Thursday, November 22, 2012

Israel dominates the new Middle East

Washington Post   by Fareed Zakaria    In a thorough 2010 study, “The Arab-Israeli Military Balance,” Anthony Cordesman and Aram Nerguizian document how over the past decade Israel has outstripped its neighbors in every dimension of warfare. The authors attribute this to Israel’s “combination of national expenditures, massive external funding, national industrial capacity and effective strategy and force planning.” Israel’s military expenditures in 2009 were about $10 billion, which is three times Egypt’s military spending and larger than the combined defense expenditures of all its neighbors — Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. (This advantage is helped by the fact that Israel receives $3 billion in military assistance from Washington.)

But money doesn’t begin to describe Israel’s real advantages, which are in the quality and effectiveness of its military, in terms of both weapons and people. Despite being dwarfed by the Arab population, Israel’s army plus its high-quality reservists vastly outnumber those of the Arab nations. Its weapons are far more sophisticated, often a generation ahead of those used by its adversaries. Israel’s technology advantage has profound implications on the modern battlefield. [...]

These are the realities of the Middle East today. Israel’s astonishing economic growth, its technological prowess, its military preparedness and its tight relationship with the United States have set it a league apart from its Arab adversaries. Peace between the Palestinians and Israelis will come only when Israel decides that it wants to make peace. Wise Israeli politicians, from Ariel Sharon to Ehud Olmert to Ehud Barak, have wanted to take risks to make that peace because they have worried about Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. This is what is in danger, not Israel’s existence.


  1. This is the new (really old) "sophisticated" arguments against Israel: you can make peace, but you just don't want to.
    Or how about this one: Why attack Gaza? It didn't work before. So just make peace. (real argument made on CNN in the last week by one of their muslim guests who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.)

  2. If the arab writing for the washington post says it, you know it must be true. Right?

  3. Excuse me. The non arab writing for the washington post says it, so you know it must be true. Right? After all, the Washington Post or New York Times would never saying anything biased against Israel, right? They are sources of pure scholarship and truth, right?

    1. what does he say that you disagree with?

    2. Mike,
      Why dont you try to engage substantively with the content of the article instead of attacking first, the author, and then the publication that carried the article.

      I dont see much bias in this article. Please point out the bias in this article.

    3. The implication is that Israel is so strong it can easily afford the creation of a Palestinian state in West Bank and Gaza. It is this implication that is the point of the article. Don't get lost in details.

      Do you want all of Israel in Katushya range? Give up water resources in west bank? Have israel 9 miles wide at TulQuarm? Allow a soveriegn Arab state (no such thing as a demilitarized soveriegn Arab state) in West Bank and Gaza? Lose the eastern facing mountain range? +++? Make no mistake, we are not arguing with facts, we are arguing with inuendo and implication. If you're OK with a soveriegn armed Pal. state in Gaza and west bank - fine. And why do you consider Washington post a credible source of truth? why should I take it seriously? Did you take pravda seriously during the soviet era?

      Do you know why Israel can just march into gaza or west bank? Because it isn't marching on an Arab capital. That is something the Arabs and the rest of the world won't tolerate. Remember Beirut? So giving them a state doesn't mean that if you don't like it you can just erase an Arab state from the map and the world will sit for it.

      Is that enough? I thought you understood - American 'journolists' are left wing anti israel propagandists. The american media is the voice of Amalek. Good morning!


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.