It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel Mulling Sinai Attack?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Lucidity, originally saw your thread...great topic


reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Yes, "deep economic distress" (yes, in areas other than E) at heart of protests. Protesting Egyptians want to benefit from canal wealth literally passing them by, and economic reform benefits that benefit only already wealthy. Oil speculators will benefit from talk of closure.

Agree with schuyler & FarArcher.




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 

The Sinai isn't an effective buffer. Not any longer.

Israel owned the Sinai after 1967. But the Sinai is just a vast wasteland, unpopulated, and unless you need building sand, it's pretty much useless.

To MAN defenses along the Suez is manpower inefficient. Look what happened in 1973. Israel manned the defenses, but it's so long you can't man every mile very well.

That worked out well, didn't it?

Today, Israel has its own satellites. Its own deep intelligence.

Much better to just watch for armor/troop concentrations and react accordingly.

Not one single upside tactically or strategically to Israel holding anything in the Sinai.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
Israel is NOT - NOT - contemplating anything in the Sinai.

There's no percentage in it for the Israelis. It's a lose/lose for Israel.


Israel's military actions have never been entirely rational. For instance, their 1982 invasion and attempted annexation of southern Lebanon. Israel's military action reflect two very irrational points of israeli culture; a terrified paranoia, and a messianic complex. Israel believes both that it is in an existential conflict, and that it needs to conquer as much territory as possible to please God.


And as was suggested, it really doesn't matter if the Muslim brotherhood points Egypt toward Israel. That's been tried before a few times already, and each time it only worked out well for the Israelis.


1956 saw the Israelis forced into a stalemate by Egypt, to be broken by US influence in Egypt's favor, while 1973 saw Israel getting its face kicked before the US stepped in. If it came down to it again, I believe it could go either way and would be highly dependent on who the US favors; and if Israel attacks, the US isn't going to favor them. And of course, Israel knows this, which is about as close as we can come to a guarantee of this NOT happening.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Aren't escaped militants and captured soldiers typically flashpoints for Israeli conflicts/wars?

Egypt shuts Gaza border as militants break out of jail



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert
Lucidity, originally saw your thread...great topic


reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Yes, "deep economic distress" (yes, in areas other than E) at heart of protests. Protesting Egyptians want to benefit from canal wealth literally passing them by, and economic reform benefits that benefit only already wealthy. Oil speculators will benefit from talk of closure.

Agree with schuyler & FarArcher.


Personally I have travelled to and worked in Egypt.. so tho an outsider I have a deep respect for Egyptians, (especially the feisty women
).. I just hope they get the space to get the democracy they want, not something spun to benefit others...

But since I do live in the real world am just not sure who will really benefit out of this..



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I don't think I've heard a more moronic assertion regarding Israeli intentions in a very long time.

Israel has nothing whatsoever to gain politically or militarily from doing anything in the Sinai.

They don't need a "buffer zone", as the Sinai is a pretty damn good one all by itself. By the time anything could be moved to a threatening position, it would be smoking ruins if it was actually viewed as a threat.

The Israelis are many different things, but suicidally stupid isn't one of them. They've already plenty to deal with much closer to home in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Neither is it nor would it be in Egypt's interest to undo decades of peaceful coexistence, no matter who eventually runs the place. I'm pretty sure that after Mubarak is gone, things will settle down fast and Egypt will emerge stronger and better governed, and Egyptian-Israeli relations will wind up better and firmer than ever.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
If the muslim brotherhood or some other radical islamic group gains power, then Israel again need that strategic buffer.


I don't disagree, but the fact is there is nothing there. the Israelis could roll in there and take it in a few hours, therefore they don't need to do it now. If a significant amount of Egyptian armor were to cross into the Sinai then that would make a difference, but a few camels and tour busses won't.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by FarArcher
Israel is NOT - NOT - contemplating anything in the Sinai.

There's no percentage in it for the Israelis. It's a lose/lose for Israel.


Israel's military actions have never been entirely rational. For instance, their 1982 invasion and attempted annexation of southern Lebanon. Israel's military action reflect two very irrational points of israeli culture; a terrified paranoia, and a messianic complex. Israel believes both that it is in an existential conflict, and that it needs to conquer as much territory as possible to please God.


And as was suggested, it really doesn't matter if the Muslim brotherhood points Egypt toward Israel. That's been tried before a few times already, and each time it only worked out well for the Israelis.


1956 saw the Israelis forced into a stalemate by Egypt, to be broken by US influence in Egypt's favor, while 1973 saw Israel getting its face kicked before the US stepped in. If it came down to it again, I believe it could go either way and would be highly dependent on who the US favors; and if Israel attacks, the US isn't going to favor them. And of course, Israel knows this, which is about as close as we can come to a guarantee of this NOT happening.


I don't think you're anywhere near close on this. Israel decisively defeated the Arab powers, and its military is much more capable than most other Arab countries, both in terms of training and technology. The claim that they need to conquer territory to please God is rubbish also, if they were going to do this they would, instead they've given up land in peace settlements. They would be quite capable of occupying countries like Jordan or the Lebannon if they had the will to do so. And I believe Israels paronia is justified when many of their neighbours are hostile, and don't recognise Israels right to exist, and would jump at the chance to exploit any perceived weakness. And I'm saying that as someone who doesn't really support Israel or approve of all their actions.

Anyway, I don't think Israel will invade the Sinai peninsula. It would also be better for the western powers to stay out, although if it did look like the Suez would be closed, I'd support action to force its reopening.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

You don't consider Afghanistan as having either? Just curious.

What historical artifacts do they have? I am unaware of any.


Well not many after the Taliban blew up some...

Topic for another thread.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


I do not suggest they want it for any purpose except strategic depth. Do you understand the purpose of it?


Israel considered an offensive rather than a defensive strategy the best deterrent to Arab attack. Because of the absence until 1967 of the depth of terrain essential for strategic defense, Israel could ensure that military action was conducted on Arab territory only by attacking first. Moreover, Israel feared that a passive defensive strategy would permit the Arabs, secure in the knowledge that Israel would not fight unless attacked, to wage a protracted low-level war of attrition, engage in brinkmanship through incremental escalation, or mobilize for war with impunity. Paradoxically, then, the policy of deterrence dictated that Israel always had to strike first. The Israeli surprise attack could be a "preemptive" attack in the face of an imminent Arab attack, an unprovoked "preventive" attack to deal the Arab armies a setback that would stave off future attack, or a massive retaliation for a minor Arab infraction. Israel justified such attacks by the concept that it was locked in permanent conflict with the Arabs.

The occupation of conquered territories in 1967 greatly increased Israel's strategic depth, and Israeli strategic thinking changed accordingly. Many strategists argued that the IDF could now adopt a defensive posture, absorb a first strike, and then retaliate with a counteroffensive. The October 1973 War illustrated that this thinking was at least partially correct. With the added security buffer of the occupied territories, Israel could absorb a first strike and retaliate successfully.

Now admittedly strategic depth is a less viable concept now with the advent of increased mechanization and the longer ranges of missiles and rockets. However, I believe that Israel's next major conflict will again see them attacked from all sides. The depth afforded them by occupation of the Sinai could give them that little bit extra reaction time needed to defend themselves. That being said, I do not believe that the Israelis will attack even if an extremist government takes power.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

Thanks from asking,

Turkey is a keyplayer with lot of oppotunities in this heat situation. Any intervention, or even idea of using foreign forces to secure Suez waterways without Turkish help, their involvement, and full support would make just disaster. Its the only muslim army and powerful enough to use near from the hotspot. I see, that when seeking any lasting truce in Suez, in case of Egypts wider downfall, only some another muslim force can make this work - offcourse they will need latest weaponry, and full scale help from EU, but with this compined allignment I see succesfull operation is possible.

But what then - If we want Turkey to act for US/EU interests, we have to give them something back. Why Turkey would even consider to help? First, direct route to Gaza is a good reason for Turkish to step in. In second, Turkish presence in Sinai would also pressure Israel to peace negotiations with palestinians, what is known Turkish goal in region. Operation to secure Suez would cause their influense to grow rapidly in region, and totally new road for humanitarian help and support would open soon as first turkish soldier take post in Sinai.

Turkey has demanded talks with Iran, and to cool situation in gulf in general. I think if west ask turkish help to secure Suez, in exchance that could be possibility to force US to direct talks with Iran.

For Iran this uprising in Arabic countries is a good thing in very many different ways. Situation forces all powers now, who have tight robe around Iranian necks for years, to hold down, back off - and secure their own backyards first...No matter how this crisis will end, only one who I see will lose there today is right wing politicians - inside Israel.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
I just hope they get the space to get the democracy they want, not something spun to benefit others...


Yes.

Egyptian poverty didn't hit me until maybe 20 years ago when I saw a picture of the Great Pyramids, taken from the usual angle, looking beautiful as if they were in the middle of desert nowhere. Then the camera turned around. God, the photo showed squalor.

My understanding of the current uprising is that it is springing forth from the educated middle class. They want economic reform to benefit not just an economically ruling Egyptian class. Usually the poor cannot mount a protest; which is why a middle class is "dangerous" to wealthy ruling citizens.

My so very limited understanding of Islam (but not all protesters are of that faith) is that there is a part of Islam that demands social/economic justice for all. I've also heard to leave things up to Allah, but it seems that young Islamic Egyptians won't "wait".



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 

Thank you, Janus. That puts a much better perspective on Turkey as an actor for me. Over the past year or so Iran has subtly been gaining support from other Middle Eastern nations.

Turkey has been instrumental in forcing change from within the ME in this way by forcing talks, acting as a channel for the enriched uranium swaps, and voting against the sanctions in the UN .

If the ME nations do not find some sort of solidarity and unity, they will lose all to the west (and this tangentially means Israel too, fairly or unfairly...they made their bed) It's becoming clearer and clearer the majority of Middle Easterners do not want this, although for anyone who's paid attention this should not come as any sort of surprise. To the chagrin of many, Iran has come out better in this than some would like. The enemy of my enemy....

It will be very interesting indeed to see what Turkey does in regard to the situation with Israel, and thanks to you I now know what else to look for.


edit on 1/30/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
When Israel was still a young country trying to solidify itself in the Middle East, aggressive campaigns like Operation Kadesh were condoned by some. If you research the history of the Suez canal you will find that the British and French also fought with Egypt over control of the canal earlier in the century so maybe we should not point the finger at Israel without hard evidence.

If any country used military force today against Egypt in an attempt to gain control of the Suez the other world powers should intervene. Egypt is in a vulnerable situation until the demands for democratic control are met by the Egyptian government. Using this uprising as a cover to install another puppet government is clearly wrong. I think the US position of employing patience and nonviolence is the correct policy.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ
Anyway, I don't think Israel will invade the Sinai peninsula. It would also be better for the western powers to stay out, although if it did look like the Suez would be closed, I'd support action to force its reopening.


I was thinking that, too.The only way the Suez can be "closed" is if a bunch of ships are sunk in the middle of it, thus blocking navigation. I was in the commercial diving business at one time. many of my friends "broke out" as divers in the Suez because they were needed to clear the ships out last time this happened. ("Break out" means you have finished your apprenticeship and can finally get in the water.) You need pilots for navigation, but if the USS Enterprise, which I THINK is now in the Med, wants to traverse the Suez, not much in the world can stop it. What are they going to do, throw rocks at it?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Didn't expect to wake up today and have so much to learn. Thank you both!

Maybe living in interesting times is not all that bad.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
We have one Carrier Strike Group in the area, the Enterprise, that will be wanting to use the Suez to cruise into the Arabian Gulf to relieve the Lincoln in a few days. We have zero Marines in the immediate area, though there is one Amphibious Strike Group in the Arabian Gulf alongside the Lincoln that could go on up the Suez.

Neither is appropriate. The Carrier has airplanes and cruise missiles only, which are nearly useless in this kind of situation. The Marines are about 2,000 men, a few helicopters and harriers, and a handful of Abrams tanks, hardly a force capable of taking on an issue as broad as this.


obama is doing what no other us president has done before: nothing. america will do nothing and let the dictators and murderers that they have propped up fall on their own swords. the u.s. has abandoned egypt, without the u.s. backing and empowering them, mubarak has turned from a mighty lion to a whimpering mouse.

obama is changing the landscape of the world. i believe israel will be next as well as every other unjust regime that has been propped up .they'll fall on their swords too and crumble and peace will finally emerge from its imprisonment.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Can anybody tell me what Iran is doing and saying about Egypt.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN
Day by day, pressure to send there US Marines will grow, even Israeli attack can be waited, because their own reason, but both of those aggressive moves would start huge escalation all over Arabic countries in response...

there is already a rumor that 3,000 US Marines
are already in route to Suez on 9 US Navy Ships.
source: jackwagon
which I cant post url due to T&C.

so make of it what you will



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Does.anybody think there isba co-inkydink that Iran was sending warships as was announced.last.week?




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join