This piece on the renewal of American anti-Zionism, by Samuel G. Freedman in the Religion column of the New York Times, includes the usual disclaimer, and some religious hokey-pokey too, but it is fair and important. I wonder if Freedman is not secretly sickened by the news from Jaffa Road.
Freedman quotes Steve Naman and Allen Brownfeld of the American Council for Judaism--that lion of Judaism during the Partition era. The most exciting paragraph in the story is this one:
My sense is that they believe that events are proving they were right all along,” Jonathan D. Sarna, a historian at Brandeis University and author of the seminal book “American Judaism,” said [of the anti-Zionists] in a telephone interview. “Everything they prophesied — dual loyalty, nationalism being evil — has come to pass.”
What does this mean? It means the accusations re the Iraq war as a war for Israel's security have traction even in conventional thinking; it means that Eric Alterman's admission of dual loyalty, and Alterman's calling out Ruth Wisse for demanding dual loyalty of American Jewish youth, and John Judis's accusation of the prevalence of dual loyalty in the U.S. Jewish leadership, and Jeffrey Goldberg's coy equivocations around it, and Robert Kraft's wife Myra's blurting that she wants her sons to fight for Israel not the U.S. (Kraft is a big contributor to Freedman's school, Columbia), and Elliott Abrams's statement that Jews must stand apart in whatever country they live in except Israel, Abrams who worked in the White House as he believed this-- these statements have had an effect, they are undismissible. Now, when the Iraq war is well behind us. (Oh and yes a lot of non-Jews said this too, but got railroaded). I always said that one day the Center for Jewish History would have a debate about the Jewish contribution to the Iraq war disaster on its stage, which Freedman has spoken on. That day hastens.
Again,
YOU have multiple loyalties, as any intelligent humane person would.
Caring about Israel is not a sin. To note that some think that invading Iraq would protect Israel in some policy vision and that that was a component of their conclusions on that foreign policy issue, is saying very little.
There were literally more Jews, more Zionists, opposing the Iraq war than supporting it. I knew a handful of Jews in my hometown that supported it, among a couple hundred that opposed it.
And, it didn’t stratify by income, or wealth, or even by support for Zionism.
Maybe in New York there is an exagerated impact of a few with money, but that is a general condition in every policy area about every American political issue. This wasn’t the first in which a few used their influence, and it won’t be the last.
Anti-Zionism is not a path to equality of wealth, nor to equality of voice. It is a single cul-de-sac.
As adherence to Zionism over all else (rather than in combination with all else) leads to confusion as to priorities of political values, anti-Zionism does similarly.
Which anti-democratic disease do you wish to contract?
Most people however only have one loyalty when it comes to states and its the one they reside in and are a citizen off. A jewish citizen of america shouldn’t care about Israel they should care about the USA.
Witty, one day you may have to decide which side of the fence you are on. US or Israel. Which side is it?
Witty, it’s a ticking timebomb situation. Which side are you on?
Many German Americans were accused of dual loyalty, that is, suspected of first loyalty to Germany back in the day; and this at a time when Germans were a huge part of the total US population; an unwritten and underreported part of American history holds their stories of being abused and humiliated, but oh BTW, the German Americans in the Bund of that name fought gallantly against Germany in WW2. Anyone here imagine Witty ever fighting against Israel? Can you imagine his son joining the US Army or Marines? How about the IDF?
The same is said for you guys, you have options, America or Palestine. Choose
An American always chooses America First. That’s why those former German American Bund members joined the US military to fight Nazi Germany; as was noted, German Americans died more than any other ethnic American group saving the world from Hitler.
“As adherence to Zionism over all else (rather than in combination with all else) leads to confusion as to priorities of political values, anti-Zionism does similarly.
Which anti-democratic disease do you wish to contract?”
False dichotomy.
While the term anti-zionist may represent the first priorities of some in what you might call ‘the Palestinian camp’ for others (including myself) this is a struggle FOR democracy, and FOR human rights and equality for all people in Israel and Palestine – and those Palestinians forced to live in exile.
I think it’s safe to regard witty’s ling winded response as an admission that his loyalties do not lie with the country he lives in.
You guys are really foolish.
How many times have I described that my loyalty, my sympathy, resides first to my family, second to my community, third to my region, fourth to the US.
My sympathy guides me to seek those goods in forms that are also good to my neighbors, neighboring communities, neighboring states.
Single loyalty is relevant ONLY during either/or war. And, if single loyalty to the US would be required during war, and the US was at war with Vietnam, or Nicaragua, Iraq, I would be “disloyal”. I’ve personally had near-violent confrontations with recruiters that cold call visited my home attempting to speak to my then 15 and 17 year-old sons. I called the recruiters “pedophiles”.
My history of dissent would prohibit my security clearance in any official US capacity, probably more than Phil. (Still, leftists are prime targets for CIA recruitment at elite colleges – Princeton, Yale, George Washington U).
When the US entered declared (by resolution) war with Iraq, were you singly loyal to your host country, or were you disloyal? I was disloyal, proudly.
How about Afghanistan? Were you singly loyal? I was disloyal.
Grow up.
No, in those instances you were loyal to American values; the whole point of the First Amendment is to be able to criticize and dissent from one’s governmental policies. Your constant rubbing of the zionist genie lamp at the expense of America’s best interests and highest values is another story.
Nice to know you called the recruiter boys pedophiles. What a mensch.
Wow. Witty, who knows what’s good for him, seems to have been guilty of disloyalty to Israel in two cases:
1. Not emigrating to the Promised Hellhole that needs it badly –and who can blame him if he prefers to live in the US and enjoy a better life?
2. Being profoundly disloyal to Israeli interests by opposing the recruitment of his sons for the Iraq war, requested by the Zionists.
Like the guy said, it’s good to know which side your bread is buttered on but it’s even better to know not to risk anything personally.
Citizen – “..you called the recruiter boys pedophiles”
The only correct statement by that propaganda specialist. It proves that he is human where his own progeny is concerned.
“Single loyalty is relevant ONLY during either/or war”
Hasn’t your argument been that Israel is at war? So is the US apprently.
So tell us Witty, where does your loyalty lie?
I can only assume that, based on his opposition to the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, Witty will likewise be opposed to a war on Iran, right?
Allan Brownfeld (AJC) also wrote in Explaining the Long — and Largely Untold — History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism , his review of Professor Yakov Rabkin’s book about the subject:
link to acjna.org
The American Anti-Zionist platform published in the New York Times in March 1919, is here in PDF. You need to click on the PDF, then scroll own to see the start of the article in the left column:
link to query.nytimes.com
The ACJ also issued a warning in 1944:
Source: pamphlet published by the American Council for Judaism, 1944, p.7 [American Council for Judaism Records (1942-1968), American Jewish Archives. Cincinnati, OH.]
Link to article that sources this here:
link to dissidentvoice.org
All excellent and interesting articles, MRW, thanks.
Alan Hart, the former BBC Middle East expert, said in a speech to The Liberty survivors, and published as Why Really The USS Liberty Was Attacked by Israel?
link to veteranstoday.com
The date of the Hart’s speech was early this June.
The correct link is:
link to veteranstoday.com
The concept of citizenship as a right of individuals comes from the French Revolution. I don’t think it is something members of IDF’s Judas Brigade understand, specifically when they declare their loyalty to Israel above that to the US. The largest single ethnic group of Americans fighting the Nazis in Europe were German-Americans.
It makes you wonder where US Jews would stand in a war between the US and Israel.
Of course the Lobby would make sure the US surrendered to Israel before this could occur.
You forget that Israel considers the US military to be its military. Why else would the US risk the lives of American soldiers for the benefit of Israel, and Israel alone? Can any other such country be named that uses the US military for its exclusive ends?
Les, yes what you say about German Americans is true; while no longer being such a huge part of the US population, German Americans are currently way overrepresented in our US Military today.
I’m not sure that “dual loyalty” is the right way to frame the issue of American support for Israel, or Jewish Americans’ support for Israel. In a land of immigrants, everyone has dual loyalties. This “loyalty” business is tricky business. Take rooting for Algeria, or Ghana, over the U.S. side in the World Cup. Is that “disloyal?” Advocating for Vietnam, avoiding the draft, or being critical of U.S. Indochina policy in ca. 1970, is that “disloyal?” Should it matter whether your parents or grandparents are immigrants from Vietnam?
The body politic is always divided on issues, and citizens have all kinds of motivations why they are for or against this issue or that. I don’t think it’s a good idea to separate these motivations by how “loyal” they are. Whether we support any particular policy as a country is the result of the tug and pull of politics. We do not, and should not, ask individual citizens to recuse themselves from weighing in on any issue just because they have some uniquely personal connection too it.
I tend to agree. The “dual loyalty” thing is (using different labels) not that different from the criticisms rightwingers usually make of lefties when we oppose American policy, especially when we oppose an American war. If Israel were this wonderful democratic state which had never hurt anyone and was surrounded by hordes of cannibalistic mutant Nazis (I’m auditioning for a role as one of Dershowitz’s ghostwriters), I wouldn’t object to people feeling great loyalty to the Israeli cause.
“In a land of immigrants, everyone has dual loyalties.”
I don’t think this is true, or at very best a vast oversimplification. In any case, you’re right about the word “loyalty”, I don’t like it either, it conjures up images of McCarthy and rabid nationalism (even though it isn’t the intention). I personally am not “loyal” to any state, maybe to ideas, yes.
But it’s clear that the pro-Israel crowd is much more interested in Israel than, say Italian, Russian or German immigrants in their respective countries, and it often borders on fanaticism going far beyond rooting for the national sports teams and saving some traditional recipes, etc. And there is the aliyah, which makes the country a sort of “home away from home”, which is unique, I think. So there are definitely grounds to make the charge.
Interested Bystander,
There is a big difference between a ‘personal connection’ to an issue, or an emotional motivation to pursue a critical policy passionately, and what is understood to be “dual loyalty” by the early anti-Zionists (above) and Mondoweiss here.
Sports, ancestry, or exercising your First Amendment rights to complain about US policies, are not part of it.
For example, there were many American-born Irish in Boston and New York who were fierce, vocal, and often surreptitiously violent, defenders of the IRA and wanted England out of North Ireland throughout the 20th C. But they didn’t mobilize and throw huge amounts of money at US politicians to get US foreign policy changed to embargo Britain or write Acts to get language outlawed; they didn’t insinuate themselves into the upper echelons of the administration and strong-arm policy makers to rewrite America’s foreign policy for Ireland’s ultimate benefit (or go to war for Dublin) no matter what that would have done to its relationship with Britain. They didn’t destroy the careers of people who disagreed with them with dedicated smears and whisper campaigns, or act like pitbulls to ruin legendary American reputations (Helen Thomas) in a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech before all. They didn’t act like scabs before the American Constitution, living here indulging in the separation of church and state but self-righteously demanding, and expecting, US taxpayer dollars to support medieval religious-based wars, and plain murder, overseas.
No one begrudges American passions and points-of-view, nor, even, military-like organizations to make sure these things succeed. But when they are done at the expense of every American’s right to complain in return, and be as amply vocal and vociferous in combating the point-of-view, then, yes, Americans are being subjected to a dual loyalty that destroys, and impinges upon, their basic freedoms.
I should have as much right to say in polite company that I find Israel’s policies despicable, that I view Netanyahu and Lieberman as crude small-minded men not dignified or smart enough to rank as even junior statesmen, that Zionism is not Judaism, and Israel has been stealing our technological secrets (which I know first hand) and passing them off as their own back in ISrael for decades…I should have the right to say all that and not be labeled an anti-semite or ostracized, but I don’t.
That is because of dual loyalty, which has an immediate consequence.
Compare the percentage of the U.S. population who are immigrants (i.e. of born outside the U.S.A) with the percentages of immigrants in France, Britain, and, of course Australia. Then think again about that line “In a land of immigrants…”
My loyalties belong to the oppressed. Palestinians are victims of Western technological weapons used by Israelis to acquire territory through aggression. Not only is the use of force against civilians to steal their homes morally repugnant, the arms used to destroy the lives of Palestinians are purchased with foreign aid from the US, making me culpable for the crimes committed by Israel and even more loyal to the cause of ending these crimes.
At an earlier stage in the British argument about (coloured) immigration, Norman Tebbit, a notorious racist, suggested the ‘cricket test’. An acceptable immigrant should not support India, Pakistan or West Indies against England (!?!?). I disagreed with that idea.
link to en.wikipedia.org
(For Americans; England (part of the UK) plays cricket; Scotland, Ireland and Wales don’t). India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand play, and are passionate about it (whether you think it’s a daft game or not).
Sport has often been characterised as an acceptable substitute for the murder, blood and mayhem of real war. It’s like sending your knights out to joust instead of doing major, lethal battle.
Israel has proved incapable of achieving anything on the world sporting scene, and prefers to use real bloody violence instead.
Now, if all the dual loyalist Israeli/Americans could root for a competent Israeli soccer team (obviously excluding Maccabi Tel Aviv or Yisrael Beitenu), then perhaps the constant threat of war on its neighbours from Israel and its American backers might be reduced.
I agreed with Tebbit on the basic concept*. People who migrate to country X should transfer their loyalty to that country. If they want the advantages, they should pay the price.
The big proviso is that the rest of the population should accept the immigrant as being a full and equal citizen. If Mr. Patel from India is still sneered at as a “bloody Paki” and has excrement shoved through his letterbox or gets beaten up by skinhead arseholes (yes, dear reader, such things do happen in quaint, thatched, England) I can hardly blame him if his loyalty is somewhat moderated.
I am a Australian/British dual citizen. I was born in the U.K., but my first (though not uncritical) loyalty is to Australia, since that is not just where I was brought up, but (more importantly) where I live and work. It is my duty to support the society that supports me.
(*And practically nothing else. He was one of the gauleiters during the Thatcher Terror. )
For Americans:
Cricket is the world’s second most popular sport after Soccer.
The International Cricket Council has 104 members.
link to icc-cricket.yahoo.net
The best bit of the film “The Beach” is the morning prayer of a West Indian: “We thank you Lord, for the twin pillars of civilization, Christianity and cricket, even when played by those of another faith., Amen.”
I think sport is a tedious waste of time, but even I felt a stir of sympathy. But not for the Christianity bit.
It indeed tedious, but I was happy to be in Bermuda during Cup-Match which is played on the day Chattel Slavery was abolished. It’s a big deal there, and after many Dark & Stormys I was almost sure I knew what the hell was going on. Great uniforms I have to say.
GREAT Dark & Stormys, too.
“My loyalties belong to the oppressed. ”
Tommy hit the nail on the head. As I read the above discussion, I kept thinking of the Irish Americans who have a fondness for their ancestors’ land. Is that the same feeling that American Jews have for Israel? Somehow I don’t think so. The reflexive defensiveness of Jews here has good cause, what with the high profile brutality displayed by Israel.
At any rate, as we know, many Irish people are involved in the struggle against Israeli apartheid and more power to them.
The ambulatory colostomy bag Tim Rutten of the L.A. Times has wailed for years that anyone who claims we were neo-conned into Iraq is Heinrich Himmler. The Jewish Establishment the modern day Sanhedrin owns and operates our Congress, shapes the news, is a dominant part of high finance in this country, ad nauseum. No other ethnic group has any say in anything. You can be of Scandanavian heritage and wave the Norwegian flag from sunup to sundown and it wouldn’t matter in the least. Israel Firsters are destroying the world.
American exceptionalism: two basic problems
1) The US plays its own exceptional sports, and doesn’t join the rest of the world in theirs. Soccer is the major example; a passion of many nations around the world, but not in the USA (although the US team is doing OK in the World Cup). Any nation that has the gall to call its own internal national sport’s championship the ‘World Series’ is deluding itself. Most of the rest of the world don’t bother about playing rounders (baseball), or American Football, which can be better played on one of those swivelling puppet tables.
2) The US (the big dumb nation) has its basic political institutions (Congress) controlled by a foreign (unregistered) agent (AIPAC)
Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.
This is unprecedented; no other empire has been infiltrated by a parasite before.
Here’s an example of the email messages being sent around to the half-baked American patriot masses–and they increasingly believe it and if you disagree with them they think they smell an anit-semite American traitor:
“My friends – I know that is a bit of a long read, but it is a message that needs to get out to every American everywhere that cares about defending our way of life, and the freedoms we enjoy.
Ron
Subject: Europe today
Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament.
In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: Who lost Europe?’
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .
The Europe you know is changing.
You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.
Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear ‘whore, whore’. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.
The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators ‘settlers’. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam ‘the most retrograde force in the world’, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America – as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe ‘s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
Please take the time to read and understand what is written here, Please send it to every free person that you know, it is so very important.”
And here’s the same spiel for the educated Americans:
link to online.wsj.com
(Anti-Semitism Is Salonfähig Again
The Gaza flotilla was a perfect piece of Islamist theater, revealing an old European hatred
By Leon de Winter)
“Israel is our first line of defense.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West.”
“But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West”
Jose Maria Aznar :
“Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down.”
link to solomonia.com
(Sorry for the source – note the Reagan quote on the top of the page!)
Containment. We must protect our way of life from the hordes of invaders!
Seems like they’ve been given the word.
My god, it’s hard to know where to start with this guy’s cookie-cutter rhetoric. He’s amazing. I’ve seen videos of him on youtube, but this speech takes the cake.
Oh Jeezus, Man The Gates of Vienna…
This is unprecedented; no other empire has been infiltrated by a parasite before.
Romans wouldn’t agree. Artemius (Roman name) or Hermann (German) was captured as a child by the Romans from the German tribal region. He was trained by the Romans and rose up in rank in their army. He led three Roman legions into a German ambush that resulted in their annihilation. Led Augustus to make his famous lament “I want my legions back”.
Hyksos Dynasty link to en.m.wikipedia.org
Americans don’t use the international paper sizes, either.
Think of it, there is no such animal as “dual loyalty”. In everyday life outside open war everything you do (politically speaking) is done with the intent of advancing the interests of one party, never more than one, that may or may not be the land of your primary citizenship –its interest as you personally see it. So it is impossible to tell where your loyalty lies except if you declare your real intent, and no one will know what you were thinking. Whatever you do can be justified by your “well-considered opinion” as you declare it in public. Only armed fight against one’s “own” uniformed army cannot be justified legally (but personally of course it can, and it sure is “heroism” according to the other side.) So, by their deeds we’ll judge them; people’s stated subjective justifications just cannot be listened to.
“Israel is our first line of defense.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West.”
“But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West”
Jose Maria Aznar :
“Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down.”
link to solomonia.com
(Sorry for the source – note the Reagan quote on the top of the page!)
Containment. We must protect our way of life from the hordes of invaders!
Seems like they’ve been given the word.
aaahhh this was a reply to Citizen
For a lot of Zionists, I don’t think there is any issue of dual loyalty. Their loyalty is to Israel, regardless of where they live or what nationality they are.
I question the concept of loyalty to country. Especially if the said country is acting unfairly or unjustly . I wouldn’t be loyal to mine if it was to wage an unjust war. Loyalty to a cause is different as it infers choice, non existent in loyalty to a country, merely an accident of birth..
“I wouldn’t be loyal to mine if it was to wage an unjust war.”
TGIA the concept of loyalty needs to be examined.
We *are* participating in an unjust war and Julia Gillard has just confirmed she is happy as larry that we continue to have Australian lives on the line in the bizarre war on Afghanistan. I honestly could have kicked my television. I’m waiting for some pronouncements on Israel since, as I understand it, she’s even more of a zionist than Rudd was.
Wanting and expecting my country to behave in a moral fashion is the height of loyalty.
Yes Sumud, I’m aware of “our”( I’m not Australian yet, still holding my French citizenship) new prime minister’s allegiance to the zionist crowd..Shocking and baffling..
BTW, even if I were already a citizen, I too, would question my loyalty to a country that wages an unjust war in Iraq and shows utter disdain to the Palestinians and their struggle for statehood and freedom.
“even if I were already a citizen, I too, would question my loyalty to a country”
Having said that, I would add that in no way I would seek to cause any harm for a country that welcomed me and hosted me for so many years. I’m not that callous.
” I would add that in no way I would seek to cause any harm for a country that welcomed me and hosted me for so many years. I’m not that callous.”
Of course not. I don’t wish Australia harm either.
I forget you were born French TGIA. I’m glad you have felt welcomed, Aussies can be parochial at times. I HATE the current ad on the box for Budget car rentals, where the Aussie bloke corrects the French women’s pronunciation of Budget. Makes my skin crawl!
Even if you aren’t a citizen JR is our PM (and wasn’t the bloodless coup a shock!), no need to use exclamation marks! If you’re a long-term resident, I think of you as French *and* Australian.
“I forget you were born French TGIA. ”
Actually I was born in Beirut, spent 3 years of my childhood a stone throw from the Israeli border (that explains a lot!) and moved as a teen to France .
Well the plot thicken, you’re a man of many colours then :-)
Well yes and it makes all questions relative to identity much harder to work out and answer..
The word “loyalty” does carry the connotations of “my country right or wrong” and big smelly dogs drooling on one’s knee, which is why I sometimes use the term “support” instead.
Support for the society does not mean cheering on (e.g.) Australian involvement in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan. Nor does it mean accepting that everything the Very Wonderful Julia Gillard does is absolutely perfect in every way.
Urging moral behaviour, or at least a little less slavish obedience to Washington and Tel Aviv, counts as support in the sense of trying to improve the society. (This is Sumud’s point, too.)
Right RoHa, loyalty really is the wrong word. We have a language problem. I wanted to use patriotism but that word seems so tainted after the Patriot Act.
The “dual loyalty” slander is, in fact, a sword with dual edges.
As it is plain to see to any rational thinker, while one may argue that Jewish Americans that support the right for other Jews to build their homes in Israel have dual loyalties,
Another may, rightly so argue, that those that support the right for an Arab country within Israel have dual loyalties.
The “dual loyalty” slander is, in fact, a sword with dual edges.
The correct phrase is “a double-edged sword”. It is one of those phrases that you must master in order to be taken seriously as a “thinker” on these issues – kind of like “fellow-traveler”, “sit down at the negotiating table”, or “bring something to the negotiating table”.
Here, let me help :
“The charge of dual-loyalty is a double-edged sword for those supporting jihadist ideologies and their fellow-travelers, because it cuts both ways – are they self-censuring? Only time will tell. But one thing is sure, they are going to have to bring something more substantial to the negotiating table if they really want to bring about a lasting peace in the region.”
mN
An Arab country “within” Israel?
I suppose if one takes the extensive “biblical” Israel, there are several.
If one takes the current situation, there is the very ugly illegal occupation of large parts of mandate Palestine. Few are proposing an Arab country “within” Israel.
An Arab country “within” Israel?
I’m beginning to understand that this is what he means by “maximalist Narrative – isn’t it? Jordan to the sea?
la reine blanche – “Jordan to the sea?”
Why so modest? You make it sound like a peace group.
The most recent official statement describing borders is the following:
“The boundaries of Zionist aspiration … include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan and the Sinai”
Ben Gurion, Report to World Council of Poale Zion, Tel Aviv, 1938. Ref. through Israel Shahak, Journal of Palestine Studies 39:10, N.3 (Spring 1981), 27-35.
This piece of skullduggery by Freedman (in an otherwise reasonable article) needs some attention:
“and most recently the fatal attack on a flotilla seeking to breach the naval blockade of the Hamas regime.”
If Israel has managed to craft a blockade that targets only members of Hamas I’d like to know. Of course it hasn’t. The copy should read:
“and most recently the fatal attack on a flotilla seeking to breach the naval blockade of the entire population of Gaza.”
Disassociating Hamas from Gaza is a typical Hasbara ploy. It works as a convenient distinction between civilians and the ruling regime, when Israeli atrocities make no difference between the two.
Isn’t loyalty the sentiment you feel towards someone you consider your legitimate sovereign? That involves a degree of readiness to obey the law or the sovereign’s legitimately expressed will even if you would for some serious reason rather not.
If I am a totally loyal Anglo-Albanian then neither side can safely entrust me with secrets it wishes to keep from all comers, including the other. This is the duality problem.
There’s also the no-duality problem. I might become unable to conceive of any profound difference of interest or values between the UK and Albania. So I’ll regard any UK politician who is anti-Albanian but elected by the UK electorate, or any Albanian who is Anglophobe but elected by the Albanians, as a traitor. Then it becomes a bit hard to see that I am really loyal to either country in its reality. Hannah Arendt sees this problem in the super-imperialist Cecil Rhodes whose real loyalty was not, she says, to Queen and Country as a reality but to an international order of his imagination.