Comment by churchill | Hacker News Reader

Comment by churchill | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Israeli weapons are absolutely not fungible, particularly not for non-Western buyers.

My claim was specifically with China in mind. Pretty much everything the Americans will let Israel sell to non-Western partners can be gotten from China, Turkey, etc. cheaper and with less headache.

>Correct. I am guessing we'll see diversification here.

Yep. Introducing my magical new fighter jet that replaces the f35!

>...and guess who makes a state-of-the-art integrated air defences? And knows how to penetrate (and thus harden) state-of-the-art Russian air defence systems?

Well, it probably didn't work great given how India fared recently, did it? They're a committed partner of Israel and collaborate on military tech.

>Uh, China is doing whatever it can to keep America distracted. If Israel can give China technology, China will continue calling for a two-state solution while buying what it needs. (Chinese-Israeli trade has increased throughout the war.)

The only thing China reliably does is single-mindedly pursue their interests. Propping Israel up doesn't achieve that. In fact they're quite chummy with the Palestinians and lots of the weapons used for the Oct. 7 raid were Chinese-made.

>Israel is not at material risk of blanket sanctions from the West in the next decade.

If you say so. The chances of the Five Eyes breaking with America on recognizing Palestine were also exactly zero just a few months ago.

>Why does this have to go to America and Western Europe?

Because they're the only ones who have the money for it. No non-Western company/country has the amount of tech demand/cash to have completed the Wiz acquisition for $32b in cash. Their software markets have no viable customers outside the West.

>Which of the Arab monarchies is particularly distressed with Israel? Which has even walked back its previous support and recognition? The Gulf is more than happy for Israel to fight their wars against Iran.

Good point.

>It seems that everyone in this conflict has doomsday fantasies for their opponents.

I have no dog in the fight. Both countries could disappear overnight and it wouldn't affect my quality of life. I'm simply a student of history and I'm trained to see patterns.

I'm curious to know what it is that India didn't fare well in the recent conflict. Based on my reading I was under the impression that original incursion was a military success for India and everything else after that was theatre on both sides. What am I missing?

> curious to know what it is that India didn't fare well in the recent conflict

Pakistan shot down Indian plane(s). India didn't return the favour. Worse, Pakistan's integrated air defence systems had situational awareness; it's clear Indian Rafale pilots didn't even see the shots coming.

It's not a victory for one side or the other, overall. But in the air battle, Pakistan gained tactical supremacy.

The Indian government claims to have shit down Pakistani jets as well and Pakistan denied it. Pakistan claims to have shit down six jets and India says it's 3. So there is that

> Indian government claims to have shit down Pakistani jets as well and Pakistan denied it

A lot of folks have looked at a lot of OSINT. There is no evidence of any Indian kills. The best we can say is we have zero confirmed kills by India on Pakistan. For what it's worth, New Delhi seems to have backed off repeating its claims of kills internationally.

> Pakistan claims to have shit down six jets and India says it's 3

India claims three jets crashed for unknown reasons [1]. French and US officials have indirectly confirmed those kills [2][3]. Internationally, it's being treated as three confirmed kills by Pakistan.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/three-fighter-jet...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/pakistans-chinese-made-jet-bro...

[3] https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/india-pakistan-attac...

> Introducing my magical new fighter jet that replaces the f35

You really think the French, Swedes, Russians or Chinese won't sell them planes? They're seeking to be a regional power. They don't need F-35s. (Though they're certainly handy.)

> probably didn't work great given how India fared recently, did it?

India doesn't field Israeli air defences...

> only thing China reliably does is single-mindedly pursue their interests. Propping Israel up doesn't achieve that

I'll grant that China has been the most consistent on Israel and Palestine. Nevertheless, Israeli-Chinese trade keeps growing.

> If you say so. The chances of the Five Eyes breaking with America on recognizing Palestine were also exactly zero just a few months ago

Really? According to whom? I haven't been in the UN for a while, but everyone I knew was asking when, not if. It clearly works for domestic politics, doubly following the recent trade concessions.

Netherlands (not Five Eyes) was 1 in 3 [1]. Canada and France were making motions for a while; Japan and Italy were like 50% going back two months.

> they're the only ones who have the money for it

The U.S. funds about 15% of Israel's defence budget. We allow them to splurge in a way they can't alone. But that just means they can't defeat Hezbollah and Iran and Hamas at the same time without us.

[1] https://kalshi.com/markets/kxrecogpalestine/palestine-recogn...

>You really think the French, Swedes, Russians or Chinese won't sell them planes? They're seeking to be a regional power. They don't need F-35s. (Though they're certainly handy.)

The fact we're even having this conversation is the point. Top-end equipment was always guaranteed. The fact you're shopping around mentally for second-best points to that.

>I'll grant that China has been the most consistent on Israel and Palestine. Nevertheless, Israeli-Chinese trade keeps growing.

Well, there's a reason why they've been consistent on it so far. If Israel's trade comes to depend significantly on them, they can use it as leverage against them.

>Really? According to whom? I haven't been in the UN for a while, but everyone I knew was asking when, not if. It clearly works for domestic politics, doubly following the recent trade concessions.

I should have been more specific than a few months ago. Here's what I meant. Many of these countries have no issues against Palestine, but wouldn't break openly with the US position because of how dependent they are. That happening is a vibe shift.

>The U.S. funds about 15% of Israel's defence budget. We allow them to splurge in a way they can't alone. But that just means they can't defeat Hezbollah and Iran and Hamas at the same time without us.

You keep taking my statements out of context, attacking a point I didn't make and then claiming victory. I'm not even addressing US aid to Israel, which is extensive. I'm talking about their economy! Without that trade, the economy will shrink by a lot. The technologists bringing in that FX will move away in large numbers. Spending will have to reduce by half or more, especially given Israel already has a high tax-to-gdp-ratio. The country won't survive it. More high earners will leave and you'll go into a death spiral.

Dozens of UN resolutions have been issued against Israel and vetoed by the US. If it happens without American support, they'll be placed under an intl. embargo until they comply. Ask Iran what intl. embargoes have done to crush their economy before you wave it off. What America offers Israel is both a large export market they don't have internally, and protection from consequences.

Israel is too integrated with the West, going as far as competing in Eurovision, UEFA, etc. If they break with the West, they can't survive it. I cite Rhodesia as an example repeatedly because that's where they slowly but surely ended up.

If you end up with Western sanctions, no matter your country's size, you're fucked. USSR and Maoist China can give you any lectures you want.

The 'chosen people' delusion can make it seem economic realities don't apply, but the earlier Israel can get to a lasting peace while conditions are favorable, the better.

> fact we're even having this conversation is the point. Top-end equipment was always guaranteed. The fact you're shopping around mentally for second-best points to that

I've literally not thought about this until you brought it up. My point is there is an extensive list of eager jet sellers who would step up to the plate.

> If Israel's trade comes to depend significantly on them, they can use it as leverage against them

Sure? Same as America can now. This defeats the argument that Israel is being economically isolated, or faces devastation from losing America as a close ally in decades.

> Many of these countries have no issues against Palestine, but wouldn't break openly with the US position because of how dependent they are. That happening is a vibe shift

It's been months in the making. Not paying attention doesn't make something surprising. It would have been extremely surprising if Canada, the UK and France didn't recognise Palestine, and I'm saying this going back half a year.

> I'm talking about their economy! Without that trade, the economy will shrink by a lot

But going back to the top, there are plenty of other trading partners America's third of exports could be replaced with. Not entirely. Not on as great terms. But close enough to keep Israel reigning as a regional hegemony.

> technologists bringing in that FX will move away in large numbers

Where are you getting this notion that tech exports are a major source of FX for Israel? Or that Israel would stop being a tech centre if America turned its back on it? (And again, major emerging gas exporter.)

> you'll go into a death spiral

I'm not Israeli. I've never been to Israel.

> Dozens of UN resolutions have been issued against Israel and vetoed by the US. If it happens without American support, they'll be placed under an intl. embargo until they comply

Look at the list of UNSC sanctioned countries [1]. They're symbolic. The point is to cause members to enact follow-on sanctions [2]. When that doesn't happen, they're ineffective.

> Ask Iran what intl. embargoes have done to crush their economy

They're...still around. You also missed Angola, Yemen, North Korea...

> Israel is too integrated with the West, going as far as competing in Eurovision, UEFA, etc. If they break with the West, they can't survive it. I cite Rhodesia as an example repeatedly because that's where they slowly but surely ended up

I get this is your hypothesis. It simply isn't sustained. This is before we get to the point that if a couple Western countries sanction Israel for shits and giggles, there is a lot of money to be made by someone defecting and acting 'neutrally'.

(Also, in any world where Israel is sanctioned, Palestine gets devastated. That's simply the nature of having an economic basket case as a neighbour.)

Again, there seem to be folks who like to see patterns that sustain extreme outcomes that support a moral view of the world. You're having to go so deep into hypotheticals while being able to surface zero sources because the precedented outcome for this war--like most others that caused moral outrage in the West--is that we forget about it and move on and then everyone goes back to making money again.

(The only note I'd add is that if this rhetoric becomes commonplace, that America is destined to abondon Israel, it incentivises one outcome and one outcome only: destroying Palestine today, quickly and decisively. Nobody talks about that because nobody really buys the pitch you're making outside pro-Palestinian activist circles. I'm also not criticising you personally. Ukraine was my pet war. I absolutely bought into all sorts of conspiracies about Russia getting sidelined and partitioned up. We all want to see patterns that sustain the illusion of a just world.)

[1] https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/information

[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/26296655

>Where are you getting this notion that tech exports are a major source of FX for Israel? Or that Israel would stop being a tech centre if America turned its back on it? (And again, major emerging gas exporter.)

From their own economic publications. Tech exports are 53% of their export output. Gas is a laughable non-issue. Like I said earlier, the middle east is full of it. It's not a significant source of leverage since every third country has it.

>UN sanctions are way less biting than American secondary sanctions alone.

You can always tunnel around sanctions, but it kills a lot of your open-market economy. You have to sell for a lower, discounted price. Acquisitions and mergers are effectively over. Sales shrink by a lot. Your largest companies move away to avoid contagion. I mean, have you ever read about the sanctions on Rhodesia & south Africa?

>They're...still around. And they never had a weapons sector like Israel's.

They're severely, terribly weakened. Even China won't sell them any modern airframes. That should tell you something.

>I get this is your hypothesis. It simply isn't sustained. This is before we get to the point that if a couple Western countries sanction Israel for shits and giggles, there is a lot of money to be made by someone defecting and acting 'neutrally'.

I have evidence of Western & non-western countries banding together to sanction consistent bad actors, despite being even more Western than Israel will ever be. Do you have any evidence of any country surviving sanctions without severe economic damage? Please share; my viewpoint has abundant proof. I'm just supposed to believe yours.

>Again, there seem to be folks who like to see patterns that sustain extreme outcomes that support a moral view of the world. You're having to go three levels deep for every turn because the most precedented outcome here is everyone forgets and moves on.

I don't have a dog in the fight. Both countries could die to the last man and I'd still go on my merry way, whistling. I'm simply projecting based on history, which is why I cite precedent that you refuse to admit.

> tech exports are 53% of their export output

Sure. Where are you getting that these are a critical source of FX?

> Gas is a laughable non-issue

To FX? Seriously?

> have you ever read about the sanctions on Rhodesia & south Africa?

Yes. Zimbabwe is still sanctioned. South Africa had preëxisting power-sharing negotiations.

> Even China won't sell them any modern airframes. That should tell you something

...that Beijing isn't drunk? Why do you think Washington got pissed off when Turkey bought Russian air defences and let them paint our fighter fleet?

> have evidence of Western & non-western countries banding together to sanction consistent bad actors

One, during a unipolar world. Someone else commented on this, but in a multipolar world, that is a luxury that simply doesn't emerge. (Even the bilateral world of the Cold War very rarely saw international sanctions regimes effected. That was just a nudge for someone to switch from one system of alliances to another.)

> Do you have any evidence of any country surviving sanctions without severe economic damage?

Yes [2]. In the short term, they cause damage. ("Severe" needs to be quantified, however--when regime change is targeted, it's only successful about a third of the time.) In the long term, they're less effective. Economies go into cockroach mode.

If you want a list, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Burma and Venezuela are each heavily sanctioned and pretty much setting themselves up to permanently be so. (Pyongyang and Minsk having practically turned it into an art.)

> I'm simply projecting based on history, which is why I cite precedent

You haven't cited anything! Based on history, Israel is highly unlikely to get sanctioned by anyone, let alone America, and if it were, it's likely to be fine.

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01475...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com