I do not believe for a moment that the objections of this Congresswoman to our relationship with Israel is motivated by anything other than base motives. But I do not believe that unless we have actual proof that she should be shut down unless those base motives can be explicitly demonstrated and then she should not be shut down but she should be discredited.
Now to proceed to the main point.
My belief is that it is legitimate inquiry to ask whether the national interests of the United States are best served by our commitment to Israel, why cannot we inquire, consider and debate?
It seems to me that to question the loyalty of Jews who support Israel is legitimate but less so. We have questioned the loyalty of Germans, Japanese, Irish and Tories in our early postcolonial days. The practice is unseemly but anyway part of our history. It is unseemly but it is not ipso facto proof of Semitic bigotry.
In my reply #36 I agreed with the reasons for supporting Israel and even added what I believe to be a major reason to support Israel. That does not mean that I think we should forbid any discussion about whether it is wise to expose America to nuclear attack for our support of Israel. Is Israel worth being blown up? This question should be weighed against the probabilities of a nuclear Armageddon because we support Israel-as in all matters we must weigh the pros and cons.
As unseemly as the question might be concerning divided loyalties, I do not believe that it is so illegitimate as to shut down speech.
