Middle East Defence & Security

[Feanor]

1. Probably yes, as long as it is mutually beneficial as it so far has been.

Is it mutually beneficial to the US as a nation-state? I have my doubts. If Israel is really going to cut the US leash, it may lead to the US reconsidering how much it's willing to provide diplomatic support.

2. Probably unaffected. Israel has many reasons to buy American. The aid mechanism is pretty low on the list.

The person you quoted implies this would happen. I'm specifically doubting that argument.

3. Why would it? Except a negligible amount.

Ok so the leash remains. Refuse to sell Israel extra bombs or artillery shells when they need them for a big campaign and you continue to control Israel's behavior. Her whole argument seems to be that by cutting the aid Israel would no longer depend on the US.

4. True.
5. A step in a direction is a step nonetheless.

I think this is no step at all. I think direct aid is only a small portion of Israel's dependence on the US. Cutting it would hurt Israel in terms of financial benefits but wouldn't substantially help in cutting the leash. I think if Israel really wants to be independent on US influence then Israel needs to diversify their security partners. Israel is too small to go it alone, but increasing domestic capacity somewhat might help. Partnering with other major players would too, though it gets really tricky. Because in principle Israel could by Russian FABs and I'm pretty sure Israel has the technical skills to integrate them on their platforms. Except Russia is busy bombing Ukraine into sawdust and anyone openly working with them will have problems in their relationship with most western countries, not to mention issues of availability. Turkey is hostile to Israel and China is a Russian supporter, not to mention they're heading for a potential war with the US, though I suppose Israel could try to partner with them. EU countries are likely to be more of a problem than the US when it comes to Israel going into Gaza. Who's left? South Korea, Indonesia, Japan I guess. There isn't a good alternative to the US for Israel.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Is it mutually beneficial to the US as a nation-state? I have my doubts. If Israel is really going to cut the US leash, it may lead to the US reconsidering how much it's willing to provide diplomatic support.

It is usually mutually beneficial because often the message or action behind these proposed resolutions is detrimental to the US either by undermining its authority or by undermining its allies and reinforcing its enemies.

Recall UNSC resolution 1701. It sought to end the war in Lebanon. But it didn't do just that - it set up the mechanism for it. And the chosen mechanism was doomed to fail as it indeed have. Does it benefit the US that the political capital it put into extinguishing a war result in just a clock being restarted? Does it benefit the US that a key regional ally in a hostile region is constantly at risk of dragging into a border war?
The ceasefire agreement between Israel-USA-Lebanon achieved in November of 2024 still lacks some crucial elements but is already far more robust than what the UNSC achieved, and more quickly with just a tri-party agreement.

And if it was up to the UNSC to determine the future of Gaza we know it'd get eternally stuck. The US is currently setting up a mechanism more or less to its taste.

The person you quoted implies this would happen. I'm specifically doubting that argument.

Then go ahead and ask her. Don't think you'll be getting an objective response though.

Ok so the leash remains. Refuse to sell Israel extra bombs or artillery shells when they need them for a big campaign and you continue to control Israel's behavior. Her whole argument seems to be that by cutting the aid Israel would no longer depend on the US.

You quoted me, so I thought you were asking me those questions.

I think this is no step at all. I think direct aid is only a small portion of Israel's dependence on the US.

So is a small portion and therefore a step, or not a step? Big confusion.

Cutting it would hurt Israel in terms of financial benefits but wouldn't substantially help in cutting the leash.

Small financial change. Small influence change.

I think if Israel really wants to be independent on US influence then Israel needs to diversify their security partners. Israel is too small to go it alone, but increasing domestic capacity somewhat might help. Partnering with other major players would too, though it gets really tricky. Because in principle Israel could by Russian FABs and I'm pretty sure Israel has the technical skills to integrate them on their platforms. Except Russia is busy bombing Ukraine into sawdust and anyone openly working with them will have problems in their relationship with most western countries, not to mention issues of availability. Turkey is hostile to Israel and China is a Russian supporter, not to mention they're heading for a potential war with the US, though I suppose Israel could try to partner with them. EU countries are likely to be more of a problem than the US when it comes to Israel going into Gaza. Who's left? South Korea, Indonesia, Japan I guess. There isn't a good alternative to the US for Israel.

Nice. Except the Israel's 2nd largest DIB manufacturing partner is India.

 

[Feanor]

It is usually mutually beneficial because often the message or action behind these proposed resolutions is detrimental to the US either by undermining its authority or by undermining its allies and reinforcing its enemies.

Recall UNSC resolution 1701. It sought to end the war in Lebanon. But it didn't do just that - it set up the mechanism for it. And the chosen mechanism was doomed to fail as it indeed have. Does it benefit the US that the political capital it put into extinguishing a war result in just a clock being restarted? Does it benefit the US that a key regional ally in a hostile region is constantly at risk of dragging into a border war?
The ceasefire agreement between Israel-USA-Lebanon achieved in November of 2024 still lacks some crucial elements but is already far more robust than what the UNSC achieved, and more quickly with just a tri-party agreement.

And if it was up to the UNSC to determine the future of Gaza we know it'd get eternally stuck. The US is currently setting up a mechanism more or less to its taste.

Sure, if it's in the interests of the US to shoot down the resolution, then they will. But losing their influence on Israel may lead them to reconsider protecting Israel specifically (as opposed to incidentally). And again if Israel depends on US diplomatic cover, then the US has leverage. The two are inseparable.

Then go ahead and ask her. Don't think you'll be getting an objective response though.


You quoted me, so I thought you were asking me those questions.

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. I was responding to the linked material posted.

So is a small portion and therefore a step, or not a step? Big confusion.


Small financial change. Small influence change.

Not a step. Losing US aid without being any less dependent on the US MIC means Israel is just as dependent as before and now misses out on the money.

Nice. Except the Israel's 2nd largest DIB manufacturing partner is India.

Good point. I don't know how I missed India, as an obvious partner and with a history of joint projects with Israel. In that case the smartest move for Israel would be to invest in joint ventures and mutually compatible tech with India, especially in things like SAMs and munitions (arty and air-surface PGMs). This would mean that a cutting of US supplies at a critical juncture would be something Israel could work around. No need to give up on US aid.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Sure, if it's in the interests of the US to shoot down the resolution, then they will. But losing their influence on Israel may lead them to reconsider protecting Israel specifically (as opposed to incidentally). And again if Israel depends on US diplomatic cover, then the US has leverage. The two are inseparable.

Losing some interest, not all. Usually when you lose some interest you want to find another way to gain it. This is a good way, and benefits both.

Not a step. Losing US aid without being any less dependent on the US MIC means Israel is just as dependent as before and now misses out on the money.

Israel never really did get much money out of it. In the last decade, every bit of money earned was most likely squandered away on lost deals due to marketing restrictions imposed by the US. It's arguable if Israel benefits monetarily from this at all.

A trend seen since mid-2024 is that Israel's reliance on the US DIB (or MIC) is gradually reducing. Actually this trend existed in a way since the beginning of Israel's modern incarnation, but really picked up the pace recently. The industrial independence of Israel is in a state of gradual increase, to the point where the US can only threaten to hurt peacetime buildup but not really impact wartime supplies. Meaning Israel is already pretty much in a position where outsized US pressure on its war stocks can be weathered until the end of a war.
We saw how Biden era pressure via blockage of munitions was weathered until the Trump administration, and Israel didn't cave to Bidenian demands.
Trump also wasn't rewarded immediately with obedience in return for unblocking arms. It took Trump another 9 months or so to reach some tangible results.