I didn't know that "stubborn" was the word that we used now to describe someone interested in specific discussion rather than generalities. Perhaps this is one of those cases where American English doesn't match up with the rest of the world. The word we usually use is "inquisitive".
However, thank you for a list of actual specifics. The tank defense stuff is interesting, both technically and from a supply and export perspective. Still, Israel hardly seems like a critical defense partner. None of those are core technologies, or irreplaceable from other sources. If the US was spending ~$1 billion on Israeli tech in 2006, that's somewhere under half a percent of total defense budget. That's not a whole lot.
All other things being equal, it'd certainly be nice to keep relations with them, but at the same time I'm not sure exactly how far you could go in terms of political support before it became not worth it. Which is sort of the point that I was making, how valuable is Israel to the US and how far before you cut them off and say "hey, you're on your own with that one guys".
I think that Israel is valuable to the US as an ally, but that's about it, and I don't think there's a need to go buttering them up by legitimising their claim on Jerusalem to do so. I think if anything, it endangers potential US interests with other states or neo-states in the region for no real current benefit other than letting Trump yet again flail his "diplomacy" willy around.
If there's ever a conference on the eve of World War 3, I hope someone has the sense to lock Trump in the bathroom.
In other news, The Governor of California is doing his best to keep the U.S. from deporting immigrants convicted of felonies. I'm pretty sure this has been a long time practice however the media is portraying it as a snub at Trump. So, let's bypass some federal laws to keep convicted felons on the streets of Cali shall we?
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article191430714.html
Thoughts?
The first "crime" referred to is "felony joyriding", whatever that is. Add into that that the guy came here as a child fleeing the Khmer Rouge, and it seems like one could make a reasonable argument that the guy is American in all but name and through no fault of his own, and that deporting him when he has nowhere to go is the greater crime.
Fortunately, the people at the top of the stack legally tend to be pretty good about at least giving consideration to circumstances instead of simply reading from the manual. After all, if there was no room for nuance in law then we wouldn't need judges.
