The problem with banning the phrase “Israel firster” is that it is a neat summation of an important problem, and when people bar such phrases they are really trying to shut down the discourse. And in fact Zionists themselves have used the term Israel firster when it suited their meaning. Notice how incredibly neutral Senator Leahy’s comments are here, as reported (and criticized) by Adam Kredo:
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) last Thursday criticized a hotly contested proposal concerning Palestinian refugees for not putting “the United States’ interests first”—a charge that critics said evokes the “Israel firster” slur at the center of the Middle East debate.
While debating an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) that would examine exactly how many Palestinian refugees benefit from U.S. tax dollars, Leahy expressed that the proposal does not put “the United States’ interests first.”
“Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I always look at what is in the United States’ interest first and foremost, and this would hurt the United States’ interests,” Leahy said, emphasizing the words “United States.”
“It may give a momentary advantage to one side or the other after we spend all that money, but it hurts the United States’ interests,” Leahy said.
Then look at this statement by an unnamed American official about briefing Israel about the Baghdad talks on Iranian nukes:
According to the U.S. official, the Israeli government was the first to be updated by them on what happened in Baghdad after the talks were over. “We updated the Israelis in detail before we updated our own government,” the official said.
Yes and who comes first?
Interesting.
The word “first” refers to both sequence and priority. “Israel-firster” goes to the priority meaning — specifically, the priorities of American politicians. Advising the Israel government before advising the US government goes to the sequence meaning, which may or may not have anything to do with the priorities.
That a non-NPT country — ANY non-NPT country — should be advised at all or have any role at all in discussions related to the obligations of a treaty member country seems to be entirely counter-productive to the goals of the treaty. Why should Israel ever join the treaty when it can get all the benefits of the treaty via its proxy? But the US budget controls and perpetuates this non-sense b/c the US is barred from financially supporting the NPT unless Israel is involved in the dialogue. And that rule is there b/c of the Israel-firsters in Congress.
AIPAC never sleeps.
Good for Leahy for at least saying something.
I’ m going to keep using the Israel firster description because it is the most accurate and all encompassing…don’t want to leave out any of these sobs whether they are firsters because of their Jewish/zionist identification or because they are bought politicians.
In fact I would bet ‘Israel firster” shows up in accounts of this period in US history when historians start writing about it. Whether it gets a few pages or a whole chapter depends I guess on how it ends.
MJ Rosenberg has gone back to using Israel-firster. I think the term is here to stay.
At least Leahy said it. He has demonstrated some nerve on this issue in the past
RE: “Zionists themselves have used the term Israel firster when it suited their meaning.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: In reality, they really only seem to have a problem with “Israel firster” when it is used regarding someone who is Jewish (or a group like AIPAC that is commonly seen as being a Jewish group). They don’t seem to care so much if “Israel firster” is used regarding a non-Jew (or a group like John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel).
STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH: “The odious ‘Israel first’ libel”, by Alan Dershowitz, N.Y. Daily News, 2/27/12
SOURCE – http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-02-27/news/31105900_1_aipac-mj-rosenberg-loyalty