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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So far, so good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
That the allegiance of Americans in general and Americans politicians in specific is to America first (hence the line “Israel Firster” accusation).
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.
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.
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.
No statement could better encapsulate the mind-rot that perpetuates stalemate.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Or this?
Or…
Well, I suppose, if “hyper-patriotic” is interpreted as its exact opposite. Wouldn’t put it past you.
OR maybe this was it:
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!
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!”
“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.
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.
