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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
If the muslim brotherhood or some other radical islamic group gains power, then Israel again need that strategic buffer.
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.
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
What historical artifacts do they have? I am unaware of any.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by SLAYER69
You don't consider Afghanistan as having either? Just curious.
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.
Originally posted by thoughtsfull
I just hope they get the space to get the democracy they want, not something spun to benefit others...
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.
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.
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...