4 ms·

I think you misunderstand the relationship. One, there are civilians, extremely rich civilians who are sending more than a pretty penny to Israel. Two, the US g

by chx 11y ago

I think you misunderstand the relationship. One, there are civilians, extremely rich civilians who are sending more than a pretty penny to Israel. Two, the US government is essentially bribing the Israel government to stay put and not kill everyone around them. I believe most people vastly underestimate the military might of Israel. Did you know, for example, that Israel has unmanned ground vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardium essentially mini tanks already operational? They have main battle tanks which can intercept RPGs and even anti tank guided missiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Mk_IVm_Windbreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Mk_IVm_Windbreaker . If Israel wanted to wreak havoc in the region, they certainly could. I was and still surprised they didn't grab a bit of Syria.

13thLetter 11y ago
> I was and still surprised they didn't grab a bit of Syria. Eh, there's no reason to be surprised. There is no strategic benefit to Israel in "grabbing" arbitrary chunks of Syria just because they happen to be undefended at the moment. It is in an excellent position right now to not just defend itself against any attacks from Syria but indeed deter them, and military overextension would weaken that.
lazylester 11y ago
Israel has as much as it needs of Syria... it occupies the Golan Heights. You can see Damascus from there on a clear day.
cema 11y ago
I was and still surprised they didn't grab a bit of Syria. Does not seem to be Israel's mode of operation.
jqm 11y ago
Grabbing a bit of Syria would hardly have been worth the propaganda disaster though. The world wouldn't have reacted very favorably... particularly the Muslim world. And yes, Israel has some extremely good technology. But they also have some pretty fierce enemies. See their incursion into Southern Lebanon a few years back for instance. They also don't have that large of a population. It probably is in their best interest they aren't seen as expansionist.... for the moment at least.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  What do you mean by "for the moment at least"?
  - jqm 11y ago
    Circumstances may change and at that time it may be in Israel's best interest to appear expansionist. But for now and for the foreseeable future, it will probably help keep the peace if they aren't.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      So just like every other country in the world, then.
      - jqm 11y ago
        Well, there would be generally less tensions with many other countries acting in an expansionist manner than with Israel doing so. Given the history short (modern) history of Israel and the religious animosity of the neighbors etc. it would be certain to inflame more hostility internationally than Rawanda taking a piece of Burndi for instance. But I'm sure you are already aware of all this. I went back and read your previous posts. It seems you may be looking for an anti-Semite under every rock. Well... next rock. I'm just pointing out practical reality. I don't have an axe to grind with Israel existing.
        13thLetter 11y ago
        I won't deny that I'm fairly sensitive on the matter, given that anti-Semitism is not just acceptable but a major electoral winner these days -- as long as one applies a coat of "anti-Zionist" paint on top, one is good to go with the vilest conspiracy theories and blood libels, as we've seen right here in this comments section. What made me raise an eyebrow was the bit about how if things changed, it might be in Israel's interests to be expansionist. That's obviously true, one could say that about any country, of course, but... well, in the end that's probably on me being oversensitive, and it was uncalled for to go after it.
guelo 11y ago
That theory doesn't make much sense. If the policy is for preventing Israel from starting wars we wouldn't be bribing them with billions of dollars worth of weapons.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  Conventional weapons. While Israel doesn't officially have nuclear weapons, it's a pretty open secret that they have a few dozen. By allowing Israel to posture with conventional weapons, the US is keeping Israel from going nuclear to solve problems. A nuclear strike in that region would be...problematic to say the least.
  - guelo 11y ago
    Seems like the conventional policy when faced with a militaristic regime hell bent on using nuclear weapons is to ostracize them in the international community and impose severe sanctions. Not give them as much advanced weaponry as possible.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      "militaristic regime hell bent on using nuclear weapons" If Israel was "hell bent on using nuclear weapons" why haven't they used their nuclear weapons? You are so choked with hatred you can't even assemble a consistent argument. You need to step back and think about things for a while. Ask yourself why you hate so much, and who put this poison in your head, and why they did it.
ufmace 11y ago
Their military is very effective in it's own way, but this comes at a cost - since the country is so small, a large-scale deployment means stripping much of the civilian economy bare of workers. They've got a good system going for short-term large-scale deployments to stop any of the large armies that their neighbors can more easily field, but they can't afford to keep an army of that size in the field for more than something like a month or two. Large-scale occupation is logistically out of the question, before strategic and political considerations are even taken into account. They don't really have much to gain from trying to grab parts of Syria - they already have just the right amount of territory in the area to have very defensible borders. Taking more would give them territory much more vulnerable to attack, pretty much nothing in the way of natural resources, and most likely a population somewhere between neutral and hostile to manage. Not to mention that it would surely play rather poorly in the Arab world and the greater diplomatic community. Israel has done relatively well to conspicuously have no involvement in any of the Arab Spring rebellions.
PhantomGremlin 11y ago
I believe most people vastly underestimate the military might of Israel. Certainly Israel has been very formidable against weak armies such as those of Egypt. However, I don't think Israel's brief 2006 war against Hezbollah went all that well. Very little achieved at considerable cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War My impression was that the average Israeli soldier involved was like: "fuck this, what the fuck am I fighting for?" Shades of Vietnam! The Israeli army of 2016 is not at all the same as the armies that fought in 1967 and 1973. But I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff, so I'd welcome corrections.
- ufmace 11y ago
  Every indication is that their army was and is quite formidable in a conventional fight. Particularly against relatively poorly-led and organized but large and well-equipped armies like the arab armies of the 60s-70s. Counter-insurgency is a whole different ballgame, though, as many nations have discovered the hard way. Israel can almost sorta kinda do it well sometimes. It's worth noting that Hezbollah is quite terrible at counter-insurgency too, and they know it, which is why they've never made any attempt to take control of the rest of Lebanon outside the Shia area they control in the south.

by chx 11y ago

13thLetter 11y ago

> I was and still surprised they didn't grab a bit of Syria. Eh, there's no reason to be surprised. There is no strategic benefit to Israel in "grabbing" arbitrary chunks of Syria just because they happen to be undefended at the moment. It is in an excellent position right now to not just defend itself against any attacks from Syria but indeed deter them, and military overextension would weaken that.

lazylester 11y ago

Israel has as much as it needs of Syria... it occupies the Golan Heights. You can see Damascus from there on a clear day.

cema 11y ago

I was and still surprised they didn't grab a bit of Syria. Does not seem to be Israel's mode of operation.

jqm 11y ago

Grabbing a bit of Syria would hardly have been worth the propaganda disaster though. The world wouldn't have reacted very favorably... particularly the Muslim world. And yes, Israel has some extremely good technology. But they also have some pretty fierce enemies. See their incursion into Southern Lebanon a few years back for instance. They also don't have that large of a population. It probably is in their best interest they aren't seen as expansionist.... for the moment at least.

13thLetter 11y ago
What do you mean by "for the moment at least"?
- jqm 11y ago
  Circumstances may change and at that time it may be in Israel's best interest to appear expansionist. But for now and for the foreseeable future, it will probably help keep the peace if they aren't.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    So just like every other country in the world, then.
    - jqm 11y ago
      Well, there would be generally less tensions with many other countries acting in an expansionist manner than with Israel doing so. Given the history short (modern) history of Israel and the religious animosity of the neighbors etc. it would be certain to inflame more hostility internationally than Rawanda taking a piece of Burndi for instance. But I'm sure you are already aware of all this. I went back and read your previous posts. It seems you may be looking for an anti-Semite under every rock. Well... next rock. I'm just pointing out practical reality. I don't have an axe to grind with Israel existing.
      - 13thLetter 11y ago
        I won't deny that I'm fairly sensitive on the matter, given that anti-Semitism is not just acceptable but a major electoral winner these days -- as long as one applies a coat of "anti-Zionist" paint on top, one is good to go with the vilest conspiracy theories and blood libels, as we've seen right here in this comments section. What made me raise an eyebrow was the bit about how if things changed, it might be in Israel's interests to be expansionist. That's obviously true, one could say that about any country, of course, but... well, in the end that's probably on me being oversensitive, and it was uncalled for to go after it.

guelo 11y ago

That theory doesn't make much sense. If the policy is for preventing Israel from starting wars we wouldn't be bribing them with billions of dollars worth of weapons.

Sanddancer 11y ago
Conventional weapons. While Israel doesn't officially have nuclear weapons, it's a pretty open secret that they have a few dozen. By allowing Israel to posture with conventional weapons, the US is keeping Israel from going nuclear to solve problems. A nuclear strike in that region would be...problematic to say the least.
- guelo 11y ago
  Seems like the conventional policy when faced with a militaristic regime hell bent on using nuclear weapons is to ostracize them in the international community and impose severe sanctions. Not give them as much advanced weaponry as possible.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    "militaristic regime hell bent on using nuclear weapons" If Israel was "hell bent on using nuclear weapons" why haven't they used their nuclear weapons? You are so choked with hatred you can't even assemble a consistent argument. You need to step back and think about things for a while. Ask yourself why you hate so much, and who put this poison in your head, and why they did it.

ufmace 11y ago

Their military is very effective in it's own way, but this comes at a cost - since the country is so small, a large-scale deployment means stripping much of the civilian economy bare of workers. They've got a good system going for short-term large-scale deployments to stop any of the large armies that their neighbors can more easily field, but they can't afford to keep an army of that size in the field for more than something like a month or two. Large-scale occupation is logistically out of the question, before strategic and political considerations are even taken into account. They don't really have much to gain from trying to grab parts of Syria - they already have just the right amount of territory in the area to have very defensible borders. Taking more would give them territory much more vulnerable to attack, pretty much nothing in the way of natural resources, and most likely a population somewhere between neutral and hostile to manage. Not to mention that it would surely play rather poorly in the Arab world and the greater diplomatic community. Israel has done relatively well to conspicuously have no involvement in any of the Arab Spring rebellions.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago

I believe most people vastly underestimate the military might of Israel. Certainly Israel has been very formidable against weak armies such as those of Egypt. However, I don't think Israel's brief 2006 war against Hezbollah went all that well. Very little achieved at considerable cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War My impression was that the average Israeli soldier involved was like: "fuck this, what the fuck am I fighting for?" Shades of Vietnam! The Israeli army of 2016 is not at all the same as the armies that fought in 1967 and 1973. But I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff, so I'd welcome corrections.

ufmace 11y ago
Every indication is that their army was and is quite formidable in a conventional fight. Particularly against relatively poorly-led and organized but large and well-equipped armies like the arab armies of the 60s-70s. Counter-insurgency is a whole different ballgame, though, as many nations have discovered the hard way. Israel can almost sorta kinda do it well sometimes. It's worth noting that Hezbollah is quite terrible at counter-insurgency too, and they know it, which is why they've never made any attempt to take control of the rest of Lebanon outside the Shia area they control in the south.