UW Students To Vote On Divestment from Companies Involved in Israeli Occupation

Comments

1
To be perfectly frank, I'd rather see the UW disinvest from coal ...
2
show me a corporation which is big enough to be invested in which doesn't have a valid complaint against it
3
What would Macklemore say?
4
Its On!

I am specifically boycotting Israeli goods, services, and employers.

1. Sodastream
2. Jaffa Oranges
3. Ahava
4. Golan Heights Wine
5. Victoria's Secret
6. Sabra Hummus
7. Medjool Dates
8. Eden Springs Water
9. Hewlett Packard

http://www.policymic.com/articles/81363/…

6 things you might be buying that support Israeli brutality:
http://www.alternet.org/world/companies-…

5
Also, an astute reporter might ask: why is UW so far behind the times?

Princeton and Depaul students have already voted to remove Sabra brand hummus, failed, but will try again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19…

http://www.qconline.com/archives/qco/dis…
6
Inb4 Juche.
7
Also: that video shows two angles of the same thing, first time he is shot at 0:30, second time around 1:20. Looks like he was briefly near someone who appears to have thrown something at someone, but he was certainly not an imminent threat to anyone.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2…

Shows Mohammed Salameh being shot 13 minutes later as well as Nadeem.
8
Boycott all Republican donor corporations as well.
9
Ansel.
No one can know what that video shows.
No one knows who shot or from where.

Please use some commonsense and get off the guilt trip.
10
"5. Victoria's Secret"

Does that mea giving up some nice pussy wrapped up in VS, because that ain't happenin', even for the Palestinians.
11
SCANDALMGR

Oh and thanks for the list: from now on I will "Buy Israel".

12
So if you have to start somewhere, why not start with the Jews, is that it? Start with a democracy and disputed land that was "occupied" by someone else (Jordan) for 20 years, rather than with any number of countries who treat actual citizens far worse (should I look at Qatar? Saudia Arabia? China? hmm, there are so many choices.)

It's really not so far from the Macklemore incident - simple failure to recognize that this kind of singling out has a long history within anti-Semitic circles. (Note that I'm not saying either Ansel or the sponsors of the BDS push are anti-Semitic, only that they don't recognize the overtones).
13
Whenever I see anything related to Israel now, all I do is think of Macklamore. Thank you Stranger!
14
@12 Perhaps we have more and greater investments in Israel than in Qatar. Perhaps those investments are more easily left behind than oil in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps we are still convinced of the possibility of a relatovely peaceful and equitable solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while hope for change in those two other countries is less widely held. Perhaps there is simply more attention in the American consciousness for issues involving 'the Holy Land'.

Overtones or no, it is possible that this is at least among the most pragmatic places to start divestment.
15
Those who take this kind of thing seriously need to be reminded that "medjool" is a type of date, not a brand. Medjool dates are grown in California, Nevada, Florida and Puerto Rico -- our imports of dates from the Middle East (yes, including Israel) amount to less than 15% of date consumption here.
16
@15 Is that 15% of all dates and date-containing-foods or of medjool dates?
17
Sell your iPhone or iPad etc etc -- Apple has operations in Israel.
Stop using Viber.
And Intel -- NOTHING relating to Intel.

Enjoy!
18
@14 And again the Macklemore analogy seems apt. Your reply is "don't see anything anti-semitic about it, just trying to do something right" rather than to step back and consider the entire situation. Intentional or not, BDS singles out Jews for treatment that no one else gets, even countries that behave far worse. You don't think it would be practical to aim against Syria (hmm, when was the last time Israel gassed its own citizens?)?

And since when is practicality or the level of investment the test of a moral action? Seriously, once you've decided that it might cost too much to protest something, you might as well not protest anything at all...
19
South Africa had this thing called an apartheid system, by which the citizenry of the country were subjected to gross, legally enshrined disparity, on the basis of race.

Israel has an intractable-occupation-holdover-from-military-conflict problem, by which the residents of occupied lands are stuck in an infuriating stalemate that has involved any number of questionable political actions on all sides. On the other hand, no one but right-wing extremists thinks that these lands will be permanently absorbed into Israel, or an apartheid system instituted to actively subjugate their inhabitants.

Israel proper is, of course, a heterogeneous (though like the U.S., at times troubled) democracy with a constitution guaranteeing equality under the law.

See how that might be, like, not the same, Ansel?

For the record, while I happen to think the unemployment rate in the Palestinian territories is inextricable from the violence, and that encouraging cross-border economic activity might not be a bad thing, I don't believe the movement to disinvest from companies operating in the West Bank is without valid arguments.

But the moment a disinvestment push expands to "any kind of Israeli anything", or the functionally inaccurate word "apartheid" gets uttered, you've really just got a case of the now-fashionable lefty Antisemitism rearing its ugly head.

Bigotry is irrational. And so are many of your arguments above.
20
Yep, the effect of mandatory military service is you also get armed soldiers more "gun happy" than Farva from Super Troopers.
21
But divesting is one thing... if you really want to send a message beyond their corporate boardrooms refuse to admit applicants from that country (who typically will be paying out of state tuition fees so high that they subsidize a decent fraction of in-state students).
22
@18 That wasn't what I said. I can certainly see how anti-semites might and would take every chance to bash Israel (though, true anti-semites wouldn't care about Palestinian Arabs, since they are also Semitic). But that there are likely racists in the BDS crowd does not make it a racist movement any more than any other pro-Palestinian position (including a two-state solution, which if equitable would weaken Israel). The imagery Mack appropriated (intentionally or otherwise) is purely racist and has a deep and troubling history of racism.

The pragmatic argument I offered doesn't feign ignorance of racism. It is unconcerned with such notions. This is not to say they are unimportant or should go unaddressed, just that they are beside the point to the specific argument I made.

Of course racial and ethnic sensitivity are important. But it does no good to pretend that anything and everyone that questions or challenges Israel is racist. Nor to bizarrely pretend that organizations don't or haven't used sanctions, embargoes, or boycotts elsewhere or at other times, that this is some unprecedented new weapon being aimed solely at blameless Jews because of racism. That's fantastical. Rather like claiming a Fagin nose is a witch nose or that you've no idea what bad Jewish stereotypes look like. So, you know, motes, planks, and all that.

@19 Jimmy Carter has written a book about how he considered the Israeli system of Arab oppression to be apartheid. Major members of present and former Israeli administrations (including Ben-Gurion) have openly worried about the possibility or actuality of apartheid in Israel. You may disagree with them, but it's not as though Ansel is alone with the right-wing evangelicals here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_an…
23
@19, I have foolishly buried my reply to you in my prosaic post above.
24
I say this with the utmost sincerity, Ansel, you're a blithering, pompous, cock-headed ass. Divestment is insane, and thankfully most sane people--even here in Western Wash--seem to agree with me.
25
@18 As to worries about cost, effectiveness, etc, those are standard in small-'p' pragmatism, modern and moderate forms of utilitarianism that do not suggest it is the duty of all healthy owners of two kidneys to donate one ASAP, much of applied ethics, and most real world policy decisions. Resources are not unlimited, so it makes sense there would be people in academia, NGOs, and governments that would consider how to apportion them. Is this really a revelation?

Triple post for the bored-due-to-a-migraine/win!
26
No. No triple post. Sad face.
27
@12 I agree fully except I give Macklemore a bit of a pass. He isn't the type of person to knowingly do something hateful to another group of people. Just looking at it from a career point of view, whTs to gain?
28
Hardly any comments here on a topic with real issues, unlike Macklemore, I blame you, stranger readers, you lousy filth!
29
@27 There are plenty of people who will flock to anything racist or ethnocentrist because they fear loss of power, loss of entitlement, growing culural pluralism, and so forth. There is a market for these things. It has been sold by Fox News, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. It was sold by Chick Fil A. It is sold by the hard-line parties in Palestine and Israel.

I'm not saying Mackelmore was selling such wares, or that it would be the only explanation if he had looked in a mirror after donning his costume, but that sort of thing can have benefits.

Regardless of Mack's intent, the analogy between BDS (a movement which, taken at its word, is a struggle to free the Palestinians from oppression, or seen by its starkest foes as a racist attempt to financially harm Jews) and Mack's costume (a one time occurrence, which was either a silly but regrettable coincidence or a a cynical and stupid stunt) is poor. Truly, deeply impoverished.
30
I... actually agree with Will.
31
12, No. This is *not* about "the Jews." This is about Israel. A country, which loves to point out, that is pluralistic and allows everyone, Jew & non-Jew, to participate equally in the nation. ("See! No apartheid here!")

However, when it comes to criticizing Israel, the tactic which has been implemented since the country's inception, Israel then claims that to do is anti-semitic. If you disagree with Israel, then you must hate all Jews.

Your pretzel logic has been debunked time & time again, and so I laugh at you for trotting it out again.

You also didn't bother to read the post, which made it quite clear that the "other countries do bad things, too!" argument has no weight whatsoever, adding to your bankrupt position.

Equating the historic violence and animosity towards Jewish people with a demand that Israel act humanely is a disgusting insult to the millions of Jews who have suffered and died in the centuries past. What you're doing is using a cloak of self-pity to wipe away crimes that are taking place right now, something which I find far more inexcusable and morally sick than anything Macklemore ever did.

BTW, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and has had them since at least the 70's. It also refuses to sign any and all international treaties on their ownership or use. According to US law, giving any kind of air to such a nation is strictly illegal. Israel is the very definition of "rogue nuclear terrorist state." There is no defending this state of affairs. None.
32
Israel is a good divestment target because it is easy to imagine their citizens swaying under the pressure of the boycott. South Africa was a good divestment / propaganda target for the same reason.

No one on divests from Syria because no one believes the Syrian population is anywhere close to coming up with a political solution to their social woes.

By divesting from Israeli enterprise, the UW students aren't being anti-Jewish racists. Divestment says, "we have faith in you, Democratic Israel."

This strategy is far more egalitarian than the Rachel Corrie / Tibetan monk approach, which basically says "our enemies are so monstrous, they make us martyr ourselves.
33
No, UW students aren't being anti-Jewish racists. They are acting with indifference toward the historical singling out of Jews as a target by allowing themselves to be used by a movement populated with racists. The message is not "we have faith in you, Israel", but "we don't think you deserve to be part of the world community, and so we will single you out for special treatment."

The politics are complicated, Israel has made some terrible choices (and so, coincidentally, have the Palestinians), but the BDS response is way out of proportion to the situation and, oh by the way, likely to be counterproductive if the goal is a 2-state solution (which most people except for the racists want).
34
why do we not see demands to divest from United Arab Emirates?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Russia?
Why do we not see demands to divest from China?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Venezuela?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Pakistan?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Saudi Arabia?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Gambia?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Uganda?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Syria?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Lebanon?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Egypt?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Libya?

Each of those countries have massive human rights violations. Each of those countries have laws on the books that persecute their minority populations. Each of those countries have laws that demand the execution of their citizens that sell homes to certain minority groups. Each of those countries have laws that prevent certain minorities from having employment or attending higher education.
35
why do we not see demands to divest from United Arab Emirates?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Russia?
Why do we not see demands to divest from China?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Venezuela?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Pakistan?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Saudi Arabia?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Gambia?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Uganda?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Syria?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Lebanon?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Egypt?
Why do we not see demands to divest from Libya?

Each of those countries have massive human rights violations. Each of those countries have laws on the books that persecute their minority populations. Each of those countries have laws that demand the execution of their citizens that sell homes to certain minority groups. Each of those countries have laws that prevent certain minorities from having employment or attending higher education.
36
The debate wound to a close around 9:30pm as the President of the senate suggested that the maintenance staff would soon need to service the auditorium. Final tally 59 against, 8 in favor and 11 abstentions.

As students exited the auditorium, 27 BDS supporters, signs in hand stood outside the auditorium exit in a semi-circle, forcing attendees to walk through their gauntlet as they stood in silent, mournful disapproval.

This wasn't just a defeat - this was a rout.
37
Paccar 192 at the University of Washington was, well, packed tonight as a a BDS fueled divestment resolution was brought before the UW student senate (ASUW). What many considered a maneuver to limit the Jewish response, the anti-Israel resolution was delivered to the senate on the eve of Passover and was presented for first reading on Israel Independence day. Nearly a month after R-20-39 was submitted, it was finally debated on before the UW senate this evening.

One of the highlights of the evening was an articulate statement against the resolution made by UW Sociology professor,Paul Burstein. The professor was the only pro-Israel speaker who called out the BDS resolution as anti-Semitic. He suggested the resolution framers were less than honest as to their goals, and that their true intention was the end of Israel as a Jewish majority state. Pointing out that the resolution demanded nothing tangible of the students or the university, he described it as just an easy way to manipulate the students to appear to support the sponsor’s twisted agenda.
38
I'm an American Jew who supports putting economic pressure on Israel in order to spur the nation to shape up its act, though I'm on the fence about BDS. We have given the Likudniks a blank check for far too long.
It's not about Jews and it's not even about Zionism; it's about far-right ultra-nationalistic assholes ruling a nation from the holy city of Jerusalem. "Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (Deuteronomy 16:20)
39
@19 sez "Israel proper is, of course, a heterogeneous (though like the U.S., at times troubled) democracy with a constitution guaranteeing equality under the law."

Palestinians had NOTHING to do with the holocaust, yet they are being asked to pay for the guilt of "West" who allowed it to happen. The land known as Palestine has been stolen and now its people are living either under occupation, as refugees or unequal citizens of the State of Israel. And as you saw in the video, as such, are subject to murder by the Israeli army.

As for being Israel being a democracy ("troubled???"), an excerpt from this: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/4453/19/…

"For Gideon Levy, a veteran Israeli journalist and intellectual, mixing “nationality with religion is the mother of all problems”.
“If being Jewish means religion, then secular Jews like myself can’t define themselves as Jews. But if it is nationality, then I am an Israeli national first and foremost.”

"Levy labels as hypocritical many American and European Jews who support institutionalised discrimination against non-Jewish Israeli citizens, whereas in their respective countries they aggressively and doggedly defend secularism and the principle of equality, irrespective of ethnicity and religion.

“Israel can’t be both Jewish and democratic. And under existing conditions, a non-Jewish citizen in Israel has no chance of having real equality with a Jew,” Levy says.

Ada Ravon, a prominent lawyer from Tel Aviv who deals with civil rights issues, concurs: “There is no chance for a non-Jewish citizen in Israel to obtain full and complete equality. This is at least how I see it under existing circumstances.

“According to the Law of Return, Israel is a Jewish state, and non-Jews can’t be equal citizens.”

End of quotes from article.

The fact that the U.S. and Europe continue to allow Palestinians to be murdered, displaced and oppressed by Israel is the provocation for more and more people around the world to stand up and say not in my name. Boycott Divest and Sanction Israel until it changes its laws and behavior to provide for equality and human rights for all residents of the former Palestine.
40
I disagree with the idea you are racist to want a one-state solution encompassing all of the West Bank, 1948 Israel, and the Gaza Strip where one-person = one-vote.

White South Africans had to embrace a one-state, one-person vote (there was no carving away of a Zulu Homeland next to an Afrikaaner Homeland next to a Xhosa Homeland) and they certainly had more to lose demographically. Israeli Jews would still be 50% of the nation even if they folded in Gaza and the West Bank.
41
There are 21 arab nations that identify themselves specifically as Muslim Nations that demand all residents conform to the dictates of islam. Many of those nations punish people with wiping and execution for breaking the laws of Islam. Those nations treat menial guest workers like slaves; that includes not paying them, wiping them, and raping them.

Yet we hear nothing from these fashionable human rights protesters about boycotting those 21 arab nations.

they hold the one single Jewish nation to a different standard. That is bigotry.
42
In Israel it is legal for a private individual to sell land and homes to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahi, or anyone else. In the West Bank or Gaza stripe the seller will be labeled as a traitor and after his trial he will be executed if he sells to a Jew.

Why do we not hear about boycotting the PLO for this law? Why do we not hear about boycotting the PLO for their laws demanding the execution of homosexuals?

Why the double standard?
43
The golden standard of Western human rights = "Its only a human rights violation if the offenders arent white or arent christian".

Killing palestinian children = not important

Kidnapping nigerian girls = important

shooting unarmed native american woodcarvers to death = not important

wage gap for white women in Washington (even though WW make more than every other ethnicity AND gender category aside from WM) = Important

Business as usual.

44
@41, 42: Many of us regularly condemn barbaric actions taken by every state, including our own! It is absolutely unacceptable that there are people in the Middle East who attempt to force Israel to accede to their demands through wanton violence, just as it is absolutely unacceptable to shoot kids walking on a street in the heart. Misogyny in other lands is awful, but it also exists here in different forms. Condemning the local variety does not preclude me from also opposing the foreign varieties.
45
Boy did 41 hit the nail on the head. Not much else to say.
46
As for the "double-standard", there's people who believe that Israel should be held to a higher standard considering how and why the nation was created in the first place. Israel was supposed to be a new and better kind of nation but they're walking the fine line between defending themselves and committing ethnic cleansing. I think it's also this feeling that Israel has a great responsibility and destiny which is this: as long as this exhausting conflict goes on there will never be world peace and yet, if they create real actual lasting peace, Israel will be the beginning and center of world peace. Maybe we shouldn't expect that of them.

I'm kinda tired of the term "anti-Semitism" used as a general bludgeon. People should be able to criticize the actions (or lack thereof) of the leadership of Israel without being branded as Jew haters. When you generalize all criticism of Jews/Judaism/Israel as "anti-Semitism" you risk rendering the term ineffective or worse, making it a serious liability to your own cause. It's clear that a lot of people are getting exhausted with the excuses for Israel's failures and there's only so far you can push guilt on people before they start rejecting it.
47
@46 it's rather difficult to expect Israel to be held to a higher standard if conduct when your neighbors have never recognized your right to exist and have done everything to terrorize their civil society.
48
@47 I'm pretty certain that "higher standard" means not participating in the finger pointing and endless vendetta of your enemies. All that does is set this situation up to continue indefinitely as a vicious and dumb cycle. That's why people are divesting and boycotting, they're washing their hands of the whole stupid thing. That's why you have political candidates in America admitting privately that they'd kick the issue down the road, there's no progress to be made for peace when it's just plain not wanted there. Considering that the Israeli people have the full capability to shut their entire country down until it's solved but just aren't doing it, that picture of apparent apathy, implies that they want this dumbass situation to continue. In which case, I agree, we can't hold them to a higher standard and they're not better than their enemies. But at that point the guilt has nothing to stand on and sympathy will dry up.
49
S.Africa was not in danger of invasion (except for minor incidents wherein that generation of Cubans who were the hardest mofos had Zimbabwe's back).

Israel's neighbors have often been at war with Israel and with themselves in recent decades. Syria and Iraq r poppin. Lebanon is lightweight poppin and may at any time resume full pop. Egypt's best-case scenario appears to b stable military dictatorship. u wildin

@22 mr. Pragmatist do u suppose that Israel would stop trying to expand if they were defunded? let's consider the field:

big and strong countries have better survival prospects than small and weak countries. Israel is surrounded by larger countries

Israeli weapons-tech advantages r not to be taken for granted. US, Israel's chief patron, has rivals (Russia, China) who build their own sophisticated weapons systems. Russia is a big supplier of the Syrian govt. Iranian GDP is higher than Israeli GDP by hundreds of billions of dollars.

if Israel can't depend on US sponsorship, Israel will have to depend on her own strength to secure her territory. given the impermanence of Israeli advantages, Israel will have to make bolder investments now to protect or expand her share of the regional distribution of power. this means Israel will need to press existing advantages. settlement and occupation would probably accelerate and expand in response to these imperatives

imo, meaningful reduction of US support would provoke meaningful enlargement of Israeli militarism
50
@49 Capital 'P' Pragmatism (i.e. American Pragmatism), is not the basis for my simple set of possible reasons for earnest social justice or human rights types to support action intended to send a message to Israel, just so we're clear (though not quite Charles Saunders Pierce 'clear'). I, personally, am not sure BDS is entirely necessary, but I would favor the US tethering its aid to concrete and real goals regarding a peace process. I do not believe this could make Israel too much more militant than it already is. But that actually isn't up for discussion, because national-level politicians cannot afford to cross AIPAC, so worrying about it is trivial.

Stepping into triviality, if the US were to stop supporting Israel at the UN, that would change the global dynamics enough to leave us with a radically different situation. It is hard to predict how Israel might react to the realization of such speculative fiction. But if they decided to go to war with the rest of the Middle East with the whole of the UN Security Council ready to condemn them...that could get hairy.

Whatever may be said of the Israeli government, it is too conscious of its own survival, too rational to let things go that far. But maybe it wouldn't be under such ridiculously unlikely circumstances. It is hard to say anything meaningful about it.
51
Israel could not go to war with the entire Middle East. Israel, though, might very well intensify domination and settlement in the West Bank and elsewhere in Palestine if Israel can't count on US guardianship

we should also consider another dimension - US steadfastness re: allies broadcast on the cheap

Israel is terrifically unpopular around the world. US as sinister imperialist for steadfast guardianship of Israel is a ubiquitous meme. the world is very attentive to Israel's misbehavior, relative to the magnitude of its misbehavior. they r the subject of much protest, bumber sticking and UN resolving. some other allies commit more grievous wrongs. indeed, we sometimes commit more grievous wrongs ourselves in our own interests and in the interests of our allies.

the expectation that US will not disassociate on moral grounds is refreshed with each outrageous incident. this surely encourages misbehavior, but may also discourage some bloody adjustments of loyalty and strategic orientation on the part of US clients. Israeli occupation of Palestine, because of the giant magnifying glass affixed thereupon and the relatively small bodycount associated with its brutality, may b a cheap advertisement for US loyalty

as in "wow if these guys will support this tiny sliver and continually provoke anti-US sentiment, they'll def keep selling us f15 handmedowns so let's ease up a bit, confident they have our back while we have their oil", or whatever
52
Considering our commitment to the ongoing Korean war, I'm not sure we need Israel for that. But, again, we aren't at a spot where we might even consider backing away from Israel in any official capacity.
53
@ 12
So if you have to start somewhere, why not start with the Jews, is that it? . . . It's really not so far from the Macklemore incident - simple failure to recognize that this kind of singling out has a long history within anti-Semitic circles. (Note that I'm not saying either Ansel or the sponsors of the BDS push are anti-Semitic, only that they don't recognize the overtones).


Come on. This is not a tenable argument. First of all, Isreal cannot hide behind "but our people were historically persecuted" as some sort of shield from critcism or consequences for serious human rights violations. And the idea that people are starting with Israel is sort of insanely innaccurate. The UW divested from South Africa in the 80's. And there are similar movements to divest from Russian companies, and probably many others. Clearly action has already been taken and advocated for in other places, at the UW and elsewhere. It seems like the only way to safely avoid your brand of criticism is to wait until Israel is the last country in the world with any human rights violations.

You don't think it would be practical to aim against Syria (hmm, when was the last time Israel gassed its own citizens?)?


Where have you (and the other people who listed Syria) been? You do realize that the state department is providing aid and the CIA is arming and training the rebels in a civil war in Syria right? I am going to say that is more direct aim that a handful of public universities selling the stock of specific companies, wouldn't you?

Also, I think the US's close relationship with Israel is part of the reason people feel the need to point out that there are serious human rights issues in Israel. We don't necessarily need a reminder that Russia or North Korea are not beacons for human rights. And since we already have sanctions against many of those "much worse" countries (and maybe even funding civil wars). And there is probably more we can do to influence Israel than countries we are not closely allied with and don't have extensive trade relationships with or who don't rely on us for support.
54
Also, largely lost in this conversation is the fact that they were not advocating for a divestment from Israel or from all Israeli companies. They were advocating for a divestment from specific companies that profit directly from the occupation and the human rights violations. So that makes the comparison to other countries inapplicable. You would need to find multinational corporations (like Caterpillar) that are directly profiting from the human rights violations in those countries. I suspect that the situation is fiarly unique in Israel where you have major multi-national corporations with large investments from the US actually contracting to do the work in question.
55
@52 N. Korea is a clear and present danger and S. Korea an important and more widely sympathetic ally. plus there's some other big countries over there that everyone knows we're interested in.

Israel is a more explicit demo of US dgaf loyalty

I agree we "aren't at that spot". I thought since we were being pragmatic that it might be interesting to posit a theoretical explanation of continued US involvement (beyond the obvious domestic electoral concerns re: NY, FL, evangelical South and Israel's lobby)