In a recent column, neocon Daniel Pipes openly questions the loyalties of British Muslims.
Polling indicates that a majority of Muslims perceive a conflict between their British and Muslim identities. Two polls show that only a small proportion identifies itself first as a British (7% and 12%), but they differ widely on the number who identify first with their religion (81% and 46%).
Pipes concludes, “Britain’s potential terrorists live in a highly nurturing community.”
His point is well taken. Terrorism is a hearts-and-minds issue. Terrorists draw strength, both in finances and in morale, from law-abiding communities. One reason I am for Islamic reformers.
Pipes’s point also opens the door on my question: How important is Israel, politically/religiously, in the hearts and minds of the neoconservatives and other Jewish hawks? I think, very large. For instance, former Bush speechwriter David Frum describes America as “this new Israel,” while Elliott Abrams, Bush’s aide on Middle East matters, writes:
Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart–except in Israel–from the rest of the population….
The neocons, along with a lot of Democratic hawks, have thoroughly conflated American and Israeli interests, to the detriment of U.S. foreign policy. They honestly believe our interests and Israel’s are congruent. I think they’re wrong, and Americans should debate this. And if it’s legitimate to talk about how Muslims identify themselves, and I think it is, it is also fair to ask how important Israel is to rightwing Jewish-Americans who have pushed for war with Iraq, Syria and Iran.
"The neocons, along with a lot of Democratic hawks" – that's most of the American government.
You've made your tired point over and over. Your theory has no purpose other than your own ego-gratifying finger-pointing.
Save The Observer- Lose Weiss.
to: suffering subscriber
i for one am glad that not everyone subscribes to the Fox News pro war channel.
if your American your Loyalty should be to America.
A conservative in transition
I consider my self a conservative, in the sense of trying to honor the primacy of the individual, and developing and following an internal consistent moral code. The idea of politics owning a workable moral ideation started with where else reading Goldwaters — Conscious of a Conservative a lifetime ago. There is no question that over the years conservative thinkers have had first and prolonged access to the development of my political maturity or immaturity. But when the moral rationales of the leading conservative minds in my country, come my way, my heart and here is where you scrap this email interrupts, and a contra moral sense prevails. My governing sense regarding the ongoing problem in the mid-east today is just about simple dirty rape. Then I write, to wit:
RAPE
For more then a half-century the Axis of Chutzpah flags as the union of two morally failed states. For more then half-century Americans reign as fevered spectators over the daily rape of Palestina. In the paroxysms of innocents ruin, interruption disturbs. Israels frenzied tentacles flare. A looming specter, a rescuer appears.
Axis of Chutzpah, invincible, implacable, self-righteous, does not withdraw. Ravishment exercises unabated. Laments the splayed Plaestina: No specter on the earth can quell the Judeo-Christian rogues.
Palestinas poses queries and doubts to the specter. What is your name? Why do you rise numinous from the dusts of Palestine, in the shadow of the sulphureous coils? In your name, do the tattered, in shirts and sandals, apprehend that your cause holds only the promise of blistered lives, as in realms and ages prior? The specter interweaves answers: Hamas, I rise to make Palestina whole, yes.
Note: Hey, I know that ones rugged idealist is anothers wide-eyed terrorist.
Sincerely,
Mhaka Vannman
A United States (non-Christan , non-Muslim, non-Jewish, non-Semite non- Arab) Citizen.
hey, "save the observer, lose weiss" – your stalinist roots are showing.
Loyalty to America means loyalty to your own personal self-interests.
If you have a SUV you want cheap gas. If you make a lot of money you want low taxes. If you have kids you want good schools. If the war is bad for gas prices, your against the War. If your poor you want more welfare. Let's say the war guaranteed one dollar a gallon gas, would it still be so bad?
There is no such thing as "loyally to America". Nobody cares about the future of America- they care about themselves. Loyalty finger-pointing is self-righteous crap.
It's a waste of time I know, but I have to correct this ignorant absurdity.
If use of the phrase "new Israel" to describe the United States exposes one as a neocon of dual loyalties, then we have to add to Weiss' list of suspects not only myself and Elliott Abrams, but also Jonathan Edwards and Herman Melville, just for starters.
Frum: If use of the phrase "new Israel" to describe the United States exposes one as a neocon of dual loyalties, then we have to add to Weiss' list of suspects not only myself and Elliott Abrams, but also Jonathan Edwards and Herman Melville, just for starters.
I seriously doubt Edwards and Melville had loyalties to any other country than America. Abrams, on the other hand, is so clearly consumed with love for Israel that America runs a poor second. That is his right of course but no one who doesn't put America's interests first should be making policy for the rest of us.
Just out of curiosity, where was Phil Weiss on this issue of dual loyalty back in the run-up to the Iraq war–back when there was still time to stop this disaster that has gotten us entangled in Israel's wars for at least a generation?
Is he just now noticing that these neocons weren't Scandinavians? That Wolfowitz once chose to live in Israel (where his sister lives today)? That Feith's law firm is located in Israel (where it specializes in settler cases)? That Libby spent fifteen years defending Marc Rich (that darling of the World Jewish Congress)? That David Wurmser's wife is employed by the Israeli government? That both Feith and Perle had to leave earlier government positions because of allegations of passing classified data on to the homeland? And on and on.
This was all known back then (and there were some brave attempts to discuss the issue by authors like Alterman) but of course the media wouldn't touch it. A sceptic could almost think that Weiss's willingness to bring it up now represents a type of rear-guard action.
Re: new israel.
Protestants have a long tradition of thinking of themselves as the true jews, the true nation of Israel.
Somewhen as far as to say the lost tribes ended up in Germany or England, the "white jews" while the actual jews were considered mongrels whose jewishness had been watered down by dark hordes.
That is to say, the New Israel of Edwards and Melville, was an Israel without Jews.
Everyone that lives in another country is a traitor? And if your sister lives in another country your a traitor, too.
Defending someone makes you a traitor?
"I have here in my hand a list of 57 people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party, and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department." -Joseph McCarthy
Of course, it may be fair to say that Israeli politics, especially regarding settlers, is contaminated by American Jews. Much as the troubles in Northern Ireland were constantly stoked by patriots in Boston and New York.
yes Jimmy, and these expat "patriots" are often in league with the CIA (or, nowadays, some stovepipe equipped black room which works around the CIA).
To David who asks whether my lateness to this issue is a rearguard action:
I was a vigorous opponent of the Iraq war; I nervously touched on the issue of Israel-centeredness on the neocons' part but never really landed on it out of fear/guilt and even blackmail, inasmuch as editors warned me it was dangerous, or edited me. I only started blogging in March. Then I decided not to give a hoot, and say what I thought…
To David Frum: Those are unassailable literary references, but you are not being sincere. I say that Israel, its politics and religion, is very important in your heart and mind, and you cite Melville. As it is, your writings about Israel I have seen celebrate the state without reservation, refuse to use the words occupation and settlements to describe the conditions of Palestinian life, and employ words like "holocaust" and "appeasement" in an attempt to discredit the people who take Palestinian aspirations seriously. I have spoken openly on this blog about how my Jewishness formed my ideas, I dare you to be halfway as transparent.