| > Regardless of the attempt here at painting a country's foreign policy as partisan It's not just my opinion, even AIPAC has become critical of Israel's departure from historic norms: https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/aipac-conference-urgent... > Your entire issue with this is likely because you perceive Israeli spying to oppose your political party. Yes, every Democrat must be fuming at attempts to spy on their political foe, President Trump. (FWIW, I'm not a registered Democrat.) But, okay, sure, there's definitely a growing undercurrent of anti-Israel sentiment among Democrats. And like many partisan issues it has it's obnoxious and counter-productive moments. But why do you think that is? It has gone hand-in-hand with the shift of Israeli lobbying to Republicans. Which came first is irrelevant and not worth arguing except to say it's been a slow shift among many parties (politicians, organizations, etc) across the board that has accelerated in the past 10 years. > On those lines, would you classify Chinese/Iranian spying efforts as harmless, just because they currently bat for the Democrats? Or Canada, given that they are allied? China and Iran aren't close allies. They're not even allies. And nothing I've said here or anywhere else would even suggest I believe their espionage is harmless. What their espionage doesn't do is destroy trust, because there's no trust to destroy. And Canada has no reputation for high-level espionage targeting Americans, let alone American political leaders. And whatever the extent of it, if it ever rose to the level of Israeli activity it'd be a shock to everybody inside the Beltway. > Also, it is being taken as fact that Israel is the originator of the sting rays, when in reality this isn't conclusive. Of course it's not conclusive. From a standpoint of someone without a security clearance, it's admittedly even less conclusive than the Russian election interference campaign, or 9/11 for that matter. Nothing is conclusive, not even the notion that the sun will come up tomorrow. Everything is contingent on the validity of circumstantial evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRNO1LFQBWI&feature=youtu.be... > it makes zero common sense for the U.S. to undermine it's own national security by repeatedly going easy on Israel. Neither domestic nor international politics is based on common sense, let alone an objectively rigorous analysis of the situation. > citations outstanding on the following open ended claims made I don't even know where to start with citations. I majored in International Affairs as an undergraduate and interned for several years at a K Street lobbying organization that promoted U.S.-Israel defense cooperation. I've read countless books and articles on these issues generally, and have personally met (albeit as an intern) people like John Bolton and an Israeli defense minister (probably Moshe Arens; previously I wrote Ehud Barak but that doesn't seem right looking at the timeline[1]). Of course we never discussed policy, let alone spying, but I'm comfortable believing that as compared to the vast majority of people I have a relatively objective perspective on U.S.-Israel security matters which, if anything, favors Israel. The facts (such as they are) of Israeli spying in the U.S., the sentiments of the intelligence community, and the opinions of political scholars are readily available with the slightest bit of concerted effort. There's not even any significant dispute about these things generally, only about their prudence relative to Israel's existential security posture, and the substantive threat they pose to American security. As I said, Israel planting stringrays is bold but not that surprising. And, sure, it's entirely possible it will turn out Israel didn't do it, but the claim is quite credible, and regardless there's an exceptionally well established baseline consensus regarding the extent of Israeli espionage on which to uniquely criticize (or at least distinguish) their espionage activities. For example, the Newsweek article I and others posted earlier from 2014 references open Congressional meetings with testimony given by intelligence officials attesting to its unique nature. You can stick to your own faux skepticism if you want. But if you applied it equally to everything in your life I'm not sure how you'd have confidence in the existence of anything you didn't personally observe yourself. [1] It was during the week of several events in Washington for NATO's 50th anniversary, the same week and possibly even the same day I also got to shake hands with the President of Bulgaria who handed me a CD of propaganda[2] material to post on our website that supported their entry into NATO. So maybe sometime in 1999? [2] And "propaganda" isn't an accusation or judgment. It's just the proper term for material used by governments to sell and persuade an idea or objective. I don't think we ever used much if any of the videos and other material on there as nobody wanted to write an article or essay as a pretense for publishing it. I don't think any American leaders ever had serious reservations about Bulgaria joining NATO, anyhow. That lack of caution is exactly why Russia has been so pissed about NATO expansion. |