How important is Israel politically/geographicaly to the U.S??

[AEWHistory]

Some of the opinions here are, well, a little ignorant.... enough so to have encouraged me to actually sign up and post.

First off, what is interesting is that it hasn't occurred to any of you that, so far, there isn't any actual PROOF of Israeli or Mossad involvement. What there is without a doubt is a dead anti-Israel terrorist/militant/freedom fighter, a bunch of passport violations linked to people of dual Israeli-Western background, and a couple captured Palestinians. Now let me ask you something, if a Palestinian faction wanted this gentleman dead, without any of the backlash that that would entail, how would they do it? Well, a couple of Palestinians would probably kill the guy and try to link it to Israel..... not the first time these sorts of things have happened. And yet almost everyone here see an Arab state with two Arabs in custody and basically says, "its gotta be the Jews." This is not a highpoint for analytical thought folks. Could it be the Mossad? Yes. Is it likely? Not with this information.

Second, dealing with the point of this thread, the USA gets much more out of its alliance with Israel than even one of you have hit on, which is a sign of blatant ignorance (I'll get flamed for that, but if it walks like a duck....). The USA funds Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, and supports the Saudis and Gulf States in other quite expensive ways. Yet when the USA needed a place to host a new radar system in the Middle East, every single Arab state turned us down; the Israelis are hosting the system. Now this system is run by and controlled by Americans, and the Israeli defense establishment has already said that this could undermine Israeli security, as they aren't entitled to any information from this installation that the Americans don't want them to have, but all this information could be used both by the USA, other American allies, or even leaked to American and Israeli enemies theoretically. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, the Israel has taken security risks in aid of the USA.

Additionally, in both Persian Gulf wars the USA was a major beneficiary of Israeli doctrines in dealing with Arab/Iraqi forces. Like all armed forces, Israel has learned these lessons, and developed and honed these doctrines while the blood of its own people have been spilled. This is why most nations are covetous of obtaining doctrinal information. In both wars the Israelis trained Americans, helping to minimize our casualties. This has been undeniably valuable in this most recent war where Israeli urban warfare doctrine--certainly the most advanced in the world--has saved countless American lives. Speaking to American officers back when I was still doing my PhD program, this shared knowledge helped to reduce our learning curve; the American Army would have developed equally good doctrines, but only after months or years of bloody mistakes.

These are some of the reasons why we have supported Israel. Democracy, Ideology, a common bond, these are all fine and dandy, but I submit that these pale next to the pain of having to tell some parent or spouse that their loved one is dead.... but hey, on the bright side we don't have to fund those Israelis any more!


BTW, I'm a military historian specializing in the early nineteenth century dealing mostly with deterrence and American foreign policy as well as identity in warfare.... although in the past I've done work in a few different fields.

 

[StevoJH]

First off, what is interesting is that it hasn't occurred to any of you that, so far, there isn't any actual PROOF of Israeli or Mossad involvement. What there is without a doubt is a dead anti-Israel terrorist/militant/freedom fighter, a bunch of passport violations linked to people of dual Israeli-Western background, and a couple captured Palestinians.

Don't forget condemnations of Irsael from a number of Countries including the Australian Government. And the British retaliation of kicking out the local Mossad station chief.

 

[old faithful]

Some of the opinions here are, well, a little ignorant.... enough so to have encouraged me to actually sign up and post.

First off, what is interesting is that it hasn't occurred to any of you that, so far, there isn't any actual PROOF of Israeli or Mossad involvement. What there is without a doubt is a dead anti-Israel terrorist/militant/freedom fighter, a bunch of passport violations linked to people of dual Israeli-Western background, and a couple captured Palestinians. Now let me ask you something, if a Palestinian faction wanted this gentleman dead, without any of the backlash that that would entail, how would they do it? Well, a couple of Palestinians would probably kill the guy and try to link it to Israel..... not the first time these sorts of things have happened. And yet almost everyone here see an Arab state with two Arabs in custody and basically says, "its gotta be the Jews." This is not a highpoint for analytical thought folks. Could it be the Mossad? Yes. Is it likely? Not with this information.

Second, dealing with the point of this thread, the USA gets much more out of its alliance with Israel than even one of you have hit on, which is a sign of blatant ignorance (I'll get flamed for that, but if it walks like a duck....). The USA funds Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, and supports the Saudis and Gulf States in other quite expensive ways. Yet when the USA needed a place to host a new radar system in the Middle East, every single Arab state turned us down; the Israelis are hosting the system. Now this system is run by and controlled by Americans, and the Israeli defense establishment has already said that this could undermine Israeli security, as they aren't entitled to any information from this installation that the Americans don't want them to have, but all this information could be used both by the USA, other American allies, or even leaked to American and Israeli enemies theoretically. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, the Israel has taken security risks in aid of the USA.

Additionally, in both Persian Gulf wars the USA was a major beneficiary of Israeli doctrines in dealing with Arab/Iraqi forces. Like all armed forces, Israel has learned these lessons, and developed and honed these doctrines while the blood of its own people have been spilled. This is why most nations are covetous of obtaining doctrinal information. In both wars the Israelis trained Americans, helping to minimize our casualties. This has been undeniably valuable in this most recent war where Israeli urban warfare doctrine--certainly the most advanced in the world--has saved countless American lives. Speaking to American officers back when I was still doing my PhD program, this shared knowledge helped to reduce our learning curve; the American Army would have developed equally good doctrines, but only after months or years of bloody mistakes.

These are some of the reasons why we have supported Israel. Democracy, Ideology, a common bond, these are all fine and dandy, but I submit that these pale next to the pain of having to tell some parent or spouse that their loved one is dead.... but hey, on the bright side we don't have to fund those Israelis any more!


BTW, I'm a military historian specializing in the early nineteenth century dealing mostly with deterrence and American foreign policy as well as identity in warfare.... although in the past I've done work in a few different fields.

The acusation that "mossad" agents used forged Australian passports to assasinate a hezbollah leader didnt come from ignorant posters opinions, it came from information released by ASIO. There is indeed proof that these agents used the forged passports, cctv footage from airports, of known Israeli,s using the passports.
You can not offer unconditional support to a once friendly nation based on their similaritys to your countrys politics.
Anyway,my point is or was, Australia dosnt need to let this action go unpunished,dosnt matter what friendly nation had done it, its not acceptible, and slopy work by the israeli,s......they were caught out.
what you dont know dosnt hurt you.

 

[Herodotus]

Sure there is, All America needs to say is "Start behaving or we will stop sending you money"

See how deep shit Israel will be in then,

Actually, the ability of the US to influence Israel is limited. Aid to Israel has been declining recently, but when Israel needed military aid the most ('67, '73) the US wasn't giving them much of anything. I agree that the US probably gives too much aid to Israel, but Israel may seek out other partners if the US cuts the cord.

 

[StevoJH]

Actually, the ability of the US to influence Israel is limited. Aid to Israel has been declining recently, but when Israel needed military aid the most ('67, '73) the US wasn't giving them much of anything. I agree that the US probably gives too much aid to Israel, but Israel may seek out other partners if the US cuts the cord.

Wasnt a US Airbridge of munitions that only thing that let Israel win in one of those wars? ('73 from memory)

Oh, and Israel can have fun paying for F-35 if the US cuts the subsidies, because I somehow doubt they'd be willing to buy inferior Eastern European stuff, and the western Euro stuff isnt cheap either, unless they convince germany to pay for it anyway.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Maybe this is a bad thing to point out. But its always good for the US to have a strategic partner in the middle east. I promise you guys that the minute the US gets involved with some major military operation in the middle east they will be all over Israel.

But...

The Cold War is over. However at the chance of something starting up, US wants to be on good military realization with Israel.

The other big problem is that if the US just dicides to leave Israel, there is a risk of Israel jumping to another allied partner, such as European countries or even Russia, and Israel is not going to switch back to the US

 

[Herodotus]

Wasnt a US Airbridge of munitions that only thing that let Israel win in one of those wars? ('73 from memory)

Oh, and Israel can have fun paying for F-35 if the US cuts the subsidies, because I somehow doubt they'd be willing to buy inferior Eastern European stuff, and the western Euro stuff isnt cheap either, unless they convince germany to pay for it anyway.

I don't think so. The airlifts had minimal impact, the counteroffensive was planned regardless if the Americans intervened. And, according to Trevor Dupuy the Israelis did not use up their prewar stock of munitions, and ended the war with more ammunition then they had before the war due to the airlift.

The point being though that the existential threat that Israel faces today pales in comparison to what real threats it has faced in the past. If the US cut aid, or threatened an aid cut, Israel could still go its own way and probably be okay.

 

[Marc 1]

Maybe this is a bad thing to point out. But its always good for the US to have a strategic partner in the middle east. I promise you guys that the minute the US gets involved with some major military operation in the middle east they will be all over Israel.

Why? The US can strike anywhere in the planet by air or via the USN. Why do they need Israel? Does the US have a beef with Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon? Freom memory, none of these nations are part of the axis of evil. The Egyptians are receiving US military equipment (F16's and M1's from memory). The Lebanese are no enemy of the US and the Jordanians used to have fairly cordial relations with the US. The Syrians are grumpy buggers with a beef with everybody, but they are no more a threat to the US than many other countries. So, which of these countries does the US need to attack via the Israeli border?

But...

The Cold War is over. However at the chance of something starting up, US wants to be on good military realization with Israel.

Again, why? And what do you forsee starting up?

The other big problem is that if the US just dicides to leave Israel, there is a risk of Israel jumping to another allied partner, such as European countries or even Russia, and Israel is not going to switch back to the US

So, and the nett effect will be.....? The US won't be needing to shovel billions of dollars worth of FMS and military aid to Israel...Gee that sounds terrible

I tend to agree with 90% of the other posters here - the Israeli's like to portray themselves as being the insignificant underdogs being picked on by all those nasty Arabs...However what I am increasingly realising is that the Israelis bring much of their woes on themselves. The UN has determined the blockade the Iraelis have put on the palestinians is basically inhumane. You treat others as subhumans and see how they will treat you back (somewhat ironic given the jews were treated that way by the Nazis 70 odd years ago). Disputed territory - bugger any sense of restraint, they are going ahead with erecting another 1800 dwellings despite the protestations of just about every nation on earth - including the US! which begs the question, do you enjoy your allies making fools of you? The US had several strategic reasons to be very friendly with the Israelis in the 60's and 70's - frankly, I cannot see any reason why the US 'needs' Israel now. But I am more than happy for you to enlighten me...

As I asked in this thread, post #32: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/space-defense-technology/pentagon-building-new-15-ton-bomb-9664-3/

Why?

 

[Herodotus]

Maybe this is a bad thing to point out. But its always good for the US to have a strategic partner in the middle east. I promise you guys that the minute the US gets involved with some major military operation in the middle east they will be all over Israel.

Like they were in 2003, or 1991? The US told Israel to stay out of the way and keep a low profile both times, not much of a strategic partner. As I recall Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia all contributed troops in '91 and Kuwait served as a launching pad in 2003. Israel may have played a role but it was a minor one or under the radar.

The other big problem is that if the US just dicides to leave Israel, there is a risk of Israel jumping to another allied partner, such as European countries or even Russia, and Israel is not going to switch back to the US

There is always a risk of any partner jumping from an alliance at any time. What it will boil down to is cost-benefit. Is the cost(s) of the Israeli-US partnership/relationship/alliance worth the perceived benefits of it? When the answer to that question is, or becomes, no, Israel is jettisoned, or should be.

 

[Marc 1]

I don't think so. The airlifts had minimal impact, the counteroffensive was planned regardless if the Americans intervened. And, according to Trevor Dupuy the Israelis did not use up their prewar stock of munitions, and ended the war with more ammunition then they had before the war due to the airlift.

Herodotus, what you say may be fact, but speculating here - what if the US had not established that air bridge to bring in supplies? That air bridge delivered far more than ammunition - it was a tangible sign that relations between the US and Israel back then were very strong - it was a sign that the US wasn't going to stand by and watch it's "younger brother" be beaten up. Without that signal to the world maybe the conflict would have ended differently even if the ammunition wasn't needed? Interesting to speculate....

The point being though that the existential threat that Israel faces today pales in comparison to what real threats it has faced in the past. If the US cut aid, or threatened an aid cut, Israel could still go its own way and probably be okay.

Agreed.

 

[Herodotus]

Herodotus, what you say may be fact, but speculating here - what if the US had not established that air bridge to bring in supplies? That air bridge delivered far more than ammunition - it was a tangible sign that relations between the US and Israel back then were very strong - it was a sign that the US wasn't going to stand by and watch it's "younger brother" be beaten up. Without that signal to the world maybe the conflict would have ended differently even if the ammunition wasn't needed? Interesting to speculate.....

Well, the US assisted Israel because the Soviet Union was assisting Egypt and Syria; Power balancing. Kissinger and Nixon were frantic for the conflict to end hence Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy during the time period to restore the status quo ante.. If the Soviets had not been involved I don't know if the US would have been; possible I suppose, but any concern for Israel was secondary to checking Soviet power in the region..

 

[AEWHistory]

Don't forget condemnations of Irsael from a number of Countries including the Australian Government. And the British retaliation of kicking out the local Mossad station chief.

How are these proof of culpability? If you are accused of a crime, does your subsequent release from your job prove that you committed that crime? No. Or does it mean that your boss jumped the gun and declared you guilty before having had your day in court? Yes.

Both of what you mention rests on the original UAE suppositions. For weeks they've been claiming to have solid proof that is ready to release. Nothing yet. Release it or issue a retraction. They've done neither, which is perfect for most people looking to condemn someone (Israel?) without any actual proof.

 

[AEWHistory]

The acusation that "mossad" agents used forged Australian passports to assasinate a hezbollah leader didnt come from ignorant posters opinions, it came from information released by ASIO. There is indeed proof that these agents used the forged passports, cctv footage from airports, of known Israeli,s using the passports.
You can not offer unconditional support to a once friendly nation based on their similaritys to your countrys politics.
Anyway,my point is or was, Australia dosnt need to let this action go unpunished,dosnt matter what friendly nation had done it, its not acceptible, and slopy work by the israeli,s......they were caught out.
what you dont know dosnt hurt you.

Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this "proof"?

As for a reply, even you are using the word "accusation." Doesn't anyone realize the difference between to words "ACCUSE" and "PROOF" anymore? Geez..... If I ACCUSE you of committing a crime, I must then PROVE that you did it. But the folks here have taken the accusation, along with a promise of proof to come (proof which hasn't followed I might add), as enough to convict. Meanwhile, first thing I thought when I heard of this event was that this fool was offed by his own people. Personally, I don't care who did it, but in the current climate, it doesn't make sense for the Israelis to do this. But that isn't proof either....

The one thing no one has addressed, however, is that if this was a Mossad operation, why were they so reliant on Palestinians? And since the UAE caught some of the operatives, why were only Palestinians caught? To this second question I see only a few possible answers:
1. That Mossad hung them out to dry.... but this exposes their operation.
2. That it is merely a coincidence that only the Palestinian members of this hit squad were caught. Possible, but not likely. Mossad agents are not supermen and have been caught before. If this operation was a botch, then I'd have expected clearer Israeli/Mossad markers left or the apprehending of an Israeli agent.
3. This isn't an Israeli operation, but one made to look that way. There aren't any Israelis in custody, just markers--possibly planted--that point glaringly back at Israel.

As to using Palestinians as logistical support.... while using Palestinians in the UAE would allow Israel to use people who'd become local foreign workers (in the UAE natives make up less than 20% of the pop.; foreign workers about 80%), it would also expose the entire operation to a host of problems. It would be easier, IMHO, to insert Israeli-Arab or, better yet, Mizrahi/Sephardic/etc. Jews into the UAE, and it would be far more reliable. The only way this wouldn't work is if the operation had to be put into place on extraordinarily short notice and if there were no intelligence assets in the area; both possibilities, but then the operation itself may have been canceled or not even considered. However, all of this is merely supposition based on incomplete facts.... in the end, I just don't find this info. all that convincing.

As to the point about how nations should respond, I don't believe these responses are unfair IF the accusations are true. What astonishes me is how all of these nations (eg.- the UK, Australia, etc.) tout international law and then make no real effort to investigate these charges, they merely react to them. I mean, damn, I hate my next door neighbor, so if I accuse him of doing something will you Brits and Aussies haul him off for me? I promise I have proof!

 

[StevoJH]

How are these proof of culpability? If you are accused of a crime, does your subsequent release from your job prove that you committed that crime? No. Or does it mean that your boss jumped the gun and declared you guilty before having had your day in court? Yes.

Both of what you mention rests on the original UAE suppositions. For weeks they've been claiming to have solid proof that is ready to release. Nothing yet. Release it or issue a retraction. They've done neither, which is perfect for most people looking to condemn someone (Israel?) without any actual proof.

Its proof that two government, with access to much better resources then possibly anyone here (well, except those working for them) believe that Israel was responsible. I will take their reaction over the reaction of someone i'm guessing is an Israeli trying to save face any day.

 

[AEWHistory]

Why? The US can strike anywhere in the planet by air or via the USN. Why do they need Israel? Does the US have a beef with Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon?

Yowzas, where to start. Yes, the USA has the greatest strategic reach--that's the proper way to put it--of any nation on earth, but if you think that we don't need allies and bases, you are sadly mistaken. Our navy gives of the luxury of operating where we do not have access to bases, but this is expensive, dangerous, difficult, and most importantly, constricts the forces that could be deployed. Why the hell do you think we use Bagram? Because its perty?

As for the second part of your question, I've answered that in my first post. Lebanon is not an ally and have only accepted our troops during periods of internal turmoil, and then they weren't really "accepting" our troops. As for Syria, are you asking if we have a beef with Syria? Really? Seriously? I'm gonna frame that one..... they're allied with Iran my man, and before that the Soviet Union, and consider us one of the world's great evils.... but other than that we're cool.

As for Egypt and Jordan, we fund them, so technically we are allied, but neither has ever agreed to any significant deployment of American forces (aside from, say, trainers) that I'm aware of, and probably never will.

Freom memory, none of these nations are part of the axis of evil. The Egyptians are receiving US military equipment (F16's and M1's from memory). The Lebanese are no enemy of the US and the Jordanians used to have fairly cordial relations with the US. The Syrians are grumpy buggers with a beef with everybody, but they are no more a threat to the US than many other countries. So, which of these countries does the US need to attack via the Israeli border?

Again, why? And what do you forsee starting up?

So, and the nett effect will be.....? The US won't be needing to shovel billions of dollars worth of FMS and military aid to Israel...Gee that sounds terrible

I tend to agree with 90% of the other posters here - the Israeli's like to portray themselves as being the insignificant underdogs being picked on by all those nasty Arabs...However what I am increasingly realising is that the Israelis bring much of their woes on themselves. The UN has determined the blockade the Iraelis have put on the palestinians is basically inhumane. You treat others as subhumans and see how they will treat you back (somewhat ironic given the jews were treated that way by the Nazis 70 odd years ago). Disputed territory - bugger any sense of restraint, they are going ahead with erecting another 1800 dwellings despite the protestations of just about every nation on earth - including the US! which begs the question, do you enjoy your allies making fools of you? The US had several strategic reasons to be very friendly with the Israelis in the 60's and 70's - frankly, I cannot see any reason why the US 'needs' Israel now. But I am more than happy for you to enlighten me...[/url]

Why?

Okay, the USA gives about US$2.5billion per year to Israel, and just under US$2billion to Egypt. Read my first post. Now what do we get from Egypt? Essentially our two billion buys from them a promise that they won't actively plot against US interests or join enemy coalitions. So why are you so up in arms about the money we send to Israel when that money actually gets us something and saves American lives, and the Egyptian money is little more than a bribe?

BTW, as for 'bugger any sense of restraint,' this is wrong-headed, ignorant, and done purely from an American point of view. For example, the Israelis wanted to continue the 1973 war but didn't in deference to American interests.... just because Israel doesn't do everything you want, or we don't give everything Israel it wants, doesn't mean that we cannot work together. Do you define all your relationships where one party must completely submit its will to the other?

 

[AEWHistory]

Its proof that two government, with access to much better resources then possibly anyone here (well, except those working for them) believe that Israel was responsible.

See below, but citing another's assessment or opinion is not proof. This is a hallmark of bad research in academia. It might be compelling, but in fact all it does is increase bias without increasing veracity. Again, if I say in an article that 2+2=5, I'm wrong. But then what if you cite my article claiming that that equation is correct. And then others cite you, and so on. This is merely a house of cards built on nothing.... NOTHING. You're doing the same thing. The UAE claims one thing, ASIO actions are based on UAE claims, but the UAE claims have not yet been substantiated.

I will take their reaction over the reaction of someone i'm guessing is an Israeli trying to save face any day.

Actually I'm an American of Jewish and Quaker background and I live in New Jersey, although I'll take your remark as a compliment. I have been to Israel once, however, as well as Lebanon. Anyway, wanna come visit me in Joisey? BTW, while it probably isn't apparent from my remarks here, I used to be a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, but 2000 shook my confidence and nothing has happened to restore it (but that's another story).

As I mentioned at the end of my first post, I'm a military historian. I teach at a local college and my research focuses primarily on the early-nineteenth century. However, I've had the good fortune to work with some of the best American (Russell Weigley, John Lynn, etc.), British (Geoffrey Parker), and even an Australian military historian briefly and while no one can know everything about every field, there are a few fields that I feel very confident in and that I work either professionally or out of personal interest.

Anyway, what you need to understand is that these people are human and have biases. I do, you do, and they do! Accepting that they are doing their job, and doing their job well is one thing, and I for one hope you're right actually--I have sort of a thing about fairness--but you are still mistaking confidence in your government for proof of actions. I cram this lesson down my students throats ever class, because only solid analytical thought allows them to be successful, and quite frankly they won't be successful until they learn to think for themselves.... and that requires learning to analyze. You're accepting someone else's analysis and calling it proof, but it isn't. This story has been long on accusation and short on proof for weeks, and given the nature of this event, I don't see why something more compelling would be held back.

 

[StevoJH]

See below, but citing another's assessment or opinion is not proof. This is a hallmark of bad research in academia. It might be compelling, but in fact all it does is increase bias without increasing veracity. Again, if I say in an article that 2+2=5, I'm wrong. But then what if you cite my article claiming that that equation is correct. And then others cite you, and so on. This is merely a house of cards built on nothing.... NOTHING. You're doing the same thing. The UAE claims one thing, ASIO actions are based on UAE claims, but the UAE claims have not yet been substantiated.

Agreed, to a point. It may have been substantiated, but if it has, depending on how, it might never be released to the public, making it a bit hard to prove anything one way or the other. However the actions of the British and Australian governments make Israeli involvement more likely then the possibility that they were not involved.

Actually I'm an American of Jewish and Quaker background and I live in New Jersey, although I'll take your remark as a compliment. I have been to Israel once, however, as well as Lebanon. Anyway, wanna come visit me in Joisey? BTW, while it probably isn't apparent from my remarks here, I used to be a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, but 2000 shook my confidence and nothing has happened to restore it (but that's another story).

Bit far for me to visit and i'm currently being a poor university student.

As I mentioned at the end of my first post, I'm a military historian. I teach at a local college and my research focuses primarily on the early-nineteenth century. However, I've had the good fortune to work with some of the best American (Russell Weigley, John Lynn, etc.), British (Geoffrey Parker), and even an Australian military historian briefly and while no one can know everything about every field, there are a few fields that I feel very confident in and that I work either professionally or out of personal interest.

Out of curiosity, which area of 19th century military history do you focus on the most? I'm guessing either US-UK or UK-France?

Anyway, what you need to understand is that these people are human and have biases. I do, you do, and they do! Accepting that they are doing their job, and doing their job well is one thing, and I for one hope you're right actually--I have sort of a thing about fairness--but you are still mistaking confidence in your government for proof of actions. I cram this lesson down my students throats ever class, because only solid analytical thought allows them to be successful, and quite frankly they won't be successful until they learn to think for themselves.... and that requires learning to analyze. You're accepting someone else's analysis and calling it proof, but it isn't. This story has been long on accusation and short on proof for weeks, and given the nature of this event, I don't see why something more compelling would be held back.

Sure there is biase, however the British and Australian governments would receive no benefits from undermining Israel if they didn't have proof, especially if another party was later found to be to blame.

Regards,
Stephen

 

[InnoTactics]

Friendly is a relative term. Alliances are not permanent, nor should they be.

Agree. Right now Israel is a friendly nation to the US and to Europe though.

Terrorism is used precisely because the weaker party in a conflict cannot match arms with the stronger, so it is an asymmetrical response, designed to harry and harass and eventually wear done the political will of the stronger country. And how long has it been going on with regard to Israel? The War of Attrition started after the Six-Days War, and hasn't yielded many consesions.

Your comment seems to bear no moral judgment of terrorism.

Your wrong on historic facts. Terrorism against Jews in Israel began in 1920.

The point was that terrorism will be emboldened by a large scale success. It'll be easier to recruit militants, raise funds and receive local population support. It'll be much more difficult for the US and the west to convince any state to drop support for a method that 'works'.

And again terrorism is not utilized by countries/groups that are politically or militarily strong. It's main purpose is to sap political will, though the damage done or could be done, by terrorism is relatively small.

Iran, Syria, and other big players actively support, train, arm and fund terrorists.

Don't understand your claim about the little damage from terrorism.

I wonder if you'd think the same way if you lived in a country where your kids can be blown up on a bus just because some 'shahid' was brainwashed that you're not actually human.

Proliferation is not necessarily a bad thing. It is possible these states become more rational with nuclear weapons (read Waltz).

They are already rational. They understand that terrorism works and thus keep it well funded and armed. It's a rational choice, and activities such as the Goldstone report (which found no evidence Hamas targeted civilians... But claims that Israel target civilians intentionally) is signaling them that the world is falling for it.

Haven't read Waltz, but will do. For now my opinion is that betting on a fanatic to become rational once you give him a grenade seems a bit dangerous.

Pretty much a slippery slope argument: Israel is the bulwark against extremism, if it falls, watch out. A weak argument in my view.

Yet a valid one. See above.

Read a little about the internal political situation in the Arab states. The secular pragmatists are in a continuous battle with the extremists, such as the Muslim Brothers.

The support wasn't misplaced because the US was more concerned with a hegemon dominating Europe, in the form of Nazi Germany. The US was concerned with maintaining balance. Islamic countries in the Middle East have a history of not uniformly aligning with each other. Even with regard to Israel, if Iran attacks would Egypt follow her? I doubt it. The correlation is not the same. Even if Israel should fall (doubtful with its nuclear deterrent) would the Islamic world be unified and present a hegemonic threat to the rest of the world? Probably not.

You don't need a heavily armed Germany to make life in the western world a living hell. Watch what terrorist can do with a little explosives. The mere POSSIBILITY that terrorist get their hands on nukes, should be scary enough.

 

[swerve]

Actually, the ability of the US to influence Israel is limited. Aid to Israel has been declining recently, but when Israel needed military aid the most ('67, '73) the US wasn't giving them much of anything. I agree that the US probably gives too much aid to Israel, but Israel may seek out other partners if the US cuts the cord.

$90 mn bought a lot of munitions in 1966 - and Israel did pretty well with the weapons it already had in 1967.

It certainly needed aid in 1973 - and the USA obliged, with vast quantities. In fact, US aid had been ramping up pretty fast before the 1973 war. Check the table linked to below. The very large 1974 figure includes much of what was delivered in 1973 directly from US stocks, & accounted for retrospectively.
U.S. Assistance to Israel
Note that the loans (including for weapons) prior to 1984 were repaid from later grants, provided specifically for that purpose, as 'economic aid'.

US financing of Arrow, THEL & other joint projects is not counted as aid, & is not in the table.

 

[swerve]

...Again, if you choose to ignore the fact that a friendly democratic society is still threatened daily by annihilation, ....

It isn't 'threatened daily by annihilation'. It is far more powerful than any possible combination of its enemies.

BTW, I live in a democratic society that really was 'threatened daily by annihilation' from the day I was born until I was an adult. We had an enemy which really could wipe us out, & had the weapons to do it continuously aimed at us. I didn't notice us getting any Israeli aid.