https://www.virtualverse.one/forums/posts/299607/edit
I am sorry, your other examples fall pretty short. It is getting even worse:
"Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Adam Smith (D-WA) have introduced the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative as part of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The initiative would expand U.S. & Israel military cooperation with joint research, testing, manufacturing, and sharing technology. As well as promoting joint military training, information-sharing, network integration, and data fusion. "
Unsurprisingly, both congressmen have taken a large sum of money from good old AIPAC. So yes, America is stupidly beholden to Israel in a way it has never been in any of the examples you cited. I can't think of another country we have funnelled $400 billion to support their society at the expense of our own country. We are directly funding a genocide here. Blood is on the hands of all involved.
Are you suggesting that, had, for example, Russia, Iran or North Korea outbid AIPAC these two would be pushing similar joint initiatives on behalf of those countries instead? If not, why not?
I can see why it's tempting to believe that one's country would naturally tend do the right thing, so when that doesn't happen it must be because people are being bribed or coerced not to, but I think what you describe is simply how lobbying and US politics work -- lobby groups raise lots of money to be seen to be trying to make things happen, and members of congress get paid lots of money by the lobbyists to be seen to be assisting them. The outcome hardly matters -- it's the process that counts because it puts money in the pockets of all concerned.
Does this initiative, in fact, stand any chance of success? I thought the NDA was pretty bogged down right now. If it were the US government pushing the project it might be rather different, but how does this differ from all the other performative ideas that particular members of congress push for their own purposes (e.g. bills and amendments to name everything after Trump)?
Ask yourself whether, bribed or not, any US government during the last 50 years would have seen it in the geopolitical and economic interests of the US to have Israel (and its nukes) controller by, on the one hand, either a non-aligned leftist Palestinian government (e.g. run by Fatah) or, more recently, by ethno-religious populists, aligned with Iran, like Hamas and Hezbollah, or, on the other, to remain under the control of a US-aligned Jewish government, no matter how unpleasant?
I really don't see the US's continuing support for Israel as much different from the US' support for the Shah until he was overthrown, or, after that, for Saddam while he looked like a useful counterbalance to the now hostile Islamic Republic of Iran. The US tends to work with the allies and proxies as it finds them, no matter how unpleasant and, at least in the case of Saddam, genocidal they might be.
The US has a long history of supporting genocidal regimes when it suits them. Israel is nothing new or special.
US officials have used a number of rhetorical strategies – ways of talking about something – to distance the country from, and avoid responsibility for, atrocities committed by those it supports.
theconversation.com
