Not everything has to have some black and white "point". Some stories are just facts that are part of a larger picture. You are pointing out that there are more details in this domain than are in the article, but the specific context you've added seems largely irrelevant. Drawing an arbitrary comparison like you've done here hardly alters the validity of the facts in the article. Israel's geopolitical standing is an entity worthy of study, I think that is clear. How can you say this article has "no point"? I think your displaying some kind of bias to arrive at such a strange reductive statement.
I'm not questioning the validity of the article and I'm not defending Israel. But it's basic knowledge that (i) several first-world countries make a nice profit off of wars in the third world and (ii) almost all of these countries are liberal Western (or West-aligned) democracies. This is the reason why I don't understand why the author has singled out Israel here. Put it another way, could you name an arms exporter, which could be a company, country, etc., that doesn't sell to despotic regimes?
You're implying the author and associated publisher have some kind of agenda against Israel, if that's the argument you're making, then you need to present a little bit more proof. I don't see anything in the article that says "unlike other western countries… Israel does X, Y, AND Z bad things"
