Oct 24, 2023·edited Oct 24, 2023Liked by Andrew Van Wagner
I find it strange how emotional elected officials and pundits get over Israel. If you even question Israeli policy, they try to cancel you for being “anti-semitic.” It’s very SJW- like behavior I find. What exactly does Israeli do for us as allies that’s mutually beneficial other than import a lot of military weapons? My guess is the MIC and Israeli lobby/AIPAC plays a massive role in trying to shut down conversation.
Consider the point (in the above piece) about what Israel has meant to Washington strategically, though. I think that the idea that Israel has "hijacked" US policy isn't as compelling as the idea that Washington views a militarized Israel as an asset.
That’s the official/establishment narrative on the matter, but that line of thought made more sense during the Cold War in my opinion. Now that the US has stronger ties with Saudi Arabia, an oil country, I’m not sure Israel has the same strategic importance it used to. It seems more like a liability these days than an asset. It’s been that way for a while. Now I think it’s moreso Israel and the MIC driving US policy on it. Especially with how much headache they cause the US on a regular basis.
Regardless, I find it odd how quickly people try to shut down conversation when others criticize their policy.
EDIT: Actually I don’t think this talking point you brought up made much sense during the Cold War either. Consider the following below:
I find it strange how emotional elected officials and pundits get over Israel. If you even question Israeli policy, they try to cancel you for being “anti-semitic.” It’s very SJW- like behavior I find. What exactly does Israeli do for us as allies that’s mutually beneficial other than import a lot of military weapons? My guess is the MIC and Israeli lobby/AIPAC plays a massive role in trying to shut down conversation.
Consider the point (in the above piece) about what Israel has meant to Washington strategically, though. I think that the idea that Israel has "hijacked" US policy isn't as compelling as the idea that Washington views a militarized Israel as an asset.
That’s the official/establishment narrative on the matter, but that line of thought made more sense during the Cold War in my opinion. Now that the US has stronger ties with Saudi Arabia, an oil country, I’m not sure Israel has the same strategic importance it used to. It seems more like a liability these days than an asset. It’s been that way for a while. Now I think it’s moreso Israel and the MIC driving US policy on it. Especially with how much headache they cause the US on a regular basis.
Regardless, I find it odd how quickly people try to shut down conversation when others criticize their policy.
EDIT: Actually I don’t think this talking point you brought up made much sense during the Cold War either. Consider the following below:
https://www.wrmea.org/1984-november-5/israel-no-strategic-asset.html
Great research on a "thorny" topic!
Thanks!
"I sometimes wonder what it would be like to live in a world where the media were institutionally free." Me, too.