Israel

Krimzen wrote:

I hope all of our Yom Kippur's were excellent. Certainly a good day for me.

Glad yours was good! Mine was, too. It’s, for lack of a better word, refreshing. Most refreshing day of the year.

Israel Ambassador wrote:

Because of Donald Trump's abandonment of the SDF and enabling of the Turkish invasion, I have never been more ashamed to be an American than I have this week.

I understand your sentiments. While I'm not ashamed to be an American, I'm very angry that President Trump has abandoned the Kurds, and allowed the escape of hundreds of Isis prisoners. This action will come back to haunt the USA and our allies.

Mossad Agent H wrote:

Any involvement of the US is a force for good, and should be thanked for, but the region's prosperity or quiet cannot and should not depend solely on the good graces of the US and its troops.
While this decision does complicates things, allowing Suni Turkey to cause havoc in Syria and at the same time strengthening Assad and its Shi'ite allies, and while the seemingly hasty thought-process behind this decision puzzles many in the region, I don't think you or any other American have anything to be ashamed of.

It is interesting to see the reaction to Trump’s decision from both sides of the aisle. Republicans seem to be condemning it, which I think is principled, because they were similarly against Obama’s abandonment of the Kurds in Iraq.

Democrats, too, are upset with the decision - but they weren’t with Obama’s abandonment of the Kurds. They even welcomed it. Which is annoying for at least a handful of reasons.

I’m against Trump’s decision. But then, I have always advocated for greater American presence in the Levant (and the Gulf) to, first and foremost, deter Iran.

But to speak of the Kurds specifically, I am very much puzzled by Trump’s decision. Truthfully, I think it was a very bad one, for a few reasons:

1) I see the Kurds like I see myself - and Jews generally. I want them to have a state. And I think they’d be a good ally, perhaps another bulwark against Iran.

2) It seems like a real betrayal to these people, who shed their blood before ours, and I want American foreign policy to reflect our values, rather than merely our interests. Our operations in Syria were cheap, too, in lives and in treasure.

3) We didn’t get much out of this retreat. Turkey didn’t give us anything. If they had, I’d be somewhat more understanding. At best, they’re a reluctant ally. At worst, a perpetual nuisance, and an enemy of Israel. If they didn’t house our nukes, I’d be even more dismissive of their interests.

4) Still, Trump is doing exactly what he said he would. This wasn’t surprising. In fact, he’s doing precisely what the Left has been asking for. Which is why I’m surprised by their reaction. It’s not principled. It’s merely a gut reaction against Trump. And if Obama had done this - and he did! - they’d be congratulating each other for it.

Late note: The abandonment of Kurdish allies may make the acquisition of future allies more difficult. The Poles have, at least privately, referred to American promises of backup as a “dangerous delusion,” and a false hope.

My worry: Would Israel be wrong for coming to the same conclusion? Would Saudi Arabia pursue nukes, believing our guarantees of security to be fickle? Maybe. America doesn’t have a great history of supporting our allies (Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq). There are thousands of men and women, buried in shallow graves across the earth, who were foolish enough to trust us.

(I’d quote your post, SD, but I’m awful with the text format on this site.)

1) I think the threat of war with Turkey is not our problem, but theirs. Turkey would not have gone to war with us over a 20-mile stretch of neutral zone. And if they had - which would have been surprising - it would have been a severe miscalculation on their part. That said, there's a reason they waited until our announcement to leave before they moved in.

2) Agreed that this was Trump's plan. It should come to no one's surprise. It was, in fact, what the American Left has supported since 2001. Our wars in the Middle East, they claim, are mindless, profiteering and savage. And when we leave Afghanistan, as they have been asking, the result will be the exact same: Abandoned allies, full-scale retreat and defeat.

As for the end result, or the exit strategy, I'm not so certain it was worth formulating in the immediate term. Our commitment to Syria was not so expensive, in soldiers (roughly 2,000) or in treasure, and we had YPG doing most of the dirty work. The costs of leaving, on the other hand, are high: Less American hegemony in the region, a veritable genocide facilitated by a supposed NATO ally, and another notch on our belt that reads: "Don't trust us." In other words, it was worth staying, allowing a de-facto Kurdish state - and, at the very least, preventing Turkey from letting loose hundreds of ISIS prisoners.

3) Your point, in the immediate term, is correct. Turkey may be a counterweight against Iran. But I'm not sure they'd be a good one, exactly. As our relationship with Turkey erodes, and as Turkey grows more authoritarian - not to mention their public groaning about our sanctions on Iran, and their inability to abide them - there have been talks with Rouhani and Erdogan about stopping "the fighting and establish[ing] peace." I'm unsure what to think about this, but it makes me wonder: Is this rivalry meant to last long-term? Would it produce a meaningful check on Iran, or merely a nominal one?

4) I'm not worried about Israel leaving our gang of usual suspects, but I am worried about creating, in Obama's words, "daylight" between us and Israel that allows for those smaller matters to slip under the radar, e.g. China buying up Israeli land and resources. You're probably correct that the Kurdish example won't have any measurable effect on Israeli trust of the Pentagon (you'd know better than I would), but, to address your point about Democrats, I would hate to see the more leftwing of them take the reins of foreign policy.

Netanyahu's criticism of Obama, and courting of Senate Republicans, was an awful mistake, principally because 1) He alienated half the country, and 2) Democrats reacted in an very tribal way to criticism of Obama *that is still ongoing*. That tribalism is very much alive, by the way. The Left is incensed about Israel. Many American Jews turned on Israel as quickly as they could - progressive loyalties and social ties always come before anything - because of Netanyahu. You can argue that their (now dead) appreciation of Israel was fickle anyway, because it could so easily be dissolved by partisan loyalties, but the point is that Netanyahu miscalculated for very short-term gains with the Right. We won't have power forever. Or even much longer.

So, how will Democrats govern? How will they work with Israel? With Iran growing more powerful by the day, and the Left's base foaming at the mouth because of a tribal spat between Obama and Netanyahu, I think Democrats are more radical than we anticipate. Less radical administrations have given billions to Iran.

(There’s always worse than Obama, and Obama was bad, but Ilhan will be a nightmare for our relations with Israel. We can always pivot to Iran again, and if Democrats take power, we will.)

Last note: American lefty jews turned on Israel, not because Israel changed, or *because of Netanyahu,* but because they were looking for a way out of Zionism, and Netanyahu gave them an excuse. In reality, the divide between Israeli Jews and American Jews is religion.