Jack Ross says I'm being paranoid about Rahm Emanuel's influence.
I think he found himself in a glorious trap of his own making - first, by being constrained by Illinois from really going to bat for Hillary, and second, to now be succeeded in the DCCC by Chris Van Hollen, my former congressman when I lived in Maryland who said the right things during the Lebanon War, however ignominious the consequences for him were, who will [likely] be at the helm of twice as many House pickups for the Democrats.
Which brings us to the real reason the Democrats have let the war go on as they have.
No doubt Rahm and his cronies have made a bad situation worse, but the Democrats aren't doing it because of Israel or internationalism or anything so silly as that - they're doing it merely to keep the issue alive for the 2008 election. Morally reprehensible, but its politics, what else is new? They probably tell the more progressive members a variation on the line from Spaceballs "We're not just doing it for money, we're doing it for a shitload of money!" - "We're not just doing this to win an election, we're doing it for the most massive landslide in the presidency and both houses since 1932".
Again, a human tragedy, which Rahm Emanuel will be condemned by God and history for his role in, but that's the world we live in.
So Jack is supplanting my understanding of secret Zionists with an even darker theory, cynical murderous Democrats. At least in my understanding, they have a positive motivation. I'm not convinced. I don't think we'll ever know the true motivations of the war supporters, till there are hearings or actual journalism or Whittaker-Chambers-like defections from the neocons. Or till they write their memoirs and tell us why they drank the Koolaid.
Rahm Emanuel is opaque, and political to his bones. My problem here is that if there's a scintilla of Zionism, I'd like to know about it--the same way I'm told constantly that fundamentalist Christians don't like stem cell research. It doesn't disqualify Zionists from participation; it's just information, the lifeblood of a democracy. As it is, I always feel that the wool is being pulled over my eyes.
The Law of Return (which allows me to move to Israel) created, as Jacob Blaustein and Elmer Berger feared it would, a tug on Jewish American citizens. And it created a weird boomerang effect. A lot of people who went over there soon came back to play a role here. So, Rahm Emanuel, Jeffrey Goldberg and Michael Oren all served in Israel to one degree or another and now have prominent roles in our politics. Gershom Gorenberg's more on my team, but he made aliyah a long time ago for religious reasons and now writes about Israel for an American audience, including attacking Walt and Mearsheimer (got to get to that). Hillel Halkin also made aliyah a long time ago and regularly holds forth even on such subjects as American pluralism for Commentary. Thank you, do I really need a religious nationalist's advice on this score? Dore Gold left Scarsdale to become a power broker in Israel and now writes about eternally undivided Jerusalem and is a scholar at American Enterprise Institute (or was as of 2005; the latest report). The only boomeranger I'm really grateful for politically is Leon Hadar, former JPost reporter now at Cato, truly independent and imaginative.
I find it confusing. Maybe I ought to accept that people are more international these days, everyone gets to weigh in. I wouldn't mind hearing from some Arabs..
.
"The Law of Return (which allows me to move to Israel) created, as Jacob Blaustein and Elmer Berger feared it would, a tug on Jewish American citizens. And it created a weird boomerang effect. A lot of people who went over there soon came back to play a role here."
You know, probably tens of millions of Americans of Spanish, Irish, Italian and Greek heritage qualify for EU citizenship, based on the ethnicity of their parents or even grandparents. (Sadly, I'm not one of them.) Why do we not see a 'revolving door' effect from these countries?
For one thing, Americans showing up in the 'old country' probably would not make much headway worming their way into political influence. Despite the ethnic consanguinity, it would breed nationalist resentments.
The same is true in Israel, of course. Plenty of Israeli bloggers are giving vent to their annoyance at rich Americans polluting Israel's politics with dirty money. But the difference between Israel and Europe is that Israel is on the U.S. dole. Keeping that multi-billion dollar subsidy is why Israelis have to swallow their pride, let the American parvenus dabble in Israeli politics, and then send them back to Washington DC to 'embed' themselves in key positions, as Rahm Emanuel did.
It smacks of illegality. It's corrosive to both countries. If the untimely Zionist colonization of Israel hadn't been a patently insane and unworkable project from Day One, all this would be unnecessary.
Isn't it time for Jews to concede that "Zionism was our misfortune"?
Why can't the USA stand up like Ireland, who just booted to the curb the latest EU uber power grab?
And Ireland did it despite the fact most of the Irish politicians had signed on! Is it because the USA is so much more diverse in ethnicity? At what point does diversity/multiculturalism conflict with E Plurbus Unum?
"Why can't the USA stand up like Ireland, who just booted to the curb the latest EU uber power grab?"
Because issues like support for Israel, legal and illegal immigration or educating the world at taxpayer expense, while charging through the nose for public universities will never be put to popular vote. The list of things that are obviously corrupt, stupid and harmful to the majority that will never be voted upon by the average citizen is endless.
"At what point does diversity/multiculturalism conflict with E Plurbus Unum?"
Maybe it was supposed to from the beginning?
Another aspect of this issue is that apparently 40 million people in the USA enjoy the special privilege of "dual citizenship" while everybody else in the USA only possess U.S. citizenship.
What dual-citizenship might mean if you're a journalist who graduated from Oxford who possesses both UK citizenship and US citizenship, for instance, is that you can compete with other journalists or other workers for jobs in all the European Union countries and in the USA, while U.S. journalists who only possess U.S. citizenship don't have the equal opportunity to seek work in all the EU countries. So, on a certain level, people in the United States who don't possess dual-citizenship rights to also work in the EU are second-class citizens.
Besides immediately granting the Palestinian Diaspora their democratic right to return and not automatically giving U.S. citizens who are born in Brooklyn the right to become citizens of Israel on the basis of a religiously discriminatory "right of return" law, there might also be some need to create a situation in the USA where people who lack dual-citizenship acquire the same employment rights in EU countries thatmany U.S. "dual-citizens" presently possess.
Hear from some Arabs about what? Being a dual national? Dual loyalties?
I'm a dual national – Lebanon and America – because my Lebanese-Am father did the paperwork to make me officially Lebanese. However, since I grew up in the States and have a very American mother, Lebanese folk really, really don't appreciate me spouting off about Lebanese politics. I do anyway – they spout off about America, why shouldn't I spout about Lebanon?
But I recognize that I'm not "really LEbanese." I am registered to vote in my home district in Lebanon but since I am not "up" on the minutiae of local politics, I doubt I would try to decipher the ballot and exercise my right to vote there.
Of course Lebanese in Lebanon usually tell Lebanese who emigrated that they, too, are no longer "really Lebanese" – see Rabih Alameddine's narrator in his latest novel, Hakawati – his family and friends all tell him he's actually American because he emigrated in his late teens.
This concept of who is "really" Lebanese is quite elastic. It also devolves into the usual ethnic awfulness – Shi'ites aren't "really Lebanese" according to Sunnis and Maronites, because some of their forefathers came from Persia four hundred years ago. Armenians not either, because arrived a hundred years ago. Kurds forget about it. Palestinians living in Lebanese camps for three generations – never, never, never will most Lebanese accept them as Lebanese, even though you can't really tell a Lebanese from a Palestinian in terms of culture, language, social mores etc. Druze -are they Lebanese first, or are they Druze first? And so on.
Now when it comes to dual loyalties… I am loyal to the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which our democracy was founded. I don't know that I could ever be enough of a nationalist for any country that I would then choose to favor one (America) over another (Lebanon or any other Arab country) because of "national interest." I am one of those suspicious lefties who thinks that humanity is more important than nation-states. If America needs water and has to kill Mexicans to get it, then I say America doesn't have the right to do it. We have to find a way for all of us to survive. I don't put one nation above another, even when that nation is my own.
But when it comes down to it, by temperament, culture and outlook, I am an American and I know it. I don't have dual loyalties – I have dual perspectives, and yet I can see how very American my outlook is.
Oh and p.s., my Lebanese nationality gives me almost no benefits whatsoever. Makes it a little easier at customs in Beirut, maybe. I haven't yet tried going to Syria at all – will a LEbanese passport ease the border crossing or make it worse? Who knows. Unlike possessing an EU passport, carrying a Lebanese passport just doesn't grant me extra security, job benefits or anything else. If I could transfer my rights as a Lebanese citizen to some Palestinian woman my age born in the camp next to my village, I would. She could use it much more than I (to get a decent job with health benefits and a pension, for one thing)
One possible change might be for the EU countries to give EU citizenship to the citizens of all the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America that were colonized or occupied by European imperialism in the 19th and/or 20th centuries.
On the basis of French imperialism's historical role in Lebanon, people born in Lebanon would, presumably, then automatically have EU citizenship and the right to work in all EU countries. On the basis of British imperialism's historical role in Palestine between 1916 and 1948, Palestinians and Israelis would, presumably, also then automatically have EU citizenship and the right to work in all EU countries (if they chose to).
With regard to the 260 million people who were born in the United States who apparently don't currently have the option to seek employment in EU countries (which includes most African-Americans) because they don't now possess "dual-citizenship" status, one possibility might be to require EU countries to also give EU citizenship to all U.S. "single-citizenship" citizens–as a precondition for the U.S. government to continue allowing "dual-citizens" of European countries to compete, for instance, with African-American workers for jobs within the U.S. economy.
Or to put it another way, all citizens of the EU countries and of the United States should probably have an equal right to work in either the United States or an EU country, not just the U.S. citizens who also possess a dual-citizenship status within an EU country. (A similar arrangement would possibly also be needed to insure that U.S. citizens who aren't dual-citizens would be given the equal right to work in Canada as the U.S. citizens who possess Canadian "dual-citizenship" papers).
Phil reminds me of the author "les papiers jaunes", a world war two era publication in France that revealed who was "hiding" the fact they they were Jewish. The names were printed and the individuals, often, deported or even killed. The author wasn't a Nazi, however, he had started in the 1930s doing exactly the same thing (which journalist actually a Jew, etc) as a means of simply being "honest" about Jewish power. The Nazis in fact recruited him because of his work in the 30s.
The point should inspire Phil–if the reaction in the US is strong enough and a real reassessment of Jews status in America occurs, he might find himself with a full-time job!
.
Two big differences between NAFTA and the EU:
1. Whereas the EU integrated its labor markets, NAFTA did not. Americans, Canadians and Mexicans have no reciprocal rights to work in each others' countries.
2. While much of continental Europe implemented passfort-free travel via the Schengen Agreement, the U.S. has actually regressed. Americans used to be able to visit Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean with a drivers license, but now a passport requirement has been imposed.
A third difference pertaining specifically to the U.S. is that it taxes its citizens on worldwide income, even when they are outside the country. Very few nations do this.
bob f's resentment of dual nationals is understandable. The U.S., for all its wealth, is a pugnaciously provincial, officious and meddlesome place.
bob — most central and south american countries offer residency to Americans who can prove an income of between $500 and $2,000 a month (varies by country). If you don't qualify for dual citizenship by ancestry, you can BUY IT.
On paper, the "developing world" is less free than the U.S. But in practice, these less wealthy governments don't have the resources to intricately regulate your life, tap your phone, monitor your email, and invade other countries and create terrorism risks. Nor do they tax you to subsidize Israel. The developing world is the future, I think (much more so than Europe, which is U.S.-occupied and stupidly getting sucked into the Afghan quagmire). The U.S. is an overripe fruit, starting to stink in its putrescence.
"bob f's resentment of dual nationals is understandable. The U.S., for all its wealth, is a pugnaciously provincial, officious and meddlesome place."
What's wrong with provincialism? How is it worse than cosmopolitanism? I'd say that provincialists tend to mind their own business more, and are the less officious and meddlesome of the two. Maybe the future is with provincialism?
.
voila! it is demonstrated that my preceding insight was exquisitely perceptive and to the point, so i beg permission to reproduce it ici —
.
~Alain Solal~ sucks zionist DICK!
Pauly:
That's not a very nice to say! I might have to come over and explain things to you in person. Might I have your address?
Pauly:
That's not a very nice to say! I might have to come over and explain things to you in person. Might I have your address?
@ Alain Solal
Please would you mind giving us some informations about the author of "les papiers jaunes" of which I've never heard before.
Admittingly I can't know everything about The Scam,but quite surprisingly Google doesn't either.
My wife and I discuss the Aliyah scam/revolving door in link to eaazi.blogspot.com
and in link to eaazi.blogspot.com
.
Hollywood has worked to normalize Jewish dual loyalties for a long time: link to eaazi.blogspot.com
.
Sometimes I have to laugh at some of the propaganda that Hollywood puts out for Israel.
I can't remember the name of the movie, but it was a multi-episode television movie about a S.S. commander who fled prosecution after the war by having plastic surgery, and joining Jewish holocaust survivors flooding into Palestine.
To make a long story short, he became a national hero in Israel for his war exploits, and later gave his life to stop a terrorist attack. It was a load of BS, but funny, ridiculous and sad at the same time.
A person would have to be seriously deranged and preoccupied to come up with such a movie.
The film was called "twist of fate." Pretty well-made, actually. But almost unwatched (shown once on TV, I think). So much for propaganda.
The film was called "twist of fate." Pretty well-made, actually. But almost unwatched (shown once on TV, I think). So much for propaganda.
"The film was called "twist of fate." Pretty well-made, actually. But almost unwatched (shown once on TV, I think). So much for propaganda."
I guess it's the same movie. I don't remember if the movie was well-made, but the plot was ridiculous. And it was definitely an attempt at propaganda.
Even Nazis can redeem themselves if they just fight for Israel! Surely you have to find that ridiculous? I wasn't very old when I saw the movie, and I understood it to be entertaining garbage.