I keep saying this same thing, so forgive me everyone who has read it multiple times - but this is Obama's White House and his staff and I don't have to work with them. I'm not 2d guessing his choices.

That said - I love this choice for this position. I think Rahm is a great person for this job. If Obama had chosen an amendable idiot, I wouldn't have liked it, but like I said - it isn't my staff. It's his. I don't know these people to work with them and y'all don't either.

Obama does. It's his staff. I don't get where anyone else thinks they get to make these decisions.

"Nobody puts baby in a corner" - ah, "Dirty Dancing" - Patrick Swazy (Johnny) to Jennifer Grey (Baby).

Obama is going to get hit upon from many directions, he owes many people debts for his incredible win. Emanuel will be a good door keeper besides being a master of White House and Capitol Hill operations. If Obama is going to get results and lay the foundation for his re-election he has to have someone like Emanuel. Like Rahm or not, he gets results. You just need to keep the wood chipper handy to get rid of the bodies - reminds me of a movie.

Let's all not forget that COS is an administrative position, that the job is to organize and implement the President's agenda and control the flow of things and people which go in and out of the Oval Office. Except as that control can influence the POTUS, which I am confident Obama will not allow to be too restrictive, it is not a policy position.

The important thing to know about Rham is that he is smart, organized and tough. His policies and his ties to Israel matter much, much less.

I'm still struggling with this. There's something at the Electronic Intifada outlining the history of Emanuel's support for Israel that gives me pause:

In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, sometimes more so than President Bush. In June 2003, for example, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror," Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats wrote to Bush. The letter said that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense" ("Pelosi supports Israel's attacks on Hamas group," San Francisco Chronicle, 14 June 2003).

In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several members who called for the cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki because al-Maliki had criticized Israel's bombing of Lebanon. Emanuel called the Lebanese and Palestinian governments "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a 19 July 2006 speech supporting a House resolution backing Israel's bombing of both countries that caused thousands of civilian victims.

I dunno...even if Emanuel won't be formulating policy as part of his CoS responsibilities, doesn't his appointment maybe send the wrong message? Wouldn't someone whose support of Israel is so deep and strong be disinclined to act in an entirely evenhanded manner in his responsibilities as Obama's gatekeeper? Or maybe even not aware of how an evenhanded approach might differ from his own beliefs and instincts? I do trust Obama's judgement, but I remember that "undivided" gaffe at AIPAC. It tells me Obama may not be aware of the many, many delicate nuances of the I-P conflict, and that has me worried still. He shouldn't rely on someone like Emanuel, imo, to supply the background details he lacks, or screen those who he should speak to about the conflict.

That said, I'm not convinced that Emanuel was necessarily a complete mistake. There may be lots of other good reasons - other than ones relating to Israel - that he may be just right for the job. It's just that there seem to be some questions about how he might perform in the job when whatever issue at hand might have an effect on Israel, given his past actions. Perhaps Obama is completely aware of Emanuel's biases toward Israel, and is prepared to compensate for them in some way. Or maybe they had a talk and laid out some ground rules. We can't know.

What more can you tell me, MJ? I think you've spoken out against some of the things that it appears Emanuel supports. Why are you so convinced that this appointment is a good idea?

Forget about Rahm's father's racist remarks?

Unfortunately, it's too late for that as they've already damaged Obama's reputation in the Arab world.

A respected participant on Johua Landis Syria Comment blog offered the following:

"There’s no doubt his father’s statement was completely racist. I would have given Rahm Emanuel the benefit of the doubt (as I hinted in earlier comments), but would expect at the very least some clear condemnation of his father’s comment, and immediately, not 5 weeks later, when Obama reminds Rahm that there are some 1 billion Muslims in this world that he cannot ignore, and another few billion who reject racism outright. I’m actually glad Ma’ariv published his comment (I think it was first to do so, in Hebrew), and that it caused waves of coverage thereafter. Let Obama see firsthand just how sensitive his choices and his actions will have to be during his term in office."

The above comment is from an Israeli.

The Israeli left consistantly demonstrates more realism and courage than their erstwhile "progressive" protectors in the US. Given that they actually live there in real life, guess whose opinions should matter more?

So.

What is Jeffrey Goldberg, a battered wife in denial or what?:

"I've known Rahm for a long time, and he's yelled at me for no good reason on many occasions. This, of course, is the way he expresses affection."

Ya, honey. You betcha.

YBD is, of course, absolutely correct. The Palestinians do not want an Israeli state at all in the centre of the Muslim Middle East, controlling their roads, manning their border crossings, rationing their water and humiliating them at every turn whilst constantly reinforcing Israeli hegemony over the region.

OTOH the Israelis in the shape of right-winger Likudnik, Bibi Netanyahu, have every intention of implementing his covert agenda of the transfer of all Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan - as soon as Likud can regain power.

Answer? Move the entire Israeli population across the Atlantic to South Dakota where there is plenty of land, plenty of water and no necessity for a massive nuclear arsenal! Give everyone compensation to move, which will cost just a fraction of current US aid and there is a WIN-WIN situation all round! No problem!

You may think that this proposal is not serious - but you would be wrong.
World peace is vastly more important than political Zionism. And so are human rights.

Colindale-
I have a better idea. Why not move the Palestinians to London? You are the ones who gave us the Balfour Declaration. After seeing how our (i.e. we Jews) "human rights" were protected by "world opinion" in the 20th century, that is the best thing you can do for you concern for "human rights".
After all, "world peace is more important than Palestinian nationalism" which was invented in 1948-before that "Palestinian" meant Jew, the Arabs rejected the term.

Rahm's skills and determination are certianly a good thing in the job of COS.

The problem with Rahm is that his politics is the politics of 20 years ago, meaning he believes it is best to move very slowly and ruffle as few feathers as possible particularly among the business interests which he has faithfully served (see the FISA capitulation that paid off so handsomely for Rahm's campaign warchest balance).

Rahm showed incredibly poor judgement in directing Democratic House candidates in 06 to stay away from the war as an issue as well as Republican corruption. Only in the last few weeks when it became apparent that those were the two big issues with the electorate did Democrats really start to hammer on those two issues. Democratic gains would have been far greater two years ago had they the political courage to go after the Republicans on the war and the corruption issue but they didn't in signifcant part because of Rahm's role in developing and carrying out campaign strategy.

His focus on servicing corporate interests bodes well for him and his prospects after the Obama adminstration. He will be taken care of quite nicely I'm sure. By the same token it does not bode well for the long overdue help the average American family needs on a whole host of issues if Rahm has the ear of President Obama and derails moire liberal efforts in favor of placating corporate interests as was his bent as a member of Congress. On all of the issues important to improving the quality of life and standard of living for average Americans, the corporate interests Rahm so faithfully services have been and will continue to be the primary obstacles for achieving the relief average Americans need and deserve. Let's hope Obama shows the strength of will and character to resist the advice he will surely get from Rahm not to do too much for the little guys because it might make the big boys angry.

I'll be happy if in the coming days and weeks Obama puts some real Democratic liberals in positions of influence and power in the new adminstration but frankly, at this point I doubt we'll see much of that and more's the pity.

I'm afraid Dan K is correct. This is a disaster putting another Israel-centric ideologue into a postion controlling access to the president's ear. The man summers in Tel Aviv, fer chrissakes. Haven't we learned anything from the neocons?

But I disagree with Dan that this is only about a "miserable little corner of the world in the eastern Mediterranean." 9/11, Iraq, Iran, military spending, deficits, recession, they're all increasingly tangled up in the web of Zionism's spreading impact.

(And how it can even be legal to give top security clearance to someone who has served in another country's army is beyond me.)

P.S. To MJ: Please stop talking about something called a "peace process." Ariel Sharon was for a peace process. What we need to be promoting is justice.

I've continued to browse the web, looking for more info on the Emanuel appointment. An article at HuffPo by Ray Hanania, "an award winning Palestinian American columnist and Chicago radio talk show host", raised some interesting points. Here's a taste:

The real difference is the Obama team is far more moderate and supportive of a negotiated peace accord, while Bush's pro-Israel contingent were right-wing fanatics who viewed peace talks as a tactic that effectively delayed peace and gave Israel the excuse to exploit the status quo.

Obama might be insulating himself from those who will accuse him of sabotaging Israel when the time comes to press Israel to move towards true compromise -- surrendering occupied West Bank land and sharing Jerusalem in exchange for genuine peace.

Obama and his team of pro-Israel advisers -- every American president must support Israel in order to win election in this country -- recognize Middle East peace is not only a moral imperative, it is fundamental to helping the United States recover from its economic depression.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-hanania/obamas-growing-pro-israel_b_141964.html

Makes sense to me. I hope the others who were worried about the appointment read the article - there's more to it. And check out the comments too. Hanania mentions, for instance, that while Emanuel tends to be harsh, Axelrod, who Obama has also appointed, is a moderating influence.

Axelrod is by far the most reasoned, balanced and genuine of the bunch and as long as he is in the mix, I am confident the overall result is going to be far better than what we have seen even during the Clinton administration.

>every American president must support Israel in order to win election in this country ...

How does it feel to live in a superstate of 300 million that is, in actuality, politically controlled by a tiny country in the eastern Mediterranean and its supporters? A little impotent, perhaps? A little foolish? Just a tad absurd?

I voted for Obama, and yes I snorted the thrills of seeing such touching history being made, and such a hopeful future for the U.S. and it's relation to the world.

Now, the high is wearing off and reality is setting in. It feels like coming down from an acid trip.

Positive emotions following the election of B.O. were so intense that you could feel the energy surging through your body.

Now I feel sick in the sense that so much hope and faith is being invested in B.O., that it feels dangerous.

Obama's appointment of Rahm Emanuel is a little sobering. And while I still want to believe, I realize now that it is time to shed partisan talking points and to wipe the conditioning of a campaign, and to keep a skeptical perspective.

As to wether Rahm is Mossad, not sure, but one thing I know is that it wouldn't be the first time Israel's intelligence infiltrated our government, and I don't think it would be much of a deviation from politics as usual.