Yes, I can’t imagine Israel’s economy surviving on their own, without any political support, much less their military budget.
But it might not be common knowledge that the world equates Israel’s actions to if USA did it directly.
Various ‘buy European’ etc campaigns are bcs of stuff like this.
It doesn’t matter if the usa killed palestinians directly or not if the murder is done by your weapons or money you are still complicit and responsible of those murders
You said it has nothing to do with the USA which is not the case since diplomatic protection from the USA and all the aid it gives to Israel is allowing Israel to abduct people in international law
Tbh I’m not sure where the misunderstanding even comes from. With what have I hinted that?
I said they (Israel) would not have (advanced) economy or military power without the USA.
(I even especially mentioned USA’s ‘political support’.)
I think that obviously very much covers the possibility of any extensive military campaigning.
Even with USA actions after WWII, without constant (and very sus) protections, direct & indirect support Israel would have been an enclave by the 70s.
But the USA wants to have a platform for their nuclear weapons & military logistics in that region.
Yes, it does. Israel is doing all those war crimes with the billions you send them
Yes, I can’t imagine Israel’s economy surviving on their own, without any political support, much less their military budget.
But it might not be common knowledge that the world equates Israel’s actions to if USA did it directly.
Various ‘buy European’ etc campaigns are bcs of stuff like this.
It doesn’t matter if the usa killed palestinians directly or not if the murder is done by your weapons or money you are still complicit and responsible of those murders
That’s what I said, yes.
And especially bcs it’s an ongoing proces for so long.
You said it has nothing to do with the USA which is not the case since diplomatic protection from the USA and all the aid it gives to Israel is allowing Israel to abduct people in international law
Tbh I’m not sure where the misunderstanding even comes from. With what have I hinted that?
I said they (Israel) would not have (advanced) economy or military power without the USA.
(I even especially mentioned USA’s ‘political support’.)
I think that obviously very much covers the possibility of any extensive military campaigning.
Even with USA actions after WWII, without constant (and very sus) protections, direct & indirect support Israel would have been an enclave by the 70s.
But the USA wants to have a platform for their nuclear weapons & military logistics in that region.
The misunderestsnding is that you said that it has nothing to do with the usa but all your next comment shows that is has to do with the it
Ohh, is by any chance this what you meant?
I didn’t write that.
I just agreed with you, but you took that rather offensively.
Would you point out where I said that?
Sorry about that