Middle East Defence & Security

[Feanor]

Israeli. It doesn't matter how many people there are. The territory is annexed by Israel, and so they are in clash with Israeli citizens. They do however have the right to form parties, be elected, and advocate their opinions. In fact, there are now Arab MKs and there were Arab ministers in the government. Not sure if there is one today.

Contrary to your belief, there was deep engagement between the Israeli government and the local Golani communities and they got their demands. And they are about as pro-Israeli as they can get.
Some who remain loyal to Syria (on paper at least), have demanded to keep their Syrian citizenship and they got it. But they did not request to relocate to Syria or anywhere else.
You may not be aware, but in Israel there exists the concept of autonomy, and different groups have a high range of autonomy in Israel. Chief among them are Bedouins.

All of this is irrelevant. Engagement is good, autonomy is good, none of it legitimizes the annexation without a clearly expressed majority will. Again I'll send you to the definition of self-determination which includes the right to sovereignty.

The definition of the right to self determination fully applies to these people. They vote, get voted for, have significant presence in politics. They expressed their demands and got them.
Way to go about Israel somehow being illegitimate. I guess my existence is illegitimate, and pretty much the entire world.

No, the illegitimacy is in the occupation. The question of Israeli statehood is well beyond the scope of this discussion, though it could be tangentially relevant to a broader conversation about statehood.

I wanted to answer these two parts to avoid any misunderstanding of my position. I'm dropping the rest of this discussion since it will take down in a different direction. Feel free to PM me or make a thread in the off-topic forum for discussions of self-determination and how it would apply to the people of the Golan Heights.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

All of this is irrelevant. Engagement is good, autonomy is good, none of it legitimizes the annexation without a clearly expressed majority will. Again I'll send you to the definition of self-determination which includes the right to sovereignty.

There was a majority that supported this, and today even more so.
It didn't go as a referendum, but there is always more than one way to do something. Israel just generally doesn't do referendums. It just achieves the same goal differently.

I'm sure this opinion is non controversial so I took the liberty to end my debate with it. If you feel like you want to reply, I'll continue in PMs.

 

[STURM]

It doesn't have to be Israeli lens. Saudi Arabia and the entire Arab world would benefit greatly from peace with Israel.

Saying that Israel could not understand why Saudi centered the peace proposal on the Palestinian issue is a looking at things from a very narrow Israeli lens because it's perfectly obvious [reasons given] why Saudi [and the other Arab states which agreed to the proposal] would do so.

Also the discussion was not how the Arab states would later benefit from a peace deal but the actual deal itself, the reasons it went nowhere.

Most of the world doesn't recognize Taiwan.

Most of the world recognises that the Golan is still legitimate Syrian sovereign territory and that it is "occupied" not "disputed".

Such as? What terms could they not accept.

Preconditions placed at the very start on issues such as Jerusalem which Israel didn't want to budge on, the continued building of settlements whilst talks were ongoing, Israeli insistance that some parts of the occupied West Bank not be handed over, etc.

What's the point?

What's the point of Abbas claiming that Arafat supposedly said he should have accepted the deal? Two sides to every coin, there were others [not just Arabs] who also said he was right not to.

Then what's your take?

I've made clear my take a number of times : no single side is blameless, no single side holds on monopoly for all that has gone wrong.

If Assad signed a peace treaty with Israel, it would mean he pledges there would be no war between the two countries..

With the Golan returned a large part of any future reason for war with Syria would have evaporated. It's not as if Assad would have gone to war over the Palestinian issue or would have simply because Iran was a strategic partner. Note also that the main reason Syria had such close ties with Iran was no so much because of Israel but because of fellow Arab states [for a long period Saddam was Assad's major concern].

It was essentially a demand for peace and that's it.

It was a demand that Syria could not accept and Israel knew it from the onset. You mentioned Saudi linking the 2002 proposal to the Pakestnian issue, well Israel linked the peace proposal to Syria with Iran - not as if Pasdaran were across the border or Syria had allowed large numbers of Iranian troops and weaponary in during that period. After regaining the Golan Assad would not have taken the risk of allowing Iran to strike at Israel from Syrian territory, which didn't happen even when things were very bad between Syria and Israel.

You're still not getting it. Yes, it was stronger.

Right, I'm not getting it but you [naturally] are. I merely pointed out that Israel was not negotiating from a position of weakness. Far from it. Israel made concessions but it also benefited in a major way [ways I explained in a previous post].

''So IF Israel was negotiating with Egypt out of strength, it would not have given up the Sinai and demanded peace as-is, maybe even demand some concessions from Egypt'' - from a previous post you. Firstly; giving up the Sinai was a small price to pay for what it received in return; secondly Israel was in no position to adopt an compromising stance given that the U.S, wanted a deal signed. Thirdly; Israel was negotiating from a position of strength - it was physically occupying the Sinai; the Egyptians didn't have the means nor the will to retake it by force; Egypt was desperate for a deal in order the get the economic benefits on offer from the U.S and Israel enjoyed the full backing and support of the U.S.

Sadat was later to say that during the talks with the Israelis he also sought assurances that after a deal had been signed; that Israel would make a determined/genuine effort to work with the Arabs to resolve the Palestinian issue. He got the assurance he asked for.

Did you ask Arabs who lived in Arab states, or did they live in the west?
And was it in person or over the internet

Mostly in person and mostly with Arabs who had not taken up residence in the West. Arabs from various countries and from various backgrounds. The "hate Israel and Jews" attitude which you claim is still very evident and widespread was noticeably absent from the numerous Arabs I had a chance to personally speak to ....

 

[STURM]

The fact some countries have proceeded to do those things without the precondition of peace with Palestinians, is enough proof they disagreed with the notion of conditioning their own peace with Israel on the Palestinians

You're seeing something which is not there and are forming conclusions which happen to fit in with your narrative.

Again, the countries which signed the Abraham Accords were mostly the same countries which gave their full agreement and support to the Saudi led 2002 proposal.

Secondly; just because some countries signed the Abraham Accords does not necessarily mean ''they disagreed with the notion of conditioning their own peace with Israel on the Palestinians' as you put it.... The Abraham Accords came at a time when certain countries felt the need to further ingratiate themselves with Uncle Sam and because signing the Abraham Accords further strengthened their hand against Iran; their main worry....

Surely a country that extents a hand for peace to all neighbors and adopted the western progressive lifestyle, and thrives in peace and trade and diplomacy, is equal to dictatorships that thrive in war and oppression of their people.

Again; this is not an issue about the merits of democracy in comparison to a dictatorship .....

They have nothing to offer, yet Israel is ready to make huge concessions to facilitate a state for them and solve at least some of their seemingly endless problems. If at their position they believe they're at liberty to reject peace because of bad demands, well then that's just too bad for them, because they're throwing their future away.

Right.... It's always about Israel and Israel alone making the concessions. Israel and Israel alone wanting peace but finding it elusive because of actions by the belligerent and ungrateful Arabs.

Also you're mistaken about ''they'' having ''nothing to offer''. If they indeed had 'nothing to offer' and Israel did not stand to benefit why did Israel even enter into peace talks? Surely not because of altruism on the part of the Israelis.....

A permanent peace deal offers all sides the chance of peace and finally resolving an issue which for decades has been a major source of conflict and tensions; not only in the region but beyond. Assuming off course Israel genuinely wants peace with the Palestinians and assuming it wakes up to the reality that in the long run it can have land or peace but not both..... Then of course some hold the flawed and self serving narrative that it's all the fault of the Palestinians/Arabs; Israel only wants peace and is blameless.

The alternative is the unresolved issue dragging on indefinitely; to the detriment of both sides; in 2035 we'll still hear about a U.S. special envoy rushing to Israel to discuss the latest round of tensions; about Israeli troop deployments near the occupied West Bank; about stone throwing Palestinians maimed by Israeli gunfire and about a new generation of rockets Hamas has stockpiled.

because they're throwing their future away.

What about the part where their future has long been compromised because of a host of issues; namely a bad and ineffective leadership and - last but not least - them living - for generations - in land which has long been occupied by Israel? Unless of course you wish to make the claim that life in the the occupied territories is not as bad at it seems; that Israel is a benign occupier and that all the issues the occupied Palestinians face are solely the fault of Fatah and Hamas; as well as Arab governments; with Israel playing no part at all.

Iran is not just another state in the region. It has its armed forces operating in just about every country in the region. In Lebanon it's a full blown occupation..

It has an armed physical presence; in the form of Pasdaran and intel operatives in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon - that's not ''about every country in the region''. In Lebanon it has had a long, deep rooted and extensive presence but not an ''occupation'' per see .....

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Preconditions placed at the very start on issues such as Jerusalem which Israel didn't want to budge on, the continued building of settlements whilst talks were ongoing, Israeli insistance that some parts of the occupied West Bank not be handed over, etc.

Those are symbolic issues. At their position, the core demands for Palestinians should be practical, not symbolic.

With the Golan returned a large part of any future reason for war with Syria would have evaporated.

Syria's loss in the 1982 is why a future war is very unlikely. Russian presence is another large boost to making war unlikely. Syria has deterrence from both its southern neighbor and its sponsor.
The linking of Iran to the Syrian issue is vital because Syria needs to be a sovereign nation to make such a contract.

What about the part where their future has long been compromised because of a host of issues; namely a bad and ineffective leadership and - last but not least - them living - for generations - in land which has long been occupied by Israel?

I said it can solve some of their core issues. Not all. In the end they'll be independent and will continue putting in power terrorist organizations and corrupt statesmen. The PA has an arrangement with Israel in which they collaborate in mowing down any Hamas and PIJ presence in the west bank. This prevents a "greater evil" scenario. Leaving them with a corrupt regime but at least one that's willing to somehow cooperate with Israel, even economically, and prevent the rise of those who want it to be a warzone.
Depending on the agreement, it would not be atypical for Israel to even offer to invade Gaza to overthrow Hamas to install a PA rule.

Unless of course you wish to make the claim that life in the the occupied territories is not as bad at it seems; that Israel is a benign occupier and that all the issues the occupied Palestinians face are solely the fault of Fatah and Hamas; as well as Arab governments; with Israel playing no part at all.

The existence of an occupation is in itself against Israeli interests, and also not something Israel is at liberty to decide on. And yes, it exists because there are groups like Hamas and PIJ and Fatah and PFLP on the other side. Occupying this territory is a money pit and has many negative effects on Israel's security, but it cannot be removed unilaterally, otherwise we'll see a Gaza 2.0.
It can only be done via some peace treaty.
Israel even withdrew forces from significant chunks of land, until the PA violated the Oslo Accords, and continues to violate it to this day.

Israel linked the peace proposal to Syria with Iran - not as if Pasdaran were across the border or Syria had allowed large numbers of Iranian troops and weaponary in during that period. After regaining the Golan Assad would not have taken the risk of allowing Iran to strike at Israel from Syrian territory, which didn't happen even when things were very bad between Syria and Israel.

Iran has attacked Israel from Syria numerous times. The trend didn't begin in the civil war though. It began much earlier. Israel just decided to really start acting against it in 2015. Assad also has an easy path to removing Iran from Syria, and that's through Russia.

Firstly; giving up the Sinai was a small price to pay for what it received in return;

One of the world's largest natural deposits of natural gas, significantly more than Israel's, plus a very long shoreline to build on - but okay.
There is benefit in peace. A huge benefit. Israel is negotiating as if this benefit is more than enough to trade away things.
Arabs don't see it as enough even though they're the ones losing wars, so they demand more in exchange. That's not how this would work if this equal blame equal morals theory stood.

Secondly; just because some countries signed the Abraham Accords does not necessarily mean ''they disagreed with the notion of conditioning their own peace with Israel on the Palestinians' as you put it.... The Abraham Accords came at a time when certain countries felt the need to further ingratiate themselves with Uncle Sam and because signing the Abraham Accords further strengthened their hand against Iran; their main worry....

Peace is always good for everyone. But they did eventually have peace with Israel despite the Saudi position that it should be conditioned on the Palestinians.
It should also be mentioned that the UAE had beef with the Palestinians before that, when the PA started putting conditions on Emirati aid to Palestinians.

Also you're mistaken about ''they'' having ''nothing to offer''. If they indeed had 'nothing to offer' and Israel did not stand to benefit why did Israel even enter into peace talks? Surely not because of altruism on the part of the Israelis.....

Israel stood to benefit from military disengagement from the Palestinians, would basically erode the last talking point Arab states had against normalization, and could start really integrating Palestinians into Israeli economy.
Cooperation is a natural benefit of peace. Israel did not need anything else. The PA though, thought they could demand more and more despite the fact that in relative terms, the Palestinians would benefit far, far more than Israel would.

 

[STURM]

Those are symbolic issues. At their position, the core demands for Palestinians should be practical, not symbolic

These are not "symbolic" but at the very heart of the dispute.. I'm very surprised to hear you say those issues are "symbolic", maybe for you but not for the Arabs...

Arabs don't see it as enough even though they're the ones losing wars, so they demand more

Israel wins wars but decades later winning those wars have not solved many problems Israel faces. The Arabs [BTW I'm equally critical of them] demand things in line with UN Resolution 242 but they too are also open to compromise... It's not a question of them always demanding "more". What they've been demanding has not changed much in decades.

Syria's loss in the 1982 is why a future war is very unlikely

Syria didn't lose in 1982, it got trashed militarily but it was not evicted from Lebanon and it continued its presence and continued to exert much influence there, fully in line with its interests. Assad played his cards right, despite Israel's efforts and despite Kissinger offering and threatening, he managed to hold on.

During the period when the peace proposal was made [2006 if I recall correctly] there was little to no Iranian physical presence in Syria and Israeli insitence on Syria severing ties with Iran was largely aimed at isolating and weakening Iran, it was not due to fears of Iranian actvity on Syrian soil.

War between Syria and Israel was unlikely way before 1982. Even in 1982 Assad went out of his way to avoid trouble wuth Israel. His priority was regime survival and the main threat was other Arab states.

despite the Saudi position that it should be conditioned on the Palestinians

It was not a Saudi position but a position adopted by all the states which agreed to the proposal in 2002 and until today the plight of the Palestinians is an issue which still reasonates and is a matter of much concern. .

should also be mentioned that the UAE had beef with the Palestinians before that
.

Everybody has always maintained lines of communication with everybody. According to numerous sources Israel also had back channel dialogue with groups it maintained it would never deal with. It was also reported that Israel initally had talks with Hamas whom Israel saw as a more reliable partner than Fatah.

We also know that as far back as 7-8 or more years ago Saudi had talks with Israel over enabling the IAF to overfly its airspace to hit Iran. During the 1980's Iran also had talks with Israel and apart from stuff received as part of the Iran/Contra deal, acquired some Israeli stuff separately.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

An exceptional strike occurred recently in Syria - a weapons shipment was struck while in the Latakia port.

After reported Syria strike, Israel says won’t let Iran bring ‘game-changing’ arms

Latakia fires doused hours after alleged Israeli attack; in visit to air force base, Gantz urges countries in region to stop letting Tehran stream weapons through their territory

www.timesofisrael.com

First, the shipment likely involved complete weapons. This is no longer very common because Iran's proxies in Syria and Lebanon typically produce their own weapons in their own assembly lines, with Iran only delivering components.
Large secondary explosions and a lengthy burn time indicates complete weapons in large numbers were delivered.

Defense minister Gantz met with Abbas for continued talks.

Gantz hosts Abbas at his home, in PA leader’s first meeting in Israel in a decade

Talks are their second in recent months; Gantz says they spoke of fighting terror, while Abbas adviser says they discussed creating a 'horizon' for peace

www.timesofisrael.com

Two trends of recent history regarding Israel-Palestine is the increase in cooperation and decrease in talk about a formal and final solution to the conflict.
Israel's policy towards WB and Gaza is deterrence through welfare. The higher the life quality in both territories, the more the people will be deterred from pursuing violence that could set them back again.
So without a formal solution, Israel and PA are advancing cooperation in civil and economical areas.

And after the Abraham Accords, the Palestinians now have far less confidence in their importance to the Arab world. Arab and muslim majority countries are willing to normalize with Israel and form ties with or without the Palestinians.

All this results in a situation of a Palestinian state existing de-facto more and more, but not de-jure.

 

[STURM]

And after the Abraham Accords, the Palestinians now have far less confidence in their importance to the Arab world.

I think it's still early days to reach that conclusion and it's a simplistic assumption.

Firstly, the Palestnians have long been cynical and have doubted the ability of the Arab world [itself not united and comprising countries whose priority is ingratiating themselves wirh Uncle Sam] to help achieve anything meaningful.

Secondly what's more of importance to the Palestinians is the fact that the Palestinian issue remains one which continues to reasonate with the vast majority of Arabs, irrepective if some of them have government's whichhave changed their policies somewhat

Arab and muslim majority countries are willing to normalize with Israel and form ties with or without the Palestinians.

Formalising ties with Israel doesn't necessarily mean thse countries have downgraded the Palestinian issue, irespective of the fact that they have formalised ties with Israel despite there being no Palestinian state and Israel still occupying Palestinian land. In fact in the coming years, when or rather if ties further develop, certain countries might use it as a means or leverage to press Israel on the issue.

Israel understandably takes great joy with the Abraham Accords as it finally has [with Trump's help] achieved what it has long wanted, a normalisation of ties with Arab countries [Israel benefits in various ways]. To me what will really be significant - beyond the highly symbolic self serving PR exercise of a few countries normalising ties - is to see whether Saudi and other countries join the club and whether the whole exercise can really result in long term lasting tangible benefits.
I hope it does ...

 

[STURM]

A very interesting interview with Moshe Dayan. He gives his views about the Arabs, war, the chance for peace, the Russians, etc. Worth watching.

I've often wondered whether there is a major difference between Israeli's of Dayan's generation [many were born there and spent time with the Arabs] and those of the present generation, in terms of their atitudes towards Arabs? We often hear again and again about how the Arabs in general supposedly hate Israel and Jews [as if time has stood still and it's still 1948 or 1967] but what of Israeli attitudes/feelings towards Arabs?

Also when we talk of older generation Israelis, in general would their atitudes differ greatly from person to person? If Raful Eitan was interviewed would he sound similar to Dayan or would his opinions differ greatly? Having read his book many years ago, he seems the total opposite of Dayan. I watched an interview with Danny Yatom a few years ago. I was very impressed with what he said.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Hezbollah moves air defenses to Qalamoun:

Hezbollah deploys air defense systems in Syria’s Qalamoun mountains

While the IDF’s aerial superiority has worsened, the military believes that it still has the ability to carry out operations over Lebanon and Syria.

m.jpost.com

It seems according to this report Hezbollah has Buk, Osa, and Pantsir systems. Interesting.

 

[OPSSG]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1476820342752559104

Congrats to Israel on signing the LOA for 12 CH-53Ks and 2 KC-46s, as part of the FMS process. These are asserts suitable for a deep strike.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1476820342752559104

Congrats to Israel on signing the LOA for 12 CH-53Ks and 2 KC-46s, as part of the FMS process. These are asserts suitable for a deep strike.

Unfortunately the KC-46A are scheduled to arrive in Israel too late and the US in principle voiced unwillingness to swap deliveries with Israel.
A local conversion using 767s by IAI was proposed as a cheaper, quicker alternative, but it was shut down years ago by Boeing, as its permission was legally required.

Some options I can quickly think of to fill the gap may be C-130Js, CH-53, fuel payloads on SIGINT/ELINT planes (that one might be a big NO), converted Eitan UAVs . Various helicopters with fuel payload launching from navy ships and/or converted civilian ships.
Everything, even the latter, would put a huge strain on available aircraft.
Israel may need in the long term an MQ-25-like solution, and definitely a strategic goal should be de-monopolizing the aerial tanker fleet.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

@STURM Perhaps a good summary on my side of the Palestinian debate is that they're mostly at war with themselves, with the abundance of factions within them. Israel is merely a political scapegoat for them, and also a way out of the conflict. It's their best ally, but they also must demonize it to further their own goals in their internal conflicts. Israel and the West Bank are more or less at peace, with cooperation on multiple levels. Gaza is a separate state, and so it is of much higher value to the West Bank Palestinians to sort out their conflict with Hamas than a peace treaty with Israel.

 

[OPSSG]

Part 1 of 2: The Strength of Iranian Proxies

Unfortunately the KC-46A are scheduled to arrive in Israel too late and the US in principle voiced unwillingness to swap deliveries with Israel.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1470493478434004993

1. With allies like the US (with Team Biden in-charge), who needs enemies? On the 2nd anniversary of the killing of IRCG Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Muhandis (in a Trump ordered UAV air strike), Iran’s regional influence with militant groups remains just as pivotal. In Yemen, Iran took advantage of the successes of an indigenous opposition group—the Zaidi Shia “Houthi” rebels—to bleed and embarrass Saudi Arabia. US pressure for peace talks have assisted the Houthi advance on Marib.

​

(a) Concurrent with the geo-political challenges in the Middle East, inflation is chewing through billions of dollars in Pentagon funding — reducing American response ability. The US DoD anticipated and budgeted for 10% inflation for fuel costs. However, gasoline prices have soared to the tune of 58% in 2021. That difference alone accounts for close to US$4 billion in unanticipated Pentagon expenditures.​

​

(b) Americans are becoming more ambivalent about the US role in the world, as fewer people express support for active global leadership. 42% of Americans think it is better for the US to be more engaged and take the lead when it comes to international events, which is down by 9 points since Feb 2021. 30% think that it is better for the US to be less engaged and react to events— while 28% responded “it depends” or “don’t know” which is an increase of 6 points since Feb 2021.​

​

(c) Further, there is a growing American consensus that China is the greatest threat to the US (and not Iran). While this is happening, through it’s proxies, Iran makes hay while the sunshines.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1475832712837701638

2. Converting irrigation pipes into rockets, concrete building materials into underground attack tunnels, an alphabet soup of various militant groups in Gaza and the West Bank demonstrate:

​

(a) both:​

​

(i) creativity in acquiring resources to attack Israel; and​

​

(ii) a strong desire to kill, injure and hurt, as many Jews and civilians as possible; and​

​

(b) their capability to:​

​

(i) launch 4,500 rockets at Israel (from 10 to 21 May 2021);​

​

(ii) conduct 10,850 attacks in Jerusalem and the West Bank; and​

​

(iii) facilitate 191 shooting attacks, 41 stabbings and attempted stabbings, 21 vehicle-ramming attacks and attempted vehicle-ramming attacks, plus 55 attacks with explosive devices.​

3. These militant groups in Gaza and the West Bank include:

​

(a) the big 3 of the al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas), Saraya al-Quds (Palestinian Islamic Jihad or PIJ), and al-Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades (PRC),​

​

(b) the smaller, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (a network of West Bank militias affiliated with former Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat’s Fatah faction), National Resistance Brigades (DFLP), Jihad Jibril Brigades (PFLP-GC), and Mujahideen Brigades (as the armed wing of the Palestinian Mujahideen Movement).​

What Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have that the smaller groups don’t, is lots of money and support from Iran. The PFLP-GC, in particular, is closely tied to both Syria and Iran. While it sucks to be an Iranian proxy, attempting to create a security dilemma, the sheer volume of these terror attacks, by local Palestinian militant groups or Iranian proxies, have the effect of normalising these terror threats on the American public consciousness (such that it is no longer noticeable or news worthy on CNN).

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1476220335179673601

4. According to Israel of the 4,500 rockets fired, approximately 640 rockets fell short and landed in the Gaza Strip resulting in at least 7 casualties. Therefore, due to the Iron Dome, Hamas and PIJ are pretty successful in killing and injuring Palestinians. In a rare piece of good news, Qatar has worked alongside the UN and EU on striking a deal that allows Israel to import natural gas to the Gaza Strip. Qatar's informal diplomacy on Israel-Palestine remains critical, even as Qatar does not follow the UAE and Bahrain's normalizations with Israel.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

1. With allies like the US (with Team Biden in-charge), who needs enemies? …

(a) ...​

(b) Americans are becoming more ambivalent about the US role in the world, as fewer people express support for active global leadership. 42% of Americans think it is better for the US to be more engaged and take the lead when it comes to international events, which is down by 9 points since Feb 2021…​

​

(c) Further, there is a growing American consensus that China is the greatest threat to the US (and not Iran)…​

With or without Biden, China's rise is a natural source of worry for the US, meaning US withdrawal from the region is inevitable. At least relative to its recent peak in activities.

For countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, buying Russian and Chinese hardware is not a taboo, and even staunch US allies like Israel may have to seek to diversify support and alliances, e.g in the case of the US's relaxed approach to Iran.

However, while China can easily fill in for most nations, Israel will remain one country that cannot replace the US with ease. All other countries are either not strong enough individually, un-willing to act either individually or as a group, or are not ideologically aligned with Israel.

The closest potential ally is India, but it is still a long way from being able to take up that role.

So for Israel, there may well be a looming political crisis, if it doesn't exist already.

 

[Feanor]

For countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, buying Russian and Chinese hardware is not a taboo, and even staunch US allies like Israel may have to seek to diversify support and alliances, e.g in the case of the US's relaxed approach to Iran.

This is actually an interesting question. There's some indication that the Su-35S contract for Egypt is halted. Almost all the aircraft have been produced yet there are no deliveries, according to CAST.

 

[STURM]

Countries like Egypt and Saudi are more than happy to buy American and not being able to buy Russian will not make the Egypt's rulers lose any sleep. In the case of Egypt it only really started looking at Russian stuff because of a halt in U.S. arms deliveries following the military coup which overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood. With Saudi cash - as gratitude for overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood - it was able to buy Russian in order to not be too reliant on Uncle Sam. In the case of Saudi it has always been policy to ingratiate itself with Uncle Sam as Uncle Sam guarantees its external security. It will only buy Russian to compensate for what it can't get elsewhere or as a foreign policy tool.

In the case of Israel despite whatever opinion one may have of Biden and his administration with regards to Israel; the fact still remains that Israel enjoys almost unconditional support from Uncle Sam and it is American policy to ensure Israel always maintains a qualitative/technological edge over its neighbours [despite the IDF being more than capable to handle any reginal threat by itself]. The key issue for Uncle Sam is that what's good for Israel isn't always good for Uncle Sam; thus it has to perform a balancing act when it comes to adopting or pursuing certain polices. American also has to factor in that it has other relationship's to handle and other interests to watch out for which may not be related to Israel.

If we look at the U.S/Israeli relationship; despite whatever ups and downs [the Pollard case for example or cases when shared intel and other things was reportedly shared/provided other by Israel to others without U.S. approval] or when arms deliveries are briefly halted during times of conflict or cease fire talks; it's always business back to normal eventually and Israel's leaders know this. Biden isn't the first President and won't be last to be labelled with being Israel 'unfriendly' when he does things not agreeable/acceptable to Israel and it's supporters/apologist - Obama was seen as not being cooperative when he refused to strike Iran; something Israel and the Gulf sates wanted but might have damaging to U.S. long term interests; not to mention the region as a whole. Yes Israel will take certain precautions in case Uncle Sam loses focus in the region and starts focusing more on the Asia-Pacific but the fact remains that American policy towards Israel will not change; irrespective of whether America - for it's own interests - gets soft on Iran or if ties between both countries gradually improve in the coming years or decades.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

American relations with Israel are not the important bit. For example Israel has great relations with Germany, but Germany will never commit to any operation outside its borders beyond symbolic action.
Good relations or not, the US is disengaging from the region.
Iran is just the current case. Before it was Saddam, and I'm sure if and when Iran's regime falls there will be some other destabilizing entity that will fill that vacuum.
Who will help with future threats? Israel is a local powerhouse but there's a limit to how much power projection a small nation can possess. Arab nations are competing for the title of least competent as if it was at the top of their national agenda, and hardly ever classify as more than "enemy of my enemy" in trustworthiness.

The region needs a superpower that is engaged with its allies, and aligned with the west. Unfortunately no such thing exists beyond the US.

 

[ngatimozart]

American relations with Israel are not the important bit. For example Israel has great relations with Germany, but Germany will never commit to any operation outside its borders beyond symbolic action.
Good relations or not, the US is disengaging from the region.
Iran is just the current case. Before it was Saddam, and I'm sure if and when Iran's regime falls there will be some other destabilizing entity that will fill that vacuum.
Who will help with future threats? Israel is a local powerhouse but there's a limit to how much power projection a small nation can possess. Arab nations are competing for the title of least competent as if it was at the top of their national agenda, and hardly ever classify as more than "enemy of my enemy" in trustworthiness.

The region needs a superpower that is engaged with its allies, and aligned with the west. Unfortunately no such thing exists beyond the US.

I think that the region needs to rethink it's imagined dependency upon a superpower, grow up and start sorting it's own rubbish out. It's time for Israel to cut the apron strings and stand on its own two feet. It's the sole regional nuclear power and the technological leader within the region. Yes it has problems with Iran because of the Ayatollahs, but there are other nations in the region that it can deal with. It doesn't have to leap into bed with them, but it can still work with them if it wants to. In order for that to happen it's going to have to swallow some dead rats at home and prove that it's willing to act in good faith. The Arab states are going to have to do the same and the first thing is sorting out the Palestinian problem once and for all. This is one of Israel's dead rats.

This is how I see it:

• Israel stops all suppression of Palestinian rights and discrimination, giving them equal rights to Jewish citizens.
• That Israel cease forthwith any new Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands and that all illegal settlements since a yet to be agreed to date, be removed at Israeli expense. The cost to the Israeli government can of course be recoverable from the settlers and / or the settler organisation.
• The Arab nations financially support the Palestinian economy and help rebuild it along side the Israeli government.
• The Arab nations provide a security to force work alongside Israeli security forces to root out Hamas, Hezbollah and any other Iranian influences. Such people found will be tried in Palestine under Saudi law and punishment meted out in Saudi Arabia. Why i suggest Saudi Law is because it's harsher than Israeli Law and the criminals are being tried, judged and punished by Arabs, not Jews.
• That a regional organisation be formed involving Israel and Arab nations with the aim of securing the region from aggression from the likes of Iran and others. This organisation would also foster diplomatic and economic relations within the region.

I think it's in Israel's and the Arab states common interest to start working along these or similar lines.

 

[STURM]

American relations with Israel are not the important bit.

So you keep saying but the facts indicate that Israel benefits from a huge way by the near unconditional support it receives from America [from 1967 onwards]... America goes of it's way to guarantees Israel's security; it undertakes certain actions/policies which are great for Israel but not so great for itself; it has long ceased to be an impartial mediator/broker in any peace talks; it blocks any criticism of Israel at the UN equating it to antisemitism; it enabled Israel to became the largest recipient of U.S. aid as a reward for Camp David; it ensures Israel has a technological edge over its neighbours [despite none of Israel's neighbours having the intent or capability to threaten Israel, etc, etc.

As it stands there is no other country with the economic, military or diplomatic might; to replace the U.S. in terms of what it provides Israel...

Before it was Saddam

We can add Nasser, Gadaffi, Arafat and a long list of others - some were first vilified by the West and Israel but later became ''partners''; only to become the bad guys again. In the case of Saddam he had no interest to engage Israel. His focus was regime survival and Iran. Beyond Iran his main enemy was Syria [they both fought a proxy war in Lebanon]. Israel was inconsequential to him.

here will be some other destabilizing entity that will fill that vacuum.

'Destabilising'' in what way and to Israel alone or to others as well? IMO higher chance in the future of a Gulf State government falling; compared to Iran which actually has experience in democracy [it had an elected leader who was overthrown by the 'democratic' West]; it has a stronger opposition and has stronger state institutions. Iran is far less fragile than any Gulf Arab state.