Tebow knows I’m not a speech police, and I agree with John that there’s nothing wrong with describing Jeff Goldberg as a “former Israeli prison guard”, given that his best known work is about his experiences as an Israeli prison guard, but I think everyone should stop using the phrase “Israel firster”. People like Spencer Ackerman have the same attitude and opinions about US policy towards Israel that I (and probably most of you) have, but unlike me (and probably most of you), they’re actively involved with trying to change it. If your political allies find the language you are using offensive and alienating, just better not to use it. What’s the point? Maybe when you say “Israel firster” you mean the real lunatics, but if other Americans who are interested in US policy towards Israel think that you’re questioning their loyalty to the US, then it’s just not productive to use the phrase.
I’ve described Jackson Diehl and Jennifer Rubin as “Israel firsters” before but I won’t again. Yes, they care primarily about what is going on in Israel to the exclusion of other issues, but that’s not what’s wrong with their punditry. What’s wrong with their punditry is that it advocates simple-minded, militaristic right-wing solutions to all of Israel’s problems.
I don’t call Rick Santorum an America-firster, I call him a bigoted, homophobic, right-wing asshole. Diehl and Rubin are bigoted, Islamophobic, right-wing assholes and should be described as such. To describe their support for self-destructive Likud party policies as “pro-Israel” cedes them ground they don’t deserve: I don’t think their blatherings are in any way beneficial to Israel as a nation, in point of fact.
There’s been a lot of discussion of the language that gets used here in the discussion of Israel, and I just wanted to get this off my chest.
dedc79
I think you summed things up pretty nicely there.
El Tiburon
Agreed . Um, who is using that phrase again? Up until a few days ago I had never heard nor seen that phrase. But I am a goy, if that is acceptable to call oneself.
chopper
such as awkward boy-rape metaphors? sorry, couldn’t resist.
wasabi gasp
Molestation first.
Yevgraf
There are two kinds of Israelis – the toughminded yet two softly soc!alist secularists, and the second being violent, bloodthirsty American manipulated Likudniks.
That second group is calling down a righteous fury that will harm all through their apartheid and blood libels on the indigenous inhabitants.
A myth book with a collection of the fables of semiliterate bronze age goatherds is not a deed.
BH
I’m sure that the lunatics on the other side who hurl the term “self-hating” at every Jew who questions Israeli government policies will be just as reasonable in response to your proposed rhetorical unilateral disarmament. I actually agree with you for the most part, but sometimes I think that the high road is too good for these monsters.
vernon
The thing is, Doug, hardly anyone was using the term anyway. One of the CAP guys used it, but not for CAP; he used it on his Twitter and has long since apologized.
jl
Agreed. I think it is an unfortunate phrase, and unnecessarily provocative. It drags in issues from the awful history of antisemitism.
Also, from my experience in talking with other groups about foreign policy issues, there are some people in every community who talk as if they are ‘my country X’ firsters. So, use of the phrase bothers me because it unfairly singles out one community for attitudes that might (or might not) describe an attitude of a minority of them, when it is not unique to them at all. Edit: and unfairly stigmatizes a whole community for attitudes that are not widespread among them at all.
priscianusjr
The truth is that those Americans who might be described as “Israel Firsters” do not consciously put the interests of Israel before those of the United States: they truly believe that the interests of the two countries are identical. In my view, these policies are not in the best interests of the United States OR Israel. In the view of millions of Americans, the great majority of of whom are Protestants or Mormons by the way, the best interests of both countries are identical. Behind such a conception of “best interests” lie either religious/millennialist or secular/utopian views about BOTH countries.
bleh
I hate semantic arguments in politics. In precise sciences they have validity, but in politics they are entirely shadow-boxing.
It seems to me that the issue really is one of national loyalty. If one’s principal topic of political concern is Israel but one’s loyalty is to the US, that’s one thing. If one’s loyalty is to Israel and one sees the US as just another instrument or player in advancing one’s loyal interest, that’s another. Either is acceptable in general — politically active citizens and immigrants alike are guaranteed many freedoms here — although I would argue that the distinction is relevant to how their opinions should be interpreted. (I would also argue that the latter is NOT acceptable among those who formulate, execute, or represent the policy of the US government. That arguably would be treason.)
Calling someone an “Israel firster” obscures the issue. You want to draw a line in the sand, say where you think someone’s loyalty lies. Otherwise, it’s just hot air.
srv
Corey Robin has a takedown on this issue at his site.
jl
The Xtianist ‘Armageddon firsters’ worry me a lot more than Isreal, or Greece, or Armenia, or Ireland, or etc. etc. etc. firsters.
General Stuck
I’ve never been called an “Israel firster” but have been called an “Israel tribalist”. I just took it as the id of the internet, that causes people to say what they think, and reveals themselves to themselves, along with to others. Name calling in such an environment serves a psychological purpose of bottom lining anger rage hate prejudice, all that kind of shit. And the mostly fake identities, allow it to occur. And to me, it doesn’t so much matter what I reveal to others, as to what I learn about myself. I bitch about Cole’s wide open commenting policy, but when I think about what would replace it, while more comforting, it would also be more false.
eemom
hmmm…….do my eyes deceive me, or did you just “disappear” someone?
wasabi gasp
Santorum is a Santorum-firster. That’s a pretty good reason to not call him an America-firster.
PIGL
Well, I know some people in Canada of whom I can speak based on fairly direct observations over decades. They and their families live here, but in a conservative or near-Orthodox bubble. Israel as an ultimate good informs their every thought and deed; their grand children go there to volunteer, their kids and their friends go there on vacation, they see national politics through which party is more bloodthirsty in its unconditional support for Israel. To call them Israel-firsters would imply that they had some loyalty or sense of connection to the country they actually live and work in. I do not think they do, because I have never seen any evidence of this. None.
That does not mean they are traitors (this is Canada, not the USA) or hold any malicious intentions (except towards Palestinians in the abstract)…it is more because of the bubble they live prevents any awareness of how odd their views seem to others.
Now there may exist people in positions of power in the USA, and maybe elsewhere, with similar ties, who exploit their positions to further Israeli interests as perceived by them, indifferent to or in downright opposition to the interests of the governments they nominally serve.
What should they be called? “Israel-firster” would be mild.
kth
The essence of the Israel-firster slur is that the object is insufficiently patriotic (to America). Which is a really odd line for as passionate a critic of American imperialism as Glenzilla to take. Of course one is unlikely to find Goldberg or any of his ilk arguing that patriotism is bullshit, so there are definitely ironies atop the ironies. Foreign policy discourse is so broken–much worse than economics–that it’s really quite impossible to have a sane conversation with anyone who is in the field professionally.
“America firster” is perfectly legitimate, but ought to be reserved for isolationist paleocons like Charles Lindbergh and his true descendant, Pat Buchanan (both of whom believed it was a mistake to go to war against Hitler).
Dream On
Excellent, now I can call Santorum a bigoted, homophobic, right-wing asshole-firster. Thanks for this added verbal arrow in my arsenal.
PS: Would this make Neil Armstrong a first-on-the-moon-firster?
reflectionephemeral
@vernon:
I agree with DougJ’s original post, that that is a term to be avoided. But I think this too is true. I think the reason we see so much hullabaloo about this is distraction and discourse policing. I mean, it’s a term Joe Klein has used, for pete’s sake. It’s something I’ll refrain from using (not that I’ve ever used it), but I don’t see why the Internet has had to stand still to flip out about it for the past few weeks.
Nutella
Agreed that Israel-firster is both offensive and imprecise.
What phrase do you all suggest we use to describe people like Jackson Diehl and Jennifer Rubin who advocate “simple-minded, militaristic right-wing solutions to all of Israel’s problems”?
General Stuck
On the other hand. Nuttela’s momma wears combat boots.
Donut
I have thought that the phrase was a little goofy more because there are certainty large swaths of Israelis, actual citizens of Israel, I mean, who think Goldberg, Rubin, et al are destructive, hateful fools. So the term carries a lot of baggage that implies all Israelis think alike, which is just stupid.
jl
@Nutella: I suggest ‘militarists’ or ‘fanatics’. More I think about the term, as well as the slur ‘self hating Jew’ seems to me that they dredge up the whole lot of the history of antisemitism, and Jews as a ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ suspect community, no matter what they do to prove their loyalty to the country of their citizenship.
I know some Palestinian Christians who are so bitter about what hey perceive as betrayal by both GOP and Democrats, I think they talk like ‘Palestinian firsters’.
Did we call Irish Ameircans who were die hard supporters of the IRA, Ireland firsters, did the issue of loyalty to the US even come up?
I’d prefer to avoid terms that even imply aspersions to loyalty to a person’s country. As commenter above said, besides everything else, it is counterproductive, and cuts off communication.
jl
@Nutella: I agree. You got there first, though.
Edit: also too: jingoistic. nationalist. extremist.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
Guess Nutella still has me pied. I haz a sad :(
wilfred
The term Israel Firster has been gaining traction with people who put American interests before Israel’s. Hence the pushback. The activities will remain the same – the relentless persecution of Palestinians and the pursuit of America initiating yet another fucking war – but we just can’t use the term.
If you put the interests of another country first, then you’re a Firster. The term is meant to be offensive to anyone who does that.
Omnes Omnibus
@Nutella: Simple-minded, militaristic right-wingers or fucking assholes. It’s a pick’em.
Dude in Princeton
I’m with Wilfred on this one. No question about it.
burnspbesq
@Yevgraf:
Umm, I think you’ve got the direction of causation backwards there. It’s the Likud manipulating American public opinion.
jeff
We do need to be sensitive, but I cannot imagine what would happen if a muslim american spoke like a few “Israeli” americans. I suppose we’d just put them in jail. It would be nice to base things on reproducible principles rather than just power, but it’s an election year.
Actually, if there were any muslims in power that spoke like Adelson and a handful of other outspoken people for whom the primary concern is that of Israel, I’d be outraged.
AA+ Bonds
Stop using it? Riiiiight.
Is there any influential constituency in America that proudly and publicly supports another nation’s interests over America’s . . . OTHER than the Israel-firsters?
No. There isn’t.
There is exactly one “XXXX-firster” movement to speak of in the United States, and it’s the Israel-firster movement.
In fact, they are the second-biggest lobbying spender in the United States.
AA+ Bonds
Why the fuck should I not shame people who put Israel before my country’s interests, and divert taxpayer money away from America’s interests and toward Israel?
If you cave to their pressure and lose your spine, it’s that many more years before people feel it’s okay to speak out in favor of America, in America.
Mnemosyne
@Nutella:
I tend to prefer “Likudnik,” myself, since the word essentially means “Likud lover” and the supposed “Israel Firsters” are much more interested in promoting the interests of the Likud party than they are in the interests of Israel.
AA+ Bonds
@kth:
Yes – and this is true. Israel First means America Second, or Third, or Fifth – who knows?
Martin
Luxemburg First! It’s cheaper!
Omnes Omnibus
@Mnemosyne: That works for me.
burnspbesq
@Nutella:
“Idiot” would work for me. I go back and forth on whether “genocidal” is accurate.
AA+ Bonds
Look, Doug, there are Americans who have Israel’s best interests at heart, but are still loyal and patriotic Americans.
Then, there is AIPAC.
jl
@AA+ Bonds:
And if Northern Ireland gets into troubles again, Greece and Turkey get involved in a spat, NATO expansion in eastern Europe or western part of Soviet Union come up again, will what you say still be true?
True, the problem in ME is longer lived and more acute now, and here the stakes seem high due to militarization of the area and oil flow at issue in some scenarios.
And a more openly aggressive Israli Likud party pushing memes and policies.
But in principle, I don’t see the difference.
Edit:
Bonds: I agree with your distinction in the last comment. Further edit: but for the latter we can talk about what people do in their public capacity as part of a lobbying organization. Don’t need to bring in personal charges.
Omnes Omnibus
@Martin: Even with the banking? Or has the Euro crisis really depressed the price that much? On a related note, has anyone ever been called a Belgium Firster?
AA+ Bonds
It very much is a question of American patriotism vs. Israel’s benefit at all costs.
That is why “Israel-firster” is so accurate . . .
. . . and why it’s so fucking scary to AIPAC and Co.
Once people are allowed to point out that Israel’s interests don’t align with American interests, AIPAC will swiftly lose power.
Yevgraf
The American interference came first, then it cycles around.
Ironically, Israel has come to resemble that which it claims to hate.
AA+ Bonds
@jl:
When that happens, I will expect honest people to point out when unpatriotic “Americans” promote another country’s interests over mine.
Not cower in the face of slander from wealthy lobbyists and donors.
Gex
@General Stuck: Lovely post.
wilfred
The Likud distinction is a red herring. If it made sense then there would have to be a distinction between it and other Israeli parties.
Minus the rhetoric, there isn’t. Israeli explanionism and war mongering are not limited to the Likud party. Besides, do anyone of the cringing crowd make similar distinctions when they talk about another country, i.e. are they careful to point out the ruling party? My ass.
Israel First it is.
jl
@AA+ Bonds: I would avoid the term in even in those scenarios I gave. But if you are consistent, I will give you credit for that, though I would still not use that kind of language myself.
burnspbesq
@Omnes Omnibus:
Does Belgium really exist as a single country any more? Seems to me it’s only a matter of time before Belgium goes the way of Czechoslovakia. The only question to be resolved is whether Eden Hazard plays for Wallonia or Flanders.
AA+ Bonds
Come on – the guy is a prison guard for another country, swears an undying loyalty oath to preserve that country unto death, then comes back and spends all his time repeating propaganda fed to him by the nationalist leaders of that country?
Jeffrey Goldberg is an Israel-firster
eemom
I can haz some luv for “Greeks rock, Turks suck”?
Omnes Omnibus
@burnspbesq: I believe that they recently formed a government. So they have that going for them, which is nice.
jl
@wilfred: I would appreciate it you made that distinction for me, when my country committed an illegal invasion and subsequent war crimes under the GOP. When I was out protesting and hectoring my Senators like an insane person to try to stop it.
Thanks in advance.
AA+ Bonds
See, here’s the difference between Goldberg and, say, accusations of dual loyalty against JFK:
Goldberg traveled to the country in question, took a loyalty oath and attained the rank of corporal in the armed forces of the country he works overtime to promote over America’s interests
AA+ Bonds
@jl:
So is this ultimately what this is about? Americans who opposed the Iraq war trying to pretend that they aren’t responsible for it too?
News flash: we are
burnspbesq
@Omnes Omnibus:
About fucking time.
Yevgraf
@AA+ Bonds:
As a people, we’ve never come to reckon the cost of Israeli bellicosity in the price of oil.
How much cheaper would it be without it?
Would Islam be a better peace partner?
The biggest irony of all? “America’s staunchest ally” is only an ally to the extent that it can bully its neighbors-there is no give and take.
One more thing – as a youth, I admired plucky, semisocialist Israel. This current apartheid thing, not so much, and when its neighbors finally get their shit together and crush it. I can’t say that the qorld will miss much, nor will I waste tears on the refugees.
Punchy
Does that make Jewish porn stars Israeli-fisters?
jl
@AA+ Bonds: Yes, I too am responsible as a US citizen and tax payer. I could have not paid my whole tax bill, deducting the portion that went to the war, or paid no taxes at all, and gone to jail. But I chose not too (though I did reflect quite a bit that I could have done so). But I would hope that people around the world would make some kind of distinction between me and a die hard GOP warmonger.
Benjamin Franklin
@priscianusjr:
they truly believe that the interests of the two countries are identical. In my view, these policies are not in the best interests of the United States OR Israel. In the view of millions of Americans, the great majority of of whom are Protestants or Mormons by the way, the best interests of both countries are identical
Imputing evil motives to others is too easy. It’s harder when convictions, though seen as antipathetic, are sincerely held. It is better to keep the lines of communication open, but warily watched. They will not reciprocate on the viability of another opinion. But, the gap will close without us having to compromise our values, and we will not be conjoined to the argument, as though it were the only issue. The end does not justify the means.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: Really? Of course, I have eaten a gyro more recently than a doner kabob, if that means anything.
@burnspbesq: They were being careful in their choices.
Yevgraf
As a people, we’ve never come to reckon the cost of Israeli bellicosity in the price of oil.
How much cheaper would it be without it? Would Islam be a better peace partner?
The biggest irony of all? “America’s staunchest ally” is only an ally to the extent that it can bully its neighbors-there is no give and take.
One more thing – as a youth, I admired plucky, semisoc!alist Israel. This current apartheid thing, not so much, and when its neighbors finally get their shit together and crush it. I can’t say that the world will miss much, nor will I waste tears on the refugees.
catclub
@priscianusjr: “The truth is that those Americans who might be described as “Israel Firsters” do not consciously put the interests of Israel before those of the United States: they truly believe that the interests of the two countries are identical.”
Gee, I come down seeing that any US citizen who puts Israel
in front of a nation that we have specific mutual defense treaties with, e.g. Turkey – which is a member of NATO,
is reasonably called an Israel-firster. These people, quite obviously, believe that if Israel attacks Turkey, the US should take the side of Israel.
We have NO mutual defense treaties with Israel, as far as I know.
I think Joe Lieberman is one, and so is anyone who thinks Jonathan Pollard should be pardoned or treated nicely because the treason he committed was to benefit Israel.
AA+ Bonds
@Yevgraf:
This is really the important question and I’m glad you asked it.
It’s one way to disprove the goofy notion that the Iraq war was over oil.
WE CAN JUST FUCKING BUY THEIR OIL. Watch the Arabs, Persians, etc. do fucking flips for us once we start cutting deals.
But the inertia of a gigantic “bipartisan” donor base is almost impossible to overcome given our election cycles, which start earlier and earlier every year, unbound from law or democratic interest.
If it weren’t for a combination of racism and Israel-firster influence, wiser heads would have turned September 11th into our big make-up kiss with Iraq, or at least with Iran, who were more than ready for it at the time.
catclub
And Turkey is no bowl of fruit either, but we have a friggin treaty with them.
AA+ Bonds
And the net result?
No one in other Middle Eastern countries believes there’s any reason to seek agreements with the United States, not when Israel gets a veto over anything we do there.
some guy
leave Sheldon and Miriam ALONE. they are America-Firsters, and if Gnut makes it all the way to SuperTuesday then by gosh and by golly it’s only because true Americans like Sheldon and Miriam helped Gnut get past the elitists who would deny the Citizens United of Ariel of maintaining their democratic rights to one man, one vote.
leave Sheldon alone!
AA+ Bonds
@catclub:
And guess which XXXX-first lobby is slowly killing our relationship with Turkey, YABBA DABBA DOOO!!
This is what I mean – why make nice with America as a Turkish politician, when that means next time a top American figure makes statements about how Israel can kill as many Turks as it likes in international waters, BANG, there’s a million photos of you, the Turkish politician, shaking hands with that jackass?
So they’re slowly learning not to do it.
El Cid
I never found it that interesting a phrase.
I mean, it only works well as as insider-snark for people who know the reference to the “America First” political party movement of late WWII and subsequently (and not really as much a clear reference to the anti-war movement against US entry into WWII) — which soon became what it was, the “Christian Nationalist Party”.
Pat Buchannan’s “America First” party of the Reform Party debris was mainly about “Americans wink-wink First” rather than his opinions against British and US war against Germany.
I mean, I get it, it’s just not that interesting.
AA+ Bonds
Israel-first lobby
+
Social media websites in Middle Eastern countries
=
Death of all of our friendly relationships with countries other than Israel in the region
. . . because these despots can no longer say, “oh, shit, I never shook hands with that American who said the Israelis can do whatever the hell they want, that never happened, that picture is banned from newspapers”
TG Chicago
“If your political allies find the language you are using offensive and alienating, just better not to use it.”
Well, yeah, that sounds nice. But you refuted this idea in the first sentence of your post. Ackerman said that it was out-of-bounds to call Goldberg a “former Israeli prison guard”. If Ackerman’s anti-Semitism alarm is going off on that, then he needs to get that thing calibrated. We can do all the tiptoeing we want, but that doesn’t change the fact that Ackerman is being overly sensitive here.
I’m not likely to use the exact term “Israel firster”, but if someone is clearly, explicitly putting Israel’s needs above America’s, I’m going to say so.
The thing is, there’s nothing wrong with putting Israel’s needs above America’s. If that’s the choice you want to make, so be it. Own it. It doesn’t make you a bad person. Generally speaking, I put America’s needs above New Zealand’s. Does that make me a monster? I hope not.
wilfred
Actually, the success of the phrase is indicated in threads like this, and the CAP incident that started the pushback.
It’s useful shorthand for a concept, something that resonates with people who are beginning to question certain fallacies of American foreign affairs.
The concept is obvious enough. People start to ask questions, which is always good and healthy. The reaction against the term, the hair-splitting terminologies that are offered as alternatives, confirm its effect.
AA+ Bonds
People still haven’t come to grips with it.
With Facebook and Twitter, there can no longer be any quiet support for Israel or America’s Israel-first policies by Middle Eastern despots.
They have to respond to massive public unrest over Israel through direct violence against their populations, because censorship and information control are effectively dead.
This, in turn, spurs revolution against those despots, and the rise of populist movements in those countries.
And one thing that is very popular in all of those countries is telling Israel, and America, to fuck off.
AA+ Bonds
@wilfred:
^ A Good Post
wilfred
“The thing is, there’s nothing wrong with putting Israel’s needs above America’s.”
Hm. Well, to each his own. I doubt many Americans would agree with that statement, but it would be nice to get it out in the open, no?
catclub
Am I correct that we have no mutual defense treaties with Israel?
And that NATO IS a mutual defense treaty organization?
AA+ Bonds
Look, people: Quiet tolerance of Israel among Middle Eastern leaders is going the way of the dodo because those leaders can now choose between staying alive and continuing support for American policies.
We can make it necessary for them to reject friendship with America, too, by suffering the Israel-first lobby to continue control over our policy.
Or, we can point out that Israel-first is not a patriotic point of view, wrest control of our M.E. policy from AIPAC, and stand a chance of benefiting from democracy in the Arab and Muslim world.
It’s up to us which we want.
MikeJ
@Martin:
It’s not cheaper. Luxembourg is a haven for tax dodgers. Luxembourg first is the philosophy of Mitt Romney.
Martin
@catclub:
Correct.
Correct. An attack by Israel against Turkey would put us in an interesting spot. (Not that I expect Israel would ever do anything of the sort.)
lacp
“Israel Firsters?” Look, the question of what to call people who put the interests of a foreign power over the interests of the nation of which they are citizens was settled a long,long time ago. They’re called “traitors.”
Dude in Princeton
@wilfred: Right on, Wilfred.
Suffern ACE
As a Luxembourger American I take offense at the home country being tarred as country of tax sneaks. Although I haven’t quite figured out what else it is we do, our contribution to western civilization is unquestionable.
MikeJ
@Suffern ACE: It’s a nice place to drive through, but I’ve never actually stopped.
Martin
@Suffern ACE: Believe it or not, telecommunication satellites. From what I understand, Luxembourg is the go-to country in Europe if you want to launch a telecom bird.
Bago
Endorsement time
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/regenerationmusicproject/
This is awesome music. It’s like country/funk/gumbo/dubstep/house/funk/the doors. I’m sorry if I seems bit “shilly” or like a salesman, but I just found out about this today. It’s free to download, and have been listening to it all day. God I sound like a viral marketer. But seriously people, I haven’t heard much like it. I never thought I would have LeAnn Rimes on my phone.
AA+ Bonds
Dubstep is the official music of opposing Israel-firsters
You want to build Zion, people? Forget Bibi.
4jkb4ia
I missed the whole exchange about CAP except for Spencer’s post and a few Weigel tweets.
(I am compelled to write something even though this thread has begun to go slightly downhill :))
This comment is turning around what Wilfred said a little bit. When Bibi can get the thunderous reception in Congress that he got, it is meaningless to talk about people who put Israel first. There is enough blind support in Washington for Israel that you don’t have to talk about motive. You can talk about professional Israel advocates or AIPAC supporters (AA+ Bonds mentioned AIPAC) and it will cover the same people and everyone will know it. A slight problem with professional Israel advocate is that it also covers Jeremy Ben-Ami and J Street. But an advantage of “professional Israel advocate” is that it is this side of “lobbyist”, which certainly doesn’t imply anything about what’s in someone’s heart.
“Former Israeli prison guard” has to be taken in the context of Max Blumenthal’s fans. For them it’s going to mean someone who serves Israeli authority. Jeffrey Goldberg wrote his book to explain why he’s a more complicated person than that.
chrome agnomen
ishmael first!
Xenos
@Suffern ACE: Something like 90% of the cigarettes sold in Luxembourg are to non-residents, and a very large amount of liquor and gasoline/diesel is sold to cars taking a very short detour through the country. So many things are cheaper in Luxembourg.
But aside from some dubious fiduciary institutions the tax avoidance industry in Luxembourg is not much different than what is tolerated in Ireland, Cyprus, or to a lesser extent, New Hampshire.
AA+ Bonds
@4jkb4ia:
I wholeheartedly agree.
Once the Israeli lobby is broken, a WHOLE lot of Israel-firsters will do 180s and join the side of America.
I believe many of them are just waiting for the opportunity, and really, really don’t like having to push Israel’s government’s line even when it’s a dumb thing for America to do.
I think many influential “Israel first” Americans, and pointedly, many influential “Israel first” Jewish Americans, are ready to give up this “purge the Palestinians” nonsense if they feel they won’t be ostracized for it.
But the day will never come if we make it taboo to point out “Israel first” when it’s staring us in the face.
MTiffany
@Yevgraf:
Their imaginary friend says otherwise.
And just to check my comprehension of the issue, AIPAC falls into the “Israel first” camp, right?
AA+ Bonds
I believe many influential American Jews who feel they need to voice support for Israel’s policies of ethnic superiority are actually strong believers in a secular, liberal state, for obvious reasons.
I believe that many of them will support a one-state solution if such is considered a possibility for a patriotic American, for an American who can voice his opinions freely and openly without fear of reprisal from both parties.
But until that day, Jewish ethnic identity will be exploited by AIPAC and other groups to promote a very narrow line of policy that often conflicts with the real interests of American Jews.
This bullshit is the line of end-of-the-world Protestants, people who think the whole point of Israel is the conversion of all Jews to Christianity, prior to their annihilation.
Martin
FWIW, I don’t think you can really discuss the Israel first policy, or the pro-Israel lobby without acknowledging the role Israel played in the Cold War. It was in some respects the anti-Vietnam – the regional conflict we succeeded with. Yeah, the Cold War ended two decades ago, but the Senators and Congressmen that were vetting defense deals at that time are still around. It’s going to take some time for our relationship with Israel to reset. And 9/11 didn’t help speed that along any, though the Arab Spring is.
And yeah, there’s the whole religious side of things that will linger, but I think eventually that will take a back seat.
AA+ Bonds
@Martin:
Agreed. It is, perhaps, all about Operation Nickel Grass.
The world will be best served when we shake off the ghost of Nixon. Maybe when we get the fuck out of Afghanistan. . . it will be possible.
David Koch
Saul Alinsky controls the media and Hollywood.
AA+ Bonds
And finally, I’ll note in passing:
I single out the Protestants, because the Roman Catholic Church is one of the strongest opponents of “Israel First”.
wilfred
Historical factors notwithstanding, the critical question now is to block efforts to force the United States into a war with Iran.
An American initiated war with Iran is the current priority of Israel Firsters – if they get it, the rest is history.
Americans need to ask themselves if such a war is in their interests, or Israel’s. As such, they must question the motivations of the forces pushing for this war.
Martin
@wilfred:
Do you really think such a thing is likely? Seems awfully remote to me. Sure, the GOP will all swear they’ve got the big red button in their pants ready to push, but I don’t see it happening.
Joey Maloney
@top:
This. Thank you.
Dude in Princeton
@Martin: Frankenstein is alive? And that’s a good thing?
pseudonymous in nc
@Joey Maloney:
Agreed. I’ve long thought it worth making the distinction between “Israel” the nation and “Schmisrael” the American political concept, beloved by Rubin et al. Israel the country is a feisty, diverse democratic nation — in spite of the pressure from settlers and political forces that don’t like that feistiness or diversity of opinion. The American political concept that masquerades under the name “Israel” is something different and depressing.
@AA+ Bonds:
The argument — and this is a fierce argument in Israel — is whether the secular liberal state defined for many decades by what I call “romantic labor Zionism” is sustainable. The combination of settlers, post-Soviet emigres and an ultra-Orthodox community that wields disproportionate political power has applied a lot of pressure to the character of the nation. Those in the US who seek to further enable those in Israeli politics who are frankly impatient with democracy are doing a disservice to both countries.
wilfred
@ Martin:
Thought precedes action; belligerence leads to war. Aipac worked overtime to get Iran sanctions and Kirk-Menendez – all the steps are reminiscient of those that led to the Iraq war, including attempts to discredit dissenting voices.
In any case, it seems the Israelis will go on their own – placing us in the position of doing nothing or acting on their behalf if Iran rightly retaliates.
Doing nothing puts American interests first. Draw your own conclusions.
Marcy Wheeler has an interesting post up on Dennis Ross – ur-Israel Firster.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/01/30/dennis-ross-red-phone/
wilfred
Regarding the Israel/Likud hair-splitting:
Will that make a difference to this country if we get dragged into another catastrophic war? Really, there seems to be more regard for the feelings of Israelis than there is for Americans who are about to pay the price, one way or another.
pseudonymous in nc
@kth:
A better formulation would be that there is a group of people who wish for an American Likud. It’s worth remembering that the first flowering of PNAC was in its “A Clean Break” paper (Perle/Feith) was written for Netanyahu, and is all about jettisoning the history and political traditions of Labor Zionism.
That’s why “-first” is troublesome, because what’s being expressed isn’t a priority for one nation over another, but an organic unity of those two nations’ policy and politics.
Chris
@jl:
No, you have a good point (as does everyone else here who objected to the term). But I’d add that the difference is that neither the IRA nor Ireland had ballooned into the kind of obsession Israel has, to the point that it’s THE regional issue to which everything else, no matter how important, has to take second place. Plenty of individual Irish-Americans felt this way, of course, but never the U.S. government. Not for Ireland, and rarely for any foreigners.
The Israel litmus test on foreign policy, on the other hand, has gotten so far out of hand that it’s now considered controversial simply to support the 1967 boundaries – and when extremists like Netanyahu come over here pushing an agenda they know isn’t in American interests, half of Congress takes our president to task for not giving him what he wants straight up. I can’t think of too many foreign countries or entities that have ever had as much pull in our politics as Israel and specifically Israel’s militant right wing today.
Which is why people use the term “Israel firster” with such concern.
@Martin:
It’s reset, just not the way you wanted it. During most of the Cold War, Israel was a piece on the chessboard like so many others – one many of us had a special affection for, sure, but not to the point of confusing its interests with our own (see Suez, 1956).
It’s mostly in the last two/three decades that Israel’s ballooned into an insane crusade, where far too many of us consider it not just good foreign policy, but a sacred duty before God to give their most extreme elements everything they want. Will that change in the future? I hope so, but I’m not seeing it at the moment.
BethanyAnne
@Bago: nifty! thanks for sharing :)
priscianusjr
@catclub:
JoeShabadoo
When people have dual citizenships (the actual papers from another country) questioning which loyalty they put first seems to be okay to me. When someone actually chooses to serve in the military of a foreign country instead of the U.S. military like Jeff Goldberg it should put questions into someone’s mind about which country they care about more when they offer their opinions.
Imagine if someone with citizenship of almost any other country (say Iran) or someone who served in the military of that country was talking about how we should do things that would benefit that country. This person wouldn’t be able to get within 100 miles of the stage that he or she would be laughed off of.
priscianusjr
@Benjamin Franklin:
Mark
@PIGL: Damn dude, sounds like you know all those North York and Thornhill Jews I knew when I lived in Toronto. I remember meeting some people my age (at the time, 21-22) who had never met a gentile. That’s the kind of bubble you need to be a Likud supporter in Canada.
I’ll admit I was pretty unaware of anyone’s take on Israeli politics when I lived in Canada – it was when the Tories were still anti-semitic and not the protectors of the Likud.
priscianusjr
@JoeShabadoo:
Chris
@Mark:
Yeah… I’m still not sure what the shift was that made right-wingers stop reviling the Jews as hated outsiders plotting against Our Sacred Gentile Christianness, and turned them into The Sacred People Whom We Must Stick With All The Way. (Or, as a Jewish friend of mine more bluntly put it, what is it that made the Jews become white).
Was it as simple as the Holocaust finally shocking enough right wingers into better behavior (or forcing them into it by changing public opinion?)
Joey Maloney
@wilfred:
Well of course not, because by then it will be too late. But before that happens, it makes a huge difference in how effective you can be in recruiting your natural allies to prevent it.
FYWP, the second graf should be blockquoted too. I thought prepending two underlines was the fix for multi-graf blockquoting?
priscianusjr
@Chris:
JoeShabadoo
@priscianusjr:
Replace it with another country. If a former member of the French foreign legion was talking about how we need to support them and continue to give them the most foreign aid we would hear nothing but talk about how he is some french weeny we can’t trust and that he just wants to trick us but we shouldn’t take care of these lazy people who have the money to give health care to poor people (universal health care like Israel).
Chris
@priscianusjr:
Oh, I know that. But those are the fringe views that even the mainstream GOP won’t touch. The “mainstream” of the party (and of the right wing in the West in general) has moved on from Jew-hating, signed up on the side of Israel, and found itself new targets (immigrants in general and Muslims especially, which fits perfectly into their new view of where-the-Jews-fit-in).
Thanks for the 1967 explanation. Come to think of it, there’s another international dimension to that – not only had the Russians put all their money on Egypt, but the French, who had previously been Israel’s biggest ally, started pulling away from it after that war. There was a gap and the U.S. filled it, I guess.
not motorik
All these haterz in the comment section, eemom. Ready your smelling salts.
Al Swearengen
@El Tiburon:
They aren’t “Israel Firsters” because the Likud policies they blindly support are actually harmful to Israel. The proper term for them is “Likud Firsters”, “Likudists”, or the classic “Likudnik”.
not motorik
@Al Swearengen: The problem with this formulation is that a very small percentage of Americans know what “Likud” is
dmbeaster
The fact that the rabidly pro-Israel faction finds the term offensive should have zero influence in whether or not to use the term. The criticism of the term seems to have more to do with demonizing the idea expressed by it.
Used precisely, the term is fair to use. It identifies those American citizens who triumph the policies of Israel with either disregard of the interests of the U.S. or with conscious awareness of putting Israeli interests before U.S. interests (both to the detriment of U.S. interests). Such people clearly exist, and are fairly labeled in this manner.
So the pretense that the term is ad hominem is itself a sideshow concerning the issue. Whatever term you select to use in its place will also be demonized since that is the tactic of the Israeli Firsters.
Pat In Massachusetts
The leadership in Israel and their loyalists in the United States (AIPAC to be precise) is trying very, very hard (and succeeding, to an extent)to undermine our president and turn him into a Yes Man for Israel.
In my eyes those individuals are Israel Firsters and I have no intention of apologizing for saying it.
As with everything else about Israel, us Americans have to be very careful not to hurt anyone feelings because of what was done to them in the past. There is genocide going on today in many places of the world, but alas, those people are not White skinned, so who cares. However, this spring, like every spring of the school year there will be a whole month of remembering the Holocaust.
It’s going to take more than an ancient book to convince me the Jewish people are the “chosen ones”. Israel has “chosen” to be the thorn of the Middle East, and one huge headache, and an expensive one, for the United States and the rest of the world.
Keith G
Interesting essay countering Doug’s view:
BroD
I’m with Pat in Mass:
It’s a useful term with a precise and relevant meaning and I will not expunge it from my vocabulary.
iLarynx
Sully’s assessment of “Israel Firsters” is that “Much of this comes from end-times Christianist fundamentalism.” This is spot-on. I spent years exchanging e-mails with one of these Christianists and a group of fellow high-school buddies. After hearing some of what he had to say regarding Israel I asked him what he would do if it came down to a war between Israel and the US. He said would “regretfully” fight on the side of Israel. He said that his reasoning was that if it came down to a war between Israel and the US it would have to be because the US had run so far off the rails as to be evil. It was inconceivable to him that Israel could be fallible because of how he read in the bible that Jesus would return to Israel. I responded that I was sure it would be comforting to the Americans in his cross-hairs that when he pulled the trigger, it would be done “regretfully.”
An American willing to take up arms against his fellow Americans in defense of Israel? An American citizen who puts his FIRST loyalty with Israel OVER the US? What better definition of “Israel Firster” is there? Who decided this phrase is to be banned? You prefer “Israel über alles”? Get off your fainting couch and call a spade a “spade.”
liberal
@wilfred:
I don’t get it either. People around here act as if Israel’s central crime—trying to slowly annex the Occupied Territories—is a Likud-and-other-rightists-only policy.
liberal
@not motorik:
No, the problem with it is that it’s not accurate.
The Labor Party wasn’t as virulent as the Likud and other right-wingers, but they hardly had a benevolent take on the occupation.
Benjamin Franklin
@priscianusjr:
Point taken.
liberal
@priscianusjr:
Completely true. Notice, however, that that was some time ago, and even the cold war has been over for quite some time.
brantl
The problem isn’t with calling someone an Israel firster, unless you happen to think that Israel firsters are the only problem of people putting any single country ahead of all the rest. All “my-country-firsters” or “this-country-firsters” (rarer, but that’s what the Israel-firsters who live in this country are) are full of shit, and those attitudes are what are responsible for 99.999% of all the the foreign policy mistakes that have ever been made. Shit, Dick Cheney has just taken that further, to “my group, however I want to define it, at this minute, first; and that guy I just shot in the face? He’s not in it, NOW! Cause I just shot him in the face!”
George Harrison called this I My My Me Me Mine. And he had it, dead nuts.
Paul in KY
@kth: Pat is a Deutchland-firster.
Paul in KY
@AA+ Bonds: Agree with you. We should call an ‘Israel-Firster’ an ‘Israel-Firster’.
Because that’s what they are. USA only exists to help out & fund Israel.
Killah of da Tote Bagz
1) The Israeli Labor Party has always been complicit in the occupation of the West Bank, so “Likudnik” isn’t exactly accurate.
2) Calling Israeli or American Zionist hardliners “Islamophobic” is true enough, but not exactly accurate when talking about the Israel/Palestine issue. A lot of Palestinians Arabs are Christians (something American Christians who uncritically support Israel don’t seem to care about).
Paul in KY
@wilfred: Likud has other policies beyond warmongering & subjegating Palestinians. They are the prime political manifestation of a racist/facist strain in Israel.
Paul in KY
@Yevgraf: They will never crush Israel now. She is too strong militarily.
Pococurante
Holy cow.
I could make a fortune on all the tin foil being wasted here.
Amazing.
Paul in KY
@priscianusjr: Which is crazy as Israel didn’t even exist prior to 1948. However did the U.S. exist in those terrible years before 1948?
Jonathan
If you advocate for policies that put the interests of another country ahead of the interests of the country you’re a citizen of, what is the proper term to use?
There are, without an iota of doubt, a number of prominent American’s in influential positions of the government or the press that do just that. Why should it be offensive to call it out, or talk about it? Does it hurt people’s fee-fee’s?
Paul in KY
@Chris: I think it was when Israel commenced whupping up on various Middle Eastern nations. Probably around 1973 or thereabouts.
Your average right-wing crank began to admire their whupping-ass ways & then the millenial Christianists joined in (must get an armageddon going) & voila!
RP
The obsession with Israel obviously isn’t limited to the “Israel-firsters.”
brantl
@AA+ Bonds: Nope, there’s also the US-first-last-and-always faction, and we call them neocons.
dmbeaster
@pseudonymous in nc: The argument—and this is a fierce argument in Israel—is whether the secular liberal state defined for many decades by what I call “romantic labor Zionism” is sustainable. The combination of settlers, post-Soviet emigres and an ultra-Orthodox community that wields disproportionate political power has applied a lot of pressure to the character of the nation.
dmbeaster
@liberal:
Put in historical context, the annexation of the West Bank is the continuation of the fundamental policy of Israel from the moment of its creation. Arabs never consented to Israel’s creation, and Israel founded itself largely by driving them off of their lands. The settler movement in a very true sense represents the founding spirit of Israel.
As someone on the outside looking in, I can reconcile myself to the forces that caused this to happen, and let the past be (so do many Arabs it seems). But the continuation of this practice is anathema. And this is the struggle in Israel – to change from its historical roots, and find a means of reconciliation, or continue in the founding spirit. The latter force has clearly been winning the fight for Israel’s soul.
lou
Why did conservative protestants start supporting Israel? Andrew Sullivan is right — the spread of the idea that we’re in the end of times. I grew up in a fundy church. We were sure the establishment of Israel was leading to the Rapture and the return of Christ. Then there’s Corrie Ten Boom’s The Hiding Place. Every fundy imagined themselves as a Ten Boom, righteously saving Jews from the evil Nazis (haven’t you noticed a lot of fundies and right-wingers have a persecution complex? Trust me, they dream of the day they can be martyrs for Christ). Before Left Behind was the Late Great Planet Earth of the 1970s.
Plus, We all loved the book and movie Exodus. Paul Newman as studly sabra? need I say more?
KevinNYC
While reading about this debate for the first time yesterday, I also found out that the folks fighting against Israel-firster also believe that the terms neocon or Likudnik are anti-semitic.
So methinks they just hate having a name for the disposition.
KevinNYC
While reading about this debate for the first time yesterday, I also found out that the folks fighting against Israel-firster also believe that the terms neocon or Likudnik are anti-semitic.
So methinks they just hate having a name for the term.