What would happen if the U.S. got out of the Mideast and Israel was disarmed?

[Loppan Torkel]

I saw this in another thread and wondered what that would do to the region.

How do you envision such a situation panning out?

Israel giving up the occupied territories seems like a given. Would they have to give up Jerusalem as capital also or would Jews still be able to live in security in Jerusalem? Would all the Jews living in the occupied territories be forced to leave? Would Israel be forced to pay some sort of compensation to the Palestinians? Would the Islamic nations around them acknowledge Israel as a state? Would the relations between them get better? Would the terrorist acts and attacks on Israel and Jews dissolve or would they increase? If terror attacks did increase - what could the Israelis do to prevent them? Do you consider the Islamic faith in the region being an issue at all in a scenario like this?

Poll coming.

 

[Perfection]

goodbye isreal

 

[Tee Kay]

Whether the US is involved in the Middle East or not and whether Israel is demilitarised or not matters precisely zilch when it comes to resolving the cycle of violence in the region; that can only come about through a process of mutual reconciliation.

If Israel disarms itself tomorrow, without foreign intervention we'll see in no less than a couple of months an ethnic clensing campaign against Israelis like the sort that befell the people of 1922 Smyrna. This scenario need not happen, however.

 

[wilycoyote]

It would be like taking away nukes during the Cold War. Paradoxically, eliminating weapons would just ensure everything going to hell.

 

[Patroklos]

Syria needs a distraction for it's populace, rolling over the Golan Hieghts would work.

 

[LordRahl]

You're missing 'Israel would be wiped off the map by surrounding Islamic Theocracies.' option, which would be the most likely result.

 

[NickyJ]

goodbye isreal

Yeah, the smoldering ruins would be all that would be left of them.

You're missing 'Israel would be wiped off the map by surrounding Islamic Theocracies.' option, which would be the most likely result.

Precisely.

Ever heard of the doctrine "Mutually Assured Destruction"? That's what's keeping the Middle East from destroying itself entirely.

 

[Silurian]

Why should the US withdraw from the middle east? It has legitimate interests there. It should recognise that the countries of the middle east have their own interests and should admit that where they conflict with US interests they are legitimate.

Why should Israel disarm? Every state has a right to self defence. The best form of defence is peace. This will happen when all the people within the area controlled by Israel have equal rights or Israel withdraws and allows a Palestinian state. Also the Golan will have to be given back to Syria or purchased from them.

 

[Joecoolyo]

goodbye isreal

Whether the US is involved in the Middle East or not and whether Israel is demilitarised or not matters precisely zilch when it comes to resolving the cycle of violence in the region; that can only come about through a process of mutual reconciliation.

If Israel disarms itself tomorrow, without foreign intervention we'll see in no less than a couple of months an ethnic clensing campaign against Israelis like the sort that befell the people of 1922 Smyrna. This scenario need not happen, however.

These.

Creating a power vacuum in the boogeyman of the region isn't going to bring peace (as a majority of your poll options suggest). What will bring peace is what tailless basically said, diplomacy and mutual reconciliation.

 

[asbestos]

If the US left, there is no guarantee that Israel would be rushed by every single Arab country in the region. For one thing, a few of those Muslim theocracies (such as Saudi Arabia) are strategic allies of Israel against Iran, which is easily the greater existential threat. Iran is a direct military threat to the Gulf region, whereas Israel acts as a check against Iran's proxies in Syria and Lebanon, and against Iran itself. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have large, restive[1][2] Shi'ia populations in oil rich areas. Even the push for a two-state solution from the Gulf countries contains an aspect of self-preservation - to allow them to have more open relations with Israel and to preserve their hegemony.

There is a Manichean "us vs. them" (clash of civilizations) mentality prevalent in Western discourse on the Mid-East which caricatures most of the actors into some necessarily parochial role. IME it really obscures much of the region's geopolitical nuances.

 

[wilycoyote]

If the US left, there is no guarantee that Israel would be rushed by every single Arab country in the region. For one thing, a few of those Muslim theocracies (such as Saudi Arabia) are strategic allies of Israel against Iran, which is easily the greater existential threat. Iran is a direct military threat to the Gulf region, whereas Israel acts as a check against Iran's proxies in Syria and Lebanon, and against Iran itself. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have large, restive[1][2] Shi'ia populations in oil rich areas. Even the push for a two-state solution from the Gulf countries contains an aspect of self-preservation - to allow them to have more open relations with Israel and to preserve their hegemony.

There is a Manichean "us vs. them" (clash of civilizations) mentality prevalent in Western discourse on the Mid-East which caricatures most of the actors into some necessarily parochial role. IME it really obscures much of the region's geopolitical nuances.

1) If your standard is things said must be for absolute certainty, then there really is no answer to this question. Also, I don't think anyone said all Arab countries would attack Israel, just certain ones.

2) You seem to be assuming that taking the USA and Israel out of the power structure wouldn't change other regional relationships. The Saudis may hate the Iranians, but when Iran invades a disarmed Israel, would the Saudis dare attack Iran? Considering the Arab Spring, perhaps the Saudis would be a bit scared of a war that could ignite their own political revolution.

Up until this scenario, you always had the USA and Israel acting to avert any potential conflict in the region, due to their overwhelming strength. Take that away and once a war between Iran and Israel began, and other regional nations needed to take sides, who do you think they would pick on average, the Jewish state or the Islamic state? First the Jews would be wiped off the map, then the Sunnis and Shia would go at it.

3) When Iran states over and over and over that Israel needs to be destroyed, it isn't an "us versus them" position to fear what an unopposed Iran would do in the Middle East.

EDIT: Just to be clear: Why would Saudi Arabia care about Israel under this scenario? Israel would be too weak to worry Iran. The USA (a Saudi ally) would no longer care about the situation. Then you are left with a majority Islamic state run by a monarchy and a Jewish majority democracy. I see no reason to think that particular relationship would continue to be important to the Saudis.

 

[muhtesem insan]

I have a anti-israel position in this conflict and I support the struggle of Palestinian People, but disarming Israel would only open door to massacare of countless civilian Jews who lives there. Arabs would burn down all Israel with vengeance.
What we need is a solution, that'll make both parties equally unhappy. (Id would be better to have a solution makes both parties happy but I don't think it's possible)

 

[asbestos]

1) If your standard is things said must be for absolute certainty, then there really is no answer to this question. Also, I don't think anyone said all Arab countries would attack Israel, just certain ones.

I didn't say anything about whether "certain" Arab countries would or wouldn't attack Israel. I was reporting the sorely missed fact that the various Arab blocs have divergent interests, especially vis a vis Israel. The Arab states may very well treat a disarmed Israel as a geopolitical vacuum to be fought over; they may very well strike alliances with different Jewish partisan groups, rather than team up to "exterminate the evil Jews".

Or it could play out word for word exactly like you said.

2) You seem to be assuming that taking the USA and Israel out of the power structure wouldn't change other regional relationships. The Saudis may hate the Iranians, but when Iran invades a disarmed Israel, would the Saudis dare attack Iran? Considering the Arab Spring, perhaps the Saudis would be a bit scared of a war that could ignite their own political revolution.

No, I'm not assuming that because I never made a single prediction.

Up until this scenario, you always had the USA and Israel acting to avert any potential conflict in the region, due to their overwhelming strength. Take that away and once a war between Iran and Israel began, and other regional nations needed to take sides, who do you think they would pick on average, the Jewish state or the Islamic state? First the Jews would be wiped off the map, then the Sunnis and Shia would go at it.

That seems like a fun scenario for a techno-thriller. But you'll need to post a video of your crystal ball to convince me that this is exactly what will happen.

3) When Iran states over and over and over that Israel needs to be destroyed, it isn't an "us versus them" position to fear what an unopposed Iran would do in the Middle East.

First of all, he said that "the regime occupying Jerusalem will disappear from the pages of time". The regime, presumably meaning the government. Not the people living there.

Secondly, even assuming he did say some ignorant racist bs (which he does regularly since he frequently denies the holocaust), if you have trouble separating a someone's propaganda from his actions, then I can't help you. Sorry.

 

[wilycoyote]

I didn't say anything about whether "certain" Arab countries would or wouldn't attack Israel. I was reporting the sorely missed fact that the various Arab blocs have divergent interests, especially vis a vis Israel. The Arab states may very well treat a disarmed Israel as a geopolitical vacuum to be fought over; they may very well strike alliances with different Jewish partisan groups, rather than team up to "exterminate the evil Jews".

Or it could play out word for word exactly like you said.



No, I'm not assuming that because I never made a single prediction.



That seems like a fun scenario for a techno-thriller. But you'll need to post a video of your crystal ball to convince me that this is exactly what will happen.



First of all, he said that "the regime occupying Jerusalem would disappear into the pages of time". The regime, presumably meaning the government. Not the people living there.

Secondly, even assuming he did say some ignorant racist bs (which he does regularly since he frequently denies the holocaust), if you have trouble separating a someone's propaganda from his actions, then I can't help you. Sorry.

I am not saying this is what will happen, just what I think would happen. You seem to be holding me to your ridiculous standard again that whatever is said in this thread must be something that is provable here.

Come on.... have you heard Israel referred to as "Little Satan" by various leaders in Iran before? They seem pretty hostile towards Israel. If the USA said that about Canada, I doubt the Canadians would just ignore it. Instead, they would probably be scared for their lives.

Iran's actions have been reserved for exactly the topic of this thread: the USA and Israel are too powerful for Iran to act at this time. In the scenario of this thread, that would no longer be the case.

Don't be sorry, I would rather have you not "help me" regardless.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Israel disarmed to what extent?

 

[amadeus]

I meant its stock of nuclear weapons.

I have total confidence that Israel, even without nuclear weapons or U.S. subsidies could successfully defend itself against invasion. That said, I don't even think an invasion would happen. Syria is busy quashing internal dissent, Lebanon has virtually no army to speak of, Jordan has a peace treaty with Israel, and even the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said it's going to respect its treaty obligations (so long as the U.S. continues subsidizing Egypt, but we shouldn't be doing that, anyway.) The prospect of Iran invading Israel is laughable.

I don't know how I can answer some of the questions here: if U.S. and Israeli attitudes shifted, why wouldn't Israel withdraw from the West Bank? I think a withdrawal from the West Bank would do more to stop Palestinian terrorism than giving up its nuclear weapons.

 

[bhsup]

History disagrees with you, Amadeus. That offer was made (well, most of the west bank...get real on the 100%...) in summer 2000 and instead of leading to peace, the Palestinians launched the second intifada.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't know how I can answer some of the questions here: if U.S. and Israeli attitudes shifted, why wouldn't Israel withdraw from the West Bank? I think a withdrawal from the West Bank would do more to stop Palestinian terrorism than giving up its nuclear weapons.

The problem is that it simply isn't as easy as "leave the West-Bank and there'll be peace", thought it may have been that way back in 2000 (when there were fewer settlers), which the Palestinians refused. The settlers are politically powerful and have a lobby that makes the AIPAC laughable in comparison. If a removal of the West-Bank is attempted, Israel will have to fight another uprising in Palestine... by Jewish settlers, who are much more organized and a much more dangerous foe to Israel than Hamas will ever be, or face a military coup by elements that are sympathetic towards the settlers.

Needless to say, Israel prefers occupying Palestine to fighting a civil war that'll be more bloody than the current Israel-Palestinian conflict will ever be or becoming a military dictatorship.

 

[asbestos]

I am not saying this is what will happen, just what I think would happen. You seem to be holding me to your ridiculous standard again that whatever is said in this thread must be something that is provable here.

Come on.... have you heard Israel referred to as "Little Satan" by various leaders in Iran before? They seem pretty hostile towards Israel. If the USA said that about Canada, I doubt the Canadians would just ignore it. Instead, they would probably be scared for their lives.

Iran's actions have been reserved for exactly the topic of this thread: the USA and Israel are too powerful for Iran to act at this time. In the scenario of this thread, that would no longer be the case.

Don't be sorry, I would rather have you not "help me" regardless.

Inflammatory rhetoric is designed to be inflammatory and provoke a reaction; it's just grandstanding on the world stage. You need to dig deeper to find the real motives. You could very well be correct that Iran would instigate some kind of genocide if it gained control over the area, but then you'd need a way to explain how a Jewish population of 25,000 can live there in relative safety.

You could very well be correct that all the Islamic countries in the region would work together against what is postulated to be their common enemy, but then you need to explain how that eventuality could come to pass in light of their existing (and quite dominant) geopolitical rivalries, and how they weigh their Israeli relationship within their geopolitical calculus.

There might indeed be a mechanism that would allow these things to pass regardless of the limitations I just enumerated, but so far all I've heard is your opinion rather than a reasoned argument. Having an opinion is nice, but if the opinion is based on bias as opposed to facts, it becomes a useless and self-limiting crutch.

Note that Israel isn't exactly innocent of inflammatory rhetoric either. Netanyahu regularly calls Ahmadinajad Hitler(!) for crying out loud. Do you have any idea how offensive that is? not just to Iran, but to many holocaust survivors for whom the far greater evil of Hitler becomes marginalized by the comparison.

 

[wilycoyote]

Inflammatory rhetoric is designed to be inflammatory and provoke a reaction; it's just grandstanding on the world stage. You need to dig deeper to find the real motives. You could very well be correct that Iran would instigate some kind of genocide if it gained control over the area, but then you'd need a way to explain how a Jewish population of 25,000 can live there in relative safety.

You could very well be correct that all the Islamic countries in the region would work together against what is postulated to be their common enemy, but then you need to explain how that eventuality could come to pass in light of their existing (and quite dominant) geopolitical rivalries, and how they weigh their Israeli relationship within their geopolitical calculus.

There might indeed be a mechanism that would allow these things to pass regardless of the limitations I just enumerated, but so far all I've heard is your opinion rather than a reasoned argument. Having an opinion is nice, but if the opinion is based on bias as opposed to facts, it becomes a useless and self-limiting crutch.

Note that Israel isn't exactly innocent of inflammatory rhetoric either. Netanyahu regularly calls Ahmadinajad Hitler(!) for crying out loud. Do you have any idea how offensive that is? not just to Iran, but to many holocaust survivors for whom the far greater evil of Hitler becomes marginalized by the comparison.

I don't know why you are talking like I don't understand the concept of rhetoric. Clearly, it is just that I think Iranian leadership is serious. It isn't like I think we live in the world from that stupid movie where people had never even thought to lie to others before. You are telling me to dig deeper as though my opinion is shallow. You may think that, and even be correct, but why not have a bit of class here and attack my opinion and not me?

I believe that I outlined my thinking for each of those points. It is true that I am not an expert on the politics on the region. Please stop claiming that I need to be held to that standard. I am stating my opinion. Feel free to disagree, you may be correct. There is no reason to keep attacking my lack of expertise on the subject. I grant that, so let's move on.

Why must I note that Israel isn't innocent. I think Israel's actions can only be seen as aggressive and counter productive. I think neither side has seemed even a little bit serious about peace. How does that change what we have been discussing?