SPOTLIGHT ON RAHM EMANUEL
Like Rahm Emanuel, I went to Sarah Lawrence College, but while he was studying ballet, I was writing poetry. Now, he's slated to become among the most powerful political players in the world. One can assume that he's maintained his love for the arts in informing daily decision-making and no doubt, he'll need to be dancing swiftly through many a political firestorm, especially regarding the pointed issue of Israel and Israel-Palestinian peace.
As a public service--and also since much of his record has been distorted in the press, Lara Friedman, the able staffer who covers the Hill for Americans for Peace Now (of which I am an officer) has prepared a very useful document on Emanuel's history re Israel-Palestine. He is the son of an Israeli, and someone who knows the country intimately. The lens has been on him already. Here, however, is a clear picture:
from APN analysis (go to www.peacenow.org for more)
"In recent days, there has been a great deal of discussion in the Middle East policy and activist communities over the appointment of Congressman Rahm Emanuel as President-elect Obama's White House Chief of Staff. As many savvy observers have argued, this appointment has nothing to do with the foreign policy views of Congressman Emanuel, and everything to do with President-elect Obama's apparent determination to move his agenda through Congress. Notwithstanding this observation, Emanuel's appointment has generated controversy, fueled by those -- on both the right and left -- who are concerned about Emanuel's views on Israel."
Apparently simply arguing that Emanuel's views on Israel are irrelevant -- that President-elect Obama would not appoint someone as his Chief of Staff unless he believed that person could be trusted to faithfully serve him and promote the President's agenda, including in the foreign policy arena, and that the Chief of Staff does not in any case have a role in making foreign policy -- will not put this controversy to rest. Likewise, it seems that there is no use in pointing out the absurdity of concluding from this one appointment that, after refusing to pander to pro-Likud forces during the election campaign (and paying a price for this refusal), President-elect Obama has decided only now that it is time to begin pandering.
With so many people determined to view Emanuel's views on Israel as important, it seems to make sense to actually review Emanuel's track record in Congress when it comes to Israel and Israel-related issues. This seemed like an especially useful exercise given that both those attacking Emanuel and those defending him apparently haven't bothered to examine this record, preferring to restrict their arguments and counter-arguments to discussions of his lineage, speculations about his personal feelings, analysis of comments made by his relatives, and impressions of him related by friends and acquaintances. Any or all of which may be interesting. But given that Congressman Emanuel has been in elected office for 5 years, his record in Congress seems like a more serious place to look for real insight about his views.
So, for the benefit of anyone who is determined to take a position for or against the Emanuel appointment based on his views on Israel and the Middle East, what follows here is a quick summary of his record on these issues since he first came to Congress in January 2003. This record paints a consistent picture of a man who is clearly committed to Israel's security and stability -- as we, at Americans for Peace Now are -- and who recognizes, as APN does, that peace -- and U.S. engagement and leadership to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace -- are vital to the national interests of both Israel and the United States.
Point 1: He has stayed off the really bad stuff
Members of Congress are constantly asked to sign letters and sponsor or cosponsor legislation related to Israel and the Middle East. Many of these initiatives are dubious in the extreme, representing efforts to get Members of Congress on the record support extreme positions that undermine any present or future peace efforts.
During his 5 years in Congress, Emanuel has not sponsored or co-sponsored any of the truly gratuitous, marginal, anti-peace legislation that is constantly popping up. In addition, a search of his statements in the Record, including during floor debates, shows that he has consistently taken a pragmatic, constructive line on Israeli-related issues. This includes some tough, and serious, statements with respect to Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Palestinian terrorism. This also includes consistent support for Israel and for Israel's security -- positions that APN and other pro-peace groups would generally share. While Emanuel has joined with the majority of his colleagues in signing on or voting for most of the major AIPAC-supported initiatives opposed by APN and other pro-peace groups (including, for example, the House version of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act), he has not spoken out prominently in support of such measures or engaged in grandstanding during floor debate over them. This includes with respect to Jerusalem.
Point 2: He has supported a number of pro-peace initiatives
During his time in Congress, Emanuel has signed on to a number of pro-peace initiatives, including some where he was one of the only Jewish members to do so.
The Roadmap letter (May 2003)
In May 2003, Emanuel was one of 4 Jewish members of Congress to sign a Dear Colleague to President Bush in support of the President's Road Map for Middle East peace. This letter was strongly supported by Americans for Peace Now and other pro-peace organizations. The bi-partisan letter was co-sponsored by Reps. Lois Capps (D-CA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), David Price (D-NC) and Amo Houghton (R-NY). It was signed by a total of 44 members of the House of Representatives. The other Jewish signers were Barney Frank (D-MA), Bob Filner (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The letter was especially significant because it came as a counterpoint to a letter (strongly supported by AIPAC, which Emanuel and many of the 44 also signed) circulated immediately after the publication of the Roadmap, which implied that Congress did not support the Roadmap.
Excerpt from the Capps-Issa-Price-Houghton letter:
"We applaud your recent release of the 'Roadmap to Peace' as well as your statements underscoring your personal commitment to ending the violence between the Palestinian and Israeli people. We join you in noting with satisfaction the appointment of a new Palestinian Prime Minister with real authority. We hope that this change in the Palestinian governance structure will enhance the ability of a new Palestinian leadership to deliver lasting reforms...Along with changes on the Palestinian side, we share your belief that the Roadmap must also be implemented by Israel, with the end goal, as you have stated many times, 'two states living side-by-side' in peace and security...."
Letter Supporting direct funding for the PA (July 2003)
In July 2003, Emanuel signed a letter to President Bush supporting the Road Map and the decision to provide $20 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority. The letter was co-sponsored by Lois Capps (D-CA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), and Howard Berman (D-CA), and strongly supported by APN and other pro-peace groups. It ultimately obtained 74 signers. The other Jewish members who signed on were: Ackerman (D-NY), Berman (D-CA), Waxman (D-CA), Harman (D-CA), Schiff (D-CA), Schakowsky (D-IL), Filner (D-CA), Davis (D-CA), and Sanders (I-VT).
Excerpt from the Capps-Ackerman-Berman letter:
"We write to express our support for the $20 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority proposed by the Administration. We believe this assistance will strengthen Prime Minister Abbas and, we hope, enhance his ability to both achieve an end to terror while providing the Palestinian people with tangible benefits that will demonstrate the value of embracing reform and unambiguously rejecting extremism. Hopefully, with this support, the Palestinian leadership will begin the important process of dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, as called for in this stage of the roadmap. This assistance will also help the Palestinian people confront their pressing humanitarian needs...American assistance has long demonstrated its importance as a tool to advance our efforts to secure Middle East peace, combat terrorism, and promote U.S. interests in the region. Clearly, the Middle East peace process is now at an important crossroads. The decision to provide this direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority is an important signal of our continued national commitment to achieving peace with security. We stand ready to work with you to achieve our nation's longstanding goal of finally bringing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Hyde-Capps Letter (December 2005)
In December 2005, Emanuel signed a letter to Secretary Rice supporting efforts to improve the situation on the ground in Gaza. The letter was co-sponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Lois Capps (D-CA). This letter was strongly supported by APN and other pro-peace groups. It was eventually signed by 106 members, including 8 other Jewish members: Lantos (D-CA), Frank (D-MA), Schiff (D-CA), Harman (D-CA), Davis (D-CA), Schakowsky (D-IL), Israel (D-NY), and Filner (D-CA).
Excerpt from Hyde-Capps letter:
"We are writing to commend you for achieving an historic agreement between Israel, the Palestinians, Egypt, and the Quartet on the Gaza border crossing. The successful opening of the Gaza crossing on November 25th is a vital step on the path toward Israeli security, economic stability and growth for the Palestinians, political stability in Gaza, and the achievement of Israeli-Palestinian peace...Your role in the achievement of this accord, and the subsequent successful opening of the Gaza crossing point, clearly demonstrate the value of robust, hands-on U.S. diplomatic engagement with Israel and the Palestinians. Indeed, more than three decades of Middle East peace efforts have shown that breakthroughs come only when the U.S. President or Secretary of State is personally involved. Your leadership helps reassure Israel and her people of the United States' enduring commitment to Israel's welfare and security, even as Israel takes risks for the sake of peace. At the same time, it helps deliver tangible improvements in the quality of life of the Palestinians -- improvements that are fundamental to the efforts of President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people and counter the appeal of extremists. We thus hope that you will continue to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians a personal priority, including seeing through the implementation of this historic agreement."
Geneva Resolution (November 2003)
In November 2003 Emanuel signed on as a cosponsor to H. Res. 462, "Supporting the vision of Israelis and Palestinians who are working together to conceive pragmatic, serious plans for achieving peace, and for other purposes." This resolution, introduced in support of the Geneva Initiative and other track II efforts to make progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace, was supported strongly by APN and other pro-peace groups. Emanuel was one of only two Jewish members to cosponsor it; the other was Rep. Filner (D-CA).
H Res. 462:
Whereas ending the violence and terror that have devastated Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza since September 2000, is in the vital interest of Israel, the Palestinians, and the United States;
Whereas ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict strengthens extremists and opponents of peace throughout the region, including those who seek to undermine efforts by the United States to stabilize Iraq and those who wish to see conflict spread to other nations in the region;
Whereas more than 3 years of violence, terror, and escalating military conflict have demonstrated that military means alone will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
Whereas obligations under the peace plan known as the `road map' have not been met by Israeli and Palestinian leaders and no viable political alternatives have emerged;
Whereas despite mutual mistrust, anger, and pain, courageous and credible Israelis and Palestinians have come together in a private capacity to develop serious model peace initiatives, like the People's Voice Initiative and the Geneva Initiative;
Whereas those initiatives and other similar private efforts are founded on the determination of Israelis and Palestinians to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict and to live in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity, and security, based on a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace;
Whereas those initiatives demonstrate that both Israelis and Palestinians want to end the current vicious stalemate, and that both peoples are prepared to make compromises in order to achieve peace;
Whereas the Geneva Initiative offers a detailed framework that addresses the fundamental requirements of both peoples, including preservation of the Jewish, democratic nature of Israel with secure and defensible borders, and the creation of a viable Palestinian state; and
Whereas such peace initiatives present precious opportunities to end the violence and restart fruitful peace negotiations:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) applauds the courage and vision of Israelis and Palestinians who are working together to conceive pragmatic, serious plans for achieving peace; (2) calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to capitalize on the opportunities offered by these peace initiatives; and (3) urges the President to embrace and encourage all serious efforts to move away from violent military stalemate toward achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Point 3: He has been explicit about his support for the two-state solution, and his view that the U.S. should play a leadership role
Jerusalem Resolution (June 2007)
On June 5, 2007, Emanuel spoke on the House floor in the context of consideration of H. Con. Res. 152, a resolution marking the 40th Anniversary of the Reunification of Jerusalem. Rather than speaking in worn-out platitudes that implicitly or explicitly reject any Israeli negotiations over Jerusalem, he offered a very personal account of his connection to Israel and his own feelings about the 1967 war, including a discussion of how that war opened the door for land-for-peace, and the importance of U.S. leadership in seeking and making peace in the Middle East.
Excerpt from Emanuel floor statement, June 05, 2007:
"...In fact, one has to look at the 1967 war, that it created possibilities, as did the 1973 war, for peace to occur, and every nation that has decided to make peace with Israel, Egypt and Jordan, has had peace. The war in 1967, because of the changes to the boundaries to the south, to the immediate east and to the north, redefined Israel's security. Once those nations came to terms with Israel's status, which is what the 1967 war accomplished, they accomplished and received peace, and land-for-peace has been at the premise of America's foreign policy, Israel's foreign policy, and was possible because of the outcome and the results strategically on the ground and in the environment because of 1967. People remember the military accomplishment which was unique and stands out in the 20th century, but it also created an environment that allowed peace to happen, at least with the two countries that have chosen the road of peace with Israel. ...The next 40 years needs to be a period of time where America, and this may be a little bit of a criticism here, we were always and always will be the indispensable leader in that region. The moment we walk away from that role the parties lose interest in discussing among themselves. I would hope that immediately the President would again...nominate somebody to be a Middle East envoy, to again create a dialogue between the Israelis and Palestinians, to find what the Jordanians and Egyptians have found with the Israelis, peace, based on the premise of land for peace... Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment our two leaders today, the chairman and the leader on the Republican side, for this resolution, for recognizing an historic moment that in fact without which we would not see the peace between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt..."
Rabin Resolution 12/8/05
On December 8, 2005, Emanuel made a powerful statement on the House floor in the context of House consideration of a resolution honoring the life, legacy, and example of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, on the 10th anniversary of his death. Emanuel also co-sponsored the resolution (which was strongly supported by APN and other pro-peace organizations). In his statement Emanuel noted with pride his involvement in the Olso Accords. Emanuel was one of 44 members who cosponsored this resolution.
Excerpt from his 12/8/05 floor statement:
"I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 535, a resolution honoring the memory of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the tenth anniversary of his assassination. Prime Minister Rabin served the people of Israel for two terms as Prime Minister, as well as previous roles as Ambassador to the United States, Minister of Defense and Member of the Knesset. Among his many accomplishments, it is his role as a visionary peacemaker which has ensured him a place of honor in history...During his tenure as Prime Minister, Mr. Rabin made remarkable progress in the Middle East peace movement. Teaming with former rival Shimon Peres, Mr. Rabin entered peace negotiations with then-Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat in 1993 in Oslo, Norway. Prime Minister Rabin, Mr. Peres and Mr. Arafat all received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. As a member of the Clinton Administration, I had the pleasure of witnessing the signing of these historical accords on the White House lawn. Meeting Prime Minister Rabin was an honor I will never forget, and his example continues to inspire me to this day. Prime Minister Rabin was revered by the Israeli citizens for his unwavering commitment to the peace process. Tragically, the life of this man of peace was cut short by an extremist gunman on November 4, 1995. I would like to express my condolences to the family of Prime Minister Rabin on the tenth anniversary of his death..." "















Could we see some evidence on any votes Emanuel cast in opposition to a piece of AIPAC-endorsed legislation, or in support of a piece of AIPAC-opposed legislation?
November 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting question, Dan. So in the small time allotted to me for digging like this, I attempted to find out. Short answer: Nothing definitive. Emmanuel's voting record is easy to find, of course, but matching it to legislation AIPAC supported or opposed is harder. I'm sure it can be done, but I didn't have time.
So this is what I found. He opposed H Amdt 1114. It's worded in that double and triple negative fashion, so you need to diagram it before you know what a vote means. But as near as I can tell, he was AGAINST using loaded terms like "Islamo-fascist" in intelligence and government reports. And he was FOR using funds to implement such a ban. Here's what it says.
He voted NO.
"Vote to pass an amendment that prohibits the use of funds to discourage the use of the phrases "jihadist," "jihad," "Islamo-facism," "caliphate," "Islamist," or "Islamic terrorist" within the intelligence community or federal government.
I don't know whether AIPAC weighed in on this issue or not. But I do think it shows RE's desire for a more even-handed approach to the worldwide Islamic community and a strike against demonizing through the use of prejudicial language.
November 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
In recent days, there has been a great deal of discussion in the Middle East policy and activist communities . . . .
Whoo! Whoo!
A bunch of nowhere men and women discussing nothing of importance.
November 14, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
APN is partisan, and the peace that it talks about is ideological, in Louis Althusser's sense, more accurately hegemonic in Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau's sense, meaning peace for the Powerful at the cost of chaos for the rest of the weak world.
November 14, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He is the son of an Israeli, and someone who knows the country intimately."
What country? This country has enough problems to keep him busy for at least 8 years. He doesn't need to be distracted by any other country.
November 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. I am so tired of it and I'm one of the miscreants.
November 14, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could Emanuel truly be the Manchurian? Was Obama elected simply to put Emanuel in place? What if Obama is simply a figure-head or the cover for Emanuel? Haven't the Israelis been caught with several spies within our government already?
November 14, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could OldSarg be a neo-Nazi? Is OldSarg an agent of the Klan? What if OldSarg is simply here acting for Jew haters everywhere? Does OldSarg have a swastika on his hood? Did Jew haters infiltrate our Government? Is OldSarg a fan of Andy Martin? Does OldSarg deny the Holocaust happened?
November 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
...after refusing to pander to pro-Likud forces during the election campaign (and paying a price for this refusal)...
when and where did this happen?
November 14, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, my recollection is that he paid a bit of a price during the primary campaign as the nasty viral emails heated up, but that he then cooperatively drank the Kool-aid with his right-veering AIPAC speech on the day after he won the nomination, followed by his audience, with Rahm Emanuel in tow as his intercessor, before the high mucky-mucks of the AIPAC board. It was pretty much downhill coasting after that, where Jewish-Americans were concerned.
November 15, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love Jo-Ann's participation and I admire APN and its efforts to promote a more even-handed dialogue. But this is all gobbledy-gook mishigash. I think it reflects that fact that lots of folks have so much invested in this notion that President-Elect Obama is going to alter American I-P policy overnight that they believe it is some kind of absolute imperative to fit folks like Rahm into an appropriate mold that is consistent with this notion. I say relax. President Obama will set the policy he wishes to set, and Rahm Emanuel is not going to do anything to change that. Rahm Emanuel is as purely political as they come and he's a good choice for the COS task he's been hired to take on. Why do some people who, like most of us, have high hopes for President-Elect Obama, think the guy is as pliable as silly putty?
And Ellen up there, when you're funny, you are unmatched, and I laughed out loud when I read your comment up yonder.
November 14, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
Where do you get assumptions such as "lots of folks have so much invested in this notion that President-Elect Obama is going to alter American I-P policy overnight...."
Or is just your own version of "gobbledy-gook mishigash"? (that's funny)
For the record. AGAIN.
It's Rahm's role as gatekeeper that concerns me.
The other "folks" who apparently think that Obama is Tinkerbelle as per your dismissive description can speak for themselves.
As for Obama's sillyputty-ness:
"Alan Dershowitz says he helped convince Barack Obama to keep Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention.
"I pushed him very hard to make that decision," Dershowitz said in an interview with Shalom TV. "Barack Obama had to make a choice between his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter, and he did not choose Jimmy Carter. And that was an embarrassment for Jimmy Carter and a show of disrespect."
"It was a good decision, a wise decision, a moral decision," the Harvard Law professor added."
http://jta.org/news/article/2008/11/13/1000956/dershowitz-i-helped-convince-obama-to-reject-carter-speech
The jury is still out.
If Rahm can bar Dershowitz from the Oval Office, I will be reassured somewhat.
November 15, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Lally, AGAIN, the fact that Dersh convinced Obama of something--at least that's Dersh's version--that we disagree with doesn't mean he's silly putty, does it?
I'm sure Rahm can bar Dersh from the door--but I thought the goal was to get as broad a spectrum involved as possible.
Now, if let's Dersh in and bars Khalidi, then that's a different matter.
Bruce's point is this, I think: Will RE be an effective implementer of Obama's plans and programs? Period. The only people he should "bar" are the people Obama wants barred, for whatever reason.
November 15, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin.
I was responding to Bruce's fantasy about the imaginary "folks" who are so invested in Obama that they imagine US FP can be changed overnight. Anyone following those issues knows how formidable a task that is, especially when it comes to I/P. Facilitating a deal between Syria and Israel looks to be more doable and IMO, should be a priority.
Phil Weiss prints a conversation with a guardedly optomistic Stephen Walt that includes quotes about the situation of enforced groupthink re the I/P situation that pervades our FP establisment:
" But Obama will be sufficiently focused on the economy and Iraq and Afghanistan so as to not want to engage personally during the first year or two. That means he'll have to delegate, and it will be to one of the usual suspects, with perhaps a bit of diversity in the team (but nobody outside the consensus). So the danger is that once again we'll get lots of energetic activity but not a new deal ."
snip}
"But given everything else that is on Barack's plate, and the reluctance of most people in the foreign policy mainstream to say what they really think on this issue, it is hard to be optimistic. We shall see."
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/
The comment about Rahm barring blowhard Dershowitz was a joke. Obviously, it's a bit early to evaluate how Rahm will act in his capacity as gatekeeper. My concern is that "nobody outside the consensus", including Israelis with dissenting voices, will be granted access.
November 15, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he'll start right in on the IP issue...or maybe Syria.
Given the major linkages between this issue and Iraq and Iran, a break out result on this front would create the possibility of real movement on these other fronts.
Enormous leverage (power) would be created, opening up the possibility of forward motion. Notice how the Iranians are already back pedaling in the face of Obama's willingness to sit down without preconditions--and he isn't even president yet!
As far as "delegation" goes, I don't get this point. AFAIK, the president delegates everything he does (almost), but that doesn't mean he loses control of policy, or people go off on their own (not if the president is a leader and not a vent dummy like GWB). This gives the president the ability to work on multiple issues at the same time.
Presumably BO will still be giving the orders and the direction. If these conflict too much with what the principals think themselves, or if their actions stray, then there isn't a fit, and they have to go bye-bye.
My guiding hope is that Obama has worked too effing hard to get to this place to allow his Administration to disintegrate into Clinton's foreign policy, Summer's economic policy, Gates military policy, and so on.
November 15, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know about Dershowitz ordering Obama to keep Carter from speaking at the convention. The One is an empty suit if this is true. If it is true, it confirms all my doubts about Barack Obama. It also gives weight to Tom Engelhardt's fears that Obama is going to "break progressives' hearts".
November 16, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, since I'm not "progressive" (whatever the hell THAT is) I don't know if those who are will be in shock that Obama, like nearly every other American politician with ambitions, has had to submit to pressure from the Lobby.
I suspect that "progressives" and others who follow FP issues are quite aware of the facts of American political life and unlikely to be "heartbroken" over yet another example that the status quo still prevails. Disgusted, yes; and in my case, all the more determined to lay seige to it.
Although, Dershie's claim that he threatened Obama with losing Jewish support unless he punished Carter is reaffirming the notions that hardliner IFer Jews have outsized influence in our politics and that in some cases, pettiness prevails. A bit counterproductive for those still pretending that it's not true, que no?
Silly Dershie. An attorney doesn't usually make the oppositions' case.
November 17, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your term "vent dummy" although I'm not sure what it means.
Israel is unstable. The next PM is still on the horizon so it remains to be seen which Israelis and their corresponding American partners (in Bibi's case) will become the next someone we can talk to.
The identities of the above will determine the approaches.
When it comes to our potential partners on the international stage, they seem to be in holding patterns for now; making slight adjustments as required.
....and watching, oh boy are they watching.
In Syria's case, we know who's in charge, who his non-Iranian allies are, some of what's been put on the table and that the Israelis have their own negotiators at the Tukish confabs. This process is further advanced so let's move this ball along on it's trajectory.
With Syria some say, will come Lebanon.
My crackpot peacenik theory is that Israel absolutely must begin the process of becoming an integrated part of the neighborhood; starting with the neighbors next door. Unlike Jordan, Egypt and the KSA; Assad doesn't require US/Israeli promises to insure the viability of his regime into the future.
If a deal could be cut between Israel and Syria, I'd stake a virtual fortune on Assad's acceptance of an invitation to speak to the Knesset.
Then again, perhaps my enthusiasm for the extraordinary conversations between Arabs/ Israelis/others on Joshua Landis' "Syria Comment" threads is shading my judgement pink-o. SC has become an influential, informal avenue of communication between Syria(ns) and Israel(is) that stokes hope.
...and Alon Liel deserves credit for opening the SC door for willing Israelis.
November 15, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vent dummy is short for ventriloquist's dummy.
November 16, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
That you mentioned Bibi; I saw this on the front page of TPM today.
JERUSALEM — Click on the Russian-language version of the campaign Web site of Benjamin Netanyahu, the conservative Likud leader running for prime minister of Israel, and up pops a picture of him with Barack Obama. On the Hebrew version, Mr. Obama is not pictured. But he is, in fact, everywhere.
November 16, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
John.
I thought this response from one of the Israelis participating on Syria Comment to the same article re Bibi's adoption of Obama electioneering tactics was interesting:
"If we can see the amazing power of the internet, I guess it’s only to be expected that Netanyahu will as well… But if you recall the comment I made recently, about the Likud’s stated policy regarding concessions in return for peace (on Bibi’s Obama-style website), it’ll be interesting to see what they do with it… In Hebrew, it very clearly insinuates readiness to withdraw from the Golan, in return for “real and reliable peace”.
snip]
"Once the campaign gets under way, I at least will be asking a few Likud people to clarify this statement. In the past, they’ve been known to “suddenly” erase such potential embarrassments… :-) But we’ll be there to remind them, in case it disappears…"
November 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think Rahm Emanuel's appointment has anything to do with Israel. Rahm Emanuel, is a hard nose, hard line organizer that holds people responsible for thier jobs. It's been said that when he complements someone it sounds like an insult.
The Chief of Staff's job is to run a very complex and huge staff that, in effect, runs the country. He's exactly the type of person for that herculean task. He wasn't appointed as the morale officer and he wasn't appointed as as a policy wonk.
November 16, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much talk of Israel about someone who will be CoS for Obama's WH. Thank goodness Rahm is not "fixated" on the situation, or one would get the idea he would constantly be distracted
November 16, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will the Israelis stop settlement building?
Not likely.
Will an Obama Administration condition support for Israel on the cessation of Settlement building?
Not likely.
Will we see significant progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue during and Obama Administration?
Not likely.
Does Rahm Emmanuel have a role to play in this?
Not likely.
November 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's immaterial, really, whether this is a sound profile of Emanuel; any credibility it may retain is destroyed by its emphatic position that discussions of his positions on the Mideast are "irrelevant" and perhaps even absurd.
They are not.
Rahm Emanuel has in his lifetime had both American and Israeli citizenship, he is an IDF veteran (joining at age 31 during the 1991 Gulf War!) and could not - by any stretch of the imagination - be described as unfriendly to Israel during his Congressional service.
As former CIA case office and Iraq War opponent Philip Giraldi notes in a column today:
"Other Israelis and prominent American supporters of Israel also see Emanuel as their man in the White House. The respected Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz hailed his appointment, describing him unambiguously as an Israeli. William Daroff of the United Jewish Communities also praised Emanuel, describing him as "a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock." Ira Forman, head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, welcomed the appointment, saying, "It's just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the U.S.-Israel relationship … that was never true," an indication that some will actually expect Emanuel to act on behalf of Israel when the chips are down."
With Emanuel on board, it's fair to have doubts that Obama policy in the Levant will vary not one damn bit from that of previous administrations. This country's joined-at-the-hip relationship with Israel has, for the past 60 years, precluded it from acting as an honest broker in any real negotiations to end the Israeli/Palestinean impasse. Meanwhile, the Israelis are given a blanc cheque to starve the Palesitineans into submission.
Lara Friedman's CV for Emanuel is dismissively, insultingly partisan, and so it is impossible to give it any credence at all.
November 18, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink