Jews Support Israel over America

I am concerned that many Jews support Israel over America. I hesitate to say this because Jews are so belligerent and "in-your-face" that they will never admit to it. In addition, it is not true about all Jews. There are no doubt many American Jews whose first love is America, rather than Israel, but because the Israel-lovers are so vocal, it is hard to know whether there is a silent majority of America lovers, and if so, how big it is.

It is understandable that after the Holocaust, the Jews would have special relationship with Israel. Israel is sort of like Jews’ "panic room" if there is ever something else like the Holocaust. However, the world of nation states is not exactly like your own house. It is subject to certain international standards, although you are free to flout those standards if you can withstand the international pressure supporting them, e.g., the United Nations, various international courts, etc. One of the main complaints against Israel, in part because it is intended to be a safe home for Jews, is that it engages in apartheid-like discrimination against non-Jews, particularly Muslim Arabs.

In America, the main support for Israel is funneled through AIPAC, although there are many other pro-Israel organizations and publications in the US. It raises the suspicion in my mind that many Jews see the US primarily as a defender of Israel. They support the US, because the US supports Israel. Hence the huge amount of American government aid to Israel, sponsored by Jewish Congressmen and Senators, as well as by many gentile politicians. In addition to government-to-government aid, American Jews give huge private donations to Israel and Israeli charities.

The difference between Israel and the home countries of other immigrants to the US is that most American Jews did not emigrate from Israel. Many older Jews came from Europe before Israel even existed. Other immigrants, who came from other countries – European, Asian, African, Latin American – left countries that they were unhappy with for some reason, political, economic or social. Some will go back, but most will stay if America will let them. They chose to leave their birthplace. Most Jews, however, did not choose to leave Israel for America. They were born in America, or left some third country for America. Israel and America facilitate this arrangement by allowing all sorts of dual nationality possibilities that would be very unusual for other countries.

And so Jews who have become very economically and politically powerful in the US use their power to benefit Israel. They are happy to see the US embroiled in the Middle East, spending American lives and treasure on wars that mainly benefit Israel. Jews are pushing very strongly to get America to stop Iran’s nuclear program by force if necessary. If the Iraq war had gone as planned, Israel would have been the main beneficiary, but because the US mucked it up so badly, Iran has probably been the main beneficiary, to the chagrin of both Israel and the US.

I think more Jews vote Democratic than Republican, but in general Republicans seem to pride themselves on being stronger defenders of Israel than Democrats. In the Republican primaries, the candidates have delighted in saying that Obama is not a good enough friend to Israel.

I worry that because of the existence of Israel, there is a danger on issues that in any way affect Israel, from wars in the Middle East to banking regulation, there are influential American Jews who will put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s.

New Round of Tariffs

I am coming to believe that we need a new round of tariffs to protect American workers.  The article on Apple's manufacturing practices in Sunday's New York Times makes it sound like American workers don't have a chance to compete with Chinese workers.  Meanwhile an article in Technology Review points out how damaging to workers are the labor practices used by Apple's Chinese suppliers.  The only way American workers could compete is probably to subject themselves to the same miserable conditions that the Chinese workers endure.  In essence Apple is using slave labor.  It's arguable that US workers could compete in some highly mechanized robotic factory, but there is no sign that such a factory is under consideration by anybody, because it is easier and cheaper just to do it with people in China.

The Technology Review article calls for some kind of Fair Trade standard, like that used for coffee.  I think it is unlikely that such a standard would be tough enough to make any meaningful change in the electronics industry.  A tariff would have to be carefully constructed to avoid another Harley-Smoot disaster, but it could be based on protecting the health and welfare of the workers in exporting countries.  The worse the working conditions, the higher the tariff.  There could be verifiable standards, death rates of workers, hours worked per day, etc.

Instead of creating pressure to lower US working conditions to Chinese standards, such tariffs would pressure developing countries to provide better working conditions.  It would help level the playing field for developing and developed countries.  The current system unfairly benefits developing countries such as China.

Another Letter to Congressmen

The Mitt Romney discussion has made me very unhappy with the US tax code and Congress in general. Why should millionaire Mitt Romney pay a 15% tax rate, while poorer working people pay a significantely higher percentage? Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of Treasury, was just on Bloomberg Surveillance Midday, and said that the tax code is "unworthy" of the US.

Why do rich people hate America so much that they refuse to support it? And why does Congress accede to their wishes? Money! It just shows how corrupt the Congress is. Laws are up for sale to the highest bidder.

It's sad that all those graves in Arlington Cemetery were for nothing. America has become unjust and undemocratic. We are becoming the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, or something else equally bad. We have a department called "Homeland" Security, which sounds like it is straight out of Nazi Germany. Since when is "homeland" a good American word? The first thing Wikipedia says about "heimat" is that it is a German concept that has no simple English translation, although it is often expressed as "homeland." Wikipedia says, "Heimat is a German concept." I doubt that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson ever used the word "homeland," although I haven't researched it. (Searching the Washington papers in the Library of Congress, it appears to be used once, in a footnote by the editor about a Dutchman whom Washington knew.)

At the moment, I am inclined to support no candidate from a major party, Democratic or Republican, because I believe both parties are corrupt. One of the few politicians I support at the moment is Elizabeth Warren. Obama and the Democrats lost my vote when he threw her under the bus after she had worked tirelessly for the consumer protection bureau. Jamie Dimon, his fellow bank CEOs, their lawyers, their lobbyists, and their money, blocked her appointment.

This is a sad state of affairs, and you are part of it.

I hope that I won't go to jail under PIPA or SOPA for quoting from Wikipedia. Although maybe today is like the day back in 1846 when Henry Thoreau went to jail for refusing to pay his poll tax, leading to his seminal work on "Civil Disobedience." It's better to be in jail than to support a corrupt government.

Note: I am a Vietnam veteran (Army artillery) and a retired Foreign Service officer. My grandfather, a veteran of World War I, is buried in Arlington Cemetery. My father was a veteran of World War II and the Korean War. 

We need a country that is more concerned about honor than money. 

How Do We Stop the Iranian Bomb?

The Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, are all hot and bothered about stopping Iran from getting the atomic bomb.  But they never mention Israel's bomb.  And they pretty much ignore Pakistan's bomb, and India's bomb.  And they never mention America's bombs, Russia's bombs, China's bombs, Britain's bombs, etc.  The responsible way to stop Iran would be to have a genuine, functioning non-proliferation regime, not one full of loopholes for any country determined to stay outside the regime. 

The main impetus behind Iran's drive to build a bomb is Israel's bomb.  It's not clear that the Iranians actually have a dedicated bomb development program, but it is clear that they want a nuclear infrastructure that would allow them to build a bomb in a relatively short time, if they decided that they needed one.  And why would they need one, probably because they felt threatened by Israel.  Of course, Israel feels threatened by Iran.  But the cold war was basically about mutual threats between the US and Russia, and we both survived, so far. 

If we were serious, about getting Iran to back off of its nuclear program, we all have to get serious about nuclear arms.  The US and Russia both have to seriously disarm.  Israel, Pakistan, and the rest have to give up their nuclear programs.  George Bush actually increased cooperation with India's civil nuclear program, despite is military nuclear program, a step undermining non-proliferation globally, although it may have made sense bilaterally. 

If the US were to invade Iran to shut down its nuclear program, by rights it should also invade Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, India, and other problem countries.  Arguably, the older nuclear powers, the US and Russia, are grandfathered under the regime, although they are theoretically obligated to disarm, too.