Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Linda Milazzo Revives Dual Loyalty Canard

As we have written about before, the accusations of dual loyalty toward Jews is as old as anti-Semitism itself. It used to be that Jews, no matter where they were, faced the accusations of greater loyalty to Jews as a nation than to the nations in which they lived. Many Jews suffered and died because of these lies. But now noted anti-Israel blogger Linda Milazzo has written an article in which accusations of dual loyalty flow as easily as rainwater. This time her accusations are aimed entirely at those whose politics vis a vis Israel she does not like, leading to a not so subtle case of McCarthyism, as we and David Harris have both noticed. Little has changed.

Milazzo, like so many other Huffington Post bloggers, starts off in safe territory before jumping to her more extreme and fact-light conclusions. She begins by citing some races in the past week that were very contentious regarding the levels of support for Israel among the candidates and the voters. There is nothing unusual here, and if she had only complained about the nature of American support for Israel her article would not be particularly controversial. But it doesn't take long before the dual loyalty canard shows up:
"What makes [California Republican and political newcomer Mark] Reed's Israel allegiance so bizarre is the inescapable irony that Reed's native-American ancestors had their land taken by European colonists to form the current nation of America, just as European colonists (in this case, European Jews) drove the Palestinians from their land to form the current nation of Israel."
What an impressively offensive paragraph here. Mr. Reed supports Israel and therefore he has an "allegiance" to them, Ms. Milazzo demonstrates her complete ignorance about Israel's existence (except to clearly demonstrate she has a problem with it), and she race baits a little bit as well.

Ms. Milazzo continues to use the standard loyalty-reverse that we see so often among liberals and leftists: i.e., "To criticize Bush is patriotic, but to criticize Obama is to be un-American." This is demonstrated here perfectly. She asks the loaded question: "Isn't an American legislator, or a candidate for a seat in the United States Congress, expected to swear his or her allegiance first and foremost to the Constitution of the United States and all it represents -- and not to a foreign land and a foreign leader?" Because Mr. Reed dared to publish a statement against President Obama's foreign policy regarding Israel. What happened to dissent is patriotic? I guess that died when Bush left office. No one sums it up better than Milazzo actually:
"The statements on Reed's page are so virulently anti-American leadership, and so fanatically pro-Israeli leadership, that they could reasonably call into question Reed's primary loyalty to the United States."
Sure, if someone is unreasonable they might conclude that someone who disagrees with America over foreign policy issues is un-American. Someone like Joe McCarthy for instance! No matter which way Ms. Milazzo wants to swing it she is making accusations completely without evidence and therefore is slandering these candidates. And this is very dangerous because it is the old canard repackaged and made new again: When once the Jew was a traitor simply for being a Jew, now the Zionist is a traitor simply for being a Zionist.

Near the end of her article Ms. Milazzo tries to fall back to more reasonable language, when she claims that she is merely looking out for the best interests of the American people:
"Being pro-Israel should not wield so much power that it becomes a principal issue in American elections. When the National Republican Senatorial Committee challenges Alexi Giannoulias because he desires equal peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians, there is something inhumanely and terribly wrong."
This is the classic case of putting the cart before the horse, which is very common among anti-Zionists. Ms. Milazzo believes that supporting Israel became a swing issue through osmosis, or perhaps Jew money. The truth is that supporting Israel is a very important thing to American voters, and not just American Jews. Just look at Christians United For Israel for example. What this leads to is a situation in which American politicians cannot be perceived as anti-Israel and expect to be elected. Is this unfair? Maybe, but it's the way the American system works. The American people also won't elect someone who is anti-education or anti-elderly.

Ditto with her complaints about "equal peace and justice." If the American people want to elect someone who wants to treat the Israelis and Palestinians equally, then that is what they will do. As it stands, the American people believe in treating our allies like our allies and people who danced on 9/11 like people who danced on 9/11. I'm sorry if Ms. Milazzo doesn't like it but last time I checked America is a democracy and the people are the ones who are in charge of the government, and not the reverse.

Politicians like Mark Reed don't go up against Obama because they want to show loyalty to a foreign government, except maybe in the minds of conspiracy theorists. They do because their voters don't much like the way Obama is treating Israel either, and want to ride that train to victory. There is simply nothing that matters more to a politician than the views of his constituency, and that is reflected in their words and deeds. Again, this doesn't make them loyal to Israel. It makes them loyal to their votes. Which is the way democracy is supposed to work.

None of stops Ms. Milazzo though:
"When the United States consistently sides with Israel to the detriment of American citizens and America's standing in the world, there is something terribly wrong."
This is total bull, of course. America is ultimately self-interested first (just look our alliance with Saudi Arabia) and there is no way that America remains allies with Israel if (a) there is no practical gain and (b) if it hurts America's interests. There are dozens of articles explaining why support for Israel's is in America's interests and why the damage to America's standing is completely self-inflicted. Could it be that all of these politicians and millions of American voters know something that Ms. Milazzo does not? Or is she going to dictate to the American people what they should and should not be thinking.

Sounds like the typical Huffington Post blogger: Uninterested in the views of others and quick to use old slanders like dual loyalty. The HP readership is sure to eat it up.


  1. Seeing the name L. Milazzo piqued my interest, and sure enough, she was the lovely Marcy Winograd supporter who cut her teeth on HP's dual-loyalty circuit by questioning the patriotism of Jane Harman (who kicked Winograd's ass in the Democratic primary before being re-elected) and Henry Waxman (who said he would support Harman and not Winograd in that primary because of the latter's cheerleading for the genocidal one-state solution). And truly she has shown what true bi-partisanship is: both Dems AND GOPers are viewed as treasonous evildoers in her eyes! Versatile!
    Two other points I'd like to make. One, the sheer egoism of LM is on display when she whines that the GOP dared to not let Alexi Giannoulias run unopposed for President Obama's old Senate seat, and instead of running a creep who left Obama with an unopposed route to the Senate in 2004, they ran a highly respected pro-Israeli (and moderate) Congressman named Mark Kirk who won the seat. It's the same level of hypocrisy as the entire HP mentality that protesting against Bush was a national duty and protesting against Obama is grounds for deportation or worse.
    Second, OF COURSE people can be elected to Congress without being pro-Israel; I live in a district in Virginia where the rep is not a friend of Israel's. What cannot happen, it appears, is for a large group of candidates to have rabid anti-Israel views, get elected, and then direct policy in that direction (picture 70 Cynthia McKinneys on the one hand and around 50 Dr. Ron Pauls on the other). If you want me to weep for that scenario being a pipe dream, don't hold your breath. Or if you're LM...please do.

  2. The Republicans wins can't certainly be attributed to Jewish support, few of whom voted Republican in this election. Support for Israel simply can't be reduced to Jewish support for that country.

    But its too much to ask the anti-Zios to explain why Israel's support in the US is both deep as well as wide.

  3. Thought I'd give you guys a heads up to some vile stuff from one user:


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.