Two other attacks on the piece: Dan Swanson points out that the headline in the Times was,”As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts,” with strict reference to Israel. He asks, How would readers of the Times feel if the headline said, “As Obama Heads to Minnesota, Many of Its Swedes Have Doubts” re his policy on Sweden. Wouldn’t we find that offensive? And question the Swedish-Americans’ loyalty to the U.S.? Here a dual loyalty is taken for granted.
And my attack: I believe the “Florida Jewish vote” is a stand-in, a synecdoche, a euphemism, for Jewish money. Isn’t that the real issue here? Isn’t that why Hillary threatens to “obliterate” Iran? Where is the journalism about that? Yes, I know: Florida Jewish voters have outsized power, a legitimate story, though Swanson says Florida is not in play this year.
Related posts:
- Comic’s Appeal to Jewish Voters for Obama Is Careful
- Slater Says I’m ‘Intemperate’ on Obama and the Jews
- Heads of State: American Jewish C’ttee President Discusses Iran Policy With Argentine President
- 71 Per Cent of Americans Want Even-Handed Policy in Israel/Palestine
- ‘Times’ doubts Israel’s claim that civilian targets housed rockets
{ 10 comments }
As an American of partial Swedish ancestry who lives in Florida, I had to laugh. As for dual loyalty, I have nephews who will be military age in a few years and I think immigrating to Sweden would be an excellent idea. It's one thing to die for America but another thing altogether to die for Bush's (or McCain's) political ambition.
As for dual loyalty, I like Twain's statement: Be loyal to your country always and to your government only when it deserves it.
Our government does not deserve our loyalty. If our politicians are selling out to "Jewish money" (I think the issue is much larger than that and this phrase underestimates the amount of opposition in the Jewish community to hawkish American foreign policy)then they deserve to have reasonable Americans flee the country.
I talked two days ago to a leftist Israeli who left Israel to avoid serving in the occupied territories. His view is that remaining in a country and protesting–either through voting or demonstrations– ultimately plays into the hands of the politicians who can claim that the country is democratic even though decisions about foreign policy are in fact made in undemocratic ways.
His option was to leave. It is an option that looks increasingly attractive to me.
Most Americans have no idea of the importance of Jewish/Zionist money in our
electoral process, and, of course, with the
exception of a few brave souls like Mr. Weiss, who is willing to discuss this publicly?
Watching cable TV the last few weeks, regarding the American presidential candidates' and all American pundits slavish lockstep bellowing out Israel's survival is top priority, I've been wondering if this total implied conflation with USA interests, topped off by the usual direct expression: Israel-as only-really-special-democratic ally in Oilland, the cherry on top, will be called to account before November.
All the controversial black and evangelical preachers talk about the role of jews in history; no matter their take, they are kicked to the curb in turn by the USA presidential candidates.
This is an amazing undercurrent–not to be taken on in MSM full tilt for mass American consumption, even though it is America's future that will be voted on in November.
They are now TV talking about the American Jewish vote; they say its small, but key in certain areas. What is really telling is that the disproportionate role of Bigbucks, single focus Jews in the donkey party, and, a bit less, the elephant party, is NEVER MENTIONED.
Phil puts this glaring omission well:
I believe the "Florida Jewish vote" is a stand-in, a synecdoche, a euphemism, for Jewish money. Isn't that the real issue here? Isn't that why Hillary threatens to "obliterate" Iran? Where is the journalism about that? "
There is none.
Where is the Fourth branch of power?
Despite the internet, we may as well be living in the old USSR.
RE: "If our politicians are selling out to "Jewish money" (I think the issue is much larger than that…"–Jessica
Jessica, what is the rest of the issue you have in mind?
There is no draft. What is your nephews' fear?
When Milton Friedman led the Gates Commission, he opposed the draft probably in part because of historic Jewish prejudice against the draft but also because of the obvious fact that The draft prevented Nixon from pursuing the sort of war he wanted in Vietnam.
Bush's success in leading the Iraq war without serious public opposition shows that the draft is in fact an inpediment to running an imperial presidency.
McCain stands against the new GI Bill because first term enlistee's could go to college on it, thus they wouldn't reeenlist.
Then where would we get the cannon fodder?
The class thing in the USA grows larger by the second. Will the MSM take this up?
No.
Serving in uniform is for the masses.
Great headline, but I don't think your article accurately reflects the views of the "other 98%"–at least those of us who've formed opinions on the subject.
The "Gentile community" is concerned, Phil. Their elections, political parties, and government have been hijacked by pro-apartheid neocons and neolibs who could give a damn about the people they represent or the Constitution they swore to uphold.
Their candidates have to face a blitzkrieg of condescending, coercive rhetoric and threats (where necessary) from the self-described "Jewish community", who's actions are legitimized and supported by the MSM. These are not just wealthy party patrons; they have extraordinary media power. More than enough to make or break candidates. They also seem to run every major campaign, or at least have high-level representatives.
So our politicians are forced to abandon their Constitutional principles and swear allegiance to the most racist "democracy" in the world. They're pressured into sending 1/3 of all foreign aid to Israel, appoint people who will veto every UN resolution critical of Israel, and support every lie used to justify Israel's land grabs, separation wall, illegal invasions, illegal settlements and apartheid laws.
This is a fundamental difference. A powerful, coercive Swedish lobby would at least be supporting an open, liberal democracy with strong human rights laws. There is no "right-of-return" for descendants of the Saxons, as far as I know.
As most of the peddlers of the "she threatens to obliterate Iran" meme know — or ought to know — this was in answer to a question asking how she would respond if Iran used a nuclear weapon on Israel.
Anybody have a clue how Obama would respond in that situation?
MAD worked during the Cold War. It ought to work against Iran unless Iran decides weapons can't hurt them a la the Boxer Rebellion.
How rational is it to threaten to kill a nation any time over the next decade, except for your own nation's actual survival in the very worst case? Is Israel the 51st state? If so, it's a mighty odd one, a rogue state under our laws. Besides, Israel has 200 nukes for 1st strike, and also a 2nd strike capability. How many wars has Iran instigated in the last few centuries? Which state is surrounded by US forces on its borders? Who's big navy floats just off shore, where your little speed boats flit around? If you were an Iranian, what would you think about Hillary's public
broadcast she's ready to nuke you off the planet if you do anything at all against Israel? Methinks the USA has backed Iran into a corner. I wouldn't look for Iranians tired of the mullahs to take over the government. Persia has a history of pride, it's been around a long time, and I'd go with Obama, hopefully he will
start up trade with them, temper the economic and financial sanctions… Leaving Iran out of the hegemony complex in the Middle East is a recipe for WWIII.
Jane – you said it all. Mutually Assured Destruction. An attack on Israel is an attack on the US. Statements like yours unintentionally expose a rampant and unconscious dual loyalty and will only get more and more ironic as things progress.
Comments on this entry are closed.