Operation Pillar of Cloud

[Ape Man]

Originally Posted by MR2

Please explain why "this was not the case" and please source that.




Please explain why/how Margret Thacher found out "that American politicians can be very cynical when it comes to dealing with even their closest allies" and please source that as well.

Thank you.

Most of the documentation of my arguments about Israel is found in the link I provided in my last post (see http://etherealland.com/cheiftainofs...ar-of-matches/). But I can understand if that essay to long for you given the time constraints we all face. So here is one sources I used http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/phantom.html And here is another source http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_194...rtite_1949.php

I should perhaps clarify that by support I mean the sales of arms. America gave verbal support to Israel right from the very beginning. But it seems to me that if you support the creation of the state of Israel but refuse to sell it arms when it is attacked (as Truman did) then your actions speak louder than your words.

As for Margret Thacher, my source was her memoirs. But since I don't have them handy, I hope you will forgive me using this wall street journal article instead. The article references all the main pints that I remember from Margret Thacher memoirs but it puts a different slant on them.

The thing that I remember from Mrs. Thacher's memoirs is how hurt she was that Regan would not take a more public stance in support of the UK. But she was very grateful that he over ruled Alexander Haig and did not totally leave the UK on its own (which is how she felt until the meeting at which Haig was overruled). However, she felt that Haig continued to work against UK interests even after other elements of the US government started supplying support (the article describes this as Haig being granted a lot of lee way to do what he wanted to do).

Given that Regan was one of the more idealistic Presidents that we have had, I personally suspect that a different President would have gone down the route that Haig wanted Regan to go down. At any rate, it is hard for me to think of a nicer word than cynical to describe the policy that Haig and his allies wanted to pursue.

I hope this answers your questions satisfactorily. If you want more, I can provided more. But it will take more time for me to dig it all back up.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Ape Man

I may be misreading you, but you come across as someone who believes that America's support for Israel was there right from the very beginning.

You did, and not necessarily if you're judging that 'support' is evidenced by arms sales. Regimes, including American ones change. I was asking for some nexus to the conclusion you arrived at, setup by the process of elimination you laid out.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Ape Man

I hope this answers your questions satisfactorily. If you want more, I can provided more. But it will take more time for me to dig it all back up.

Re: Israel; skeptical but digesting.

Re: Thacher; GTG. I guess for me it was a perspective thing. As part of the "help" provided the Brits I felt very much appreciated. As for the EWAUS, I never read about any conflict between us and our cousins. Although at the time most of our real assistance was covert or behind the scenes. So I guess for Maggy, it was a perspective thing too.

BTW, isn't Margret Thachers perceptions a little bit off the Pillar of Cloud topic?

[Pete]

It was interesting times back during the Falklands War.

The US is located in the Americas, England is not. The US had/has a large Latino population, England did/does not.

There were many, many "las Malvinas" signs and Argie flags all over the US at the time. A very large segment of the Latino population was solidly behind Argentina. Our team was with a Bn of the 7th down at Ft Huachuca during that period and you could see it when you went off post.

I would say that played a part in the US's public support.

[BrokenSwitch]

Bus bombing in Tel Aviv today at 12:02PM local time. 21 injured; none killed.

Another bomb was found and destroyed in-place next to the Mahane Yehuda marketplace in Jerusalem.

[BrokenSwitch]

Apparently a ceasefire is in effect as of 9PM local time.... yet schools in Ashkelon and the Eshkol regions are closed tomorrow.... because no one trusts the Arabs.

UPDATE: 9:02 PM Air Raid Sirens in Merhavim Region

UPDATE: JPost reports 12 rockets fired into Israel after the ceasefire was announced. No injuries; Israeli government might be paralyzed, thanks to Obamallama. I suppose we'll see in the morning.

UPDATE: 12:44AM local time -- 20 rockets have been fired into Israel since the "ceasefire" began. An 11 y/o was injured by one of these rockets. Netanyahu's public affairs office is catching hell.

We cease, they fire.

[Ape Man]

Originally Posted by MR2

Re: Thacher; GTG. I guess for me it was a perspective thing. As part of the "help" provided the Brits I felt very much appreciated. As for the EWAUS, I never read about any conflict between us and our cousins. Although at the time most of our real assistance was covert or behind the scenes. So I guess for Maggy, it was a perspective thing too.

BTW, isn't Margret Thachers perceptions a little bit off the Pillar of Cloud topic?

Everything I was talking about was off topic of Israel's current operation against Hamas. I unwisely got excited enough by someone who was of the opinion that the "Jews" have to much influence on the American political process to proffer my opinion that American has a hardheaded interest in Israel's security that go beyond ethnic kinship of a small portion of the voting public.

I only dragged in Margaret Thatcher in response to someone who seemed to be arguing that American's political establishment makes decisions on idealistic grounds. My argument was that hard headed political calculus complicated the American response to our historical ally under one of our most idealistic Presidents. The point I was trying to make is that is should not seem so strange that there might be more than good feelings behind America's policy towards Israel.

But to clarify, Margaret Thatcher had nothing but praise for how the Department of Defense responded when the chips were down. She loved Weinberger almost as much as she dislike Haig. There was a reason why Weinberger was given a Knighthood.

Her main problem was that Reagan sat on the fence for a month instead of calling her up and saying "What can I do to help?" This fueled her domestic opponents who were convince that the UK could do nothing and America was going to sell the UK up the river like Eisenhower did.

Reagan had reasons for doing what he did and now is not the place to talk about them. Bottom line is that he and US military came through when it really counted and I am sorry if people took me to imply otherwise.

[ZonieDiver]

Not to pick nits...

but - it's Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Nit-picking completed. Back to the feast.

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Not to pick nits...

but - it's Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Nit-picking completed. Back to the feast.

Yep, just like any other Thanksgiving family get together .... Now we just need that "Drunk Uncle" to make it complete.

[BrokenSwitch]

Video showing rocket barrage over Be'er Sheva

Where is their Allah now?

[Ape Man]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Not to pick nits...

but - it's Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Nit-picking completed. Back to the feast.

They told me that on the Internet no one could tell if you were a dog, but it keeps coming out. That is what I get for writing to fast. Thanks for the correction.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Ape Man

They told me that on the Internet no one could tell if you were a dog, but it keeps coming out. That is what I get for writing to fast. Thanks for the correction.

Sometimes I write too fast, too.

Richard

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Blackrambo

. . . . I don't understand why they are so important to our society. . . . . I just dont understand why we protect them.

Righteousness. If we did not stand by them we would be less than who we should be.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Blackrambo

I don't understand why they are so important to our society.

They are important to our Western cultural ideals - to our sense of conscience and humanity towards the treatment of people in general.

Originally Posted by Ape Man

That said, I don't know for sure why things changed any more than the next guy. All I know is that there is a reasons why America might have chosen to suddenly change policy towards arming Israel. Whether it was "the" reason is something I am not going to get to dogmatic about. However, I did develop (and support) that argument that it was the bomb a little more fully here...

Conveniently leaves out huge chunks of our complex ME/ANS foreign policy development as a component of our global foreign polcy commitments in the 70s-90s and fails to explain why a similar policy towards mineral rich and nuclear capable SA was never developed.

And so it goes...

Richard

[Ape Man]

Conveniently leaves out huge chunks of our complex ME/ANS foreign policy development as a component of our global foreign polcy commitments in the 70s-90s and fails to explain why a similar policy towards mineral rich and nuclear capable SA was never developed.

And so it goes...

Richard [/QUOTE]

South Africa never had a conventional threat that was equivalent to what Israel still faces to this day. As I recall, South Africa pursued nuclear capability primarily to deter direct Soviet involvement of the type that Cuba provided.

On their own, SA's neighbors never had a chance of over running South Africa. And even if they did have the conventional arms to accomplish that feat, the geography of SA is such that it would take weeks before SA felt that it had to make the call of using them or loosing them.

By contrast, Israel could theoretically have to make the choice in a matter of hours if a fast moving tank thrust was not stopped at the border. So I would argue that the reason American never felt as concerned about SA's unconventional weapons had a lot to do with likelihood that they would ever be used.

As for you other points, I doubt you want to discuss them at any length as much as I would find it enjoyable. I will just note that...

A: Anyone who thinks they have a simple all encompassing answer in this complex world is a fool. Insofar as I come across as someone who thinks he has a simple all encompassing answer, I come across as a fool.

B: I am aware of the standards answers for why US policy changed so dramatically in the 70s. I am just not convinced that they are very credible explanations on their own especially as they tend to leave out events now known to have taken place (Israel arming a bomb during Yom Kippur and Nixon knowing about it for example).

C: I would think that it would be obvious that any nation acquiring nuclear weapons in unstable and strategic region would cause a change in US strategic calculus. At the same time, it is obvious that the America response would be different if Israel was a one party police state. It just frustrates me that changes in US calculations caused by Israel's becoming a nuclear power have received so little attention. And this is why I tend to come across as a fool with one simple answer.