News

‘NPR’ suggests that opponent of Syrian intervention has dual loyalty

The other afternoon on NPR, Melissa Block interviewed an opponent of intervention in Syria, Joshua Landis of the University of Oklahoma–who argues that Syria would be another Iraq— and promptly brought up Landis’s marriage to a woman from a prominent Alawite family, suggesting that Landis was guilty of dual loyalty in his ideas about Syria.

You will see that the supporter of intervention in Syria who was on the show, Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (the thinktank spinoff of the Israel lobby group AIPAC), then ran with Block’s theme; and Landis, on the defensive, was compelled to assert, “I’m an American… I’m an American trying to keep us out of another Iraq-type of venture.”

BLOCK: Joshua Landis, I’d be curious to hear your perspective, as somebody who married into what I gather is a prominent Syrian Alawite family. Alawites are the minority in Syria, party of President Assad and other elites. Help us understand the Alawite perspective on the rebel movement and the future of their country.

LANDIS: Well, as I said, this is a ethnic war and it’s devolving increasingly towards minorities, who are 20 percent of Syria, led by the Alawites, 12 percent, who have monopolized the military and security forces. They have had their foot on the throats of the Sunni-Arab majority for the last 40 or 50 years. Sunni-Arab majority has finally had enough of this and they’re trying to overthrow this regime…

LANDIS: Could I have one rejoinder? Andrew just said that I’m a regime-supporter for making this argument and therefore trying to scare Americans away. I think that’s an unfair accusation. I’m an American.

TABLER: You’ve got to be kidding, Josh. You have been one of the biggest supporters of Bashar al-Assad for a long time, and look, that’s your position. And I think the argument you make…

LANDIS: That’s completely untrue. And I’m an American trying to keep us out of another Iraq-type of venture.

TABLER: I think that you are…

LANDIS: What you are saying is that Syria’s not like Iraq.

TABLER: I’m sorry I don’t agree with you.

LANDIS: And Syria’s exactly like Iraq. This is not about the regime. This is about America staying out of a quagmire, Andrew.

TABLER: Josh, I just think that your positions have come consistently on side of the regime.

LANDIS: Well, that’s because I want Americans to stay out. I think the Syrians have to settle their own problems.

I find this fascinating. For if Landis’s marriage is fair game– and I think it is– then so are the social and ideological adhesions of neoconservatives. Are they Zionists? Do they have family living in Israel? Why did neoconservatives Richard Perle and David Wurmser– who is married to an Israeli-American– write “A Clean Break” for Netanyahu in 1996, calling for regime change in Iraq? Given these connections to a rightwing foreign regime, should these men have served in George Bush’s foreign-policy braintrust? Did not Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, who also were part of that brain trust, have family living in Israel?

What about liberal Aaron David Miller, who tells us in his book that concern for Israel was part of his “ethnic DNA.” Should he have been a peace processor? What about Chuck Schumer, who says his name means guardian in Hebrew and he is a guardian of Israel?

Do we ever hear mainstream media buttonholing these people about their connections to Israel or asking, sincerely, Can you help us understand Zionism in Jewish life? No.

Americans have a right to know about these things. From the very beginnings of political Zionism, when Herzl approached French and English Jews and had the door slammed in his face, Jews expressed the fear that Zionism would cast a question on their patriotism. Eric Alterman has said that to be a Zionist is to be dual loyal:  

I was raised dually loyal my whole life. When I went to Hebrew school, the content of my Hebrew school was all about supporting Israel. When my parents who I think are here tonight sent me to Israel when I was 14, on a ZOA [Zionist Organization of America]-sponsored trip… it was drummed into me that I should do what’s best for Israel.

Dual loyalty doesn’t mean disqualification. As Louis Brandeis established, such affinities are just part of the American salad. Fine. We are worldly people. We all have adhesions– some of which go across borders. But as Melissa Block believes, it is sometimes fair to discuss those adhesions. Too bad that principle is only honored when it comes to an opponent of neoconservatism.

39 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Interesting fact from Landis’s Wikipedia entry:

Landis has been noted for his friendly relationship to the Ambassador of Syria, Imad Moustapha, but when Landis wrote during the first weeks of the Syrian uprising of 2011 that there was “no soft landing”[3] for the Syria regime and that it was “deeply sectarian”,[4] Ambassador Moustapha cut off further contact with him on the grounds that he was a “revolutionary.”

Doesn’t sound exactly like a stooge of the Assad regime.

Applying the Melissa Black-argumentation on the Israel/Palestine debate in America would sure expose dual loyalty/citizenship…
Of course Melissa wont do that because THAT would be racist according to her. But stereotyping muslim affiliation is ok.

These people dont even realize that they are using xenophobic arguments…

Phil, nicely put. NPR’s dual-loyalty is nailed, but (no doubt) will not be admitted.

Can you think of a way to stick to NPR this particular blatant display of dual-loyalty, NPR’s Melissa Block’s willingness to identify the political and familial associations of Arab-connected folk “on air”, but NPR’s general across-the-board unwillingnes to do the same for Israel-connected folk?

Of course, NPR (Melissa Block) did not say the words “dual loyalty” although it may have been implied to any reasonable hearer’s ear. But why bring up his wife at all if not to inject the idea that familial (and maybe also ideological or political [Alawite]) “loyalty” or “affiliation” may skew the reliability/credibility of a talking-head’s presentation.

Simple rule in operation in the USA: If the other country is not Israel, any ties are fair game. If Israel, it’s anti-semitic.

“I find this fascinating. For if Landis’s marriage is fair game– and I think it is– then so are the social and ideological adhesions of neoconservatives. Are they Zionists? Do they have family living in Israel? Why did neoconservatives Richard Perle and David Wurmser– who is married to an Israeli-American– write “A Clean Break” for Netanyahu in 1996, calling for regime change in Iraq? Given these connections to a rightwing foreign regime, should these men have served in George Bush’s foreign-policy braintrust? Did not Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, who also were part of that brain trust, have family living in Israel?

What about liberal Aaron David Miller, who tells us in his book that concern for Israel was part of his “ethnic DNA.” Should he have been a peace processor? What about Chuck Schumer, who says his name means guardian in Hebrew and he is a guardian of Israel?

Do we ever hear mainstream media buttonholing these people about their connections to Israel or asking, sincerely, Can you help us understand Zionism in Jewish life? No.”

Have been finding this hypocrisy on NPR fascinating for decades So great that you have turned the spotlight on NPR’s dual loyalty and unwillingness to be fair in their lines of questioning. Asking Landis about the possibility that a dual loyalty could trump loyalty to the U.S. That same line of questioning should have and should be always asked of Perle, Kristol, Feith, Wolfowitz, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Schumer, Tabler etc etc. They should be asked the same line of questioning.

And of course Brandeis would know about the dual loyalty issue trumping loyalty to the U.S. He used his power and position to disproportionately support Israel over what would be best for the U.S.

ot
But not sure if you folks have done a post about how absurd it is that Israel a country that has absolutely used chemical weapons is the country coming up with the alleged intelligence that Syria has used chemical weapons. So friggin absurd one would think we would just get used to this hypocrisy. And the fact that the Obama administration is just not rolling over to this questionable Israeli intelligence. Good sign in many ways

Israel’s Illegal Use of White Phosphorus During ‘Operation Cast Lead’
And How the U.S. Media Tries to Cover Up Israeli War Crimes

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/05/03/israels-illegal-use-of-white-phosphorus-during-operation-cast-lead/