You are confusing multiple issues.I’ll repeat some of them, as you still haven’t answered. 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?
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.
Just so readers don’t think that Jack is exaggerating…
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.
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.