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.
Rahm Emanuel’s father was in the Irgun. He is as much a terrorist/war criminal as bin Ladin’s driver. He is also reputed to be a flaming racist.
I was disappointed by the pick of Rahm Emanuel. Regardless of what he does, it will give the world community the impression that a zionist has ready access to the ears of the US president. I would have prefered Samantha Power or Tony McPeak, someone who would demonstrate that the days of zionist control are over. The world community has high expectations of Pres Obama, like closing Guantanamo, withdrawing from Iraq, and putting pressure on Israel to allow the Right of Return for anyone who choses to exercise it
Well how objective can a double passport man be in the case when his birth country’s and “employer” country’s interests are in sharp conflict which they with high certainty will be in near future. USA’s foreign policy in Middle East will be focused to the Palestine problem, even Obama would not like that. And Obama has to deliver result to Arab countries soon if USA wants to save it’s influence in the region.
I’m not saying he is or isn’t. Although I do think at the very least, he is a liberal and that means you can assume Obama’s looking to take a liberal approach to the Middle East situation. While that may be what YOU are looking for, it’s not what I want.
What bothers me is that so far I’m seeing liberal bloggers (especially Jewish ones) go above and beyond to defend Obama already now. Is this how its going to be? Every move Obama makes is infallible and dependable and anyone who says anything negative is just looking to attack?
Come on … I’m not saying this loony tunes conspiracy being floated by emails is right, in fact I think it’s wrong. But I’m loving watching people who tore Bush to pieces for every breath he take, already go out of their way to defend every single decision Obama is already making….
John Dickerson:
Obama’s pal Rashid Khalidi was official spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization during the Lebanese Civil War. The PLO was a terrorist organization involved in the murder of thousands of Lebanese (and thousands of Jordanians before that and thousands of Jews and Arabs in the Israel and the Palestinian territories before and after this). That makes him a war criminal as much as Bin Laden’s driver. Don’t forget that Khalidi’s boss was Arafat who ordered the cold-blooded murder of the US Ambassador to Sudan in 1972 who was being held hostage.
Anyway we look at it, Rahm Emanuel’s appointment is troubling and may be obama’s first major mis-step. This is not a “clean” appointment anyway one looks at it. he may be a solid party operative, but he has an extremely abrasive personality – one that may be OK for Chicago’s rough and tumble political world, or Congress’ den of cackling hens, but as the door-keeper to an Obama administration this is very much at odds with the competent, technocrat image Obama will likely want – and need – for governance in challenging times.
For some reason i can’t shake off the feeling of extreme unease I have about this assignment. nothing i read so far about Emanuel makes me comfortable. The fact that he is known as one of the greatest pro-Israeli hawks in congress makes me wonder whether he can put his biases aside. In fact his past suggests that he won’t.
The real problem I see coming is the large number of Clinton retreads on the transition teams and the prevalence of Chicago old-hands. I would like to be as confident in Obama’s ability to discern ability from culpability but have my reservations. Governing is very different from campaigning – especially in terms of focus.
I have a feeling that we’ll all have our work cut out for us real soon. Sigh….
@bar_kochba132: Where did you get that Khalidi was the official spokesman of the PLO? From what I’ve read journalists in Lebanon back then would’ve turned to him, among others, for opinions (or deliberate leaks) from the PLO leadership, but that doesn’t make him official spokesman any more than Barak Ravid is the Israeli Govt’s official spokesman.
As for Dennis Ross, if and when the US are needed as a honest broker (for a change!) between Israel and the Palestinians, his involvement can’t be anything but counter-productive, though not necessarily by his own fault. In sports, a referee as closely associated with one team as Ross is with Israel would be unacceptable, so why should this be accepted in much more serious matters?
This somehow is interesting to me, he attended Sarah Lawrence and was a trained ballet dancer.
http://blog.danceruniverse.com/blog/story/2008/11/6/23360/2276
I find it interesting because my daughter is a trained dancer, didn’t carry it past high school, but the DISCIPLINE and singleness of purpose is stressed in dance. One is part of a team, but each individual dancer must reach towards perfection, striving ultimately towards the all desired solo. The question is WHAT is Rahm Emmanuel’s “perfection” as he gracefully glides himself as an attack dog in ballet slippers.
Rahm is not his father. Rahm’s father is not Rahm.
As an conservative Jew Rahm will respect his father. That dos not mean he will lack independent judgement.
We know little of Rahm’s Israel stance. Let’s not prejudge him. He did declare his support of theOslo agreements.
His stance on Israel is of the utmost importance given his access to Obama so we should keep an eye on that issue.
I wrote this letter to Barack Obama by using this link http://change.gov/page/s/contact to his Transition Team website. If this doesn’t work, you can copy and paste the link in you web browser Here is my letter. Scroll down.
Walter
Dear President-Elect Obama,
First I have to express how elated I am that you were elected President of the United States along with the overall victory of the Democratic Party. I live in Chico California where I performed a lot of work.
One issue I want to speak about is your selection of Congressman Rahm Emanuel to be your Chief of Staff. I actually don’t oppose your selection, because Emanuel will definitely be very effective in getting your programs, which are programs that we need such as universal health care, rebuilding our infrastructure and putting people to work, through Congress. Emanuel will be tough if the Republicans attempt to be obstructionists by using such tactics as the filibuster. I am concerned about Emanuel’s ties to the right-wing in Israel. I write as a Jewish-American. While I support Israel, I strongly oppose Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory along with the settlements. I oppose our government’s unconditional support of Israel, because as the expression goes “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” During the campaign you sharply criticized Bush and the Republicans for their failure to settle the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and that as President that you will make it a top priority to settle this matter. In order to do this, you will need to put pressure on all sides including Israel. Most of the Jewish people who voted for you want very much for you to work on bringing about peace in the Middle East. The Israel Lobby consisting of AIPAC and other organizations, does not represent the majority of American Jews. While Rahm Emanuel will make a terrific Chief of Staff for you, I hope and I trust that he will not have any role as far as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is concerned, and I know that you will also be relying on other advisers.
Just your election as President will do so much to restore our country’s image around the world. After so many years, when it is announced that the President of the United States will be speaking on tv, I actually will want to watch. Thank you very much. I will appreciate a response from you to my concern mentioned above.
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,[3][4] and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry.[5] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned “the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare”.[6]
MORE ON THE IRGUN
Excerpted from the ‘The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict’ (PUBLISHED BY JEWS FOR JUSTICE IN THE MIDDLE EAST)
Shamir proposes an alliance with the Nazis
“As late as 1941, the Zionist group LEHI, one of whose leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, was later to become a prime minister of Israel, approached the Nazis, using the name of its parent organization, the Irgun (NMO)…[Their proposal stated:] ‘The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in
the interests of strengthening the future German nation of power in the Near East… The NMO in Palestine offers to take an active part in the war on Germany’s side’….The Nazis rejected this proposal for an alliance because, it is reported, they considered LEHI’s
militarypower ‘negligable.’ ”
SOURCE- http://www.cactus48.com/TheOrigin.pdf
BEAUTIFULLY STATED !
Rahm Emanuel is no Reason for Hope or Celebration
by Rabbi Michael Lerner
Election night tens of millions of us wept for joy. We sang the songs that we had sung as young men and women when we were fighting segregation in the south and then in the North, some of us being beaten, others jailed, some even killed. For the first time in three decades we could sing “Imagine” and “The Times They are a “Changing” without feeling that we were holding onto utopian fantasies that had been buried by the cynical realists who have shaped public discourse.
How exciting to believe again in the possibility of America as the potential embodiment of our ideals for social justice, peace, and ecological sanity. We could hardly believe our own eyes-we were living through the rebirth of a nation and its attempt to heal its racist past……
ENTIRE POST- http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/06/rahm_emanuel_is_no_likudnik/index.php#comment-3280465
@Chaim: I think you’re missing something Chaim. There’s a robust debate going on here about Obama’s pick of Emanuel. People aren’t defending Obama’s choice. Some are critical of it and some, like me, say there’s little reason to be AT THIS POINT.
How does that amount to providing Obama uncritical support? In fact, I’ve been very critical of Obama at various pts. here.
@bar_kochba132: This is all right-wing pro-Israel horse manure passed off as gospel truth. Not a spokesperson for the PLO. Not a war criminal. Not a murderder. You can’t provide any direct evidence that any of yr claims are true because they’re not. Khalidi denies he was a PLO spokesperson & I’d dare you to find any evidence of him saying otherwise at any pt in his career.
The PLO is not now a terrorist organization & now is, in fact, a supposed ally of your government, Israel and the U.S.
And since Khalidi is a supposed war criminal, I suppose just to be fair & balanced you’d also support Menachem Begin & Yitzhak Shamir being named as such due to their organizing terror bombings that killed civilians?
Other commenters here have already beaten this dead horse, so get off it. Asked & answered as a lawyer would say.
I’m still struggling with this. There’s something at the Electronic Intifada outlining the history of Emanuel’s support for Israel that gives me pause:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9939.shtml
I dunno…even if Emanuel won’t be formulating policy as part of his CoS responsibilities, doesn’t his appointment maybe send the wrong message? Wouldn’t someone whose support of Israel is so deep and strong be disinclined to act in an entirely evenhanded manner in his responsibilities as Obama’s gatekeeper? Or maybe even not aware of how an evenhanded approach might differ from his own beliefs and instincts? I do trust Obama’s judgement, but I remember that “undivided” gaffe at AIPAC. It tells me Obama may not be aware of the many, many delicate nuances of the I-P conflict, and that has me worried still. He shouldn’t rely on someone like Emanuel, imo, to supply the background details he lacks.
I’m not convinced that Emanuel was a mistake. There may be lots of other good reasons – other than ones relating to Israel – that he may be just right for the job. It’s just that there seem to be some questions about how he might perform in the job when whatever issue at hand might have an effect on Israel, given his past actions.
Your further thoughts would be appreciated…
“Change we can believe in?” My a$$! For a guy that claimed his highest priority was improving America’s image around the world (most importantly, in the Arab/Muslim world after the fouled up Iraq War, Abu Ghraib, and Guatanamo)…this appointment sure speaks volumes about Obama. I have a feeling the Arab/Muslim world clamoring for Obama to win is going to be SADLY disappointed by this new administration.
It looks like the zionists have purchased Obama. Obama needs to reverse his decision and appoint someone who will forcibly impose on Isrel to allow the Right of Returm. Only this action can lead to a final solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
True prpgressives work toward eliminating nationality and borders. The first step is eliminating illegitimate nations. Our first victory was in South Africa, where government was restored to the indigenous natives. Our second focus is Israel, which is a colonial entity based upon specious historical claims and mythology upon which a European people (the Jews) has displaced the endogenous population, the Palestinians. Restoration of Palestine to its true owners is vital to the cause of world peace. Once this has been accomplished, we can work on restoring the US and Canada, nations that solely exist upon the exploitation and genocide of Native Americans and Africans. I feel deep in his heart, President Obama realizes this, so his appointment of a rapacious zionist is such a disappointment to progressives. I would go so far that a litmus test be made that every appointment to a new administration be required to denounce zionism as a colonial movement and support the principle that only endogenous peoples have the right to their own land
Emanuel really wasn’t alone among democrats in criticizing Bush for not being pro-Israel enough during the 2006 war with Lebanon. Something really doesn’t sit right with me when figures like him or Lieberman get singled out as if they’re the only zionists in the democratic party…
Obviously I realize this particular article is evaluating only him cause none of them were appointed, but just saying, I don’t really see any reason why you would expect any better from anyone else he’d choose.
Honestly I’m not happy about it, but I think it was an eventuality.
Richard Silverstein said:
It’s been asked and answered not by you – but by clippings from the NY Time and LA Times where they quote him and then cite him as a PLO Spokesman. Now, 20 and 30 years later Khalidi is stating that he never stated he was a spokesman for them. However, these papers are three different occassions thus far that we know about cited him as one.
This is at least the seccond or third time you have said this, so I suppose we can infer that you don’t believe your government, the US is your government. You are just a stateless independent citizen of the world and thus more able to offer independent analysis and advice. How impressive.
Khalidi is not a war criminal however, the old divert topics and throw out some red herring meat noise is suddenly an acceptable form of argument on this blog?
Well, let’s see when discussing UN tunnel visioned bias against Israel it is an affront though. You see, when discussing this do not cite when the UN condemns Sudan with at least as much fervor as they have condemned Israel then let’s talk. In that case it’s not acceptable form of diversion but here throwing out red herring meat if you will is suddenly an acceptable for of debate?
apparently yes by copies of articles written in those papers where they were never disputed until 30 years later? Even Thomas Friedman cited him as a PLO spokesman back then as well.
Richard
what is your opinion of LInha above?
@Jeff Z:
If the NY Times and LA Times called you a spokesperson for the Yesha Council would they be right? If they called me a spokesperson for Tikkun Magazine would they be right? No.
Since when does what a newspaper calls one determine what one indeed is? Sorry, but unless you can uncover evidence that Khalidi himself at the time called himself a PLO rep then you’ve failed. And as I said the entire argument is moot for reasons I’ve explained in 2 other earlier comments. Any further attempts to beat this dead horse till it’s deader will be met with a blank catatonic stare by me & probable deletion.
No, the problem is yr ignorant assumptions. Bar Kochba is an Israeli. “Your government” refers to the Israeli government. But the PLO is an ally of both the U.S. and Israeli governments.
You’re quoting Tom Friedman as a paragon of journalistic trust? Don’t make me laugh.
@Linha: Omigod, that’s quite a speech. Do you make it to the mirror every night before bedtime? Because you’re one of the few people with enough patience to listen to it.
I happened on this website qute serendipitously. While I certainly can’t deny you the right to your opinion, I think you should take a serious look at your own sense of perspective. I am a solid member of the ‘religious left’, an observant yid who nonetheless is a strong Obama supporter. As I see it, your major shortcoming is your unwillingness to observe the rules of Jewish debate as set down by the Chofetz Chaim. What you are writing is clearly loshen hora. Please do us all a favor and remember that Hillel said that the whole of the law can be summarized as “What is hateful unto you, do not unto others”. I urge you to improve your scholarship. You can start with Rambam’s eight levels of charity, since you already misstated that the highest is “anonymous giving” when it is in fact teaching someone a trade. After that, you can do some research on the Emanuel family and perhaps reconsider your casting of “the elder gentleman” as a racist….
My qualified apologies. As “fate” would have it, I realized too late that I had placed my comment on the wrong entry, and in going back to correct this error, I read your more recent post. I acknowledge your efforts in moderating your earlier comments, but the fact that you are quick to forgive does not erase the fact that you are also quick to anger; which means as the Perkei Avos notes that while your loss is erased by your gain, it still renders your balance as zero. It is essential that all of us become slow to anger and quick to forgive if we are ever to realize the Tikkun Olam you claim to be seeking. You have yet to realize that what the elder Emanuel said was no way “racist”, but simply a very understandable idiomatic way of pointing out that his son was not going to subvert Israeli security. And if he was a terrorist, were the US founding fathers also “terrorists” because they took their battle for independence to the Tories as well as the British Army?
@Eben:
No, you have a mistaken notion of lashon hara. It is “slander.” In other words, lying about someone else. Calling Benjamin Emanuel’s comment racist is NOT lashon hara. It of course offends you because of your closeness perhaps to such people or attitudes in your own life. But racist it is. Neither the Jewish tradition nor the Chofetz Chaim called upon Jews to delude ourselves into not facing reality when it smacks us in the face. And Emanuel’s comment smacked me, and many other Jews in the face–not to mention Arabs.
No, YOU render my balance as zero. But you may not exactly be a trustworthy evaluator of my worth nor an apt interpreter of Pirkey Avot.
The Irgun was just as “terrorist” an organization as any Palestinian terror outfit. I condone the terrorism of neither side. But to claim the only terrorists are Arab is a delusion.
Emanuel under Clinton was a prominent supporter of neoliberal economic policies on free trade and welfare reform
He is considered the most hard-line supporter of Israel, sometimes more so than Bush. In June 2003, for example, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. “We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror,” Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats wrote to Bush. The letter said that Israel’s policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders “was clearly justified as an application of Israel’s right to self-defense” (“Pelosi supports Israel’s attacks on Hamas group,” San Francisco Chronicle, 14 June 2003).
He supported Israel’s war on Lebanon. For his statement: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/il05_emanuel/HRES921.html
He attacked Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki, because Maliki had labeled Israel’s attack on Lebanon as an act of “aggression.” Emanuel called on Maliki to cancel his address to Congress.
As chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), he worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races [in 2006] were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war.
(John Walsh, The Book of Rahm:Emanuel’s War Plan for Democrats, Counterpunch)
While most of the country opposes the Iraq war, Congressman Rahm Emanuel has steadfastly supported it, voting for every single one of Bush’s war funding bills.
1) Richard, I apologize for my syntax. I obviously made my comments seem more my opinion than simply attempts to apply established definitions to given examples. Perkei Avos satates that when a person is quick to anger and quick to forgive, “his loss is cancelled by his gain”. That is not a comment on your “worth” in the sense that I judge you as a human being, but a judgment on the value to you of the subject of the transaction in which you were quick to anger and quick to forgive. I am always willing to be educated, so that if there is another interpretation of Perkei Avos that would support your disagreement with me, please feel free to present it to me.
2) I will not argue with your classing Irgun as being “as terrorist” as any Palestinian terror outfit (even though it was my understanding that they never made indiscriminate intentional attacks on Arab civilians and children and that the deaths of such were collateral rather than direct consequences of their attacks); but that was not my question. I asked you if ,by your definition, the American “founding fathers” were also “terrorist” for their actions against the then lawful government of their colonies and the civilian residents that supported it.
3) My understanding of “loshen hora” is not simply “slander” (commonly defined as “malicious spoken falsehood” as opposed to “libel”, the printed equivalent), but any comment about another’s actions that can create, or contribute to, an atmosphere of baseless hatred. Chofetz Chaim even cautioned that excessive praise could be lashon hora if it created an opportunity for a person to envy the subject of the praise. My understanding was that Emanuel’s comment, made by a person to whom English is at best a second language, was intended to convey that his son was not an “Arab” in the sense that Arabs are known to support the detriment of Israel as a state. If you can point to any Arab organization whose stated purpose is the support of the State of Israel, I will be happy to accept your example. As for “racist”, Arabs may be closer to a defined race than Jews, because you can’t “convert” to Arabism, but even so, it is not a race but a transnational ethnicity that includes the descendants of ancestors who resided in the Arab kingdoms across the globe. In sum, Emanuel was using the word Arab in a political sense as opposed to an ethnic sense, and certainly never in a racial sense. In, of course, mho.
3) For all the justifiable antipathy to Joe Leiberman for his unwise and improvident actions since his defeat in the Democratic Primary, (including, admittedly his lashon hora against people like George Soros), there still is very much a claim that he is one of the most progressive voices from Connecticut, given that his only disagreement with the Democratic caucus was in the prosecution of the Iraq War, which he persists in seeing as the defense of Israel even though many (including myself) do not agree. This is the sad state of affairs, and perhaps even more, because it may be that Leiberman was attempting to maintain a place as a voice of moderation within the “enemy camp” as well as trying to promote his personal advancement. Perhaps we shall know someday. I am no friend of his Iraq policy, but I don’t think he is any greater threat to the progressive agenda that a senator who opposes the war but also believes that life begins at conception. We must find the common ground, rather than widen the chasm. Again imho, or nsho if you prefer. And just to make sure I am not misunderstood, or at least less likely to be misunderstood by those who do not see profit from misunderstanding me, I have publicly made my opposition to Leiberman’s policies known, and criticised him for his lashon hora. He is no more innocent than anyone else; he is just no more guilty than the vast majority of politicians when it comes to narrowminded rhetoric that they think represents the weltanschauung of their electorate.
@linha:
“Our second focus is Israel, which is a colonial entity based upon specious historical claims and mythology upon which a European people (the Jews) has displaced the endogenous population, the Palestinians. Restoration of Palestine to its true owners is vital to the cause of world peace. Once this has been accomplished, we can work on restoring the US and Canada.”
I am reminded of the alleged conversation between G.B. Shaw and a woman:
He: Will you sleep with me for 1000 pounds?
She: Of course.
He: Will you sleep with me for 10 pounds?
She: What do you think I am?
He: Madam, we have established that. We are now only haggling over price.
***
You propose returning lands to endogenous peoples. What you fail to define is what constitutes endogeny, How many generations has a person’s family had to have lived on the land before it is considered endogenous? Does interrupted residence void prior claims? etc. etc. etc.
We have sufficient scientific means to establish genetic connections. Shall we test the DNA of all present residents of an area and see if it can be traced to an ancestor of sufficient antiquity to justify the living representative’s claim of citizenship?
If you intend to evict all the residents of “Israel/Palestine” whose families are not “Palestinian”, does that mean that all those who arrived after 1968? 1956? 1948? 1911? 1894? and what of those who can show direct relationship with the Jewish communities that existed between 70 and 1870? Or for that matter non-Jews who arrived under the Ottoman rule?
I am not denying the need to modify Israeli policy toward non-Jewish citizenship. I am simply pointing out the complications of defining endogeny. Even the Native American came from somewhere beyond the borders of the United States at some point in history. What we are haggling over is “when”.
@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.