Examples:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-accused-of-s...
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israe...
I could be wrong! Maybe selling US secrets to china is to ensure the USA is still on their side? I'm not a politician; it's above my paygrade.
Somehow other US allies don't have these sorts of "hey let's spy on our friends" impulses. FWIIW the US just had an all-hands freak out over Russia spending a few grand on FB ads during the last presidential election; I'm pretty sure if it ever got out what the Israelis are doing out in the open to influence US elections (such as attempting to kick Israel critic politicians out of office), that would do even more harm to US-Israel relations than any single politician could.
I also think they can do just fine without US support. They have Jericho missiles capable of reaching LA. Technically this makes all US financial support of Israel illegal. I mean why would they risk all that needed support and build nukes capable of blowing up the US?
The second link is as advertised though - however the person responsible did resign (assuming it wasn't some broader conspiracy).
I could probably dig up a half dozen examples of this; I try not to pay attention to politics, but I am old and every time I hear this story again I figure we couldn't possibly have any secrets left for the Israelis to sell to China.
Heres one: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175404
Moar examples: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/06/how-israel-h...
Denying this is kind of like denying the sky is blue.
Try running google search on <Britain> exporting military technology hurts USA, substitute Britain with any other country. You'll be surprised. There are certain people who would just jump on any opportunity to paint Israel in a bad light and exaggerate any negative news. Many of your sources quoted in your first post are blatantly against Israel. Please, don't turn Hacker news into a platform promoting a certain political sentements.
Oh, the irony
If they do it out in the open? Netanyahu openly snubbed Obama on various occasions and very publicly sided with conservatives. And with Trump he basically flaunts his partisanship. More importantly, there's a whole subculture in D.C. of Israeli and pro-Israel lobbyists which over the past couple of decades have become quite partisan. It's all out in the open, it's just very difficult to articulate because of anxieties over anti-semitism.
Similarly, but more positively, as I remember it Ariel Sharon quietly (but not secretly) came out against the Iraq War--not the bombing, just that he foresaw chaos from invasion and an attempt at nation building--and made this known to various politicians and leaders in Washington, including President Bush. Though, according to Wikipedia Sharon was far more equivocal and his opinions weren't made known publicly until years later. (Can't be bothered to confirm the accuracy of my memory.)
Pretty much any US ally with a functional intelligence capability spies on the US. And we spy on all of them. And it's not always for traditional diplomatic or political purposes. Some governments, such as France's, have a tradition of aggressive espionage to get a commercial advantage for domestic corporations.
And this is ... not viewed as insane by normal people?
I am staunchly opposed to national borders. I don't think it's right to discriminate against people for where they are born.
IMO, all human beings should be allowed to freely travel and work anywhere on planet earth.
EDIT: Or outer space for that matter...
Not sure what that has to do with this at all? It definitely sounds like bourgeoisie/boutique political signaling though. Only those with a certain level of privileges can make platitudes like that while the rest of us deal with the real world ... where borders clearly matter.
What it has to do with it is that I can't justify nations spying if I don't think there should be nations. We are all people.
No one chooses where they are born, their race, gender, etc. If it's wrong to discriminate for things over which we have no control, then I believe place of birth is no different than race or gender.
I’m saying it takes an absolutely unbelievable amount of bourgeoisie privilege to think this. It’s an idea that’s so naive it’s not even worth engaging on the merits, which is why I pointed out that people in certain social and political groups make utopian platitudes like this as a mechanism to signal how elite they are. Kind of like how people pretend to like “modern art” in order to look “cultured”.
I'm not making these statements in order to look anything. It's just what I believe based on my observation of the world around me.
I don't even know what bourgeoisie privilege is.
You're saying it is because it is. It's that way because it's that way and because I believe something, it proves it is that way.
But my belief could be held by someone in a completely different nation experiencing a completely different life, so you haven't added anything to the discussion.
You can't just say, "You're wrong because you believe what you believe and that proves it."
But again I’m not interested in debating open borders on the merits because I’ve been to plenty of places that are ... not nice and not having a border between us and them is a recipe for Civilizational collapse.
>theaticlastic
Never encountered this word before.
It's all just random chance and it seems very unfair to me that being citizen of a first world nation affords you a good quality of life, while someone born somewhere else has bombs going off outside and isn't allowed to leave.
Imagine being trapped in a horrible situation with no freedom to escape.
It's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best.
The same way family houses are geographical. Because the people in them live on some place, cater for it, historically inherit it, and do as they please inside their own premises.
Nations are groups of people who grew in the same area, had gone through the same historical experiences (e.g. attacks, famines, wars, etc), worked together to make their place better, and built their culture and cultivated their ways of life over centuries, often making heavy sacrifices to free and keep their land...
>Corporations are not bound by borders
Corporations also don't belong to their "citizens" (employees) but to the few owners/shareholders, are not bound by democracy (they are despotic kingdoms internally), and only care for profit, and would "exile" (fire) any number of their "citizens" (employees) if the profits said so. So not the best example to base social paradigms on...
>It's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best.
According to most scholars, the nation state is a product of enlightenment and modernity.
We had empires before.
And federal like unions, are just nation states minus the political autonomy (sovereignty), so decisions are made by some bureaucrats away from where it matters.
If you look at the people who are traped like that, it's because their nation state failed.
They mostly want to migrate to places with strong nations states, why do you think that is ?
It's because strong nation states, can create good living conditions.
That said that doesn't mean many of us couldn't take a lot more immigrants than we currently do.
People tend to forget, the only guarantee that you are born with is that one day you will die.
Every other privilege, right or whatever you want to call it was fought for (often quite bloody ) and build by societies, and nation states are latest iteration of societies.
Is that fair? No. But that is life.
It would presumably work like it does in the EU presently - a agreement to provide care for any EU citizen reciprocally regardless of which country they reside in, with some very basic residency requirements to cut down on health tourism (3-6mo residency normally).
National borders are not about "discriminating against people for where they are born", anymore than your family house discriminates against people based on which family they were born into.
One would assume you don't just let anyone in your house, or feed everybody just like you do your children, or share your family assets with the whole neighborhood (even if it would be nice if you did, it, for one, would live less for you. Plus, not everybody is nice and altruistic, but most manage to be that towards their family).
People build a nation as a community, often fighting hard for it to exist (e.g. wars of independence), working hard to make it better, building it's culture, and so on. They have a right to want to preserve their preferred way of life, their culture, and the country/infrastructure/etc they have built (of course not everything is always harmonious inside a nation, the same way things are not all roses all the time inside a family. No human made thing is perfect - and no natural made thing, for that matter).
If nations did not exist, people should still have the right to invent them, that is, to create their own communities with people they share their living on a place, hardships and culture with, build their own thing, and protect it against people who don't share their values or haven't contributed to building them.
In fact nation states didn't exist in the far past, they are a development of enlightenment and modernity. We had empires, and feudal fiefdoms loyal to some remote king, and such before, and people literally struggled to break their pre-nation-state nations (ethnic, cultural and historical groups) free from them...
They might not be about that, but they do that. Why do I deserve good healthcare, food, housing and a great quality of life and someone born in Syria doesn't?
You did not do anything to get that. But your parents, their parents and those who came before them did, with the intention that you would.
Folks in Tuvalu are going to lose the entirety of their geographical boundary to the sea.
I don't see why people should be kicked out of a country because they were born in another country. The whole concept of "illegal immigrant" just seems so ... medieval. Someone isn't allowed to live and work in a land because they were born across an imaginary line in the sand?
I don't get it
One good way to "get it" is to go try stay in their country, without following their due process to become a citizen, and see what happens.
A similar good way, is to go live in different countries for a while (try Syria too), and see what ideas some people have about running their countries, and consider whether you'd like people with such ideas to be a sizable minority or even majority in your country.
For the same reason your spouse "deserves" sitting on the couch you got at home eating something from the fridge and somebody you don't know outside doesn't, and you don't consider it much of a discrimination.
Because e.g. it's your house, you've built it (a nation is something people build, over centuries and generations, often with huge sacrifices, not something they merely rent), you've stocked it, you paid the taxes for it, etc. And you might, or might not, accept someone in it.
Why doesn't the same-nation homeless person outside "deserve" good healthcare, food, housing? Why not fix their situation before you solve that of "someone born in Syria"?
Probably because the latter just seems of no cost (just let them in), whereas the other one understands that involves some sacrifices (share income, increased taxes for social welfare, etc, etc).
And for a large (land-wise) nation state, like the US, with tons of recent 1-2-3 generation immigrants, many people tend to think it's inexhaustible and can accommodate everybody with no problem. And new/newish (1/2nd gen) immigrants now citizens wont understand whats the big claim of those whose ancestors built it over time, sacrifices to sustain it, etc anyway. After all they came there when it was already prospering. It's more like a hotel to them. This is quite more obvious in a more historical country with more homogenous population, which lived there and built it over many centuries or millennia.
And yet, one of the reasons the people several generations ago built it (the nation state), was to have a place of their own, where they live as they see fit (because they were persecuted in their own places), and be able to deny access to it to others outside -- and occasionally invite whoever they like, as long as they play with their rules/laws.
Also, notice how the direction is one way? Not many Americans want to go to Syria or Nigeria or Lagos or whatever. Seems people, ideologies, bad history, etc can screw up a nation state and its prospects, so they're not all interchangeable. That's part of what makes having a good nation state valuable, and wanting to maintain it that way (and not just make every country an open borders free-for-all).
It's amusing but that's not even the real concern. Israel, Iran, the US and the world all know perfectly well that there's no existential threat to Israel.
The more immediate concern is as always Israel-Palestine issues. The multi-decade rightward shift in Israeli politics has culminated with the Trump administration, where they are trying to annex as much Palestinian land as possible.
FIFY: where they are trying to annex as much Palestinian oil as possible
Genie Energy’s strategic advisors is the who’s who of your typical movie villains: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_Energy
> When the talks shifted to a luxury hotel in Vienna, the microwave radiation from the surveillance efforts of competing intelligence agencies was so intense that diplomats had to walk some distance from the venue to use their mobile phones.
The new US administration, like Israel, very much opposes the nuclear deal. Trump may give the Israelis a proverbial "wildcard" to deal with a certain problem in a private conversation with an advisor. Or he, or the new administration start to hold a more favorable view on an Iran deal. Israel needs to know this as a manner of their national security.
That is simply plain wrong.
Maybe they couldn't defend against the uncountable human rights accusation and other countries putting international pressure on them.
Maybe not under their current polices, ie forced land acquisition, forced demographic change and so on.
> Much of their spying on the USA is not to harm the USA, but to ensure the USA is still on their side.
In many ways that makes it worse.
> I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for Israel.
They do that literally every day. This is quite well known and well document. You can actually go and read the stories from the congress-man who opposed Israel and what that actually means in practice.
They also heavily influence things like who is appointed for diplomatic and other positions.
They are currently very much directly influencing the democracy of the US so it will act with their foreign policy goals to the clear determent of actual US strategic interest.
It's interesting that you mention that one, because that is exactly what people sometimes do. You will find that very needy or jealous people frequently get easily concerned and obsessive about every little detail, worried that their partner may leave or lose interest. They get paranoid, they spy, etc. They make the situation worse, push the person away faster with their behavior, and create a self-fulfilling prophecy outcome.
You might risk spying on your significant other (to make sure they're going to stay your SO), if your life depended - in part or entirely - on them staying your significant other. In relationships that's going to rarely be the case of course. Although consider a case of total financial dependency in a relationship.
Israel is the very needy, dependent partner in the relationship, clearly. Without the US, they would not have survived.
But in general the US doesn't really care if Israel spies on it, and Israel doesn't care when the US does.
All countries spy on each other, and all countries know it. There's a tacit agreement to make some noise when it goes public, but otherwise move on and not care.
I mean, lots of people do exactly that. It ain't healthy to do, but they do it anyway.
Why should we care as US citizens?
> I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for Israel.
I don't think we'll ever see that here in the U.S. unfortunately...the "Israel Lobby" wouldn't let it happen.
FWIIW the FARA act was passed in 1938 because of fascist and Nazi groups like the German American Bund interfering in US elections. Maybe as time goes by, AIPAC will become about as important in US politics as the German American Bund.
You may not like people because of their religion or nationality, but they are allowed to have a lobbying and education organization without an accusation of not being real Americans.
Politicians can choose to listen to them or not, just like the NRA, the American Cancer Society, and the AARP.
For collaborating with a foreign power in attempting to influence US policy. Here's a former director of AIPAC saying just that (in, mind you, the Jewish Daily Forward): https://forward.com/opinion/395676/its-time-for-aipac-to-reg...
The German American Bund was also an American organization made up of Americans ... and getting its marching orders from abroad in service of a foreign regime. That's why we passed the FARA law in 1938 in the first place. Foreigners are not supposed to influence US elections. Everything you have said about AIPAC applied to the German-American bund when they passed the FARA law. Neither the NRA or the American Cancer Society are advocating for policies for benefit of a foreign power: the German American Bund used to do this, just as AIPAC does today. If you don't like FARA, lobby to get it revoked. I'm sure that will go over well after the Russia hysteria.
There's also the example of the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal of 2003 for shady AIPAC doings beyond this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_sc...
AIPAC were pressured to register as foreign agents back in 62, but Kennedy being shot kind of pushed that aside. Ended pressure on them to stop their nuke program as well.
Well, who said the USA being "on their side" is not harmful for the USA?
Probably this. And they likely act with their friendly party in the know. "Feel free to keep an eye on your wife using my car when I'm away. But if she or anyone else catches you, I won't know who you are and will report a stolen car".