Attention anti-dual loyalty crowd...

Posted By David Rothkopf Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 3:13 PM Share

Reading today's New York Times article on how former Bush Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalizad is now in line for a position in the Afghan government, I was wondering where all those folks who are constantly going after the "dual-loyalties" they attribute to some pro-Israel American Jews would come out on this development. Khalizad played a major role in shaping U.S. policies that brought billions of U.S. dollars plus troops to the region and now he is in line to actually become part of the local government we put in place and are protecting with American blood. This makes the Washington-Wall Street revolving door look positively bland in its implications and potential conflicts of interest.

So come on guys, if it bugs you that sometimes Jewish American journalists write pro-Israel articles, you ought to have a field day with this...that is if it is really the perceived dual loyalties you object to...and not the nature of one of those loyalties in particular.

MASSOUD HOSSAINI/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:AFGHANISTAN, BUSH ADMINISTRATION, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(6)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BRANDIZZI

10:55 PM ET

May 19, 2009

An naïve question

Hi, sir!

Your post does not make sense to me... AFAIK, the so-called anti-dual loyalty crowd does not complain about people who is loyal to Israel and US only, but complains about people who adopt some positions which, in the crowds opinion, does not conform to the interests of US, does not even conform to the interests of Israel but is nonetheless adopted by the Israeli government. So, those complainers would have to believe that not only Khalizad is loyal to Afghanistan, but also that he is defendant of positions which are not aligned to the US interests. Does Khalizad adopt such position? Or is there some problem in my view?

Just in case... it is not a rhetorical question. I would actually like to know the answer :)

MDREW

6:05 AM ET

May 20, 2009

If we could get a former U.S. diplomat

inserted high in the Israeli government, I'd be fine with that. But then i am one of those who believes that the use of accusations of accusations of dual-loyalty as a cudgel by Israel supporters against Israel critics is by far a greater phenomenon than actual accusations of dual loyalty, at least than accusations accompanied by a clear implication that such a thing is in any way improper. After all, you CAN have dual loyalties. It is allowed. Eric Alterman says of COURSE many American Jews have dual loyalties; they are taught to from kids. Admit it, get over it, move on, he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcq8rsgetm8

DAVID IN DC

4:50 PM ET

May 20, 2009

Accusations of...

I am one of those who believes that the use of accusations of accusations of accusations of dual loyalty is a greater phenomenon than either accusations of accusations of dual loyalty or accusations of dual loyalty ;o).

Seriously, I see it used pre-emptively by those making sly insinuations of dual loyalty as Walt does sometimes in his blog. The simple fact of the matter is, both sides do it (which is to say, up to accusations to the third degree). People tend to see more or less, and hold opinions on which is worse, depending which side of the debate they are on.

To wit:

A long-time lobbyist for Israel who is now under indictment for espionage is trying to convince us that Freeman -- a true patriot -- is a bad appointment for an intelligence position. A journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) whose idea of "public service" was to enlist in the Israeli army is challenging the credentials of a man who devoted decades of his life to service in the U.S. government. Now that's chutzpah.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/28/have_they_not_a_shred_of_decency

MDREW

6:18 AM ET

May 21, 2009

You echo

and defend the author here so faithfully that given your handle and my knowledge of Mr. Rothkopf's residence, sometimes i wonder...

...but in any case, while you plainly do understand and acknowledge my point, I must confess that I don't comprehend yours. Are you saying that people who want to insinuate dual loyalties use slyness (also known as not doing it) in order to avoid being accused of it? But they still are, and you don't deny it... And is the slyness the third degree accusations? I'm confused. I would think that my identification of Rothkopf's tactics as accusations of accusations would be the 3d deg. accusation. Is that what you are saying? I can go along wth that -- it is certainly what I am doing, and you seem to openly acknowledge that Rothkopf is making an accusation of an accusation as well.

The issue is whether I am right that more mileage is gained by the likes of Rothkopf by playing up the few fringe elements who truly accuse people dual loyalties in no uncertain terms than is proportional to the size of that phenomenon, or whether mistrust of Jews based on fears of dual-loyalty is a great enough phenomenon to justify extensive smearing of anyone who comes anywhere close to saying such a thing. I suppose some might say, why need there be a threshold for that? To which I would say, fair enough.

For the record, the clip from Walt above is self-evidently not an example of an accusation of dual loyalty. If we fundamentally disagree on that, then we can be certain that we will not see eye to eye on this question at any point.

DAVID IN DC

12:59 PM ET

May 21, 2009

The 'slyness' I reference is

The 'slyness' I reference is making a statement implying that something is wrong with the actions or opinions of one of Walt's so-called "Lobby" members, based on nothing other than their affinity with Israel.

When Walt says they are showing "chutzpah" (ie, "they have some nerve"), he is trying to belittle or challenge the credibility of their analysis/opinions.

But on what basis? Do lobbyists for Israel in particular have bad judgement about intelligence appointments (eg, Rosen)? Are people who served in the IDF worse than average judges of public service appointees' credentials (eg, Goldberg)?

The answers are, of course, no. And this isn't what Walt was trying to imply when he linked them to Israel. This is how his smear game is played.

Finally, you ask:

"Are you saying that people who want to insinuate dual loyalties use slyness (also known as not doing it) in order to avoid being accused of it?"

I remember you were quite literal. In language, you can imply or insinuate something without literally saying it. People use this rhetorical device all the time. Really. Your assertion ("also known as not doing it") depends on the assumption that people speak completely literally all the time. (As as aside, how do you deal with the metaphors you encounter in your daily life?)

The answer is that people use these rhetorical devices (insinuation, et. al.) so that they and those arguing for them (read: you) can plausibly deny what they are implying. The reason one wants to avoid being accused of this is obvious: these days, while it may be incrementally more acceptable no thanks to the Walts of the world, it is still considered beyond the pale to make these accusations.

DAVID IN DC

11:46 AM ET

May 27, 2009

No, the people who meet these

No, the people who meet these conditions are the ones I'm talking about.

Obviously. And just as obviously you are generalizing this, applying a stereotype to all Zionists.

Of course zionists try to expand the issue. Along the lines of "See, J Thomas thinks if you're jewish then you're a zionist, and if you're a zionist you're a traitor to the USA! The only way to stop people like J Thomas from starting up the death camps and putting you in them is to become a 100% dedicated Zionist!"

Uh-huh. This is the second time you've brought Jewishness into the discussion, this time as an ugly strawman. Nobody on this thread has made an accusation remotely like this.

I see this a lot. One almost gets the feeling that the JThomas's and Walt's of the world bait people to call them anti-Semites so they can play this card.