Trending Topics:

In defense of Rashida Tlaib on charges of raising the ‘dual loyalty canard’

FeaturesUS Politics
on 73 Comments

I recently watched all four episodes of “The Lobby – USA”, the Al Jazeera documentary that was prevented from being aired by the government in Qatar, after intensive lobbying by pro-Israel groups and individuals from the US.  The fact that Qatar has been under serious pressure from Saudi Arabia, and was looking for powerful friends in Washington to counter this pressure, undoubtedly explains their refusing to release it.  Fortunately, the Electronic Intifada got a hold of it and made it available here).  In fact, I sat through this very long documentary (far too long in fact) right at the time that Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian-American new House representative from Michigan, became embroiled in a controversy over the “dual-loyalty” charge.  The juxtaposition of these two events was particularly interesting.

It all started with S1, the first bill the new Senate was to consider, a bill introduced by Florida Senator Marco Rubio.  It dealt with a number of issues related to the Middle East, but the most controversial element was language that would strengthen states’ abilities to pass anti-BDS legislation, of the kind that has already passed in 26 states.  Because of the government shutdown the Democrats have not allowed the bill to proceed to a vote, but what happens when (or should I say “if”?) the shutdown ends is unclear.  Bernie Sanders tweeted about what a ridiculous idea it was to push legislation that is both undemocratic and also so totally divorced from what legislators should be attending to now, specifically the shutdown.  In a tweet in response to Sanders’s, and supportive of it, Tlaib said:

“They forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away.”

Immediately Rubio tweeted back:

“This “dual loyalty” canard is a typical anti-Semitic line#BDS isn’t about freedom & equality, it’s about destroying #Israel”

Many other pro-Israel commentators then got on the “dual loyalty” bandwagon.  Howard Lovy put it like this:

“Not a week into it and @RashidaTlaib is already invoking the old anti-Semitic “dual loyalty” garbage. There are many things wrong with anti-BDS legislation, but when the first thing she raises is the ancient specter of Jewish disloyalty, you know this is going to be a rough ride.” (my emphasis)

There are two points about this “dual loyalty” charge I want to make.  (By the way, note the interesting discussion about the charge here). First, it’s particularly ironic that Zionists should be making this charge.  When Lovy (along with many others, see the article cited above) refers to the “ancient specter of Jewish disloyalty”, I take it he means in particular the standard anti-Semitic charge during the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe over the Emancipation of Jews from the ghettoes and their integration into civil European society as full citizens with full rights.  Anti-Semites considered Jews a nationality, a people, a race, and as such they could never be truly assimilated into European society.  The liberal democratic argument in response was to say that Jews can just as much be English, French, German, etc. as members of any other religious community. French Jews, on this view, are as legitimately considered full French citizens as French Catholics and Protestants.  Judaism is a religion, not a nationality.

But of course Zionism was founded on the Romantic nationalist idea that Jews really are a people apart from other peoples, and so historically shared a general outlook on the question of the relations between collectives and individuals with the right-wing and anti-Semitic camps.  Yes, we are a people apart, argued the Zionists, and that’s why we deserve to have a homeland and state of our own.  That this position leads inexorably to worries about “dual loyalty” is evident from the response to Zionism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from leaders of the Jewish community throughout Europe and the US that the doctrine of Jewish nationhood is extremely dangerous for the position of Jews in these countries.  They flat out rejected the Zionist-nationalist framework largely because it did rationalize the charge of dual loyalty.  So, for Zionists and their supporters to now trot out this charge of anti-Semitism in the guise of “dual loyalty” is hypocritical and cynical.

My second point relates directly to “The Lobby – USA”.  What comes through this documentary so clearly is how direct and seamless is the Israeli government’s control and guidance of the political activity of Zionist-Jewish institutions in the US.  AIPAC, The Israel Project, Stand With Us, the Israel American Council – and a host of other such organizations – have direct connections with the Israeli government, particularly its Ministry of Strategic Affairs.  The main thing they do now is target American citizens who criticize Israel – particularly those who support BDS – on behalf of the interests of the State of Israel.  When Rubio, Cardin, and the others in the anti-BDS camp introduce legislation like this recent bill, it is obviously being done at the behest of “the Lobby”, and the Lobby essentially works for Israel.  So when Tlaib reminds these senators who they are supposed to represent, it makes perfect sense.

Of course Tlaib, as her response above indicates, need not have meant that these guys are representing Israel, or the Lobby, when they should be representing their constituents.  She might really have just meant that they forgot who they are representing in the sense of forgetting the essential constitutional principles of the nation they represent.  Interpreting her as saying anything about dual loyalty is just another instance of smearing anyone opposing them as anti-Semitic.  But my point is that even if she did mean it that way, they themselves, in the behavior documented in “The Lobby – USA” and countless other places, clearly legitimate the charge.

So is it anti-Semitic to make this charge, even if it has the basis I say it has?  Well, for one thing, I hold the philosophical principle that the truth cannot be racist.  If it’s true, then it can’t be anti-Semitic to believe it.  But in fact, I think we can dispel even the smell of anti-Semitism by noting the inevitable and illegitimate slide made in Hovy’s remark above.  When he referred to “the ancient specter of Jewish disloyalty” he took a remark about these senators’ fealty to certain political organizations, with deep ties to the State of Israel, and slyly transferred them onto Jews in general.  Notice, the word “Jews” was not mentioned by Tlaib.  She has no problem with Jews.  She has a problem with Zionist organizations that are attempting to steer our domestic policy in a way that supports Israel’s interests.  What would indeed be anti-Semitic would be to conflate the interests and activities of the Lobby with that of Jewish Americans in general.  But it isn’t the left, or the BDS movement, that’s doing that. It’s the Zionists themselves, which gets back to my first point above.  Only if you see all Jewish Americans as basically members of the worldwide Jewish nation that is represented by the State of Israel would one connect the Lobby with Jews in general.  So what Hovy’s remark reveals is who the real anti-Semites are.

About Joseph Levine

Joseph Levine is Professor of Philosophy at UMass Amherst, member of the Academic Council of JVP, and member of Western Mass chapter of JVP.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

73 Responses

  1. echinococcus
    echinococcus
    January 13, 2019, 1:25 pm

    Damn the excuses, she is absolutely justified in raising a “dual loyalty” charge. More: there can be no “dual loyalty”. The charge must be that of disloyalty to the constituency’s interests and exclusive loyalty to the illegitimate, criminal Zionist entity.

    Instead of trying to defend Tlaib as not having meant this (against Rubio, of all Zionist stooges!), one should make crystal clear the obvious, i.e. that she should have said it, in so many words!
    That’s her job.

  2. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    January 13, 2019, 1:25 pm

    Personally, I suspect the Christian Zionists of having at least* a “dual loyalty”. I wonder what that makes me.

    * They might well have a triple or greater loyalty.

    P.S. SEE:
    “Rapture-Ready: How U.S. Policy Meshes With Armageddon”
    By Sandy Tolan | truthdig.com | June 9, 2018
    Brothers and sisters! Let us speak now of the return of Jesus to the Holy Land in a blaze of glory. For it is this fervent promise, I kid you not, that now drives the Middle East policy of the most powerful nation on earth . . .
    LINK – https://www.truthdig.com/articles/rapture-ready-how-u-s-policy-meshes-with-armageddon/

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson
      January 13, 2019, 1:47 pm

      P.P.S. RE: “They might well have a triple or greater loyalty.” – me (above)

      CORRECTION: Make that ‘a treble or greater loyalty’.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        January 13, 2019, 8:08 pm

        ‘a treble or greater loyalty’

        From tight underpants?

  3. annie
    annie
    January 13, 2019, 1:53 pm

    She might really have just meant that they forgot who they are representing in the sense of forgetting the essential constitutional principles of the nation they represent.

    Thank you joseph for this well thought out article. but i find it odd that you didn’t include Tlaib’s (well publicized) response to the charge. https://twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1082393245718581249

    Sen. Rubio, it’s clear my earlier tweet was critical of U.S. Senators like yourself, who are seeking to strip Americans of their Constitutional right to free speech.

    her response is perfectly consistent with her original tweet, (her original: This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order,) iow, it is “clear” what she meant.

    what i find most striking about this entire exchange is a congressperson (non jewish obviously) addressing supporters of this bill (a largely non jewish body, including rubio) is being accused of accusations of dual loyalty now.

    i don’t agree with the principle of dual loyalty necessarily being a bad thing because i think it’s a natural part of being human (as i have explained before w/my child of divorced parents analogy) , but certainly understand it as it pertains to the jewish community. but is it fair to apply the same standard to non jews?

    iow, if i (a non jew) accuse rashida of being more loyal to palestine than she is to america, is that anti semitic? if i accuse a non jewish christian zionist of being more loyal to israel than to america is that anti semitic? can one take the principals of the anti semitic trope and apply it to non jews just because it has to do with israel, even if the target of the accusation isn’t jewish?

    because if you call someone anti semitic because they say our congresspeople are more beholden to the israel lobby than to the constitution then why isn’t it anti semitic say our congresspeople are more beholden to the big pharma than to the constitution? whatever, it’s asking too much of people.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      January 14, 2019, 5:01 am

      annie: “what i find most striking about this entire exchange is a congressperson (non jewish obviously) addressing supporters of this bill (a largely non jewish body, including rubio) is being accused of accusations of dual loyalty now.”

      Well, they obviously need to smear anyone as antisemitic who claims that it is treacherous to support Israel at the expense of your own country. That’s just a way producing more traitors and also shielding them against accusations of treason.

    • Mayhem
      Mayhem
      January 14, 2019, 7:55 pm

      There is a distinction between friends and enemies when it comes to the issue of dual-loyalty. It is OK to have dual-loyalty to another nation that is perceived to be a friend, but when the other nation (or pseudo-nation as is Palestine) is perceived to be an enemy then dual-loyalty becomes questionable.
      During war-time support for Nazi Germany wasn’t tolerated as during the battle to defeat ISIS any co-operation with it has not been considered acceptable and even punishable.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        January 15, 2019, 7:19 am

        @Mayhem

        Not in Israel where dual citizenship holders may not serve in the Knesset unless and until they revoke their other citizenship holdings.

        In general your entire response is a crock. Dual citizenship is an issue. The degree to which it is considered an issue varies by country.

        Amusingly your reference to support for ISIS places both the US and Israel in the unacceptable category. I look forward to the punishment you feel is deserved for both.

      • annie
        annie
        January 15, 2019, 6:19 pm

        that makes sense mayhem. and it’s similar with russia. if one doesn’t like russia trumps a traitor, but if he did the same (or more like kushner did) with israel he’s not a traitor, he’s the best thing since sliced cheese.

        and towards people who oppose apartheid, if you call someone an israel firster, it’s anti semitic, but adelson can straight up say israel is first, and no one would call him a anti semite because he loves israel. so the tropes apply more broadly for enemies of the state regardless whether someone loves jews or not.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        January 15, 2019, 6:38 pm

        .” if one doesn’t like russia trumps a traitor”

        And if one likes Russia it gives Trump permission to break all sorts of US election and finance laws?

      • annie
        annie
        January 16, 2019, 12:18 am

        if one likes Russia it gives Trump permission to break all sorts of US election and finance laws?

        no, i think trump massively screwed up, and i say this as someone not following the saga closely. but he hired that israeli spy team (i don’t even know what for) and that in itself is a big no no. it’s not ok to break election laws or finance laws, my point is, there’s a difference between breaking laws and breaking laws because you’re a traitor. no one, like kushner, gets accused of being a traitor by getting a big fat loan from an israeli bank ever so coincidentally before we put our embassy in jerisalem. and if you did you’d be accused of anti semitism (trope-ville!). they might figure out he did something unethical or illegal, but they wouldn’t say it’s treasonous (working for the other country).

        as i mentioned i am not following this closely. but trump is all about making money and deals (not very good at it tho!) and rich guys always do business w/rich guys. but when they are russian rich guys they are called oligarchs. but we don’t call adelson an oligarch. you won’t find anyone charging the gop pacs or trump committing treason over dealing with that oligarch. that’s my point.

  4. Citizen
    Citizen
    January 13, 2019, 2:31 pm

    Astute essay, Mr. Levine. A tweet link to it here should be sent to every Congressional person’s Twitter account, with appropriate text & hashtags. And for anyone with a Twitter account not blocked by AIPAC, send it there too.

  5. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    January 13, 2019, 3:42 pm

    The plan or proposal to give federal US backing to individual US states who make the boycott beyond the pale of free speech is certainly questionable. Until someone shows me a precedent regarding boycotts being illegalized in some way in the US, it seems to me to be a pure case of limits of free speech and as such Congress should make no laws limiting free speech. Every heckler knows there are some speakers who deserve to be heckled and such a mindset can get out of hand and confusing regarding the rights of free speech. But the US Congress cannot be such a heckler.

    Rashida Tlaib as such is on the right side of the debate. The vulnerability of Aipac (and crew) on this issue is so wide open that anything Tlaib might tweet would find unprotected flesh. She does not mind controversy and it seems to me that her tweet was well thought out and controlled to maximize offense regarding dual loyalty and at the same time to be a defensible innocuous statement. If she had wished to minimize offense regarding dual loyalty, her attack would have led off with the constitution and stuck to the constitution. Her “they forgot what country they represent” was bound to draw criticism of this nature, was designed to draw criticism of this nature and also designed to be defensible. it was a good chess move.

    The fact that aipac helped the republican party to put this issue on the agenda at this moment strikes me as a poor chess move. if one is interested in maintaining the facade of bipartisan support, which seems to be aipac’s ostensible position, one should minimize the conflict between republicans and democrats, whereas particularly the timing here seems to be particularly designed to undercut the claim to bipartisanship. i wonder whether this is netanyahu helping the republicans at the moment of his last campaign for prime minister, that he does not know when the long range interests of israel should take precedence over the atmosphere he wishes to create for his victory on april 9th. i think it is against israel’s long range interests and netanyahu does not care about those interests he is focused on the next 90 or so days.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      January 13, 2019, 5:45 pm

      . “But the US Congress cannot be such a heckler.”

      “Yonah” why do you insist on repeating the libel that Rep. Tlaib
      was cursing a blue streak in the House of Representatives?

    • annie
      annie
      January 13, 2019, 6:32 pm

      yonah, there are 4 co sponsors of this bill one being ben cardin, a democrat. i can’t recall the other two, but they are probably 1 dem and 1 gop. and i know schumer supports it. it’s not just aipac and the gop. and here in the state of california dems were all over it too. so it’s a bipartisan bill. it’s just more heavily weighted by the gop, as is unlimited support for all things israel.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 13, 2019, 7:00 pm

        From Rubio’s web site:

        Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), James Risch (R-ID), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) today introduced the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019 (S. 1). This legislation would make improvements to defense and security assistance provisions in the Middle East, bolster the U.S.-Israel strategic alliance by authorizing security assistance to Israel over a 10-year period pursuant to the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding, reauthorize the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act of 2015, provide new authorities for sanctions against Syria’s Assad regime and its supporters, and empower state and local governments in the United States to counter the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement’s discriminatory economic warfare against the Jewish state.

  6. scott9854958
    scott9854958
    January 13, 2019, 8:26 pm

    We need to get to a point where these accusations are met with three words, acronym gfy. There really is no other proper response. Defending yourself just hands them the victory.

    I’d also like to point out that the Zio lobby is involved right now in a coordinated Twitter hit on Tulsi Gabbard. A lot of the usual suspects are there, lobbing the standard blood libels (tool of Putin, tool of Assad, etc). So, they’re fine with accusations of dual-loyalty, when they’ve got the mic.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      January 14, 2019, 2:39 am

      Scott,

      Best comment so far. The exclusive Zionist loyalty of the entire bunch must be denounced in the strongest words, Tlaib must be encouraged to do it, and the worst possible policy is that of writing nonsense articles to “defend” her from having sais what she should (but hasn’t quite!)

  7. Nathan
    Nathan
    January 13, 2019, 9:05 pm

    You would think that a professor of philosophy would be aware of some of the basic definitions, but alas the anti-Israel obsession has apparently confused Prof. Levine as well. Yes, Prof Levine, “Judaism is a religion, not a nationality”. However, in your entire article you are writing about the Jews, not about their religion (Judaism). The Jews, as any professor of philosophy understands, are not a religion (which is an abstract idea); rather, the Jews are human beings. Now, some of the Jews define themselves as an ancient people, and they believe that the Land of Israel is the geographic point of reference of their peoplehood. Obviously, there are other Jews who disagree. That’s life. However, the self-definition of Jews as a peoplehood is a state of mind, just as the national identity of others is just a state of mind – hence, Jews have the right to define themselves as a national community just as others have such a self-definition. So, you’re absolutely right that the religion of the Jews (Judaism) is a religion; but your use of “Judaism” as a synonym of “Jews” is manipulative. You wish to say that the Jews aren’t a people (a nation), but that is an issue of debate. By suddenly switching the subject to “Judaism”, you think that you can make a statement that is undeniably true (indeed, Judaism is a religion). But you’re being dishonest. The issue is the identy of Jews.

    Speaking of dishonesty, your claim that “Zionism was founded on the Romantic nationalist idea that Jews really are a people apart from other peoples” was also manipulative. You wished to leave the impression that the sense of having a distinct peoplehood identity is derived from Zionism. Well, I think that a professor of philosophy should be aware of the fact that most Jews defined themselves as a people distinct from other peoples. The Bund, for example, was really the largest of all the ideologies in the Jewish world before the Holocaust – and it was also anti-Zionist. However, even the Bund defined the Jews as a distinct people (a nationality).

    Since you brought up the issue of Judaism, need I remind you how Judaism (the religion of the Jews) defines the Jews? You’re a professor of philosophy, so I’m certain that you know all about these things. But for the sake of the general reading public, I’ll just remind everyone that Judaism defines the Jews as a people, a nation. Obviously, Judaism is the creation of the Jews, so the Jews are actually defining themselves. They call themselves “the people of Israel” and “a holy nation”. They say in synagogue statements such as “because of our sins we were exiled from our land”. So, again, you’re absolutely right that Judaism is a religion – but there are Jews now and throughout history who seem to think that they are an exiled nation. I’m certain that this was mentioned in “Philosophy 101”.

    • JWalters
      JWalters
      January 14, 2019, 12:37 am

      This is intellectual slop trying to appear erudite. It’s the classic Zionist tactic of attacking the credibility of the messenger rather than address the message. (In the documentary on the Israel Lobby one of the Zionists brazenly explains how they use this tactic.) Here the facade is to nit-pick at definitions as if they were pertinent to the author’s case (which they are not), and wrap it in half-history. In sum, desperate drivel.

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        January 16, 2019, 8:35 am

        Now that you’ve dismissed Jewish self-definition, follow through by doing the same with that twentieth-century invention called Palestinian self-definition. First, though, set the whole topic aside and unpack nationhood into its components. All of Jewry until the Western Enlightenment, and the eastern-Ashkenazi and Mizrahi communities long after, had those components: language, law, literature, custom, culture, and even calendation, cuisine, and so on. I left out religion to show that Jewish nationhood existed, and exists in Israel, almost irrespective of religion. Now back to Palestinian nationhood. Its only substantive characteristic is self-definition, which you contemptuously deny to the Jews. Intellectual slop indeed.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 16, 2019, 9:43 am

        Naftush: “… follow through by doing the same with that twentieth-century invention called Palestinian self-definition.”

        Allow me to follow through:
        “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August 1924 shall become Palestine citizens.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Citizenship_Order,_1925

        A classic case for a constitutive people. Now follow throgh by doing the same with the age old invention called Jewish self-definition.

        Naftush: “All of Jewry until the Western Enlightenment, and the eastern-Ashkenazi and Mizrahi communities long after, had those components: language, law, literature, custom, culture, and even calendation, cuisine, and so on.”

        Exactly, the relevant component is missing: A territory which could define the people of a country or what is called nationhood in any legal relevant sense, especially in post-colonial times. Do you know what Jews were called in Palestine? A “nationality WITHIN citizenship”. That’s not the same as being the nation of a territory/state (like French, German, etc.).

      • eljay
        eljay
        January 16, 2019, 10:14 am

        || Naftush: Now that you’ve dismissed Jewish self-definition, follow through by doing the same with that twentieth-century invention called Palestinian self-definition. … ||

        Palestinian: A person living in or up to n-generations removed from geographic Palestine.

        Jewish: A person living in or up to n-generations removed from geographic “Jewish State”.  A person who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism or is descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

        A Palestinian state can be inclusive. A “Jewish State” can only be religion-supremacist.

        But you already knew this.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        January 16, 2019, 1:05 pm

        ” Exactly, the relevant component is missing”

        An even bigger component is missing: authority over “the Jewish people” by “the Jewish nation” is completely nonexistent.

        A nation that (outside of Israel) cannot demand anything of its people? Has no power of coercion? Some nation.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        January 16, 2019, 1:15 pm

        That “Naftush” Zionist station again.

        Let’s skip his putting more egg than usual all over his face, given that Palestinians are obviously defined by the very objective geographic fact of their ancestral and continued residence, and kinship ties, in Palestine (well, call them some other -ians if you want to rename the place…)

        Now his other monstrosity:

        “All of Jewry until the Western Enlightenment, and the eastern-Ashkenazi and Mizrahi communities long after, had those components: language, law, literature, custom, culture, and even calendation, cuisine, and so on”

        Yeah. I’m also throwing in another group he forgets. Anyway, Language: a German dialect with Slavic structural elements, versus 15th C Spanish, vs. Arabic. No common ground. Law: Russian-Polish vs Ottoman. No common ground. Literature: Germanoslavic (Yiddish) vs Spanish vs Arabic. No common ground. Customs: absolutely no common element (not even much in common in their liturgy, fercryinoutloud.) Culture: looks like this guy only knows Lejlís (=”Poles”, our word for the Eskenazi), not anyone else! No relationship at all. Cuisine: oh. Well, you’ll be hard put to find anyone from my parts who’ll eat Eskenazi food more than just once. Well, bagels are OK I suppose. Also, one signature “Jewish” dish famous in our countries is peppers stuffed with shrimp. Try that on your Rebbe’s pianola.

        Again: I’m still waiting for all these Jewish-identity guys, Zionists and “non”, to produce one single non-liturgical common element. One.

      • JWalters
        JWalters
        January 16, 2019, 7:26 pm

        Thanks all for those solid factual and conceptual refutations of Naftush’s additional serving of intellectual slop. I love seeing pompous nonsense get so thoroughly thrashed!

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        January 16, 2019, 8:58 pm

        So you are pretending you haven’t seen all the comments in which I draw a distinction between p-nations (political organizations), n-nations (the tribal group with a territory), and c-nations(a very loose group with cultural links).

        Well, I can’t track them down now, so you are spared a bunch of links.

        Talkback has pointed out the lack of a territory, and Echinococcus has dealt with the alleged common elements of Jewish nationhood, so I will simply add a point about language.

        Sometimes, in this context, it is claimed that Hebrew was the common language, but actually it was no more the common language of Jews than Latin was the common language of Catholics or Sanskrit the common language of Hindus.

        “Now back to Palestinian nationhood.”

        I really don’t care about Palestinian n-nationhood. As far as I am concerned, n-nationhood is morally irrelevant. I don’t know why Zionists think it is so important.

        That said, “Its only substantive characteristic is self-definition,’doesn’t seem quite right. The group lived on a territory (Palestine), had a common language (Arabic), and had culture, customs, and cuisine.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      January 14, 2019, 1:48 am

      I’m pretty sure you don’t understand what Levine is saying. Here’s a summary.

      1. ‘Anti-Semites considered Jews a nationality, a people, a race.’
      2. As such, Jews could not be fully part of the European societies they were born into.
      3. And so their loyalty was more likely to be to “the Jewish people” than to France, Germany, etc.
      4. The liberal democratic response was that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality, just as Catholicism is a religion, not a nationality.
      5. It is Judaism that makes Jews Jewish,just as Catholicism makes Catholics Catholic and so Jews are no more an alien nation than Catholics are.
      6. Thus Jews can be loyal Frenchmen, Germans, etc., just as Catholics can.
      7. The Zionists agreed with the anti-Semites that Jews are a nationality, a people, a race.
      8. The Zionist position ‘leads inexorably to worries about “dual loyalty”’.
      9. For the Zionist to accuse people of anti-Semitism when those people suggest “dual loyalty”is hypocritical and cynical.

      So there is no suggestion that “Judaism” is being used as a synonym of “Jews”.

      Levine is not trying to say that “the Jews aren’t a people (a nation)”. He leaves the question open, and simply shows what follows from accepting the Zionist view that they are.

      • annie
        annie
        January 14, 2019, 2:02 am

        i do appreciate you RoHa.

      • JWalters
        JWalters
        January 14, 2019, 3:16 am

        RoHa, an excellent summary of Levine’s article, and an extremely generous interpretation of Nathan’s post.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      January 14, 2019, 2:01 am

      Now let us look at your claims.

      “However, the self-definition of Jews as a peoplehood is a state of mind, just as the national identity of others is just a state of mind – hence, Jews have the right to define themselves as a national community just as others have such a self-definition.”

      First, why do you think Jews or anyone else have “the right to define themselves as a national community.” What principle is this alleged right based on?

      Second, and more importantly, even if the Jews define themselves as a national community,it doesn’t necessarly mean they are one.

      They could define themselves as Kings of Infinite Space, but that won’t bring the Golgofrinchans to pay tribute.

      They could define themselves as the famous West Brisbane Gentlemen’s Cheesecake Photography Club, but that definition won’t lead to photographs of Margaret Basset’s knickers.

      (Perhaps it is time for you to take “Philosophy 101”again. You will discover that the self definition of Jews does not constitute a major part of the course.)

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      January 14, 2019, 2:05 am

      Finally, if you accept the idea that Jews actually are a distinct people, an exiled nation, then you should sympathize with those who suspect Jews of having greater loyalty to “the Jewish people” than to their countries of residence and citizenship.

      • annie
        annie
        January 14, 2019, 2:53 am

        not sure logic will prevail here RoHa.

        many hardwired for *trope* mentality.

      • JWalters
        JWalters
        January 14, 2019, 3:19 am

        Good point. Where would stealing nuclear material from their country of residence and citizenship fit into that?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        January 14, 2019, 9:13 pm

        Alas, logic seldom prevails anywhere. Very dispiriting for one who has spent so many years teaching the basics of reasoning.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      January 14, 2019, 4:40 am

      Nathan, your Zionist obsession has apparently confused you.

      Levine claims that “Judaism is a religion, not a nationality” was the “liberal democratic argument in response” to the racist argument made by Zionists and antisemites which claim that Jews could never belong to a nation (like the French), because they were a race (“foreign body”) of their own instead of simply being members of a religious community (or “nationality”) WITHIN a nation. He concluded that “for Zionists and their supporters to now trot out this charge of anti-Semitism in the guise of “dual loyalty” is hypocritical and cynical.” because it was their own RACIST interpretation of Jews being a “people” or a “nation” that co-enabled the accusation of “dual loyalty”.

      You obviously have nothing to say against this conclusion. Instead you prefer to confuse us with your either illegaly relevant or blatantly racist definitions of “peoplehood” or “nationhood”. However Jews want to define themselves they are not a people or nation like the French or the people of any other country. Because belonging to a “nation” in the relevant an legal sense of the matter means nothing else than having “full citizenship” in this country. But nobody can become “Jewish” by acquiring the citizenship of any country. One become “Jewish” by religous conversion. Go figure.

      And that’s also the reason why Israel is a racist state, because it claims that only its Jewish citizens are nationals (citizens with full rights). What it perversly calls “citizens” does NOT include the principle of “full citizenship”. Anyone who isn’t “Jewish” in Israel is considered to be a “foreign body” as much as antisemites consider Jews to be a “foreign body” in any other state than Israel.

      The existence of the state of Israel IS a racist endeavour and whoever puts its interests above the interest of their own country can be rightfully accused of having dual loyalty whether he/she is Jewish or not.

    • eljay
      eljay
      January 14, 2019, 7:46 am

      || Nathan: … The Jews, as any professor of philosophy understands, are not a religion (which is an abstract idea); rather, the Jews are human beings. … ||

      I agree: Jews are human beings. Jews are not exceptional beings and are not entitled to exceptional rights.

      Judaism is a religion and Jewish is the religion-based identity that can only be acquired by:
      – undergoing a religious conversion to Judaism; or
      – being descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

      People are free to self-determine as Jews and Jews are free to define themselves however they like. Contrary to the assertions of Zionists, that self-determination / definition does not comprise a right:
      – to a supremacist state of any kind; or
      – to do evil unto others.

      You would think that a seemingly-intelligent human being like you would understand this.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      January 14, 2019, 9:34 am

      @Nathan

      “…but there are Jews now and throughout history who seem to think that they are an exiled nation.” Just because they “think that they are an exiled nation” does not make it so.

      Religion is not a nationality and the ancestors of the majority of today’s Jews never set foot in the lands between the River and the Sea.

      For the record:
      Prior to Islam most Arabs were nomadic and pagan. Many, however, had adopted Judaism when Jewish travelers, especially during the two centuries before Christianity, were energetically proselytizing in the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Africa, e.g., the Falasha of Ethiopia and the “black Jews” of Malabar. (Max L. Margolis and Alexander Marx, A History of the Jewish People, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1927, p. 525) Nor should we forget the forced conversion to Judaism of native Palestinians in the Galilee by the Maccabees circa 140 B.C.

      The origin of Yemeni Jews can be traced back to the late fourth century CE, when the King of the South Arabian Kingdom of Himyar had his subjects adopt Judaism after he accepted the teachings of itinerant Jewish missionaries. (Michael Rice, False Inheritance, p.62)

      Eager converts to Judaism were also found in North Africa, mainly among the Berbers and as a result, “In all the great cities strung out along the southern Mediterranean littoral, Jewish communities were numerous, powerful, rich and highly cultured. From this rich stratum the later communities in Muslim lands and in Europe were to draw abundantly.” (Ibid)

      With the advent of Christianity, Judaism ceased its enthusiastic pursuit of converts. “Monotheism was now carried to the pagan world by the disciples of Jesus (and later by Islam). The apostle Paul, born Saul of Tarsus, removed the ceremonial law and freed those who were willing to accept Christianity from the minute formalization of the ancient worship of Yahweh. Judaism now concentrated on keeping its own flock.” (Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel?, p. 7)

      the Zionist claim that descendants of those Jews expelled from Palestine by the Romans have lived apart throughout the world for nearly two millennia and not intermingled with people outside of their religion is absurd. In the words of David Ben-Gurion: “‘race’ does not unite Jewry since the ancient people dissipated after so much dispersion.” (Philippe de Saint Robert, Le Jeu de la France en Mediteranee (1970), p.182)

      BTW: Members of the Bund viewed Zionism as a “bourgeois ideology, a reactionary regression from progress….” Inevitably, the Bund was vilified by the rabbinical establishment, the Zionists and the Russian social democrats, but it remained active in Eastern Europe (especially Poland) until silenced by the Nazis.” (Benjamim Beit-Hallahmi, Original Sins, p. 47)

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      January 14, 2019, 3:31 pm

      “However, the self-definition of Jews as a peoplehood is a state of mind, just as the national identity of others is just a state of mind –”

      Yeah, okay, so then why not order Jews, as those of almost every other ‘nationality’ do in their nation’s rubric, to pay taxes to The Jewish State, serve in its armed forces, or subordinate their lives to the needs of the Jewish nation?

      And come to think of it, why are so many people fleeing the ‘Jewish nation’?

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      January 14, 2019, 7:19 pm

      Going back on my “finally”, I will add a further comment.

      Nathan, you want to peddle the idea that the Jews are a “nation”, and my guess (you can correct me if I am wrong) is so that you can then follow it up with the Zionist idea a nation deserves or is entitled to a state of its own.

      However, I have never seen an argument for the claim that a nation deserves or is entitled to a state of its own. Do you have such an argument?

      If not, it really doesn’t matter whether Jews are or are not a “nation”. We have no reason for thinking that putative nationhood has any moral implication.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        January 15, 2019, 12:43 pm

        “RoHa” you may notice that “Nathan’s” formulation of the “Jewish Nation” only imposes the burdens of that nationhood on others and never says what obligations ‘the Jews’ must meet (out of simple necessity) if the “nation” is to survive.

  8. JWalters
    JWalters
    January 13, 2019, 11:56 pm

    I also recommend watching the documentary on the Israel lobby, and also recommend watching one (or two) of the four parts at a sitting. But there’s nothing like listening to dishonest people talking openly about their tactics of deception! It demolishes their pious public claims.

    It also shows how ordinary, banal, and arrogant are the people trying to destroy one of America’s (and the world’s) priceless possessions, the freedom to criticize and protest government actions.

    This case is so obvious any 10 year old can understand it. The groundless accusations of anti-Semitism are merely desperate insults, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

    I took an oath to protect the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Rubio and his fellow traveling Zionists are enemies of that Constitution, without a shadow of a doubt. Rubio and every other person in Congress who is attacking the Constitution’s 1st Amendment deserves to be impeached. They would mentally enslave the next generation and set human rights back over 200 years.

    All for a shameful pittance of campaign dollars, and because a few people with an absurd amount of ill-gotten money want to set the world back over 2000 years. The system clearly needs a course correction, starting with all these traitors going to prison.

    Rashida Tlaib’s statements on this issue are impeccable.

  9. gamal
    gamal
    January 14, 2019, 3:39 am

    “Of course Tlaib, as her response above indicates, need not have meant that these guys are representing Israel, or the Lobby, when they should be representing their constituents”

    of course that is possible she could also have meant it’s about time you “bun dem down”

    “if they see the youths dem gun dem down

    see the fire bun dem down” Capelton should reach your houses.

    https://youtu.be/t-F_mJ-W7eM

  10. Argonne18
    Argonne18
    January 14, 2019, 7:57 am

    For those of us who have watched the courageous and spot on documentary, The Lobby, (linked above) the activities of the Zionist lobby, their supporters, and their silent enablers, go far beyond dual loyalty, and are much more truthfully described as a Fifth Column. They work to take money, resources and even basic freedom of speech away from America, for the benefit of, and under the direction of a foreign country. Interestingly, Mondoweiss the site, and its staff, are targeted by this oppressive Fifth Column’s thuggish arm, the Canary Mission, for daring to voice opposition and truth telling. The Zionist’s, under Israel’s thuggish direction, will even devour its own.

  11. Dan From Away
    Dan From Away
    January 14, 2019, 8:18 am

    What is the significance for the discourse that Senator Marco Rubio, who is not Jewish, has publicly accused a fellow Congressperson of antisemitism?

    “This “dual loyalty” canard is a typical anti-Semitic line#BDS isn’t about freedom & equality, it’s about destroying #Israel” (Rubio)

    I recall several years back a Catholic cardinal or bishop claimed that the accusations against priestly pedophilia was as damaging as the charge of antisemitism but other than that incident I am not aware of the charge ever being leveled by anyone who was not either Jewish, Israeli or Zionist. What are the qualifications for leveling the charge of antisemitism? Can anyone do it?

    Message to Hasbara Central: Please, avoid countering with the argument that Rubio didn’t actually ACCUSE Congresswoman Tlaib of antisemitism but rather merely pointed out that her words were “typical” of antisemitic speech. The charge has been weaponized and should not be available to ANY individual to level without clear, articulable evidence and sane definitions.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      January 14, 2019, 10:13 am

      @Dan From Away, et al

      Re: “Hasbara Central”:

      https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190105-source-of-pro-israel-guerrilla-warriors-on-social-media-exposed/

      “Source of pro-Israel guerrilla warriors on social media exposed” Middle East Monitor, January 5/19 – By Nasim Ahmed.

      “A number of prominent Jewish-American leaders are funding covert, anonymous campaigns targeting pro-Palestinian student activists, The Forward has found. The Jewish daily newspaper, which has been publishing valuable information concerning the source of funding for these hyper-aggressive and shadowy groups – which spearhead coordinated hate campaigns against critics of the Zionist state – has uncovered the identities of those behind hidden social media accounts.

      “Community heads and prominent Jewish organisations with a carefully-crafted, respectable public profile have donated millions to fund secret projects targeting students and lecturers, the report has found. On a number of occasions, their blind support for Israel has seen them bankroll far-right and anti-Muslim hate groups.

      “The latest pro-Israeli group to be exposed by The Forward is the campaign targeting the pro-Palestinian campus network Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). SJP is said to be the most well-known advocate of the Palestinian cause on US campuses. It has been the target of a pro-Israel group known as SJP Uncovered, which anonymously attacks student activists affiliated with SJP across the country. With more than 100,000 followers on Facebook, SJP Uncovered has gone after pro-Palestinian students by maintaining a veil of anonymity that is said to be all-but impenetrable.

      “Until now, the source of funding for SJP Uncovered had been a mystery. The Forward has now been able to shed light on the organisation to reveal that the site is a secret project of the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), a Washington DC-based pro-Israel organisation tied to most mainstream funders and organisations in the Jewish community.
      (Read: UK pro-Israel charity investigated for anti-Corbyn campaign)

      “On its official website, the ICC says that its vision is to create a campus environment where ‘dialogue and ideas are freely exchanged about Israel.’ Publicly, the ICC presents a respectable face typical of nearly all pro-Israeli groups, but privately it is funding one of the most aggressive and shadowy student groups responsible for hateful campaigns against critics of the Zionist state. The Forward revealed that the ICC paid over $1 million in the 2016/2017 fiscal year to SJP Uncovered, in that time also running vicious campaigns against students with the aid of political consulting firms.

      “Until around 2014, the ICC is said to have been a standard pro-Israel advocacy group receiving donations from the largest and most mainstream Jewish-American foundations. In 2015, its operations changed to ‘covert, anonymous campaigns targeting pro-Palestinian student activists, often with the help of top-tier paid professional political consultants,’ according to the investigative report.

      “Describing the change in focus, one former pro-Israeli campus official said: ‘It was clear that the old way of doing business […] was not making the cut, and was not enough, and there was a totally new offensive approach to things.’ He added: ‘The overall framing was [that] the pro-Israel community is no longer going to sit back and let things happen, they are going to go on the offense […]’ It was very clear that going on the offensive to them meant going after students and the organizations that were bringing BDS.” (Read: Canada charity used donations to fund Israel army bases)

      “With the change in emphasis in 2015 towards more aggressive campaigns, the ICC began hiring paid political consultants – including opposition researchers – to work on campuses. It transformed itself into a cog in what is often described as Israel’s secret global war against pro-Palestinian activists, which is operated by a dedicated ministry in Tel Aviv known as the Ministry of Strategic Affairs. Its main function is to spearhead Israel’s overt and covert efforts to smear the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that is modelled on the global campaign that helped end Apartheid in South Africa. In November, the Electronic Intifada published in full an undercover Al Jazeera documentary that revealed some of the ministry’s tactics. The documentary was censored, allegedly after Israel lobby pressure on Qatar, which funds Al Jazeera.

      “SJP Uncovered is one of many pro-Israel organisations to emerge from a new consensus within sections of the Jewish-American community. They believed that defeating the global BDS movement was a key priority, which could only be achieved through aggressive means. Such tactics, however, not only risked falling foul of the rules of respectable public institutions, it was bad for their image. The solution for Zionist and pro-Israel groups, both in the US and Israel, was to adopt secretive and clandestine tactics against their targets in an effort to protect their reputation. One of the best known of these operations is the formerly-anonymous website Canary Mission, which posts political dossiers on college students. The site went live in 2015, and has since grown to include dossiers on thousands of students.

      “A series of Forward exposés in October revealed that a foundation controlled by the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, a major Jewish charity with an annual budget of over $100 million, had donated $100,000 to the website, whose work has drawn comparisons to a McCarthyite blacklist. An Haaretz profile of the Canary Mission found that, for three years, the website had spread fear among undergraduate activists by posting more than a thousand political dossiers on student supporters of Palestinian rights. At the same time, the website had gone to great lengths to hide the digital and financial trail connecting it to its donors and staff. Registered through a secrecy service, the site had been untraceable until recently.

      “While the federation had assured that it was a ‘one-time grant’ that would never happen again, the uncovering of a publicly respectable pro-Israel organisations giving funds to operate clandestine hate campaigns against pro-Palestinian activists triggered further investigations. The Canary Mission was just the tip of the iceberg, as tax filings seen by the magazine +972 showed that there was a pattern of systemic financing of radical right-wing and anti-Muslim groups.

      “Why was 2015 pivotal to this shift in strategy? Jewish leaders in the US, says Forward reporter Josh Nathan-Kazis, decided to spend significant communal resources attacking college students in that year because there was a coming-together of Israel’s spy culture and Jewish-American mega donors like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban. Both felt that the work being carried out by mainstream Jewish organisations was unsatisfactory. Wanting to shift the entire tenor of the Jewish communal approach to fighting anti-Semitism and BDS, major Jewish organisations were called to a secret meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada.

      “During this 2015 meeting, there was a consensus for a push towards more aggressive responses to BDS. A new initiative, named after Jewish guerrilla warriors Maccabees, was formed. On its website, the Maccabee taskforce – which claims that the BDS movement is spreading anti-Semitism across the world – says it is ‘determined to help students combat this hate by bringing them the strategies and resources they need to tell the truth about Israel.’

      “Strategies developed by Israeli think tanks like the Reut Institute became the playbook for the aggressive tactics that is said to have come into maturity during that period. These tactics, Nathan-Kazis explains, called for pro-Israel advocates to ‘out, name and shame’ harsh critics of Israel, and to ‘frame them […] as anti-peace, anti-Semitic, or dishonest purveyors of double standards.’ They talked about ‘establishing a ‘price tag’ for attacks on Israel and ‘isolating’ advocacy groups that attack Israel, while ‘organizing regular meetings of pro-Israel networks.'”
      Read: Israel’s war on BDS faces backlash

  12. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    January 14, 2019, 9:45 am

    Tlaib didn’t refer to Jews or explicitly to ‘loyalty’. She talks about the behaviour of pro-Israel politicians, which looks like ‘forgetting’ to represent the sound moral values that she thinks prevail in America, including presumably among American Jews. She plainly does think that this is because of a very strong commitment to the Israeli cause. Would even they deny that they have this commitment?

  13. rosshutchinson
    rosshutchinson
    January 14, 2019, 1:44 pm

    The beginning of the oath of office that US Senators.

    Oath of Office 

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

    that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

    ***********************************************************************************

    Supporting and helping pass laws that protect foreign powers (either politically or economically, or for anything else for that matter), at the expense of whittling away the Constitutional protections of American citizens, to me are grounds for IMPEACHING any Senator who believes that the oath that he or she had taken was just a formality and not a matter of protecting the United States. All it takes is for 1 Senator to be impeached for this.

  14. rosshutchinson
    rosshutchinson
    January 14, 2019, 1:49 pm

    Sorry I was incomplete Impeached AND Removed.

  15. Boomer
    Boomer
    January 14, 2019, 3:00 pm

    Thanks for the excellent analysis of the use of the “dual loyalty” charge.

  16. John Douglas
    John Douglas
    January 14, 2019, 3:23 pm

    Since we are on the topic of dual loyalty. Every citizen owes loyalty to the country of which they are citizens. If they are not loyal, they are defective as citizens. Dual citizens therefore have dual loyalties, unless they are defective as citizens. Shouldn’t voting citizens have a right to know if a candidate who seeks their vote has dual citizenship and therefore dual loyalties? To me the obvious answer is, yes.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      January 14, 2019, 7:01 pm

      Dual citizens are not permitted to be members of Federal Parliament. Nor (and this is the tricky part) are people who are merely entitled to another citizenship.

      Since 20% of Australia’s population was born overseas, and a huge proportion (I don’t have a figure) have parents who were born overseas, and often in countries that were overrun by others, or broken up, or have changed their laws several times over, it can be very tricky for a candidate to find out whether s/he is or isn’t entitled to (e.g.) Sikkimese citizenship.

      Quite few MPs have lost their seats as a result of a late discovery that they have (horrors!) New Zealand or Canadian citizenship.

      So far no-one has interpreted the “entitled” bit of the Constitution to exclude Jews from Parliament on the grounds that Israel claims that all Jews are entitled to Israeli citizenship.

  17. bcg
    bcg
    January 14, 2019, 9:34 pm

    Incidentally, Jewish Voice For Peace has come out with a statement on Zionism that I think is relevant to this discussion, and it’s worth reading –

    https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/zionism/

    Palestinian dispossession and occupation are by design. Zionism has meant profound trauma for generations, systematically separating Palestinians from their homes, land, and each other. Zionism, in practice, has resulted in massacres of Palestinian people, ancient villages and olive groves destroyed, families who live just a mile away from each other separated by checkpoints and walls, and children holding onto the keys of the homes from which their grandparents were forcibly exiled….Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism, and is the primary ideology that drove the establishment of Israel. Zionism began in the late 19th century in the context of a set of huge changes in political, cultural, social landscape of Jewish life in Europe…While Zionism is often referred to as a movement of “Jewish self-determination,” the Zionist movement defined this term in a narrow political sense, rejecting the diaspora as inherently toxic and unhealthy for Jews.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      January 14, 2019, 11:13 pm

      Jewish Voice for Peace, sounds like a group dedicated to compromise and getting the two sides to agree. In fact it should be called Jewish Voice for Palestinians. Their position is indistinguishable from SJP, except they throw in: you Zionists misinterpret Jewish history and we JVP we learn the right lessons from Jewish history. The rightward trend of Israel and its governments in the aftermath of Rabin and Olmert has been Netanyahu intransigent and bullying for the last decade. As a result: real voices for peace feel stymied by the reality of Netanyahu over the last decade. But JVP is not a voice for peace, but a one sided anti Zionist voice.

      • eljay
        eljay
        January 15, 2019, 8:37 am

        || wondering jew: … But JVP is not a voice for peace, but a one sided anti Zionist voice. ||

        JVP:

        Jewish Voice for Peace is guided by a vision of justice, equality and freedom for all people. We unequivocally oppose Zionism because it is counter to those ideals. …

        Justice, equality and freedom for all people – yeah, I see why you detest JVP.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        January 15, 2019, 10:36 am

        Zionism is antithetical to peace. It is a violent extremist movement which is intended by design to deprive other peoples of property, possessions and human rights.

        There can be no peace until there is reform of zionism. And if zionism is inherent to Judaism, as zionists claim, then Judaism requires reformation.

      • eljay
        eljay
        January 15, 2019, 10:54 am

        || oldgeezer: … There can be no peace until there is reform of zionism. … ||

        Zionism is supremacism. IMO you don’t reform supremacism, you abolish it.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 15, 2019, 11:04 am

        Zionism can’t be “reformed”. It is a racist and inhumane ideology that needs to be abandoned. And if in general a racist and inhumane ideology is inherent to a religion, the religion should be abandoned, too.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 15, 2019, 11:17 am

        In the supremacist Zionist continuum “justice, equality and freedom for all people” is not “peace”. There “peace” and its process means to colonialize, disposess and cleanse without obstacles.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        January 15, 2019, 12:38 pm

        @eljay

        I agree totally. That leaves the problem, claimed by many, that zionism is a inseparable part of Judaism.

        It is a practical minefield but zionism is absolutely not a force for any kind of good. I’m actually trying to tone down the comments but there is nothing good to be said about it.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        January 15, 2019, 12:58 pm

        “But JVP is not a voice for peace, but a one sided anti Zionist voice.” “WJ”

        “Yonah”, my friend, anti-zionism means peace!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        January 15, 2019, 2:25 pm

        “And if in general a racist and inhumane ideology is inherent to a religion, the religion should be abandoned, too.”

        I’m still reeling from the shock of becoming aware of the incredible drop in US Jewish population. From +10 million about fifty years ago, to around 5 million (4.7?) million now. Do I have that about right?

        Shouldn’t we be searching for more immediate causes for a drastic drop like this? Economic exclusion, social rejection, ethnic cleansing, genocide, murder rate, stuff like that. A mere ideological disagreement can’t account for it.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        January 15, 2019, 6:58 pm

        Edward Said recognized that Palestinian sovereignty could very well bring humanitarian disaster on the Jews of Israel. Maybe it was his mortality and disease that led him to this degree of honesty. Those who propose blithely justice and equality and do not recognize the dangers implicit in the majoritarian Palestine that they envision are either blind or liars or a combination of both.

        JVP compounds this blindness (or this lie) with the term Peace. Let them call themselves Jewish voice for Palestine. Jewish voice for Antizionism. Peace indicates some degree of compromise. This is not what they are about. They have mislabeled themselves. I do not consider them to be antisemitic (and as a rule I try to limit my detestation to Jew haters.) I consider them to be liars both in the label and in their content.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        January 15, 2019, 10:09 pm

        @wondering jew
        ” Those who propose blithely justice and equality and do not recognize the dangers implicit in the majoritarian Palestine that they envision are either blind or liars or a combination of both.”

        Really? Just as I have before I will remind you of your stating that justice and equality is a threat to someone such as yourself. You expose your total lack of moral fiber with that statement.

        Don’t you think that it might behoove the oppressor to attempt to ameliorate the situation and therefore mitigate the consequences of the outright and undeniable crimes they have committed?

        Or are continued crimes the best option?

        How about a final solution?

        Zionism is antithetical to peace.

        It is an immoral violent extremist belief system.

        zionists are their own worst enemy and people such as yourself who are wondering instead of taking a moral stance are a major part of the problem. The radical violent extremists are a minority but the wish washy zionists such as yourself aren’t taking a seat on the sidelines. You are enabling, supporting and even normalizing the crime.

        There will be a price tag for pay back. It gets higher. I can only hope that no lives are lost in it. You seemed to prefer increasing the odds for that.

      • eljay
        eljay
        January 16, 2019, 8:22 am

        || wondering jew: Edward Said recognized that Palestinian sovereignty could very well bring humanitarian disaster on the Jews of Israel. … ||

        It could very well…but maybe it wouldn’t.

        || … Those who propose blithely justice and equality and do not recognize the dangers implicit in the majoritarian Palestine that they envision are either blind or liars or a combination of both. … ||

        Those who propose justice and equality do not support whatever horrible thing it is you think the Palestinians may have in mind. But I suppose the spectre of perpetual “dangers” helps justify Jewish supremacist (Zionist) boots on the necks of non-Jews.

        || … Peace indicates some degree of compromise. … ||

        Well, thanks for clarifying that Zionists – who are firmly committed to Jewish / “Jewish State” supremacism – have no interest in peace.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 16, 2019, 9:18 am

        wondering jew: “Edward Said recognized that Palestinian sovereignty could very well bring humanitarian disaster on the Jews of Israel.”

        The same humanitarian disaster that Jews brought and are still bringing upon Palestinians?

        wondering jew: “Those who propose blithely justice and equality and do not recognize the dangers implicit in the majoritarian Palestine that they envision are either blind or liars or a combination of both. JVP compounds this blindness (or this lie) with the term Peace. Let them call themselves Jewish voice for Palestine. Jewish voice for Antizionism.”

        You seem to be blinded by Zionist perversions of the terms “justice and equality”. It is self evident that true “justice and equality” or “peace” is not dangerous at all. Don’t expect Palestinians to act like Zionist Jews.

        wondering jew: “Peace indicates some degree of compromise.”

        “peace” can be the symmetric term the oppressor uses to mask his assemetric opression. “peace” could also mean that he simply stops his oppression and aggression to end counter violence responses. To compromise means that both parties have equal legitimate claims. But Israel has no claims that are based on universal and humane principles. To the contrary. Literally EVERY SINGLE ISRAELI CLAIM is based on the violation of international and human rights. “Peace” means for Israel that the Palestinians accept these violations.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      January 15, 2019, 7:31 am

      Apartheid is inherent to Zionism, because Zionism is NOT the national movement of an indigenous people who simply wanted their country to become independant from a colonial power or settler colonists, but it is supremacist settler colonialism itself.

      • amigo
        amigo
        January 15, 2019, 4:05 pm

        “Shouldn’t we be searching for more immediate causes for a drastic drop like this? Economic exclusion, social rejection, ethnic cleansing, genocide, murder rate, stuff like that.” Mooser.

        Mooser , you know very well ,that every month,thousands of terrorists swarm across the southern border and head East and West to the ocean where they push Jews into the sea.

        Better build walls if you are going to save the few Jews that are left in the USA.

  18. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    January 15, 2019, 12:44 pm

    @Talkback
    “There “peace” and its process means to colonialize, disposess and cleanse without obstacles”

    I think for Zionists its basically a Piss process or to give it it`s full title a Taking the Piss process.

  19. Qualtrough
    Qualtrough
    January 15, 2019, 11:31 pm

    Dual loyalty is a misnomer. Zionists have a single loyalty no matter where they are resident, and that is to the state of Israel.

  20. amigo
    amigo
    January 16, 2019, 11:01 am

    “wondering jew: “Edward Said recognized that Palestinian sovereignty could very well bring humanitarian disaster on the Jews of Israel.”

    That was extremely generous of him , given that he was aware that zionists harboured no such concerns .

    “In his seminal essay, ‘Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims’, Edward Said noted how “all the constitutive energies of Zionism were premised on… the functional absence of ‘native people’ in Palestine”. He continued:

    “Institutions were built deliberately shutting out the natives, laws were drafted when Israel came into being that made sure the natives would remain in their ‘nonplace’, Jews in theirs, and so on. It is no wonder that today the one issue that electrifies Israel as a society is the problem of the Palestinians, whose negation is the most consistent thread running through Zionism”.

    It seems to me if zionist Jews had thought more carefully before they invaded someone else,s land and ethnically cleanse 750,000 of it,s inhabitants , not to mention murdering many tens of Thousands more thereby creating a Humanitarian Crisis for Palestinians , they themselves would never face a Humanitarian crisis of their own.

    And hypocrites like you Yonah Fredman have the gall to cry foul when your victims seek justice.

    My heart bleeds for your poor threatened Zionist thieves and murderers , who are still as we speak continuing with their crimes.

    Sheesh.

  21. just
    just
    January 16, 2019, 10:14 pm

    “Rashida Tlaib Called a ‘Danger’ Who Might ‘Blow Up’ Capitol by Florida City Commissioner …

    Florida city commissioner, Annabelle Lima-Taub, sparked controversy after calling Palestinian-American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib a “danger” who might “blow up” the U.S. Capitol.

    Lima-Taub, who is Jewish and a city commissioner in the south Florida city of Hallandale Beach, made the comments days after Tlaib said she wanted to “impeach that motherf—-,” a reference to President Donald Trump

    Lima-Taub reportedly signed an online petition to remove Tlaib from office and then wrote a message about Tlaib on her personal Facebook page, says the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

    “Proudly signed,” Lima-Taub wrote, according to a screen grab of the post. “A Hamas-loving anti-Semite has NO place in government! She is a danger and [I] would not put it past her to become a martyr and blow up Capitol Hill.”

    The Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded Lima-Taub resign, its Florida communications director, Wilfredo Ruiz, saying: “Her un-American, xenophobic statements establish that she is unfit to hold the commissioner’s seat. She must apologize immediately and follow up that apology with her resignation.””

    https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/rashida-tlaib-called-a-danger-by-florida-city-commissioner-1.6847910

    Ruiz is correct, but I’m not going to hold my breath….

Leave a Reply