Posted on 12/11/2015 11:27:43 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[SNIP]
Western leaders should also pause to reconsider the old habit of keeping Israel on the sidelines. Excluding a country for no other reason than the reluctance of others to fight alongside it undermines the very premise of the anti-Islamic State coalition, which claims the radical jihadists are a menace against which everybody should rally regardless of petty interests and selfish calculations..........
..........And yet, the question of Israeli participation deserves a hearing. It deserves it first and foremost because Israel, like all other countries in the region, has a stake in fighting against evildoers. It cannot urge France or the United States or Russia to fight a battle that it would not be willing to join.
There are more selfish reasons for Israel to at least ponder the possibility of participation. An invitation to join this coalition would demonstrate to the world that Israel is not a pariah state. It would be an acknowledgment - albeit a late one - that the Middle East is no longer preoccupied with the straw man that is the Israeli-Arab conflict. There would be a cost for Israel - but there would also be real benefit.
Israel would most likely have no choice but to accept an invitation to join a coalition against the Islamic State. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or his generals shouldn't expect one to arrive any time soon. Fighting the Islamic State is tough, but getting rid of old habits seems to be tougher.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Why the heck not?
The irony is so ironic.
If we can cooperate with the Russians, the non ISIL Islamics ought to be able to cooperate with Israel
Had the NYT/Obama administration done their job, there would be no ISIS and no attacks on the mainland. Now at this late stage it's ok to let the Israelis (the people you have heaped scorn upon) attack?
Now that you (Obama/NYT) let the new Soviet Union into the Middle East, now it's ok for Israeli jets to combat Soviet/Russian ones?
Go to heck!
Two words -- Suez Crisis. Also, why is fighting ISIS in the interest of Israel, since the jihadists inside Israel's real borders (IOW, the so-called West Bank, so-called East Jerusalem, as well as Israel, and as a penalty for Arab terrorism, Gaza) are supported by the UN, EU, US, OPEC, and in particular Iran? Answer is, it's not.
bad idea because the UN and the world will NOT allow Israel to effectively fight any of her enemies- they scream bloody murder every time Israel hits possible civilians- they scream bloody murder claiming Israel is doing ‘human rights violations’, ‘war crimes’ etc
[ bad idea because the UN and the world will NOT allow Israel to effectively fight any of her enemies- they scream bloody murder every time Israel hits possible civilians- they scream bloody murder claiming Israel is doing ‘human rights violations’, ‘war crimes’ etc ]
We would have to stop sending money to the U.N. and then wait for 10 years for their cash to run out before we gave Israel the go ahead.
The UN is evil, we need to deport it.
Israel doesn’t see ISIS as that big of a threat. Hamas rules the Palestinian territories with an iron fist and keeps ISIS out, so ironically they and Israel are under the table...maybe not allies, but have a common interest in that regard. And ISIS keeps Assad and the Iranians tied down. The Middle East is incredibly complex, and has a lot of strange bedfellows and shifting alliances. Anyone who thinks they have a simple answer is assuredly wrong.
Good points.
Yup. Set everything up, we know whos in the white hut.
The NYT a great military tactician
: )
That’s why it stood out.
Ha.
Also a great political one.
What’s a good way to get the entire world of 1.5 billion Muslims to back ISIS?
Hmmmm.
Have Israel show up to fight them.
Might ss well have titled the article, “Armageddon? Sure!”
And the article was written by a secular Jew.
American Jews don’t seem to realize when Jews are kicked out of Europe and, the way its going, the U.S., the one place they’ll be able to go is Israel.
As Arabs have said openly, they want all the Jews in one place so they can wipe them out easily.
“Why the heck not?”
Well, as the line goes, it’s complicated. There are roughly 5~6M Israelis compared to about 100M Arabs on its surrounding borders. Currently, Jordan and Egypt have treaties or peace agreements with Isreal. Should Isreal join in with any Coalition made up of gulf states, Jordan, Egypt, perhaps Turkey, there would be civil unrest among the citizenry of these countries. Keep in mind that these populations are basically illiterate and hate Judism, Christianity, western culture (except blue jeans and I-phones) at a guttural visceral level. And, are already locked and loaded on the edge of revolution ....
Does this mean that the New York Times would actually be supportive of Israel in a war? If the New York Times would not leave the media and showcasing the little children killed, then they would have the moral authority to support Israel attacking Isis.
Indeed.
Why would they want to if Arab countries won’t? And if Israel is in then the Arab countries will not join.
Obama's "coalition of 60 nations and others seem to be waving ineffectually and this boob wants a small nation, surrounded by the enemy, to be the primary purveyor of doom to the bad guys (that happen to be terrorizing the whole world).
The only way Israel could make a real dent would via nukes and the rest of the world would then condemn her....
Seriously ?
Islamic is ISIL , it's only a matter of degrees...
Some little, some huge...
If anything Israel joining the fight against ISIL would bring these degrees much closer..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.