My friend Dan Fleshler, who opposed the Iraq war, exonerates Jewish neocons of the charge of dual loyalty (to the U.S. and Israel) in a post on Huffpo. Interesting, but I think his argument is weak.
First off, Fleshler says that to suggest dual loyalty is a charge "tantamount to treason," and that therefore one must have incontrovertible evidence before making the charge. I don’t think it is tantamount to treason. Treason is a crime that can mean the death penalty. Dual loyalty is an affair of the heart that can actually be legal under the Constitution–indeed, the Supreme Court said some time back that it was O.K. for a person to fight and vote in another country and still be a citizen of the U.S.
There’s a difference between the right to be a citizen, or to own property, or not to be imprisoned and the right to serve as an adviser to the president. There is no such right. If there was, I could show up at the White House to be the Middle East adviser tomorrow. Political appointments are subject to tons of discretion. And all I’ve said is that when there’s a suspicion of dual loyalty, I don’t think those people should be setting policy in that area. When Elliott Abrams writes that Jews must stand apart from their society in any country but Israel, I suspect dual loyalty; and I don’t want him making policy in that powderkeg region.
The other thing I find unconvincing about Fleshler’s post is his pat exoneration of the neocons. He relates a conversation he once had with Doug Feith in which Feith said he’s a conservative who cares about a lot of countries, including Israel. This is the same Feith who pointed to a portrait of Herzl in his library, in a New Yorker article, and said that all Jews should be for Bush, presumably because Bush was so good for Israel.
That’s evidence of dual loyalty, it’s certainly not proof. I don’t think it’s easy to either establish dual loyalty or clear someone of it. I wonder how much these neocons think of Israel in their heart of hearts. But unless you put someone on truth serum, it would be hard to prove.
But this gets to the larger point. It seems to me completely legitimate to suspect dual loyalty in a lot of the Jewish thinking on the war, thinking that seamlessly conflated U.S. and Israeli interests. When Tom Friedman said he was for the war because of suicide bombers going into Tel Aviv pizza parlors…. when Ken Pollack wrote a whole book pushing for the war and said the Arab street would be on our side and he never once mentioned the Israeli occupation…. when the Jewish Policy Center told Jewish audiences that the war was good for Israel and meanwhile told general audiences that the war was good for stability in the Mideast… when my own brother said in 2002 that he was against the Vietnam war but he didn’t know how he felt about this one because "my Jewish newspaper says it could be good for Israel"…. in all these cases, I wonder whether Jews weren’t thinking about Israeli interests ahead of American ones.
That’s why I’m a non-Zionist, or a post-Zionist. Zionism creates the conditions under which these suspicions will arise, because Jews will feel torn between two places. Through the law of return, Zionism states that all Jews belong to the Jewish nation; and though in the 1950s the head of the American Jewish Committee, Joseph Blaustein, strongly rejected the calls that Israel made on American Jews, today American Jewish identity is defined to a large degree by support for Israel, and religious nationalism is routinely offered to Jewish audiences the way anti-abortion doctrine is part of the evangelical church. Some Jews have taken that idea further than others. Indeed, as I have reported, the two godfathers of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, both called for a strong U.S. military in the 70s, so as to defend Israel. Recently, John Judis and Eric Alterman, liberal journalists, have openly raised questions about dual loyalty in (some) American Jews when it comes to Israel. As I report in the American Conservative, one of the big backers of the pro-Iraq-war group Freedom’s Watch has given $60 million to the birthright program, which sends young Jews on a free trip to Israel, so they’ll fall in love with the country and with other Jews. Don’t you wonder just why he’s supporting the Iraq war? I do.
Fleshler’s pat answers won’t make this issue go away. Jewish prominence in American society, coupled with definitions of Jewish identity that tie us to Jerusalem, mean that these suspicions are going to arise whenever the U.S. makes policy choices, like the disastrous Iraq war decision, that appear to be in Israel’s interest more than our own. After Catholics came into the power structure, John Kennedy, as a step toward gaining the highest office in the land, had to go to the ministers in Houston in 1960 and explain why he felt no allegiance to the Vatican. I think Jews are facing a similar sort of crisis; indeed a Jewish candidate for president would be getting the Israel-in-your-heart question on the campaign trail right now.
As I’ve said again and again, the horror of the Iraq war ought to set off a soulsearching among Jews of conscience about the extent to which the now-routine business of rationalizing Israel’s brutal policies toward the Palestinians has come to affect American choices in the Middle East. I’m not trying to deprive any of the Jewish neocons of life, liberty or the pursuit of a sinecure at a Washington thinktank. I just want their fingers off the trigger.
Related posts:
- Another Achievement of the AJC: ‘The New Republic’ Joins Me on Dual Loyalty Issue
- John Judis Scooped Joe Klein on ‘Dual Loyalty,’ But You Can’t Find His Piece on TNR Site
- Why I Talk About Dual Loyalty
- Progressive Zionists Are as Bedevilled by the Dual Loyalty Issue as Their Neocon Cousins
- ‘Dual Loyalty’ Debate Edges Into the Center Ring
{ 50 comments }
mullah cimoc say mrs. stretchface (in waziristan everyone to using this name for mrs. pelosi- in pastu: “nipo-hard” meaning face stretch like snake)just be so the liar. also the sick brain and cruel.
mrs. stretchface never to really opposing war crime. it just to lie to get the vote money. in true stretchface full time israeli agent agent, entire career just to service him master in tel aviv. aipac, jdl, adl, all to commanding each action by mrs. stretch face.
(I hope other readers will indulge me here. I just posted this on another thread but it seems so much more appropriate here.)
An interesting thing happened today. The Israeli ambassador to Turkey apologized to the Turkish government for the fact that a U.S. congressional committee voted to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. The implication here is that Israel had both the power and responsibility to prevent the House committee from voting yes but had unaccountably failed to do so. Does Israel really feel it has such control over the U.S. Congress that it needs to apologize to other countries when the American Congress willfully goes its own way?
I have a dual loyalty problem.
My mistress wants me to leave my wife and take her on a trip around the world.
My wife wants me to buy a new house and take a second honeymoon.
What should I do?
People have to make choices sooner or later.
Jews are no exception. As an American with only one country I don't want people with a higher loyalty to a foreign country living here much less infiltrating my government.
It just doesn't work…has never worked thruout history and will never work…no matter how to try to tell yourself it's "your right" or that there is nothing wrong with it…that Israel and the Jews "are an exception."
This notion that Jews can live in one country and be loyal to another or be their own nation within a nation as the old carnard goes has been the bane of their existence..and yet?….here we go again.
Do they ever learn?
Great post on dual loyalty, Phil.
Another way of saying it: There's nothing wrong with a judge having a personal sympathy toward one side or another of a potential case, but we expect him to have the decency to recuse himself when the situation comes up. Deferring the use of his power is fundamentally a matter of showing respect for his fellow citizens.
Phil – Are you equally comfortable deny positions of influence to Muslims since they clearly have a Middle East agenda that may or may not be in the best interest of the USA?
One caveat, Phil: Jews who support the war (as you put it; I would call tamping down the war between Iraqis) because they think it is good for Israel are probably conservative enough to think knocking over Saddam was good for the USA too.
Of course, in NYC everybody except Native Americans has dual loyalty.
Talk about your lobbies. We have all been watching the Jewish one, when the Armenians have just derailed US foreign policy big time.
Just at the moment that the Turkish army is about to invade Iraqi Kurdistan and terminally destabilize whatever might be left of Iraq, the Senate passes this "Armenian genocide" resolution.
Between the Jewish, Cuban and now the Armenian (???), Lobbies. US Foreign policy is collapsing. Quelle bordelle!
The significance of the Kennedy example was that even in an election *suspicion* of dual loyalty, prospectively on ethnic grounds, or even on the simplistic math of (he's an accepting Catholic, the pope say that all Catholics should follow the Vatican's orders literally, the pope determines the Vatican's policies, therefore an accepting Catholic is a direct puppet of the pope and on the grounds of dual loyalty is unqualified for office.), is impossible to generalize without devolving to prejudice.
The consequences of that falsely simplistic math was that by virtue of being a Catholic, one would be disqualified from serving in public office let alone president.
Then of course there was Father Drinan, Congressman from Brookline, who consistently and highly ethically (and although a Father, was independant of the papacy's political preferences – that sounded nice didn't it) opposed the war in Vietnam.
It describes that the content of each CASE is what is critical, not the suspicion.
In the case of a presidential administration, the staff of the president is NOT elected, and serves in accountability to the president's chain of command. The history of presidential advisors includes a gamut of immigrants at secretarial positions, each of whom could have been and were accused of dual loyalty.
Dan is right. They were wrong, not seditious.
In this case, the question isn't whether "someone" should be prohibited from accusing another of dual loyalty. The question is whether you can ethically.
Your prospective misrepresentation of your brother's comments here is very upsetting.
Its also upsetting to hear you misuse the term "evidence". You don't propose evidence, you propose suspicion.
The difference between the two words is glaring. Scarily.
Evidence is oriented to a proof. You could possibly prove that Wormser or "the neo-conservatives" (a name-call that YOU use often in some inference of equivalence to "Jewish"), but to actually prove that logically, you would have to confidently eliminate ALL other feasible explanations or inferences.
What Dan did in quoting Fleisher, was to take the word "proof" from your tether. You can't prove anything, because your contention neglected to consider alternative explanations seriously.
"Its got to be this way. What other explanation is there?" (without investigating other explanations).
I've done bad things with money, even other people's money. The consequences of me losing money on wishful investments, is some loss to myself, but more significantly some loss to my family. The consequences of me losing other individuals' money is worse, some loss to my employer, some threat to my co-employees' jobs.
For you Phil, your words are your investment. And, in this case you are risking others peoples' credibility, and with the obvious potential of fascist generalization and demonization.
You are not criticizing specific arguments, citing alternative conclusions from the same set of facts (always admittedly with incomplete knowledge). You are taking the low road on this one.
What lessons do we derive from history? Do we repeat the past mistakes of Vietnam? (We are, and more). Do we repeat the past mistakes of American populism morphing into the more limited "populist" logic of the Ku Klux Klan? (We are.)
"Thought crime".
Please ignore my slip of Dan quoting himself, not Feith.
"Those are very serious allegations, tantamount to accusing government officials of outright treason. Whoever makes them should have incontrovertible evidence. What the accusers have is circumstantial and flimsy. "
*What the accusers have is circumstantial…*
Phil at least makes some distinction between suspicion and evidence, but goes ahead to confidently conclude dual loyalty elsewhere.
The claim that Jews or Israel control the media and the United States is the perfect lie, because even in principle it cannot be falsified. If you present the mountains of evidence to the contrary (the un-retracted doctored photos of smoke over Arab towns, the stunning insistence of the media to claim lives lost as human shields for terrorists should be tallied alongside lives lost in suicide bomb attacks on pizzerias, and the faked mass funerals at Jenin from which Americans were never disillusioned) they will claim you are being controlled by Israel. If you say nothing, these Nazis will claim to be unrefutable.
Iraq was a war declared by Bush. If you blame his advisers, then to lend any consistency you must in turn blame Bush's appointment of them. For Bush had a decision in whom to appoint. He chose individuals who he saw as sharing is views the most. That's politics, and that's America. Deal with it.
I'd like to hear Phil's response to Dude's question – If it's not kosher for Jews to serve in positions where their concern for Israel's well being may cloud their judgement as to what's in our (USA's) best interest, would it be kosher to allow either Muslim-Americans or Christian Evangelicals to serve in positions of power where they have influence over US Mid-East policy, since both also have vested interests in the region and the conflict?
Similarly, would it be kosher to have someone with anti-semitic leanings serving in a position of influence regarding the Mid-East since that person too may have difficulty clarifying what is in our best interest and what is simply not in Israel's best interest?
Taking this to an absurd point – Should we really listen to what Black politicians have to say about welfare reform given the disproportionate percentage of African-Americans who receive public assistance? Could their racial identity cloud their judgement as to what is in the best interest of the USA and what is in the best interest of the African-American community? Same for Latino-Americans and immigration?
I would be curious if Phil's brother was asked the following question how he would respond:
The US is about to engage in an adventure that may benefit Israel, but will be bad for the USA, do you support such a move?
Phil?
I personally think that most Jews believe that what is good for the USA is good for Israel. Jews don't want to see a weakened USA. I support Israel's right to exist (though not their Likud policies) and I opposed the Iraq war because I didn't think it was the right way to go about increasing American power and influence. In my thought process I did actually think about how all this would affect Israel, and my conclusion was that Israel can ill afford a weaker, less influential USA, so what is good for the USA is good for Israel. Does that make me a dual loyalist?
I'm clearly a dual loyalist, three loyalties, four loyalties, no eight or so.
1. The earth
2. Those specific inhabitants of the earth that I'm aware that I affect.
3. My family (in US, Canada, England, Israel, Guatemala)
4. My local community
5. Working people (physical and mental)
6. Truth (Substance over form)
7. New England (including Southeastern Canada)
8. United States
I still hope that I have something to contribute to someone else's decisions, even if I am not officially "loyal".
Why can't Mr Witty be honest? He's already stated that he would prefer his son to fight for the IDF rather than the American military. That says it all about his loyalties.
Also in this regard, it recently came to my attention that the Arizona chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition was honoring a Jewish American soldier. But how loyal is it that they chose to honor a soldier who fought for the IDF and not the American military?!! Maybe they aren't acquainted with any American military veterans?
It all reminds me of my college days in 1973 at the far left elitist institution I attended. It was common in that end of the Viet Nam War era to hear my fellow students brag about the various ways in which they snubbed American soldiers in uniform. But when Israel was on the verge of losing the Yom Kippur War and the Israeli version of the Red Cross showed up at our 40% Jewish campus, the Jewish students lined up en masse to give blood.
I would never term that behavior as dual loyalty however. That terminology would implie some loyalty to the USA. The reign of deceit imposed upon Americans over the last 40 or more years could never be described as loyal.
Chuck – Clearly you don't like leftists. Would you say that those non-Jewish leftists that opposed the Vietnam War were also lacking in loyalty? Or is just when leftist Jews oppose American military intervention that there is loyalty issue?
Help me understand the nature of your anger and hatred.
"Help me understand the nature of your anger and hatred."
His point, dear steiny, was that for the Jewish students, one army was despised but another was honored.
Brilliant and in depth analysis there fellas. No other factors could explain the difference in positions.
Not that in one war we were the aggressors, and in '73 the Israelis were the ones being attacked. There were a lot of good reasons to oppose the Viet Nam war and to do so wasn't unpatriotic. To donate blood to the Israelis when they were under attack is not an act of disloyalty to the USA.
Only in your and Chuck's little Universe anything and everything Jews seem to do is evidence of some sin or another.
Phil – I'm still waiting for you to address the questions Dude and I raised regarding dual loyalty.
I don't dislike all leftists and can honestly say that there are some leftists, including the proprietor of this blog, whom I admire very much. I was personally opposed the Viet Nam War so I'm not inclined to question the motivations of most of those who opposed it.
I will acknowlege my contempt for dishonesty and dishonest people. Examples of this would include those who proclaim themselves to be anti-war, unless it is the IDF's war, those who get hysterical about the Holocaust, but choose to ignore the many other(Ukraine anyone?) genocides throughout human history, those who like to construct supposed Constitutional rights to separation of church and state, but readily ignore the same when American taxpayers are shook down for the billions sent to the theocracy of Israel every year.
Consistency as is not so much the hobgoblin of a small mind, but rather a devotion to justice.
Lets take a case study approach to Chuck's position.
Meet Judy Goldman. She is a student at the University of Wisconsin in 1973. She opposes the Viet Nam war because she believes it is unnecessary war and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Americans are being killed in her opinion for no good reason.
Israel is attacked on Yom Kippur by Syria and Egypt. The surprise attack has Israel back on its heels. Thousands of Israelis are killed in the attacks and there is a need for blood donors. Judy is for a two-state solution and would like to see the Palestinians have their own independent state side by side with Israel. When asked if she will donate blood for Israel she agrees to.
According to Chuck, Judy is a dual loyalist.
The question is why would good progressive Jews want to absolve the likes of Doug Feith of any charge.
What is this weird propensity some good progressive two-state supporting Jews have to suck up to our worst enemies. It's like they think : if the barricades are erected, I want to make sure I'm with my fellow neocon Jews and not Walt-Mearsheimer.
Strange, No matter where the barricades are erected, I will not be on the same side of them as Feith, Krauthammer, Peretz, Wurmser, etc.
To those who respond, as they invariably do that Hitler would put me on the same side, my response is that I don't let Hitler make my choices for me.
Feith is dripping with the blood of 4000 Americans, people about whom he knows nothing and cares less.
Why would anyone defend this creep?
Allahstein, what a tedious argument. Yes yes, they're apples and oranges to you. We get it.
This isn't about the Yom Kippur War. It's about… wait for it…
ZIONISM.
No Zionism, no Yom Kippur War.
No Zionism, No 1967.
No 1956. No 1948. No 1937-1939. No Naqba. No 4 million refugees. No Zionist organizations lobbying against immigration restrictions in the US and Britain during the Holocaust. No Haganah targeting civilians. No subdivisions built on Palestinian villages and graveyards. No Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert setting Lebanon back 10 years and many thousands of civilian lives. No Hezbollah. No clusterbombs maiming Lebanese children. No Katyusha missle attacks on Haifa. No suicide bombers. No home demolitions. No Bantustans. No wall. No detainment and torture. No indoctrinating adolescents with vile Arabophobia. No 18 year old IDF patrolling Jerusalem with AK47s. No Oslo. No bullshit calls for ceasefire. No 100 billion dollars of taxpayer money spent on colonial war activities instead of health and education in the US. No ill-advised 600 billion dollar invasion of Iraq. No Jimmy Carter book. No Lobby. No W&M book. No Dershowitz.
And everything great that has happened in Israel could have just as well happened in the United States, as so many successful Jewish stories have shown.
Zionism was a terrible, racist idea from the start. You don't need to believe in original sin to know an enormous, impossible colonial clusterfuck when you see one.
MJ – I think Progressive Jews are not inclined to defend Feith and his cronies from responsibility for their decisions and misguided policies, but they are inclined to look at his decision making as not stemming solely from an "Israel First" perspective and understand that there is a difference between trying to do the right thing and being wrong, and doing something evil and deceptive. Phil with great confidence claims that the latter is what Feith and the neocons have done and it is due to their being Jews that they did it. While I can detest their positions and their policies, I don't have to ascribe them as being driven solely by their jewishness and concern for Israel. This is the insidious argument that Phil trumpets daily in an often sophmoric fashion on this blog. While their pro-Likud positions are consistent with their right wing American views, how are they that different from right wing non-jews? Do you distinguish Feith as being in any way different or more or less responsible than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc for the Iraq mess? If so, why?
And MJ, since Phil is scared to venture in to the comments section, by his own admission, I would really like your opinion as to Dude's and my questions about dual loyalty.
And just so you know, I'm actually a fan of yours and the IPF.
Arie's citations demonstrate even more clearly the role that Zionism has played in DIVIDING the Middle East. 100,000 Jews in Iraq. Even more in Iran. Very few of them intent on moving to Stolen Palestine. Then 1948-49. Synagogues in Iraq bombed by overzealous Zionist extremists.
It is certainly oversimplistic to reduce all of the tensions and conflicts in the Middle East to Zionism. But it is simply astounding how Zionist apologists will not admit ANY deleterious effects of Zionism on the peace, stability, and progress of the region.
The only antagonists in the Zionist mythology, of course, are the Arabs.
MM – You only make yourself look foolish with your comments. Of course Zionist apologists are not going to admit any blame. By definition they are apologists.
I am a zionist and I admit that zionism has had a unhealthy and destabilizing impact on the region. I think this is due to the way in which both the Jews and the Arabs have dealt with it, and it can be different, and potentially globablly stabilizing if handled correctly. i.e. a two-state solution and reconciliation process.
So Zionism has had an unhealthy and destabilizing impact on the region…
…but let's keep the pseudo-religious, ethnic-nationalist criteria for Israeli citizenship.
I'm sure someone will give those Palestinians their own state, some day.
Let me add to my above statement that even without the Jews moving back into the neighborhood in the early part of the 20th centruy the region was likely to be unstable due to the Europeans carving up the former Ottoman Empire. Israel clearly has made it more unstable, but given oil in the region it was likely to be a stabilization challenge from the start.
MM – Yes. And lets enable the Palestiniains to build a Palestinian nation as Abbas is seeking. A nation where they can decide whether Palesinians in the diaspora can have automatic citizenship or not.
Richard Witty: "the question isn't whether "someone" should be prohibited from accusing another of dual loyalty. The question is whether you can ethically."
There's nothing wrong with calling someone on his problematic loyalties. If I were ever to find myself in a foxhole I sure wouldn't want someone with dual loyalties covering my back. Don't you get it? America comes first and all other countries are tied for a distant second.
Gene,
I too would want to know that the person in the foxhole with me is loyal to the same team I am. That's why it must be very scary to be an Iraqi soldier right now. You're not sure if your Sunni, Kurdish, or Shiite comrade is more loyal to the Army or to his sect or tribe.
So that we don't have any misunderstandings, perhaps you could clarify what policies one would need to endorse and support in order to insure that we are loyal to America. You know, so there is no question about it.
Thank you.
Phil, obsession is backfiring.
All hypocrisy should be exposed.
WM have bombarded Israel and American Jews with endless accusations.
It is clearly so prejudiced.
A decent scholar can not limit his research to such a narrow field.
From leftists, the WM team turned into protofascists, and their fans are not better.
I do not believe we are in Iraq due to the influence of the neocons. I believe the neocons were used by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. But, as far as most of the neocon group being motivated by their view of what's good for Israel, absolutely.
Doug Feith, for instance, was a prominent fellow here in Washington for decades before Iraq. He was, however, identified with only one issue: keeping the West Bank and the settlements.
There is no more to the ideology of Doug Feith than settler-ish Likudism.
But this is not true of Wolfowitz, Fukuyama, Bolton and a few others.
But, from what I know of these people, Feith, Wurmser, Frum, Podhoretz, Peretz, Krauthammer and others
are driven, in all their views, by what will sustain the occupation.
Since I consider the neocon position on Israel lethal for Israel, I tend not to say that it's Israel they care about. In fact, most of them hate the Israel I love: secular, humanist, peace-loving, Tel Aviv, the kibbutzim, Haifa, etc.
So, not to draw too fine a point, these guys are not Republicans, not Democrats, not conservatives and not liberal.
They are Herut. Greater Israel. That comes before anything else.
Is it dual loyalty? No. I give them credit for loyalty to neither the US or Israel but rather to a perverted worldview.
But I know one thing. Doug Feith was not thinking about America when he manipulated the information that got us into this war and he, and the rest of the gang, lose no sleep over the 4000 Americans killed there.
Remember, Norman Podhoretz once told Gore Vidal that the American Civil War was as alien to him as the War of Roses. That says it all.
MJ – You are my kind of zionist.
Help me try to understand the thinking of a Feith. Why is it so important to maintain the territories? As a zionist I feel no such need to maintain those territories and in fact feel morally obliged to hand them over to the Palestinians in order to assist them in establishing their own state. The zionist goal for me is the actualization of both the Jews and Palestinians to have a homeland where they can have at least a minimal sense of agency as a people. I can understand the religious arguments for keeping the land. They truly believe God commands them to live on it, but Feith et al are not that religious. Do they have a rationale other than wanting more land for Israel? I got the sense from reading and listening to Wolfowitz that he is not married to the territories and is sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Are these guys so cynical about there ever actually being a peace that they believe all the downside is worth it in order to maintain some sort of strategic depth advantage with the territories?
Now plenty of non-jewish, non-zionist, power players also thought it was important for us to intervene in the Middle-East and insure our access to oil given China and India's growing oil appetites. I think this is what you may be referring to in your comment that we are in Iraq for reasons other than those held by Israel supporters. Is it not possible that the neocons had those same priorities, AND they thought it would be beneficial to Israel? A win-win, but definitely not treason. Phil doesn't seem to allow for this likelihood, but prefers to spin it that their entire enterprise is about doing Israel's bidding and the US be damned.
Your thoughts on these matters are greatly appreciated.
Here's my take. And thanks for the kind words.
The Feith's of this world are not attracted by Israel as a happy home for Jewish children (I'm oversimplifying). They don't want Herzl's state like any other state.
They are driven by both paranoia (it is always 1942 in their dark world) and hate. It is not so much that they want settlements as they hate the Palestinians who, for them, play the role of Nazis or evil goyim.
Their Zionism, such as it is, is entirely negative. They harp on the Holocaust because in a weird way they think it was the most truly Jewish time in our history. That is why they are so proprietary about it. ("How dare you compare BLANK to the Holocaust [or Hitler, or Nazis}. It is unique It was our Holocaust."
The "Tel Aviv Jews" (whether in T-A or LA) are glad to be alive now when we are free to be ourselves here, in Israel, wherever.
The Feiths want anti-semitism, want isolated settlements, want the ghetto because they fear that freedom will destroy Jewish solidarity.
That's my take on the Jewish lunatic right!
Thanks. Utterly depressing. I think I'll go make another donation to Peace Now.
Shabat Shalom.
And, what is the appropriate response when there is assault on Israel, or on Jews?
In some cases, the angers are conditional, and the situation can be changed by changing the treatment and the conditions.
On the other hand, when Hezbollah insists that even with the settlement of Shebaa Farms, they will continue to fight until Israel is no more, the agitation is unconditional.
The best then is quiet, but never peace.
The dilemma relative to murderous forms of agitation (shelling civilians or suicide bombings for example) is what to do.
If no assertive response, then hotheads regard that as encouragement, weakness. "We've got them on the run. They don't even have the will to defend themselves."
If proportional response, things stay exactly the same as previously, stuck.
If excessive response, cruelty and then hatred are invoked further.
What is the path to peace in some relation with those that don't desire peace?
There is a Judaism that is mission-driven, that is unique and separate in ways without being either vain or paranoid.
That is the commitment to transformation of the world from mundane to holy. In the present, most importantly close to one's home, one's person, where one can make a difference.
"All my relations".
Politics is usually far from home, talking about others.
Politics that is constructed of one's own, or one's community's relations, is political and holy.
Politics that is constructed from the math of consistent ideas only (or worse, invoked sentimental reactions), usually applied to others, is generally dry and imposing.
American politics in recent history has been largely of a projection of power, distant, lacking relationship.
Israeli politics is different than American. Its much less a projection of distant power, and more a partially desparate attempt to construct an artificially acceptable setting, but only for one's own.
Israel is genuinely attacked, frequently, and in a manner that I describe as unconditional. That is real, and it is a reality that Americans just don't experience.
Our proportion of "defense" spending compared to Israel's on actual defense is enormous.
Fleshler responds at http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/165
"Weiss Exonerates People Who Are Obsessed With Dual Loyalty"
Allahstein: "So that we don't have any misunderstandings, perhaps you could clarify what policies one would need to endorse and support in order to insure that we are loyal to America. You know, so there is no question about it."
You asked a good and important question and I'm proud to say I have the answer. The US goverment should provide tax incentives to bathroom mirror manufacturers to put stickers on all their products with the phone number of El Al airline. That way when people with dual loyalties get up to shave each morning they can ask themselves if they are really living in the country of their hearts' desire. And if it turns out, after rigorous self-examination, that they are not, they can call the number on the sticker, buy their ticket on the spot and be on the way to the land of their dreams before the day is through. They will be happier and less conflicted, not having to hide their true feelings from their neighbors anymore. And, unless I miss my guess, their neighbors will be happier still.
LOL Gene. :)
Ha Ha Gene. Funny. If they don't leave, what are you going to do? Make 'em take showers? ROFLMAO!
What are your loyalties?
Any of them multiple?
Or is reconciling two conflicting ideas responsibly too much to ask of you?
Say the conflicting loyalty of humanism with American "patriotism"?
I'm not very big on patriotism. I make a big distinction between loyalty to say the American people and our current government. What I do resent are Americans who are invariably more loyal to strangers 7000 miles away in Israel than they are to their next-door neighbors right here in America.
Philip, it's for long time I follow your writing. You've made great progress. There is one step more to do: to cease being a Jew. It is possible – I did. Just say – I am not anymore. Like Alcoholics Anonymous.
Israel Shamir
israel.shamir@gmail.com
"What I do resent are Americans who are invariably more loyal to strangers 7000 miles away in Israel than they are to their next-door neighbors right here in America."
And how do you determine that?
My contention is that the problem with Wormser, Feith, Abrams is that in ways they are TOO loyal to the United States, rather than disloyal or not loyal enough.
I prefer leaders with dual loyalties, loyalties to humanity, to community and communities (including Israeli and including Palestinian).
Rather than loyalties to abstractions.
Consider the LAW regarding officers of corporations.
Absent explicit obligations in a corporation's charter, an officer of a corporation is obliged to pursue the interests of that corporation (expressed as some form of return on investment in some time frame), to the exclusion of other goals.
I prefer that an officer of a corporation simultaneously be obliged to be a good citizen as the norm, beyond obeying the law, that they be human beings, invested in and actively concerned for communities (and not just for the PR of it).
For acting on the dual loyalty of concern for his/her or others' communities, as well as the corporation's interests, a corporate officer can be sued or in some cases prosecuted.
The way that humane corporate officers get around that is BY dual loyalty, in the form of asking:
1. Is this proposal good for the entity that I am an officer of?
AND
2. Is this proposal good for other entity's that I am aware will be affected by it?
Witty: "And how do you determine [who is more loyal to Israel than America]?"
It's not very hard, given that Israel is all they talk about. Their position on the imminent war with Iran is another clear indicator. Since bombing Iran is not in the US interest but clearly in the Israeli interest, I would suggest that anyone who wants us to attack Iran almost certainly suffers from dual loyalty issues.
"I prefer leaders with dual loyalties, loyalties to humanity, to community and communities (including Israeli and including Palestinian)."
This is a definition of dual loyalty with which I can agree. Your previously announced preference for the IDF had made me think otherwise.
"Israel is all they talk about".
Who is the "they" you are speaking of, specifically. Perhaps you can post a complete list of their published materials to determine if "all" is only an exageration, or a misrepresentation.
Phil doesn't only talk about Walt and Mearsheimer. He also talks about the Diamondbacks, and snakes near his home, and some authors that he's liked and disliked.
In the past, his range of published materials were much broader though.
Witty: "In the past, [Phil's] range of published materials were much broader though."
In my opinion, Phil is a very lucky man. He has found his niche–writing insightfully and well about an extraordinarily important subject for America (the betrayal of the country by some very deluded or misguided Zionist-minded Jews who tend to put Israel's interests ahead of America's). Furthermore, I hope he continues to write about this till the cows come home, given how apoplectic some people are at his public washing of their dirty laundry.
Comments on this entry are closed.