The difference being, 'luci isn’t in a position to do much of a heck about it, so it doesn’t really matter about the motivations you might ascribe to him.
Do you really wish to go there? I was basing that on your quote, cited often enough above, that listed certain persons as being identified with dual loyalty, and ended with the greeting “Shalom”. I thought the inference was clear enough, but if it wasn’t what you meant, I’m delighted to hear it.
Well, naturally he isn’t going to come right out and say that’s what he meant. He’s clearly well aware that the accusation has a long and disgraceful history - hence his strenuous efforts to deny that this is what he’s up to.
Look at from another perspective: is there any other politically controversial topic in which these sorts of accusations of “dual loyalty” (or if you like “conflict of interest”) are common?
The fact is that thsi sort of argument very quickly degenerates into overt bigotry and it isn’t hard to understand why. Look at the matter practically. Assume that some folks do indeed have a “dual loyalty” and that this is a bad thing. How, practically, does one go about identifying them, objectively? What is to be done about it?
How to ensure that they are “loyal”, or that only the “loyal” are in positions of power?
This analogy makes the situation worse, not better. A financial “conflict of interest” is reasonably easy to detect: we deal with that situation all the time. What is done is that the person declares their (financial) interests upfront with a disclosure statement, and the person making the decision (the board of directors or whathaveyou) then decides whether they can be objective, given the financial interests on record. Failure to disclose is, ipso facto, proof of illigitimate interest.
How does one go about dealing with a conflict of something so subjective as “loyalty”?
The fear is that those pushing the “loyalty” test are, in fact, wishing for an objective, verifiable test - and membership in the impunged ethnicity is the time-tested one, which in each and every case in the past accusors of “dual loyalty” have used.
Here’s what one California university professor has to say on the topic:
There you have it. Given that this sort of reasoning is common today, has been common in the past, and that there is no particular reason to believe that the opinion of fellow you quoted will really, if enacted in any sort of policy, would be any different in practice, perhaps you can understand why Jews are not exactly thrilled by the “dual loyalty” argument.
What you are saying is that you disagree with him.
We are not objecting to disagreement. We are objecting to accusations of disloyalty based on disagreement.
More specifically, we are objecting to accusations of disloyalty based on disagreement that are, uniquely, accorded to one particular ethnicity.
Don’t you think it’s possible you have problem and solution reversed? That, if you define yourselves a priori as being hated, you’ll act in a way that makes you hated? That if, instead, you act is if you want peace, that all these mindlessly-hating countries around you might respond? Or are they all just not quite as human as you, not as able to feel or think, motivated only by hate? In short, if you believe Israel is widely hated, why do you think that is?
And what is this “deserving a friend” crap? How does one go about deserving that, or anything?
You’re not helping.
That argument isn’t very persuasive. Israel is above all associated with Jews, and Jews are used to being hated by “everyone”. It’s traditional.
So you don’t think there’s any possibility of that condition being self-sustaining? Or that counter examples of others of Israel’s neighbors being able to make peace with it are persuasive either? Or that “force is the only language they understand” works both ways?
I do understand how easy, and self-righteous, indulging in anti-Arab bigotry is for the likes of you and Frothy. But, unlike you, I also understand it’s a positive feedback loop.
What “anti-Arab bigotry”, pray tell?
I’m merely saying that the (in paraphrase) ‘if you are widely hated, maybe it’s really your fault’ argument isn’t very persuasive, given the history.
So, being pro-Israel doesn’t make you anti-arab, but being pro-Palestinian makes you an anti-semite?
I think I’ve got it now.
An honest question deserves an honest answer.
First off, its not a matter of choosing up sides for a pick-up game, trying to accord each team equal players, in the interests of fairness. Israel has many friends and admirers, and I count myself one. Happily, I do not require validation or approval for that opinion.
But what is a friend? If you see your friend fill his lap with lighter fluid and reach for the matches, does a friend nod approvingly as a gesture of loyalty? Or does he leap to snatch the matches away and shout “What the FUCK are you doing!?”
France is America’s friend, and when France saw America careening to a foolish and futile war, she spoke against it. She was ill-rewarded for her friendship by many, many Americans, most famously that pustule known as Bill O’Reilly calling for a boycott to punish France of her “disloyalty”.
A man cannot honor his country by assisting in an ignoble action, one cannot honor a friend by aiding those who would lead that friend down a dark and dangerous road.
Things have gotten to a point, and have been for some time, where the only route to peace is that those who want peace must want it above all else: they must want it more than victory. Well, is this true of the Palestinians? Are they so noble and advanced? No.
Which is why I believe that Israel must lead. I firmly believe that of the two antagonists, Israel is the more advanced, more intelligent, more educated. She must show how it can be done. I am not offering an easy solution, there is none, I offer a difficult, trying, and painful solution because I believe there is no other. You must want peace more than anything else, or you will not have it.
(There may be another option: to utterly destroy your enemy to a point where he is powerless to affect you. This will, of course, require an unbending and brutal rigor. We did it to the Japanese, it can be done. I think the sacrifice of innocent life is unworthy of a great nation, but I am not Israeli, I do not vote, the choice is not mine.)
But if there is to be peace, then, sooner or later, someone takes a blow that is not answered, someone refuses to strike back. Is there anything harder than that? Damned little, but if there is to be peace, it must be done.
Gestures are meaningless, but they are not. Sometimes the silliest thing, like a ping-pong team, can be the first step. Similarly, these settlements are not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but they are. They are gestures. Flip me the bird, and you’ve not injured me. But does it foster trust? Does it further peace?
I have said, and will say again: I think only Israel can do this thing, only she is smart enough and well armed enough to do it. Its no longer a matter of right and wrong, justice is not possible after 60 years of hostility, the clock will not turn back. To say “We will accept peace when all the injustices visited upon us have been turned back!” is to declare in favor of endless war, it cannot happen.
And the stakes are too high, it is not simply Israel lesser or greater, it is the lives of millions of innocent people who will surely die if this spins out of control.
To the point, then, at long last: I think America should remain Israels best and truest friend. I do not think that America helps her friend by encouraging belligerence and stubborn insistence. How many armored divisions can the Palestinians muster? What is the status of their air forces? Can they really represent a credible threat to a nation as well armed and motivated as Israel?
If you will have peace, you must want it more than anything else, certainly more than victory, perhaps more than justice.
Remember Amos Oz: true tragedy is what results when both antagonists have legitimate grievances.
Peace.
The constant statement that it’s only the Arabs’ alleged implacable hatred for Israel that stands in the way of peace.
Given THE history, it really should be persuasive. Given YOUR history, it cannot be.
I have to part ways with my esteemed colleague elucidator on one point: I do not think it is America’s responsibility to be the friend of Israel specifically. As the lone superpower (at least for now), I think it is America’s responsibility to foster peace between other nations to whatever extent it can. That requires NOT taking sides and participating in a conflict, but in helping all the conflicting parties to convince themselves to change their own behavior and attitudes. As long as we are seen as one participant’s sugar daddy, we cannot play that role, and no one else has the ability to.
Oddly, I haven’t even said it once, let alone on a “constant” basis. Nor, for that matter, do I believe it.
Perhaps you could enlighten me. When have I claimed that “it’s only the Arabs’ alleged implacable hatred for Israel that stands in the way of peace”?
Are you suggesting that there are seperate histories applicable here?
History, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.
Snark, like tu quoque, is often employed when one has no answer to a point raised in a discussion and wishes to obscure that fact.
But more often it’s used to illuminate the fundamental character of the alleged “point”.
No matter how many people feel Hitler and Stalin were wise and benevolent rulers, that doesn’t make them so.
Ooh, the dreaded Double Godwin! Well played!
Praise from an authority on the subject of bigotry is always gratifying. 
Well, this is an honest and heartfelt post. I am now convinced that you are an actual human being and not some SDMB Matrix-like computer program.
I can feel my mind going, Dave. Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do!..
FWIW, I largely agree with your last post. Israel is Dave and Palestine doesn’t open up for the stuff, the bastards…