UN rep. backs declaration of Palestinian state in next year

[dayag]

Israel joining NATO? It's interesting, but Turkey would veto that, right?

I'd say that is a safe bet. Their hostility was shown yet again by their making sure NATO doesn't share any intelligence info with Israel that they may derive from missle defense systems to be deployed in Turkey.

Ankara aims to prevent non-NATO members from accessing any information Washington may derive from the use of the missile defense system it intends to deploy in Eastern Europe and Turkey.

According to a Monday report in the Ankara-based Zaman newspaper, Turkey asked the US to insure nations that are not members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization – including Israel – be barred for accessing such intelligence. The US reportedly agreed...

source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...974466,00.html

[Mediocrates]

Israel joining NATO? It's interesting, but Turkey would veto that, right?

NATO is living on borrowed time. By the end of 2012 there will no longer be any reason to keep NATO. Why? The EU states are today already below the funding thresholds (with the exception of the UK and Germany). In another two years the situation will be far worse. This leaves the US essentially BEING NATO. Which is pointless. NATO doesn't have a role. The one time it could have served one, in the Balkans, it failed, leaving the job up to the US anyhow.

Current projections is for a 30% contraction in EU defense funding in the next three years.

In the mean time Turkey will 'voluntarily' pull out after it becomes obvious that they're using NATO to circumvent sanctions against Iran and transferring military technology to them. Which they are. The US will allow them to keep face by allowing them to withdraw but in reality they'll get kicked out.

So no, I think NATO is dead.

The question is which multinational forces would be recruited to fill the gap? There's no one. The Arab forces will volunteer but refuse to follow through like they always do. The Arab states which are not contiguous will refuse any and all 'infidel' forces to set foot in 'Palestine'.

That leaves Jordan and Syria. Jordan is out because a) they can't do the job and they know it, and b) Syria which would love to but I doubt anyone but the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah would want them there. Of course the possibility of making 'Palestine' a militarily annexed piece of Syria appeals to Syria and Iran.

Who knows? Maybe Obama will completely quit the field of battle and leave 'Palestine' to whomever is strong enough to take it. Gaza is more than halfway there now.

It makes the idea of a Jew-Free Palestine more palatable when you realize that Hezbollah, the IRGC, Hamas, and the rest will be running around unchecked to do whatever they like. I wonder what the UN will do or say, if anything when Palestine unilaterally declares itself and it melts down into anarchic chaos in 2 months. I mean straight up civil war. Obviously that will happen. The only question is can the Jews bug out fast enough?

[Kachah]

NATO does have a role - it protects Eastern and Central Europe from Russia. This is precisely why I am against NATO missions outside of its role - it is not geared for it, it lacks structure, will of its members and operational planning.
For Turkey the existence of NATO is critical, for all Baltic and ex-Warsaw block states it's absolutely vital. I can't imagine the US quitting NATO any time in foreseable future. NATO is essential in Europe and Turkish straights - otherwise the new war is guranteed.
In the same way NATO is pretty much useless outside of this area.

[curlyg]

If NATO is not an option (admittedly it seems unrealistic) then Israel should settle for nothing less than other formal multilateral and/or bilateral defense agreements.

Some method must be found to mitigate the fact that Israel is giving away strategic territory to a state which is, at best, of questionable viability and bears historic animosity towards the Jews. One means is to ensure that Palestine is constitutionally demilitarized, but I personally would not want to stake my life on their word alone, nor on any external monitors enforcing that. Externally enforced demilitarization plus some kind of formal defense mechanism, in my opinion, would be much more satisfactory and probably promote a far more stable Middle East.

[Kachah]

One means is to ensure that Palestine is constitutionally demilitarized, .

What happpened to th ethree pillars of Bibi's position for the talks? No military, No Jerusalem, No return of refugees, remember?
Or it was just politician's speak...

[curlyg]

What happpened to th ethree pillars of Bibi's position for the talks? No military, No Jerusalem, No return of refugees, remember?
Or it was just politician's speak...

I think he still insists that Palestine be demilitarized. This has been probably THE most persistent Israeli demand. No Israeli leader has ever conceded it. The Clinton parameters referred to a "non-militarised" Palestinian state.

At Taba, the Palestinians did indicate some flexibility on the issue, though they refused to accept the use of the word "demilitarized." As for refugees and Jerusalem, I'm guessing these were just politician speak. Some sort of compromise will have to be made on these points.

[Kachah]

As for refugees and Jerusalem, I'm guessing these were just politician speak. Some sort of compromise will have to be made on these points.

I can't see compromise on Jerusalem (as for Kotel, Jewish Quarter etc). Yeah, "refugees" we can talk...

[Mediocrates]

NATO does have a role - it protects Eastern and Central Europe from Russia. This is precisely why I am against NATO missions outside of its role - it is not geared for it, it lacks structure, will of its members and operational planning.
For Turkey the existence of NATO is critical, for all Baltic and ex-Warsaw block states it's absolutely vital. I can't imagine the US quitting NATO any time in foreseable future. NATO is essential in Europe and Turkish straights - otherwise the new war is guranteed.
In the same way NATO is pretty much useless outside of this area.

NATO, w/o a tactical nuclear option, has no war plan. But it's true that the Soviet Union-II is a mere whisp of what it once was, militarily and they would crumble soon after any sort of run on northern or central Europe so it's hard to see what foreseeable risk NATO is backstopping.

Turkey likewise has less to fear from Russia. They've made their choice to work WITH Iran and not against Iran. So there's no threat there either. Turkey's risk is more or less internal or from spillover from the Caucuses.

I can easily see the US quitting NATO. The US spends billions stationing forces in Europe against little plausible threat. The EU states don't want to fund NATO, can't fund NATO and are perfectly willing to the fight to the last American should the need ever arise.

Think of this way - force projection is for the sake of strategic interest. Where does Europe's strategic interest lie? It lies in withdrawal. It lies in economic interests with anyone and everyone who will work with them. In the last 15 years EU's portion of global GDP has shrunk from 25% to 20%. In the next 10 years it will further shrink to 15%. While its population grows and becomes much younger. The traditional European cradle to grave social welfare generation will die out in the next 20-25 years. To be replaced with a much younger, less educated, less assimilated, less 'European' population. People will need jobs, not welfare. A national defense posture won't serve those ends in any way. In fact I'd gamble that except for England, France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, the entire EU will demilitarize soon. To be followed by England, then in a few years Germany and last, France and its Force Frappe. Sweden and Switzerland will always keep their national defense structure as they always have, but it doesn't have an actual role to fill and Sweden for instance is cutting the size of their standing army by more than a third.

Concurrent with this you will see massive reorganization in Europe's defense industries. The nationally funded programs will go away. Big firms like Dassault will have to live on export sales. The specialty firms in Sweden, Germany and Switzerland will shrink, military boatyards will close down and most defense funding will be redirected towards missiles, missile defense, UAV's and on the ground police type counter terrorism. No more tanks, subs, fighter bomber aircraft, etc. They'll buy American, or Russian or Chinese.

[Kachah]

Unfortunately, Medio, there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. A lot... You are not even mentioning the austerity measures which - alone - have forced the UK into decommissioning its entire Harriers fleet (with the 000s kicked out of defence forces).
Yet Europe is not completely lost in my view, it still kicking underneath. There is "new Europe" which is very awake about the rise of neo-Soviet threat from Russia. Russia itself is unstable and unpredictable and eventually the West will grow awareness about its aspirations.
Turkey today is pushed towards Iran by the Europeans who are baiting the Turks with EU memberships and find yet another excuse not to admit them every time. In any case on the longer run Turkey alligns with Iran against Russia. Nothing can be changed in the Mediterranean geography and Russia will never give up hopes for the Turkish straights.
But most importantly, the US can't leave because the whole premise of their European involvement is very much there still. If they leave, the Europeans will start another war (regardless of who is the culprit this time) and pull the Americans in. It's like remote Canada - even if Canada gives up all its armed forces, the US will still step in case of any trouble. So the US will protect Europe regardless of the European trends. It's still cheaper than the D-days and tactical nuclear wars.