Comments on: Emanuel Often Took ‘Peace Now’ Position and Praised Rabin as ‘Visionary’

By: D.

D. — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I stopped reading when I got to "the absurdity of concluding from this one appointment that, after refusing to pander to pro-Likud forces during the election campaign (and paying a price for this refusal), President-elect Obama has decided only now that it is time to begin pandering."

Someone tell me if it gets better.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Its good.

By: D.

D. — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Ahhh, as I suspected.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Rahm's a two-faced lizard – who knew?

By: Contrarian

Contrarian — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Same reaction as you, D. Was he refusing to pander when he made his first appearance after securing the Democratic nod at AIPAC? Or was it when he distanced himself from every single person in his orbit who had every voiced any concern about Israeli policies? Or was it when he turned those poor Muslim girls away at a rally? Or told Keith Ellison not to speak on his behalf? Or gave in to Dershowitz et al and denied Jimmy Carter a speaking slot at the convention? Or spent almost all of his Mideat trip in in Israel, paying homage to the "heroes" of Sderrot, while making only a perfunctory 30-minute courtesy call on Abbas? Or was it when he brought in Dennis Ross as his Middle East advisor?

By: peters

peters — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

" the road for obama leads through jerusalem"
financial times

http://wwww.ft.com/cms/s/9ac8822a-b1a5-11dd-b97a-0000779fd18c,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F9ac8822a-b1a5-11dd-b97a-0000779fd18c.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcomment%2Fcolumnists%2Fphilipstephens

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Vampires have no patience with things not sanguine, so to speak. Let's see some pearls:

------------
"He has stayed off the really bad stuff" though he "has joined with the majority of his colleagues in signing on or voting for most of the major AIPAC-supported initiatives opposed by APN and other pro-peace groups" but then "he has not spoken out prominently in support of such measures."
------------

"Emanuel was one of 4 Jewish members of Congress to sign a Dear Colleague to President Bush in support of the President's Road Map for Middle East peace" this "letter was especially significant because it came as a counterpoint to a letter (strongly supported by AIPAC, which Emanuel and many of the 44 also signed) circulated immediately after the publication of the Roadmap"
-----------

I would like to know the exact percentage of AIPAC-supported initiatives not signed by Rahm and examples where he denied AIPAC-supported committee assignments while acting as HDC chair.

Anyway the "really bad stuff" is something which a zionist aspiring for high-visibility places should be wary not to "spoke out prominently" but instead work for under the radar. Afterall Lieberman has shown even a prominent religious background may not be enough to clean an extreme zionist performance in certain situations and Rahm aspires to go beyond Lieberman.

By: David Green

David Green — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

This is all pretty silly. Isn't it clear yet that support for Israeli expansionism in the Congress relies primarily on Democrats? Here is the Jewish law firm that represents a massive portion of L.A. County: Berman, Sherman, Harman, Waxman, & Schiff. Show me where one of them has ever said a compassionate word regarding the plight of the Palestinians. Show me when they all haven't shown up at AIPAC.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Hard to tell about him. Hillary wanted him fired, but instead he was demoted. Exactly why did she want him fired? Because he rode in the big Clinton parade with his name emblazoned on the side of the limousine he rode in? Because he made millions off the deregulated and wild west mortgage securities (now killing us) while she only
swindled a little, and did so crudely?

We know he draws the line only in behalf Israel's continued existence and security. He could care less about the Palestinians, or probably anything else except the simple exercise of power (his
networking gift, and fund-raising gift, and his ability to think
a few steps ahead of congressmen in the usual chess match that is congress.

He's persistent, the pit bull. He wants two-states, and secure Israel borders and something a bit more for the Palestinians than
a rump state inhabited by new Palestinian citizens still seething
with a sense of injustice and no real power.

He will call congress people every 15 minutes, 24/7 until he gets
them on the phone.

Although the modern White House Chief Of Staff is very powerful as
the gate-keeper to POTUS, and as the one who has the last issue
hence on every issue he lets in the Oval Orifice, the real
question reminds:

Where will Obama draw his line in the sand respecting I-P peace
negotiations?

My guess is Emanuel and Obama pretty much see eye-to -eye, and they will try to force it in a way Clinton did not. Bush of course doesn't even count.

The first sign of this will be if Obama puts the I-P peace mandate
on the top burner, right along with the other half dozen (all relating to the economy).

Intertwined with this is negotiating with Iran.

I suspect there may be a serious effort by Obama-Immanual to end the occupation, both motivated by admirable ego, and Obama further motivated by justice, Immanual--by hard look
at Likud's position in the long term for the survival of Israel,
which I am guessing he now sees as self-defeating over time, no
matter how many more "facts on the ground" are established
as future land4peace leverage tools.
occupation

By: anon

anon — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Oops, scratch the remark about Hillary being jealous of Imanuel
for his investment managing prowess since that came later, after he
left the Clinton Whitehouse. Seems she just felt threatened by his power back then?