Hempy:
You really think that when one side gains ascendancy in the middle east, be it a Shia led Iran or a Sunni lead Saudi Arabia, or some other godforsaken conglomerate, that he or Israel is going to sit back and say 'Shalom, welcome to our border sworn enemy'?
They already share borders with sworn enemies, and have since about 1948. As I said, it's a rough neighborhood.
After the Muslims are finished killing themselves 'occupied Palestine' is next.
They've tried it before, and failed. After they have bled one another a good bit, what makes you think they'll succeed if they try again?
If you can't see that you are blind.
I see quite clearly, thanks, and in more shades of gray than some others.
Why is he so keen on destroying Iran's posible nuclear capability? It's not because he's worried about Iran starting it, it's because he's worried about retaliation.
Retaliation from what, Israel starting it? I don't think Israel is going to start it, with "it" being a nuclear exchange, as that leads to Gotterdämerung for them in both a kinetic sense and a political sense. If you think European and other nations have strong anti-Israeli sentiments now, consider the backlash/blowback if the Israelis send out nukes. Nukes change the nature of the ball game.
Of course, you are right, they might just sit around holding hands singing Kumbaya.
I never suggested that, so those are your words not mine. What I have pointed out is that they have figured out a variety of ways to deal with and try to engage their neighbors who hate them, with varying degrees of success and failure.
This is in part due to what you alluded to first, help from third parties. The Camp David agreements, and the ensuing bribe from the US treasury to keep Israel and Egypt from going to war again, were third party assistance to peace in that region. If he keeps asking for that, it makes a sort of sense since that avenue more or less worked.
The odds of third party assistance if the Israelis start something with nukes? Gone fishing, most likely for good.
So back to the actual topic of this thread, which is the proxy war fought in Yemen by regional rivals. It strikes me as in the Israeli interest to keep a close eye on it, and to let (or help) their enemies bleed each other white.
Hangarshuffle: if one uses the RoE that the cowboys (specifically the Texas Rangers) used vis a vis the Indians (suggest you read the
Fehrenbach book on the Comanche) you might see a different result. It was originally published with the subtitle "the destruction of a people" and later re-released as "the history of a people."
PS: it wasn't cowboys who went to Afghanistan, nor to Iraq.