A Jewish Writer Says Senate Should Investigate Neocon Abrams Re Dual Loyalty

I don't think anyone has a problem with someone having a religion. A national leader has the ability and the requirement to ignore religious leaders for the good of the country he is leading. (Leading does not mean president.)

The difference between Catholics and Jews in this instance is that Israel is on the same playing field as the USA. As such, there is no room for dual loyalty. Being loyal to the teachings of Judaism or the teachings of Catholicism, Islam, etc. do not have to conflict with the leading of a nation. However, being loyal to Israel on the same level as being loyal to the USA is a different game.

My Jewish friends, when will you realize that actions taken on behalf of Israel may be spawned by religious ideas, but they are political actions. As such, discussion of actions taken on behalf of Israel are open to the same debate as actions taken by any other nation, and are not anti-Semitic.

Phil,
Can you please comment on the book "The Plot Against America" by Philip Roth?

I expect that you've read it.

"Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. If a Jewish Englishman sets his eyes on the Mount of Olives and longs for the day when he will shake British soil from his shoes and go back to agricultural pursuits in Palestine, he has always seemed to me to have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain, or to be treated as an Englishman. "

- Lord Montague

People need to understand the difference between "blanket" suspicion of dual loyalty vs. looking at someones actions and words (such as the case of Abrams) and deciding "hey, we have a loyalty problem here."

Everyone gets the presumption of loyalty. Joe from Brooklyn – he's a real American.

So is "Paddy" from Boston.

But, if someone start acting disloyal or openly saying they are disloyal, or acting overly loyal to another entity, then that opens up reasonable room for discussion.

This is not complex, unless you are trying to make it so.

worth reading. darn right need a discussion about dual loyalties, we have Ledeen and co pushing us into war. Now they tell us we've been at war with Iran since the 70's. Yeah? how come no one told Reagan.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18453.htm

But in Abrams you have a guy saying in writing that "Jews" can never really be part of a nation other than the Jewish nation.

And Abrams was convicted for illegal activity some years ago – Iran Contra.

And he holds a high level position directly related to the country he said in writing has a loyalty to (under Dick Cheney).

This is a different situation. Completely different.

Abrams is a case.

The question of loyalty is a net.

Thanks again, Phil, for your great blog.

As I see it, your relentless pursuit of the truth and your critiques actually, and ironically, confirms the special covenant G*d made with the Jewish community. The humor involved with this paradox may seem strange to those unused to the prophetic tradition, but it isn't hard for me to see how you stand firmly in that tradition and, indeed, exemplify it to the world today.

Just some quotes from this fantastic article from Haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=906924
On the way to a pariah state – Haaretz
Abstract: Eighteen months ago, two senior political scientists, Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, from Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively, published a paper claiming that U.S. Middle Eastern policy, including the misguided Iraq war and its unqualified support for Israel over the last decades, has run counter to true U.S. interests. They blame the influence of the Israel Lobby for this.(…) Their conclusion: the U.S. needs to start relating to Israel like any other country, and no longer see a special ally in us, because the close relation with Israel harms U.S. interests. W&M paint Israel as a rogue state that does not abide by international law, and is not up to the standards expected of a Western state. The subtext is clear: Israel is just another problematic Middle Eastern country, and should be treated as such – and the number of policy makers and opinion leaders who think this way is growing. My concern here is not with the question whether W&M are right in the details of their analysis of the power of the Israel Lobby. My point is that their anti-Israeli stance is the tip of a growing iceberg that is simply disregarded by Israel's decision makers. Dismissing W&M as a fringe phenomenon is shortsighted, because it does not take into account a consistent development over the last few years. It is something of a consensus that the confrontation with Political Islam has become the Western world's No. 1 geopolitical problem. This is generally called the "Clash of Civilizations," following Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis. A growing number of decision makers in Europe and the U.S. think that Israel, while not necessarily the main cause for the rise of Political Islam, has become a symbol around which Islamist extremism coalesces (…) Israel's way of dealing with the Palestinians and Lebanon in the last few decades has led to a long-term process in which the Western world is beginning to see Israel as a pariah state that has no true affinity to Western values. Hence, it is not on the 'right' side of the clash of civilizations, as was reflected in the French ambassador to Britain calling Israel "that shitty little country" not long ago. This development is consistently disregarded by Israeli decision makers.(…) Any criticism of Israel's policies is dismissed as an expression of the New Anti-Semitism. The proof often provided is that we are not judged by the same standard as our neighbors: "Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia can get away with inhuman behavior a lot worse than ours," the argument runs. My point is simple: the day we are no longer judged by the standards of the West is the beginning of Israel's end, because it means that the West has decided we are no longer part of it, and hence will not be committed to Israel's existence. The day may come when Israel will, as W&M suggest, be seen as just another troublesome country that destabilizes the world. Behaving in a manner befitting the standards of the Western world is far more important for Israel's long-term survival than gaining a few square miles here and there, by building the security wall through Palestinian territories, tearing apart villages, homes and schools, and expanding settlements. Every such act is not just a moral outrage; it pushes Israel one step closer to being disqualified from belonging to the West.

Richard wrote:

"I'm not sure how one can possibly equate the concept of freedom of speech, with the concept that how one thinks is a valid disqualification from public service.

Its an invocation of fear.

It has NOTHING to do with democratic process in any meaningful sense of the term."

… (and then)

"Democracy isn't served by silencing."

Huh?

I know I shouldn't bother, but your first point is simply too absurd not to be answered.

"…with the concept that how one thinks is a valid disqualification from public service."

OF COURSE "how one thinks" can be a disqualification, for virtually anything–marriage, a job, grad school, public service, being hired to fix a window. What if one is a racist, abusive, a psycopath, or has a thought disorder? All would be very big disqualifications.

If you're trying to say "a person's religious beliefs shouldn't disqualify him," then you're on firmer ground. But even some religious beliefs would serve to disqualify: for instance, beliefs that placed one well outside the norms of opinion and safety (a religious devotion to cannibalism, say, or bigamy).

JFK reassured people that his Catholicism, per se, would not influence his political agenda.

Freedom of speech allowed one, in perfect reasonableness, to question JFK's sincerity. JFK was able through word and deed to reassure doubters.

No one that I've ever read said "no one is permitted to question JFK's assurances."

I really shouldn't bother, but WHAT has "NOTHING to do with democratic processes?" Free speech? Or your straw man non sequitors?

What on earth are you talking about?

—————————-

In order to understand guys like Richard, the minefield of what being 'Jewish' really means has to be studied.

Is it about religion? Not really, most of the neo-cons for example (and liberal Jews as well, who are the majority) don't practice the religion at all.

Is it about an ethnicity? Well, this is tricky. It is not very useful because it invites justified accusations of dual loyalty and it creates the kind of torment that guys like Phil experience.

Is it about a race? Again, this is not useful because there is no such thing as a Jewish 'race'. Biology and DNA doesn't help here, nor do phenotypic characteristics. The concept of 'race' in itself is very controversial anyway.

What is left is Zionism, which has become the glue that holds everything together in the age of Assimilation. Zionism has become the secular religion of those who need to define their Jewish identity in modern terms, "with Israel being their god which has not yet failed" (Israel Shahak).

That's why when dealing with Zionists one gets tired of hitting a brick wall of irrationality. It's a belief system as dogmatic as any hardcore religious system. It doesn't respond to inherent contradictions, inconvenient facts or reasonable arguments.

Jewish community is the Jewish religion.

Jewish community only requires a state for the same reason that any nation requires a state, for protection.

There is nothing ultimately conspiratorial about Jews' aspiration to be a community, even as it falls apart in ways.

I am a Jew. Its simple. I am a male. Its simple. I am a human. Its simple. They are characteristics that were not chosen, definitely accepted.

Still protesting the WM litany of angry accusations, I am presenting the humor of Ruth Wisse:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0306/wisse_israel_loby.php3

The thesis of Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer is remarkably broad and singleminded: A loose association of special-interest groups has persuaded the country to sacrifice its interests to a foreign power, thereby jeopardizing "not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world."

"I have Jewish identification, that occassionally conflicts with "national identity".

Similar accusations were made of John Kennedy, that as a Catholic, an affirming one, that he was incapable of serving as president." (Witty, of course)

Yes, I am not aware though that catholics ever claimed to be a nation, that was not only entitled to its own territory but also to expelling the current inhabitants of that territory whoever they might be.

Only one group of people nominally identified with a certain religion have raised that claim: the Zionists.

Somebody quoted Lord Montagu above. He was, as you know, the only Jewish member of the British cabinet that issued the Balfour-declaration. He also referred to catholics but in the context of an argument exactly opposite to yours. He said that he was a Jewish Briton who was as British as a catholic Briton. And that he had as little in common with a Jewish Frenchman as a catholic Briton had in common with a catholic Frenchman.

No stuff about being a separate nation here.

But Jews had the holocaust? Yes, so did approximately 5,5 million other people: Gypsies, Yehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, political prisoners, the insane and those who were called 'asocials and criminals' by the Hitler State. They have largely been lost sight of in the attention given to the fate of the Jews.

Take those who are called the 'forgotten victims' of the holocaust: the Gypsies. Their most likely place of origin is the Punjab region in India. In fact, there still seem to be some closely related people living there. If the Gypsies of today would stake a claim to that region and pretend that they were entitled to throwing its present population out, the world would judge that they had collectively gone cuckoo.

The Jewish conceit on this point is, however, basically not different. In fact there is probaly more doubt about the actual descent of present day Jews from their alleged historical ancestors than there is in the case of the Gypsies.

But you were driven out? Hardly. The number of Jews living in all parts of the Roman Empire before the destruction of the Temple probably outnumbered those that were still in Palestine.

I know all these arguments are wasted on you. You will just keep on repeating the same claims. So these are now only used as triggers for a general discourse.

Why People Are Suspicious of Mearsheimer and Walt:

Leslie Gelb, in the NY Times, says the following about The Israel Lobby:

But as my mother often said, “They [M & W] asked for trouble” — by the way they make their arguments, by their puzzlingly shoddy scholarship, by what they emphasize and de-emphasize, by what they leave out and by writing on this sensitive topic without doing extensive interviews with the lobbyists and the lobbied.

Speaking of asking for trouble: On page 167 of The Israel Lobby, M & W quote Elliot Abrams, in a book he wrote about American Jews and Judaism, as follows: "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." M & W write that this shows that Abrams is "hardly objective" about Israel and that this is a "remarkable comment" from someone who holds a high-level foreign policy position. M & W strongly imply that someone who wrote something like what Abrams wrote should be barred from policy-making positions.

Apparently, they are thinking along the same lines as Huffington Post columnist (and Yale Sterling Professor of English) David Bromwich, who writes: "He [Abrams] certainly did not expect to occupy a position that would require him to weigh the national interest of Israel, the country with which he confessed himself uniquely at one, alongside the national interest of a country in which he felt himself to stand "'apart…from the rest of the population.'"

But Abrams never says anything remotely like that he feels himself "uniquely at one" with Israel. And not only doesn't say that he is oblivious to America's national interest, on exactly the same page of his book he says precisely the opposite (you can look it up an Amazon reader to check for yourself). Abrams specifies that there is no conflict between adhering to the Abrahamic covenant and being loyal to one's country. Indeed, I would add that many very traditional Jews are fiercely loyal to the United States precisely because it gives them the freedom to pursue their unique traditions, without, for the most part, having people like Bromwich question their loyalty and belonging.

Abrams's comment is not, as Bromwich articulates and M & W seem to believe, about Israel, but with traditional Judaism's belief that God has ordained that Jews are "a people who dwelleth alone" and who, to fulfill their religious obligations, must have a communal existence separate from the Gentile population. This isn't exactly news to anyone familiar with traditional Judaism, or with the fact that Jews who follow tradition tend to send their kids to Jewish day schools, shop at kosher supermarkets, and otherwise necessarily maintain a degree of "apartness", not out of hostility but out of the fact that traditional Judaism requires it–traditional Judaism is primarily a religion of actions, not beliefs, and mere belief in the precepts of Judaism doesn't cut it if the communal institutions don't exist to allow the religion to be practiced.

For decades, classical Reform Judaism fought this, partly on the basis that it prevented assimilation and led to unnecessary tensions, and partly in an attempt to stem the tide of Jewish converts to Christianity (10% of the Jewish populations in Germany, Hungary, Austria, etc. in the 19th century). The Reform argued that Jews should drop their distinctive traditions and be like everyone else, creating a Judaism primarily based on shared moral values, similar to liberal Protestantism except without Jesus, and with synagogue instead of church (some Reform congregations went so far as to switch the day of Sabbath services to Sunday, and until relatively recently if a worshiper put a kippah (yarmulke/skullcap) on in certain Reform synagogues, an usher would come by and ask him to remove it). But even the Reform have largely given up on trying to separate Jews from their peculiar ancestral traditions (and indeed their leaders are mostly encouraging a return to tradition).

Meanwhile, Abrams' quote obviously doesn't suggest dual loyalty–though if the Sterling Professor of English at Yale can't see this, either it's not as obvious as I think, or he isn't trying very hard. The reference to Israel in the quote merely states the obvious–that in a country with a Jewish majority, where the schools teach a Jewish curriculum, kashrut is the rule by default in supermarkets and restaurants, Jewish holidays are national holidays, etc., Jews living in Israel don't have any need to maintain any "apartness" to fulfill their religious obligations.

If M & W find Abrams's quote so "remarkable," I wonder what they would think about a Roman Catholic government official who had written a book on American Catholicism making an innocuous statement like that "to be faithful to the Church, Catholics must keep in mind that they must respect the authority of the Vatican." Unlike Abrams's statement, that one on its face does suggest dual loyalty, but anyone with a modicum of understanding of Catholic society would no better than to engage in such know-nothingism.

Continue reading by clicking below.
(show)

In short, it's hard to think of a less remarkable, less controversial statement coming from a relatively traditional Jewish writer writing a book about Judaism in America.

So what explains M & W's use of this quote? Several possibilities:

(1) Mearsheimer and Walt are largely ignorant of Jews and Judaism, and thus inadvertantly read a suggestion that Jews are a fifth column into a theological statement that says nothing of a kind.

(2) It's malicious, either in the sense that M & W are purposely distorting the meaning of this quote because they want to discredit Abrams, or because they are anti-Semitic and are seeing a rather innocuous quote through the lens of their own prejudices. (Or perhaps they picked up the quote from a disreputable source that was misusing it, and didn't bother to rethink it).

I think the most likely explanation is (1), and conscious anti-Semitism, or prejudice, the least likely, but none of these explanations would give those concerned about the welfare of American Jews much faith in M & W; at best, they are attacking the organized Jewish community, the largest component of the "Israel lobby" they identify, from a position of abysmal ignorance about Jews and Judaism, and at worst they are prejudiced. Either way, you're not going to win a lot of Jewish fans when you suggest based on a misreading of an innocuous quote that if you adhere to traditional Jewish theology, you're not competent to serve in high levels of government.

"Still protesting the WM litany of angry accusations, I am presenting the humor of Ruth Wisse:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0306/wisse_israel_loby.php3"

What humor Steve? Or is your claim meant to be humorous?

I suspect, though, that you found real solace there. Poor you. Her review is more low level than most.

CG: "Abrams specifies that there is no conflict between adhering to the Abrahamic covenant and being loyal to one's country."

The fact that Abrams "specifies" anything doesn't make it so.

CG: "Indeed, I would add that many very traditional Jews are fiercely loyal to the United States precisely because it gives them the freedom to pursue their unique traditions. . . "

Like, for instance, whenever there's a conflict between Israel's interests and American well being, invariably putting Israel first? Some tradition.

CG: "And military recruits tend to come from working class rural backrounds, not a big Jewish demographic."

There's no law that says middle class urban Jews can't join the military. They just choose not to. Yet at least some of them have no problem demanding we bomb Iran because it's a threat to Israel. Easy for them to say–they won't be doing the fighting (or any of the dying either).

I checked but the statement I criticised above did not come from Gelb – at any case not in his NYT review of M. & W.

The CG who posted that created confusion by starting his piece with "Gelb … says the following" and not indicating where the quote started or ended.

Gelb came up with something else that makes me doubt that he wants to staunchly adhere to the facts of the case (as he suggests). It is this:

"Besides, what concessions do Mearsheimer and Walt want Israel to make beyond what it has made? In the closing days of the Clinton administration, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met almost all Palestinian demands for a negotiated solution and was effectively turned down"

Arie,
Since Franco died there is no "Catholic" government anywhere. His death brought to an end the last offically "Catholic state". In Spain practically everybody has Catholic grandparents, but that is not the same as a "Catholic state"

Israel is officially a "Jewish state" and non-Jewish citizens are defacto second class citizens in such important areas as acquiring land or bringing in foreign born wives.

Yes David – the most 'catholic state' today,
in terms of number of adherents, frequency of church visits by those adherents,number of vocations etc. is probably the Philippines. Even though it is not a 'catholic state'.

Incidentally, the thing posted by CG in which that statement about catholics was made was originally written by a David Bernstein, who is a professor of law at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia.

It originally appeared in the blog "The Volokh Conspiracy".

CG could have been a bit more generous with quotation marks and the acknowledgment of authorship (unless CG is Bernstein himself which is rather unlikely).

Richard Witty, if and when you come up with a new argument I will address it.

"Try treating others with a bit more respect …"

I suppose your post is an example of that.

Arie,
Its not a new concept, that Jews are a people and desire and deserve to self-govern.

Implied in any corollary is that Jews are somehow not a people (in spite of self-identification over millenia), or that we don't have a right to self-govern, and are ONLY a religion or a minority.

You are not distinguishing the questions of how we self-govern, from our right TO self-govern.

And, cavalierly demonize anyone that describes themselves as a supporter of the right of the Jewish people to self-govern.

The concept is the foil. And, yes it is a good foil, and tests the whole premise of self-governance.

It does not particularly test Zionism, but ultimately conflicts with the prospect of voluntary association.

The argument that military service is a requisite for political participation is a dangerous one, and hardly in the American tradition. Taken to its extreme, one ends up in the quasi-fascistic world of Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers,' where only those who fought could vote. Or, alternatively, universal service, as many of our "leaders" propose as a method of further indoctrinating and controlling the masses. Both repugnant.

Military service is slavery, even when voluntary (called it indentured servitude, if you like). Once the contract is inked, you're not allowed standard employee's rights: you can't leave, addressing grievances is extremely limited (to say the least!), etc. Nowadays the contract can be extended without the soldier's agreement. Hardly a UAW job.

Military service cannot be made a litmus test for speech rights. Yeshiva students in Israel are exempted from their IDF obligation: are they proscribed from speaking out about political issues? I don't know, but I find it unlikely. Any Israelis reading who would like to comment?

I disagree strongly with those who argue that Americans of any background should not comment on policy unless they themselves have served. It's fair game to call someone a chickenhawk, and point out the sickening hypocrisy of warmongers who don't know a clip from a magazine, but again, free speech is countered with free speech, not limited by a blanket anathema.

xxxxxxxxxxx

David S. wondered aloud whether Richard Witty is real. I've wondered whether he was simply one of those word-generating programs, that take limited input and build responses, replete with homophone and context errors.

He accused me of accusing HIM of 'thoughtcrime,' when all I was pointing out was the illogic, the thoughtlessness, of his argumentation.

Or, if you will, his witlessness.

Bill Pearlman was better.

(And with tongue still in cheek, anyone else notice that Martillo and Pearlman vacated the building around the same time? Could it be that they were doppelgangers?)

Here, I'm a more real person than you are, as I post under my own name.

You can ask Phil if I'm real.