3 ms·

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

by kfprt 5y ago

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.

perl4ever 5y ago
>your religious politics 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.
- kfprt 5y ago
  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.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >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.
    - kfprt 5y ago
      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 kfprt 5y ago

perl4ever 5y ago

>your religious politics 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.

kfprt 5y ago
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.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >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.
  - kfprt 5y ago
    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.