American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
coaste...@yahoo.com
BY GLENN GREENWALD
(updated below - Update II - Update III)
The rather extraordinary dust-up between the U.S. and Israel has,
among other benefits, shined a light on two of the most taboo yet self-
evidently true propositions: (1) our joined-at-the-hip relationship
with Israel is a significant cause of anti-American sentiment in the
Muslim world, fuels attacks on Americans, and entails a very high
price for the U.S. on multiple levels; and (2) many American
neoconservatives have their political beliefs shaped by allegiance to
Israel.
As for the first: not only did Joe Biden tell Prime Minister
Netanyahu that Israel's actions are endangering U.S. troops in the
region, but -- more important -- as Foreign Policy's Mark Perry
reports, both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus within the last
couple of months stressed the same causal connection to Obama
officials: "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives." It's
rather difficult to maintain the fiction that only fringe Israel-
haters see the connection between our support for Israel and Muslim
hatred toward the U.S. when two of America's most respected military
officials (responsible for U.S. troops in the region) are making that
case explicitly. Moreover, the Mullen/Petraeus alarm is almost
certainly what accounts for the Obama administration's sudden (and
commendable) willingness to so publicly oppose Israel. As Perry
says: "There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA,
the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli
lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S.
military."
As for the second point: I've previously noted the glaring
contradiction among neoconservatives, whereby they simultaneously (a)
tell American Jewish voters to vote Republican because (they claim)
the GOP is better for Israel and (b) insist that it's anti-Semitic to
point out that some are guided by their allegiance to Israel when
forming their political beliefs about U.S. policy. Obviously, anyone
who does (a) is, by logical necessity, endorsing the very premise in
(b) which they want (when it suits them) to label anti-Semitic.
Neoconservatives constantly make political appeals to Jewish voters
expressly grounded in the premise that American Jews are guided by
allegiance to Israel (vote Republican because it's better for Israel),
yet then scream "anti-Semite" at anyone who points this out. When
faced with this glaring contradiction, their typical response -- as
illustratively voiced by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, after she argued
in a 2008 Jerusalem Post column that American Jews should vote against
Obama because he'd be bad for Israel -- is to deny that "that the
interests of the U.S. and Israel are antithetical" and insist that
"support for Israel in no way requires sacrificing one’s concerns for
America’s interests." In other words: to advocate for Israel is to
advocate for the U.S. because their interests are wholly
indistinguishable, even synonymous.
Yet here we have a major split between the U.S. and Israel, with key
American military and political leaders explaining that the opposite
is true: that Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and
jeopardizing American lives. And what is the reflexive, unambiguous
response of virtually every American Israel-centric neocon? To side
with Israel over the U.S. AIPAC, the ADL, Elliott Abrams, AIPAC-loyal
Democrats in the House, Marty Peretz, Commentary, etc. etc. all
quickly castigated the U.S. Government and defended Israel,
notwithstanding the dangers to Americans posed by Israeli conduct and
the massive price paid by the U.S. in so many ways for this
relationship (by contrast, J Street called the administration's anger
towards Israel both "understandable and appropriate"). There's
nothing wrong with taking Israel's side per se -- one is and should be
free to criticize one's own government in its foreign policy -- but
incidents like this make it increasingly futile to try to suppress
what is glaringly visible: that (as is true for numerous groups in
the U.S.) a significant segment of the neoconservative Right (which
includes some evangelical Christians and some American Jews) are
guided in their political advocacy by their emotional, religious, and
cultural attachment to another country, and want U.S. policy shaped to
advance that devotion.
On a related note: there has been a long-standing effort to equate
those who make this observation with anti-Israel hatred or even anti-
Semitism. Two widely-cited reports did exactly that with regard to me
recently: this pseudo-scholarly report from the Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs and this post on the blog of the American Jewish
Committee, both of which hurl all sorts of ugly though trite
accusations at me for daring to suggest that some American Jews are
guided in their political advocacy by allegiance to Israel. I'll just
note that the author of both "reports" is someone named Adam Levick,
who -- with extreme, unintended irony -- lists this as his biography
on his Twitter account:
I'm an American who just made Aliyah (moved to Israel), and love
America and my new country.
If you're going to try to render unspeakable the observation that some
American neocons are devoted to Israel, it's probably best to have the
crusade led by someone with a different biography (The Atlantic's
Jeffrey Goldberg, who went to serve in the IDF as a prison guard
incarcerating Palestinians, is probably also not a good candidate to
lead that crusade). As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong
per se with harboring cultural affections for other countries -- many
individuals in the culturally diverse U.S. do -- but stridently
denying what is so obviously true, and smearing those who point it
out, does more than anything else to make something innocuous seem
nefarious.
Finally, the reason Israel engages in this intransigent, arrogant
conduct is because it believes (with good reason) that U.S. officials
will never be willing to (and, in any event, cannot) take any real
action against it. At this point, the Obama administration -- as
reflected by the excellent questions posed yesterday to David Axelrod
by ABC News' Jake Tapper -- still seems far from ready to do so.
Still, there's no denying that the very public condemnation of Israel
by the Obama administration is unprecedented at least over the last
two decades, will produce benefits on its own (including sentiments
like this and this being increasingly expressed even among those Obama
supporters who don't typically speak out about this issue), and will
subject Obama officials to serious political pressure and attacks,
from which they ought to be defended. It's true that none of this
will ultimately matter unless the administration is willing to back
this up with meaningful action -- i.e., credible threats to change
policy -- but this last week was an important and substantial first
step toward that vital goal.
Many of the issues I write most about here -- from civil liberties
erosions and radical, lawless National Security State policies to the
wars that justify them -- have their roots in our involvement in the
Middle East, and our self-destructive, blind support for Israeli
actions is a major (though not the only or even primary) factor in all
of that. It's impossible to care about the former without wanting to
do something substantial about the latter.
UPDATE: Former AIPAC official M.J. Rosenberg has more on the extreme
and highly revealing AIPAC attacks on the Obama administration and the
political strategy it intends to pursue.
UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
UPDATE III: AP details the seriously nasty backlash now developing
against the Obama administration from the Israel-centric Right, led by
AIPAC, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Lieberman dismissed this as
nothing more than a "family feud" and demanded that this all end. You
may have thought the U.S. and Israel are separate countries with the
obligation to protect their own interests, but according to Lieberman,
they're all part of the same "family" that should never publicly
disagree, because doing so only helps Our Enemies, which (of course)
we have fully in common. Meanwhile, John Cole analyzes the neocon
threats that the Obama administration will pay a serious political
price for its defiance of the Israeli Government as a result of the
upcoming AIPAC conference.
drahcir
wrote:
> U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos
> BY GLENN GREENWALD
I skimmed this post for approximately 19 seconds and concluded that
only a colossal idiot such as yourself could possibly glean what you
wrote in your subject from it.
TheZ
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7385d806-7330-4db6...@j16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
coaste...@yahoo.com
Here it is again, from the end of "Update Two":
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Bullshit
You've made this brilliant argument before. How 'bout letting us in on
you inspiration?
>
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos
> BY GLENN GREENWALD
>
> (updated below - Update II - Update III)
>
> The rather extraordinary dust-up between the U.S. and Israel has,
> among other benefits, shined a light on two of the most taboo yet self-
> evidently true propositions: (1) our joined-at-the-hip relationship
> with Israel is a significant cause of anti-American sentiment in the
> Muslim world, fuels attacks on Americans, and entails a very high
> price for the U.S. on multiple levels; and (2) many American
> neoconservatives have their political beliefs shaped by allegiance to
> Israel.
19 seconds is clearly not enough for you, Ratner, and is too much for
Z. It IS self-evident that our relationship with Israel is damaging to
us. It is a "significant cause" of anti-American sentiment and
terrorist attacks against us. 9/11 is the seminal example. And of
course many American neoconservatives are shaped by allegiance to
Israel. Both of these are beyond doubt.
>
> As for the first: not only did Joe Biden tell Prime Minister
> Netanyahu that Israel's actions are endangering U.S. troops in the
> region, but -- more important -- as Foreign Policy's Mark Perry
> reports, both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus within the last
> couple of months stressed the same causal connection to Obama
> officials: "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives." It's
> rather difficult to maintain the fiction that only fringe Israel-
> haters see the connection between our support for Israel and Muslim
> hatred toward the U.S. when two of America's most respected military
> officials (responsible for U.S. troops in the region) are making that
> case explicitly. Moreover, the Mullen/Petraeus alarm is almost
> certainly what accounts for the Obama administration's sudden (and
> commendable) willingness to so publicly oppose Israel. As Perry
> says: "There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA,
> the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli
> lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S.
> military."
How many times have we opponents of Israeli policy made the same
point. "Not one more life or one more thin dime to support Israel's
continued aggression and oppression. It's contrary to our interests
and also costs us blood and treasure with nothing in return." Our view
is no longer even taboo! I share it with four star general Petraeus
and Admiral of the Fleet Mullen. I share it with President Obama and
Vice President Biden! It has now become mainstream by definition
though there is absolutely nothing new about it.
> As for the second point: I've previously noted the glaring
> contradiction among neoconservatives, whereby they simultaneously (a)
> tell American Jewish voters to vote Republican because (they claim)
> the GOP is better for Israel and (b) insist that it's anti-Semitic to
> point out that some are guided by their allegiance to Israel when
> forming their political beliefs about U.S. policy. Obviously, anyone
> who does (a) is, by logical necessity, endorsing the very premise in
> (b) which they want (when it suits them) to label anti-Semitic.
> Neoconservatives constantly make political appeals to Jewish voters
> expressly grounded in the premise that American Jews are guided by
> allegiance to Israel (vote Republican because it's better for Israel),
> yet then scream "anti-Semite" at anyone who points this out. When
> faced with this glaring contradiction, their typical response -- as
> illustratively voiced by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, after she argued
> in a 2008 Jerusalem Post column that American Jews should vote against
> Obama because he'd be bad for Israel -- is to deny that "that the
> interests of the U.S. and Israel are antithetical" and insist that
> "support for Israel in no way requires sacrificing one’s concerns for
> America’s interests." In other words: to advocate for Israel is to
> advocate for the U.S. because their interests are wholly
> indistinguishable, even synonymous.
Another of my/our constant refrains here, the absolute impossibility
that America's interests are the same as Israel's. What's happening to
the taboos in the mainstream? Think about it, Ratner. It isn't
working. No one gives a damn about the "anti-Semite" epithet any more.
It has no more sting. The reason is that it was used dishonestly for
political purposes. The lie has failed.
>
> Yet here we have a major split between the U.S. and Israel, with key
> American military and political leaders explaining that the opposite
> is true: that Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and
> jeopardizing American lives. And what is the reflexive, unambiguous
> response of virtually every American Israel-centric neocon? To side
> with Israel over the U.S. AIPAC, the ADL, Elliott Abrams, AIPAC-loyal
> Democrats in the House, Marty Peretz, Commentary, etc. etc. all
> quickly castigated the U.S. Government and defended Israel,
> notwithstanding the dangers to Americans posed by Israeli conduct and
> the massive price paid by the U.S. in so many ways for this
> relationship (by contrast, J Street called the administration's anger
> towards Israel both "understandable and appropriate").
Conflict of interest. Disloyalty. It's the leit motiv of American
Zionist activists. There's nothing new here. We've known it all along.
And now we are licensed by our great men (haha, four stars and
scrambled eggs!) to go right at the perpetrators. Elliott Abrams, for
example, prefers to side with Israel irrespective of the dangers to
Americans.
There's
> nothing wrong with taking Israel's side per se -- one is and should be
> free to criticize one's own government in its foreign policy -- but
> incidents like this make it increasingly futile to try to suppress
> what is glaringly visible: that (as is true for numerous groups in
> the U.S.) a significant segment of the neoconservative Right (which
> includes some evangelical Christians and some American Jews) are
> guided in their political advocacy by their emotional, religious, and
> cultural attachment to another country, and want U.S. policy shaped to
> advance that devotion.
It's called conflict of interest. It's an insidious evil. You display
it.
> On a related note: there has been a long-standing effort to equate
> those who make this observation with anti-Israel hatred or even anti-
> Semitism. Two widely-cited reports did exactly that with regard to me
> recently: this pseudo-scholarly report from the Jerusalem Center for
> Public Affairs and this post on the blog of the American Jewish
> Committee, both of which hurl all sorts of ugly though trite
> accusations at me for daring to suggest that some American Jews are
> guided in their political advocacy by allegiance to Israel. I'll just
> note that the author of both "reports" is someone named Adam Levick,
> who -- with extreme, unintended irony -- lists this as his biography
> on his Twitter account:
>
> I'm an American who just made Aliyah (moved to Israel), and love
> America and my new country.
That "love" was so strong as to uproot him from his native land, but
he still loves America too. Isn't that sweet?
> If you're going to try to render unspeakable the observation that some
> American neocons are devoted to Israel, it's probably best to have the
> crusade led by someone with a different biography (The Atlantic's
> Jeffrey Goldberg, who went to serve in the IDF as a prison guard
> incarcerating Palestinians, is probably also not a good candidate to
> lead that crusade). As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong
> per se with harboring cultural affections for other countries -- many
> individuals in the culturally diverse U.S. do -- but stridently
> denying what is so obviously true, and smearing those who point it
> out, does more than anything else to make something innocuous seem
> nefarious.
And it's purpose is to silence critics, to shut them up. In other
words the false claim of anti-Semitism is used to obscure the fact
that the conflict of interest hurts the United States. If we can't
talk about it in public without being attacked, many will shy away and
many more will simply not know the truth.
>
> Finally, the reason Israel engages in this intransigent, arrogant
> conduct is because it believes (with good reason) that U.S. officials
> will never be willing to (and, in any event, cannot) take any real
> action against it. At this point, the Obama administration -- as
> reflected by the excellent questions posed yesterday to David Axelrod
> by ABC News' Jake Tapper -- still seems far from ready to do so.
> Still, there's no denying that the very public condemnation of Israel
> by the Obama administration is unprecedented at least over the last
> two decades, will produce benefits on its own (including sentiments
> like this and this being increasingly expressed even among those Obama
> supporters who don't typically speak out about this issue), and will
> subject Obama officials to serious political pressure and attacks,
> from which they ought to be defended. It's true that none of this
> will ultimately matter unless the administration is willing to back
> this up with meaningful action -- i.e., credible threats to change
> policy -- but this last week was an important and substantial first
> step toward that vital goal.
Vital, indeed. Critical. And there is no reason to delay. I'll post a
little later the "Memorandum of Understanding" of 2007 between the US
and Israel providing if appropriate for ten years of increasing
military aid for Israel. I've added to it some comments as to what I
think it means. Cutting military support for Israel is one of the
answers to Israeli intransigence and it can easily be done by the
President with only a simple executive order.
Heavenly music.
dsharavi
> > wrote:
> > > U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos
> > > BY GLENN GREENWALD
>
> On Mar 24, 3:52 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I skimmed this post for approximately 19 seconds and concluded that
> > only a colossal idiot such as yourself could possibly glean what you
> > wrote in your subject from it.
>
> > > UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard
> > > I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this
> > > claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel
> > > will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to
> > > John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The
> > > neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years
> > > with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
> > > assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
> > > political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> > > U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> > > others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.
On Mar 24, 7:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Here it is again, from the end of "Update Two":
> "American Jews determine their
> political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
> U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
> others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
And there's the proof from H himself that only a colossal idiot such
as H could possibly glean what he write in his subject from it.
Deborah
Bolt Upright
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:45:20 -0700 (PDT), "icono...@yahoo.com"
> <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 24, 5:46 pm, "TheZ"<T...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bullshit
>>>
>> You've made this brilliant argument before. How 'bout letting us in on
>> you inspiration?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Like a fart?
drahcir
H - ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?? IS YOUR ALZHEIMIC "BRAIN" SO FAR GONE?
OR IS THIS JUST MORE OF YOUR INSIPID LYING?
HERE IS THE CONTEXT:
"The neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for
years
with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core
assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their
political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the
U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by
others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic."
So the statement is the BASIS of the FUTILE and FALSE claim that
American Jews will abandon the Democratic party. It is NOT A STATEMENT
OF FACT, but rather a statement that is PROVEN FALSE by the fact that
the predicted outcome DID NOT AND HAS NOT OCCURRED.
H, you are lying scum, pure, unalduterated scum, and the stupidest of
anyone here. The lowest of the low. A maggot is an unattainable
aspiration for you. Now go wallow in your shame, if you have any
ability to do so.
coaste...@yahoo.com
drahcir
Nice try.
Tell it like it is.
moonicate. Any jew who is more a jew than he is a secular Zionist
risks being regarded as an enemy of the state of mind of the people
who want all they can get from America and Americans.
Americans want an end to being held morally responsible by the entire
world outside Jerusalem for the recuring traumatization of the
children of Palestine.
Rabin lost his life for wanting the only peace possible in the Middle
East. Respecting the borders of 1948 that made Israel a nation.
H, you are lying scum [just like Drahcir], pure, unalduterated scum,
like Drahcir, and the stupidest of
anyone here [including me]. The lowest of the low , that's right,
like Drahcir, the lowest of the low. A maggot is an unattainable
aspiration for you as it is for Drahcir. Now go wallow in your shame,
if you have any
ability to do so.
Drahcir has the ability to do so.
DoD and Drahcir and their ugly queen Sharavi straight out of
Disneyland make an enemy of every Jew not a rabid Zionist who wants
all he can get at whatever cost to America Americans and world peace.
That's right.
A Jewish diplomat from the US means: is it good for Zion-ism as in
Commune-ism and Nazi-ism or simply My ism is better than your ism.
Even Americans think Israel has a right to exist. Unfortunately, DoD
and Drahcir, and their Queen Deborah Sharavi are rabid Zionists:
Palestine has no right to exist. Dat right? Sho 'nuf.