I misplaced my taperecorder after the MoveonAipac.org hoedown in D.C., I'm still looking for it but in the meantime I need to convey from my notes three things that John Mearsheimer said in his appearance at the conference.
1. Someone asked about the USS Liberty attack in 67 that killed 30-some Americans and was never investigated. Mearsheimer said, "I think about Rachel Corrie [American killed in Gaza in 2003 by Israel].... Nothing was done about that. I think about Furkan Dogan [the American killed on the Mavi Marmara]." And Mearsheimer said that if he went to Israel and was shot and killed, nothing would be done about it. This shows "how remarkably powerful" the Israeli government is in Washington, and that's the simple explanation for why there's never been an investigation of the Liberty attack.
2. There was a dual loyalty question. Mearsheimer said that in America, we're allowed to have dual loyalty. You can be a citizen of another country, fight in their army. But the real question is, what happens when the "interests of the two countries come into conflict. The question is who will you side with? For most of Israel's supporters they will side with Israel, and they don't view that as a conflict of interest." On nukes, it is not in America's interest that Israel have nuclear weapons, for instance. But the lobby invariably sides with Israel and Netanyahu not Obama. And this, he said, is a "potentially dangerous situation for reasons I don't have to spell out to you." Wow I love this answer. P.S. At Columbia 3 weeks back, Peter Weiss of the Center for Constitutional Rights said he had written an article for the Palestine Israel Journal calling for legal action against Israeli nukes. Have to catch up to this.
3. William Safire. Mearsheimer liked the columnist William Safire, but he always wondered why he was for a Kurdish state. Well years after Safire died, Mearsheimer figured it out. Forming a Kurdish state would involve breaking up Syria, Iraq and Iran, "Israel's three principal adversaries." So Mearsheimer was saying that Safire was driven by love of Israel in his policy prescriptions. Don't you wonder about a lotta folks the same way? I do.
I had the pleasure of hearing Mearsheimer speak in Athens Ohio about a year before he and Walt released the paper and book. Had the honor of having a chat with him.
At the Move over Aipac conference he repeated his educated view that the situation is headed at warp speed towards a one state solution and the apartheid situation becoming ever more apparent.
His comments about Israel being able to take out US citizens lives with absolutely no consequences stood out. I wanted to ask him about what he knew about the history of dual citizenship in the US. How long have American citizens been able to hold dual citizenship?
Move over Aipacs focus on Monday was in front of the Dept of Justice where Grant Smith and a few others talked about why Aipac should be required to sign up under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. He had a letter from the Dept of Justice in response to meeting request about this issue. What other American citizen group lobbies in mass like Aipac for a foreign government? Truly agents for another country.
Grant Smiths research and website are so valuable. The history of Aipac how they have skirted around the FARA etc
link to irmep.org
When I asked Mearsheimer and Walt whether they thought Aipac should be required to sign up under Fara Walt was a bit dismissive. Grant Smith, Jeffrey Blankfort, Allison Weir brought this up during the workshop that Allision led. All firmly believed that Aipac should be required to sign up under FARA
Kathleen -
re “How long have American citizens been able to hold dual citizenship?”
It’s another 1967 thing involving Israel! (Makes it easier to remember)
link to en.wikipedia.org
I wanted to ask him about what he knew about the history of dual citizenship in the US. How long have American citizens been able to hold dual citizenship?
There is a complicated history. US law is silent on the subject. Here are the basics:
hostage, have you checked out Settlers fabricate non-existent “eternal rights”?
“Mearsheimer said that in America, we’re allowed to have dual loyalty. You can be a citizen of another country, fight in their army.”
As I have mentioned before, The British Embassy in Washington warned us that if my son were to serve in a non-US military it could compromise his US citizenship.
I recall reading about a case in which a dual citizen lost his US citizenship because he voted in a Mexican election.
My son is an Australian citizen (as well as US, British, and Japanese) , so when he is old enough he will be required to vote. (Voting is compulsory under Australian law.) I’m hoping that won’t be construed as intent to give up US citizenship.
And please take up maxNar’s challenge. He thinks he knows something about international law.
“but he always wondered why he was for a Kurdish state. ”
I was surprised not to hear Mearsheimer bring this up in regard to Israel’s meddling in the Kurd region for decades.
link to guardian.co.uk
Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil
US discusses plan to pump fuel to its regional ally and solve energy headache at a stroke
*
Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad.
The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq’s northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.
Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and solving Israel’s energy crisis at a stroke.
It would also create an end less and easily accessible source of cheap Iraqi oil for the US guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia – a keystone of US foreign policy for decades and especially since 11 September 2001.
Until 1948, the pipeline ran from the Kurdish-controlled city of Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa, on its northern Mediterranean coast.
The revival of the pipeline was first discussed openly by the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructures, Joseph Paritzky, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz .
The paper quotes Paritzky as saying that the pipeline would cut Israel’s energy bill drastically – probably by more than 25 per cent – since the country is currently largely dependent on expensive imports from Russia.
US intelligence sources confirmed to The Observer that the project has been discussed. One former senior CIA official said: ‘It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel’s energy supply as well as that of the United States.
Interesting as that old (2003) article is, it leaves me scratching my head about the supposed pipeline plan. If you look at a map, you’ll see that there’s no way to get from Mosul to Haifa without going through Syria or, much more indirectly, Jordan. Even if they succeed in creating a separate Kurdistan, including Kurdish-populated parts of Syria, that still won’t solve the problem – to get to Israel, the pipeline would have to go through the Syrian heartland. I suspect this plan depended, or depends, on drastic regime change in Syria.
deal with Jordan
deal with Jordan
More than likely, neither the British nor French ever had enough troops or money to garrison the vast interior of Arabia, so they planned to establish indirect control through an Arab suzerain over the new Arab State or Confederation of Arab States. When the French overthrew Faisal’s Kingdom over Syria- Transjordan, the British annexed Transjordan to Palestine, installed Faisal, his brother, and built the pipeline in their zones of influence – the mandates of Iraq and Palestine.
During the mandate era the Iraq Petroleum Company had an oil pipeline and pumping stations that ran from the oil fields in Iraq, through Transjordan to the port of Haifa in Palestine. They were protected by Transjordan’s Arab Legion.
If Americans Knew and CNI director Allison Weir had some things to say about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty and the lack of accountability.
link to ifamericansknew.org
WRMEA has a great article up on the USS Liberty
link to wrmea.com
Also found on that site (good links get me going OT!): Swedish human rights worker viciously
attacked by Israeli settler (Hebron). A Hebrew chant, new to me, is introduced: “We killed Jesus, we’ll kill you too!”. That’s the spirit.
“Forming a Kurdish state would involve breaking up Syria, Iraq and Iran, “Israel’s three principal adversaries”"
Israel has to keep on dividing the Arabs and Persians. There’s no other way for 5.5 million Jews to run a regional hegemony. They are the regional equivalent of Syria’s Alawis.
Divide and rule is is why Hosni was so important to them and why the Arab spring is so dangerous.
A more thoughtful Zionism would see the wood for the trees and shaft the settlers in favour of business with Turkey and Iran but that old Jewish exceptionalism is a bitch.
Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil
US discusses plan to pump fuel to its regional ally and solve energy headache at a stroke
link to guardian.co.uk
link to iraqwar.mirror-world.ru
By Amiram Cohen (Haartez) & Editorial comment
Apr 14, 2008, 23:44
U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
By Amiram Cohen
The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.
The Prime Minister’s Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a “bonus” the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.
The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.
The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.
National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan’s consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that “due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel.”
Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.
2 major pumping stations on the pipeline, mentioned above, known as ‘H2′ and ‘H3′, were the first places UK SAS forces attacked, on 21st March 2003, when the Iraq War began. See Map here link to imageshack.us
On the first day of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the British and Australian SAS, in the company of some US special forces, were deployed to the Western Desert of Iraq in order to ‘protect’ two strategic ‘airfields’ code-named H2 and H3, which ‘might’ be used to fire Scud missiles at Israel. This despite the fact that everyone from the UN Secretary General down to the most humble of weapons inspectors, knew the claim was pathetic rubbish. The last of Iraq’s scuds were destroyed many years ago.
The short answer is that ‘airfields’ H2 and H3 are actually ‘Haifa 2’ and ‘Haifa 3’, critical pumping stations on the oil pipeline that originally ran all the way from Mosul in the north of Iraq to Haifa in Palestine, and pumped oil until 1948.
During that year Palestine was invaded by the ‘Jewish State’, at which time Iraq blocked the pipeline near its western end. But recent Israeli claims that this Mosul to Haifa pipeline is nowadays ‘dilapidated’, ‘out of action’ and ‘runs through Syria’ are intentional disinformation.
Funny that, ain’t it?
here’s Haaretz back in April 2008
Mosul to Haifa pipeline: U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
If it were my blog I’d file it under ‘Hilarious Headlines’
‘Checking possibility’, ROFLMAO . . . . too funny.
As if they only just remembered it was there, in 2008, rather than it being the first place UK/Aussie SAS forces attacked when the illegal unprovoked attack on Iraq began in 2003.
on edit: whoops my link is the same a K’s above – that’s what I get for speed-reading and missing the date, and not clicking on the link
wow. making sense now. Israel as the black gold spigot.
Unlike the Soviet Union that was willing to negotiate the status of its nuclear arsenal, even at the height of the Cold War with the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), Israel would rather commit national suicide before it begins to show willingness to discuss its arsenal, let alone admit that it exists.
Incidentally, relatively speaking, I’m not so much concerned with nuclear weapons as I am with chemical and biological weapons, both of which Israel possesses in abundance.
Consider the comparison between launching F-16 fighter jets to bomb Gaza and using Caterpillar bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes. The F-16 bombing raid would be considered an event, a note worthy event that might cause large scale destruction and draw much attention at one given time. But, bulldozers can go on demolishing Palestinian homes by the hundreds, and the international media wouldn’t consider each demolition to be a note worthy event.
Similarly, biological and chemical weapons — especially bio weapons — can be characterized as silent killers. Israel could use them on an entire population and no one would be the wiser.
In Gaza, for example, doctors have long complained about mysterious symptoms with which children have been coming down with after exposure to Israeli bombs. The symptoms included brain seizures, skin rashes yet to be identified by the medical community and a slew of other conditions, the causes for which modern medicine has yet to identify.
In this article by Safire he infers that there is some difference between the Dem and Republicans on the I/P issue. Safire repeats as most of our MSM outlets do that all breakdowns in negotiations belongs to the Palestinians
Arab and Jewish Votes
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
link to nytimes.com
“What about the other voting group that has a special interest in ending the war launched against Israelis after Yasir Arafat turned down the offer brokered by President Clinton?
Jewish American voters who differ with their Arab and Muslim compatriots, one might logically conclude, would seriously consider supporting the candidate who many Israelis believe has been their best friend in the White House.
But such logic is misleading. Four years ago, candidate Bush received 20 percent of the “Jewish vote,” about halfway between the low point for a Republican candidate (5 percent for Goldwater) and the high point (39 percent for Reagan). Today, it appears that Bush is getting only slightly more than the 20 percent of last time.
Despite the fact that this president has firmly backed Israel’s vigorous self-defense – and time and again vetoed or denounced lopsided U.N. votes to ostracize Israel – 8 out of 10 Jewish American voters will still vote as a bloc to oust him.”
How the I/P issue is being looked at as a wedge issue now. I don’t believe this has ever been the case
GOP sees Israel as wedge issue
link to thehill.com
“it is not in America’s interest that Israel have nuclear weapons, for instance.”
That’s a bold statement to make without qualification. I can think of three reasons off the top of my head why it’s very much in America’s interest for it to have a nuclear ally in the Middle East.
Not reasons I would necessarily agree with, but reasons that would make sense to a large number of Americans.
As for the USS Liberty, I get that there are conflicting accounts and evidence, but the part that’s missing for me is motive. What motive could Israel have for an act of war against the US?
>> I can think of three reasons off the top of my head why it’s very much in America’s interest for it to have a nuclear ally in the Middle East.
Curious: What might those three reasons be? Thanks.
The most likely reason for the attack on the Liberty was that after the stunning success Israel had in Egypt, they were about to rush many of their tanks formations north towards Syria.
rush their troops too.
The USS Liberty was in international waters monitoring the communications of Egyptian and Israeli military movements.
At the time, in 1967, there was relative calm in the Middle East and the US was not interested in any new conflicts and instability.
Israel, however, was keen on invading the Sinai and the Golan Heights. But, it couldn’t do so without the US knowing.
Thus, crippling the USS Liberty would have disabled the United States’ ears in the region. Israel attacked the Liberty on June 8, 1967.
The attack on the Golan took place on June 9, 1967. Initially, the invasion was scheduled for June 8th, but was postponed for 24 hours.
As an aside, Syria had accepted the terms of the ceasefire, but Israel still attacked it later in the day and invaded the Golan Heights.
The US doesn’t need an irrational trigger-happy “ally” like Israel. Strategically, the US is capable of launching nuclear warheads from submarines that patrol the world’s oceans. So, a nuclear-armed Israel is of little use for the US.
If anything, a nuclear-armed Israel is a danger to the US as Israel continues to hold the US hostage to various demands that contradict US interests.
Two such examples included the threat to use nuclear weapons in 1973 and then later in 1991. In both instances, the US caved in to Israeli threats and awarded Israel for its intransigence with a nice package of military hardware.
GF, in addition to Avi’s summary of this very plausible motive, there has been speculation about other motives as well, including fear that the Liberty had evidence of an IDF massacre of captured Egyptian soldiers, and simply destroying the Liberty with no survivors and falsely blaming Egypt, thereby bringing the US into the war. I don’t think we’ll evern know for sure because the chances that Israel will ever acknowledge guilt and explain motive are exceedingly slim. Maybe someone who knows would make a deathbed confession, but that’s the only possibility I can think of.
More importantly, the conclusion that Israel acted deliberately against the US does not require evidence of motive. It can be inferred from the circumstances of the attack.
Thanks for that guys. Avi’s extended rant does provide a compelling narrative except for one giant plothole.
If Israel has enough juice with the US to cover up the intentional murder of its soldiers, why not just use the same juice to cover up whatever you think the Liberty discovered without the need to draw attention to one’s incompetence in bombing an ally by mistake?
Is that not a reasonable question?
I think the burden of proof is on you guys to substantiate your conspiracy theories with something better than recycled plots from Harrison Ford flicks.
The Israelis jammed U.S. Navy radio frequencies (as well as the International Distress Frequency) when they attacked the USS Liberty. No way they did not know they were attacking a U.S. Navy ship.
Yes. In 1967. That’s what Israel did. How exactly did Israel do that again?
Sorry Lysias. It’s just a lot of he said, she said.
Why would Israel do something and then admit it and say it was a mistake unless it was?
Why go to the effort of covering up an intentional attack on a US ship to avoid having to cover up something that the ship overheard? None of you are making any sense. You just hate Israel so much you want it to be true. I think that’s the definition of an irrational hatred.
Marvelous. What is that “plothole”?
Pay attention now. As you seem to forget, Israel was in public playing up the war as a defensive act, when in fact it wasn’t. We now know it wasn’t because of various admissions made by Israeli leaders in the years that followed.
Now, the US could have put diplomatic pressure on Israel prior to an invasion of the Golan, but couldn’t do so after an invasion as Israel would have claimed that the US betrayed its best friend and ally.
Note: Your brain may not comprehend this at first read. Try reading it several times, slowly. I think you’ll get it.
“Try reading it several times, slowly.”
Thanks for the tip. I followed your advice and it still reads like the Manchurian Candidate on shrooms.
Your whole theory is pure speculation. I’m glad you’re convinced that you’re right, Avi. It must be a comfort to be so sure all the time.
Why go to the effort of covering up an intentional attack on a US ship to avoid having to cover up something that the ship overheard? None of you are making any sense. You just hate Israel so much you want it to be true. I think that’s the definition of an irrational hatred.
Can you explain the first question? I would say your response is irrational.
How do you interpret the pilot reporting the ship he is ordered to attack is an American ship, asking should he really attack it. Why is there is no hesitation on the other side, as one should expect?
Do they expect Egypt to use such a trick and why? Shouldn’t there have been at least a double check?
All you write above is Israel covering up facts, the real problem for American soldiers is America’s elites covered it up.
True the Americans didn’t inform Israel they were, where they were. Also true that fighter jets to defend the ship were pulled back. This isn’t only about Israel, this is about America’s treatment of it’s own soldiers. And the core problem for these soldiers is that probably almost everybody instinctively feels they must be motivated by antisemitism, while in fact all they want is to know, how it could happen. As they feel, they owe it to their dead comrades to keep up pushing for an inquiry.
It’s tough debating an ignorant ideologue like you. Anything you don’t understand or that is beyond your limited knowledge you label as speculation.
The sad fact is that Israeli historians have written about this and all you have to do is open a book and educate yourself.
In 1967, the United States — at the height of the Cold War — was trying to maintain a semblance of stability in the Middle East. That meant that it sought to balance its foreign policy between Arab states and Israel.
Meanwhile, the Arab states were also allies of the Soviet Union. That meant that an attack on those allies was going to put political pressure on the US.
So, the US went to great lengths — by anchoring the Liberty off the Sinai coast — in order to be privy to Israeli plans.
Once the attack on the Golan occurred. The US had no choice but to support it’s (alleged) ally, Israel.
It would have spelled political suicide for President Johnson at the time, had he not supported Israel.
Finally, if you want another tip, I suggest you keep your head implanted firmly in the sand. And be sure to take your keyboard with you down there.
Probably less stinky than where he’s got his head up now.
Israel needs to sign the NPT.
“I can think of three reasons off the top of my head why it’s very much in America’s interest for it to have a nuclear ally in the Middle East.”
Perhaps. But what does that have to do with Israel.
You surely didn’t mean Israel when you said ‘ally’, did you?
“As for the USS Liberty, I get that there are conflicting accounts and evidence, but the part that’s missing for me is motive. What motive could Israel have for an act of war against the US?”
Proof of concept?
Seriously though, my money’s on the USS Liberty (SIGINT vessel, remember?) listening in to things Israel didn’t want to get out – or at least Israel assuming as much. The most plausible theory as to what exactly seems to be Israel’s impending attack on Syria. Massacres of Egyptian POWs and civilians are another possibility – though I have my doubts there, because I don’t see Israel as being terribly concerned about this becoming public.
The USS liberty was more than likely documenting all communication systems. They knew who started that war.
Congress needs to open up hearing on Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty
Best coverage of the USS Liberty
Amazing site
The USS Liberty
Congressional inquiries got nowhere
Letter to Secretary of the Army Regarding Report of War Crimes
Rear Admiral Merlin Staring and Rear Admiral Clarence Hill, Jr. – On 8 June 2005 the U.S.S. Liberty Veterans Association, Inc., submitted to you a documented Report of War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel on June 8, 1967. That report was submitted to you in your capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense under Department of Defense Directive No. 5810.01B of 29 March 2004. It was based upon, and contained a detailed description of, the sudden, savage, unjustified, and prolonged attack made on 8 June 1967, by air and naval forces of the state of Israel, upon the USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5), a U.S. Navy technical research ship then operating peacefully in international waters in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The LIBERTY was at that time the most sophisticated and best-equipped intelligence ship in the world. Of a crew of 294 officers and men, including three American civilian government employees, she suffered 34 Americans killed in action and 173 wounded in action. The ship itself was so badly damaged that it never again sailed on an operational mission. more
USS Liberty Timeline
link to ifamericansknew.org
link to ifamericansknew.org
“As for the USS Liberty, I get that there are conflicting accounts and evidence, but the part that’s missing for me is motive.”
The conflicting accounts are between the American soldiers who survived and Israel.
What is terribly sad and criminal is that some US officials rolled over to Israel
“The conflicting accounts are between the American soldiers who survived and Israel.
What is terribly sad and criminal is that some US officials rolled over to Israel”
Sad, criminal, but understandable (to the politician). The I lobby pays cash. What do soldiers do but bleed?
“Not reasons I would necessarily agree with, but reasons that would make sense to a large number of Americans.”
Gee, you wouldn’t think it, but $3 billion (or whatever it is) a year to Israel can’t even buy enough respect from Israel to make them tell the truth.
I’ll break it down for you: Guilty Feat is saying that Israel can always depend on America’s ridiculous and bigoted fears of Muslims or Arabs to ensure Israel’s immunity and impunity.
As for the USS Liberty, I get that there are conflicting accounts and evidence, but the part that’s missing for me is motive. What motive could Israel have for an act of war against the US?
The speculations about motives are not the problem, they are the obvious result of the cover up. I won’t tell you what it felt like when I was first confronted with the subject; by now I am admittedly impressed by the survivors fight for a a real investigation.
It’s a recurring subject over at Pat Lang’s blog:
Dead in the Water
The USS Liberty Inquiry
Many years ago I read that, when the 1967 war started, a young Jewish officer ran through the ship shouting “my people have risen”.
I do not know whether this actually happened, but had I been the captain I would have had that officer in front of me and told him that as long as he was an officer in the US Navy, “his people” were the all and only the people of the United States.
However, the Israeli Air Force made the same point a bit later.
RoHa, that story sounds definitively made up. Yes, there were Jewish Americans on board; but this sounds like the opposite of what I heard or read about them. The problem with cover up is that the most diverse people produce a lot of fantastic material to fill the void.
RoHa writes,
“However, the Israeli Air Force made the same point a bit later.”
It was a coordinated attack by the Israeli Navy and Air Force against a known, well-identified target – known by the Israelis to be present there.
As to your story about the Jewish officer on board the Liberty, I would only say this: As a U.S. naval officer, in the 1960′s I served on a destroyer, sometimes in the Med Sea (before 1967). Our gunnery officer for a while was a Jewish fellow (a reservist who served honorably) who so closely identified with the new State of Israel that I can easily imagine his running up and down the deck shouting something similar when Israel attacked the Arabs in 1967. Doesn’t seem too much out of the ordinary.
I hope it was made up. I can’t remember where I came across it, but it was close on forty years ago.
Guilty writes:
As for the USS Liberty, I get that there are conflicting accounts and evidence, but the part that’s missing for me is motive. What motive could Israel have for an act of war against the US?
There are two issues here, evidence and motive.
The evidence is overwhelming. Israel deliberately attacked the Liberty, early in the attack they tried to disable its communications and then tried to sink the ship and kill all of the crew.
You have a point on motive. I too am puzzled though I have read the number of theories. Some make more sense than others but I think motive remains a mystery.
But does lack of provable motive trump evidence? Certainly not in the determination of guilt for a crime in any court in the Western (and probably the rest of the) world. Guilty you spend all of your effort attacking the motive angle somehow believing that it obviates the evidence. Sorry it does not. But a good defense attorney in a murder case would do just that if they were unable to refute the evidence. Sometimes it works to confuse a jury and Israel has certainly successfully used it to confuse the jury of American public opinion. Unfortunately, for your case, there were just too many witnesses left alive after the attack on the Liberty for that argument hold in the jury of historians.
I’ve always been uncomfortable with the dual loyalty issue. Who gets to decide what American interests are? John Mearsheimer? The president? A majority of Americans? Is it in the interest of the US to support a Saudi dictatorship to ensure its cooperation and a steady flow of oil? Should support of Israel be evaluated by how much it helps or hurts our efforts to control access to Middle East oil?
I prefer not to go there. Of course it’s immoral to support a Saudi dictatorship, regardless of whether it is in our “interest” to do so. And it is moral to support foreign countries’ exclusive right to determine what to do with their resources and use them to improve the lot of their citizens, even if that conflicts with serving American “interests” of exploiting and profiting from those resources.
For similar reasons, I am hesitant to condemn Congress for siding with a foreign leader over their own President. The idolatry of Netanyahu is utterly disgraceful on other grounds, but there are innumerable instances where siding with the foreign leader is the right thing to do (just one example – Salvador Allende and Richard Nixon). Many Congress members howled about anti-Iraq war sentiment as a betrayal of Bush in favor of foreign leaders, and they are guilty of shameful hypocrisy by doing now what they condemned previously. But I think this line of criticism is dangerous. Between Obama and Bibi I certainly favor the former (disappointed though I am), but I would not support as a general proposition that a US Prez should be favored over foreign leaders. Too many exceptions.
Justice and fairness and decency and morality should prevail over their opposites, and US interests and presidential positions often do not line up with those values.
On Safire, my recollection is that he was an ardent supporter of the settlers and opponent of any suggestion that they be removed. He reasoned that the Israeli government promised them the “right” to settle in the West Bank and it would be a betrayal to move them out. I guess this was consistent with other Zionist positions like “God promised us your land” and “The British promised us your land.” In fact, I can’t recall ever reading a political (as opposed to language) column of his that I liked, on this or any other subject. What did Mearsheimer admire?
I think the “dual loyalty” issue is critical to discuss
some of the best articles about Bush administration and dual loyalties
A Rose By Another Other Name
The Bush Administration’s Dual Loyalties
by KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
former CIA political analysts
link to counterpunch.org
The Men From JINSA and CSP
Jason Vest
August 15, 2002
link to thenation.com
On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war–not just with Iraq, but “total war,” as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, “regime change” by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents–be it Colin Powell’s State Department, the CIA or career military officers–is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East–a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action.
For example, the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board–chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle, and stacked with advisers from both groups–recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror JINSA’s recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd’s preoccupation with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation proposed that “Grand Strategy for the Middle East” should concentrate on “Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot [and] Egypt as the prize.”) Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime change in Iran, while old comrades like Andrew Marshall and Harold Rhode in the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment actively tinker with ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments. JINSA is also cheering the US military on as it tries to secure basing rights in the strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that the once-promising secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues to slide into the kind of repressive authoritarianism practiced by the “axis of evil” and its adjuncts.
By all means, let us have the dual loyalty debate
link to mondoweiss.net
You have to talk about interests. Otherwise the talk is just all morality, in which case your question still applies (“Who’s gonna decide what’s moral?”) and more importantly, the whole demon of exceptionalism is nourished, not destroyed. Talk about interests, you’re on solid ground. Morality should trump interests on some occasions, absolutely. But once you think of yourself as putting morality first, the self-righteousness of that blinds you to all the horrific outcomes of your policies.
This is real life. Of course interests are going to trump important moral concerns, and regrettably so. But moral issues can really only be ultimately decided by the decisions of the people involved, not by outside powers. Nobody can be forced to be moral. What matters most is national interest. And of course we can talk about this, have a debate, because it’s a real thing. Not getting our citizens killed overseas is a clear national interest. Particular economic gains less so, but that doesn’t damage the point, it only calls for a discussion.
My point: if you don’t talk in terms of national interest, you have no grounds to criticize the Israelis. What should we care if the Israelis push around the Palestinians? Really? We don’t live there. There’s always going to be immoral things done to people all around the world. Why don’t we focus instead on our own problems, on the way the poor are treated in our own country? The answer of course is that we are Israel’s enablers, as Congress sickeningly demonstrated during Netanyahu’s speech. We are directly involved. Therefore, it already concerns us, and it’s in our interest to be moral in this situation.
Without being grounded in national interest, we scour the globe searching for monsters to destroy.
Hi David,
Congress is reprehensible in the last instance with Netanyahu on principle alone, but I agree with the Allende/Nixon comparison, good point.
Dual loyalty is a stinker for sure. I think for some of the patriots in this country, they believe, ‘how could you even think about serving in a foreign army?’ etc. Others see Jewish journalists whitewashing Israeli crimes all the time. That is problematic, since this journalist or editorialist often attempts to whitewash, propagandize and align our histories as a common cause (i.e. democracy). And this pulls an already corrupted political system further into the gutter. When we can stop talking about the ‘right of return’ and all the problems it’s created, then energy can be refocused Iraq war, Afganistan, banking scandals, etc. But, it’s a laundry list that is in no specific order.
‘Here are innumerable instances where siding with the foreign leader is the right thing to do (just one example – Salvador Allende and Richard Nixon).’
As usual, David Samel makes a thoughtful point. Dozens more examples could be named where siding with a foreign leader would have been appropriate — ranging from the Nicaraguan junta when Reagan was mining its harbors [the ICJ decided in Nicaragua's favor as well], to Saddam Hussein when he denied Bush’s false charges of weapons of mass destruction.
What’s remarkable about Netanyahu is unlike these other foreign leaders, he succeeds in going over the president’s head to secure Congressional support. The Lobby’s demonstrated track record of results puts it in a class by itself, in terms of foreign influence.
While ‘dual loyalty’ can be misused as term of abuse or bigotry, it’s also a concise way of highlighting a pathological level of collaboration with a foreign influence which probably wouldn’t be tolerated from any other nation.
I agree, but in the case of Israel, the lobby has been able to frame the debate to such an extent that suggesting the interests of the 2 countries is different is itself un American.
Nancy Pelosi once gave a speech that essentially said, if she had to chose between the US and Israel, she would chose Israel.
Now given how many people hate this woman and what they would have done to bring her down, isn’t it mind boggling how this statement never came back to haunt her?
David Samel writes,
“I’ve always been uncomfortable with the dual loyalty issue. Who gets to decide what American interests are?”
Those are not the points, David. As Mearsheimer said, the question is not about “dual loyalty,” it’s about single-minded loyalty to a foreign country. And the question is not about “American interests,” it’s about the danger to America presented by the fact that its government has been captured by an extremely dangerous foreign power. That’s what Netanyahu’s reception in the halls of the U.S. Congress was all about – domination by a foreign power and its operatives in America.
I don’t think you want to be an apologist for the Israel Lobby.
There are some thoughtful comments in reply to mine. Of course I share your anger over the groveling, sycophantic behavior of Congress. Thomson, I don’t take seriously your accusation about being a Lobby apologist, but I do like the way you phrased the problem as single-minded loyalty to a foreign country. That does make sense. I guess I was reacting to the many people who more generally criticized siding with a foreign leader against the Prez. There are just too many times when that is appropriate. And then there is the unfortunate fact that this incident is just typical of US politicians’ deference to Israel over many decades, and the disappointment felt by those of us who believed the Lobby was ever-so-slowly losing its grip; instead it looked stronger than ever.
“Thomson, I don’t take seriously your accusation about being a Lobby apologist ….”
Relax, David, I didn’t make any such accusation. I phrased my last sentence above with the intention of provoking a response from you, which was received and appreciated – just as I have read, appreciated and approved of many of your other posts and comments here at Mondoweiss.
the groveling, sycophantic behavior of Congress.
David, I am with you on the double-loyalty theme, as it obviously reminds me of the slogans of the Nazis and their diverse nationalist allies. But as you, I can also see the well-funded efforts creating the America-Israel love story.
It feels in this context the funny mix about Netanyahu’s speech Annie sent is interesting: Bi Bi Pro America. I had the same impression as Noy Alooshe while watching Netanyahu. Are many of the 29 (I didn’t count) standing ovations in fact the result of N’s pro-America slogans? Is congress in fact celebrating America, and in extension the Israel-stands-with-America-theme? One should study carefully at what points he smuggles Israel themes into the larger context. In other words how many pro-America slogans lead up to the Jerusalem cannot ever be divided standing ovation. Maybe it shouldn’t be? Berlin was a peculiar island during the cold war. Imagine a wall dividing Jerusalem. Which must not necessarily lead to all-Jerusalem-must-be-Jewish.
“Are many of the 29 (I didn’t count) standing ovations in fact the result of N’s pro-America slogans? Is congress in fact celebrating America, and in extension the Israel-stands-with-America-theme?”
Good try, but it doesn’t work. The answer is: No, not many. The good Congresspeople jumped up and down on cue like well-trained dogs. The training and cues had been provided in advance by AIPAC.
“For similar reasons, I am hesitant to condemn Congress for siding with a foreign leader over their own President.”
That sounds like a bit of a cop out to me.
This is not a case of supporting a Hitler or Qaddafi.
It’s not really about congress supporting or denouncing Obama or any US President.
It is about a corrupted body and some with dual, or I should say single, loyalties, putting the interest and desires of a foreign country above the interest of our own country…above international law, above morality.
You may be uncomfortable with “dual loyalty” but it’s a fact, it’s here and it’s been exhibited often enough, with results that have been detrimental enough, to have become a critical issue for the US.
William Safire dead at 79
The former Nixon speechwriter and New York Times columnist died Sunday of pancreatic cancer
By Alex Koppelman
*
William Safire, the speechwriter for President Nixon who became a fixture in the New York Times, died Sunday. He was 79.
In his later years, Safire was best known as a columnist for the Times, where he worked for more than 30 years. Even after he stopped writing his political column, he continued his regular feature in the New York Times Magazine, “On Language,” until this month.
I had no idea that Safire had been Nixons speechwriter. HMMM
——————————————————————-
Check this article out about Safire not being in the Gridiron Club
link to slate.com
But it turns out that membership isn’t really determined by the news organizations; it’s determined by the members. Why didn’t the members bring Safire in years ago? Chatterbox uncovered two Safire-specific explanations for his exclusion. The first was that for quite some time, many Gridiron members didn’t think Safire was a “real” journalist, because before he was a columnist he was a government official rather than a shoe-leather reporter. (It doesn’t help that the government job was writing speeches for Richard Nixon. And before that he was a PR man. And proud of it.) The second, and more intriguing, explanation was that Safire was blackballed by UPI White House reporter Helen Thomas, who was then the club’s president, when his name came up several years ago. Thomas, according to two Gridiron members, didn’t like Safire’s views on the Middle East. (Safire, a Jew, is ardently pro-Israel; Thomas is of Lebanese extraction.)
———————————————————————–
Another interesting article by Safire (PR man)
Continued Stonewalling in Pollard Spy Case Hurts Israel
September 12, 1987 – William Safire – The Palm Beach Post
“But the Pollard case is far from over. While the jailed spy is conveniently forgotten by the government that used him, two prominent former Israeli officials remain protected by a fearful political establishment.
Rafi Eitan and Avraham Bender are legendary figures in the world of espionage. Together they led the team that kidnapped Adolf Eichmann in Buenos Aires in 1960 and brought that war criminal before the bar of Israeli justice. Eight years later the same two Mossad operatives appeared at an Apollo, Pa., nuclear processing plant, and following their visit 587 pounds of U.S. weapons-grade uranium was reported missing.
Bender, using the, alias “Avraham Shalom,” rose to the top of the internal security service, Shin Beth. When a news photograph provided evidence that his men murdered a couple of Palestinian terrorist prisoners, his agency was caught trying to frame an army commander; however, Bender and his aides resigned and received a presidential pardon.
Rafi Eitan did fairly well, too. He headed Lekem, an intelligence unit set up outside: Mossad to provide deniability by high officials, which recruited the Pollards (and perhaps another American unknown to the Pollards) to steal U.S. secrets. When the operation blew up, Eitan also resigned and was rewarded with a top state-owned industry job.
To give the appearance of an investigation, Prime Minister Shamir — who served a decade in the Mossad — appointed a non-judicial board, which issued the expected whitewash. A Knesset committee under Abba Eban waggled a finger but could not penetrate the wall of secrecy.
However, U.S. officials who talked to Eitan under a grant of immunity believe he lied to them; as a result, a grand jury in Washington may indict him one of these days, along with two Israeli diplomats who were spirited out of the country as the Pollards were caught. Bender is suspected of aiding the cover-up of his sidekick’s “renegade” activity.
None of the Israelis charged with espionage here will be returned to stand trial; instead they will continue to be protected by a coalition of cover-up in Jerusalem that puts a personal fear of the exposure of ministerial involvement ahead of the long term security interests of the state.
What has the unconscionable stonewalling done for Israel? Let’s see; aircraft workers are unemployed, Syria’s Assad is rehabilitated, objections are, muted to the pro-Arab tilt in the gulf war, Israel’s supporters in the United States are sick at heart — and that’s only the beginning.”
So many articles about Safire being a strong Israel supporter in the media
William Safire, Strong Media Supporter of Israel, Dead at 79
link to israelnationalnews.com
One of the strongest supporters of the State of Israel in American journalism, New York Times conservative columnist William Safire died Sunday a few hours before the start of Yom Kippur at the age of 79.
William Safire, commentator and staunch Israel defender, dies
link to jonathanpollard.org
link to haaretz.com
At Safire Wikipedia
link to en.wikipedia.org
He joined the New York Times as a political columnist in 1973. Soon after joining the Times, Safire learned that he had been the target of “national security” wiretaps authorized by Nixon, and, after noting that he had worked only on domestic matters, wrote with what he characterized as “restrained fury” that he had not worked for Nixon through a difficult decade “to have him—or some lizard-lidded paranoid acting without his approval—eavesdropping on my conversations.”[5]
But I did agree with Safire’s fulminations on bad grammar.
He was right about counterfactual conditionals.
“If I would have …”
is wrong, wrong, WRONG!
Mearsheimer said something like: “Forming a Kurdish state would involve breaking up Syria, Iraq and Iran, “Israel’s three principal adversaries.” …”
There are also Kurds in south Turkey so it would involve breaking up Turkey as well, a NATO member.
“I misplaced my taperecorder ”
Did you check with Move Over Aipac’s lost and found
Israel is like that girlfriend that you break up with and you think it’s over, but she has other plans. She thinks you’re going to stay together forever. And if you sever this love too quickly, there’s going to be serious payback.
Can you imagine if we sever our ties? How jealousy would come into play, and their anger would be aimed at good ole’ sucker USA.
Israel would need to focus on China or some other superpower, eventually selling the US military secrets (via AIPAC) to get their war machine revved up. What is Israel’s ‘Plan B, if USA plan A goes broke’?
“Israel would need to focus on China or some other superpower”
There’s only a small problem with that: China wouldn’t be interested.
Every sane world leader knows that as an ‘ally’, Israel is nothing but a liability. China or Russia or Europe are not going to hang this albatross around their neck.
lol. yeah. Assume there is no plan ‘B’.
Breaking up is gonna be tough.
Well, Russia has just announced it will support recognition at the UN in September, during a joint Abbas/Hamas visit. Recognition will pose problems, and Obama is correct in pointing out that recognition is symbolic, and will not by itself give the Palestinians a state. Minimum requirement for a state: population, territory, independent government. The Palestinian government is not exactly independent. Look at the funding structure: Israeli tax transfers and foreign aid. If there is any violence, foreign aid contributions would have to go up, as they did during Cast Lead. Who will pay? Europe is in economic trouble, as is the US. 30 Democratic senators and Cantor have already called for canceling all aid to Palestine in the wake of the PA/Hamas union. The EU is also squeamish about funding ‘terrorists’ as it will imperil their trade with Israel. See:
link to alzaytouna.net
It struck me how Netanyahu’s Aipac speech corresponded to Obama’s State of the Union Address in January (The ‘Sputnik-moment: save the declining economy and export industry by outperforming everyone else in the increasingly competitive global market through R&D, innovation, green energy etc). Israel as an asset rather than a liability for the US:
“I know these are tough economic times. So I want to thank the president and
Congress for providing Israel with vital assistance so that Israel can
defend itself by itself. I want to thank you all for supporting the Iron
Dome missile defense system. A few weeks ago, Hamas terrorists in Gaza
fired eight rockets at our cities, at Ashkelon and Beer Sheva. Now, these
rockets never reached their targets. Iron Dome intercepted them in midair.
For the first time, a missile defense system worked in combat. That’s a
precedent in military history. And I want to say thank you, America.
America and Israel are cooperating in many other ways as well. We’re
cooperating in science, in technology, in trade, in investment. See, it’s
not only American companies that are investing in Israel. It’s Israeli
companies investing in America. In the last decade, Israeli companies have
invested more than $50 billion in the United States. One of those companies
is investing just down the road in Richmond. It’s a company that is
building a food factory. Now, here’s what it means — more business, more
jobs, and, yes, more hummus.
Well, it’s not just food we’re bringing to America. Take medicine. Israel
is advancing cure for multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, cancer. We’ve
developed mechanical means to make paraplegics walk again. We’ve placed a
tiny diagnostic camera inside a pill. I have not swallowed it, but I
understand it’s quite effective.
And you’ve just heard of this miraculous bandage developed by an Israeli company that has helped save Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ life. And I wish Gabby, a great friend of Israel, Refuah Shlema, a happy, quick, speedy recovery.
Israel and America are also cooperating to end the world’s worst addiction,
the addiction to oil. This dependence fuels terrorism. It poisons the
planet. So we’ve launched a 10-year program in Israel to kick the habit, to find a substitute for gasoline. And if we succeed, we can change the world.
We can change history.”
Now who’d say no to that special relationship? Cancer cure, freedom from oil, miracle bandages for politicians shot by angry people? You think the average member of Congress would find human rights and international law more important, more in America’s interest? Not everyone may swallow the pill, but I’m sure it’s quite effective.
Did someone ask about dual citizenship?
Until a Supreme Court case in 1967 dual citizenship was not recognized or upheld. Prior to that all claims to rights or privileges concerning holding dual citizenships status had been overturned by the Supreme Court.
But then along came a Polish Jew who immigrated to the US– then went to Israel under the law of return –then wanted to come back to the US.
”Beys Afroyim was born as Ephraim Bernstein in Ryki, Poland.[5] In 1912 he immigrated to the United States, and in 1926 he was naturalized as a U.S. citizen.[6] He later moved to Israel, and as a Jew, Afroyim was automatically granted Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.[7] In 1960, following the breakdown of his marriage Afroyim decided to return to the United States,[8] but the State Department refused to renew his U.S. passport, ruling that under section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940 — which mandated revocation of U.S. citizenship for voting “in a political election in a foreign state” — Afroyim had lost his citizenship by voting in an Israeli election in 1951.[2]
The “citizenship clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Afroyim argued that since “neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to take away that citizenship once it has been acquired . . . the only way he could lose his citizenship was by his own voluntary renunciation of it.”[6]
Lower courts, however, rejected Afroyim’s claims, based on an earlier Supreme Court decision — Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), a case which upheld Congress’s right to revoke U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election “under its implied power to regulate foreign affairs.”[9] Afroyim asked the Supreme Court to overrule the precedent established in Perez v. Brownell, rule the foreign voting provision of the Nationality Act to be unconstitutional, and rule that he was still a United States citizen.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 20, 1967
Decided May 29, 1967
Full case name Beys Afroyim v. Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Citations 387 U.S. 253 (more)
87 S. Ct. 1660; 18 L. Ed. 2d 757; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2844
Prior history Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Holding
Citizenship may not be revoked without consent; and in particular, citizenship may not be revoked as a consequence of voting in a foreign election.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
Majority Black, joined by Douglas, Warren, Brennan, Fortas
Dissent Harlan, joined by Clark, Stewart, White
It’s interesting to note that Jewish Justice Abe Fortas had to resign from the Supreme Court two years later in 1969 for accepting bribes.
He had already been shot down as a chief Justice nominee because he accepted money for political speeches given at universities while serving on the court becoming the first nominee for that post since 1795 to fail to win Senate approval.
Then in 1966, Fortas took a secret retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client subsequently imprisoned for securities violations. The deal provided that in return for unspecified advice, Fortas was to receive $20,000 a year for life.
I wonder how many other SC Judges have been crooked but not caught.
no matter how powerful the israel lobb7, our president and the congress weren’t elected to serve the interests of the jewish settler entity israel
or were they?
by whom?
and for how much? -
“members of the jury, on the charge of treason, after hearing all the evidence, how do you find the president and those members of congress who put israel first?”
“guilty as charged, your honor.”
I think the dual loyalty concept in the context lives by misunderstanding what the function of the US government truly is from the beginning to this day – in service of an elite. All you are seeing is the changing of the guard on who the influence brokers are, and none of it – whether from years past to the current activity is healthy for the people. The dual loyalty scenario is a tempest in a teapot because of people dismal failure to see the wool being pulled over their eyes, their own self-deception of what is transpiring, and their refusal to throw away the fairy tales they have been fed since birth. Time to wake up people.
I’m out of town and writing from memory without references. The William Safire story goes like this. Safire began having exclusive parties for influential Jews at his home (Jews only, no Goyim) which kept getting bigger each year what with generals and politicians and financiers. He is said to have joked that if he invited Henry Kissinger over, Henry would have to leave his Gentile wife home. Ha, ha ,ha, ha. Pretty funny huh? Can you imagine a Gentile holding an ongoing party which excluded Jews and joking that if he invited so-and-so that he would have to leave his Jewish wife home? Apparently, his fellow NYT columnist Maureen Dowd badgered him relentlessly until he let her attend. Once.
Philip, have you ever paused to wonder what historians 50 years from now will say about the Israel Lobby and its effects on the course of American history?
I have. I expect it will be equated to the Goths toppling the Roman Empire. And considering our client state has nukes? When they do turn on us, we will bleed. A lot.
Forming a Kurdish state would involve breaking up Syria, Iraq and Iran, “Israel’s three principal adversaries.
Not necessarily. The creation of the Republic of Macedonia didn’t involve any loss of territory for Greece. Kurdistan could be proclaimed as a nation even if it covered little more than a slice of Eastern Turkey (not that that is gonna happen anytime soon) and have very little effect on Iraq, Syria or Iran.
How long have American citizens been able to hold dual citizenship?
Always. There’s nothing they can do to prevent it– they can legislate that taking up another nations’ citizenship secondarily will mean forfeiture of American citizenship but they can not force someone whom they’ve granted citizenship to abandon their prior nationality. The US has no power to retract the citizenship of another nation. Besides as Mearsheimer points out there is no problem with dual loyalty (I am a citizen of 3 nations – one by birth, one granted under my parents when I was minor and the other by adult choice) There is no danger to the security of the nation I live in as a result of this. It is only when a citizen advocates policies etc that contradict the interests of the nation they live in that it’s a problem but then again plenty of natural born citizens do that every day. Someone’s actions are either antithetical to a nation’s interests or they are not. I don’t find Hagee and Cantor’s views on Israel any less terrifying than those of an Israeli born Brooklynite. For these reasons I’m really not a fan of the dual loyalty canard, I don’t think it’s at all relevant. If you think someone’s actions are problematic to US interests or security why not just say exactly that?
“I misplaced my taperecorder”- the Mossad strikes again!!
You right wingers and your Iraqi nukes.
On the topics raised:
The Liberty attack was investigated extensively, the reasonable conclusion being that it was a tragic error.
The death of Rachel Corrie is being dealt with in the legal system. We don’t know what the court will determine.
The Mavi Marmara incident was also the subject of numerous investigations .
the reasonable conclusion being that it was a tragic error.
spare us please. and no there was never an extensive investigation except by…israel!
this is another perfect example of an unsustainable narrative. mark my words, your grandchildren will have no doubt what happened here. the truth will prevail.
Yes, yes, yes. And Saddam Hussein had nukes and was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, Nasser wanted to slaughter every Jew on the face of the Earth and Ahmedinejad denies the Holocaust even as he talks about it as a factual historical reference.
Meanwhile, we know (thanks to your compatriot Orly Taitz) that Obama is not actually an American, in spite of his Hawaiian birth certificate and Mavi Marmara was piloted by Muslim terrorists masquerading as a respected Turkish social justice organization and the ship was chock full of dangerous weapons, like bags of concrete, oranges and kitchen knives.
Yeah, thanks for the reality check, jon s.