NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On December 08 2023 04:37 JimmiC wrote: [quote] It’s strange that you think I’m countering your argument. I’m trying to understand the underlying assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Or your specific conclusion so I can try to understand your assumptions.
If cerebrate is right and Israel would give up all the settlements for a lasting peace, how would this change your opinion or how would it confirm it?
If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes.
Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it?
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
America gets a lot of value from Israel as an ally.
1. They are the most real ally they will ever have in that neighborhood. Israel has a lot of cultural and political similarities to the West. Other nearby "allies" are fair weather friends who would swap allegiance with China or the like if the wind changed.
2. Israel provides a lot of civilian tech similar to Taiwan (just more diverse). Tons of startups and innovation in Israel. They make all kinds of apps and things and lots of US tech companies have R&D centers (if not secondary HQs) in Israel. Intel microchips, PayPal, WhatsApp, cell phones, etc. Israel helps maintain the all too critical tech edge, and it preferentially partners with US companies very frequently.
3. Military intelligence. Israel happens to have some egg on their face right now w Oct 7, but Israel still has, bar none, the best intelligence over the Middle East of anyone. If the US wants to attack ISIS, prevent Asad from using chemical weapons, check in on Iran's next move, etc, you better bet they are consulting with Israel and hearing from some guy on the ground that can give a better inside scoop than a spy satellite.
4. Military tech. No one gets more practical tests of (or spends as much of GDP on R&D of) missile defenses than Israel. Considering the biggest actual threat left to Americans defensively is nuclear missiles, it's pretty nice to have Israel on your team when Russia subtly threatens nukes every other month. So too with other anti-terrorist technologies, since the US tends to face similar opponents. Not to mention all the other cool cutting edge stuff that comes out of Israel like cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles, and that Trophy system, which is why Israels tanks keep surviving antitank rockets that leveled Russias cavalry. A lot of those are developed in partnership with the US, so they never lose their edge.
5. Israel carries it's own weight. South Korea requires tons of US boots on the ground. Many NATO nations are complacent and slack on their own militaries. Other nations that allow US bases, require the US to station troops and supply them. Israel maintains it's own high grade military with lots of safe runway for the US to use if it wants, but also Israel will probably bomb the baddies themselves anyways. Even US financial aid largely goes straight back to US arms manufacturers, providing safe American jobs back home.
There is not a long list of allies that are as strategically located and valuable for US geopolitical interests as Israel.
If most of the benefits of alliance come from military advancement that you’re also happening to be funding to the tune of billions of dollars a year as an aside is that particularly advantageous to you?
The US gives about 3 billion a year to Israel. That money has strings that basically mean that a lot has to be spent specifically on US weapons. So that part is kinda just a subsidy for US defense contractors. Besides for which, it comes with free testing, because Israel will almost certainly use that stuff in a war in short order, giving valuable feedback on the efficacy of those weapons in modern combat situations.
Compare that to US spending in South Korea and Japan, and according to this article, between 2016 and 2019, the US spent an average of 4 billion a year in South Korea and 7 billion a year in Japan. And if America's enemies attack, that means American soldiers die over there, while in Israel, only Israelis are at risk.
Meanwhile, Israel spends around 20 billion a year on military spending. That's getting a lot more stuff than that initial 3, and stuff that the US doesn't have to create infrastructure to build either. Some of which, America then gets to buy to have in their own arsenal (like the Iron Dome).
Besides for which, most of the benefits I mentioned are things that can't just be bought. A safe base in a rough neighborhood. The ingenuity of the "Startup Nation" and the effort put in by people who feel that if they have an existential need to succeed. Arabic speakers and cultural understanding pulled from people who have immigrated there from basically every country in the Middle East. The intelligence sharing alone is pretty solid bang for your buck if and when America makes moves in the region (read: frequently) because it allows them to be more targeted and keep their people safer.
Which of the various (ill-advised) forays from the West into the Middle East did Israel help out with?
Probably all of them to one extent or another (although only someone with top security clearance will be able to tell you with exactly what and how). You may personally disagree with American policy in the region, but once it is what it is, it's certainly in their best interests to have solid intelligence and someone with shared interests right there.
The US is literally allies with other countries in the region who barely shelve their anti-Israel sentiment for political expediency
I'm not sure what you are saying with this line. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and others have been working more with Israel on international projects, even as they spray the obligatory spit on Israel for domestic audiences. Turkey is another ball of wax, but Israel is far from the biggest issue with the Western alliance with them.
It was claimed I'm making irrelevant ridiculous statements about changing how Hanukkah is celebrated. Welp, it appears many Jews are divided on issues around Hannakuh traditions.
As an adult she keeps a lot of the same traditions with her partner, but explained that "many of us are electing not to celebrate the holiday with our families" due to political differences.
I guess I'm not the only Jew willing to take a second look at how Hannakuh is celebrated this year.
On December 08 2023 11:19 WombaT wrote: You have no such reputation, you have a reputation for making ridiculous, borderline irrelevant utterances on subjects that almost nobody agrees with and not engaging with pushback properly.
it appears you are incorrect. if you want to tell me more about how almost all jews think ... feel free to post a rebuttal.
On December 08 2023 10:56 Cerebrate1 wrote: Regarding Canadian politicians avoiding the event this year: I think they believe (and with good reason), that they can only lose politically if they are seen as taking either side in this conflict. I think the Moncton people are going too far by removing all Jewish stuff lest people think that means supporting Israel, but if the Calgary event was explicitly turned into a political statement, I understand the mayor backing out.
Regarding my idea of not lighting a ceremonial Menorah in public places ... hanukkah is about staying at home with friends and family... it is not about large ostentatious celebrations. hanukkah is not commercial Christmas.
It's not commercial Christmas in terms of filling stockings with toys, but Rabbi Moshe Iserlis already brought down some 500 years ago that there is a mitzvah to have big meals with singing and saying words of praise. Besides for which, basically all the Jewish laws about how to set up your menorah have to do with how best to "publicize the miracle." If any Jewish object is meant to be shown to the world from a public stage, the menorah really is it.
Also, hanukkah is a relatively minor holiday. I guess people think its big because it is close the Christmas.
My family usually meets on the last day of Hanukkah. Sometimes we skip it.
I'm sorry that your family misses out on this great celebration. I wouldn't call in a "minor holiday" though. It may not be as big a deal as the High Holidays, Passover, Shavuos, or Sukkos, but it's one of the two only holidays instituted permanently by our Sages. You should visit Jerusalem one Chanukah to feel the community get into it. It's quite the sight seeing flickering candles in every window.
It’s been decades since his family kept a menorah in the window when he was a boy. This year, for the first time, the 70-year-old decided to display one in the window of his own home.
this is approximately how it is for my family. Hanukkah is not a major holiday... maybe 1 day off.
Also, hanukkah is a relatively minor holiday. I guess people think its big because it is close the Christmas. My family usually meets on the last day of Hanukkah. Sometimes we skip it.
I'm sorry that your family misses out on this great celebration.
the adults in my family are usually working the next day. so there is usually not much of a "celebration". Also, with the menorah lit indicates the family celebrating is inside their home. It is the exact opposite of a North American New Year's Eve drunk fest.
On December 08 2023 13:35 Cerebrate1 wrote: Besides for which, basically all the Jewish laws about how to set up your menorah have to do with how best to "publicize the miracle." ... If any Jewish object is meant to be shown to the world from a public stage, the menorah really is it.
these forms of celebration and observance came long after the actual events that made it possible. Here is your friend and mine .. everyone's favourite libertarian ... Ben Shapiro ... to explain the timeline in detail.
so the flowery , serene , gregarious celebrations were codified long after a nasty brutal combination of civil war//religious war//standard war that made religious observance possible. These observances are very far detached from the reality of what occurred in time and in tone.
This is probably why the 8 day hanukkah falls down below many other holidays as you've previously acknowledged.
I think Christmas is about celebrating the birth of a baby. I can kinda get why its all fun and games. Hanukkah is celebrating the outcome of a war. its not fun stuff.
And now here we are in a time of war. Jews are hardly unified on the celebration of hanukkah during this war. And, I think that is fine. Its not some giant crisis. meh. The media might want to turn it into a circus for clicks and views though.
I like to take note of when stories/narratives change in this war because it contextualizes the viewpoints we hear later on.
On October 7, Hamas posted various videos including some extremely obscene violence towards women. They celebrated it and posted it themselves. We are now at a point where the video evidence provided by Hamas is disputed by Hamas and the various Hamas sympathizers.
It’s another example of what I’ve said before: people are so desperate to find some kind of Peter Pan character to artificially insert in their mental model of the situation that they let Hamas function as that, internalize that identity, and then distort reality around that assumption. I don’t think any of these things would happen unless people needed to feel like there always needs to be a protagonist. They want to believe there is someone who is fighting as a liberator or something along those lines. They want the Disney princess sparkly ending so bad, they put Hamas in a Prince Charming outfit.
A Reuters investigation has concluded that Israel killed one of their journalists in Lebanon and Israel either knew or should have known they were targeting and firing on journalists.
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Investigations conducted by two news organizations and two human rights groups have concluded an Israeli tank round killed a Reuters video journalist near the Lebanese border in October and that Israeli forces either knew or should have known they were targeting journalists.
The reports are the first public investigative findings of any killing of a journalist in the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas — a conflict that has been one of the deadliest for media in recent history. The Committee to Protect Journalists has confirmed the death of at least 63 journalists and media workers since the Gaza war began. They include 56 Palestinians, four Israelis and three Lebanese journalists.
...
Human rights officials said the multiple sources of video and other images from the attack on Abdallah and the other journalists made it possible to carry out unusually detailed analysis. That is not the case with most of the other attacks, either in Lebanon or in Gaza.
As a bit of an aside, I always read "The Israeli military said after the attack that it was investigating the incident." but I rarely if ever come across "after the investigation they were charged and convicted of X"
Does anyone have any data/statistics on what comes of these alleged "investigations"? Sure smells a lot like the old US police refrain of "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong".
"should have known" can be stretched to blame any one. "known" can not. If we can get Reuters to say "Israeli military personnel knew they were firing upon a journalist" then we have something. "should have known" can be twisted to the point of meaninglessness.
On December 09 2023 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote: Does anyone have any data/statistics on what comes of these alleged "investigations"?
a big problem with any data or statistics will be the question ... "who is doing the counting" and "who created the definitions"
On December 09 2023 03:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote: "should have known" can be stretched to blame any one. "known" can not. If we can get Reuters to say "Israeli military personnel knew they were firing upon a journalist" then we have something. "should have known" can be twisted to the point of meaninglessness.
On December 09 2023 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote: Does anyone have any data/statistics on what comes of these alleged "investigations"?
a big problem with any data or statistics will be the question ... "who is doing the counting" and "who created the definitions"
Sure seems like they were just (perhaps unreasonably) giving Israel an opportunity to try to explain how they wouldn't given the circumstances.
Reuters cameraman Nazeh, 53, who is based in Baghdad, said they chose the location because it was on a hilltop in an open area with no tree cover or other buildings to obscure the reporters from nearby Israeli military outposts.
Nazeh said they felt relatively safe because they were clearly identified as journalists and in plain sight of the Israeli military - on the ground and in the air.
“My assessment is that we were in the safest possible place. We were very comfortable, sitting, filming and laughing and not feeling in danger because we would have never expected that they would hit journalists,” said Nazeh.
AFP video journalist Dylan Collins, 35, who was hit by shrapnel from the second strike, agreed.
“We weren’t hiding under the trees or anything. We were very clearly seven well-marked journalists, in press vests with helmets with a car that has ‘TV’ on it, standing in an open area in the face of an Israeli military site, maybe two kilometres, one and a half away from us to our west and to our east, multiple watchtowers,” said Collins.
The only possible way they couldn't have known would be that they had no idea who the people they were looking at less than a mile away for over an hour were (despite clearly identifying themselves as press) and then shot them with artillery. Which is admittedly possible, but not really better than targeting journalists.
On the data/statistics: I figure whatever we'd get would be limited/flawed but it's hard to find anything indicating these "investigations" ever amount to anything more than constant repetition of the "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong". Meanwhile, the human rights groups, UN, and such tend to disagree.
If the Netanyahu government gave up all the West Bank settlements and let Palestine become a state, that would definitely change a ton of my opinions, yes.
Am I to understand that you thought my argument was pretty good and that's why you're not countering it?
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
America gets a lot of value from Israel as an ally.
1. They are the most real ally they will ever have in that neighborhood. Israel has a lot of cultural and political similarities to the West. Other nearby "allies" are fair weather friends who would swap allegiance with China or the like if the wind changed.
2. Israel provides a lot of civilian tech similar to Taiwan (just more diverse). Tons of startups and innovation in Israel. They make all kinds of apps and things and lots of US tech companies have R&D centers (if not secondary HQs) in Israel. Intel microchips, PayPal, WhatsApp, cell phones, etc. Israel helps maintain the all too critical tech edge, and it preferentially partners with US companies very frequently.
3. Military intelligence. Israel happens to have some egg on their face right now w Oct 7, but Israel still has, bar none, the best intelligence over the Middle East of anyone. If the US wants to attack ISIS, prevent Asad from using chemical weapons, check in on Iran's next move, etc, you better bet they are consulting with Israel and hearing from some guy on the ground that can give a better inside scoop than a spy satellite.
4. Military tech. No one gets more practical tests of (or spends as much of GDP on R&D of) missile defenses than Israel. Considering the biggest actual threat left to Americans defensively is nuclear missiles, it's pretty nice to have Israel on your team when Russia subtly threatens nukes every other month. So too with other anti-terrorist technologies, since the US tends to face similar opponents. Not to mention all the other cool cutting edge stuff that comes out of Israel like cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles, and that Trophy system, which is why Israels tanks keep surviving antitank rockets that leveled Russias cavalry. A lot of those are developed in partnership with the US, so they never lose their edge.
5. Israel carries it's own weight. South Korea requires tons of US boots on the ground. Many NATO nations are complacent and slack on their own militaries. Other nations that allow US bases, require the US to station troops and supply them. Israel maintains it's own high grade military with lots of safe runway for the US to use if it wants, but also Israel will probably bomb the baddies themselves anyways. Even US financial aid largely goes straight back to US arms manufacturers, providing safe American jobs back home.
There is not a long list of allies that are as strategically located and valuable for US geopolitical interests as Israel.
If most of the benefits of alliance come from military advancement that you’re also happening to be funding to the tune of billions of dollars a year as an aside is that particularly advantageous to you?
The US gives about 3 billion a year to Israel. That money has strings that basically mean that a lot has to be spent specifically on US weapons. So that part is kinda just a subsidy for US defense contractors. Besides for which, it comes with free testing, because Israel will almost certainly use that stuff in a war in short order, giving valuable feedback on the efficacy of those weapons in modern combat situations.
Compare that to US spending in South Korea and Japan, and according to this article, between 2016 and 2019, the US spent an average of 4 billion a year in South Korea and 7 billion a year in Japan. And if America's enemies attack, that means American soldiers die over there, while in Israel, only Israelis are at risk.
Meanwhile, Israel spends around 20 billion a year on military spending. That's getting a lot more stuff than that initial 3, and stuff that the US doesn't have to create infrastructure to build either. Some of which, America then gets to buy to have in their own arsenal (like the Iron Dome).
Besides for which, most of the benefits I mentioned are things that can't just be bought. A safe base in a rough neighborhood. The ingenuity of the "Startup Nation" and the effort put in by people who feel that if they have an existential need to succeed. Arabic speakers and cultural understanding pulled from people who have immigrated there from basically every country in the Middle East. The intelligence sharing alone is pretty solid bang for your buck if and when America makes moves in the region (read: frequently) because it allows them to be more targeted and keep their people safer.
Which of the various (ill-advised) forays from the West into the Middle East did Israel help out with?
Probably all of them to one extent or another (although only someone with top security clearance will be able to tell you with exactly what and how). You may personally disagree with American policy in the region, but once it is what it is, it's certainly in their best interests to have solid intelligence and someone with shared interests right there.
The US is literally allies with other countries in the region who barely shelve their anti-Israel sentiment for political expediency
I'm not sure what you are saying with this line. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and others have been working more with Israel on international projects, even as they spray the obligatory spit on Israel for domestic audiences. Turkey is another ball of wax, but Israel is far from the biggest issue with the Western alliance with them.
A fine response, with some information that was honestly news to me and has somewhat shifted some of my perspectives. Thanks for taking the time, what this thread is for in an ideal world.
Although I suppose Israel’s very existence is to some extent a destabilising influence in that region so that has to be taken into account in a valuation. Although also obviously that’s not really the fault of the current denizens of Israel.
In addition I don’t think these previous points preclude alliance, merely that IMO it’s not one of mutual transactional gains. There are other considerations and motivations that are entirely legitimate too.
One rather close to one’s heart is Northern Ireland, and the US batted pretty hard for resolution there, but really in terms of their practical interests and whatnot it was by the by either way what was going on here
On December 09 2023 07:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This appears to be the "end of the runway" scenario in sight for the IDF, despite the US running defense at the UN.
From what I can tell, the US is doing what they ought to by breathing down Israel’s neck and generally communicating dissatisfaction. But Biden and his homies have been clear Hamas totally blows ass and needs to get dumpstered regardless and it’s more so a matter of doing that in the least shitty way possible. Because the US has taken such a firm stance regarding the acceptability of letting Hamas continue to control land, I think it helps to explain why the UK upped their indirect support by providing intelligence via their spy planes. They want it to wrap up ASAP, so they are doing everything they can to give Israel all they need to move as quick as possible.
But I can’t imagine they’ll be like “sorry guys I guess we don’t meet the deadline, Hamas wins yay Hamas!!!”. They’re not going to point to an alarm clock going off. It would be way worse to cut it short. They’re all cashing in a lot of political capital and they are gonna make sure they get something out of it.
“Biden is probably as isolated on the global stage, given how close he is to Israel, closest ally of the United States on this issue, as the Russians were when they first invaded Ukraine, which is a shocking thing to say,” Bremmer, the high-profile geopolitical commentator, told CNBC Tuesday. “But it shows just how challenging this war continuing is going to be for U.S. foreign policy.”
"Since Oct. 7, more than 16,200 people have been killed in Gaza, including more than 10,000 women and children, according to Hamas-run health authorities there. Israel declared a siege of the already blockaded territory shortly after the Hamas attacks, cutting off all water, food and fuel to Gaza. Weeks later, the first aid trucks were able to enter the Strip, but the provisions that have made it in so far are woefully inadequate, according to the United Nations."
I wonder what's stopping all that aid and causing all these casualties? Could it perhaps be a war that is completely dominated by one side? Oh it's the "defense of Israel" which by today hasn't been a valid excuse for almost two months. I wonder what they'll say in January, and then again in February. That's a hell of an offensive war of defense.
"The White House did not immediately reply to a CNBC request for comment, but spokesperson previously told CNBC that “Israel has the right to defend itself in compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law, especially as Hamas terrorists have said that what happened on October 7th ‘will happen again and again and again’ until Israel is annihilated.” "
“Israel has the right to defend itself in compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law..."
Sometimes US politicians/officials think they are being so clever and then someone goes and asks the obvious question and it becomes abundantly obvious how full of shit they are. For that particular refrain it's been "So, are they doing that?" then you see them dissemble and pettifog into oblivion.
On December 09 2023 19:43 GreenHorizons wrote: “Israel has the right to defend itself in compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law..."
Sometimes US politicians/officials think they are being so clever and then someone goes and asks the obvious question and it becomes abundantly obvious how full of shit they are. For that particular refrain it's been "So, are they doing that?" then you see them dissemble and pettifog into oblivion.
I think Biden is genuinely trying to make a positive difference, as his tone has shifted from staunch support to calls for moderation, but more concretely his hands seem to be tied because it's so difficult to find words of criticism for Israel that cannot be falsely construed as support for terrorist groups. Just take a look at this:
" “Hamas unleashed a terrorist attack because they fear nothing more than Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace,” the US president’s X account said on Tuesday. “To continue down the path of terror, violence, killing, and war is to give Hamas what they seek. We can’t do that.”
Some on the right accused Biden of drawing moral equivalence between Hamas’s terrorist attack and Israel’s bombing campaign. Tom Cotton, a military veteran and Republican senator for Arkansas, tweeted: “It took Biden only a few weeks after the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust to turn on Israel and compare Israel’s actions to terror.” "
His words were interpreted as "comparing Israel's actions to terror". No, he didn't. But also, yes it is terror. But that's not something Biden can say explicitly, even if he were to believe it. And he didn't even say it. But it's so easy to misconstrue his words. He more or less has to walk a tight rope, and if he can't speak the truth as he sees it, then how can he force change?
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
America gets a lot of value from Israel as an ally.
1. They are the most real ally they will ever have in that neighborhood. Israel has a lot of cultural and political similarities to the West. Other nearby "allies" are fair weather friends who would swap allegiance with China or the like if the wind changed.
2. Israel provides a lot of civilian tech similar to Taiwan (just more diverse). Tons of startups and innovation in Israel. They make all kinds of apps and things and lots of US tech companies have R&D centers (if not secondary HQs) in Israel. Intel microchips, PayPal, WhatsApp, cell phones, etc. Israel helps maintain the all too critical tech edge, and it preferentially partners with US companies very frequently.
3. Military intelligence. Israel happens to have some egg on their face right now w Oct 7, but Israel still has, bar none, the best intelligence over the Middle East of anyone. If the US wants to attack ISIS, prevent Asad from using chemical weapons, check in on Iran's next move, etc, you better bet they are consulting with Israel and hearing from some guy on the ground that can give a better inside scoop than a spy satellite.
4. Military tech. No one gets more practical tests of (or spends as much of GDP on R&D of) missile defenses than Israel. Considering the biggest actual threat left to Americans defensively is nuclear missiles, it's pretty nice to have Israel on your team when Russia subtly threatens nukes every other month. So too with other anti-terrorist technologies, since the US tends to face similar opponents. Not to mention all the other cool cutting edge stuff that comes out of Israel like cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles, and that Trophy system, which is why Israels tanks keep surviving antitank rockets that leveled Russias cavalry. A lot of those are developed in partnership with the US, so they never lose their edge.
5. Israel carries it's own weight. South Korea requires tons of US boots on the ground. Many NATO nations are complacent and slack on their own militaries. Other nations that allow US bases, require the US to station troops and supply them. Israel maintains it's own high grade military with lots of safe runway for the US to use if it wants, but also Israel will probably bomb the baddies themselves anyways. Even US financial aid largely goes straight back to US arms manufacturers, providing safe American jobs back home.
There is not a long list of allies that are as strategically located and valuable for US geopolitical interests as Israel.
If most of the benefits of alliance come from military advancement that you’re also happening to be funding to the tune of billions of dollars a year as an aside is that particularly advantageous to you?
The US gives about 3 billion a year to Israel. That money has strings that basically mean that a lot has to be spent specifically on US weapons. So that part is kinda just a subsidy for US defense contractors. Besides for which, it comes with free testing, because Israel will almost certainly use that stuff in a war in short order, giving valuable feedback on the efficacy of those weapons in modern combat situations.
Compare that to US spending in South Korea and Japan, and according to this article, between 2016 and 2019, the US spent an average of 4 billion a year in South Korea and 7 billion a year in Japan. And if America's enemies attack, that means American soldiers die over there, while in Israel, only Israelis are at risk.
Meanwhile, Israel spends around 20 billion a year on military spending. That's getting a lot more stuff than that initial 3, and stuff that the US doesn't have to create infrastructure to build either. Some of which, America then gets to buy to have in their own arsenal (like the Iron Dome).
Besides for which, most of the benefits I mentioned are things that can't just be bought. A safe base in a rough neighborhood. The ingenuity of the "Startup Nation" and the effort put in by people who feel that if they have an existential need to succeed. Arabic speakers and cultural understanding pulled from people who have immigrated there from basically every country in the Middle East. The intelligence sharing alone is pretty solid bang for your buck if and when America makes moves in the region (read: frequently) because it allows them to be more targeted and keep their people safer.
Which of the various (ill-advised) forays from the West into the Middle East did Israel help out with?
Probably all of them to one extent or another (although only someone with top security clearance will be able to tell you with exactly what and how). You may personally disagree with American policy in the region, but once it is what it is, it's certainly in their best interests to have solid intelligence and someone with shared interests right there.
The US is literally allies with other countries in the region who barely shelve their anti-Israel sentiment for political expediency
I'm not sure what you are saying with this line. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and others have been working more with Israel on international projects, even as they spray the obligatory spit on Israel for domestic audiences. Turkey is another ball of wax, but Israel is far from the biggest issue with the Western alliance with them.
Although I suppose Israel’s very existence is to some extent a destabilising influence in that region so that has to be taken into account in a valuation. Although also obviously that’s not really the fault of the current denizens of Israel.
There’s definitely a weird pass people give Arab countries for hating Jews. It’s like it’s such a baseline assumption people pretend it’s some kind of natural, totally ok thing. When a government like Hamas does something antisemitic, we are assured most Palestinians are peaceful and just want a 2 state solution. Then polls indicate a huge majority of Palestinians want Israel wiped off the map and people shrug as if collective punishment is totally fine because of some kinda vague assertion of “ancestral land” or something similar.
The end result is people trying to make “Jews shouldn’t live in the Middle East” some kind of core baseline assumption without it being challenged. Even if we assume the formation of Israel was morally improper, dissolving Israel is not a valid response to that assumption. Killing Israelis is not a valid response.
In a more extreme example, if native Americans in the US suddenly decided Hamas has the right idea and started trying to kill as many people living in “ancestral lands” as possible, we’d all agree manifest destiny and everything associated with it was super awful. But we’d have an easy time saying “yeah but like, it’s not like we should just kill everyone currently living in Boston as some kind of balancing”.
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
America gets a lot of value from Israel as an ally.
1. They are the most real ally they will ever have in that neighborhood. Israel has a lot of cultural and political similarities to the West. Other nearby "allies" are fair weather friends who would swap allegiance with China or the like if the wind changed.
2. Israel provides a lot of civilian tech similar to Taiwan (just more diverse). Tons of startups and innovation in Israel. They make all kinds of apps and things and lots of US tech companies have R&D centers (if not secondary HQs) in Israel. Intel microchips, PayPal, WhatsApp, cell phones, etc. Israel helps maintain the all too critical tech edge, and it preferentially partners with US companies very frequently.
3. Military intelligence. Israel happens to have some egg on their face right now w Oct 7, but Israel still has, bar none, the best intelligence over the Middle East of anyone. If the US wants to attack ISIS, prevent Asad from using chemical weapons, check in on Iran's next move, etc, you better bet they are consulting with Israel and hearing from some guy on the ground that can give a better inside scoop than a spy satellite.
4. Military tech. No one gets more practical tests of (or spends as much of GDP on R&D of) missile defenses than Israel. Considering the biggest actual threat left to Americans defensively is nuclear missiles, it's pretty nice to have Israel on your team when Russia subtly threatens nukes every other month. So too with other anti-terrorist technologies, since the US tends to face similar opponents. Not to mention all the other cool cutting edge stuff that comes out of Israel like cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles, and that Trophy system, which is why Israels tanks keep surviving antitank rockets that leveled Russias cavalry. A lot of those are developed in partnership with the US, so they never lose their edge.
5. Israel carries it's own weight. South Korea requires tons of US boots on the ground. Many NATO nations are complacent and slack on their own militaries. Other nations that allow US bases, require the US to station troops and supply them. Israel maintains it's own high grade military with lots of safe runway for the US to use if it wants, but also Israel will probably bomb the baddies themselves anyways. Even US financial aid largely goes straight back to US arms manufacturers, providing safe American jobs back home.
There is not a long list of allies that are as strategically located and valuable for US geopolitical interests as Israel.
If most of the benefits of alliance come from military advancement that you’re also happening to be funding to the tune of billions of dollars a year as an aside is that particularly advantageous to you?
The US gives about 3 billion a year to Israel. That money has strings that basically mean that a lot has to be spent specifically on US weapons. So that part is kinda just a subsidy for US defense contractors. Besides for which, it comes with free testing, because Israel will almost certainly use that stuff in a war in short order, giving valuable feedback on the efficacy of those weapons in modern combat situations.
Compare that to US spending in South Korea and Japan, and according to this article, between 2016 and 2019, the US spent an average of 4 billion a year in South Korea and 7 billion a year in Japan. And if America's enemies attack, that means American soldiers die over there, while in Israel, only Israelis are at risk.
Meanwhile, Israel spends around 20 billion a year on military spending. That's getting a lot more stuff than that initial 3, and stuff that the US doesn't have to create infrastructure to build either. Some of which, America then gets to buy to have in their own arsenal (like the Iron Dome).
Besides for which, most of the benefits I mentioned are things that can't just be bought. A safe base in a rough neighborhood. The ingenuity of the "Startup Nation" and the effort put in by people who feel that if they have an existential need to succeed. Arabic speakers and cultural understanding pulled from people who have immigrated there from basically every country in the Middle East. The intelligence sharing alone is pretty solid bang for your buck if and when America makes moves in the region (read: frequently) because it allows them to be more targeted and keep their people safer.
Which of the various (ill-advised) forays from the West into the Middle East did Israel help out with?
Probably all of them to one extent or another (although only someone with top security clearance will be able to tell you with exactly what and how). You may personally disagree with American policy in the region, but once it is what it is, it's certainly in their best interests to have solid intelligence and someone with shared interests right there.
The US is literally allies with other countries in the region who barely shelve their anti-Israel sentiment for political expediency
I'm not sure what you are saying with this line. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and others have been working more with Israel on international projects, even as they spray the obligatory spit on Israel for domestic audiences. Turkey is another ball of wax, but Israel is far from the biggest issue with the Western alliance with them.
Although I suppose Israel’s very existence is to some extent a destabilising influence in that region so that has to be taken into account in a valuation. Although also obviously that’s not really the fault of the current denizens of Israel.
There’s definitely a weird pass people give Arab countries for hating Jews. It’s like it’s such a baseline assumption people pretend it’s some kind of natural, totally ok thing. When a government like Hamas does something antisemitic, we are assured most Palestinians are peaceful and just want a 2 state solution. Then polls indicate a huge majority of Palestinians want Israel wiped off the map and people shrug as if collective punishment is totally fine because of some kinda vague assertion of “ancestral land” or something similar.
The end result is people trying to make “Jews shouldn’t live in the Middle East” some kind of core baseline assumption without it being challenged. Even if we assume the formation of Israel was morally improper, dissolving Israel is not a valid response to that assumption. Killing Israelis is not a valid response.
In a more extreme example, if native Americans in the US suddenly decided Hamas has the right idea and started trying to kill as many people living in “ancestral lands” as possible, we’d all agree manifest destiny and everything associated with it was super awful. But we’d have an easy time saying “yeah but like, it’s not like we should just kill everyone currently living in Boston as some kind of balancing”.
I don't generally accuse people of strawmanning, but I'm making an exception for this. This is one of the best examples of a horribly misconstrued strawman I've read in a very long time. From a generalized and unsubstantiated statement of Arabs hating Jews to referring to Hamas and then broadly to Palestinians with no distinction to other Arabs and an especially confusing reference to claims of ancestral land. And no reference to people linking any of this together in the manner it's being presented. This is an absolutely mindblowingly terrible shitpost of yours, Mohdoo. I know you can do better, but you don't seem to be trying.
On December 08 2023 05:02 JimmiC wrote: [quote] No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
America gets a lot of value from Israel as an ally.
1. They are the most real ally they will ever have in that neighborhood. Israel has a lot of cultural and political similarities to the West. Other nearby "allies" are fair weather friends who would swap allegiance with China or the like if the wind changed.
2. Israel provides a lot of civilian tech similar to Taiwan (just more diverse). Tons of startups and innovation in Israel. They make all kinds of apps and things and lots of US tech companies have R&D centers (if not secondary HQs) in Israel. Intel microchips, PayPal, WhatsApp, cell phones, etc. Israel helps maintain the all too critical tech edge, and it preferentially partners with US companies very frequently.
3. Military intelligence. Israel happens to have some egg on their face right now w Oct 7, but Israel still has, bar none, the best intelligence over the Middle East of anyone. If the US wants to attack ISIS, prevent Asad from using chemical weapons, check in on Iran's next move, etc, you better bet they are consulting with Israel and hearing from some guy on the ground that can give a better inside scoop than a spy satellite.
4. Military tech. No one gets more practical tests of (or spends as much of GDP on R&D of) missile defenses than Israel. Considering the biggest actual threat left to Americans defensively is nuclear missiles, it's pretty nice to have Israel on your team when Russia subtly threatens nukes every other month. So too with other anti-terrorist technologies, since the US tends to face similar opponents. Not to mention all the other cool cutting edge stuff that comes out of Israel like cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles, and that Trophy system, which is why Israels tanks keep surviving antitank rockets that leveled Russias cavalry. A lot of those are developed in partnership with the US, so they never lose their edge.
5. Israel carries it's own weight. South Korea requires tons of US boots on the ground. Many NATO nations are complacent and slack on their own militaries. Other nations that allow US bases, require the US to station troops and supply them. Israel maintains it's own high grade military with lots of safe runway for the US to use if it wants, but also Israel will probably bomb the baddies themselves anyways. Even US financial aid largely goes straight back to US arms manufacturers, providing safe American jobs back home.
There is not a long list of allies that are as strategically located and valuable for US geopolitical interests as Israel.
If most of the benefits of alliance come from military advancement that you’re also happening to be funding to the tune of billions of dollars a year as an aside is that particularly advantageous to you?
The US gives about 3 billion a year to Israel. That money has strings that basically mean that a lot has to be spent specifically on US weapons. So that part is kinda just a subsidy for US defense contractors. Besides for which, it comes with free testing, because Israel will almost certainly use that stuff in a war in short order, giving valuable feedback on the efficacy of those weapons in modern combat situations.
Compare that to US spending in South Korea and Japan, and according to this article, between 2016 and 2019, the US spent an average of 4 billion a year in South Korea and 7 billion a year in Japan. And if America's enemies attack, that means American soldiers die over there, while in Israel, only Israelis are at risk.
Meanwhile, Israel spends around 20 billion a year on military spending. That's getting a lot more stuff than that initial 3, and stuff that the US doesn't have to create infrastructure to build either. Some of which, America then gets to buy to have in their own arsenal (like the Iron Dome).
Besides for which, most of the benefits I mentioned are things that can't just be bought. A safe base in a rough neighborhood. The ingenuity of the "Startup Nation" and the effort put in by people who feel that if they have an existential need to succeed. Arabic speakers and cultural understanding pulled from people who have immigrated there from basically every country in the Middle East. The intelligence sharing alone is pretty solid bang for your buck if and when America makes moves in the region (read: frequently) because it allows them to be more targeted and keep their people safer.
Which of the various (ill-advised) forays from the West into the Middle East did Israel help out with?
Probably all of them to one extent or another (although only someone with top security clearance will be able to tell you with exactly what and how). You may personally disagree with American policy in the region, but once it is what it is, it's certainly in their best interests to have solid intelligence and someone with shared interests right there.
The US is literally allies with other countries in the region who barely shelve their anti-Israel sentiment for political expediency
I'm not sure what you are saying with this line. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and others have been working more with Israel on international projects, even as they spray the obligatory spit on Israel for domestic audiences. Turkey is another ball of wax, but Israel is far from the biggest issue with the Western alliance with them.
Although I suppose Israel’s very existence is to some extent a destabilising influence in that region so that has to be taken into account in a valuation. Although also obviously that’s not really the fault of the current denizens of Israel.
There’s definitely a weird pass people give Arab countries for hating Jews. It’s like it’s such a baseline assumption people pretend it’s some kind of natural, totally ok thing. When a government like Hamas does something antisemitic, we are assured most Palestinians are peaceful and just want a 2 state solution. Then polls indicate a huge majority of Palestinians want Israel wiped off the map and people shrug as if collective punishment is totally fine because of some kinda vague assertion of “ancestral land” or something similar.
The end result is people trying to make “Jews shouldn’t live in the Middle East” some kind of core baseline assumption without it being challenged. Even if we assume the formation of Israel was morally improper, dissolving Israel is not a valid response to that assumption. Killing Israelis is not a valid response.
In a more extreme example, if native Americans in the US suddenly decided Hamas has the right idea and started trying to kill as many people living in “ancestral lands” as possible, we’d all agree manifest destiny and everything associated with it was super awful. But we’d have an easy time saying “yeah but like, it’s not like we should just kill everyone currently living in Boston as some kind of balancing”.
I don't generally accuse people of strawmanning, but I'm making an exception for this. This is one of the best examples of a horribly misconstrued strawman I've read in a very long time. From a generalized and unsubstantiated statement of Arabs hating Jews to referring to Hamas and then broadly to Palestinians with no distinction to other Arabs and an especially confusing reference to claims of ancestral land. And no reference to people linking any of this together in the manner it's being presented. This is an absolutely mindblowingly terrible shitpost of yours, Mohdoo. I know you can do better, but you don't seem to be trying.
I’m not gonna do the Arab dance with you because I’ve already shown Arab nations commonly identify themselves as a group when describing the Palestinian situation.
"This is the cause of all causes, the cause of all Arabs," Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said on Thursday. "It is important that the (Palestinian) people remain steadfast and present on their land."
I’m not gonna pretend the term Arab is like describing South Americans as Mexicans or something lol
I’ve also linked historical documentation the response to the formation of Israel from neighboring Arab nations previously. As a brief summary, collective punishment was widely utilized by Arab nations against Jews within their countries as a response to the formation of Israel. This collective punishment was grotesque and clearly extremely unethical. People generally excuse it as being a response to Israel. But collective punishment is not ethical. It is not reasonable to punish Jews in other countries for reasons pertaining to Israel.
If you’re trying to say there is not a great deal of racism towards Jews in the Middle East, I’m not sure we are living in the same reality and perhaps it’s a topic you and I can’t productively discuss.
We’ve also discussed recent polling in both West Bank and Gaza regarding Israel’s right to exist. It’s not a pretty situation. I am only referring to those polls in my description of Palestinian perspectives on Israel existing and Jews remaining alive.
And the comparison to native Americans could only be regarded as invalid because Europeans were not living there coexisting previously. Jews and Arabs had lived in the Palestine’ish region for a long time. The borders and names have changed all over the place throughout history, but Jews hanging out around there and doing stuff was has been going on for a long time. The idea that Jews living there being some kind of abomination or violation of ancient, sacred rituals is just not real at all.
The only way we could say native Americans have less of a right to mirror the actions of Hamas would be that they lost so long ago it expired or something. But the native Americans have way more moral high ground when compared to the Palestinians saying Israel shouldn’t exist. It a And yet none of us would say “yeah but they are mad for a REASON!!!” if they launched an attack on Boston, raped a ton of women, killed 1200 people, and held hostages, raping them and torturing them along the way, for months.
No I do not think that ethnostate who runs a apartheid and wants ethnic cleansing and genocide would be stopped by people like me. I believe a state like that, that had the means (power) and opportunity would just do it, see Russia.
It would absolutely be stopped, though. When you analyze the situation of the Middle East, the fact that Israel has full US and western support is quite important, it's not something that they can just ignore. And they know that, btw, that's why so much of their propaganda is in english.
For the record, Russia didn't "just do it" either. There were eight years between Crimea and the current war. My understanding is that one of the reasons why Putin launched it was that he thought it would be very easy and that the clean victory would help with his image within Russia, similarly to how the Chechnya campaign helped his image. I certainly think that there was a calculation there. You shouldn't conclude that because someone is engaged in an irrational far right campaign, it follows that they have no capacity to think tactically.
I do not, I just completely disagree with you tactics. For a long time no one would have cared in the power positions in the west and US if the Israel had just annexed the land they won in the war and displaced the people. That is kinda how it worked for a long time.
Now I do not think it is that different, we can piss and moan all we want about all sorts of things but it does not really change what the decision makers do and at the end of the day Israel is about the only consistent ally the west has in the middle east that is filled with countries full of autocratic leaders who want to destroy the west.
Now if it would be unpopular in Israel, as long as its a democracy, that would matter because he would lose power.
They’re not a particularly useful ally in any practical sense. Israel get a fuckton more mileage out of these alliances, especially with the US than the other way around.
The wider West doesn’t really give much of a fuck if you’re an autocratic regime if you have something else that’s worth bartering.
America gets a lot of value from Israel as an ally.
1. They are the most real ally they will ever have in that neighborhood. Israel has a lot of cultural and political similarities to the West. Other nearby "allies" are fair weather friends who would swap allegiance with China or the like if the wind changed.
2. Israel provides a lot of civilian tech similar to Taiwan (just more diverse). Tons of startups and innovation in Israel. They make all kinds of apps and things and lots of US tech companies have R&D centers (if not secondary HQs) in Israel. Intel microchips, PayPal, WhatsApp, cell phones, etc. Israel helps maintain the all too critical tech edge, and it preferentially partners with US companies very frequently.
3. Military intelligence. Israel happens to have some egg on their face right now w Oct 7, but Israel still has, bar none, the best intelligence over the Middle East of anyone. If the US wants to attack ISIS, prevent Asad from using chemical weapons, check in on Iran's next move, etc, you better bet they are consulting with Israel and hearing from some guy on the ground that can give a better inside scoop than a spy satellite.
4. Military tech. No one gets more practical tests of (or spends as much of GDP on R&D of) missile defenses than Israel. Considering the biggest actual threat left to Americans defensively is nuclear missiles, it's pretty nice to have Israel on your team when Russia subtly threatens nukes every other month. So too with other anti-terrorist technologies, since the US tends to face similar opponents. Not to mention all the other cool cutting edge stuff that comes out of Israel like cyberweapons, unmanned vehicles, and that Trophy system, which is why Israels tanks keep surviving antitank rockets that leveled Russias cavalry. A lot of those are developed in partnership with the US, so they never lose their edge.
5. Israel carries it's own weight. South Korea requires tons of US boots on the ground. Many NATO nations are complacent and slack on their own militaries. Other nations that allow US bases, require the US to station troops and supply them. Israel maintains it's own high grade military with lots of safe runway for the US to use if it wants, but also Israel will probably bomb the baddies themselves anyways. Even US financial aid largely goes straight back to US arms manufacturers, providing safe American jobs back home.
There is not a long list of allies that are as strategically located and valuable for US geopolitical interests as Israel.
If most of the benefits of alliance come from military advancement that you’re also happening to be funding to the tune of billions of dollars a year as an aside is that particularly advantageous to you?
The US gives about 3 billion a year to Israel. That money has strings that basically mean that a lot has to be spent specifically on US weapons. So that part is kinda just a subsidy for US defense contractors. Besides for which, it comes with free testing, because Israel will almost certainly use that stuff in a war in short order, giving valuable feedback on the efficacy of those weapons in modern combat situations.
Compare that to US spending in South Korea and Japan, and according to this article, between 2016 and 2019, the US spent an average of 4 billion a year in South Korea and 7 billion a year in Japan. And if America's enemies attack, that means American soldiers die over there, while in Israel, only Israelis are at risk.
Meanwhile, Israel spends around 20 billion a year on military spending. That's getting a lot more stuff than that initial 3, and stuff that the US doesn't have to create infrastructure to build either. Some of which, America then gets to buy to have in their own arsenal (like the Iron Dome).
Besides for which, most of the benefits I mentioned are things that can't just be bought. A safe base in a rough neighborhood. The ingenuity of the "Startup Nation" and the effort put in by people who feel that if they have an existential need to succeed. Arabic speakers and cultural understanding pulled from people who have immigrated there from basically every country in the Middle East. The intelligence sharing alone is pretty solid bang for your buck if and when America makes moves in the region (read: frequently) because it allows them to be more targeted and keep their people safer.
Which of the various (ill-advised) forays from the West into the Middle East did Israel help out with?
Probably all of them to one extent or another (although only someone with top security clearance will be able to tell you with exactly what and how). You may personally disagree with American policy in the region, but once it is what it is, it's certainly in their best interests to have solid intelligence and someone with shared interests right there.
The US is literally allies with other countries in the region who barely shelve their anti-Israel sentiment for political expediency
I'm not sure what you are saying with this line. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and others have been working more with Israel on international projects, even as they spray the obligatory spit on Israel for domestic audiences. Turkey is another ball of wax, but Israel is far from the biggest issue with the Western alliance with them.
Although I suppose Israel’s very existence is to some extent a destabilising influence in that region so that has to be taken into account in a valuation. Although also obviously that’s not really the fault of the current denizens of Israel.
There’s definitely a weird pass people give Arab countries for hating Jews. It’s like it’s such a baseline assumption people pretend it’s some kind of natural, totally ok thing. When a government like Hamas does something antisemitic, we are assured most Palestinians are peaceful and just want a 2 state solution. Then polls indicate a huge majority of Palestinians want Israel wiped off the map and people shrug as if collective punishment is totally fine because of some kinda vague assertion of “ancestral land” or something similar.
The end result is people trying to make “Jews shouldn’t live in the Middle East” some kind of core baseline assumption without it being challenged. Even if we assume the formation of Israel was morally improper, dissolving Israel is not a valid response to that assumption. Killing Israelis is not a valid response.
In a more extreme example, if native Americans in the US suddenly decided Hamas has the right idea and started trying to kill as many people living in “ancestral lands” as possible, we’d all agree manifest destiny and everything associated with it was super awful. But we’d have an easy time saying “yeah but like, it’s not like we should just kill everyone currently living in Boston as some kind of balancing”.
Based on the discussion I was previously having I feel this is pretty unfair really.
My point was that Israel isn’t a particularly useful ally, I got some pushback there. One of which was that Israel provided useful intelligence. To which I responded that Israel providing useful intelligence is kind of a circular thing given that the need for such intelligence is kind of precipitated by their existence as a state. Not as any kind of value judgment just as an observation
I’m not sure how the fuck it got to that perception of what I said
EPT
