in that last post with the suggestion that that AIPAC friend of Larry Summers is under some journalistic obligation to declare her religion, Jewish. Yes, too far, bad boy. But I think part of the problem here is that Jewish identity has been declared to be coextensive with Zionism, by the likes of the AJC, and there's bullying when anyone strays off the reservation, and blacklisting, and meanwhile the ardent Zionists aren't wearing their uniforms in public. Which leaves Americans mystified. It is completely licit for the Nightly News on NBC to talk about the Christian groups that got behind the anti-gay-marriage initiative in California--when I'm sure there are many Christians who were for gay marriage. But when it comes to Rahm Emanuel's Zionism, mum's the word, Howard Fineman and Willie Brown go on and on about Emanuel's policy strengths on Hardball without a word about his Israel-ness, and then you wonder, Well is Fineman in the tank too? Not long ago I learned that Scooter-Libby-trial figure Matt Cooper, formerly of Time Magazine, now of Portfolio, had written that his paternal grandparents were "fervent Zionists." Matt's a nice guy. I asked him if he's a Zionist and if so, how it has affected his journalism. I haven't heard from him. The neocons were even less straightforward, leading Stephen Sniegoski to describe them as a "cabal," and Jacob Heilbrunn also used the c-word. Jews make this a Jewish issue, rather than a Zionist one, when they insist on the congruence of the two. When Larry Summers calls an Israel-apartheid divestment initiative anti-semitic. Back to him again.
Great post Phil. I appreciate it when you write things like that to sort of "clear the air" and shed light on the parallels (in this case with Christian groups) that need to be illustrated (but aren't).
I find that it helps me in educating others to what is going on, to use parallels such as the Christian anti-gay-marriage groups. Of course, it helps if people have at least a little knowledge of Zionism itself, which is severely lacking. That's the first obstacle I encounter :)
"Of course, it helps if people have at least a little knowledge of Zionism itself."
Sorry Dan. As the P.A.Z.-J.E.W. observed, Zionism is so good and holy that — like G-d — the word can't be mentioned in our media.
I think the issue here is not that people should constantly declare their religion or ethnic background, but that matters of particular relevance, especially if they might suggest a conflict of interest, should be declared. A Zionist recommending another Zionist for an influential position in the government of the United States is in such a position.
"I think the issue here is not that people should constantly declare their religion or ethnic background, but that matters of particular relevance, especially if they might suggest a conflict of interest, should be declared. A Zionist recommending another Zionist for an influential position in the government of the United States is in such a position."
Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly with all your points.
"Zionism is so good and holy that — like G-d — the word can't be mentioned in our media."
LOL, yeah, but I think things will change, albeit slowly. Just keep bringing it up yourself, and engage people in conversation about it. The media will come around, even as Zionized as it is. The biggest hurdle is already starting to be blown away, that of FEAR. We are not the racist, supremacists here – Zionists are. Always remember that.
A little disingenuous "apology".
Did you read it?
Where does your line about Zionism even become a litmus test? Where does it slip to anti-semitism in fact?
If Ralph Nader running for president expresses sympathy for Lebanese or other Arab community, at what point is that perceived as potentially dual loyal?
Is he then disqualified from a staff position in anyone's administration on that merit?
Why is anti-Zionism so prominent in your thinking anyway?
If Rahm Emanuel, AS a Zionist and a liberal, conveys the confidence to Israelis in the light of a peace-implying even Obama policy, and by that shifts the tenor and range of Israeli approaches, isn't that ALREADY a good thing.
It is a condition of American presidency to in no way risk, say England's security, a friend. It is NOT UNREASONABLE for that criteria to be applied in policy towards Israel.
It limits the set of options to those that benefit and secure BOTH Israel and Palestine and the rest of Israel's neighbors, rather than temporarily or permanently willingly putting Israeli civilians and state at risk.
It limits the options LESS SO, than militant and vindictive approaches though.
Rich, your really barking up the wrong tree with these people. You could explain to your blue in the face that it took an Ariel Sharon intstead of a Beilan to pull out of Gaza and that the way to entice Israeli concessions is to NOT back them into a corner. That a guy like Emanuel gives a Obama, ( who I still don't like ) something of a heksher. That will engender trust and then they will be willing to go out on a limb.
Swog of Blubberin' said: "it took an Ariel Sharon intstead of a Beilan to pull out of Gaza"
Please. Gaza is still surrounded and for all intents it's still occupied territory. It takes a Sharon to make the goyim think that Sharon was a "man of peace.
"Gaza is still surrounded and for all intents it's still occupied territory."
That is a solid point most people don't get. The colonies were removed from Gaza, but the occupation never ended.