Quite a useless response - filled with yet more nonsensical assertions and ridiculous diversions - unless that's what you were going for that is.
A) That's not all I have, it seems logical however that when you make the random baseless assertion that there is absolutely no strategic interest behind the decision of the US government (and many administrations before it) to give military aid to Israel - not even a single one - that one example will be enough. That's how logical people act and think, they see someone saying "none" and they give him one, so to expose his claim as a baseless one. Your diversion by using that "that's all you have" argument, if we could call it that, is pathetic and as I was saying useless, I doubt it would work on anyone and will in any possible outcome somehow spare you the need to recognize that you were making a false, baseless remark. Do accept that now that you were ultimately left with either doing so or declare yourself a liar/ignorant by your very own actions. Finally to actually provide an answer no that is clearly not all I have and you can see CJ's above post for other examples "I have".
Wow. Someone has stepped on the lion's tail. And I think his name starts with G. But OK, I'll bite. You have one argument out of many, given only as example, and with CJ's post it was expected to be enough. It was not. The term essential strategic interests implies that without these interests being satisfied, very bad things could happen; major national goals not achieved, essential functioning terminated or sidetracked. Which of those systems you described would cause these things to happen?
I'd suppose CJ's post is an accurate description of events, but it in no way makes your case. What he is saying is essentially, the US taxpayers gives a gift to Israel, which then returns most of it to US arms manufacturers, thereby providing a few defense related jobs, and associated economic spin-off. When I fly into a US airport, or drive down an inner city street, I don't have to doubt that there are other uses for such funds, and if I were to consult an economist, I'd bet my pension that he or she would say such projects would have a larger multiplier effect for the economy. If the case was to be made that any segment of industry needs a shot in the arm, certainly defense would be at the back of the list, as the US spends over $600 billion already in that sector. The argument that such gifts keeps Israel on a shorter leash, and prevents them from supplying technology to potentially adversarial countries hardly paints Israel as a great buddy. It is also rather meaningless, as Israel does trade with, and sell arms to, anyone they want, including China. It also suggests that the US arms industry, the largest in the world, would run into trouble competing with Israel's. Again, some defense contractors could complain that this is so, but overall this seems a weak case.
B) Your claims that were made to attempt and dismiss the single example I've given are simply absurd. Israel develops those systems that the US requires and makes use of, in what way is that saying that only Israel can do so? If I made an invention and someone else used it, should that contribution be dismissed by saying that someone else could invent that for that someone to use, so I basically did nothing important? How does that even sound logical to you I cannot begin to understand. And then you went on to suddenly throw in the "ethnic or racial overtones" thing which immediately threw everything straight into the twilight zone, hysterical. Do you not notice how easily you're making use of racism to forward your agenda? That's awful.
Just an observation here, but I think the big adrenaline rush is on your side of the fiber optic cable, not mine. You are missing the point here, yes the US and Israel and other states make and trade things, and this is all well and good, but what is
required in the sense of essential strategic interest? To look at it another way, if the products that Israel supplied to the US suddenly stopped for some reason, would there be a crisis, some major collapse of a security function, an economic dilemma? I don't think so.
The fact is that on balance Israel is more liability than asset to the US. The military products and defense sharing are a very light counterweight to the many billions in aid poured into Israel, and the ongoing ill will and terrorism inspired by America's one sided stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict. It's a whack of political as well as financial capital expended, and the supposed benefits are shaky indeed.
