About this @Goldberg3000 post (http://is.gd/dkWHfn), my Salon colleague @ElliottJustin makes the key point:
"wow this is truly amazing:
"Long discourse from Jeffrey Goldberg responding to Glenn that gets stuck on the question of whether he took some loyalty oath when he joined the IDF and skirts over the fact that ... he *joined a foreign army*.
"Which I think speaks to having multiple loyalties, which, as I've argued in the past, is not inherently a bad thing.
"But it is inherently a bad thing to accuse anyone who wants to talk about it of being anti-semitic."
Exactly. There is nothing wrong with dual loyalties. Lots of people in lots of different groups in the U.S. have them. Everyone knows that this includes some American Jews and lots of others as well. Here's Eric Alterman explaining that he finds the hysteria that arises every time the issue is raised so baffling because -- as he put it -- he "was raised dually loyal my whole life" (http://is.gd/DPHt1w). As @AdamSerwer wrote (http://is.gd/Ls7HJG):
"There’s nothing actually wrong with having divided loyalties—if that means that being Jewish means that Israel matters more to you than America. This is part of the game in a nation made up of immigrants—the politics of affiliated nations matter."
If joining a foreign army and swearing allegiance to that foreign nation isn't evidence of such loyalties, then nothing is.
What's meancing isn't dual loyalty or even primary loyalty to another country. What's odious is the effort to suppress the reality of its existence and barring discussion of its influence by smearing people as "anti-Semites" who point it out.