The Israeli Option in Strategy

[JJackson]

Catching up on this thread this evening I had picked out a couple of extracts I was going to comment on and see that Walrus has noticed the same bits, so I will refer you to his quote boxes rather than paste them in again.

I would have to disagree with Curmudgeon’s Spanish friend. You are not hard enough on yourselves, with great power comes great responsibility. And you have taken onto yourselves great military power; it is a conscious choice your representatives have made over a long period of time to build up a force for power projection. I will take some convincing that US force levels are only enough to protect the territorial integrity of the US of A. One carrier group would put paid to most continents’ – let alone country’s – navies. You have this power but do you use it with the Wisdom of Solomon? I think not. For each country vilified and threatened by the US there is usually an equally nasty counterpart that is brushed under the carpet due to ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ or some similarly flawed logic.

Again with the play pit. If I was playing in the sandpit with some other kids and one of the big boys kept pushing around the kids who were doing things he did not like I would
A] Take an immediate dislike to the bully.
B] Try and organise the others to kick the #### out of him.

In response to the extract from Tacitus:
My elected representatives have let me down badly by aligning the UK with US foreign policy. I am ashamed that my country invaded another country with no hard evidence, what it transpires they did have was far from enough to justify a war of aggression. The delay in calling the UN for a halt to Israel’s bombing of Lebanon was even worse. So I would certainly not wish to substitute us as the bully in the play pit. My preferred solution is not to have any one country have the ability to impose its will; if your case is not strong enough to persuade the others that one of your number needs disciplining then you do not have the authority to discipline them. I seem to recall we all signed up to something like wasn’t it called the UN?

Having dumped on the US for its more recent destabilizations of the system I reserve most of the blame for our inability to correct problems, and the number of problems that need correcting, for the colonial European powers. This is a longer argument, and not very relevant to this thread, but basically they created the fixed bordered Westphalian Nation State and imposed it on the rest of the world. The cartographer’s lines on the map - for the purpose of demarcation of administrative regions - have been inherited as national boundaries. Irredentist disputes abound as the enclosed populations try to redefine these lines to better reflect who they wish to be grouped with. This system is not well adapted to global problems like communicable diseases or environmental change.

As to solving the Islamist problem I suggest we would not have one if Britain had not sided with the Zionists at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians (thanks Balfour). While most Arabs would prefer a one state solution, a two state solution might be acceptable if the US withdraws unconditional support for Israel. As it is they have the land, wealth & might and the Palestinians are a little light on bargaining chips, beyond the 'we was wronged' argument. Unfortunately this requires a change in US policy to Israel which is not likely to happen so the 'we would be happy if you have a solution' is really 'we are happy if you have a solution that fits in with what we wanted to happen'.