back
34 comments
Future (and current) presidents seem unlikely to be encumbered by laws. They can spend or not spend the budget. They can fire and effectively disable lawful commissions. They are immune from criminal proceedings. They can have any personal financial interests. They can accept large gifts. They can tear down national monuments. Really makes following Congress and laws a lot less informative. ;-)
And now everybody screams that Putin is bad.
False equivalence is what enabled the Trump presidency. "All politicians are corrupt liars, therefore we'll elect the one who tells us the lies we like".

Corruption and evil are not binary, they're shades of grey. Trump might be bad, but he's not poisoning his opponents or throwing them out windows.

If all politicians are evil, the goal should be to elect the least-evil one.

Any president that wants to pause it can cite "national security".

That sounds pretty reasonable since Israel spies on the USA a lot

Section 219 is treason.
Not if you're Israel-First.
No elected politician to the American government should be "Israel-first". Anyone stating such should be tried for treason.
There's a reason this article doesn't actually quote the text of this provision. The text itself is pretty boilerplate and has nothing to do with a "merger" of the US and Israeli militaries. It basically just tells the Secretary of Defense to appoint someone to coordinate research and development efforts in certain areas.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8800...

The idea that this bill would make the US and Israeli militaries more integrated than the US is with any other allies is just bullshit. We literally have a joint legal and command structure in place for the US to fight alongside NATO allies.

1. Israel is not an ally, Israel is not in NATO. Most US citizens do not support Israel and want to completely disentangle the US from Israel. Israel has attacked the US on many occasions going so far as to steal nuclear secrets (Jonathan Pollard).

2. The text makes it very clear that this is a merger. A sibling comment posted the exact copy, read it for yourself.

This is factually wrong. Israel is a "major non-NATO ally" https://www.state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status

Where in the text do you see anything about a "merger"? Bilateral agreements to develop technology are common between countries. That is nothing resembling a merger. There is no discussion of joint command structure, joint budgeting, etc.

I speak as a US citizen, not as an Epstein blackmailed politician. Israel is our enemy. To requote the text:

> "... responsible for synchronizing cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel, to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation, by-- (1) identifying jointly developed or Israeli-origin technologies with operational utility for potential integration into United States systems and programs of record; (2) ensuring collaborative research initiatives involving government, private sector, and academic institutions in the United States and Israel, is done in a manner that protects sensitive technology and information and the national security interests of the United States and Israel;"

After reading through the link you provided, I think it's fair to call it a merger. This is from the opening of Section 219.

"... responsible for synchronizing cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel, to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation, by-- (1) identifying jointly developed or Israeli-origin technologies with operational utility for potential integration into United States systems and programs of record; (2) ensuring collaborative research initiatives involving government, private sector, and academic institutions in the United States and Israel, is done in a manner that protects sensitive technology and information and the national security interests of the United States and Israel;"

I don't think your counterarguments to the claims from the article are sincere.