# Actual forums user "RedFury" does not like Jews **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 19, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217 "2011-01-19T17:12:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/381 "2011-02-04T18:44:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’ll say this just one more time, and failing at comprehension on your part, I’ll write it on a Post-it note and staple it to your forehead: If one sincerely believes that the interests of Israel’s security and America’s security are precisely identical, no such notion as loyalty or betrayal need enter into it. > > Do I find such a stance questionable? Indeed, I do. Is it disloyal? No, its just wrong. People believe all kinds of wrong stuff, you may have noticed? OK so then are you saying that Richard Perle and company were loyal Americans who believe that the interests of Israel are so vital to the interests the interests of Americans that they were able to justify what they did or that the interests were so symmetrically aligned that even absent Israeli concerns, they would have done nothing differently. I’m just trying to understand. How would you characteize the following: Party A is so convinced that their policies are better for America and so convinced that Party B’s policies are bad for America that they sabotage the country while Party B is in power in order to regain power because whatever temporary setbacks the country may endure as a result of their sabotage is more than made up by the incredible benefits of following Party A’s policies rather than the policies of Party B. If there is an earnest belief that Party B’s polcies will lead to disaster while Party A’s polciies will lead to paradise on earth, is there any disloyalty? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/382 "2011-02-04T18:55:19Z")
No. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/383 "2011-02-04T19:08:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Indeed, it is a pity that we lack the clarity of thinking so universal amongst our rightward brethren, who’s wisdom has brought us to this golden aga of peace and prosperity. Indeed, right-wing types are also subject to the same absorbtion of convenient simplistic tropes adapted from bigotry, as opposed to thinking about complex causes for perceived problems - look at the other example I gave, that of alleged “inferiority” of Blacks. This, in various elided guises, is often at the root of some right-wing analysis of the problem of inner-city deprivation - rather than a deeper analysis based on history and sociology. You would, I assume, agree that such an “explaination” is laughably deficient, and even maybe that it smacks of racism. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/384 "2011-02-04T19:23:15Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I agree, although so far I haven’t had much luck persuading **Chief Pedant**. > > However, my question here in this thread is in fact not identical to either of the two issues you identified above. Rather, it’s a related but separate issue, to wit: > > _Is it possible for there to exist any such entity as an “Israel lobby” or “pro-Israel interest group”, etc., in American politics, that does NOT mean the same thing as a "Jewish ‘conspiracy’ "?_ > > I understand perfectly that we don’t want to encourage slimy bigoted paranoid raving about alleged sinister malevolent secret mind-controlling Jewish conspiracies. Both because (1) we don’t like slimy bigoted paranoid raving, and (2) because there’s not a bloody shred of evidence that any sinister malevolent secret mind-controlling Jewish conspiracy actually exists. > > But is it in any meaningful way possible or permissible to formulate or discuss the concept of a pro-Israel “lobby” or “interest group” or “movement” that is NOT a sinister malevolent secret mind-controlling conspiracy? Is there any acceptable language for articulating the idea of an “Israel lobby” whose influence is dignified and legitimate, but which is still larger and more amorphous than any one particular formal organization? I don’t think there is any doubt that many people support Israel - both on their own, or in officially organized groups; and that they have a common interest in so doing (if no common organization). That strikes me as a bit of a non-issue. Put bluntly, the same is true of any other cause. Why care? what makes it an issue worthy of discussion? > [@](#): > > For instance, Mearsheimer and Walt characterize the so-called “Israel lobby” as an “interest group” or “loose coalition of individuals and organizations” whose activities “are legitimate forms of democratic political participation”. Is there any way in which such an idea can be an acceptable concept, without automatically equating to a sinister and unethical “Jewish conspiracy”? > > (Note that I’m not asking whether an idea of an “Israel lobby” can possibly avoid unintentionally **connoting** or **reminding** people of slanders about a sinister and unethical “Jewish conspiracy”, because it can’t. The fact is that this particular well has been so poisoned that such connotations are to some extent inescapable even if completely unintended. What I want to know is whether the idea _in itself_ can have any intrinsic validity.) > > And if not, why not? And if so, what is an acceptable way to speak of that idea without being guilty of anti-Semitic prejudice? > > (Note that I’m not asking whether there’s any way to speak of such an idea that’s immune from being **abused** and twisted by bigots to reinforce anti-Semitic prejudice, because there isn’t. It’s a sad truth that there’s **nothing** one can say with respect to Jews that’s immune from being anti-Semitically twisted by bigots. What I want to know is what would be the right way for non-bigots to speak of that idea.) Again, I haven’t read those fellows’ book, so I can’t opine directly on their ideas - all I know of them is what Wikipedia discloses. With that caveat in mind, I’d say that what makes their notions objectionable is not the definition of the “Israel lobby”, but their assigning of some sort of unique significance to it. Allegedly, they claim it is uniqely effective, that it influences Americans to do that which is against their own self-interest. In short, that they are malevolent and hoodwinking, above and beyond those of any other lobby group, and have exerted a baleful secret influence which has “controlled debate” on the issues. > **[The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy)** > > The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a book by John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University, published in August 2007. It was a New York Times Best Seller. > The book describes the lobby as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction". Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they ca... That’s the problem, not the definition of the “lobby” itself. As described above, this appears very much as wishful thinking - that the “lobby” is to blame for people’s attitudes, and not people’s attitudes to blame for American policy and the apparent “success” of the lobby. The American people are not to be blamed for not supporting the pro-Palestinian side, it’s all the fault of that “uniquely effective” lobby … of course, every ethnic group lobbies, but only the Zionist one has been “uniquely effectiuve” … etc. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/385 "2011-02-04T19:23:37Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > There are really two issues here, though they tend to get confused. > > 1. Is it permissible at all to discuss issues charged with historical bigotry - like Jewish “conspiracies” or Black “genetic inferiority” (however tactfully the quoted terms are elided) without being a bigot? and > > 2. In one’s own opinion, do such things as Jewish “conspiracies” or Black “genetic inferiority” really have some truth to them? > > In my opinion at least, clearly the answer to #1 is that one can discuss such matters without being a bigot - though obviously, precautions are necessary to avoid giving offence. > > However, my answer to #2 tends to be pretty well the same in all cases - unless truly convincing evidence is put forth, it will be very, very difficult to convince me that claims hashed over and repeatedly debunked just might in fact be true. > > This does not mean that I think those holding such opinions to be valid are, of necessity, bigots. The power of such tropes lie in their repetition (“no smoke without fire”) and in the fact that they often fulfil an apparent need. > > Take the example of Jewish conspiracies (I know, I know, the issue isn’t always presented as such - and in fact, some take pains to not present it as such. But let’s just run with it rather trhan employing some more elaborate description). In America, the Arab-Israeli matter arouses great passions that have nothing whatsoever to do with historical anti-Semitism: for example, on the political left, notions having to do with post-colonial politics. For some on the left, it is obvious that the West bears much responsibility for the current state of third-world misery, and Palestine is a primary example. If it is obvious, why then is it not generally obvious to Americans? One possible explaination is that they are being hoodwinked by sinister, manipulative forces. The old notion of a “Jewish conspiracy” - which has for centuries been percolating through Western society, and which proposes this very sort of sinister hoodwinking of the passive majority - gets recycled to a whole new target audience: this is a perfect explaination as to why the majority of Americans do not appear to understand the essential rightness of the pro-Palestinian cause. > > Note there is no necessity for someone to actually hate Jews in order to hold this opinion. In fact, those on the left are the very sort who are likely to reject hatred based on religion or ethnicity. However, that does not provide them with any armour against convenient, conspiracy-style thinking, when it proposes a more palatable explaination for why their ideas are not more popular. I haven’t read this bookbut I have read the Bell curve and the reaction to this book reminds me of the reaction to the Bell Curve. There are some uncomfortable truths that racists latch onto and say “see I’m just a racial realist, not a racist” and the anti-racists reflexively attack the book. They frequently do so clumsily and can only point to isolated instances of inaccuracy or an unwarranted emphaasis on certain facts. Like I said I have not read the book but based on reviews and the wiki article, to seems to me that people are reading a lot more into the book than what it says. The Bell Curve had been accused of laying out an argument towards a racist conclusion without actually stating the conclusion and it seems like that is what people are accusing the authors or “Israel Lobby” of doing much the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/386 "2011-02-04T19:27:10Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > …Take the example of Jewish conspiracies (I know, I know, the issue isn’t always presented as such - and in fact, some take pains to not present it as such. But let’s just run with it rather trhan employing some more elaborate description)… No, “let’s,” not. That happens to be the whole point. Namely that it isn’t a “conspiracy” of any kind but rather an open policy available for anyone to see. > [@](#): > > In America, the Arab-Israeli matter arouses great passions that have nothing whatsoever to do with historical anti-Semitism: for example, on the political left, notions having to do with post-colonial politics. For some on the left, it is obvious that the West bears much responsibility for the current state of third-world misery, and Palestine is a primary example. So far, so good. > [@](#): > > If it is obvious, why then is it not generally obvious to Americans? One possible explaination is that they are being hoodwinked by sinister, manipulative forces. The old notion of a “Jewish conspiracy” - which has for centuries been percolating through Western society, and which proposes this very sort of sinister hoodwinking of the passive majority - gets recycled to a whole new target audience: this is a perfect explaination as to why the majority of Americans do not appear to understand the essential rightness of the pro-Palestinian cause. No disrespect but how about the other, much less sinister explanation already provided here – by **Kimstu** , **'luc** , myself & others – and the countless other threads on this topic? Does Occam’s razor all of a sudden become dull when Israel’s interests are involved? NB: Bottom line – are US and Israel’s interests one and the same? If so, I’d like to hear why, if not, we’re in agreement…regardless of the ethnicity/background/religion/whatever of the proponents of the former. > [@](#): > > Note there is no necessity for someone to actually hate Jews in order to hold this opinion. In fact, those on the left are the very sort who are likely to reject hatred based on religion or ethnicity. However, that does not provide them with any armour against convenient, conspiracy-style thinking, when it proposes a more palatable explaination for why their ideas are not more popular. Let me see if I’m parsing this correctly. Are you saying that if we even if explicitly stating that it’s neither a conspiracy nor religious/ethnic hatred, we need some sort of "armour’? Sorry, I must be reading you wrong, because that makes no sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/387 "2011-02-04T19:44:03Z")
Missed edit window: “…Are you saying that if we even if explicitly stating…” should read “_Are you saying if even explicitly stating…_” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/388 "2011-02-04T20:20:56Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > _Is it possible for there to exist any such entity as an “Israel lobby” or “pro-Israel interest group”, etc., in American politics, that does NOT mean the same thing as a "Jewish ‘conspiracy’ "?_ You are confusing multiple issues.[I’ll repeat some of them, as you still haven’t answered.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13422445&postcount=281) I’d especially like some sort of statement on why you claimed that the dual loyalty canard was okay since it was used on Americans who self-identify as both American and Israeli. That being the case, Jack has pointed out how the actual term “Israel Lobby” (or “lobby”, when W&M realized that capitalizing it was kinda odd) was being used by them in a protean, amorphous blob of a concept, where advocates and opponents of the same exact politices and worldviews were _both_ somehow part of the same lobby. It’s like claiming that the NRA and people who want a total ban on guns are both part of the Gun Lobby. He also pointed out that fundamental conspiratorial bent behind M&W’s thesis; if American politicians and American citizens disagree with them, and they’re so obviously right, then it must be because of enemy action. And that enemy action is an amorphous, protean blob of conflicting ideologies and agendas that still subverts American and Americas government, instead of us working towards our own interests. M&W aren’t wrong because they questioned how and why AIPAC or the Brookings Institute (or whoever) work, they’re wrong because they spun a willfully ignorant, overly simplistic, monocausal conspiracy yarn. You seem stuck on whether or not there are pro-Israel interest groups. _Of course there are._ And yet again, if you don’t like their specific political advice and/or don’t like politicians who share such politics, then challenge those policies on their merit. Hell, challenge any politician who goes to an AIPAC dinner or has a kind word for them in public, fair game, play ball. What’s beyond the pale, though, is to then try to condemn, or simply with-hunt, political opponents (“Why do you hate America?”) based _not_ on a Rosenbergesque set of facts that prove treachery, but a differing opinion and ethnic/religious-based treachery. Do you _really_ not see the difference? “The anti-Cuban policies espoused by some but not all Cuban immigrants in Florida are wrong due to reasons X, Y and Z” and “The anti-Cuban policies espoused by some Cubans, the kind of people who we always have to be wary of and sift through the greater mass of Cuban Americans lest they get near political power, are due to them being unable to tell that American interests are not totally identical with Cuban interests. If only their minds were unclouded by their Cuban influence that prevents them from putting America’s interests first, like any true patriot…” Of course there are lobbying groups, political commentators, think tanks, foreign powers, etc… who all try to persuade America for or against various policies. Yes, Israel is not an exception. But, again, if you want to oppose a policy suggestion made by AIPAC, you can oppose it based on its lack of merit. Suggesting that they’re unable to be trusted on the situation since they can’t tell America’s interests from a foreign power’s, that they’re not fully loyal to their own home ahead of other considerations, and that they’re not true patriots,.. absent some Rosenbergesque type of proof? \*That is simply a fishing expedition at best and racist mud slinging at worst. There’s a reason that David Duke is so enthusiastic about the resurgence in popularity of the Dual Loyalty accusation. \* And taking such fishing expeditions simply based on the fact that some people in government have Jewish sounding names, or are Jews who support the “wrong” politics, as Red did which was the genesis of this whole clusterfuck apologia, is a bad thing. Challenge policies all you want. Challenge policies until the heat death of the universe. Knock yourself out. _ **But don’t challenge people’s loyalty, patriotism, integrity or allegiance to their own home, don’t claim/suggest/Just-Ask-Question-about ur public servants havomh committed a breach of faith and confidence, unless you have actual evidence that they’re doing something other than disagreeing on matters of policy.** _ Why should that be at all difficult? > [@newcomer](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > No. I accept that he is a Truther and a loon, but I think he only claimed that Mossad was happy that the U.S. took a hit from Islamists, thus ratcheting up American antipathy to groups so identified, not that they were behind it. > > Not a biggy either way. > > Let me just be clear – are you also claiming that NONE of the guys on the van was a Mossad agent (we’ll leave the fact that the van belonged to a Mossad front operation company whose owner fled to Israel within 24 hrs)? And also, leave out whatever this implies - it can imply different things for different people. See, I’d agree with you Tom if not for the JAQing off and the earlier inclusion of the charge in the laundry list of reasons-why-Trutherism-isn’t-objectionable-and-why-the-Official-Story-is-unbelievable. But I will concede that it’s possible to differ in analyzing what exactly newcomer is weaseling about. And yes, not a huge deal. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > \*something posters on this board have opined that we mustn’t overlook - including our dear friend **elucidator** , who thinks the possibility of a grand Israeli conspiracy including government moles can’t be dismissed because after all, American Communists spied for the Party once upon a time (a beautiful combination of questioning Jewish patriotism combined with a McCarthyite Red smear). Just so readers don’t think that Jack is exaggerating… > [@Finn Again's Wake](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finn-agains-wake/532923/539): > > > [@Finn Again's Wake](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finn-agains-wake/532923/538): > > > > Your quoted burblings on the subject had to do with claims that a bunch of people affiliated with a think tank were Israeli spies infiltrating the government to bend foreign policy to their sinister ends. Not a guy who sold out his country for money back in the mid-80s. > > > > Your kind of sweeping “they could be _evahwhere_, I’m not saying there’s a massive conspiracy but we can’t rule that out and we must be on our guard against them Dual Loyalty Joos” is the province of conspiracy wackos. > > Whoa, big fella! Why wouldn’t we expect such, given that otherwise loyal Americans spied for the Soviets due to their unjustifiable loyalty to international Communism. Why would we refuse to contemplate such a loyalty on religious or ethnic grounds? Naturally, of course, Clowny has added the in the traditional "Hah hah, can’t read my mind can’t read my mind! Just because I say stuff comparing potential-Jewish-Treachery-for-which-we-must-always-be-on-guard to Ameicans betraying us to international communism doesn’t mean I think anything about it. Why, I say lots of shit without engaging my brain _at all_, take that, suckers! " I have to admit I do kinda like the simple elegance of that dodge. Sure, you’re said something that’s racist or bigoted or prejudiced, but nobody can set a brain scanner on you to chart your thoughts, so you totally win extra bonus points redeemable for a toaster _or_ a scarf. > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Here’s the thing, **Elucidator**. I’m sure there is probably some Jew, somewhere in America who does support Israel over America. The problem pro Israeli Jews have is that they are automatically accused of treasonous leanings just for having a pro-israeli stance. Surely you can see that it’s possible for a person to have that position because he/she feels it is correct. After all there are many non-Jewish supporters of Israel, persons of good pro-American intentions who feel it is in this country’s best interst to support Israel. You may strongly disagree with them, but you’ll at least do them the courtesy of viewing their opinions as honestly held, albeit wrong-headed. All pro-Israeli American Jews ask is that you do them the same courtesy. Debate and disagree as you please, but do them the courtesy of assuming that their opinions are honestly held, at least until you have evidence otherwise. Even horrible Richard Perle deserves that. Clowny has at least learned to sling the lingo better, due to his previous unfair slandering at the hands of cruel people who say that “they could be _evahwhere_, I’m not saying there’s a massive conspiracy but we can’t rule that out and we must be on our guard against them Dual Loyalty Joos” is an objectionable statement. Because, after all, Jewish ethnicity and/or religion may be _pretty much like International Communism_ when it comes to potential Jewish treachery. So Jews in politics are potential isomorphs for Soviet moles, and it only makes sense to Just Ask Questions. And, after all, why on Earth might one even want to object to something they viewed as racist? Clowny does not comprehend. For serious, he tells us, while asking if someone might perchance like to take a whiff of his comically oversized plastic flower. Now Clowny has refined the innuendo. They’re possible Manchurian Candidates, they don’t necessarily mean any _harm_ or have any _disloyalty_. No, of course not. Instead, they’ve just somehow reached the point where even as American citizens, they’re totally unable to tell that different countries have different issues. -It’s not that they want to cooperate with an ally. -It’s not that, just like supporters of NATO aren’t suddenly unable to differentiate what’s good for London with what’s good for Lawrence, Kansas, people who aren’t anti-Israel are suddenly unable to differentiate American interests from foreign powers’ interests. -It’s not that they believe that it is specifically in America’s best interests to have a certain balance of power in the Middle East and the needs of our allies and the moderate-states in the Middle East are subservient to us maintaining that balance of power. -It’s not that we can use both Saudi Arabia and Israel to support our vision of the Middle East. Sure, the interests of the House of Saud are not seen as identical to American interests any more than the Likud party’s agenda, and sure we can use both Saudi Arabia and Israel to support our vision of the Middle East. But, well… Americans in politics who support Israel might just be to the point where they’re unable to tell the difference between the interests of their own home, and that of another nation. And it Just makes sense to Ask Questions. It’s just that someone may feel that “the interests of Israel’s security and America’s security are precisely identical.” I can eagerly await cites of Clowny’s (doubtless significant) cache of posts where he tears into those who support NATO. They must exist. Else, he singles out only people who don’t share his anti-Israel politics, and accuses them of an inability to delineate between the interests of two nations, while those NATO Firsters were simply making a calculated argument for why we should support western Europe. I await the no doubt copious cites where Clowny points out that those who support NATO are people who are unable to tell the difference between American interests and European interests. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/389 "2011-02-04T20:34:41Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t think there is any doubt that many people support Israel - both on their own, or in officially organized groups; and that they have a common interest in so doing (if no common organization). > > That strikes me as a bit of a non-issue. Put bluntly, the same is true of any other cause. Why care? what makes it an issue worthy of discussion? > > […] > > Again, I haven’t read those fellows’ book, so I can’t opine directly on their ideas - all I know of them is what Wikipedia discloses. > > With that caveat in mind, I’d say that what makes their notions objectionable is not the definition of the “Israel lobby”, but their assigning of some sort of unique significance to it. Well then, it kind of seems to me as though you just answered your own question above. Q. Why is the concept of an “Israel lobby”, in the sense of a “loose coalition of individuals and organizations” which have a common interest if not any common organization, an issue worthy of discussion? A. Because there’s strong disagreement on what its significance is. I quite agree that blatant lying fearmongering along the lines of “wooo, did you know there’s a sinister malevolent cabal of Joooooooz controlling the gummint??” is not necessarily worth dignifying with any response. But I think the question “What are the policy goals advocated by members of this loose coalition and what are their overall impacts as a political interest group?” is a very different and, at least on the face of it, perfectly legitimate subject for discussion. I realize that with history and the world as they are, any attempt to ask the latter question in whatever context and for whatever reason is inevitably going to carry at least a faint whiff of the former question. But it can’t be helped. And for the record, in my personal experience so far with Mearsheimer and Walt’s book, the tone of it definitely seems to be the latter rather than the former. Maybe I’m not picking up on some subtle code words, or maybe I just haven’t got to the part yet where they haul out the conspiracy theories. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/390 "2011-02-04T20:39:56Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I’d especially like some sort of statement on why you claimed that the dual loyalty canard was okay since it was used on Americans who self-identify as both American and Israeli. Nope, I don’t think that any kind of unfounded accusation of treason or other canard is “okay”. I was just pointing out that not everybody in every context automatically interprets the phrase “dual loyalty” as connoting an accusation of treason. There are examples of the term being used in a different sense. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/391 "2011-02-04T21:01:57Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I was just pointing out that not everybody in every context automatically interprets the phrase “dual loyalty” as connoting an accusation of treason. There are examples of the term being used in a different sense. Okay, but again I pointed out that the way M&W were arguing is obfuscatory since it is _not_ a case of alleging divided/dual/whatever loyalties only with people who self-identify as Americans and Israelis, but with Americans (and overwhelmingly, American Jews) who support the “wrong” polices. And even when dealing with gentiles who support the same exact policies, the suggestion is that they only support those policies due to meddling and coercion from those groups that have Dual Loyalty. As for it not being interpreted as treachery, please explain how the accusation is _not_ one of “violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence”. Does the accusation not rely on: 1. That the allegiance of Americans in general and Americans politicians in specific is to America first (hence the line “Israel Firster” accusation). 2. That putting another country’s goals before our or at the same level as ours, by conscious design or Manchurian Candidatesque programming, violates that allegiance. 2a. That putting another country’s goals before ours or at the same level as ours shows that someone is not correctly thinking, like a proper American patriot would, were their mind unclouded and/or they weren’t unduly influenced. 3. That it is a violation of faith and confidence for a public servant to betray their allegiance to America and put the interests of another state first or to be unable to differentiate the needs of the public they serve from the needs of a foreign power. I’m trying to find out here why you disagree that _the specific dual loyalty charge, as leveled by people like Red_ is an accusation of a violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence. Again, if you want to analyze the actions of a lobbying group or a number? Go for it. If you want to challenge a policy or policies held by an individual or by a group? Have fun. If you think that Likud, Labor, Kadima or Maki are speaking pure reason or pure folly, and want to argue for your claims? More power to you. \*\*\*Why, though, does anybody need to impugn their opponents’ loyalty, patriotism, integrity or allegiance to their own home, unless they have actual evidence that their opponents are doing something other than disagreeing on matters of policy? \*\*\*And why is it palatable to suggest an ethnic-based or religious-based treachery if, likewise, all the actual proof you have is that someone is disagreeing on policy? That’s the fundamental slimyness of this sort of argument, and part of why its wielders are so careful to use only certain terms. Someone can say “I believe that X, Y and Z are in our nation’s best interest, you believe that A, B and C are. While we disagree, my position is correct and should be accepted, and yours is wrong and should be rejected, due to M, N and O.” That’s just fine. But people like Red and, to a somewhat muted degree, Lucy, are using “I believe X, Y and Z are in our nation’s best interests. My political opponents believe that A, B and C are. That’s because they’re unable to tell the difference between our nation’s interests and those of a foreign power. (Or their loyalty isn’t undivided and for their own home, and also they’re not real patriots)” It’s the same pile of shit that we all got sick of during the W. Bush years. It’s that whole “Why do you hate America?” “So you want the terrorists to win?” “You’d rather vote for Sadaam than George Bush, wiouldn’t you?” fecal avalanche. But now, its former targets have decided that it’s a good tactic after all, and one they’d like to use on their opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/392 "2011-02-04T21:42:21Z")
Maybe I missed it in the flood of self-justification, but has anybody answered what I think is the key question here? Once again - do tactics by anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian advocates that are widely perceived by Jews as questioning their patriotism and invoking classic anti-Semitic themes (regardless of whether one thinks they have a right to feel that way) advance the cause of peace, rights and prosperity for all in the region? **Kimstu** seems dogged persuaded that such memes _have_ to be open for discussion. What’s the point? If at best they are doing nothing to advance your cause and at worst hardening the opposition and turning off potential supporters, why keep giving offense? Do your feel your position is so bankrupt of ideas that it must resort to or tolerate this stuff or it will lose the battle? Evidently no one wants to tackle this, but changing a failed strategy just might help achieve success. > [@elucidator](#): > > My position on this has not changed in forty years. No statement could better encapsulate the mind-rot that perpetuates stalemate. > [@elucidator](#): > > So perhaps you’ll clarify my thinking for me: is my McCarthyite smear a result of my fervent devotion to right-wing causes? Obviously not, which makes it all the more ironic that you embrace the same tactics. But your immunity to irony in this instances pales next to that demonstrated by your willingness to impugn the patriotism of others, a tactic that was ancient and mildewed back when you were hoisting Vietnam War protest signs (or at least watching others do so on TV), and the gung-ho war supporters were equating that with support for Communism. Irony meters further explode when we consider how personally you take imagined slights on your own patriotism. Example: awhile back you were going on about how Arab Israelis don’t have rights, exemplified by exemptions from duty in the Israeli army. I noted that was an odd tack for you to take (meaning that as a self-proclaimed peacenik you logically would view the ability to forego military duty as a positive). Instead you got all indignant, apparently viewing the statement as a slur on your being a loyal American. Maybe that’s a big reason for your current attitude. Has it been the case for much of your “sixty-odd” years that you’ve felt insulted by the Right over an alleged lack of patriotism, so that you now relish being able to fling the same mud at those with whom you disagree on Mideast issues? If so, that’s pathetically stupid, even by your pitifully low standards. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/393 "2011-02-04T22:49:54Z")
Missed this earlier: > [@Kimstu](#): > > Nor does it rebut or disprove any of the specific statements that I was quoting from Mearsheimer and Walt’s actual writings. What I said in the post that you responded to was that I didn’t see what was supposed to be so bad about what they **actually said** in their description/definition of the so-called “Israel lobby”. You responded with various broad-brush disparagements and general accusations of bias in their work, unsupported by any detailed analysis of their claims. This seems to be the same claim you made about my arguments in GD, that I focus on the supporting details and somehow ignore the meat of the actual argument (you still have not provided a single cite for that claim, by the way). He pointed out something very specific, and your claims of broad-brushing are strangely false. Jack pointed out that even the definition that W&M were using was vague and self-contradictory to the point of uselessness. Nor is that somehow tangential to W&M’s claims. Obviously, if you’re advancing a theory about a group and you can’t even define who that group is or what their actual actions are, everything built on that foundation crumbles to dust. If that foundation-of-sand is then used as a basis for further sloppy reasoning, casual disregard for factual tightness and general cherry picked reasoning, what’s wrong with pointing out that the analysis sucks? Are there any other arguments that, when shown to be failures on the logical and factual level, we have to keep discussing rather than those who champion them going back to the drawing board and first making sense? > [@Jackmannii](#): > > But your immunity to irony in this instances pales next to that demonstrated by your willingness to impugn the patriotism of others, a tactic that was ancient and mildewed back when you were hoisting Vietnam War protest signs (or at least watching others do so on TV), and the gung-ho war supporters were equating that with support for Communism. Irony meters further explode when we consider how personally you take imagined slights on your own patriotism. Example: awhile back you were going on about how Arab Israelis don’t have rights, exemplified by exemptions from duty in the Israeli army. I noted that was an odd tack for you to take (meaning that as a self-proclaimed peacenik you logically would view the ability to forego military duty as a positive). Ah yah, that was pretty amusing. Arguing that Arab Israelis of Palestinian heritage _not_ being drafted is a fundamental injustice, and that letting them serve in the army but not forcing them to shows them being treated as second class citizens… There’s just something chuckle-worthy, even if it wasn’t coming from our resident clown. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/394 "2011-02-04T23:18:55Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > …demonstrated by your willingness to impugn the patriotism of others… Where. Show me. Quote me, impugning the patriotism. Got a shitload of quotes here, you shouldn’t have a problem, unless you’re lying through your teeth. Was this it? > [@](#): > > …If they truly believe this, and I have no reason to doubt it, then they cannot be, by their own lights, disloyal to America by advancing Israel… Or this? > [@](#): > > …And why must we necessarily talk in terms of betrayal? Suppose, by whatever dark pathology, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz sincerely believed that the policies they were advocating were truly in the best interest of the USA. And, by a happy coincidence, the sunny serendipity that is so rarely seen in the dark, grim world of realpolitik…equally beneficial to Israel, if not more so! Well, happy day!.. Or… > [@](#): > > …don’t accept that Zionism is necessarily the motivating factor in the neo-cons support for Israel, it could just as easily be a hyper-patriotic American view that regards Israel as an instrument of a global politics with American dominance as its goal… Well, I suppose, if “hyper-patriotic” is interpreted as its exact opposite. Wouldn’t put it past you. OR maybe this was it: > [@](#): > > …At most, we might consider influence upon judgment. But even then we cannot pre-judge someone’s loyalty,… Well, there you go! In your world, saying that one cannot judge another’s loyalty is precisely the same as “impugning” their loyalty? Is that the one? You ain’t got shit. Zero, zip, zilch, nada damn thing. You twist my words into grotesque parodies. I swear, if I were to wipe my ass with your tongue, my turds would come out cork-screwed for the rest of my life! ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/395 "2011-02-04T23:43:22Z")
Awwww Clowny, as if your word-gaming is particularly clever or even novel. You explicitly state that Jews can be validly be screened for potential ethnic-based treachery, just like International Communists were ideologically-based traitors during the Cold War. And you state that your political opponents might just be unable to perceive any difference between the US’ military interests and Israel’s. But because you say “Now I’m not questioning their _patriotism_, or anything…” that means that you’re not doing exactly that? I know you play a moron on the Dope for chuckles, but this shit is lame even for your clowning. Much like how “Now I’m not a racist, but…” inevitably proceeds something that’ll probably sound really racist, “Now I’m not questioning their patriotism, but it’s okay to say that Jews are potentially similar to International Communist traitors due to their religion/ethnicity and those who disagree with me about Israel may be unable to tell what’s in their own country’s interests and what’s in a foreign power’s interest…” It’s just an update of a coward playing oh-so-clever word games. “You are obviously distorting what I’ve said and twisting my words! Here I am, and I explicitly said that I wasn’t accusing anybody of murder in the first degree. All I did was calmly state that he killed the victim with malice aforethought after planning out the killing weeks in advance. See, right here, I can quote where I said that I’m not accusing him of Murder One. I win!” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/396 "2011-02-04T23:51:31Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Awwww Clowny, as if your word-gaming is particularly clever or even novel. > You explicitly state that Jews can be validly be screened for potential ethnic-based treachery, just like International Communists were ideologically-based traitors during the Cold War. And you state that your political opponents might just be unable to perceive any difference between the US’ military interests and Israel’s. But because you say “Now I’m not questioning their _patriotism_, or anything…” that means that you’re not doing exactly that? > > I know you play a moron on the Dope for chuckles, but this shit is lame even for your clowning. > > Much like how “Now I’m not a racist, but…” inevitably proceeds something that’ll probably sound really racist, “Now I’m not questioning their patriotism, but it’s okay to say that Jews are potentially similar to International Communist traitors due to their religion/ethnicity and those who disagree with me about Israel may be unable to tell what’s in their own country’s interests and what’s in a foreign power’s interest…” > > It’s just an update of a coward playing oh-so-clever word games. “You are obviously distorting what I’ve said and twisting my words! Here I am, and I explicitly said that I wasn’t accusing anybody of murder in the first degree. All I did was calmly state that he killed the victim with malice aforethought after planning out the killing weeks in advance. See, right here, I can quote where I said that I’m not accusing him of Murder One. I win!” I don’t know if you’re more sympathetic than repulsive. You’re obviously paranoid. But your mindless attacking really seems on the border of hysteric. What’s it like to live when you’re seeing daggers everywhere? It must really suck. Then again, you’re obviously an asshole, so maybe you deserve this? I really don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2011, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/397 "2011-02-05T00:06:26Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > …You explicitly state that Jews can be validly be screened for potential ethnic-based treachery, just like International Communists were ideologically-based traitors during the Cold War… You mean, when I said this: > [@](#): > > …When Kennedy said being Catholic had no bearing on his duty, we believed him, we took him at his word that he was an American first and a Catholic second. We are duty bound to apply the same lack of scrutiny to all, Jews, Muslims, atheists, snake-handling Pentecostals, you name it. > > Except Scientologists. Even I have limits… Is that the “explicit” statement to which you are referring? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2011, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/398 "2011-02-05T00:06:54Z")
“_Now I’m not a racist, but_ it’s perfectly reasonable to be vigilant for possible watermelon thievery, drug dealing and white-woman-raping among the black populace.” “Yeah.,… that’s a pretty racist thing to say.” “Paranoid! Paranoid! You see threats everywhere!!!” Hrm. I wonder why progress is such slow going… Oh, and Clowny, you idiot? No, not your “_I’m not a racist, but…_” style of denial, and you know it. Where you explicitly make the claim that it’s fine to go about treating Jews as potential ethnic-based traitors just like International Communists during the Cold War. I cited it and its context, and quoted it in post 388. I know honesty and integrity are a real struggle for you, but honestly you can try just a bit more. Not that I don’t find you embarrassing yourself to be amusing. I do. Maybe you should go on a bit more about the OPEC instituting an oil embargo to try to stop the US from supporting Israel doesn’t show that there are powerful lobbying forces who will try to get the US to not support Israel. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/399 "2011-02-05T00:10:37Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > “_Now I’m not a racist, but_ it’s perfectly reasonable to be vigilant for possible watermelon thievery, drug dealing and white-woman-raping among the black populace.” > > “Yeah.,.. that’s a pretty racist thing to say.” > > “Paranoid! Paranoid! You see threats everywhere!!!” > Hrm. I wonder why progress is such slow going… It’s taking time because empty, angry people like you are anchored to your delusions. Glad I could clear that up for you. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2011, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217/400 "2011-02-05T00:28:25Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Here’s the thing, **Elucidator**. I’m sure there is probably some Jew, somewhere in America who does support Israel over America. The problem pro Israeli Jews have is that they are automatically accused of treasonous leanings just for having a pro-israeli stance. > … Not at all, here are a number of problems. - The Perles, Wolfowitzes, Feiths, Libbys &etc - What is their thought process prior to input to US policy in the Middle East? A balance of competing consideration of each interest? Or “I’m jewish”? - When, for example, the abovementioned might favour a war of aggression by the US principally for the benefit of Israeli security, then I am sure we I agree their duty is: to say so. “We need to take this opportunity to attack Iraq to save Israel” Instead that is not what they said at all, which brings us to the 3rd issue. - Integrity, fidelity, decency none of these matter, because the gentleman see the primary tenet of Judaism as support for Israel. Hence, in politics the dominant forms of Judaism and Zionism are evil cults. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-forums-user-redfury-does-not-like-jews/568217.md?page=21)