5 ms·

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

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."
        remarkEon 7y ago
        You’re right, I did try to Kafkatrap you there. But again I’m not interested in debating open borders on the merits because I’ve been to plenty of places that are ... not nice and not having a border between us and them is a recipe for Civilizational collapse. >theaticlastic Never encountered this word before.
- 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

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."
        remarkEon 7y ago
        You’re right, I did try to Kafkatrap you there. But again I’m not interested in debating open borders on the merits because I’ve been to plenty of places that are ... not nice and not having a border between us and them is a recipe for Civilizational collapse. >theaticlastic Never encountered this word before.
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