Ok but you do realize that the purpose of this article is to defend the Zionist lobby by falsely equating it with the other groups mentioned in the piece? This is in effect a pro-AIPAC article.

This article seems to gloss over that the rhetorical use of the “dual loyalty” trope is specifically to create a situation where a person or group will be expected to defend themselves from a charge that was not brought forward through evidence and will be impossible to disprove.

Of course, dual-loyalty slanders are usually constructed around an element of truth. American Jews often do support Israel, Catholics often follow the teachings of the Church on important issues, and Muslims do observe elements of Sharia at odds with majority culture (such as eating halal foods). It’s totally fair to point out that these religious minorities—like all other Americans—are subject to cross-pressures.

That’s not what “dual loyalty” is talking about. Dual loyalty is a way to paint a person or a group as an infiltrator from another country actively working against the interests of the country where they currently reside or as a sleeper agent waiting for orders to begin working against the country they currently live in. It absolutely is not about what type of food you eat or what day of the week you go to religious services.

But dual-allegiance charges go much further than offering a polite disagreement on policy. They imply not only that a group is un-American, but that its adherents have no agency. They cannot be patriotic, because they are thoroughly under the influence of a foreign power or code. And when the spell is being cast by a religion, it is deemed an especially powerful form of mind control. If you’re a good Catholic, you have no choice but to follow the pope. If you’re a good Muslim, you have no choice but to follow Sharia (and therefore support terrorists).

This is the only useful paragraph in the entire article and its the second paragraph from the end. AND IT STILL forgets to add that the “dual loyalty” accusation does not require any proof from the accuser that the accused is a foreign agent.

This is where the logic of divided loyalties—a logic Omar is herself applying to American Jews—ultimately leads.

By limiting the majority of the examples of dual loyalty accusations to religion, this article is ignoring that Israel is an actual country (and not a religion) that is deploying dual loyalty not as way to accuse some internal group of being a threat but of keeping external groups supporting whatever Israel is doing in support of ANYTHING that Israel is doing for fear of being labeled an anti-Semite or a “self hating Jew”.

When Representative Ilhan Omar recently complained about “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” many noted accurately that she had deployed a trope—dual loyalty—that had been used against Jews for years.

The very first paragraph, that doesn’t lead to mentioning that there are Israel lobbying groups active in the USA that have direct lines to politicians. Those lobbying groups are actively wanting there to be dual loyalty because it gives the nation of Israel friends within the USA government willing to work towards aiding Israel in its goals and projects.