No, that shows the world that we cannot be relied upon when the chips are down.
If you were counting on someone and they abandoned you in your hour of need, would you then trust them again so readily?
Your argumentation would weight a lot, if not for the fact that the chips aren't down.
Israel is in no clear immediate danger for the moment. The ones that could threaten Israel are Syria, Jordan and Egypt, and they are all weaker than they ever were and, most of all, they are completely disunited. Only a common front of these three would seriously endanger Israel. Each have their own, conflicting agenda.
The splinter groups that harass Israel on a constant basis are also disunited. You have Fatah, Hamas and Hizbullah, all of them with their own agenda. Fatah and Hamas, specially, a playing a zero-sum game, meaning that as long as both of them are relevant, the whole will be weaker.
Israel is more powerful now than it ever have been military-wise. The only thing that endanger it is occasional guerilla attacks committed from hand-made missiles. Can't say it must be nice for the Israeli exposed to those missiles. But it doesn't change the fact that Israel is safer now, and will remain so in the short/medium term. Iran might be having fun with rethorics against Israel, but their actions are separated from their words.
So, the chips aren't down. Israel is not in a time of need.
Money wise - how many of those pockets are filled with soldiers?
Israel doesn't need soldiers as backup. Israel needs materiel and money as backup. And also political/diplomatic backing. Germany could provide this, as they have the mean to offer such support. As opposed to China, which is somewhat limited in it's political backing AND would have trouble providing top-of-the-line materiel.
China needs oil and there are enough non-OPEC sources to get it from that China can (and may if it suits their geopolitical needs) dump them like a hot potato.
China "could", but China won't. That isn't fitting in China's psychological diplomacy. Their behavior has always been to avoid antagonising as many people as possible, and do business everywhere they could.
There is too much to lose, too little to gain. And after all, it might be a "Feat of Strenght" for the 3rd-world country, but it would also antagonise China to those very same 3rd-world countries which are, more often than not, not very in Israel's favor.
No, that was the reason Osama gave. Now I know there are other reasons behind it, but that was the keystone one given by the bastard himself. We can pile onto it the part about the Kuwaiti Invasion, meddling in the Middle East, yada, yada, yada. But the intel obtained since 9-11 indicates the Osama did not believe we would respond the way we did because of Somalia, and so he decided to get us. had he known we would have responded the way we did, he would have gone about it in a different way - in other words it would not be a 9-11.
You responded with incredible strenght. but then again, you were provoked in an incredible way.
I never doubted that the U.S. would react with rage and violence that hasn't been seen in decades after 9/11. Osama proved to be stupid in thinking that because you intervened in a half-hearted military mission with half-heartened reasons equiped with half-heartened materiel, you would behave the same way when stroke at your very heart.
Somalia was but a pebble in your game. 9/11 was a neddle in your heart.
But then again, thinking (stupidly) that you would react weak is but one part of the argument. Ultimately, his goal wasn't to "destroy america". Just to inspire courage in Jihadist revolutionnaries.
Tell me. Right now, after Iraq. After Afghanistan. After Yemen, Pakistan. After all the deaths that the U.S. caused in the Jihadists' ranks. Do you seriously think that anyone consider you as a paper tiger anymore?
You might have this impression, but you have the luxury of siting on the right side of your guns, but no one else in their right mind would (which only underline Osama Bin Laden's delusionnal state). Ultimately, what motivates you is what you might lose. Bush was powerless to defend Georgia against Russia. But now, we are more than bolstering Poland.
If push comes to shove, the U.S. will kick anyone's ass. Georgia was, again, but a relatively strategic insignificant leap forward (somewhat filled with symbolism, however). Ultimately, it didn't proved to be worth your bother and risking conflict against Russia.
