Avigdor Lieberman may have come in a surprising third in the elections in Israel, but he knows where the ultimate power base is. So today he has an op-ed in the New York Jewish Week trying to overcome the criticism of him here. He says his proposed loyalty oath is no different from what the U.S. and Britain require of new citizens.
Lieberman is turning out to be a wedge issue for the Israel lobby. Good people are taking a stand. J Street stands out, as it did during Gaza. Jeremy Ben-Ami, the group's director:
Avigdor Lieberman’s op-ed in the Jewish Week on shared values between Israel and the United States is as genuine as a Bernie Madoff lecture on business ethics.
Let’s set the record straight: Avigdor Lieberman has advocated
transferring Israeli Arab citizens out of Israel. He wants to ask
current citizens of Israel to take a loyalty oath. He campaigned on a
platform that only he “understands Arabic” and that there should be “no
citizenship without loyalty.” There is no doubt what he meant and who
he’s targeting.
Beautifully stated!
Lieberman gets one thing right: the strong and historic Israeli-US
relationship has been based on shared values and interests. But his
values are not my values – neither as an American nor as a Jew.
J Street is joined by the rabbi with whom it parted ways so acrimoniously on Gaza–Eric Yoffie of the Union for Reform Judaism is very strong against Lieberman–and of course by the academic leaders of "Support Israeli Democracy," an American petition drive against Lieberman that we have reported here before. Even the American Jewish Committee is uncomfortable with the Yisroel Beiteinu leader.
But Lieberman is finding defenders in the U.S., in the usual places. The JTA reports:
[Malcolm] Hoenlein [of the Conference of Presidents] added, Lieberman is “far more moderate than the media has presented it.”…
“I find a lot of apocrypha but very little in actual detail” about
the alleged danger of Lieberman, said the Anti-Defamation League’s
national director, Abraham Foxman. He said Lieberman's proposed loyalty
oaths would be required of everyone, not just Arabs, and thus were not
discriminatory singling anyone out.
In the same piece, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post is in the J Street camp. He tells Eric Fingerhut that the
"inclusion of Lieberman in an Israeli government would be 'very,
very counterproductive' to the Jewish state and that Jewish leaders
should be speaking out strongly on the matter."'I could defend the operation in Gaza,' Cohen said, but 'I'd have a
very hard time' defending a government including someone who has
demanded citizens take a loyalty oath."
I find Cohen's language revealing. Since when is he advising Jewish leaders and announcing what he can and can't defend? Well–since he is an important columnist who feels some sense of allegiance to Israel. Two years ago he said that Walt and Mearsheimer's book left him singing "Hatikvah." And these quotes remind us, that there really is an Israel lobby–which includes Jewish writers who feel real responsibility for standing up for Israel in this country.
Abe Foxman also defends Lieberman. What irony!!!
Foxman said Lieberman's proposed loyalty oaths would be required of everyone, not just Arabs, and thus were not discriminatory singling anyone out.
LOL. A loyalty oath to a Jewish state is the same for non-Jews as it is for Jews. Does Foxman actually believe the nonsense he spews?
Incidentally, I am not nearly as high on Richard Cohen as you are, Phil. My sense, in reading his columns, is that he's Zionist-lite, not non-Zionist. To state that he "could defend the operation in Gaza" is morally reprehensible. There is absolutely no defense for the atrocities committed against innocent civilians, an incredible number of which were children. In fact, I'd imagine the people of Gaza, given the choice, would prefer to swear allegiance to Israel, as opposed to being subjected to wanton violence for which they have no defense.
J-Street uses the same propaganda as AIPAC…..
"Lieberman gets one thing right: the strong and historic Israeli-US relationship has been based on shared values and interests. But his values are not my values – neither as an American nor as a Jew."
We don't have the same values, never have had and anyone or group who ses this spin is just another AIPAC -lite.
I haven't done a whole lot of research on J-Street, but the admittedly cursory look I've taken at its site and at some of the literature it's put out leads me to think it's AIPAC-lite as well.
"'I could defend the operation in Gaza,' Cohen said, but 'I'd have a very hard time' defending a government including someone who has demanded citizens take a loyalty oath."
Is Cohen a spokesman for the Israeli government, or a columnist for the Washington Post, or both? Also, he can defend mass murder, but he draws the line at loyalty oaths?
What a typical liberal American Jewish Zionist flake. It's guys like this that invented situational ethics. Grow a set of principles and stick with them, you moron.
Difference of opinions within the Jewish Community will mean that people will be forced to talk about the topics that were avoided before and be faced with information that was not clearly presented before.
This flow of new information, rather than filtered propaganda is likely to be a force for good.
JStreet is little more than a sort of AIPAC with a make-believe left-wing orientation, willing to make a show of criticizing Israel's most egregious horrors – sort of. I, for one, refused to sign onto their statement on the Gaza war crimes because instead of condemning them unequivocally, they couched their statement in terms of "Israel's right to self-defense", thereby buying into the odious and blatant fiction that it had anything at all to do with stopping rockets or anything else to do with self-defense.
As for Joffie, what fascinating priorities! He abjures a fascist like Lieberman while at the same time supporting putting 1.5 million human beings in a cage and starving, then bombing them. Sorry if I am not impressed by his morality.
Ed: "Is Cohen a spokesman for the Israeli government, or a columnist for the Washington Post, or both? Also, he can defend mass murder, but he draws the line at loyalty oaths?
What a typical liberal American Jewish Zionist flake. It's guys like this that invented situational ethics. Grow a set of principles and stick with them, you moron."
***
Situational ethics, exactly. I have never seen any sort of moral consistency from so-called liberal Zionists. The very term is absurd: "I'm a modern liberal ethno-religious nationalist!"
I can respect the hard core right Zionists. They are at least consistent. Obviously, if the rapidly growing Arab minority is not loyal to Israel as a "Jewish State," the demise of Zionism is only a couple generations away.
Do you want a Jewish State or a liberal one? This question has been evaded for decades by American Zionists, at tremendous human and financial cost. It cannot be put off any longer.
I don't defend Lieberman. He is the Israeli version of those that seek to impose a "dual loyalty test" in America.
I think many commenters are not giving J-Street enough credit and are too quickly to embrace them as "AIPAC-lite".
It's very simple J-Street is Zionist and most of the people here want Israel destroyed.
Ed, the only defender of mass murder is you. Cohen merely states that the Gaza Spanking is a defendible military tactic.
I'm with Eva on this. Hopefully more room is becoming available to address the sticky factual issues, for example, those behind the narratives pro and con, as suggested by most of the comments so far on this thread today.
Hitler's early political career involved conflicting takes via the sundry domestic political factions all claiming they represented the best interests of the German people, Germany, and the world.
Of course, blanket statements like "most of the people here want Israel destroyed," and "the Gaza Spanking," and
" typical liberal American Jewish Zionist flake," and verbiage such "you moron"–hamper, rather than
enhance the flow of information.
"I don't defend Lieberman. He is the Israeli version of those that seek to impose a "dual loyalty test" in America."
Yep…a lot of the posters here are looking at the Israeli version of themselves. Pretty comical.
The loyalty oath is just cosmetic surgery anyway…and a pretty drastic one at that. Israel has great intelligence. Wasn't there some policy of identifying internal jihadists and escorting them across them across the border? Why can't they just stick to that?
"I don't defend Lieberman. He is the Israeli version of those that seek to impose a "dual loyalty test" in America."
Hmmm…maybe Lieberman is on to something…
Do you think Marty Peretz could get through the Pledge of Allegiance without changing words or perjuring himself?
Incidentally, I am not nearly as high on Richard Cohen as you are, Phil.
Dan, I think you didn't quite get Phil's message. His argument is convincing. Cohen shows he is aware of his gatekeeper job (filtering/selection) and his opinion leader function. And he shows us his awareness of this function by pointing out the limits. Lieberman is a step beyond his personal limit, or ethics, Operation Cast Lead wasn't.
Interesting comment David F.
Situational ethics, exactly. I have never seen any sort of moral consistency from so-called liberal Zionists. The very term is absurd: "I'm a modern liberal ethno-religious nationalist!"
I can respect the hard core right Zionists. They are at least consistent. Obviously, if the rapidly growing Arab minority is not loyal to Israel as a "Jewish State," the demise of Zionism is only a couple generations away.
Do you want a Jewish State or a liberal one? This question has been evaded for decades by American Zionists, at tremendous human and financial cost. It cannot be put off any longer.
Here I beg to differ from Ed. It is not situational ethics, but a very easy to understand limit for an American. Here the American experience definitively trumps his adherence to the Israel state. He can't follow "every" elected leader, no matter what politics. And he shouldn't. He can obviously quibble about the fact that maybe he should deviate earlier, or not support the Iron Wall mindset as an American. But strictly that is his decision. I think that is why for the Magnus Zionist's the election's outcome was a dream come true, to force people like Cohen to take a closer look.
If you are on the political right concerning US politics (a nationalist?) isn't it somehow obvious you can more easily respect hard-core Zionists?
What's wrong about deciding selectively on issues instead of following party lines? I wouldn't mind to have such chances as a voter.
We can not "he can" quibble obviously …
Hitler's early political career involved conflicting takes via the sundry domestic political factions all claiming they represented the best interests of the German people, Germany, and the world.
Apart from the fact that Hitler is a rather bad example here, why do we need him always? From the moment the Nazi movement was founded Hitler's influences and preferences are easy to see. The socialist in the party's name was simply a trick to attract the rather strong socialist party voters. It helped but without further tricks he wouldn't have succeeded.
Somehow this discussion reminds me of "Kerry flip flops". What's wrong with changing one's mind when something new appears on the horizon, that has to be taken into account?
Lack of principle is no attribute. Liberal American Jewish Zionists in particular have a profound problem with jumping back and fourth between two sets of "principles": once set that applies vis-à-vis their identity as a majority in Israel, another set that they demand here vis-à-vis their identity as a minority in America. That's not how principles work; they're supposed to be a firm set of beliefs that you carry with you no matter where you go, which is what makes them principles.
As a conservative, I can respect Jewish adherence to tradition and the wisdom of the ancients. But one Jewish traditions, possibly learned through eons as an ambitious, grasping minority that regularly had to survive on its wits, was to make up general ethical and political principles on a situational basis. That is situational ethics.
This Jewish tradition of situational ethics is one tradition that is better off dropped. Oh, but Jews also have a tradition of regarding themselves as exceptional, a people to whom the normal rules don’t apply. And that starts bringing us to the crux of “the Jewish problem” as manifested in America: a stubborn dual loyalty that used to get other people branded as traitors. But not the Jews, and now not the Wall Street money worshippers more loyal to capital than America, and now not La Raza, and tomorrow not the “universalist” Left loyal to its own utopian vision.
Diaspora Jewish Zionist subversives are a Trojan horse for the kind of foreign loyalty or "vision" precedents that fracture a country along a thousand different fault lines and ultimately shatter it in a million different pieces. They believe they should be an exception to the rules. So does every other selfish special interest wanting to subvert the long term survival of America to its stunted, narcissistic agenda.
If, like LeaNder, you're a Leftist who believes that patriotism is just so much narrow-minded nationalism (regardless of the fact that "nationalism" in America means dedication to a melting pot vision of unity based upon strict adherence to the principles outlined by the Founders in the Constitution) then perhaps you're inclined to be sympathetic to nation-fracturing Jews, as is she.
But I am an American patriot; therefore I am un-sympathetic to nation-fracturing Jewish Zionists, and sympathetic to Jews like Phil and all others who comprehend the threat that they and their ilk pose to America. And I can't worry about what they may or may not mean to other people in other countries or with other agendas of their own.
Hey, is it not readily apparent that Lieberman is the Israeli equiavalent of David Duke in the US? I mean, the American South gets bashed all the time for the KKK, but it's not easily discernible how Lieberman's ethnic cleansing platform is any different.
On another note of amusement, it's awesome that "Dishonest Abe" Foxman steps up and provides a "he's-a-good-guy" character reference for Lieberman. How would Foxman feel if there was an American candidate for high office that would demand that all Zionists take a "loyalty oath" to put the interests of their native US over the interests of Israel and the AIPAC lobby?
Abe should have his own sit-com with a laugh track. He's become that disposable in the discourse of the ME.
Witty: "I don't defend Lieberman. He is the Israeli version of those that seek to impose a "dual loyalty test" in America."
Don't conflate the dual-loyatly problem with what Lieberman wants for Israel. His goal is to have non-Jews in Israel declare loyalty to "the Jewish state." That's like requiring American Jews to declare loyalty to "the Christian state." No one to the left of John Hagee wants that.
On the other hand, I see no problem with asking all Americans not to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of the United States. In your defense of dual loyalty you try to make it seem like it's the normal natural even moral thing to do.
Well, let me tell you, there are problems with dual loyalty. Over 4,000 Americans (virtually all of whom are Christians) have died in Iraq in a war demanded by Jewish neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and happily acquiesced to by millions of American Zionists. Far from being ashamed of what they brought about in Iran, these Zionists are now demanding that thousands more American Christians go risk their lives in a war with yet another one of Israel's enemies, this time Iran.
Well, phooey on that. Too many Americans have already died fighting wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel. If Netanyahu feels he can't go another day without bombing Iran, let him go do it. But leave the US out of it.
Dan, I think you didn't quite get Phil's message. His argument is convincing. Cohen shows he is aware of his gatekeeper job (filtering/selection) and his opinion leader function. And he shows us his awareness of this function by pointing out the limits.
LeaNder, I went back over the post and you're right. I misinterpreted what Phil was getting at. I also confused Richard Cohen with Roger Cohen, who Phil posted on a few days ago with the title I think Edward Rothstein of the 'Times' is a Zionist, and Roger Cohen of the 'Times' isn't, and let's talk about it. I was wondering how in the hell Phil could view Richard Cohen as a non-Zionist!
Phil, I'm sorry.