7 ms·

Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend itself. Much of their spying on the USA is not to harm the USA, but to ensure the US

by chimi 7y ago

Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend itself. Much of their spying on the USA is not to harm the USA, but to ensure the USA is still on their side. I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for Israel.

remarkEon 7y ago
So, their spying is justified because they need to know in advance if US politicians wouldn’t fully support a potential WWIII-esque intervention on their behalf, ostensibly so they could throw their own support behind a different US politician? And this is ... not viewed as insane by normal people?
- chimi 7y ago
  I'm not justifying it. I'm explaining Israel's rationale for doing it. I am staunchly opposed to national borders. I don't think it's right to discriminate against people for where they are born. IMO, all human beings should be allowed to freely travel and work anywhere on planet earth. EDIT: Or outer space for that matter...
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    >I’m staunchly opposed to national borders... Not sure what that has to do with this at all? It definitely sounds like bourgeoisie/boutique political signaling though. Only those with a certain level of privileges can make platitudes like that while the rest of us deal with the real world ... where borders clearly matter.
    - chimi 7y ago
      I'm not sophisticated enough to know what political signaling is, so it might be that. I don't know. What it has to do with it is that I can't justify nations spying if I don't think there should be nations. We are all people. No one chooses where they are born, their race, gender, etc. If it's wrong to discriminate for things over which we have no control, then I believe place of birth is no different than race or gender.
      - remarkEon 7y ago
        >if I don’t think there should be nations. I’m saying it takes an absolutely unbelievable amount of bourgeoisie privilege to think this. It’s an idea that’s so naive it’s not even worth engaging on the merits, which is why I pointed out that people in certain social and political groups make utopian platitudes like this as a mechanism to signal how elite they are. Kind of like how people pretend to like “modern art” in order to look “cultured”.
        chimi 7y ago
        I don't know why you think it takes privilege to think this. If I was born in very bad country, I would still think it isn't fair that some people have a better life just because they were born in Norway or USA or Canada. I'm not making these statements in order to look anything. It's just what I believe based on my observation of the world around me. I don't even know what bourgeoisie privilege is.
        remarkEon 7y ago
        If you are looking around your personal space and thinking “gee no borders would work out great” then you’re living in the very definition of bourgeoisie privilege.
        chimi 7y ago
        That doesn't make any sense.
        remarkEon 7y ago
        To you.
        chimi 7y ago
        You're speaking from the perspective of a theaticlastic denomination, so it's hard for you to accept another perspective. You have an idea in your mind and it makes sense to you, but you can't explain it or define it. You're saying it is because it is. It's that way because it's that way and because I believe something, it proves it is that way. But my belief could be held by someone in a completely different nation experiencing a completely different life, so you haven't added anything to the discussion. You can't just say, "You're wrong because you believe what you believe and that proves it."
  - i_call_solo 7y ago
    The No Borders belief is very idealistic. How does that work with state benefits like universal healthcare? And taxes? Yes it would be nice to be able to pick up and live/work anywhere but it's not as simple as one might think.
    - chimi 7y ago
      Why are nations geographical? Corporations are not bound by borders. You get benefits from your employer. You pay for insurance for the insurance benefits. If you don't work and don't pay taxes, you still get benefits from the govt just because you were born there. There's no need to earn anything. It's all just random chance and it seems very unfair to me that being citizen of a first world nation affords you a good quality of life, while someone born somewhere else has bombs going off outside and isn't allowed to leave. Imagine being trapped in a horrible situation with no freedom to escape. It's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >Why are nations geographical? The same way family houses are geographical. Because the people in them live on some place, cater for it, historically inherit it, and do as they please inside their own premises. Nations are groups of people who grew in the same area, had gone through the same historical experiences (e.g. attacks, famines, wars, etc), worked together to make their place better, and built their culture and cultivated their ways of life over centuries, often making heavy sacrifices to free and keep their land... >Corporations are not bound by borders Corporations also don't belong to their "citizens" (employees) but to the few owners/shareholders, are not bound by democracy (they are despotic kingdoms internally), and only care for profit, and would "exile" (fire) any number of their "citizens" (employees) if the profits said so. So not the best example to base social paradigms on... >It's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best. According to most scholars, the nation state is a product of enlightenment and modernity. We had empires before. And federal like unions, are just nation states minus the political autonomy (sovereignty), so decisions are made by some bureaucrats away from where it matters.
      - unionpivo 7y ago
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >I am staunchly opposed to national borders. I don't think it's right to discriminate against people for where they are born. National borders are not about "discriminating against people for where they are born", anymore than your family house discriminates against people based on which family they were born into. One would assume you don't just let anyone in your house, or feed everybody just like you do your children, or share your family assets with the whole neighborhood (even if it would be nice if you did, it, for one, would live less for you. Plus, not everybody is nice and altruistic, but most manage to be that towards their family). People build a nation as a community, often fighting hard for it to exist (e.g. wars of independence), working hard to make it better, building it's culture, and so on. They have a right to want to preserve their preferred way of life, their culture, and the country/infrastructure/etc they have built (of course not everything is always harmonious inside a nation, the same way things are not all roses all the time inside a family. No human made thing is perfect - and no natural made thing, for that matter). If nations did not exist, people should still have the right to invent them, that is, to create their own communities with people they share their living on a place, hardships and culture with, build their own thing, and protect it against people who don't share their values or haven't contributed to building them. In fact nation states didn't exist in the far past, they are a development of enlightenment and modernity. We had empires, and feudal fiefdoms loyal to some remote king, and such before, and people literally struggled to break their pre-nation-state nations (ethnic, cultural and historical groups) free from them...
    - chimi 7y ago
      > National borders are not about "discriminating against people for where they are born" They might not be about that, but they do that. Why do I deserve good healthcare, food, housing and a great quality of life and someone born in Syria doesn't?
      - esyir 7y ago
        Because your predecessors worked to build that for you and their fellow people. Why do you think parents pay for their children's education. Why do you think many don't just provide the minimum, but instead go beyond that? You did not do anything to get that. But your parents, their parents and those who came before them did, with the intention that you would.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jbigelow76 7y ago
  When you phrase it as an existential threat (and WWIII-esque originating in the Middle East would be) like that then, no it wouldn't seem insane, pragmatic isn't the right phrase but real politik is.
- Despegar 7y ago
  >if US politicians wouldn’t fully support a potential WWIII-esque intervention It's amusing but that's not even the real concern. Israel, Iran, the US and the world all know perfectly well that there's no existential threat to Israel. The more immediate concern is as always Israel-Palestine issues. The multi-decade rightward shift in Israeli politics has culminated with the Trump administration, where they are trying to annex as much Palestinian land as possible.
  - alfiedotwtf 7y ago
    > where they are trying to annex as much Palestinian land as possible FIFY: where they are trying to annex as much Palestinian oil as possible Genie Energy’s strategic advisors is the who’s who of your typical movie villains: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_Energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_Energy
- MFLoon 7y ago
  I don't even think the motivation is primarily about maintaining military support - it's already a given. Even if the US political regime swung far to the left, there's simply no chance they aren't going to bat for Israel in an full scale military conflict. I suspect their spying is much more motivated by anticipating and influencing political and economic events or policy that they have second order interests in - ie trade policy, foreign investments, relationship with China, etc.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Every country spies on every other country to the extent that they have both the capability and the vested interest in doing so. Most countries even spy on themselves, partially in order to figure out what other countries are spying on them. There are consequences if you get caught, but the first rule of spying is not to get caught.
- bowcoy 7y ago
  Obama/Kerry did the Iran nuclear talks and did not invite Israel. Israel deems it necessary for survival to know everything and all they can about Iran. So they (and other capable agencies) basically bugged an entire hotel. > When the talks shifted to a luxury hotel in Vienna, the microwave radiation from the surveillance efforts of competing intelligence agencies was so intense that diplomats had to walk some distance from the venue to use their mobile phones. The new US administration, like Israel, very much opposes the nuclear deal. Trump may give the Israelis a proverbial "wildcard" to deal with a certain problem in a private conversation with an advisor. Or he, or the new administration start to hold a more favorable view on an Iran deal. Israel needs to know this as a manner of their national security.
  - bowcoy 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force
age_bronze 7y ago
Let me get this straight: Israel risks pissing the U.S by spying on them, which can lead to them cutting ties with Israel, in order to make sure that US does not cut its ties with Israel. Would you risk spying on your girlfriend to make sure she wants to stay your girlfriend? This makes no sense.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 7y ago
  > Would you risk spying on your girlfriend to make sure she wants to stay your girlfriend? This makes no sense. It's interesting that you mention that one, because that is exactly what people sometimes do. You will find that very needy or jealous people frequently get easily concerned and obsessive about every little detail, worried that their partner may leave or lose interest. They get paranoid, they spy, etc. They make the situation worse, push the person away faster with their behavior, and create a self-fulfilling prophecy outcome. You might risk spying on your significant other (to make sure they're going to stay your SO), if your life depended - in part or entirely - on them staying your significant other. In relationships that's going to rarely be the case of course. Although consider a case of total financial dependency in a relationship. Israel is the very needy, dependent partner in the relationship, clearly. Without the US, they would not have survived.
- ars 7y ago
  The US is not a single person, spying on one doesn't bother the other. But in general the US doesn't really care if Israel spies on it, and Israel doesn't care when the US does. All countries spy on each other, and all countries know it. There's a tacit agreement to make some noise when it goes public, but otherwise move on and not care.
- MFLoon 7y ago
  There's not actually any risk, as plainly evidenced by the fact that the State Department has never even given a light wrist slap for any of the dozens of incidents mentioned in the top comment, under Bush, Obama or Trump. There's literally nothing Israel could do to cause the US to "cut ties", let alone even meaningfully rebuke them. Like his buddy Donald, Bibi could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and nothing would happen. US security and energy interests are simply too entrenched in supporting Israeli hegemony.
scottlocklin 7y ago
Well, they regularly sell US secrets to China, so I don't think they really give two shits about "hurting the US." Examples: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-accused-of-selling-us-secrets-to-china-1510406.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-accused-of-s... https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israel-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israe... I could be wrong! Maybe selling US secrets to china is to ensure the USA is still on their side? I'm not a politician; it's above my paygrade. Somehow other US allies don't have these sorts of "hey let's spy on our friends" impulses. FWIIW the US just had an all-hands freak out over Russia spending a few grand on FB ads during the last presidential election; I'm pretty sure if it ever got out what the Israelis are doing out in the open to influence US elections (such as attempting to kick Israel critic politicians out of office), that would do even more harm to US-Israel relations than any single politician could. I also think they can do just fine without US support. They have Jericho missiles capable of reaching LA. Technically this makes all US financial support of Israel illegal. I mean why would they risk all that needed support and build nukes capable of blowing up the US?
- jdsully 7y ago
  Your first link doesn't say they sold US secrets, just technology US firms weren't allowed to provide. They have an extensive domestic tech industry and due to their history quite a large defense industry as well. The second link is as advertised though - however the person responsible did resign (assuming it wasn't some broader conspiracy).
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    Actually the first link says " the Israeli exports include military technology developed by the US, and which Washington expressly forbids from being exported to China." Arguably the only reason they have a large defense industry is the billions of dollars the US gives them to subsidize it. Yet somehow those billions are never at risk when they do shady things like this. I could probably dig up a half dozen examples of this; I try not to pay attention to politics, but I am old and every time I hear this story again I figure we couldn't possibly have any secrets left for the Israelis to sell to China. Heres one: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175404 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175404 Moar examples: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/06/how-israel-has-betrayed-america/ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/06/how-israel-h... Denying this is kind of like denying the sky is blue.
TKWasRight 7y ago
> Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend itself. Why should we care as US citizens? > I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for Israel. I don't think we'll ever see that here in the U.S. unfortunately...the "Israel Lobby" wouldn't let it happen.
- chimi 7y ago
  For USA citizens who are Jewish, they want their homeland to continue to exist. For the military industrial complex, they see it as jobs and profit. For the politically minded, they might prefer to see democracy prevail.
chubasco 7y ago
Is it just me or does that sound an awful lot like a foreign government interfering in U.S. elections?
- colordrops 7y ago
  AIPAC is a much more overt and pernicious form of a foreign government interfering in US elections. They donate money to many US politicians, and actively setup campaigns against those they don't like, such as Ilhan Omar. It's far worse than anything Russia has ever done. And it's out in the open, so people somehow assume it's OK.
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    To be fair, a lot of Americans support AIPAC, either from ethnic solidarity, Christian dispensationalism, or just because they like Israelis. But they've certainly been involved in some shady stuff which should merit them being registered as Foreign Agents. FWIIW the FARA act was passed in 1938 because of fascist and Nazi groups like the German American Bund interfering in US elections. Maybe as time goes by, AIPAC will become about as important in US politics as the German American Bund.
    - fortran77 7y ago
      AIPAC is an American Organization. Composed of Americans. Why on earth should they register as "Foreign Agents?" You may not like people because of their religion or nationality, but they are allowed to have a lobbying and education organization without an accusation of not being real Americans. Politicians can choose to listen to them or not, just like the NRA, the American Cancer Society, and the AARP.
      - scottlocklin 7y ago
        >Why on earth should they register as "Foreign Agents?" For collaborating with a foreign power in attempting to influence US policy. Here's a former director of AIPAC saying just that (in, mind you, the Jewish Daily Forward): https://forward.com/opinion/395676/its-time-for-aipac-to-register-as-a-foreign-agent/ https://forward.com/opinion/395676/its-time-for-aipac-to-reg... The German American Bund was also an American organization made up of Americans ... and getting its marching orders from abroad in service of a foreign regime. That's why we passed the FARA law in 1938 in the first place. Foreigners are not supposed to influence US elections. Everything you have said about AIPAC applied to the German-American bund when they passed the FARA law. Neither the NRA or the American Cancer Society are advocating for policies for benefit of a foreign power: the German American Bund used to do this, just as AIPAC does today. If you don't like FARA, lobby to get it revoked. I'm sure that will go over well after the Russia hysteria. There's also the example of the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal of 2003 for shady AIPAC doings beyond this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_sc... AIPAC were pressured to register as foreign agents back in 62, but Kennedy being shot kind of pushed that aside. Ended pressure on them to stop their nuke program as well. https://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/default.asp https://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/default.asp
squarefoot 7y ago
"I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for Israel." Probably this. And they likely act with their friendly party in the know. "Feel free to keep an eye on your wife using my car when I'm away. But if she or anyone else catches you, I won't know who you are and will report a stolen car".
nickik 7y ago
> Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend itself. That is simply plain wrong. Maybe they couldn't defend against the uncountable human rights accusation and other countries putting international pressure on them. Maybe not under their current polices, ie forced land acquisition, forced demographic change and so on. > Much of their spying on the USA is not to harm the USA, but to ensure the USA is still on their side. In many ways that makes it worse. > I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for Israel. They do that literally every day. This is quite well known and well document. You can actually go and read the stories from the congress-man who opposed Israel and what that actually means in practice. They also heavily influence things like who is appointed for diplomatic and other positions. They are currently very much directly influencing the democracy of the US so it will act with their foreign policy goals to the clear determent of actual US strategic interest.
smiddereens 7y ago
Oh right, because they didn't develop nuclear weapons...
fortran77 7y ago
Completely untrue. Israel has great relations with China and India.
coldtea 7y ago
>Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend itself. Much of their spying on the USA is not to harm the USA, but to ensure the USA is still on their side. Well, who said the USA being "on their side" is not harmful for the USA?
stunt 7y ago
Nonetheless that’s exactly what we blame Russia for. Obviously many countries actually do try to monitor and influence. But of course there is a difference between friendly-fire and enemy’s fire.
sa-mao 7y ago
Israel did worst than just spying on the US government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident. Now the official investigation concluded that this was a result of an unfortunate mistake, but survivors and others maintain that the ship was deliberately targeted.

by chimi 7y ago

remarkEon 7y ago

So, their spying is justified because they need to know in advance if US politicians wouldn’t fully support a potential WWIII-esque intervention on their behalf, ostensibly so they could throw their own support behind a different US politician? And this is ... not viewed as insane by normal people?

chimi 7y ago
I'm not justifying it. I'm explaining Israel's rationale for doing it. I am staunchly opposed to national borders. I don't think it's right to discriminate against people for where they are born. IMO, all human beings should be allowed to freely travel and work anywhere on planet earth. EDIT: Or outer space for that matter...
- remarkEon 7y ago
  >I’m staunchly opposed to national borders... Not sure what that has to do with this at all? It definitely sounds like bourgeoisie/boutique political signaling though. Only those with a certain level of privileges can make platitudes like that while the rest of us deal with the real world ... where borders clearly matter.
  - chimi 7y ago
    I'm not sophisticated enough to know what political signaling is, so it might be that. I don't know. What it has to do with it is that I can't justify nations spying if I don't think there should be nations. We are all people. No one chooses where they are born, their race, gender, etc. If it's wrong to discriminate for things over which we have no control, then I believe place of birth is no different than race or gender.
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      >if I don’t think there should be nations. I’m saying it takes an absolutely unbelievable amount of bourgeoisie privilege to think this. It’s an idea that’s so naive it’s not even worth engaging on the merits, which is why I pointed out that people in certain social and political groups make utopian platitudes like this as a mechanism to signal how elite they are. Kind of like how people pretend to like “modern art” in order to look “cultured”.
      - chimi 7y ago
        I don't know why you think it takes privilege to think this. If I was born in very bad country, I would still think it isn't fair that some people have a better life just because they were born in Norway or USA or Canada. I'm not making these statements in order to look anything. It's just what I believe based on my observation of the world around me. I don't even know what bourgeoisie privilege is.
        remarkEon 7y ago
        If you are looking around your personal space and thinking “gee no borders would work out great” then you’re living in the very definition of bourgeoisie privilege.
        chimi 7y ago
        That doesn't make any sense.
        remarkEon 7y ago
        To you.
        chimi 7y ago
        You're speaking from the perspective of a theaticlastic denomination, so it's hard for you to accept another perspective. You have an idea in your mind and it makes sense to you, but you can't explain it or define it. You're saying it is because it is. It's that way because it's that way and because I believe something, it proves it is that way. But my belief could be held by someone in a completely different nation experiencing a completely different life, so you haven't added anything to the discussion. You can't just say, "You're wrong because you believe what you believe and that proves it."
- i_call_solo 7y ago
  The No Borders belief is very idealistic. How does that work with state benefits like universal healthcare? And taxes? Yes it would be nice to be able to pick up and live/work anywhere but it's not as simple as one might think.
  - chimi 7y ago
    Why are nations geographical? Corporations are not bound by borders. You get benefits from your employer. You pay for insurance for the insurance benefits. If you don't work and don't pay taxes, you still get benefits from the govt just because you were born there. There's no need to earn anything. It's all just random chance and it seems very unfair to me that being citizen of a first world nation affords you a good quality of life, while someone born somewhere else has bombs going off outside and isn't allowed to leave. Imagine being trapped in a horrible situation with no freedom to escape. It's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Why are nations geographical? The same way family houses are geographical. Because the people in them live on some place, cater for it, historically inherit it, and do as they please inside their own premises. Nations are groups of people who grew in the same area, had gone through the same historical experiences (e.g. attacks, famines, wars, etc), worked together to make their place better, and built their culture and cultivated their ways of life over centuries, often making heavy sacrifices to free and keep their land... >Corporations are not bound by borders Corporations also don't belong to their "citizens" (employees) but to the few owners/shareholders, are not bound by democracy (they are despotic kingdoms internally), and only care for profit, and would "exile" (fire) any number of their "citizens" (employees) if the profits said so. So not the best example to base social paradigms on... >It's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best. According to most scholars, the nation state is a product of enlightenment and modernity. We had empires before. And federal like unions, are just nation states minus the political autonomy (sovereignty), so decisions are made by some bureaucrats away from where it matters.
    - unionpivo 7y ago
- coldtea 7y ago
  >I am staunchly opposed to national borders. I don't think it's right to discriminate against people for where they are born. National borders are not about "discriminating against people for where they are born", anymore than your family house discriminates against people based on which family they were born into. One would assume you don't just let anyone in your house, or feed everybody just like you do your children, or share your family assets with the whole neighborhood (even if it would be nice if you did, it, for one, would live less for you. Plus, not everybody is nice and altruistic, but most manage to be that towards their family). People build a nation as a community, often fighting hard for it to exist (e.g. wars of independence), working hard to make it better, building it's culture, and so on. They have a right to want to preserve their preferred way of life, their culture, and the country/infrastructure/etc they have built (of course not everything is always harmonious inside a nation, the same way things are not all roses all the time inside a family. No human made thing is perfect - and no natural made thing, for that matter). If nations did not exist, people should still have the right to invent them, that is, to create their own communities with people they share their living on a place, hardships and culture with, build their own thing, and protect it against people who don't share their values or haven't contributed to building them. In fact nation states didn't exist in the far past, they are a development of enlightenment and modernity. We had empires, and feudal fiefdoms loyal to some remote king, and such before, and people literally struggled to break their pre-nation-state nations (ethnic, cultural and historical groups) free from them...
  - chimi 7y ago
    > National borders are not about "discriminating against people for where they are born" They might not be about that, but they do that. Why do I deserve good healthcare, food, housing and a great quality of life and someone born in Syria doesn't?
    - esyir 7y ago
      Because your predecessors worked to build that for you and their fellow people. Why do you think parents pay for their children's education. Why do you think many don't just provide the minimum, but instead go beyond that? You did not do anything to get that. But your parents, their parents and those who came before them did, with the intention that you would.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jbigelow76 7y ago
When you phrase it as an existential threat (and WWIII-esque originating in the Middle East would be) like that then, no it wouldn't seem insane, pragmatic isn't the right phrase but real politik is.
Despegar 7y ago
>if US politicians wouldn’t fully support a potential WWIII-esque intervention It's amusing but that's not even the real concern. Israel, Iran, the US and the world all know perfectly well that there's no existential threat to Israel. The more immediate concern is as always Israel-Palestine issues. The multi-decade rightward shift in Israeli politics has culminated with the Trump administration, where they are trying to annex as much Palestinian land as possible.
- alfiedotwtf 7y ago
  > where they are trying to annex as much Palestinian land as possible FIFY: where they are trying to annex as much Palestinian oil as possible Genie Energy’s strategic advisors is the who’s who of your typical movie villains: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_Energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_Energy
MFLoon 7y ago
I don't even think the motivation is primarily about maintaining military support - it's already a given. Even if the US political regime swung far to the left, there's simply no chance they aren't going to bat for Israel in an full scale military conflict. I suspect their spying is much more motivated by anticipating and influencing political and economic events or policy that they have second order interests in - ie trade policy, foreign investments, relationship with China, etc.
philwelch 7y ago
Every country spies on every other country to the extent that they have both the capability and the vested interest in doing so. Most countries even spy on themselves, partially in order to figure out what other countries are spying on them. There are consequences if you get caught, but the first rule of spying is not to get caught.
bowcoy 7y ago
Obama/Kerry did the Iran nuclear talks and did not invite Israel. Israel deems it necessary for survival to know everything and all they can about Iran. So they (and other capable agencies) basically bugged an entire hotel. > When the talks shifted to a luxury hotel in Vienna, the microwave radiation from the surveillance efforts of competing intelligence agencies was so intense that diplomats had to walk some distance from the venue to use their mobile phones. The new US administration, like Israel, very much opposes the nuclear deal. Trump may give the Israelis a proverbial "wildcard" to deal with a certain problem in a private conversation with an advisor. Or he, or the new administration start to hold a more favorable view on an Iran deal. Israel needs to know this as a manner of their national security.
- bowcoy 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force

age_bronze 7y ago

Let me get this straight: Israel risks pissing the U.S by spying on them, which can lead to them cutting ties with Israel, in order to make sure that US does not cut its ties with Israel. Would you risk spying on your girlfriend to make sure she wants to stay your girlfriend? This makes no sense.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
adventured 7y ago
> Would you risk spying on your girlfriend to make sure she wants to stay your girlfriend? This makes no sense. It's interesting that you mention that one, because that is exactly what people sometimes do. You will find that very needy or jealous people frequently get easily concerned and obsessive about every little detail, worried that their partner may leave or lose interest. They get paranoid, they spy, etc. They make the situation worse, push the person away faster with their behavior, and create a self-fulfilling prophecy outcome. You might risk spying on your significant other (to make sure they're going to stay your SO), if your life depended - in part or entirely - on them staying your significant other. In relationships that's going to rarely be the case of course. Although consider a case of total financial dependency in a relationship. Israel is the very needy, dependent partner in the relationship, clearly. Without the US, they would not have survived.
ars 7y ago
The US is not a single person, spying on one doesn't bother the other. But in general the US doesn't really care if Israel spies on it, and Israel doesn't care when the US does. All countries spy on each other, and all countries know it. There's a tacit agreement to make some noise when it goes public, but otherwise move on and not care.
MFLoon 7y ago
There's not actually any risk, as plainly evidenced by the fact that the State Department has never even given a light wrist slap for any of the dozens of incidents mentioned in the top comment, under Bush, Obama or Trump. There's literally nothing Israel could do to cause the US to "cut ties", let alone even meaningfully rebuke them. Like his buddy Donald, Bibi could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and nothing would happen. US security and energy interests are simply too entrenched in supporting Israeli hegemony.

scottlocklin 7y ago

Well, they regularly sell US secrets to China, so I don't think they really give two shits about "hurting the US." Examples: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-accused-of-selling-us-secrets-to-china-1510406.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-accused-of-s... https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israel-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israe... I could be wrong! Maybe selling US secrets to china is to ensure the USA is still on their side? I'm not a politician; it's above my paygrade. Somehow other US allies don't have these sorts of "hey let's spy on our friends" impulses. FWIIW the US just had an all-hands freak out over Russia spending a few grand on FB ads during the last presidential election; I'm pretty sure if it ever got out what the Israelis are doing out in the open to influence US elections (such as attempting to kick Israel critic politicians out of office), that would do even more harm to US-Israel relations than any single politician could. I also think they can do just fine without US support. They have Jericho missiles capable of reaching LA. Technically this makes all US financial support of Israel illegal. I mean why would they risk all that needed support and build nukes capable of blowing up the US?

jdsully 7y ago
Your first link doesn't say they sold US secrets, just technology US firms weren't allowed to provide. They have an extensive domestic tech industry and due to their history quite a large defense industry as well. The second link is as advertised though - however the person responsible did resign (assuming it wasn't some broader conspiracy).
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  Actually the first link says " the Israeli exports include military technology developed by the US, and which Washington expressly forbids from being exported to China." Arguably the only reason they have a large defense industry is the billions of dollars the US gives them to subsidize it. Yet somehow those billions are never at risk when they do shady things like this. I could probably dig up a half dozen examples of this; I try not to pay attention to politics, but I am old and every time I hear this story again I figure we couldn't possibly have any secrets left for the Israelis to sell to China. Heres one: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175404 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175404 Moar examples: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/06/how-israel-has-betrayed-america/ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/06/how-israel-h... Denying this is kind of like denying the sky is blue.

TKWasRight 7y ago

> Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend itself. Why should we care as US citizens? > I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for Israel. I don't think we'll ever see that here in the U.S. unfortunately...the "Israel Lobby" wouldn't let it happen.

chimi 7y ago
For USA citizens who are Jewish, they want their homeland to continue to exist. For the military industrial complex, they see it as jobs and profit. For the politically minded, they might prefer to see democracy prevail.

chubasco 7y ago

Is it just me or does that sound an awful lot like a foreign government interfering in U.S. elections?

colordrops 7y ago
AIPAC is a much more overt and pernicious form of a foreign government interfering in US elections. They donate money to many US politicians, and actively setup campaigns against those they don't like, such as Ilhan Omar. It's far worse than anything Russia has ever done. And it's out in the open, so people somehow assume it's OK.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  To be fair, a lot of Americans support AIPAC, either from ethnic solidarity, Christian dispensationalism, or just because they like Israelis. But they've certainly been involved in some shady stuff which should merit them being registered as Foreign Agents. FWIIW the FARA act was passed in 1938 because of fascist and Nazi groups like the German American Bund interfering in US elections. Maybe as time goes by, AIPAC will become about as important in US politics as the German American Bund.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    AIPAC is an American Organization. Composed of Americans. Why on earth should they register as "Foreign Agents?" You may not like people because of their religion or nationality, but they are allowed to have a lobbying and education organization without an accusation of not being real Americans. Politicians can choose to listen to them or not, just like the NRA, the American Cancer Society, and the AARP.
    - scottlocklin 7y ago
      >Why on earth should they register as "Foreign Agents?" For collaborating with a foreign power in attempting to influence US policy. Here's a former director of AIPAC saying just that (in, mind you, the Jewish Daily Forward): https://forward.com/opinion/395676/its-time-for-aipac-to-register-as-a-foreign-agent/ https://forward.com/opinion/395676/its-time-for-aipac-to-reg... The German American Bund was also an American organization made up of Americans ... and getting its marching orders from abroad in service of a foreign regime. That's why we passed the FARA law in 1938 in the first place. Foreigners are not supposed to influence US elections. Everything you have said about AIPAC applied to the German-American bund when they passed the FARA law. Neither the NRA or the American Cancer Society are advocating for policies for benefit of a foreign power: the German American Bund used to do this, just as AIPAC does today. If you don't like FARA, lobby to get it revoked. I'm sure that will go over well after the Russia hysteria. There's also the example of the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal of 2003 for shady AIPAC doings beyond this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_sc... AIPAC were pressured to register as foreign agents back in 62, but Kennedy being shot kind of pushed that aside. Ended pressure on them to stop their nuke program as well. https://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/default.asp https://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/default.asp

squarefoot 7y ago

"I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for Israel." Probably this. And they likely act with their friendly party in the know. "Feel free to keep an eye on your wife using my car when I'm away. But if she or anyone else catches you, I won't know who you are and will report a stolen car".

nickik 7y ago

> Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend itself. That is simply plain wrong. Maybe they couldn't defend against the uncountable human rights accusation and other countries putting international pressure on them. Maybe not under their current polices, ie forced land acquisition, forced demographic change and so on. > Much of their spying on the USA is not to harm the USA, but to ensure the USA is still on their side. In many ways that makes it worse. > I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been "heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support for Israel. They do that literally every day. This is quite well known and well document. You can actually go and read the stories from the congress-man who opposed Israel and what that actually means in practice. They also heavily influence things like who is appointed for diplomatic and other positions. They are currently very much directly influencing the democracy of the US so it will act with their foreign policy goals to the clear determent of actual US strategic interest.

smiddereens 7y ago

Oh right, because they didn't develop nuclear weapons...

fortran77 7y ago

Completely untrue. Israel has great relations with China and India.

coldtea 7y ago

>Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend itself. Much of their spying on the USA is not to harm the USA, but to ensure the USA is still on their side. Well, who said the USA being "on their side" is not harmful for the USA?

stunt 7y ago

Nonetheless that’s exactly what we blame Russia for. Obviously many countries actually do try to monitor and influence. But of course there is a difference between friendly-fire and enemy’s fire.

sa-mao 7y ago

Israel did worst than just spying on the US government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident. Now the official investigation concluded that this was a result of an unfortunate mistake, but survivors and others maintain that the ship was deliberately targeted.