What would happen?

[Hustler]

What do you think would happen if the United States completely removed itself from all Middle-Eastern affairs? Please understand, I do not expect this to happen anytime soon; I am merely asking it in a purely hypothetical sense. What would happen in the region? What would happen to the rest of the world?

[PenguinHunter]

Including trade?

[Hustler]

Including trade?

Go whatever direction you want with the question. Trade or no trade, it's up to you. I'm just interested in hearing some general theories on the matter.

[Fingers]

Anarchy, civil war, backward Islamic laws will come back into effect, they'd defo want reprisals against the west, and friction would build up and they'd be a war then the USA will develop a vast computer network it'll be known as skynet created to coordinate battlefield tactics. 2029 Skynet will deploy machines of all sorts in its quest to eliminate human intelligence and spread the machine race and its digital perfection. then only john conner can save us!!!!... has this been done before?

[PenguinHunter]

Well, assuming the US cuts off all contact with the Middle East or vice versa. . .

The biggest thing would be oil markets I suppose. The Middle East would first have find oil consumers to fill the gap. A lot of that would probably go to China. The US would also have to find a new supply. If the Middle East cuts off there's a good chance Venezuala would too, leaving the States in a bit of a bind. (Could lead to lots of new alternative energy developments though, maybe).

Apart from the sudden lack of US products, I doubt the Middle East would change much. It's not like they take US political pressure very seriously (Saudi's "democratic reforms" for example). There would probably be even more European goods on the market and likely more Chinese expats in the region.

Israel would be another big issue, and a much tougher one to speculate on. Assuming we are considering that Israel also loses contact with the US, either the situation would settle quickly because Israel would realize it no longer has foreign support, thus making negotiations easier. Or Arabs invade and call it Palestine again.

[Hustler]

Israel would be another big issue, and a much tougher one to speculate on. Assuming we are considering that Israel also loses contact with the US, either the situation would settle quickly because Israel would realize it no longer has foreign support, thus making negotiations easier. Or Arabs invade and call it Palestine again.

I guess that is actually the most interesting area of speculation to me. Would out and out war occur? Who would win? What other possibilities are there for how this ages-old conflict would be resolved?

[Hypnos]

Sequence of events:

* Pakistan's Musharraf junta would crumble to Muslim hardliners in his own military

* Iraq will fall to Sunni hardliners, and Afghanistan will return to tribal gov't that is once again vulnerable to Taliban consolidation

* The currently US-friendly OPEC states (e.g. Bahrain) would align themselves with Saudi Arabia. Oil prices will rise over time until Europe begins to establish diplomatic pressure, as their own tolerance is tested.

* Syria would start feeding troops and supplies to Hamas to recapture Jerusalem, with even more quiet backing from Saudi Arabia, et al.

* Turkey, Egypt, and Russia will fall under pressure. India and China will now be on the frontier of Muslim fundamentalism, and will chart the course of the Middle East.

Consequences to the US:

- Price uncertainty of oil will cripple US growth

- Loss of influence over oil prices and staggering economy will result in loss of general geopolitical influence, inciting trade wars as the EU and other partners shake up the status quo

- Private groups in the US will be sucked into the Israeli conflict, and the terrorist activity will increase.

Damn, I should work for RAND (http://www.rand.org/). Some more details would be nice, though ...

[PenguinHunter]

I guess that is actually the most interesting area of speculation to me. Would out and out war occur? Who would win? What other possibilities are there for how this ages-old conflict would be resolved?

Heh, I'm taking a course on this now so I should be able to answer much better by December.

As I said a lot depends on how the US views Israel in this hypothetical situation. If Israel still has US support, then, in my opinion, the tension is less likely to be solved but at the same time there probably won't be a war. If the US rejects Israel as well, there is a chance that Saudi, Lebanon and Syria would band together to take advantage of the chance to take over the area with the goal of creating a Palestinian nation. In this nation, the Israelis would likely be tolerated (no WW2 repeats) but would likely be treated badly on the land claims front. Other Arab countries would probably support it but less openly. I have little doubt that Israel, as nation, would be screwed if it came to this.

I think it's more likely that there would be a quicker negotiation process partly guided by Europe though. The average Israelis and Palestinians don't want a war. Neither does Europe want to have to deal with an escalation in conflict. Israel would recognize that it's upper hand in the tensions leaves with the US support. My hasty prediction would be something along the lines of two political states which rely heavily on eachother economically. Likely no borders, out of necessity. In effect, one country with peculiar population distribution and regional governments. Jerusalem could end up as an international city.

Something similar to the 1947 UN partition plan (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story580.html) but with a bit more land given to the Arabs. This was rejected back then but I'm fairly confident that in your hypothetical situation it would be acceptable to both parties.

[PenguinHunter]

* Pakistan's Musharraf junta would crumble to Muslim hardliners in his own military

- Private groups in the US will be sucked into the Israeli conflict, and the terrorist activity will increase.


I forgot about poor old Pakistan. Musharraf would be screwed.

Good point about the private groups as well. Hadn't thought of that possibility.

[Madrigal]

If the U.S. pulled out of the Middle East altogether, it would be due to having already been defeated on all fronts: politically, militarily and economically. The world would be an inconceivably different place under such circumstances. The underlying question I find more interesting here, is what kinds of events could actually lead to such a downfall of the World's only real Superpower.

We can't imagine how oil prices would change, how governments would react, and how the oppressed nations would respond, if we haven't already sketched out the events leading up to it, as there would be an entirely different social, political and economic global landscape leading up to that point.

I think the most productive type of speculation would be to ask oneself the usual - what are the problems with US involvement in the Middle East, as one more part of its global strategy to build a unipolar era and contain potential economic threats from other countries, and how we think those problems could be resolved in reality.

I would like that reflection to be based on something other than our confidence/frustration regarding political 'superstructures'. What I find boring about these debates, particularly online, is the refusal to contemplate social forces as anything other than a mere source of pressure on governments (at best), relegating their historical importance to that of a physics equation of action (governments) vs. reaction (people). That is the way we were taught to analyze history.

I also dislike the habit we intellectual wankers have, of analyzing issues in a falsely detached manner, as if we could remain immune to the course of History. Why discuss anything at all if we don't plan to act upon it? Do we even see ourselves as products and producers of these times we were born into? What satisfaction can one draw from a debate on something as serious as US involvement in the Middle East, if we do not plan to change our own minds and actions? Are we even seeking to do anything? This is why I rarely discuss politics unless it is in 'real life' and that person has shown to have a real concern about what they want to do with their lives.

An important U.S. defeat in the Middle East resulting in its retreat, for whatever reasons, would most possibly be due to the outbreak of a truly revolutionary process both in the Middle East and in other parts of the World. I'd imagine it would be a moment of great Wars and Revolutions. Most of us have never lived a moment like that - we're children of neoliberalism and we have only seen defeat. We cannot imagine what it is like. We still have a slow notion of time and find it hard to imagine the speed at which changes occur under such circumstances, regarding government policies, economy and society.

Knowing that there is something truly great on the line and that any small move could have tremendous consequences. Feeling like one is part of that Moment. No, we still don't know what it's like.

[ptGatsby]

Not to be too offtopic, but the I think the fundamental question of 'Why' needs to be answered.

Its not like the US can be 'defeated' in order to leave the middle east. It would continue on at it has before - secretly, coup-style or similar.

Its not like the US would sever all ties - it still needs trade.

Would it be because of a fundamental shift in the American Psyche? No longer a belief of knowing what has to be done, or the removal of corruption, or a change away from a social democracy? Would it cease being the sole super-power?

Those kinds of things overshadow the effects. If it closed the hundred+ military bases it had around the world, cut military spending to something like half of what it is now, balanced its budget... that's far different than the US public opinion forcing it to happen, redistributing its military forces, increasing military spending and going covert-ops.

[Madrigal]

Not to be too offtopic, but the I think the fundamental question of 'Why' needs to be answered.

Its not like the US can be 'defeated' in order to leave the middle east. It would continue on at it has before - secretly, coup-style or similar.
.

I was imagining a more drastic situation.

I didn't understand the question, 'Why'? Why should the US pull out, why would it, why discuss this... ? :)

[Hypnos]

Why not?

It's fun.

[PenguinHunter]

Why not?

It's fun.

Exactly. It's just a thought experiment afterall.

I would add that mentally removing the US could be potentially useful in understanding the current tensions. Temporarily simplifying the situation to see things from a slightly different angle.

[Madrigal]

Exactly. It's just a thought experiment afterall.

I would add that mentally removing the US could be potentially useful in understanding the current tensions. Temporarily simplifying the situation to see things from a slightly different angle.

Wouldn't something that artificial require the invasion of alien life forms, or something... ? I'm greatly amused by the American imagination.

[ptGatsby]

I didn't understand the question, 'Why'? Why should the US pull out, why would it, why discuss this... ?


Apologies - I meant "Why would the US pull out?".

Similar "The Foundation", the intertia behind the US involvement in the Middle East is huge - it would take a huge event to make them 'just pull out'. Hell, even if they 'just pulled out', something very deep and sociological would have to happen to the US to cause it to happen. Its not like you just transport hundreds of thousand of people away overnight.

[Hustler]

As I said a lot depends on how the US views Israel in this hypothetical situation. If Israel still has US support, then, in my opinion, the tension is less likely to be solved but at the same time there probably won't be a war. If the US rejects Israel as well, there is a chance that Saudi, Lebanon and Syria would band together to take advantage of the chance to take over the area with the goal of creating a Palestinian nation. In this nation, the Israelis would likely be tolerated (no WW2 repeats) but would likely be treated badly on the land claims front. Other Arab countries would probably support it but less openly. I have little doubt that Israel, as nation, would be screwed if it came to this.

The thing is, the reins come off of Israel as well. Is a united front of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria enough to take down a nation like Israel, which is very strong militarily and probably has a reasonable nuclear armament?

[PenguinHunter]

Wouldn't something that artificial require the invasion of alien life forms, or something... ? I'm greatly amused by the American imagination.

What? Why does it require anything? Just imagine the US gone. Just because something is immediately impossible in the real world, doesn't mean that imagining it is a pointless exercise. Growing little bean plants under controlled conditions in a lab can tell us a lot about beans even though that situation is impossible without our intervention.

And I'm Canadian not American if you were refering to me there. . .

[PenguinHunter]

The thing is, the reins come off of Israel as well. Is a united front of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria enough to take down a nation like Israel, which is very strong militarily and probably has a reasonable nuclear armament?

I think so. Israel still receives an awful lot of military support from the US so once that is cut off they are pretty much working with what they have. Saudi has a pretty big army, and a lot of support would come from other arab nations as well, if not openly. Man power is working in the arab world's favor too, so combine that with a Palestinian revolt and I can't see nuclear cababilities making much difference. Unless it was really poorly organized, the encounter would probably be over pretty quick.

[ptGatsby]

What? Why does it require anything? Just imagine the US gone. Just because something is immediately impossible in the real world, doesn't mean that imagining it is a pointless exercise. Growing little bean plants under controlled conditions in a lab can tell us a lot about beans even though that situation is impossible without our intervention.


Though I can appreciate the excersize, I think a better analogy would be;

"A ball is rolling down the hill. Suddenly, it starts going up. What happens?".

I guess I can't think it out with any omitted any information I need to create a probable scenario. Even if the US did just disappear, other internationals would not - and what they would do is based on the US withdrawal... infinite ripples. Wouldnt' the UN/Nato step in to deal with the chaos? How can these things be attributed without an understanding of cause?

As for the effects in the middle east, that has some interest, I suppose, if you mean to just fishbowl the area.

[PenguinHunter]

As for the effects in the middle east, that has some interest, I suppose, if you mean to just fishbowl the area.

That's exactly the point. The fishbowl has it's limits and is used only temporarily but is not useless. I can see where you're coming from though. If you want to draw any serious conclusions you also probably have to consider wider implications in the imaginary world, outside of the parties immediately involved.

I stand indignantly by my analogy. :P

[Hustler]

Even if the US did just disappear, other internationals would not - and what they would do is based on the US withdrawal... infinite ripples. Wouldnt' the UN/Nato step in to deal with the chaos? How can these things be attributed without an understanding of cause?

Yes, you may feel free to speculate on that.

[jgreensp]

I think so. Israel still receives an awful lot of military support from the US so once that is cut off they are pretty much working with what they have. Saudi has a pretty big army, and a lot of support would come from other arab nations as well, if not openly. Man power is working in the arab world's favor too, so combine that with a Palestinian revolt and I can't see nuclear cababilities making much difference. Unless it was really poorly organized, the encounter would probably be over pretty quick.

Well, if we look historically, this so-called Arab man power should not be perceived as such an advantage. Israel managed to defeat these larger numbers in previous Arab/Israeli wars without much US help. US aid was only substantial in the 1973 Yom Kippur war counteracting Soviet support for Arab nations and this was probably Israels worst fought war. The gap between Israeli military technology and know-how and its surrounding Arab neighbors has only widened dramatically in the past couple decades. The Arab street on its own, in my view, could not take on Israel without strong military support from China or Russia but if this was the case, the US and other Western Nations would jump in on Israel's side so thats a pointless argument.

[joft]

Is the US wearing protection?

[PenguinHunter]

Well, if we look historically, this so-called Arab man power should not be perceived as such an advantage. Israel managed to defeat these larger numbers in previous Arab/Israeli wars without much US help. US aid was only substantial in the 1973 Yom Kippur war counteracting Soviet support for Arab nations and this was probably Israels worst fought war.

This is incorrect. From the very moment the Israeli state was created, the US government and citizens have been backing it financially and subsequently militarily. For example in January 1949, the Export-Import Bank of the United States gives Israel a $100 million loan to get it's economy up an running again after the Palestinian labour force deserted it and the Arab world boycotted it's trade. There were a continuous series of similar "Grants-in-Aid" from the US government in years to come. On top of that there is roughly $60-100 million dollars in aid per year that goes into Israel through private organizations such as the United Jewish Appeal. These figures also obviously increase with time. (Depending on which version of this thought experiment you choose, the last figure may or may not continue.) These are hardly insignificant grants. Not to mention the $715 million dollar German "reparation payment" in 1952.

The US-Soviet rivalries in the region began well before 1973. The estimated amount of American economic and technical aid between 1949 and 1965 totals $850 million. This does not include private aid. This was significant in the Six-Day war. No, Israel has never faced the Arabs alone.


The gap between Israeli military technology and know-how and its surrounding Arab neighbors has only widened dramatically in the past couple decades.

This is also untrue. Aside from nuclear capabilities, Israel and Saudi (and the richer Arab states) could almost be considered technological equals. The Arab states do not spend all their oil money on Mercedes and sun-glasses (though a lot of it does go there :P); much of it also goes into buying the most up to date military technology, just because they can. A perfect example is the UAE's purchase of, well, a lot of things (http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/BE31Ag01.html) in 2000. Or consider Saudi, the US's "top arms customer." (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm)

So, I stand by my original claim. If cut off from the US, Israel would fall quickly. Keep in mind I also said a war was quite unlikely (in my opinion). I don't think it would be worth it for either side but if it did happen Israel would lose.

[meshou]

The thing is, the reins come off of Israel as well. Is a united front of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria enough to take down a nation like Israel, which is very strong militarily and probably has a reasonable nuclear armament?It's much less strong without the US, and against six or seven armies. And I'm sure Packistan would be more than happy to donate its research for something it would deem a worthy cause.

Honestly, and I may be horrible for saying this, but if no country within ten thousand miles wants you there, perhaps being there is stupid...? I mean, they have the right to be there, and defend it to the death, but more and more that means people are dead. Having the right to do something does not make it good or smart.

[Claverhouse]

It's much less strong without the US, and against six or seven armies. And I'm sure Packistan would be more than happy to donate its research for something it would deem a worthy cause.

Honestly, and I may be horrible for saying this, but if no country within ten thousand miles wants you there, perhaps being there is stupid...? I mean, they have the right to be there, and defend it to the death, but more and more that means people are dead. Having the right to do something does not make it good or smart.

Why yes, I have regarded the foundation of Israel as sufficient proof that jewish intelligence is not as markedly superior to every other intelligence as their groupies claim. If the Poles and rest of central europe absolutely loathed English people, and regarded us as greedy bastards*, I wouldn't really think of relocating a significant section of us into Silesia... Let alone start up for the next 50 years impoverishing the inhabitants and taking chunks of their land to build up Eretz Albion.


Wow, I agreed with meshou...


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif


* And rightly in the English case.

[Blue]

There was an interesting documentery about the likelyhood of this to happen regarding Israel dealing with the current administration's heavy alignment with the religious right.

http://www2.digitaldistractions.org:8080/torrents.php?showid=documentaries
The world according to Bush.

Thanks to Penguinhunter for pointing it out.

+Blue

[jgreensp]

Why yes, I have regarded the foundation of Israel as sufficient proof that jewish intelligence is not as markedly superior to every other intelligence as their groupies claim.
I'm not aware of any "groupies" that I know of who claim they are markedly superior in intelligence to other groups. That said, the IQ of Ashnekazi Jews has been proven to be higher than any other race/culture etc.



If the Poles and rest of central europe absolutely loathed English people, and regarded us as greedy bastards*, I wouldn't really think of relocating a significant section of us into Silesia... Let alone start up for the next 50 years impoverishing the inhabitants and taking chunks of their land to build up Eretz Albion.
The above comment is incredibly ignorant and insensitive. Jewish people didn't have the luxury you and your English friends had in that they did not have their own nation to protect them from being sent to slaughterhouses. That is the objective of Israel, to act as that cushion, and I think that's pretty reasonable. The location of Israel is a different debate. Keep in mind that under the Ottoman Empire, Jews were treated better by Muslims than under many Christian societies so while hindsight is 20/20 now, Jews would not have imagined that there would be such a continual Arab/Israeli struggle. In addition, the Palestinians and their so-called Arab brothers are responsible for their own impoverishment. Israel is simply the scapegoat.

[jgreensp]

"On top of that there is roughly $60-100 million dollars in aid per year that goes into Israel through private organizations such as the United Jewish Appeal."

So what? These funds are coming from Jews for the most part. Unlike Arabs, Jews only have one country where they are a majority, I'd imagine Jews outside of Israel would continue to fund the state if the US withdrew its support, perhaps more vigorously.

"This was significant in the Six-Day war. No, Israel has never faced the Arabs alone. "

The Johnson administration, hobbled by Vietnam and fearful of a confrontation with the Soviets, urged Israel to show restraint in 1967. Every expert on the issue agrees that the big bucks didn't roll into Israel until after the '67 war. History books in Egypt and other Arab authoritative nations would agree with you of course thanks to their unwillingness to accept such a devestating defeat by the underdog in the region.

"This is also untrue. Aside from nuclear capabilities, Israel and Saudi (and the richer Arab states) could almost be considered technological equals."

You've got to be kidding. While I'll concede that Saudi Arabia does spend more per year on their military, they are the only one in the region who does and their technology does not compare to Israels. Israel is so technologically advanced(2nd most companies listed on Nasdaq). They don't have natural resources to rely on like Saudi Arabia who can thank at least 50% of their wealth to their opportune location(sitting on 25% of the world's proven petroleum resources). Considering that Israel's population is 1/6 that of Saudi Arabia and that they have only 1% of the land mass that Saudi Arabia has, it is pretty remarkable to think that there GDP is only half of what the Saudi's is. If the Saudi's were less focused on amputating the body parts of their citizens and prohibiting women from doing anything productive maybe they could one day parallel the weapon technology that Israel commands. In addition, Israel's Mossad assures that they are one step ahead of their enemies given they are the best in the world let alone the Middle East. BTW, did you really begin this argument by stating Saudi Arabia and Israel are equal NOT INCLUDING Nuclear capabilities. LOL!!!!

[PenguinHunter]

Awesome. A troll. I'll be back for more fun later tonight.

[Claverhouse]

I'm not aware of any "groupies" that I know of who claim they are markedly superior in intelligence to other groups. That said, the IQ of Ashnekazi Jews has been proven to be higher than any other race/culture etc.
Indeed ? I have come across large numbers of admirers of the jewish people who regard them not merely as unfortunate victims but of extremely high intelligence compared with everyone else. That said, others have pointed out that the national IQ average in Israel is 90.

Personally I think it likely that jews are on average more likely to be of a high, but not a higher, intelligence; although as with most national characteristics --- regarding them, and not Israel, as a nation for argument --- this is likely to be channelled into specific excellencies. For instance, they are excellent at science, but whilst greatly appreciative of art, have rarely excelled in plastic art. Also, I should imagine that Sephardic jews are likely to surpass Ashnekazis, whose application of the jewish religion from the Middle Ages down to the late 19th century was incredibly repressive and squalid, unlike their cousins.




The above comment is incredibly ignorant and insensitive. Jewish people didn't have the luxury you and your English friends had in that they did not have their own nation to protect them from being sent to slaughterhouses.
That is scarcely anyone's fault but their own. It's difficult to imagine that the news that the Romans had left the area escaped them, and if they wanted Palestine back it could have been acquired any time from around 400 AD on. If they persisted in staying in lands that were harshly unwelcoming, partly due to the ignorance and cruelty of the host-nation and partly due to their own ignorance and cruelty, no-one ever forced them to stay. And it's not as if Herzl and others were not offered other places: the British, Zionist through one assumes sheer religious mania, with their customary generosity with other people's property, offered not only Uganda, but Kenya. Even many Zionists considered this, and later South America and Madagascar, preferable to settling where there are millions of hostile Arabs.


That is the objective of Israel, to act as that cushion, and I think that's pretty reasonable. The location of Israel is a different debate. Keep in mind that under the Ottoman Empire, Jews were treated better by Muslims than under many Christian societies so while hindsight is 20/20 now, Jews would not have imagined that there would be such a continual Arab/Israeli struggle.
Well, since WWII the jews outside Israel seem to have prospered, been free from pogroms and nazis, so since Israel accounts for only a small proportion of the world jewish population, Israel itself hasn't done that much to save world jewry. And again, if the jews back then preferred the Ottoman yoke to living in christian societies, no-one was forcing them to stay.

It seems quite obvious that if you go and take away people's land and national self then they are going to resent it. This is not to do with morals, all land is held by force, and taken by force: but the trick is to do it where the victims do not have large amount of powerful friends.


In addition, the Palestinians and their so-called Arab brothers are responsible for their own impoverishment. Israel is simply the scapegoat.
I can only blink in amazement.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

And ah, not to do it through continual lying as to your ultimate intentions, illegitimate force and fraud...

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/Palestine_landloss.jpg

[PenguinHunter]

So what? These funds are coming from Jews for the most part. Unlike Arabs, Jews only have one country where they are a majority, I'd imagine Jews outside of Israel would continue to fund the state if the US withdrew its support, perhaps more vigorously.

Sooo.... the point being that Israel did have siginificant outside help before 1967, something your original post claimed to be false. Let's not mix thought experiments here. Hustler asked us for a scenario and in this specific one there is no US contact. Assume Arab world vs Israel without US involvement, private or governmental.


"This was significant in the Six-Day war. No, Israel has never faced the Arabs alone. "

The Johnson administration, hobbled by Vietnam and fearful of a confrontation with the Soviets, urged Israel to show restraint in 1967. Every expert on the issue agrees that the big bucks didn't roll into Israel until after the '67 war. History books in Egypt and other Arab authoritative nations would agree with you of course thanks to their unwillingness to accept such a devestating defeat by the underdog in the region.

All of my sources to date are theoretically "neutral" American sources. The certainly aren't supporting any Arab nationalist causes as you suggest. If anything they would be more likely to support an Israeli cause. So, no, not "every expert" agrees with you. In fact most would disagree simply because there is clear evidence of a significant cash flow from day one of what can be called the Israeli state. I provided this evidence in my last post. You ignored it. If you want to look up my source in the library it is A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (updated fourth edition), Bickerton and Klausner. You could probably find the same evidence on the internet but I doubt you will try. Oh well.

It's funny I was just having a conversation today about the concept of victors writing history. It's really not quite right. Everyone writes their own personal history but the victors get to make the revisions and dominate Historiography. So, even if you were right, most of the authors revising the conflict, the ones who have the most authority on the subject, are either American or Israeli. This obviously puts a slant on what is out there. The subject is getting better though. More historians of the topic without a personal interest in the revision and portrayal of the conflict.


You've got to be kidding. While I'll concede that Saudi Arabia does spend more per year on their military, they are the only one in the region who does and their technology does not compare to Israels. Israel is so technologically advanced(2nd most companies listed on Nasdaq). They don't have natural resources to rely on like Saudi Arabia who can thank at least 50% of their wealth to their opportune location(sitting on 25% of the world's proven petroleum resources).

You're not really giving me any examples of their military dominance here so I guess I'll just disregard this. Obviously you've never heard of Dubai. There is currently an underwater hotel being built there. When you say "Israel is so technologically advanced" what do you mean?

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6336

My thread on Dubai's sweet projects. Yes, they are what some might call a technologically advanced people.


Considering that Israel's population is 1/6 that of Saudi Arabia and that they have only 1% of the land mass that Saudi Arabia has, it is pretty remarkable to think that there GDP is only half of what the Saudi's is.

http://www.pressureworks.org/focus/iopt/facts/03_index.html

"Israel received US$2.16 billion in military aid from the US alone for 2004. They also receive around $2.58 billion in economic aid and $360 million in civilian aid. The two countries have agreed to decrease economic aid until 2008, with a commensurate raise in military assistance."

This means 1/25th of their economy comes from US aid. Sounds small but think what $5 billion extra per year can do for development in such a small nation. But this is not really that important to the topic of conversation, anyways, back to the wars.


If the Saudi's were less focused on amputating the body parts of their citizens and prohibiting women from doing anything productive maybe they could one day parallel the weapon technology that Israel commands. In addition, Israel's Mossad assures that they are one step ahead of their enemies given they are the best in the world let alone the Middle East. BTW, did you really begin this argument by stating Saudi Arabia and Israel are equal NOT INCLUDING Nuclear capabilities. LOL!!!!

Yeah, that's mature.

Perhaps I should briefly explain why the Arabs lost the previous encounters.

Encounter 1, 1948:

- There were roughly equal numbers of troops involved. (approx. 30 000 each) Generally the defending side has an advantage as long as it is well organized.

- The reason the Arabs couldn't deploy more troops was because of unrest in the countries of origin. The leaders could not afford to deploy more. Egypt's 1952 coup d'etat is a good example of why troops should have been kept home and not sent unprepared to a likely loss.

- The Arab effort was not coordinated. Each Arab nation was involved out of it's own nations interests and there was no clear organizing body. They simply attacked around the same time. Egypt wanted Gaza and Transjordan wanted the West Bank. Even had they tried to coordinate, the distances involved would have made quick communications difficult.

- Israeli army had much British training from the units involved WW2. Aside from the Arab Legion, the Arab units deployed had little training.

- Palestinian Arabs mostly scattered as refugees, with no power base since the British had since removed the pesky resistence leaders to places like the Seychelles.

Encounter 2, 1967 "Six-Day War": See previous post. I have explained and cited US support.

Encounters 3 and 4, 1973 and 1982 "Yom Kippur War" and "Lebanon War" respectively: We have both agreed that US support was significant so I won't get into it.

Encounters 2, 3 and 4 also lacked a coordinated effort.

So now, present day thought experiment:

- US is removed from above.

- enormous coordinated attack from the Arab World, because Arab nationalism would now desire a Palestinian state, whereas before, in 1948, it was mostly a self-interested effort.

- coordinated internal revolt, likely guided by Hamas, supported by most of the Palestinian population.


I will stress this again. It is highly unlikely that such a conflict would happen simply because there would be heavy losses on both sides, especially if Israeli used nuclear technology. Most likely we would have some kind of partition scenario. Nevertheless, in the context of this thought experiment Israel would lose such an encounter should it be forced upon both parties.

Unless you come up with some kind of evidence supporting your theory, this will be my last contribution to our little discussion.

[Urban Child]

I must say I am shocked by the ignorance of the participants in this tread regarding Israel and Middle-East. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/ng_shock.gif

The assumptions made here are surreal, and the knowledge of the FACTS is very limited.

I'll make my best to give my perspective on the subject, yet my time is limited, and English, after all, is not my mother language.

[Claverhouse]

When you say "Israel is so technologically advanced" what do you mean?
Presumably he means that the jews are markedly superior in intelligence to Arabs.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[jgreensp]

"You're not really giving me any examples of their military dominance here so I guess I'll just disregard this. Obviously you've never heard of Dubai. There is currently an underwater hotel being built there. When you say "Israel is so technologically advanced" what do you mean?"

So the fact that they have the most companies listed on the Nasdaq outside of the USA isn't good evidence for you eh?. check these links:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/1/Facets%20of%20the%20Israeli%20Economy-%20The%20High-Tech%20Secto
http://www.animaweb.org/pays_israel_en.php

here's a few highlights for you: - High technology and technology-rich products account for some 70% of exports
- leading global companies like Intel, Motorola, IBM, Microsoft, Alcatel and 3Com all have research and development facilities in Israel."
- Israel invests 2.2% of its gross domestic product in R&D (the third highest level in the world, after Japan and Sweden and on a par with Germany).
- Apart from Silicon Valley, the highest concentration of high-tech companies in the world is to be found in Israel, with 4,000 businesses. The country has become a production center for high tech products, especially software. It is also a leader in the fields of aeronautics, generic drugs, telecommunications and biotechnologies.

In addition here's a link regarding the military balance in the Middle East, the Saudi's don't compare. Neither do your UAE buddies.

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/glance.pdf

Here's more links showing the much smaller UAE economy/military compared to Israels.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html#Econ
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html#Econ

This Anti-Israel site even mentions that Israel’s GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories & points out that Israel has the world’s largest fleet of F-16s outside the US.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/US_Aid_to_Israel.htm


"Israel received US$2.16 billion in military aid from the US alone for 2004. They also receive around $2.58 billion in economic aid and $360 million in civilian aid. The two countries have agreed to decrease economic aid until 2008, with a commensurate raise in military assistance."

Thank you for mentioning how much aid goes to Egypt, Saudi Arabia or any other Middle East Nations for that matter. I like your balanced apporach to debate.


"Yeah, that's mature."

Actually it's fact and quite disturbing. The media likes to focus on Israeli human rights abuses, it's funny that we don't hear about the daily human rights abuses and opression occuring everyday in the majority of Arab nations. Hmm, maybe that has something do to with free press...

"Perhaps I should briefly explain why the Arabs lost the previous encounters.

"The Arab effort was not coordinated. Each Arab nation was involved out of it's own nations interests and there was no clear organizing body. They simply attacked around the same time. Egypt wanted Gaza and Transjordan wanted the West Bank. Even had they tried to coordinate, the distances involved would have made quick communications difficult. "

"Encounters 2, 3 and 4 also lacked a coordinated effort."

Okay, so let me get this right...the Arabs lost these wars because they lacked a coordinated effort, each were more concerned with their own nations interest and no one truly cared about a legitimate Palestinian state. I've got news for you dude, these same forces are at work today and will continue to do so for a long while. I find your excuses for the why Arabs lost
these wars quite entertaining. Lack of coordination and strategy? Sounds like weaker militaries to me.

"in the context of this thought experiment Israel would lose such an encounter should it be forced upon both parties."

I still disagree. But anyhow, this thought experiment of yours ignores too much reality for me to consider it seriously. Your ignorance of the true balance of power in the Middle East will fail to cease as long as you are blinded with your leftist anti-US/anti-Israel biases.

"Unless you come up with some kind of evidence supporting your theory, this will be my last contribution to our little discussion."

Sounds good. I'm done as well.

[Hustler]

Indeed ? I have come across large numbers of admirers of the jewish people who regard them not merely as unfortunate victims but of extremely high intelligence compared with everyone else. That said, others have pointed out that the national IQ average in Israel is 90.

The average IQ in Israel is 97, actually. Furthermore, only about 60% of the people in Israel are Ashkenazi Jews. Also, if you control for economic factors which influence IQ, by limiting your search to the United States (for example), you find that the Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group tested. I believe the average IQ of an Ashkenazi Jew in America is around 113, which is substantially higher than the average IQ of about 100 of a white person.

[Nighthawk]

I must say I am shocked by the ignorance of the participants in this tread regarding Israel and Middle-East. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/ng_shock.gif

The assumptions made here are surreal, and the knowledge of the FACTS is very limited.

I'll make my best to give my perspective on the subject, yet my time is limited, and English, after all, is not my mother language.I'd love to hear your perspective.

[PenguinHunter]

"You're not really giving me any examples of their military dominance here so I guess I'll just disregard this. Obviously you've never heard of Dubai. There is currently an underwater hotel being built there. When you say "Israel is so technologically advanced" what do you mean?"

So the fact that they have the most companies listed on the Nasdaq outside of the USA isn't good evidence for you eh?. check these links:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/1/Facets%20of%20the%20Israeli%20Economy-%20The%20High-Tech%20Secto
http://www.animaweb.org/pays_israel_en.php

here's a few highlights for you: - High technology and technology-rich products account for some 70% of exports
- leading global companies like Intel, Motorola, IBM, Microsoft, Alcatel and 3Com all have research and development facilities in Israel."
- Israel invests 2.2% of its gross domestic product in R&D (the third highest level in the world, after Japan and Sweden and on a par with Germany).
- Apart from Silicon Valley, the highest concentration of high-tech companies in the world is to be found in Israel, with 4,000 businesses. The country has become a production center for high tech products, especially software. It is also a leader in the fields of aeronautics, generic drugs, telecommunications and biotechnologies.

In addition here's a link regarding the military balance in the Middle East, the Saudi's don't compare. Neither do your UAE buddies.

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/glance.pdf

Here's more links showing the much smaller UAE economy/military compared to Israels.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html#Econ
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html#Econ

This Anti-Israel site even mentions that Israel’s GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories & points out that Israel has the world’s largest fleet of F-16s outside the US.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/US_Aid_to_Israel.htm


"Israel received US$2.16 billion in military aid from the US alone for 2004. They also receive around $2.58 billion in economic aid and $360 million in civilian aid. The two countries have agreed to decrease economic aid until 2008, with a commensurate raise in military assistance."

Thank you for mentioning how much aid goes to Egypt, Saudi Arabia or any other Middle East Nations for that matter. I like your balanced apporach to debate.


"Yeah, that's mature."

Actually it's fact and quite disturbing. The media likes to focus on Israeli human rights abuses, it's funny that we don't hear about the daily human rights abuses and opression occuring everyday in the majority of Arab nations. Hmm, maybe that has something do to with free press...

"Perhaps I should briefly explain why the Arabs lost the previous encounters.

"The Arab effort was not coordinated. Each Arab nation was involved out of it's own nations interests and there was no clear organizing body. They simply attacked around the same time. Egypt wanted Gaza and Transjordan wanted the West Bank. Even had they tried to coordinate, the distances involved would have made quick communications difficult. "

"Encounters 2, 3 and 4 also lacked a coordinated effort."

Okay, so let me get this right...the Arabs lost these wars because they lacked a coordinated effort, each were more concerned with their own nations interest and no one truly cared about a legitimate Palestinian state. I've got news for you dude, these same forces are at work today and will continue to do so for a long while. I find your excuses for the why Arabs lost
these wars quite entertaining. Lack of coordination and strategy? Sounds like weaker militaries to me.

"in the context of this thought experiment Israel would lose such an encounter should it be forced upon both parties."

I still disagree. But anyhow, this thought experiment of yours ignores too much reality for me to consider it seriously. Your ignorance of the true balance of power in the Middle East will fail to cease as long as you are blinded with your leftist anti-US/anti-Israel biases.

"Unless you come up with some kind of evidence supporting your theory, this will be my last contribution to our little discussion."

Sounds good. I'm done as well.

A few points.

- Countries like the UAE gives the USA aid not the other way around. http://uae.usembassy.gov/uae/U.S._Ambassador_Thanks_UAE_for_Katrina_Aid.html

- Saudi Arabia's total aid from the US from 1946 to 1975 was only $328.4 million. Compare that to the previous Israeli figures. Most of this aid was in loans and has since been repaid. Saudi is also donor country. Egypt gets aid but Egypt is not technically a part of the Middle East. They would not likely attack Israel, and when they were, they were not getting American assistance.

- The military link was good. But what you don't understand is that it isn't Israel against 1 country from Middle East, it is several.

- The point of discussing coordination is to say that now such an attack would be coordinated. Obviously, I'm not making "excuses" for the Arab armies of the past. They did a lot of dumb things. (ADDITION: Arab nationalism has changed in the last 50 years. Yes, now a Palestinian state has become a sore point. Sore enough that, if they went to war, that would be the cause, not domestic self-interest.)

- You have an interesting habit of ignroing most of my posts. I guess that explains your poor use of the quote function. It's easier to just copy and paste the small parts that you want.

- It's not like the technology mentioned (military and economic) is not available to the rest of the Middle East. Some Arabs even have IBM computers :shock: My argument against the Israeli economy in this scenario is that they will be relying heavily on US investors and companies. These will disappear. However this is now getting extremely complicated, economic explainations of the thought experiment and all so I think this is a sign that it's time to stop the original discussion.

So I decided to continue becaues you did make one reasonable point at the end and I thought I should give you credit for that.


But anyhow, this thought experiment of yours ignores too much reality for me to consider it seriously.

This is true. PtGatsby is probably laughing because he said this way back and I didn't think anyone would pursue it this far to make things so complicated.

So enough about Israel and Palestine. I am willing to pursue your Islamophobia derailment, however.


Actually it's fact and quite disturbing. The media likes to focus on Israeli human rights abuses, it's funny that we don't hear about the daily human rights abuses and opression occuring everyday in the majority of Arab nations. Hmm, maybe that has something do to with free press...

Don't you? Does the media focus on Israeli human rights abuses? I don't think so. In the US it is certainly the other way around and in Canada, probably pretty neutral. I think it has to be acknowledged that most of the world including the US, Israel and the Arab world is guilty. I read a lot of the 2004 Amnesty International report and they damned pretty much every nation, even poor little Canada. So it's not that such abuses are not being reported. It's not that Amnesty International has been restricted in any of the above areas. If we both have read about what actually goes on, we can more or less ignore this general thing called "media."

I will not try and defend Saudi, Afghanistan (not the Middle East but I'm sure you want to bring it up) or Iran (I probably wouldn't but they are certainly better than the previous two). These three countries do have bad records. However, it should be noted that, although the Saudi government is backwards, the people are quite progressive. There are increasingly frequent votes and rallies around women's rights and anti-government sentiments. Unfortunately, the government is being propped up by US oil money and US diplomatic support.

So, let's spill the guts on this one as Johnny says. What do you want addressed? General idealogy I'm guessing but what do you have in mind?

EDIT: I notice you didn't address Claverhouse. That is a good move, Claverhouse is wise.

[Nighthawk]

Encounters 3 and 4, 1973 and 1982 "Yom Kippur War" and "Lebanon War" respectively: We have both agreed that US support was significant so I won't get into it.

Encounters 2, 3 and 4 also lacked a coordinated effort.
The Egyptians and Syrians also had considerable support from the Soviets in these conflicts.

The Yom Kippur War was a very coordinated effort on the part of the Egyptians and Syrians. The Egyptians, realizing they could not match the Israeli Air Force in the sky, stocked up heavily on Soviet surface to air missiles. They also stocked up heavily on Soviet anti-tank missiles to counter Israeli armor. The Egyptian Army's crossing of the Suez Canal and breaching of the Bar Lev line was an excellent tactical operation. They advanced under the protective umbrellas of their surface to air missile batteries and then set up their Sagger anti-tank missile teams on the opposite shore. They traded thousand dollar missiles for multi-million dollar aircraft and tanks all day long. It caused such a dire crisis for Israel that they considered using the nuclear option to stop the attack. Fortunately, for Israel, Ariel Sharon had a brilliant tactical maneuver up his sleeve as well ... crossing the Suez canal into Eqypt itself to cut off the Egyptian forces in the Sinai. Overall, it turned out to be a stalemate, but it was the best Arab operation of all the wars.

[PenguinHunter]

The Egyptians and Syrians also had considerable support from the Soviets in these conflicts.

The Yom Kippur War was a very coordinated effort on the part of the Egyptians and Syrians. The Egyptians, realizing they could not match the Israeli Air Force in the sky, stocked up heavily on Soviet surface to air missiles. They also stocked up heavily on Soviet anti-tank missiles to counter Israeli armor. The Egyptian Army's crossing of the Suez Canal and breaching of the Bar Lev line was an excellent tactical operation. They advanced under the protective umbrellas of their surface to air missile batteries and then set up their Sagger anti-tank missile teams on the opposite shore. They traded thousand dollar missiles for multi-million dollar aircraft and tanks all day long. It caused such a dire crisis for Israel that they considered using the nuclear option to stop the attack. Fortunately, for Israel, Ariel Sharon had a brilliant tactical maneuver up his sleeve as well ... crossing the Suez canal into Eqypt itself to cut off the Egyptian forces in the Sinai. Overall, it turned out to be a stalemate, but it was the best Arab operation of all the wars.

Fair enough. I was trying to cover too many things with a few general statements. I meant a coordinated, cooperative Arab effort. So, although Syria and Egypt are involved, most of the other Arab states are quite reluctant to get too heavily involved beyond diplomatic and some financial support. It was the best operation to date, but certainly not the best operation the Arab world is capable of. I think the situation has changed since then and the Arab states would either all agree to allow a partition, or would all agree to go to war and retake Israel. Saudi Arabia would be significant here. If Syria, Lebanon and Saudi had the full support of the Arab world behind them, Israel, without US support, would be in for a rough time.

[PenguinHunter]

Oops, I forgot to comment on the Soviet support. There was significant Soviet support from around 1967 onwards. Most of that was in the form of arms I believe. This is still good for Egypt and Syria obviously, but Israel had significant financial backing well before this date in addition to the Cold War struggle. I don't think the Arab world could have done much better at the time, but Hustler's scenario combined with modern Arab nationalism and economic progress shifts the power balance.

[Nighthawk]

Fair enough. I was trying to cover too many things with a few general statements. I meant a coordinated, cooperative Arab effort. So, although Syria and Egypt are involved, most of the other Arab states are quite reluctant to get too heavily involved beyond diplomatic and some financial support. It was the best operation to date, but certainly not the best operation the Arab world is capable of. I think the situation has changed since then and the Arab states would either all agree to allow a partition, or would all agree to go to war and retake Israel. Saudi Arabia would be significant here. If Syria, Lebanon and Saudi had the full support of the Arab world behind them, Israel, without US support, would be in for a rough time.
I concur.

[Claverhouse]

The average IQ in Israel is 97, actually. Furthermore, only about 60% of the people in Israel are Ashkenazi Jews. Also, if you control for economic factors which influence IQ, by limiting your search to the United States (for example), you find that the Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group tested. I believe the average IQ of an Ashkenazi Jew in America is around 113, which is substantially higher than the average IQ of about 100 of a white person.
[ Disclaimer: I'm not particularly interested in IQ, and have severe doubts on it as a tool --- since I am probably -100 --- and some doubts as to the over-valuation of intelligence anyway: that too is only a tool, and other qualities and tools can be equally important, or more so depending on the circumstance of where and when you were born. ]

According to the research of Prof. Richard Lynn (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/) and his co-author Tatu Vanhanen, University of Helsinki, in 1998, Israel is 90, the USA 98, and European nations range in the 90s. Apart from Germany: 103, Switzerland: 101, Holland: 100. His main point, which some have attacked as strongly racialist, is the inordinate intelligence of the Far Eastern nations, with Japan at top with 110, Hong Kong: 107, South Korea: 106 etc.

[ Not that Hong Kong was ever a nation: further it's advantages were merely consequent on it being the main entrepot for the Chinese giant: their success would not have been duplicated anywhere else merely because many of them were intelligent. ]

Table 3 (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t3.asp)

Also, whatever the criticisms duly offered on say 19th century white Yankees, lack of intelligence was not one of them: I would assume that most of them were above 100, even though most of their intelligence was channelled into commercial smartness and not the good life...

As to the Ashkenazis in the USA, La Griffe du Lion (http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/), something devoted to IQ and resisting current shibboleths, has a page on them and comes to the conclusion they have an IQ of 116, and a math IQ of 111 ( using math to discover this result I can barely look at let alone understand ). Anyway, I'd rather have a stupid old-time rebbe in tune with the infinite than a genius making a nuclear bomb; as I said, intelligence is not everything...

Assessing the Ashkenazic IQ (http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/ashkenaz.htm)

Lest you think it merely a conservative biased site, on another page, again through tedious math, they conclude:


"From exit polls we know that 57 percent of whites supported Bush, with 40 percent backing Gore. Only 7 percent of blacks supported Bush, 93 percent going for Gore. Applying these percentages to the uncounted ballots, we find that Gore lost 127,000 votes to voter error. Bush lost 50,000. Had there been no voter error, with all voters recording their true intent, Gore would have picked up a net of 77,000 votes, enough to defeat Bush handily in Florida, and award him the presidency."
You've got the wrong president. Not that it matters.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif


Here also is a free download of Chris Brand's book The g Factor (http://www.douance.org/qi/brandtgf.htm). About intelligence and education; found whilst looking for Prof. Lynn above. I'll probably never read it: but I still downloaded it anyway.

[Hustler]

According to the research of Prof. Richard Lynn (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/) and his co-author Tatu Vanhanen, University of Helsinki, in 1998, Israel is 90, the USA 98, and European nations range in the 90s. Apart from Germany: 103, Switzerland: 101, Holland: 100. His main point, which some have attacked as strongly racialist, is the inordinate intelligence of the Far Eastern nations, with Japan at top with 110, Hong Kong: 107, South Korea: 106 etc.

Our sources disagree. Mine is wikipedia, for the record. Also, I see you have nothing to say about Israel's national IQ being of limited use given that only ~60% of Israeli people are Ashkenazi Jews. Whatever the case, this is not that all that relevant to the thrust of this thread. Israel's supposed nuclear armament, however, is.

[Claverhouse]

Our sources disagree. Mine is wikipedia, for the record. Also, I see you have nothing to say about Israel's national IQ being of limited use given that only ~60% of Israeli people are Ashkenazi Jews. Whatever the case, this is not that all that relevant to the thrust of this thread. Israel's supposed nuclear armament, however, is.

Goodness, you are not suggesting the Palestinians drag the statistic down by being of a lower IQ than the Ashkenazis surely ? That would be rather racialist --- and The Only Democracy In The Middle East is not only committed to full human rights ( for all it deems humans, and not animals ), but was founded on good socialist principles of absolute anti-racialist principles to be applied to all it's citizens if jewish. We might have to wait awhile for a Palestinian Israeli to be elected president or prime minister, though.

I know the Sephardics have not had an entirely happy time in Israel, since they are rather discriminated against by the majority, but considering their past achievements in literature and other contributions to Moorish Spain, I would still maintain that they are as intelligent as their cousins, so it can't be them.

I liked that 'supposed'. I guess Mr. Vannanu would be amused also.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[Hustler]

Goodness, you are not suggesting the Palestinians drag the statistic down by being of a lower IQ than the Ashkenazis surely ? That would be rather racialist --- and The Only Democracy In The Middle East is not only committed to full human rights ( for all it deems humans, and not animals ), but was founded on good socialist principles of absolute anti-racialist principles to be applied to all it's citizens if jewish. We might have to wait awhile for a Palestinian Israeli to be elected president or prime minister, though.

I know the Sephardics have not had an entirely happy time in Israel, since they are rather discriminated against by the majority, but considering their past achievements in literature and other contributions to Moorish Spain, I would still maintain that they are as intelligent as their cousins, so it can't be them.

You may speculate and assume all you want. All I'm saying is that Ashkenazi Jews make up roughly 60% of the population of Israel.

[Johnny]

If Syria, Lebanon and Saudi had the full support of the Arab world behind them, Israel, without US support, would be in for a rough time.To my understanding, there would never have been the Israel we see today without US support.

[PenguinHunter]

To my understanding, there would never have been the Israel we see today without US support.

Yeah, but this is an imaginative exercise. (See opening post)

[Master O]

What do you think would happen if the United States completely removed itself from all Middle-Eastern affairs? Please understand, I do not expect this to happen anytime soon; I am merely asking it in a purely hypothetical sense. What would happen in the region? What would happen to the rest of the world?
they would probably forget about us for a while while rampant wars to establish control over the region broke out.

[notjeffgoldblum]

Saddam Hussein would rise from the grave.

[kuranes]

Saddam Hussein would rise from the grave.
Was making that comment worth resurrecting the thread ?

Yeah, yeah, I'm adding my worthless post here, too, except it isn't worthless if people are honestly trying to distinguish between good necromancing and ho-hum necromancing. ( I occasionally see comments from people who seem unsure about this. )

Back OT - in the conservative or libertarian vernacular, there would be a "market adjustment". A lot of people would get killed, and Saudi Arabia and Iran would start getting more limelight as far as their own conflict vs. strictly the USA intrusion into Muslim lands.