[flagged]
Your accusations of anti-semitism are unwelcome and without merit.
Allies spy on eachother all the time. that's a given any sovreign state knows and takes into account.
- https://apnews.com/article/israel-jonathan-pollard-espionage... - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...
The key is you don't get caught doing it, because it removes plausible deniability.
I don't care if it's unwelcome to you...I call it as I see it and you're not doing a great job convincing me otherwise.
Then why -- assuming for the moment that the GP is correct -- is the majority of your comments about defending them?
Why do you have such a negative view of Israel; isnt that a bit anti-Semitic?
If the argument is that the United States shouldn't be a global power, that it should dismantle the US military and be a demure, multilateral player in the international space, sure, attack NATO. However, attacking NATO while saying the US should be a stronger international player is contradictory.
People get angry about the Israel aid not because of the volume of funding, but because of the human rights/colonialism problems that the US subsidizes. I personally feel that way, but at the same time I understand the realpolitik deal with Israel - I believe the purpose of keeping Israel there is to prevent some version of the Ottoman Empire from re-forming.
Here's part of the problem. Does it make sense to you Israel just disappears? Sounds like it from what you're saying. Isn't it weird though - how many nation states do you think should vanish?
> but because of the human rights/colonialism problems
If Western societies really wanted the conflict to dissolve they wouldn't keep encouraging the Palestinians to "return" to their home (75 years after). Western societies keep the conflict alive. So it makes me think human rights issues isn't really the thing here.
Otherwise, US absolutely provides far more military spending to Israel than to Germany, it's not really comparable.
Of course I do. Europe has no real army. France kinda has an army and the U.K got out. If America didn't provide a military umbrella Europe would need to actually build a real army (Europe's contributions to NATO are pitiful). How much would it cost the Europeans to do that? Going back since WW2 that's easily in the trillions.
So I should believe the U.S thinks it's OK to sell F-15 planes but not OK to sell software? I'm gonna assume yes, there are probably other players in cyber warfare who sell to these countries, probably also the U.S.
The U.S. thinks it's okay to sell F-15s that don't attack Americans and not okay to sell software that attacks Americans. As a, granted, American, I'm not seeing the incoherence.
I was delineating why the U.S. is fine with selling weapons to e.g. Saudi Arabia but would not be happy about those same weapons being sold by Russia to Iran. You seemed confused on that point. There isn't a grand philosophy. It's international relations. It's anarchy. The U.S. government promotes American and allied interests.
Separately, yes, if you're hacking the State Department, you're attacking the U.S. This is consistent with how cyberterrorism is treated by DNI since at least 2014.
Doesn't look like they only target Israeli companies.