Toxic issue of "dual loyalty" in the news

From Seeing the Forest blog, an observation about a recent comment by Joe Lieberman.

Glenn Greenwald recently had a courageous post on his blog exploring the issue of dual loyalty, and how the accusation of anti-semitism is used to silence legitimate reporting, commentary and observation.

(Begin quote) The most recent blatant example of nakedly exploiting "dual loyalty" and "anti-Semitism" claims comes from Commentary's Jennifer Rubin. Rubin was one of those most viciously attacking Klein, accusing him last week of spouting what she called "the anti-Semitic argument of 'divided loyalties.'" Yet today -- barely a week later -- Rubin has a long Op-Ed in The Jerusalem Post which is probably the most unabashed expression of this "dual loyalty" argument that I've seen in quite some time.

Her column is devoted to arguing that many American Jews -- despite their commitment to political liberalism -- are (justifiably) reluctant to vote for Obama because "some Jews are incapable of deluding themselves that Obama would be the most resolute candidate in defending Israel." What is that if not an argument that American Jewish voters cast their votes in American elections -- and should do so -- based on what is best for Israel, i.e. for he who is "the most resolute candidate in defending Israel"? (End quote)

The "dual loyalty" accusation is a sensitive one for muslims, as demogogues have claimed muslims vote for their religion's interests, not what is best for the national interest. "Dual loyalty" is the underlying accusation when rightwingers accuse Obama of being a muslim "Manchurian candidate." It has occurred to me from time to time that some muslims may be bullied by the insecurity of being accused of divided loyalty into supporting America's radical rightwing Republican party, which has worked so hard to wrap itself in the flag while denouncing Democrats as "unAmerican."

When The David Project and others attempted to stop the building of the new ISB mosque in Boston, they accused the mosque leaders and supporters of "defending acts of terrorism," which at heart is an accusation of dual loyalty.

Many American muslims have connections to people in places on the edge of aggressive American foreign policy, either as immigrants from those places or because we pray next to and socialize with people from those places. It's obvious and apparent that American neoconservative foreign policy fails to engage and interact with those populations, preferring instead disastrous policies of alienation, coercion and violence. I call this the "war forever" foreign policy, and it degrades and destroys America as surely as peaceful discussion and leadership in those places would increase American power and influence.

I'm not aware of anyone, anywhere, advocating publicly that muslims vote to benefit fellows muslims at the expense of America. The most strident muslim I've conversed with, who denigrated democracy as a debased form of government that came much later than the true model of government given under Sharia, probably doesn't vote since democracy, for him, is shirk. In other words, hardcore muslims in America are more likely to just abstain from participating in the political process rather than try to game the system to advantage the Ummah. Hardcore Zionists, on the other hand, have extensively worked the system to advantage Israel in all matters of foriegn policy.

I appreciate the work of Glenn Greenwald, Joe Klein (both Jewish, by the way) and others in calling out strident Israel supporters for their dual loyalty issues. For American muslims, I don't see it as much of an issue as the most strident among us who might suffer from loyalty disorientation don't vote.