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

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Are you a loyal American?

Have you always been, if you are currently?

For myself, I have multiple associations. I have professional associations and ethical codes, that occassionally conflict with "national loyalty".

I have humanist identification, that often conflicts with "national loyalty", by any definition.

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.

Similar accusations are and will be made of Muslims, that as affirming Muslims, they are incapable of government service or even citizenship (even if they obey and respect the law).

You don't remember the McCarthy era loyalty oaths? (You weren't alive then, but I'm sure that you've befriended individuals for whom it was a horror.)

By: Defenestrator

Defenestrator — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Why is it an issue at all?

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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

I expect that you've read it.

By: Ed*ard Teller

Ed*ard Teller — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

From an earlier thread here, referencing percentage of American Jews serving in the US military, I decided to run the idea through, coming up with this:

Percentage of the US Military which is Jewish American - 0.2%
Percentage of Israeli Military which is Jewish American - 11.2%

I used info from US military, IDF and wikipedia sites. I did the math in my head. Does anyone have anything more authoritative? I don't want to cite this figure unless I'm sure of its accuracy.

By: daveg

daveg — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"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

By: anon

anon — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Ed*ard, James Petras wrote in a paper of his, "Jews representing less than 0.5% of US armed forces personnel and an even far smaller proportion being active soldiers on the front lines … ." But he didn't provide a source.

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.

By: Oarwell

Oarwell — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Phil, could you comment on Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

I expect you've heard of it.

(sorry, Richard, I couldn't resist. You done good to bring up JFK, but (hung with my own petard, here, I have to type it) "Defenestrator" makes, I think, the salient distinguishing point. I think it's worth re-emphasizing:

Political actions, no matter the provenance, should be open to debate.

To suggest otherwise is to go against the foundational idea embodied in the Bill of Rights.

When I was a young lad, before the malls came, one would often hear the phrase "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Of course, no one really meant it, but it served as a bold, if quirky, echo of the principle of the 'right to free speech.'

Debate should be open. Sunshine is the best etc.

PS. I read Roth's book. Interesting idea, certainly, but I didn't find it persuasive. Or, rather, I would like to have seen him take it further, to heighten the interest. Clearly Roth wasn't engaged merely in the writing of historical fiction, and he didn't want his point to be lost amidst novelized carnage. As a cautionary tale, Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," (thankfully re-issued) is better, IMO.

By: Samie

Samie — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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