>I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion
That is not a claim I am making. Whether an affinity for Israel has religious roots depends on the person. There are a lot of secular Americans, and Israelis, who believe in a case for Israel that is not religious. So I assert.
I did not endorse the logic; I personally think that other groups survive without a country, like say the Kurds, and I am not sure it's necessary for Israel to exist, much less in its present state.
But to oppose Israel, I think understanding who you are trying to convince, of what, is vital.
I don't see how you can not understand it, since surely appealing to secular Americans is why you would be commenting on a place like HN?
>I don't see the threat, do enlighten me.
My comment was explaining a way non-religious people justify Israel. It appeared to me that you thought I was threatening you in some way, hence ignoring it and calling me religious.
I think it's a historical fact that non-religious factors, ie the Holocaust, were pivotal in making a case for Israel to both Jews and non-Jews, and secular non-Jewish American support for Israel today can't be discounted.
I inferred you agree with me based on your comment about the Hutu and the Tutsi. It implies to me your preferred audience is secular Americans without religious motivation, who don't sympathize with far off ethnic/religious conflicts.
I think this is the correct group of people to try to convince, tactically.
I don't believe top people in the military-industrial complex are highly religious. I may be completely off base, but reading the news about, for instance, Mark Milley, it confirmed my assumptions that they believe in a secular creed, understanding their enemies, and stuff like that. But also not isolationism.