Trending Topics:

Iran deal poses conflict of loyalties for US Jews, say Economist and Haaretz

Israel/Palestine
on 42 Comments
Angry at the US, Netanyahu reaches out to Russians

Angry at the US, Netanyahu reaches out to Russians

The Iran deal is an important moment in Jewish history because the Jewish state has made clear that it wants American Jews to support it and oppose the deal, but American Jews aren’t buying. This is a crisis both for the lobby (the dovish segments of which are supporting the U.S. government) and for the Zionist construction of Jewish identity, which entails some measure of dual loyalty.

Two clips that back this up. The Economist speaks of a “terrifying split” that Israel faces between itself and American Jews, and says that Netanyahu has played a dangerous game by risking their solidarity. And at Haaretz, an American Jewish writer calls on American Jews to wallow in dual loyalty. 

Yes, two foreign publications, anatomizing American Jewish identity. Where is the New York Times?

The Economist cites polling that shows Americans overwhelmingly support the Iran deal, and American Jews align:

What is certain is that Mr Netanyahu is risking a split between Israel and America, and between Israel and American Jews, of a type that has never before occurred. The American people are not interested in fighting another war in the Middle East. They do not see the Iranian nuclear programme as an immediate, existential threat. They do not dismiss the election of a moderate Iranian president willing to sign an agreement with the United States, one containing significant sacrifices for Iran, as a deceitful trick by a totalitarian government. They believe that Iran’s shift in direction may be real, and they have endorsed a deal that rewards that shift in direction.

The same is true for a large fraction of American Jews. American Jews are largely liberal, and largely support Barack Obama; Mr Netanyahu’s relentless baiting of Mr Obama over the past five years has already tested their willingness to take Israel’s side. Now, Mr Netanyahu’s threat to stage a unilateral attack on Iran risks creating an unprecedented schism. In every previous conflict between Israel and its regional enemies, even when Israel initiated the military action (as in the 1956 and 1967 wars, and to some extent the invasions of Lebanon and Gaza), American Jews have accepted Israeli assessments of the threat. This time, many of them won’t. An Israeli attack on Iran that resulted in Iranian and regional Shiite attacks on American targets and interests, against the wishes and best judgment of most Americans and many American Jews, could lead to an irreversible break. The fact is that Mr Netanyahu is wrong about the deal signed on Sunday: it reduces, rather than increases, the risk of an Iranian nuclear bomb. But even if Mr Netanyahu were right, an increase in the risk of an Iranian nuclear bomb poses nowhere near as great a threat to Israel’s security as losing the solidarity of American Jews.

Here is Dov Waxman, an associate professor of political science at Baruch College and at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY)., speaking of the same issue, a “nightmare scenario for American Jews – forcing them to choose between their loyalty to the U.S. and their loyalty to the Jewish state.”

The countries’ interests are not the same, and Waxman says that we should accept our dual loyalty. I believe Waxman is right, and that dual loyalty is inherent in Zionism; and the Iraq war exposed the faultline, engendered this crisis of Zionism, in the era of the nation-state (when my Americanness however I choose to define it is more important than my Jewishness). Waxman:

Despite whatever pro-Israel lobbyists in Washington D.C. might say, the U.S. and Israel simply do not have identical national interests when it comes to Iran. To be sure, neither want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and both are determined to prevent this, but the United States could live with something less than this – Iranian nuclear enrichment – if it really had to, whereas Israel, or at least the Netanyahu government, clearly believes that it cannot. As long as Iran retains the technical ability to produce a nuclear weapon, Israel faces an existential threat, however remote that threat may be. The U.S., on the other hand, faces no such threat. It is simply too big, and too far away, to be destroyed by Iranian nukes even if the ruling clerics in Iran were suicidally inclined.

That two different countries should read the strategic map differently should hardly come as a surprise to anyone. But this basic and unavoidable fact is, however, discomforting for many American Jews. For decades, it has been an article of faith within the American Jewish community that America and Israel shared the same interests and values. In synagogues across the country, the flags of both countries are displayed patriotically side by side…

By insisting on the unity of interests between the United States and Israel, American Jews could avoid the thorny issue of ‘dual loyalties.’ They could comfortably maintain emotional ties and allegiances to both countries, secure in the belief that there was no conflict of interest between them. This was always something of a convenient fiction, even at the height of the Cold War when Israel’s strategic value to the U.S. was greater than it is today. It is now obviously false, at least to honest observers.

When an Israeli prime minister directly appeals to American Jews to oppose a major diplomatic initiative of an American president, as Netanyahu recently did in his address to the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish community is confronted with a test of loyalties. …

In the coming months, as the interim nuclear deal with Iran is implemented and negotiations for a comprehensive agreement get underway, the Obama Administration and the Netanyahu government are likely to continue to disagree, at times publicly and testily, over the Iranian nuclear program, and this will cause many American Jews to feel deeply conflicted. This is the unavoidable burden of having dual loyalties. It is a burden that should neither be denied nor wished away: Difficult as they are to manage, American Jews should embrace their dual loyalties as an expression of their multifaceted identity.

P.S. Eric Alterman said the same thing a few years ago. Zionism entails dual loyalty, and I embrace it. The U.S. can take a few hits, Israel can’t; I’m with Israel, he said. But then, where’s the line?

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

42 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    November 27, 2013, 12:26 pm

    “P.S. Eric Alterman said the same thing a few years ago. Zionism entails dual loyalty, and I embrace it. The U.S. can take a few hits, Israel can’t; I’m with Israel, he said. But then, where’s the line?”

    Alterman’s isn’t dual loyalty, it’s a primary loyalty to israel and a secondary one to the US. That’s fine, if that’s how one feels. I don’t have a problem with that in and of itself (although if one is an American and one feels this way, that person should consider getting the hell out.) I do, however, have a problem with this being termed a “dual loyalty.” If one is, like Alterman, primarily loyal to israel (i.e., would chose israel’s interest when they depart), then that person needs to say so so that those of us who are loyal to the US can properly view the irael-loyalists’s arguments as being motivated by loyalty to this alien state.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      November 27, 2013, 1:05 pm

      “Getting the hell out” probably means settling in Israel, strengthening the Zionist state demographically, financially and militarily. Do you really want that? Alternatively, loyalists of a foreign state in conflict with the US could be placed under surveillance, excluded from sensitive jobs and political office, and if necessary put in internment camps.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 27, 2013, 1:19 pm

        “Do you really want that?”

        I don’t want that, but my primary concern is for the US. If that is the result of strengthening the US, then so be it.

        “Alternatively, loyalists of a foreign state in conflict with the US could be placed under surveillance, excluded from sensitive jobs and political office, and if necessary put in internment camps.”

        I’m not in favor of being a country that does such things. And the issue isn’t limited to states in conflict with the US. If someone’s primary allegience is to even a state friendly to the US, I’d rather that person not be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        November 27, 2013, 4:46 pm

        Thanks Stephen for keeping the discussion on a calm level, “if necessary put in internment camps.” Care to specify what conditions would have you duplicating some of the worst actions of the US in its history. Why not calm down and watch your rhetoric instead.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 27, 2013, 5:07 pm

        Wondering Jew invests so much of his precious energies scanning MW for these opportunities to act out fantasies of being an oppressed minority.

        First it was the BDS ‘Stalinists’ holding him down, and now it’s Stephen Shenfield!

        Why – you’d almost forget there was a 60+ year conflict, 40+ year occupation and colonization and apartheid going on in Israel/Palestine and carried out by Wondering Jew’s countrymen.

        But lest we forget, the severity and profundity of actual Israeli crimes pale in comparison to online comments on MW.

        Thanks for alerting us all here to the crimes against humanity carried out in the comment’s section, Wondering Jew. You’re truly a light unto the blogosphere.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        November 27, 2013, 5:37 pm

        yonah, he *did* specify the conditions:
        “loyalists of a foreign state in conflict with the US” – or wasn’t that specific enough?

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      November 27, 2013, 1:10 pm

      Alterman’s isn’t dual loyalty, it’s a primary loyalty to israel and a secondary one to the US. That’s fine, if that’s how one feels.

      You’re correct in your analysis but incorrect in your relaxation about it.

      It is not fine. Because being primarily loyal to Israel isn’t the same thing as someone being primarily loyal to Ireland. Ireland isn’t a thuggish warmongering state with no constitution(because that would entail defining borders) nor a civil rights charter to speak of.

      Being loyal to Israel means supporting endless wars in the Middle East because Israel was from the get-go a colonial enterprise. It is, truly, a Spartan-state. Doomed to eternal military conflict because it is inherently agressive in nature. A crusader-state. And the only way to maintain a walled-off crusader state is by backing it in the endless wars that must, by logic, entail.

      This is what happened with Iraq. AIPAC tried to drag the U.S. into Syria and now into Iran. If we just leave them be, at some point they WILL be successful and we’ll face another quagmire. It isn’t enough that the lobby is on defence. It must be severed from the body politic, entirely, and those with dual loyalties(which means primary loyalty goes to Israel) must resolve this issue. But they don’t, so they are dragged, kicking and screaming, into a forced resolution.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 27, 2013, 2:15 pm

        My point about it being “fine” was not about israel, per se, but to note that the fact that the person is an American doesn’t obligate him, in my mind, to hold primary loyalty to the US. I’m fine if someone finds something else of value.

        Further, I would even say that so long as a person opposes the ethno-religious supremacism in zionism and would fight for full Palestinian rights and freedoms, even within a 2 state solution, I would be fine if someone found in israel that state of primary loyalty. I don’t get it, but it’s not up to me to impose my beliefs on them.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      November 27, 2013, 7:22 pm

      “Alterman’s isn’t dual loyalty, it’s a primary loyalty to israel and a secondary one to the US. That’s fine, if that’s how one feels.”

      I don’t entirely agree, there. If this Alterman person is a normal, permanent, US resident, then his primary loyalty should be to the society that sustains him, and that is the US.

  2. piotr
    piotr
    November 27, 2013, 12:41 pm

    “Difficult as they are to manage, American Jews should embrace their dual loyalties as an expression of their multifaceted identity.”

    It is not as simple as that. If Jews of country X “embrace their dual loyalties as an expression of their multifaceted identity”, is it prudent for country X to fire Jews from all state positions with a higher degree of responsibility? This is theoretical a bit. I lived through exactly such action — firing Jews — even though the fired people (including my late father) hardly “embraced their dual loyalties”. But what is this “dual loyalty” in practical terms? To me, it sounds like an oxymoron. One can have dual sentiments, but if you are an employee of a State Department, Department of Defense etc. the question of “loyalty” has to be answered with no ambiguity.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      November 27, 2013, 7:29 pm

      Exactly, piotr.

      This vague waffle, “embrace their dual loyalties as an expression of their multifaceted identity”, is meaningless until the practical implications are spelled out.

  3. Krauss
    Krauss
    November 27, 2013, 1:15 pm

    The Israel lobby is becoming naked.
    And as such, the appeals to dual loyalty are becoming naked, too.

    Maybe Steven Rosen was wrong. Maybe AIPAC was never a nightflower. Maybe Americans have become so used to seeing Israeli talking heads on their TV that they take it for granted to have the Israeli viewpoint butted into their TV sets every time there is some movement in the Middle East on any given issue. So that when AIPAC is forced to work in the open, it is not shocking to people, it’s merely what they’d expect.

    Even if that’s the case, however, the polls from Reuters show an overwhelming distance from the general public to the positions the lobby is taking.

    But as I wrote to Woody Tanaka, merely relying on public opinion isn’t a durable strategy. Given enough time, the lobby can come back from its current nadir. Public opinion is transistory. And maybe we need more than just writing about the fact what AIPAC is doing. The website “ifamericansknew.com” has it all wrong. Maybe knowing isn’t enough. Maybe people need to be educated what something called national interest even means anymore after all these decades of automatically assuming the Israeli one in the Middle East.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      November 27, 2013, 5:41 pm

      “merely relying on public opinion isn’t a durable strategy”

      It depends, Krauss. Generational change can really wipe out ideologies that were previously impregnable. Ask Karl Rove.
      Israel needs 100% loyalty from the cohort currently in their 20s.
      Hard to see that one working.

  4. American
    American
    November 27, 2013, 1:44 pm

    ” and this will cause many American Jews to feel deeply conflicted. This is the unavoidable burden of having dual loyalties. It is a burden that should neither be denied nor wished away: Difficult as they are to manage, American Jews should embrace their dual loyalties as an expression of their multifaceted identity”.>>>>

    Pardon me while my head explodes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard

    Anti Semetic Carnards
    No 12. Accusations of dual loyalty.
    Dual loyalty[edit]
    A canard found in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but dating to before that document, is that Jews are more loyal to world Jewry than to their own country. Since the establishment of the state of Israel, this canard has taken the form of accusations that Jewish citizens of countries such as the United States are more loyal to Israel than to their home country”

    If ‘dual/divided loyalties had not been considered a bane and threat to every tribe, nation, people entity since time began it would never have been and still be ‘carnard-able’ to the world. You can talk about nations today as garden salads and multi cutural instead of melting pots but this ‘whiff’ of disloyalty in a nation is the one thing among people of a nation that has never lost it’s odor and causes a reaction.

    So what is Waxman saying when he tells Jews to embrace their dual loyalty as an expression of their multifaceted identity”?
    Is he saying it’s o.k. to ‘feel’ some fondness for Isr as the expression of the Jewish whatever?
    Or does he want to make Jews feel o.k. about ‘practicing’ or voicing(politically) their loyalty to Israel? Which naturally would be a big help to US Zionist.
    I tend to suspect what he had in mind in this article was getting US Jews over the conflict ”hump, to present it as normal so they could feel not so guilty/conflicted about supporting Israel.
    First he admits the fallacies in Jews thinking the US and Isr are always the same—-but then he tells them that’s o.k. they can still support Israel.

    I notice almost all the comments on Waxman’s article in Haaretz took issue with his embrace advice also.

  5. John Douglas
    John Douglas
    November 27, 2013, 1:58 pm

    This is very serious business and so I think we should be careful and qualified in discussing it.
    Certainly being a Jewish American does not imply dual loyalty. So Netanyahu’s gambit should not in itself create conflict within or among American Jews.
    Being a Zionist and an American does not in itself imply dual loyalty. One can without conflict believe that religious and ethnic Jews have a right to settle and rule the space that is Palestine/Israel without any portion of his or her state loyalty going to Israel.
    What cannot escape a conflict of loyalties is being a citizen of the U.S and a citizen of Israel (or any other country). Citizenship implies loyalty to country (though not necessarily to its government). Dual citizenship implies dual loyalty.
    It is therefore necessarily a conflict of interest for a citizen of both Israel and the U.S. to hold U.S. governmental positions, where the mission is to maximize U.S. benefit. At very least, any candidate or potential office holder should disclose his or her alternative citizenships when being considered for the jobs.

  6. seafoid
    seafoid
    November 27, 2013, 2:03 pm

    The elite UK-based media such as the Economist and the FT have been calling Israel for what it is for some time. It’s a has-been in terms of credibility.
    No sign of the NY Review following suit.

    • Walid
      Walid
      November 27, 2013, 2:42 pm

      seafoid, today Haaretz also called Israel for what it is: tactics of deception and of apartheid towards the Palestinians:

      “The price of deception and apartheid

      The European Union is making an important contribution to Israel’s future by refusing to transfer funds to the settlements.

      Haaretz Editorial | Nov. 27, 2013 | 6:09 AM | 9

      Despite the compromise that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni reached on Tuesday with the European Union’s foreign minister, Catherine Ashton, over the Horizon 2020 scientific cooperation agreement, Israel is now beginning to pay the price of its deeds in the occupied territories.

      Four years after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at Bar-Ilan University, in which he recognized the principle of two states but nevertheless refused to stop construction in the settlements – following the government’s extremist statements and decisions to build thousands of housing units in the settlements; and following Israel’s ongoing harassment of Palestinian residents of the territories – the international community is beginning to take practical measures against Israel’s tactics of deception and the apartheid it practices toward the Palestinians.

      In July, the European Commission published new guidelines that forbid European Union agencies and foundations to give grants or loans to Israeli bodies connected in any way to activity in the territories. These guidelines complicated the finalization of the Horizon 2020 agreement, as the European Union rejected most of Israel’s compromise proposals. This scientific cooperation agreement is expected to bring hundreds of millions of euros to Israeli research institutes and high-tech companies, so, had Israel not signed it, the result would have been a loss of NIS 2.5 billion for the research and development community.

      In light of this expected loss, Livni conducted marathon negotiations with Ashton by telephone on Tuesday. The compromise that they reached deals mainly with how the money expected to flow from the European Union will be “fenced off” to ensure it doesn’t reach the settlements in any way. Though any Israeli entity that operates within the Green Line will be able to submit a request for European funding, it will need to develop a mechanism to ensure that any money it receives from the European Union is invested only in activities conducted inside the Green Line.

      http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.560387

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 27, 2013, 4:00 pm

        ““fenced off” to ensure it doesn’t reach the settlements in any way”

        Which is the opposite of how Israel’s fences in Palestine usually work !
        Ha’aretz will be back on the fence shortly. Their editorials asking why the legal system is cruel or why the Government never gives Palestinians a break always amuse me. They cannot face the dysfunction of their state honestly. There is always the notion back there behind the words that if they concentrate real hard they’ll rescue it, that it’s not too late.

        Khalaas.

  7. James Canning
    James Canning
    November 27, 2013, 2:08 pm

    It is in Israel’s own true best interests, for American Jews to back the deal with Iran.

  8. hophmi
    hophmi
    November 27, 2013, 2:19 pm

    This is antisemitic BS. Most of the Congress is squeamish about this deal. No one is questioning the loyalty of Christian Congresspeople who oppose the deal. That makes any accusation of dual loyalty directed toward American Jews antisemitic.

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      November 28, 2013, 9:34 am

      According to you Hoppy somebody disliking chopped liver is anti-semitic.

      If this offends you so much (and I note you never responded to an earlier question of mine on another thread about why Jews not wanting to marry non-Jews is OK but a non-Jew not wanting to marry a Jew is bigoted) why were you not critical of Nutter-boy when he was calling on American Jews to betray the USA’s best interests?

      Seriously Mondoweiss I wonder if repeated and spurious use of the anti-semitism charge (or more accurately – joke) shouldn’t be a banning offence.

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 28, 2013, 10:00 am

        >> According to you Hoppy somebody disliking chopped liver is anti-semitic.

        hophmeee may be responsible for single-handedly skewing the stats.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        November 28, 2013, 10:22 am

        Ecru, maybe Mondoweiss should ban people who misstate and distort what others here say. The dual loyalty charge is an antisemitic one.

        I have never said that disliking chopped liver is antisemitic.

        I have said that there is nothing bigoted about Jews wanting to marry other Jews because they wish to carry on their traditions. Obviously, if the reason is that they hate non-Jews, that would be a bigoted position.

        Your history of anti-Jewish bigotry here is well-documented.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 28, 2013, 12:13 pm

        Ercu is not an antisemite. But you are surely an anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, Islamophobe and racist.

        You have called Palestinians ‘Nazis’ and have slandered ALL Arab political agency (and Palestinians) as genocidal.

        Your history of bigotry and hate here is well-documented.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 28, 2013, 2:26 pm

        “The dual loyalty charge is an antisemitic one.”

        Oh, bullshit. The fact that you can’t open your eyes and admit the truth doesn’t make someone who can “antisemitic.” Yours is the bigoted position, because what you are looking for is for people to simply disregard the fact that some Americans (and not all Jews, by any means) have loyalty toward israel that is as strong as, if not stronger than, the loyalty that they have toward the USA, because those people are Jews or because the object of that other loyalty is the Jewish state. THAT is a bigoted position.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 28, 2013, 7:56 pm

        “The dual loyalty charge is an antisemitic one. ”

        And again you show yourself to be an enemy of rationality by ignoring the real issue. Is the charge true?

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        November 29, 2013, 4:38 am

        @ Hoppy

        …people who misstate and distort what others here say…

        Well let’s look at my post then shall we Hoppy?

        According to you Hoppy somebody disliking chopped liver is anti-semitic.

        Mocking isn’t misstating or distorting Hoppy. Although gotta say your response of “I have never said that disliking chopped liver is antisemitic” was just darling. It really just sailed right over your head didn’t it. Ah well, thanks for the giggles.

        Now back to my earlier post…..

        If this offends you so much (and I note you never responded to an earlier question of mine on another thread about why Jews not wanting to marry non-Jews is OK but a non-Jew not wanting to marry a Jew is bigoted) why were you not critical of Nutter-boy when he was calling on American Jews to betray the USA’s best interests?

        Well that’s just a statement of fact (you didn’t respond until now and I’ll leave the problems in the answer you gave alone for now) within another question you didn’t answer. Please explain how asking questions is distorting or misstating your words.

        Seriously Mondoweiss I wonder if repeated and spurious use of the anti-semitism charge (or more accurately – joke) shouldn’t be a banning offence.

        Well Hoppy you DO use the anti-semitic charge a lot and I’m not the only one here who’s noted it. It’s also used spuriously. So again, no distortion or misstating. Although again it was mocking.

        Hoppy can I give you some advice? Don’t make silly accusations when your words are still around for everyone to check on.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        November 29, 2013, 4:40 am

        @ Cliff

        Thanks.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        November 29, 2013, 1:06 pm

        “Well Hoppy you DO use the anti-semitic charge a lot and I’m not the only one here who’s noted it. It’s also used spuriously.”

        It isn’t used spuriously. There happens to be a lot of antisemitism here. No amount of mocking or intimidation by you is going to change that fact; sorry. It’s unfortunate, but antisemitism within the pro-Palestinian movement is so entrenched now, that most of you simply have no clue how bad it is, and how infected you are by it. That’s very unfortunate. One day, you’ll be judged harshly because of it.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 29, 2013, 3:46 pm

        “It isn’t used spuriously.”

        LMAO Oh it surely is. You are the master of the double speak: Claiming that israel should be treated like any other country and claiming antisemitism when it is.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        November 29, 2013, 6:06 pm

        @ Hoppy

        So no retraction of that “misstating and distorting” charge then? OK wasn’t exactly expecting one. You’re not exactly known for your gracefulness after all. Running away mid conversation though – oh at that you’re a master.

        There happens to be a lot of antisemitism here.

        Can’t say I’ve seen any. But perhaps your “detectors” are more sensitive than mine.

        No amount of mocking or intimidation by you is going to change that fact..

        Intimidation? Where have I even attempted to intimidate anyone? This is the Internet Hoppy, I wouldn’t know where to begin intimidating someone on the Internet. Now I fully understand if you’re intimidated by my sparkling wit and repartee but that’s hardly my fault Hoppy, it’s not as if you warrant my even trying. Hey just be glad we’ve never met face to face – then you’d have to be intimidated by my devilish good looks too. And lord help you if you ever got to see me dance.

        It’s unfortunate, but antisemitism within the pro-Palestinian movement is so entrenched now, that most of you simply have no clue how bad it is..

        OK Hoppy let’s hear it. What exactly is YOUR definition of anti-semitism? I ask because if you honestly believe the charge you keep levelling willy-nilly I have to think you’ve set the bar exceedingly low.

        In fact on the evidence of your comments it seems that unless people agree that Jews get a special pass for behaviour you’re happy to condemn in others that they are then “anti-semitic.” What’s interesting is that in itself is a bigoted position.

        And speaking of your bigotry Hoppy, just so you know I do consider you to be a bigot. A pretty terrible one. And one not limited like an anti-semite to prejudice against just one people. No Hoppy you’re much more accomplished than that. No, you’ve demonstrated a bigotry against almost everyone who isn’t a Jew. You’ve slandered ALL of Europe based on the actions of France vis-a-vis the Roma (even though it was obvious you had NO idea what you were on about). You’ve slandered ALL of Europe over the tragedy of Bosnia for which you’ve misrepresented European attitudes in order to back up your warped statements – saying we’ve all asked to be considered one unit when nobody has done any such thing. You’ve quoted flawed and dishonest “surveys” to put forward the idea that non-Jewish Europeans are anti-semitic, and then not responded to criticisms of said surveys by people who’ve actually studied them. And that’s just the Europeans. Your attitudes as revealed through your comments and defences on this site show a monstrous prejudice against Muslims and Palestinians which would probably embarrass a member of the KKK. You lie about a synagogue being destroyed in Syria and never correct yourself even when your own source contradicts you. And why did you do this? In an attempt to dismiss Palestinian pain over the destruction of entire communities and villages. You also lie about Middle Eastern Muslim attitudes to Jews, stating that they only resisted Jewish invaders never Muslim ones when even the briefest look at the history will show you conflicts between Muslim rulers and indigenous Muslims a plenty.

        You’re a very good example Hoppy of why Zionism invokes such utter revulsion, on an almost physical level, in people who have moral sensibilities not enslaved by ideas of ethno-supremacy and ethno-nationalism. People in other words who, unlike you, know what morality actually is.

        No, you’re wrong again Hoppy, it is not people like us who will be judged harshly by history – it is “people” like you.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      November 28, 2013, 11:08 am

      hophmi
      ” No one is questioning the loyalty of Christian Congresspeople who oppose the deal.”
      Really hoppy? Didn’t we read something about Mark Kirk, on this very matter?
      Or is it just no one who is anyone that matters?
      Too often it would seem loyalty to donors (and the re-election bandwagon) comes before the national interest.
      Netanyahu all but demanded that US Jews put Israel’s interests before their own country’s national interests. If they then lobby and press their representatives to act counter to the interests of the vast majority of their non-Jewish compatriots, how is calling them out for it antisemitic?

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      November 28, 2013, 12:12 pm

      The dual loyalty accusation is not antisemitic.

      Christian Congresspeople are not equivalent to Zionist Jews in Congress.

      Zionist Jews are nationalists. Christian Zionists are religious fanatics.

      Both overlap and there can be nationalists who are also religious fanatics.

      The Israel Lobby is a Jewish lobby. That is the prime ethnoreligious group driving the lobby. Not Christians.

      Christian Zionists can be accused of dual loyalty too – but I think it’s more accurate to say they are religiously motivated rather than by nationalism.

      The only people who think this is antisemitic are Israel Firsters (dual loyalty) like you, hoppy.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      November 28, 2013, 2:20 pm

      “This is antisemitic BS.”

      Nonsense. You’re reaction is victim-mongering BS.

      “Most of the Congress is squeamish about this deal.”

      Yes, and that goes to show that the dual loyalty charge isn’t against Jews, but against zionists. You like to pretend they’re one and the same, because it permits you to pretend to be a victim, but they’re not.

      “No one is questioning the loyalty of Christian Congresspeople who oppose the deal.”

      Speak for yourself. I absolutely question the loyalty of anyone who would oppose this deal — which is objectively good for the USA — because they think it is bad for any other country, including, but not limited to, israel. And I would absolutely question the loyalty (and sanity) of those Christian Congressperson who are zionists and let their zionism and religious feelings govern their political decision making.

      “That makes any accusation of dual loyalty directed toward American Jews antisemitic.”

      Nope. An American who holds the same or more loyalty to a foreign state than he does for the US has dual loyalty, regardless of who the person is and what the foreign state is. Jews don’t get a pass on that simply because of some ancient claims made before 1948.

  9. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    November 27, 2013, 5:20 pm

    The Economist article is accurate regarding the “terrifying split” if Israel attacks Iran. Who is truly expecting an Israeli attack on Iran at this point? I’m not.

    There are scenarios other than an Israeli attack that are beguiling, in terms of the senate and an attempt to put further sanctions on Iran against the will of the president. But no such scenario has yet been described that comes anywhere close to the disruption to “everything” that would be involved in an Israeli attack.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      November 27, 2013, 6:00 pm

      “in terms of the senate and an attempt to put further sanctions on Iran against the will of the president.”

      If this were to come to pass, we’d know who the traitors to the US are, then, at least.

  10. palijustice
    palijustice
    November 27, 2013, 7:43 pm

    I think it all depends on the stronger loyalty and first loyalty. If the stronger loyalty of an American citizen is to another country, how can that person serve in the American government? It doesn’t work, and we can see that, in Schumer’s case, who actually said he was the guardian of Israel while running for the Senate, and now he’s doing just that. He’s working hard for Netanyahu’s interests, not ours.

  11. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    November 27, 2013, 9:03 pm

    The difference between dual loyalty and 5th columns or quislings ,in times of differneces of national interest become nil , non existent . It is term whose sole puprose is to hide the real intention or motive or belief. Will a Chinese get a job if he or she claims to have dual loyalty in CIA,Pentagon,Government agencies,or sensitive private projects? Chances are he will not only be denied but would be monitored by government.

    Recent history shows words can hide bitter truths and conceal the darker intention.It can conjure something that is internally inconsistent and false. It can provide respect,acceptability,and even glorify deeds that are harmfull and illegal. It does not reflect mutifaceted existence of groups within a broader mix . It negates the ideas inherent in the concept of citizenship. It allows treason without evoking that fear or thought .

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      November 28, 2013, 2:28 pm

      “The difference between dual loyalty and 5th columns or quislings ,in times of differneces of national interest become nil , non existent ”

      I disagree. I see nothing inherently wrong with dual loyalty or even holding a loyalty to a state other than the US by an American citizen. It doesn’t require that person to do anything to oppose the US.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        November 29, 2013, 1:08 pm

        That’s good, because I don’t think most people here have any special loyalty to the United States, and I don’t think many of you would have favored prosecuting Communists in the 1950s or 1960s, even though their loyalty was clearly to another country.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 29, 2013, 3:50 pm

        “That’s good, because I don’t think most people here have any special loyalty to the United States”

        I’m not sure how many people here are Americans. And those who are appear to be mostly motivated to oppose the zionists because of the damage they have done and are doing to America, its finances, and its place in the world.

        “and I don’t think many of you would have favored prosecuting Communists in the 1950s or 1960s, even though their loyalty was clearly to another country.”

        They weren’t loyal to another country. I checked with West German intelligence and they confirmed it.

  12. eGuard
    eGuard
    November 28, 2013, 2:51 am

    This is a crisis both for the lobby (the dovish segments of which are supporting the U.S. government) and for …

    There are no “dovish” people in the lobby. Not a single lobbyist has argued against a war. The word “dovish” is used for people who want to bomb Palestinians one week, instead of three. Again another euphemism for those “liberal Zionists” you never hear from when Israel is bombing and shooting civilians.

Leave a Reply