Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer is not only a smart guy, he’s legit. He was on ‘60 Minutes’ three years back talking about the hunt for bin Laden. Well, now Scheuer is out of the closet, on antiwar.com, with accusations of dual loyalty! He angrily describes Commentary’s Gabriel Schoenfeld and others as "Israel-firsters," Americans who claim that Israeli and American interests are identical. This is of course, crazy. Well, let Scheuer say it:
The nation-state of Israel is an intolerable burden to the treasury and security of the United States, and Washington’s current relationship with Israel – sanctioned by the AIPAC-funded political leaders of both parties – is one of several factors that are leading to full-scale American participation in other peoples’ religious wars…
Amen. I keep a little list of journalists who have brought up the dual-loyalty issue in challenging the promotion of Israel’s interests in the U.S. They include John Judis and Eric Alterman (and me too!). The ranks are growing. As I’ve often pointed out, American Jewish anti- and non-Zionists in the first half of the 20th century invariably cited concerns about challenges to their American loyalty as reason to oppose the formation of a Jewish state. Their concerns have now become real, as Israeli conduct and U.S. interests sharply diverge, while American Jewish organizations, on whom Israel has become dependent for support, insist that the nations have a total congruence of interest…
Now when is ‘60 Minutes’ going to put Scheuer back on–say, in a report on the controversy over Walt and Mearsheimer?
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
- ‘JPost’ addresses dual loyalty issue in American Jews
- Is ‘The Forward’ Supporting Dual Loyalty?
- Annals of Self-Censorship (In ‘06, Judt Hinted What Klein Said Re Dual Loyalty)
{ 50 comments }
Actually, the question of Jewish dual loyalty predates Israel. French Captain Alfred Dreyfus was placed on a short list of officers who could have sold secrets to Germany–and it suddenly became a list with only ONE name on it, because as the only Jew he became the beneficiary of a rather cruel affirmative action.
Sentenced to a "living death" on Devil's Island with no real evidence against him, support for Dreyfus slowly snowballed. When challenged that they were willing to destroy France over "a Jew," his supporters replied, "No, for a Frenchman!" He was eventually exonerrated. The point is that the anti-zionists and non-zionists you cite had a glaring example they could point to that pre-dated Israel. When Jonathan Pollard's supporters call him "another Dreyfus," I can imagine Dreyfus's coffin spinning so violently as to reach terminal velocity!
Scheuer is right of course…these people are guilty, if that's the word, of not being loyal to the country they are citizens of and living in. They just plain do not have what we think of as "American Values" and what's more they don't care about this country…except as how they can use it for their own purpose.
But besides these particular type of screwball Jews, we have the religously deranged christian evangelicals..it's hard to say which group is more deluded or guilty of "non-loyalty" and damage to the country. They are both insane.
The whole Israel thing is the result of a long cmapaign of brainwashing the public by both the crazy uber zionist and christian TV God merchants that has been going on for a long time now.
But I think a lot of people are deprogramming themselves finally on this "Isr/merica" delusion.
"I keep a little list of journalists who have brought up the dual-loyalty issue in challenging the promotion of Israel's interests in the U.S."
Not to disparage your list one bit, but the journalists who deserve the most credit are the gentile writers who spoke out. Knowing what was to come down on their heads, theirs was an even braver stand. Interestingly, most were from the conservative and libertarian side — Buchanan, Raimondo, McConnell, Novak, Jude Wanniski, Lew Rockwell, Craig Roberts, etc. But the left also had a few who stood up to the gatekeepers, but they generally shied away from the mainstream media — Petras, the Christisons, Alexander Cockburn, and the CounterPunch crew.
BTW, Scheur's article has a context. Commentary's Schoenfield has been giving him the "Jimmy Carter treatment" for quite a while; approximately ever since Scheuer drew applause when he said on TV, "I hope Israel flourishes. I just don't think it's worth an American life or an American dollar."
Michael Scheuer Interviewed by Bill Maher 9-21-2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1952183090376569727
Congressman Ed Royce Spews Israel Lobby Line on Iran
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/11/ed-royce-spews-israel-lobby-line-on.html
Re: AIPAC is pushing us to war with Iran for Israel:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
CBS '60 Minutes' refusing to cover Mearsheimer and Walt book:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=77703
Additional about Mearsheimer and Walt:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800
US Support of Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 9/11:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590
Keep in mind that 'Commentary' is published by the American Jewish Committee (see the excerpt below from Kevin MacDonald's 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article):
http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/030918_neoconservatism.htm
In all of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied, there is a strong Jewish identity among the core figures. All center on charismatic Jewish leaders—people such as Boas, Trotsky and Freud— who are revered as messianic, god-like figures.
Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the “New York Intellectuals,” a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee). In the case of neoconservatives, their early identity as radical leftist disciples shifted as there began to be evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. Key figures in leading them out of the political left were philosopher Sidney Hook and Elliot Cohen, editor of Commentary. Such men as Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer and Seymour Martin Lipset, were deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and other Jewish issues. Many of them worked closely with Jewish activist organizations. After the 1950s, they became increasingly disenchanted with leftism. Their overriding concern was the welfare of Israel.
Understanding Jewish Influence III:
Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement
Kevin MacDonald
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-3.htm
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.html
————————————-
The Israel Lobby and the Psychology of Influence
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Blog.htm#The%20Israel%20Lobby%20and%20the%20Psychology%20of%20Influence
U.S.: Iran attack plans (for Israel) ready if needed
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear aims, although no strike appears imminent.
The Army and Marine Corps are under enormous strain from years of heavy ground fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran if President Bush decided to target nuclear sites or to retaliate for alleged Iranian meddling in neighboring Iraq.
Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran's ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil.
The Navy has an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf area with about 60 fighters and other aircraft that likely would feature prominently in a bombing campaign. And a contingent of about 2,200 Marines are on a standard deployment to the Gulf region aboard ships led by the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship. Air Force fighters and bombers are available elsewhere in the Gulf area, including a variety of warplanes in Iraq and at a regional air operations center in Qatar.
But there has been no new buildup of U.S. firepower in the region. In fact there has been some shrinkage in recent months. After adding a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf early this year — a move that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said was designed to underscore U.S. long-term stakes in the region — the Navy has quietly returned to a one-carrier presence.
Talk of a possible U.S. attack on Iran has surfaced frequently this year, prompted in some cases by hard-line statements by White House officials. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, stated on Oct. 21 that the United States would "not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," and that Iran would face "serious consequences" if it continued in that direction. Gates, on the other hand, has emphasized diplomacy.
Bush suggested on Oct. 17 that Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear arms could lead to "World War III." Yet on Wednesday, in discussing Iran at a joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Bush made no reference to the military option.
"The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is dangerous, and, therefore, now is the time for us to work together to diplomatically solve this problem," Bush said, adding that Sarkozy also wants a peaceful solution.
Iran's conventional military forces are generally viewed as limited, not among the strongest in the Middle East. But a leading expert on the subject, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says it would be a mistake to view the Islamic republic as a military weakling.
"Its strengths in overt conflict are more defensive than offensive, but Iran has already shown it has great capability to resist outside pressure and any form of invasion and done so under far more adverse and divisive conditions than exist in Iran today," Cordesman wrote earlier this year.
Cordesman estimates that Iran's army has an active strength of around 350,000 men.
At the moment, there are few indications of U.S. military leaders either advising offensive action against Iran or taking new steps to prepare for that possibility. Gates has repeatedly emphasized that while military action cannot be ruled out, the focus is on diplomacy and tougher economic sanctions.
Asked in late October whether war planning had been ramped up or was simply undergoing routine updates, Gates replied, "I would characterize it as routine." His description of new U.S. sanctions announced on Oct. 25 suggested they are not a harbinger of war, but an alternative.
A long-standing responsibility of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to maintain and update what are called contingency plans for potential military action that a president might order against any conceivable foe. The secret plans, with a range of timelines and troop numbers, are based on a variety of potential scenarios — from an all-out invasion like the March 2003 march on Baghdad to less demanding missions.
Another military option for Washington would be limited, clandestine action by U.S. special operations commandos, such as Delta Force soldiers, against a small number of key nuclear installations.
The man whose responsibility it would be to design any conventional military action against Iran — and execute it if ordered by Bush — is Adm. William Fallon, the Central Command chief. He is playing down prospects of conflict, saying in a late September interview that there is too much talk of war.
"This constant drumbeat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful," Fallon told Al-Jazeera television, adding that he does not expect a war against Iran. During a recent tour of the Gulf region, Fallon made a point of telling U.S. allies that Iran is not as strong as it portrays itself.
"Not militarily, economically or politically," he said.
Fallon's immediate predecessor, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, raised eyebrows in September when he suggested that initiating a war against Iran would be a mistake. He urged vigorous efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but failing that, he said, "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran." He also said he believed Iran's leaders could be dissuaded from using nuclear arms, once acquired.
The possibility of U.S. military action raises many tough questions, beginning perhaps with the practical issue of whether the United States knows enough about Iran's network of nuclear sites — declared sites as well as possible clandestine ones — to sufficiently set back or destroy their program.
Among other unknowns: Iran's capacity to retaliate by unleashing terrorist strikes against U.S. targets.
Non-military specialists who have studied Iran's nuclear program are doubtful of U.S. military action.
"There is a non-trivial chance that there will be an attack, but it's not likely," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of a nuclear strategy project at the New America Foundation, a non-partisan public policy group.
OT, but Stephen Walt is interviewed on BBC's HARDtalk programme:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7085187.stm
Just a comment on Sarkozy from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2208062,00.html
You know I cherish what you do here, Phil. But yr whole idee fixe about "dual loyalty" is a load of hogwash. The Scheuer quote has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue. I don't know why you use such a trite phrase which is a classic anti-Semitic canard.
Scheuer is not talking about American Jews dual loyalty to both Israel and the U.S. He is talking about AIPAC's hijacking of U.S. policy. The whole idea of "loyalty" in general is demeaning & insidious. As a progressive Zionist I don't feel "loyal" to Israel. As an American I don't feel "loyal" to this country. I love both and that love is not conflicted in any way despite what you say.
"Dual loyalty" is a catchy phrase that obscures rather than clarifies the argument.
Here's the context, Richard:
Finally, I wish to directly refute Mr. Schoenfeld's claim that I "cast aspersions on American Jews." I do not cast aspersions, I forthrightly damn, and pray that God damns, any American – Jew, Catholic, Evangelical, Irish, German, Hindu, hermaphrodite, thespian, or otherwise – who flogs the insane idea that American and Israeli interests are one and the same.
Scheuer is an American patriot and is speaking the truth. Notice how the neocons at "powerline" have started a "Sheuer Watch." Scheuer must have them worried since they have started a smear campaign against him.
Keep up the good work!
"…the journalists who deserve the most credit are the gentile writers who spoke out. Knowing what was to come down on their heads, theirs was an even braver stand…"
That was a most fortunate comment from David.
"'Dual loyalty' is a catchy phrase that obscures rather than clarifies the argument."
Indeed, but if one really wants to use some catchy phrase that obscures the argument like no other does I suggest "classic anti-Semitic canard".
You might be interested in looking at our website — particularly at our seven studies of mainstream news coverage of Israel-Palestine, http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ Among our findings was that primetime news shows covered Israeli children's deaths at rates up to 13 times greater than they covered Palestinian children's deaths. Also, we have a 4-minute video about Jeffrey Goldberg that I think is especially relevant: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/goldberg.html
In fact, I suspect all of our videos would be interesting to your readers:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/videos.html
We're happy to send people DVDs of these to distribute in their communities. I think it will take a grassroots effort to expose this deeply disturbing situation.
Alision Weir
If you haven’t already, you may want to check out the work of Dr. Robert Coles and, in particular, his Children of the Crisis series. I keep waiting for a study with a similar methodology to focus on Israeli and Palestinian (and while we are at it…Iraqi) children. But so far…nada.
Dr. Coles, of course, focused on children living in poverty in the South decades ago — children from all classes who were subjected to a desegregated society. He was more poet than psychiatrist and, in his work he broke all the stereotypes. None of this academic stereotyping where all “planters’” children are bad, etc., etc. ad nauseum.
Now that I think about it…Coles’ work, if apropos, would seem to corroborate what Condi Rice unwittingly confessed a few days ago…the existence of “A” in the “Holy Land”.
While you are at it, if you haven’t already, you may want to check out the psychological writings of one David Leo Guttman of AEI and ask yourself if his objective is to unconsciously erase guilt from treating Arabs as not human. Stanford study, anyone? Is there a correlation between militant ethnic nationalism, pre-emptive strikes,and torture?
Richard Silverstein – who is obscuring? There is dual loyalty and your community is going to be called on it – At last!
There is Jewish supremacist such as Abrams, even Phil is guilty of it when talks about "we are the elites." How did you guys manage it? If you guys see yourselves within your own ID group, I have no problem except Why will you not respect our identity and our group as separate from your own? If an American citizen commits treason he is a goddamn spy, if an American Jew commits treason he is a prisoner of Zion – Pollard? AIPAC is derailing the case against them by blackmailing the idiot goy in the government they've been handling, they go and they take Condi and Co down with them. Aint that about the sum of it?
You are not more intellectual, you have merely commandeered our acadamia. You are not more gifted, you have merely commandeered every crook and cranny of civic life in this country and you're doing the same in Europe. You demand 24/7 holocaust worship like weird morbids THEN demand that we kill any people who challenge you in Iraq and Iran and after we kill them you will demand we kill Syria. There is a problem with YOUR people cept rather than face it, you bellyache anti Semitism. YOU are anti gentile, YOU are anti Arab, anti Iranian, you guys need to pull yourselves together or you will continue to be a real danger to every other people in your midst, bellyaching when they reject you. No more war for Israel, AND no more Jewish elitism. You may have as much but NOT MORE. That is the only way forward for all decent people. YOU STOP OBSCURING the damage jews are responsible for. You're great at telling the rest of us how bad and racist we are, look at yourselves and what you do. You go after power but have no concept of what to do with it except destroy economis (ours) and indiginous people in their lands, the Arabs. Now you're going after the Iranians and Syrians godamn it using genitle American boys to do it. That is rank evil. Don;t you dare onscure what your folk are doing.
Beyond my personal phone call attempts, I am asking again our friend Phil:
Have you got any decency?
I think it is time to end this McCarthy like blog postings?
to: THOSE WHO DONT LIKE PHRASE DUAL LOYALTY
okay…how about you practice with "conflict of interest"…you cannot work for Microsoft and Google at the same time. Why? They have different interests! The same analogy applies to Israel and the U.S.
Phil Weiss is a voice of sanity in the Jewish community. If the rest of the Jewish community does not wake up and drop the dual loyalty then American Jews are cruisin' for a bruisin'. It is hard for me to read posts that deny this simple overwhelming fact.
To: Silverstein
I think that it is time you went away and considered the questions: What is dual loyalty? Would anything constitute dual loyalty to you?
Should Americans tolerate it and why?
What is loyalty?
what is a nation? Is the US a nation? Can it withstand much of its establishment being so focussed on a another country whose interests do not coincide with the U.S.'?
Look, I am gonna be blunt here but you are brainwashed by your media. You can only be loyal to one country.
You dual-loyalists are playing with fire
To: Silverstein
I think that it is time you went away and considered the questions: What is dual loyalty? Would anything constitute dual loyalty to you?
Should Americans tolerate it and why?
What is loyalty?
what is a nation? Is the US a nation? Can it withstand much of its establishment being so focussed on a another country whose interests do not coincide with the U.S.'?
Look, I am gonna be blunt here but you are brainwashed by your media. You can only be loyal to one country.
You dual-loyalists are playing with fire
It isn't just in the US, John. Dual loyalty is a real problem outisde US. Turns out the French paper, la figaro ran a piece on an investigation into Sarkozy. This guy was recruited as a "sayan" all this has been kept under wraps – you just know these guys are gonna start hollering anti Semitism to shut the whole thing down, stop the French from investigating properly – they'll scream Dreyfuss. The crooks is this, you cannot serve two masters, and guys like Abrams really do exist, do see themselves as masters of the universe. the only way to stop all hell breaking lose if for jewish folk themselves to address the culture. Yeah sure Phil is a decent guy, but I said before, the language slips sometimes like "we are the (jewish) elites now" and such. Question, do we want them to be seeing how well it's gone so far? Country in two wars, sliding economy, hated from every corner of the earth? And it don't matter squat about Richard goddamn Witty asking Phil to shut down acause there is an abundance now of forums where people are getting this damned Stalinist bullshit that's been pushed down our throats, off their chests. Poeple are puking on the propaganda here, John – don't know where you are.
before Iraq I never looked too close, never second guessed the news & politicians. The $ is sliding, so called elites have got people drownding in debt, losing their homes – meanwhile Israel is opening more talks with germany for yet more compensation – My own idiot governement is sending these guys billions and writing off loans. we don't even know how much the Israeli are creaming us for because alot of the money is hidden under different headers. israel have better services than we do for crying out loud – yet here they are, powerfully backed internationally within their own community and no one is allowed say say, hey, enough already. Lets all grow up a little and love on. How the hell did they manage to get us into this situation – pure good luck and coincidence.
I think Richard has it right.
The only people that could possibly be singly loyal are those that have abandoned family, community, religion, humanity, in favor of military type loyalty.
If you are in the military, that might be honest and appropriate. Even then, most that rant against "dual loyalty" are themselves renegades, selectively disavowing elements of the law of the land, even to the point of disobeying orders and/or rules of engagement.
For any civilian, the concept of singular loyalty is a joke.
As I've referred before, my personal complaint with the neo-conservatives is not that they are insufficiently loyal or dually loyal, but that they are TOO loyal.
They think TOO much in the national interest, and insufficiently in the human interest.
On which side of that fence do you sit?
The radical leftist anti-Zionists, or the fascist ones?
sorry I should have explained, the story in la figaro about sarkozy being a *sayan* it means *helper* in hebrew – as in this guy worked for mossad. I hope the French are allowed to investigate properly , don't get turned over and roll over like we have. they knew about this last year but kept it quite.
Go on Witty, say it aint so. mossad dont use sayans in differnt countries and aipac dont spy on USA and pollard is a godamn nun.
Witty: "my personal complaint with the neo-conservatives is not that they are insufficiently loyal or dually loyal, but that they are TOO loyal.
They think TOO much in the national interest, and insufficiently in the human interest."
We protect Israel in the UN. We give her $3 to $5 billion a year in aid. There is no reason in addition to put the welfare of her citizens ahead of those of ours.
Witty: "my personal complaint with the neo-conservatives is not that they are insufficiently loyal or dually loyal, but that they are TOO loyal.
They think TOO much in the national interest, and insufficiently in the human interest."
We protect Israel in the UN. We give her $3 to $5 billion a year in aid. There is no reason in addition to put the welfare of her citizens ahead of those of ours.
Since we're recalling American journalists who have brought up dual-loyalty and Israel, let's not forget the brave and outstanding Amy Pagnozzi, who was writing about this stuff at the Hartford Courant several years ago before being let go for reasons unknown. Let's just say she ran into quite a shitstorm of hostility from CAMERA and the usual suspects. Her paper, in a disgusting moment for American journalism, folded like a lawn chair.
I think that "dual loyalty" is over hyped. It is a fact of "diaspora politics" in general and the reality for many ethnic groups in America. To pretend that these types of characterizations are off limits is just an attempt to restrict the debate.
Although, it isn't helpful to make sweeping accusations of "dual loyalty" to all members of any diaspora or ethnic group. Sweeping non-specific accusations are often used to fuel hatred because they can't be refuted or intelligently discussed. Rather one should be specific about who you are talking about and on what particular interests or issues — and Philip does this quite well. You should be able to specify what is the "diaspora's interest" and how it differs from the "nation's interest."
In order to have a sensible discussion of foreign policy you have to acknowledge that ethnic interest groups have specific angles that may not align with the nation's group interest.
There is a good framework for discussing these types of issues in a production fashion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_interest_group#Discussing_ethnic_influence
I think that while the topic on this blog is the Jewish diaspora in the United States and its relationship to its homeland Israel, the basic phenomena at play are pretty universal and not unique.
Neo conservative: think too much in the national interest…..I am confused…you mean what they perceive to be Israel's national interest…then I agree with you.
What the neo cons advocate is the exact opposite what George Washington admonished.
The American public is entitled to know what they are voting for. If you Israel firsters want a formal defense treaty between the Us and Israel then have the integrity to lobby for it. But please don't silence patriots like Buchanan who point out that Israel's inteerests do not coincide with America's and that such a treaty is not in the US national interest.
Right now thanks to AIPAC and its dual loyal core, we have a de facto treaty that puts Israel first too often. That is why we are in Iraq.
Being loyal or having interests with Israel and the U.S…You are playing with fire, you Israel-firsters….you are flying under a false falg..if the public ever figures out what is going on it will be a calamity for you.
Look, dont reply…just think about it. I I wish you no ill but those of you who wish to entangle the US in Isreal's problems are destabilising the US.
Neo conservative: think too much in the national interest…..I am confused…you mean what they perceive to be Israel's national interest…then I agree with you.
What the neo cons advocate is the exact opposite what George Washington admonished.
The American public is entitled to know what they are voting for. If you Israel firsters want a formal defense treaty between the Us and Israel then have the integrity to lobby for it. But please don't silence patriots like Buchanan who point out that Israel's inteerests do not coincide with America's and that such a treaty is not in the US national interest.
Right now thanks to AIPAC and its dual loyal core, we have a de facto treaty that puts Israel first too often. That is why we are in Iraq.
Being loyal or having interests with Israel and the U.S…You are playing with fire, you Israel-firsters….you are flying under a false falg..if the public ever figures out what is going on it will be a calamity for you.
Look, dont reply…just think about it. I I wish you no ill but those of you who wish to entangle the US in Isreal's problems are destabilising the US.
At least from what I can tell, the Hasidic rabbis of Satmar and the like (Judaic but anti-Zionist) have been warning us for decades that the dilemma of dual loyalty could have terrible repercussions. Weiss in agreement with a Satmar rabbi???? Who’d a thunk it!
But if I understand these rabbis correctly, they believe that a Jew is under a sacred oath to be loyal and empathetic to the nation in which they reside while at the same time, of course, remaining decidedly Jewish. One of the more provocative statements comes from Rabbi Dzikover but a number of Rabbis have made comments on the question of loyalty. And Rabbi Teitelbaum in 1961 wrote a letter discussing the obligation of the Jewish people to be loyal to the nation in which they reside.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/teitelbaumletter1961.cfm
I am no theologian — the mere thought of such is ludicrous — but I do sometimes wonder if these Hasidic rabbis, perhaps in their deep religious experience, detected an unconscious undercurrent of the relationship between anti-Semitism and Zionism — an unconscious dynamic that is beyond the grasp of Milbank and company.
In any event, Weiss may have looked over the horizon and seen what few others do. I am becoming convinced that we are headed towards a historical scenario where the American Jewish community must decide if their first loyalty is with welfare of the USM — particularly those in Iraq — or with an Israeli national interest to strike Iran. I see these two interests mutually exclusive at this point. The Wurmser option — at least as reported by Clemons — seems designed to place the USM in Iraq in peril to force an all-out response by the US against Iran — something the US people don’t seem to support at this time.
Less we forget, Cheney allegedly endorsed the Wurmser option and it calls for a “low yield” Israeli attack on Iran. “Low yield”? That has to be designed to create a maximum Iranian response against the USM in Iraq. In my opinion, in light of this scenario the number one strategic objective in Iraq should be to maintain the Baghdad-Basra supply line by whatever means necessary.
Just my opinion, but I’d strongly urge such Americans as Rep. Waxman and Rep. Wasserman Schulz to stand tall at this time. In my opinion, it probably would help if such leaders started stressing publicly time and time again that the American Jewish community, more than any other, opposed US military involvement in Iraq.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/26677/Among-Religious-Groups-Jewish-Americans-Most-Strongly-Oppose-War.aspx
And for those wondering about loyalty to the good ol’ USA and our military, don’t forget those Screamin’ Eagles who landed on Normandy Beach to help put an end to a type of militant ethnic nationalism — one that believed in a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and torture of the innocent on a large scale. And don’t forget it was the USM under Eisenhower that ensured there was documentation of the Holocaust thus making it harder for people to deny it.
To: Mr Witty…you never answer any questions posed to you re dual loyalty. You just call people names. You make conclusary statements i.e without relevant argument.
Again: could someone serve as Israel's PM and then serve as a US senator or president? why not?
Fascist: oh I bet you feel brave now….now Wityy I am a traditional conservative so I oppose all the 20th century ideologies including the ones that too many Jews embraced: Zionism, Communism and let us not forget the early Jewish support for Hitler and Nazism. (ah those German Jews….the racial purity things must have sounded so familiar….yup agreeing and forming pro Nazi groups thinking that Hitler was only referring to the OstJude that they would never marry…there were separate synagogues for Geramn and OstJudes in Germany through the 1930's were there not? Gosh, you guys are such experts in apartheit….and now you have duplicated it in Palestine with US tax dollars.
You Zionists have so much in common with the anti democratic impulses of Hitler (besides his racial purity views):
a contempt for ordinary people whether they be Palestinians or the regular American who just does not want his country to be hated for backing a country (Israel) that is not his own and which spies on us, bribes our politicians thru their dual loyal community plunging us into unwinnable wars.
Witty: "my personal complaint with the neo-conservatives is not that they are insufficiently loyal or dually loyal, but that they are TOO loyal.
They think TOO much in the national interest, and insufficiently in the human interest."
We protect Israel in the UN. We give her three to five billion a year in forgiven loans and foreign aid. This country has pledged to defend Israel in case of war. Given all that, is it too much to ask that, when national interests differ, Jewish Americans put the welfare of America first?
At least from what I can tell, the Hasidic rabbis of Satmar and the like (Judaic but anti-Zionist) have been warning us for decades that the dilemma of dual loyalty could have terrible repercussions. Is Weiss in agreement with the Satmar rabbis? Talking about a time of ideological disarray!
Regardless, if I understand these rabbis correctly, they believe that a Jew is under a sacred oath to be loyal and empathetic to the nation in which they reside while at the same time, of course, remaining decidedly Jewish. Some of these rabbis over the years have issued statements warning against the dual loyalty aspect of Zionism. One of the more provocative statements comes from Rabbi Dzikover but a number of Rabbis have made comments on the question of loyalty. And Rabbi Teitelbaum in 1961 wrote a letter discussing the obligation of the Jewish people to be loyal to the nation in which they reside.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/teitelbaumletter1961.cfm
I am no theologian — the mere thought of such is ludicrous — but I do sometimes wonder if these Hasidic rabbis, perhaps because of a deep religious experience, detected an unconscious undercurrent of the relationship between anti-Semitism and Zionism — an unconscious dynamic that is beyond the grasp of Milbank and his neoconservative allies — Jewish and Christian.
So Weiss may have looked over the horizon and seen what few others do. I am becoming convinced that we are headed towards a historical scenario where the American Jewish community must decide if their first loyalty is with the welfare of the USM — particularly those in Iraq — or with an Israeli national interest to pre-emptively strike Iran.
I see these two interests mutually exclusive at this point. The Wurmser option — at least as reported by Clemons — seems designed to place the USM in Iraq in peril to force an all-out response by the US against Iran — something the US people don’t seem to support at this time. Less we forget, Cheney allegedly endorsed the Wurmser option, as it calls for the US to “nudge” Israeli into a “low yield” attack on Iran. “Low yield”? This suggests that the intent of the Wurmser option is to create a maximum Iranian response against the USM in Iraq. In my opinion, in light of this scenario, the number one strategic objective in Iraq should be to maintain the Baghdad-Basra supply line by whatever means necessary.
Just my opinion, but I’d strongly urge such Americans as Rep. Waxman and Rep. Wasserman Schulz to stand tall at this time. And it probably would help if such leaders started stressing publicly that the American Jewish community, more than any other, opposed US military involvement in Iraq.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/26677/Among-Religious-Groups-Jewish-Americans-Most-Strongly-Oppose-War.aspx
American Jewish Comm: Playing a double game…nominally opposed to unwinnable wars but with the other hand giving money to AIPAC and intimidating into silence any politician who questions the Israel relationship.
Look, O Zionists among us whether ye be Christain or Jewish: American economic and military hegemony is coming to a rapid end. You Jews need to start repairing relationships with your neighbors in the Mid East and people in the U.S. You Zionist may get your war with Iran but if it ends disastrously will you be able to control the fallout?
To Gene: Tragically, there are too many Jews like the witless "R. Witty" and Silverstein who truly are rootless cosmopolitans. TO LOVE OUR NATION (i.ethe U.S.) AND OUR MILITARY is NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.
TRY GETTING THEM TO CONDEMN THE ATTACK ON THE USS Liberty 1967 or PollaRD TREASON….
Dear Israel Firsters:
Please look at these photos of wounded US troops.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492663&in_page_id
"I forthrightly damn, and pray that God damns, any American – Jew, Catholic, Evangelical, Irish, German, Hindu, hermaphrodite, thespian, or otherwise – who flogs the insane idea that American and Israeli interests are one and the same."
I have no problem with that statement though bringing God & damnation into the picture seems a bit over the top. But again this isn't an issue of dual loyalty. It's an issue of a portion of the American Jewish community (including much of its leadership admittedly) that has the wicked, stupid, twisted notion that America's interests are Israel's. Let's fight that issue out with them.
But let's not make sweeping generalizations that any American Jew who supports Israel is guilty of dual loyalty. That's a stupid, reductionist position.
I'm guessing that Phil never reads his comment threads which is unfortunate otherwise he'd moderate the raving swill posted by Sami.
Another fifth columnist (Israel first) Zionist Jew (Jeff Goldberg) mentions (in the following youtube video) that he is a Zionist and was a member of the Israeli military (he also recently wrote a hit piece against the Mearsheimer and Walt book – see http://www.israellobbybook.com – as he should have had a disclaimer associated with such!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
The ethical question for Jews has nothing to do with dual loyalty to the US, or Canada, or Israel.
It has to do with commitment (not loyalty) to family, community, humanity. The appeal to loyalty is what keeps us in Iraq, and gets us into wars in general (mostly unnecessarily).
The shift of the already loaded question of whether neo-conservatives are dually loyal, to whether Jews in general are dually loyal, IS a key shift that characterizes fascism.
The silent American Jewish community as distinguished from its leadership coalitions? I'd agree there's a growing stance of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me:
A new poll commissioned by the Council for the National Interest Foundation shows that a significant number of Americans are wary of the power of the Israel lobby, and believe it is behind the invasion of Iraq and the current belligerent tone of the White House and Congress toward Iran.
The poll, which was carried out by Zogby International, reveals that 39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." However, a similar number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this position. Some 20% of the public, or more than one in five, were not sure.
The poll suggests that the espionage charges against two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the publicity given to a new study of the power of the Israel lobby by two mainstream academic professors has had an affect on people's awareness of the lobby.
The academic study, done by Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard University, was published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, and was the subject of a recent debate at Peter Cooper Union that included Professor Mearsheimer, Prof. Rashid Khalidi (Columbia University), and Prof. Tony Judt (New York University) and three influential pro-Zionists, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, and Shlomo Ben-Ami.
The poll's details show that 46% of Democrats tended to believe that the lobby was influential in the decision to go to war in Iraq while 45% of Republicans tended to believe it was not.
Along religious lines, while Protestants tended to be evenly divided on the role of the Israel Lobby in the Iraq invasion, 49% of Catholics tended to see the lobby's hand in the invasion, while 77% of Jewish Americans overwhelming disagreed with the premise. Among ethnic groups, Hispanics (53%) believed that the lobby's role was influential.
Among age groups, 50% of those between the ages of 18 and 29 agreed that the Israel lobby had a hand in forming the current pro-war policy. As one might expect, those who call themselves progressive (49%) or liberal (52%) also agreed in the role of the lobby, while "moderates" (42%) and "very conservative" (44%) people disagreed with the idea, as did a significant percentage of college graduates (44%).
Eugene Bird, president of CNI Foundation, commented about the poll, "It demonstrates the need for widening the circulation of information about the role of the Neocons and the pro-Israel lobby in the corridors of power during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003."
Some 1,035 people participated in the poll, which was conducted in every part of the country.
Conducted by Zogby International of 1,036 likely voters from 10/10/06 through 10/12/06.
Revisiting the post of Philip's on IQ and group genetic differences, here is an article from todays IHT:
http://iht.com/articles/2007/11/09/america/dna.php
In the long term what is most damaging to the internal peace of the republic is that anti-Israel feeling in America be objectively justified by events.
If, for example, a war with Iran led to a deep recession, this in turn might very well lead to hostility toward the American Jewish community similar to that which existed toward Japanese-Americans during WWII.
Just as in the case of the Japanese-American community it would mean revitalizing every ancient, racist stereotype.
Because of the key role that the Jewish community plays in America's communications and financial industries, hostility of this magnitude would effectively paralyze the country.
The danger here is that if an Israeli-AIPAC provoked war with Iran brings on a deep recession in the USA, the American Jewish community might find itself as popular as the Japanese-American community was during WWII.
The point I keep hammering home is that antisemitism that was in anyway justified by the Israeli alliance would tear America apart.
This is the mother of all slippery slopes.
German-Americans came in for terrible shit in WWI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American#Assimilation_and_World_War_I_Anti-German_Sentiment
and we all know what happened to our Japanese-American fellow citizens during WWII.
Both the Japanese-American and German-American communities are made up of hard working, law abiding, good citizens. If it could happen to them it could happen to anybody.
We have to be very, very careful here.
Its only a slippery slope if xenophobes are willing to hold a scapegoat responsible for their president's decisions.
Witty: "The shift of the already loaded question of whether neo-conservatives are dually loyal, to whether Jews in general are dually loyal, IS a key shift that characterizes fascism."
Your comment begs the question. What I want to know is why all Jewish neoconservatives (plus many other Jews as well) automatically put Israel first. You talk about putting humanity ahead of nationality. I'm for that. It wouuld be a big improvement for the Israel first crowd. For them, Israel trumps everything. I have heard educated young assimilationist Jews complaining that they were all but drumnmed out of their families for not making Israel the polestar of their life. Ironically, this doesn't seem to happen so much in Israel itself (outside of the territories). If Haaretz is any indication, there you are actually allowed to voice tabooes without people referencing Hitler, the Holocaust, "anti-Semitic canards" or suggesting that there is an unmistakable "smell" to your entire line of thought.
why is it that calls to shut down debate (moderate) come when someone mentions truths that are hard to accept?
the truth can stand on its own, while lies need a bodyguard of laws to protect it from being discovered.
as long as noone gets personal i dont see why anyones comments about any story ought to be moderated.
let the debate rage and let the truth stand victorious.
let lies be forced to stand in the glaring light of the truth and be revealed for the shameless thing that it is.
Gene – What do you mean by "putting Israel first?"
I am a proud American, I'm Jewish, and I support Israel's right to exist (on the condition that Israel supports the right of the Palestinians to a viable independent homeland). When I think about global issues I think about it from the perspective of an American, but I can't help but also think about how it affects Israel. I oppose the settlements in Israel because I think they are wrong, and not in Israel's best interest. I think our (USA) policy towards them should be even tougher than it is, and I would love to see an American president hold a hard line towards both the Israeli and Arab governments about peace agreement based along the dimensions of the Taba talks. I worry about Israel's security, but I don't think American soldiers should die for it. The Israelis are perfectly capable of fighting their own battles. Most of the American Jews I know have pretty similar views as me. Just so I'm clear – Are we the boogeymen you are so afraid of?
If you have a problem with Cheney foreign policy and the neo-conservative approach to the projection of American power, well so do I, and so do most of the Jews that I know. That the commenters in this forum would like to make this a Jewish issue as oppposed to one about political philosophy seems to me to be missing the mark and frankly quite dangerous our civil fabric.
"Are we the boogeymen you are so afraid of?"
Which organized J-community groups share your views? I can't think of any advocating an end to unconditional support, no matter what their views on the settlements are.
Jared, you're entitled to remind people that the Jewish community is not a monolith (although I think most people here already know that). But if you think that "most of the Jews you know" are generally representative of the broad community, you are in denial.
http://www.israelforum.com/blog_home.php
Jared: "Are we the boogeymen you are so afraid of?"
I don't know that I'm afraid of any boogeymen. The people who really scare me are neoconservates who, along with the leaders of so many prominent Jewish organizations, would happly send our troops off to die in Iran in the vain hope it might somehow help Israel.
Comments on this entry are closed.