That's Germany providing its land, for free, to the US. Those forces are not protecting Germany from any existing military danger, they are just projecting US power and protecting its interests.
The U.S basically protects the whole of Europe by subsidizing NATO. It's probably in the trillions. Sorry but Trump had a point there. What it gives Israel is peanuts compared to that.
Without U.S support to Europe who knows what happens, maybe the Russians and Chinese start looking at Europe as easy prey to pick on.
Also the obsession with Israel isn't a uniquely American thing, it's the same in France and Canada and Germany and basically any Western country.
There is no military danger Europe would need protecting from. The only thing US is subsidising is itself: all those trillions go directly back to US and benefit US, not Europe.
The attacks on NATO are such a weird thing. US support of NATO isn't a charity operation, there are strategic and economic benefits to the US from NATO participation that greatly exceed the expenses.
If the argument is that the United States shouldn't be a global power, that it should dismantle the US military and be a demure, multilateral player in the international space, sure, attack NATO. However, attacking NATO while saying the US should be a stronger international player is contradictory.
I'm not attacking NATO. I'm saying the U.S is subsidizing Europe's defense in the trillions (if we count since WW2 end). It could be beneficial to the U.S, or not. I'm only saying U.S aid to Israel is not unique and is peanuts compared to the NATO subsidy. People here like saying they are super focused on Israel because of the 3 billion annual subsidy the U.S gives to Israel. I call bullshit on that.
The NATO relationship effectively turns Europe into vassal states - we don't have German or French bases on US soil, only the US gets that out of NATO. So it's a 'subsidy' only in the sense that the US is protecting its property.
People get angry about the Israel aid not because of the volume of funding, but because of the human rights/colonialism problems that the US subsidizes. I personally feel that way, but at the same time I understand the realpolitik deal with Israel - I believe the purpose of keeping Israel there is to prevent some version of the Ottoman Empire from re-forming.
Here's part of the problem. Does it make sense to you Israel just disappears? Sounds like it from what you're saying.
Isn't it weird though - how many nation states do you think should vanish?
> but because of the human rights/colonialism problems
If Western societies really wanted the conflict to dissolve they wouldn't keep encouraging the Palestinians to "return" to their home (75 years after). Western societies keep the conflict alive. So it makes me think human rights issues isn't really the thing here.
> Only if you count general American military spending
Of course I do. Europe has no real army. France kinda has an army and the U.K got out. If America didn't provide a military umbrella Europe would need to actually build a real army (Europe's contributions to NATO are pitiful). How much would it cost the Europeans to do that? Going back since WW2 that's easily in the trillions.
Given that the US actively engages in military operations in defense of Israel, I would say that it not reasonable to attribute a larger share of the spending to Germany rather than Israel?
The intervention in Syria? That's a military operation done by the U.S for Israel? How did you come up with that? If there's no Israel tomorrow the entire region is still messed up with possibly tens of millions of new refugees flooding Europe. It's not all about Israel.
