They've learnt nothing and are determined not to.

"America is a woderful country, and it attracts hordes of immigrants, of all skin colors, races, religious beliefs, economic status…

Christians, moslems, jews, buddhists, atheists.
Mexicans, Irish, Poles, Brasilians, Tibetans.
A rich university student comes here to study advanced mathematics in a top US university and decides to settle here.
A poor Mexican comes here to get a job in a restaurant and to send some money back home to his family.

There is one thing that unites them – they are either first generation immigrants, or first generation Americans.

Which means that they (of course, it is a given) have patriotic feelings toward their country of origin, not their adopted country – the USA.

Dual loyalty is true of almost all national and ethnic groups.

Whether Mexicans, Poles, Russians, Irish, Jews, Chinese – whatever.

It is normal."

The thing is, this needs to be recognized as a common phenomenon and appropriate steps taken to prevent people with OBVIOUS dual loyalties in having influence or worse, positions in American government.

http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2008/04/dual-loyalty-another-example.html

If an Arab, a Palestinian, or an individual of Lebanese dissent (say Ralph Nader) expresses sympathy with the idea of security for Lebanese, but desires to serve in US administration, is that a dual loyalty?

If an individual bears a loyalty to his/her state or region, say New England or Alabama or Hawaii, should that disqualify him/her from serving in US administration?

Please be clear, complete, and consistent on this idea. Don't just single out a particular form of "dual loyalty".

Again, can you describe your transformation of attitudes from multiple loyalty, or a-loyalty, to "single" loyalty.

Fact is too: IF the West has to fight the larger pan-Islamist threat/culture war and the Europeans have simply not woken up to the real danger scenario, then there is no dual loyalty issue. And Israel is simply the most important ally able to provide the necessary terrorism expertise. [What makes McCain, Addington, Cheney join neocon circles? ... why did Huntington follow Bernard Lewis traces on the Arab mind to provide ideological cover? The Clash of Cultures? 1993,96] . In the neocon mind there is no dual loyalty only a clash of cultures with Israel and the US on the axis of the good. [= a term the German *neocons* use for their propaganda network, were the left is turned into the real inheritors of the Nazis]

But yes, sometimes it is hard to accept what immense space the Nazis have managed to mentally occupy.

Google discovers a swastika-shaped building.
But then, Military base, Navi Seals?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/93592462@N00/143053448/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sure the following will cause a collective sigh of relieve:

I'll shut up for a couple of weeks to read Norman Finkelstein, whose book so far, I could not touch due to his: The Holocaust Industry, which seemed to be celebrated on the right; by our Neo-Nazis too.

I WILL NOT find evidence however for this misguided statement, I am told:

Philip Weiss: "The other fascinating thing about this interview is Finkelstein's *new line* supporting the two-state solution and financial compensation to extinguish the right of return of Palestinian refugees."

Nothing new about the line it seems.

Again: Since Phil thinks that NF joined the mainstream on the two state solution only recently, he misses the important *signal function* of the Aaron David Miller = imbecile equation. Why does he use this harsh term? It definitively sticks out in the larger context.

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/04/norman-finkelst.html

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17229

The American mass is asleep.

Sure. To put the interests of a foreign country ahead of those of America is disloyal on its face. I don't know how people with conflicted loyalties can be trusted to make policy. America's former ambassador to Israel gave a speech the other day in which he said the most important thing about any presidential candidate is "how he stands on Israel." That's the problem with some American pro-Israel types. For them the only issue is Israel. Israel is a foreign country, not the polestar of American foreign policy. Arguments to the contrary not withstanding, Israel is not like Ireland or Italy. Neither of those countries get 30% of our foreign aid. Neither of them is demanding we bomb Iran on its behalf. Quit pretending that all Americans have divided loyalties. We don't.