From: martillo@nero.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Brendan is a racist anti-semitic bigot
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:11:51 GMT
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass.

In article <1992Sep10.090801.4842@mcs.kent.edu> rayes@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Sandra Rayes) writes:

>Eric, while I did not get the entire thread (having been in N.M. for a month)
>I am wondering what is so offensive about accusing someone of dual loyalty,
>and indeed, if dual loyalty is such a bad thing.  Example, as you know,
>I am German-American and still feel a sense of loyalty to Germany.  Is
>this bad??

Well, obviously if Eisenhower had felt loyalty to Germany, there would
have been an obvious problem for the US.

>I don't think it is fair to accuse someone of Anti-Semitism simply because
>they question someone's loyalty...especially if that loyalty is well-based
>in ethno-religious similarities.  In fact, I believe 99% of American Jews
>feel a sense of loyalty to Israel and defend Israel out of that loyalty
>due to ethno-religious connections.  

Actually, by analogy with my situation, I suspect sympathy would
probably be a better term than loyalty. At least that is my feeling
toward the Arab Nation although I despise most existent Arab nations
and would like to see them dismantled and returned to colonial rule so
that traditional pre-modern Arab Islamic culture can be rooted out as
traditional pre-modern European Christian culture was rooted out in
Western Europe 200 years ago.

Because Israel is culturally more like the US than Syria and nations
typically ally themselves with countries like themselves (consider how
Stalin remade Eastern Europe in the Soviet image during the 50s while
Great Britain is the closest US ally), it is easy for Jewish people to
perceive in their minds value to the US of a close alliance with
Israel.  In fact, arguing the point is simply easier.  In all honesty,
I would have to argue that the US should probably be dismantling and
reorganizing Syria along civilized lines instead of making nice with
Asaad.

>				      Many American boys serve in the
>Israeli military without doing the same for the US.  So what is so
>bad about that??  No one questions that, least of all Jewish people.

If Israel were actively working against US strategic interests, such
service would probably constitute treason.  And that is basically the
point.  I am rather offended by the existence of Israel.  In the best
of all possible worlds from my point view, my family would be some of
the major political players in the Syro-Palestinian region rather than
exiles in the US, but we are Yankees now, and the US alliance with
Israel intimidates the governments in the region.

Of course, Arab politicos whine against the alliance but Arab-Islamic
culture is fundamentally inimical to Enlightenment based Americanism.
The US will get more effective service from Arab countries through
intimidation than by friendliness until the Arab people and Arab
leaders shed traditional culture for civilized Western modernism.

>I think given that Goldberg's interpretation of 242 differs widely from
>that of the rest of the SC, and the following Councils who reaffirmed
>242, it is a fair to suggest that perhaps Goldberg's background and 
>loyalty to his "ancestral home" may certainly play a part in his
>interpretation of 242.

International law only counts when it serves US strategic policy
interests.  But let's assume that in this case international law has
some intrinsic merit.  (1) I don't have the impression Goldberg's
interpretation is so unique even though Arab people might like to
believe it and would wish it were so. (2) Anyone who would apologize
for Saddam Hussein's policy with respect to Kuwait must perforce
accept Goldberg's interpretation of SC242.  And (3) Goldberg's
interpretation is actually in U.S. interests because the US will
probably have to reorganize some countries in the near future and will
probably have to make some border changes to these countries as the
result of armed conflict.  As a consequence, from the US standpoint
supporting interpretations which deny any intrinsic sanctity to
existing borders makes a lot of sense in terms of future US strategic
actions.

>And it really is unfair to suggest anti-Semitism just about every time
>someone disagrees with that singular interpretation of 242. (Goldberg's)

>Sandra.

>>     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
>>  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
-- 
Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami

The article represents noone's opinions other than the author's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:19853 talk.politics.soviet:7842 soc.culture.greek:8748 soc.culture.europe:8303 soc.history:8188