Can or Ought Israel Go it Alone?

A Geo-Strategic and Moral Outlook

Since its inception Israel has been dedicated to defending itself without asking for help from foreign powers.   It obviously needed weapons, and these were satisfied first by the Czechs, then by the French and finally by the United States and in cases like naval vessels, Germany.   Of course, Israel has contracts with other western countries – and it also sells arms to them.  But as far as sacrificing blood - Israel has proudly stood on its own.

This was based on the fact that wars were fought in proximity to it.   From seven invading Arab armies in 1948 to three in 1967 (Iraq and others also sent soldiers but these were not wholehearted) to two in 1973 to Lebanon in the 1970’s and 80’s to Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah in this century Israel has fought on its own.   It shared intelligence with other countries and probably depended on their intelligence.  But air power, sea power and ground forces were always Israeli.

Has that policy reached the end of the line?  Can Israel still fight on its own?  Ought to it be expected to fight on its own?  What wars and which geographical area is Israel responsible for?   Is it possible to be a small country and not part of an active alliance?

Israel’s population growth is unique in the western world. With a population of just under 10 million Israel now has a larger population than Austria and Switzerland and will soon surpass Portugal and Greece (source:  CIA).   But even continuing its remarkable growth rate, Israel will never be a major population center for decades if not more.  Its GDP per capita surpasses that of Germany, France and the UK (World Bank) but its limited population means it might continue to be a technological power it can never be a true industrial power.   If there is something that the last few years has taught us it is that industrial might still counts. 

If we go back to 1973 and the Yom Kippur War we see the first hint that Israel could not go it alone.  The United States had two immediate goals in that war.  The first was to make sure US weaponry beat Soviet weaponry and the second was that the Soviet Union not become an active participant in the war.   There were intense messages sent between the Nixon White House and the Kremlin in those days and the Soviets were threatening to come in on the side of their allies.  The US made it clear that if that were the case, they would be fighting the US.

That was a clear situation where a regional war threatened to become a big power war and the US and the Soviets knew where they stood on that – neither Egypt and Syria nor Israel were worth a nuclear exchange between the two powers and yet, neither big power would stand by as the other shot at their ally.

Fast forward to October 2023 and the United States sent aircraft carriers to the middle east in a show of support for Israel.  We know now that Biden’s “don’t” was mere hyperbole but then it was not clear what Biden would do.   Personally, I felt it was the opportunity for the US to finally deal with Iran’s nuclear program.   It could have been done in a week’s worth of bombing without a major threat to US forces.   But the administration did two things quickly – it denied Iranian involvement in the Hamas attacks and the Secretary of State called for a cease fire.  I did not realize that these two statements had more medium term importance that Biden’s “don’t” and the two carrier groups sent to the Mediterranean.

Once the Houthis got involved, I was in for another surprise.  As someone raised in the United States I knew that the most respected institution there is the US Navy (not to demean the Army and Air Force).   Naval power, I knew, was the key to American power and place in the world and was the keeper of Pax Americana – which brought more prosperity to the world in the last 80 years than in the previous 2 millennia – or more.  It still boggles the mind that the US didn’t stop the Houthi embargo quickly.   But it didn’t and it also didn’t allow Israel to try and take care of the problem on its own.  I don’t know if it could have but it never had the chance to try. 

When Iran shot 300 rockets, missiles and drones to Israel, we did have a common defense where the US and the UK helped stop the attack.   Jordan and Saudi Arabia participated, too, but under the guise of national sovereignty as they shot down some projectiles that entered its air space.  But as the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs said just a few days ago – that was a one-off as stated in no uncertain terms that Israel should not count on the help of the US or other countries in the case of another Iranian attack.   

But it would be wrong to say that the Iranian threat is “only” from its current lineup of proxies and geographies.  They are working day and night to tighten the noose around Israel and have been smuggling arms into the West Bank at a scary pace.  Jordan has been interdicting some of it and Israel catches some who cross the border but the Jordanians announced that they uncovered two large Iranian arms caches in their country – some destined for the West Bank and some towards the Iranian attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Jordanian kingdom.  Israeli press is reporting that the materials found include parts necessary for building rockets.

The two question here are  - can Israel go it alone?  And, ought Israel be forced to go it alone?

Currently Israel faces military threats from all its borders as well as from two countries that are 1,700 and 2,000 kms away, respectively, Iran and Yemen.  Israel has cut its military drastically over the last three decades as it overestimated the peace dividend and underestimated the military threat of its neighbors.   Six divisions and over 2,000 tanks were decommissioned even as the defense budget grew nearly three times from $8.3 billion in 2000 to over $23 billion in 2022.   As percent of GDP it actually dropped from 6.3% to 4.5%.  This is due to two factors – one is the dramatic growth in Israel’s GDP over the years and the cuts mentioned above.  

Israel invested strongly – and correctly – in advanced technology and special forces as they understood that the main threat comes from a country they would never actually invade – Iran.   The mistake though was in underestimating the threat posed by neighbors funded and controlled by Iran.    Also, there is a constant obsession, from the times of Rabin to Netanyahu on stopping “existential” threats, forgetting that a country’s first responsibility is to protect the lives and property of its citizens.    Rabin said he didn’t consider Palestinian terrorism an existential threat and Netanyahu said the same about Hamas in Gaza and both “pooh-poohed” these actions, leading to what we have now. 

In order for Israel to be able to “go it alone” – meaning facing all threats on all fronts and never again tolerating “small attacks” like it has from Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Fatah and Hamas in the West Bank – it will have to invest and rebuild its armed forces without cutting back on investments to the Air Force, Navy and intelligence services. That means an increase in defense spending more in line with Israel’s growing GDP and population and an increase in drafting of combat and support soldiers.   This means not only the controversial ultra-Orthodox draft, which, in spite of the objections of their Knesset members will have to get done, as well as stopping the many thousands who get psychological exemptions – most of whom it seems are from the upper middle class areas (don’t have exact numbers on this).  Also, there are many hundreds per year who serve as athletes and even models (!).   These will have to end.  If Ted Williams could serve in WWII and Korea in the Navy and  Marines then the goalie for the Holon soccer team should serve too.

The IDF will need to increase both the reserves and the regular army infantry and armored corps so that it can fight offensively on at least two fronts and defensively on two at any one time.   It needs to increase its civilian defense by adding units of soldiers who have finished their reserve duty to either a special unit under the police or the IDF’s own Homefront command. 

In order to accomplish this the IDF needs to be reformed and made more competitive and more open to change. It needs true civilian control.   People like to belittle politicians in favor of various experts but that is what got us here to start with.   We forget that the best Defense Minister Israel has had were all civilians – David Ben Gurion, Shimon Peres and Moshe Arens. A new basic law needs to be enacted that will eliminate the military’s involvement in politics by banning officers over a certain rank from running for office for a period of at least 7 years.   Generals should not be making decisions and pronouncements in order to court favor with the media or some constituency.   There have been other suggestions to improve the IDF’s effectiveness, but this is not the place to discuss each idea.

Israel has the population and the economy to support a vastly increased armed forces and it has the technological knowhow to create armed forces to face the current threats including possible future ones from Egypt and Jordan but there are wild cards that could negatively impact the effort.

The first is a nuclear Iran.   Iran is not a deterrable country as they are willing to sacrifice a million people in order to attain the victory that is the destruction of Israel.   They are a patient country which is why they are happy to hit Israel without going all out but the moment they feel they have the firepower to destroy Israel they will try.  They have called Israel a “one bomb country” but they will certainly fire more when the time comes.   A nuclear Iran needs to be prevented and there are only two ways to do that.  The first is to destroy all of their nuclear facilities.  Even a massive strike destroying most of what they have built up over the years will only be a temporary setback – even 10 years is temporary.   The second and the more permanent way is regime change.    There is a strong democratic opposition in Iran and there are also many minority ethnic groups in the country.  Only about half  of the country is ethnically  Persian.  Israel would be in the best shape if it could help engineer a revolution by the Western oriented opposition but if does not work, Israel will need to active foment ethnic violence that will keep the Mullah’s busy.  This is a risky thing to do as it could just lead to some other fanatic group taking over. 

But regime change is the best bet in eliminating the Iranian threat.   Of course, eliminating the Iranian threat could cause a return of the Arab threat via Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and all the rest of the Arab world that would no longer fear Iran and return to form a brand new “rejectionist front”.  In short – Israel will always face enemies and has to be ready for them.

The second wild card would be the creation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza.  For the foreseeable future there does not seem to be any way that the Palestinians will have a state but will not use it to attack Israel.  The PA itself has an army (that they call a police force) that has been trained and armed by the Americans.  This same force has been training in Pakistan over the last year or so, to fight with tanks and other armored vehicles.   With the advent of drone warfare, they will be able to build their own mini air force. 

The only solution that will allow Israel to maintain a proper level of security would be a Confederated Emirates of Palestine (which we discussed here back in November). That would give the Palestinian population control of their daily lives through semi-independent Emirates (based in each of the major cities in the West Bank) and enough national symbols and pride via a Confederation that could issue passports, be members of international organizations and sign economic (but not military) treaties with other countries.  What they would not get is territorial contiguity and armed forces. 

With an internationally recognized solution like this in place, Israel would control the rural areas and the borders.  Even if terrorists still try to do their nasty deeds (and they will), Israel will be able to contain and hopefully prevent most of them. 

The third wild card has to do with great power involvement in the middle east.  Russia, while no longer what it was will probably be stronger in the future as Putin now seems to have staked his survival on military adventure.  In addition to Ukraine, Russia is still militarily active in Syria, Libya and sub-Saharan Africa.   As they are now part of an Axis with Iran and China and have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. They could move to threaten Israel in an effort to save Iran or just in order to create more chaos and uncertainly for the United States.    China, while it does not seem at all interested in fighting a war in the middle east could look to expand its own power if it successfully takes Taiwan and chases the US from the Indo-Pacific.  A resurgent and victorious China might not be able to resist the lure of the middle east – no other great power has.

So, Israel can, if it wants to defend itself from its enemies assuming these wild cards are not on the table.  If they are, that would require further effort – one that it is not clear Israel will ever have the power to do.

This brings us to the next question – ought Israel be expected to fight alone?   This question has both geo-strategic and moral aspects.

The traditional way to look at Israel’s conflicts have to do with Israel “intruding” upon the Arab world.    Before Palestinian nationalism and statehood became a thing there was just the Jews and the Arabs.   The Arabs as we know rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan since they felt that Jews had no place in region in anything other than as subservient citizens – dhimmis in Moslem legal parlance.

Then, the West, which helped bring Israel to statehood by supporting the Partition Plan created a new thing – Pan-Arab territorial contiguity. In 1955 the US and the UK got together and proposed Operation Alpha, which among other things called for Israel to withdraw from the Negev, including Eilat in order to create a territorial link between Egypt and Jordan – so as to create a unified Arab land base from Morocco to Iraq.    This was an Arab “right” they felt – a right the Jews prevented.   The US State Department and the British Foreign Office have had and continue to have a belligerent attitude towards Israel.   The only disagreements seem to be between those who say – Israel should not have come into existence but now that it has, we have to do the best we can - and those who say – Israel should never have come into existence so we need to usher it from the world.

For various reasons both bureaucracies have failed in their goals but they have never given them up.  The view is a romantic vision of the Arab and Moslem world without any of the realism that TE Lawrence detailed in his “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”.   This along with old aristocratic/WASP anti-semitism led to a view of the Arab-Israeli issue as one of intrusion and territory.   A re-partition of the old League of Nations mandate has always been the goal – even before 1967 as we see from Operation Alpha.

There were also geostrategic implications of the conflict from oil to Cold War I.   Israel was either a threat to the prosperity of the West, especially after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, or a necessary fixture in the American attempt to contain and roll back the Soviet presence in the middle east.  Most strategists managed to separate Israel from the rest of the middle east and determined that, scapegoat style, peace would reign in the middle east once the Israeli issue would be solved.  I say Israeli issue and not Israeli-Arab of Israeli-Palestinian issue since to all concerned Israel WAS the issue.  Concessions to the romantic view of the Arab world was what Israel needed to do.  Everything else was secondary.  

For those who held this view the Arab Spring and the never ending fighting that has followed it have popped that bubble much as Solzhenitsyn did to the French Marxists with the publication of the Gulag Archipelago.   In Egypt the Moslem Brotherhood came to power followed by a military coup and the current corrupt military dictatorship.  In Libya we have warfare that will never end and in Syria we had the birth of ISIS and the genocide of its Sunni population, the return of Russia and constant fighting.  That is not to say there are not remnants of the re-partition plan – we see it in the current US administration but the Arab world itself has come to realize that, although ridding the world of Israel is a good – it is a good that can wait since the intra-Moslem threat – that coming from Shiite Iran and fanatical, nihilistic ISIS – is a greater challenge to both traditional regimes and to those who want  a more prosperity centered order  - within the bounds of traditional Arab and Islamic culture and law.

The Palestinians have thrown their lot in with Iran and therefore with the rest of the Axis – China and Russia.  While the Palestinian Authority is nominally a traditional-prosperity centered entity, in truth it is as radical as its main component – Fatah - and it is hoping to coerce Hamas into being a junior partner.  

Iran views itself as a non-status quo power but the West in general and the United States (or the Democratic party and the State Department at least) in particular, still see Iran as a potential partner and not as an enemy like Russia and Iran.   So, geo-strategically, if one sees the Islamic Republic of Iran as a long term partner of the US then Israel is truly an obstacle.  If, however, one believes what the Iranians actually say – then Israel is, like during Cold War I, a key strategic pillar against the takeover of the region by Iran-Russia-China. 

To my mind, geostrategically, Israel should not be expected to face the Axis on its own as it is defending not only its own existence and safety but that of both the status-quo Sunni Arab powers in the region and US and Western interests there.   The defense of Israel last April against Iranian attack, was not just a defense of Israel it was rather the first direct attack by an Axis power on a western anti-Axis ally.   Some people would say that Ukraine was that opening shot, but before the Russian invasion the West showed no signs that Ukraine was in fact an ally.  The opposite could be inferred by Western actions and that no doubt is what Putin picked up on. 

In my view, in April the Axis directly attacked a major Western ally and the responsibility to defeat the Axis does not lie only at Israel’s door.  And with Russian surveillance in the Mediterranean combined with their air and other naval forces in Syria working side by side with the Syrian government and Iran, Israel cannot be expected to shoulder the entire burden for the middle east.   Turkey would be expected to respond as they are NATO members but that of course is an absurdity.   Egypt too can be expected to use their large and growing military to aid their patron – the US, but that won’t happen either.

To be blunt – should Israel be expected to take on Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah on its own?  Yes.  Should it be expected to fight an Axis power, or a combination of them, on its own?  The answer to that is no.  That is especially true since the West has not pulled its weight in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power or from using its resources to foment chaos in the region.   While one can “blame” Israel for the Palestinian problem (wrongly, I think, but nevertheless) the Islamic Republic of Iran is an animal created, supported and funded by the West.   Israel can be a great help in defeating the Islamic Republic but the absurd statement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that Israel is basically on its own if Iran attacks is just wrong from a US national interest or geo-strategic point of view.

Which leads us to part two of the “ought” question – from a moral perspective, can the West allow Israel to be destroyed?   Can it morally allow a second holocaust, while the first one was less than a century ago?   The whole campaign by the nihilist Left comparing Israel to the Nazis and using the ICC as its tool, is the very attempt to get rid of this responsibility.     

The West now faces a choice  - does it want to follow the nihilism of the Nazi and Communist parties  - allies once  ?  Or will it try to destroy the power that has given that idea the ability  to do harm? 

I have heard it claimed that while Judaism and Christianity have pagan origins – Judaism from Mesopotamia and Egypt (and some claim from Zoroastrianism, too) and Christianity from that plus Greece and Rome, Nazism attempted to claim German/Norse paganism as its origins and not Christian and Jewish sourced paganism.   Contemporary nihilism is also sourced in paganism – I always thought Greek, but maybe it too, comes from the same pagan tradition that Nazism came from (this is a topic for a young, bright PhD student, not me).   This would make the nihilist left a direct descendent of the Nazi Party.

In either case, this western nihilism combined with Islamic fanaticism (whose pagan origins are the Arabian dessert) along with technology developed in the West is the cause of the current plan for a second Holocaust by Iran and their allied (and non-allied) Islamist fanatics. 

The West, in other words is the source of the power of this attempted second genocide of Jews and, possibly, the ideological source, too.

If Israel were to sit back like a spoiled brat victim and cry for help the argument could be made that it needs to fend for itself first before asking for help and sacrifice from others.  But Israel has sacrificed, for peace ( !) the West promised it   and the quiet that the West has demanded of it over the last few decades and therefore, morally, the West has an obligation to prevent this attempt at genocide. Judaism will probably not survive a second Holocaust that includes the destruction of the third Jewish Commonwealth and the West won’t survive the moral stain that lets it happen.   

So here we are – on the eve of WWIII if not in it already.   The Jews, Israel, do not stand at the center of this conflict whose main battleground will be the Indo-Pacific.  But Israel is now the vanguard of the Axis’s attempt to probe western defenses.  The Axis senses a weakness which is the abandonment of Israel.  All Western powers besides the United States have abandoned it.  The US is currently conflicted.   The Axis is wondering who will be abandoned next?

If Israel ends up the first sacrifice, geo-strategically or morally, don’t expect the initial Axis probe of Western defenses to be  the last.