Barack Obama, Israel, and Rahm Emanuel’s Father’s Intemperate Remarks
Today's papers bring the news that Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago congressman named to serve as President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff, has had to apologize to Arab-Americans for remarks made by his father to an Israeli reporter.
"Obviously he'll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he?" the elder Mr. Emanuel is quoted as saying. "What is he, an Arab? He's not going to be mopping floors at the White House."
Well, as JFK said once, everybody has fathers.
The controversy over the remarks, however, has focused on whether the senior Mr. Emanuel meant to contemptuously imply that Arabs are only good for mopping floors.
I find the contrary interpretation as disturbing. Remove the phrase "What is he, an Arab?" and you're left with the assurance, made by his father, that Rahm Emanuel will be using his considerable clout to tend to Israel, at the expense of its Muslim neighbors, and perhaps at the expense of American foreign policy interests.
As someone with a longstanding affection for Israel (as a young guy I picked avocados on a kibbutz) and a veteran observer of New York, Boston, and Chicago tribal politics—and someone who was happy to write glowing stories in the Boston Globe about Bill Clinton's efforts to settle the conflict in Northern Ireland, despite the friction that caused with our ally Britain—I understand the impulses that prompted the elder Mr. Emanuel to say what he did.
But it is one thing for you and me and Rahm's dad to tilt for Ireland or Israel over the Brits or Saudis. And quite another thing for the White House chief of staff to do so.
Steering America's relationship with the world's billion Muslims will be one of the most important foreign policy challenges of the new administration. At the very least, that relationship is now more complicated.
Not a good start, at all. Let's hope the senior Mr. Emanuel was wrong, on all counts.
Tags: Israel | Barack Obama | Rahm Emanuel | Obama administration
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (26) | Print
Reader Comments
What's wrong with being pro-Israel?
Yeah, the father's comments were embarrassing, bad, and racist. (Though not a terrorist, as Abu Tariq says as he tries to rob the word of meaning.)
I have to disagree with the opinion piece however. What is wrong with being pro-Israel? Israel is an ally of the US. Would it be wrong to be pro-Britain or pro-any-other-country? Of course not. "US interests come first!" you say. Of course they do! But being pro-Israel is in the US's interests. To suggest that being pro-Israel means that one is to be against the "Muslim neighbors" is stupid. But since he brought it up, lets look at those neighbors. Hamas seeks Israel's destruction and genocide of Jews, and the PA and Fatah do as well, though they say so only in Arabic and not English. Lebanon is divided, but the South and much of the government is controlled by Hezbollah, who harbors the same goals as Hamas and Fatah. Jordan has a cold peace with Israel, which counts for something. Egypt also has a cold peace, but lets in as many weapons to Hamas as it can get away with (and counterproductive to itself I might add). It's good to have Egypt and Jordan allies with or good relations with the US, but choosing between those two and Israel (a choice which the US is not required to make, again I don't know why the author think this, btw), Israel is clearly more deserving of being an ally.
The US and Israel both stand for the ideals of freedom and democracy. They give all citizens equal rights (and all Arabs within Israel's borders have been offered citizenship), and illegalize discrimination based on race, color, sex, or sexuality. Also, Israel is on the front lines of the battle that the whole West faces against Radical Islam. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Queda and all Radical Islamist terrorists have some differences about ideological details and who their primary targets are, but all want to see a world under the rule of Radical Sharia Islam.
@Dandashy:
Most American Jews probably would consider themselves Americans first. But that shouldn't matter. The first Amendment gives every person the right to practice his or her religion, and so if someone holds their Religion above their country, why would there be a problem? With Jews, not. Jews who support Israel do not do so out of religious obligation but because Israel is worth supporting. (With those who feel killing infidels is part of religion, on the other hand, there is an issue.)
Jews bought land from the Pals, it was not stolen. There is no collective Palestinian land, as the Palestinians didn't have a collective self-identity distinct from other Arabs until the middle of the twentieth century.
Aid to Israel is a lot, but most of it is fed right back into the American economy as Israel is required to spend it on American products. It also helps equip Israel to defend itself, as Israel is probably the most militarily outnumbered country in the world. If it did not have technical superiority, it would not be here.
Looking for an Amercian Jew among Jewish Amercians.
I am still searching for for an Amercian Jew that would not think of himself as a Jew first and an Amercian next, for conveniance sake.
It is a fact that the Jews in the US have achieved a complete hegemony over US foreign politics in the ME. While John Farrell and Rham Emmanuel have served on a kibbutz, none of them gave a iota of thought that the property they are serving on is owned by a Palestinian refugee dispersed around the world.
We are allowed to speak of Israel's Jewish character but can we whisper of a Christian United States of Amercia.
A settlement or kibbutz is created on Palestinain, courtesy of British Mandate. It is still done under our noses every day , even as we read those lines.The quartet is made a joke out of.
As for the AID to Israel it dwarfs the Whole world combined when looked at from pe rcapita perspective.Israel creation was morally wrong towards the whole world when the Palestinainas and the Arabs were marginalized and the Jews were given a false hope too.The support to Egypt and Jordan is a help to the ruler and not the populace.
Is this the "change" we were promised?
I know Mr. Rahm Emanuel should not be held responsible for the remarks made by his terrorist and racist father and I’m also aware of the benevolent work that Mr. Rahm did in the Peace Process but we must not forget that Mr. Rahm was raised a Zionist who, at least when he was young, harbored hatred for ALL Arabs and Muslims. Has Mr. Rahm changed? He must prove that to us before we can entirely forget his heinous past.
advertisement
