Setting aside Hart's as-yet-uncorroborated interview indictment of Cuban- and Irish-Americans, the relevant (if penultimate) sentence from his thoughtful speech, as previously noted, states (emphasis added):

"Americans who too often find it hard to distinguish their loyalties to **their original homelands** from their loyalties to America and its national interests..."

Now, a (hyper?)technical point regarding the Jews. I don't want to seem anti-semantic here, but I think Israel is "their original homeland" only in a very different sense -- deeper perhaps, but also vastly more remote & removed in time, generations, and interim locales -- than is Ireland mine, or Cuba (or indeed Spain) yours, or Japan the next fellow's, etc. I suspect that for American Jews Israel is less the country of origin than, theoretically and sometimes really, a country of destination, or destiny: "Next year in Jerusalem." If so, and *if* Hart *did* have the Jews in mind, then at least his phrase might have been more artfully drawn.

CarolC correctly notes that not all Jews are Zionists. Probably to eschew stating the obvious, she declines to add that many Gentiles ARE Zionists, in the post-1948 sense that they support the permanent existence of Israel as an explicitly Jewish state. I'm pleased to say that I am among these latter.

I also favor Palestinian human rights & eventual statehood --*nationhood* -- and I refuse to believe that this is forever irreconciliable with Zion. / But if I'm wrong - if the 2 turn should out to be indeed mutually exclusive & one must therefore Choose - then, unlike my goyish republican brotherhood (GRB) of Sinn Fein across the water, I shall (however sadly) choose Israel.

But I also support SF's declared *political* goal (their economics, Oy!) of a peacefully & democratically united 32-county Ireland. And yes, that being the "original homeland" of my ancestors (OKOK, 50% of them; which easily attains the Quota under *my* single-transferable-vote scheme :) -- well, there you have *my* personal 'divided loyalty'. And yes, I want my government to quietly facilitate that cause, all the while publicly maintaining that of course it's strictly an internal UK matter. :)

And since we're vetting the supposed Gary Hart exemplifications here, I'll also toss in --- *really* endangering my Mudcat standing (if any) now -- that I do not care for Papa Fidel at all, at all. Ohhh he's a wily charmer and all that, sure. Nice beard, man. But he's also a brutal tyrant who has screwed his country & his people. (Yeahyeah I know, Fulgencio Battista. Wasn't he worse? Y'know what? Bad as he was: No.) So, I guess I stand with the disloyal Cuban-Americans, too.

Look. We ALL have "divided loyalties", i.e., multiple tribal affiliations which will sometimes conflict. There it is. Which does not *necessarily* mean that we are unpatriotic. Indeed, most of us are not that, at all. / I meant it when I told McGrath, above, that of course I'd fight for the USA (USA! USA!) in his thought-experimental war between Washington & Dublin. (Granted, that's easy to say in so ridiculous an hypothesis.)

But y'know what else? I think one can credibly OBJECT, *in principle*, to divided **national** loyalties -- ONLY if one *believes* in the validity of the principle of UNDIVIDED national loyalty. Loyalty, presumably, to the Nation wherein one presently dwells.

E.g.: our Guest The Dreaded Guest moderately & judiciously declares that Gary Hart is, among other things, "...a stone-cold traitor to the interests of the U.S." Well. Without rising to that particular bait at the moment, I suggest this: I am allowed to have a serious *"loyalty"* problem with my fellow-citizens' sympathies for other nations -- ANY other nations, whether I like 'em or not -- ONLY if I *believe that it is possible* for there to be *such a thing* as "a stone-cold traitor to the interests of the U.S."

IOW, we can holler about divided or uncertain national loyalty -- provided we believe in the concept of national loyality.

I confess: I do believe in it. No, not in an unlimited no-matter-what, my-country-right-or-wrong sense -- but, to a very considerable degree still. Big presumption, albeit rebuttable, in favor of mine own tribe. And No, not only with regard to What America Could Become; but also as to What We Are Now.

Do you?

(CarolC: feel free to substitute Canada. Or Newfoundland. Especially Newfoundland. :)

-Pooka