In this post yesterday I wrote that Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s pick as WH chief of staff, was a dual, Israeli and US citizen. And I added,
- There is a good question as to whether anyone occupying such a sensitive position in Washington ought to also hold the citizenship of a foreign country– or whether, in the circumstances, Rahm Emanuel should lay down his foreign citizenship.
I based my judgment that Emanuel is a dual citizen on the well-known facts of the citizenship and longtime political involvement that his father has had in that country, on Rahm’s having served “in a civilian capacity” with the Israel Defense Forces in 1991, and on this Nov. 2 posting on Israel’s Y-net (Yediot Aharonot) website, which is headlined, “Obama’s Israeli adviser: Next White House chief of staff?”
On reflection, I am not sure that asking Emanuel to “lay down” his Israeli citizenship– if he still holds it, which I assume he does– would really be meaningful. After all, any person from anywhere in the world who is recognized by Israel’s rabbis as Jewish is entitled to Israeli citizenship the moment he sets foot in Israel, no questions asked.
But what I as a US citizen want to be assured of at this point is two things:
- 1. At any point that the interests of the US and the current government of Israel might diverge, can we be assured that all members of our president’s staff are acting 100% in the interests of the United States? and
2. Can we be assured that the president is getting the widest range of excellent, relevant, and fact-based advice from all his advisers in the tricky and very sensitive realms of Mideast policy?
regarding the first point, the assumption publicly expressed by most members of the US political elite in recent years– though not always– has been that “this could never happen.” Political leaders in the US spend so much time having to do their ritual dance of pro-Israeli obeisance in front of AIPAC in which they stress over and over and over that they have Israel’s best interests at heart, and that the policies of Israel only strengthen and never undermine US interests that many of them seem to come to internalize the belief that this is indeed the case.
Ain’t true.
The last leading American political figures who understood that there are, on occasion, serious divergences of interest between the US and the current government of Israel were Pres. George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State, Jim Baker. They played hardball with Israel’s Likud PM Yitzhak Shamir back in 1991, at a time when Shamir wanted to get $10 billion worth of US loan guarantees and Bush and Baker sought to condition that aid on Israel not proceeding with plans to yet further expand its colonialist settlement project in the occupied territories.
Oh yes, 1991 was also the year that Mr. Emanuel took time off from being an American and went and served with Israel’s military. That happened, I think, a little earlier than the contest of wills between Bush and Shamir broke out in full force. But still, it was a period when many people understood that you might have to make a choice between the two affiliations. He made his.
And then, in 2003, Rahm Emanuel was the only member of Illinois’s congressional delegation who supported the invasion of Iraq… That was another significant choice he made– and one for which he should certainly, five years and 4,000-plus US service-members’ lives later, be held accountable…
But I guess on my point 1 above, for now we just have to trust Barack Obama’s good sense.
And that is where my point #2 becomes very important. We could have all kinds of trust in Obama’s good intentions– but if he doesn’t have access to good, impartial, and broadly based advice on matters Middle Eastern, then all his good intentions may well end up counting for little.
So let’s see who else gets appointed to high positions in his cabinet and in those sub-cabinet positions that have a direct impact on the Middle East. If it is wall-to-wall people with strong and partisan pro-Israeli track records, then we will have to conclude that our country– and Barack Obama– will be in real trouble.
And what influence might Rahm Emanuel have on such high-level appointments? Zero, constructive, or destructive/suppressive? We don’t know yet.
If Obama and R. Emanuel are smart, they will take this opportunity to appoint people who haven’t popped right out of the AIPAC-designed cookie cutter. As the (incidentally, Jewish-American) former high State Department Mideast policy official Aaron Miller has recently been writing and saying, one of the big problems with the Clinton presidency was that they didn’t have nearly enough high-level input from people who understood the Arab and Islamic worlds. Indeed, for much of their “analysis” on Arab and regional political matters, as well as for much of the actual crafting and carrying of high-level messages, they had to rely on someone whose expertise was solely that of a linguistic interpreter.
That happened because the numerous people available to the administration, from within and outside the government bureaucracy, who had a lengthy, experience-based understanding of all aspects of regional politics had nearly all been systematically excluded from the inner corridors of power. By the lobby and its many supporters inside and outside the administration.
And that happened under Clinton, remember. The, that exclusion of anyone with real regional expertise continued with a vengeance under George W. Bush. On matters Iraqi, as well as Arab-Israeli.
So now, let’s see what the next batch of Obama’s high-level appointments brings. If it brings in people who really understand many aspects of Middle East dynamics– that is, those of Israel and of the region’s many other countries– and who understand, too, that it is quite possible that at times the interests of the US and of the sitting government in Israel might diverge, and that in those circumstances the US government should, of course, pursue its own people’s interests… then that would be excellent.
(Hey, how about my old Oxford class-mate– and natural-born US citizen– Dr. Rashid Khalidi for one of those posts?)
And if if the hardline ideologues and discourse-suppressors in the pro-Israel community should complain about such appointments, as they surely would– then President-elect Obama and his chief of staff will be in a great position to tell those critics to go jump in a lake.
It is, after all, the content of the new administration’s policy that should be kept firmly in focus. Its fairness, its plausibility, and its effectiveness.
But how to get to a fair and effective policy?
Not, I would say, by continuing to buy into and help propagate the myth that the interests of the US and of all possible Israeli governments are always the same. Because they aren’t.
The question for me is whether President Obama will follow the lead of Senator Leahy, and appoint an envoy immediately to the ME, to solve these conflicts. Let us hope, as Senator Leahy is really the only Senator who actually cares about the resolution of this conflict, in a balanced way. That Senator Leahy has been an ardent advocate of Senator Obama’s candidacy, we can hope that his wisdom will wield some weight with President Obama’s emerging administration. Of course, the will to solve these conflicts must exist.
Taking a look at the foreign policy team Obama chose as a candidate, and adding to that his choice for chief of staff, and then adding to that Obama’s own statements of policy so far on matters pertaining to the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia, it is difficult to feel encouraged.
And here’s a novel idea. Let’s say Obama decides to break with tradition and actually include one or two people among his staff and advisers who actually know something about the Middle East beyond what they learn on the annual AIPAC-sponsored Israel junkets – you know, someone who knows something about the Arab world, Iran, Pakistan – like that? What if, instead of appointing a bunch of white anglo saxon and Jewish “Arabists” Obama appointed an actual – well, you know – Arab?! Possibly even someone who is a native speaker of Arabic? And maybe he could consider as his adviser on Iran someone who is actually Iranian? And speaks Persian? And an Urdu-speaking Pakistani to advise him about Pakistan?
And how about NOT following in Clinton’s footsteps if he appoints a team to handle Palestinian/Israeli negotiations? How about creating a team that has some balance to it instead of choosing his appointees from an AIPAC-approved list and actually including some actual Palestinians to the mix – Rashid Khalidi, as one example?
OK, that’s really, really silly I know. I mean, how can anyone seriously suggest that Palestinians-Americans can speak better for the interests of Palestinians than AIPAC shills like Dennis Ross?
Nevermind.
Helena, I’m amazed that you remain self-deluded: the Israel Lobby is advising Obama and telling him what to do, just as as they did with Bush, Clinton, etc. There are no other points of view presented. Surely you read Mearsheimer & Walt? Irgun Rahm should’ve been no surprise, or can you not see?
PS I, for one, continue to wish the United States would stay out of the Palestine/Israel matter. They will always be an advocate for the oppressor Israel, and have never been nor will they ever be any kind of “honest broker”. The idea that this would change in an Obama administration is pure fantasy.
In the mean time, other entities, including the Arab League, have proven to be far more potentially effective. In fact the Arab League has twice made to Israel the most generous offer it can ever hope to receive, and I understand that some elements in Israel have finally gained a modicum of sanity enough that they are actually suggesting the unthinkable. They are actually saying Israel should consider the offer. Of course Israel, which never misses an opportunity to turn its nose up at an opportunity, will probably keep on working toward a one-state solution as it has done from the beginning. And who knows when Israel will realize what that one state is going to look like.
It should shock people that the question of whether Rahm Emanuel holds dual citizenship is apparently considered to be his own personal business by the media.
To the contrary, it’s of direct interest to citizens that they know whether a high government official is a citizen of a foreign country.
I want to know that, about Emanuel and about officials in a similar position.
I believe the office of the US Presidency and its ensuing administration has these days many inherent weaknesses built into it simply because it is the centre of the bigest play for power on the globe! The idea that a single man, albeit a decent and smart man, can of himself master and subdue this colossal play for power is I think unrealistic, if not absurd!
I think it would be true to say that anybody who manages to fight his/her way to the President’s seat has already embroiled themselves in deals and power plays and intrigues that strip them of meaningful autonomy to act according personal inner light.
We don’t know all the strings that are now attached to Obama, via his path to Presidency – but I think we must assume that they are legion! The hundreds of millions of dollars that got him there were only the tip of the ‘string’ iceberg I suspect.
Imperial powers like to set up ‘puppet governments’ but I think they become blind to the ‘imperial strings’ that bind their own.
I think one day history might show us that the President as a person, is a relative minor ingredient to the Presidency! – if not minor, then at least a ‘relative’ ingredient.
King makers I think historically trump kings in the power stakes!
The US war machine (the industrial military ‘congressional’ complex), will continue to ‘surge’ forward I’m afraid, and no single man, not even a President ‘Obama’, can stop it.
And yes, the surrounding pack of jackal-like giant corporate entities wielding their ‘too big to fail’ budgets will I’m sure get their share of the spoils – by hook or by crook!
(I don’t believe in the ‘rapture’ Helena, but fortunately I do believe in the inner light that George Fox experienced! … Ommm 🙂
Figuratively and literally Israel is Rahm Emanuel’s middle name. Now this man, the son of a Zionist terrorist with strong Israeli ties, will be the Oval Office alpha male. This is reaching out?
The prognosis is bad not only for Palestine but also for Iran and anywhere else Israel has an interest like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq . . .
Things can’t get worse in the ME after Bush? Israel has more pull with the Dems than with the Repubs, and with the terrible appointment of Emanuel we see evidence that things might indeed get worse. Obama has recently decried Iran’s (nonexistent according to the CIA) nuclear weapons program, for example.
After all, any person from anywhere in the world who is recognized by Israel’s rabbis as Jewish is entitled to Israeli citizenship the moment he sets foot in Israel
Helena,
There were many US officials who serviced in US administrations like Rahm Emanuel, as dual citizen holder.
What the question is how much trust should he/she can have for the views and policymaking. We saw Zalmay Khalilzad and others who have high profile in some US administration. What about other individuals from other countries with dual citizenships?
it’s the US landscape where as much as most members never meet each other, yet feel a common bond, it may be considered an imagined community. One of the most influential doctrines in Western Europe and the Western hemisphere since the late eighteenth century is that all humans are divided into groups called nations.[1] thus its citizens collection from around the world many of them hold different dual citizenship.
So you can’t accuse one and ignore many who serviced in US administrations, US / Israeli relation is far from allay and friends taking in account long time as early as its creation with all donations the money (Tax deductible!! Why Israel not other countries Helena need to answer this for us) with full support for state of Israel for.
So its not just because people like Rahm Emanuel and other that US stand behind Israel as such, it’s a complete policy and a country with its people who have full faith and love for Israel as a state, not individuals penetrating withholding Israeli citizenship its far more and deep than that.
On reflection, I am not sure that asking Emanuel to “lay down” his Israeli citizenship– if he still holds it, which I assume he does– would really be meaningful. After all, any person from anywhere in the world who is recognized by Israel’s rabbis as Jewish is entitled to Israeli citizenship the moment he sets foot in Israel, no questions asked.
So, let me see if I have this straight. What you are saying, Helena, is that no Jew should be allowed to hold a position in the White House (except maybe for cleaning the floors)? That’s really interesting.
Let me just point out a fact to you, because you have it wrong about the terms of Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. First of all, it’s not up to “Israel’s rabbis”, or whether or not they recognize someone as Jewish. Anyone with a Jewish parent (either one) or a single Jewish grandparent is entitled to Israeli citizenship, as are the spouses of Jews. Further, you are incorrect in asserting that it’s with “no questions asked”. There are restrictions, and citizenship is not granted automatically.
Now, according to your argument – if I understand you correctly – John Kerry, for example, should he be appointed by Obama as Secretary of State should not be allowed to serve.
The appointment of RE serves to underline the Biden pick. It sends a very clear message that there is no question of the US moving away from its commitment to Israel.
This is intended to head off any thoughts of an Israeli attack on Iran before Bush leaves office.
of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.
Obama’s Challenge
Here’s a radical thought for y’all. Perhaps this really doesn’t have anything to do with Israel or the Palestinians. Maybe this isn’t the only thing, or even the number one issue on the President-elect’s agenda. Could it be that Barack Obama simply selected Rahm Emanuel because he knows him and believes that he is the best, most capable person for the job?
Obama is something of a cold war liberal, if he were anything else he wouldn’t have been elected. The question is, how much? And how much is it even possible to be one these days? His options have been limited by the rise of other powers and the stupidity of the last administration. The hope is that he will behave as a “rational actor” under these new circumstances.
I tend to agree with JES that President Obama’s longstanding personal relationship with Rep. Rahm has much more to do with his choice to be Chief of Staff than we might ascribe. Such posts are typically reserved for those who are personally close to the President, or political leader, than perhaps one’s politics.
Since this is about ME policy, what of the significance of the rallies held in Israel in memoriam of Yitzak Rabin? Certainly it is great to see a possible revival of the Israeli peace camp. Of course the scope of power which such groups wield within the Israeli policy arena may in fact be small, however the symbolic importance of these rallies reveal both that the assassination of Y. Rabin remains of high significance in the political psyche of many Israelis; also, the clear denounciations of the Israeli right, and their violent approach to politics was of import as well. Interesting-any thoughts HC or others?
As if it isn’t already complicated enough this latest outbreak of mayhem in Jerusalem takes the biscuit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm
Curiously enough the Crimean War started over a similar incident.
Thank you for pointing out that Gearge H.W. Bush and team attempted/started what nearly 18 years of administrations have failed to do:
Stop the illegal seetlements!
All it takes is a president cutting back on funding (significant cuts, the threat of)and significant progress would be achieved in this act alone.
Helena, if a this new president is unwilling to to it than what hope do we have of any peace agreements given the effect of this landgrab?
Comment from… Doug, at November 9, 2008 06:52 AM:
I believe the office of the US Presidency and its ensuing administration has these days many inherent weaknesses built into it simply because it is the centre of the biggest play for power on the globe! The idea that a single man, albeit a decent and smart man, can of himself master and subdue this colossal play for power is I think unrealistic, if not absurd!
I FULLY AGREE WITH DOUG,WHO EVER SPEND THE MILLIONS OF $ WILL GET WHAT THEY WANT,
UNFORTUNATELY THE WORLD IS IN SUCH DESPERATION FOLLOWING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MISMANAGEMENT OF US FOREIGN POLICIES AND PRESENT FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC PROBLEMS THAT IT INCLINE TO BELIEVE IN COSMETIC CHANGES AS SAVER OF THE TROUBLED SITUATION.
MR.OBAMA IS JUST HUMAN,MAN AND NOT A MIRACLE MAKER AND ITS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT HE WILL CHOOSE PEOPLE CLOSE TO HIM WHO HE CAN TRUST REGARDLESS WHAT IS THE PUBLIC OPINION AS HE HAS TO SATISFY NOT ONLY THE PUBLIC AND DELIVER HIS ELECTION PROMISES BUT ALSO THE KINGS MAKERS.
For sure Obama will put someone on his staff to balance the pro Israel lobby. Agree about Rashid Khalidi, his last book was very impressive.
However, here’s a question for Helena … would Rashid be able to move towards, divided Jerusalem, no right of return to Israel, annexation of settlement blocs to Israel in return for land swaps, since this will be essentially Obama’s position – ie back to the last Bill Clinton proposal with modifications?
Could Rashid do this WITHOUT being attacked and derided as a sell out? Would he want to do it? Sometimes it’s better to stay out of the tent …
Juan Cole just posted a counterpoint to all the Emanuel and Obama demonizing on this board.
http://www.juancole.com/2008/11/emanuel-in-2002-details-of-us-and.html
According to Juan, Emanuel gave up his Israeli citizenship at 18. He also argues that the hysteria about his Israeli stances might be overblown.
According to Juan, Emanuel gave up his Israeli citizenship at 18
And as usual, Juan is shooting from the hip. For Emmanuel to have ever been considered an Israeli citizen, his parents would have to have registered him as one within 30 days of his birth. Juan has presented no evidence the Emmanuels ever did this.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About%20the%20Ministry/Consular%20affairs/population%20registry%20matters
What kind of researcher is Juan Cole anyway, that he can’t be bothered to footnote his crazy claims (more likely than not skimmed from wikipedia)?
Helena – I’ve never had a comment published yet. Maybe this will get through.
I am Jewish, pro-Israel, and pro-peace. I have grave concerns about many of Israel’s policies, especially the settlements. For negotiations to begin to have any usefulness, the settlements must be dismantled, and the right of return given up. Without these concessions, one side of the other will always disapprove.
I was hopeful when Obama spoke about Israel and Palestine before his trip to Israel last summer. I was concerned during his trip however that he did not visit the wall of separation.
From what I can tell, he listens well to gather as much information as he can, and that is hopeful. I don’t think Rahm Emanuel should be judged before he leaves his House seat. He is not the only pro-Israel person from Chicago’s political scene. I hope Obama takes peace seriously and seeks all points of view. I have already told him so and personally will continue to do so.
Helena – I’ve never had a comment published yet. Maybe this will get through.
I am Jewish, pro-Israel, and pro-peace. I have grave concerns about many of Israel’s policies, especially the settlements. For negotiations to begin to have any usefulness, the settlements must be dismantled, and the right of return given up. Without these concessions, one side or the other will always find agreement impossible.
I was hopeful when Obama spoke about Israel and Palestine before his trip to Israel last summer. I was concerned during his trip however that he did not visit the wall of separation.
From what I can tell, he listens well to gather as much information as he can, and that is hopeful. I don’t think Rahm Emanuel should be judged before he leaves his House seat. He is not the only pro-Israel person from Chicago’s political scene. I hope Obama takes peace seriously and seeks all points of view. I have already told him so and personally will continue to do so.
JES = racist = Israelis identifying Arabs as janitorial laborers
Of course, Barack Obama’s non-relation with his foreign-born Muslim father was widely discussed in the mass media, as was his non-identification with foreign Muslims.
If Barack selects Rahmbo Israel aka Machiavelli Emanuel as his chief of staff, then why should not Rahmbo’s non-relation with his father’s foreign country, and his non-identification with that foreign country’s interests (if it truly be a non-relation/non-identification?) also be widely discussed in the mass media?
There is no exhibition of prejudice in this. On the contrary, it is an exhibition of prejudice, or perhaps “special treatment,” that Rahmbo is not scrutinized in the same way. To request that the mass media offer a full discovery about Rahmbo’s associations and identifications is simply fair play.
This reminds me of the contrast between the handling of JFK’s run for president as the first Catholic candidate in the US, and the handling of Joe Lieberman’s run as Vice President in 2000. On JFK’s part, he flatly denied that he would govern the US in the interests of the Vatican, but instead would govern solely in the interest of the USA. Joe Lieberman flatly stated that the interests of the US and Israel are the same, and the mass media in America raised not a peep.
One wonders if Rahmbo also thinks that the interests of the US and Israel are the same.
The main drivers for selecting a Chief of Staff are that s/he is loyal and efficient; those will have been Obama’s priorities, not his /her political affiliation.
While a CoS has a limited ability to initiate policy, s/he has the ability to influence it, by controlling the information which the Decider receives.
If his health would permit, Sen George Mitchell would be an ideal candidate to be the US Envoy to the MEPP: he has experience of “solving” intractable Troubles, knows about the region (without being Muslim or Jewish.) If unable to take a more active role, his thoughts would certainly be valuable.
Addendum:
“The senator [Obama] also said that ethnic-based tribal politics in Kenya had to stop. Such politics was rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one’s family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good, he said.” (http://allafrica.com/stories/200811050664.html)
If he can carry that through to US Policy on the ME, then the Holy Lands might yet see peace.
DoR, that discussion of Obama’s father was criticized as unfair. It was illogical to presume that Obama was a Muslim because his father had been a Muslim (Actually, I heard that BO, Sr. had fallen away from Islam later on in life.). So why repeat the unfair act on Emanuel again? After enduring the dirty trick of Republicans trying to bond Obama with “terrorist” Bill Ayers, it’s dismaying to see people on this blog and others giving Emanuel the Ayers treating using his father.
Inkan, one problem: the discussion of Obama was unfair because it was false, but nonetheless it did take place. When voters are choosing who will lead their country, it is important that the discussion at least be allowed to take place. In the case of Rahmbo, it is presumed by you and other apologists for Israel’s war crimes, international crimes, and other crimes against humanity, that the discussion can not even take place… not in the mass media, let alone “on this blog.” If the discussion were allowed to take place about Rahmbo, it is unlikely that it would be found “unfair” as in the case of Obama. Instead, it would most likely be found revealing, cogent, and enlightening, and it might even allow US citizens to begin questioning why it is so easily assumed that US-Israeli interests are identical, when that can not be assumed with Obama’s alleged “foreign associations,” or JFK’s, or any other influential political figure who serves the American nation. Please in the future, spare us your retreat to “politically correct” bidding for fairness. The readers of this blog are not amateurs.
“DoR”, first of all, as to your personal attack and charge of racism: Well, you can take that and put it where the sun don’t shine.
Secondly, the fact is that it has been discussed openly and widely and there does not appear to be any basis for either the charges of “dual citizenship” (even though Helena appears to remain insistent that he does hold dual citizenship despite the evidence to the contrary), or of “dual loyalty”, let alone the assertion that Rahm Emanuel is an “Israel-firster” or a “neocon”.
Of course, Barack Obama’s non-relation with his foreign-born Muslim father was widely discussed in the mass media, as was his non-identification with foreign Muslims.
His relationship, or lack thereof, with his Muslim father is not the relevant point in relation to Obama. What is highly relevant is the faulty assumption that if Obama were a Muslim that this would somehow make him, by definition, less than loyal to the United States and unfit to serve as president. That this assumption is wrong and racist is attested to right here on this blog by the vehement attacks on Sen. McCain in an earlier posting for not having better defended Obama against this prejudice when a demented woman stated that Obama was “an Arab”.
This reminds me of the contrast between the handling of JFK’s run for president as the first Catholic candidate in the US, and the handling of Joe Lieberman’s run as Vice President in 2000. On JFK’s part, he flatly denied that he would govern the US in the interests of the Vatican, but instead would govern solely in the interest of the USA. Joe Lieberman flatly stated that the interests of the US and Israel are the same, and the mass media in America raised not a peep.
What this comparison points out – in contrast to what you imply – is how much the country has changed during the past 48 years. In 1960, JFK felt obliged to openly deny that he would “dig a tunnel to the Vatican”, and proclaim that he would govern solely in the interest of the USA. The mass media “raised not a peep” 40 years later, because the assumption of “dual loyalty” on the basis of ethnic or religious identity is simply unacceptable prejudice. For Joe Lieberman to have had to deny that for which there is no indication or evidence would be tantamount to requiring a loyalty oath. The same is true for Rahm Emanuel being somehow asked to deny that he has an apparently non-existent passport and to prove this by showing it.
By the way, JFK was not the first Catholic to run as a presidential candidate. Al Smith headed the Democratic ticket in 1928, losing to Herbert Hoover (a Quaker).
JES,
You are that simple-minded to string together a series of non sequiturs.
“…the fact is that it has been discussed openly and widely and there does not appear (?) to be any basis…”
Discussed openly where? And when it comes to the work of the Lobby and its “appear”ances, these are not worth hanging one’s hat on.
“His relationship, or lack thereof, with his Muslim father is not the relevant point in relation to Obama. What is highly relevant is the faulty assumption that if Obama were a Muslim that this would …”
Of course, being Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist or Catholic or Quaker is not the relevant point. Americans are all of these. Rather the point is one’s association or identification with foreign interests. Thus I referred to Barack’s “foreign-born Muslim father.” IT would be a hugely relevant point if BArack’s father were involved in the nefarious affairs of a foreign government, enterprise, organization, especially if BArack had a history of volunteering in those foreign affairs. Americans would rightly want to know more about these issues. Thus the proper link to make is not to Rahmbo’s ethnicity, but rather the fact that Rahmbo volunteered as an adult to go serve in a foreign army, in a land where his father is notoriously associated with a war criminal vigilante group. On top of that Rahmbo’s father customarily and flippantly makes racist comments belittling the regular war crimes of that country and its army.
“What this comparison points out … is how much the country has changed during the past 48 years.”
It is hardly necessary to say that the “comparisons” you offer are flawed, illogical, and/or not relevant. IT is true that the country has changed a great deal, and for the better, over the last 48 years. But it will always remain relevant to American politics what are the foreign associations of our top government officials. Would it not be relevant if Barack, say … instead of associating with his foreign father for no more than 4 hours and living in a Muslim country when he was under the age of 8, was, say … like Rahmbo Israel Emmanuel an adult volunteer in a foreign army and very close to his racist father? What if Barack had those kind of close associations with, say … a Lebanese father, and Barack himself had been active in the Hezbollah militia? Do you really think that the positive changes in America over the past 48 years would make those issues irrelevant to Barack’s candidacy for the US presidency?
The point here is the following: there are no parallels between the way upright political figures like Obama and JFK represent(ed) the interests of Americans on the one hand, and the way Rahmbo and Joe Lieberman and other elements of the Lobby corrupt the US political process. The point is that the “special relationship” between the US and ISrael must be broken in order for true justice to be done for the Palestinians. There needs to be AMerican guidance for a kind of “truth and reconciliation” process in Palestine/ISrael, where the crimes of Rahmbo’s father and other ISraelis can be exposed, and Israelis can be compelled to offer compensation and apologies to the long-suffering Palestinian people who deserve not only the entire West BAnk and Gaza and a share in Jerusalem, but other lands promised in the original 1947 UN resolution in order to make room for the 3-4 million Palestinian refugees who have a right to return home. There is no sense whittling away the West BAnk and Gaza in order to satisfy Israel’s goals, ISrael needs to be whittled away in order to achieve true reconciliation with the Palestinians. And that kind of whittling is not going to occur as long as Rahmbo and other members of the Lobby are put in charge of US government affairs.
This point is one that Americans should not take their eyes off, and persist until it is achieved. What this requires is for Americans not to become distracted by the word play and verbal spin of Israel’s Hasbaristas like JES.
JES, you are so simple-minded. I am not surprised that you do not comprehend the racist nature of Rahmbo’s father’s blatantly racist comment about Arabs. Your retreat into the “politically correct” language of group fairness is particularly amusing.
Dear “DoR”, “SD”, tai-chi instructure, garden-variety-asshole or whatever. Are you fully done with your rant? Why don’t you take a towel, wipe the froth from your mouth and clean yourself up. Goodbye now.
Dear “DoR”, “SD”, tai-chi instructor, garden-variety-asshole or whatever. Are you fully done with your rant? Why don’t you take a towel, wipe the froth from your mouth and clean yourself up. Goodbye now.
DoR – You called the Obama discussion unfair, but you still wanted it to take place? And I was not defending any particular act of Israel. Yet you suddenly branded me an “apologist of war crimes”. I was talking about the treatment of Emanuel, not Israel. Why would think this treatment of him would be “revealing, cogent, and enlightening”? The only reason you seem to give is because you say so.
DoR, also, you keep making this false assertion that Emanuel served in the Israeli army, when Juan Cole had already disproven that. And you haven’t mentioned any substantial evidence as to how close his association with his father is. Emanuel shouldn’t be held responsible for his father’s acts any more than Obama should be held responsible for the acts of Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayres.
the last skatological comment of JES is a sign that DoR really hit the spot…
Inkan,
There is nothing wrong with initiating discussions about these issues. This is what I meant about Obama and the discussion that take place, just as the discussion took place in the time of JFK. What was unfair about the discussion in Obama’s case was that once the information of his past and present associations/identities had been presented in public by the media, there were some people who continued to insist that there was something wrong which raised questions about his suitability to serve as president. The fact is that he will make a fine president. On the other hand, the discussion about Rahmbo’s identities and associations have not been discussed and presented in public by the media, as they should be. It is a highly relevant issue whether or not Rahmbo’s identities and associations will compromise the formulation of US policies in the best national interests.
JES,
You are pitiful, but I refuse to show you any pity. You are what you are, as you always have been.
Dear sungoli, FYI the term “asshole” is not skatalogical. It derives from the German-Russian-Yiddish “ayzl” which means “donkey”. Hee-haw to you too!
JES – the “ayzl” is to “esel” as JES to JEST – nonsensical defense of a anal / skatological use of an invective – and this blog is not designed for this kind of language , do not defend the undefensible;
With respect, Inkan, Juan Cole hasn’t “proven” anything. He asserted something without providing any evidence, as far as I could see. Not the same thing.
Also, if he was not an Israeli citizen in 1991, what was he doing that year going to help fix tanks for the IDF?
But anyway, as I noted above, even if RE had given up his Israeli citizenship it actually means little since he could get it back the moment he sets foot in Israel again.
JES, please steer clear of the scatological. I think your English is good enough for you to understand the meanings words have when used in our language. And using the kinds of terms and references you’ve used here coarsens the discourse considerably and makes it much harder to conduct a calm discussion.
Well Helena, this is your blog, and I respect your wishes. Please feel free to delete my offensive posts. English is my mother tongue, however, and I find “DoR”, “SD” or whatever he calls himself today and his personal attacks equally offensive. For example, I do not appreciate being called a racist, as in “JES = racist = Israelis identifying Arabs as janitorial laborers”, and I take offence at being referred to as “simple-minded”. I don’t believe that these attacks fall into the definition of “courteous, fresh, helpful, and to the point” – at least not to me.
Now, if you will permit me, I don’t really see where you have provided any real “evidence” in your assertions about the citizenship, and certainly about what you imply as to the “loyalties”, of Rahm Emanuel. You certainly have displayed a lack of knowledge about a key issue: the actual citizenship laws and, specifically, the granting of citizenship under Israel’s Law of Return (which I have pointed out). I certainly don’t take Juan Cole as an authority on this issue; he quite wrongly stated that Emanuel’s father lives in Israel. (He does not. He has lived in the US since 1953.) Moreover, you have made assertions about the “longtime political involvement that his father has had in that country” of Dr. Emanuel, without providing any real evidence apart from stating that this is a “well-known fact”. Really? Apart from the fact that Dr. Emanuel was a member of the Irgun some 60+ years ago, I’d like to see some evidence of this “longtime political involvement”. (As I have pointed out elsewhere on your blog, no less than Uri Avnery was, at one time, a member of that terrorist organization. That well-documented fact, however, has not prevented you from speaking quite approvingly of his current works and writings.) And, curiously, no one here has even related to fact that Rahm Emanuels’s mother, who was a civil rights activist, may have had some influence on her children!
Now you purport to offer some “evidence” that Rahm Emanuel is, in fact, an Israeli citizen by citing his 1991 trip to Israel and asking “what was he doing that year going to help fix tanks for the IDF?” if he wasn’t a citizen. Well, Helena, many non-citizens, many of them non-Jews, came to Israel in 1991 during the first Gulf War (an event that you conveniently omit) to volunteer on IDF bases and help out with a variety of support tasks. They did not enlist, nor did they take any oath of allegiance to the State of Israel, and I am certain that the majority are not “Israel-Firsters”; they’re just people who identify with Israel and Israelis (just as the various foreigners who volunteer to “break the naval blockade” of Gaza not necessarily disloyal to their own countries).
Finally, you return to the canard that “even if RE had given up his Israeli citizenship it actually means little since he could get it back the moment he sets foot in Israel again.” So, what does that mean? You have not proven him to be disloyal to the one country that we know with certainty he holds citizenship: the USA. You have not proven him to be an “Israel-Firster”. You don’t seem to be asking the same questions about, say, Zbignew Brezhinski. And you do not appear to raise the question in reference to Rashid Khalidi, who you put forward as a candidate for “high-level appointment”, despite the fact that the Palestinian Constitution clearly states that:
This right [of Palestinian nationality] passes on from fathers or mothers to their progenitor. It neither disappears nor elapses unless voluntarily relinquished. A Palestinian cannot be deprived of his nationality.
It would appear that only Jews, or their spouses, or the grandchildren of a Jew should be suspected of “dual loyalty” based solely on the fact that they are entitled to citizenship in Israel. That strikes me as being a particularly nasty position.
Oh, if the world were only that fair. Imagine “dual loyalty” Israeli and Palestinian Americans having equal opportunity to serve in important political positions in the US government.
Imagine Rashid Khalidi playing the role that Dennis Ross got to play in Bush and Clinton administrations, where Rashid would get to play verbal games with Israel’s leaders and then browbeat them over how they needed to “give more, more, more,” while Palestinians were allowed to rest on their comfort seats.
Why, there would be nothing wrong with “dual loyalty” issues when it comes to America’s Middle East foreign policy, if every Palestinian American got to play the power broker hand that Israeli American citizens regularly get to play, whether the commander-in-chief wears a blue or red tie.
Imagine if any other hyphenated Americans got to play the kind of power broker hand that some hyphenated citizens in America get to play. Say, Chinese-Americans. Or perhaps, Cuban-Americans. Why, I guess they too would not want American media coverage and great public attention drawn to the fact that they are the only hyphenated Americans who get to play that kind of role. Why, they would probably do everything they could to influence American media in its entirety, so that this little exceptional status of theirs was not revealed.
Perhaps they would have their own internet trolls who patrolled cyber space looking for any indication that their special status might be revealed.
Oh, the cyber and real worlds should be this fair.
JES-
I heard that you summoned my name. It has been a long time my friend. I feel I can call you a “friend” because your temper may surely have cooled since our last duel. I remember those days like they were 300 years ago, my fondness for you is so great.
I best remember the way my saber-like keyboard strokes gracefully etched deep scars across your shoulders, chest and arms, while not a whisper of air from your wildly-off-mark sword thrusts touched my face. Those were pleasant duels, I always thought, but you did seem to labor out-of-breath before turning ugly and vain in your defeat.
I see you have not changed. Perhaps you never will. Unless, of course, you see clearly the injustice of your cause, and awaken to the fact that your plea for fairness and equality will only find its foundation once you exhibit fairness and equality toward the Palestinian people. Otherwise, your words will forever ring hollow, just as your sword shall forever miss its mark.
Please don’t summon my name again, at least not for another 300 years, unless of course you find enlightenment in the meantime. If you do summon me again before then, I may be forced to call on Stephen Colbert. You don’t want me to call on Colbert again, do you? You remember how Stephen Colbert utterly destroyed your self-respect at the amusement of everyone around.
I suggest, JES, you retire, or take another long vacation from blogging. A vacation would allow you to meditate and practice yoga or tai chi.
Dear “Sd”, “Dor”, “Door”, Eyor,
I wonder if you cause as much embarassment to Helena as you do to yourself?
The canard about Emanuel’s citizenship arose in 2002, when similar attacks on his loyalty were then raised by the late Ed Moskal, the former president of the Polish American Congress and a source of embarassment to many Polish Americans. What was ironic was that Moskal was ranting about Emanuel’s alleged dual loyalty while insisting that the House seat in question had to be held by a Polish-American.
Perhaps we don’t see as much a media firestorm now because the allegations were thoroughly discussed back in 2002.
Why was Emanuel in Israel during the 1st Gulf war? The same reason a lot of people, Jewish and non-Jewish, went to Israel to bear witness and show solidarity with a country that was engaged in no hostilities whatsoever, yet found itself on the receiving end of Scud attacks from Saddam Hussein.
I find it fascinating that whenever someone of Israeli background, or even just Jewish background, speaks in favor of Israel, that person is immediately accused of dual loyalty. Meanwhile, no one accuses Ali Abunimah, or Rashid Khalidi, of dual loyalty for their one sided and inaccurate advocacy of the Palestinian national cause.
On a more “meta” note, it’s really sad to see the personal attacks on JES, as well as the moderator’s refusal to take any action against the offenders. It seems that Helena is true to form, preaching “tolerance” and “courtesy” for anyone except those who dare speak in favor of Israel. It’s also sad to see her trying to re-hash discredited rumors. Not really surprising, but sad.
Joshua,thanks for the support. Just as a side note, I find it interesting that about the time Rahm Emanuel was in Israel in 1991, a Palestinian-American – John H. Sununu – held the exact same post that Emanuel has just been appointed to. I don’t recall anyone at the time questioning his loyalty.
Blog in my opinion is a dialogue to exchange and voice opinions/views/etc of any bloger participating….and opinions wary…..
there is NO reason to use vulgar and rude language to insult any bloger for her/his view….
JES just show to all readers of this blog his nature and that Helen as Joshua mentioned didn’t participate in any way to get involve in this kind of personal unintelligent attacks just prove her intelligence above some…….
I was glad to recently discover this weblog, and have enjoyed reading your posts over the last few weeks. This is a remarkable discussion about the Rahm Emanuel post, and it is good that it takes place. All the better if it were taking place in more open, public places.
Boiling down the conclusions above, as I read them: we can all agree as Americans that prejudice and discrimination based on one’s ethnic background is wrong, yet in politics there is an important issue when it comes to foreign associations. In choosing top government leaders there is inevitably a concern about a person’s fitness to serve the national interest, if there should exist entangling foreign alliances or allegiances. This is a reality, and there will inevitably be scrutiny and questions raised.
The primary concern seems to be how a politician’s foreign associations/allegiances, whether they lie in China, Israel, Cuba, or Timbuktu, affect one’s ability to make decisions which are most in favor of the American public’s interest. I believe the first US president, if one goes back into the historical record, expressed this concern most clearly in his farewell address. Today one has to feel that George Washington had in mind exactly this current entangling relationship between the US and Israel. There is none other comparable at this time, and I guess this is why it draws one’s attention. I know it does mine after watching the performance of US foreign policy during the last eight years, when America too easily conflated its war-making with the interests of Israel.
What seems to distinguish the American association with Israel are a few points which can not be overlooked, and it is hard to ignore the fact that these points exist exclusively with respect to Israel. First, there is regularly the assumption made by Jewish American supporters of Israel that American and Israeli interests are the same. This arises, of course, due to the “special relationship” formulated in US policy since the Nixon-Kissinger years, a policy that came under question at the end of the Cold War and is now in the process of revision. There are no other claimants to such parallel interests in the world, so it is easy to understand why the exclusive claims made by supporters of Israel would come under question, as opposed to Cuban Americans or Chinese Americans or Lebanese Americans.
Second, there is the fact which is hard to overlook that Israel receives an automatic annual aid package in the billions of dollars. No political debate takes place in Congress. No other country in the world has received the amount of financial and material aid that goes to Israel, and this amount can not be justified by the number of Israeli Americans inside the US. Thus the amount of aid and the intensity of focus around Israel’s “special relationship” can not be explained in terms of the size of the domestic constituency. All of these facts explain why there would be greater attention raised by the Israel-America relationship than any other relationship with another country.
Third, it does give one pause that in public airwaves and print space, there is hardly any attention drawn to these issues. I know the exchange of views about this posting drew my attention, and I would bet that large numbers of Americans would be attentive if these issues were discussed responsibly in the public airwaves. It is really astonishing when one thinks about it, and considers the amount of media controversy that whirled around president-elect Obama’s campaign due to his family background. I also remember the media controversies raised about former president Clinton’s associations with Chinese lobbyists in the US. There simply is no public controversy created in the mass media about Israel-America relations. Given points one and two above, one has to ask why not.
I personally understand the concerns expressed about prejudice and discrimination based on ethnicity or racism, but this issue appears to be related most strongly to US foreign policy and the influence of foreign interests on that policy, not the question of racial or ethnic prejudice. Thus there does not seem to be any cause for retreat to old categories of “political correctness” concerning racial or ethnic sensitivities, nor a cause for equivocation and pointing fingers saying “why not the focus on Sununu.” The reason why not is quite obvious: see points one, two, three above.
As Americans entering a new era with a young energetic President-elect Barack Obama who clearly has an open mind on foreign policy issues, as well as the intent to reach out and listen to all voices, I personally think we Americans should do everything possible to encourage the President-elect to draw on his friendships and acquaintances with Muslim and Arab American individuals like Rashid Khalidi, and let a fresh breeze blow through the White House. I hate to think that Obama is going to be pinned down and forced to deal with all the same old faces from the former Clinton administration (which noticeably failed on its Middle East policy making). The appointment of Rahm Emanuel is a bad sign that this may be the case.
What is wrong if we Americans encourage Obama to question the trappings of the US-Israel “special relationship.” Clearly Israel is at the center of many Middle East troubles, and if these troubles have only worsened across time while the “special relationship” was in place, then I say today there is just cause for Americans to focus on the US-Israel alliance and raise questions. In other words, we should be raising questions surrounding Rahm Emanuel’s appointment. He may be well-suited to serve as chief-of-staff, but he and his associates should not be given exclusive control over US Middle East policy. Thus there is no cause to appoint the same advocates of Israel to other sensitive posts in an Obama administration, especially foreign policy posts because we clearly need a new direction in the Middle East.
Obama needs to appoint officials who have the capability to revise the “special relationship” with Israel, not perpetuate it.
Well Sergi, I’m glad to know that you don’t consider calling someone “racist” or “simple-minded” as “vulgar and crude”. Peace be with you.
There are no other claimants to such parallel interests in the world, so it is easy to understand why the exclusive claims made by supporters of Israel would come under question…
Oh really? Well, you might just want to ask the host of this blog who, I assume, still holds a second citizenship with one country that might just qualify.
But tell me Victor, what is your explaination “that in public airwaves and print space, there is hardly any attention drawn to these issues” since you have already argued that it “can not be explained in terms of the size of the domestic constituency”? I mean that is something that you haven’t explained in your rather lengthy post.
Nobody, least of all I, would argue that there is anything wrong for you and other Americans to “encourage Obama to question the trappings of the US-Israel ‘special relationship’.” Just don’t be upset if he doesn’t accept your encouragement.
What I find curious – and pretty amusing – is the fact that he was pretty consistent througout his election campaign about his support for this “special relationship”, and I don’t see any reason why he should back off now. Now, maybe you think he was lying and hiding another agenda? Or perhaps you “parsed” his “subtle nuance” in a way that only you and other people in the know understand? Maybe I didn’t see the winks intended for the understanding few? But I tend to take what he stated at face value, just as I do his positions on health care, taxation and other issues of substance.
I still have to ask: Didn’t you people listen to the person for whom many of you not only actually voted, but to whom you also willingly gave your full support?
Dear JES,
You have referenced my last comments, and so I want to respond to you. From your words, I can’t tell if you are an American citizen, although based on your continual reference to “you people” I assume you are not American and perhaps Israeli. Is that correct?
Perhaps you are not familiar with the pressures placed on American political figures to support Israel. I recommend a good book on this topic by two university professors at Chicago and Harvard, entitled “The Israel Lobby.” One of them is named Stephen Walt, and I forget the other name. There is also an organization working on this issue run by a former Congressman from Illinois named Paul Findley. I believe it is called “If Americans Knew.” These two sources may help you understand what these pressures are.
One has to assume that Barack Obama is well aware of these pressures, coming from Chicago and Illinois. Also he is a friend of Palestinian American Rashid Khalidi from their days at the University of Chicago, and Obama was forced to distance himself from this friendship and others in Chicago in order to succeed in his presidential campaign. The extent of these pressures is so great that they can drive a wedge through close friendships. Furthermore there is no doubt that the pressures work in the direction of forcing politicians to claim loyalty to Israel, not the opposite.
Now it is true that Obama said he is a friend of Israel, and he is determined to stand with this American ally. But one expects politicians in the US to say this sort of thing. It is strange, but we have this kind of litmus test which is practically necessary to get elected. What Obama did not do is take his loyalty oath to Israel so far as to say he would maintain America’s “special relationship” with the Israel. In other words, he did not grandstand on this issue as many US politicians do. On the contrary, Obama often made statements about the need to reach out to and negotiate with some of Israel’s proclaimed “enemies” like Iran and Syria. Perhaps you did not hear regular American campaign news, but I suspect that Israeli media (if your are Israeli) would cover these campaign issues.
The problem in American politics is that it is difficult for government figures to be seen taking advice or consulting with Palestinians like Rashid Khalidi, or Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians on Middle East issues because the Israel Lobby has a near monopoly on beltway consulting and advising in this field. There are many indications that president elect Barack Obama will be more inclined to reach out to and consult with other individuals outside the Israel Lobby, and this is a good sign. It is a sign that he may do away with the “special relationship,” while still remaining a friend and ally with Israel. Thus it is not the case that Obama would contradict his campaign statements if he were to be the agent of reform we expect him to be, especially with regard to American policies in the Middle East. An Obama administration can be a friend and ally of Israel, while also seeking better relations with other Middle East countries.
There should be room for Americans to be as close to Palestinians or Lebanese and Syrians, as we are with Israelis, because this is what will restore balance to American foreign policies, and allow us to make sure that our government truly serves American national interests, not the interests of Israel in the Cold War era “special relationship.” The danger comes with the “special relationship” when America is so beholden to Israeli interests that it can not operate independently. Barack Obama understands this, and he understands how the world changed after the Cold War. Unfortunately earlier administrations were too slow to react, but we can only hope that the incoming administration will keep its promises about pursuing a new and more diplomatic approach to the Middle East region. This, by the way, is in Israel’s own interests, as many Israelis understand, because Israel needs to have good diplomatic relations with its neighbors. This can only be achieved once Israel goes through a process of true reconciliation with the Palestinians, accepting them as equals in the land. You may not know the history of the land, but Palestinian Christians and Muslims have as much claim to be citizens of the country, and arguably more than the many Jewish immigrants who go from Russia and Europe and America.
I read recently that top Israeli leaders are beginning to reconsider the Arab League offer of comprehensive peace, initiated by Saudi King Abdallah if Israel withdraws, as it should under international law, from the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I believe more Israelis will come to understand that an American government which takes up the Abdallah initiative and fosters better relations with Arab and Muslim countries will work to Israel’s own advantage because it will mean real peace and better economic opportunities for Israeli citizens. Imagine the day when Israelis can freely travel without fear of harm, not only to Egypt and Jordan, but also Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. This will be a great day, and the administration of Barack Obama is hopefully planning to work in this direction.
JES doth protest too much, methinks.
And by the way, JES, when some simple-minded person makes a racist comment, as did Rahmbo’s father, and another simple-minded person comes along denying and protesting against the racist quality of said comment, it is neither vulgar nor crude to point out the racist nature of both simple-minded persons.
Rather it is stating a fact, speaking in plain English, hitting the nail on the head. Of course, the racists still have a chance to redeem themselves, by disclaiming the racism. Love the sinner, not the sin, sort of thing. I know your gameliness for this sort of thing, and I am accommodating, so in the meantime how would you prefer to be identified, if not racist or simpleton, then should we say schmuck? out-of-luck? plucked-like-a-duck? or maybe something else in rhyme?
Victor, in answer to your question, I hold dual citizenship – US and Israeli. I am proud of both, but I have chosen to live in Israel.
Now, I’d like to ask you to do something. Go back and read your argument about “the Lobby”. Read it carefully, and substitute Communists, blacks, Japanese or even Irish. Please do this, and tell me why this type of argument makes me cringe.
Now, I want to point out something to you that you may not have noticed about Profs. Walt and Mearscheimer (who, incidently, were recently in Israel and made it clear that they don’t really argue in their book what you and others claim they do): they never once say exactly what US interests are. Yet their thesis is that “The Lobby” somehow coerces the US to act in negation of those interest. Go back and read that book and you’ll see.
Now, let me ask you about Paul Findley. Findley served in the US House of Representatives from 1962 to 1982. That is 10 terms over twenty years! If “The Lobby” had wanted him out so bad, what took them so long!
What you say here is extremely telling:
Obama was forced to distance himself from this friendship and others in Chicago in order to succeed in his presidential campaign. The extent of these pressures is so great that they can drive a wedge through close friendships. Furthermore there is no doubt that the pressures work in the direction of forcing politicians to claim loyalty to Israel, not the opposite.
Please re-read that carefully Victor. What you are saying is that Obama lied – that you know he lied – in order to further his political career. There’s only one way to interpret what you’re saying here, and that is that Obama is either a man of dubious character or you are incredibly naive.
The fact is I followed the election pretty closely. You go back and have a look. Obama was at least as strong as any candidate from the two major parties in expressing his support for the “special relationship” you speak of. In fact, I was impressed with how strongly he expressed it. Frankly, I think he’s inexperienced. I think he will weaken the US vis a vis its enemies. And I have my doubts about how he’s going to handle the economy. The one thing I don’t doubt, however, is that he’s probably going to continue with that “special relationship”.
You should also pay attention. He appears to be just as close a friend of Rahm Emanuel as he is of Rashid Khalidi.
JES-
I will repeat what I said before, this time in answer to your plea that I should “go back and substitute” Blacks, Communists, etc.:
“this issue appears to be related most strongly to US foreign policy and the influence of foreign interests on that policy, not the question of racial or ethnic prejudice. Thus there does not seem to be any cause for retreat to old categories of “political correctness” concerning racial or ethnic sensitivities, nor a cause for equivocation and pointing fingers”
As for substituting the false categories you suggest, and then telling you why “this kind of argument” makes you “cringe,” I would not begin to try to get inside your nervous system in order to determine what sends shivers up your spine. For you to suggest such a thing makes me wonder exactly how old you are. It is the kind of thing a six year old would say, but I assume you are older … most likely “from the ’60s.” Did you take one too many acid trips?
Based on your analytical skills and your writing, I have to agree with an earlier commenter who criticized your habit of making non sequiturs. You seem a little unstable, if you want my opinion.
There is no reason why I would need to go back and re-read Walt and Mearsheimer’s book. I comprehend well when I read anything the first time. I am aware that Walt and Mearsheimer reject the conspiracy theory about the “great cabal,” and I know that they dispute those who try to read anything like this into their writings. But I am not reading anything into their writings. I think their argument is profound just as it is, and as I remember Walt and Mearsheimer suggest the same thing I wrote in my last post concerning America’s pursuit of a more balanced diplomatic course in the Middle East. I agree with them that this will actually be in Israel’s interests, and I am in favor of Israel’s interests, as I am sure you are.
I favor the kind of balanced American diplomacy which regards Palestinian interests and Israeli interests as equal, and I think you should encourage Americans to adopt this line of policy. Anyone who knows anything about the failure of the negotiations under the Clinton administration knows that the US needs to stop acting as Israel’s legal advisor and its conduit of demands to the Palestinians. If America demands peaceful conduct from the Palestinians, then America also needs to press Israel to fully own up to its part of the “land-for-peace” process. The Palestinians can not be expected to declare a final peace with Israel (as Clinton and Barak tried to force Arafat to declare) until Israel withdraws completely behind the 1967 Green Line, which also means leaving East Jerusalem.
Ehud Olmert has recently said the same thing, and now even Ehud Barak is talking about the lunatic Israeli settlers on the West Bank as a “cancerous growth” which needs to be extracted. One wonders why so many Palestinians had to die over the last eight years in order for Israel’s leaders to see this light. Why did so many people in Gaza, including the American activist Rachel Corrie, need to die, before Israel withdrew from that tiny strip of land? How many more people will die until Israel takes responsibility for its past wrongdoings and gross mistreatment of the Palestinian people.
Honestly, JES, you need to go back and read Mearsheimer and Walt. And I would also suggest to you a great book by Israeli professor Ilan Pappe on the Zionist history of “ethnic cleansing” against the Palestinians. What is it going to take for Israelis like yourself to realize that you need to stop fearing those things from the past related to hatred and discrimination toward the Jewish people, like that thing that you said makes you “cringe,” and come to the understanding that it is you, the Israeli people, who have been practicing those very same things against the Palestinian people for more than eighty years?
That is what Ilan Pappe presents in his book, and I would recommend to you that you read it over and over until you understand its meaning. Then I think you might stop being afflicted by your nervous twitches.
All the best to you, and I truly hope you can find better health.
Based on your analytical skills and your writing, I have to agree with an earlier commenter who criticized your habit of making non sequiturs. You seem a little unstable, if you want my opinion.
Based on the identities of that “earlier commenter”, I’ll take that as a complement.
Perhaps I can benefit from your keen analytical skills (and my, apparently lesser ones). How, exactly, did Mearscheimer and Walt characterize US interest, and in what ways has “The Lobby” forced the US to act against those interests?
You don’t need to lecture me on “lunatic settlers” and the need for Israel to withdraw from the territories. I’ve believed and argued this since 1968. (I also believe that official US policy has stated as much since then as well.)
Re. Ilan Pappe, well his view of “history” runs a bit counter to my own. You see, he considers all history to be “myths” or “narratives” anyway, and he feels no obligation to present these “narratives” objectively (or, apparently, even accurately). In fact, I heard him with my own ears openly, and proudly state that the presentation of the narrative is actually subordinate to his own Communist ideology. To his credit, he has never denied this. So, while his works may be evaluated as literature, I hardly think they qualify as great works of history.
Frankly Victor, I am a bit disappointed though. I was hoping that you could at least put your keen mind to explaining my question about Findley (i.e. was he a target of “The Lobby” or just a nutcase looking for someone to blame for being ejected from his cushy seat in Congress). Or, you might have put me straight about what Obama said and why you are so certain that he plans to end that “special relationship”.