“I will rahm this up the ass of every Palestinian.”
It was bad enough Obama takes Rahm Emanuel as a little FU to his Arab-American and Muslim supporters, but Rahm Emanuel’s father in Israel added a nice little racist-classist cherry-on-top:
In an interview with Ma’ariv, Emanuel’s father, 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.”
Perhaps Obama should tap a Zogby, Nader or Telhami to be Secretary of White House upkeep.
But I do not hate on Obama. We need such sobering slaps in the face to remind us to have low expectations for actual change.
And we should not blame Mr. Emanuel for his racist ways. He came to Arab-hatred as an Irgunist, a Zionist terrorist who had to spill Arab blood to make Israel happen. Why shouldn’t he hate Arabs for making him a murderer?
I wonder if the Rahm falls far from the tree, as they say.
Given that during the Gulf War he ran to volunteer as a civilian guard in Israel — he protected parked military trucks from Scuds, apparently — I doubt it. He did not volunteer where he would be more needed, the US military. Perhaps an Irgunist acorn doesn’t fall far either.
Hopefully he will be a chief of staff used only for his skill at pushing crumpy legislators around, and not a Rovian one who passes all policies through a political benefits filter. Emanuel’s nomination actually made hope irrelevant.
Related posts:
- Awkward Moments in China: Bush Kicks it with Women’s Volleyball
- 7 Dead as Olmert Kicks Off Election Campaign
- Sarah Silverman: If Barack Obama doesn’t become the next president of the United States I’m gonna blame the Jews
- Citizen-Soldier-Book Reviewers
- Obama T-Shirts Must Be Hot in Gaza
fuck them.
Posted by Yasser | November 7, 2008, 10:50 amExpect all the liberal blogs and news sources to keep make excuses for this fucker, his new Chief of Staff, and his new appointees.
The Huffington Post is already excusing the Laurence Summers pick, and trying to re-write the record:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-sandberg/what-larry-summers-has-do_b_142126.html
Posted by Salma | November 7, 2008, 11:35 amI think Dick Morris summarizes it best in his Op-Ed Piece
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/11/07/obamas-change-back-to-the-democratic-washington-insiders/
Posted by Mo | November 7, 2008, 12:12 pmThe quote from Benjamin Emanuel is disgusting. But I still hold out the hope (and expectation) that President-elect Obama, who has demonstrated the ability and willingness to go against his own advisors on some matters, knows what he’s getting into here. He may even expect that having a strongly pro-Israel person on his staff might give him added leverage with the Israelis in any negotiations that do come along. Let’s hope Jeffrey Goldberg (no fan of the Palestinians) is right about that…
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/rahm_emanuel_and_israel.php
Posted by publius | November 7, 2008, 2:27 pmpublius, you’re grasping.
Posted by Mohammad | November 7, 2008, 4:21 pmWhy don’t we at least wait until the man takes office, before we judge him? I agree the quote is awful, but let’s not play the guilt-by-association game that was the primary tool used by race-baiters to keep Barack Obama out of the White House. I’ll judge Rahm Emanuel based on what he does as Chief of Staff, not based on what he did in Israel 20 years ago or what his 81 year old father said yesterday. Please.
Posted by publius | November 7, 2008, 5:05 pm“He did not volunteer where he would be more needed, the US military”
I wonder if you’d be as critical if the man was a Kuwaiti American. Israel was under an un-provoked attack from Iraqi scuds and you somehow make the argument that he was more needed in the US military? You’re not that dumb Will. Stop writing like you are.
Posted by The Iron Chef! | November 7, 2008, 7:14 pmRahm Emanuel was an advisor to Clinton, Congressmen and was put in charge of the Democrats 2006 congressional election committee he is a skilled Washington insider and a native of Chicago who has a close relationship with Obama. Jews are brilliant skilled intelligent people, rather than sit around and cry about a Zionist being tapped as Chief of Staff because of his obvious brilliance and talent, we need to organize and support our own people to join government. I think this was a smart politically savvy move by Obama; one politician is not going to change US policy toward Israel only public opinion can do that.
Posted by reef | November 7, 2008, 8:22 pmI’m not feeling this Rahm dude… I won’t assume that Obama chose him because of his Zionist stripes (he obviously has some real qualifications), but there is a cause for serious concern here.
Under any circumstance, I find it worrisome when someone is appointed to high office when that person has demonstrated allegiance to another country. What makes this even more serious is the fact that he volunteered to serve Israel in a military capacity when his country was at a war! As much as some people wish it were, Israel is not the 51st state – it is another country whose interests are at sharp odds with those of the US. What if Mr. Rahm had demonstrated his allegiance to some other country like Egypt, Kuwait, Japan, or Germany? No way in hell would he be considered for anything remotely close to the Chief of Staff to the President of the US..
It’s important for us (Arabs and/or pro-Palestinians) not to view things through one lens, but I think it is fair to question where this guy’s loyalty lies. The comparisons with race-bating Obama are not appropriate here. Ultimately, I’ll judge this Zionist American/Israeli based on what I see from him in the WH. I don’t expect anything good though.
Posted by Kalash | November 7, 2008, 9:24 pmHow is his allegiance any different from the allegiance many of the bloggers here have for Palestine? If anything, that is more worrisome as American interests at least align with Israeli interests. There’s no vast zionist conspiracy even though that thought might make it easier for many of you to ignore the reality at hand.
Cheers.
Posted by Anonymous | November 7, 2008, 9:30 pmAmerican interests do NOT align with Israeli interests. Don’t believe the hype…
Posted by Kalash | November 7, 2008, 10:13 pm“Israel was under an un-provoked attack from Iraqi scuds”
Unprovoked?
I wouldn’t say that. Israel had been working on Iraq’s disintegration decades before Iraq launched a single Scud at its cities (see Oded Yinon’s 1982 report prepared for the WZO, which pretty much reads as a plan for continuous wars against Iraq via Israel’s proxies, chief among them America; it’s a shame that at the time it didn’t get the coverage it deserved and which could’ve halted the Israeli open war on the Arab world in its tracks — alas, little hope for that even today). This aside from the fact that Israel bombed Osiraq in 1981. If any country had attacked and destroyed Dimona the way Israel attacked and destroyed Osiraq, Israel would’ve nuked that country or at the very least bombed it to smithereens. Here we’re not even talking about Scuds. Iraq had no response to the bombing of Osiraq. So consider the Scuds a belated reply, at the very least.
Posted by A Blogger from Lebanon | November 7, 2008, 10:21 pmDid anyone really expect anything else?
and now the Clinton administration that put us in this financial crisis is back.
but hey at least its not Bush, right?
Posted by Mo | November 7, 2008, 11:41 pmrather than sit around and cry about a Zionist being tapped as Chief of Staff because of his obvious brilliance and talent, we need to organize and support our own people to join government.
What the one of the ones he thinks it’s a liability to even be seen with?
Posted by nadia | November 8, 2008, 6:21 amMy point re: race baiters was that Emanuel’s father’s quote is not a proper basis to pre-judge him, any more than it would be proper to judge Obama on what Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers said or did. His own actions are a different story, and I think there’s room for disagreement about much weight to give to volunteer work for the Israeli army.
But the bottom line for me, as others have said, is that judgment comes later. He is highly qualified for the job, prepared to act as Obama’s liaison in the House (in tandem with his Senate insider, VP-elect Biden). I do think that while he has his own ideology, Obama knows when to take advice with a grain of salt. I also believe there’s something to the possibility that having someone like Emanuel on the staff will placate Israelis and make it much easier to stand up to them when they inevitably make exaggerated defenses of their actions by reference to security concerns. But we will see.
Posted by publius | November 8, 2008, 8:57 amhaha ok Blogger from Lebanon, let’s assume for arguments sake that you are correct.. the attacks were unprovoked. Is it that strange that he would go back and help? Would a Kuwaiti American be chastised for going back to Kuwait?
Posted by Anonymous | November 8, 2008, 8:59 am“Is it that strange that he would go back and help?”
Yes, quite strange, to say the least.
“Would a Kuwaiti American be chastised for going back to Kuwait?”
Absolutely. No doubt about it. He would’ve been chastised and accused of treason through and through. And by the very same people who are defending Emanuel’s actions. Also, it would be quite strange, and yes, pretty indicative of his priorities… same as is the case with Emanuel. It doesn’t take much brains to figure this out. I would’ve been more understanding if Emanuel had been residing in Israel at the time and decided to do something instead of sitting on folding his arms and watching. It’s another thing altogether to go out of your way to do so. The guy was residing in the U.S and chose to go to Israel. He could’ve helped out the American troops in the same capacity, could he have not? Or at least attempted it even if he wouldn’t have been welcomed by the U.S Army?? I think there is no doubt which country Emanuel is primarily, if not solely, loyal to.
Posted by A Blogger from Lebanon | November 8, 2008, 10:26 amI guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Happy trails
Posted by Anonymous | November 8, 2008, 1:36 pmI also believe there’s something to the possibility that having someone like Emanuel on the staff will placate Israelis and make it much easier to stand up to them when they inevitably make exaggerated defenses of their actions by reference to security concerns. But we will see.
It’s occured to you that that works the other way as well right? That the support base he’s built up among liberals and “the left” will make it that much harder to oppose his policies.
In any event, I think an appointment of a guy like this is an eventuality, we’ll probably see a bunch of other apts of hawkish demcrats to prove he isn’t soft on terror or whatever the hell people think about him. To assume that such decisions will have a purely semiotic marketing purpose to them is hella naive. Maybe that’s what he was thinking with his stance on gay marriage, but we still have to live with the results.
Anyways, of course Emanuel himself didn’t produce a quote like that he’s a politician(and not Joe Biden.) The only interesting about this is how all the liberal bloggers that shit a brick over things like that when they came out of the mouths of McCain supporters will (not) be reacting.
Posted by nadia | November 9, 2008, 4:22 amNadia –
It has. There’s no knowing what’s going to happen, and maybe he will cave into Emanuel’s views, whatever they are. But I doubt it, because like I said, my sense of Obama is that he genuinely values the opinions of people who disagree with him, and more importantly, uses them to test, rather than reinvent, his own views. For example, the link below goes to an excellent article about how Obama was perceived by conservative law professors at the University of Chicago:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=86dd0277-c6ee-4e3c-83e9-0bb468c5c40d
My point wasn’t to say that Emanuel’s presence would only have a “semiotic marketing purpose”; of course Emanuel could influence him. But I think it’s just as likely that Obama will use Emanuel’s perspective to inform his own, independent judgment about Israel and other issues. Besides, Israel is hardly the reason he chose Emanuel, no matter how much some of us think that issue is paramount. He chose him because they are close personal friends from the same city with a good working relationship, and because Emanuel knows how to get stuff done and has the connections (especially in the House) to do so.
Posted by publius | November 9, 2008, 11:06 amPersonally I don’t like it when people single out figures like him or Lieberman as if they’re the only zionists in the democratic party-there were a lot of democrats picking on Bush for not being pro-Israel enough in 2006. So for that reason I kind of agree that I don’t find this appointment any more telling than anyone else he could have picked (with the exception of maybe Kucinich or something.)
Obama is a smart guy and capable of thinking for himself but I don’t think he has any desire to be more than a centrist (I mean by American standards), nor do we have any reason to believe otherwise. I mean in general but especially on Israel I really don’t buy the he’s just saying what he has to so he can finally change things selling point.
Posted by nadia | November 9, 2008, 11:37 amThanks for the excellent discussion on this comments board.My only point is that the Chief of Staff is never just some tool of the President's, but is a gatekeeper of information, meetings, staffing, and basically structures decisions for the president.As an enforcer looking to get Congress on board, Emanuel will have tremendous leverage on all issues. Even if State is empowered to take the lead on Israel-Palestine, the Chief of Staff has incredible opportunity to influence its direction. As for Golderbs arguments in the Atlantic, I am not assuaged. If Emanuel knows what's in Israel's best interest, it will lead to Palestinian quasi-statehood. The assumption that the two-state solution is in Israel and Palestine's interest is taken as certitude mindlessly — Zionism and Palestinian self-determination are irreconcilable in such a small territory. One has to go. A real solution must mean the end of one or the other, a de-Zionized land means equality for both people. Without Palestinian self-determination, we just get more of the same. This simple and obvious conclusions is so outside of the consensus that no sustainable agreement will emerge under any American, Israeli, Palestinian leadership until this is realized.As for Obama on Palestine, I have no hope. I'll be happy if he fixes shit for the many oppressed people in the US and elsewhere, such as Iraq. But I ain't holding my breath. I am not sure how we can expect change when the cast of characters is exactly the same. Having a new director in the form of Obama is hardly any reason for hope.Publius is correct in that we cannot conclude anything until we suffer through it. However, the presumption is against them for sure.Will
Posted by Will | November 9, 2008, 8:34 amI always thought all the ‘is he good for Israel’ stuff was about how he treats Iran (it often gets framed that way,) I don’t think Palestine is even on the radar.
Posted by nadia | November 10, 2008, 4:26 am