"Ally" is probably too weak a word for the relationship we have with Israel. Probably no other country has this much influence on our politics. Not even the UK or Canada, who we share close cultural and linguistic bonds with.
Israel is like the Taiwan of the Middle East, meaning it's a useful partner to us in terms of maintaining a separation between the West and some perceived enemy (Muslims in this case, the Chinese in the case of Taiwan). But they also cause us to have more enemies than we otherwise would. In an open letter, Bin Laden specifically called out our support for Israel as one of their justifications behind 9/11.
Spying between allies is a relatively normal thing, but when someone screws up and lets the public see it happen, usually there is at least some mild chiding. Israel doesn't even get that tsk tsk because of how much influence they have.
Also, Israel has a very effective propaganda machine that purposely tries to paint any criticism of Israeli policy as anti-semitism. It's hard for our politicians to openly discuss them without risking their ire, and that of many influential Jewish Americans, and the powerful AIPAC lobby.
Frankly, Israel has us by the balls. Less an ally and more a dominatrix.
> Israel is like the Taiwan of the Middle East, meaning it's a useful partner to us in terms of maintaining a separation between the West and some perceived enemy (Muslims in this case, the Chinese in the case of Taiwan).
Is 'separation' a euphemism for 'preventing invasion'? Because threat of that is #1 thing keeping cross-strait relations tense. Mainland China could easily offer Taiwan a better deal than they get by being closely aligned with the US. Their reluctance to do so keeps US influence in the region, and after a while one can't help if it's deliberate.
Also Israel gets a much better deal than Taiwan. The US gives military aid to Israel, where as Taiwan has to petition the US government - their only significant supplier - for the right to even buy weapons. Better hardware too, despite Israels poor track record in passing US military tech to China.
> Is 'separation' a euphemism for 'preventing invasion'? Because threat of that is #1 thing keeping cross-strait relations tense. Mainland China could easily offer Taiwan a better deal than they get by being closely aligned with the US. Their reluctance to do so keeps US influence in the region, and after a while one can't help if it's deliberate.
I don't quite follow. Are you saying China purposely gives Taiwan a raw deal just to deliberately spite the US? Why would they do that? I think I'm misunderstanding you.
> Also Israel gets a much better deal than Taiwan. The US gives military aid to Israel, where as Taiwan has to petition the US government - their only significant supplier - for the right to even buy weapons. Better hardware too, despite Israels poor track record in passing US military tech to China.
Yeah, for sure. But our support of both countries (and others like them) pisses other countries off. IMO we have no business being either world police or world arms market, especially in some of the most volatile quagmires in the world. We make our own enemies because of our supposed friends. These places only have strategic value to us so long as we desire to remain the global hegemon, with tentacles everywhere. Let go of that weird military-industrial-hentai complex, and there's no reason for us to artificially prop up these countries. Especially Israel. The IDF can more than take care of themselves. Taiwan is going to fall sooner or later anyway, but why is that our business? We force our enemies to go on eternal arms races against us because we've shown them we're incapable of minding our own business after WW2. It should not be our responsibility to provide world security using our people, our equipment, our money.
I don't quite follow. Are you saying China purposely gives Taiwan a raw deal just to deliberately spite the US? Why would they do that? I think I'm misunderstanding you.
I mean the whole situation is incredibly contrived. The 'sacred chinese territory' narrative feels completely hollow if you consider how long ago they stopped claiming other Qing dynasty possessions like Mongolia. My guess is that it serves a domestic narrative, and that they've backed themselves into a corner by staking their core legitimacy on annexing Taiwan for so long.
So yes, by offering Taiwan a better deal than they get from the US, they could remove a lot of influence from the region. But it never happens.
Yeah, for sure. But our support of both countries (and others like them) pisses other countries off. IMO we have no business being either world police or world arms market, especially in some of the most volatile quagmires in the world. We make our own enemies because of our supposed friends. These places only have strategic value to us so long as we desire to remain the global hegemon, with tentacles everywhere. Let go of that weird military-industrial-hentai complex, and there's no reason for us to artificially prop up these countries. Especially Israel. The IDF can more than take care of themselves. Taiwan is going to fall sooner or later anyway, but why is that our business? We force our enemies to go on eternal arms races against us because we've shown them we're incapable of minding our own business after WW2. It should not be our responsibility to provide world security using our people, our equipment, our money.
The US withdrawing from East Asia would be a global disaster. This wouldn't be a small land skirmish, it would be a massive amphibious invasion in Japans backyard - which knows it's southern territories would be next on the menu. It would also take place in one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, causing a massive disruption of global trade. Not to mention the semi conductor angle, now abandoned US allies pursuing their own nuclear weapons agendas.. etc etc.
You could argue the US should not have been interfering there in the first place. Which is very principled and all, but the USSR was going to be there either way. And now the US is very much the force in that region keeping war from breaking out. Arming South Korea, Taiwan and Japan does not make these places more volatile. It makes them much, much less.
> My guess is that it serves a domestic narrative, and that they've backed themselves into a corner by staking their core legitimacy on annexing Taiwan for so long.
> So yes, by offering Taiwan a better deal than they get from the US, they could remove a lot of influence from the region. But it never happens.
I doubt this is actually as much a cultural issue for the CCP as it was for past emperors. They've long since abandoned that model and instead observed/emulated the successes and failures of the West, including our love of creating enslaved vassal states under the guise of nation-building. Long game, they probably want Taiwan to become another Hong Kong or Tibet. Short term, Taiwan is a useful bargaining chip for them to focus American attention towards, and the mere threat of war there can back the US into our corner while China focuses on domestic infrastructure and continues to leapfrog us across the sectors and years. Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake, etc. China knows they'll win by default while we blindly obsess over our colonies, and if they really need to (unlikely), it's a lot cheaper to sink a carrier group than to build and maintain one.
IMO we're their ultimate target, not Taiwan in and of itself. It's like an abusive, manipulative spouse using a kid as collateral against the other parent (us). Once the other parent is taken care of, they're free to do with the kid as they please.
> The US withdrawing from East Asia would be a global disaster. This wouldn't be a small land skirmish, it would be a massive amphibious invasion in Japans backyard - which knows it's southern territories would be next on the menu.
Sorry, by who? Are you saying South Korea will invade Japan if we pull out...? How?
And why is that our problem to solve?
> It would also take place in one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, causing a massive disruption of global trade. Not to mention the semi conductor angle, now abandoned US allies pursuing their own nuclear weapons agendas.. etc etc.
So, kinda like Covid? Eh, fewer Xboxes and new cars for a few years, global GDP repressed for a bit. The world will survive and move on and adapt.
As for nuclear weapons agendas, the US is still the only one to have used them, and still one of the most imperialist countries in the modern era, and the one who tends to create the biggest enemies out of our misadventures. South Korea and Japan and Taiwan aren't going to nuke each other, even if there's historical animosity there. Maybe the Koreas themselves will break out into war, but that was probably an inevitability anyway, unless the removal of US attention and sanctions allows NK to grow and transform.
> You could argue the US should not have been interfering there in the first place. Which is very principled and all, but the USSR was going to be there either way.
So let China take over that role for that region of the globe. Let a resurgent Russia have its piece of the pie. Maybe it's time for US power to wane.
> And now the US is very much the force in that region keeping war from breaking out. Arming South Korea, Taiwan and Japan does not make these places more volatile. It makes them much, much less.
This makes no sense. With US involvement, Taiwan and South Korea become proxy wars with China. Without us, they become regional conflicts affecting a few million people, not WW3.
This makes no sense. With US involvement, Taiwan and South Korea become proxy wars with China. Without us, they become regional conflicts affecting a few million people, not WW3.
With US involvement, those conflicts never happen. Hence why they're not happening now.
After a hypothetical Taiwan annexation, Okinawa is next. The PRC have made their claims clear. This is the bloodshed the US is preventing.
You may be fine with the idea of millions dying because you hate America or whatever. I'm not. Also the fact you think I was alluding to the US allies nuking each other following an American withdrawal shows you really don't understand the situation there at all.
Without US involvement, those never would've even been around long enough to become conflicts.
If we had pulled out twenty, thirty years ago, they would've been much smaller conflicts. They only get to these proportions because they have strategic value to US hegemony and so we keep arming them and escalating tensions.
> After a hypothetical Taiwan annexation, Okinawa is next. The PRC have made their claims clear. This is the bloodshed the US is preventing.
Taiwan would've surrendered without much of a fight, long ago, if not for US involvement. Taiwanese presidents would not have gotten so bold if not for their big US brother waving carrier groups around. I spent two decades there witnessed firsthand how the culture and anti-Chinese sentiment grew louder as US-China relations continued to deteriorate and Taiwan felt increasingly safe hiding behind the US.
I get your point, that sometimes MAD can be a deterrent, but in this case, we created those flashpoints ourselves, it's only a matter of time before they destabilize. The longer we wait, the worse it's going to get, as the weapons on both sides continue to get more lethal and resource conflicts escalate. Conversely, Hong Kong and Tibet fell without much of a fight because the Chinese army saw no real resistance.
The US can't prevent bloodshed indefinitely, merely postpone it until some future boiling point. The same thing we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. We suck at nation building and "peace"keeping. We defend places only until they are no longer strategically important to us, and then we let them implode, former allies be damned.
> You may be fine with the idea of millions dying because you hate America or whatever. I'm not.
"Millions dying" is probably an inevitability of the new world order, at this point. What I'm not OK with is the US pretending like we can still control the world the same we did in the post-WW2 years, forevermore, with no repercussion. We can't even govern our own country anymore, and we expect to safeguard the world? Who are we kidding?
> Also the fact you think I was alluding to the US allies nuking each other following an American withdrawal shows you really don't understand the situation there at all.
Well, I did ask. I'm still asking. I really don't know what you're referring to. I think regional spheres of influence, vs a failed US global hegemony, would still be the long-term, big-picture, less-lethal route with fewer overall casualties.
