Fleshler Exonerates Neocons of Dual Loyalty. Why He's Wrong...

My friend Dan Fleshler, who opposed the Iraq war, exonerates Jewish neocons of the charge of dual loyalty (to the U.S. and Israel) in a post on Huffpo. Interesting, but I think his argument is weak.

First off, Fleshler says that to suggest dual loyalty is a charge "tantamount to treason," and that therefore one must have incontrovertible evidence before making the charge. I don't think it is tantamount to treason. Treason is a crime that can mean the death penalty. Dual loyalty is an affair of the heart that can actually be legal under the Constitution--indeed, the Supreme Court said some time back that it was O.K. for a person to fight and vote in another country and still be a citizen of the U.S.

There's a difference between the right to be a citizen, or to own property, or not to be imprisoned and the right to serve as an adviser to the president. There is no such right. If there was, I could show up at the White House to be the Middle East adviser tomorrow. Political appointments are subject to tons of discretion. And all I've said is that when there's a suspicion of dual loyalty, I don't think those people should be setting policy in that area. When Elliott Abrams writes that Jews must stand apart from their society in any country but Israel, I suspect dual loyalty; and I don't want him making policy in that powderkeg region.

The other thing I find unconvincing about Fleshler's post is his pat exoneration of the neocons. He relates a conversation he once had with Doug Feith in which Feith said he's a conservative who cares about a lot of countries, including Israel. This is the same Feith who pointed to a portrait of Herzl in his library, in a New Yorker article, and said that all Jews should be for Bush, presumably because Bush was so good for Israel.

That's evidence of dual loyalty, it's certainly not proof. I don't think it's easy to either establish dual loyalty or clear someone of it. I wonder how much these neocons think of Israel in their heart of hearts. But unless you put someone on truth serum, it would be hard to prove.

But this gets to the larger point. It seems to me completely legitimate to suspect dual loyalty in a lot of the Jewish thinking on the war, thinking that seamlessly conflated U.S. and Israeli interests. When Tom Friedman said he was for the war because of suicide bombers going into Tel Aviv pizza parlors.... when Ken Pollack wrote a whole book pushing for the war and said the Arab street would be on our side and he never once mentioned the Israeli occupation.... when the Jewish Policy Center told Jewish audiences that the war was good for Israel and meanwhile told general audiences that the war was good for stability in the Mideast... when my own brother said in 2002 that he was against the Vietnam war but he didn't know how he felt about this one because "my Jewish newspaper says it could be good for Israel".... in all these cases, I wonder whether Jews weren't thinking about Israeli interests ahead of American ones.

That's why I'm a non-Zionist, or a post-Zionist. Zionism creates the conditions under which these suspicions will arise, because Jews will feel torn between two places. Through the law of return, Zionism states that all Jews belong to the Jewish nation; and though in the 1950s the head of the American Jewish Committee, Joseph Blaustein, strongly rejected the calls that Israel made on American Jews, today American Jewish identity is defined to a large degree by support for Israel, and religious nationalism is routinely offered to Jewish audiences the way anti-abortion doctrine is part of the evangelical church. Some Jews have taken that idea further than others. Indeed, as I have reported, the two godfathers of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, both called for a strong U.S. military in the 70s, so as to defend Israel. Recently, John Judis and Eric Alterman, liberal journalists, have openly raised questions about dual loyalty in (some) American Jews when it comes to Israel. As I report in the American Conservative, one of the big backers of the pro-Iraq-war group Freedom's Watch has given $60 million to the birthright program, which sends young Jews on a free trip to Israel, so they'll fall in love with the country and with other Jews. Don't you wonder just why he's supporting the Iraq war? I do.

Fleshler's pat answers won't make this issue go away. Jewish prominence in American society, coupled with definitions of Jewish identity that tie us to Jerusalem, mean that these suspicions are going to arise whenever the U.S. makes policy choices, like the disastrous Iraq war decision, that appear to be in Israel's interest more than our own. After Catholics came into the power structure, John Kennedy, as a step toward gaining the highest office in the land, had to go to the ministers in Houston in 1960 and explain why he felt no allegiance to the Vatican. I think Jews are facing a similar sort of crisis; indeed a Jewish candidate for president would be getting the Israel-in-your-heart question on the campaign trail right now.

As I've said again and again, the horror of the Iraq war ought to set off a soulsearching among Jews of conscience about the extent to which the now-routine business of rationalizing Israel's brutal policies toward the Palestinians has come to affect American choices in the Middle East. I'm not trying to deprive any of the Jewish neocons of life, liberty or the pursuit of a sinecure at a Washington thinktank. I just want their fingers off the trigger.

Comments

[mullah cimoc]

mullah cimoc say mrs. stretchface (in waziristan everyone to using this name for mrs. pelosi- in pastu: “nipo-hard” meaning face stretch like snake)just be so the liar. also the sick brain and cruel.

mrs. stretchface never to really opposing war crime. it just to lie to get the vote money. in true stretchface full time israeli agent agent, entire career just to service him master in tel aviv. aipac, jdl, adl, all to commanding each action by mrs. stretch face.

[Gene]

(I hope other readers will indulge me here. I just posted this on another thread but it seems so much more appropriate here.)

An interesting thing happened today. The Israeli ambassador to Turkey apologized to the Turkish government for the fact that a U.S. congressional committee voted to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. The implication here is that Israel had both the power and responsibility to prevent the House committee from voting yes but had unaccountably failed to do so. Does Israel really feel it has such control over the U.S. Congress that it needs to apologize to other countries when the American Congress willfully goes its own way?

[Bogart]

I have a dual loyalty problem.

My mistress wants me to leave my wife and take her on a trip around the world.

My wife wants me to buy a new house and take a second honeymoon.

What should I do?

People have to make choices sooner or later.

Jews are no exception. As an American with only one country I don't want people with a higher loyalty to a foreign country living here much less infiltrating my government.

It just doesn't work...has never worked thruout history and will never work...no matter how to try to tell yourself it's "your right" or that there is nothing wrong with it...that Israel and the Jews "are an exception."

This notion that Jews can live in one country and be loyal to another or be their own nation within a nation as the old carnard goes has been the bane of their existence..and yet?....here we go again.

Do they ever learn?

[alana]

Great post on dual loyalty, Phil.

Another way of saying it: There's nothing wrong with a judge having a personal sympathy toward one side or another of a potential case, but we expect him to have the decency to recuse himself when the situation comes up. Deferring the use of his power is fundamentally a matter of showing respect for his fellow citizens.

[Dude]

Phil - Are you equally comfortable deny positions of influence to Muslims since they clearly have a Middle East agenda that may or may not be in the best interest of the USA?

[Denis Drew]

One caveat, Phil: Jews who support the war (as you put it; I would call tamping down the war between Iraqis) because they think it is good for Israel are probably conservative enough to think knocking over Saddam was good for the USA too.

Of course, in NYC everybody except Native Americans has dual loyalty.

[David Seaton]

Talk about your lobbies. We have all been watching the Jewish one, when the Armenians have just derailed US foreign policy big time.

Just at the moment that the Turkish army is about to invade Iraqi Kurdistan and terminally destabilize whatever might be left of Iraq, the Senate passes this "Armenian genocide" resolution.

Between the Jewish, Cuban and now the Armenian (???), Lobbies. US Foreign policy is collapsing. Quelle bordelle!

[Richard Witty]

The significance of the Kennedy example was that even in an election *suspicion* of dual loyalty, prospectively on ethnic grounds, or even on the simplistic math of (he's an accepting Catholic, the pope say that all Catholics should follow the Vatican's orders literally, the pope determines the Vatican's policies, therefore an accepting Catholic is a direct puppet of the pope and on the grounds of dual loyalty is unqualified for office.), is impossible to generalize without devolving to prejudice.

The consequences of that falsely simplistic math was that by virtue of being a Catholic, one would be disqualified from serving in public office let alone president.

Then of course there was Father Drinan, Congressman from Brookline, who consistently and highly ethically (and although a Father, was independant of the papacy's political preferences - that sounded nice didn't it) opposed the war in Vietnam.

It describes that the content of each CASE is what is critical, not the suspicion.

In the case of a presidential administration, the staff of the president is NOT elected, and serves in accountability to the president's chain of command. The history of presidential advisors includes a gamut of immigrants at secretarial positions, each of whom could have been and were accused of dual loyalty.

Dan is right. They were wrong, not seditious.

In this case, the question isn't whether "someone" should be prohibited from accusing another of dual loyalty. The question is whether you can ethically.

Your prospective misrepresentation of your brother's comments here is very upsetting.

Its also upsetting to hear you misuse the term "evidence". You don't propose evidence, you propose suspicion.

The difference between the two words is glaring. Scarily.

Evidence is oriented to a proof. You could possibly prove that Wormser or "the neo-conservatives" (a name-call that YOU use often in some inference of equivalence to "Jewish"), but to actually prove that logically, you would have to confidently eliminate ALL other feasible explanations or inferences.

What Dan did in quoting Fleisher, was to take the word "proof" from your tether. You can't prove anything, because your contention neglected to consider alternative explanations seriously.

"Its got to be this way. What other explanation is there?" (without investigating other explanations).

I've done bad things with money, even other people's money. The consequences of me losing money on wishful investments, is some loss to myself, but more significantly some loss to my family. The consequences of me losing other individuals' money is worse, some loss to my employer, some threat to my co-employees' jobs.

For you Phil, your words are your investment. And, in this case you are risking others peoples' credibility, and with the obvious potential of fascist generalization and demonization.

You are not criticizing specific arguments, citing alternative conclusions from the same set of facts (always admittedly with incomplete knowledge). You are taking the low road on this one.

What lessons do we derive from history? Do we repeat the past mistakes of Vietnam? (We are, and more). Do we repeat the past mistakes of American populism morphing into the more limited "populist" logic of the Ku Klux Klan? (We are.)

"Thought crime".

[Richard Witty]

Please ignore my slip of Dan quoting himself, not Feith.

[Richard Witty]

"Those are very serious allegations, tantamount to accusing government officials of outright treason. Whoever makes them should have incontrovertible evidence. What the accusers have is circumstantial and flimsy. "

*What the accusers have is circumstantial...*

Phil at least makes some distinction between suspicion and evidence, but goes ahead to confidently conclude dual loyalty elsewhere.

[Fluffy]

The claim that Jews or Israel control the media and the United States is the perfect lie, because even in principle it cannot be falsified. If you present the mountains of evidence to the contrary (the un-retracted doctored photos of smoke over Arab towns, the stunning insistence of the media to claim lives lost as human shields for terrorists should be tallied alongside lives lost in suicide bomb attacks on pizzerias, and the faked mass funerals at Jenin from which Americans were never disillusioned) they will claim you are being controlled by Israel. If you say nothing, these Nazis will claim to be unrefutable.

Iraq was a war declared by Bush. If you blame his advisers, then to lend any consistency you must in turn blame Bush's appointment of them. For Bush had a decision in whom to appoint. He chose individuals who he saw as sharing is views the most. That's politics, and that's America. Deal with it.

[Allahstein]

I'd like to hear Phil's response to Dude's question - If it's not kosher for Jews to serve in positions where their concern for Israel's well being may cloud their judgement as to what's in our (USA's) best interest, would it be kosher to allow either Muslim-Americans or Christian Evangelicals to serve in positions of power where they have influence over US Mid-East policy, since both also have vested interests in the region and the conflict?

Similarly, would it be kosher to have someone with anti-semitic leanings serving in a position of influence regarding the Mid-East since that person too may have difficulty clarifying what is in our best interest and what is simply not in Israel's best interest?

Taking this to an absurd point - Should we really listen to what Black politicians have to say about welfare reform given the disproportionate percentage of African-Americans who receive public assistance? Could their racial identity cloud their judgement as to what is in the best interest of the USA and what is in the best interest of the African-American community? Same for Latino-Americans and immigration?

I would be curious if Phil's brother was asked the following question how he would respond:
The US is about to engage in an adventure that may benefit Israel, but will be bad for the USA, do you support such a move?
Phil?

I personally think that most Jews believe that what is good for the USA is good for Israel. Jews don't want to see a weakened USA. I support Israel's right to exist (though not their Likud policies) and I opposed the Iraq war because I didn't think it was the right way to go about increasing American power and influence. In my thought process I did actually think about how all this would affect Israel, and my conclusion was that Israel can ill afford a weaker, less influential USA, so what is good for the USA is good for Israel. Does that make me a dual loyalist?

[Richard Witty]

I'm clearly a dual loyalist, three loyalties, four loyalties, no eight or so.

1. The earth
2. Those specific inhabitants of the earth that I'm aware that I affect.
3. My family (in US, Canada, England, Israel, Guatemala)
4. My local community
5. Working people (physical and mental)
6. Truth (Substance over form)
7. New England (including Southeastern Canada)
8. United States

[Richard Witty]

I still hope that I have something to contribute to someone else's decisions, even if I am not officially "loyal".

[Chuck]

Why can't Mr Witty be honest? He's already stated that he would prefer his son to fight for the IDF rather than the American military. That says it all about his loyalties.

Also in this regard, it recently came to my attention that the Arizona chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition was honoring a Jewish American soldier. But how loyal is it that they chose to honor a soldier who fought for the IDF and not the American military?!! Maybe they aren't acquainted with any American military veterans?

It all reminds me of my college days in 1973 at the far left elitist institution I attended. It was common in that end of the Viet Nam War era to hear my fellow students brag about the various ways in which they snubbed American soldiers in uniform. But when Israel was on the verge of losing the Yom Kippur War and the Israeli version of the Red Cross showed up at our 40% Jewish campus, the Jewish students lined up en masse to give blood.

I would never term that behavior as dual loyalty however. That terminology would implie some loyalty to the USA. The reign of deceit imposed upon Americans over the last 40 or more years could never be described as loyal.

[Allahstein]

Chuck - Clearly you don't like leftists. Would you say that those non-Jewish leftists that opposed the Vietnam War were also lacking in loyalty? Or is just when leftist Jews oppose American military intervention that there is loyalty issue?

Help me understand the nature of your anger and hatred.

[David]

"Help me understand the nature of your anger and hatred."

His point, dear steiny, was that for the Jewish students, one army was despised but another was honored.

[Allahstein]

Brilliant and in depth analysis there fellas. No other factors could explain the difference in positions.

Not that in one war we were the aggressors, and in '73 the Israelis were the ones being attacked. There were a lot of good reasons to oppose the Viet Nam war and to do so wasn't unpatriotic. To donate blood to the Israelis when they were under attack is not an act of disloyalty to the USA.
Only in your and Chuck's little Universe anything and everything Jews seem to do is evidence of some sin or another.

Phil - I'm still waiting for you to address the questions Dude and I raised regarding dual loyalty.

[Chuck]

I don't dislike all leftists and can honestly say that there are some leftists, including the proprietor of this blog, whom I admire very much. I was personally opposed the Viet Nam War so I'm not inclined to question the motivations of most of those who opposed it.

I will acknowlege my contempt for dishonesty and dishonest people. Examples of this would include those who proclaim themselves to be anti-war, unless it is the IDF's war, those who get hysterical about the Holocaust, but choose to ignore the many other(Ukraine anyone?) genocides throughout human history, those who like to construct supposed Constitutional rights to separation of church and state, but readily ignore the same when American taxpayers are shook down for the billions sent to the theocracy of Israel every year.

Consistency as is not so much the hobgoblin of a small mind, but rather a devotion to justice.

[Allahstein]

Lets take a case study approach to Chuck's position.

Meet Judy Goldman. She is a student at the University of Wisconsin in 1973. She opposes the Viet Nam war because she believes it is unnecessary war and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Americans are being killed in her opinion for no good reason.

Israel is attacked on Yom Kippur by Syria and Egypt. The surprise attack has Israel back on its heels. Thousands of Israelis are killed in the attacks and there is a need for blood donors. Judy is for a two-state solution and would like to see the Palestinians have their own independent state side by side with Israel. When asked if she will donate blood for Israel she agrees to.

According to Chuck, Judy is a dual loyalist.

[MJ Rosenberg]

The question is why would good progressive Jews want to absolve the likes of Doug Feith of any charge.

What is this weird propensity some good progressive two-state supporting Jews have to suck up to our worst enemies. It's like they think : if the barricades are erected, I want to make sure I'm with my fellow neocon Jews and not Walt-Mearsheimer.

Strange, No matter where the barricades are erected, I will not be on the same side of them as Feith, Krauthammer, Peretz, Wurmser, etc.

To those who respond, as they invariably do that Hitler would put me on the same side, my response is that I don't let Hitler make my choices for me.

Feith is dripping with the blood of 4000 Americans, people about whom he knows nothing and cares less.

Why would anyone defend this creep?

[MM]

Allahstein, what a tedious argument. Yes yes, they're apples and oranges to you. We get it.

This isn't about the Yom Kippur War. It's about... wait for it...

ZIONISM.

No Zionism, no Yom Kippur War.

No Zionism, No 1967.

No 1956. No 1948. No 1937-1939. No Naqba. No 4 million refugees. No Zionist organizations lobbying against immigration restrictions in the US and Britain during the Holocaust. No Haganah targeting civilians. No subdivisions built on Palestinian villages and graveyards. No Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert setting Lebanon back 10 years and many thousands of civilian lives. No Hezbollah. No clusterbombs maiming Lebanese children. No Katyusha missle attacks on Haifa. No suicide bombers. No home demolitions. No Bantustans. No wall. No detainment and torture. No indoctrinating adolescents with vile Arabophobia. No 18 year old IDF patrolling Jerusalem with AK47s. No Oslo. No bullshit calls for ceasefire. No 100 billion dollars of taxpayer money spent on colonial war activities instead of health and education in the US. No ill-advised 600 billion dollar invasion of Iraq. No Jimmy Carter book. No Lobby. No W&M book. No Dershowitz.

And everything great that has happened in Israel could have just as well happened in the United States, as so many successful Jewish stories have shown.

Zionism was a terrible, racist idea from the start. You don't need to believe in original sin to know an enormous, impossible colonial clusterfuck when you see one.

[Allahstein]

MJ - I think Progressive Jews are not inclined to defend Feith and his cronies from responsibility for their decisions and misguided policies, but they are inclined to look at his decision making as not stemming solely from an "Israel First" perspective and understand that there is a difference between trying to do the right thing and being wrong, and doing something evil and deceptive. Phil with great confidence claims that the latter is what Feith and the neocons have done and it is due to their being Jews that they did it. While I can detest their positions and their policies, I don't have to ascribe them as being driven solely by their jewishness and concern for Israel. This is the insidious argument that Phil trumpets daily in an often sophmoric fashion on this blog. While their pro-Likud positions are consistent with their right wing American views, how are they that different from right wing non-jews? Do you distinguish Feith as being in any way different or more or less responsible than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc for the Iraq mess? If so, why?

And MJ, since Phil is scared to venture in to the comments section, by his own admission, I would really like your opinion as to Dude's and my questions about dual loyalty.

And just so you know, I'm actually a fan of yours and the IPF.

[MM]

Arie's citations demonstrate even more clearly the role that Zionism has played in DIVIDING the Middle East. 100,000 Jews in Iraq. Even more in Iran. Very few of them intent on moving to Stolen Palestine. Then 1948-49. Synagogues in Iraq bombed by overzealous Zionist extremists.

It is certainly oversimplistic to reduce all of the tensions and conflicts in the Middle East to Zionism. But it is simply astounding how Zionist apologists will not admit ANY deleterious effects of Zionism on the peace, stability, and progress of the region.

The only antagonists in the Zionist mythology, of course, are the Arabs.

[Allahstein]

MM - You only make yourself look foolish with your comments. Of course Zionist apologists are not going to admit any blame. By definition they are apologists.

I am a zionist and I admit that zionism has had a unhealthy and destabilizing impact on the region. I think this is due to the way in which both the Jews and the Arabs have dealt with it, and it can be different, and potentially globablly stabilizing if handled correctly. i.e. a two-state solution and reconciliation process.

[MM]

So Zionism has had an unhealthy and destabilizing impact on the region...

...but let's keep the pseudo-religious, ethnic-nationalist criteria for Israeli citizenship.

I'm sure someone will give those Palestinians their own state, some day.

[Allahstein]

Let me add to my above statement that even without the Jews moving back into the neighborhood in the early part of the 20th centruy the region was likely to be unstable due to the Europeans carving up the former Ottoman Empire. Israel clearly has made it more unstable, but given oil in the region it was likely to be a stabilization challenge from the start.

[Allahstein]

MM - Yes. And lets enable the Palestiniains to build a Palestinian nation as Abbas is seeking. A nation where they can decide whether Palesinians in the diaspora can have automatic citizenship or not.

[Gene]

Richard Witty: "the question isn't whether "someone" should be prohibited from accusing another of dual loyalty. The question is whether you can ethically."

There's nothing wrong with calling someone on his problematic loyalties. If I were ever to find myself in a foxhole I sure wouldn't want someone with dual loyalties covering my back. Don't you get it? America comes first and all other countries are tied for a distant second.

[Allahstein]

Gene,

I too would want to know that the person in the foxhole with me is loyal to the same team I am. That's why it must be very scary to be an Iraqi soldier right now. You're not sure if your Sunni, Kurdish, or Shiite comrade is more loyal to the Army or to his sect or tribe.

So that we don't have any misunderstandings, perhaps you could clarify what policies one would need to endorse and support in order to insure that we are loyal to America. You know, so there is no question about it.

Thank you.

[Steve]

Phil, obsession is backfiring.
All hypocrisy should be exposed.
WM have bombarded Israel and American Jews with endless accusations.
It is clearly so prejudiced.
A decent scholar can not limit his research to such a narrow field.
From leftists, the WM team turned into protofascists, and their fans are not better.

[MJ Rosenberg]

I do not believe we are in Iraq due to the influence of the neocons. I believe the neocons were used by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. But, as far as most of the neocon group being motivated by their view of what's good for Israel, absolutely.
Doug Feith, for instance, was a prominent fellow here in Washington for decades before Iraq. He was, however, identified with only one issue: keeping the West Bank and the settlements.
There is no more to the ideology of Doug Feith than settler-ish Likudism.
But this is not true of Wolfowitz, Fukuyama, Bolton and a few others.
But, from what I know of these people, Feith, Wurmser, Frum, Podhoretz, Peretz, Krauthammer and others
are driven, in all their views, by what will sustain the occupation.
Since I consider the neocon position on Israel lethal for Israel, I tend not to say that it's Israel they care about. In fact, most of them hate the Israel I love: secular, humanist, peace-loving, Tel Aviv, the kibbutzim, Haifa, etc.
So, not to draw too fine a point, these guys are not Republicans, not Democrats, not conservatives and not liberal.
They are Herut. Greater Israel. That comes before anything else.
Is it dual loyalty? No. I give them credit for loyalty to neither the US or Israel but rather to a perverted worldview.
But I know one thing. Doug Feith was not thinking about America when he manipulated the information that got us into this war and he, and the rest of the gang, lose no sleep over the 4000 Americans killed there.
Remember, Norman Podhoretz once told Gore Vidal that the American Civil War was as alien to him as the War of Roses. That says it all.

[Allahstein]

MJ - You are my kind of zionist.

Help me try to understand the thinking of a Feith. Why is it so important to maintain the territories? As a zionist I feel no such need to maintain those territories and in fact feel morally obliged to hand them over to the Palestinians in order to assist them in establishing their own state. The zionist goal for me is the actualization of both the Jews and Palestinians to have a homeland where they can have at least a minimal sense of agency as a people. I can understand the religious arguments for keeping the land. They truly believe God commands them to live on it, but Feith et al are not that religious. Do they have a rationale other than wanting more land for Israel? I got the sense from reading and listening to Wolfowitz that he is not married to the territories and is sympathetic to the Palestinians.

Are these guys so cynical about there ever actually being a peace that they believe all the downside is worth it in order to maintain some sort of strategic depth advantage with the territories?

Now plenty of non-jewish, non-zionist, power players also thought it was important for us to intervene in the Middle-East and insure our access to oil given China and India's growing oil appetites. I think this is what you may be referring to in your comment that we are in Iraq for reasons other than those held by Israel supporters. Is it not possible that the neocons had those same priorities, AND they thought it would be beneficial to Israel? A win-win, but definitely not treason. Phil doesn't seem to allow for this likelihood, but prefers to spin it that their entire enterprise is about doing Israel's bidding and the US be damned.

Your thoughts on these matters are greatly appreciated.

[MJ Rosenberg]

Here's my take. And thanks for the kind words.
The Feith's of this world are not attracted by Israel as a happy home for Jewish children (I'm oversimplifying). They don't want Herzl's state like any other state.
They are driven by both paranoia (it is always 1942 in their dark world) and hate. It is not so much that they want settlements as they hate the Palestinians who, for them, play the role of Nazis or evil goyim.
Their Zionism, such as it is, is entirely negative. They harp on the Holocaust because in a weird way they think it was the most truly Jewish time in our history. That is why they are so proprietary about it. ("How dare you compare BLANK to the Holocaust [or Hitler, or Nazis}. It is unique It was our Holocaust."
The "Tel Aviv Jews" (whether in T-A or LA) are glad to be alive now when we are free to be ourselves here, in Israel, wherever.
The Feiths want anti-semitism, want isolated settlements, want the ghetto because they fear that freedom will destroy Jewish solidarity.
That's my take on the Jewish lunatic right!

[Allahstein]

Thanks. Utterly depressing. I think I'll go make another donation to Peace Now.

Shabat Shalom.

[Richard Witty]

And, what is the appropriate response when there is assault on Israel, or on Jews?

In some cases, the angers are conditional, and the situation can be changed by changing the treatment and the conditions.

On the other hand, when Hezbollah insists that even with the settlement of Shebaa Farms, they will continue to fight until Israel is no more, the agitation is unconditional.

The best then is quiet, but never peace.

The dilemma relative to murderous forms of agitation (shelling civilians or suicide bombings for example) is what to do.

If no assertive response, then hotheads regard that as encouragement, weakness. "We've got them on the run. They don't even have the will to defend themselves."

If proportional response, things stay exactly the same as previously, stuck.

If excessive response, cruelty and then hatred are invoked further.

What is the path to peace in some relation with those that don't desire peace?

[Richard Witty]

There is a Judaism that is mission-driven, that is unique and separate in ways without being either vain or paranoid.

That is the commitment to transformation of the world from mundane to holy. In the present, most importantly close to one's home, one's person, where one can make a difference.

"All my relations".

Politics is usually far from home, talking about others.

Politics that is constructed of one's own, or one's community's relations, is political and holy.

Politics that is constructed from the math of consistent ideas only (or worse, invoked sentimental reactions), usually applied to others, is generally dry and imposing.

American politics in recent history has been largely of a projection of power, distant, lacking relationship.

Israeli politics is different than American. Its much less a projection of distant power, and more a partially desparate attempt to construct an artificially acceptable setting, but only for one's own.

Israel is genuinely attacked, frequently, and in a manner that I describe as unconditional. That is real, and it is a reality that Americans just don't experience.

Our proportion of "defense" spending compared to Israel's on actual defense is enormous.

[Dan Fleshler]

Fleshler responds at http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/165

"Weiss Exonerates People Who Are Obsessed With Dual Loyalty"

[Gene]

Allahstein: "So that we don't have any misunderstandings, perhaps you could clarify what policies one would need to endorse and support in order to insure that we are loyal to America. You know, so there is no question about it."

You asked a good and important question and I'm proud to say I have the answer. The US goverment should provide tax incentives to bathroom mirror manufacturers to put stickers on all their products with the phone number of El Al airline. That way when people with dual loyalties get up to shave each morning they can ask themselves if they are really living in the country of their hearts' desire. And if it turns out, after rigorous self-examination, that they are not, they can call the number on the sticker, buy their ticket on the spot and be on the way to the land of their dreams before the day is through. They will be happier and less conflicted, not having to hide their true feelings from their neighbors anymore. And, unless I miss my guess, their neighbors will be happier still.

[anon]

LOL Gene. :)

[Anonymous]

Ha Ha Gene. Funny. If they don't leave, what are you going to do? Make 'em take showers? ROFLMAO!

[Richard Witty]

What are your loyalties?

Any of them multiple?

Or is reconciling two conflicting ideas responsibly too much to ask of you?

Say the conflicting loyalty of humanism with American "patriotism"?

[Gene]

I'm not very big on patriotism. I make a big distinction between loyalty to say the American people and our current government. What I do resent are Americans who are invariably more loyal to strangers 7000 miles away in Israel than they are to their next-door neighbors right here in America.

[Israel Shamir]

Philip, it's for long time I follow your writing. You've made great progress. There is one step more to do: to cease being a Jew. It is possible - I did. Just say - I am not anymore. Like Alcoholics Anonymous.
Israel Shamir
israel.shamir@gmail.com

[Richard Witty]

"What I do resent are Americans who are invariably more loyal to strangers 7000 miles away in Israel than they are to their next-door neighbors right here in America."

And how do you determine that?

My contention is that the problem with Wormser, Feith, Abrams is that in ways they are TOO loyal to the United States, rather than disloyal or not loyal enough.

I prefer leaders with dual loyalties, loyalties to humanity, to community and communities (including Israeli and including Palestinian).

Rather than loyalties to abstractions.

[Richard Witty]

Consider the LAW regarding officers of corporations.

Absent explicit obligations in a corporation's charter, an officer of a corporation is obliged to pursue the interests of that corporation (expressed as some form of return on investment in some time frame), to the exclusion of other goals.

I prefer that an officer of a corporation simultaneously be obliged to be a good citizen as the norm, beyond obeying the law, that they be human beings, invested in and actively concerned for communities (and not just for the PR of it).

For acting on the dual loyalty of concern for his/her or others' communities, as well as the corporation's interests, a corporate officer can be sued or in some cases prosecuted.

The way that humane corporate officers get around that is BY dual loyalty, in the form of asking:

1. Is this proposal good for the entity that I am an officer of?

AND

2. Is this proposal good for other entity's that I am aware will be affected by it?

[Gene]

Witty: "And how do you determine [who is more loyal to Israel than America]?"

It's not very hard, given that Israel is all they talk about. Their position on the imminent war with Iran is another clear indicator. Since bombing Iran is not in the US interest but clearly in the Israeli interest, I would suggest that anyone who wants us to attack Iran almost certainly suffers from dual loyalty issues.

"I prefer leaders with dual loyalties, loyalties to humanity, to community and communities (including Israeli and including Palestinian)."

This is a definition of dual loyalty with which I can agree. Your previously announced preference for the IDF had made me think otherwise.

[Richard Witty]

"Israel is all they talk about".

Who is the "they" you are speaking of, specifically. Perhaps you can post a complete list of their published materials to determine if "all" is only an exageration, or a misrepresentation.

Phil doesn't only talk about Walt and Mearsheimer. He also talks about the Diamondbacks, and snakes near his home, and some authors that he's liked and disliked.

[Richard Witty]

In the past, his range of published materials were much broader though.

[Gene]

Witty: "In the past, [Phil's] range of published materials were much broader though."

In my opinion, Phil is a very lucky man. He has found his niche--writing insightfully and well about an extraordinarily important subject for America (the betrayal of the country by some very deluded or misguided Zionist-minded Jews who tend to put Israel's interests ahead of America's). Furthermore, I hope he continues to write about this till the cows come home, given how apoplectic some people are at his public washing of their dirty laundry.

[Allahstein]

neo-zionist
I like the ring to that.

The majority of Israelis, like me, can no longer use the term "Zionist" to define what we believe in. "Zionism" has been hijacked by the movement of settlers who have built hundreds of settlements in the West Bank and are the primary obstacle to making peace with our Palestinian neighbors on the basis of the two-states-for-two-people solution. As I’ve argued in The Jerusalem Post, we need a new definition. We need a neo-Zionism.

The hijacking of Zionism is not a new phenomenon. It is at least as old as the occupation itself – 40 years. What is new is the realization that we may be facing the final opportunity to divide historic Palestine into two sovereign states. The settlement movement has changed the reality of the West Bank so deeply that many question the very possibility of creating a viable Palestinian state today.

If this is so, the victory of the settlers and their settlement enterprise will succeed in bringing about an end to the Zionist enterprise. An Israeli Jewish state on all of the land between the river and the sea will within one generation no longer have an Israeli Jewish majority. Control of the non-Jewish population within those borders will only be possible through repressive means. Once the two-state solution is no longer valid, the entire international community will join the campaign to paint Israel as an apartheid state. Once that happens, it is only a matter of time before the state of Israel will have absolutely no legitimacy to exist.

Today the so-called Zionist movement is, in my mind, similar to the Zealots of Masada who in their heroism committed national suicide 2,000 years ago. In order to differentiate between the modern day Zealots and the rest of us Zionists, I use the term neo-Zionist to define people who share the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a nation state, equal to the rights of every other people. The term defines a belief that the state of the Jewish people must be democratic and just and must be based on the prophetic values on which our heritage as a people stands firm.

As neo-Zionists, we must also search for new ways to translate our Jewishness into modernity that does not detach ourselves from our roots but also helps us to give meaning to that Jewishness outside of the synagogue. The challenge of finding and shaping the Jewishness of the state must be a joint project that includes those settlers that we are calling on to come back home to Israel. Our challenge will also be to enable those people to feel at home in a society that is represented to them by the secular "holy city" of Tel Aviv.

Religion and the State
The system of relations between religion and state practiced in Israel today is a primary factor alienating most young Israelis from Judaism and Jewish expression. The system of control over religion, inherited from the Ottoman Empire, gives the state power over the formation of religious establishments and all issues concerning personal status such as birth, death, marriage, and burial. This system by definition limits pluralism and religious freedoms. In Israel there is no freedom of religion and there is no freedom from religion. The only escape from state religious control over personal status issues is to leave the country. Reform and Conservatives rabbis, for example, can practice the rites of marriage and burial all over the world except in the Israel. Likewise, there is no legal way for people of two different religions to marry in Israel. They must go abroad to marry, and only then will the civil institutions of the state recognize the marriage.

The Israeli state must relinquish control over religion as a necessary precondition for enabling Judaism to find new expressions in Israeli society and culture. The state-controlled monopoly over Judaism has frozen Jewish expression and culture in a very narrow confined space held by Orthodoxy as interpreted by very small sects within Jewish society. This must change.

The Jewish religion itself has a very small role in shaping state policies. The exception is, of course, the overwhelming power of the settlement movement vis-à-vis all governments since 1967. The settlers anchored their expansionist ideology in Jewish history and religion and in long-term strategic planning and implementation by taking control of key institutions such as the civil administration and offices controlling land registration. The anchoring of the settlement enterprise on religion was quite easy. After the miracle victory of the 1967 war in six short days a wave of messianic urges together with the nationalist, chauvinistic militarism that spread throughout Israeli society enabled the leaders of the settlement movement to link every step they took to the pages of the Bible. The guidebook for the building of settlements was and remains the Old Testament. The names of the settlements are the same as the cities and villages of old, and they are located on the very same land where they existed during the times of the Prophets. This linkage naturally has great popular appeal and was supported by most of the political parties making up most of the governments since 1967.

Only recently have the majority of Israelis and the majority of the political parties that compose the government come to understand that we must break the link. The majority of Israelis realize that in order to maintain Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we must break the link, we must remove the settlements in the hinterlands of the West Bank, and we must come back home to the state of Israel within the Green Line border. As part of this new reality in Israel, the settlement movement is increasingly becoming perceived as a threat to the existence of the state. Those sentiments will strengthen if it appears that there is a real partner for peace in Palestine and that the peace process is genuine.

Land and Peace
The problem that we will face, and we experienced this in the disengagement from Gaza, is that the split of opinions in Israel on the issue of land and peace is very similar to the religious-secular split in the society. Chances are that if you are a religious Israeli, you will support the settlers and if you are secular, you are more likely to support compromise on territory with the Palestinians. This is not a 100% correlation, because the first half of the sentence is truer than the second. Most religious people in Israel will find it more difficult to give up parts of the land of Israel than secular people. At Peace Now demonstrations it is difficult to find many people with the religious kippa (skull cap) on their heads, while at the demonstrations in favor of the settlers it is difficult to see people without their heads covered.

When and if the battle on the future of the borders of the state of Israel is behind us, it will be necessary to find the path toward healing the wounds and for creating dialogue and reconciliation between the religious and the secular parts of Israeli society. The resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will also necessitate resolving fundamental questions regarding the status of the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Two aggravating factors may play a very negative role in the coming years. Proposals for land swaps with the Palestinians that would enable a large number of settlers to remain where they are involved moving the border westwards in a way that would include several very large Palestinian-Israeli cities within the new Palestinian state. From the point of view of most Jewish-Israelis this is a very positive idea. From the point of view of almost all of those Palestinian-Israelis who will be directed affected by the change of border this is a very negative step. One Palestinian member of the Knesset, Ahmad Tibi, described it as being "obscene."

There is a certain compelling logic to the idea – why shouldn't Palestinians who sees themselves as part of the Palestinian people and also see themselves as discriminated against by Israel be pleased to be included in the new Palestinian state? Objectively this should be perceived as a blessing. They are not required to leave their homes and land. There is no transfer or expulsion; it is simply a change of border. One reason for the reluctance of Palestinian Israelis to support this border change can be found in the economic disparities between Israel and Palestine, but it is more complex than that. The very raising of the issue is going to add to tensions that already exist and will require both sides, Jewish Israeli and Palestinian Israelis, to seriously question and tackle the meaning of citizenship for Palestinian Israelis.

The second aggravating factor is the rise of the radical Islamic movement in many of the communities of Palestinian Israeli citizens. The branch of the movement represented by Sheikh Raed Salah of Umm el Fahem is successfully radicalizing many segments of the society and pushing them toward a denial of the possibility of coexistence between Islam and the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The distance between holding that ideology and taking action on it is very short and this poses a great danger to the future of relations between Israel and its Palestinian citizens.

In the view of this neo-Zionist, it is legitimate to raise the issue of transferring the border so that some Palestinian Israeli communities could be found within the state of Palestine, but the implementation of that should only be done with the agreement of those who will be affected by it. If done in a reasonable way, raising this issue could actually have a very positive impact on shaping the definition of citizenship for Palestinian-Israelis. In my view, there is absolutely no reason why Palestinian citizens of Israel should not enjoy full equality in the state. There is no reason why Palestinian Israelis should not have a lot more autonomy over their educational system. There is also no reason why they should not be called to do a non-military national service to serve their state and their communities.

Once there is a state of Palestine next to the state of Israel living in peace, the issues concerning citizenship and possibly dual citizenship should be somewhat easier to deal with. The pretexts for discrimination will hopefully no longer exist, and Israel will have to work much harder at finding the true expression of its democracy.

Gershon Baskin is the co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. For more articles in FPIF's Religion and Foreign Policy focus, please visit www.fpif.org.

[allahstein]

Link for above

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4583

[Gene]

Allahstein: "I use the term neo-Zionist to define people who share the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a nation state, equal to the rights of every other people. The term defines a belief that the state of the Jewish people must be democratic. . "

A "Jewish" "democratic" state seems like a contradiction in terms. A Jewish state by definition gives preferences to Jews (even if it's only in the right of return) while a democratic state treats everyone equally without regard to their ethnicity.

[Gene]

Allahstein: "I use the term neo-Zionist to define people who share the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a nation state, equal to the rights of every other people. The term defines a belief that the state of the Jewish people must be democratic. . "

A "Jewish" "democratic" state seems like a contradiction in terms. A Jewish state by definition gives preferences to Jews (even if it's only in the right of return) while a democratic state treats everyone equally without regard to their ethnicity.

[Gene]

Allahstein: "I use the term neo-Zionist to define people who share the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a nation state, equal to the rights of every other people. The term defines a belief that the state of the Jewish people must be democratic. . "

A "Jewish" "democratic" state seems like a contradiction in terms. A Jewish state by definition gives preferences to Jews (even if it's only in the right of return) while a democratic state treats everyone equally without regard to their ethnicity.

[Allahstein]

Gene - Can you tell me if there are any other countries in the world that have democracies and who have laws that give preferential treatment for citizenship to people with ancestral ties to the country? For example, would a Japanese-American have a better chance of getting Japanse citizenship than a African-American?
I'm genuinely curious. Do you know the answer to this?

[Allahstein]

I'd like to raise the issue of whether the neocons (amongst others)pursuit of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is in the interest of the USA. I keep reading that the neocons want America to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, when a nuclear Iran is no threat to the USA. It seems to me that the actual threat of a nuclear Iran is not to the mainland USA, but rather to the countries in the region (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Egypt) and the inevitable arms race it will initiate. The region has accepted Israel as a nuclear power and largely understands that they will only be used for defensive purposes. The Israelis have had them for over 40 years and have not used them. Iranian nukes will be considered a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every party in the region and will create Iran as an even greater regional superpower over the world gas station.

Why others ignore the actual danger Iran poses to the West is beyond me. What to actually do about is debatable and should be debated very thoroughly. One can't have the debate however if they aren't willing to state the actual problem.

[Allahstein]

Gene - Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return and let me know what you think. It would appear that many countries that proclaim to be democratic have similar right/law of return policies as Israel.

[Gene]

Allahstein: " For example, would a Japanese-American have a better chance of getting Japanse citizenship than a African-American?
I'm genuinely curious. Do you know the answer to this?"

I don't think you are genuinely curious at all. I think you know as well as I do that Japan is a racist country that bans virtually any immigration. Having said all that, I think that is their right. Just don't confuse it with western democracy though.

[Allahstein]

It ain't just Japan Gene.

Armenia
Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia (1995) provides that "[i]Individuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship of the Republic of Armenia through a simplified procedure."[1] This provision is consistent with the Declaration on Independence of Armenia, issued by the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Armenia in 1989, which declared at article 4 that "Armenians living abroad are entitled to the citizenship of the Republic of Armenia".

[edit] Belarus
Citizenship act of the Republic of Belarus (2002) states that permanent residence terms may be waived for ethnic Belarusians and descendants of ethnic Belarusians who were born abroad before applying for Belarusian citizenship.

[edit] Bulgaria
According to the Constitution of Bulgaria, Article 25(2): "A person of Bulgarian origin shall acquire Bulgarian citizenship through a facilitated procedure."[2]

Chapter Two of the Bulgarian Citizenship Act is entitled "Acquisition of Bulgarian Citizenship". The first section of that chapter is entitled "Acquisition of Bulgarian Citizenship by Origin", and provides at article 9 that "[a]ny person ... whose descent from a Bulgarian citizen has been established by way of a court ruling shall be a Bulgarian citizen by origin." Separately, article 15 of the Act provides that "[a]ny person who is not a Bulgarian citizen may acquire Bulgarian citizenship ... if he/she ... is of a Bulgarian origin".

Ethnic Turks who were born to refugees or immigrants from Bulgarian lands (and thus have Bulgarian origin) also have a right of return.

[edit] China
Chinese immigration law gives priority to returning Overseas Chinese — ethnic Chinese who were living abroad. As a result, practically all immigrants to China are ethnic Chinese, including many whose families lived outside of China for generations.

The Chinese government encourages the return of Overseas Chinese with various incentives not available to others, such as "tax breaks, high salaries and exemptions from the one-child policy if they had two children while living abroad".[3]

The "rights and interests of returned overseas Chinese" are afforded special protection according to Articles 50 and 89 of the Chinese Constitution.[4]

The term Overseas Chinese may be defined narrowly to refer only to people of Han ethnicity, or more broadly to refer to members of other Chinese ethnic groups. As a result of this ambiguity, people who are not Han Chinese but were born in China and subsequently left, including refugees, are not necessarily eligible for the same preferential treatment.

[edit] Republic of China (Taiwan)
The immigration law of the Republic of China on Taiwan gives priority to returning overseas Chinese who are not citizens of the People's Republic of China (mainland Chinese), Chinese who were living abroad, and encourages their return. Technically, people living in mainland China are also Republic of China citizens as Republic of China (Taiwan) has never formally withdrawn its claim for the mainland. They are not subject to the Taiwanese immigration law, but the "Act Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area", which is however stricter than the immigration law due to the current relationship between the two Chinas.

[edit] Croatia
The Croatian law on citizenship (Zakon od hrvatskom državljanstvu), article 11, defines emigrants (iseljenik) and gives them privileges by excluding them from certain conditions imposed on others.

The Croatian diaspora makes use of this to obtain dual citizenship or to return to Croatia.

[edit] Czech Republic
In 1995 the Czech Republic amended its Citizenship Law to provide the Interior Ministry with the discretion to waive the usual five-year residency requirement for foreigners that had been resettled in the Czech Republic by 31 December 1994. This amendment was aimed particularly at several hundred ethnic Czechs which had been brought by the Czech government from the Ukrainian region of Volhynia, and was of a limited duration.[5]

The amendment was consistent with what the Czech Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has identified as "the Czech government's policy principles regarding the resettlement of foreigners of Czech origin living abroad."[6] A private fund, the People In Need (Czech Republic) Czech TV Foundation, worked with government authorities between 1995 and 2001 to effect this resettlement in the specific instance of Russian and Kazakh citizens of Czech origin, and had resettled approximately 750 such persons as of 2000.[7] The strength or prominence of this policy within the Czech government may be uneven, however, and the state appears to have rebuffed dual citizenship overtures from ethnic Czechs living in the comparatively large diaspora of former Czechs in Western countries.

[edit] Diego Garcia
The Chagossians, an ethnic group residing on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, were expelled to Mauritius in the 1960s, in connection with the erection of an American strategic military installation on the island. Ever since, the Chagossians have been conducting a persistent political and legal struggle to return to Diego Garcia. As of 2007, their right to return was recognised by several British courts but the UK government failed to actually implement it (see Chagossians, Depopulation of Diego Garcia, Order-in-Council#United Kingdom).

[edit] Finland
The Finnish Aliens Act provides for persons who are of Finnish origin to receive permanent residence. This generally means Karelians and Ingrian Finns from the former Soviet Union, but United States, Canadian or Swedish nationals with Finnish ancestry can also apply.

The Finnish Directorate of Immigration website states on its Returnees page that;

Certain aliens, who have Finnish ancestry or otherwise a close connection with Finland, may be granted a residence permit on this basis. No other reason, such as work or study, is required in order to receive the permit.
Receiving a residence permit depends on the directness and closeness of Finnish ancestry. If the ancestry dates back several generations, a residence permit cannot be granted on this basis.
People who may be granted a residence permit based on Finnish ancestry or close connections with Finland can be divided into the following three groups:
former Finnish citizens: [8]
persons of other Finnish origin: [9]
persons from areas of the former Soviet Union: [10].

[edit] France
What might be historically the first law recognising a Right of Return was enacted in France in 1790, as part of the French Revolution putting a decisive end to the centuries-long persecution and discrimination of Huguenots (French Protestants).

Concurrently with making all Protestants resident in France into full-fledged citizens, the law enacted on December 15, 1790 stated that : 'All persons born in a foreign country and descending in any degree of a French man or woman expatriated for religious reason are declared French nationals (naturels français) and will benefit to rights attached to that quality if they come back to France, establish their domicile there and take the civic oath.'

As the expulsion of the Huguenots had taken place more than a century earlier and there were extensive Huguenot diasporas in many countries, where they often intermarried with the population of the host country, the law potentially confered French citizenship on numerous Britons, Germans, South Africans and others - though only a fraction actually took advantage of it.

Article 4 of the June 26, 1889 Nationality Law stated that: 'Descendants of families proscribed by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes will continue to benefit from the benefit of the December 15, 1790 Law, but on the condition that a nominal decree [i.e., a decree stating the name of the specific applicant for citizenship] should be issued for every petitioner. That decree will only produce its effects for the future'.

Foreign descendants of Huguenots lost the automatic right to French citizenship in 1945 (by force of the ordonnance du 19 octobre 1945, revoking the 1889 Nationality Law).

See Huguenot#End of persecution and restoration of French Citizenship.

[edit] Germany
German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (so-called Aussiedler, see Volga Germans) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person".[11]

The historic context for Article 116 was the eviction, following World War II, of an estimated 9 million ethnic Germans from other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Another 9 million Germans from former eastern German provinces, over which Stalin and eastern neighbour states extended military hegemony in 1945, were expelled as well. These expellees and refugees (known as Heimatvertriebene) were given refugee status and documents and resettled by Germany; discussion of possible compensation is ongoing. Some German expellees desire to resettle in their territories of birth, youth and early life, but legal procedures often make remigration difficult, even after Poland and the Czech Republic joined the European Union.

In contrast to Aussiedler, persons of German descent living in North America, South America, and other parts of the world, do not have an automatic Right of Return and must actually prove their eligibility for German citizenship according to the principles pertaining to the German nationality law.

[edit] Greece
"Foreign persons of Greek origin", who neither live in Greece nor hold Greek citizenship nor were necessarily born there, may become Greek citizens by enlisting in Greece's military forces, under article 4 of the Code of Greek Citizenship, as amended by the Acquisition of Greek Nationality by Aliens of Greek Origin Law (Law 2130/1993). Anyone wishing to do so must present a number of documents, including "[a]vailable written records ... proving the Greek origin of the interested person and his ancestors."

[edit] India
A Person of Indian Origin (PIO) is a person living outside of India and without Indian citizenship, but of Indian origin up to four generations removed. It is available to persons of Indian origin anywhere in the world as long as they have never been citizens of Pakistan or of Bangladesh. This unusual type of citizenship by descent is an intermediate form of citizenship in that it does not grant the full portfolio of rights enjoyed by Indian citizens.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 and Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance 2005 make provision for an even newer form of Indian nationality, the holders of which are to be known as Overseas Citizens of India (OCI). Overseas citizenship is not substantially different than PIO rights.

Holding either PIO or OCI status does, however, facilitate access to full Indian citizenship. An OCI who has been registered for five years, for instance, need be resident for only one year in India before becoming a full citizen.

[edit] Ireland
Irish nationality law provides for Irish citizenship to be acquired on the basis of at least one Irish grandparent. If a person outside of Ireland who is entitled to claim Irish citizenship elects not to, that person may nonetheless pass that right on to her or his own children, even if the basis for the entitlement being passed on is a single Irish grandparent. To do so, that person must register her or his birth in Ireland's Foreign Births Register.

Separately from this right, the Irish minister charged with immigration may dispense with conditions of naturalisation to grant citizenship to an applicant who "is of Irish descent or Irish associations", under article 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986.

Japan
A special visa category exists exclusively for foreign descendants of Japanese emigrates (Nikkeijin) up to the third generation, which provides for long-term residence, unrestricted by occupation, but most Nikkeijin cannot acquire Japanese citizenship.

[edit] Lithuania
From the Constitution of Lithuania, Article 32(4): "Every Lithuanian person may settle in Lithuania."[15]

[edit] Norway
The Kola Norwegians were Norwegians who settled along the coastline of the Russian Kola Peninsula from approximately 1850 to the closure of the border in the 1920's. It is estimated that around 1000 Norwegians lived on the Kola peninsula in 1917. The Kola Norwegians were deported to or put in camps in other parts of Russia during the course of World War II.

It was only after 1990 that many of the Kola Norwegians again dared to emphasize their background. Only a few had been able to maintain a rusty knowledge of Norwegian. Some of them have migrated back to Norway. There are special provisions in the Norwegian rules of immigration and citizenship which eases this process for many Kola Norwegians. These provisions are in general stricter then in some other countries giving "Right of return". In order to obtain a permit to immigrate and work in Norway a Kola Norwegian will have to prove an adequate connection to Norway such as having at least two grandparents from Norway.[3] Citizenship will then be awarded according to regular rules.[4] As of 2004 approximately 200 Kola Norwegians had moved back to Norway.[5]

[edit] Poland
From the Constitution of Poland, Article 52(5): "Anyone whose Polish origin has been confirmed in accordance with statute may settle permanently in Poland."[16]

[edit] Serbia
Article 23 of the 2004 citizenship law provides that the descendants of emigrants from Serbia, or ethnic Serbs residing abroad, may take up citizenship upon written declaration. For more details, see Serbian citizenship.

[Allahstein]

It ain't just Japan Gene.

Armenia
Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia (1995) provides that "[i]Individuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship of the Republic of Armenia through a simplified procedure."[1] This provision is consistent with the Declaration on Independence of Armenia, issued by the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Armenia in 1989, which declared at article 4 that "Armenians living abroad are entitled to the citizenship of the Republic of Armenia".

[edit] Belarus
Citizenship act of the Republic of Belarus (2002) states that permanent residence terms may be waived for ethnic Belarusians and descendants of ethnic Belarusians who were born abroad before applying for Belarusian citizenship.

[edit] Bulgaria
According to the Constitution of Bulgaria, Article 25(2): "A person of Bulgarian origin shall acquire Bulgarian citizenship through a facilitated procedure."[2]

Chapter Two of the Bulgarian Citizenship Act is entitled "Acquisition of Bulgarian Citizenship". The first section of that chapter is entitled "Acquisition of Bulgarian Citizenship by Origin", and provides at article 9 that "[a]ny person ... whose descent from a Bulgarian citizen has been established by way of a court ruling shall be a Bulgarian citizen by origin." Separately, article 15 of the Act provides that "[a]ny person who is not a Bulgarian citizen may acquire Bulgarian citizenship ... if he/she ... is of a Bulgarian origin".

Ethnic Turks who were born to refugees or immigrants from Bulgarian lands (and thus have Bulgarian origin) also have a right of return.

[edit] China
Chinese immigration law gives priority to returning Overseas Chinese — ethnic Chinese who were living abroad. As a result, practically all immigrants to China are ethnic Chinese, including many whose families lived outside of China for generations.

The Chinese government encourages the return of Overseas Chinese with various incentives not available to others, such as "tax breaks, high salaries and exemptions from the one-child policy if they had two children while living abroad".[3]

The "rights and interests of returned overseas Chinese" are afforded special protection according to Articles 50 and 89 of the Chinese Constitution.[4]

The term Overseas Chinese may be defined narrowly to refer only to people of Han ethnicity, or more broadly to refer to members of other Chinese ethnic groups. As a result of this ambiguity, people who are not Han Chinese but were born in China and subsequently left, including refugees, are not necessarily eligible for the same preferential treatment.

[edit] Republic of China (Taiwan)
The immigration law of the Republic of China on Taiwan gives priority to returning overseas Chinese who are not citizens of the People's Republic of China (mainland Chinese), Chinese who were living abroad, and encourages their return. Technically, people living in mainland China are also Republic of China citizens as Republic of China (Taiwan) has never formally withdrawn its claim for the mainland. They are not subject to the Taiwanese immigration law, but the "Act Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area", which is however stricter than the immigration law due to the current relationship between the two Chinas.

[edit] Croatia
The Croatian law on citizenship (Zakon od hrvatskom državljanstvu), article 11, defines emigrants (iseljenik) and gives them privileges by excluding them from certain conditions imposed on others.

The Croatian diaspora makes use of this to obtain dual citizenship or to return to Croatia.

[edit] Czech Republic
In 1995 the Czech Republic amended its Citizenship Law to provide the Interior Ministry with the discretion to waive the usual five-year residency requirement for foreigners that had been resettled in the Czech Republic by 31 December 1994. This amendment was aimed particularly at several hundred ethnic Czechs which had been brought by the Czech government from the Ukrainian region of Volhynia, and was of a limited duration.[5]

The amendment was consistent with what the Czech Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has identified as "the Czech government's policy principles regarding the resettlement of foreigners of Czech origin living abroad."[6] A private fund, the People In Need (Czech Republic) Czech TV Foundation, worked with government authorities between 1995 and 2001 to effect this resettlement in the specific instance of Russian and Kazakh citizens of Czech origin, and had resettled approximately 750 such persons as of 2000.[7] The strength or prominence of this policy within the Czech government may be uneven, however, and the state appears to have rebuffed dual citizenship overtures from ethnic Czechs living in the comparatively large diaspora of former Czechs in Western countries.

[edit] Diego Garcia
The Chagossians, an ethnic group residing on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, were expelled to Mauritius in the 1960s, in connection with the erection of an American strategic military installation on the island. Ever since, the Chagossians have been conducting a persistent political and legal struggle to return to Diego Garcia. As of 2007, their right to return was recognised by several British courts but the UK government failed to actually implement it (see Chagossians, Depopulation of Diego Garcia, Order-in-Council#United Kingdom).

[edit] Finland
The Finnish Aliens Act provides for persons who are of Finnish origin to receive permanent residence. This generally means Karelians and Ingrian Finns from the former Soviet Union, but United States, Canadian or Swedish nationals with Finnish ancestry can also apply.

The Finnish Directorate of Immigration website states on its Returnees page that;

Certain aliens, who have Finnish ancestry or otherwise a close connection with Finland, may be granted a residence permit on this basis. No other reason, such as work or study, is required in order to receive the permit.
Receiving a residence permit depends on the directness and closeness of Finnish ancestry. If the ancestry dates back several generations, a residence permit cannot be granted on this basis.
People who may be granted a residence permit based on Finnish ancestry or close connections with Finland can be divided into the following three groups:
former Finnish citizens: [8]
persons of other Finnish origin: [9]
persons from areas of the former Soviet Union: [10].

[edit] France
What might be historically the first law recognising a Right of Return was enacted in France in 1790, as part of the French Revolution putting a decisive end to the centuries-long persecution and discrimination of Huguenots (French Protestants).

Concurrently with making all Protestants resident in France into full-fledged citizens, the law enacted on December 15, 1790 stated that : 'All persons born in a foreign country and descending in any degree of a French man or woman expatriated for religious reason are declared French nationals (naturels français) and will benefit to rights attached to that quality if they come back to France, establish their domicile there and take the civic oath.'

As the expulsion of the Huguenots had taken place more than a century earlier and there were extensive Huguenot diasporas in many countries, where they often intermarried with the population of the host country, the law potentially confered French citizenship on numerous Britons, Germans, South Africans and others - though only a fraction actually took advantage of it.

Article 4 of the June 26, 1889 Nationality Law stated that: 'Descendants of families proscribed by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes will continue to benefit from the benefit of the December 15, 1790 Law, but on the condition that a nominal decree [i.e., a decree stating the name of the specific applicant for citizenship] should be issued for every petitioner. That decree will only produce its effects for the future'.

Foreign descendants of Huguenots lost the automatic right to French citizenship in 1945 (by force of the ordonnance du 19 octobre 1945, revoking the 1889 Nationality Law).

See Huguenot#End of persecution and restoration of French Citizenship.

[edit] Germany
German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (so-called Aussiedler, see Volga Germans) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person".[11]

The historic context for Article 116 was the eviction, following World War II, of an estimated 9 million ethnic Germans from other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Another 9 million Germans from former eastern German provinces, over which Stalin and eastern neighbour states extended military hegemony in 1945, were expelled as well. These expellees and refugees (known as Heimatvertriebene) were given refugee status and documents and resettled by Germany; discussion of possible compensation is ongoing. Some German expellees desire to resettle in their territories of birth, youth and early life, but legal procedures often make remigration difficult, even after Poland and the Czech Republic joined the European Union.

In contrast to Aussiedler, persons of German descent living in North America, South America, and other parts of the world, do not have an automatic Right of Return and must actually prove their eligibility for German citizenship according to the principles pertaining to the German nationality law.

[edit] Greece
"Foreign persons of Greek origin", who neither live in Greece nor hold Greek citizenship nor were necessarily born there, may become Greek citizens by enlisting in Greece's military forces, under article 4 of the Code of Greek Citizenship, as amended by the Acquisition of Greek Nationality by Aliens of Greek Origin Law (Law 2130/1993). Anyone wishing to do so must present a number of documents, including "[a]vailable written records ... proving the Greek origin of the interested person and his ancestors."

[edit] India
A Person of Indian Origin (PIO) is a person living outside of India and without Indian citizenship, but of Indian origin up to four generations removed. It is available to persons of Indian origin anywhere in the world as long as they have never been citizens of Pakistan or of Bangladesh. This unusual type of citizenship by descent is an intermediate form of citizenship in that it does not grant the full portfolio of rights enjoyed by Indian citizens.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 and Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance 2005 make provision for an even newer form of Indian nationality, the holders of which are to be known as Overseas Citizens of India (OCI). Overseas citizenship is not substantially different than PIO rights.

Holding either PIO or OCI status does, however, facilitate access to full Indian citizenship. An OCI who has been registered for five years, for instance, need be resident for only one year in India before becoming a full citizen.

[edit] Ireland
Irish nationality law provides for Irish citizenship to be acquired on the basis of at least one Irish grandparent. If a person outside of Ireland who is entitled to claim Irish citizenship elects not to, that person may nonetheless pass that right on to her or his own children, even if the basis for the entitlement being passed on is a single Irish grandparent. To do so, that person must register her or his birth in Ireland's Foreign Births Register.

Separately from this right, the Irish minister charged with immigration may dispense with conditions of naturalisation to grant citizenship to an applicant who "is of Irish descent or Irish associations", under article 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986.

Japan
A special visa category exists exclusively for foreign descendants of Japanese emigrates (Nikkeijin) up to the third generation, which provides for long-term residence, unrestricted by occupation, but most Nikkeijin cannot acquire Japanese citizenship.

[edit] Lithuania
From the Constitution of Lithuania, Article 32(4): "Every Lithuanian person may settle in Lithuania."[15]

[edit] Norway
The Kola Norwegians were Norwegians who settled along the coastline of the Russian Kola Peninsula from approximately 1850 to the closure of the border in the 1920's. It is estimated that around 1000 Norwegians lived on the Kola peninsula in 1917. The Kola Norwegians were deported to or put in camps in other parts of Russia during the course of World War II.

It was only after 1990 that many of the Kola Norwegians again dared to emphasize their background. Only a few had been able to maintain a rusty knowledge of Norwegian. Some of them have migrated back to Norway. There are special provisions in the Norwegian rules of immigration and citizenship which eases this process for many Kola Norwegians. These provisions are in general stricter then in some other countries giving "Right of return". In order to obtain a permit to immigrate and work in Norway a Kola Norwegian will have to prove an adequate connection to Norway such as having at least two grandparents from Norway.[3] Citizenship will then be awarded according to regular rules.[4] As of 2004 approximately 200 Kola Norwegians had moved back to Norway.[5]

[edit] Poland
From the Constitution of Poland, Article 52(5): "Anyone whose Polish origin has been confirmed in accordance with statute may settle permanently in Poland."[16]

[edit] Serbia
Article 23 of the 2004 citizenship law provides that the descendants of emigrants from Serbia, or ethnic Serbs residing abroad, may take up citizenship upon written declaration. For more details, see Serbian citizenship.

[Allahstein]

My apologies for the repeat of the already long list. It didn't show up the first time I submitted it and only appeared after the second attempt.

[MM]

Now, Allahstein, you could also apologize for insulting our intelligence because Ashkenazim don't come from anywhere near Palestine. Geographical origin is the pre-requisite condition for every single one of the examples you posted.

Ashkenazim don't come from Palestine.

Palestinians come from Palestine. They don't have the right of return.

(Gene, I believe Allahstein IS "genuinely curious"... about whether he can rationalize his home team's blatantly racist policy by alluding to other legitimate countries' legitimate policies.)

I admire MJ Rosenberg's honesty here on the issue, but he is like many "progressive Zionists,"--In the Israel he loves, the colonial subjugation and expansionism is an anomaly. Nevermind that it forms the core of the Zionist project in thought and deed.

I naively wonder when Jewish people will realize they have been conned by the Zionist colonial racket, too.

[Allahstein]

MM you are confusing matters. If you wish to contest whether European Jews have any genuine ancestral connection to current day Israel go right ahead, but that is not the issue Gene was complaining about. He was claiming that Israel's right of return for Jews makes it undemocratic. My point is that if we use criteria so are a lot of so called democracies. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. I cannot be responsible for you putting your own self in a position where one would question your ability to distinguish between different issues.

[Gene]

"It ain't just Japan Gene."

Never said it was, Allahstein. Is there anything else you are "genuinely curious" about?

[Gene]

Allahstein: "The region has accepted Israel as a nuclear power and largely understands that they will only be used for defensive purposes."

I suspect that the only people who understand that are Israel apologists. Over the last 40 years, Israel has repeatedly threatened, in Moshe Dayanh's words, to "take the world down" with it if Israel is ever threatened. Not only does Israeli policy call an attack on the offending Arab state, but all Arab states, and Moscow too. This prompts Russia to attack the US, which responds in kind, and the result is all out nuclear world war.

You may view Israels 400 warheads with equanimity but the rest of the world does not.

By the way, I thought Israel promised not to be the first to "introduce" nuclear weapons in the Mideast. What's it doing with 400 warheads?

[Richard Witty]

"400 warheads"

You must be using ESP.

Did you know that there are 300 card-carrying communists in the state department. ER, I mean 120. No change that, 712.

[Allahstein]

Gene,

FYI - I looked up the information on Google after I had asked you if you had this information. So I indeed was genuinely curious at the time I wrote the comment.

I concede your point that some in the Middle East do not see Israeli nukes as harmless. I believe it was Sharon who commented at one point: "They have the oil, but we have the matches."

It seems true to me, however, that most Arab states trust that Israel would only use their nukes for defensive purposes, i.e.,as a deterrent. The Samson Option, which you mentioned, is just that - a MAD deterrent.

Why do I think that is true? Because Israel has had nukes for over 40 years and hasn't used them, and during which time Saudi Arabia and Egypt have not attempted to arm themselves with nukes. Iraq is a different story, which I won't go into now. The idea of Iran having nukes, however, does have the Saudis and Egyptians grumbling about developing their own nuke programs and talk of an arms race in the Mid-East. I'm open to the possibility of this analysis being incorrect, but this is how it appears to me.

As per the number of warheads the Israelis have, I have no idea. I trust they have enough to make attempting to destroy Israel costly for everyone in the region and beyond.

I think the greatest danger the Israeli nukes actually play is they make some Israelis arrogant about their military capability and leads them to terrible policies both for the Palestinians, the Israelis and their other neighbors. I'm glad the Israelis have them, because their absence would, IMHO, produce many more hot wars and much more death and destruction for everyone. I do think that the Israelis need to pursue a policy of justice and compassion with the Palestinians or else the country that MJ Rosenberg loves will cease to exist.

[Gene]

Dear Richard Witty

The fact that western intelligence analysts give different estimates for Israeli warheads is hardly proof that Israel doesn't have any. Israel has never admitted to having any until Olmert blurted it out a couple months ago.

My use of the number 400 comes from a Wikipedia timeline of Israel's nuclear development. It in turn cites Brower, Kenneth S., “A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East,” Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14, (February 1997), 14-15.

[Gene]

Allastein: "The idea of Iran having nukes, however, does have the Saudis and Egyptians grumbling about developing their own nuke programs and talk of an arms race in the Mid-East. I'm open to the possibility of this analysis being incorrect, but this is how it appears to me."

I suspect that Iraq's, Iran's and apparently now Syria's quest for nucs is not unrelated to Israel's having had them since the early seventies. North Korea has nucs and we offer her a river of wheat to give them up. Iran doesn't have them and we beat her like a drum.

[MM]

Allahstein, you really can't see the difference between Israel offering the right of return based on pseudo-religious ethnic-nationalist criteria, and denying it to the orginal inhabitants of the land, and the right of return policies of other countries?

Here's a hint for you:

None of them have any religious or pseudo-religious qualification.

Except apartheid Israel.

Easy enough?

[Allahstein]

Sorry to disappoint you again MM. No, I don't see the difference if Israel says that it is a nation with a majority of Jews and it is gives preference to citizenship to other Jews. Just as the future Palestinian state will most likely have a law of return for Palestinians in the Diaspora. When you compare it to the other countries that have laws of return there is little difference.

Jews, like Armenians, are both an ethnicity and a religion. You can be an Atheist Armenian, or even a Hindu Armenian and you can still gain citenship to Armenia. Similarly, you can be an Agnostic Jew, or a Jew for Jesus, or heaven forbid, a Scientology Jew, and you would still have citenzship rights to Israel because you are ethnically a Jew.

Your complaint that Jews can return to Israel, but Palestinians don't have that right is somewhat disingenuous. When the Palestinians and the Israelis negotiate a 2-state solution Palestinians will have a right of return to Palestine. Those who had homes in current Israel will likely be compensated (definitely should be). Perhaps some of the Palestinians refugees will also have a right or return to Israel, I would personally have no problem with that, but I doubt it will fly with the Israelis.

[MM]

Allahstein your arguments ceased being worthy of serious consideration a while ago. You are obviously intent on NOT understanding why Israel's policies are racist, and against the assault of such stubborn, willful ignorance, rational arguments cannot stand.

It is remarkable how comfortable some people are ASSUMING a two-state solution is in the works, despite 60 years of evidence to the contrary.

[Charles Keating]

As usual where Israel is concerned, the 1973 war began with a preemptive attack ( and the USA saved Israel). What bothers me is that the neocons have copied the Israel stamp--no wonder the whole world hates us.

[Charles Keating]

Mmmm, well, there are zionists, and then there are expansionist zionists, HItler's lebensraum crew would understand. Ooos. Why should I care? Could it be my tax dollars and slew of family fighting in combat in the middle east?