Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Here are two signature moments from an interview of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who chairs the Democratic National Committee, at Hadassah Magazine:
Q. You have visited Israel many times. What memory stays with you from your first visit?
A. I was 27. It was 1995. I went with the American Jewish Committee in a young leadership program. I have always been a part of a large Jewish community, but you are always still aware that you are a minority. I was always aware I was different, and did experience some anti-Semitic incidents. So when I was walking down the street in Jerusalem it suddenly occurred to me that the bus driver is Jewish, the clerk at the supermarket is Jewish and the taxi driver is Jewish….
You cannot make too much of the issue of psychological projection onto Israelis by American Jews. Israeli Jews are doing what we're not doing. They are laborers, builders, sweepers-- and most important, soldiers in a tough neighborhood. Which is why we can never question anything they do; our lives are not on the line. Here we are privileged.
This is from the wonderful memoir, Notebook of a Sixties Lawyer, by Michael Steven Smith of Law and Disorder Radio:
"[A]fter confirmation [in Milwaukee] I went to Israel where I toured and worked on a moschav... over the summer of 1959... It was the first time I had seen working-class Jews."
Now here's the headline quote from Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
This helped me fully appreciate how important it is that we have the Jewish State of Israel—which is our homeland and our rightful place. We belong there and, God forbid, I remember thinking, if history repeated itself, there has to be a place for us to go....
Notice how DWS is echoing the Netanyahu language on Israel, the new definition, the Jewish State of Israel. And it's our rightful place-- and wait, you're one of the most powerful people in America, chair of the Democratic National Committee? I don't get it. You don't feel safe in Florida? (This house has got a lot of old wiring. It's dangerous.)
Until she packs her bags and goes, are we not to assume she considers it her duty to be an Israeli agent?
Even thought she is a politician, DWS may actually believe what she says and not be simply pandering. She will likely be uncomfortable when Peter Beinart starts his book tour on radio and cable TV exposing the American Jewish dilemma. But even DWS will have to choose siding with Netanyahu/ Leiberman (1SS with Jewish supremacy trumping democracy) versus siding with Vilkomerson/ Weiss/ Horowitz/ Blumenthal (1SS with democracy/ equal rights trumping Jewish tribalism). As a American surely she must choose the latter???
“This helped me fully appreciate how important it is that we have the Jewish State of Israel—which is our homeland and our rightful place. ”
This is prima facie evidence of a dual loyalty. Good, bad or indifferent, there is simply no way that a US citizen can say that “we” have another state and that it is “our” homeland and “our” rightful place without there being dual loyalty. Hoppy may moan and cry and fling about the antisemitism libel, but there is simply no other honest way to describe this feeling by a US citizen as other than, at least, a dual loyalty.
Such people should be nowhere near the reins of power in the US.
But America recognizes dual citizenship. (Even triple citizenship. My wife has an American, Canadian, and an Israeli passport.) And there is no American law (as far as I know) that says dual citizens can’t hold office. So there is should be nothing wrong with dual loyalty – as long as people are upfront about it.
Its a multi-cultural world. Get used to it.
It does permit it, but it should not. It did not used to, and that was, in my opinion, the correct way to go. Further, there should be a law that only those whose sole loyalty to the US should hold office in the US.
Love another state enough to become a citizen there? Fine. Go there and leave your American citizenship at the door. If you are not 100% into the “American citizenship” thing, then I’d just as soon kick you out and reserve it for those to whom it is special.
And people like your wife are the problem. I noticed that instead of saying that she has “citizenship” in 3 states, you say that she had 3 passports. She’s collecting citizenship like stamps. That’s vile. Citizenship should mean something more than simply which card you pull out at customs.
>> It does permit it, but it should not. … Further, there should be a law that only those whose sole loyalty to the US should hold office in the US. … Citizenship should mean something more than simply which card you pull out at customs.
I agree. Citizens of the U.S. (for example) should not have to wonder whether their elected representatives or other public sector employees are working for their (the citizens’) good or for the good of the Jewish state and its citizens. And they shouldn’t have to wonder whether they’ll be left in the lurch by ersatz Americans who abandon them for the “greener pastures” of the Jewish state, instead of standing with them, when the good times get tough.
“She’s collecting citizenship like stamps. That’s vile.”
In retrospect, I should not have used the word, “vile.” That connotes a moral reprehension that I do not feel, which I do not believe is true, and which I do not believe is warranted. I was wrong for using it and I apologize to sydnestel for doing so.
How remote would Obama’s chances at the presidency be if he’d availed himself of a second, Kenyan passport?
Are there dual national ethnic Chinese in the Admin dealing with east Asian affairs?
How many of those dealing with ME interests hold dual nationality with an Arab country? (Or do about 98% of them come from the same 2% pool with automatic rights to a particular passport?)
This is the old anti-Vatican argument being played out on the political stage! This is people indoctrinated from an early age with a sense of loyalty to a foreign country thru their faith (distorted or added to by zionism), encouraged to put that country’s demands (I won’t put ‘interests’ because what’s going on isn’t in its interests)first (or at least VERY high on their agenda) and there is virtually no calling them out permitted on it!
Well thanks for the apology re the word “vile”, but its my wife who deserves it not me. I don’t have American citizenship at all, I’m Canadian.
More seriously though, I find your comment below (and I assume you are not alone on Mondoweiss) disturbing.
“Love another state enough to become a citizen there? Fine. Go there and leave your American citizenship at the door. If you are not 100% into the “American citizenship” thing, then I’d just as soon kick you out and reserve it for those to whom it is special.”
Why, in a world were people move around a lot, and have relatives and friends all over the world, should citizenship (or more importantly “love” and “loyalty”) be restricted to one (or any) state. Why can’t you have attachments (even “love” if you want) to more than one place and one people. I find that attitude you express narrow minded.
In Canada several major political figures have dual citizenship – with France. The redneck right tried to make an issue of it. It didn’t get much traction. Americans, on the other hand, are so Americentric! Many on this list rail against Jewish exceptionalism (and they should) but fail to see their own American execptionalism.
Jews should be allowed “dual loyalties”. As should Mexicans, Chinese, French or whomever. As long as you don’t break any laws. Life, and loyalty (as well as love) is messy.
Dual citizenship is irrelevant and superficial.
Dual loyalty is a legitimate charge to make against people who do not care about this country because they view it as being able to ‘take the hit’ for the country they truly prefer (Israel).
Make Israel take all the risks. Cut all foreign aide to it and let it navigate it’s destiny on it’s own and without our tax dollars.
People like you seem to want to conflate Israel and the US. That’s good for you and it’s your right.
But people disagree.
That’s where the term Israel Firster comes in. It is a disagreement about our interests and what we stand for (even though ‘what we stand for’ is a romantic notion).
Chastising people for using the I.F. term or dual loyalty charge is saying they should accept the legitimacy of the pro-Israel position as an American position. I don’t think it is at all.
I think it is a deeply hypocritical view and the people who express it are deeply hypocritical.
They advocate one set of principles here and another in Israel. And if you’re Jewish, you should be thankful for the principles of this country, where you you can succeed based on merit. That goes for all minorities.
That cannot be said in Israel, where the Arab minority will always be discriminated against so long as they identify independently and not as subservient to Zionism.
In fact, all the Arabs that Israel puts on show for the West are not simply Arabs who’ve disagreed w/ the Palestinian consensus. THey are literally hardcore ZIonists.
The moment I see someone with an ‘Arab for Israel’ mentality, it’s propaganda.
Why, in a world were people move around a lot, and have relatives and friends all over the world, should citizenship (or more importantly “love” and “loyalty”) be restricted to one (or any) state. Why can’t you have attachments (even “love” if you want) to more than one place and one people. I find that attitude you express narrow minded.”
Nothing narrow minded about it, your ‘defense’ of it is absurdly simple minded and sounds like the typical hasbara or lefty hippy child of can’t we all just get along and be citizens of the world without being obligated or tied to any particular soverign state.
Fine…go try it…and when your rights get stepped on somewhere in the world go get in line at the UN to complain as a world citizen.
“
Well I guess one shouldn’t expect a different answer from someone whose handle is “American”. Your identity seems to be your state. Count me as an old “lefty hippy child.”
Seriously, is what people on this list care about American state interests, or is it human interests and ideals? They are not the same.
There is nothing wrong, and much right, with having multiple and even conflicting loyalties. The conflicts get worked out as best we can – hopefully based on human values, not state interests.
Not if they’re in government. They are employed to serve the interests of the public, not a foreign country.
The US president pledges allegiance to the US and to uphold the Constitution, not the apartheid state of Israel.
Shingo: Even the concept that nation states in general and borders in particular are problems is not allowed. We frame the debate in terms of “nations” because that is how field has been described to us. We don’t have to, if we do not want to.
As a person in Canada, does it bother me if an elected official is a dual citizen of France or the US? No. I don’t believe in such knife edge distinctions. I don’t accept the “enemy within” that is hidden in such distinctions. We are an international community these days and we need to break down nationalism not reinforce it. I’m not interested in the direction that the opposition to dual citizenship leads – to can a person who only has been in the country 2 generations be sufficiently loyal to run for state.
Those who accept an illegitimate citizenship – such as Jewish nationality – I do mind very much, but I don’t mind because they are dual citizens, but because they have chosen racism as an integral part of who they are. I mind in the same way as someone who believes in white power being elected in office. It is not a question of dual loyalties, they have bluntly stated that they do not represent all of their constituents.
The chair of the DNC does not represent Palestinians in particular, and Muslims in general (recognizing that not all Palestinians are Christians). She prefers to be around her own kind. At one time the local white racists were handing out leaflets at subway stations expressing exactly that. It is not that she has dual loyalties. She does not. She has exactly one loyalty as far as I can see, and that is to the “Jewish Race” – and that is the problem. It is a problem whether she lives in Israel or in Florida. Her views are violent and she will leave a trail of violence behind her.
“Why, in a world were people move around a lot, and have relatives and friends all over the world, should citizenship (or more importantly ‘love’ and ‘loyalty’) be restricted to one (or any) state.”
Here’s why: Because I have one citizenship. That means, to me, that I will work to make this country the best it can be for me, my family and my fellow citizens. But I expect that my fellow citizens will do the same. That’s the deal. (A problem, beyond the scope of this discussion, is what happens when we disagree as to what “best” means…”)
That paradigm falls apart if the other person, who is benefiting by my work toward making the US the best it can be is not reciprocating. If a subset of US citizens — who I am entrusting (even if in small part) with my family’s future — has a dual loyality to another state and becomes powerful enough, they could weaken the US to benefit their other “love.” That might suit them fine because if the US crashes and burns, they can move to Canada or Israel or the UK or wherever else globalism takes them.
But I’m stuck here. With my family. And I’d rather not have my country fall down around me to benefit someone else.
There is no “Jewish Race” and I don’t believes DWS believes there is. Certainly very few Jewish thinkers do (some of the ultra-orthodox certainly do, but they are not a majority.) Most Jews believe that Jews are a People and that Judaism is a religion and/or culture they share. Sort of like the Quebecois -eh? So can a person living in Montreal have loyalties and both Quebec and to Canada? How about a Francophone living in northern Ontario? Or would that make them a violent racist?
in Edwin’s ‘no boundaries world’ whose laws prevail?
I think Sharia law and customs have certain advantages over US law. For example, in US law the State prosecutes crimes against persons: Say a person is accidentally killed in a car crash; in US, the state prosecutes the crime, and the survivors of the victim are really not part of the process, except for a few cameo appearances at the sentencing phase.
In some Sharia law traditions–Iran’s for example — such crimes can be settled between the parties. In “The Way of the World,” Ron Suskind relates a situation in which a young Iranian man was accidentally killed in a car crash by another young Iranian. The families of the victim and the perpetrator met and after discussion, it was decided that the perpetrator would be ‘adopted’ by the family of the victim. It would become his obligation to provide the support (financial, social, emotional, etc) to the surviving family that they had been deprived of by the act of the perpetrator.
US system is eager to aggregate power to itself. The Iranian/Sharia way of looking at the world is less concerned with centralized power.
In Edwin’s ‘no borders’ fantasy, would he require that the Canadian military be required to remove their soldiers from the territory of other people who wish to live their lives in their own borders? Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins, Edwin; that is an ultimate border.
Jews trying to define Judaism get themselves into a huge hole. This definition excludes secular non religious Jews.
The comparison with Quebecois is absurd . Quebecois do not share particular religion. Culturally, Quebecois are basically Canadians who happen to be born and raised in Quecbec. Every Canadian is free to come and go from Quebec.
Not at all. Apart from the handful of separatist nut jobs, all people living in Montreal insider the fact that they are living in Montreal to no different to people living in Vancouver.
What about it? Unless that Francophone is a separatist, a Francophone living in northern Ontario is just like any other Canadian.
The only thing Quebec separatists share with Israel is the delusion that they can maintain a functional and independent state with a massive welfare cheque from their benefactors.
Shingo – with all due respect you obviously don’t know much about Quebecois: who all surveys show overwhelmingly feel loyalty to Quebec, and somewhat fewer (minus the separatists presumably) also feel loyalty to Canada.
And defining Judaism as the culture of the Jewish people, certainly does not exclude “secular non religious” (isn’t that redundant?) Jews.
Having probably spent more time in Quebec and being engaged to a
Quebecker, I know a great deal more about the place than you do.
Polls also show they regard Quebec as part of Canada, and that separatists are regarded as an extremist minority, so your argument is irrelevant.
But Judaism is a religion, not a culture. Judaism can be practiced by societies that do not share a culture, as was the case with the Ashkenazi and Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews prior to the creation if Israel. Israel’s culture was invented after the fact.
Your saying “The redneck right tried to make an issue of it [dual loyalty]” is an ignorant (Redneck?) thing to say in itself. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that southerners of all classes and income levels are pretty much devoted to Israel. One of my southern senators will not even answer letters critical of Israel or American pro-Israel policies.
Wait!
“But Judaism is a religion, not a culture.”
I defined Judaism as a culture and you come back and say that somehow that excludes secular non-religious Jews. Then you come back that Judaism is not a culture, it a religion! So who is excluding secular Jews?
You seem not capable of making a rational argument. Or perhaps you aren’t interested in one: just in winning a point for your pre-conceived opinions. And you are not very honest either. Since you claim to know so much about Quebec you obviously do know that in 1995 49.42% of Quebecers voted that “that Quebec should become sovereign …” (for those not familiar see: link to en.wikipedia.org ) and yet you write”Polls also show … that separatists are regarded as an extremist minority, so your argument is irrelevant.”
No, it is you who are irrelevant by deliberately misleading and dissembling. I will try to just ignore your comments from now on.
I defined Judaism as a culture and you come back and say that somehow that excludes secular non-religious Jews.
no, you defined judaism as “the culture of the Jewish people”. i don’t think anyone would argue judaism is a culture. but for secular jews ‘their culture’ is not judaism. secular people are not, for the most part, part of religious culture. that is why they identify as secular.
this is not complicated.
When talking to Zionists it is complicated. Judaism becomes exactly what is needed at the moment morphing between religion, culture, ethnicity, race and whatever else as needed to make the argument of the moment.
Ultimately, though, Judaism should be private, and not of anyone else’s business – especially the state.
Excellent use of a qualifier in there.
Sydnestel: I don’t think I would be willing to say exactly what Quebecers want, though I have never lived in the province.
The collapse of the Bloq during the last election tells us something important. From my distance I do not know if Quebecers are tried of sovereignty or tired of the issue of sovereignty.
From the short term I can not say if Shingo is correct.Still I would be very reluctant to state that sovereignty as an issue is over for Quebec.
It is worth noting that the campaign for sovereignty was tinged with racism –
There are some very good historical reasons for french speaking people to desire separation. Still it is worth noting that the native vote was a jaw dropping 96% opposed. I think that nationalism and racism tend to go together.
Rather than blaming the loss on immigrants, he should have blamed the loss on the incredibly bad relations Quebec has with its native communities.
I think that one of the take-away lessons from Quebec is that “Nationalism is an infantile disease” as stated by Einstein. Israel is not immune.
The Quebecois certainly like taking their billions in equalization payments from Canada. Quebec would not be able to survive on its own.
No, you defined Judaism as the practice of Judaism. You threw in culture, upon which I explained that the Ashkenazi and Sephardic/Mizrahi cultures shared had absolutely nothing in common
until they were brought together in Israel.
How can Judaism therefore be a culture, if the culture is not common to all Jews?
No, you seem incapable of honesty and coping with the having the contradictions in your argument pointed out.
Oh please, the 49% refers to those who bothered to vote. Participation in the vote was tiny because no one but the separatists took it seriously.
Most were not interested in voting because the issue didn’t matter to them. Obviously the separatists fanatics turned out in droves and were bussing people in to win the vote from all over Canada.
The result shocked Quebec such that no such referendum would ever be allowed to take place again.
Rest assured I won’t be ignoring you, so long as you keep making such pathetic and dishonest arguments.
sydnestel,
Stop being obtuse.
You say here:
DUH
The entire point is that Zionist dual loyalty has nothing to do w/ human rights or international law and norms.
It is precisely because it’s concerned only with State (ISRAEL) interests that AMERICANS who are only loyal to this country and not to other countries, are upset and thus, coined/approve of the term ‘Israel firster’.
In a dual loyalty situation, where does one weigh in on the potential for a “Sophie’s Choice” regarding an extreme expression of said loyalty? What would be the basis for choosing which nation to betray in a showdown?
“What would be the basis for choosing which nation to betray in a showdown?”
Exactly what going is on now and has been going on in the US for a long time regarding Israel firstdom.
Did Pollard betray the US for Israel?
The fact that many of us have the ability and inclination to love many people doesn’t prove that we can accept bigamy. There are some sets of obligations that can exist only in a unique form. There are exceptions and special situations that we can accommodate up to a point, as with dual citizenship, but as Cliff says this is a rather superficial arrangement which could not really be the norm.
People with more than one child manage multiple loyalties every day. Mostly it works out. “Sophie’s Choice” is a once in a very long time occurance, and is not a reason for a “one child policy”.
How’s that? Does each child carry a different passport, or do you simply have a perverse idea of parenting?
I has reacting to LanceThurster’s example given re “Sophie’s Choice” where a mother had to choose life or death between two children. The example had to do with a mothers “dual” loyalties to her children and how impossible it is to choose. Presumable LanceThurster was saying that just as Sophie had an impossible choice, so to would any American with dual citizenship.
I was responding that, most of life is not that dramatic and people navigate these dual loyalties everyday. Most parents with more than one child manage to balance these loyalties to all their children, and no one would advocate having one child just to avoid the rare horrible choices that might have to be made. Similarly no one should advocate against dual citizenship (or dual loyalty) because rarely one might have to choose between these two loyalties.
I hope that is clear.
I think it was clear, but misguided. It is a bad analogy in the first place, for a number of obvious reasons.
But ultimately, I would say that even if it is rare that dual citizenship could cause harm, the harm caused could potentially be enormous to the US, whereas the harm which would follow by restricting US citizenship to sole citizens to the US would be minor, at most, and wholly within the control of the person.
I think American’s example (March 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm) of Jonathan Pollard illustrates the issue quite well. Whether or not Pollard actually had dual citizenship is fairly irrelavent. He acted against the interests of his own nation (who as a member of the military was sworn to protect the Constitution of against all enemies, foreign and domestic).
Instead of using the analogy of multiple children, it would be more apt to compare it to multiple parents (step-mothers and fathers through divorce, whatever, etc.).
Serving two masters can be a problem anytime their interests are at odds with each other.
I like DWS overall, but her position in Congress is for doing what’s right for the US, not the US *and* Israel, and not Israel exclusively. Much of what she complains about with the GOP working against the interests of the American people also applies to kowtowing to Israel.
If this Debbie thingybob was born in the USA, and lives in the USA, and is a Congresswoman for the USA, then she has no natural basis for dual loyalty or dual citizenship. Her declarations show she is not loyal to the people of the United States, but to “the Jews”. This means she is betraying her responsibility as a member of the US Government. In short, she is a traitor.
(I was born in the UK, and I still hold UK citizenship, but after migrating to Australia I gained Australian citizenship. I am a dual citizen, though my primary loyalty is to Australia. If I wanted to run for Parliament in Australia, I would have to renounce my British citizenship. That is Federal law.)
‘No man can serve two masters’ or be fully subject to two sovereigns – except that we do not insist on the point completely when there seems to be no divergence of interest between the two sovereigns anywhere in view. Some people think that it is inconceivable that there should ever be a divergence of interest between Israel and any western state, though the current tension between Obama and Netanyahu proves that there can be.
The reverse does not apply. One manager or controller can have many subordinates. But that’s the whole difference between upper and lower status in human affairs.
“two sovereigns” ? “upper and lower status in human affairs.”???
And what exactly was the American Revolution about?
that way to antediluvian for me.
A ‘sovereign’ in most political theory is an individual or group (maybe an assembly of the whole people, as (some say) in ancient Athens, with the right to make laws that everyone concerned is called on to obey. The whole idea is that however many the citizens are they all look to one law: it’s a many-to-one relationship.
‘Honour thy father and thy mother’. If there is parental authority, all the children have to look up to the one unique person who is their father and the one unique person who is their mother. But the uniqueness doesn’t work both ways, the parents being expected (not always succeeding, I accept) to be fair and to show the same concern for all the children, however many.
When I said ‘upper and lower positions’ that may indeed have sounded a bit stiff and snooty. However, I was using what I thought was realistic language. Human life is full of relationships of power and authority and can’t altogether be otherwise.
Tell that to the Hasbrats who insist being accused of dual loyalty is anti Semitic.
That would explain why Michael Oren was required to give up his Anerican citizenship when he became Israel’s ambassador to the US.
So now you are using Israeli laws and policies and an example of proper behaviour and attitudes. Clearly you will use any seemingly clever argument to win a point. There is a name for that: “sophistry”
No, I am using Israeli laws to debunk your claim that multiculturalism is as universal as you like to pretend it is.
If we do live in a multicultural world, apartheid Israel apparently doesn’t want to be part of it.
It’s really simply sydnestel.
When someone says they only care about being ‘Good Israelis’ or ‘good Zionists’ and is mega-rich and thus, donates to whoever will be as right of Likud as possible, then that person is an Israel-Firster.
This is not about universal blah blah claptrap you keep humming about. It is about State interests.
Keeping the status quo going. Keeping the settlement project going. Promoting Islamophobia to prevent humanization of the Palestinians (i.e. the enemy). Etc.
That is what Zionism is – anything but a direct conflict of ideas. Everything to do w/ Zionist discourse in the States (and the internet) is rhetorical.
It’s instead about LABELS like Israel Firster (you care more about this than anything else apparently) or Israel being put on a pedestal (rather than the crimes it commits) and all the rest.
All of the new Zionist trolls on the blog are very concerned with Arabs in Syria and Libya all of a sudden.
I think a lot of this “I was aware of being a minority” stuff is code for, “I’m not the White Man” — which nobody wants to be in America; it aint that cool to be “white” – much better to “identify” with some semi mysterious “eastern” tradition that you get to arbitrarily define – it totally lets you off the hook and allows for more decadent wardrobe choices etc. :)
Ive done similar – its all about disassociating yourself from all the white mans misdeeds; “Hey, my people got here in the 20th century, we didnt oppress anyone” or “my people were Irish and Polish, they were oppressed too” — And you can say this kind of nonsense with a straightface until you realize that being white in the states ( like Wasserman Shutlz DEFINITELY is) is the ultimate backstage pass in our society, and if you cant admit that, well – what can I say?
And lets be honest, anti-semitism in America? haha. Take it up with “the jews” in hollywood, who portray Jews as conniving, backstabbing money grubbing hucksters NIGHTLY. Funny that no one ever mentions anti-semitism when it comes to Ari Gold on Entourage, or any episode of Curb your Enthusiasm – or Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder — in fact, if there is any meaningful anti-semitism in American culture, it’s the same industry that is dominated by jewish cats advancing it.
This lady sucks.
She wants to live in a place where everyone shares her values and assumptions. How awful it must be for her to live in America where the plumber next door, despite not having gone to college, may very well make more money than you do. Furthermore he uses his disposable income to go to NASCAR races and boo Michelle Obama.
(This house has got a lot of old wiring. It’s dangerous.) When Wasserman Schultz was chosen as head of the DNC..one more clue they were going to attempt to shut down this debate. But what Wasserman Schultz and team do not seem to get Obama is going to lose votes over this issue. And if Wassherman Schultz and other Democrats do not start voting and standing for a Palestinian state based on the 67 border they will help close the door on a two state solution and will continue to lose votes on this issue.
It is dangerous. These lost votes will escalate and combined with lost votes due to Obama waiting so long to hold anyone from the foreclosure fraud, Wall Street criminals accountable along with continuing many of Bush’s foreign policy strategies. The Romney/Obama race is going to be very tight. Hopefully Obama will make it even clearer that he is not going down the we are going to either support Israel attacking Iran or we will avenue. Romney with Kagan, Max Boot on his foreign policy staff is headed that way…
So the scaremongerers of the 1950′s were looking in the wrong direction when they were implying that JFK (along with other RC politicians) would owe his loyalty to the Vatican? Wrong religion, and just a bit further east and south?
NPR continues soft and hard pedaling an attack on Iran. With Robert Siegels go get Iran war banging with Micheal Oren
Middle East
Israeli Ambassador Weighs In On Netanyahu Visit
link to npr.org Scott Simon allowing the piece
Experts: A Strike On Iran Poses Many Challenge
link to npr.org this past Saturday assumption that Iran has a nuclear weapons program…. On Wednesday evening Wolfowitz and Anne Marie Slaughter were both pushing for an intervention in Syria. link to npr.org
In some countries they prosecute war criminals like Wolfowitz. In the US our MSM just recycles them. As if they are unable to get far more accurate experts on the subject on their programs. When was the last time you heard Hillary or Flynt Mann Leverett on any of these NPR programs (there has to be a block up from their owners) Today on NPR’s Talk of the Nation Dennis Ross will be on focused on the I/P conflict. But you can place your bets that he will take this opportunity to drum up support for an attack on Iran.
Anyone else noticing how often we are hearing how many Syrians Assad is allegedly responsible for killing. Keep repeating 8000. But here we are 9 years after the invasion of Iraq, 10 and a half years after the invasion of Afghanistan and we still do not know how many people have been killed in those countries as a direct consequence of our invasions
Syria is the backdoor into war with Iran.
yep
” God forbid, I remember thinking, if history repeated itself, there has to be a place for us to go….”
A safety net? I’m sure the Israelis feel good about that one.
Her thing about even the bus drivers being Jewish was cribbed from Thomas Friedman. He wrote an almost identical sentence in the 1980s.
What I don’t get is why they are so obsessed with seeing working class members of their own religion. It’s not enough to be an elite? They need a working class theme park, too? Such a powerful American figure saying these things strikes me a bit like Saudi royals being fascinated to see a Muslim driving a taxi in New York. “You mean there are places where we aren’t coddled and revered? Neat! Keep up the good work, ye lowly, in case something ever happens to drive us from our thrones!”
I’m over-stating, obviously, but it has some of this flavor…
You don’t seem to be overstating it in the least.
This is from an essay by Fredy Perlman.
See: link to libcom.org
“I was always aware I was different….. ”
I swear there nothing so funny to me as upper-middle class white people saying this kind of stuff. He-Fooking-Lari-ous.
“Only god could ever feel my pain…”
The days they are uncertain
The wars they come and go
But man who was a wanderer
Has found his way back home
And the word goes out in the papers
Let my people be
Only god could ever feel my pain
The world will never see
Keep that secret in your heart
Write it in the sand
Carve yourself a new town
Out of this land
This is…
This is the new Jerusalem
Reaching for the sky…
link to youtube.com
This is old news for anyone who’s been paying attention.
DWS is a rabid Israeli firster, an example of those who control Congress, who hold top spots in the US admin., and increasingly in state and local gov’ts. (e.g., fellow rabid Israeli firster – regardless of what anyone tries to say to the contrary – Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel.)
“(e.g., fellow rabid Israeli firster – regardless of what anyone tries to say to the contrary – Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel.)”
Who could say anything to the contrary?? When his country was at war in Iraq the first time, he ran off and became a mercenary for this foreign government. Why any American would ever trust him of any other of his ilk is beyond me. The fact that such a betrayal didn’t strip him of his citizenship is a crime, if you ask me.
RE: “…wait, you’re one of the most powerful people in America, chair of the Democratic National Committee? I don’t get it. You don’t feel safe in Florida? (This house has got a lot of old wiring. It’s dangerous.)…” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: Lookout Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the right-wing Zionist Jews are joining with the right-wing Christian (evangelical/fundamentalist) Zionists to elect right-wing Republicans. This is yet another example the ‘dumbing down’ of America!
SEE: Is Avigdor Lieberman Too Dovish?, by Douglas Bloomfield, Jewish Week, 01/10/12
(excerpt) Has anyone ever accused Avigdor Lieberman of being too dovish? Too soft on issues like the future of the West Bank, where he resides?
A politician who lives closer to West Palm Beach than to the West Bank thinks she knows better than the hawkish Israeli foreign minister.
Republican Karen Harrington is making a second attempt to unseat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida’s 20th District, which runs between Fort Lauderdale and Miami Beach. She got 38 percent of the vote in 2010 in the heavily Democratic district with a large Jewish population.
Speaking before a New York audience of opponents to Palestinian statehood and U.S. Middle East policy, Harrington told a dinner for the Hebron Fund that Palestinians already have their own state and it is Jordan…
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to thejewishweek.com
P.S. A COUPLE OF PHOTOS OF KAREN HARRINGTON
CAMPAIGN PHOTO – link to 4.bp.blogspot.com
ANOTHER PHOTO – link to media.naplesnews.com
P.P.S. Fundie much? Remember that Allen West (R-FL) was elected from a nearby part of Florida.
P.P.P.S. ALSO SEE: The religious-conservative insanity of the American right, By Avirama Golan, Haaretz, 3/14/12
Liberal Jews in the U.S. are doubly fearful – of the messianic insanity now spreading in American politics, of its Israeli version and, most of all, of the link between the two.
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to haaretz.com
its so comforting to know that there is a “nation within a nation” right here in river city taking advantage of our soldiers and our tax dollars.
God bless America, its the best thing thats ever happened to the jews.
Debbie, this year in Jerusalem don’t wait till next year.
“This helped me fully appreciate how important it is that we have the Jewish State of Israel—which is our homeland and our rightful place. We belong there and, God forbid, I remember thinking, if history repeated itself, there has to be a place for us to go….’ ….Debbie
Fine…… Go be “sitting ducks” in your Rightful Place. I cannot and probably never will understand what is either the sheer stupidity of the Israel as safe haven or the failure of these people to realize their deliberate brazen lies and propaganda will rise to bite them in the a**.
America will be the temple that collapses when they exercise their Samson Option.
When I look at that picture of Wasserman-Schultz, I wonder why the mainstream media doesn’t make fun of her like it makes fun of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
All three are religious/beliefy crazy women.
But of course, you can’t show the crazy Jew. Only the crazy Christian. (sentiment originally by Marlon Brando)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is just trying to get re-elected boys and girls. She can say to high heaven all she wants about how much she loves Israel, because zealous US Zionists are all over her ass about her support for Obama’s foreign policies, which they abhor to high heaven. She is being smart, not dumb as many here would have her.
Frankly, I don’t care whether she is truthful, lying, saying it to get reelected, or is speaking from the heart. There is no circumstance that exists where an American, let alone a powerful American politician, can say this and it not be repugnant.
“She is being smart, not dumb as many here would have her”
LOL …’short term’ smart and ‘long term’ stupid of behalf of the Israel firsters.
Foresight and long term vision is definitely not their forte.
Im pretty sure Ahhiyawa posts his/her comments from DNC headquarters. There isnt anything democrats can do that would change Ahhiyawa’s opinions — ALL HAIL THE LEADER!!! What a joke
Is cognitive dissonance hereditary?
I don’t know where or how else to ask this, but I posted a comment to this piece this a.m. and it either didn’t make it here, or was censored.
It seemed to go through, but I can’t believe it was censored since it came nowhere close to any criteria I’ve seen posted here for doing same. (And indeed seemed pretty anodyne to me otherwise and anyway too.)
So …?
There surely can’t be more than one place which is correctly described in the singular as my, or our, rightful place in the world? And at that rate I’m in the wrong place if I am, at least for significant periods, elsewhere.
israel is our rightful place?
then why not move there now?
you say the living’s too easy here in the u.s. of a.?
but will israel be there should you need it?
or will it have been delegitimized
and then what
where
how
Wiki on Israel economy: “Relatively poor in natural resources, Israel depends on imports of petroleum, coal, food, uncut diamonds and production inputs, though the country’s nearly total reliance on energy imports may change with recent discoveries of large natural gas reserves off its coast.”
In case of conflict with neighboring country, Israel is very vulnerable to maritime blockade, destroying ships en route to Israeli ports. Suppose that the nightmare of Debbie Shultz comes true, Jews have to flee USA where public opinion turned anti-Semitic. Newly anti-Semitic USA prevails upon European allies (who allegedly are anti-Semitic and they do not act against Israel only due to American influence) and Arab countries to join in blockade of Israel. Is Israel a safe refuge in this situation?
Is there any place on the planet that would be a safe refuge from USA? Yes! Jewish Autonomous Region on Russian-Chinese border, hence as isolated from (hypothetical) American wrath as a place can be. How many times have we heard a complaint that Israel is in “tough neighborhood”. If true, this is not a good place for safe refuge.
Also with all due respect, Newt Gingrich has better looking hair.
” … and wait, you’re one of the most powerful people in America, chair of the Democratic National Committee? I don’t get it. You don’t feel safe in Florida?”
Exactly.
So what is she doing in Florida?
Belonging in a place unconditionally and looking on that place as a possible refuge, where you might go on certain conditions, are not the same thing at all. Conditional and unconditional attitudes point different ways unless the crucial condition applies, which in this case – Florida! – it very obviously does not. Unconditional commitments have a kind of passion to them, conditional ones the opposite, a kind of reserve.
How could anyone with any moral insight argue that the Palestinians deserved to be put through a process making them into real refugees – here and now and indefinitely – so that other people who merely might be refugees at some unidentifiable time will have a precaution in place?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz as well as being the DNC chairman, helped found the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) — is also on the board of the American Jewish Congress, Southeast Region.
link to myfloridahouse.gov
link to ajcongress.org
Sounds like the organization was involved with Madoff too.
link to jta.org
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz as well as being the DNC chairman, helped found the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) — is also on the board of the American Jewish Congress, Southeast Region.”
OMG!
And Rep. Emanuel Cleaver is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and keynote speaker at the 2010 NAACP convention, an organization dedicated to advancing the interests of African Americans.
As for the AJC being involved with Bernie Madoff – yes, he stole their money and bankrupted them. Which should be obvious if you read the article at the link you cited.
sydnestel: Advancing the interests of black African-Americans where? He is not advancing the interests of another state and is not a dual citizen of anywhere else. You really should listen to yourself because irrationality is your forte.
Yeah! Or maybe in sydnestel’s mind he thinks Israel is the 51st State of the United States. Do you think he would be shocked and offended when we tell him it’s NOT?
This woman was elected to represent all of her ‘American’ constituents, as well as being promoted as the head of the DNC (noting the power that comes with that!).
Her oath of office: “…I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God…”
I’m amazed she’s not been challenged when it’s blatantly obvious she appears to spend most of her time lobbying, and advocating for the interests of another State, especially when that State wishes the US to start a war on its behalf. E.g.
American Jewish Congress: “…The group reportedly lost $21 million of its $24 million endowment in the scheme and Gordon told the Israeli newspaper that the group is out of funding…”
link to foxnews.com
Ouch, I bet that hurt.
This (edited) paragraph was supposed to outside of the blockquote:
“….Why was this woman put in charge of the DNC, when it seems she’s more interested in representing a very specific constituency in her admittedly Israel-centric district — or really does it just seem to fit with her own personal agenda knowing she’s on the board of the American Jewish Congress?
Wish List: It would really help me (and I’m sure others) if there was a ‘Preview’ button before having to post a comment?