It's still more complicated than that. You can condemn spending billions on Israel while still supporting them. The thing so many people here seem to be struggling with is this extremely rigid black-and-white thinking.

I, too, am not anti-Semitic. I despise the BS about "Mah joos" that a lot of people (or bots) floating around the .wins constantly pedal; it's rooted heavily in collectivism, generalizations, and logical jumps.

I also don't believe we should be giving Israel any money (or other kinds of "free" aid; supplies, etc.). As with all diplomacy, there must be a trade involved.

That said, I have no quarrel with Israel. They accept the money; so what? What good leaders wouldn't try to secure the best deal for their country? I can respect that, even if I won't give them that deal. I guess you could raise objections to their founding, but how long do those objections have standing? Should Israel "give back the land"; and, if so, should we "give back the land" of the US? Where would you stop?

It's one thing to hold objections to actions taken in history. It's another to seek reversal.

If Israel is attacked by militants, I see nothing wrong with them defending themselves appropriately. That said, I firmly believe the best thing for America is to just stay the fuck out, unless we're bringing serious good, as Trump did, in the form of successful peace negotiations at minimal cost to Americans.

Basically, I wouldn't equate Trump's verbal support for Israel, and condemnation of the present "administration" and their failure to maintain the peace he laid the groundwork for, with shipping Israel billions.

Even then, there are still gray areas. Not everyone will agree a deal is fair; that's because, in part, people have different senses of value, different objectives, and different perspectives.