FunnyUsername

Judaism isn't just a religion; Israel happily accepts non-religious Jews. The goal was to solve a massive refugee problem for a persecuted group with nowhere else to go.

In any case, as a sovereign state, Israel gets to decide on its own immigration policy, regardless of how foreigners feel about it.

They're unguided rockets which can only vaguely target civilian population centers, not any military assets. That's quite literally terrorism.

Yes, Israel attempted one false flag attack 72 years ago, intending to damage some empty buildings with no casualties. Still nothing to do with any synagogue.

> The Palestinian state already exists, so the least they could do is recognize its right to exist

There exists a national identity, but the organization that claims to be its government does not enjoy popular support, and more importantly, has never really controlled the territory that it aspires to govern.

> This is pretty ironic considering that israel is pretty explicit about their ambitions of wiping out Palestinians and taking their land, as well as destroying Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran.

This is false; there's absolutely nothing resembling Iran's, Hamas' or Hezbollah's clear, explicit goals of destroying Israel.

> they initiated a war

This perspective only makes sense if we pretend that proxy warfare doesn't count. Once we acknowledge the fact that Iran funded, armed and trained multiple terrorist groups specifically to attack Israel for years, it becomes very clear who started the Israel-Iran conflict.

Synagogues such as..?

What would recognizing "Palestine's right to exist" look like? They proposed the creation of a Palestinian state several times; what more would you expect?

> israeli ideological wishes of destroying Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, etc are pretty much in the open

This is pretty ironic considering that Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are all quite explicit about their ambitions of wiping out Israel, while the reverse isn't true at all. Israelis have no desire to kill Persians a thousand kilometers away, they just don't have much choice but to fight foreign armies who attack them.

How is it exploitation when both sides are benefiting? If anything the US may be benefiting more, considering that Trump is keen on continuing the arrangement while Netanyahu is not.

> Israel would have bankrupted itself

The Lavi program in particular wasn't really poised for success, but it's likely Israel would have ended up getting into the defense aerospace industry in one way or another. Even if it never productionized its own fighter jets, it could have contributed a lot more to Chinese or other programs. Israel not working with China (among others) is a big opportunity cost to Israel, and valuable to the US.

> "threat" and "preparation" are not mutually exclusive adjectives.

If Israel was making preparations simply because they were necessary for its defense against invaders, that's not a threat. If its intent was to hint at its capabilities, that could be construed as a threat, but we can only speculate about intent.

> Israel couldn't afford the Lavi

Israel may not have started the program without US funding, but it was plausible enough to continue without it. After all, the decision to cancel it was only a slim majority, 12–11. If the US position was "we'll stop funding, but feel free to continue the program", it's likely Israel would have continued (at least for some time).

> They later threatened nuclear war in 1973

There was no "threat", just preparations. It's only natural to prepare whatever powerful weapons are available when a state is facing an existential threat and losing.

You'll be happy to learn that Netanyahu favors tapering off US aid, although some US politicians are less enthusiastic.

> What are we paying for

Some very important influence. For example, US thought Israel's Lavi program would compete with F-16, and Israel canceled it. Later it canceled a lucrative Phalcon AEW sale to China, even though Israel had already committed, because of US pressure. Etc.

> Oh so the UN is a huge red flag now ?

The UN doesn't adjudicate such matters. The ICJ does, and they have made no such finding. South Africa recently requested an 18-month extension in their "urgent" ICJ case, delaying the inevitable conclusion where the court will not find sufficient evidence of genocidal intent.

> Have you seen before & after photos of Gaza

Have you seen before & after photos of any other city where there was a prolonged modern urban war?

Your demand for a highly specific friendly-fire incident seems a bit silly. Can you cite an example of the opposite - a tiny country intentionally attacking a ship of a superpower, then pretending it was accidental, giving a apology and millions of dollars of reparations?

And of course I'll demand the same arbitrary specificity - it needs to be a two-hour-long multi-domain assault. Also it needs to be a VC2-S-AP3 type ship whose name ends with "Liberty". If you don't have such examples, I suppose we can stop entertaining your conspiracy theory?

> there were too many witnesses of Israel doing this

Even if there were no eventual survivors, there would still be people throughout the fleet talking on the radio. They would have noticed and communicated about the movements of large ships from Israeli ports, among other very obvious signs of an Israeli operation. There would have been absolutely zero chance of the US not knowing who was behind it.

Screwups happen, and it wasn't only on Israel's side. USS Liberty was way closer to the coast/warzone than it should have been due to missing an order, and once attacked, wasn't able to even communicate with its fleet for quite a while, let alone with Israel.

> they wanted to blame the attack on Egypt

There was no attempt to blame Egypt, and the idea is completely implausible - a US investigation could very easily distinguish an Israeli vs an Egyptian attack when a variety of boats (coming from Israeli ports) and many other assets are involved.

It's pretty absurd to think that Israel would intentionally attack a neutral superpower in the middle of a war for its survival, knowing that at best it would have to apologize and pay reparations, and at worst it would be destroyed by a vastly stronger military.

Friendly fire happens all the time; not everything needs to be a conspiracy.