>Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't.
If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free.
>If you want to blow up Israelis
As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world.
>Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me
If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me. There are details for military planners not foreign policy advisers.
>It seems like you won't break character.
I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'.
>Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of.
As an American my only consideration is that which is in the national interest. Ideologically I'm mostly a america first non interventionist. I am well aware there are many in this country that would lobby on behalf of foreign powers and I think they should register under FARA.
>I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'.
You can think that, but all I'm saying (sincerely) is that I do not have enough imagination to interpret what you write as being in "good faith".
That's not the same as coming to a conclusion, which I try never to do unless I actually have to take action. I just can't come up with a consistent contextual framework. Yet.
It would be interesting to me, if you said (which I believe you implied with the "intra-semitic" comment) you didn't care about the Palestinians, and in fact, you happened to have an Iranian perspective. I think somewhere I read that one possibility for where Jews came from originally could be the general vicinity of what is now Iran. Possibly meaning...not so semitic?
>You can think that, but all I'm saying (sincerely) is that I do not have enough imagination to interpret what you write as being in "good faith".
If you're going to accuse me of something then I would prefer you just came right out and said what it is that you're accusing me of. No beating around the (burning?) bush.
>you didn't care about the Palestinians
It's not that I don't care, merely that as an American I see no benefit to intervening. To me the conflict between the Arabs and Israelis is the same as the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi. I see them as more alike than different. As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts which is all the more reason to not intervene.
As far as I am aware the Iranians are an indo european population group but this is an academic exercise not a political one. I would recommend the lectures given at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago if you would like to learn more.
>As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts
I can't say how many Israelis or American Jews think this way, but there is a logical/practical justification of Zionism that has nothing to do with religion or nebulous ethnic hatreds, which I think I've heard people claim (rightly or wrongly) didn't exist much before 1948 anyway.
The justification is, that anyone who has enough Jewish ancestry to have been targeted by the Nazis, can never be secure in any place other than Israel. That if Jews can exist at all, they must have at least as much right to exist there as anywhere else, and historically it's proven cannot defend as well anywhere else but a homeland they believe in.
I doubt this myself, that everyone who could've been exterminated in WWII is best off in Israel. But it seems like a western, developed country, type of rationalization that impedes how you frame things.
I'm not knowledgeable and haven't researched it, but my impression is at some point the definition of a Jew who has the right to return to Israel was changed to the Nazi definition of a Jew, on ethical grounds, and that would seem to imply a secular, utilitarian outlook not a religio/ethnic one that outsiders should be bewildered by.
I don't think this is too complicated, until the dispossessed are brought into it.
Again, I like the word "anachronistic". I have the impression that much like people project the US-Israel being allies too far back, they also project the Israel/Palestine conflict too far back.
People say that many conflicts in Africa are not ancient either, but constructed during colonialism.
While I'm sure your religious politics are fascinating they are completely irrelevant to US policy as it relates to the USS Liberty incident. The US has nothing to gain by involving ourselves in that quagmire.
As a politically exercise I am completely uninterested in such issues. US foreign policy should be blind to them.
If Jews want to advocate for the existence of Israel that is fine by me, but they must not do it under an American flag. It is not patriotic to support another country over ones one.
I am also disappointed that you do not share the presumption of good faith.
I think I clearly stated a non-religious rationale for Israel that I also said I am not convinced of.
How can I interpret the above phrase as if in good faith? Whose politics? What religion? I am not baptized, nor have I taken communion or had a bar mitzvah or anything else similar.
You sound like someone who doesn't understand American politics, and I was trying to help.
Treating this sort of comment as a threat is counterproductive. It's highly relevant to your stated goal of changing US policy to understand the biases and outlook of Americans.
Tactically, you must understand that everything is framed in terms of the right to exist, for a secular audience, not a religious or ethnic appeal. That applies to the Liberty, too.
I guess there's the pro-Israel Christian right, but you can't expect to find them on HN listening to you.
If you don't want to know the truth about your obstacles, you don't believe in your own goal.
I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion. American politics or foreign policy?
I don't see the threat, do enlighten me.
>If you don't want to know the truth about your obstacles, you don't believe in your own goal.
I am aware of my limitations, I do not have dictatorial powers. What I have said here is merely what I see as the correct solution to US foreign policy. I have no grand designs nor plans to somehow convince the rest of the country of my correctness. I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself.
I do believe however that one can have convictions absent direct implementable practicality.
>I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion
That is not a claim I am making. Whether an affinity for Israel has religious roots depends on the person. There are a lot of secular Americans, and Israelis, who believe in a case for Israel that is not religious. So I assert.
I did not endorse the logic; I personally think that other groups survive without a country, like say the Kurds, and I am not sure it's necessary for Israel to exist, much less in its present state.
But to oppose Israel, I think understanding who you are trying to convince, of what, is vital.
I don't see how you can not understand it, since surely appealing to secular Americans is why you would be commenting on a place like HN?
>I don't see the threat, do enlighten me.
My comment was explaining a way non-religious people justify Israel. It appeared to me that you thought I was threatening you in some way, hence ignoring it and calling me religious.
I think it's a historical fact that non-religious factors, ie the Holocaust, were pivotal in making a case for Israel to both Jews and non-Jews, and secular non-Jewish American support for Israel today can't be discounted.
I inferred you agree with me based on your comment about the Hutu and the Tutsi. It implies to me your preferred audience is secular Americans without religious motivation, who don't sympathize with far off ethnic/religious conflicts.
I think this is the correct group of people to try to convince, tactically.
I don't believe top people in the military-industrial complex are highly religious. I may be completely off base, but reading the news about, for instance, Mark Milley, it confirmed my assumptions that they believe in a secular creed, understanding their enemies, and stuff like that. But also not isolationism.
As a point of clarification I was disappointed that you did not give me the presumption of good faith from the outset.
>But to oppose Israel
I neither support nor oppose Israel. It could be on the moon for all the difference it makes to me. It simply doesn't factor into my life or politics.
Most Americans couldn't point to Israel on a globe. I think this implies an implicit agreement with my non interventionism. Out of sight out of mind. Domestic politics matter infinitely more than the squabbling of foreigners.
I would posit that without lobbying practically no one in America would care about Israel either. This is why it needs to be disclosed.
I wouldn't say Israel started because of WW2. The zionist congress and the migration started in the 1800's IIRC. Wasn't the Israeli government a continuation of the zionist congress too? Like a government in exile.
>people in the military-industrial complex
Those in the military complex are just that, they could care less who the bombs fall on so long as they can sell them. You could even call this a blind pro interventionism.
If Milley never takes a dollar from the military industrial complex after retiring I will eat my hat.
By "oppose" I mean "think the US needs to bomb them or something to remain neutral due to an incident 50 years ago". I missed who you think the US is not being neutral towards, since you seemed to rule out the Palestinians.
>without lobbying practically no one in America would care about Israel either
That doesn't seem plausible to me. Maybe you link government aid to Israel to lobbying, but how does it help public opinion? When do people ever hear about "the Israel lobby" except as part of anti-Israel rhetoric?
>I wouldn't say Israel started because of WW2
I believe I once had a book that described immigration in the 30s to Palestine, and ensuing riots, because the immigrants were buying land and not recognizing tenants' right to continue living there. I take for granted nothing comes out of nowhere, but WW2 + the lead-up + the British Empire crumbling seems to have been what made it a reality. Millions of Jews had to be convinced there was no alternative, as well as others.
I thought we agreed that in principle the correct response to a deliberate attack would have been to bomb them in 1967? I don't understand why you keep intentionally misinterpreting this.
>who you think the US is not being neutral towards
I find the less you know about someone the easier it is to be neutral.
>the Palestinians
As I said before the Israeli/Palestinian intra semitic conflict is one America should stay a country mile away from.
>That doesn't seem plausible to me.
I've yet to hear of the Lesotho lobby and practically zero people in America care about Lesotho. How about Belarus or New Guinea? The link between lobbying and public opinion seems quite strong to me.
> anti-Israel rhetoric?
Please stop with the unfounded assumptions.
All I'm advocating for is for America to not get bogged down in foreign quagmires and for other countries to stop trying to drag us into their conflicts. It is beyond me how anyone can find this such a difficult concept. Mandatory disclosure of foreign interests would go a long way here.
If you are interested the Great War channel has a series that covers Mandatory Palestine. This is however entirely irrelevant to US foreign policy.
I always enjoy expounding upon my ideas in public discussion but when the conversation retreads over already trod points and the counterparty is disingenuous and intentionally mischaracterizes what I have plainly stated then I am forced to question whether their motive is discussion or to score cheap points in a discussion that no one will likely read.
>If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free.
I am not retracting anything. But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't.
>As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles.
It makes no difference to me. I understood you to be saying that the US military was who you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century, in retaliation for the Liberty, and that is IMO not a feasible goal. By using the term "blow up" I meant to be inclusive of anything, whether or not considered conventional military action. The point is, it is believable to me to have the goal but not the hope of doing it that way. It's also logical that if you have a goal, you work with or promote people who have a similar goal, even if you don't share the underlying reasons.
>I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world
There is no changing the past. If US foreign policy is to be
judged by the Liberty, then it is unchangeable definitionally. I don't see how you can want what you say you want, because it's logically impossible.
>If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me
I haven't suggested any particular response would be the right one, in any circumstance, whether we are talking about the Israeli response or an imaginary US one in modern times.
My point is that a proportional response to anything is never enough to deter, because it never can be applied 100% of the time. So people who advocate a proportional response to anything are not serious.
I'm not debating whether it is the right moral standard, people claim it is a lot.
I'm saying that it's impractical and nobody can expect it to become a rule. Proportional retaliation does not serve the purpose of retaliation. I believe this is a timeless principle. In a logical, not a moral sense.
>But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't.
I had already written my reply and felt it more expedient.
>you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century
Of course it is not possible to right all old wrongs. I think we can agree in principle that the correct move on the US's part would have been to bomb Israeli military targets in 1967 though.
I am far more concerned with the present. I think all lobbying on behalf of foreign powers should be subject to FARA, paid or unpaid, as long as there is a proven link to that foreign power. For example dual citizenship should automatically trigger FARA reporting. The American people deserve to know who is working on behalf of foreign powers and may have interests that do not align with their own.
>For example dual citizenship should automatically trigger FARA reporting.
I have read periodic stories in the news, sob stories about how hard it is to renounce US citizenship. Including via HN quite recently.
My impression is that because the US tends to regard giving up citizenship as tax evasion, means that dual citizenship is a lot more common than in many countries who may not even allow it.
So, practically speaking, I wonder if the change you want might arouse opposition among other people than the ones you want to target.
Group 1 being people who are dual citizens with other countries than Israel, and their allies.
Group 2 being any entity that doesn't want to incentivize people to give up US citizenship and stop paying taxes.
Tactically, you might portray dual citizenship as being an Israeli/Jewish thing, but strategically it seems important to be clear on whether it's true. I don't know.
You would not find many objectors to the cause of making bureaucracy more efficient.
My ideal model is something like what exists on twitter and youtube where there is a disclaimer if the account belongs to media funded by a foreign government. They are allowed but there is disclosure. For example if there is a dual citizen arguing in the US for policies that would impact the country of their other citizenship I would like that to be disclosed as well. If for example an Israeli/US citizen is arguing on a US website for policies that would be beneficial to Israel then I would like it to be disclosed to me that they may be speaking in their capacity as an Israeli citizen and not an American one so I can understand their position more fully. Just like ads are disclosed so should lobbying be.
Something like "As a citizen of X I may be arguing in that capacity".
It should also be noted that if you write a blog post exposing say a fraud in Nikola Motors you are obliged to disclose your short position.
>You would not find many objectors to the cause of making bureaucracy more efficient.
How do you define efficiency? If you expand the definition of a foreign agent under FARA dramatically, then wouldn't it probably mean expanding the bureaucracy a lot too?
But then, since most of them aren't agents of the foreign government, they would probably be much more likely to renounce citizenship.
Efficiency by some standards would be hindered by going to a lot of expense to decrease tax revenue.
Do you want people with dual US/Israeli citizenship to register under a revised FARA, or do you want them to choose between the two?
It's kind of like taxing cigarettes, do you want to reduce smoking, or fund things with the tax money?
Also, do you have any statistics on the proportions of dual citizens by country? As I said, it's a practical problem if you want to target Israel and the policy you want wouldn't in fact do so. But I don't know.
Ostensibly, I think for security clearances, they already take dual citizenship into account. So the conventional wisdom appears to be that is enough.
If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free.
>If you want to blow up Israelis
As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world.
>Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me
If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me. There are details for military planners not foreign policy advisers.
>It seems like you won't break character.
I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'.
>Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of.
As an American my only consideration is that which is in the national interest. Ideologically I'm mostly a america first non interventionist. I am well aware there are many in this country that would lobby on behalf of foreign powers and I think they should register under FARA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...