Yes Kim, why are you refusing to admit you were wrong and continuing to weasel? Any particular reason, or just a general commitment to being difficult?
Speaking of weaseling, it’s quite intersting how you’ve (again) tried to change the subject when you were caught saying something quite odd. Here, I’ll remind you. Feel free to ignore it again.
Yet again, let’s see what W&M actually said. Surprising that you’ve forgotten it, as you’ve quoted it.
What are people actually doing, when they describe American Jews in politics as being untrustworthy due to dual loyalty?
American Jews in politics should be suspected of being alien to America and can not be fully trusted and considered true patriots if they have the ‘wrong’ politics. They are potentially putting the interests of another country ahead of America’s, possibly even to the point of causing harm to their own home, because unlike trustworthy, real Americans, their allegiance is not to their home. Their potential allegiance is to the National Home for their ethnicity, and we know this because their politics aren’t the “correct” ones. Jews in American politics are not necessarily truly loyal to the land they live in, where their children live, where their houses are. In fact, they may be willing to place the interests of the Jewish state, a foreign power, above the interests of their own home nation. They are, by design or coincidence, working as a fifth column to subvert America in order to benefit a foreign power.
And because you are continually ignoring facts that show your apologia is failing. yet again:
I know your question is sincere. I don’t know that there is only one target is my point. I can only lay out what I think.
I used to have a roommate when I was younger whose grandfather or some such was Irish. As a result he became eligible for an Irish and/or EU passport. I forget the details. My point is, there are lots of Irish and others running around with dual citizenship, yet their loyalty is not called into question at all, let alone in the same insinuating ways it has been for thousands of years.
OTOH, I have two Japanese American friends, both in their late 60s, who spent their childhood in a concentration camp in the lower 48 states of the US because they were branded as potential dual loyalists solely because of their ethnicity.
So I ask you to apply the charge everywhere, or not at all.
Why don’t we continue to ferret out the “dual loyalist” Japanese Americans among us, when our military and economic relationship with Japan is at least as large as it is with Israel? Why don’t we lock them up men women and child any more, simply because of their ethnicity and how that might mean they have secret dual loyalties that we can avoid by locking theme up?
That’s right. That’s the reason.
The reason we don’t apply those standards to Japanese Americans one and all, or to advisors to the President of that ethnicity is the same reason why we should drop the pretense that it is OK to do so for Jews (or anyone else for that matter).
I think everyone agrees that having support for Israel was a primary tenet of Judaism must in turn disqualify Jews from public office. At least any office with influence over foreign policy.
Now, we are not there yet, but that dogma is a primary goal of an already powerful and ascendant wing of American Judaism. Think of the characters Redfury mentions, the Perles, Wolfowitzes, Cantors and Liebermans of this world. Their foreign policy positions are notorious, reprehensible and indubitably connected to their ethnicity.
How to develop a policy which prevents their like appearing ever again?
I don’t accept that they are necessarily connected with their ehtnicity. They might just as easily by hyper-patriotic Americans whose “Zionism” reflects their neo-con convictions. As I said before, in that case, Israel could be a nation of atheists for all the difference it makes to them. Of course, on the “reprehensible”, you are on solid gound.
I 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. Which I’ve said several times. Rather than ask me the same stupid question again, why don’t you just read what I’ve said as many times as you need to?
You’re right. We should apply the standard equally or not at all.
Louis Brandeis once said:
“Let no American imagine that Zionism is inconsistent with Patriotism. Multiple loyalties are objectionable only if they are inconsistent. A man is a better citizen of the United States for being also a loyal citizen of his state, and of his city; or for being loyal to his college… Every American Jew who aids in advancing the Jewish settlement in Palestine, though he feels that neither he nor his descendants will ever live there, will likewise be a better man and a better American for doing so. There is no inconsistency between loyalty to America and loyalty to Jewry”
The question being posed by Red’s post is whether history has developed a situation where loyalties have become inconcistent. Are the interests of israel aligned enough with the interests of the United States that the dual loyalty becomes objectionable?
Red obviously thinks there is a species of zionism that poses a problem because the influence of the Israel Lobby (and they are by no means the only overly influential lobby) is warping our foreign policy to the popint where it is detrimental. 'Luc seems to have narrowed it down to criticizing anyone that helped march us into war whether they be Jew or Martian.
It’s not a stupid question, I am asking what precisely you mean by Zionism in the quoted part. If you have answered it before, can you provide me a link, and I will gladly read it.
The purpose for asking is so that you can be sure you are understood. If you don’t want to be precisely understood, just let us know - I will live with the ambiguity if you will live with the lost opportunity to have been clear and not bitch later that you were misunderstood.
Do you belive Either RedFury or Elucidator or KimStu, in this thread, have suggested that in addition to the dual loyalty test they would impost on the mythical Israeli Lobby, they would impose a similar test on anyone else?
Because really, who among us does not have one or more ethnicities that are related to places where the US has foreign policy?
Do you think they are prepared to cast the loyalty of all under suspicion, or only some? If only some, then which subgroup do they seem interested in?
And why should members of that subgroup, having seen what happened to Japanese Americans in this very country in many of our lifetimes, think anything different is in store for them?
See, both choices - questioning the loyalty of all, or only some are equally bad choices aren’t they?
There is a 3rd way though: Question the loyalty of none systematically, and if you have specific evidence of a crime, then offer it up at that time in the proper venue.
My use of the quotation marks around “Zionism” is a reflection of my skeptiicism for the premise that the neo-con support for Israel is necessarily a reflection of a Jewish identity. It may be so, it may not, but absent Finn’s power to peer into men’s souls, we cannot know.
But I applaud your efforts to read my posting history, this cannot help but prove educational.
I didn’t read it, I was merely assisting you in finding the place where you defined Zionism that I missed. Telling me why you put it in quotes doesn’t define the term inside the quotes ya know.
No, that’s not what I’ve said of myself. Not only have I not said it, but every time you’ve asked me whether I was saying it, I’ve told you that I wasn’t.
You can still “stay focused on that” if you want to, of course, but I’m not sure what more I can do to explain to you your misreading of what I’m actually saying.
Okay. The fundamental question seems to be, AFAICT, whether we ever need to mention religious identity at all when discussing the “Israel lobby”, or “pro-Israel politics” or whatever we’re calling it, in the American political system.
AFAICT, what you’re arguing is that we should not. Instead, we should just consider all adherents of a particular political position in terms of their politics alone, and ignore the question of religious affiliation entirely.
I already agreed with you that that’s a good principle (see below). But I’m questioning whether it’s feasible in practice in this case, since so many advocates of “pro-Israel politics” are themselves asserting a fundamental connection between this particular political position and religious affiliation.
That’s why I asked the following:
Actually, I did acknowledge them. In fact, I specifically responded to that list in this exchange from just a few posts ago:
I get what you’re saying, I believe: as I said above, your recommendation for the way to deal with the issue is to consider the political position totally separate from religious identity and ignore the religion stuff entirely, and then anti-Semitism will be excluded from the discussion.
Like I said, that’s a good principle for political debate in general. The problem here seems to be that “pro-Israel politics” are being discussed and promoted by their adherents largely in disregard of that principle.
That is, it’s not so much opponents as advocates of “pro-Israel politics” who are enthusiastically embracing the idea of a connection between their political positions and Jewish identity. Pro-Israel articles like the one I quoted earlier aren’t shy at all about asserting a strong connection between being Jewish and supporting the interests of Israel. Such assertions are routinely taken for granted not just in advocacy pieces but in regular political reporting, like this campaign 2008 story in the New York Times:
There’s no hesitation at all there about asserting a fundamental correlation of “pro-Israel” with “Jewish”. AIPAC is casually described both as a “pro-Israel lobby” (which indeed is how it officially describes itself) and as a “Jewish-American organization”. Attempting to attract American Jewish voters by endorsing Israeli hard-line policies is taken completely for granted as a rational campaign strategy.
Doesn’t this count as “insinuations against an entire group”? Is the New York Times being anti-Semitic here in conflating political positions with religious identity?
If you don’t think they are—if the sort of discourse in this article is okay with you—then it seems to me that it’s not going to be practically possible to stick to your principle of discussing support for Israel in US politics purely as a political issue, with no reference at all to religious affiliation.
Actually, you didn’t say it several times, you only said it one time prior:
so you feel as though, whatever "Zionoism"means to you, whether it is pejorative or not, there is a up to 50% chance that it is connected “with their ethnicity” or “the motivating factor”.
Sounds like you are not really as prepared to make a stand aas you wish to project yourself, you are right on the fence, as your own writing shows.
Good to know that you have left open a 50% chance of dual loyalty driving people’s decision making, and already labeled the results of the decision making (as equally as not, in your view based on a misguided dual loyalty) as a priori “reprehensible”.
Until you asked me to read more closely, I was honestly not that concerned about you, as you hadn’t written that much here. But now I see that you are very willing indeed to consider ethnicity as driving a man’s opinions and labeling it as reprehensible. Sure, it could be something else, but you are “Just Asking …”. I see.
I don;'t know if it is taken for granted by McCain or Republicans in general, but it didn’t exactly turn out to be a winning strategy did it?
Instead of cherry picking quotes form this paper or that book or that magazine as evidence, why don’t you focus on the nature of what has happened in this country to ethnic groups who were treated the way you are advocating? I am sure a library will reveal that newspapers, magazines, and whatever other media there was at the time uncover’s a rich trove of what I hope you will now find horrifying examples of the same type of material regarding Japanese Americans prior to their being rounded up and placed in concentration camps in the United States for questionable dual loyalty.
If you are near DC, he Museum of American History used to have an exhibit on this. I think it was permanent, but that was 20 years ago since I was there, and I think the museum has undergone a recent renovation, so I don’t know. If you can see it, it might be enlightening to see how the same language you advocate, for the same purpose, has been used in the past.
Then connect that with the history of Jews around the world for thousands of years - periods of relative prosperity and assimilation followed by scapegoating and disaster.
Is it really impossible for you KimStu to separate your goals from religion? Not if anyone else can or can’t, but you individually? Can you do it? If so, please confirm. If not, well, I think we will know the truth.
When I was a kid, my parents taught me “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
Besides, that piece is reporting on demographics, the same article is written routinely for all sorts of people in all sorts of campaigns. Are you prepared to question the “dual loyalty” of Hispanics on the basis that a newspaper report described their influence in a campaign? How about on women for the same reason? If you are, then go ahead and do it, if not, then stop pretending that Jews are not a special case to you. After all, you already said you would do the same for Catholics and the Vatican.
I’m curious, has one of these little rhetorical “gotcha” snares of yours ever actually worked?
You remind me of the kid I always see attempting skateboard stunts in my neighborhood. It’s disheartening to see you both fall flat on your face time after time, but I can’t help but root for you a little. You both have so much enthusiasm, and who knows, with enough repetition you might accidentally land one upright…
It is not a gotcha. She (I think she, not sure) wrote it, and challenged me to re-read it.
Am I incorrect in my interpretation?
As for whether this works, sure, both explicitly and implicitly. RedFury came back after 2 threads and retracted most of his statement as hyperbole that contained the factors ascribed to it, KimStu is coming around and seeming a bit open to other ways of viewing things (time will tell), and in the end, lurkers who are here now, or might come by as zombie readers will absorb the arguments more thoroughly without being caught up in the personalities of it, and another example of how subtle hate rhetoric gets into thinks, intentionally or not, will have been pointed out for the permanent record.
I think I noted upthread (although it could have been in another thread) that IRL I facilitated the resolution of a real love example of this sort of rhetoric being used in an educational institutional setting. The teacher wasn’t happy about it, but so what? She won’t be spreading her hate, susing rhetoric she (giving the benefit of the doubt here) did not know what hateful because it was just something people around her said about Jews growing up, and there were never any real Jews around (rural California) to learn otherwise. So a painful way to learn a lesson, but it was done as discretely as possible, but it was done.
So yeah, vigilance works if that is what you are asking.
Thanks for rooting us on! How would YOU make the argument against subtle forms of hate propaganda, for example the “Just asking …” way of raising a properly distasteful topic?
You accidentally neglected to answer any of the questions fromthis post. To start you off, why don’t you name three American Jews in politics who’ve been accused of dual loyalty, and who self-identify as both Americans and Israelis?
No, none of this “but” nonsense. Refer to politics if you’re debating politics. Debunk political positions if you feel they’re without merit. Argue on the facts and logic if you feel a political position is unsupportable. Do not bring race, ethnicity or religion into it unless you have actual Rosenbergesque proof that someone from a particular race, ethnicity or religion is acting on that basis. It’s simple and easy.
So people have no choice but to use classical anti-Semitic tropes at worst, or at “best” invoke ethnicity and religion as if they had anything to do with whether or not certain politics are the right choice… because some groups that are pro-Israel identify as Jewish organizations? Really?
Are you really ready to carry over that rationalization to other facets of the American political scene? Black Americans for life, fair to assert that they can’t be trusted to voice political opinions on abortion since everybody knows that blacks have a high rate of teen pregnancy and obviously blacks may be placing loyalty to their religious views for their own ethnic group before what’s good medical policy.
Sound good?
How about the Pink Pistols?
We can’t trust those gays to be objective due to their overriding loyalty to gay-issues over American issues, and we all know that gays are often targeted for violate hate crimes, so clearly you can’t trust gay people to have the best interests of America at heart when they argue about such an important issue as gun control.
Right?
Here’s a wild idea… if someone claims that they’re supporting Israel because of their ethnicity/religion, then you can call them on the fact that supporting politics based on ethnic or religious reasons isn’t as sound a policy as supporting them on facts and logic. But tarring other Jews with the same brush, and accusing them of supporting Israel because of their ethnicity/religion, simply because they’re Jewish and have the “wrong” politics, is still shitty.
If X% of Jews have a certain political bent, then it’s fruitful to try to cater to that if you want to earn Jewish votes. That doesn’t mean that being Jewish made them have that position. Especially since there are Jews who don’t hold those positions or who hold the opposite. It’s the height of sloppy thinking to claim that Jews who wanted America to be tough on Iran were doing so because it was a “Jewish issue” and Jews who didn’t want America to be tough on Iran were doing so because it was a “Jewish issue” and Jews who couldn’t give a fuck about Iran didn’t care, and they didn’t care because it was a “Jewish issue”.
You honestly don’t see a difference between “X% of Jews tend to support Policy Y, so politicians try to appeal to Jewish voters to get their support.” and “He’s a Jew in American politics and supports Policy Y, so we can’t trust that he has America’s best interests at heart and perhaps he’s letting his Dual Loyalty and allegiance to the Jewish state override what he’s really think if he was a good, patriotic American.”
While I agree with Kimstu’s position on another thread:
I find the logic extremely ironic given this one, s/he is the one of whom it is suggested understands exactly the effect of his/her rhetoric and denies it. It does give me some hope that KimStu DOES indeed understand the point being made though and might be looking for a way to save face. Might that be the case? If so, I am sure it can be arranged
