.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
There seems to be a semi-conspiratorial meme developing in the left blogosphere that Rahm Emanuel’s appointment as Obama chief of staff (along with Dennis Ross‘ potential role at State possibly dealing with Iran or Israel-Palestine negotiations) involves a sort of “pro-Israel fix” in which Aipac guarantees itself both access and an administration fully supportive of Israeli interests. I don’t buy it. But before I explain why, I must add that this doesn’t mean that I’m not watching developments carefully like a weather vane to see which way the wind blows.
Regardless of Rahm Emanuel’s past, in which he volunteered at an IDF base during the Persian Gulf war, he is a political professional. He understands, unlike some other DC politicians like Jane Harman (who’s actually been lobbying to get herself named CIA chief), that his loyalty must be to Barack Obama and not to Aipac or even Israel itself. Barack Obama is no fool (unlike George Bush). He won’t suffer an insubordinate staffer or someone whose allegiance is clouded or whose decision making apparatus is compromised.
And unlike George Bush, I think Obama has a much deeper sense of political mission and agenda. Dick Cheney was able to perpetrate his outrages due to a president who had no sense of political self. That isn’t the case with Obama. No one is going to take this man for a ride, political or otherwise.
All that being said, I AM deeply alarmed by this Jerusalem Post story which quotes an interview with Emanuel’s physician-father in which the elder gentleman says the following:
Dr. Benjamin Emanuel said he was convinced that his son’s appointment would be good for Israel. “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel,” he was quoted as saying. “Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”
Seems to me, in this odd and gratuitous non-sequitur, the dad is inadvertently sabotaging his son’s prospects; not to mention how the Arab world is going to react to a statement like that which is probably already featured prominently at Al-Jazeera. I realize Rahm Emanuel’s father doesn’t speak for his son. After all, I have more progressive politics than either of my parents. But still, this kind of jingoism and racism is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable even in one’s father.
Many are pointing to this statement as if it is a reflection on Rahm. It isn’t unless he specifically agrees with the sentiment or defends his father’s words or beliefs regarding Israel or Arabs.
The Maariv interview seems not to be available on the Hebrew language site. If anyone has access to it and can send it to me I’m eager to receive it.
As for Ross, I am a bit more concerned about him. While one could argue that he at least tried to be an honest broker during his Clinton administration years, he is closely identified with WINEP, an Aipac-related think tank. His statements towards the end of the campaign on Iran, though designed to reassure those in the right-wing leadership of the American Jewish community, were unnecessarily categorical and bellicose. I just don’t see how you assign negotiating a peaceful agreement with Iran to someone with Ross’ views.
I also think because of the failure of Camp David and Taba and his role in that, it would be a mistake to give the Israel-Palestine portfolio to him once again. Obama does need an experienced hand in this, but not one who has failed as Ross has. To be clear, I’m not personally blaming Ross for the failure. There’s more than enough blame to go around on all sides. But he’s still tarnished by what happened back in 2000 and the issues need fresh blood and fresh eyes.
Related posts:
- Meet Rahm Emanuel, ‘Self-Hating Jew’
- Biden Gives Israel Green Light for Iran Attack
- Israel’s Pro-Iran War Dog and Pony Show Coming Soon to a Jewish Community Near You…
- Iran-Israel OpEd JTNews Refused to Publish
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: benjamin emanuel says son rahm will make obama pro israel, dennis ross role in new obama administration, not going to clean the floors of the white house
![Image of Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61YAzRoqibL._SL110_.jpg "Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]")
![Image of West-East Divan [DVD Video]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MAqFcHK-L._SL110_.jpg "West-East Divan [DVD Video]")
@Eben: the racism in the Emanuel sr. quote is not in his view that an Arab can’t support Israel, but in the gratuitous afterthought, “He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.” There’s a long history of bigotry viewing such menial tasks the appropriate occupation of alleged “inferior races”, be it Africans, Jews, or whomever, and I wonder how that comment must have rung in Obama’s ears.
@fiddler: I should have realized that interpretation, given that I had arguments on the same subject with fellow students at yeshiva in Yerushalem in the 1970’s. I wonder if there is any chance that he was taken out of context and that he was saying instead that 1) Rahm is not an Arab, so that he will not be adverse to Israeli security interests, and 2) he’s at a high enough executive level (“not cleaning floors”) that his opinions will be considered.
Eban:
Your use of the Hebrew term, lashon hora, peaked my curiosity. I googled and found the wiki reference to the term (http://www.aish.com/family/mensch/Stopping_Lashon_Hara.asp). The wiki says there are exceptions to the prohibition; times when such comments are necessary:
I don’t claim to be familiar with Jewish religious law, but doesn’t the exception fit in this case? It appears to me that Mr. Silverstein made the comments about the elder Emanuel in a didactic manner – to speak out against racism against Arabs – rather than in a deliberately hurtful or malicious way. Doesn’t that mean that the exception would apply?
And as an aside directed toward other non-Jewish readers, because it reminds me of the reasons I admire Jewish religion and tradition, here’s a link to another article on lashon hora, one that advises parents how to teach their children about it: http://www.aish.com/family/mensch/Stopping_Lashon_Hara.asp
My apologies for a goof. The link to the wiki is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashon_hara
@Eben:
Not correct I’m afraid. The Deir Yasssin massacre eliminated an entire Arab village & killed around 250 people. The King David Hotel bombing killed many civilians. They even assassinated in cold blood a UN official trying to negotiate an end to Israeli Arab hostilities. No, I’m afraid they were about as bloodthirsty as Palestinian terrorists. The times were different admittedly. Combatants observed more niceties of civilized behavior then–but not by much.
But this is ludicrous. Emanuel Sr. can express baseless hatred of Arabs but my point ing this out to the world constitutes baseless hatred & is therefore treif?? Puh-leeze. You’re engaging in pilpul to justify a particular pt of view that you have by which Jews may be allowed to get away w. literal or verbal “murder.”
Emanuel’s father has lived in the U.S. for many decades.
Apparently, you don’t understand why saying that his son wasn’t going to clean White House floors as an Arab would in Israel is a blatantly racist phrase. You’ve been spending too much time studying the Chofetz Chaim & not enough listening to the baseless hatred spewed by some of our fellow Jews against Islam and Arabs.
You & Harry Reid are welcome to bury yr heads in the sand about Lieberman’s backward politics. But his truculent support of the war and his dissing of Obama throughout the campaign are not “mere” disagreements. They’re Mack truck disagreements. Fundamental in nature.
Don’t you recall Obama giving Lieberman a verbal thrashing on the floor of the Senate in full view of the gallery several months ago. DO you think Obama was telling him what a remarkable progressive he was?
@fiddler: Obama, in his famous speech about race in America noted his grandmother making racist comments to him that stung in his ears. Sorry to say, he’s probably used to this sort of thing just as Jews sometimes have to hear anti-Semitic comments in the course of their everyday lives (I have).
@wordie, Richard:
As I understand it, the exception to the prohibition is restricted to the act of repeating a statement of the person being criticised or describing an act of that person which the describer personally witnessed. It does not extend to the making of derogatory comments about the person or any subjective statement whatsoever.
Therefore, Richard, I am not criticising you for reporting the matter. I am criticising you for adding your own inflammatory editorial comment which I fear only increases the tension and defeats your efforts for Tikkun Olam. And while I do not in any way condone Emanuel sr.’s comments if they were indeed racist, I cannot condone your indignation, as righteous as you may believe it to be; just as it seems you feel justified in taking your anger out on me for pointing this out.
As for the Leiberman issue, I again point out that his only policy difference with the Democratic caucus is on the issue of the war.
Finally, I repeat the two questions I have previously asked and which you have yet to answer:
1) Do you consider America’s founders to have been terrorists for their killing of civilian supporters of the monarchy in the colonies?
2) Do you consider opponents of the war who support the ban on stem cell research and/or the ban on abortion to be equally as worthy of sanction as Joe Leiberman?
Once again, I do not wish anyone to think that I am trying to discount your right to your opinion. I am just trying to get a full picture of your logical processes so that I can better understand your weltanschauung.
@Eben:
I have little patience for this. The comment was racist. Period. I’m not the Chofetz Chaim nor am I not a mussarnik. If that’s what you’re looking for you’re in the wrong place. I write ‘editorial comment.’ That’s the entire purpose of this blog.
Sorry, but you’ll get no sympathy from me. I didn’t ask you to condone or agree with me.
“Policy” isn’t his only problem w. Democrats. So yr attempt to narrow the issue to one of policy differences is specious. He trashed OBama fr. here till Tues. throughout the campaign. He was the Benedict Arnold of the Dem. Party.
There were very few Tories murdered in cold blood during the Revolutionary War. It was a diff. time & warfare was conducted differently. Aside fr. that, I have no interest in discussing the Revolutionary War. If I wanted to I would have. SO your asking me 3 times to do so is not only a waste of time, it’s a bit annoying.
@Richard, et. al.: I am truly shocked by the tone of your last comment. This blog is entitled Tikun Olam, yet I can find not even a scintilla of compassion, respect or compromise in your outburst. I have spent my time here trying to acquaint you with your own obvious misstatements that are based not in personal opinion but in objective fact, and your response is to insult me. But what is most troubling is your willingness to treat others in the exact callous manner than you object to being applied to you. This is a direct violation of the fundamental principles of Judaism. You go beyond being quick to anger and quick to forgive; you risk becoming slow to forgive, which is the deepest offense short of physical injury that one person can commit against another.
What you seem unable to grasp is that your lack of consideration is creating in its own way the identical intolerance for others that you claim to want to end. I will match my credentials with yours on any occasion you choose when it comes to my dedication to social democracy and trans ethnic justice. I just spent a year convincing the Hasidic community to support Obama’s candidacy. If you wish to come to upstate NY, I will be happy to arrange a debate between us at my synagogue. But whether you accept my direct challenge or not, you should try to understand how counterproductive your willingness to indulge in lashon hara and intemperate, ill tempered attacks is in our struggle to bring the greater Jewish community together again as a force for human decency and egalitarianism, as it was before 1967.
@Eben: Gee, I’m sorry I don’t meet yr expectations. This isn’t a Selichot service, therapy session, knitting circle, or meditation ceremony. Do you understand what a Jewish political blog is? It’s a political blog, not a disquisition on Jewish ethics. I’m not a rabbi nor a professor of Jewish ethics. I have no problem with some people finding that this isn’t their cup of tea.
Thank you for making my argument for me. But what you wrote clearly isn’t what you meant to say. I have no patience for someone who can read a statement on the page that everyone knows is racist and yet you refuse to concede it is so.
Goodness, now I’m a bad Jew. How troubling. Maybe you’d like to convene a bet din and excommunicate me. Next time I’m in upstate N.Y. you can put me in the dock & call me to account for my corruption of Judaism as you see it. Until then, I’ll be quite comfortable in my own relationship with my tradition.
And why would you react so defensively as to assume that I was saying I knew more about Judaism than you & that we needed to debate the matter? THe diff. bet. us is that I don’t impugn anyone’s Judaism based on my own selective interpretation of precepts. I call out Jews for their expressions of hate. If I lived by yr precepts I would be living inside a nice gilded cage in which no one can call anything what it really is for fear of violating some precept or other. If you have a problem w. my calling ‘em as I see ‘em, that reflects on you more than on me.
BTW, could it be that you are the one who is being stubborn in refusing to concede the objective truth of the statements I’ve made about Emanuel, Sr.? And that you are in fact the one who is being uncharitiable towards me and my views? Oh no, couldn’t be, I know.
Richard, it’s interesting to note the parts of what I wrote that you chose to challenge, and what you chose to either ignore or distort.
1) If you will check back in this thread, you will see that I conceded long ago the possibility that Emanuel was being racist. I simply enquired as to the possibility of an alternate reading. My criticism of you would not change even were I to accept that he was being racist.
2) I have no desire to put you in the dock. You are doing a fine job of that without my assistance. If anything, I am trying to take you out of the dock, to point out that you are in fact doing more to hurt the cause of Tikun Olam than you are to promote it.
4) Please point out to me and your other readers how I have been in any way uncharitable to you. I have simply noted flaws in your reasoning and your own failure to live up to the standards you claim to promote.
3) The one critical comment which you chose to ignore was my observation that you are treating me in a manner to which you would object being treated. Sadly, I am not surprised.
My challenge to you stands. Any time you wish to meet me in public and debate this issue, I am ready to do so. But I know better than to hold my breath.
@Eben:
Once again, you’re being milquetoasty. It isn’t POSSIBLE the statement was racist. It WAS racist. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind here except yrs. Why would you refuse to acknowledge what sits right in front of yr nose?
Thanks for yr pt of view. I don’t know that I asked for it. But again you’re welcome to it. My relationship and commitment to tikun olam will withstand yr criticisms. You may not recognize it, but several hundred thousand Jewish readers visit this site every yr. & you’re the only one who isn’t right-wing who questions my commmitment to Jewish ethics and tikun olam.
I’m treating you as I am because you too are not examining the underlying assumptions of yr own thinking (which is what you accuse me of). Why would you feel the need to temporize about Joe Lieberman’s betrayal of the Dem. Party & its presidential candidate? Why would you temporize over a clear Jewish statement of racism? If you were truer to the facts you would concede this & move on. It is the fact that you refuse to admit what is right there that bothers me.