Thu 5 Jul 2007
Senator Joseph Lieberman, pride of Connecticut Republicrats, has, by virtue of his maternal lineage, a legal right to Israeli citizenship. He celebrates this at every opportunity, leaving many of us wondering about his credentials as an American. In a nation that was established on the principle that the state would eschew religious preference, he always seems to be there when the Senate is called on to favor the Jewish state. All in the interest of peace, of course.
This is ironic, because it is Lieberman’s rights as an Israeli that stand as the principal obstacle to peace. To accommodate his like, Israel has for the past ten years or so been erecting thousands of units of housing in the occupied territories. Today, where Palestinians’ houses once stood, there are now all-Jewish housing developments and shopping centers, gated-in, guarded by heavily armed soldiers, where nearly every resident is an immigrant.
Russians, Americans, and other outsiders in the thousands have been invited to Israel to swell the Jewish population. It’s a religion that, like most of the others, isn’t attracting many new adherents, and so the only hope of a permanent Jewish majority in Israel–if there is any realistic hope for that–is to import Jews.
This infuriates the former residents. Imagine being turned off your land to make room for a foreign member of an occupying power’s state religion. In the Balkans, we used to call this “ethnic cleansing.” In the Mediterranean, it’s called Zionism, and Americans are supposed to be for it, constitutional religious freedoms notwithstanding.
Where does this leave Lieberman? It exposes him as an enemy of Constitutional government, a subversive, a Dogmacrat. He should emigrate now, while he’s still young. There may be a place for him in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. There’s really no useful place for him in our government, a secular state that shouldn’t tolerate foreign agents among its leadership.
July 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
As much as I despise Lieberman for his politics and support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, I think your attack of Lieberman’s dual citizenship is misplaced.
I always thought that criticizing members of minority religious groups for having “dual loyalties” was a tactic that was (or at least ought to be) reserved to the right wing.
Steve, since you’ve previously made an issue of your age, I suspect you may be old enough to remember the John Birchers who openly preached that as a Catholic JFK could not be trusted as president…his first allegiance would be to the Pope in Rome, not the American people. You didn’t have to be a fan of Kennedy to oppose that kind of religion-baiting and you don’t have to be a fan of Lieberman OR Israel to oppose it here.
It’s not Lieberman’s religion or his dual citizenship that make me oppose him, but his expressed political beliefs.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Religious fanatacism is one of the most destructive forces of our time. People who believe god gave land to a particular religious group are religious fanatics. People who parade their piety in public are religious fanatics. People who think they have special status before god are religious fanatics. Lieberman’s a religious fanatic who happens also to enjoy a birthright in the land at issue. A large proportion of the Israeli settlers in the occupied territories are people like Lieberman, Jews from foreign countries. He should be accountable for his Israeli citizenship and it should disqualify him among believers in secular government.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
So religious fanaticism is destructive. So the occupation of Palestine is wrong. Big news to me…thanks for the education. But you wrote that Lieberman isn’t a “good American” because he is a Jew with dual citizenship in Israel.
No matter how politically wrong Lieberman may be, I’m not going to stoop to that kind of nativist jingoism to attack him.
Why? Because when people start talking about minority religious groups and dual loyalties they are playing the same bigoted game that the right wing plays. I remember very well after 9-11 reading and listening to the nativists who wanted Muslims to “prove” that they are good Americans by pledging their loyalty to the Bush agenda. In fact, just today I was reading the latest racist manifesto by the anti-immigrant crowd here in Connecticut, calling for the deportation of all Muslims who are in the US either on visas or as a result of the immigration and naturalization process. That’s the company you’re keeping.
It’s really simple Steve. Want to challenge Lieberman’s POLITICS? Then explain what’s wrong with them. Want to challenge his RELIGION? Then put on a white hood and burn a cross on his lawn.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:52 am
All politicians, whether hard or soft shelled Baptist, born again, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Zoroastrian or Rastaman, should be challenged on how religion will affect their work as representatives of their constituents.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
It’s interesting though how white anglo-saxon protestants, especially evangelicals, have NOT been scrutinized the way Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and others have in the realm of political influence. Why do you suppose that is?
Bush and his neo-con Christian fundamentalists are more dangerous in their zealotry than Lieberman.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Politics and religion are inextricably intertwined for Israelis. Judaism as practiced by the government of Israel is the only religion that is giving other people’s land away in the name of god.
Sectarian government is prohibited here, and anybody that advocates it, here or elsewhere, is un-American.
Incidentally, throwing phrases like “bigot” and “John Birch Society” and “cross-burning” around irresponsibly can come back to haunt a writer.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Lieberman a religious fanatic? Bullshit.
I would like to see our politicians become MORE religious. They like to talk the talk, but that’s about it. Politicians who can so brazenly ignore “Thou shalt not murder” etc…don’t seem very devout to me.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Steve, your posts and comments are quite lawyerly…and I wish I meant that in a nice way. But in our profession you and I know the game: why admit a mistake when you can counter-attack on other ground? The purpose isn’t an honest discussion of political differences but “winning” (whatever the hell that can mean in this context).
In your latest salvo you make no mention of dual citizenship but continue to delve into the kinds of generalizations that — I’m sorry Steve but I’m sure I’m not the only one that sees it — are just plain anti-semitic.
Would you like me to take it apart for you line by line?
“Politics and religion are inextricably intertwined for Israelis.”
Steve, the Israeli people are not an evil monolith. As I am sure that you know, but choose not to say, there are Israelis who are deeply religious. . . marginally religious . . . non-religious . . . anti-religious . . . and guess what? there are even Israelis who are not Jews! The real question should be about the political beliefs and actions of those same Israelis. Are they acting on their beliefs (religious or otherwise) so as to oppose racist repression against the Palestinian people? Or are they acting to support that racism? Lieberman has consistently opposed Palestinian self-determination. So why not criticize him for that, instead of relying on shibboleths about peoples’ religious beliefs?
“Judaism as practiced by the government of Israel is the only religion that is giving other people’s land away in the name of god.”
One might as well say “Christianity is the only religion in the United States that slaughtered the Native peoples, stole their land, and engaged in the kidnapping and enslavement of millions of African people.” Since you and I know that there have been many great Americans who opposed these evils and who were also Christian, and since we also know that Christians are not a monolith but include within their ranks an incredibly diverse range of opinions, linking “Christianity” to evil U.S. policies is not terribly meaningful or even truthful. Parenthetically, I would also question whether one can say that any government “practices” a religion. That’s an error of logic that probably creeps into all of our rhetoric from time to time when we talk about governments like Israel or Iran.
“Sectarian government is prohibited here, and anybody that advocates it, here or elsewhere, is un-American.”
Steve, isn’t there at least a part of you that is embarrassed at using rhetoric like “so-and-so is un-American” because of their religious beliefs?
Again, I’m more interested in the content of the person’s politics than in labels. For example, a Tibetan-American (or a Hollywood actor) who advocates for the restoration of the Dalai Lama in Tibet is advocating for sectarian government. Though I may disagree with them politically, I’m certainly not going to condemn them as un-American.
“Incidentally, throwing phrases like “bigot” and “John Birch Society” and “cross-burning” around irresponsibly can come back to haunt a writer.”
Steve, thanks for the wise counsel. I will take it a wise counsel and not as a veiled threat even though it smells more like the latter. But again, if you think I am wrong in saying that someone who engages in stereotyped attacks on a person because of their religion is a bigot, then explain why and defend your position. If you think my analogy of making such attacks to the tactics used by the John Birch Society is mistaken, then explain in what way what you are doing is different.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I love watching two lawyers whacking away at each other. Like Willie sang, “Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be lawyers”.
Unless, of course, you want to sue the pants off of someone who did you wrong.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
B&C, whacking away at each other is a good description, seeing as how the origin of “attorney” is from the tradition of the king choosing someone to represent him “at the tournament (a torne).” Of course the alternative is to whack away on your own . . . but I believe there’s a different term for that.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I object to Senator Lieberman basing his political actions on the Bible because it claims to derive its authority from Moses–a man who could not possibly have existed as represented in the Bible. From the late 16th century BCE when the Egyptians expelled and defeated the Hyksos until 1141 BCE when Rameses VI withdrew his troops from Canaan and Midian to put down a civil war at home. Egypt ruled Canaan for that entire time despite a few unsuccessful attempts by indigenous Canaanite princes to rebel. Thus no violennt conquest of Canaan by Israelites from outside Canaan was possible. No conquest equals no exodus and no exodus equals no captivity. No conquest and no exodus and no captivity equal no Moses. Thus all the laws using the formula “And the Lord spake unto Moses” had to have been made up–most likely by Judahite priests in the 5th century BCE. Thus the biblical claim that the Lord gave Canaan to the Israelites and their descendants in perpetuity is bogus. It should be obvious that American foreign policy with regard to the Mid-East is based upon a biblical fraud.
May 25th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“Sectarian government is prohibited here, and anybody that advocates it, here or elsewhere, is un-American.”
What is the basis for this statement, separation of Church and State? This hasn’t stopped Bush and his cohort on the religious right from attempting to force their religious views on the American public. Bush himself stated it best when he said that “it is the job of the Judicial Branch to enact laws, and the job of the Executive Branch to interpret them”. In my 66 years, I cannot recall any other President acting in this manner.
I voted for his father, but not him. I base my vote on qualifications, not religious or party affiliations.