Israeli Scheme?

[Nationalist]

My wife LOVES watching The Young Turks. I find it...a bit tiresome. I prefer to atleast try to take a breather on the culture/political windowdressing sometimes. Anyway...

This I found both amusing and disturbing. 

I thought the Intel agencies already shared everything. Isn't that one of the arguments for supporting Israel?

This...if true...leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Somewhat like eating leftover matzah balls.

Thoughts?

Edited 8 hours ago by Nationalist

[User]

I could not make it past the first 5 seconds. It is already a lie. There is no merger of US and Israeli forces. 

[Nationalist]

20 minutes ago, User said:

I could not make it past the first 5 seconds. It is already a lie. There is no merger of US and Israeli forces. 

I don't know for sure if this is true yet but...it appears to be.

https://weichert.substack.com/p/new-senate-bill-wants-to-fuse-israeli

Is this a good idea?

Probably not, eh?

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Nationalist

[User]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I don't know for sure if this is true yet but...it appears to be.

https://weichert.substack.com/p/new-senate-bill-wants-to-fuse-israeli

Is this a good idea?

Probably not, eh?

 

Linking to some other clowns' online opinions is just that...

Not interested. Try reading the actual law. 

 

[John Johnston]

https://www.factcheckradar.com/fact-check/proposed-300-billion-fund-for-iran-sparks-debate-over-war-reparations

And no talk of the so called Nuke issue. Good Job Donnie. 

[John Johnston]

Well, America has the most unqualified, incompetent people ever running the government these days. What do people expect? Y'all voted for a circus clown. And that is what you got. Shrug. 

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, User said:

Linking to some other clowns' online opinions is just that...

Not interested. Try reading the actual law. 

 

Well...it looks like a merger of military and Intel to me.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congress-quietly-moves-to-integrate-us-and-israeli-militaries/ar-AA24k4XA

Here's the bill.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr7540/text

This is probably not a good idea.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Well...it looks like a merger of military and Intel to me.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congress-quietly-moves-to-integrate-us-and-israeli-militaries/ar-AA24k4XA

Here's the bill.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr7540/text

This is probably not a good idea.

Says the guy who has spent the last 4 years saying Russia is winning, any moment now, this is the month Ukraine will lose! 

I am not interested in your opinion, I am interested in facts. I know what the bill is, I have read the section. This is your silly argument, you show me what parts of the bill say what you think they do. 

I am, once again, not interested in spamming links to others opinions. 

But since that is how you want to engage... here is some spam back:

 

Your skepticism is warranted. After reading the underlying claims about Section 224, I'd separate this into two questions:

1. Does Section 224 increase U.S.-Israel defense cooperation?

   • Yes, absolutely. That appears to be the intent of the provision. It calls for expanded joint R&D, co-production, technology cooperation, supply-chain integration, and coordination in areas such as AI, cyber, autonomous systems, and other defense technologies. (Responsible Statecraft)

2. Does it "integrate the U.S. and Israeli militaries" in the way the article implies?

   • That's where the rhetoric starts outrunning the text.

Where I think the article overstates things

The headline and repeated use of the word "integrate" creates the impression that:

• Israeli officers would command U.S. forces.

• The U.S. would be obligated to fight Israel's wars.

• Military chains of command would merge.

• The two militaries would become a single operational force.

Nothing I've found suggests that. The provision is about defense technology cooperation and industrial integration, not merging command structures or creating a NATO-style mutual defense treaty. (Responsible Statecraft)

That's an important distinction.

The "U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data" claim

This is one of the biggest leaps.

The article points to language about "network integration" and "data fusion" and then concludes:

"the U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data"

That is speculation.

"Data fusion" is a broad military term. NATO allies, intelligence partners, and joint task forces routinely fuse selected datasets without giving each other unrestricted access to everything. The article presents the most expansive interpretation as though it's the obvious outcome. (Responsible Statecraft)

A more cautious reading would be:

The bill may create frameworks for increased information sharing and interoperability.

That's very different from:

Israel gets all U.S. military data.

"Higher level of integration than any other country"

That's another claim that should raise eyebrows.

The U.S. already has:

• NATO alliances.

• The Five Eyes intelligence partnership.

• Integrated defense projects with countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia.

• Permanent joint command structures with some allies. (Wikipedia)

To claim this would create a relationship "beyond any other country" requires evidence and comparison. The article largely asserts it rather than proving it. (Responsible Statecraft)

Where the article is strongest

The strongest argument is not the scary headline.

It's this:

Section 224 would likely make the U.S.-Israel defense-industrial relationship deeper and more difficult for future administrations to unwind.

That seems like a fair interpretation. If you create joint ventures, shared R&D programs, co-production agreements, and integrated supply chains, those relationships tend to become politically and economically entrenched. That's a reasonable policy concern someone can have. (Responsible Statecraft)

What I would call fear-mongering

These are examples where the language goes beyond what has been demonstrated:

• "Integrate U.S. and Israeli militaries" as if they become one force.

• "The U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data."

• Suggestions that this effectively makes the countries inseparable militarily.

• Implications that Congress is secretly handing over control of U.S. defense capabilities.

Those are possible worst-case interpretations, not established consequences of the text itself. (Responsible Statecraft)

What I think is the balanced take

A fair summary would be:

Section 224 appears to expand U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation, joint development, and industrial coordination. Critics are justified in debating whether that is wise policy and whether it creates excessive dependence or influence. However, describing it as "integrating the militaries" in the sense most people would understand, meaning merged command structures, mutual war obligations, or a combined military force, goes well beyond what the publicly described language appears to do. (Responsible Statecraft)

So based on what I've read, I think you're right to question the framing. The underlying policy proposal is real. The headline and some of the conclusions are written in a way that maximizes alarm rather than carefully distinguishing defense-industrial integration from military integration.

[Nationalist]

50 minutes ago, User said:

Says the guy who has spent the last 4 years saying Russia is winning, any moment now, this is the month Ukraine will lose! 

I am not interested in your opinion, I am interested in facts. I know what the bill is, I have read the section. This is your silly argument, you show me what parts of the bill say what you think they do. 

I am, once again, not interested in spamming links to others opinions. 

But since that is how you want to engage... here is some spam back:

 

Your skepticism is warranted. After reading the underlying claims about Section 224, I'd separate this into two questions:

1. Does Section 224 increase U.S.-Israel defense cooperation?

   • Yes, absolutely. That appears to be the intent of the provision. It calls for expanded joint R&D, co-production, technology cooperation, supply-chain integration, and coordination in areas such as AI, cyber, autonomous systems, and other defense technologies. (Responsible Statecraft)

2. Does it "integrate the U.S. and Israeli militaries" in the way the article implies?

   • That's where the rhetoric starts outrunning the text.

Where I think the article overstates things

The headline and repeated use of the word "integrate" creates the impression that:

• Israeli officers would command U.S. forces.

• The U.S. would be obligated to fight Israel's wars.

• Military chains of command would merge.

• The two militaries would become a single operational force.

Nothing I've found suggests that. The provision is about defense technology cooperation and industrial integration, not merging command structures or creating a NATO-style mutual defense treaty. (Responsible Statecraft)

That's an important distinction.

The "U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data" claim

This is one of the biggest leaps.

The article points to language about "network integration" and "data fusion" and then concludes:

"the U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data"

That is speculation.

"Data fusion" is a broad military term. NATO allies, intelligence partners, and joint task forces routinely fuse selected datasets without giving each other unrestricted access to everything. The article presents the most expansive interpretation as though it's the obvious outcome. (Responsible Statecraft)

A more cautious reading would be:

The bill may create frameworks for increased information sharing and interoperability.

That's very different from:

Israel gets all U.S. military data.

"Higher level of integration than any other country"

That's another claim that should raise eyebrows.

The U.S. already has:

• NATO alliances.

• The Five Eyes intelligence partnership.

• Integrated defense projects with countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia.

• Permanent joint command structures with some allies. (Wikipedia)

To claim this would create a relationship "beyond any other country" requires evidence and comparison. The article largely asserts it rather than proving it. (Responsible Statecraft)

Where the article is strongest

The strongest argument is not the scary headline.

It's this:

Section 224 would likely make the U.S.-Israel defense-industrial relationship deeper and more difficult for future administrations to unwind.

That seems like a fair interpretation. If you create joint ventures, shared R&D programs, co-production agreements, and integrated supply chains, those relationships tend to become politically and economically entrenched. That's a reasonable policy concern someone can have. (Responsible Statecraft)

What I would call fear-mongering

These are examples where the language goes beyond what has been demonstrated:

• "Integrate U.S. and Israeli militaries" as if they become one force.

• "The U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data."

• Suggestions that this effectively makes the countries inseparable militarily.

• Implications that Congress is secretly handing over control of U.S. defense capabilities.

Those are possible worst-case interpretations, not established consequences of the text itself. (Responsible Statecraft)

What I think is the balanced take

A fair summary would be:

Section 224 appears to expand U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation, joint development, and industrial coordination. Critics are justified in debating whether that is wise policy and whether it creates excessive dependence or influence. However, describing it as "integrating the militaries" in the sense most people would understand, meaning merged command structures, mutual war obligations, or a combined military force, goes well beyond what the publicly described language appears to do. (Responsible Statecraft)

So based on what I've read, I think you're right to question the framing. The underlying policy proposal is real. The headline and some of the conclusions are written in a way that maximizes alarm rather than carefully distinguishing defense-industrial integration from military integration.

For someone who disputes Democrat actions and policies daily, you sure don't apply the same skepticism when it comes to military actions and policies.

Tell me, what possible benefit can any of this have for the USA, and why is blanket information sharing about American citizens, anything but dangerous? Do you really think Mosad gives a rat's ass about the privacy of Americans? Have you learned nothing from the Epstien fiasco?

It is not a good idea to get too close to the people who made usury their cash cow.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

For someone who disputes Democrat actions and policies daily, you sure don't apply the same skepticism when it comes to military actions and policies.

Tell me, what possible benefit can any of this have for the USA, and why is blanket information sharing about American citizens, anything but dangerous? Do you really think Mosad gives a rat's ass about the privacy of Americans? Have you learned nothing from the Epstien fiasco?

LOL, skepticism over what? Why?

Once again, this is YOUR argument to make. 

What blanket information sharing about American citizens? What privacy concerns? Show me the law you are citing here. 

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It is not a good idea to get too close to the people who made usury their cash cow.

What "the people" are you talking about here, what usury?



 

[Nationalist]

38 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, skepticism over what? Why?

Once again, this is YOUR argument to make. 

What blanket information sharing about American citizens? What privacy concerns? Show me the law you are citing here. 

What "the people" are you talking about here, what usury?



 

I showed you the law. Didn't you read it?

"the Initiative allows for "network integration" and "data fusion" between both countries' militaries."

Are you trying to say you're ok with Section 3: Establishment of the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative?

You watch the US government lie to your faces, but this doesn't sound off your risk tolerance?

Interesting.

[User]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I showed you the law. Didn't you read it?

"the Initiative allows for "network integration" and "data fusion" between both countries' militaries."

Are you trying to say you're ok with Section 3: Establishment of the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative?

You watch the US government lie to your faces, but this doesn't sound off your risk tolerance?

Interesting.

I have multiple times now said I have read it. 

You linking to it doesn't do anything to support your assertions about it or the opinions you are spamming from others. 

The point is that it is on YOU to cite the parts of the law you think say or do something YOU want to argue against and on YOU to provide that argument. 

 

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, User said:

I have multiple times now said I have read it. 

You linking to it doesn't do anything to support your assertions about it or the opinions you are spamming from others. 

The point is that it is on YOU to cite the parts of the law you think say or do something YOU want to argue against and on YOU to provide that argument. 

 

Which I have.

Bottom line...I don't believe Israel can be trusted.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Which I have.

Bottom line...I don't believe Israel can be trusted.

No, you have not. You make an assertion, you spam links to other peoples opinions... 

Israel can't be trusted... to do what? What does this have to do with this thread or this law?

 

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, User said:

No, you have not. You make an assertion, you spam links to other peoples opinions... 

Israel can't be trusted... to do what? What does this have to do with this thread or this law?

 

I did. Again...that Section 3 is very open-ended in its language. Those sort of things tend to get grossly abused...and you know it.

It has everything to do with my thread. It has to do with this network and data sharing. It has to do with privacy and security from foreign agencies taking advantage of information that is none of their concern.

[User]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

I did. Again...that Section 3 is very open-ended in its language. Those sort of things tend to get grossly abused...and you know it.

It has everything to do with my thread. It has to do with this network and data sharing. It has to do with privacy and security from foreign agencies taking advantage of information that is none of their concern.

No, you didn't. You are making another baseless assertion. How is the section very open-ended in its language? What is the concern? How would it be grossly abused?

So far, you just keep making assertion after assertion and never answer my questions. 

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, you didn't. You are making another baseless assertion. How is the section very open-ended in its language? What is the concern? How would it be grossly abused?

So far, you just keep making assertion after assertion and never answer my questions. 

 

Im saying I DON'T TRUST ISRAEL.

Not with military or personal data.

Why is that so hard to accept?

[User]

13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Im saying I DON'T TRUST ISRAEL.

Not with military or personal data.

Why is that so hard to accept?

Well... that is what you are saying now. That has not been your only position throughout this thread. 

 

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, User said:

Well... that is what you are saying now. That has not been your only position throughout this thread. 

 

Sure it has.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Sure it has.

Nope. Lets go back to the beginning:

Me: I can't watch this video, 5 seconds in, it is alredy lying. 

You: Appears true to me, here is a link to someone else opinion making the case, let me ask you some rhetorical questions implying this is not good. 
 

 

 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Nope. Lets go back to the beginning:

Me: I can't watch this video, 5 seconds in, it is alredy lying. 

You: Appears true to me, here is a link to someone else opinion making the case, let me ask you some rhetorical questions implying this is not good. 
 

 

 

And it is true. What's your point?

[User]

Just now, Nationalist said:

And it is true. What's your point?

Well, now my point is you were full of shit just claiming that the only position you have had here was that you merely do not trust Israel. 

[Nationalist]

25 minutes ago, User said:

Well, now my point is you were full of shit just claiming that the only position you have had here was that you merely do not trust Israel. 

Yes. Now I've read the bill and as I'd suspected, I'm not a fan.

Hell I'm not even a fan of this 5 eyes thing NATO has going. Should Israel join NATO? Would the Turkish people agree to that?

This is just a bad idea. Especially now.

[User]

10 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes. Now I've read the bill and as I'd suspected, I'm not a fan.

Hell I'm not even a fan of this 5 eyes thing NATO has going. Should Israel join NATO? Would the Turkish people agree to that?

This is just a bad idea. Especially now.

Yes... you admit you were full of shit? OK. 

What does this bill have to do with joining NATO? Where does it say anything about joining NATO?

 

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Yes... you admit you were full of shit? OK. 

What does this bill have to do with joining NATO? Where does it say anything about joining NATO?

 

If the US does this, would Israel not be privy to everything NATO knows? The answer is 'yes'. Especially since the USA is essentially NATO.