Western Unity and Security

[Big_Zucchini]

Do you think the underlying issues are untrue?

I don't understand the rationale behind these issues. And I wouldn't call them issues to begin with. I don't know whether it's unorthodox for the government to provide subsidies to companies. They surely give preferential treatment to defense companies when it comes to contracts, especially by promising them periodic contracts and some safety nets. But other than that, it seems the US is really just taking an issue with Israel's entire gov't-industry ecosystem which would make it incredibly difficult to change. So I am not sure what really is the issue here. The article itself also doesn't give us much details.

Or do you think they are true and the US has allowed it to go on for some time but has now decided to crack down?

I think that regardless of whether or not it's true, the US could have done something prior to the war, or waited until it ended. But this timing is horrible. Especially with the sanctions on civilians. I agree that those were justified, but it's not the time for that. Israel isn't running decades old wars, these things can wait a bit. Wartime is when you show solidarity.

 

[KipPotapych]

I don't understand the rationale behind these issues. And I wouldn't call them issues to begin with.

I read the article and quickly looked for more info on the web and couldn’t find anything beyond a couple of Israeli sources and a couple more that copied/cited them, but no more substance. Honestly, there is no sufficient information provided in the article to get a grip of what the real issue is even. More clarity is needed to comment.

I think that regardless of whether or not it's true, the US could have done something prior to the war, or waited until it ended. But this timing is horrible. Especially with the sanctions on civilians. I agree that those were justified, but it's not the time for that. Israel isn't running decades old wars, these things can wait a bit. Wartime is when you show solidarity.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the timing of the sanctions or the sudden change in the “narrative”, such as this (from last week):

The Biden administration on Friday said Israel's expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank is inconsistent with international law, signaling a return to long-standing U.S. policy on the issue that had been reversed by the previous administration of Donald Trump.

Speaking at a news conference during a trip to Buenos Aires, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the United States was "disappointed" in Israel's announcement of plans for building new housing in the occupied West Bank, saying they were counterproductive to reaching an enduring peace.

"They're also inconsistent with international law. Our administration maintains a firm opposition to settlement expansion, and in our judgment this only weakens, doesn't strengthen, Israel's security," Blinken said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/blinken-says-israels-new-settlements-west-bank-inconsistent-with-international-2024-02-23/

It is also long overdue, in my opinion. But in regard to timing, there is nothing wrong with it from the American perspective, provided the elections and the votes that Biden admin is most concerned about. Moreover, however, and, perhaps, more importantly, what I mentioned in the other thread (sorry, I didn’t look at it since, yet), the US losing credibility pretty quickly on the world stage, among allies inclusive (but maybe just as or more importantly, among others as well), so these moves (sanctions against civilians and the latest announcement) are pretty self-explanatory, no?

Kirby was asked why the administration waited three years to make this change. "We thought that at this moment, it was particularly important to reaffirm our commitment to a two-state solution," he responded. "And at this moment, we felt it was particularly important to reaffirm again our view of the inconsistency with international law that the settlements present."

This position, he added, is one that has been consistent over a range of Republican and Democratic administrations, and if there was an administration that was inconsistent on the issue, it was the previous one.

In fact, I am convinced none of this would have happened at all if hamas didn’t attack Israel on October 7 and Israel hasn’t done what it had and is doing now, with the US providing the means, which they still do, and it is also very important in this context. So yeah, I do not see how this can be viewed as bad timing from the perspective of the United States. It’s not ideal (should have been done sooner, really), but it isn’t necessarily bad timing. This is likely the best they can do in the circumstances.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I read the article and quickly looked for more info on the web and couldn’t find anything beyond a couple of Israeli sources and a couple more that copied/cited them, but no more substance. Honestly, there is no sufficient information provided in the article to get a grip of what the real issue is even. More clarity is needed to comment.

I saw a comment somewhere claiming it to be related to the US combating price dumping and involves multiple nations and not just Israel. JPost's legal reporting is generally low quality.

It is also long overdue, in my opinion. But in regard to timing, there is nothing wrong with it from the American perspective, provided the elections and the votes that Biden admin is most concerned about. Moreover, however, and, perhaps, more importantly, what I mentioned in the other thread (sorry, I didn’t look at it since, yet), the US losing credibility pretty quickly on the world stage, among allies inclusive (but maybe just as or more importantly, among others as well), so these moves (sanctions against civilians and the latest announcement) are pretty self-explanatory, no?

I understand the reasons. That doesn't make it right though. Rather, it just means there's a problem with US policy-making process that needs to be fixed.

In fact, I am convinced none of this would have happened at all if hamas didn’t attack Israel on October 7 and Israel hasn’t done what it had and is doing now, with the US providing the means, which they still do, and it is also very important in this context. So yeah, I do not see how this can be viewed as bad timing from the perspective of the United States. It’s not ideal (should have been done sooner, really), but it isn’t necessarily bad timing. This is likely the best they can do in the circumstances.

I believe that in times of war, allies must show solidarity and avoid hostilities. I find it difficult to understand your opinion that the opposite should occur.

 

[KipPotapych]

I believe that in times of war, allies must show solidarity and avoid hostilities. I find it difficult to understand your opinion that the opposite should occur.

I am not saying what should or shouldn’t occur. In short, the unity only goes as far as the interests permit. National interests of any rational player will always supersede any intentional perceived or otherwise unity, regardless whether we agree with those interests or not.

In this case, the United States attempts to save some of the reputation, while likely not entirely productive because it is viewed for what it is and otherwise inconsistent actions on their part. They cannot stop facilitating the course of actions chosen by Israel (this refers to the unity discussed here), but they also cannot “muscle” Israel into what they think those actions should be (as has been observed over the past couple of months). So they implement this policy change/reversal due to the pressure from the international community, including the allies (which again refers to the unity). Hence, the best (likely the least) they can do under the circumstances, acting in their own interest (that we may or may not agree with).

Consider another example. United States said in very straight terms that they would go to war with China over Taiwan. The French, German, and other Euros said in terms that were just as unambiguous that they would not if that were to actually happen.

What about the French, Lithuanian, and Estonian officials suggesting that it may be a good idea to send troops to Ukraine, whatever that means, while most other allies said it would never happen?

What about Hungary and most of the rest of the EU? Turkey and Hungary in NATO? Poles talking about temporary closing the Ukrainian border? And then there comes internal politics, such as the security aid bill in the US, etc.

There is only unity as long as the perceived national interests of every party align (provided some party(ies) cannot exert (undue) influence on others). More realistically, there are likely various degrees of unity on certain issues, including security. Of course, the main assumption here is that every party acts rationally, which is often further limited by the irrational constituents of the said parties.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I am not saying what should or shouldn’t occur. In short, the unity only goes as far as the interests permit. National interests of any rational player will always supersede any intentional perceived or otherwise unity, regardless whether we agree with those interests or not.

In this case, the United States attempts to save some of the reputation, while likely not entirely productive because it is viewed for what it is and otherwise inconsistent actions on their part. They cannot stop facilitating the course of actions chosen by Israel (this refers to the unity discussed here), but they also cannot “muscle” Israel into what they think those actions should be (as has been observed over the past couple of months). So they implement this policy change/reversal due to the pressure from the international community, including the allies (which again refers to the unity). Hence, the best (likely the least) they can do under the circumstances, acting in their own interest (that we may or may not agree with).

Consider another example. United States said in very straight terms that they would go to war with China over Taiwan. The French, German, and other Euros said in terms that were just as unambiguous that they would not if that were to actually happen.

What about the French, Lithuanian, and Estonian officials suggesting that it may be a good idea to send troops to Ukraine, whatever that means, while most other allies said it would never happen?

What about Hungary and most of the rest of the EU? Turkey and Hungary in NATO? Poles talking about temporary closing the Ukrainian border? And then there comes internal politics, such as the security aid bill in the US, etc.

There is only unity as long as the perceived national interests of every party align (provided some party(ies) cannot exert (undue) influence on others). More realistically, there are likely various degrees of unity on certain issues, including security. Of course, the main assumption here is that every party acts rationally, which is often further limited by the irrational constituents of the said parties.

Agreed to an extent. Those are things that can be either solved or at least improved, even with unilateral steps.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Schumer's speech regarding the need for elections in Israel was seen by many as an expression of a conflict between Biden and Netanyahu, and perhaps a policy of supporting re-elections in Israel.
Yet since the beginning of the US's elections season, Biden's administration has done everything to stregthen Netanyahu and improve his popularity.
I understand why. Throwing allies under the bus, e.g. Ukraine, is a recurring theme during elections. But then the massive promotion of Netanyahu and Schumer's speech seem entirely contradictory. I don't know entirely what to make of this.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

If true, this is a very worrying trend. I warned earlier that the western restrictions on Israeli war planning in Gaza will have repercussions for other allies and it is materializing again.
Such requests to pull one's punches end up alienating the local population and government, hurt the general war effort, and damage the cohesion of existing alliances.
Ideally, if such requests are already made, they should be coupled with incentives like economical or war stock relief that would at least offset the damage done by surrendering on that issue.
For example if Russia makes additional profit from refined oil sales, the US should offset that by providing Ukraine with weaponry equal in effect to what Russia could buy with its added revenue.
The US's previous requests to avoid using its weaponry on Russian soil were somewhat reasonable (not so much for me), leading Ukraine to develop its own weaponry to bypass this restriction - an effort highly likely significantly aided by the west. So now it makes little sense to request Ukraine to impose limits on its own weaponry.

Ultimately, past decisions by major arms providers to appease oil producers have backfired and led to those nations losing influence.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1771044223090929918