Rahm Emanuel, appointed Chief of Staff to President elect Barack Hussein Obama has been touted as a sign of the future President's closeness to the Jewish people. The applause came from many corners. For some reason, there is a sense of pride that a Jew born into a family which fought for Israel's Independence can descend to Edom and ride his accomplishments to the White House. Pitch forks have come out from every corner too. AntiJews question his loyalty while Israel supporters have a vision of the political reality called "distancing" - don't expect too much from him. Others, fence riders and eternal optimists see a favorable voice for Israel in the White House. Some find his religious affiliation to be comforting.
But alas, Rahm has lost touch. Electoral politics rounds the edges of harsh, stark reality.
Rahm Emanuel's father, an Irgun veteran had some very real things to say about his son, "obviously he'll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to be mopping floors at the White House." Is this sentiment really so hard to believe?
Now, what is wrong with this? Rahm Emanuel is clearly no Arab. He had/has Israeli citizenship. In Israel, there is an on-going question just how loyal much of the Arab citizenry is and whose side they are on. Benjamin Emanuel's comment is acceptable and accurate coming from a perspective of someone who understands Israel and her interests.
Now we come to the problem. What is best for Israel? Rahm Emanuel's background in the Clinton White House means he believes that Oslo and withdrawal from Yosh is in Israel's best interest. I, and many others differ strongly with that proposal. This argument is the main point of contention now for all Jewry let alone the political scene in Israel. So how does that play out behind closed doors in the White House? The "friends of Israel" understanding is the most likely to transpire. Emanuel will continue to advocate for Israeli concessions in land for agreements with the barbarians to continue changing their ways from pure terrorist to democro-terrorist.
Watch the Rebbe handle this question in 1989:
The American political environment, we are told is different. Loyal Arabian-Americans in the political arena, like Jews, have their own respective constituencies. Benjamin Emanuel's comment does not work in the American political context and his son, with un-paralleled access to the soon to be leader of the Free World was stuck between his Israeli - Jewish roots and his American current reality. Rahm had to make a choice between his father's reality and his political necessity. In so doing, he must now not be "pro-Israel" at least observably, and play by the rules as defined below.
Political maneuvering disguised as ethnic sensitivity is a rule of American politics. The Arabian-Americans utilize the rule regularly. For what other reason do anti-semites (for instance) have to claim "unfair" after being rightly labeled anti-semitic than to secure their claim to a sense of self-righteousness and credibility? Do Arabian-Americans really believe that Israel's security is based upon Israel surrendering Yosh? Mute point. How about America's national interest - better off without Israel? With "Palestine" in addition to or instead of Israel - chas v'shalom?
The current Arabian-American political least common denominator is to reduce the security of Israel as an issue by way of the political arena in the US in order to benefit their barbarian cousins which, in turn, aids their effort to destroy Israel. Not a pretty way to package this up in political correctness campaign talk but it is reality. See below and other links at those websites. Advocacy for "Palestine" is by default anti-Israel.
All of this talk is framed within that great American concept of "fairness" mis-applied by liberals and lefties as a function of outcome. These associations are supposedly the main stream, CAIR and Islam specific organizations not included.
Does Rahm actually believe what his father said? Who knows? Did he respect his father enough to explain the difference between the realities of Israel and the US in terms of what is "acceptable talk"? No. To say, as he is quoted "These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family," he is dis-respecting his father (although his mother, according to Wikipedia was a union organizer and civil rights activist) and one could easily question his honesty for saying so but again only Rahm Emanuel can answer that question.
Israel would not exist today without the strength of commitment and courage defined as internal fortitude by the men and women of Benjamin Emanuel's generation. If Rahm and his Edomized balancing act of political correctness vs. reality were around instead of his father's sense of purpose in the middle of the 20th century, Israel today would look very different albeit even existing at all.
Emanuel 'sorry' for dad's Arab remarks- JPost
Nov. 14, 2008 Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST
US President-elect Barack Obama's White House chief of staff apologized to the Arab-American community on Thursday for remarks his Israeli-born father made to Ma'ariv.
Last week, Benjamin Emanuel talked about his son Rahm Emanuel's new job and told the Israeli daily that "obviously he'll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to be mopping floors at the White House."
That prompted an outcry from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which called on Rahm Emanuel, a former Israeli citizen, to condemn the "unacceptable smear."
On Thursday, Rahm Emanuel called the group's president, Mary Rose Oakar, to apologize on behalf of his family.
"These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family," the group quoted him as saying.
Oakar said the apology was accepted.
Emanuel spokesman Nick Papas confirmed the phone call and said Emanuel "offered to meet with representatives of the Arab-American community at an appropriate time in the future."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment