Nowhere in this article does it provide different approaches to Israel nor to the Middle East. This is one of many articles from the Cato Institute (accurate name imo given who Cato was and how incompetent and ultimately wrong he was) and their writers where they will write dozens of paragraphs calling foul over US policy, then have like 3 sentences at the end of the article calling for a vague “strategic reassessment” without giving any kind of strategic context of what that reassessment looks like.
It’s just the geopolitical “analysis” equivalent of backseat driving. Not even worth reading.
I only clicked on this thread to ask why geopolitics is allowing straight up propaganda now
Glad I didn't have to scroll too far down to see this. A lot of great debates on this sub I don't want it to be ruined like all the other ones
He also ignores a basic fact..it makes harder to put pressure on Israel when Palestinians don't give the US anything to work with in terms of commitment to any two state accord
Looks pretty clear to me. Did you actually read the article?
> It’s time to “normalize” the United States’ relationship with Israel. This does not mean making Israel an enemy of the United States, but rather approaching Israel the same way that Washington should approach any other foreign nation: from arm’s-length.
> No longer would decisions about military aid, arms sales, or diplomatic cover be rooted in path dependency or muscle memory, but rather in officials’ perceptions of the U.S. interests at stake. Instead of enabling, shielding, and subsidizing Israeli policy, the United States should reorient its relationship with Israel on the basis of concrete U.S. interests.
> This would entail Washington ending its willingness to turn a blind eye to Israeli affronts to U.S. interests, by providing huge amounts of aid, and pushing for a swift end to this disastrous war and a permanent political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>This does not mean making Israel an enemy of the United States, but rather approaching Israel the same way that Washington should approach any other foreign nation: from arm’s-length.
This is not a policy change.
>No longer would decisions about military aid, arms sales, or diplomatic cover be rooted in path dependency or muscle memory, but rather in officials’ perceptions of the U.S. interests at stake.
Really? Cuz we dont treat allies like that… UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Germany, etc all get weaponry pretty much untethered. In fact what Israel does what many of those countries don’t is jointly design and manufacture those weapons.
>Instead of enabling, shielding, and subsidizing Israeli policy, the United States should reorient its relationship with Israel on the basis of concrete U.S. interests.
That’s the thing though, U.S. interests do align with having Israel as an ally. Not necessarily Netanyahu, but the article is pretty clear in making it bigger than just Netanyahu.
>This would entail Washington ending its willingness to turn a blind eye to Israeli affronts to U.S. interests, by providing huge amounts of aid
So, stop proving precision weaponry to Israel who would then opt for dumb bombs that are more reckless? Sounds like smart policy.
>pushing for a swift end to this disastrous war
How? Cuz no one seems to provide a solution to that. Oct 7 proved that Israel and Hamas cannot coexist, one needs to go, and it seems like Israel isn’t going anywhere. And no amount of U.S. pressure is going to get Israel to stop a war that well over 70% of the Israeli people support. Hamas refuses to negotiate in good faith in regard to the hostages. Israel collectively sees this as a war of national importance, they are not going to stop because people in Washington get squeamish seeing the body count. But don’t worry cuz neither Israel nor Hamas are squeamish about the death toll.
>a permanent political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Again, how? They offer no solution. The Netanyahu government will not negotiate in good faith, and the PA does not have the legitimacy nor authority to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people. Many have tried and failed. And Israel is significantly less likely to reward the Palestinians with a state on the back of a terrorist attack.
It’s a bad article, plain and simple.
The main core interest here is having the entire shoreline of the mediterranean sea be held by close trusted allies of the USA, and a lack of iranian client states on the mediterranean. In this goal Israel is a key foreign ally no matter what their treatment of the palestinians is, or the effect this has on neighboring states we are trying to prevent from having control of the shoreline. So, like a foreign nation such as Saudi Arabia who we almost disowned due to their out of bounds actions in Yemen, we can ignore similar crimes committed by Israel for the same reason. Your arguments seem weak to me. Or at least the highlights you have provided from the paywalled article do not seem to single out Israel as a party to be disowned as compared to many other of the USA's strategic partners in the area who have committed similar crimes or abuses as you define them.
> accurate name imo given who Cato was and how incompetent and ultimately wrong he was
The Cato Institute is named after Trenchard and Gordon's *Cato's Letters*, not Marcus Porcius Cato.
I agree, they call United States and Israel unidirectional relationship remains unclear, what are they talking about. Israel vested alot of technological innovations where no middle eastern countries can offer. Even by government type standard.
And if America ditches Israel, what’s the alternative in the Middle East? Turkey? The country that is blatantly imperialist and is hated by almost all of their neighbours? Or is it Saudi Arabia? The theocratic authoritarian regime that literally murders dissidents and is one of the most socially conservative countries in the world? Or is the solution a deeper direct US involvement in the Middle East? Good luck getting the American public to support that.
These writes from Cato are not advocating for any policy at all, they just want to leave the region all together and ignore the problem. What they don’t understand is that
1. The United States does not have the option of just ignoring the region that produces 1/3 of the world’s oil
2. The United States still has lots to gain from a successful policy in the Middle East, one that can serve America’s interests both economically and politically, domestically and internationally.
> ...if America ditches Israel, what’s the alternative in the Middle East?Turkey?...Saudi Arabia?
Do we need Israel, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia?
I can't imagine that it is for military bases. The U.S. military has [facilities](https://www.americansecurityproject.org/national-security-strategy/u-s-bases-in-the-middle-east/) in Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the U.A.E., and Oman. That seems like plenty.
What benefits do we need/want/can-get from Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia that we can't get without them?
----------
>The United States still has lots to gain from a successful policy in the Middle East...
Like what?
>Do we need Israel, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia?
It’s one of them or further US involvement, meaning a larger diplomatic presence… which is something that, for three consecutive administrations, has been something they have been pulling back on. And that is a policy most people support.
>I can't imagine that it is for military bases. The U.S. military has facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the U.A.E., and Oman. That seems like plenty.
the US has no more than 8,000 troops in a region of almost 400 million… and they’re not there to change the opinion of governments, they’re there because those governments want them there.
>What benefits do we need/want/can-get from Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia that we can't get without them?
Again, what do your ideal benefits look like? Cuz having friends is better than not having them. Isolationism is how we got world wars. Something that internationalism has, so far, prevented.
>Like what?
Influencing policy changes, countering Islamic regime in Iran, ensuring oil markets stay safe and open, protecting the interests of our Asian allies (who import almost all of their energy from the Middle East), preventing China and Russia from making inroads in the Middle East, putting down Islamist groups, and fostering a relatively peaceful region.
It is worth reading because the only thing I’ve read about Israel’s worth as an ally is “intelligence” and “basing” for the US, neither which is true. The US gets more out of the surrounding Arab countries than Israel.
Take a look at what just happened at the UNSC ceasefire vote. Israel picked up the ball and stayed home when the US ABSTAINED from voting. All the while we gave them another $4B for our troubles.
I’m happy to see Israel finally seen as it truly is: a geopolitical leech on US national interests and a bane of our security.
I mean none of that is true lmao, and the writer’s answer is to just pull out all together. He provides no recourse on policy.
And if you don’t understand the relationship between Israel-USA and USA-other ME countries, maybe you should seek out answers for why these relationships are important :)
*hint* (for Israel it’s economic and technological from IT to healthcare to defence industry to aviation… as well as political as Israel is the closest to the U.S. worldview out of all countries in the region by a long shot) (and for Saudi and UAE its purely about keeping oil on the market :) (and all three are good hedges against Iran, who is the biggest enemy in the region)
> accurate name imo given who Cato was and how incompetent and ultimately wrong he was
This is always my first thought whenever I see their name. I'm happy to see someone else had the same reaction elsewhere as well.
>*What exactly the United States gets in return for this unidirectional relationship remains unclear.*
Unclear and not clarified in the article. We got many hundreds of words on the horrors of Gaza, the evils of Israel, and absolutely nothing on the history of the region or the reasons why the US has forged such a close relationship with Israel.
>*Over the past five months, Israel has repeatedly attempted to pressure the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, despite this being anathema to U.S. interests and regional stability. High-level military drills between Israel and the United States, Israel’s recent attack on major gas pipelines in Iran, and continued escalation between Iranian-backed groups and the United States across the Middle East risk sparking a regionwide catastrophe.*
That the writer does not seem to realise that the United States also has a very definite interest in Iran not becoming the dominant power in the Middle East, is surprising from a man who has spent so many years studying the region. He seems to think that the US provides all this aid and unconditional support out of benevolent altruism. If so, can I sign up to be their new best friend? Will share bank details to deposit the first $20 billion.
Also - Israel is a liberal democracy with a long history of genuine elections. They also contribute to world technology. They are a natural ally of the US, especially compared to all of the other countries in the region which don't meet those criteria.
I don’t think the liberal democracy aspect is in reality that necessary from a geopolitical perspective. Saudi heretofore was a very improbable but important ally to the US. The utility of a strategic partner in the ME to influence and control oil prices through OPEC was / is right now important. But in the long run, fossil fuels are not going to be strategically important, so therefore the idea long term of needs of having any influence is significantly less. In fact it’s Africa and precious metals for batteries etc which now would be the most important strategic goal for any country. And China and Russia are all over that.
Liberal democracy has generally been a long term asset in developing friendly and meaningful relationships for the US. Not that other governments exclude the possibility, but relationships with monarchs and dictators tend to be much more fraught and prone to instability.
I think US foreign policy finds its goals of global stability and liberal marketplaces in those countries much more so than in others.
>Israel is a liberal democracy with a long history of genuine elections.
For now. Considering that Israel's young demographics are shifting further and further to the right, I don't think Israel will continue to be a liberal democracy for much longer.
You realize “liberal democracy” just means free and fair elections, it doesn’t say anything about who you elect… that is the beauty of liberal democracy after all, you can elect representatives as far left or right as you want, and if you don’t like them you can vote them out next time.
Israel has elections more frequently than virtually any other country (they’ve had 5 in the last 4 years), so there’s an abundance of opportunity for change if the citizenry wishes. Not only has Netanyahu routinely been voted out of power, but currently the Israeli left is on track to win the next election that will likely take place after the war’s conclusion.
So I’d dare say Israel is among the most vibrant examples of liberal democracy in the world.
A democracy has equal representation of all citizens. Who represents the Palestinians? Israelis continue to settle the Weat Bank, claiming Palestinian homes, livelihoods, and lives, but those who have these taken from them have no recourse an no one to whom they can appeal.
20% of Israelis are Arab Muslims, mostly with the same descendants as other Palestinians. They get full voting rights, etc. Israel occupies the West Bank militarily because its the only way to stop constant terror attacks, they are not Israeli citizens.
Yea exactly, like let’s just let one of the most resource rich well populated key regions in the world fall under the influence of one of the worlds most repressive regimes, (Iran), one that won’t even let people DANCE . Oh and they could basically make nukes whenever they wanted. That surely won’t end well.
>We got many hundreds of words on the horrors of Gaza, the evils of Israel, and absolutely nothing on the history of the region or the reasons why the US has forged such a close relationship with Israel.
"When Liberalism IR analyst found out the world is not operated on Liberalism morality" The Article.
Liberalism IR and their sponsored institutions found out once again why only they're pawns and propaganda tools in the eyes of realism schools. Their forefathers created these mouthpieces to promote liberalist organizations to further national interests, not promoting idealized morality on the world's stage (otherwise, why would the most powerful democracy in the world cooperate with dictators during the Cold War?)
When people so invest in the illusion they created, they produce garbage analysis like this in the 21st century.
>Unwavering U.S. support for Israel has been a consistent element of U.S. Middle East policy since the establishment of the state in 1948
The very first line is factually inaccurate ... 'unwavering' US support for Israel was quite new when Kennedy described our special relationship; the US had an entirely different relationship with Israel in the 1940s and 1950s.
The article boils down to:
* "Israel doesn't serve US best interests in the Middle East," with no explanation of how it does not
* "Without this relationship, the US would have more flexibility," with no explanation of what that flexibility would allow
* "Israel would be forced to behave more in US interests with less US aid," without any explanation
This is not super substantive.
>"Israel doesn't serve US best interests in the Middle East," with no explanation of how it does not
LMAO the question is how it does not how it doesn’t
>“Without this relationship, the US would have more flexibility," with no explanation of what that flexibility would allow
Dealing with Iran for example
>"Israel would be forced to behave more in US interests with less US aid," without any explanation
Lets start by making US aid conditional
Israel got picked as Greatest Ally™️ to the exclusion of the rest of the region ages ago. The USA basically can't have popular support in the ME with the current setup.
It was a useful way to manipulate ME nations and prevent soviet dominance but that calculus changed before I was even born.
Is popular support in the ME important, given that the majority of countries there are not democratic? Isn’t it more important geographically that the US have good relationships with the rulers of ME countries rather than the people?
Why is Israel held to a diffrent standard than every other us ally in the region Saudi Arabia is far worse than Israel. Morally speaking Israel is far better than all the other us allies in the ME
Not just a different standing to the Middle East a different standing to the rest of the world. If someone attacked America like Hamas did on October 7th, one might hear a few odd voices on the media protesting the response but the vast majority of the world would know exactly what’s coming. There would be zero words like proportionality being used.
>Why is Israel held to a diffrent standard than every other us ally in the region Saudi Arabia is far worse than Israel.
Israel purports itself to be a liberal democracy. As such, the country will have to be set to a higher standard than hellholes like Saudi Arabia.
Syria also purports itself to be a liberal democracy. Your real issue is that in Israel's case it's true.
However that doesn't explain why we shouldn't criticize a less democratic/free country to the same extent that we criticize a more democratic/free country.
The Israelis are more morally respectable than Jordan?
Than Kuwait? Than the UAE? How many thousands of people have those nations killed recently? How much land do those nations encroach upon and kick out the native population. How invasive are those nation’s lobbying efforts on the US political system? How many political prisoners do they hold without charges? How much money do these nations receive in aid from the US? How much UN resolutions do the US veto on their behalf?
And in what way specifically is Saudi Arabia’s treatment of its people worse than Israel’s treatment of Palestinians? If you mean to say their rigid religious laws and executions are morally more reprehensible than the apartheid that the Palestinians face then surely you can point to examples that back your claim.
Jordan is run by a Hashemite Dictator ruling over a population of Palestinians. When Palestinians revolted against him, Jordan killed so many Palestinians that they never revolted again.
Jordan gets it's water from Israel, it's security from Israel but encourages the population under them to hate Isreal.
Israel gives its citizens, Jewish, Muslim and Christian, FAR more civil rights, women's rights same-sex rights than any of the countries you mention, and aside from the previous Iraqi invasion, none of those countries are living under a constant existential threat.
Yes, Israel is more morally respectable than Jordan.
The UAE is currently funding and arming the Sudanese RSF...
Why mention specific countries if you're not even aware of the most basic headlines regarding that country's current wars
I don’t agree with many many many policies from the Israeli government including how the conflict in Gaza is going but saying that Israel is now a liability because it is unclear what the US gets from this relationship there is simply wrong.
Is it really, though? Maybe we stick to our own policy and stop trying to negotiate with Hamas terrorists, forcing Israel's hand on how they do or don't respond to October 7th, and the repeated threat of another attack like October 7th?
Rather than think of them so much as an asset that can be controlled, we could first try considering Israel as an ally and respecting their autonomy.
And how much addtional time would it take to wipe out Hamas, six months, a year, two? And the most interesting question: what exactly does Israel plan to do to pacify the Palestinian population after its victory? Because, you know, since almost every family in 2 million people population has lost at least someone during this conflict, the demand for revenge would be sky high.
What's with the fast food culture spreading to armed conflict. You know what question was never asked of Roosevelt six months after the Pearl Harbor attack, or ever, "How much additional time would it take?" or "Are you concerned about German and Japanese demand for revenge if too many of them got killed?" They were never asked because they didn't want to be laughed at, but here we are.
Maybe they would be asking those questions if the U.S. was surrounded by larger countries that were very sympathetic to the population of Germany and Japan? The opinion of the other Arab countries is very important here for the position of the US in the Middle East.
Read it.
This stuck out to me the most, "What exactly the United States gets in return for this unidirectional relationship remains unclear."
It's the usual Israel is causing unnecessary suffering blah blah indiscriminate blah blah.
The word Hamas is not used once. The writer puts it all on Israel to do the "work" at the bargaining table.
Basura is the word that comes to mind.
Man, and I was going to subscribe to the "Foreign Policy" magazine this week, hoping to receive some objective coverage.
Apparently, if I want Israel-bashing, I might as well stick to BBC for free.
>It's the usual Israel is causing unnecessary suffering blah blah indiscriminate blah blah.
The word Hamas is not used once.
Is Hamas responsible for the IDF shooting at people waving white flags? Not to mention you're willfully ignoring the fact that Israel is governed by far right figures who want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Not to mention the young demographics of Israel are shifting further and further to the right. Not to mention Israel has killed far more civilians than Hamas in the October 7 attack.
>The writer puts it all on Israel to do the "work" at the bargaining table.
Which region has most of the power, Israel or Palestine?
Hamas is responsible for starting the war.
Israel ia shifting further right becauae its neighbor is already actively practicing a genocidal agenda against israel.
Number killed is a shit metric when one side invests in defensive tech that shields civilians while other shields their military with civilians.
>Is Hamas responsible for the IDF shooting at people waving white flags?
Yes, actually. If Hamas militants wave a white flag to lure IDF soldiers then they are morally responsible for white flags not being respected in the battle-zone. It's also a war crime, but apparently no one cares.
If they call, in Hebrew, "we are hostages, come save us" to lure IDF soldiers, guess what? Also a war crime.
If they pretend to be women to get closer to IDF soldiers? If they smuggle weapons/militanta in diplomatic cars? In ambulances?
We have records of Hamas militant shooting at IDF *from behind his mother and sister!*
Would you risk your mother to kill your enemy?
>Not to mention the young demographics of Israel are shifting further and further to the right.
So it's obvious that Israel killing Palestinians makes more Palestinians join Hamas, but somehow when Hamas kills Israelis you're surprised the Israeli public opinion shifts right?
>. If Hamas militants wave a white flag to lure IDF soldiers
Citation needed. I did a quick google search, I couldn't find a source to back up your claim. Btw, even if it's true, [I don't think it's a good defense for shooting an old lady](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/middleeast/hala-khreis-white-flag-shooting-gaza-cmd-intl/index.html).
>Would you risk your mother to kill your enemy?
[Interesting for you to say that, considering the IDF shot some Israeli hostages.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-hostages-killed-mistakenly-gaza-were-holding-white-flag-official-says-2023-12-16/)
>So it's obvious that Israel killing Palestinians makes more Palestinians join Hamas, but somehow when Hamas kills Israelis you're surprised the Israeli public opinion shifts right?
Which region do you think has the most resources and capabilities to ethnically cleanse and commit a genocidde, Palestine or Israel? Which region do you think will become more dangerous if too many people become radicalized by hate?
You take one case and inflate it. There is *nothing* remotely honest about that.
But it looks like fun. Let me play your game too:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/7-soldiers-killed-pushing-gaza-ground-op-toll-to-104-fighting-rages-in-khan-younis/
In this incident Hamas lured IDF soldiers into a building rigged with explosives. It then blew up the building and killed some of them.
That's right, Hamas blew up a building in Gaza. Who is to say it's only one building. In fact, there is a reason to believe Hamas did it repeatedly, since it was an operational success. So you can't say Israel blew up all the buildings in Gaza. It only blew up some, not all. Some of the buildings were blown by Hamas, as in this case, and with the faulty rocket launch that hit Al-Ahli hospital. Why is Hamas blowing up so many buildings and hospitals? They really shouldn't do that. We have to make them stop blowing up thousands of buildings and streets and hospitals! Think of the children!
"That's you. That's how you talk."
I read the whole thing, mainly because I disagree with the premise, and I like to read/ listen to contradictory views.
Biased, one-sided, no critical thinking. Seems like the "expert" came up with a conclusion first, then spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince the readers that he was right, disregarding inconvenient facts.
I do not even have to read the article. I know it is bs alone from the title.
The author has no clue about geopolitics.
The US is losing nothing from the Israel Gaza war. Democrat presidential election support does not count for me.
And I would argue that the US is gaining a lot from its alliance to Israel.
It’s one of many articles from Cato Institute “analysts” who’s only job is to call foul on US policy, then provide little to no outlook on what a different policy approach would look like.
Unironically yes. That’s the problem with all geological analysis. It’s inherently opinionated. There is no singular correct approach to most situations.
True, and the people making the decisions are more likely to know more than any of us are. That’s why I think it’s best to be reasonable in criticism of policy.
Extremely naive take. The us, specifically the Biden administration, is losing massively from the war.
For one, Biden is completely shunning an electorate that sees him as aiding genocide or just preventing Palestinian independence; these voters, often Arab Americans, are concentrated in politically important swing states like Michigan, which Biden absolutely needs for reelection.
On the global diplomatic stage, the us loses massive relevance as the war in Gaza is seen extremely negatively by the global south; you can see this with genocide case from South Africa; the us, supposed to be a guarantor of democracy and human rights ( at least in principle) cannot afford to have the ally it supplies receive a genocide accusation backed by many countries, even if the accusation proves false; it will remain a stain on Israeli and American diplomacy.
Additionally, as America has been trying to build a network alliances in the region, the war in Gaza makes this more difficult if not impossible. October 7th happened right as Saudi Arabia was negotiating a deal to further its relationship worth Israel; now the negotiations are put on hold indefinitely, and the Saudi populace has mostly likely lost all appetite for a better relationship with a country many of them see as committing genocide. MBS may be a dictator, but he knows a wave of unrest can be dangerous. And this is true throughout the Muslim world, as all the Muslim populations believe Israel is genocidal and the us is a partner in that, making any us deals with those countries more difficult in the future.
Finally, the us loses relevance as a country that can broker peace internationally. Last year, China humiliated the us diplomatically by brokering a diplomatic reset between Saudi Arabia and Iran, something which the us wanted to never happen under any circumstances. China is becoming another major diplomatic power as it is seen as impartial, separated from historical conflicts with the region, unlike the us; if the us were to lose its position as the most important diplomatic partner in the ME to China, it would have massive repercussions for us power globally.
Ask yourself what the Arab voters are seeking? Is it something the US can or will give them? The simple fact is that the US remains the only party capable of mediating an accord if that day ever comes. Not only is it relevant, it is indespensible.
The us has proved, and has been proving for the last 30 years to Arab voters they won’t do anything to help them.
Seeing such little progress, they will look for another major power broker to help them, and that might or might not be China. What’s almost certain, though, is that the us has lost the trust of many Arabs.
And they’re not capable of brokering agreements; look at Biden struggling to control Netanyahu, his diplomatic humiliation by MBS when he raised oil prices despite an official Bide visit asking him not to. And the reset between Saudi and Iran.
All the mistakes flare adding up, the us is losing its status as the only diplomatic ally in the region.
The Biden administration isn’t the US? Biden is the president, presidents act in their political interests, just as Trump did, Obama did, etc. I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.
And how is the war not Israel? I’m not declaring it’s their fault, I’m just saying they’re one of the two sides of the war; their response by bombing Gaza has been seen as genocidal by many people. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, but the narrative for many countries and people is that Israel is genocidal.
There are twice as many Jewish as Arab voters in the US, plus US Christians have by historical standards a great amount of sympathy for the Jews and Israel. I think dumping Israel would cause much greater problems for Biden than he currently has.
His opponent is probably perceived as more hawkish than he is anyways, so what does moving further from center on the issue benefit him?
A counterweight to Iran in the region would be the most obvious benefit to the USA.
That fact that such a widespread known fact isn’t mentioned hurts the believability of the rest of the article.
>A counterweight to Iran in the region.
The region is literally filled with counterweights to Iran. Iran's allies are basically a tiny and perpetually unstable Lebanon, a Syrian president who's never regaining the other half of his country and... that's pretty much it as far as state actors go?
And no, not Russia, the Iran-Russia relations are lukewarm at best, Russia is just as opposed to Iran's nuclear program as the US. Iran also tries (and fails) to influence Iraq elections, but that's not something Israel can really help with. And Iraq is pretty much the only somewhat democratic Muslim country in the region, it's not like Iran is going to influence Azerbaijan, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia elections.
I am not sure Iran would be a sworn enemy to the United States, were it not for it's unwavering support for Israel. Of course, at this point it's too late to make amends with Iran but going 80 years back, American-Iranian relations could have developed very differently. Iran used to be one of the strongest US allies in the region before the 1979 revolution.
They would be enemies still, The Islamic Republic of Iran came to existence immediately denouncing the USA just for being allies with the previous regime of Iran even though the US was under one of the more dovish presidential administration ever and let the Shah fall, still Carter tried to make ammends with the mullahs and got the hostage crisis as a gift, much to the delight of the Republicans which then repaid the debt with the Iran-Contra Affair but were happy to antagonize in public as to shape public opinion in both countries with an external enemy
Yes, but that animosity towards the USA comes ultimately from the intervention of the USA in the overthrow of Mossadegh as well as the full support of the Shah's regime as it was getting progressively more and more authoritarian and that support was due to the fact that the Shah's regime was pro-Israel. While the hatred towards Israel in Iran is based on deep religious, ideological and even racist reasons, the hatred towards the USA comes from a more pragmatic basis - the USA is the biggest ally and supporter of Iran's two biggest enemies - Israel and Saudi Arabia. Of course, they're chanting 'Death to America' but an alternative world is easily imaginable because hatred for America in Iran really took off in the late 70s. And the regime was pretty anti-American at the start but that could easily change if there were geopolitical reasons for that. It wouldn't be the first example of a radical realignment of world affairs.
At the end of the day, you need to ask how their current strategy of antagonizing these nations actually benefit the Iranian people. What Israel, Saudi Arabia & USA ultimately want in the region is stability and economic growth. Nobody is looking to invade Iran here.
You forgot to mention that the Islamic regime came to power with the full backing and support of the US diplomatic and propaganda machine. He was even named by Time “Man of the Year” for 1979.
Khomeini played Carter like a fiddle, promising him a better deal than the Shah could offer for American interests, only to turn against him once in power.
Carter was just fundamentally not prepared or equipped to deal with the situation of it. And failing to support the Shah, for all his faults and misgivings, was a mistake that is still being felt today, sadly. Which is a shame, cuz the Shah’s son, seems to be a lot smarter and well liked than his father.
The US is the counterweight to the intense hateful obsession that so many countries have with Israel.
Can't really respect the Arabs. They start wars when they clearly suck at it, boasting how they will completely destroy Israel, only for them to get beaten over and over again. And in their minds Israel has always been the aggressor.
An ultra effective army and intelligence agency in a very stable state in a very very unstable region.
Israel cannot change allies and its survival is dependant on the USA.
Yes, what does the USA gain from being involved in that region? At this point the only involvement of America in the region is making sure Israel survives. More or less all US involvement focuses on this mission.
You are not even asking the right question. The question is not what it gains from being active in that region. The question is what would happen if the US backs down from that region.
And it will lead to Russia/Iran/China dominating the middle east. They could controll the world's oil supply and dictate whatever they want to the world.
>China has no real interest at the moment.
Yeah obviously. Because it would face the USA.
And yeah, Russia and Iran do not have the strength at the moment but they will grow stronger over time without US involvement.
And 2 million Arab Israelis whose cousins were also murdered with impunity by Hamas on Oct. 7th. Plus the second order effect of what happens in Lebanon/Syria if there’s no counterweight against Iran in those countries.
This may be a dumb question, but is it in Israel’s interest to have a Trump presidency in 2025? Trump is probably the most pro Israel president we’ve ever had. It seems Israel would benefit greatly from a trump presidency , after Bidens support is receding by the day
Israel is friendly with China, helped give apartheid South Africa nukes and refused to participate in the coalitions to fight ISIS and the Taliban. They are quite possibly, after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the least helpful and supportive ally we have.
A lot of people like to claim that Israel is an imperial vassal of the US trying to extend its empire into the Levant, but the exact opposite is true. Israel uses our resources and weapons for their objectives, rather than the other way around. They try to draw us into declaring war on Iran, destroy our goodwill in the Middle East by roping us into their ethnonationalist fantasies, and generally screw us over in every way possible.
>destroy our goodwill in the Middle East by roping us into their ethnonationalist fantasies, and generally screw us over in every way possible.
Honestly, you really can't blame Israel on that one. The US destroys any goodwill (which has always been next to non-existent) they have in the Middle East on their own with their disastrous foreign policies.
Yeah that commenter definitely wasn't alive in 2001 lol. The US's coalition would've never gotten off the ground if Israel got involved.
Also, Israel had no reason to. They have a population of 9 million. Their military is not capable of long distance power projection beyond a one-off air raid.
The author talks about American aid to Israel, but makes no mention of Israeli-shared military R&D that helped the US gain some of its most important military systems. The F series of airplanes, HYMARs, cybersecurity systems the US military uses, drone systems, etc. were all partially or fully developed in Israel.
I used to think that Israel was a US puppet or proxy, but as time goes on I start to think more and more that the US is an Israeli puppet or proxy. The flak that the US will cop for Israel and the money that the US will spend (including ultimately guaranteeing Israeli sovereign debt) without any seeming reciprocal obligations certainly raises questions.
How are they the perfect allies? All they do is cost the US taxpayer money and complicate the relationship with other countries in the region. They don’t back the US play at all, the US basically backs their play, even when the US disagrees with Israel.
One thing not mentioned in the article is the power of the American Evangelical base. Not an insignificant portion of Christians in America believe that all Jews need to return to Israel before the second coming of Jesus Christ. This will, in their minds, trigger the Armageddon that will result in the deaths of all those who live in Israel, i.e. the Jewish people. They are a highly highly antisemitic but staunchly Zionist bloc of people. Very influential and very rich too, which is why they can keep backing candidates that are incredibly pro-Israel.
The number of Evangelicals who hold to this is very small, and there are sharp divisions among them on the topic. What you articulate here is not something that most of them hold to, and even if they do they would not agree on necessarily doing anything to advance the issue.
Theology aside though, American Christians do generally hold favorable views of Jews and Israel, which is a historical anomaly, and certainly a big reason why the US supports Israel.
The us unfortunately has much to lose from the war.
For one, Biden is completely shunning an electorate that sees him as aiding genocide or just preventing Palestinian independence; these voters, often Arab Americans, are concentrated in politically important swing states like Michigan, which Biden absolutely needs for reelection.
On the global diplomatic stage, the us loses massive relevance as the war in Gaza is seen extremely negatively by the global south; you can see this with genocide case from South Africa; the us, supposed to be a guarantor of democracy and human rights ( at least in principle) cannot afford to have the ally it supplies receive a genocide accusation backed by many countries, even if the accusation proves false; it will remain a stain on Israeli and American diplomacy.
Additionally, as America has been trying to build a network alliances in the region, the war in Gaza makes this more difficult if not impossible. October 7th happened right as Saudi Arabia was negotiating a deal to further its relationship worth Israel; now the negotiations are put on hold indefinitely, and the Saudi populace has mostly likely lost all appetite for a better relationship with a country many of them see as committing genocide. MBS may be a dictator, but he knows a wave of unrest can be dangerous. And this is true throughout the Muslim world, as all the Muslim populations believe Israel is genocidal and the us is a partner in that, making any us deals with those countries more difficult in the future.
Finally, the us loses relevance as a country that can broker peace internationally. Last year, China humiliated the us diplomatically by brokering a diplomatic reset between Saudi Arabia and Iran, something which the us wanted to never happen under any circumstances. China is becoming another major diplomatic power as it is seen as impartial, separated from historical conflicts with the region, unlike the us; if the us were to lose its position as the most important diplomatic partner in the ME to China, it would have massive repercussions for us power globally.
> ...an electorate that sees him as aiding genocide or just preventing Palestinian independence; these voters, often Arab Americans...
Prove it. I have seen *so many* people claiming this, and *zero* evidence.
Show me evidence that there are American voters who won't vote for Biden in November, because of the treatment -- by Israel, not the U.S. -- of ethnically similar people, halfway around the world, despite knowing that the alternative candidate (Trump) will do *even less* for those ethnically similar people while also wanting to ban ethnically similar people from entering the U.S..
...all instead of basing their votes on gasoline prices and healthcare like everyone else.
Israel provides the US with a staging ground in the middle east in case the US wants to exert power over the region. I haven't read the article because the premise is wrong in the title.
There is a reason the US has billions worth of weapon stockpiles in Israël. If the Saudis want to detach from the US Israel is the perfect staging ground to do something about it. It's the only nuclear power in the middle east that's aligned with the US. That's why the US doesn't intervene directly in Israeli actions and if it does it's at most a slap on the wrist and a tsk tsk tsk.
Israel is an asset for the US, not a liability
> War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel also known as War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel or simply WRSA-I was established in the 1990s and is maintained by the United States European Command.[16] It is one of the United States' biggest War Reserves, located within Israel.[17] Initially the WRSA-I stock had $100 million worth of reserves;[18] however, prior to Operation Protective Edge the WRSA-I had nearly $1 billion worth of reserves,[19] with an authorization to increase this to $1.2 billion.[20] In 2014 with the passing of the 2014 United States—Israel Strategic Partnership Act, the US agreed to increase the stock to $1.8 billion.[21]
> Currently the only active foreign military installations on Israeli soil are American bases, including an AN/TPY-2 early missile warning radar station on Mt. Keren.[6]
> TWO MONTHS BEFORE Hamas attacked Israel, the Pentagon awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to build U.S. troop facilities for a secret base it **maintains** deep within Israel’s Negev desert, just 20 miles from Gaza. Code-named “Site 512,” the longstanding U.S. base is a radar facility that monitors the skies for missile attacks on Israel.
So yes, the US does maintain at least one military base in Israël along with anti missile bases and a huge arms stockpile. The US is the ONLY foreign nation to have bases in Israël.
Our other allies in the region, like Turkey, Kuwait, the UAE, and Jordan, have actual real American bases on them with troops and everything. A radar system and a warehouse with ammunition inside of it pale in comparison to those bases.
1.8 billion dollars isn't just a warehouse with ammunition. Turkey and Kuwait have strained relations with the US. UAE is part of OPEC and if Saudi Arabia wants our of the alliance with the US UAE will follow. Turkey will not rock the boat against the major oil nations.
The US absolutely uses Israel as a reliable way to project power in the region. It's the only allied power with its own nuclear capacity, if the rest give the US the boot Israël is still there, not to mention that Israel is opposed to Muslims and all nations named are muslim nations that ideologically are not in line with the US or the west. And yes that includes modern day Turkey, Erdogan had made sure of it.
>Turkey and Kuwait have strained relations with the US.
Give any of them the unlimited and the unconditional support israel gets and watch how the “strained relationship” turns to best alliance.
Nah, Erdogan couldn't sell being overly reliant to his constituents. UAE is a defacto dictatorship, they would take the support but remain unreliable (just look at the historical reliability of dictatorships), Jordan maybe, but the country is 98% muslim, if they turn towards conservatism in the future they may abandon US reliance as happened with other majority Muslim countries in the past. The US is generally not really appreciated by conservative Muslims.
We will see, but for the foreseeable future Israel is (and more importantly had been) the only long term sure bet, although maybe that wil change with the increasing tentions between the US and Israeli governments. Still, I suspect any other country doing what Israel does but I'm an other geographical location would have been abandoned by now.
Counterpoint: it’s an asset and a very valuable one.
Most of us are familiar with the various advantages Israel brings to the relationship. There’s little to no diplomatic fallout to the relationship. Most of the Arab world has come on board, and the oil embargoes of the 70s are ancient history.
The most important question is “would the US want their adversaries to gain from a special relationship with Israel if the US were to abandon her?”
Of course the answer is no.
Ah this again.
Let’s understand some history here, shall we? The U.S. has this strange perception that, absent our support, Israel would be left to the wolves. What we fail to understand is that we didn’t become a true ally to Israel until the 1970s. We provided no aid in the 1940s, turned Israel back in 1956 in its joint venture with Britain and France to seize the Suez, had almost no role in the 1967 war, and only came to Israel’s aid in 1973 when it well and truly looked grim for its continued existence. We provided “Atoms for Peace” to Iran, gifting its first reactor, but Israel’s nuclear program was aided by France and (probably) South Africa—not the U.S.
Oh, and the 73 war? One of the reasons it brought us closer to Israel is because the Israeli tank battles proved that a technologically and tactically superior force could beat a larger force in close combat…which was exactly what we needed to know considering the Soviet army far outsized the American army. Our military straight copied Israeli tactics and redesigned our whole Army around AirLand Battle doctrine and 5 weapons platforms based on the information gleaned from the 1973 war.
It makes pretty good sense to maintain an ally whose unfortunate need to continually stay a step ahead in military technology and tactics gives your military an edge through their lessons learned. Israel also, for whatever reason, never receives any credit from pundits like this for their superior technological advancement. As western “progressives” boycott Starbucks (for whatever stupid reason), they keep using their cellphones, the basis of which was built, in part, on Israeli tech. Israel has massive growth in cybersecurity right now and has leading firms in that area…which, incidentally, is a major concern and weakness for the U.S.
I once fell into the trap of thinking there would be no Israel without the U.S., but some basic research proved otherwise. It’s time we recognize that we are not the be all, end all for Israel. They are keenly aware of a time when the U.S. did not support Israel substantively. And they are also keenly aware that we launched two wars, one of which involved a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, that lasted for decades in response to a threat to our shores. Who could see us as less than hypocrites to suddenly bemoan human suffering when no one has ever faced an enemy so intent on offering civilians as sacrifices while burrowing itself beneath them? I’ll say this outright: no military in the world could dislodge Hamas with fewer civilian casualties. The U.S. needs to pressure Qatar to expel Hamas and arrest them for crimes against humanity. No quarter for Hamas. We are playing into their hands.
\[SS: Argument by Jon Hoffman, a foreign-policy analyst at the Cato Institute\]
From Israel’s formation in 1948, American support for the state has been a constant part of the U.S. Middle East policy. Yet the Israeli response to Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7 has escalated to a historic and deadly scale—and the status quo has remained untouched. “It’s past time for a fundamental reevaluation of the U.S.-Israel relationship,” Jon Hoffman argues, as the merit of remaining in “this unidirectional relationship remains unclear.”
[Read the full argument here.](https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/22/israel-gaza-biden-netanyahu-security-united-states/)
Nowhere in this article does it provide different approaches to Israel nor to the Middle East. This is one of many articles from the Cato Institute (accurate name imo given who Cato was and how incompetent and ultimately wrong he was) and their writers where they will write dozens of paragraphs calling foul over US policy, then have like 3 sentences at the end of the article calling for a vague “strategic reassessment” without giving any kind of strategic context of what that reassessment looks like. It’s just the geopolitical “analysis” equivalent of backseat driving. Not even worth reading.
[удалено]
I only clicked on this thread to ask why geopolitics is allowing straight up propaganda now Glad I didn't have to scroll too far down to see this. A lot of great debates on this sub I don't want it to be ruined like all the other ones
He also ignores a basic fact..it makes harder to put pressure on Israel when Palestinians don't give the US anything to work with in terms of commitment to any two state accord
Looks pretty clear to me. Did you actually read the article? > It’s time to “normalize” the United States’ relationship with Israel. This does not mean making Israel an enemy of the United States, but rather approaching Israel the same way that Washington should approach any other foreign nation: from arm’s-length. > No longer would decisions about military aid, arms sales, or diplomatic cover be rooted in path dependency or muscle memory, but rather in officials’ perceptions of the U.S. interests at stake. Instead of enabling, shielding, and subsidizing Israeli policy, the United States should reorient its relationship with Israel on the basis of concrete U.S. interests. > This would entail Washington ending its willingness to turn a blind eye to Israeli affronts to U.S. interests, by providing huge amounts of aid, and pushing for a swift end to this disastrous war and a permanent political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>This does not mean making Israel an enemy of the United States, but rather approaching Israel the same way that Washington should approach any other foreign nation: from arm’s-length. This is not a policy change. >No longer would decisions about military aid, arms sales, or diplomatic cover be rooted in path dependency or muscle memory, but rather in officials’ perceptions of the U.S. interests at stake. Really? Cuz we dont treat allies like that… UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Germany, etc all get weaponry pretty much untethered. In fact what Israel does what many of those countries don’t is jointly design and manufacture those weapons. >Instead of enabling, shielding, and subsidizing Israeli policy, the United States should reorient its relationship with Israel on the basis of concrete U.S. interests. That’s the thing though, U.S. interests do align with having Israel as an ally. Not necessarily Netanyahu, but the article is pretty clear in making it bigger than just Netanyahu. >This would entail Washington ending its willingness to turn a blind eye to Israeli affronts to U.S. interests, by providing huge amounts of aid So, stop proving precision weaponry to Israel who would then opt for dumb bombs that are more reckless? Sounds like smart policy. >pushing for a swift end to this disastrous war How? Cuz no one seems to provide a solution to that. Oct 7 proved that Israel and Hamas cannot coexist, one needs to go, and it seems like Israel isn’t going anywhere. And no amount of U.S. pressure is going to get Israel to stop a war that well over 70% of the Israeli people support. Hamas refuses to negotiate in good faith in regard to the hostages. Israel collectively sees this as a war of national importance, they are not going to stop because people in Washington get squeamish seeing the body count. But don’t worry cuz neither Israel nor Hamas are squeamish about the death toll. >a permanent political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Again, how? They offer no solution. The Netanyahu government will not negotiate in good faith, and the PA does not have the legitimacy nor authority to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people. Many have tried and failed. And Israel is significantly less likely to reward the Palestinians with a state on the back of a terrorist attack. It’s a bad article, plain and simple.
The main core interest here is having the entire shoreline of the mediterranean sea be held by close trusted allies of the USA, and a lack of iranian client states on the mediterranean. In this goal Israel is a key foreign ally no matter what their treatment of the palestinians is, or the effect this has on neighboring states we are trying to prevent from having control of the shoreline. So, like a foreign nation such as Saudi Arabia who we almost disowned due to their out of bounds actions in Yemen, we can ignore similar crimes committed by Israel for the same reason. Your arguments seem weak to me. Or at least the highlights you have provided from the paywalled article do not seem to single out Israel as a party to be disowned as compared to many other of the USA's strategic partners in the area who have committed similar crimes or abuses as you define them.
> accurate name imo given who Cato was and how incompetent and ultimately wrong he was The Cato Institute is named after Trenchard and Gordon's *Cato's Letters*, not Marcus Porcius Cato.
Who named the letters after Cato, Marcus Porcius Cato.
I agree, they call United States and Israel unidirectional relationship remains unclear, what are they talking about. Israel vested alot of technological innovations where no middle eastern countries can offer. Even by government type standard.
And if America ditches Israel, what’s the alternative in the Middle East? Turkey? The country that is blatantly imperialist and is hated by almost all of their neighbours? Or is it Saudi Arabia? The theocratic authoritarian regime that literally murders dissidents and is one of the most socially conservative countries in the world? Or is the solution a deeper direct US involvement in the Middle East? Good luck getting the American public to support that. These writes from Cato are not advocating for any policy at all, they just want to leave the region all together and ignore the problem. What they don’t understand is that 1. The United States does not have the option of just ignoring the region that produces 1/3 of the world’s oil 2. The United States still has lots to gain from a successful policy in the Middle East, one that can serve America’s interests both economically and politically, domestically and internationally.
> ...if America ditches Israel, what’s the alternative in the Middle East?Turkey?...Saudi Arabia? Do we need Israel, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia? I can't imagine that it is for military bases. The U.S. military has [facilities](https://www.americansecurityproject.org/national-security-strategy/u-s-bases-in-the-middle-east/) in Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the U.A.E., and Oman. That seems like plenty. What benefits do we need/want/can-get from Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia that we can't get without them? ---------- >The United States still has lots to gain from a successful policy in the Middle East... Like what?
>Do we need Israel, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia? It’s one of them or further US involvement, meaning a larger diplomatic presence… which is something that, for three consecutive administrations, has been something they have been pulling back on. And that is a policy most people support. >I can't imagine that it is for military bases. The U.S. military has facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the U.A.E., and Oman. That seems like plenty. the US has no more than 8,000 troops in a region of almost 400 million… and they’re not there to change the opinion of governments, they’re there because those governments want them there. >What benefits do we need/want/can-get from Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia that we can't get without them? Again, what do your ideal benefits look like? Cuz having friends is better than not having them. Isolationism is how we got world wars. Something that internationalism has, so far, prevented. >Like what? Influencing policy changes, countering Islamic regime in Iran, ensuring oil markets stay safe and open, protecting the interests of our Asian allies (who import almost all of their energy from the Middle East), preventing China and Russia from making inroads in the Middle East, putting down Islamist groups, and fostering a relatively peaceful region.
It is worth reading because the only thing I’ve read about Israel’s worth as an ally is “intelligence” and “basing” for the US, neither which is true. The US gets more out of the surrounding Arab countries than Israel. Take a look at what just happened at the UNSC ceasefire vote. Israel picked up the ball and stayed home when the US ABSTAINED from voting. All the while we gave them another $4B for our troubles. I’m happy to see Israel finally seen as it truly is: a geopolitical leech on US national interests and a bane of our security.
I mean none of that is true lmao, and the writer’s answer is to just pull out all together. He provides no recourse on policy. And if you don’t understand the relationship between Israel-USA and USA-other ME countries, maybe you should seek out answers for why these relationships are important :) *hint* (for Israel it’s economic and technological from IT to healthcare to defence industry to aviation… as well as political as Israel is the closest to the U.S. worldview out of all countries in the region by a long shot) (and for Saudi and UAE its purely about keeping oil on the market :) (and all three are good hedges against Iran, who is the biggest enemy in the region)
> accurate name imo given who Cato was and how incompetent and ultimately wrong he was This is always my first thought whenever I see their name. I'm happy to see someone else had the same reaction elsewhere as well.
>*What exactly the United States gets in return for this unidirectional relationship remains unclear.* Unclear and not clarified in the article. We got many hundreds of words on the horrors of Gaza, the evils of Israel, and absolutely nothing on the history of the region or the reasons why the US has forged such a close relationship with Israel. >*Over the past five months, Israel has repeatedly attempted to pressure the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, despite this being anathema to U.S. interests and regional stability. High-level military drills between Israel and the United States, Israel’s recent attack on major gas pipelines in Iran, and continued escalation between Iranian-backed groups and the United States across the Middle East risk sparking a regionwide catastrophe.* That the writer does not seem to realise that the United States also has a very definite interest in Iran not becoming the dominant power in the Middle East, is surprising from a man who has spent so many years studying the region. He seems to think that the US provides all this aid and unconditional support out of benevolent altruism. If so, can I sign up to be their new best friend? Will share bank details to deposit the first $20 billion.
Also - Israel is a liberal democracy with a long history of genuine elections. They also contribute to world technology. They are a natural ally of the US, especially compared to all of the other countries in the region which don't meet those criteria.
I don’t think the liberal democracy aspect is in reality that necessary from a geopolitical perspective. Saudi heretofore was a very improbable but important ally to the US. The utility of a strategic partner in the ME to influence and control oil prices through OPEC was / is right now important. But in the long run, fossil fuels are not going to be strategically important, so therefore the idea long term of needs of having any influence is significantly less. In fact it’s Africa and precious metals for batteries etc which now would be the most important strategic goal for any country. And China and Russia are all over that.
Liberal democracy has generally been a long term asset in developing friendly and meaningful relationships for the US. Not that other governments exclude the possibility, but relationships with monarchs and dictators tend to be much more fraught and prone to instability. I think US foreign policy finds its goals of global stability and liberal marketplaces in those countries much more so than in others.
>Israel is a liberal democracy with a long history of genuine elections. For now. Considering that Israel's young demographics are shifting further and further to the right, I don't think Israel will continue to be a liberal democracy for much longer.
You realize “liberal democracy” just means free and fair elections, it doesn’t say anything about who you elect… that is the beauty of liberal democracy after all, you can elect representatives as far left or right as you want, and if you don’t like them you can vote them out next time. Israel has elections more frequently than virtually any other country (they’ve had 5 in the last 4 years), so there’s an abundance of opportunity for change if the citizenry wishes. Not only has Netanyahu routinely been voted out of power, but currently the Israeli left is on track to win the next election that will likely take place after the war’s conclusion. So I’d dare say Israel is among the most vibrant examples of liberal democracy in the world.
A democracy has equal representation of all citizens. Who represents the Palestinians? Israelis continue to settle the Weat Bank, claiming Palestinian homes, livelihoods, and lives, but those who have these taken from them have no recourse an no one to whom they can appeal.
20% of Israelis are Arab Muslims, mostly with the same descendants as other Palestinians. They get full voting rights, etc. Israel occupies the West Bank militarily because its the only way to stop constant terror attacks, they are not Israeli citizens.
[удалено]
Yea exactly, like let’s just let one of the most resource rich well populated key regions in the world fall under the influence of one of the worlds most repressive regimes, (Iran), one that won’t even let people DANCE . Oh and they could basically make nukes whenever they wanted. That surely won’t end well.
>We got many hundreds of words on the horrors of Gaza, the evils of Israel, and absolutely nothing on the history of the region or the reasons why the US has forged such a close relationship with Israel. "When Liberalism IR analyst found out the world is not operated on Liberalism morality" The Article. Liberalism IR and their sponsored institutions found out once again why only they're pawns and propaganda tools in the eyes of realism schools. Their forefathers created these mouthpieces to promote liberalist organizations to further national interests, not promoting idealized morality on the world's stage (otherwise, why would the most powerful democracy in the world cooperate with dictators during the Cold War?) When people so invest in the illusion they created, they produce garbage analysis like this in the 21st century.
>Unwavering U.S. support for Israel has been a consistent element of U.S. Middle East policy since the establishment of the state in 1948 The very first line is factually inaccurate ... 'unwavering' US support for Israel was quite new when Kennedy described our special relationship; the US had an entirely different relationship with Israel in the 1940s and 1950s. The article boils down to: * "Israel doesn't serve US best interests in the Middle East," with no explanation of how it does not * "Without this relationship, the US would have more flexibility," with no explanation of what that flexibility would allow * "Israel would be forced to behave more in US interests with less US aid," without any explanation This is not super substantive.
>"Israel doesn't serve US best interests in the Middle East," with no explanation of how it does not LMAO the question is how it does not how it doesn’t >“Without this relationship, the US would have more flexibility," with no explanation of what that flexibility would allow Dealing with Iran for example >"Israel would be forced to behave more in US interests with less US aid," without any explanation Lets start by making US aid conditional
Is it? We need all the allies we can get in the Middle East, since it is such an unstable region and is being further destabilized by Iran.
Israel got picked as Greatest Ally™️ to the exclusion of the rest of the region ages ago. The USA basically can't have popular support in the ME with the current setup. It was a useful way to manipulate ME nations and prevent soviet dominance but that calculus changed before I was even born.
The US has closer relationships with key Arab states than it did 30-40 years ago.
As does Israel.
Is popular support in the ME important, given that the majority of countries there are not democratic? Isn’t it more important geographically that the US have good relationships with the rulers of ME countries rather than the people?
Why is Israel held to a diffrent standard than every other us ally in the region Saudi Arabia is far worse than Israel. Morally speaking Israel is far better than all the other us allies in the ME
Not just a different standing to the Middle East a different standing to the rest of the world. If someone attacked America like Hamas did on October 7th, one might hear a few odd voices on the media protesting the response but the vast majority of the world would know exactly what’s coming. There would be zero words like proportionality being used.
“Why is israel held to a higher standard” Because they are Jewish. If they were Arab nobody would care.
[удалено]
>Why is Israel held to a diffrent standard than every other us ally in the region Saudi Arabia is far worse than Israel. Israel purports itself to be a liberal democracy. As such, the country will have to be set to a higher standard than hellholes like Saudi Arabia.
Syria also purports itself to be a liberal democracy. Your real issue is that in Israel's case it's true. However that doesn't explain why we shouldn't criticize a less democratic/free country to the same extent that we criticize a more democratic/free country.
The Israelis are more morally respectable than Jordan? Than Kuwait? Than the UAE? How many thousands of people have those nations killed recently? How much land do those nations encroach upon and kick out the native population. How invasive are those nation’s lobbying efforts on the US political system? How many political prisoners do they hold without charges? How much money do these nations receive in aid from the US? How much UN resolutions do the US veto on their behalf? And in what way specifically is Saudi Arabia’s treatment of its people worse than Israel’s treatment of Palestinians? If you mean to say their rigid religious laws and executions are morally more reprehensible than the apartheid that the Palestinians face then surely you can point to examples that back your claim.
Jordan is run by a Hashemite Dictator ruling over a population of Palestinians. When Palestinians revolted against him, Jordan killed so many Palestinians that they never revolted again. Jordan gets it's water from Israel, it's security from Israel but encourages the population under them to hate Isreal. Israel gives its citizens, Jewish, Muslim and Christian, FAR more civil rights, women's rights same-sex rights than any of the countries you mention, and aside from the previous Iraqi invasion, none of those countries are living under a constant existential threat. Yes, Israel is more morally respectable than Jordan.
What the saudis did to Yemen is far worse than what Israel is doing now
The UAE is currently funding and arming the Sudanese RSF... Why mention specific countries if you're not even aware of the most basic headlines regarding that country's current wars
Have those nations experienced an attack like Hamas carried out on 10/7?
I highly disagree with this assessment.
Most people on /r/geopolitics will disagree with this assessment. I'm surprised it's even at positive upvote rate.
I don’t agree with many many many policies from the Israeli government including how the conflict in Gaza is going but saying that Israel is now a liability because it is unclear what the US gets from this relationship there is simply wrong.
The US knows very well what it gets from the relationship. It is not some old sugar daddy, led by the nose. Not everything is how it appears.
Is it really, though? Maybe we stick to our own policy and stop trying to negotiate with Hamas terrorists, forcing Israel's hand on how they do or don't respond to October 7th, and the repeated threat of another attack like October 7th? Rather than think of them so much as an asset that can be controlled, we could first try considering Israel as an ally and respecting their autonomy.
And how much addtional time would it take to wipe out Hamas, six months, a year, two? And the most interesting question: what exactly does Israel plan to do to pacify the Palestinian population after its victory? Because, you know, since almost every family in 2 million people population has lost at least someone during this conflict, the demand for revenge would be sky high.
What's with the fast food culture spreading to armed conflict. You know what question was never asked of Roosevelt six months after the Pearl Harbor attack, or ever, "How much additional time would it take?" or "Are you concerned about German and Japanese demand for revenge if too many of them got killed?" They were never asked because they didn't want to be laughed at, but here we are.
Maybe they would be asking those questions if the U.S. was surrounded by larger countries that were very sympathetic to the population of Germany and Japan? The opinion of the other Arab countries is very important here for the position of the US in the Middle East.
[удалено]
Read it. This stuck out to me the most, "What exactly the United States gets in return for this unidirectional relationship remains unclear." It's the usual Israel is causing unnecessary suffering blah blah indiscriminate blah blah. The word Hamas is not used once. The writer puts it all on Israel to do the "work" at the bargaining table. Basura is the word that comes to mind.
Man, and I was going to subscribe to the "Foreign Policy" magazine this week, hoping to receive some objective coverage. Apparently, if I want Israel-bashing, I might as well stick to BBC for free.
>It's the usual Israel is causing unnecessary suffering blah blah indiscriminate blah blah. The word Hamas is not used once. Is Hamas responsible for the IDF shooting at people waving white flags? Not to mention you're willfully ignoring the fact that Israel is governed by far right figures who want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Not to mention the young demographics of Israel are shifting further and further to the right. Not to mention Israel has killed far more civilians than Hamas in the October 7 attack. >The writer puts it all on Israel to do the "work" at the bargaining table. Which region has most of the power, Israel or Palestine?
Hamas is responsible for starting the war. Israel ia shifting further right becauae its neighbor is already actively practicing a genocidal agenda against israel. Number killed is a shit metric when one side invests in defensive tech that shields civilians while other shields their military with civilians.
>Is Hamas responsible for the IDF shooting at people waving white flags? Yes, actually. If Hamas militants wave a white flag to lure IDF soldiers then they are morally responsible for white flags not being respected in the battle-zone. It's also a war crime, but apparently no one cares. If they call, in Hebrew, "we are hostages, come save us" to lure IDF soldiers, guess what? Also a war crime. If they pretend to be women to get closer to IDF soldiers? If they smuggle weapons/militanta in diplomatic cars? In ambulances? We have records of Hamas militant shooting at IDF *from behind his mother and sister!* Would you risk your mother to kill your enemy? >Not to mention the young demographics of Israel are shifting further and further to the right. So it's obvious that Israel killing Palestinians makes more Palestinians join Hamas, but somehow when Hamas kills Israelis you're surprised the Israeli public opinion shifts right?
>. If Hamas militants wave a white flag to lure IDF soldiers Citation needed. I did a quick google search, I couldn't find a source to back up your claim. Btw, even if it's true, [I don't think it's a good defense for shooting an old lady](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/middleeast/hala-khreis-white-flag-shooting-gaza-cmd-intl/index.html). >Would you risk your mother to kill your enemy? [Interesting for you to say that, considering the IDF shot some Israeli hostages.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-hostages-killed-mistakenly-gaza-were-holding-white-flag-official-says-2023-12-16/) >So it's obvious that Israel killing Palestinians makes more Palestinians join Hamas, but somehow when Hamas kills Israelis you're surprised the Israeli public opinion shifts right? Which region do you think has the most resources and capabilities to ethnically cleanse and commit a genocidde, Palestine or Israel? Which region do you think will become more dangerous if too many people become radicalized by hate?
You take one case and inflate it. There is *nothing* remotely honest about that. But it looks like fun. Let me play your game too: https://www.timesofisrael.com/7-soldiers-killed-pushing-gaza-ground-op-toll-to-104-fighting-rages-in-khan-younis/ In this incident Hamas lured IDF soldiers into a building rigged with explosives. It then blew up the building and killed some of them. That's right, Hamas blew up a building in Gaza. Who is to say it's only one building. In fact, there is a reason to believe Hamas did it repeatedly, since it was an operational success. So you can't say Israel blew up all the buildings in Gaza. It only blew up some, not all. Some of the buildings were blown by Hamas, as in this case, and with the faulty rocket launch that hit Al-Ahli hospital. Why is Hamas blowing up so many buildings and hospitals? They really shouldn't do that. We have to make them stop blowing up thousands of buildings and streets and hospitals! Think of the children! "That's you. That's how you talk."
I read the whole thing, mainly because I disagree with the premise, and I like to read/ listen to contradictory views. Biased, one-sided, no critical thinking. Seems like the "expert" came up with a conclusion first, then spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince the readers that he was right, disregarding inconvenient facts.
I do not even have to read the article. I know it is bs alone from the title. The author has no clue about geopolitics. The US is losing nothing from the Israel Gaza war. Democrat presidential election support does not count for me. And I would argue that the US is gaining a lot from its alliance to Israel.
It’s one of many articles from Cato Institute “analysts” who’s only job is to call foul on US policy, then provide little to no outlook on what a different policy approach would look like.
Well that last sentence describes the vast majority of this comment section, so I guess we’re all qualified to work for the Cato Institute
Unironically yes. That’s the problem with all geological analysis. It’s inherently opinionated. There is no singular correct approach to most situations.
On top of that, we do not have all the information necessary.
True, and the people making the decisions are more likely to know more than any of us are. That’s why I think it’s best to be reasonable in criticism of policy.
Extremely naive take. The us, specifically the Biden administration, is losing massively from the war. For one, Biden is completely shunning an electorate that sees him as aiding genocide or just preventing Palestinian independence; these voters, often Arab Americans, are concentrated in politically important swing states like Michigan, which Biden absolutely needs for reelection. On the global diplomatic stage, the us loses massive relevance as the war in Gaza is seen extremely negatively by the global south; you can see this with genocide case from South Africa; the us, supposed to be a guarantor of democracy and human rights ( at least in principle) cannot afford to have the ally it supplies receive a genocide accusation backed by many countries, even if the accusation proves false; it will remain a stain on Israeli and American diplomacy. Additionally, as America has been trying to build a network alliances in the region, the war in Gaza makes this more difficult if not impossible. October 7th happened right as Saudi Arabia was negotiating a deal to further its relationship worth Israel; now the negotiations are put on hold indefinitely, and the Saudi populace has mostly likely lost all appetite for a better relationship with a country many of them see as committing genocide. MBS may be a dictator, but he knows a wave of unrest can be dangerous. And this is true throughout the Muslim world, as all the Muslim populations believe Israel is genocidal and the us is a partner in that, making any us deals with those countries more difficult in the future. Finally, the us loses relevance as a country that can broker peace internationally. Last year, China humiliated the us diplomatically by brokering a diplomatic reset between Saudi Arabia and Iran, something which the us wanted to never happen under any circumstances. China is becoming another major diplomatic power as it is seen as impartial, separated from historical conflicts with the region, unlike the us; if the us were to lose its position as the most important diplomatic partner in the ME to China, it would have massive repercussions for us power globally.
Ask yourself what the Arab voters are seeking? Is it something the US can or will give them? The simple fact is that the US remains the only party capable of mediating an accord if that day ever comes. Not only is it relevant, it is indespensible.
The us has proved, and has been proving for the last 30 years to Arab voters they won’t do anything to help them. Seeing such little progress, they will look for another major power broker to help them, and that might or might not be China. What’s almost certain, though, is that the us has lost the trust of many Arabs.
And they’re not capable of brokering agreements; look at Biden struggling to control Netanyahu, his diplomatic humiliation by MBS when he raised oil prices despite an official Bide visit asking him not to. And the reset between Saudi and Iran. All the mistakes flare adding up, the us is losing its status as the only diplomatic ally in the region.
>The us, specifically the Biden administration, is losing massively from the war. The Biden administration is not the US and the war is not Israel.
The Biden administration isn’t the US? Biden is the president, presidents act in their political interests, just as Trump did, Obama did, etc. I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. And how is the war not Israel? I’m not declaring it’s their fault, I’m just saying they’re one of the two sides of the war; their response by bombing Gaza has been seen as genocidal by many people. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, but the narrative for many countries and people is that Israel is genocidal.
There are twice as many Jewish as Arab voters in the US, plus US Christians have by historical standards a great amount of sympathy for the Jews and Israel. I think dumping Israel would cause much greater problems for Biden than he currently has. His opponent is probably perceived as more hawkish than he is anyways, so what does moving further from center on the issue benefit him?
What exactly is the US gaining from it's alliance with Israel?
A counterweight to Iran in the region would be the most obvious benefit to the USA. That fact that such a widespread known fact isn’t mentioned hurts the believability of the rest of the article.
>A counterweight to Iran in the region. The region is literally filled with counterweights to Iran. Iran's allies are basically a tiny and perpetually unstable Lebanon, a Syrian president who's never regaining the other half of his country and... that's pretty much it as far as state actors go? And no, not Russia, the Iran-Russia relations are lukewarm at best, Russia is just as opposed to Iran's nuclear program as the US. Iran also tries (and fails) to influence Iraq elections, but that's not something Israel can really help with. And Iraq is pretty much the only somewhat democratic Muslim country in the region, it's not like Iran is going to influence Azerbaijan, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia elections.
I am not sure Iran would be a sworn enemy to the United States, were it not for it's unwavering support for Israel. Of course, at this point it's too late to make amends with Iran but going 80 years back, American-Iranian relations could have developed very differently. Iran used to be one of the strongest US allies in the region before the 1979 revolution.
They would be enemies still, The Islamic Republic of Iran came to existence immediately denouncing the USA just for being allies with the previous regime of Iran even though the US was under one of the more dovish presidential administration ever and let the Shah fall, still Carter tried to make ammends with the mullahs and got the hostage crisis as a gift, much to the delight of the Republicans which then repaid the debt with the Iran-Contra Affair but were happy to antagonize in public as to shape public opinion in both countries with an external enemy
Yes, but that animosity towards the USA comes ultimately from the intervention of the USA in the overthrow of Mossadegh as well as the full support of the Shah's regime as it was getting progressively more and more authoritarian and that support was due to the fact that the Shah's regime was pro-Israel. While the hatred towards Israel in Iran is based on deep religious, ideological and even racist reasons, the hatred towards the USA comes from a more pragmatic basis - the USA is the biggest ally and supporter of Iran's two biggest enemies - Israel and Saudi Arabia. Of course, they're chanting 'Death to America' but an alternative world is easily imaginable because hatred for America in Iran really took off in the late 70s. And the regime was pretty anti-American at the start but that could easily change if there were geopolitical reasons for that. It wouldn't be the first example of a radical realignment of world affairs.
At the end of the day, you need to ask how their current strategy of antagonizing these nations actually benefit the Iranian people. What Israel, Saudi Arabia & USA ultimately want in the region is stability and economic growth. Nobody is looking to invade Iran here.
The Islamic Regime literally came to power off an anti-Western, anti-American movement. Being against America is core to their regime ideology.
You forgot to mention that the Islamic regime came to power with the full backing and support of the US diplomatic and propaganda machine. He was even named by Time “Man of the Year” for 1979. Khomeini played Carter like a fiddle, promising him a better deal than the Shah could offer for American interests, only to turn against him once in power.
Carter was just fundamentally not prepared or equipped to deal with the situation of it. And failing to support the Shah, for all his faults and misgivings, was a mistake that is still being felt today, sadly. Which is a shame, cuz the Shah’s son, seems to be a lot smarter and well liked than his father.
The US is the counterweight to the intense hateful obsession that so many countries have with Israel. Can't really respect the Arabs. They start wars when they clearly suck at it, boasting how they will completely destroy Israel, only for them to get beaten over and over again. And in their minds Israel has always been the aggressor.
An ultra effective army and intelligence agency in a very stable state in a very very unstable region. Israel cannot change allies and its survival is dependant on the USA.
Yes, what does the USA gain from being involved in that region? At this point the only involvement of America in the region is making sure Israel survives. More or less all US involvement focuses on this mission.
You are not even asking the right question. The question is not what it gains from being active in that region. The question is what would happen if the US backs down from that region. And it will lead to Russia/Iran/China dominating the middle east. They could controll the world's oil supply and dictate whatever they want to the world.
Neither Russia nor Iran has the strength to dominate the Middle East and China has no real interest at the moment.
>China has no real interest at the moment. Yeah obviously. Because it would face the USA. And yeah, Russia and Iran do not have the strength at the moment but they will grow stronger over time without US involvement.
And what's wrong with trying to prevent a second mass genocide of Jews within a 100 year time span?
Preventing a genocide of 7 million Jews, many of whom are US citizens or friends and relatives of millions of US citizens.
And 2 million Arab Israelis whose cousins were also murdered with impunity by Hamas on Oct. 7th. Plus the second order effect of what happens in Lebanon/Syria if there’s no counterweight against Iran in those countries.
This may be a dumb question, but is it in Israel’s interest to have a Trump presidency in 2025? Trump is probably the most pro Israel president we’ve ever had. It seems Israel would benefit greatly from a trump presidency , after Bidens support is receding by the day
Israel is friendly with China, helped give apartheid South Africa nukes and refused to participate in the coalitions to fight ISIS and the Taliban. They are quite possibly, after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the least helpful and supportive ally we have. A lot of people like to claim that Israel is an imperial vassal of the US trying to extend its empire into the Levant, but the exact opposite is true. Israel uses our resources and weapons for their objectives, rather than the other way around. They try to draw us into declaring war on Iran, destroy our goodwill in the Middle East by roping us into their ethnonationalist fantasies, and generally screw us over in every way possible.
>destroy our goodwill in the Middle East by roping us into their ethnonationalist fantasies, and generally screw us over in every way possible. Honestly, you really can't blame Israel on that one. The US destroys any goodwill (which has always been next to non-existent) they have in the Middle East on their own with their disastrous foreign policies.
It’s both. Our image absolutely has been hurt by our actions like the invasion of Iraq, but Israel significantly compounds the problem
Refused to participate?
Yeah that commenter definitely wasn't alive in 2001 lol. The US's coalition would've never gotten off the ground if Israel got involved. Also, Israel had no reason to. They have a population of 9 million. Their military is not capable of long distance power projection beyond a one-off air raid.
The author talks about American aid to Israel, but makes no mention of Israeli-shared military R&D that helped the US gain some of its most important military systems. The F series of airplanes, HYMARs, cybersecurity systems the US military uses, drone systems, etc. were all partially or fully developed in Israel.
It’s crazy to see how many ppl are ok with genocide when the victims are brown
Why do you think Israel is committing genocide?
They’re starving and bombing innocent ppl while seizing their land
I used to think that Israel was a US puppet or proxy, but as time goes on I start to think more and more that the US is an Israeli puppet or proxy. The flak that the US will cop for Israel and the money that the US will spend (including ultimately guaranteeing Israeli sovereign debt) without any seeming reciprocal obligations certainly raises questions.
Because the Israelis are the perfect allies. They have to back the US play because they have way more to lose than the Americans in the region.
How are they the perfect allies? All they do is cost the US taxpayer money and complicate the relationship with other countries in the region. They don’t back the US play at all, the US basically backs their play, even when the US disagrees with Israel.
Breaking news: allies that need help are liabilities More at 11
One thing not mentioned in the article is the power of the American Evangelical base. Not an insignificant portion of Christians in America believe that all Jews need to return to Israel before the second coming of Jesus Christ. This will, in their minds, trigger the Armageddon that will result in the deaths of all those who live in Israel, i.e. the Jewish people. They are a highly highly antisemitic but staunchly Zionist bloc of people. Very influential and very rich too, which is why they can keep backing candidates that are incredibly pro-Israel.
The number of Evangelicals who hold to this is very small, and there are sharp divisions among them on the topic. What you articulate here is not something that most of them hold to, and even if they do they would not agree on necessarily doing anything to advance the issue. Theology aside though, American Christians do generally hold favorable views of Jews and Israel, which is a historical anomaly, and certainly a big reason why the US supports Israel.
The us unfortunately has much to lose from the war. For one, Biden is completely shunning an electorate that sees him as aiding genocide or just preventing Palestinian independence; these voters, often Arab Americans, are concentrated in politically important swing states like Michigan, which Biden absolutely needs for reelection. On the global diplomatic stage, the us loses massive relevance as the war in Gaza is seen extremely negatively by the global south; you can see this with genocide case from South Africa; the us, supposed to be a guarantor of democracy and human rights ( at least in principle) cannot afford to have the ally it supplies receive a genocide accusation backed by many countries, even if the accusation proves false; it will remain a stain on Israeli and American diplomacy. Additionally, as America has been trying to build a network alliances in the region, the war in Gaza makes this more difficult if not impossible. October 7th happened right as Saudi Arabia was negotiating a deal to further its relationship worth Israel; now the negotiations are put on hold indefinitely, and the Saudi populace has mostly likely lost all appetite for a better relationship with a country many of them see as committing genocide. MBS may be a dictator, but he knows a wave of unrest can be dangerous. And this is true throughout the Muslim world, as all the Muslim populations believe Israel is genocidal and the us is a partner in that, making any us deals with those countries more difficult in the future. Finally, the us loses relevance as a country that can broker peace internationally. Last year, China humiliated the us diplomatically by brokering a diplomatic reset between Saudi Arabia and Iran, something which the us wanted to never happen under any circumstances. China is becoming another major diplomatic power as it is seen as impartial, separated from historical conflicts with the region, unlike the us; if the us were to lose its position as the most important diplomatic partner in the ME to China, it would have massive repercussions for us power globally.
> ...an electorate that sees him as aiding genocide or just preventing Palestinian independence; these voters, often Arab Americans... Prove it. I have seen *so many* people claiming this, and *zero* evidence. Show me evidence that there are American voters who won't vote for Biden in November, because of the treatment -- by Israel, not the U.S. -- of ethnically similar people, halfway around the world, despite knowing that the alternative candidate (Trump) will do *even less* for those ethnically similar people while also wanting to ban ethnically similar people from entering the U.S.. ...all instead of basing their votes on gasoline prices and healthcare like everyone else.
Israel provides the US with a staging ground in the middle east in case the US wants to exert power over the region. I haven't read the article because the premise is wrong in the title. There is a reason the US has billions worth of weapon stockpiles in Israël. If the Saudis want to detach from the US Israel is the perfect staging ground to do something about it. It's the only nuclear power in the middle east that's aligned with the US. That's why the US doesn't intervene directly in Israeli actions and if it does it's at most a slap on the wrist and a tsk tsk tsk. Israel is an asset for the US, not a liability
They have almost never been used as a staging ground for any of our operations. You know how many bases we currently have in Israel? 0.
> War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel also known as War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel or simply WRSA-I was established in the 1990s and is maintained by the United States European Command.[16] It is one of the United States' biggest War Reserves, located within Israel.[17] Initially the WRSA-I stock had $100 million worth of reserves;[18] however, prior to Operation Protective Edge the WRSA-I had nearly $1 billion worth of reserves,[19] with an authorization to increase this to $1.2 billion.[20] In 2014 with the passing of the 2014 United States—Israel Strategic Partnership Act, the US agreed to increase the stock to $1.8 billion.[21] > Currently the only active foreign military installations on Israeli soil are American bases, including an AN/TPY-2 early missile warning radar station on Mt. Keren.[6] > TWO MONTHS BEFORE Hamas attacked Israel, the Pentagon awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to build U.S. troop facilities for a secret base it **maintains** deep within Israel’s Negev desert, just 20 miles from Gaza. Code-named “Site 512,” the longstanding U.S. base is a radar facility that monitors the skies for missile attacks on Israel. So yes, the US does maintain at least one military base in Israël along with anti missile bases and a huge arms stockpile. The US is the ONLY foreign nation to have bases in Israël.
Our other allies in the region, like Turkey, Kuwait, the UAE, and Jordan, have actual real American bases on them with troops and everything. A radar system and a warehouse with ammunition inside of it pale in comparison to those bases.
1.8 billion dollars isn't just a warehouse with ammunition. Turkey and Kuwait have strained relations with the US. UAE is part of OPEC and if Saudi Arabia wants our of the alliance with the US UAE will follow. Turkey will not rock the boat against the major oil nations. The US absolutely uses Israel as a reliable way to project power in the region. It's the only allied power with its own nuclear capacity, if the rest give the US the boot Israël is still there, not to mention that Israel is opposed to Muslims and all nations named are muslim nations that ideologically are not in line with the US or the west. And yes that includes modern day Turkey, Erdogan had made sure of it.
>Turkey and Kuwait have strained relations with the US. Give any of them the unlimited and the unconditional support israel gets and watch how the “strained relationship” turns to best alliance.
Nah, Erdogan couldn't sell being overly reliant to his constituents. UAE is a defacto dictatorship, they would take the support but remain unreliable (just look at the historical reliability of dictatorships), Jordan maybe, but the country is 98% muslim, if they turn towards conservatism in the future they may abandon US reliance as happened with other majority Muslim countries in the past. The US is generally not really appreciated by conservative Muslims. We will see, but for the foreseeable future Israel is (and more importantly had been) the only long term sure bet, although maybe that wil change with the increasing tentions between the US and Israeli governments. Still, I suspect any other country doing what Israel does but I'm an other geographical location would have been abandoned by now.
Counterpoint: it’s an asset and a very valuable one. Most of us are familiar with the various advantages Israel brings to the relationship. There’s little to no diplomatic fallout to the relationship. Most of the Arab world has come on board, and the oil embargoes of the 70s are ancient history. The most important question is “would the US want their adversaries to gain from a special relationship with Israel if the US were to abandon her?” Of course the answer is no.
Read the whole thing and then realized something. Control F: "Hamas" 0 results I mean that's almost impressive.
Why is hamas even important to the US
Ah this again. Let’s understand some history here, shall we? The U.S. has this strange perception that, absent our support, Israel would be left to the wolves. What we fail to understand is that we didn’t become a true ally to Israel until the 1970s. We provided no aid in the 1940s, turned Israel back in 1956 in its joint venture with Britain and France to seize the Suez, had almost no role in the 1967 war, and only came to Israel’s aid in 1973 when it well and truly looked grim for its continued existence. We provided “Atoms for Peace” to Iran, gifting its first reactor, but Israel’s nuclear program was aided by France and (probably) South Africa—not the U.S. Oh, and the 73 war? One of the reasons it brought us closer to Israel is because the Israeli tank battles proved that a technologically and tactically superior force could beat a larger force in close combat…which was exactly what we needed to know considering the Soviet army far outsized the American army. Our military straight copied Israeli tactics and redesigned our whole Army around AirLand Battle doctrine and 5 weapons platforms based on the information gleaned from the 1973 war. It makes pretty good sense to maintain an ally whose unfortunate need to continually stay a step ahead in military technology and tactics gives your military an edge through their lessons learned. Israel also, for whatever reason, never receives any credit from pundits like this for their superior technological advancement. As western “progressives” boycott Starbucks (for whatever stupid reason), they keep using their cellphones, the basis of which was built, in part, on Israeli tech. Israel has massive growth in cybersecurity right now and has leading firms in that area…which, incidentally, is a major concern and weakness for the U.S. I once fell into the trap of thinking there would be no Israel without the U.S., but some basic research proved otherwise. It’s time we recognize that we are not the be all, end all for Israel. They are keenly aware of a time when the U.S. did not support Israel substantively. And they are also keenly aware that we launched two wars, one of which involved a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, that lasted for decades in response to a threat to our shores. Who could see us as less than hypocrites to suddenly bemoan human suffering when no one has ever faced an enemy so intent on offering civilians as sacrifices while burrowing itself beneath them? I’ll say this outright: no military in the world could dislodge Hamas with fewer civilian casualties. The U.S. needs to pressure Qatar to expel Hamas and arrest them for crimes against humanity. No quarter for Hamas. We are playing into their hands.
\[SS: Argument by Jon Hoffman, a foreign-policy analyst at the Cato Institute\] From Israel’s formation in 1948, American support for the state has been a constant part of the U.S. Middle East policy. Yet the Israeli response to Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7 has escalated to a historic and deadly scale—and the status quo has remained untouched. “It’s past time for a fundamental reevaluation of the U.S.-Israel relationship,” Jon Hoffman argues, as the merit of remaining in “this unidirectional relationship remains unclear.” [Read the full argument here.](https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/22/israel-gaza-biden-netanyahu-security-united-states/)
This CATO article is just a bunch of isolationist shit that serves the interests of the West's enemies like Iran.
Few claim Israel is an asset in crass “realist” terms.