I certainly set off a firestorm with my use of the term "Israel Firster." Other people use it too but I was the guy who popularized it recently and who used it hundreds of times. The others who utilize the term did so occasionally, often citing me. So I am the main "miscreant" on this score.
And I am proud that I created the controversy because it is an important one. It is important because the underlying issue is not whether the term is polite (it isn't, merely accurate) but whether or not America is going to end up at war with Iran.
First, Andrew Sullivan's short definition of an Israel Firster. In a piece called, "A Plainly True Idea," Sullivan says "When an American sides with a foreign government against his own president in a foreign country, what does one call that? Apart, that is, from disgusting."
There is no need here to describe who the Israel Firsters are. They are those people (of whatever ethnic background) who invariably support Israel's policies over those of the United States.
The Israel Firsters are represented in Washington by AIPAC, which is Israel's lobby in the United States. As this video demonstrates (just look at who is in attendance), it is perhaps the most powerful lobby in Washington and invariably gets what it wants. This past May it even got the United States to veto a U.N. resolution on illegal Israeli settlements that reaffirmed the decades-long official U.S. position on settlements! Now, take a look at its website's obsession with Iran.
It is important to note that AIPAC represents only its 100,000 members and not 6,000,000 American Jews. Newsweek/Daily Beast reported last week, basing its finding on an American Jewish Committee poll:
Every four years, Republicans vow to use Israel to pry Jews from their nearly century-old allegiance to the Democratic Party. And every four years, they fail. The reason is that only about 10 percent of Jews actually vote on Israel (a country most American Jews have never visited).
They also fail because Jews are consistently liberal and have been mainstays of the antiwar movement since Vietnam.
But the question still arises? Why is the issue of the term "Israel First" significant? For one reason: it is the same reason that the people I call Israel Firsters are hysterical over it.
The reason is simple.
Right now, there is only one interest group in the United States that absolutely opposes any diplomacy to avoid war with Iran and which insists that the United States expressly state (as it has) that war with Iran is definitely "on the table."
In fact, that interest group, AIPAC, actually got Congress to pass a bill, which President Obama signed, that bans any diplomacy with Iran without express approval of four Congressional committees in advance — as if AIPAC will ever let that happen.
Just read this AIPAC-drafted language that is now law:
(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT.-No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that-
(1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and
(2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations.(d) WAIVER.-The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.
Frankly, this makes me sick. Banning diplomacy almost guarantees war with Iran, a war that must not be fought.
I oppose war with Iran unless Iran attacks the United States directly. Period.
I do not want America to be dragged into a war that Netanyahu provokes and which the United States would then be dragged into. I favor diplomacy, unconditional diplomacy, with all issues on the table.
I oppose war because we lost 4,400 men and women in Iraq, a war built on lies and false premises, conveyed by many of the self-same people promoting war with Iran. I don't think we should lose even one solider in a war against a country that does not directly threaten the American people.
A digression. A few months ago, on a beautiful Saturday, I was walking on the grounds of the Walter Reed Army Hospital here in Washington. (A friend got me in.) There were dozens of young guys being pushed around in wheel chairs by parents, wives, girlfriends, buddies, etc. They looked like injured members of the high school football team, except that so many were missing limbs.
I approached an officer and said that these boys seemed cheerful considering their situations. He said, "These soldiers are the lucky ones. They lost limbs and, worse, often testicles [from IED's]. But not their minds. In that building over there are the brain injured. Their parents visit too but you won't see them out on the grounds like these soldiers."
And I oppose war because it would almost surely lead to missile attacks on Israel and to wider regional war that could ultimately lead to Israel's destruction. My wife was born in a Displaced Person camp in Germany. Her parents survived the Holocaust. It repulses us to think that Netanyahu would risk the state just to maintain regional dominance.
As for an Iranian nuclear weapon, we should use diplomacy to prevent its development. But if Iran gets the bomb, we are fully capable of containing a nuclear Iran the same way we contained the Soviet Union, which for 50 years had a massive nuclear arsenal pointed our way and whose leader constantly said, "We will bury you."
I believe that pointing out who is pushing for war makes it a little less likely war will occur. If the neocons succeed in banning the term (that is their unachievable goal), they might be tempted to believe that if war starts no one will know that we were led there by Commentary, Binyamin Netanyahu, John Bolton, Jeff Goldberg, the Washington Post editorial page and, most of all, AIPAC.
I often write about the memo Steve Rosen, AIPAC's then-director of research — who was indicted for espionage (the charges were dropped) — wrote to me on my first day at work at that institution. (I broke with AIPAC after Oslo when they worked to undermine President Clinton and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's peace efforts.)
Rosen wrote: "MJ, always remember. A lobby is a night flower. It thrives in the dark and shrivels in the sun."
The term "Israel Firster" is my flashlight.
NOTE: This year AIPAC's huge Washington conference will be almost exclusively dedicated to pushing war with Iran. It takes place the first week in March.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
MJ's "Israel Firster" is not totally accurate. A little history. The homeland for the Jewish people worldwide was created for the sole purpose of Jews having a place of refuge. No other group in the world has been as persecuted. The Jewish homeland was created in 1922 as a result of the San Remo Resolutions and turned out to be called Israel 26 years later.
If MJ understood US state department policy for the past 100 years, he would not question why some might side with Israel over official US policy. US State Department policy has at times been strongly anti Jewish, as explained in "The Secret War Against The Jews" by John Loftus (a non Jew).
Mr. Rosenberg, we can love and support the US with all our hearts while not always siding with it's policies. I don't believe we should blindly follow President Obama who appears to be more inclined to support those against Israel (in actions if not in words).
War is hell Mr. Rosenberg, and everyone would rather avoid it. I'm just not confidant Israel can when several Iranian leaders have called for it's destruction in recent months. That you can state such nonsense is laughable.
Israel's guardian. Is it not unfair to say that Schumer is a self-identified "Israel Firster" who
puts himself in conflict with his oath of office?
Does one of our ships in the Persian or Arabian Gulfs count?
If you thought that this applied to someone, why wouldn't you just address what they said or did?
It is exactly the same the same sort of thing.
Despite MJ's long history in political activism and journalism, one is nevertheless left wondering whether MJ is familiar familiar with the concept of "hypocrisy."
Anti-Semite refers to an ethnic group.
Hope this helps.
Here's the full quote, by a spokeperson for Cantor in November 2010, folllowing the mid-term elections:
"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington,"
"The new Republican majority" - not Cantor personally. A very innocuous statement.
This statement wasn't even about Israel. It was about the Republicans taking control of the House from the Democrats, a the full sentence makes perfectly clear.
"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."
Mr. MJ that's quite enough for you? Or you believe that Iran regime with nuclear weapons is in American interests, in interests of American allies in the region - Jordanians, Saudis? You believe that nuclear arms race in the Middle East, more than realistic scenario for after Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is capable to build a weapon, when it decides so, withing two-three weeks time? That providing terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and dictatorial regime like Assad with nuclear weapons umbrella from Tehran is in American interests? Let's forget about Israel for a moment and formulate What Are American Interests In Regard To Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program. (Unless you believe that Iran doesn't have secret nuclear weapons program and all of its activities are absolutely legitimate).
I'm interested. Would you seriously attempt to defend Jonathon Pollard as being an "israel firster" with the anti-semitsm label? He was certainly more loyal to the State of israel.
Is he safe hiding behind the anti-Semitism safety blanket too?
As for Mr.Pollard - he should have resigned from his position the moment he felt doubt where his priorities are.
Curiously there was no appetite for that move at all. Once they got a free pass then it's pretty hard to deny others.
The problem with the phrase is not the issue that it describes, but that way in which it is used. MJ tosses this epithet around like Joe McCarthy tossed around the word "commie," each without taking responsibility for rigor or accuracy in its use, each using their chosen epithet as something to hide behind while attacking others.
When MJ says "There is no need here to describe who the Israel Firsters are," what he is really saying is that, like Joe McCarthy's campaign against faceless commies, if he were to actually describe who they are, he would be forced to defend those choices and be forced to limit the use of the name to people who have done something to merit the attack.
By keeping it vague, MJ gets to slander wide swaths of people whose opinions regarding Israel he hasn't the vaguest idea about.
But perhaps the funniest bit is that he strenuously objects to other people doing the very same thing using epithets that he simply has less love for. MJ probably doesn't feel thathe has a lot in common with Richard Nixon, but Nixon-like, MJ seems to feel that when he behaves unfairly, then it is OK.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/raimondo-israel-firster-did-not-originate-with-neo-nazis-as-kirchick-and-ackerman-claim-but-rather-with-an-anti-zionist-jew.html
Summary: That commentary by Sachar described Israeli citizens holding such views (esp. "a full Jewish life cannot be held anywhere else but in Israel"), not American citizens. In fact, Sachar criticizes "America firsters" who feel the opposite: that "Jewish life cannot be enjoyed in full anywhere else but in America".
This is derived from his paper for "JWB Circle", 1960 Convention Issue, titled “The Future of Jewish Life in America.”
Ergo---"Iran firsters"
I'll call BS. Go on surprise me.
I have repeatedly asked MJ for proof that AIPAC "drafted" ANY US legislation.
To date, no evidence has been supplied.
It is MJ's claim, so he really ought to back it up, and since you have adopted the claim as your own, you are similarly obliged. This isn't just me making it up as I go along. As an example for you to follow, I offer the following in support of my often repeated (to you in particular) argument that you (if MJ won't or can't be bothered) need to back up your claim:
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Also:
The University of North Carolina's writing center advises that the proponent of a point of argument needs to back it up with evidence: "Do not stop with having a point. You have to back up your point with evidence. The strength of your evidence, and your use of it, can make or break your argument."
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/resources/handouts-demos/writing-the-paper/argument
While I also do not want war with Iran and opposed the war with Iraq, your implication that somehow Israel is responsible for our soldiers at Walter Reed shows that you are indeed ready to take the mantel from Tailgunner Joe and his lot.
See how trivial the whole thing sounds now.
What are you all complaining about?
Only two things wrong with this claim:
1) it is not now law - neither the Senate nor the President has approved it
2) it was drafted by US lawmakers, not AIPAC.
Mr Rosenberg also claims that "I often write" about a memo containing this statement from a former AIPAC leader:
"MJ, always remember. A lobby is a night flower. It thrives in the dark and shrivels in the sun."
According to Google, this article contains the one and only reference to this supposed statement .......
12 million hits.
Try again.
"About 62,500,000 results (0.17 seconds)"
Enjoy the reading. See you in a couple of centuries when you're done.
Does that also include CAIR? Do you call them "Muslim-firsters?"
Now you mention it and we're on the subject, I like the term Christian-fisters. Many of those are israel firsters too and are eagerly awaiting the second coming and cheerleading end of the world.