First of all, voters had absolutely nothing to do with this decision, it was Israel lobbyists. You do realize that Israel is receiving billions of dollars of taxpayer money right? If you were actually concerned about wasted tax dollars, you'd be advocating to cut off their funding.
Second, there is zero proof that Israel provides goods at a discount, show your work.
Third, in your fabricated scenario, a fourth company would just come in and buy the (fictitious) discounted parts and win the bid. That's how the free market works.
You're clearly not arguing in good faith, so this is the end of the conversation for me.
He clearly states in both the quote and the BBC article you posted that Israel's actions are motivation. You're arguing semantics when the point is that Israel is a liability to US citizens and nothing you posted contradicts that. The parent that I was responding to said that it's not debatable that Israel is of strategic value to US citizens and both of our posts show that it definitely is debatable.
The link points to a direct quote from Osama bin Laden. That's not "misrepresenting his views":
"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the US Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."
The only thing segmenting the market are the anti-BDS laws. You can boycott Israel and still bid on a government contract and let market forces do the work.
This isn't an issue of market efficiency though, it's an issue of violating the first amendment.
There is no premium to be paid for boycotting Israel and that fabricated scenario has nothing to do with pro-Israel lobbyist driven first amendment violations.
The US and state governments are not private institutions. The money used to pay the contracts in question is collected from citizens who have to pay it. The government can't then turn around and gate that public money behind 1st amendment violating policy.
Ah Nat Friedman the guy who was fired from GitHub for being a terrible manager and has been doubling down all over Twitter to circle the wagons with Paul Graham and Elon Musk:
Honestly I was surprised that it was removed. It wasn't even flagged, it just became dead. I think it's a huge story so I'm not sure why. My other post was about Twitter and was killed as well. No explanation offered by the mods here.
Second, there is zero proof that Israel provides goods at a discount, show your work.
Third, in your fabricated scenario, a fourth company would just come in and buy the (fictitious) discounted parts and win the bid. That's how the free market works.
You're clearly not arguing in good faith, so this is the end of the conversation for me.