Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Israel plans pre-emptive war?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Israel plans pre-emptive war?

    The attached document, although over a year old, is interesting on several levels. Not only does it give us some insight into what is likely to happen in the near future, but it also points at the depth of the 'strategic relationship' between Israel and the US. The document was prepared for Ariel Sharon by the following individuals:

    Professor Louis René Beres, Chair, USA

    Naaman Belkind, Former Assistant to the Israeli Deputy Minister of Defense for Special Means, Israel

    Maj. Gen. (Res.), Israeli Air Force/Professor Isaac Ben-Israel, Israel

    Dr. Rand H. Fishbein, Former Professional Staff Member, US Senate Appropriations Committee, and former Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to Senator Daniel K. Inouye, USA

    Dr. Adir Pridor, Lt. Col. (Ret.), Israeli Air Force; Former Head of Military Analyses, RAFAEL, Israel

    Fmr. MK./Col. (Res.), Israeli Air Force, Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, Israel



    The document explicitly links an Israeli strategy of pre-emptive attacks against Iran and various Arab countries to the Bush Doctrine set out in the National Security Strategy of the United States, 2002.

    I have cut and pasted the executive summary here: the rest of the document (which is rather lengthy) can be accessed at

    http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV...E/daniel-3.htm.

    Israel's Strategic Future: Project Daniel

    Executive Summary


    1. Considering issues of both probability and disutility (harms), the principal existential threat to Israel at the present time is a conventional war mounted against it by a coalition of Arab states and/or Iran.



    2. Israel is also endangered (presently or potentially) by Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), nuclear and/or biological weapons that could be used against it either by enemy first-strikes or via escalation from conventional war. Israel’s particular vulnerability to such weapons is a consequence of its tiny area, its high population density and its national infrastructure concentrations. We recommend, therefore:


    1. a. Israel do whatever possible to prevent an enemy coalition from being formed and from coming into possession of WMD. This could include pertinent preemptive strikes (conventional) against enemy WMD development, manufacturing, storage, control and deployment centers. This recommendation is consistent both with longstanding international law regarding “anticipatory self-defense” and with the newly-stated defense policy of The United States of America.


      b. Israel should continue with present policy of ambiguity regarding its own nuclear status. This would help to prevent any legitimization of WMD in the Middle East. It is possible, however, that in the future Israel would be well-advised to proceed beyond nuclear ambiguity to certain limited forms of disclosure. This would be the case only if enemy (state and/or non-state) nuclearization had not been prevented.


      c. Israel should provide all constructive support to the United States-led War Against Terror (WAT). It must insist upon aiding the American objective to prevent/eliminate WMD among rogue states and terror groups in the Middle East. There is a clear coincidence of interest between Israel and the United States in matters of security and counter-terrorism.


      d. Israel must do everything within its means to prevent a Middle Eastern rogue state or terror group from attaining WMD status. Irrespective of its policy on nuclear ambiguity vs. disclosure, Israel will not be able to endure unless it continues to maintain a credible, secure and decisive nuclear deterrent alongside a multi-layered anti-missile defense. This recognizable (second-strike) retaliatory force should be fashioned with the capacity to destroy some 15 high-value targets scattered widely over pertinent enemy states in the Middle East. The overriding priority of Israel’s nuclear deterrent force must always be that it preserves the country’s security without ever having to be fired against any target. The primary point of Israel’s nuclear forces must always be deterrence ex ante, not revenge ex post.


    3. If WMD status were attained by any Middle Eastern rogue state or coalition of states, the probability of joint-enemy conventional attack against Israel would be raised considerably. Faced with adversaries who now might believe themselves shielded under a WMD “umbrella”, Israel would have to do the following:



    a. Maintain its conventional forces at full war-waging strength and with a decisive qualitative edge. Hopefully this would be accomplished with full material support from the United States, whose interests would be coincident with Israel’s interests.



    b. Adapt its planning priorities and budgetary requirements to the “paradigm shift” described later in this Report. In this connection, Israel is urged to reduce the priority it assigns to conventional warfighting without impairing its undisputed superiority against any plausible enemy coalition.

    4. The Group is aware that many of its strategic recommendations are contingent upon adequate funding. Should the substantial funds needed by Israel to deal with so-called “Low Intensity” and Long-Range WMD threats be sought via increased taxation, it could threaten Israel’s economy and (ironically) undermine Israel’s security in other ways. To deal purposefully with these threats (threats which are delineated in this Report’s following presentation of “paradigm shift”), Israel’s government must trim all nonproductive costs and seek to encourage dramatic increases in productivity. The resultant rise in per capita GNP could allow the needed increase for Israel’s national defense.


    Last edited by Telperion; Tuesday, May 18th, 2004 at 06:06 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Israel plans pre-emptive war?

    As a comment on this document, I would point out two things.

    First, it again emphasizes the point that Israel and the US are working hand-in-glove in the Middle East. The National Security Strategy of the United States, 2002 is basically an official version of the 'Project for a New American Century', which was released in 2000 with input from a number of individuals who are now leading figures in the Bush administration, including Paul Wolofowitz and Dick Cheney. PNAC calls for the US to maintain a force posture and funding that ensures that no other state will effectively rival its military power at any time in the 21st century. Ties with major regional allies are a crucial part of this strategy; Britain is a key ally in Europe, Japan in Asia, and Israel in the Middle East. When the Bush administration took power, they simply translated PNAC into NSSUS 2002.

    Israel itself, of course, benefits mightily from this strategy (as was intended). It recieves not only vast amounts of foreign aid from the US (it would anyway), but a direct pipeline to the latest US military technology. You might think that influential figures such as Wolfowitz are in a bit of a conflict of interest, being both key Bush administrative officials and Jewish Zionists whose security strategy for the US crucially involves sending vast amounts of material and technological support to Israel - but, if you said anything like that inside the beltway, you could kiss your political career goodbye.

    Incidentally, you'll notice point 4 above touches on the issue of funding for Israel's weapons development and other military programs. That's not a small issue, because the Israeli economy has been a basket case since the intifada was resurrected by the Palestinians in 2000. But, never fear; there's no doubt that Uncle Sam (that means you, for you American taxpayers out there) will pick up the tab.
    Last edited by Telperion; Wednesday, May 19th, 2004 at 05:33 AM.

  3. #3
    Member Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Israel plans pre-emptive war?

    It's certainly a very interesting read. I think that's really what's planned for the future.
    Though, I don't understand what really is the final objective of Israel and USA in the middle east.

    The current position of Israel is much stronger than any of the neigbouring countries. It has the support of USA ( which is either totally Jew-ruled, or it has some plans within plans ( copyright Frank Herbert ) and Turkey ( which is a story on it's own ).

    The way history goes, this attitude of Israel towards it's neigbours will at some point be in the position to act fully in their interests, and this will eventually result in the total annihilation of Israel and it's people. Is the Israeli's ( and Jews around the world ) will to hang on to their ancestral teritory so strong, and the wish so important it defies all logic?!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Israel plans pre-emptive war?

    One can only speculate about what precisely what the final objective is for Israel and the US in the M.E., but here's my speculation:

    For Israel, the general objective is that it retains overwhelming strategic and conventional superiority over all the Muslim Mid-Eastern states, while maximizing its security within its own territory. This will inevitably involve focused premptive strikes against any country in the region that tries to obtain its own nukes (that means Iran, first and foremost - and possibly this year).

    For the US, it's a bit more complicated. A lot of their Mid-east policy is simply driven by the Israel lobby and powerful Zionists in the administration like Wolfowitz. But, I would argue that isn't 100% of the picture. Their number one objective interest in the Mid-east is not Israel as such, but oil. There is an article in the June 2004 issue of National Geographic (blazoned on its cover page) entitled 'The End of Cheap Oil'. That equals a potential economic disaster for the US, but it also has important strategic dimensions. If oil becomes ever more scare, while it is ever more in demand, particularly by China as a rising world power, then it is a factor of the utmost importance for US security policy. I would speculate that the 'end game' for the US in the Middle East surely comes down to control of the oil supply, not least to have the capability to physically keep Middle East oil out of the hands of rival powers like China if it comes down to that. The invasion of Iraq was largely conditioned by the objective of physical US control of its oil supply, in my view. (And obviously I'm not alone in that belief.)

    So you might say, then why get the Arabs mad at the US through the gratuitous support of Israel? Well, that does mostly have to do with the enormous power of Zionists (mostly Jewish, but some Christian as well) within Washington. A secondary factor is that Israel, being entirely dependent on US support for its existence, is viewed as a more reliable US ally in the region than any of the Muslim countries (arguably including Turkey). If it ever comes down to a general war for control of Mid-East oil reserves, Israel knows which side its bread is buttered on - that of the US.

    As for why Jews insist on clinging to Israel, I've never quite understood that myself. They rely on classic nuclear deterrence to keep Israel secure - it is well known in the Middle East that if Israel is ever destroyed by nuclear weapons, or other WMDs, its surviving strategic nuclear forces will unleash the 'Samson option', which involves the total nuclear destruction of all hostile Arab countries as well as Iran (and any other country within reach of its missiles that Israel deems hostile).

    It is, however, doubtful that classical nuclear deterrence will do much to deter fanatical Islamists, should they ever get their hands on a few nukes or bioweapons that could be smuggled inside of Israel and detonated/released. Even if Israel can prevent particular hostile states from getting nukes, some sort of Al Queda like group seems bound to get its hands on them some day. So, the day will very likely come when Israel is destroyed, the 'Samson option' drags down the whole Middle East with it, some of the largest oil reserves in the world are rendered inaccessible, and the interests of major powers from the US to China will be in the thick of it.

    Basically, to rehash a cliche, the whole region is a powderkeg waiting to explode.
    Last edited by Telperion; Wednesday, May 19th, 2004 at 06:02 AM.

  5. #5
    Member Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Israel plans pre-emptive war?

    What you said is most probable, but I still don't get it, if the conduct of USA in the Middle East is some sort of huge mistake, or is it a fullproof plan.

    I mean, without the whole Israel thing, the USA could have used it's power to influence the Oil producing nations into becoming spoiled and lazy, not highly flammable fanatics. With Israel, it's an infinitely more tense situation... and I don't understand how on earth does that benefit US interests, and how can it obstruct Chinese interests.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Israel plans pre-emptive war?

    One could say the conduct of the US in the Mid-East was supposed to reflect a fulproof plan, but the plan is revealing itself to be a huge mistake.

    Clearly, the US strategy towards the Mid-East contains some inherent contradictions. Objectively, the only interest that the US has in the Mid-East is Oil. If it only pursued that interest, it would do whatever it could to strengthen its ties to/control over the Mid-Eastern countries that possess oil - which implies it would still be hostile to countries like Iran, which possess oil, but refuse to accept US control. It would continue to support Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia that keep the oil flowing and generally toe the US line. The China angle would still be involved, because China as a rapidly-growing but resource-poor nation needs as much oil as it can get its hands on from all sources - it's not likely Russian oil supplies will prove adequate beyond the short term. That places its interests in direct conflict with those of the US, whose economy is vitally dependent on oil imports from the Middle East, which is and will remain the world's largest source of cheap oil (liquid petroleum). So even if Israel had never existed, some aspects US policy toward the Mid-East would be much as they are today. US control of Mid-East oil supplies in a world without Israel would, objectively, be the first best case for the US.

    Israel, of course, complicates the situation immensely. After World War II, there were some officials in the US who opposed the creation of Israel in Palestine, because they knew that it would create a permanent cauldron in the Mid-East, and that it would turn the Arabs generally against the US and risk sending them towards the Soviet camp. But these objections were of course overuled, which reflects the enormous influence that Zionists possessed within the US even at that time. It is fair to say that the primary basis of US support for Israel is the domestic Zionist lobby - and not just Jewish Zionists, but the millions of Christian Zionists who support the existence of Israel because of the role that it plays in their End Times theology.

    Objectively, the US would be better off not supporting Israel at all, for the reasons you suggested. But given the domestic imperatives towards its support, the US then tries to support Israel in ways that favour its own interests. And there is a certain amount of cynism toward this on the part of non-Zionist US officials, who still recognize that Israel (as I noted above) is a reliable ally in the region precisely because it is totally dependent on US support for its survival. On one level, the NSSUS 2002 reflects the US view that given the US will support Israel, it might as well get some benefit from doing so by doing everything to build it into the strongest power in the region (and therefore a strong regional ally).

    As for the Arab reaction to US support for Israel - the US relies on its Arab proxy regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere to keep the lid on domestic dissent, while itself employing a heavy hand against countries like Iran, Syria and Lybia that dare to oppose US policies in the region. Basically, the US believes it can 'keep a lid' on Arab/Muslim dissent and keep the oil flowing. And, to the extent that it can't, it can always rely on Israel as an ally in the region if it comes to a general conventional war there. So, Israel plays a key role in what is basically a 'second best' US foreign policy toward the Mid-East. (Domestic US politics is what makes the 'first best' foreign policy, set out above, unattainable.)

    The wild card in all of this is, of course, Islamic fundamentalism (which, speculatively, ought to recieve at least covert support from the countries that would most benefit from reducing US control over the region). Neither the US nor Israel seem to have fully understood, until fairly recently, the extent of the threat that it poses to their strategy, since it does not fight them via conventional means. Failure to fully come to grips with the unconventional threat posed by Islamism is the key mistake in the US-Israeli approach - the document I posted at the top of this thread reflects a belated attempt by Israel to boost its capabilities to fight an unconventional war, although by its nature this sort of warfare favours small scale, covert groups and disadvantages conventional militaries. So, the Islamists are still the spark likely to set the region on fire.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 7th, 2012 @ 04:08 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    bavaria
    Subrace
    Does bavarian count?
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Colorado Colorado
    Location
    Exiled in the desert.
    Gender
    Age
    55
    Family
    Widowed
    Occupation
    Anti-Semite
    Politics
    Phineas priest
    Religion
    American Isrealism
    Posts
    400
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Israel plans pre-emptive war?

    Wont happen. We will see armed insurrection, fighting in the streets in the U.S. within 5 years.The good ole boy , zionist supporting govt. will have its hands full trying to put down the rebellion at home.The harder they squeeze us the more they will lose. The wind is now only starting to blow. In a few years it will be a storm. The Aryan/Teutonic fury of MY people is starting to awake. Tremble ye in mighty places. For your towers are coming down.
    Some days you just want to holler your head off!!!

  8. #8
    Member Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Israel plans pre-emptive war?

    Have you read that article Jack posted: 'Islam longs for it's lost empire' ( I can't find it now )

  9. #9
    Member Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Israel plans pre-emptive war?


  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Israel plans pre-emptive war?

    Quite an interesting article. There are some parallels between Islam and Nazism, though obviously the substantive differences are much more significant. Some National Socialists seem to think the parallels their ideology has in common with Islam mean that they should cooperate with Islamists to fight against the Jews, and some European national socialists think they should more specifically cooperate with groups like Al Queda against the US and Israel.

    I'm not a National Socialist (as my profile indicates), but I think it is folly to apply to Muslims the principle 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' In this case, they are our enemy too; that is, the enemy of all Europeans (those who aren't Muslim, which thankfully is still most of them).

    The article is quite right that their 'religion' is more like a totalitarian political ideology with quasi-religious elements. Their goal is definitely world domination, and anyone who calls themself a Muslim and takes their religion seriously must necessarily subscribe to that goal. If they have only moved against us thus far by unconventional means, it is only because they are still too weak to do so my conventional means.

    Again, I would stress that Islam is the enemy of all Europeans (both in Europe and its settler-colonies). Many White racialists think of the Jews as our primary enemy today, but this was not always the case. During the Middle Ages, for instance, Jewish influence was very weak, and they were at that time a marginalized group; yet Islam posed a dire threat to all Europeans for many centuries. More recently, the Islamic countries sank into weakness, and the Jews became far more powerful than they were historically. Yet today, we see the Muslims begin to flex their muscles once again. It is indeed high time people recognized them for what they are; a permanent threat that represents an alien presence in our lands.

    One analogy I like to think of in regard to this topic is that, if a deer is being chased by a pack of wolves, it is not out of trouble if it runs into a hungry bear. The fact that bears and wolves are enemies is of no help to the deer. Likewise, the fact that Muslims and Jews are each other's enemies doesn't mean we should fool ourselves into thinking that Muslims are our allies against our Jewish enemies. One might as well say that Jews are our allies against our Muslim enemies (as some people do).

    I think we should recognize that both are our enemies, and proceed on that basis - not endanger ourselves in a search for false and treacherous non-European 'allies'.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Stalin's Secret War Plans
    By fms panzerfaust in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, June 10th, 2006, 08:35 PM
  2. Exposed: The Jews of Pre-War Poland
    By friedrich braun in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, November 4th, 2004, 12:42 AM
  3. German war plans in the Pacific, 1900-1914
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, October 14th, 2004, 12:23 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •