Trending Topics:

‘You have dual citizenship with Israel’ — NPR host hits Sanders with internet canard

on 128 Comments

A few weeks back folks sent me links saying that Bernie Sanders, presidential candidate from Vermont via Brooklyn, has dual citizenship with Israel. But the “documentation” for the claim was absurd. Well Diane Rehm, the public radio host, doesn’t think so. She interviewed Senator Sanders yesterday on public radio, WAMU. (Minute 24). They were talking Middle East politics.

Rehm: Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel.

Sanders: No, I do not have dual citizenship with Israel! I’m an American. I don’t know where that questioning came from. I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions, no, I’m an American citizen, period.

Rehm: I understand from a list we have gotten that you were on that list. Forgive me if that is—

Sanders: —that’s some of the nonsense that goes on in the internet. But that is absolutely not true.

Rehm: Interesting. Are there members of Congress who do have dual citizenship or is that part of the fable?

Sanders: I honestly don’t know, but I have read that on the internet. You know, my dad came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket, loved this country. I am, you know, get offended a little bit by that comment, and I know it’s been on the internet. I am obviously an American citizen and I do not have any dual citizenship.

Rehm apologized today. TPM:

“On yesterday’s show, I raised the issue of dual citizenship with senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders,” she said. “This is an issue that’s come up over the years in American politics.”

“One of our listeners suggested via Facebook that I ask Sen. Sanders about Internet speculation that he has dual citizenship with Israel,” she went on, “but instead of asking it as a question I stated it as fact, and that was wrong.”

Sanders is obviously attached to Israel in a generational Jewish way. He worked on a kibbutz there on graduating from college 50 years ago, service he seems to diminish in that response to Rehm. He sees Israel  as a bulwark against Islamic radicals in the Middle East. BTW, Sanders endorsed the two-state solution in the interview. “I am not a very big fan of Prime Minister Netanyahu.” He did not attend Netanyahu’s horrifying speech to the joint session of Congress.

Laurence Zuckerman tweets:

@Tabletmag casts doubt on @SenSanders denial by saying he once worked on a kibbutz.

Tablet:

Even though he may not have dual American and Israeli citizenship, Sanders did in fact spend time at a Kibbutz in Israel after graduating college, the New York Times magazine reported in 2007 in an article entitled, “The Socialist Senator.”

B’nai Brith is very upset about Diane Rehm’s questioning and says it’s the dual loyalty canard.

NPR host Diane Rehm’s intense, offensive questioning of Jewish Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders about whether he is also an Israeli citizen reinforces tropes that Jews are first and foremost loyal to Israel.

On her June 10 program, Rehm stated: “Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel.”

A startled Sanders emphatically stated he is an American citizen and does not hold Israeli citizenship, but Rehm pressed the matter again.

In a statement after the program, Rehm said: “”I want to apologize as well to all our listeners for having made an erroneous statement. I am sorry for the mistake. However, I am glad to play a role in putting this rumor to rest.”

But this goes well beyond poor journalistic judgment. We’ve seen this dual loyalty issue come up again and again.  

I wonder if this canard has taken on a life of its own. Ala the claim that Obama was born in Kenya.

 

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

128 Responses

  1. just on June 11, 2015, 2:02 pm

    “We’ve seen this dual loyalty issue come up again and again.”

    Yes, we have. And it deserves an answer. We finally got one, thanks to Rehm and Sanders. Now on to the candidate’s stance on the issues.

    As Americans have seen over and over again, Administrations and Congresses have acted for Israel and often against US interests in order to pledge their loyalty for money. Questions about the status and allegiance of any dual citizen that is running for office is fair game, imho. Same goes for any appointees. Everything else is scrutinized~ why not this? Why is this the proverbial “third rail”?

    I don’t think that this bears any resemblance to the false claims about President Obama and Kenya.

    Not even remotely. Thanks, Phil.

    • ritzl on June 11, 2015, 6:39 pm

      +10, just. Totally agree.

      The easy and commonplace conferring of Israeli citizenship is a well-documented, real thing that happens often.

      The Obama-Kenya citizenship fake issue is not a real thing.

      Completely different.

      Rehm should have asked instead of stated, but other than that, fair game.

      And as you also say, it is a completely legitimate full-disclosure issue for everyone in high public office to whom it may apply, maybe more specifically in an office that deals with foreign policy in any way – major or minor.

      If people in office are trying to hide something that’s real via the usual poo-pooing exercise, that needs to be known. If none of them have Israeli citizenship and the method of receiving Israeli citizenship does not/could not affect or apply to them, then that needs to be known as well

      It’s good that Phil brought this up. I wish he would share his own experience on the matter. Did he get granted Israel citizenship by visiting Israel? Dual citizenship doesn’t matter in its own right, so it’s not an intrinsically bad thing. Many people have it. But this has specific implications.

      My guess is that no Congressperson can have any dual-citizenship because they have to take an oath to the US Constitution that [in my understanding] voids all others — even the potential of seemingly automatic/assumed oaths as the Israeli process seems to use.

      I think Hostage has broached this before, but maybe he can weigh in here as the conversation I remember was about military oaths.

      • Jethro on June 11, 2015, 10:14 pm

        In fact, members of Congress CAN have dual citizenship, and nowhere is it a matter of public record. That is problematic.

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/12/dual-citizens-in-congress/

      • Ellen on June 12, 2015, 1:23 am

        Well, they do. Even Michele Bachman carried duel citizenship.

        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76142.html

        She has since given it up, but her husband and children retain it.

      • just on June 12, 2015, 1:48 am

        I think that Sarah Palin had dual citizenship, too.

        iirc, she’s got US and Outer Space citizenship.

        (maybe lots of folks have multiple allegiances/citizenships)

        Seriously though, I think it could very well present a conflict of interest~ oath of office notwithstanding. Questions re same are fair game, imho.

      • oldgeezer on June 12, 2015, 2:17 am

        @just

        Pure fabrication. No planet capable of interplanetary relationships or travel would grant citizenship to such an ignorant troglodyte. They might know her as Bertha though

      • ritzl on June 12, 2015, 3:14 am

        Thanks Jethro. Didn’t know. Important, as is the subtitle:

        “Why It’s Important for Us to Know.”

        And the last graf:

        At the level of individual members, transparency is essential. For example, a constituent should know whether or not another state loyalty is involved when his or her representative speaks out on a major issue, such as on military assistance to Israel or recognition of Palestine as a state. Only if we know who are the dual citizens in Congress and what are their second countries, can we intelligently assess the credibility of their policy statements and actions.

      • ckg on June 13, 2015, 6:23 am

        Sen Cruz recently gave up his Canadian citizenship, which he claims he was unaware he held.

    • CigarGod on June 12, 2015, 8:51 am

      In an age when presidents, vp’s, attorney generals, senators, cops, and generals all violate their oaths of office, enlistment, etc….and seem to have remarkably poor memories, while holding such high positions…I think it is important to know what other oaths they have taken.

      Kibbutz: Many of these visits, are designed to convert attendee’s more deeply to The Cause. The recruitment of students, congresspeople, law enforcement, etc…is also in this service. These guys dont do half a summer in Israel and half a summer in Gaza. No, it is all one-sided. Tho, just like seeing russia from ones porch…seeing Palestine from your tour bus doesnt do much to inform, let alone make one an expert.

    • Kathleen on June 12, 2015, 1:18 pm

      “I don’t think this bears any resemblance to the false claims about President Obama and Kenya” Agree Just.

      While Diane Rehm presented what should have been a question as a fixed comment. These questions should be asked of our Reps. Accurate list should be presented to the American public and voting records and the creation of legislation having to do with whatever country a Rep may have dual citizenship with should be scrutinized.

      This question “do you have dual citizenship” should be asked of all of our Reps. Anyone know of an accurate list?

    • Roger of the desert on September 20, 2015, 7:42 pm

      I believe that it is important that any government official let the voters know if he/she holds dual citizenship from any other state. I’m glad to know that Bernie is not a dual citizen, but it is a question that should be asked of every official. Dual citizenship is by definition a dual loyalty issue. I remember when Michele Bachmann decided to apply for Swiss citizenship.

      I would never vote for a dog catcher who was a dual citizen by choice. If a person is considered a citizen by his parents’ country of origin when he hasn’t requested it, and never acted on it is a different issue, but if a Jew travels to Israel and claims Israeli citizenship, that person shouldn’t be elected.

      • CigarGod on September 20, 2015, 9:13 pm

        Agreed.
        The information should follow their name. -John Doe, dual citizen of Denmark, running for cheese inspector. An obvious conflict of interest possibility.

  2. ckg on June 11, 2015, 2:19 pm

    Some of the comments at Israel National News for its article Jewish Dem Irked at Rumor He Has Dual Israeli Citizenship indicate that some right wing Israelis may be offended by Sanders for being offended himself.

    • Nevada Ned on June 12, 2015, 1:07 am

      Bernie Sanders is also irked at rumor that he is (gasp!) a DEMOCRAT.

      Not true. He’s an independent.

  3. Chu on June 11, 2015, 2:27 pm

    B’nai Brith: “…whether he is also an Israeli citizen reinforces tropes that Jews are first and foremost loyal to Israel. “

    Those tropes are often the truth. Look at Schmuly Boteach running for Congress. That man clearly is more pro-Israel than pro-American, which is why he was routed in the election in 2012. Voters went 3 to 1 for the other candidate.

    • MRW on June 11, 2015, 4:04 pm

      reinforces tropes that Jews are first and foremost loyal to Israel.

      Sorry, B’nai Brith: Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson proudly declaring that Israel is their number one issue, Adelson stating that he regrets serving in the US Army and wished he could have been in the IDF (so he sends his son instead). Rahm Emanuel serving in Israel and not the US military during the first Gulf War. The countless paeans to Israel on NPR. The endless conflation of anti-semitism with insufficient American patriotism for Israel, and using that to destroy careers and reputations of non-Jews and lately, Jews.

      So give it a break, B’nai Brith. Nobody is buying that complaint.

      • italian ex-pat on June 11, 2015, 8:33 pm

        Well, for all it’s worth, here’s my personal little anecdote.

        A couple of days ago, a commenter in the NYT (I forgot the article) made a really stupid comparison, apropos of Jewish Americans’ loyalty to the US being questioned if one is pro-Israel. His comment went something like this: “does anybody question the loyalty of a Catholic who visits the Vatican, or a Muslim who makes a pilgrimage to Mecca?”.
        I ought to know better than get into an argument with such an ignoramus, but I couldn’t resist replying: ”nobody questions the loyalty of a Jewish American who visits the Western Wall, but if he/she volunteers to serve in the IDF, and believes Israel is the only ‘true’ home of all Jewish people, then yes, the question of loyalty to the US is legitimate.
        Well guess what, my comment was never posted. I suppose the NYT editors thought it would have been ‘offensive’ to some of their columnists – you know, the ones who have sons in the IDF.

      • Kris on June 11, 2015, 9:42 pm

        @italian ex-pat– Your comment to the NYT was excellent; no surprise, therefore, that they wouldn’t print it.

      • MRW on June 12, 2015, 12:18 am

        Good one, italian ex-pat. ;-)

        Right now they want to put a 17-year-old American kid in TX (?) in jail for 15 years who used Twitter to round up bitcoin funds for the Islamic State, ISIS in Syria. Calling him a terrorist.

        How is that any different than supplying guns for the Jewish State, or the “Jewish State” providing medical help to wounded ISIS soldiers, our enemy?

      • ritzl on June 12, 2015, 5:17 pm

        Italian ex-pat, JFK got repeatedly slammed for exactly that (loyalty to the Pope). It was a theme.

        He slogged it out and won (possibly with a little help from his Italian friends in the Chicago precincts, but that’s a story for another day).

        I have to believe this vein of questioning is much more about the response than is about the question itself.

  4. Kay24 on June 11, 2015, 2:36 pm

    Here is something that will irritate the war criminals in Tel Aviv”

    “International Criminal Court planning to send delegation to examine complaints against Israel
    Delegation to arrive in area by end of June, Palestinian officials say, adding that Russia and China promised to veto any U.S. proposal in Security Council to delay investigation.

    A delegation from the prosecutor’s office of the International Criminal Court at The Hague is due to arrive in Israel on June 27 as part of the prosecution’s preliminary examination into whether war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in the occupied Palestinian territories, according to senior Palestinian sources.” Haaretz

    Expect those they control in America to scramble and prevent this one too.

    • annie on June 11, 2015, 2:49 pm

      great news kay

    • just on June 11, 2015, 3:01 pm

      Super news, Kay. Thanks.

      Wonder what will happen… something like this?

      “Israeli settlers attack US consulate convoy in the West Bank (Updated)” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/israeli-settlers-consulate#sthash.mvOfdRbN.dpuf

      • Kay24 on June 11, 2015, 4:03 pm

        I would not be surprise it it ended up like that. These out of control settlers might resort to “terroristic activities” to prevent the truth coming out. They should be arrested and thrown in jail.

      • just on June 11, 2015, 6:07 pm

        Just in time, before the ICC visit and just after Ban Ki-moon’s and Samantha Power’s disgrace:

        “Gaza beach bombing that killed four boys was legal, says Israeli army

        The killing of four boys on a beach in Gaza during summer 2014 was ruled as having met Israel’s laws by a military tribunal

        Israel announced on Thursday that no criminal charges will brought against members of its army responsible for the deadly attack last summer on a Gaza beach that killed four boys from the same family.

        Ahed Atef Bakr, 10, Zakariya Ahed Bakr, 10, Mohammad Ramiz Bakr, 11, and Ismail Mahmoud Bakr, 9, were killed on 16 July when Israeli forces shelled a beachfront in the Gaza Strip.

        It was one of the defining moments of the 50-day Israeli assault on Gaza, which saw some 2,220 Palestinians killed, mostly civilians, as well as 72 Israelis, who were mostly soldiers.

        The boys were killed in full view of a hotel filled with foreign correspondents reporting on the conflict, which led to harrowing first-hand accounts of the attack, one of the most poignant of which came from the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont.

        On Thursday, after conducting an internal investigation, Israeli army spokesperson Peter Lerner released a statement on Facebook that said the army had broken no laws by killing the boys.

        “After reviewing the investigation’s findings, the Military Advocate General found that the attack process in question accorded with Israeli domestic law and international law requirements,” read the statement, which said that the beach the boys were playing hide and seek on had been used by Hamas fighters to launch rockets at Israel.

        “At the time that the decision was made, the attack was not, according to the assessment of the operational entities, expected to result in any collateral damage to civilians or to civilian property.

        “The Military Advocate General found that the professional discretion exercised by all the commanders involved in the incident had not been unreasonable under the circumstances […] The Military Advocate General ordered that the investigation file be closed without any further legal proceedings – criminal or disciplinary – to be taken against those involved in the incident.”…

        – See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-concludes-deadly-gaza-beach-bombing-was-legal-894438693#sthash.vRk6ssFq.MAN27xgz.dpuf

        Well, that was predictable. RIP, little Palestinian footballers~ never forgotten, I promise.

      • annie on June 11, 2015, 6:23 pm

        just found out about that 15 min ago, makes my blood boil. speechless. but i shouldn’t be.

      • just on June 11, 2015, 6:40 pm

        I know, Annie. There really are no words to describe the injustice.

        From Dan Cohen:

        “Gaza’s Bakr family will receive no justice from Israel for slaughtering their four boys. It’s hardly surprising but nonetheless sickening.”

        ~and~

        “I recently spent time with the Bakr family. Here they pray at the graves of their sons who were killed by Israel.”

        https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/609119837315575809

        ~and~

        “Here is the sister & grandfather of Ismail Bakr who was playing soccer on the beach when the Israeli navy killed him”

        https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/609123910559395841

      • annie on June 11, 2015, 6:45 pm

        thanks just, i had not seen these.

      • just on June 11, 2015, 7:36 pm

        You’re welcome, Annie.

        Peter Beaumont, witness to the murder of the children:

        “Israel exonerates itself over Gaza beach killings of four children last year

        Israeli investigation says missile attack that killed boys aged between nine and 11 was ‘tragic accident’ in findings contradictory to journalists’ reports from scene

        … An account of the investigation, posted late on Thursday by military spokesman Lt Col Peter Lerner, said the strike had targeted a “compound” which had been known as belonging to Hamas’s Naval Police and Naval Force (including naval commandos)”.

        But journalists who attended the scene in the immediate aftermath of the attack – including a reporter from the Guardian – saw a small and dilapidated fisherman’s hut containing a few tools where the children had been playing hide-and-seek.

        Mohammad Ramiz Bakr, 11, Ahed Atef Bakr and Zakariya Ahed Bakr, both 10, and Ismail Mahmoud Bakr, nine, were killed when they were hit by explosive rounds. Three of them died as they sought to flee the beach after the first child was killed.

        Three other people were injured in the attack: Hamad Bakr, 13, was hit by shrapnel in his chest; his cousin Motasem, 11, injured in his head and legs, and Mohammad Abu Watfah, 21, who was hit by shrapnel in his stomach.

        The conclusion of the Israeli military investigation comes while the Israel is under a preliminary investigation by the International Criminal Court to establish whether war crimes were committed during the Gaza war – both by Israel and Hamas. The finding will inevitably raise questions over the way in which Israel investigates incidents in which civilians were killed.

        Israel’s conduct in last summer’s war was thrown under a harsh spotlight last month with the publication of the testimonies of dozens of soldiers who served in Gaza, collected by the Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence, which included allegations that the Israeli military did not meet its obligations to protect civilians in wartime. …

        …Thursday’s statement by the Israel Defence Forces said the conclusion came at the end of an “extensive criminal investigation”.

        “During the investigation,” it added, “testimonies were collected from a large number of IDF soldiers and officers who were involved in the planning and execution of the attack.”

        The statement continued: “Additionally, an extensive number of documents relating to the attack were reviewed, along with video footage documenting the attack in real time, as well as media images and video footage which documented parts of the incident.

        “Efforts were made to collect the testimonies of Gaza strip residents who were, allegedly, witnesses to the incident. In this context, the collection of testimony from three witnesses was coordinated. Regretfully, despite the prior coordination, the witnesses eventually declined to meet the investigators, and instead provided affidavits in regard to the incident.”

        Although the attack was witnessed by a Guardian reporter, no attempt was made by the Israeli military investigators to seek a statement.

        The IDF statement continued: “From the factual findings collected by the investigators, it revealed that the incident took place in an area that had long been known as a compound belonging to Hamas’s Naval Police and Naval Force (including naval commandos), and which was utilized exclusively by militants.”

        The hut, however, was in plain sight of nearby hotels housing international journalists, none of whom described seeing militants in the area at the time of the attack.

        Continuing its statement the Israeli military continued: “The compound in question spans the length of the breakwater of the Gaza City seashore, closed off by a fence and clearly separated from the beach serving the civilian population.

        “It further found in the course of the investigation (including from the affidavits provided by Palestinian witnesses), that the compound was known to the residents of the Gaza Strip as a compound which was used exclusively by Hamas’s Naval Police.

        “The IDF carried out a number of attacks on the compound in the days prior to the incident. In the course of one such attack, which took place on the day prior to the incident (15 July 2014), a container located inside the compound, which was used to store military supplies, was attacked.”

        The Israeli claims appear at odds in several details with what journalists were able to see at the time.”…

        Much more @ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children

        The journalist witnesses are NOT going to let this go… As usual, the IOF made things worse.

        As though it was possible to do so.

      • Kay24 on June 11, 2015, 10:37 pm

        Just, that news item about the poor little kids being blown up while playing soccer, is just unbelievable. This is sheer zionist bull. Nothing is legal about fully armed military forces shooting four little kids who were simply playing soccer. There was no immediate threat to these cowards at that moment either. Journalist witnessed this massacre, and some even interacted with the kids just before. What were IDF aiming for, the journalists?

        They are despicable, and their justifications stink.

      • annie on June 12, 2015, 12:47 am

        small and dilapidated fisherman’s hut containing a few tools – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/israel-bernie-sanders#comment-773885

        that’s hebrew for ‘hamas compound’

      • oldgeezer on June 12, 2015, 2:09 am

        @Kay
        “These out of control settlers might resort to “terroristic activities” to prevent the truth coming out. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/israel-bernie-sanders#comment-147740

        You are too kind. They aren’t right wing settlers or out of control settlers. They aren’t even illegal settlers.

        They are criminals and terrorists. It’s about time to call them out for what they are.

    • on June 11, 2015, 4:23 pm

      “International Criminal Court planning to send delegation to examine complaints against Israel Delegation to arrive in area by end of June, Palestinian officials say, adding that Russia and China promised to veto any U.S. proposal in Security Council to delay investigation”

      If Israel cannot find a way to bring pressure to bear to stop this visit, don’t be surprised if they kill some members of the delegation and either call them terrorists and claim they were acting in self defense (seems crazy — but this is Israel we are talking about) or blame it on Islamic jihadists.

    • Walid on June 14, 2015, 12:46 am

      “adding that Russia and China promised to veto any U.S. proposal in Security Council to delay investigation.” (Kay)

      We are critical of the US automatic veto in favour of Israel and we applaud that of Russia and of China when they come to the defense of Syria but how is it that supposedly good guys Russia and China are AWOL at the UNSC when the questions of Yemen and Bahrain are raised? It demonstrates that these veto powers in the hands of the Big 5 are for nothing other than to serve their own interests. There has to be a deal of some sort in effect between the US and Russia/China to continue turning a blind eye on the systematic destruction of Yemen or the continued oppression of 80% of Bahrain’s population.

      As to the prospect of a Russia/China veto to block the US’ blocking of an investigation of Israeli crimes, I wouldn’t hold my breath hoping. They’ll work out something or other in the wording that would allow the investigation to go through without risk to Israel and without Russia/China losing face; that’s how the cookie crumbles. Remember al the excitement and anticipation with the FIFA thing and how it fizzled out in a flash?

  5. echinococcus on June 11, 2015, 3:10 pm

    He worked on a kibbutz there on graduating from college 50 years ago, service he seems to diminish in that response to Rehm

    Good catch, Mr. Weiss.
    Why is he trying to diminish his involvement where he can be questioned for that? And what do you mean, “service”? What service, to whom?
    Something still smells bad.

    Also, “attached to Israel in a generational Jewish way” is a phrase that more properly deserves the term “canard”. It’s also offensive. He’s of my generation, and I don’t recall having grown up with many “attached to Israel” people. The slow-witted ones who became Zionists did so after 1967.

    • echinococcus on June 11, 2015, 3:38 pm

      Back to the use of the word “canard” about that Israeli citizenship. With the current Jewish members in Congress, who so often declare outright that their loyalty to the Apartheid state trumps that to even what they perceive being the interests of the US and none of them opposed to Zionism, it’s impossible not to be deeply suspicious.
      In fact, there are several instances of people having received that citizenship without formal request; at any rate renouncing it is not easy at all; these people in particular had no reason not to make such a request especially before they knew they would be in Congress; finally there is no way on earth to know except through the interested themselves or by stumbling over a passport.
      So a negative answer here is still extremely suspect. It may be true about Bernie personally, even though he is a strong supporter of Zionism including its massacres.

      • Steve Grover on June 11, 2015, 5:15 pm

        @Obnoxious
        You say:
        “With the current Jewish members in Congress, who so often declare outright that their loyalty to the Apartheid state”
        I don’t know of a Jewish member of Congress that has declared loyalty to any Apartheid State. Since you say the apartheid state, you must mean a single apartheid state. Why don’t you name the apartheid state they are loyal to because I am not aware of any apartheid state that they are loyal to.

      • echinococcus on June 12, 2015, 12:37 am

        Don’t pretend to be that slow. No one can.
        In fact, you didn’t even read.

    • govamil on August 14, 2015, 2:30 am

      Because volunteering on a kibbutz has nothing to do with politics. I have lived on a kibbutz for more than a decade and I can tell you for certain that many of the European volunteers are most definitely NOT pro-Israel. They do it for the adventure. They do it for the fun. That’s it. It has nothing to do with supporting Israel. I know, I know you are all going to tell me I’m wrong. Go ahead. You are sitting in the US with no first-hand knowledge of this so I’m sure you know best.

  6. Qualtrough on June 11, 2015, 3:28 pm

    According to Wikipedia: The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel. In the 1970s the Law of Return was expanded to grant the same rights to the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses, provided that the Jew did not practice a religion other than Judaism willingly.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_nationality_law#Dual_citizenship

    If this interpretation of the Law of Return is correct, the dual-citizenship question is entirely legitimate given that Sanders has visited Israel more than once and even lived there on a kibbutz for several months.

  7. pabelmont on June 11, 2015, 3:44 pm

    glad the dual-loyalty THANG is out and labelled a canard.
    However, maybe that “canard” merely means that the MSM will not hereafter raisae it even when it is true (or truish).

  8. MRW on June 11, 2015, 4:06 pm

    I’m glad Diane Rehm brought it up. Why not?

    • -John- on June 11, 2015, 5:56 pm

      Well, dual-loyalty is a classic anti-semitic trope. If the issue’s broached, it should be with sensitivity and real research behind the question. Rehm or her producers did none of that. And her cavalier way of incorrectly asserting Sanders’ dual-citizenship as a known fact was odd.

      Rehm should have had a well-formulated question that acknowledges this is a sensitive topic, leaves Sanders room to address what appears on the internet, and perhaps offer him a chance to discuss how, if at all, his Judaism impacts his foreign policy.

      Tone at times is everything. Fair or unfair, that’s how it is.

      • ritzl on June 11, 2015, 6:47 pm

        -John-, Screw the sensitivity. Sanders is running for President.

        Other than that, I agree. She should have asked.

        But also, Sanders got flustered by this as he did taking questions on the Gaza slaughter in his town hall in Vermont. It’s obviously sensitive, and HIS answer should have been better researched and presented as well.

      • just on June 11, 2015, 6:54 pm

        “-John-, Screw the sensitivity. Sanders is running for President.”

        agreed.

        Watch for Diane Rehm to retreat back to her normal defensive for Israel position as a result of this blown- way- out- of – proportion kerfuffle.

        She could have asked sweetly, but the question should be asked imho. People asked it about/spoke about it/wrote about it wrt Ted Cruz, didn’t they?

        I agree with this as well:

        “But also, Sanders got flustered by this as he did taking questions on the Gaza slaughter in his town hall in Vermont. It’s obviously sensitive, and HIS answer should have been better researched and presented as well.”

      • ritzl on June 11, 2015, 7:06 pm

        Yep, just, and JFK as well, though more in the loyalty (to the Vatican) sense as opposed to the citizenship sense.

        I mean, deal with it folks. This is a hoop that simply must be successfully jumped through to get to be President.

        The absolute worst thing Sanders could do (at this point or ever) would be to claim privilege or an exception because he’s Jewish.

      • DaBakr on June 11, 2015, 10:21 pm

        idiot Rehm did absolutely NO journalistic due diligence and simply repeated what she read-or rather ‘heard’ that somebody read on the internet. what a joke. if she heard somebody read that sanders killed his mother on the internet would she bother to fact check anything-she wouldn’t have asked such a stupid question.
        The fact that so many here think that the behavior of certain Zionists makes jewish members of the US congress more suspect to this question simply proves that MW is filled with stupid conspiracy theory true believers with only mediocre intellect. Even the owner PW knows when a “canard” is being employed and he hates Zionists. Hah. lol.

      • annie on June 11, 2015, 10:37 pm

        can someone explain to dabkr comparing asking someone if they have israeli citizenship is not equivalent to asking if they murdered their mother. for one thing, as far as i know only one of those is against the law.

        this is a molehill issue, not a mountain. accusation of murder are a mountain.

      • DaBakr on June 11, 2015, 10:52 pm

        @an

        uh-huh. and despite the fact that Ms Rehm based her incorrect statement on a Facebook post written by a poster who asked Rehm to ask Sanders that question- the source of the ‘list’ she mentioned is still a neo-Nazi website filled with ridiculous lies and “canards” posed about Jews. Its (that kind of thing) led to murder before in the past. And I am sure had a truly comparable question was asked of an Arab-American candidate-e.g. “So you support terrorist groups in Palestine, right?” (and based on an internet hate site) I am sure you be be one of the first to write a scathing blogpost here about that. Would you not?

        But I know….Jews have to learn to take their lumps and being suspected of having false loyalty to the US is just part and parcel of being an elderly Jewish member of congress since, you know, aipac is so all-powerful and all. Yes, I’m rolling my eyes so much it hurts. – your better then this.

        p.s. what do you think of the idiots who spout off about Obama being ‘loyal’ to either Kenya, Islam or Marxism? Just because there are less of them does not make it less of a “thing” as expressed by a poster. I certainly know what I think of them. Rehm made more then a big mistake. Blaming her staff is a cowards response. In your country people get fired from high paying jobs for saying much less. I think-becuase American Jews don’t have high % in poverty and un-empowered classes- they are expected to take a lot more sht. Add to that the aipac conspiracy theories and you have very little sympathy fr Bernie Sanders. In fact-I don’t think even BS cares all that much-even if he said he was ‘offended’.

        it is just amazing to watch when even PW admits to a certain ‘bias’ and his loyal legions turn themselves into pretzels trying to explain why it was ‘kinda wrong but on second thought-not all that wrong and on THIRD thought—might have some benefits! That is funny

      • annie on June 11, 2015, 11:52 pm

        ziocaine run amok

      • just on June 11, 2015, 11:29 pm

        “can someone explain to dabkr comparing asking someone if they have israeli citizenship is not equivalent to asking if they murdered their mother.”

        No can do. Sorry, Annie. He’s in Ziomania “molehill” mode. It is interesting to watch, though. Just yesterday, it was all about the big, bad, mean, antisemitic BDS. Today folks who wouldn’t even countenance a vote for Bernie are screaming foul antisemitism!

        Weird.

      • annie on June 11, 2015, 11:44 pm

        just, he just up the ante. check this out:had a truly comparable question was asked of an Arab-American candidate-e.g. “So you support terrorist groups in Palestine, right?”

        so now, asking someone if they have israeli citizenship is tantamount to asking if they support terrorism.

        “truly comparable”. seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. i didn’t say it.

        remember when the pro israel professor said palestinians should be put down like dogs. i don’t recall they objected in the least.

      • hophmi on June 11, 2015, 11:36 pm

        She didn’t ask him anything. She stated it as if it were fact. There are regular commentators on this site that trade in this antisemitic nonsense.

        Diane Rehm should be fired immediately. She’s a dupe.

      • just on June 11, 2015, 11:59 pm

        “so now, asking someone if they have israeli citizenship is tantamount to asking if they support terrorism. ” truly comparable”, you can’t make this stuff up. i didn’t say it.”

        Annie~ it’s just loony. I think it’s best for him and others to have their feeding frenzy/pity party. It’s pathetic, imho. hophmi wants Diane Rehm fired, catalan wants Bernie to sue her and NPR, yonah accuses Rehm’s staff, and Dabakr is alleging nutsy victimization and more.

        As if it’s that old sacred cow. Mooo.

        Interesting that they’ve not commented on the IOF’s declaration today, isn’t it?

      • annie on June 12, 2015, 12:20 am

        dual-loyalty is a classic anti-semitic trope

        let’s forget the classics for a minute. not to sound too naive, but why wouldn’t a dual citizen have dual loyalties?

      • oldgeezer on June 12, 2015, 12:34 am

        @Annie

        “but why wouldn’t a dual citizen have dual loyalties? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/israel-bernie-sanders#comment-147740

        How dare you question this antisemitic trope accusation.

        Clearly Israel disallows dual citizenship holders to hold office as it’s run by a bunch of antisemites. There’s no question that the current incarnation is run by some very rabid racists. No doubt enjoying support of a large segment of the population at that.

      • bryan on June 12, 2015, 4:30 am

        “Well, dual-loyalty is a classic anti-semitic trope.” You use two very interesting and ill-defined terms there. The ambiguity of anti-semitic (meaning either Jew-hating or insufficiently Israel-loving) has frequently been commented on here. But trope is equally ambiguous – Merriam-Webster defines it as a figure of speech or a cliche, synonymous with banality, platitude, commonplace, truism, conventional wisdom, routine, generality, simplification, stereotype etc. Are we to conclude from your use of this term that there is a reasonable frequency of American Jews displaying dual-loyalty, but it would be absolutely wrong to assume that this is a universal association. Thus no problem with questioning dual-loyalty of any individual, but entirely wrong to presume its existence?

        Have American Jews ever displayed dual loyalty and has that always been condemned as anti-semitism? The immediate post-world war periods surely saw a significant number of American Jews actively engaged in left-wing and even pro-Communist agitation, sometimes engaging in acts of espionage, (e.g. the Rosenbergs) but more generally propagandizing and lobbying on behalf of the Soviet system. Interestingly, many neocons migrated from active Trotskyist advocacy on behalf of world revolution, to neo-fascist sponsorship and lobbying and agitation for Zionist domination of the Middle East. Yet during the Red Scares, American Jews and non-Jews with a dual or primary loyalty to a foreign state or an opposing world-view were universally condemned as Un-American, treacherous, perfidious and dangerous, attempting to infiltrate and pervert the American system of government, with as far as I am aware, no accusations being made that such criticism was motivated by Jew-hatred or anti-Semitism. During very mild and recent concern about a Blue Menace, threatening to pervert the American system of government, any similar accusations of loyalty to a foreign state seem to be universally decried as anti-Semitic. Strange world we live in.

      • eljay on June 12, 2015, 6:44 am

        || DaBakr: The fact that so many here think that the behavior of certain Zionists makes jewish members of the US congress more suspect to this question simply proves … ||

        …that efforts by Zio-supremacists like you to conflate all Jews with Israel, Israel with all Jews and loyalty to the “Jewish State” as an essential part of being Jewish are effective.

        Don’t hesitate to take credit for your handiwork.

      • echinococcus on June 12, 2015, 7:10 am

        Annie,

        why wouldn’t a dual citizen have dual loyalties?

        With Israel dual wouldn’t be the problem.

      • tony greenstein on June 12, 2015, 9:56 am

        Yes dual-loyalty is a classic anti-semitic trope or characterisation of Jews. Unfortunately, like a number of other such tropes. Zionism does its best to legitimate that use. Eg Zionism believes that Jews are strangers in any land outside Israel, so do the anti-Semites. Hence why the Nazis followed a policy of favouring Zionist organisations from 1933-41 in Germany & Austria above ‘assimilationist’ groups who ran counter to their idea that Jews were apart from Aryans.

        Israel lays claim to all Jews. It is the State of the Jewish People and as Netanyahu recently said, the ‘real home’ of Jews is in Israel. Zionism has never resiled from one of the founding themes of the movement, the Negation of the Diaspora (I’ll leave u to look that one up).

      • wondering jew on June 12, 2015, 11:10 am

        Suppose she had said, “I understand that you’re black.” Back in 1977 and I assume today, you could get sued for asserting someone as black (in the USA). Of course a question of dual citizenship gets to the essence of citizenship, whereas the racist history of the United States is a blemish near the soul of America but no longer truly relevant to the concept of citizenship.

        What if she said, I understand you’re homosexual. well that’s private and citizenship is a very public matter. but nonetheless “not that there’s anything wrong with that”, this is a sensitive topic as well.

        Thousands of Jews spent a few months on kibbutz. When they run for president it would be not wrong to ask them, did you take out citizenship while you were there? To assume something on the internet as fact shows that Diane Rehm should retire. She’s old and over the hill and this was sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

      • MRW on June 12, 2015, 1:07 pm

        If the issue’s broached, it should be with sensitivity and real research behind the question. Rehm or her producers did none of that. And her cavalier way of incorrectly asserting Sanders’ dual-citizenship as a known fact was odd.

        One rule for Rehm and another for Hannity/O’Reilly/ABCNBCCBSMSNBCFOX?

      • DaBakr on June 12, 2015, 7:33 pm

        @[email protected]

        well-as one of the big tropes about Jews in government is they are all Zionist supporters or shills and they all have loyalty to Israel above the US. And even here on MW- his time on a kibbutz is already being looked at suspiciously but couched in the ‘right to know about any candidate’. sure.

        I have never heard any Palestinian American being accused of dual loyalty as a continuous stereotype. But I have heard Americans (including the US govt)who assume that Palestinian Americans have links to terrorist groups, Or sympathies. Or donate money to org’s. associated with the Hamas. So —that is why it is a comparable statement.

        If Rehm had stated:
        “Your a dual citizen of Palestine” nobody would have batted an eyelash as there is no negative association with this statement. Palestinians don’t have an entire book devoted to convincing the world they are trying to take over.

        I can not believe I have to exp[lain this stuff to you. Are you purposely being obtuse because of your complete distaste for Zionists? or is this so out of reality to you that you call me ‘weird’? Because I can assure you-in the real world-this would not be considered particularly “weird”

      • Walid on June 14, 2015, 1:07 am

        “… but why wouldn’t a dual citizen have dual loyalties?” (Annie)

        We are confounding loyalties with sympathies, which of course makes it easy to have sympathy for both countries but the real test of loyalty comes up when there’s a conflict between the interests of the countries in question and the person with the dual citizenship has to decide with which one to align himself. American-Israelis or Israeli-Americans are often faced with these conflicting choices and more often than not, the preferred choice is Israel, which demonstrates that there was never anything dual about loyalty in the first place.

    • wondering jew on June 11, 2015, 6:15 pm

      MRW- Nothing wrong with bringing it up. Something wrong or inefficient presenting it as a fact. Sloppy journalism or malicious journalism. I don’t blame Rehm. Someone on her staff’s head should roll. And what about that list of all those who are dual citizens that she asked about? Who else is on the list? This was malicious sloppy mierde.

      • talknic on June 11, 2015, 6:36 pm

        @ yonah fredman “Something wrong or inefficient presenting it as a fact”

        Oh my how life threatening!!

        “Sloppy journalism or malicious journalism. I don’t blame Rehm. Someone on her staff’s head should roll.”

        Go roll some heads at Hasbara central

        Israel’s apologists trolls and politicians roll around in malicious sloppy mierde that results in slaughtering people.

      • DaBakr on June 11, 2015, 10:26 pm

        @yf

        “don’t blame Rehm?” So much for journalistic integrity. Why not blame Rehm? Why blame an overworked 20something public radio flunky working as an unpaid intern? If somebody accused an American Palestinian running for office of having dual Palestinian/US citizenship you better believe there would be hoots and cries of ‘anti-Arab bias’ and depending of what religion they were-Islamaphiobia as well.

      • annie on June 11, 2015, 10:30 pm

        If somebody accused an American Palestinian running for office of having dual Palestinian/US citizenship you better believe there would be hoots and cries of ‘anti-Arab bias’

        why. there are lots of palestinian americans. it’s not like an insult or anything.

      • DaBakr on June 11, 2015, 11:00 pm

        @an: “why. there are lots of palestinian americans. it’s not like an insult or anything. – ”

        no -it is not. the irony of that is lost on you isn’t it?

      • annie on June 11, 2015, 11:21 pm

        totally lost on me.

      • annie on June 12, 2015, 12:03 am

        sloppy, i agree yonah. i don’t let people posts those inflammatory unsourced lists naming congress people here. i scrub them when i see them.

      • MRW on June 12, 2015, 1:08 pm

        Someone on her staff’s head should roll.

        More career and reputation assassination? For what?

      • DaBakr on June 13, 2015, 12:12 am

        @mrw

        Just who do you imagine her “staff” consists of? You do know how notorious public radio is for playing next to nothing, especially for lowly staff. They more likely are underpaid college grads or non-payed interns. Blaming staff solely would be shameful. And I agreevintage think as america fires people for stupid this far too quickly and with no real process in place except political expediency

  9. MHughes976 on June 11, 2015, 5:44 pm

    There seems something Mccarthyite – and a hint of prejudice – about moving from ‘someone suggest we ask the question’ to ‘your name is on a list in our possession’ – unless, that is, the list can be produced and authenticated.

  10. ritzl on June 11, 2015, 9:15 pm

    I’m probably not going to say this right, but here goes anyway…

    One of the very best things that could come of this Sanders episode is a realization that Jewish politicians can and should take their lumps just like everyone else. A realization by Jews and non-Jews alike.

    What a great thing that would be. Ultimate assimilation.

    • DaBakr on June 11, 2015, 10:31 pm

      @rz

      your a fool if you think a Jew can get elected as a US president-even if a Black man and a woman could. I don’t know of anybody on the American political scene who seriously thinks a Jewish person could be elected. After the Joe Leiberman VP run and his wife Haddasa. , After Dukakis was slimed for his wife Kitty. Oh yes its just SO great that someone here is espousing on what one of the “best” things being that Jewish politicians should finally learn to take their lumps.

      What a 1st class ‘stupid person’ as tlknc likes to yell.

      • talknic on June 12, 2015, 12:27 am

        @ DaBakr June 11, 2015, 10:31 pm

        A Jew for President. Interesting. I wonder …… a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Rastafarian or any other minority religious group ….. Mmmmmm.

        Good olde religion free statistics indicate that odds are, it will never happen.

      • Schecky on June 12, 2015, 12:27 am

        What a sad and shallow sweeping statement. Just because you’re a bigoted gas bag doesn’t mean Jewish politicians are getting their lumps and Jews shouldn’t run for President. I see no reason why a Jew couldn’t be President, unless all voters are racist and they’re not.

      • annie on June 12, 2015, 12:37 am

        schecky, what other minority religious group (besides jewish) do you think might have a crack at the presidency? and i really don’t think an atheist could win, unless they lied and claimed they weren’t one.

      • oldgeezer on June 12, 2015, 12:42 am

        @Annie
        “and i really don’t think an atheist could win, unless they lied and claimed they weren’t one. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/israel-bernie-sanders#comment-147740

        Pretty sure that has happened more often than not.

      • just on June 12, 2015, 1:11 am

        A Rastafarian… hmmm.

        Just think of it~ callaloo in every pot! Peace, love, and justice for all.

      • just on June 12, 2015, 2:22 am

        I’m pretty sure that’s correct, oldgeezer.

        One might begin with Thomas Jefferson~ often characterized as a Deist, and and a man who studied assiduously and fought for religious liberty for all.

        (Boo alert: TJ had a Qur’an in his library. )

      • ritzl on June 12, 2015, 3:02 am

        DaBakr, if you think the reaction to Rehm’s implied question, whether she carelessly asserted it as a statement or not, is taking political lumps and working through it, you’re deluded. The reaction was that it should have never been asked, even though the facts are (the facts he knew or should have known) that he could well be (or have been) a citizen of Israel.

        Even Sanders was flustered, meaning he was completed unaware of the reality of his own situation and its implications. It’s not unfair to ask and he’s going to get asked again and again, until he comes to understand why it’s a legitimate question to ask a prospective President of the United States, and puts it to bed. That’s what I mean by “taking his lumps.”

        Responding with a chorus of “How dare you!” and forcing Rehm to apologize for the concept, as opposed to her method, is the opposite of “taking his lumps.”

        As for a Jewish President, no problem whatsoever, as long as this obscenely defensive, “Thou shalt not question me on this issue.” BS goes away. I voted for Jill Stein last time, largely because she and her platform were forthcoming on this issue. I’d vote for Sanders this time, if he would do the same. But running away from it doesn’t cut it. He runs away from this, he runs away from everything, meaning he’s an idea guy, not a President.

        BTW, a Jew saying a Jew will never be President is the very distillation of why you zios (not Jews) have no credibility on this issue, or any issue for that matter. You lead with paranoia, you immerse yourselves in paranoia, everything you do or say is twisted by that paranoia. It’s totally foreign to so many of us, yet it seeks to dictate where our kids should fight and die, among other things.

        I guess coming back to my original comment, Sanders has a chance, now in real time, to step well away from that paranoia and become embraceable (less foreign) by the huge reservoir of need and good-faith out here in the heartland that wants someone like him to step up. So far he’s not doing that.

        Seven months until New Hampshire. TBD.

      • talknic on June 12, 2015, 4:46 am

        @ Schecky I see no reason why a Jew couldn’t be President”

        Except of course odds are against any such minority

        “unless all voters are racist and they’re not”

        Ah yes …. statistics are so racist, sad and shallow. I understand your need

      • eljay on June 12, 2015, 6:59 am

        || Schecky: … I see no reason why a Jew couldn’t be President … ||

        Neither do I. There’s no reason any American of any religious / ethnic / cultural background should be barred from leading his country as long as he serves it and its citizens (his people).

      • just on June 12, 2015, 10:17 am

        @ ritzl June 12, 2015, 3:02 am

        +1!

        Well said, and thank you.

      • MRW on June 12, 2015, 1:19 pm

        your a fool if you think a Jew can get elected as a US president

        What an idiotic statement.

      • annie on June 12, 2015, 1:36 pm

        Pretty sure that has happened more often than not.

        i’m pretty sure there are lots of people who belong to a religion and don’t believe in god. not sure about ‘more often than not’.

        i think the future is an open book and anything can happen. but right now in this country i doubt a muslim could win the upcoming presidential election. i think if a progressive jew ran, someone like russ feingold, he could win. it would have to be someone that really appealed to the left. a neocon, not so much. and i don’t know much about bernie sanders but nothing about him strikes me as presidential. it has nothing to do with him being jewish, it has to do with that photo at the top of the page. just.not.presidential. whereas feingold i would vote for in a heartbeat.

        and there are a few jewish women i would definitely vote for, in a heartbeat. but they are not running for office.

      • just on June 12, 2015, 1:47 pm

        “whereas feingold i would vote for in a heartbeat.”

        Me too, Annie! Meanwhile, I’m supporting his Senate run.

        I so loved Paul Wellstone (RIP). He would have had my enduring support and vote.

      • MRW on June 12, 2015, 2:16 pm

        annie

        i don’t know much about bernie sanders but nothing about him strikes me as presidential

        Sanders put the brilliant Stephanie Kelton in as Senate Chief Economist last January when Sanders took over as the Democratic head of the Senate Budget Committee. I will overlook his reported verkaktah generational Izzy-love for that smart move. If he were elected and she became Treasury Secretary, life for average Americans in this country would change overnight. OK. Three to six months.

        There’s one thing you can say about him: he’s battle-worn. He understands how Congress works (16 years in the house as an outlier, eight years in the Senate). He’s scrappy. And he’s married to a nice Irish girl. ;-)

        You’re right though. He doesn’t appear presidential. When he first ran for office back in 1972, he lost everything. Then he ran for mayor in the early 1980s, using a credit card to fund his campaign. Beat the incumbent. He’s the little engine that could. Lincoln lost every election except the presidency, IIRC.

        EDIT: as Colonel Pat Lang wrote recently when he endorsed Bernie Sanders, and I paraphrase, So he’s a socialist? So what? What does that even mean in 2015?

        And, IMO, Feingold doesn’t have Sanders’ energy.

      • echinococcus on June 12, 2015, 2:19 pm

        Annie and Just,

        Considering that we are on Mondoweiss, it may be a good idea to research Feingold’s Zionist credentials before pledging your troth.

      • DaBakr on June 12, 2015, 7:41 pm

        @rtz

        another thing that cracks me up…

        you say something like “why you zio’s” , ‘ (not Jews) have no credibility.’

        You do realize that approx.. 94% of Jews in the world identify as Zionist. So when you say, “not Jews” you are referring to a tiny % of Jews and claiming that the bulk of Jews around the world are not Jews. I guess if you say it, it must be true. And people here say I’m weird.

      • talknic on June 12, 2015, 8:31 pm

        @ DaBakr “You do realize that approx.. 94% of Jews in the world identify as Zionist. “

        Source please

      • ritzl on June 12, 2015, 8:53 pm

        I don’t know what you mean by Zionist, DaBakr, but here’s a poll from the Washington Post/Pew (2013):

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/03/8-fascinating-trends-in-how-american-jews-think-about-israel/

        Your 94% number would appear to be wildly exaggerated. Here are the numbers as analyzed by Max Fisher (afaik, not a flaming anti-Zionist):

        4. Only one in three Jews feels strong “emotional attachment to Israel”

        • 30 percent of American Jews answered “very attached” when asked the level of their “emotional attachment to Israel.” 39 percent said “somewhat attached” and 22 percent said “not very attached,” with only 9 percent citing no attachment.

        • Still, that means 69 percent feel some meaningful level of attachment to Israel. More than half of every group answered either “very” or “somewhat” attached – except for secular Jews, who selected “very” and “somewhat” by 12 and 33 percent, respectively. This group makes up 22 percent of American Jews.

        • Orthodox Jews feel the strongest attachment, with 61 percent saying they feel very attached and 30 percent somewhat attached.

        That means that 31% of Jews in the US are “not very” or “not” attached to Israel. That would sure seem to rule them out as Zionists. That means that only 69% of US Jews may be Zionists of varying degrees of fervency and/or self-identity. The bottom line is that your 94% number is just wrong in any meaningful sense.

        Here are the results Fisher discusses:

        1. Sharp divide on whether Israel was “given to the Jewish people by God”.

        2. Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christian share skepticism of two-state solution

        3. Few trust Palestinian peace-making; Israel’s efforts also viewed skeptically

        4. Only one in three Jews feels strong “emotional attachment to Israel”

        5. No group supports settlements, but Orthodox come closest

        6. Most Jews feel Israel gets the right amount of U.S. support

        7. Most Jews approve of Obama’s handling of Israel

        8. “Caring about Israel” not a top feature of Jewish identity [Yikes.]

        Taken together, but especially #4 and #8, this all sure seems to suggest some really soft support generally, and that a distinction between Zionists and Jews is completely warranted. That’s the statistical evidence from 2013, pre Gaza Slaughter2014. They’re probably more skewed to the “not much”/”no” support end now, but that’s just speculation on my part.

        Anecdotally, you have the energy, reflectiveness, morality, and righteousness of non-/anti-Zionist Jews who post here vs., say for example, you. That gaping chasm of introspection, compassion, morality, and drive has to reflect similar dynamics in the greater Jewish “community” (sorry Mooser, I don’t know how else to say it. “Spectrum” maybe?), imho.

        I stand by the distinction and my statement.

      • just on June 12, 2015, 9:19 pm

        ritzl ~ here’s a recent poll released on Tuesday:

        …”The poll finds that very few Jewish Americans consider Israel or Iran to be among the country’s top priorities. Only 7% listed Israel as one of America’s top two priorities and only 6% mentioned Iran. 45% said that the economy is one of the country’s top two priorities, 29% cited ISIS and 25% opted for government spending and the deficit.

        The poll did not measure attitudes towards the Israeli government per se; 78% expressed support for an Iran deal compared to only 22% who opposed it, though critics could contend that the formulation of the question did not adequately represent the concerns of its opponents nor mention Israel specifically. …

        The poll found unequivocal support for a two-state solution by 72% of U.S. Jews. Eighty-four percent said they would support an “active role” by the U.S. to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Seventy percent of American Jews approve of the president publicly voicing disagreements with the parties to the conflict, provided he includes both sides; only 46% support voicing disagreements with Israel alone. Fifty-six percent lined themselves behind Obama’s public critique of Netanyahu policies on settlement growth and his Election Day “Arabs coming in droves” statement. Similarly, 69% support American pressure on the sides to the conflict, but only 44% support applying pressure on Israel alone – a figure that could be considered high in and of itself. …

        …Finally, according to the demographic makeup of the poll, 35% of adult American Jews are members of synagogues, but only 11% go to shul once a week or more. Ten percent are Orthodox, 20% Conservative and 37% Reform. Forty-one percent participate in any kind of Jewish activity and 43% have been to Israel.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.660584?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      • just on June 12, 2015, 9:39 pm

        Maybe DaBakr is ‘confused’.

        He writes: “You do realize that approx.. 94% of Jews in the world identify as Zionist.”

        Perhaps he was really thinking about this demographic:

        “Public support among Israeli Jews for the military campaign in Gaza has been overwhelming throughout its 24-day duration, with a recent opinion poll showing 95% of respondents believed the war was justified.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/israeli-polls-support-gaza-campaign-media

        Then that same demographic reelected Netanyahu and got the cabinet that nightmares are made of…

      • RoHa on June 13, 2015, 12:30 am

        No, Da Bakr, he is simply pointing out that the set of Zionists is not coterminous with the set of Jews.

        But if you are right that 94% of Jews are supporters of Israel, then you are saying that 94% of Jews are supporters of injustice and oppression, since we know that the existence of Israel is incompatible with justice and freedom. (We have been told this by no less an authority than the Prime Minister of Israel himself.)

        Saying that 94% of Jews are grossly immoral sounds a bit anti-Semitic to me, but the important thing is that it’s true. After all, you wouldn’t lie to me. You are one of the moral 6%, aren’t you?

      • DaBakr on June 13, 2015, 12:35 am

        You guys can cut up, dissect and parse the statistics I what you think Jewish support for Israeli policy is but your simply discussing the difference between Jews who differ on how to achieve peace through negotiations. A Zionist, for all practical discussion is someone who believed I the right of Israel to exist as the nation state and homeland of the Jewish people. As racist as you may think that is,i stand by the vast majority(far more then the ridiculous 3/4, which doesn’t ask anything about identifying as a Zionist. It basically asked:. Are you a left, far left, right, far right or independent on the issue of Israel. @rd simply changed the definition of Zionism to fit what his own notion of a Jew is. I would bet even phil wouldn’t dispute an 85-90% figure now. The difference is for PW-he had much faith that the younger generation of Jews will dramatically change this figure I the future. I don’t say he’s wrong but I don’t know how right he might be. A lot, or not so much?

    • just on June 11, 2015, 11:17 pm

      I would be grateful if the previously unquestioned loyalty of nearly ALL Congresspersons/Administrations to Israel would be on the table. It’s a conversation and topic that has been skirted for too long. Heck, it’s taken for granted, otherwise some folks can’t get elected! As the US doles out huge sums, vetoes, materiel, etc. to Israel, the questions need to be asked and answered.

      Everybody gets “vetted”~ even their ‘skeletons’ are picked over by the press, opposition groups, etc. There should be no exceptions, and imho, certainly not with regard to foreign policy, war- making, and potential biases. Personally, I worry very much less about what they do or don’t do in their bedrooms… like, not at all! (unless it hurts a child or an non- consenting person)

      • annie on June 11, 2015, 11:30 pm

        Everybody gets “vetted”~ even their ‘skeletons’ are picked over by the press, opposition groups, etc. There should be no exceptions, and imho, certainly not with regard to foreign policy, war- making, and potential biases.

        makes total sense. that’s what elections are for (vetting). i do however think there is a limit. this insistence obama was born in kenya after he was fully vetted verges into a kind of mania.

        but i’ll tell you, if 100’s congressmen were required chose to jaunt off to china as well as anyone on the list for presidential candidates and vp’s to get vetted by bejing, sometimes several times, there’d be some raised eyebrows. this kind of behavior (en mass) from our public officials is completely unnecessary not normal.

        and these private las vegas primaries by billionaires, sick.

      • just on June 11, 2015, 11:39 pm

        Agreed. This was a statement/question during an interview. Bernie Sanders had an opportunity to dispel internet rumors. Done. Breath of fresh air.

        The entire Obama/Kenya thing is/was completely different, imho. It was a well- funded attempt to derail his candidacy and his Presidency.

        I see no evidence of the same here.

        “if 100’s congressmen were required chose to jaunt off to china as well as anyone on the list for presidential candidates and vp’s to get vetted by bejing, sometimes several times, there’d be some raised eyebrows. this kind of behavior (en mass) from our public officials is completely unnecessary not normal.

        and these private las vegas primaries by billionaires, sick.”

        Bingo! Jackpot, Ms. Annie!

        (don’t know why the strikethrough didn’t copy. sorry!)

      • MRW on June 12, 2015, 1:22 pm

        but i’ll tell you, if 100’s congressmen were required chose to jaunt off to china as well as anyone on the list for presidential candidates and vp’s to get vetted by bejing, sometimes several times, there’d be some raised eyebrows.

        There would be real anger.

    • MRW on June 12, 2015, 1:12 pm

      take their lumps just like everyone else

      Hear. Hear.

  11. ckg on June 11, 2015, 9:53 pm

    CAMERA informed us that Rehm is Arab-American and learned the misinformation from the facebook page of StormFront. The Jewish Press informed us that Rehm is Arab-American and learned the misinformation from the facebook page of a Hamas sympathizer. The producers of The Diane Rehm show informed us that they actually learned the misinformation from a [now removed] comment on their own show’s Facebook page in this post.

    • MRW on June 12, 2015, 1:14 pm

      So CAMERA and The Jewish Press were right out-front to slime Rehm? And they got it wrong.

      • oldgeezer on June 12, 2015, 11:55 pm

        Very sloppy and unprofessional of those two propaganda outlets. I am sure yonah and debakr are busy typing their memos to the tribe demanding that heads should roll for this error.

      • DaBakr on June 13, 2015, 12:52 am

        Pretty funny @og.
        A) There was no “error”. , the original source for the list was and is Stormfront where all the big brainiacs hang out to discuss string theory. Someone on rehms staff received a Facebook post from someone who got or read the stormfrnt list and asked the staff if Rehm could question B.S. About his dual citizenship.

        B) don’t get cute. how would you know if yf is a member of my tribe? Read your history. There were 12 of them. (Bob Marley may have been a member as well)

  12. ckg on June 11, 2015, 11:40 pm

    O/T but interesting, Illinois Sen Mark Kirk, AIPAC’s #1 investment in Congress, was caught on open mike in the Senate saying about bachelor Sen Graham, “He’s a bro with no ho. That’s what we’d say on the South Side.” I’m bearish on the value of AIPAC’s investment.

    • just on June 12, 2015, 12:43 am

      From your prompt, ckg:

      “Washington (CNN)

      Sen. Mark Kirk said fellow Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham is a “bro with no ho.”

      While his remarks were perhaps less than diplomatic, however, they were no big deal to one of Graham’s presidential primary opponents. Speaking on CNN’s “Out Front” Thursday night, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum dismissed it as a “locker-room conversation” that people today aren’t afforded the “privilege” of having because of ubiquitous recording devices.

      “You can’t say anything off-mic, off-camera — and you know, guys’ll be guys when they’re sitting there up on a platform,” he said.

      Santorum demurred when asked whether Kirk should apologize, calling both he and Graham “decent folks” and the comments a “sort of funny remark.”

      “To me it’s disappointing that someone would say something like that. I’ll leave it up to Mark Kirk to determine whether he wants to apologize or not,” Santorum said.

      But as for the substance of the comments, Santorum said he didn’t think Graham’s lifelong bachelorhood should disqualify him from the presidency.

      “I think you elect the person to be president,” he said. “We’ve had bachelors before in the White House.”

      During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday, the Illinois senator was heard on the live microphone talking about the Republican presidential candidate.

      “I’ve been joking with Lindsey,” Kirk was overheard saying. “He’s going to have a rotating first lady. He’s a bro with no ho.”…

      …Kirk’s office told The Huffington Post, who first reported the story, that he was “joking around with his colleagues.”

      Last month, Kirk faced criticism after saying that he’d “drive faster” through black communities.

      In this recording, he was referring to comments Graham made earlier this week about who would become the first lady if he were elected president.

      “Well, I’ve got a sister, she could play that role if necessary,” said Graham in an interview with DailyMail.com. “I’ve got a lot of friends. We’ll have a rotating first lady.”…

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/politics/mark-kirk-lindsey-graham-presidential-election-2016/index.html

      The women in America should be so impressed, eh? Sheesh.

      • annie on June 12, 2015, 12:52 am

        omg. mark kirk is a walking disaster.

        and i seriously doubt the american people would elect a (rather transparently) closeted gay person for president. too retro.

      • MRW on June 12, 2015, 1:15 pm

        ‘Bro with no ho’ is funny. BFD.

  13. Nevada Ned on June 12, 2015, 1:24 am

    Speaking of “confirmed bachelor” Lindsay Graham….
    I sometimes wonder about that guy.

    Max Blumenthal, before writing Goliath (about the right-wingers in Israel) wrote another book, Republican Gomorrah, in which Max profiled a large number of right wing Republicans in the US, including a lot of evangelical Christians, politically conservative, who are also closeted gays. I was surprised at how many there are.

    And if LG is the Republican nominee, expect this story to go viral. Guaranteed!

    • MRW on June 12, 2015, 1:16 pm

      They even have their own party affiliation: Log Cabin Republicans.

  14. Laurent Weppe on June 12, 2015, 8:58 am

    Israeli right-wingers and their allies have spent decades claiming that they, and their voters were on the eve of becoming once again the hapless victim of genocidal antisemitism.

    Guess which politician ended up targeted by an actual antisemitic canard?
    A Goddamned self-avowed unapologetic Socialist.

    I…. am not surprised in the least.

  15. tony greenstein on June 12, 2015, 9:46 am

    If dual citizenship and dual loyalty are a canard in respect to American or British Jews, then the fault lies with the Israeli State and Zionism.

    Israel defines itself not as a state of its own citizens but as a state of the Jewish people, wherever they may live or be found. And that includes Sanders. So does Bernie Sanders reject this claim by Israel which is integral to the reason why there is no Israeli nationality.

    • MRW on June 12, 2015, 1:17 pm

      If dual citizenship and dual loyalty are a canard in respect to American or British Jews, then the fault lies with the Israeli State and Zionism.

      Yep.

  16. Kathleen on June 12, 2015, 1:22 pm

    Over the last 10 years Rehm has had guest after guest repeat the warmongers unsubstantiated claims about Iran. She has repeated those claims herself.

    This was a clumsy and stupid mistake. Making an affirmative statement instead of posing as a question was so irresponsible. However posting the “dual citizenship” question is worth while I believe. But all of our Reps should be willing to answer that question.

    What has taken Diane and others so long to ask this question of Reps?

    • ritzl on June 12, 2015, 5:46 pm

      Kathleen, and I bet she sometimes even asserted them in statement form. Yet no call for apologies, let alone “rolling heads.”

      How could such reckless behavior go completely unnoticed and unpunished for so long?

      Pfffffffft.

  17. lysias on June 12, 2015, 5:32 pm

    Justin Raimondo has a good piece on this issue at Antiwar.com: Dual Citizenship and US National Security: We need full disclosure from public officials.

    The piece has one revelation of which I was unaware:

    As for the issue of dual citizenship, particularly involving federal officials and specifically members of Congress, the direct relation of this matter to our national security is underscored by the case of Jane Harman. While serving in Congress, Harman was caught out by the National Security Agency having a conversation with an Israeli official in which she agreed to intercede on behalf of two AIPAC lobbyists who had been brought up on espionage charges. Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two longtime members of the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, had been accused of procuring sensitive information purloined from the Pentagon on Israel’s behalf.

    Harman was angling, at the time, to chair the House Intelligence Committee, and the New York Times reported that “One official who has seen transcripts of several wiretapped calls said she appeared to agree to intercede in exchange for help in persuading party leaders to give her the powerful post.” Those transcripts, according to the official, revealed that the Israeli caller “promised her that a wealthy California donor – the media mogul Haim Saban – would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post.”

    Rather than run for reelection under this cloud, Harman retired from Congress.

    • just on June 12, 2015, 5:58 pm

      Thanks for the link to Raimondo’s very good article. I remember the Harman treasonous scandal that was successfully disappeared/scuttled/ignored by the PTB.

      From your link:

      ““The lack of transparency regarding citizenship erodes trust in government, raising credibility doubts where there should be none, and allowing some apparent conflicts of interest to continue undetected.”

      So what’s the solution? Hager suggests 1) Dual citizens in Congress should recuse themselves from voting on issues where a conflict of interest might arise, e.g. a dual citizen of, say, Liberia, should not be voting on whether to increase aid to that country. And 2) The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress ought to publish this information, along with all the other facts they routinely gather – party affiliation, age, ethnicity, gender, etc. – about every member of each new Congress.”…

      &

      …”Israel represents a danger to the national security of this country: this is an incontrovertible fact, and no amount of “anti-Semitism”-baiting is going to obscure it. And that danger is growing, as the story of the Israeli spy-virus makes all too clear.

      In this context, dual US-Israeli citizenship among federal employees – including members of Congress – is a legitimate concern, and not only for law enforcement but also for voters. Just as a candidate for federal office must reveal the sources of their campaign funds, so they ought to be required to disclose their allegiance to a foreign government – no matter what country is involved.”

      I agree completely.

      • echinococcus on June 13, 2015, 4:56 am

        Just,
        How is one to make sure in the case of Israelis? Their government doesn’t disclose it. We’re left with a personal declaration. Very reliable, especially for people whose job is lying.

      • just on June 13, 2015, 8:59 am

        Since it’s a given that all candidates have to pay obeisance to Israel and visit, I guess we’ll have to ask to check their passport for the “sticker”:

        …”I learned that before any passenger ever gives up his luggage to the fine folks at Ben Gurion International, an employee places a neon yellow sticker on the back of your passport. On it is a 10-digit number. The first number, ranging from one to six, indicates your perceived threat level to whomever else you’re passed along.

        I got a five.

        After I got back, I relayed this story to some friends who were more experienced traveling to and from Israel. My ego deflated a little to learn I didn’t actually seem threatening, just more suspicious than average.

        For one, I’m not Jewish. That automatically raises some red flags in a country fraught with religious and cultural conflicts. I was also on assignment as a reporter, traveling alone, without so much as an estranged second cousin I could say I knew. The profiling alarms had to be blaring.

        The system isn’t official, just the sort of through-the-grapevine rumors that travelers seemed to have agreed is true. So I can’t know for sure what would have happened had I gotten a six. But looking back, maybe I don’t want to.

        As Lia Tarachansky wrote back in 2010 for Mondoweiss, while a one rating “is awesome,” a six indicates that “you’re f—–.” It appears to be reserved for Palestinians, Muslims, and hostile internationals.”…

        http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dont-tell-israels-famously-tight-175954628.html

        I get your point, though. And, there are no guarantees that the truth will come out. The US government needs to share the information about the citizenship of officials/candidates/appointees, imho.

    • dudu440 on June 13, 2015, 8:33 pm

      Raimondo writes: “Israel represents a danger to the national security of this country: this is an incontrovertible fact.”

      … and a lot of commenters here seem to agree.

      Excuse me, but since when are purported progressives so concerned for “the national security of this country”?

      First, full disclosure: Unlike Bernie, I am a dual citizen — I wanted to check out Israel 40-some years ago as a curious 23-year-old and stayed 10 years when I found I was able to do journalism and legal work that seemed meaningful and connected to my involvement in radical left opposition politics there (starting when Labor ruled, to be clear). So, being Jewish, citizenship was kind of inevitable. I suppose I could renounce it, but that would be merely symbolic, and the way things are going, it could prevent me from getting in when there’s a good reason to do so.

      But am I more “loyal” to Israel or to the U.S.? Wrong question altogether! I’m an internationalist, a socialist, an anti-imperialist. OK, all that is subject to interpretation — some other time. But the basic idea is that the nation-state, to which we supposedly pledge our supreme fealty by virtue of the accident of our birth, is a blip in human history, and the sooner it passes, the better. It has begat (begotten?) more extreme violence and other nonsense than anything else I can think of during its existence, including fundamentalism and racism — and that’s a lot.

      As far as I’m concerned, the more dual citizens of whatever countries, the better, if it can help overcome narrow nationalist thinking. Heck, get three or four passports if you can. I visited Poland last year, and I haven’t looked into it, but since both my grandfathers escaped persecution there, I hear, I might be eligible. Jews whose ancestors were expelled 500+ years ago can apply for Spanish citizenship. (Muslims should be invited too, but don’t hold your breath.)

      I digress some. So back to Sanders and dual loyalty: It’s correct that the Internet “list” of powerful dual Israeli-U.S. citizens is a canard of far, far right origin, and Rehm should be ashamed for swallowing it. But it also makes me wonder that so many writers here seem to have swallowed the part of that canard that considers “dual loyalty” as a real and major problem best addressed by demanding that we should be loyal to “America,” and not Israel. Since when is that a progressive world view?

      How about let’s be loyal to the people of all countries, the 99 percent, if you will, and work to unite their struggles against oppression of all sorts?

      • just on June 13, 2015, 9:24 pm

        “Excuse me, but since when are purported progressives so concerned for “the national security of this country”?”

        US foreign policy has been wrongheaded for a long time. People die and are killed for its waywardness. It’s all part and parcel of national security… I think that US/Western unconditional support for the crimes of Israel and the rank hypocrisy of US policy and actions is detrimental to lives all over the planet and to international law.

        Unconditional support for Israel is NOT progressive.

        Look at this mess:

        “Israel asks U.S. to increase aid to Druze in Syria
        Request made to U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey after Israel ruled out direct involvement.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.661025

        Meanwhile, Israel is aiding Al- Nusra, etc.

        Remember this? :

        “Druze IDF soldier attacked by Israeli Jews for speaking Arabic” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/?s=druze#sthash.5y8EBf54.dpuf

      • Jethro on June 13, 2015, 9:50 pm

        “I suppose I could renounce it, but that would be merely symbolic, and the way things are going, it could prevent me from getting in when there’s a good reason to do so. ”

        So when you “get back in,” do you envision a Jewish State, or do you envision a state where there are a lot of people with dual citizenship, say, with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran–you know, internationalists?

      • eljay on June 13, 2015, 10:56 pm

        || Jethro: So when you “get back in,” do you envision a … state where there are a lot of people with dual citizenship, say, with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran–you know, internationalists? ||

        Great question. I look forward to the (non-)answer.

        || dudu440: As far as I’m concerned, the more dual citizens of whatever countries, the better, if it can help overcome narrow nationalist thinking. ||

        So…when will you overcome your even narrower tribal thinking?

      • gamal on June 13, 2015, 11:38 pm

        ” the people of all countries, the 99 percent, if you will” that would be the 100% then, or are some people statistical error, (it would still be 100%)

        sad to see that people are ‘purported progressive’ sounds degenerative, radical left, no a radical leftist would have at the very least a little political education and not write vapid nonsense, non-citizen Jews have trouble getting in, should they need to do so? why? funny kind of safe haven then.

    • Kathleen on June 25, 2015, 10:04 am

      Thanks. Used to read Raimando all of the time. Need to start making that a habit again. Thanks again

Leave a Reply