Operation pillar of cloud. Israeli assault on Gaza

[littlebabyjesus]

Israel will be forced in the long term to compromise.

I think this too. However, as the clip someone posted earlier showing Netanyahu speaking in 1978 showed, precious little has changed for the Palestinians in the last 40 years. The long term may still be very long.

Then again, the Soviet Union and Apartheid South Africa both collapsed far more quickly and comprehensively than anyone imagined they could. Change can happen, and when it comes, it can happen quickly.

 

[two sheds]

"The US could become self-sufficient [in oil], while 90% of Middle Eastern oil could go to China, according to new estimates"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/12/us-biggest-oil-producer

will affect the equation somewhat I think.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Subject for another thread, but in 50 years' time, there may be precious little oil. There will no doubt be a new energy supply dynamic, but it won't be the one we have now.

 

[caoineadh7]

"The US could become self-sufficient [in oil], while 90% of Middle Eastern oil could go to China, according to new estimates"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/12/us-biggest-oil-producer

will affect the equation somewhat I think.

The US is a power in decline, 40 years ago they could put 500,000 troops in Vietnam, In Iraq they struggled to maintain 150,000 on the ground.

 

[caoineadh7]

I think this too. However, as the clip someone posted earlier showing Netanyahu speaking in 1978 showed, precious little has changed for the Palestinians in the last 40 years. The long term may still be very long.

Then again, the Soviet Union and Apartheid South Africa both collapsed far more quickly and comprehensively than anyone imagined they could. Change can happen, and when it comes, it can happen quickly.

In the long run as the US loses power compromise will be inevitable.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I know this is silly optimism, but the peaceful end to apartheid does offer an example of hope to me. And in the end, it succeeded as it did because the majority of white South Africans wanted it too. Eventually, I hope the majority of Israelis will want to compromise for the sake of peace.

 

[frogwoman]

Ah yes. All the same, for a US ally to say that at the very least shows, well it shows Israel won't be joining NATO any time soon.

Strikes me that Israel's support around the world is - US apart - wafer-thin. Even the mealy-mouthed UK could turn very quickly on them.

ive thought this for years tbh. im not saying it will be an immediate thing but i cannot believe it is not something the israeli gov't have not thought about ...

 

[caoineadh7]

I know this is silly optimism, but the peaceful end to apartheid does offer an example of hope to me. And in the end, it succeeded as it did because the majority of white South Africans wanted it too. Eventually, I hope the majority of Israelis will want to compromise for the sake of peace.

Reality will bite as the balance of power shifts in the region.

 

[two sheds]

The US is a power in decline, 40 years ago they could put 500,000 troops in Vietnam, In Iraq they struggled to maintain 150,000 on the ground.

True, although they have bigger bombs now so they don't need so many ground troops.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

True, although they have bigger bombs now so they don't need so many ground troops.

And drones.

 

[caoineadh7]

True, although they have bigger bombs now so they don't need so many ground troops.

You still need boots on the ground.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You still need boots on the ground.

Depends what you're after. The days of the US sending conscripts abroad to fight are over, I think. But they have replaced the need for conscription with highly trained professionals. tbh, most modern armies don't want conscripts any more. And as recent history in the UK shows, it's far easier politically to start wars with professionals than with conscripts.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Palestinians are also suffering from a pretty rotten bunch of 'leaders' representing them politically. There is no voice of authority, no Mandela figure. Just self-serving gits, it seems.

 

[FNG]

the US are comitted to giving 3.1 billion per year until 2018,there is no chance of Israel running out of Bullets in the foreseeable future.

As for Co-operation with Nato, H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act 2012.Proposes an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and on NATO exercises for israel.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

 

[caoineadh7]

the US are comitted to giving 3.1 billion per year until 2018,there is no chance of Israel running out of Bullets in the foreseeable future. As for Co-operation with Nato H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act 2012.Proposes an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and on NATO exercises for israel
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Will that continue as WASPs lose more and more power in the US over the coming decades ?

I dont think the long term future for Israel can continue in its present form.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

the US are comitted to giving 3.1 billion per year until 2018,there is no chance of Israel running out of Bullets in the foreseeable future. As for Co-operation with Nato H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act 2012.Proposes an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and on NATO exercises for israel
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Just read the summary. They would 'encourage' enhanced NATO involvement - they don't have the power to actually make that happen, though. Turkey would have something to say about that.

One thing I would say about that, though, is that $3 billion a year only represents 0.5 percent of the total US military budget. They can afford it.

 

[Pickman's model]

I dont think the long term future for Israel can continue in its present form.

 

[dylanredefined]

And as the US loses much of its global military power over the next 30 years and the Islamic nations become more militarily proficient, it looks like interesting times.

If Iran gets the bomb, it will mean they can openly arm and support campaigns against Israel in defence of the Palestinians.


Israel will be forced in the long term to compromise. The balance of power will become less one sided.

Arab culture is not going to change any time soon so no chance of equalling Israeli in a conventiol war anytime soon.Iran getting the bomb does not stop the Palestinians being the idf chew toy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Arab culture is not going to change any time soon so no chance of equalling Israeli in a conventiol war anytime soon.Iran getting the bomb does not stop the Palestinians being the idf chew toy.

Iran getting the bomb would change little, imo. The great fallacy of the unusable weapon is that it somehow provides stability. I don't think the evidence for that stacks up. It might make an invasion of Iran less likely, although I think an invasion of Iran is already highly unlikely.

 

[FNG]

Just read the summary. They would 'encourage' enhanced NATO involvement - they don't have the power to actually make that happen, though. Turkey would have something to say about that.

Sure but even if Turkey had the clout to block it,(which i doubt) the bill also makes provision for billateral arrangements.

• • 
    

    (9) Seek to enhance the capabilities of the United States and Israel to address emerging common threats, increase security cooperation, and expand joint military exercises.

• • 
    (10) Encourage an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.

other articles of note, Offloading a glut of EDAs above and beyond that provided by the Foreign Military Financing program.A post Iraq firesale that turns the notion of a peace dividend on its head.

(5) Provide Israel additional surplus defense articles and defense services, as appropriate, in the wake of the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq.

(8) Expand Israel's authority to make purchases under the Foreign Military Financing program on a commercial basis.

If i am understanding that correctly, thats allowing Israel greater flexibility to broker arms,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:3:./temp/~c112go1YPn::

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sure but even if Turkey had the clout to block it,(which i doubt) the bill also makes provision for billateral arrangements.
::

I wouldn't underestimate Turkey's clout. Turkey is one of the more valuable members of NATO to the US. Sounds more like a vague aspiration to me, and this latest action in Gaza has probably scuppered it.

But yes, the US doesn't need NATO's permission to act unilaterally any more than it needs the UN's permission. It sees itself as its own justification, just like Israel.

 

[catinthehat]

Not true unfortuately but one of the youth movements have, yes.

http://www.mfa.is/news-and-publications/nr/7422
?? I posted this link from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday at your request ?? Its all over Icelandic TV and in the media - it was forwarded to me by a mate who works at the Icelandic Parliament - and there has been no retraction.

http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=395431 eta second source

 

[elbows]

as opposed, presumably, to everywhere in iran getting bombed.

I would hope its obvious what I meant - a strike against their nuclear related facilities rather than an all out war. And I only need to make the point in this way because in the past when limited strikes on Iran were threatened some people leapt straight to a full on scenario of bombing a lot more stuff, invasion etc.

 

[Treacle Toes]

http://www.mfa.is/news-and-publications/nr/7422
?? I posted this link from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday at your request ?? Its all over Icelandic TV and in the media - it was forwarded to me by a mate who works at the Icelandic Parliament - and there has been no retraction.

Sorry hun but what you linked me too didn't say what you said it did.Which was:

Icelandic has just released a statement condemning Israel and considering severing diplomatic ties.

So I tweeted Birgitta and asked her myself. I posted the tweets. She said it was a youth movement leader who made that comment. Did you read the tweets? Do you know who sent them to me?

Birgitta Jónsdóttir

@birgittaj
Member (Activist) in the Icelandic Parliament for the Movement - Tibet - http://immi.is - Saving Iceland - Collateral Murder - Poet - FOIA - WikiLeaks
Reykjavík, Iceland · http://joyb.blogspot.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I would hope its obvious what I meant - a strike against their nuclear related facilities rather than an all out war. And I only need to make the point in this way because in the past when limited strikes on Iran were threatened some people leapt straight to a full on scenario of bombing a lot more stuff, invasion etc.

I do think that is unlikely, though. Bombing Gaza is one thing. Bombing Iran is another. One thing in their favour is the disintegration of Iran's ally Syria. But still, Iran is a large, well-equipped, politically coherent country. Dangerous to attack.

At the moment, I see Iran as a bit of a cold war situation. Lots of brinksmanship from both sides, but ultimately no direct attacks.

 

[elbows]

http://www.mfa.is/news-and-publications/nr/7422
?? I posted this link from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday at your request ?? Its all over Icelandic TV and in the media - it was forwarded to me by a mate who works at the Icelandic Parliament - and there has been no retraction.

http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=395431 eta second source

But your original claim was that they were considering severing diplomatic ties and that isnt mentioned in those articles.

 

[Pickman's model]

I would hope its obvious what I meant - a strike against their nuclear related facilities rather than an all out war. And I only need to make the point in this way because in the past when limited strikes on Iran were threatened some people leapt straight to a full on scenario of bombing a lot more stuff, invasion etc.

you seem to forget that iran won the iraq war. which makes imo less likely that israel (or the united states) would have a pop at iran.

 

[elbows]

I do think that is unlikely, though. Bombing Gaza is one thing. Bombing Iran is another. One thing in their favour is the disintegration of Iran's ally Syria. But still, Iran is a large, well-equipped, politically coherent country. Dangerous to attack.

It's certainly dangerous, and I was in the past always at pains to point out that Iran wasnt comparable to Iraq etc.

However Israel does not always shy away from taking risks and they have bombed nuclear facilities in the past.

A reuters article tries to tie the events in Gaza in with possible future action against Iran:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/19/palestinians-israel-gaza-arsenal-idUSL5E8MJAEM20121119

But among the Israelis' concerns is this: If they go to war against their arch-enemy Iran's nuclear programme, the Islamist Hamas-governed Gaza Strip could serve as a launch pad for the reprisals promised by Tehran.

 

[elbows]

you seem to forget that iran won the iraq war. which makes imo less likely that israel (or the united states) would have a pop at iran.

I'm well aware of Irans capabilities, or at least how relatively strong it was last time it was tested, which was a long time ago now. One of the things that served them well was having well motivated cannon-fodder at the time, which combined with the geography makes an invasion a rather unappealing idea.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm well aware of Irans capabilities, or at least how relatively strong it was last time it was tested, which was a long time ago now. One of the things that served them well was having well motivated cannon-fodder at the time, which combined with the geography makes an invasion a rather unappealing idea.

i am talking about the iraq war which started in 2003. not the iran-iraq war of the 1980s.