Dan Fleshler has a good account of our evening at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue on his blog (realistic dove). He says that progress was made among progressive Jews, though he also faults me for my own comments about the night, suggesting I was going in for Israel-bashing. And Ralph Seliger has blasted me in my comment thread, saying I’ve distorted the views of the progressive Zionist community.
I have to take some responsibility for this anger; I should have written up the night in a less adversarial manner. It was a night aimed at building understanding and maybe consensus, and in the consensus goal it partly failed. I feel bad about that, and I’m sorry I wasn’t more positive in my notes on the night. I think that my own confusions of identity confuse others. I’m Jewish, but both in and out of the Jewish community. Some of my harsh comments about the Jewish community’s solidarity with Israel have pleased antisemites, it’s obvious from some comments on my blog. And that in turn has scared the Dan Fleshlers of the world: the progressives who have been fighting the occupation for years. (I’m not regretting my confusions of identity; they are fascinating and important to me; they echo a long history of tensions at the fringe of the Jewish community, notably the modernizers vs. the traditionalists in the late 1700s in Germany, when Jews were leaving the ghettoes, per Jacob Katz.)
Politically the Dan Fleshlers of the world are way more sophisticated than I am. They’re engaged with real politicians, they have a clear goal: a two-state solution. They’ve worked for that, often nobly, for years. My own confusions about a binational state or a two-state solution make it hard for Dan to engage me politically. He wants the support of the left, he knows there are a lot of alienated-from-Israel Jews like myself. But he’s afraid of the corrosive attitudes, the anti-Zionism. For my part, I feel that the progressives have at times joined forces with the Likudnik bloc, or offered cover to the neocons for their anti-Muslim agenda.
It’s Sunday morning and I’m trying to speak about these things gently, not make stuff worse. The word community is important. These are scary times, politically, because a big realignment is taking place among political communities, and the peace camp is right in the middle of it all. They’re scared, as they should be, when rightwing evangelical Christians are honored at AIPAC for their support of Israel. Scared, I imagine, as well, when in the latest Commentary, Norman Podhoretz, who I used to think of as a secular Jew, says, in essence, "Hey we’re the chosen people, God gave us Jerusalem." This kind of messianism has always appalled the peace camp. And meantime, of course, they’re as frightened as anyone by Ahmadinejad. And in turn frightened by me, questioning the roots of Zionism, and dwelling on the Nakba, the expulsion of the Arabs in ‘48. Dan called on me to temper some of my language. He doesn’t want me talking about dual loyalty, for instance.
Dan and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that. He doesn’t think that Israel’s security played a role in the policymakers’ minds. I think it did: that Israel’s view of the Arab world has become America’s in good measure because so many American policymakers and intellectuals confuse American and Israeli interests (and that this thinking must be anatomized because Iraq is one of the gravest disasters in American history).
On other issues, though, Dan and I agree: the horror of the occupation, the spiritual crisis Israel faces, the blind alley that violence represents for both Israeli and Palestinian society, the often-negative impact of the Israel lobby. In a sense it’s important that he and I find agreement, for we each represent components of the American lib/left that are going to have to work together if there is going to be justice in the Middle East. Maybe most importantly, Dan and I, and Meretz/USA too, agree on an idea of community: that this is not just a conversation among Jews (or among Zionists and the religious right), but among all Americans…
Related posts:
- A Night With Progressive Zionists
- Progressive Zionists and AIPAC Have Same Litmus Test for Candidates: Support Israel!
- Progressive Zionists Are as Bedevilled by the Dual Loyalty Issue as Their Neocon Cousins
- Zakaria double-teams Barghouti with two Talking-Points-Zionists
- Feeling Defensive About Talking About Jews
{ 50 comments }
Phil –
Talk and talk and talk and talk. Blah -blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-BLAH!
When will we finally see that Iraq war, the war that we were pushed into by neocons whose agenda is openly Israeli interests over American, brought the moment of truth to the discourse. In a very short time the tears of grief of the American mothers and wifes who lost their sons and husbands in this war, will wash away the layers of neocon propaganda and the accusing finger will be pointing at THE JEWS. And American eyes will follow that finger and the mayhem will strart. Why? Because someone has to answer for the deaths, humiliation and most importantly – shame of military defeat of a superpower against an insurgent force of a tiny nation sitting on a patch of dry desert. No superpower can just say: "Guys, its our own fault, we were idiots and we are sorry".
And all what would be needed is just a final "discovery" of a neocon elephant in the middle of the room. I mean – Oval Office.
I said it before and will say it again – think not, how things could be patched, 'cause they couldn't anymore, think how to SAVE Jewish presence in the Holy Land! Israel as a vibrant, democratic, country is still possible – if it takes the bold and honest steps to pull back to a defendable, credible, internationally supported MORAL solution ITSELF, instead of being defeated, pushed and humiliated into a much more miserable end.
Let us finally start raising the new generation of Jewish boys and girls to be normal people – scientists, engineers, musicians, philosophers, comics, writers and yes, the ubiquitous Jewish doctors , instead of prison guards, interrogators, check point guards !
We still have time. But barely.
Congrats Alex, you are now officially considered more nuts than Bill Pearlman. Must be hard living as you. Time for a med check?
he's not crazy. I personally want revenge for Iraq and that revenge is going to be Americas relationship with israel, the thing the neo cons hold most dear.
also http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=28
^scary neo con-ference
Doc:
Any arguments, or just a regular blah-blah before you go o sleep?
If anyone should be open to criticism it should be Phil Weiss. Phil is very willing to ascribe all sorts of nefarious and ulterior motives to others, and engages in and promotes conspiracy theories that have real life and death consequences. He does this a self-centeredness that has come to define his generation. If Phil wants to fight the good fight for a 2-state solution and an end to the occupation, he is more than welcome. The more the better. But Phil is after different game. He is looking to become the Walid Shoebat/Benjamin Freedman of the Jewish Left. He wants to position himself as the superior human who sells out his narrow minded tribalist cousins. My personal take is the guy, like many writers, gets hooked on an idea, starts to imagine the rewards he expects to receive for the book he will write on it, and in the process of working through the issues gets stuck and lost in certain places. That’s all well and good, but when he does his thinking out loud, is taken seriously by others, and makes accusations that can never be proven or disproven, but fit in perfectly with genuine article anti-semitic pogroms, than it does open him up to serious criticism.
Perhaps you would feel differently about all this if Phil was obsessed with Larry Silverstein and impugning his character on his blog while thinking out loud instead of American Jewry. Phil might question whether Larry Silverstein had ever really abandoned his Soviet communist leanings that he so energetically advocated for as a young man. He might also question whether Larry Silverstein ever contemplated sexually violating a women against her will. He would not be claiming that you did of course, but he would be just raising the issue since you’re a man and many men fantasize about this and he has no proof that you haven’t ever considered it, and you may have even unconsciously been considering it and you don’t even know it. While it is true that many men don’t fantasize about raping women, many do, and you’re a man, so it’s not crazy to imagine that you have at some point fantasized about commiting a felony of this sort. Turning his fantasies into reality is a different story, but it’s fair game for Phil to consider out loud. And if scores of man-hating feminists were to pick up on Phil’s lead and post commentary on the oppression of women in today’s society and Larry Silverstein’s complicity in this and his supposed, or potential, fantasies about sexually violating women, well that may mean that there is something to this argument. And if you were to post arguments in his defense, well that may mean that either you are unaware of his own impulses to violate others or you are a liar. Now, Phil would question and predict that you are likely to want to deny any of these accusations since the consequences for these becoming public are not good for Larry Silverstein. his friends who comment on his behalf on his blog will be written off as useful Larry Silverstein idiots or co-conspirators simply in on the oppression of women and therefore not to be trusted. Even those of his friends who agree that women have been historically oppressed and that many men in fact due engage in such sexua fantasizing will be written off. In fact, they are the worst – effeminate little men who try to suck up to women and acknowledge female oppression while at the same time furthering it. They deserve a fate worse than the male pigs that at least are up front about their desire to physically, sexually, and politically oppress women. Indeed, these ERA supporting male feminist friends of hiss are part of the problem, not the solution, and they are the reason that none of us have realized these awful things about you. Larry – the jig is up and Phill Weiss is on to you. You’ll have to stay tuned for the book for the full story, but in the meantime, should his entire life come apart as a resul of this thought exercise by Phil Weiss, well don’t you agree that this is a small price to pay for free speech?
Lester wrote: " I personally want revenge for Iraq and that revenge is going to be Americas relationship with israel, the thing the neo cons hold most dear"
Lester,
I want to personally apologize to you about the whole Iraq thing. Who knew it was going to work out so badly? We got ourselves all worked up with this crazy idea that democracy would be a good thing for the Arab states and the nasty dictators that we'd been supporting and enabling all these ears (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Assad, etc) were actually slowly killing us because they were not allowing their own people to develop viable economies. We were very concerned that the same sort of terror the Israelis were facing would await the West. 9/11 made our concerns all that more relevant and since no one had any other good ideas about what to do about the situation, Shrub latched on to our ideas. It didn't hurt that the oil people and the military weapons people were also for it. I'm guessing you'll take your revenge on them as well, yes? Sure.
Look Lester, I have no doubt you will expend all of your energy seeking to blame this whole thing on the Jews. I mean, truth be told, a bunch of us neo-cons are Jewish and we do think a lot about Israel, but given their predicament and the forces aligned against them, it would be hard to ignore them and their situation. It is very much in the USA's interest to have Israel not attacked and forced to respond with its military capability. Now the fact that the majority of US Jews were against this War, and the leaders of the anti-war movement were often Jews, should in no way affect your dearly held belief that this was a Jewish conspiracy. My god, Lester, without that core conspiracy theory what would you be? A shmuck? Heaven forbid such a thing.
Doc – I don't think Alex is nuts. (I'm not referring to his argument with Bill Pearlman, just his post here). I think he is saying that people like Lester will need scapegoats and they will try to pin it on the Jews. Look, this guy comes from the Soviet Union and knows that the powers that be will need to blame someone to protect their hides, and no regardless of how powerful and influential "the Jews" are they are not exempt from being made to take the blame. Look at Scooter Libby as an example of what is to come.
I fully agree with Alex that Israel really needs to be proactive and take the lead on driving for a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians. I'm not sure exactly how they do this with Hamas in so much control and Iran and Syria seeking to destabilize that particular war theatre, but it is in their interest to come to an accomodation rather than have one shoved down their throats. One might say the same for the Palestinians as well.
Dear "Bill Kristol:"
It's true that the majority of American Jews were against the Iraq War but it's even more true that the leaders of organized Jewry were for it. What I believe Phil is trying to do is get ordinary American Jews to take some responsibility for what orgainized Jewry did on their behalf (and largely with their acquiesence). We goyim can complain about Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield all we want. The one thing we can't do though is complain about the support of organized Jewry for the war. The FIRST thing that comes back when we do are hateful email messages referencing anti-Semitism, Hitler and the final solution. It's only ordinary Jews who can discredit this notion that American self-interest and Israeli self interest are the same. So more power to Phil and people like him. May their numbers grow.
Kristol wrote: "Now the fact that the majority of Jews were against this War, and the leaders of the anti-war movement were often Jews."
What country are you talking about? Certainly not the U.S.A. Here the anti-war movement was boycotted by Jewish groups because they wanted to avoid any discussion of Israel. And they were right — you can't discuss the lies that got us into this war unless you're prepared to face the truth.
This has been broadly noted and discussed, but here's a primer for you–
‘WE’VE LOST OUR MORAL VOICE’: AS DISAFFECTION WITH WAR GROWS, JEWISH ACTIVISM CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11410
And please don't keep repeating the old candard about "the majority of Jews were against this War." According to the AJC, they weren't.
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Approve 59
Disapprove 36
Not sure 5
This was in the winter of 2002-03, when the world was experiencing the largest mass demonstrations in history against the onrushing war.
http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=838459&ct=1051619
To "Bill Kristol":
In the current military and political situation while using your "nickname" I woudn't call anyone a shmuck . Its like Michael Moor (with all due respect to Michael) calling someone a slob.
Just rings in a very, very funny way.
Best regards.
David, you might be right that initially there was majority support among American Jews for the war.But what is the situation now?
The article you gave a reference to in your previous post claims
that " polls (are) showing that Jews remain significantly more skeptical about the war than the public at large."
If this is so Dan Fleshler's plea not to be "politically tone deaf" seems appropriate. There could be a constituency to be won (or, alternatively, pissed off) out there.
Arie, it's of course very important to distinguish between opposition to the war back when it was still possible to avoid it, and opposition now that the damage has been done. We're told that more than 60% of the general population is now opposed to the war, but even if we pulled every troop out tomorrow the hatred we have created of Muslims for Americans and Americans for Muslims will still go on for generations. So those who wanted this war have already gotten what they wanted no matter what happens, in the sense that "we are all Israelis now." I'm not even sure what the phrase "opposed to the war" means in the context of a war that even the President is just looking for a way to extricate himself from. The best way to think about opposition to war is in the context of the next one, Iran. Has Dan Fleshler made any public pronouncements yet about the campaign to gin up an Iran war? Has he even noticed it?
But on the point of "tone deafness," yes you may be right that I could be more diplomatic. But frankly I have given up worrying about that long ago. For one thing, I no longer believe that there is a sizeable portion of the Jewish community that can be induced to ever give up Zionism. It's what modern secular Jewish identity is all about (together with its corollary, "antisemitism") and for most people that identity is just far too seductive to ever give up. (Particularly if you don't have to live there.)
But more importantly, the campaign to enlist from the Jewish community is harmful because it perpetuates the old canard that this is a JEWISH ISSUE. The American people must be allowed to decide how their country is to treat this foreign nation and what price they want to pay. I have every confidence that they will decide justly if given all the information. The proper role for the Jewish community on this particular subject is to either make aliyah or politely recuse themselves.
Arie -
I think that an honorable man must be politically "tone deaf", otherwise he/she is just a member of the choir. I do not know Dan, I am sure he is a nice and thoughtful guy, but I do not like his attitude. I have seen that before – do not rock the boat, small changes, do not wake up the beast, etc. That is precisely why the neocons who DO rock the boat, who DO demand sweeping changes and not only wake up, but also ride the beast, were not confronted by reasonable Jewish voices that would have just told them as reasonable Germans told their parasitic "neocons" 75 years ago – "Ohne Uns!" – "Without us!" and were able to do irreparable damage to American interest in the world. This "whispering critics" like Dan serve two roles (they very well may do it while honestly believing they do good) – first they control the dissenting voices by allowing these voices, so they do not take to the streets – into the mainstream discussions but under their settings.
Second – by not "rocking the boat" they play a role of "useful idiots" for radical neocons who therefore can always say that middle of the road Jews support them.
And it all works for years and years, they are able to pass ridiculous laws, make obscene amounts of money, make a host country go against their national interests but… only until they get so carried away and cocky that they star to contemplate wars. And that is when the shit hits the turbojet, because wars produce BLOOD, and blood, unlike all other substances known to men (Judaic tradition points to that over and over again)) – is not just red water. Blood opens eyes that were shut and ears that were closed for decades. The death of a son or a husband in a foreign war changes peoples profoundly and they rebel against lies in papers, lies on TV, lies, lies, lies and start asking the terrifying question – WHO DID THIS TO US?
American people has to be complete idiots not to notice people like Perl, Wolfowitz, Fein, Abrahms, Libby , Kristol – you can find the rest in 2003 MicKinley article (who himself worked for American Enterprise Institute) about neocon roots
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991206/posts
That is why any notion of "doing it calmly and not rocking the boat" is at best naive and at worst – suicidal.
Alex, admittedly I am hesitant about attempts at historical chronology like the statement below. What are you alluding to here? could you explain?
Are you an historian?
"That is precisely why the neocons who DO rock the boat, who DO demand sweeping changes and not only wake up, but also ride the beast, were not confronted by reasonable Jewish voices that would have just told them as reasonable Germans told their parasitic "neocons" 75 years ago – "Ohne Uns!" – "Without us!"
"- first they control the dissenting voices by allowing these voices, so they do not take to the streets – into the mainstream discussions but under their settings."
Yes, exactly like those effeminate men who suck up to us women and acknowledge female oppression while at the same time furthering it. They deserve a fate worse than the male pigs that at least are up front about their desire to physically, sexually, and politically oppress us.
I'll take the pigs like Bill Pearlman any day of the week.
Alex C,
Most Americans recognize that there is as wide a range of perpsectives in the Jewish community as there is in the American community at large. Jews as a whole were overrepresented in both the pro-war and anti-war movements. I understand this to be a function of the prominent role that Jewish-Americans play in intellectual and activist circles. Mainstrem Jewish organizations are likely always going to take Israel's interest into consideration, in the same way that similar organizations for Poles, Koreans, and Muslims, take Poland, Korean, and other Muslims into consideration in their positions. My understanding is that even those Jewish organizations that oppose Israeli policies in the West Bank, which many seem to do, do so because they believe it is not in the best interest of Israel for them to be doing so.
I do not expect that most Americans will blame "the Jews" for the debacle in Iraq as it was a multi-party effort that got us into the mess. We could just as likely blame Muslims since it was Ahmed Chalabi and his group who seemed to have sold us a false bill of intelligence goods which played a large part in our decision to invade, and when the US actually invaded it was Shiite Muslims in Dearborn who were in the streets celebrating. I don't think we are likely to blame them either for the cost of our sons' and daughters' lives and our treasure.
One last point before my boss realizes I'm not earning my paycheck — The impression that I get from the neo-conservatives is that they fully appreciate that it is in Israel's interest to maintain a strong relationship with us/USA, and for us/USA to be as strong and influential as possible. If we are no longer an effective super power than we are of little use to Israel. Given that apparent truth, I do not worry about the neo-conservatives acting to undermine the interests of the USA in favor of the interests of Israel, since in their mind they are aligned, but not from the perspective that what is good for Israel is good for us, but the other way around. I am more suspicious about some of the parties that attempt to make the reverse argument as they often seem to not have the best interests of the USA in mind.
Thank you for your time.
-TP
In reading my post I see that my last comment may not be clear. As an American I'm less suspicious of the neo-cons than I am of some of their critics who make the argument that Israel controls US Foreign Policy. Many, though not all, of the people who make that claim often do not have what I consider to be our/USA's interest in mind.
I have noticed in the practice of daily life, in committee meetings and elsewhere, that those who were able to make their points suavely, and were seeking common ground, got what they aimed at more easily than those who often were making very similar points but operated with a lot of ‘sound and fury’ and made it clear in advance that whatever their opponents were going to say would be totally futile as far as they were concerned. I had to learn this the hard way never having been very good at the suave bit around a committee table myself.
Why wouldn’t this apply to politics in general?
“Testimonial politics” might give those who “witness” often a warm, inner glow but their testimony might not go beyond the circle of the converted.
One might never convince those who have diametrically opposed views but there is on most issues, I think, a largish group that hasn’t completely made up its mind and that is willing to be persuaded. That is where the “compulsion free compulsion of the better argument” comes in. And that is more effective when presented without overtones that get people’s hackles up. "C'est le ton qui fait la musique."
I do agree with you, David, that we are speaking about issues that are not specifically Jewish. They are not even exclusively American but affect all of us. But even though, the same considerations apply.
Alex your German analogy seems to me misplaced. It was exactly because communism and social democrats stuck to their own brand of "testimonial politics" and refused to seek common ground that the Nazis were presented with a divided, and therefore, ineffective left.
Gloria, why do you prefer ‘male chauvinist pigs’? Because they confirm your prejudices?
P.S. Alex and David, I hope it is clear that I was talking here about two styles of politics and that I do not identify either of these with you or with myself for that matter.
David wrote: "The proper role for the Jewish community on this particular subject is to either make aliyah or politely recuse themselves."
Just curious David, but would that also require the Muslim community on this particular subject to go back to their Muslim lands or politically recuse themselves?
bill kristol- I'm so nervous I've never met anyone as famous as you!! You're right Israel is the best i don't know what iwas thinking!! wow!!
"bill kristol- I'm so nervous"
Don't be nervous Lester. No need to be nervous. I also never said that Israel is the best. Those are your straw man arguments.
kill the neo cons!! burn down their think tanks!! drink their blood!!!
From Haaretz
Some 45 percent of high school students who immigrated from the former Soviet Union do not believe they have a future in Israel, according to the preliminary results of a new study due to be published in a few months. Only 65 percent would define themselves as Israeli, the study found. However, 88 percent would accept a hyphenated definition, such as Israeli-Russian.(…) Some 30 percent of the respondents said Israelis could teach them nothing, while 40 percent saw no need to study Jewish tradition or the Bible. Some 82 percent saw nothing worth learning from in Israeli culture, and 90 percent felt similarly about Israeli behavior. The study also found that the longer they were in Israel, the more likely the students were to define themselves as mehagrim (migrants) rather than olim (immigrants, but with the connotation of "to a better place"). Thus, after three years here, 68.6 percent defined themselves as olim, while after six years, only 23.6 percent did so.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/876415.html
Probably nothing changed the face and the character of Israel as much as the massive migration of Russians who could prove any Jewish origin to Israel during the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent chaos and poverty of the Yeltsin era. There were very few committed Zionists among them; the "aliyah" to Israel was seen as a way to escape the Russian catastrophe and obtain a western passport and prosperity. Israel saw this huge jump in their population made up of highly educated "Europeans" as an enormous blessing. The blessing turns out to be quite mixed. Now, while Israel is in constant danger and Russia's economy is beginning to prosper, many are having second thoughts. It could be highly demoralizing to Israeli society in general if the Russians start to return to Russia in sizable numbers: a negation of the whole myth of return. DS
Paine, you say that many of the people who make the claim that Israel controls US foreign policy (presumably only in the mid-East) do not have America's best interests at heart. Whose best interests do they have at heart?
Ari: point taken.
David Seaton: the demographic health of Israel is an interesting subject. But it is going to be very difficult to get accurate information on who is leaving the country. This paper came up in an earlier thread here:
RECENT TRENDS IN EMIGRATION FROM ISRAEL: THE IMPACT OF PALESTINIAN VIOLENCE
Ian S. Lustick, Association for Israel Studies, June 14-16, 2004
http://www.aisisraelstudies.org/2004papers/Lustick,%20Ian.doc
"The scarcity of information regarding emigration is mainly due to political and social sensitivity of the subject. … And how long must a resident reside abroad before any country should consider him or her an emigrant?"
And it is not just Russians who may be emmigrating. I saw a claim that the number of Israeli citizens currently living living in the U.S. is 600,000 (although I can't find the source of this).
Gene – Not sure what Mr. or Mrs. Paine would say, but do you really believe that the Israeli Lobby is the only Lobby in town? Boy do you need to learn how sausages are made. Not just kosher hot dogs.
Here is a hint – Follow the money. Not the green colored variety, but the black liquid type. Who controls it and what is their agenda?
Some people hate others more than they love themselves.
Yahudi
I know about the making of sausages and kosher hot dogs (In my house the only ones my wife will buy are Hebrew National). I also know that the international oil companies presciently opposed the Iraq War for reasons that are only too apparent today. If only the neocons were half as insightful, or perhaps they were but just didn't care as long as they thought the war might help Israel.
David
Would you happen to know how difficult it is for an Israeli to move to the United States. I read an interview with a west bank settler a year or so ago who mentioned in passing that if things there didn't work out she'd just move her family to the United States. She seemed feel that it was no more difficult than moving from Kansas to Missouri. If an Israeli wants to move permanently to the US, would you know how complicated it is? Is it less difficult for Israelis than say for Argentinians or New Zealanders?
Gene – Let me be more clear. The Saudis – and the many many former State Department folks on their payroll. Not to mention the Middle East Studies Departments.
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2003_04_08.htm
Gene:
It would be the same if they both had American citizenship already.
I've heard that the US has a special agreement with Israel permitting people to be dual US/Israeli citizens. Is this true?
No. It just happens that Israeli citizenship law does not require renunciation of one's old citizenship in order to become a citizen of Israel.
In this regard, Israel is really treated no differently than Canada, the UK, France, or other countries which permit people to become citizens without giving up their old status.
As best I have been able to determine, the US does not have any sort of treaty facilitating dual citizenship with any other country. Dual citizenship arises, not out of explicit bilateral agreements between nations, but because each country makes its own laws respecting who is or is not its citizen, often without regard for whether a given person is considered a citizen by more than one country at once.
It is interesting to note that Israel's "Law of Return" (under which any Jew may immigrate to and become a citizen of Israel) confers Israeli citizenship automatically, without the immigrant having to apply for it, attend any ceremony, or swear any oath of allegiance. The Israeli law may originally have been written this way to encourage American Jews to move to Israel; they could, in theory, argue that they had not explicitly requested Israeli citizenship and were thus still entitled to keep their US citizenship. (Note that Mr. Afroyim, subject of Afroyim v. Rusk, was alleged to have lost his US citizenship, not because he had become an Israeli citizen, but because he had voted in an Israeli election.)
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the US ratified a series of citizenship treaties (the "Bancroft treaties", named after American diplomat George Bancroft). The intent of these treaties was to prevent dual citizenship by providing for automatic loss of citizenship by foreigners who obtained US citizenship, or by Americans who obtained foreign citizenship. As a result of the various Supreme Court decisions on dual citizenship, however, the Bancroft treaties became legally unenforceable, and all of them have by now been formally abrogated by the US. One of these treaties (the one with Sweden) is mentioned in the Supreme Court's decision in Perkins v. Elg.
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#israel
"In my house the only ones my wife will buy are Hebrew National"
See I LOVE Jews! No animus here.
Moments after the latest terror attack on Britain, television commentators engaged in the usual rhetorical hara-kiri, blaming everyone but its authors: the two Muslim jihadists jumping out of a burning car at Glasgow's international airport ululating "Allah! Allah!" — even as one of them was barbecued — and the European Union's vast Muslim fundamentalist infrastructure, which spawned them.
The initial discussions of the three car bombs — two in central London were defused, unexploded — were déjà vu writ large: Blaming the victims, criticizing British foreign policy offenses that might have "driven" British Muslims to kill their countrymen, highlighting the frustrations of minority communities forced to live in the West, and renewing calls for — yes, indeed — more interreligious dialogue.
It was not much better in America. With live images of the Glasgow International Airport fires blazing away, American networks hosted the so-called experts who, again, explained the "torment" of poor Muslims. Disgracefully, one guest — Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst who is a familiar face now whenever instant analysis is needed — droned on about the many reasons Muslims are "so" offended by this or that behavior in the West.
Mr. Scheuer's mindless diatribe, unquestionably motivated by the need to land consulting contracts in Muslim country, pushed a Fox News anchorwoman, Michelle Malkin, to interject something akin to "Let us not blame the victims now." But it was not enough to stop the rant.
But so the story goes: Whenever it comes to Muslims, commentators feel the need for obfuscation. It reaches absurd proportions in Britain, but America is certainly its sideshow.
Last Christmas, Britain's Channel 4 network gave us another example of the mind-boggling confusion over where democracy and freedom of expression end, and indecency begins. It offered an "alternative" to Queen Elizabeth's traditional Christmas message broadcast on the other television stations, and gave national airtime to a living symbol of the war against Britain from the inside: a faceless woman, identified only as "Khadija," who addressed the nation covered in a full black niqab that showed just the slit of her eyes.
The so-called liberal owners of Channel 4 gave this living symbol of menacing, radical jihadism a full seven minutes to explain to us uncivilized folks about how she felt "liberated" by all her enveloping garb and her gender's reduced status, as well as how Islam is far superior to the infidel religions of the British. The most distressing part of this charade was how journalists at Channel 4 — and even a few among my own British acquaintances — thought this travesty was an appropriate parallel to the queen's Christmas message. One of the most absurd examples has been the months taken by the Minneapolis Airport Authority to discuss whether about 700 Somali Muslim taxi drivers who service the busy transportation hub had a "sharia right" to refuse to transport passengers carrying alcohol or blind travelers with seeing-eye dogs. A sheik has issued a fatwa against both — regardless of whether the drivers live in America or Saudi Arabia — because it insults the Prophet Muhammad and his religion.
That such facts were felt to require discussion at all is where the Achilles' heel of Western civilization lies. Accommodate such an order? Why? In some English schools, suggestions to stop teaching about the Holocaust or the Christian Crusades are being advanced because the topics may offend Muslim sensibilities. Just as important, successive Arab kings, and royal families have been given a green light to fund mosques in Britain without a single British prime minister asking for even a single church to be built in Arabia. This is the kind of confused Western liberalism that has transformed large parts of Britain into ideal areas for terrorist recruitment, where cockamamie sheiks preach to Pakistani or other Muslim constituencies about the need to kill and maim fellow British citizens in the name of Islam, all while hiding under the shield of Western democracy.
But so it goes: Attacks on the West from the inside will not stop so long as liberal apologists continue to produce justifications for fundamentalist Muslims who confuse their right to enjoy the liberty of the West with a need to confiscate the rights of everyone else.
http://www.nysun.com/article/57715
To Paine –
Do not confuse Jewish political influence with Polish and Korean because I have not seen Polish or Korean version of AIPAC yet. I have never heard of Congressmen and Senators going to Poland and/or Korea before EVERY election and/or being interrogated by Polsh/Korean organizations on their attitude toward Poland or Korea. Ever heard of UN voting for decades 190-2 against Korea and USA veto it EVERY time? Poland? No? Do these (or any other our allies) illegally occupied any other lands and we support, arm, or/and veto any move to even ask them about their nuclear weapons?
Read "Jewish power" by J.J. Goldberg (I am sure he wish he never wrote that book) and tell me if you even find anything compare to that in Polish, Korean or any other minority community.
Yes, and please, please, name me even one Korean as a Chairman of Federal Reserve. Or Polish.
Please.
LeaNder:
In Germany at the time Nazis started their racist policies many Germans formulated their negative attitudes toward new, despicable policies with a slogan "Ohne Uns" which literraly means "Without us" and may be translated as "Not in our name".
Leo Tolstoy called all official history – "the winner's whore", which makes the majority of conformist historians (this is my addition to Tolstoys' words) – "winners' pimps".
No I am not a historian. I am an exploration geologist and geochemist by education and I switched to mathematical genetics and immunology after 20 years, when mining died in 1990-ies.
But I do study, learn, watch and try to understand history (especially strategic and military aspects) for as long as I remember.
To all who are interested – Hebrew Natonal brand is not what majority of religious Jews consider kosher. They just use the word "kosher" but they do not have special kosher stamps, like "U" in a circle that is what normally understood in Jewish circles as kosher.
Just a note.
Alex – - You're a bright guy, and Lord knows you've made the world a better place for people with herpes. I'm genuinely interested in what's your take on Islamic Fundamentalism and it's interaction with the West?
Thanks
Anonymous
Okay, fine, you love Israel first. I put America first. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Geneticist:
No I did not :(((((((
Although the "universal" Herpes vaccine that Daniel and I invented showed unbelievable results in tests, nobody in pharma world wants a vaccine that you inject once a lifetime, instead of selling people a pill a day for the rest of their lives.
I wish I knew that Michael Moor was making SICKO before, our story would have stunned him beyond any other story that he put in that film.
I will answer your question about Islamic fundamentalism a little but later – my daughter came from Boston and she turns 20 today and we need to celebrate.
Yahudi
And let me be more clear as well. Paul Wolfowitz was in the Oval Office the day after 9-11 urging Bush to attack Iraq. Not the Taliban in Afghanistan–Iraq.
Another point. Why do you think Israel partisan Alan Dershowitz was writing the judge in the Scooter Libby case to try and get Libby's conviction reversed? Because Libby was one of the prime enablers of the the US attack on Iraq. As Dershowitz saw it, anyone who had done such heavy lifting for Israel didn't deserve 30 months in the federal pen, even if he had involved us in a disastrous war which ruined America's moral authority (and will most likely soon wreck its economy too).
Gene – I have no doubt that if your are inclined towards a conspiratorial mindset all of the pieces will fit perfectly together.
Tell me though – Why do you think Wolfowitz was angling for the US to unseat Saddam Hussein? Were the sanctions against Hussein and his regime helping him or hurting him? Was the international community weakening or strengthening in its resolve? Were the UN officials in charge of keeping Hussein contained on the take? Were there fundamental problems in the Middle East that were leading to jihadi terrorism that could eventually destroy hundreds of thousands of American lives, the US economy, our access to oil, and trigger a nuclear war in the Middle East? If one really examines the facts and doesn't presume nefarious motives on the parts of the neo-conservatives who were in positions of power at the time, both Jewish and non-Jewish, one walks away with a great appreciation for the complexity of the situation and the very reasonable arguments for different courses of action. It was a situation of sub-optimal choices and attempting to manage the risk in each of them. Your desire and inclination to see it through the prism of a Jewish conspiracy is unfortunate because it just compounds a terrible situation and doesn't get us to a better place in terms of perspective, wisdom, or understanding. I agree with Paine's point that the neo-cons understand that Israel's well-being is largely conditional on our strength as a nation and superpower. Islamic fundamentalism is a significant threat to our national security because it happens to be in vogue in the nations sitting on the primary energy source for the planet. The neo-cons are very attuned to this and focused on this. Wolfowitz's Arab Muslim girlfriend was a major activits towards spreading democracy in the Middle East. Is she part of the Jewish conspiracy? Does Dick Cheney really care about Jews and Israel that much? George Bush? More so than they care about our nation's best interest? I highly doubt it. No doubt you'll come up with a reason about why they are under the spell of their Jewish neo-conservative colleagues, but I'm not sure it will have much basis in reality.
As for Libby – It's all partisan politics at this point. I lean towards the other side, but I'm sure Obama or Hilary would do the same if one of their minions had fallen on the sword for their administration. Did anyone really think Libby was going to serve time? If he had gotten a judge who leaned the other way this is what his sentence would have likely been.
As per my last point
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
Why would anyone be surprised? Disappointed sure, but surprised?
Yahudi, your belief that George Bush and Dick Cheney care about America's best interests is so bizarre it pretty much invalidates everything else you say. Nobody looking at the actions of these two would give them credit for having good intentions–at best, they have good intentions in the sense that any power-mad thug out to benefit the interests of his class will manage to persuade himself that it's for the country's good. Bullies want to be loved. In Cheney's case even that doesn't apply. He just wants power.
And if the Bushies had been interested in Iraqi democracy, wouldn't they have planned the aftermath of the war just a little better? It's virtually a truism in every account of the war that there was no planning worthy of the name. People with good intentions don't go into wars in this haphazard way. The Bush Administration thought it would overthrow Saddam and install a pliable Iraqi puppet government, maybe one with the trappings of democracy, and that's it. They didn't go into this war like morally serious people and it's idiotic to pretend otherwise. I know that in mainstream media circles in the US it's standard practice to talk as if the US government always has "good intentions", but that's what ruling elites always tell themselves, in every society all through history.
"Gene – I have no doubt that if your are inclined towards a conspiratorial mindset all of the pieces will fit perfectly together."
Yahudi–And I have no doubt that if you are inclined to exonerate the neo-cons of shilling for Israel, it makes perfect sense to blame the war on the oil industry (which didn't want the Iraq war or the chaos that followed).
Regarding your notion that Iraq was a threat to "hundreds of thousands of American lives," that is of course absurd. As even Bush now knows Saddam had no nuclear weapons and no missiles on which to place them anyway. As far as the Saddam threatening the American economy, it seems to me it is the trillions which will ultimately be wasted on the Iraq war which will really devastate our economy. Believe me we could have used saome of that money here in Los Angeles.
As for your notion that the neocons are helping spreading democracy in the Middle East, I don't know what countries you're talking about. We've set back democracy in the Middle East by 50 years. And by acquiescing to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank we've set back democracy in Israel too.
"See I LOVE Jews! No animus here."
Translation, thank your for confirming my earlier post that the "FIRST" thing that the Israel-firsters do is accuse their critics of anti-semnitism.
Regarding your ridicule of my wife's buying Hebrew National hot dogs, she does it because she's Jewish and she doesn't eat pork. I buy Hebrew National because their hot dogs taste a lot better than ones made with chicken and turkey.
Youssef Ibrahim wrote:
"Mr. Scheuer's mindless diatribe, unquestionably motivated by the need to land consulting contracts in Muslim country, pushed a Fox News anchorwoman, Michelle Malkin, to interject something akin to "Let us not blame the victims now." But it was not enough to stop the rant"
I will, Mr.Ibrahim, ignore your ad hominem attact on Michael Scheuer. I fear, to judge from the rest of your post, that to you many things are 'unquestionable' that remain problematic to others.
However, now you quoted approvingly that luminous intellect, Michelle Malkin, I thought it might be apposite to recall Susan Sontag's words just after 9/11:
"The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed super-power, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?"
And her final exhortation:
"Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us to understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen."
Let's not be stupid together. Why, Mr.Ibrahim, is it so difficult to understand what the prophet Hosea understood more than 2,700 years ago: he who sows the wind shall have a whirlwind to reap?
Now even Andrew Sullivan is partly eating his words and might ere long bestow the Sontag-award, in the meaning he gave to it, upon himself, Sontag's plea, Mr.Ibrahim, has acquired greater urgency: let's not be stupid together.
Gene – please identify for me where I stipulated that Big Oil was pushing to invade Iraq? That their lobbyists actually wrote the energy bill and they made record profits over the last 3 years is not causal evidence that they promoted the placement of permanent US bases in the region to insure access to oil. Baker and his boys were not enthusiastic about George Jr's adventurism. I did, however, earlier note that the Saudis pump a lot of money into this country and have a lot of former State Department people on their payroll and a lot of influence in DC. Who can forget the photo of our president walking hand in hand with the King. Who got to fly out of country after 9/11 when all other planes were grounded. While the Saudis can't be happy with how things have played out in Iraq either, they were bedfellows of the neo-cons in wanting to contain Iran and not radically shift the power balance in the middle east. They still are in fact. I'm not claiming that the neo-cons didn't play a part in our deciding to invade Iraq and seek to (however clumsily and ineffectively) spread democracy in the region, I'm arguing that there is a reasonable argument for their actions being taken with the interest of the USA and not Israel per se, and there were a lot of other players with agendas and lobbyists who were supportive of the decision to invade, for righteous and venal reasons.
Comments on this entry are closed.