Free Liberal

Coordinating towards higher values

| Foreign Policy

Early Bad Sign from Obama

by Paul Gessing

For many libertarians and others hoping for an end to perpetual warfare in the Middle East, Obama's pick for White House chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel is discouraging. As this article from Foreign Policy magazine points out, Emmanuel is a fierce advocate of Israeli militancy:

Rahm's father Benjamin Emanuel served in the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist group that targeted British and Palestinian civilians -- most famously with the King David Hotel bombing and the Deir Yassin massacre -- to advance the goal of creating a Zionist state. This week, the elder Emanuel has not exactly assuaged doubts about his son's pedigree. "Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he told the Israel daily Maariv, "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab?"

Obama isn't yet President and therefore hasn't made any policy decisions, but picking such a pro-Israel chief of staff is a troubling sign. Hopefully, Obama will reverse Bush's hawkish, neoconservative-driven foreign policy agenda, but pro-peace voters should not take this for granted.

« First Black President Fights to Bring Back Slavery? | Main | Fatal Conceit, Writ Large »

Comments

lets be fair. you only know the father believe. don't judge a person before you know him. second, the fect he is have a israeli root shouldn't be a problem for a liberal like you..or it only not a problem when you suspected of being a muslims. I realy don't expect any balance ,accurate or true fact from someone like you..but you raely put a lot of historic erors in the article.

# posted at by deniiel

My concern is not that he has Israeli ties, but what his pro-Israel policies mean for the Obama Administration. I hope I'm wrong and that Obama will be a more equitable arbiter.

# posted at by Paul Gessing

Being "pro Israel" isn't per se a problem in my book. Undue influence IS a problem. Being anti-Palestinian IS a problem.

Unwinding US counterproductive aid and militarism is a laudable goal. Brokering a peace, ditto.

Complete non-intervention is not going to happen, much as I'd like it to. Tactful extrication could.

# posted at by Robert Capozzi

The answer in Israel has to come from Israel. The victory of Hamas was a set back to the process, which showed the folley of the Bush insistence on Palestinian elections. Unless Hamas has a change of heart in reponse to an Israeli peace movement, things are going to continue to suck.

The Israeli people need to decide on what conditions they wish to exist. Do they want to be culuturally Jewish or authentically Jewish? Do they want the return of the Ark of the Covenant or not. If they continue to treat Arabs in their midst in a way that would make George Wallace blush, the Ark will continue to remain in a Coptic monestary in Ethiopia.

Demographics are not their friend. The only way they can really have an ethnically Jewish state is to give up not only much of the west bank, but also much of the Arab Israeli territoriy in the north - and even then it must grant Arabs and Palestinians in the remainder full civil, political and economic rights. If not, we need to rethink the terms of our relationship with them.

Will Emmanuel allow such out of the box thinking? I'm not sure it matters as much as we think it does, as the solution really does not involve the United States.