> 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.
There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel.
Other examples from the document use the term "Jews as a people", whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.
Although perhaps a generous interpretation of the example, is that it excludes Israeli dual citizens, because Israel would be one of "their own nations"
The vast majority of American Jewish citizens are not dual US/Israeli citizens. Very roughly, there are about 1,000,000 Israelis living abroad worldwide and the US Jewish population is around 7,000,000.
> but we don't go around throwing such accusations at them
Simply not true. There is plenty of rhetoric about immigrants (even 2nd gen+) in Western countries being accused of being disloyal to their Western citizenship in favor of their ethnic origin countries. Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans etc are all accused of this; see the recent riots in LA for a very recent example. Yet this insinuation is made illegal only with respect to one country only for whatever reason.
> This insinuation really is only made to Jewish people
Certainly is news to japanese americans ( literally put in concentration camps ), chinese americans, german americans, mexican americans, arab americans, italian americans, catholics in general, indian americans, russian americans, etc.
> so of course they are more aligned with their country than ours, even if they have no direct ties to it whatsoever.
But there are plenty of jewish americans who are pro-israel. Such as jewish americans who joined the israeli military rather than american military.
It doesn't help that jewish americans were the main proponent to allowing dual citizenship in the US.
> This insinuation really is only made to Jewish people
This is untrue. It's untrue to such an extraordinary degree that it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith.
Accusing people of being loyal to some other nation or cause is levied regularly against almost all peoples to some degree or other, particularly if the person holds any ancestral pride or accoutrements. Even just refusing to adapt to food customs is enough to arouse suspicions.
Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags. Various members of Trump's administration declared this a demonstration of "occupied" territories.
If you're Chinese in America you must never, ever, show an iota of association with your homeland -- or even just your grandparents home if you're 3rd generation -- or you will be ostracized and considered a deep agent. An Indian that has an Indian flag in their bio or the like is going to be frequently asked why they don't move back if they "love it so much".
Similarly, a frequent criticism of some Muslims is din wa dawla, which is a belief that religion and politics/the state are one. Indeed, if someone has religious beliefs that can go in conflict with the needs/goals of the state, there is a discord there that needs to be considered.
There are Americans who are more loyal to Israel than the US. Like, they will literally tell you this without an ounce of compunction or question (which is utterly verboten among virtually any other group. Similarly a US congressman wore his IDF uniform into congress, which is simply insane). On the flip side, there are many Jewish Americans who are deeply critical of Israel. Like does anyone think Bernie is a deep agent of Israel? Bernie, like much of Jewish America, is deeply critical of Israel.
Neither India nor China allow dual citizenship, so a US citizen of Indian or Chinese origin who argues in favor of one or the other at the expense of the US's strategic goals is absolutely suspect.
> Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags
Because LA Chicanos did not realize how inflammatory using the Mexican flag is in anti-government protests outside the California.
In CA, it's well understood it's used as an identity marker (though still exclusionary, as a growing portion of the Hispanic community in CA isn't Mexican anymore), but outside CA using another country's flag at the expense of the US absolutely is viewed as a severe faux pas.
>so a US citizen of Indian or Chinese origin who argues in favor of one or the other at the expense of the US's strategic goals is absolutely suspect.
To be completely clear, what you are saying is that a US citizen -- I have no idea what the relevance of foreign citizenship means, unless you're saying that everyone with a foreign citizenship is suspect -- of Indian or Chinese origin cannot have an opinion on anything. On foreign wars. On immigration levels or sources of intake. On government structure or laws or budgetary spending. Because literally anything can be cast by some hate monger as being at the "expense of the US's strategic goals".
Let's just be completely clear about your position here.
>but outside CA using another country's flag at the expense of the US
What does "at the expense" mean? People are protesting masked groups of thugs kidnapping people and renditioning them (illegally) to foreign gulags, and that is absolutely in the service of the US.
Though there have been a number of pro-Israel protests that are nothing but a sea of Israeli flags. Jim Jordan hilariously said "We fly the American flag in America", while he has a giant Israeli flag festooned outside his office. There is zero consistency about this "who gets to be proud of their heritage / fly a foreign flag" position beyond "who should be cowed and shut their dirty migrant faces".
> There is zero consistency about this "who gets to be proud of their heritage / fly a foreign flag" position beyond "who should be cowed and shut their dirty migrant faces".
Kids until they are 18 can be dual citizen of China and American, they just have to decide at 18 which one to renounce. Also, attractive female snow boarders are also allowed dual citizenship but those are exceptions.
Getting HK or Macao PR is almost impossible - you have a better shot getting Shanghai or Beijing hukou. It's also a grey area - dual nationality is "permitted", not "allowed", and this policy can easily be revoked given how unstable HKSAR and Macau's governments have become
As such, it is an edge case or rounding error - especially in the Chinese American community. With the amount of effort it takes to get HK citizenship, you may as well take Canadian or American citizenship and try to break Chinese nationality law by lying about not having American citizenship (but they are cracking down on this)
Get your point but Disagree. Antisemitism is singular and has a long history that is well documented. You can see clearly that it isn’t just another instance of racism or xenophobia, but something different. Nobody accuses AOC of secretly working for Mexican government. See the difference?
I'm clearly not disputing the existence of antisemitism (or that it is a widespread scourge), and it isn't some trump card in a discussion like this. Someone claimed that only Jews are accused of split loyalties and that is insanely untrue.
"Nobody accuses AOC of secretly working for Mexican government"
It would be an incredibly weird accusation given that her ancestry is Puerto Rican.
And FWIW, there is a credible observation that the US evangelical "death cult" right has a bizarre, self-sabotaging loyalty to Israel. This group is not remotely Jewish, but they -- again not Jews -- are the reason the US government is subservient and in the service of Israel. All because their mythology holds Israel as some end times revelations battleground or some other bizarrely ignorant, archaic belief.
> Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags
The invasion angle is simply entering a country without permission. Protesting against the laws of the country while holding the foreign flag adds to the poor optics but the root of the invading accusation is the people actually invading.
All racism has group specific aspects. Start curbing freedom of speech in this manner and soon you will have a list of thousands of things you are not allowed to say, at which point we can't say we have freedom of speech anymore.
> who have literally never been to Israel, have no family who have been there, and have no recent ancestry even in the area
But are somehow—without any apparent reason, given that nothing binds them to the country—in favor of Israel being allowed to continue their war of agression against pretty much everyone around.
Making laws against saying otherwise is disloyalty to America, though probably pushed more by antisemites trying to foment antisemitism than anyone else.
I find it ironic that the current administration wants to filter out students based on their negative views of Israel when the same administration has literal Nazis in their ranks. I think that the quoted definition/criteria is just a ploy to ban students from undesirable countries from entering the country.
Donald Trump has done this multiple times, saying that Jewish Americans who vote for Democrats are disloyal or traitors because he treats Israel better.
> whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual
I think citizens is meant to mean “American citizens” as opposed to Jewish people that are citizens of other countries. It seems intended to prevent people saying Jewish people cannot be loyal to America, though I agree the wording is clumsy.
It's just convenient right now, not a part of ideology of protecting minorities. Consider how this is effectively a type of targeted affirmative action just a short time after all dei was the devil and had to be erased. If Israel does something the gov doesn't support, I expect all of this to go away.
> And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends.
Please share evidence. Links to X of people simply stating the same thing does not count as evidence.
> The bypassing of the first amendment by pressuring social media companies to self-censor.
The platforms never claimed to be coerced, the platforms themselves said in court filings they were not coerced, SCOTUS determined they were not coerced.
The actual way this played out was that random crybabies on the Internet were sad their posts were moderated, so they complained to the courts that the government pressured the platforms. The platforms responded "no, we did that because you broke our ToS."
Here's Twitter's own lawyer in their legal filing on the matter:
> Such requests to do more to stop the spread of false or misleading COVID-19 information, untethered to any specific threat or requirement to take any specific action against plaintiffs is permissible persuasion, and not state action... as [SCOTUS] previously held, government actors are free to urge private parties to take certain actions or criticize others without giving rise to state action. The evidence provided does not support a plausible inference of state action because they suggest neither the degree of deep public, private entwinement necessary for joint action, nor the kind of threatened sanction necessary for coercion.
And here are Zuckerberg's own words:
> Ultimately it was our decision whether or not to take content down and we own our decisions.
Both platforms receive millions of government requests per year, the vast majority of which (from the US government) they are free to decline and frequently do decline.
> And the weaponisation of the legal system to take out a political opponent.
The entire purpose of a legal system is to "take out" criminals. Do you think running for office somehow gives someone criminal immunity? That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life, and I've heard some astoundingly stupid ones!
> the Dems campaign funds were 3 times the Republicans at the last election so the corporate donors were very much on their side.
I'm not going to fact check that because it's probably wrong, but regardless, it doesn't matter.
Trump literally appointed a billionaire to be a minister of his, after said billionaire spent hundreds of millions on his campaign. Same billionaire also has government contracts, was in charge of "optimising" government spending. Oh and he runs a social media with blatant censorship. Trump had a coronation event where billionaires had to donate big sums of money to be able to attend. He launched shitcoins and collectibles and a fucking mobile phone.
Nothing any recent politician in any western country has done comes even close to this level of brazen corruption. Hell, well known corrupt autocrats like Putin are more delicate in public about their corruption.
> And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends
Like preventing HIV from being transmitted to babies in Africa? Darn Democratic HIV infected babies!
It's pretty simple, Trump hates Muslims more than he hates Jews ("Fine people on both sides", Kanye & Feuntes, cancelling funding for domestic anti-semitism programs...). This is the Muslim ban under a different guise.
When people say that Trump is a Nazi, they mean in the fascist "enemy from within" type of way. As in they're using Nazi as a drop-in for fascist because Nazi Germany was the most popular fascist nation that everyone knows.
They probably shouldn't do that and should just say fascist.
Yes I guess nazis were the "most popular fascist nation".
Interestingly there were alot of themes in nazi ideology that could almost be considered left-wing.
They believed in the dignity of the German working class man for example and that the Jewish people represented big business and were a corruption on society etc.
Indeed. Their socialist program was left-wing... But it was socialism only for the people they considered actually people. That'd be the key difference between Nazi beliefs and any modern democratic socialism.
New-Left/Progressives are influenced by Carl Schmitt and his views on power that the Right also draws from. It's one of the key distinctions from Liberals who reject him entirely.
A common misconception. Hitler was a big supporter of creating Israel (which didn't exist at the time) too. Why? Because the point of Israel was to make the Jews go far away from Europe, where Hitler didn't want them to be.
So ummm..are you saying Trump is defending the Jewish state so that eventually all the Jewish people in the US can be moved there? Trying to understand your logic here...
I don't think Trump personally is anti-semetic. But it's pretty common for right-wingers, even neo-Nazis, to support Israel because of the argument "The Jews get to have a state to call their home, why not Whites?"
>But it's pretty common for right-wingers, even neo-Nazis, to support Israel because of the argument "The Jews get to have a state to call their home, why not Whites?"
It really isn't. Where did you get that information?
Believe it or not, yes. It's specified above but yes, Adolf Hitler was a Zionist.
The fallacy here is thinking Judaism and Zionism are related. They're not at all. I would wager most Jews worldwide are not Zionists. What Zionism is is the belief that Jews are entitled to a Jewish Ethnostate and they may create that state through violence and colonialism.
Who said neo Nazis today are defined by an agreement from the 1930s? Hitler and Nazi Germany made many agreements. They also had one with Russia, and we all know how that went. So your info on neo nazis is way off.
That's really interesting because when someone uses one definition of neonazi as anyone who supports the extermination of a race, as well as getting obsessed with transgenderism and so on, they get shouted down with "no, Nazis are members of Hitler's party" but now someone is defining them as members of Hitler's party and you're shouting them down by saying the modern definition is different.
People who think Israel is white probably never been there. Similar about apartheid, if you look at actual laws quoted as evidence of apartheid they don't come close to places like Saudi Arabia or Malaysia and honestly a bunch of other countries who have their own laws of return/restricted citizenship/political representation/cultural representation etc (even South Korea has it all)
But obviously this is not an excuse for Israel government supporting religious orthodox extremists and their settlements and aggression against Muslims in the area near Jordan. If you just take the situation there then it is basically a war zone.
If West Bank was considered part of Israel then I can see elements of apartheid but people who say it's apartheid also say West Bank is a separate country. You can't have apartheid in another country. Call it invasion/occupation or apartheid, but pick one? (Also yes this is whataboutism but what Russia is doing is orders of magnitude worse if invasions are considered.)
Absolutely this. I have a strong left leaning Irish family and believed the apartheid hoax for most of my life. It’s absolutely false. Arabs in Israel have a great life.
For me I have been to Israel end of covid before I heard apartheid accusations. I talked to Arabs there and honestly if I was offered to swap my Russian rights with rights of Arab in Israel I would go for it. I mean healthcare alone... When I looked up the allegations it appears that most alleged "apartheid" laws were common to other countries, so why double standard.
It sort of made sense if I thought just of West Bank. One reason, freedom of movement. I did not see from the inside but from what I read it is semi closed like a warzone with checkpoints and all. What's worse is that it is supposed to be closed for everybody but allegedly it is not equal and Israel military tolerates Jews but can be way overly strict to Muslims. Some people mad at Netanyahu for it.
But it's a weird limbo, people say it's apartheid and then the same people also say it's occupied and not really part of Israel. (Except for people who also say Israel shouldn't exist but I wouldn't listen to them, because then why a shitton of militant Muslim countries are allowed to exist right there but Israel isn't considering it is much more democratic and Jews were there as early if not earlier than Muslims)
I comment on many topics, including distributed systems, node.js, Linux, low latency topics, software licensing, and yes science, history, the law and politics.
I don’t think I’m particularly pro-Israel, but since HN seems fixated with this particular conflict over others I certainly post in those submissions - just like everyone can see you do. This unnecessary personal attack is completely off topic (you’re responding to a post about me realising I believed in a myth about Israel) and easily proven false by looking at my post history - and also yours.
No it doesn’t. That’s why I referenced it, as well as your comment history (which includes you spreading a conspiracy theory about a dictatorship in the United States) in the comment you’re replying to.
I think your main issue seems to be that I don’t agree with you on Middle Eastern history, science, law and social matters.
I think Netanyahu is not certain of the left/international part of his population. They would likely abandon israel if things got to bad (which they tend to do in that neighborhood)- he sort of uses the senseless hatred of the arabs worldwide as a sort of kadyrite barrier troop- if you cant go anywhere and be save- might as well stay in israel.
Yes I think they like to camouflage a very basic, garden variety hatred behind a cloak of supposed "virtue" but really they are just haters, plain and simple.
They accuse others of being nazis so that they themselves can be nazis.
I think its a real interesting challenge, from a hacker perspective. How do you bootstrap a culture, that spirals into this minima, to recover and redevelop a interest in science and cultural development, without external intervention or enforcement.
You only have the Robinson Crusoe elements you start out with and the technology and external culture that is not actively rejected by maximum religious fervor.
If all other parts of humanity got stuck in this mindset, how could a open culture redevelop from this? Its really tough, i bow my head to the Houdini who pulls it off.
Like - can you school a child, without school, only on youtube videos - or with some teacher LLM, downloaded to an illegal phone, smuggled in and only capable to run during the day on some battered solar.
I appreciate the definition page. Were there additional links you intended to provide indicating the relationship to Democrats? I did provide additional links indicating the relationship between the Republican party and Dominionism; do you have any questions on them I could address?
I like that your comments and counterarguments are so asinine as to thoroughly discredit yourself and your worldview, but not so asinine as to hide the evidence by getting it flagged.
It's a delicate balance and I'm glad you can strike it so consistently.
> How does one hate a country, or love one? Tibe talks about it; I lack the trick of it. I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain plowland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is love of one's country; is it hate of one's uncountry? Then it's not a good thing. Is it simply self-love? That's a good thing, but one mustn't make a virtue of it, or a profession... Insofar as I love life, I love the hills of the Domain of Estre, but that sort of love does not have a boundary-line of hate. And beyond that, I am ignorant, I hope.
Allegiance is not love. Allegiance is recognising yourself as part of some whole. It’s not impossible to feel that and also dislike or even hate the whole, though it probably would not come without psychological issues unless you channel that into political activity to effect what you think is a positive change to the whole. It’s complicated.
In terms of what dictates your action, true allegiance is more significant: it is possible to really love somebody and not do something for their sake, but if you really are a part of something then it’s not much of a choice.
Some people, culturally or temperamentally, have an allegiance to their family and do not care beyond that. Some feel allegiance to a community (whether defined religiously or geographically or elsewise). Some people feel allegiance to nothing. In the US specifically feeling belonging to one’s state I presume could be more powerful than belonging to the country. It is not always or not everywhere that people feel a strong allegiance to a country, even if they always lived in one and never thought of moving.
Among people who do feel country allegiance, I would imagine it is rare to feel belonging to two different countries with a similar force. Perhaps those people do exist (e.g., someone who mostly lived in country A but was born to immigrants from country B and also spent a lot of time in country B), and then it would be mighty unfair if they had to pick one, but people I know can usually classify one citizenship as “convenience” and another one as “true”.
Comprehensively assessing true allegiances (or lack thereof) of a prospective citizen is fraught, but as phrased the question does not actually require that. For 99.9% of people, “do you feel allegiance first to a foreign state?” is pretty unobtrusive and has a clear answer. The main caveat is, of course, that those for whom the answer is positive will almost certainly just lie.
In case using tangentially related quotes is considered smarter than original thought, I looked one up too and I raise you Orson Scott Card:
“Every person is defined by the communities she belongs to and the ones she doesn’t belong to… a person who really believes she doesn’t belong to any community at all invariably kills herself, either by killing her body or by giving up her identity and going mad.”
Any law that allows a government to renounce people's citizenship for broad, vague reasons is a very, very bad law. Regardless of its intentions, it will be used as a tool to subvert the rights of citizens even outside the target group.
Amazed to see such a take after what happened in LA. Obviously the median immigrant has strong feelings of loyalty to their mother soil as can be witnessed by the huge Mexican flags and the direct testimony of many individuals. Should we deport all those people who swear loyalty to “La Rasa”? If we want immigrants, and we should because we need them to lead us into the future, we need to be realistic about their loyalties. People are proud of their race/nationality, and immigrants often even moreso.
The Chicano movement made their own flag back in the Cesar Chavez era. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Gen Los Angeleños of Mexican origin could have used (and plenty did) and a sign finger portion of protestors made sure to incorporate the US flag as well, but a significant portion simply did not realize that the Mexican flag is not viewed as an ethnic marker outside of CA.
The US State of California WAS Mexico in 1848. Much of California still is Mexico. The personal notion of "mother soil" may have nothing to do with current political boundaries.
Wow ... this will suck. Islam, the ideology, either is a state, or meant to be a state (just ask a few muslims, they'll explain. Also historically islam was a state until 1918/1923, and died in WW1, with the leader of islam, the caliph, abandoning islam)
And, frankly, while this is most prominent with Islam, that religions describe their goal to be a single state and trying to be a single state is the norm, not the exception. Christianity is the exception here that does not want to have state power (even though that rule screams "compromise with the Roman emperor", and hasn't exactly been followed very well once Christians were well established)
So no more muslims allowed in the US then? In fact no religion allowed except Christianity or revering the US directly somehow?
However, I disagree with your conception of Islam as a state, even if it was explained to you by Muslims. The strongest argument I can build from your statements is that, according to the reference to the end of the Sunni Caliphate in 1923,
p1) only Sunnis are Muslims, and
p2) the Caliphate is unique, and
p3) the Sunni Caliphate of 1923 is the original one, thus
c) it was the state of Islam.
We can disprove all of these premises. p1) is obvious, there are more Muslim religions than just Sunnis. The earliest schism was the Sunni-Shiites split, happening immediately after the first prophet's death.
About p2), while I'm fuzzy on the details, I'm pretty sure that between the 900s and the 1900s there were at least 3 major, parallel Caliphates and also a bunch of smaller Caliphates. Geographically they were even sometimes overlapping. It might be interesting that the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire (the one in question) was a Hanafist (a Sunni splinter group) Caliphate.
On p3), the Sunni caliphate of 1923 was reestablished after a 300 year "hiatus" by the Ottoman Emperor to lay claim on Crimea. It had no representation besides a leader, the Sultan. Before the dissolution of the major Sunni Caliphate in the 1500s it relocated several times, from today's Syria to today's Iraq, to then and now Egypt. Thus we can say that the Caliphate had no continuous existence. We can furthermore say that the time the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was the Caliph, it was because it was a diplomatic ploy of the secular power of the Ottoman Empire.
Therefore, c) must be wrong. There are more Muslims than Sunnis, the Sunni Caliphate wasn't unique, and the Caliphate that ended in 1923 was not the original one.
A less philosophical counter-argument could be the vigorous infighting between different Muslim groups we see today. I'm curious how the war on Iran changes that, if at all.
You're applying logic to dogma. I hope you understand your error at this point, but as to exactly what's wrong:
... every group of every monotheistic religion says and believes they're the only "true" group, their group is the only valid group, and the entirety of that religion. Islamic dogma states very clearly, and every muslim will repeat it, that there is "only one islam".
This despite the fact that what you say is correct. There's 100s, minimum, of different versions of islam.
Your idea, that history is clear proof to the contrary ... well history is clear proof that there is no god and therefore no valid religion. In the case of islam, one might point out that the central promise of islam as a religion is that muslims will win militarily, because god will intervene directly (but "of course" what is currently happening in Iran proves they are wrong and every other group of muslims is right - this is the sort of argument you're up against). The fact that any caliphate fell at all is a pretty damn obvious contradiction to the entire religion.
Frankly, I must say, I like the "goal" of Christians and Jews a whole lot better.
Does that mean all Americans should be stripped of their other citizenship since they have allegiance to a foreign state? For example Barron Trump is a dual citizen.
Let me escalate: I think such a bill would find bipartisan support. Right now might be a good time to attempt it.
I hate the idea of revoking citizenship. But a question about swearing, on naturalisation, that your supreme allegiance is to America should be incredibly popular to secure.
Hate to break it to you, but you'd have to find support from the IRS / Ways and Means Committee first. For these institutions, the primary characteristic of US Citizenship is filing your taxes, no matter where to live or if you've ever even lived in the country. This puts the USA in the same odd category as Eritrea, Hungary, and I believe one other country.
And despite the difficulty of revoking US citizenship, the rate of revocations has increased over the last decade or two. If there was such a simple way to toss out that old rag, I'm sure there would be many more (and a little less tax revenue).
So I'm afraid* the USA is much more transactional than you think, at least regarding citizenship.
*I must admit this is sarcasm. Thank god the US is transactional rather than so stubbornly patriotic about citizenship.
That would have the consequence that naturalized citizen would be second class. Because they have to watch out for what to say, otherwise somebody might denounce them and they have to fight against their live being destroyed.
The class of American citizens with two nationalities is populated more with the native born than naturalised citizens. If the class became second class, the latter would be—I suspect—underrepresented in it.
> Also, to be pedantic, you don’t have to have citizenship of a foreign country in order to have a greater allegiance to it.
The behavior of the christian conservative cult is a bit more than a pedantic detail at this point. Why is trying to get Israel into a conflict to get Jesus to come and accelerate the end of all jews on Earth not antisemitism? I don't see wanting to use the Jew for cockfighting making it to the State Department's summary of antisemitism.
The point is that is may be admitedly true on the part of the one accused.
In general, you should be wary of "forms of antisemitism" (or similar "forms of x-ism/x-phobia/etc"). Such things usually consists of the defensible but vacuous notion that "doing X in an antisemetic way is antisemetic", while attempting to imply that doing X is antisemetic in general, regardless how it's done, or at the least that doing X is suspect. But the only proof that has been provided in such cases is that X has ocassionally been done in an antisemetic way, which you could say for just about anything. Since X in these cases is not per se anti semetic, it is more helpful to identify what antisemetic thing has often been done alongside it, and be on the lookout for that, instead of for X.
What is a context in which it is acceptable to say that an American's loyalty to this country can't be trusted because of their ethnicity/religion? Some of these definitions are too broad, but this is not the example to use in that argument. Accusations of dual loyalty are widely recognized as antisemitism.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are calling attention to the phrasing of the excerpt rather than insinuating that Jews collectively are more loyal to Israel than the US.
I admit the phrasing of the excerpt does look vague out of context, but it is about the collective of Jewish people. That is suggested by the excerpt saying "Jewish citizens" rather than "a Jewish citizen". It should also become more clear if you click through to the original and see all the other examples are about the Jewish people as a collective too. So yes, this text is specifically about the "because of" even if the excerpt doesn't make that explicit. It is not saying that any accusation of disloyalty is inherently antisemitism. For example, if a Jewish American citizen was arrested with real evidence of them being an Israeli spy, there would not be a serious discussion of whether the arrest was an act of antisemitism.
I am suspicious of the motivations behind the excerpt and thus critical of the wording. Jewish Citizens can be taken to mean generically as a group or multiple instances of single individuals. They could have been more precise in their usage of language if they meant the latter, but imprecision can be useful.
>I am suspicious of the motivations behind the excerpt
This is a pointless concern because "the excerpt" has no motivations behind it that were imbued by its author. The only reason it exists as an excerpt is that someone pulled it out of its original context. Either go to the source and read it in context to get a better idea of the motivations of the full text or attribute the motivations to the person who decided to excerpt that specific text.
What did I say that made you think I support the ICE kidnappings? I was making a very specific point that you seemingly received as a much different general point.
> 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.
There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel.
Other examples from the document use the term "Jews as a people", whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.
Although perhaps a generous interpretation of the example, is that it excludes Israeli dual citizens, because Israel would be one of "their own nations"