[andyt]

This idea just popped into my head. Israel joins NATO, so that an attack on Israel is an attack on NATO, and we would be obligated to defend them. In return, Israel retreats behind 1967 borders. Not quite sure what to do about Old Jerusalem - personally I've always favored giving it to the Dalai Lama.

[BartSimpson]

No. I like Israel to an extent but I sure as hell don't want them to have unfettered access to NATO when they're the #1 espionage threat that NATO defends against.

And Israel retreating behind its 1967 borders is about as likely as Canada retreating behind its 1758 borders.

[andyt]

That would show that Israel is not really willing to trade land for peace. They'd have peace, since any attack would be met with overwhelming force. But they'd have to give up on their goals of "Lebensraum."

[DrCaleb]

Kind of stretches the definition and acronym of 'North Atlantic' doesn't it?

[andyt]

It's already been stretched beyond recognition - how is Turkey on the North Atlantic? Italy? Greece? Bulgaria? (Are they in yet? Everybody else is)

[martin14]

andyt wrote:

That would show that Israel is not really willing to trade land for peace. They'd have peace, since any attack would be met with overwhelming force. But they'd have to give up on their goals of "Lebensraum."

And just as fast your real agenda shows up.

[saturn_656]

If history proves anything, 80%+ of NATO countries wouldn't do any serious fighting to aid Israel anyway (look at how many restrictions some countries put on their ISAF troops), and the other 20 or so percent would fight even if Israel wasn't a NATO member.

[sandorski]

If they'd settle for pre-1967 Borders and a fully Independent Palestinian State, sure.

[andyt]

saturn_656 wrote:

If history proves anything, 80%+ of NATO countries wouldn't do any serious fighting to aid Israel anyway (look at how many restrictions some countries put on their ISAF troops), and the other 20 or so percent would fight even if Israel wasn't a NATO member.

So far, I can't think of a time that other countries helped out Israel when it was attacked. What you're forgetting here is that a NATO country would be directly attacked - not something like Afghanistan. Also I would say if this were to happen, NATO would have to station troops in Israel for a while to show it's serious.

I can't see this really happening, especially as NATO is now constituted. But NATO as it's now constituted I'm not sure makes much sense.

[ShepherdsDog]

Closest thing that any leader in Europe has said about coming to Israel's defence was Sarkozy a couple years back. He basically said if Iran used nuclear missiles on Israel that they(France) would launch a retaliatory strike.

The last time that any Europeans worked with israel was during the Suez crisis and the british and frech, as well as the Americans were ready to sell the Israelis down the river, when Russia got hissy and threatened to become involved for Nasser.

[desertdude]

Israel attacked, boarded and killed passengers on Turkish ships in international waters. Turkish being a member for NATO, NATO should have responded

Israel probably knows joining NATO isn't any great shakes. Plus when you always have the US keep on repeating every 10 secs they will defend Israel, why would Israel give a rats ass about NATO anyways ?

[bootlegga]

andyt wrote:

It's already been stretched beyond recognition - how is Turkey on the North Atlantic? Italy? Greece? Bulgaria? (Are they in yet? Everybody else is)

NATO was created to protect Europe from the Soviet Union, so countries such as Italy and Greece make total sense. Turkey was added to create a southern front to help contain the Soviet threat, which despite its relatively weak economy (at least in comparison to most other NATO nations), has always had a strong military.

As to Israel joining, it's ludicrous. Israel is already the region's superpower and it has little need for joining the alliance. Conversely, most NATO nations wouldn't want to be connected to Israel due to its history (far too much conflict for the weary Europeans) and human rights issues over the past couple of decades. Odds are if Israel were seriously threatened, France, Germany, the US, the UK, and Canada would at least come to its aid.

[andyt]

bootlegga wrote:

As to Israel joining, it's ludicrous. Israel is already the region's superpower and it has little need for joining the alliance. Conversely, most NATO nations wouldn't want to be connected to Israel due to its history (far too much conflict for the weary Europeans) and human rights issues over the past couple of decades. Odds are if Israel were seriously threatened, France, Germany, the US, the UK, and Canada would at least come to its aid.

With Israel so small, if they were losing the war it would be over before any of those countries even got off the ground. Israel acts like such a dick, in part because it feels so threatened. If it was allied with the West in such a way that as soon as hostilities started, the West would jump in, it wouldn't have to keep taking land supposedly for security, and it's neighbors wouldn't entertain dreams of "this time it will be different." NATO is basically toast anyway - time to reformulate.

[bootlegga]

andyt wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

As to Israel joining, it's ludicrous. Israel is already the region's superpower and it has little need for joining the alliance. Conversely, most NATO nations wouldn't want to be connected to Israel due to its history (far too much conflict for the weary Europeans) and human rights issues over the past couple of decades. Odds are if Israel were seriously threatened, France, Germany, the US, the UK, and Canada would at least come to its aid.

With Israel so small, if they were losing the war it would be over before any of those countries even got off the ground. Israel acts like such a dick, in part because it feels so threatened. If it was allied with the West in such a way that as soon as hostilities started, the West would jump in, it wouldn't have to keep taking land supposedly for security, and it's neighbors wouldn't entertain dreams of "this time it will be different." NATO is basically toast anyway - time to reformulate.

There isn't a nation (or coalition of nations) in the Middle East capable of defeating Israel in a conventional conflict - why do you think that there was never a follow-up to the October War of 1973?

The only war that would be over in such a short time would be one employing WMDs - in which case there would be no point to supporting Israel because everyone there would be dead anyways.

[EyeBrock]

desertdude wrote:

Israel attacked, boarded and killed passengers on Turkish ships in international waters. Turkish being a member for NATO, NATO should have responded

Israel probably knows joining NATO isn't any great shakes. Plus when you always have the US keep on repeating every 10 secs they will defend Israel, why would Israel give a rats ass about NATO anyways ?

You need to read the North Atlantic Treaty. Sailing in international waters bordering a conflict zone and having a flagged vessel boarded isn't an attack on Turkey, nor is it a breach according to Articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty.

This whole notion is very silly and put forth by a poster with zero knowledge of the Treaty or NATO's raison d'être.