Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
A Discussion of American Jews' Loyalty to America
The whole world wants peace, except for the hawks in power in our government now (Zionists and Christian Right), and Israel. How many times have you heard Israelis and Zionists say that Jews thrive on conflict and confrontation? I've heard them say it many times and besides it's obvious. Most of the Jewish holidays celebrate some kind of conflict. No wonder there are so many Jewish lawyers! At any rate, when will Zionists embrace equality and justice and inclusiveness? Is this not in their lexicon except when it suits only their own interests?
In his article, “Defense of Dual Loyalty,” Joe Sobran elucidates the basic misapprehension at the root and heart of support for
Zionism.
The peace activist and ethnic-equality activist (one and the same thing) sees right through all the nonsense of “divided
loyalties,” or being more “pro-Israel” than “pro-America.”
The Zionists have recruited all these modern “pro-Israelis” into the hideously chauvinistic notion that supporting Jewish
SUPREMACY in Israel is the only way to be “pro-Israel.” In reality, THE primary political lesson of the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries is that ethnic-supremacy is a horrible cancer to any society that comes to believe in it. It has never been
“pro-American” to support official policies of racist violence – and not simply because doing so is unconstitutional. Racism is
unconstitutional BECAUSE it is a hideously chauvinistic and self-destructive cancer.
Ethnic-supremacy is just as bad for Israel, as it has been for some parts of the United States, for Germany, and for every other
nation that has tried to raise it to a source of national pride.
Surely, all these Top Zionists, in top government leadership, in the US and in Israel, are quite aware of history’s lessons on this
point. These leaders are not victims of their own propaganda schemes.
They simply know that the Zionist movement, calling for official – and openly violent – Jewish supremacy in Palestine, and fully
exploiting the fear and guilt of the Holocaust, has risen beyond the reach of criticism and reason, like a runaway elephant: and
any politician that links himself to that rampaging energy is sure to supercede more rational voices, urging sustainable policies.
Zionist politicians only POSE as “loyal” to Israel. Anyone with a first-semester understanding of racism – or with a PhD on the
subject – knows that such racists are only loyal to themselves.
In reality, the voices of reason and history must call for ethnic-equality, as all rational voices have done, for several centuries
now – and doing so is far more “pro-Israel” than the Zionist politicians who rise to personal prominence, by riding the runaway
elephant of racist conquest.
The call for equality and justice is both “pro-Israel” and “pro-America.” It is also “pro-Palestine.” But the Zionists have
controlled this dialogue – exploiting the Holocaust every time they scream “anti-Semtism” – to the extent that ethnic-equality is
now treated as a lunatic-fringe position, in the special case of Jews and Israel. Nothing could be more truly anti-Semitic, even as
our tax support for it is totally unconstitutional, and even as it requires grossly violent and racist policies in Palestine which should
stand as (further) proof that Jewish supremacy is just as sick as white supremacy, Serbian supremacy, German supremacy, etc.
Jewish people must reject the sick Zionist notion that the only way to be “pro-Israel” is to adopt the Nazi-like belief that Israel
must be defined as an officially “Jewish” state – despite the hideous violence such forced supremacy requires.
The “anti-war” movement must reject the notion that – in the special case of Jews and Israel – ethnic-equality is “unrealistic,”
and “rejectionist.” Peace and ethnic-equality are the best thing for everyone, and those who wish to be truly “pro-Israel” must
urgently start demanding reform of Israel’s racist immigration policies – the primary tool of Zionist ethnic-supremacy in Palestine.
Residence and property rights, within the borders of Israel, must be weighed on the basis of human rights and international law,
rather than the current, explicitly racist system: “Jewish yes; non-Jewish no.” And Americans must demand an end to the
unconstitutional use of our federal taxes, to support Jewish ethnic and religious supremacy in Israel-Palestine.
Obviously, this basic moral obligation and political common-sense would grant the Palestinians all they have ever asked for, but
that does NOT make it any less “pro-Israel” or “pro-America.”
Dave Kersting
---------------------------------------------------
From: RePorterNoteBook [at] aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:09:03 EST
Subject: In Defense of Dual Loyalty- Balfour Declaration
In Defense of Dual Loyalty
by Joe Sobran
My extended family
Well, the fur is flying now. The debate about war on
Iraq often seems to be less about the reasons for and
against war than about the motives of the debaters
themselves. The touchiest and most volatile point in the
debate is the old question of Jewish loyalty, especially
as regards to Israel.
When the British issued the Balfour Declaration
calling for a Jewish homeland in Palestine back in 1918,
the Jewish Lord Montagu wept. He thought it was a tragic
mistake, because it would call in question the loyalty of
Diaspora Jews to their native countries. He thought the
suspicion of "dual loyalty" was inevitable.
He was right, but he didn't foresee how that
suspicion would be suppressed in our time. Today the
charge of dual loyalty is considered disreputable, so
disreputable that it should never be entertained even as
a possibility. Writing in the WASHINGTON POST, Lawrence
Kaplan insinuates that those who suspect Israeli
loyalists, especially within the Bush administration, of
pushing for war are -- though he avoids the word --
anti-Semites.
Well, if we're going to argue about this, let's
start with an obvious question: What's wrong with dual
loyalties? I love this country in my way, but I love the
Europe of my ancestors too, and I don't blame Jews whose
chief loyalty is to their own people. I rather expect it.
It's called nature. It isn't necessarily sinister. But it
has to be taken into account.
"All stereotypes are more or less accurate," writes
the sociologist John Murray Cuddihy. That doesn't mean
they are universally true; it means they are broadly
true, even if there are exceptions. Just because an
ethnic generalization isn't always true doesn't mean it's
never true.
Politicians, who don't traffic in subtle nuances,
know this. Crude stereotypes, usually implicit, serve
them well. New York politicians, bidding for the Jewish
vote, assume what they won't say outright: that the best
way to get Jewish votes is to call for all-out U.S.
support for Israel. That is, they assume that most Jews'
first loyalty today is to Israel. And nobody accuses them
of anti-Semitism for assuming this.
What's more, it gets them elected. Ladies and
gentlemen, I give you Robert Wagner, Jacob Javits, John
Lindsay, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Al D'Amato, Ed Koch,
Rudy Giuliani, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton ...
Nobody ever lost a New York election by being too pro-
Israel. Never.
It's unfair to blame the Jews for doing what most of
us do. But it's absurd to pretend that they don't do it.
Are we really supposed to believe that the Jewish-
Zionist-Likudnik hawks around President Bush -- the
Perle-Wolfowitz-Feith-JINSA crowd -- would be so eager
for war if they thought Iraq was Israel's friend? Please.
And most of the big Jewish organizations want the United
States to fight Israel's enemies. Naturally! We aren't
supposed to notice?
Read the Jewish press. How often do you find its
writers saying, "Well, this war might be good for Israel,
but it would be bad for America, and after all, we are
American citizens first!"? Almost unimaginable. Actually,
dual loyalty would be an improvement. It would mean
putting American interests ahead of Israeli interests
every once in a while.
For all that, the Jewish hawks may be right. It's
possible that American and Israeli interests coincide now
and then. But how likely is it that those interests are
always identical? That there is no tension at all between
loyalty to both countries?
At the moment there is certainly tension between my
American and European loyalties, and you may say, if you
like, that I'm with Europe. The millions of peace
marchers who turned out last weekend spoke for me. They
were the voice of European civilization; and when America
threatens Europe's peace, I see no reason to side with
America.
But I also see no reason to hide my loyalties. I'm
proud of Europe, especially now. I'm sometimes ashamed of
America, especially now. I just think Israel-first Jews
ought to be equally frank. Let's all declare our
interests.
I don't think this war will really be good for
America. I'm not even sure it will be good for Israel.
But as the Godfather asks, with a fine sense of
relevance, "What is the interest for me and my family?"
My family, in this case, is not only America, but Europe.
And Europe wants peace.
Zionism.
The peace activist and ethnic-equality activist (one and the same thing) sees right through all the nonsense of “divided
loyalties,” or being more “pro-Israel” than “pro-America.”
The Zionists have recruited all these modern “pro-Israelis” into the hideously chauvinistic notion that supporting Jewish
SUPREMACY in Israel is the only way to be “pro-Israel.” In reality, THE primary political lesson of the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries is that ethnic-supremacy is a horrible cancer to any society that comes to believe in it. It has never been
“pro-American” to support official policies of racist violence – and not simply because doing so is unconstitutional. Racism is
unconstitutional BECAUSE it is a hideously chauvinistic and self-destructive cancer.
Ethnic-supremacy is just as bad for Israel, as it has been for some parts of the United States, for Germany, and for every other
nation that has tried to raise it to a source of national pride.
Surely, all these Top Zionists, in top government leadership, in the US and in Israel, are quite aware of history’s lessons on this
point. These leaders are not victims of their own propaganda schemes.
They simply know that the Zionist movement, calling for official – and openly violent – Jewish supremacy in Palestine, and fully
exploiting the fear and guilt of the Holocaust, has risen beyond the reach of criticism and reason, like a runaway elephant: and
any politician that links himself to that rampaging energy is sure to supercede more rational voices, urging sustainable policies.
Zionist politicians only POSE as “loyal” to Israel. Anyone with a first-semester understanding of racism – or with a PhD on the
subject – knows that such racists are only loyal to themselves.
In reality, the voices of reason and history must call for ethnic-equality, as all rational voices have done, for several centuries
now – and doing so is far more “pro-Israel” than the Zionist politicians who rise to personal prominence, by riding the runaway
elephant of racist conquest.
The call for equality and justice is both “pro-Israel” and “pro-America.” It is also “pro-Palestine.” But the Zionists have
controlled this dialogue – exploiting the Holocaust every time they scream “anti-Semtism” – to the extent that ethnic-equality is
now treated as a lunatic-fringe position, in the special case of Jews and Israel. Nothing could be more truly anti-Semitic, even as
our tax support for it is totally unconstitutional, and even as it requires grossly violent and racist policies in Palestine which should
stand as (further) proof that Jewish supremacy is just as sick as white supremacy, Serbian supremacy, German supremacy, etc.
Jewish people must reject the sick Zionist notion that the only way to be “pro-Israel” is to adopt the Nazi-like belief that Israel
must be defined as an officially “Jewish” state – despite the hideous violence such forced supremacy requires.
The “anti-war” movement must reject the notion that – in the special case of Jews and Israel – ethnic-equality is “unrealistic,”
and “rejectionist.” Peace and ethnic-equality are the best thing for everyone, and those who wish to be truly “pro-Israel” must
urgently start demanding reform of Israel’s racist immigration policies – the primary tool of Zionist ethnic-supremacy in Palestine.
Residence and property rights, within the borders of Israel, must be weighed on the basis of human rights and international law,
rather than the current, explicitly racist system: “Jewish yes; non-Jewish no.” And Americans must demand an end to the
unconstitutional use of our federal taxes, to support Jewish ethnic and religious supremacy in Israel-Palestine.
Obviously, this basic moral obligation and political common-sense would grant the Palestinians all they have ever asked for, but
that does NOT make it any less “pro-Israel” or “pro-America.”
Dave Kersting
---------------------------------------------------
From: RePorterNoteBook [at] aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:09:03 EST
Subject: In Defense of Dual Loyalty- Balfour Declaration
In Defense of Dual Loyalty
by Joe Sobran
My extended family
Well, the fur is flying now. The debate about war on
Iraq often seems to be less about the reasons for and
against war than about the motives of the debaters
themselves. The touchiest and most volatile point in the
debate is the old question of Jewish loyalty, especially
as regards to Israel.
When the British issued the Balfour Declaration
calling for a Jewish homeland in Palestine back in 1918,
the Jewish Lord Montagu wept. He thought it was a tragic
mistake, because it would call in question the loyalty of
Diaspora Jews to their native countries. He thought the
suspicion of "dual loyalty" was inevitable.
He was right, but he didn't foresee how that
suspicion would be suppressed in our time. Today the
charge of dual loyalty is considered disreputable, so
disreputable that it should never be entertained even as
a possibility. Writing in the WASHINGTON POST, Lawrence
Kaplan insinuates that those who suspect Israeli
loyalists, especially within the Bush administration, of
pushing for war are -- though he avoids the word --
anti-Semites.
Well, if we're going to argue about this, let's
start with an obvious question: What's wrong with dual
loyalties? I love this country in my way, but I love the
Europe of my ancestors too, and I don't blame Jews whose
chief loyalty is to their own people. I rather expect it.
It's called nature. It isn't necessarily sinister. But it
has to be taken into account.
"All stereotypes are more or less accurate," writes
the sociologist John Murray Cuddihy. That doesn't mean
they are universally true; it means they are broadly
true, even if there are exceptions. Just because an
ethnic generalization isn't always true doesn't mean it's
never true.
Politicians, who don't traffic in subtle nuances,
know this. Crude stereotypes, usually implicit, serve
them well. New York politicians, bidding for the Jewish
vote, assume what they won't say outright: that the best
way to get Jewish votes is to call for all-out U.S.
support for Israel. That is, they assume that most Jews'
first loyalty today is to Israel. And nobody accuses them
of anti-Semitism for assuming this.
What's more, it gets them elected. Ladies and
gentlemen, I give you Robert Wagner, Jacob Javits, John
Lindsay, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Al D'Amato, Ed Koch,
Rudy Giuliani, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton ...
Nobody ever lost a New York election by being too pro-
Israel. Never.
It's unfair to blame the Jews for doing what most of
us do. But it's absurd to pretend that they don't do it.
Are we really supposed to believe that the Jewish-
Zionist-Likudnik hawks around President Bush -- the
Perle-Wolfowitz-Feith-JINSA crowd -- would be so eager
for war if they thought Iraq was Israel's friend? Please.
And most of the big Jewish organizations want the United
States to fight Israel's enemies. Naturally! We aren't
supposed to notice?
Read the Jewish press. How often do you find its
writers saying, "Well, this war might be good for Israel,
but it would be bad for America, and after all, we are
American citizens first!"? Almost unimaginable. Actually,
dual loyalty would be an improvement. It would mean
putting American interests ahead of Israeli interests
every once in a while.
For all that, the Jewish hawks may be right. It's
possible that American and Israeli interests coincide now
and then. But how likely is it that those interests are
always identical? That there is no tension at all between
loyalty to both countries?
At the moment there is certainly tension between my
American and European loyalties, and you may say, if you
like, that I'm with Europe. The millions of peace
marchers who turned out last weekend spoke for me. They
were the voice of European civilization; and when America
threatens Europe's peace, I see no reason to side with
America.
But I also see no reason to hide my loyalties. I'm
proud of Europe, especially now. I'm sometimes ashamed of
America, especially now. I just think Israel-first Jews
ought to be equally frank. Let's all declare our
interests.
I don't think this war will really be good for
America. I'm not even sure it will be good for Israel.
But as the Godfather asks, with a fine sense of
relevance, "What is the interest for me and my family?"
My family, in this case, is not only America, but Europe.
And Europe wants peace.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$135.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
@%<
The Jews And Iraq
James D. Besser
FEBRUARY 14, 2003
Washington
Defying critics, most American Jews reflect the general public's confused ambivalence over a new Gulf War.
Pollsters didn't survey American Jews after last week's dramatic United Nations speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell, but if they did the results would probably show that the community is on the same wavelength as a confused, anxious American public.
Ask any rabbi or community relations professional; in Jewish communities across the nation, there is support for the Bush administration's Iraq policy laced with healthy doses of skepticism and outright opposition — the whole range of reactions of a worried nation.
That refutes an article of faith of the anti-war Left — that American Jewish concerns about Israel, and pressure from the right-wing government in Jerusalem, are critical factors in propelling America to a new Gulf War.
That theory is wrong on several counts.
Despite the prominence of several Jewish defense hawks in the administration, no reputable analyst believes Israel's views, or a U.S. desire to protect the Jewish state, are significant factors in the Bush administration's single-minded focus on Iraq. President George W. Bush's determination to press ahead with the military option has nothing to do with his friend in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Most Israelis would like to see the Iraqi threat neutralized, but their enthusiasm for a U.S. attack is tempered by memories of the 1991 SCUD attacks and the knowledge that this time, Saddam could lash out with much deadlier weapons, especially if he is wounded but not removed.
And many Israelis doubt the sweeping Mideast vision of the administration officials who predict a tidal wave of moderation across the Arab and Islamic worlds if the Iraqi dictator is sent packing. As the U.S. experience in Afghanistan has shown, a successful military campaign does not necessarily translate into successful nation and democracy building.
In this country, most Jewish leaders have quietly signaled support for the administration's tough stance. But even at the height of last year's debate over a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force, only a small handful actually weighed in on Capitol Hill.
Jewish leaders, wary of a potential backlash and facing a community that is far from unified on the war issue, have kept a very low profile as war preparations mount. Out in the communities, the watchword is "ambivalence."
As usual, there is a wide gap between dedicated pro-Israel activists, who tend to make Israel their first policy, and the majority of Jews who care deeply about Israel, but view public policy through a wider lens.
Among the latter group, there is understanding of the need to fight terrorism and concern about Iraq's threat to Israel, but also skepticism about the administration's motives.
According to a recent American Jewish Committee survey, 59 percent of American Jews approve of U.S. military action against Iraq — about the same as the support from the American public at large — with 36 percent opposed.
More than half of the Jews surveyed — 56 percent — worry that a war between America and Iraq is "likely to lead to larger war involving other countries in the Middle East." And 62 percent believe the threat of terrorism against the U.S. will increase with U.S. military action against Iraq.
The survey also showed that while a majority still approve of Mr. Bush's handling of the anti-terror war, the proportion has dropped steeply from the overwhelming approval in the days after September ll. Again, Jews seem right in the uncertain American mainstream.
Meanwhile, not surprisingly, liberal Jews are already a significant presence in the growing anti-war movement, despite the presence of vehemently anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic forces there.
Even some Jewish hawks say Mr. Bush has not made the case about why Iraq can only be dealt with by massive military action while diplomacy is preferred with North Korea — a nation with nuclear weapons and demonstrating unparalleled recklessness in selling weapons to Mideast bad guys.
Last week's terror alert warning of possible al Qaeda attacks against Jewish institutions and businesses here may increase that skepticism. Why is the administration so determined to engage Iraq when al Qaeda is probably readying new attacks on American citizens?
Bottom line: anti-war activists who see Jewish and Israeli pro-war conspiracies are far off the mark. It is true that some of the loudest and most prominent advocates of war in the aministration are prominent Jews. But the community itself mirrors all the concerns and doubts that make war with Iraq a high stakes political, as well as military, gamble for Mr. Bush.
But I think the point is made.
@%<
His tactics are
l. Ad hominems
2. Changing the subject
3. Irrelevancy (meaning never addressing the issues, but attempting to impeach the testimony by demonstrating some "nefarious" linkage.
So Buckley kicked him of the National Review. Why did Buckley kick off the National Review? Because Buckley knew that allowing Sobran to publish his opinions would get him into deep doo doo with the rather powerful and influential organizations and group that Gehrig so regularly champions.
It even appears that Gehrig has a full time job, that is to browse the internet for any material that is expository or "harmful" to Israel, ridicule the source, minimalize the damage or change the subject.
Let me give another example to help illustrate it.
Remember Dan Elliott, AKA Cui Bozo? When he was going on his rampage last August or so, in here and IMC-Jerusalem and the Process mailing list, one of the pieces he posted in IMC-Jerusalem on how ee-e-evil Zionism was, was a history written by a guy named Mark Weber. Nice, big long piece about how The Zionists exert irresistable pressure on US politics, international politics, the media, and so forth. It wasn't that far in tone from -- well, I'll say it, from
Chomsky on a roll.
One little problem. Who is Mark Weber, the guy who wrote the article Cui Bozo posted?
If you want, I can go into a _great deal_ of detail about who Weber is. I can demonstrate that he is one of the half-dozen central figures in the Holocaust denial movement; I can demonstrate his affiliation with the neo-Nazi National Alliance; I can quote his court testimony in defense of Ernst Zundel, the Holocaust denier who funded the Leuchter report -- claiming to prove chemically that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz -- at the very same trial for which Zundel commissioned that report; I can post a picture of Weber giving one of a series of talks at David Irving's annual riverboat assemblage in Cincinnati; I can give you the references to his history of antisemitism in the various expert reports assembled to refute Irving in the Lipstadt trial -- anyway, you get the picture.
In other words, the guy is pure swastika-kissing shit.
But, see, merely by changing the word "Jew" to "Zionist" in his writing, and repeating some of the usual tropes about the Palestinian tragedy, he sounded enough like an ardent-but-principled anti-Zionist that some of the ardent-but-principled anti-Zionists on the IMC took him for one of their own.
And if I had pointed out to Cui Bozo that he was quoting a well-known Nazi apologist, does anyone doubt that (a) he would simply turn around and say "there they go with the 'antisemitism' card again," and then (b) he would blame _me_ for being upset that he's quoting a Nazi?
There was another example a few weeks ago in a major British newspaper, the Evening Standard. Somebody had posted an ardently anti-Israel column, and then suggested that those who wanted more information should read a book titled something like "The Palestinian Holocaust," co -written by a dude named Michael A. Hoffman, II. Three days later, they published an apologetic retraction, saying that the columnist didn't know that he was pointing people to a Holocaust denier as if he were a legitimate source.
Indybay, to its credit, deletes links to Hoffman's site instantly. But the Evening Standard's columnist had his idealism exploited, and the deniers are all having a good chortle about how their propaganda made the Evening Standard.
This isn't my imagination, folks. This shit really happens. And "pretend it doesn't" isn't a suitable response. And "you're working undercover for the Mossad" ain't particularly convincing either.
And when you literally can't tell the difference between your stance on Israel and that of a professional Nazi apologist like Weber or Hoffman II, isn't that just a tad troubling?
Finally, this is the dividing point. This is one of those cases where you make a choice, and that choice is determined by the strength of your character. There will be those who, after seeing this, will stop and scratch their heads a bit and decide that there is after all something of a point to what I'm saying; there will be others who simply brush it off and stamp, "there they go screaming 'antisemitism' again, la-la-la-I-can't-HEAR-you."
@%<