Mmm, I think at the end of the day, Israel is probably the only reliable strategic partner in a resource-rich region full of basketcases. At worst, they'll have to tone it down a bit. If the US ceases to back them, they can always find a new backer.
Let's bomb all of Israel's infrastructure, arm various militias in the country and put economic sanctions on them for 20 years that limits the country to a grain-for-food programme and you'll quickly see Israel join in as a regional "basketcase."
We can start by recognizing that under no context was what has been done by the US and Israel in the Middle East (and beyond) ever acceptable.
I think the reasons why the ME is so unstable are a bit complex, but it's also not really relevant. If you're interested in a stable regional partner, the reasons why a given country is unstable is not really something you care about.
The right decision - if you had the best interests for the US and the region - is to completely withdraw. Any other decision leads to more conflict and hostile and opportunist groups (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia, et al) growing in influence with every passing moment.
Nations like Qatar or SA are fine, but ultimately they are dictatorships that occasionally do stuff like chop up journalists, so you don't invest that much into them. The US had a very close strategic partnership with Iran, which was in this mould, and it didn't turn out very well.
Israel, on the other hand, is a western-style settler-colonial state that has never had a coup, has a strong civil society, and frankly could have gone to the USSR at any point in the cold war and they would have been just fine.
Obviously, if you don't want the US to be a global hegemon, this policy doesn't make sense. However, the US state department almost always does, so this policy is totally rational from their perspective.
Their treatment of "guest workers" (de facto almost slaves) is significantly worse than Saudi killing a single person.
Not only due to numbers affected (the Guardian counted 6,500 deaths). It's that, we expect repressive regimes to kill their opponents but when their acts are turned against truly helpless and unrelated people it's even worse.
https://www.traffickingmatters.com/the-2022-world-cup-forced...
https://sports.yahoo.com/qatar-world-cup-unpaid-workers-slav...
I asked about the unparalleled brutality of a Crown Prince ordering the dismemberment of a journalist. Remember, this is a person who we host in the White House to shake hands with a smiling president — it matters that the whole world knows he ordered the killing and that the whole world continues to look the other way. Imagine how he will deal with dissidents for the next decade?
It's not. It's a human rights issue, which has led to many deaths. Qatar has a far worse record than the rest of the Gulf.
>Remember, this is a person who we host in the White House to shake hands with a smiling president
So you don't want to do any diplomacy with unsavory regimes? With this standard, the US couldn't even talk to most of the ME, not to mention Russia and China. The world is unlikely to survive that.
>I asked about the unparalleled brutality of a Crown Prince ordering the dismemberment of a journalist.
Well, it's a separate issue that almost the entire ME is guilty of. Just look at the case of Zahra Kazemi[0]. And we have diplomacy with those people!
Sorry, just used your argument for a sec.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahra_Kazemi
"was an Iranian-Canadian freelance photographer, who according to the medical examiner was raped, tortured and killed by Iranian officials following her arrest in Iran."
Guess what comes with unpopular regimes? Perpetual instability due to oppressed populations. In the countries that are not controlled the US supports any group willing to fight the government — sometimes with arms and other times with endless cash to fight the government within the framework of democracy. You think either of those actions support stability?
Now, here's a true, actual, case of using accusations of racism to avoid criticism. The post you responded to said nothing about guilt.
You could (absurdly) blame the West entirely for the region's state - but most ME countries are still basketcases regardless of who's fault it is (and plenty of it obviously goes to the locals, e.g. Lebanon being a great example of a country mostly ruined by local and regional actors).
Israel in and of itself is a "basketcase" country that continues to operate the world's largest open-air prison, flaunting every international directive with complete disregard for the UN and operates an apartheid-like system that sees it constantly at war with almost every other nation in the Middle East. It has been entrenched in civil war since its inception but somehow that's not enough to be considered a "basketcase" -- apparently.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_Southern...
2. Besides geography, some of us also know history and chronology. We recall the start of Lebanese Civil War preceded the Israeli invasion by almost five years. Lebanon collapsed long before Israel even thought about it.
In fact one of the main causes for the civil war - and the cause of the Israeli invasion - was that the PLO was able to run a state within a state and attack Israel while being based in Lebanon.
This phenomena - a third party militia embroiling the 'host' nation in its own wars, is exactly one of the outcomes of a failed state (ergo, a basketcase). For better or worse, Israel is a state. Lebanon isn't really a state, it's a collection of tribes with no local central management.
3. That said, I was thinking more of the recent collapse though. Nothing forced the Lebanese politicians to loot the state besides themselves, especially the wars 30 and 40 years ago. It's entirely locally made collapse.
The dumb algorithm you applied - find action of West/Israel years ago, ignore everything that preceded, succeeded it or caused it and ignore the responsibility of the locals (or Russia or anyone else), is one of the main causes of collapse. Its proponents ignore the welfare of the people they supposedly speak for in order to score an illusionary point against their political enemies.
Another outcome: surprisingly Israel has no reason to work overmuch to counter the insane campaign against it and the campaign's absurd claims. The campaign mainly serves its interests.