) and whoever has a problem with Israel can just up and move to their brand new homeland.

I don't know how realistic that is, but it's still an interesting twist on things

Bigfella
04 Feb 11,, 08:43
I actually read something slightly different, that if the Palestinians in Jordan end up kicking out the King, then in effect the Palestinians will have a homeland (Jordan) and whoever has a problem with Israel can just up and move to their brand new homeland.

I don't know how realistic that is, but it's still an interesting twist on things

I seem to recall that was Likud's de facto policy for years anyway. It is an even more stupid & shortsighted an idea than whatever Likud's current policy is. Israel can create a small, realitvely weak & effectively disarmed Palestinean state. Why on earth would any Israeli want them to take by force a much better armed & more dangerous nation?

denizkuvetleri
04 Feb 11,, 15:37
BR,

i've been hearing noises about netanyahu striking now while everyone's "distracted" by the egypt crisis. man, if that happens...

This would be the most stupid thing that Israel can do! Unilateral action which disregards P5+1 efforts or the Brazilian-Turkish sponsored talks would only unite the OIC member countries and cause further uprising among the Arab countries. Terrorism would increase due to the high number of recruits and the whole world would be in turmoil. Does it have the potential for WWIII? Yes, Is WWIII likely? No However, there would be far reaching economic (oil prices etc) and strategic implications (shift in the balace of power). Not to mention the total immediate irreversible isolation of Israel.

Persey
06 Feb 11,, 13:05
Saboteurs attacked the Egypt-Israel gas pipeline on Friday.
There are some out there that want to include Israel into this mess.

Saboteurs attack Egypt-Israel gas pipeline-TV | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/05/egypt-israel-gas-idUSLDE71401720110205)