brihaspati wrote:Israel could not have even been formed if USA did not support its formation. We have to look back into the preparatory stages of the formation of Israel, its financing and planning, primarily from circles based in the USA. Long term, skillful planning was undertaken, with even arms manufacturing setups, smuggled in through numbered parts hidden in among other things. ... All this required elaborate planning and huge finance, as well as military hardware resourcing that could not have been possible without USA state machinery pitching in. Even the abandoning of military positions in the hands of Israeli forces, on the eve of "leaving", by the British forces, to the complete consternation and surprise of the Arabs, is something that should not be forgotten.
Support for formation is hardly the same as support in subjugating the Arabs in different wars or support in getting sophisticated nuclear weapons. That Israel did on its own.. It can even be argued that support for formation was derived from the Jewish diaspora and there wasnt a traditional constituency for Israel in the US in those days. American support followed Israeli assertion, at least that seems to be the articles contention.
Israel's success in the war against Egyptian forces, came from prior intelligence and preparation. It was more due to a pre-emptive action rather that outright fighting. What makes us think that Israel did it all alone without British MI and US CIA not being involved?
What makes you think that the CIA was involved? Everyone knows the British and the French were involved..
Look at Israel's position in the eastern Mediterranean. This is a perfect beachhead for western naval and airforces to reach into the classical fertile-crescent route into Mesopotamia. It is the most feasible land route for forces to connect up with forces present in Persian Gulf, encircle Saudis and their oil resources. This would be the primary reason to maintain control over Israeli foreign policy, and defence collaboration/aid would be part of that control mechanism just as ensuring that Israel succeeds in humiliating Egypt would be part of that control. Egypt had bitten UK hard previously. This is one power which rarely forgets a humiliation. Moreover, curbing Egypt's military power through Israeli action was also an important part of Cold War countering of growing Soviet presence in Egypt.
I dont believe in these Grand/Great theories. These theories assume that some powers, US-UK etc. have grand over arching plans that they execute over decades and centuries with unerring cunning and others are merely tools in this grand strategy. If that were so, unkil would not be black mailed by the PA the way they are and would not have its tushy thrashed in Afghanistan.
Israel was never completely independent in its foreign policy - its foundation, continuance, and successes were key parts of the planning by UK+USA in their startegy for eastern Mediterrranean and the ME.
We are going on a tangent here, my point was that the articles key contention could be useful paradigm for determining Indo-US-Pak relations. That is:~
US allys itself with the non antagonistic, prominent regional power that is not queasy in asserting its might. Create facts on the ground, acquire disruptive capabilities, perform and carry off risky maneuvers and watch as US becomes the most allied of allies.
Be accommodating, and watch the US ask for accommodation.
E.g. in the Indian Subcontinent
India: Parakram, Kargil, Nuke tests.
Alignment/Rewards: Nuke deal, some proscription of Pak terror, political reconciliation.
Pakistan: Repeated terror attacks showing up India as weak, nuke blackmail.
Alignment/Rewards: Acquiescence in proliferation, demand India be accomodative (millibund remarks etc.), military-economic aid.