Hacker News Reader

Comment by DSingularity | Hacker News Reader

If anybody even insinuates that Weiss or Ellison have dual loyalty because of this they will be accused of anti-semitism.

The hard truth is that weaponizing your money — earned largely from Americans — to aid a foreign country at the expense of America is about as un-American as it gets. Aside from the potentially valid argument that your voice shouldn’t be louder just because you are a billionaire — you are corrupting American foreign policy and American stature in the world to advance the agenda of Israel. That is a betrayal of America.

View on HN

I think most of the pro-Israel crowd legitimately believe that Israel's interests are aligned with the U.S.'s interests. The same with Canada, the U.K., and Australia. We share a set of values.

Israel does a lot of dirty work in fighting back against the darker forces of middle east terrorism, and it's reasonable to believe it is in the U.S.'s interest to let Israel do that work rather than take it on itself. It is a similar argument to why the U.S. should back Ukraine in the fight against Russia.

You can of course disagree with the above (arguing against interventionism; the risk of blowback; that Israel is creating more terrorism than it is solving; etc.), but I truly don't believe that any of the pro-Israel crowd believes they are acting against the U.S. interest.

> anybody even insinuates that Weiss or Ellison have dual loyalty because of this they will be accused of anti-semitism

No, they’ll be accused of derailing the conversation.

Every pro-Palestinian activist isn’t civically compromised because they have strong views on foreign policy.

> you are corrupting American foreign policy and American stature in the world to advance the agenda of Israel. That is a betrayal of America.

This is a convoluted and hyperbolic way of expressing foreign-policy disagreement.

> expressing foreign-policy disagreement

Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo. Whilst there may be something for the USA in this it feels very asymmetric unless I am missing something.

> Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo

At the state level, often. At the individual level, I don't think so.

My pet war is Ukraine. I don't have any personal stake in the war. I just think it's abhorrent and poses a long-term risk to the security interests of places and people I care about. I can construct that into a narrative of fulfilling American geopolitical interests, but that's an exercise I'd be engaging in after I'd come to my view based on, essentially, a moral preference.

That preference is real. But it's mine and far from universal. That someone thinks Russia is justified in invading Ukraine is frankly irrelevant to the validity of their statements on other matters. That's where I'm calling bullshit on this connection.

You are missing quite a bit. It is not obviously quid pro quo in diplomatic relations but on that point you are partially correct. If the US for one reason or another cuts ties with Israel, it loses its main influence in the middle east and other countries would probably quite happily pick up the tap. Only some are from the region, others are not.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with Larry Ellison and frankly this whole thread is mostly idiotic. It could have been an interesting topic but some seem to have other priorities. Which are quite transparent.

How is it hyperbolic? Talk to foreigners. People are universally disgusted with the US and it is not all because we have an anti-immigration, nationalist administration. People are disgusted with the fact that the US wrecked Iraq, Libya, Syria, and bombed Gaza to smithereens before starving its people.

"Dual loyalty" is kind of a joke for somebody like Ellison, because it implies a loyalty to America.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com