Agreed. This is exactly what the NSA should be doing. This leak has no value to the public.
True. And it's rather sad that they do, given that Israel's interests in the middle east are generally about not having their citizens murdered in the street.
That's what they say, but when I read stories about them demolishing Palestinian neighborhoods, billing them for it, and building real-estate developments over the "confiscated" land the whole "we just want peace" line starts to smell like a rationalization at best and more probably a flat-out excuse.
Settlements are built on undeveloped land. Some urban settlements (East Jerusalem, Hebron) are in houses purchased from their Palestinian owners. These usually entail a lengthy legal process, but settlers are forbidden from entering before it has resolved (just this week some settlers in Hebron were removed from houses they claim to have bought legally, the case is in court).
I regularly see stories about the US giving large sums of money and arms to Israel. How should I reconcile this with your claim?
They support Saudi Arabia which historically funded the majority of terrorists groups who fought against Israel.
The US constantly also limits the Israeli freedom of engagement during both peace and war time the US pretty much "halted" every war Israel had which actually prevented a clear victory and just resulted in both sides going back to the same cease fire lines and resuming their stalemate.
The support the the US gives to Israel is given despite their interests in the region not because for the most part the US has to walk a very thin line between them wanting to idologically support a democracy and a like minded ally and the region and them needing the region "stable" (as defined by the US not actual stability as would be defined by any person who's actually living in the region) and capable of continuously producing oil and gas which will continue to be traded in US currency, as well as keep control over the shipping lines that connect Europe to the far east.
US taxpayers give the Israeli government billions of dollars every year.
Then Israel turns around and publicly disrespects the US president.
US taxpayers need to know that their government is willing to stand up to Israel when necessary. This is an actual concern because:
1. US politicians are almost all for sale. 2. The Israeli lobbying group AIPAC has bought and paid for a great number of those politicians.
Yeah... so what? The president isn't the United States. He's just a manager, temporarily.
Besides, there was plenty of disrespect flowing the other way, too. When Obama went out of his way to snub Netanyahu, did it bother you, or do you think somehow the office of the American president is worthy of more respect than that of the Israeli PM?
Much more worthy, obviously. If you come with me hat in hand accept my aid, you damn well better be nice to me. If Israel wants to crap on the US president, that's fine, but don't then accept handouts from them.
At least the beggars in my town only swear at you if you don't give them money.
The president has gone out of his way to show the Israelis he doesn't like or respect them. He undermines them at every opportunity. Were I Netanyahu I wouldn't give Obama the time of day. I'd fly in, give my speech to Congress, and then leave without ever going to the White House.
There, fixed that for you. Almost all of the "aid" to Israel is earmarked for military acquisition grants for U.S. equipment. It's welfare for American manufacturers.
publicly disrespects
Someone in the White House called Israel's leader a "chickenshit".
bought and paid for
Yes, the Arabs say this all the time. Citations?
The scale and ubiquity of financial lobbying isn't proof enough?
It also of course plays into the whole fix vs exploit debate. Should the NSA inform on weak crypto or subvert it for their own purposes? What if its crypto used by a military partner? Where lies the greater public value?
As for your second question, there is no actual debate about whether NSA should hoard/exploit or "fix" vulnerabilities in foreign signals intelligence. Their charter is to exploit. That's what SIGINT is.
The debate is whether NSA should be required to fix vulnerable infrastructure when that infrastructure is used by US commercial infrastructure. That's not what's happening here.
(Notice the US selling F-16 abroad only to then having to break their video stream. At least the British don't sell missiles that they can't deactivate when coming their way)