I know what you mean, but frankly, I'd be more concerned about it if the war the U.S. is currently in were more justifiable and better-run than it is. We should not have attacked Afghanistan or Iraq any more than we should have been in Vietnam. The IDF, of course, is problematic too unless you think of Palestinians as disgusting animals who deserve nothing but a bullet between the eyes, but I don't agree with your implied argument that young American citizens (Jewish or otherwise) are in any sense obligated to risk their lives for Bush's insane delusions of imperial power.

You are adding the element of interpretation to every one, a prejudicially suspicious interpretation.

There is gravity in the world. I don't condemn it when I lose my balance and fall.

AGAIN and AGAIN,
If dual loyalty (however opportunistically described) is not illegal, not unethical in personal sentiment, does not itself directly result in harms to any parties, then it is not "dual loyalty" that is the issue but ONLY specifically how the attitude is applied.

And, ONLY specific actions (not the general) applying the sentiment are wrong, and even many of those that you are suspicious of, are subject to debate.

I am definitely dually loyal, and I think it is a MORE ETHICAL position than to be singly loyal. I'm more than dually loyal, I'm loyal to my family. I'm loyal to my employer. I'm loyal to my profession. I'm loyal to my home town. (When I speak about the town where I live, that is my HOME. That is my "we".) I am definitely loyal to my region.

Hear this please.

I find your repeated invocations opposing dual loyalty as a generalization where the sentiment is the crime not the actions, to be suppressive and collectively punitive.

I personally can't find a distinction in your approach that does not contain the seeds of fascism.

I agree with you that the prayer for the state of Israel has no place in synagogue worship, and I don't say it. (I have on occassion said prayers for the IDF to be successful in protecting Jewish people in Israel, though.)

Please then in the effort for consistency, strongly object to any invocations of loyalty to the United States in any religious ceremony anywhere as similarly off the point.

Are you loyal to your family?

If, even in a dream, your parents were put on some "trial" for their beliefs, and professed that they care about the ecology of the capes of New Brunswick (not in the US, though similar geographically to a region that they love) more than they cared about patriotism to the US, would you in that dream turn them in, testify as to their disloyalty?

In that dream.

Would you be the judge, the testifying witness, the defense attorney, the journalist, the interrogator, or some other role in that dream?

The reason I pick a dream-state as reference, is for the honesty of dream-states.

How can you both loyal to Israel and the United States when their disconguity of interests implies that loyalty to one means disloyalty to the other?

"The merging of U.S. and Israeli interests is most concerning in public life."

That's the whole problem. Sometimes an Irish or Italian flag will be seen flying in our neighborhood. But Italy and Ireland don't receive aid or arms from the U.S., or demand that U.S. foreign policy be shaped around their needs, or seek in an organized manner to infiltrate the U.S. government with their dual nationals, indoctrinated to be as loyal to the old country as the new.

Before Israel was founded, anti-zionist Jews (who may have been the majority in the early 20th century) predicted that the creation of a Jewish state would bedevil diaspora Jews with allegations of dual loyalty. They were right, of course. But Israel exacerbates the problem by making such heavy demands on U.S. support, which virtually require it to colonize the U.S. government with its insiders to steer policy.

If Israel were a normal country — living in peace, within recognized borders, on its own money — dual loyalty would be a non-issue. But could the zionist state even survive, without the U.S. lifeline? My guess is no. And the obvious conclusion, if you've got a nonviable state on your hands, is to try something different, instead of "more of the same." Hijacking the U.S. government to serve the interests of a foreign country is not only ineffective, it's downright dangerous. One can get executed for that.