Martin Sieff in the Daily Beast calls Rahm Emanuel a "quasi-neocon-hawk" and points out that his middle name is Israel. This is why I pushed for a low Jewish vote for Obama. He got 78 percent. He didn't get the hard-core neocons. The absolute nuts. But because he got 80 percent, the generational shakeout between progressive Jewish voice and the liberal hawks didn't happen. The quasi-neocons are still with him. The necessary conversation/battle within the Jewish community won't take place because the Zionists are as ardent in Obama's camp as they are in McCain's, and everyone's afraid to call them out. Even the New York Times. Maybe Obama's quasis are slightly more reasonable re dividing Jerusalem than Doug "Son of Betar" Feith. But only slightly; and who knows? Who's done the reporting? Obama, who won the Dem nomination because he opposed the Iraq war and Hillary didn't, now is in bed with the hawks. The latest New York Review of Books has a great piece saying that the neocons are like a "shadow government," a sect, a party. And the tragedy for our politics is that they have such a power base of their own that they are able to jump from party to party without consequence. It's like Dennis Ross leaping from one horse to another, the party doesn't matter. First they were Dems in the 70s with Scoop Jackson and Moynihan. Then they went to Reagan, then they abandoned George H.W. Bush for Clinton, somewhat. And of course they rode into Rome with George W. Bush. In a sense, they don't care about who is in the White House. They don't really care whether the president is a Muslim. All that matters is they pick the winner and mob him up. Obama. My man needs some help.
Related Posts
- On Israel, Rahm Emanuel Is to the Right of George Bush (and the Paleos)
- Throwing Khalidi Under Bus, Obama Is Said to Tap Emanuel, Former Volunteer in Israel
- Obama: Israel Would Be ‘Crazy’ Not to Take ‘67 Borders for Peace
- Has Obama Trapped the Israel Lobby? A Theory…
- Appointing Emanuel, Obama Slams Door on 2-State Solution
{ 21 comments }
GREAT INTERVIEW:
Scott Horton Interviews Gareth Porter
November 5th, 2008
Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for IPS News, discusses how the Maliki government surprised everyone by aggressively pressing for a U.S. withdrawal, the possible political landscape in a post-U.S. controlled Iraq, the delay of a Status of Forces Agreement, the difficulty of maintaining a bankrupt empire, the possibility that Obama’s bellicose statements about Iran’s nuclear program are due to ignorance rather than hawkishness, updates on the infamous stolen laptop and four Iranian peace offerings rejected by the U.S government.
MP3(32:23)- http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/11/05/gareth-porter-43/
Phil:
I developed a bit of hope based on your claim of the magic of Obamaguity (or was it Obamambiguity) that our boy could somehow outsmart the Big Money Jews and mad Israel-firsters. But already my faith is being tested. If we get Rahm Emmanuel and Larry Summers in quick succession, it would certainly look like O has concluded brains and skill are Jewish monopolies. (WHere does that leave him?) That acceptance speech was superb theater, but is the man all front and theater and no principle? If so that would sure make him A Man For Our Age, would it not? Tom White, Odessa, TX
t
Phil,
Welcome to the club.
Phil, you should be glad that Emanuel's middle name is Israel. In Nazi Germany, Jews who tried to "hide" behind non-Jewish names were forced to add "Israel" as an official name of theirs on their documents. Phil-maybe you might come to consider that the US should do the same, that way you can "keep an eye" on all the Jews.
Richard-why do you keep trying to straighten out the people in this antisemitic blog?
SEMITE: 1 a: a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
b: a descendant of these peoples
2: a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language
Funny how being against the persecution of one ethnic-religious group by another is now called "anti-semitic" — if only by people who lack the honesty and integrity to examine their own views critically.
bar_kochba 132 wrote:
"Richard-why do you keep trying to straighten out the people in this antisemitic blog?"
bar_kochba, you post here, you aren't antisemitic, and I found your reminder about the Nazi's forcing jews to take the name "Israel" quite moving in terms of very possibly showing, admirably as all get out, why Rahm Emanuel's father voluntarily bestowed that name upon his son. Nothing wrong with it in any event, but even more poignant and wonderfully prideful if that's what he had in mind, which I now suspect he did to his enormous credit.
So do you want me to stop reading you too?
The solution to wrong-headed speech isn't less speech, it's more. And Phil published you with your great somber point, and even included your needless and undoubtedly hurtful slam against him. And he'll undoubtedly continue to welcome your further posts. Deep down, really, you know that's as fair as fair can be, and what more can you ask for from any man? Indeed how many men do you even know who are that fair?
Have some faith in people's reason; do you really believe something built on anything else is sustainable?
bar_kochba: interesting irrelevant trivia regarding Nazi Germany. Of more importance to America and the real question is whether Phil is right. If you're analyzing the facts without the lens of Jewish moral particularism, the answer is clear.
Sin nombre (I think that means "no name"-am I right?) -
It was Phil who pointed out that Israel was Emanuel's middle name. Now, when people called the US's President-elect "B. Hussein Obama", the "progressives" went ballistic. So what is Phil's point in mentioning it? Emanuel doesn't deny he is Jewish.
I don't care if Rahm Emmanuel is Jewish. I don't care that his father was a terrorist.
I don't care that when America went to war with Iraq the first time, he volunteered to serve… in Israel. We Americans give people freedom.
The thing that bothers me is that the man that I described above is going to be the Chief of Staff of the American President.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
PM
Its Barack Obama's right to form his staff.
I think that his announced selections so far are consistent with everything that he's said over time.
He will be the one responsible (in fact, not only in word) for the accomplishments or lack of accomplishments in his administration.
In all cases that I'm aware of, the norm of moderation towards "the other" (whomever that is) is what allows progress.
Fanatic solutions don't. Motivation and perserverence towards a comprehensive good goal does enhance progress and good.
I think Obama's got it right on Israel, and is ALREADY having an effect. If you read Haaretz, the Obama election is already effecting the posturing of the candidates. NONE are talking greater Israel.
Even Netanyahu, in talking about Palestinian economic development, implies a great (hopefully total) removal of checkpoints, dependable rule of law equally applied.
If the argument is over which state has the right to racially defined legal privileges, and Palestine suggests continuing them in Palestine, while insisting that Israel remove them, that would not be a satisfying outcome to me.
If the argument results in full civil and factual rights for non-Jews in Israel and for Jews in Palestine, that would be a wonderful outcome.
Also,
If the result of Phil's leadership in criticism of Jews' active participation in American governance, with a litmus test of severe criticism of all flavors of Zionism, results in exclusion of Jews from office, that would be a VERY BAD RESULT.
That would amount to the application of severe racism in our home, to counteract the fear (not even reality) of some racism quite far away.
", to counteract the fear (not even reality) of some racism quite far away"
X that. There clearly is racism in Israel's relations to Palestinians.
Mr. Witty:
Objecting to Rahm Emanuel is no more necessarily racist than objecting to Louis Farrakhan.
It CAN be racist to object to either, if you're the kind of person who mutters about "dirty kikes" or "niggers" when you think no one is watching. (Note: obviously, here I am using the "universalist you" and not referring to the "Richard Witty you.")
Yet also, it could be a matter of saying "I don't believe in groupthink, or lockstep group identification, but this Jew, or this Chicago politician, or this black man, or this minister, espouses that which I cannot in good conscience support."
And isn't racism a two way street? That is, it is not only saying, "those people, they're always bad," it's also saying, "my people, we're always good."
Where is the line between what is racist and what is policy discussion?
You didn't answer the question, you objected to the question.
Witty,
It goes without saying that Obama has the right to appoint his own staff.
I, as an American citizen, have the right to object to the appointment of people who have more loyalty to a foreign country than to the USA. I'm not talking about "dual loyalty" here. It's apparent that Rahm Emanuel has more loyalty to the State of Israel than he has to the USA. Perhaps he has convinced some, including perhaps himself, that his actions in support of the State of Israel are also in support of the USA. He needs a little historical education if that is the case, as the interests of two sovereign nations have NEVER been identical.
Let's pose a hypothetical here, and imagine a case of an American national with ties, perhaps past (present?) citizenship or birth, with a foreign country. As the USA is a land of immigrants, it is a common situation. Now let's go further and say that the foreign country felt threatened by another, and the American citizen volunteered for the military forces of the foreign country. Now compound this by the fact that the US was fighting a war at the same time, and the US citizen in question did NOT volunteer to serve in the US military.
Is this the kind of person who should be appointed to a high position in the administration of the US President? What if it were a South Korean? I'd object. What if it were a Taiwanese? I'd object. What if it were a Columbian? I'd object. What if it were a Georgian? I'd object.
I object to Rahm Emanuel.
PM
Hear, hear, all ye lower forms of life, for Kilted has discovered there is some form of "Richard Witty you" when all we mutts could positively identify after twenty months of his bablings was a sort of ectoplasmic emanation of a dharma talking pastoral zionistic entity living in a stationary state of prospective human completeness.
bar_kochba132,
"It was Phil who pointed out that Israel was Emanuel's middle name. Now, when people called the US's President-elect "B. Hussein Obama", the "progressives" went ballistic. So what is Phil's point in mentioning it?"
First of all I don't know that Phil was one of those who went "ballistic" so I don't know that it's fair to lump him in with "progressives" generally in this.
But secondly if he did then you're absolutely right, there is a double standard there, and you've keenly spotted it and persuaded me at least and I suspect others too, and maybe even Phil.
None of us I suspect are immune from overlooking our own double standards, blind spots or etc.; to say that no-one can say anything unless it is absolutely comprehensive and somehow impeccably logical and consistent and true and etc. is just another way of saying no one should ever be allowed to ever say anything. (Which sometimes strikes me as not all that bad an idea for us humans, but….)
And even if Phil was one of those progressives, what better evidence is there of his open-mindedness/lack of unfair or scurrilous, malicious intent than that fact that once again he's published your spotting, and even, again, your implied slam of his intent?
It's really kind of funny in a way: You keep posting these keenly observed points, and Phil keeps publishing them, and yet you seem to object to the very fact of Phil's enterprise here in which you make your killer points.
Again, have some faith. And consider that the thing that probably most exercises you—the constant pounding of extreme and even in my opinion sometimes hateful statements—only serves to reveal those posters and their sentiments for what they are. God help us all, in the end reason is all we have.
Regardless, I had not thought of that double standard you bring up, and again I think it's a great one.
"Where is the line between what is racist and what is policy discussion?"
Again.
In politics, a prime unstated ethic is that the "ends justify the means". Naked truth (though all expression anywhere is edited).
It is war, of words.
Thankfully, there are new politics around, that Obama is a prime representative. That is the politics of reasoning, consultation, and consent.
I'm into it, and PRAY (focused intent/urging) that he stays at that, and rejects the politics of agitation about vainly described "naked truth".
Governance is a construction, not magic.
He should get a honeymoon, not a lashing.
Richard Witty said: "He should get a honeymoon, not a lashing."
Rahm's in, honeymoon's over. On Tuesday night until yesterday, I was giving him a chance until I heard that Rahm accepted. I had assumed that, per usual, Rahm's name was being floated until the actual CoS would be announced.
Maybe Obama will appoint Charles Manson to head the Justice Dept.
If Phil got a call to serve, would he take it.
How would he conduct himself in such a role?
(I'm ignoring the Charles Manson reference above. Please do not take offense.)
Comments on this entry are closed.