Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo. Whilst there may be something for the USA in this it feels very asymmetric unless I am missing something.
At the state level, often. At the individual level, I don't think so.
My pet war is Ukraine. I don't have any personal stake in the war. I just think it's abhorrent and poses a long-term risk to the security interests of places and people I care about. I can construct that into a narrative of fulfilling American geopolitical interests, but that's an exercise I'd be engaging in after I'd come to my view based on, essentially, a moral preference.
That preference is real. But it's mine and far from universal. That someone thinks Russia is justified in invading Ukraine is frankly irrelevant to the validity of their statements on other matters. That's where I'm calling bullshit on this connection.
All this has absolutely nothing to do with Larry Ellison and frankly this whole thread is mostly idiotic. It could have been an interesting topic but some seem to have other priorities. Which are quite transparent.
No, they’ll be accused of derailing the conversation.
Every pro-Palestinian activist isn’t civically compromised because they have strong views on foreign policy.
> you are corrupting American foreign policy and American stature in the world to advance the agenda of Israel. That is a betrayal of America.
This is a convoluted and hyperbolic way of expressing foreign-policy disagreement.