US military aid is about %1 of Israel's budget, so factually it can't be said to "survive" on it (BTW it's required to spend nearly all of it buying from US suppliers).
As for "nominally democratic" I'll ignore it in order to not bring the already devastated level of discourse here yet lower.
But, back the point, do you seriously believe the NSA will outsource its most sensitive operations to another country? HN is now moving from r/politics to r/conspiracy.
I didn't mean financial survival. To listen to any apologist of our Middle East policy, it's utterly vital for Israeli survival to have the threat of American nuclear reprisal at their beck and call.
Perhaps "military assistance" would have been a better term.
As to "nominally democratic", they're governed by a bunch of repressive thugs who don't listen to their own people - slightly better than the United States in that respect. Or do you really think their Palestinian policy is democratically derived?
And yes. I think the military-industrial complex will do anything to win, and the Israelis are known to be non-stupid. They could do worse.
As to the level of discourse, I thought my response was better than JEW JEW JEW ANTISEMITISM, but your mileage may vary.
I agree the parent comment's insinuation of antisemitism was nonsense.
it's utterly vital for Israeli survival to have the threat of American nuclear reprisal at their beck and call
(1) Why exactly do you think Israel has US support at their beck and call? I can tell you Israelis definitely don't think so. (2) Why does Israel need it, when - following the collapse of the USSR which was the main lifeline of other Mideast forces - it now has the most powerful military in the region? and (3) Israel has its own nukes since the '60s.
American support for Israel started only in the early '70s, after Israel proved itself a useful asset by winning the Six Day War, without any US support and as counterbalance for the USSR support of Arab nations. Israel is one of very few nations in the world (certainly the western world) which the US didn't have to send its military to protect at some point.
Now this is the kind of comment I come to HNN for.
(1) From the point of view of a liberal American, it seems a given. To have any negative opinion of Israeli politics in the States marks you as Not The In Crowd.
(2) I dunno - all I know is that American politicians represent the situation in this way. I know a few Israelis, but we've never talked politics and I've never been to Israel, sadly. So I'm woefully ignorant.
(3) We're never supposed to talk about that, are we? Only Evil Rogue Nations violate nuclear treaties they didn't sign, after all.
On your final paragraph - now I'm going to have to go read some things.
(1) Well, Chomsky is doing alright.. And I wouldn't say The Nation or the New Yorker have any qualms about criticizing Israel (and they shouldn't).
(2) I agree, the situation is represented in the US in very simplistic terms, by both sides.
(3) IMHO Israel, along with Pakistan and India, took the only respectable option by not signing that treaty. When my wife was doing her MA she'd often tell me how her professors mentioned various UN human rights treaties the US didn't sign and which many dictatorships did sign. It amazed me how her ivy league teachers didn't realize the signature of most nations is meaningless, as they have no intention of committing to it.
Comments
US military aid is about %1 of Israel's budget, so factually it can't be said to "survive" on it (BTW it's required to spend nearly all of it buying from US suppliers).
As for "nominally democratic" I'll ignore it in order to not bring the already devastated level of discourse here yet lower.
But, back the point, do you seriously believe the NSA will outsource its most sensitive operations to another country? HN is now moving from r/politics to r/conspiracy.
I didn't mean financial survival. To listen to any apologist of our Middle East policy, it's utterly vital for Israeli survival to have the threat of American nuclear reprisal at their beck and call.
Perhaps "military assistance" would have been a better term.
As to "nominally democratic", they're governed by a bunch of repressive thugs who don't listen to their own people - slightly better than the United States in that respect. Or do you really think their Palestinian policy is democratically derived?
And yes. I think the military-industrial complex will do anything to win, and the Israelis are known to be non-stupid. They could do worse.
As to the level of discourse, I thought my response was better than JEW JEW JEW ANTISEMITISM, but your mileage may vary.
I agree the parent comment's insinuation of antisemitism was nonsense.
(1) Why exactly do you think Israel has US support at their beck and call? I can tell you Israelis definitely don't think so. (2) Why does Israel need it, when - following the collapse of the USSR which was the main lifeline of other Mideast forces - it now has the most powerful military in the region? and (3) Israel has its own nukes since the '60s.
American support for Israel started only in the early '70s, after Israel proved itself a useful asset by winning the Six Day War, without any US support and as counterbalance for the USSR support of Arab nations. Israel is one of very few nations in the world (certainly the western world) which the US didn't have to send its military to protect at some point.
Now this is the kind of comment I come to HNN for.
(1) From the point of view of a liberal American, it seems a given. To have any negative opinion of Israeli politics in the States marks you as Not The In Crowd.
(2) I dunno - all I know is that American politicians represent the situation in this way. I know a few Israelis, but we've never talked politics and I've never been to Israel, sadly. So I'm woefully ignorant.
(3) We're never supposed to talk about that, are we? Only Evil Rogue Nations violate nuclear treaties they didn't sign, after all.
On your final paragraph - now I'm going to have to go read some things.
(1) Well, Chomsky is doing alright.. And I wouldn't say The Nation or the New Yorker have any qualms about criticizing Israel (and they shouldn't).
(2) I agree, the situation is represented in the US in very simplistic terms, by both sides.
(3) IMHO Israel, along with Pakistan and India, took the only respectable option by not signing that treaty. When my wife was doing her MA she'd often tell me how her professors mentioned various UN human rights treaties the US didn't sign and which many dictatorships did sign. It amazed me how her ivy league teachers didn't realize the signature of most nations is meaningless, as they have no intention of committing to it.