Classy. Rahm Apologizes On Behalf of His Family for Arab Slur
I've died and gone to heaven. The chief-of-staff of America's next President has apologized for something his father -- not him, mind you -- said about Arabs.
""From the fullness of my heart, I personally apologize on behalf of my family and me. These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family," Rahm said.
Until now it was pretty safe to bash Arabs with abandon (like gays and Arabs in Republican circles). But now Rahm Emanuel has demonstrated that those days are over.
We really did win the election.
Advertisement
Rosenberg call it a "classy" move, but Rahm did what any Democrat would have been forced to do in this case: apologize on behalf of his father.
Failing to do so would have caused a major scandal.
November 13, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that in the current enviromnent saying just about anything about Arabs has been acceptable. This represent a change. So, good for him.
Not to quibble, but claiming this wasn't his "family values," is funny. His own father didn't teach him these values? I guess Hillary was right: it takes a village to raise a child.
November 14, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
He did it without having to be forced into it. That's class. So, why the scare quotes?
November 14, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
November 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Rosy, what catalyzed your pathological Jew hatred? In Marshall's case, it is obvious that ol' Josh blames his Jewish parents for his total lack of literary skill. Try as he might, poor Marshall's commentaries read like crayon scrawlings on a kindergarten wall.
But how were you traumatized into such bigotry, Rosy? Is it also a parental resentment issue? Do you blame Daddy for the male pattern baldness? Or Mommy for the fact that you so closely resemble Shelly Winters?
When someone of Jewish ancestry becomes obsessively emotionally attached to those who vow they will reprise the Holocaust, there is always an identifiable catalyst for such pathology.
Insufficient oxygen at birth?
Severe cranial trauma?
We will find the answer, Rosy, and then you will be cured. Once that occurs, the Jew hatred that saturates your columns will evaporate, replaced by a pleasing combination of political sanity and first rate recipes for kugel.
November 14, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Da jewz did it, jist like they always do.
November 14, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Differing opinions have to be cured? Thank you, Mr. Orwell.
November 17, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just read what Emmanuel's father said. "We weren't raised that way"? You've gotta be kidding. (And I know his mother marched in some civil rights protests.) That wasn't a politically-incorrect slip--that was gross racism. Of course Emmanuel had to apologize. Look, he's not his father. But that's the ugliest, baldest racist comment I've heard in a while. The father's comment will shadow the son--and not only with those of Arabic descent.
November 16, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm still has a way to go to match the sheer grace and profoundly studied humility of this magnificent public apology.
November 13, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the best!!!! I love Steve Martin.
November 13, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unity at last!
November 13, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
El pueblo unido jamás será vencido
November 13, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I read what Rahm's father said about mopping the floors, etc., it was an insult, but I thought it was relatively mild.
Last Friday night on Bill Maher's show on HBO he showed Saudis eyeing a prize winning sheep's ass and commented on it, now THAT was an insult, funny as it was.
I think there's an overreaction to the comment, and I think Rahm's apology was a tad too strong.
November 14, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that, Dan. :-)
November 13, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Something we can all agree on: Steve Martin is a better actor than Rahm -- who would have thunk it!
Now for Lieberman...
November 14, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where did the notion that you can apologize for someone else's words or actions come from?
I can understand Rahm saying something to distance himself from his father's remarks, but this?
It's bad enough he apologized for his father's comments but then he pulled the rest of his family into it as well. If my brother did that to me, I would make sure he learned not to ever do it again.
At least Steve Martin was apologizing for his own actions, weird as they were.:)
November 13, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps he discussed the apology with enough of his family so it seemed reasonable for him to include them.
As to apologizing for his father,you're right it would have been more correct for him to just distance himself.Slightly tricky to word but it could have been done.
But the important thing was for to indicate that he sincerely felt that his father's words were unacceptable.
November 13, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right?
November 14, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
no
November 14, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
no
November 14, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grovelling exilic Jew. Why is he responsible for what his father says? Is he going to also apologize if Obama takes some measure that is viewed as "pro-Israel" and antagonizes the Arabs? Are the Arabs of the United States going to apologize for the vicious antisemitic propaganda spread by the official state-controlled media of supposedly "moderate pro-American" Arab states like Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority? Are they going to apologize for the plague of suicide bombings made in the name of Islam around the world?
November 14, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 14, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Groveling exilic Jews!!! Wow. And you are Paul Newman as Ari Ben Canaan, right.
Is my exile Chevy Chase, Maryland. Thank you, God.
November 14, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"On November 14th, 2008 at 1:52 am
bar_kochba132 said:
Rahm is a grovelling exilic Jew. Why should he have to apologize for what his father says? What if Obama carries out a policy that the Arabs don’t approve of, is Rahm going to apologize for that too? Are the Muslim Arabs in prominent positions going to apologize for the plague of suicide bombings around the world made in the name of their religion?"
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/11/13/emanuel-apologizes-for-fathers-anti-arab-remark/#comments
Sheesh! shame on me for scrolling over the vast bulk of YBD's posts therefore missing the fact that he's our old friend from the pre-"upgrade" days.
November 15, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Are they going to apologize for the plague of suicide bombings made in the name of Islam around the world?"
And if they did, would Rosy
a) declare that he had "died and gone to heaven".
or
b) plop down his four hundred pound rotting carcass at the word processor that the insane asylum has so thoughtfully furnished and bang out yet another poorly written screed condemning Zionists (Jews), neocons (Jews), and Likudniks (Jews)?
You make the call.
November 14, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Commenting on a statement made by his father Rahm Emanuel said:
November 14, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Commenting on a statement made by his father Rahm Emanuel said:
Does anybody else see a slight contradiction here? Wasn't Emanuel raised by his father or isn't his father a member of the family? Can somebody explain this to me.November 14, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
You and I are on the same page. It doesn't make sense.
Joshua Landis (Syria Comment) is complaining the MSM is only covering this story on teh innerwebs.
Better late than never. Obama was cc'd on the original complaint letter. Do you suppose he got to read it himself?
November 14, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's in today's Times
November 14, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the implication is supposed to be that the old guy must have either changed or slipped, because while these are the values he just expressed the other day, they aren't the values he communicated to Emanuel and his siblings when they were growing up.
Or maybe he means that he was raised by his mother.
Anyway, I doubt Emanuel has convinced anyone. It's just your standard, pro forma, politician's CYA apology. Emanuel appears to have a very strong, deep, hawkish commitment to the cause of Israel and its many battles with its Arab neighbors. I take it for granted that he and his family are not overly fond of Arabs, and that the old man's spontaneous gaffe is probably more revelatory of the familial Emanuel mindset than any political performances before the cameras.
November 14, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Seaton,
Were the words and actions of your parents always consistent with the values they tried to raise you with?
November 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
November 14, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should have read, "Yes, I agree with you."
November 14, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, MJ, your hero, Jimmy Carter has joined you and predicted that Obama is going to put "Israel/Arab peace" at the top of the agenda (I guess the economic crisis in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan have been taken care of already) and he will carry out your dream and twist Israel's arm to give up Judea/Samaria. My only question is that since Egypt has given up trying to mediate between HAMAS and FATAH, who is Israel supposed to give it to? Who is Obama going to negotiate with?
November 14, 2008 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting that your concern is never on Jewish racism--as reflected by the comments of Rahm's father and the subject of MJ's post--but instead is on sniping at Arabs. Indeed, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to say something constructive.
Why don't you, apacmember, and Bob Lane car pool when you next visit Baruch Goldstein's shrine?
November 14, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love it. Baruch Goldstein's shrine!!!
November 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak for others, but I have no interest in visiting the shrine of any mass murderer whether it be that of Goldstein or Arafat.
November 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Baruch Goldstein's shrine located right next to the memorial you and Rosy built to Eva Braun's boyfriend?
November 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fairly educated guess that since Obama tapped Rahm to be always at his side, an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement is on Obama's foreign policy front burner come January. Who better to have at your side than one of theirs on your payroll.
November 14, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm should resign from all public service office immediately to earn "classiness." He is and will remain a son of Arab-hating father, who not only thinks Arabs are born to "sweep floors," thus sub-humans, but also thinks to be Jewish is to be anti-Arab. I just wish this guy took some moral lessons from George Soros, one of my heroes.
November 14, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm is not responsible for his father's positions.
Like you I admire Soros (have just read his illuminating article in the current NYR) but simply from his father's position in Admiral Horthy's Hungary I suspect their views are not identical.
November 14, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The father characterized the son that he'd behave such and such way in the interest of Israel. I think the father understands the son where his son stands. That standing is problematic because it conflates religion (Judaism) and state politics (Israel-America). You can take the father as a metaphoric equivalence of most Jewish Americans. That articulation of the father is shared by most, and it is not in the interest of the world peace. We may have obligation to protect Israel but we don't have obligation to protect a religion, and if we do, they must be treated separately. That is what I understood from Soros.
November 14, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg also says the same thing as Rahm's father does, though veiled in a subtle language: In HuffPo's Richard Silverstein's summation of Goldberg's view, "Emanuel will be Israel's point person in the Oval Office." This is where the problem lies.
The issue is more than "father's slur and son's apology."
November 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now explain how Joe Kennedy "characterized" JFK?
November 14, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer is already there in my clarification: "The issue is more than father's slur and the son's apology."
The father-son analogy is mere vehicle to carry the sentiment/content of the outlook that most Jewish/Americans share, including Ram, regardless of what his father said. The vehicle is less significant than the tenor. Rahm apologized for the "slur," the rash language of his father, not the policy or the ideology that one has to be anti-Arab to be a Jew and that protecting Israel is protecting Jews of the world, and that as Jew, he's somehow an inherent protector of Israeli interests. He did not say as Chief of Staff of the White House, his primary job is not to lobby for Israeli interests, or did he or is it?
If you want me to be brutally clear, my core point is America's position on Arab-Israel relationship should not be guided by the idea of protecting Judaism precisely because Judaism cannot be exclusive to a country.
You cannot just pick a phrase to question my position. I am talking about policy. You are questioning my analogy. I don't have to say anything if you openly embrace Arab/Islam alienating policy and the conflation of religion and state. State has geo-political territory, but religion does not. If Middle East peace is your concern, these two, religion and state, must be treated separately as policy matters.
November 14, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay S Green, I think I see your point better, but it seems to me to be a mishmash (though maybe you're speaking in shorthand):
" The father-son analogy is mere vehicle to carry the sentiment/content of the outlook that most Jewish/Americans share, including Ram, regardless of what his father said."
Tintin: Why do you think most Jewish Americans agree with what Emmanuel pere said?
"The vehicle is less significant than the tenor. Rahm apologized for the "slur," the rash language of his father, not the policy or the ideology that one has to be anti-Arab to be a Jew and that protecting Israel is protecting Jews of the world, and that as Jew, he's somehow an inherent protector of Israeli interests.
Tintin: How do you know that RE is "anti-Arab"? Crazier still, who says you have to be "anti-Arab to be a Jew"? The fact that there are anti-Arab Jews (as there are Christians) really says nothing about what or who RE is or Jews as a whole are.
I do agree that one would expect a Jew to be at least somewhat in favor of Israel--though many, many aren't.
I think your point might have been easier to understand if you had inserted "Jewish-American" or "American Jew." That's actually the point you're going for as far as I can see. But even there, most American-Americans in that position are going to be somewhat (at least) favorably disposed to Israel. They are, after all, an ally.
I think it's safer to say that Mr. Emmanuel was saying that an Arab might be expected to be anti-Israel and a Jew would not be expected to be anti-Israel.
"He did not say as Chief of Staff of the White House, his primary job is not to lobby for Israeli interests, or did he or is it?
If you want me to be brutally clear, my core point is America's position on Arab-Israel relationship should not be guided by the idea of protecting Judaism precisely because Judaism cannot be exclusive to a country."
Tintin: You're getting cloudy here. This has nothing to do with protecting Judaism. That's a whole other issue.
"You cannot just pick a phrase to question my position. I am talking about policy. You are questioning my analogy. I don't have to say anything if you openly embrace Arab/Islam alienating policy and the conflation of religion and state. State has geo-political territory, but religion does not. If Middle East peace is your concern, these two, religion and state, must be treated separately as policy matters."
Tintin: Yes, but one of the problems here is that the Arab/Muslim world does conflate in just this way. Islam has a clear political dimension; it's not strictly a private affair. Neither Judaism nor Islam falls neatly into the Western idea (or ideal) that religion is a "personal matter" and therefore neither religion sits that comfortably with a strict separation between "church and state." I would say that Jews have more practice at making this distinction than much of the Muslim world; but that's it.
November 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You presume a standard of Jewish identity that is strictly limited to the practice of Judaism. Meanwhile, the Jewish people have distinct and common languages, literature, legal and ethical traditions, and a shared history marked by a unique and distinct calendar. The extent to which any of these may be rooted in ancient or medieval religious traditions is, by now, beside the point. As for the peace process, I have consistently argued here and elsewhere that the national rights of Jewish and Arab peoples within the former British Palestine Mandate are not mutually exclusive.
Finally, the state of Israel is governed by a civil law, not Rabbinic law (halacha). However, there are nations that are actually governed by shari'a, for example, if you really want to impose a campaign against civil/religious fusion upon US foreign policy. But don't count on my help.
November 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "obligation" do "we" have to support Israel?
November 14, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. Debatable.
But as a principle, if a country is threatened to be extinguished and its people's are facing daily suicidal bombs, IF there is such thing as right and wrong and if America's role is to lead the world, it must play accordingly. This is one argument but must be applied invariable everywhere in the world.
Second argument is strategic and home grown. Again, Israel's strategic position for American interests in the Middle East is re-definable. This has not been allowed by the interests groups who are in position to influence America's foreign policy.
Third argument is historical. That America played greater role than other countries in defeating Nazis and rescuing Jews somehow carries over to this day that it must continue to do so. A misunderstanding developed as saving Jews was interpreted to be saving Israel. Fact is Israel was not at heart of the World War II and America only happened to rescue European Jews in an indirect way. In the after math of the WW II, Jewish influence in American politics increased, and Israel became America's responsibility. As a citizen, take it or leave it.
You can add a few more. And feel free to revise mine.
November 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want the US to ensure Israel existence. I've written here before to universal derision that I would like to see a US Division permanently stationed there for that purpose.
I have no moral of geopolitical reasons,for all I know it's purely personal since so many of my friends are Jewish. But I don't discuss my position, I just have it.
A corollary of my position is that I want Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank, approximately to something like the borders that were agreed by the negotiators at Taba in Jan 2001 but, sadly, were rejected by Arafat(note I don't criticize Arafat for his Camp David stance ). OBTW it might be easier for some Israelis to accept whatever diminishment of security this would cause if they had the added security of US boots on the ground.
And want a serious effort to provide homes for the Palestinians in camps. First because that's a horrible way to live , next because they serve as breeding grounds for terrorists. Offer to pay $10,000 to each family that relocated and $5000 to the country that accepted them where-ever that is from Andorra to Zanzibar(including of course the West Bank and even Israel altho I assume few would be accepted there) And half that the following year. That could be done for $30 billion dollars , a fifth of what we've sunk into AIG.
November 14, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it.
November 15, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
orifice,
I just posted this in JoAnn Mort's column;
"For the longest time I've been aware of the Israeli/Palestinian problem and the US involvement. But I never knew how much it permeated our society in and out of government intil I started reading TPM."
November 14, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The father characterized the son that he'd behave such and such way in the interest of Israel. I think the father understands the son where his son stands."
But here's the point flavius makes: The son isn't responsible for the words or actions of the father. This is true whether the father is predicting what the son will do or not.
The father cannot know what the son will do and cannot force the son to do his bidding. If my father tells the NYT that I'm a wife beater--and he "knows" me--should I be required to assume a celibate life?
November 15, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a reasonably insane and inane comment. If we were to follow this rule, then a good number of people in Congress would have to resign as well. Especially those below the Mason-Dixon line. Hey, an Germans of a certain age--and their sons and daughters--would be asked to step out of the limelight.
And why stop with the next generation? Isn't this poison passed down from generation to generation? This means that none of Rahm's kids, nor his nieces and nephews, should be allowed in the public square. In fact, while we're at it, why don't we extend the ban to any Jew who ever said a nasty thing about an Arab.
(Naturally, to be fair, we'd have to apply the same rule to any Arab and his progeny who ever said a nasty thing about Jews.)
I guess the Torah should have the last word on this: The sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons. Whether they deserve it or not is another matter.
November 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before you label my position or George Soros' position "insane," answer this: How is Rahm's position or most Jews' position or most Americans' view on America's role in Arab-Israel relationship different from the father's in question, who thinks as a Jew you have an inherent responsibility to work in the interest of Israel?
If you read what I am saying carefully, you would not miss the point. How many times do I have to repeat that the issue is not father-son slur-apology drama? The issue is about the policy.
November 14, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
S Green: "Before you label my position or George Soros' position "insane," answer this: How is Rahm's position or most Jews' position or most Americans' view on America's role in Arab-Israel relationship different from the father's in question, who thinks as a Jew you have an inherent responsibility to work in the interest of Israel?"
Tintin: Again, I THINK I know what you're going for, but some of this just deepens my perplexity. You invoke "most Jews" and "most Americans" and say they believe as the father. But the way in which this is true--most of both groups believe that Israel is an ally of the U.S. and worthy of being defended--is unremarkable and probably unobjectionable. And the way in which it might objectionable--a pro-Israel stance coupled with an anti-Arab stance--seems to me not to be true of most of both groups.
As to a Jew having an inherent responsibility to work for Israel, most Americans probably don't have an opinion on this. Many, if not most, Jews have strong, or at least, very warm feelings toward Israel. But so what? What do you expect? I'm willing to bet that most Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia have strong to warm feelings about the Palestinians and other Muslims. Again, this seems unremarkable.
Here's what I think you're trying to say: The father expects his son to let his strong personal feelings about Israel strongly influence his official actions as a member of the administration. That is, that his role as a Jew will trump his role as a CoS. I agree with you--this would be very bad.
However, America's official posture, as I understand it, is pro-Israeli. And Obama is pro-Israeli. So RE won't have to "act as a Jew" to support Israel. That said, it is becoming increasingly clear to many--including Jews--that being pro-Israeli has to mean also being pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab. I think that is probably Obama's position, too. So being anti-Arab or anti-Muslim...or not being able to serve as an honest broker...would be the real problem.
I don't think the Dad could manage that balancing act, though who knows? But I haven't seen anything that shows me that RE can't do it, especially as he will be taking orders from Obama.
November 14, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin,
Ref: "That said, it is becoming increasingly clear to many--including Jews--that being pro-Israeli has to mean also being pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab."
I wish this were the case. Peace would have been achieved in the Mid East long ago.
Let me give you the position that I am speaking from: I share a lot with George Soros, a Hungarian Jewish American without much tie with Israel. My mother is a Polish Jew, and like Soros, I am not pro or anti-Israel, but would like to see a concrete resolution of the conflict. And I think that resolution would not occur if the negotiator like America is perceived at the outset as tilting toward one side.
I am always apprehensive about aggressive pro-Israeli stance like Ariel Sharon's. We need American Tzipi Livni, not Sharon. Did you just see how they did not let Livni become Prime Minister because she is a moderate? A softer and neutral character, at least in perception, would ease the peace deal in the Mid East.
November 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
S Green: Here is where I'm coming from. Like Soros and you, I come from a Hungarian-Jewish family. I like Soros's views to the degree I understand them. I'm not particularly Zionist in my outlook, though I'm far from being anti-Zionist, and I do see where some comments blur the line between anti-Zionist and anti-Semitism. You see it on these threads and elsewhere from time to time. I agree your statement here entirely:
"Soros, I am not pro or anti-Israel, but would like to see a concrete resolution of the conflict. And I think that resolution would not occur if the negotiator like America is perceived at the outset as tilting toward one side."
The plaint often goes out: Where are the fair-minded progressive Jews who are so much in evidence on other issues, but not, seemingly, on the IP conflict? Dan K has asked this question and I think orifice asks this question below. Here's my answer:
Most Jews don't really identify strongly as Jews. Sure, they know they're Jews. They might be proud of it. They've gone to their share of seders and high holiday services (or not), but they don't see themselves as members of "the Jewish community" and they don't participate in "the Jewish community." They don't belong to a synagogue. They don't belong to a Jewish community center. They don't make a point of going to Jewish-identified events. They don't belong to any of the big Jewish organizations. And they don't hang out with other Jews who are actively interested in their own Jewishness, whether religious or secular, even if a good number of their friends "happen" to be Jews and even if they just "happen" to be married to a Jew.
They vaguely identify. They vaguely support Israel, except when she's under attack. They know about anti-Semitism and are naturally against it, just as they are naturally against other forms of discrimination. They overwhelmingly support liberal and other "good" causes and they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.
So what does this mean? This large mass of people is considered the "Jewish bloc" when vote totals are counted, but it is passively Jewish. I'm searching for the right word here, but they are SORT OF embarrassed by people who are "too Jewish"...who live their lives AS Jews, if you see my point. They see themselves as Americans who happen to be Jews and who are proud of that fact, but in a sort of passive way. They don't want to DO anything about it. They don't see it as a source of intellectual or spiritual richness in their lives. I once dated a woman who summed up Jewish culture as music in a minor key.
In their youth, they fled anything Jewish because it was a sign of unhipness and it just wasn't "happening" while the New Left and the counter culture were.
This passive Jewish bloc have ceded the active "Jewish voice" to Jews who are very involved in their Jewishness and in the Jewish community, either for religious or secular reasons. And active Jews TEND to be more conservative, AFAIK. So on matters where a "Jewish voice" would count, such as IP, passive Jews may well speak out, but they don't make an impact AS JEWS, only as concerned or angry Americans. They often say to their gentiles confreres: "I'm a Jew and I'm as angry about Palestine as you are." That is, they mention their Jewishness only to extinguish that difference in the same breath, if you see what I mean.
And some of them, like my wife, feel uncomfortable when their progressive colleagues appear to be holders of anti-Semitic views or with extreme anti-Israel views. That shrinks their Jewish pupick even more.
Now there are signs of change: J Street, Shalom Center, Lerner's lobbying group. But these nascent groups don't have the funding, membership, reach or PR of the establishment groups, many of which have been in existence for over a century.
November 15, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
S Green,
Livni needed Shas' few seats in the Knesset to form a coalition, but she wouldn't give in to their demands for more state money for their religious schools. So, Shas wouldn't deal and now there will be new elections.
Meanwhile, I read that Livni is polling fairly well, but it's still early and Bibi can look forward to money from the American-Jewish machers of Beit Podhoretz. So, I hope that the liberal American-Jewish donor pool keeps it close. (MJ could probably tell us more on that score.)
November 15, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
BK.
Do you think that MJ would know if Livni is receiving financial support from American lefties?
He doesn't appear to comment much on the Israeli electoral goings on.
I would think Daniel Levy would be more informed. So far, I haven't seen much evidence that Tzipi has connections with the Disapora machinery a la Bibi. I did, however see an American effort led by Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney to promote a lawsuit on "behalf" of Shaul Mofaz in order to contest her narrow Kadima victory. No doubt, they are not alone in their opposition to Livni.
Another hopeful sign that things are changing in the Israeli political landscape is the formation of a new leftist party. Hopefully, they will gain American backers:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037265.html
November 15, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
From his position with the Israeli Policy Forum, I presume that he has enough access to the data that he could know such things. And this is his thread.
Personally, I would rather see one large energized liberal party in Israel than a new addition to the mishmash of Knesset wannabes. If nothing else, Livni's recent dealings with Shas and its cynical demands in trying to form a governing coalition should be a lesson to those among us who argue for an emergence of third- and multi-party additions to our own politics in the US and to be very careful what they wish for.
November 16, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point...about third parties.
November 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Personally, I would rather see one large energized liberal party in Israel than a new addition to the mishmash of Knesset wannabes.'
I would too, but given the growing weakness of Labor, Meretz etc, it doesn't seem likely under the present circumstances.
The new party, whatever it will be called, at least seeks to attract youngsters, Arabs and enviros.
Meanwhile Bibi is becoming the change/unity candidate and the Likud is swelling like a toxic toad on steroids.
...and ex Shin Bet chief & peacnik Ami Ayalon is homeless for now.
re 3d parties: I don't think Americans could do the kind of pirouetting and leaping about from party to party that's so dizzying to watch as the current Israeli political season unfolds.
It's not in our political dna. For now.
Sometimes I wonder how much cooperation/coordination there is between the organized Israeli and American peacecamps.
November 17, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
S Green writes: "I wish this were the case. Peace would have been achieved in the Mid East long ago."
To be fair, I think this depends on when "long ago" is. It's not as though an Arab peace plan has been on the table "forever." It's not as if the Arabs have only ever wanted to give peace a chance.
The Saudis came up with a comprehensive peace plan in 2002, about 50 years since this conflict started. Arafat agreed to recognize Israel in about 1988, which was a good 40 years after the conflict started.
Sides harden over time. It's not THAT easy to change the direction of an ocean liner that's been moving in one direction since forever.
Where in the world has THAT ever happened? In the US with race relations? Took about, oh, 400 years and we've JUST elected our first black president and just now have our second governor. In South Africa? How many decades did that take? Are they out of the woods yet? How long did it take the Irish? A few centuries?
November 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sincere or not, the apology was uttered so good enough there...
But more importantly, Hillary says Yes, We Can “Obliterate", REFUSED to apologize her Authorization To Go To War vote; and "As Far as I Know, he's not a Muselim." The Obama reply is now a possible reward with Secretary of State!??? The Bible says to turn the other cheek, pointing out that in the last supper, one of his followers would betray him.... Yes, the Annointed One is on schedule....
Says Obama in reply, it was just "politics".... you mean, all that campaigning by the candidates was JUST WORDS? I thought one of his biggest supporters Gov Patrick refuted that line of thinking, CLEARLY without any reservations by quoting the Constitution as NOT JUST WORDS....but rather, "we hold these truths to be self-evident".
Obama ran on the platform of "CHANGE", "CHANGE" meaning............... Change the culture of Washington, Change the way we do politics, Change the Lobbyist influence..... Let's see... Obama's transition team has so far been made of up Who's Who of a former Clinton Administration and lesser known political advisor hacks; plus the latest, writing up soft rules for Lobbyist-to-O'Administrators wanna be's. We do need EXPERIENCE to govern but there is a lot of talented experienced souls around the country that aren't a part of Washington and the revolving door of Lobbyists.
November 14, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know, it's futile. But I have to say, I don't see the slur. Here's the full quote:
There are two ways you can read that. The first is that if he were an Arab, he'd be mopping floors. That's racist and offensive, but it also doesn't make much sense. Since when is mopping floors a stereotype associated with Arabs?
But it's much more plausible to read the quote as containing two distinct thoughts, like this: "Obviously he’ll influence the president to be pro-Israel. (Aside: Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab?) He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House." In other words, Emanuel is saying that because his son is a Jew and not an Arab, he'll exercise his influence on the President on behalf of Israel. That's an uncomfortable assertion, that contains more than a seed of essentialism, but it's not a racial slur.
And where does the mopping of floors fit in? It's Emanuel pere's way of pointing out that his son is going to be in a position of power and influence in the White House, and not merely carrying out meaningless chores.
So, if that's right, why did Rahm apologize? Because it was the smart thing to do. When it comes to parsing a statement at which someone else has deliberately taken offense, the defendant always loses. They sound insensitive. And besides which, the statement itself wasn't uncontroversial. The last think Rahm wants to do is go before the cameras and explain that his father wasn't smearing Arabs, he was just claiming that his son would be reflexively supportive of a foreign country because of his ethno-religious identity.
But just because Rahm can't explain what was actually meant doesn't mean that the rest of us have to deliberately misread the statement, and fall in line with the ADC's attempt to drum up non-existent controversy and to target Emanuel because they don't like his politics.
November 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, there you go again... thinking and stuff.
November 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always dangerous.
November 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the statement is a bit of a Rohrshach test. I saw it, initially, the way it's been generally interpreted. But now that I read your interpretation, it does seem to have merit.
Given the dad's background, it's hard to imagine he has GOOD feelings about Arabs. Then again, it doesn't mean he's bigoted, i.e., that they're suited to demeaning manual labor only.
But when a comment can be so easily interpreted in a bad way, it's best to apologize for it.
November 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's much more plausible to read the quote as containing two distinct thoughts.
Not more plausible; just more charitable.
November 14, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, what Emmanuel's father said wasn't a smear against Arabs or anyone else.
He didn't suggest that Arabs are only fit to mop the floor of the white house.
What he did was confirm that his son is - newsflash! - pro-Israel ("What is he an Arab?") and that he would be in a position of influence on the president ("He's not going to be mopping floors at the White House.”)
This reading of the statement makes sense, whereas reading it as an insult to Arabs makes that slur come out of nowhere and would not be responsive to the question posed to Dr. Emmanuel.
I know it's tempting to play the role of the Lone Jew Out To Expose Bigoted Jews, but it's really not the case here.
I commend Rahm for getting past an unnecessary distraction, but it was without basis.
November 14, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly-
I posted my comment before I saw your posting that makes the same point more eloquently.
My apologies.
November 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never apologize for being smart and sane.
November 14, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, but I was really apologizing for being less smart and less speedy.
November 14, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this is classy, a Jew critiquing another Jew about the latter's father's comments about Arabs. I think all you have to do is read the comments here from bigots like Bar Kafka to understand why right wing Jews are the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. I have no idea of what happened to this community, the Jews, and the peace loving fair minded Jews I have known. I suspect, they have become victims of their own success.
November 14, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
orifice twist,
Excuse you...?
November 14, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did you call me a bigot, orifice twist?
November 15, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, having become wealthy, they no longer give a shit about anyone else. Unlike the concerned gentiles of the world.
Where do you get this garbage?
November 15, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amazed by the rhetorical contortions some commenters are making to render B. Emanuel's comments benign.
FlyOnTheWall asks "Since when is mopping floors a stereotype associated with Arabs?" Answer: in Israel, from the founding of the state until the mid-'90s -- that's when. Arab Israelis were often reduced to performing menial jobs in the Jewish state, and after 1967, residents of Gaza and the West Bank did jobs in Israel that Jewish Israelis didn't want. For Emanuel the elder's generation, Arabs were the inferior laborers. (After Oslo, which ironically tightened restrictions on movement in the territories, that job's been taken over by Asian migrant workers.)
Unfortunately bigoted views of Arabs are not uncommon in Jewish Israeli society -- and it's not very hidden, which is likely why Benjamin Emanuel believed he could say such a thing and it wouldn't cause a fuss.
I suspect people who believe B. Emanuel's comment is void of racism also believe there is no occupation, that Palestinians are not a people, and other fun stuff.
MJ -- yes, it's a good thing the apology came. But the fact that there was over a week of silence since this story broke is disappointing. Imagine substituting "Mexicans" for Arabs in the quote: there would have been a repudiation within a day, I bet. Why did it take an ADC letter?
It's true that Rahm isn't responsible for his dad's statements, but as a public official he is responsible for distancing himself from outrageous statements from a close family member (or allying himself with the statements, if he chooses.)
November 14, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who is familiar with the Israeli media knows that bigoted views of Arabs suffuse the place so the nonsensical efforts to pretty-up Rahm's father's remarks in Hebrew to a Hebrew publication are silly.
Israeli politicians and commenters from the hardliner right such as Avigdor Lieberman say awful stuff about Arabs on a regular basis.
If there is one word that can characterize the "tone" of discourse in Israel, I'd have to say that "blunt" about covers it. This also includes Israeli Jews making extremely un-PC comments about eachother as a matter of course.
Godwin's law does not apply in Israel.
November 14, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emmanuel's appointment is a huge disappointment on my counts but to those who were hoping for an improvement in our relationships abroad, this insures more hostility. Clinton's pending appointment will be even a bigger disappointment, since she has never apologized for her war mongering against Iran, and she is a card carrying member of Likkud. If she is appointed to State, how the hell does that do anything for our foreign policy and our hatred by the Arab and Muslim communities? Both her and Emmanuel are in lockstep with AIPAC and it will only be a matter of time before our children are forced to wear yarmulkes to school.
November 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. And I am your fan now.
There is another liberal I admire here, FlyOnTheWall.
November 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did you call me a bigot, orifice twist?
November 15, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can't respond. His orifice is twisted.
November 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orifice twist -- criticizing Hillary or AIPAC with "it will only be a matter of time before our children are forced to wear yarmulkes to school" -- whether intended or not, doesn't sound right.
November 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you have heard over the years about the "special relationship" we have with Israel. Do you know where I can find a copy of this document? Do you know of any other special relationships we have with anyone else? Why was this special relationship not questioned when Israel was caught spying on numerous occasions or when they sank the US Liberty? Why is it that it pols like Paul Findley were conspired against when he questioned this so-called special relationship? Why are there so many taboos about even discussing the specialness of this relationship or its boundaries? Why would Obama claim to free himself from special interests, yet pledge to AIPAC to continue kissing their keester? I could go on, but I'll let you tell me what "sounds right" here.
November 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the yarmulke thing was pretty strange.
Stranger still, criticizing the special relationship has NOTHING to do with whether "our" children will be "forced" to wear yarmulkes.
November 14, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what is really strange, is your use of the word strange to describe what I said. Are you sure that is the word you wanted to use?
November 14, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have to say it is the right word. Here's what you said:
"Both her and Emmanuel are in lockstep with AIPAC and it will only be a matter of time before our children are forced to wear yarmulkes to school."
Assuming for the sake of argument that RE is in "lockstep with AIPAC," how do you move from that to the assertion that it will only be a matter of time before our children are forced to wear yarmulkes to school?
There are so many strange things about this, but here are a few: a) most AIPACers don't wear yarmulkes, b) AIPAC is not interested in what our children wear, c) AIPAC is a secular organization, d) AIPAC has no control over "our" children or anyone else's.
So, yeah strange. What word would you use?
November 14, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strange.
November 15, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did you call me a bigot, orifice twist?
November 15, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orifice Twist, the reason saying "it will only be a matter of time before our children are forced to wear yarmulkes to school" doesn't sound right is that you're conflating advocacy and proselytization. Yes, many of Israel's US advocates excessively police criticism. But that has no relation to Jewish proselytization -- of which there is none, as far as I know.
(Yes, observant Jews proselytize to non-observant Jews, but that's different, and a good many of those proselytizers aren't even Zionists.)
I know I'm reading your comment literally, and that's perhaps not how it was meant. But it still gives the sense of an encroaching menace, and that has unfortunate historical overtones.
Ultimately, I think one can critique Israeli policy and ideology by sticking to basic issues of human rights, civil liberties, and democratic values, and leave religion out of the discussion. It muddies the waters. And with Israel-Palestine they're muddy enough already.
November 14, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Do you know of any other special relationships we have with anyone else?"
Sure, England. Both sides say it all the time. Hey, weren't they instrumental in getting into Iraq? Why is THAT never mentioned? Before you know it, we'll be drinking warm, flat beer, blimey.
November 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I've died..."
If only.
"...and gone to heaven."
I hope all seventy-two of your virgins look exactly like Aunt Esther from Sanford And Son.
So when do we get the apology from your fellow jihadists who routinely call Jews "pigs" and "apes"?
Come to think of it, they issued those slurs only after viewing your photograph.
November 14, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think some hate-issues you might examine are revealed in your post, Bob Lane.
November 14, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hatred that motivates you anti-"Zionists" to call Jews "pigs" and "apes" was examined in my post, Ramp.
But thanks for sharing.
November 14, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob, you're generalizing. Look: if there are Israeli bigots who say that "Arabs are worms," does that mean all Israelis, or all Jews believe this? No. (Even if the person who said "Arabs are worms," Yehiel Hazan, is a member of Israel's parliament, and said it on the Knesset floor!)
The same logic should be used about people who aren't Zionist patriots. Zionism isn't Judaism. And because there are anti-Semites who hate Israel doesn't mean all critics of Israel are bigots.
But you are revealing a classic bigotry mind-set in your capacity to generalize. Take a different approach.
November 14, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, MJ, we get it that you now like Rahm Emanuel and are willing to forgive him anything. Although I do think it's very nice that he apologized, I agree with the others upthread who wonder who it was who conveyed the Emanuel Family's Values to a young Rahm if it apparently wasn't his father.
But a more important question is what do you think of all the rumors swirling around that Obama will appoint Clinton as Secretary of State? Please, please tell me you haven't changed your mind about Clinton.
(I apologize to you, MJ, if I sound a little snarky here, but I'm beginning to feel dumb for voting for, and expending all that energy on, the person I believed was the non-hawkish-on-foreign-policy candidate.)
November 14, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie, why not wait for Obama to actually DO something.
Or RE for that matter.
As to RE's values and where he got them, I think Bar Kafka had an interesting reply to that up thread as well.
I'm happy if you had parents who were so consistent in their values and teachings that you've been able to import them wholesale and without contradiction into your own life.
Most people's parents are not so consistent or pure. They end up picking and choosing from what their parents taught them and they frequently diverge from a good bit of what their parents imparted. Not remembering this is to act dense.
If we were to judge people by what their parents did, then a good bit of the southern delegation to Congress--not to mention the northern delegation to Congress--would be disqualified. We'd have segregationists infesting the legislature!
Obama has ALWAYS been the middle of the road, explicitly. So don't be surprised if he takes from column A and column B. Your choice was between him and the whacko and whackette. So, at least from my POV, your effort was worth it.
IOW, you didn't have a chance, really, to vote for Kucinich or Nader or Gravel or Paul or any of the "purer" candidates. Get used to that idea.
November 15, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I hardly think people should be responsible for the views of their parents, Emanuel's comment was what sparked my own.
Don't you wonder about that? He's essentially saying that the views his father just recently expressed did not represent the values of his family, of which one can only presume his father is a member. Curious. Sounds like double-talk to me.
And as far as Clinton's foreign policy being the same as Obama's, have you forgotten the Iraq War? The beliefs of the two on the war were very different, and while it's true that Obama's position was very much middle-of-the-road, since the majority of the country agreed with him, the same cannot be said for Clinton. MJ, during the primary season, had posted numerous articles essentially saying just that, which is why I asked what his opinion was of the Clinton-as-SoS possibility.
For those of us who are deeply committed to the idea that our country should take a new direction in foreign policy, and who voted accordingly, there are other differences as well. Take, for instance, the votes of both Clinton and Obama on the Cluster Munitions Amendment (September 2006). As you probably know, unexploded cluster munitions from past wars continue to kill and maim thousands of innocent civilians, many of them children. Obama voted for the Cluster Munitions Amendment, Clinton against. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00232
So despite the Clinton's claim to be a champion of the world's children (and I completely acknowledge that she really has done many good things for children), when it came to the vote on cluster munitions, her hawkish side won out. This is one among many other examples of why I supported Obama over Clinton, and one cannot accurately claim the two are essentially the same.
I deeply hope that he'll have enough sense to not make her SoS. She certainly does deserve a prominent position in the Obama administration, since she really went out of her way to support him after the primary. But she absolutely needs to be kept away from foreign policy.
November 16, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie says: "Don't you wonder about that? He's essentially saying that the views his father just recently expressed did not represent the values of his family, of which one can only presume his father is a member. Curious. Sounds like double-talk to me."
I see the point, of course. But I also know, from my own experience and that of many friends, that sons depart from their fathers while still taking some of what their fathers have taught them. This is so commonplace that it's hardly controversial.
As to Hillary, yes. Wouldn't be my first choice. But it's still OBAMA's foreign policy and he will be judged on the results. How people vote in the Senate is not entirely determinative, IMO. Many cross currents come into play there.
Bottom line, to get elected President in these times, you have to thread a lot of needles. It's just the way it is, IMO. Unfortunate, but the country is VERY divided and huge swaths of the population are easily manipulated by lying rhetoric. If you want purity, you need to vote for Nader or Kucinich, who will never get elected, but who will always be "right."
I don't discount what you say, Wordie, but I think Obama is keeping his enemies "close" in the way Lincoln did.
November 17, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm's father made his comment days ago, & it jumped out at me when I read it. I think Rahm should have immediately distanced himself from -- not necessarily apologized for -- his father's slur as not characterizing his old POV. Why did he wait till he got a plaintiff letter from an the Arab American Anti-Defamation League? His failure to respond timely shows a certain flatfootedness & lack of consideration for other people's feelings that does not bode well. So far, Rahm's performance, beginning with his prima-donna airport presser, has been a drag on the Administration-in-waiting. Another story on this subject featured on www.RealityChex.com (center column)
November 14, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
my lebanese friend walid has already declared distrust and disgust for the obama administration. the day he announced rahm emmanuel as the guy. walid says emmanuel is a former israeli soldier and then fell in to one of his seething rants. i was hoping walid would be psyched about obama but...oh well. for my part i do hope obama shows compassion for the palestinian people who are the true victims in this endless hate cycle. how he can do it i have no clue, but it has to happen. in some ways this may be one of the biggest tests for obama but... it appears to be pushed to the background.
November 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama prove walid wrong even though he would never admit it even if you did
November 15, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we giving out awards now for Not Being a Bigot?
November 16, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as one who has been publicly accused of bigotry, I would settle for a simple confrontation with my accuser(s).
November 16, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think such a being would DESERVE an award?
I'll pony up.
November 16, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good God, what an AVALANCHE of f*cking cynicism. The future Chief of Staff doesn't hesitate, just steps up and does the right thing--a class move which should be applauded--and... WTF? No Emanuel was not to blame, but he took it upon himself to cover for his 'Archie Bunkerstein' father; this is to be commended. Yet so much of what I see in this thread are posts by those itching to be admitted to the 'Caustic Snide Bastard Hall of Fame.' Cynicism has its limits people.
Robert
November 17, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink