Matthew Yglesias » Rahm and the Israelis

Jun 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Rahm and the Israelis

rahmemanuel

Very interesting Newsweek article on Rahm Emannuel’s role in Barack Obama’s push for Middle East peace:

Emanuel’s status as a near-native son gave some Israelis and Jews the impression he would be their guy on the Obama team—the pro-Israeli with the receptive ear. He had those golden Zionist credentials, after all: His father, Benjamin, had been a member of the Irgun, the right-wing Jewish militia that existed before Israeli independence. His Uncle Emanuel had been killed in a skirmish with Arabs back in the ’30s, prompting the family to change its name from Auerbach to honor him. But some in the Jewish community have been disappointed. Even his own rabbi, Asher Lopatin, has doubts about his absent congregant. “There is a lot of disappointment,” says Lopatin, who presides over the Modern Orthodox Anshe Sholom B’nai Israel Congregation in Chicago. “In some ways there was a heightened expectation because Rahm is so connected to Israel and the Jewish community. Instead what we’ve seen is more of the tough Rahm Emanuel. Not the warm Rahm.“

There’s also this warning of dire political consequences:

All that will present political problems for Obama at home as well—with Emanuel playing his familiar role of fireman for his boss. Rep. Eric Cantor, the only Republican Jewish member of Congress, says the Obama administration is taking a position “that’s vastly different from the mainstream American Jewish community” in trying to engage with Iran. “The pro-Israel community has consistently been for keeping sanctions pressure on the terrorist regime in Iran … The administration has indicated in all ways I can tell that we ought not to be pursuing sanctions while talks go on.” (Administration officials deny they intend to let up on sanctions if talks go forward.)

I think the fact that Cantor is “the only Republican Jewish member of Congress” should tell you must of what you need to know about what mainstream American Jewish opinion is.

Comments
71

Filed under: Eric Cantor, Israel, Rahm Emanuel

71 Responses to “Rahm and the Israelis”

JM Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
the fact that Cantor is “the only Republican Jewish member of Congress” should tell you must of what you need to know about what mainstream American Jewish opinion is.

… they don’t watch FOX?
Jose Padilla Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Spector’s defection really did hit the Republican’s hard.
joe from Lowell Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Awesome link.

I remember seeing wingnuts, Raimondo-style isolationists, and left-wing loonies crowing “Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss” last November, because appointing Rahm Emmanuel so obviously demonstrated that Obama was going to be Just Like Bush on Israel.

Sigh. You liberals, you’re so naive. Not worldly, like me. You need to take off your partisan blinkers, Obamabots. I’m so smart.

Suck it, losers.
SteveAR Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I think the fact that Cantor is “the only Republican Jewish member of Congress” should tell you must of what you need to know about what mainstream American Jewish opinion is.

I think that a leftist rag like Newsweek makes it a point to indicate that Cantor is the only Republican Jewish member of Congress just shows how much the left relies on identity politics (and the left’s racism) in order to attempt to keep the country divided and Democratic voters stupid.

Considering an editor of the leftist (ie., progressive) Newsweek considers Obama a god, and mainstream American Jewish opinion seems to support Obama, I think mainstream American Jewish opinion is doing a good job neglecting the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Commandments.
Marshall Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
How is it that no matter what, right-wing Jews are ALWAYS given a chance to argue that if the Democrats don’t immediately adopt the policy aims of Avigdor Lieberman, we face ruin in the Jewish community?
otto Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Well, the mainstream American jewish opinion tends to want liberalism at home, and abroad, colonial apartheid for the palestinian arabs (wrapped up in a spirit of ‘compromise’ to be sure) plus criticism of the UN. As long as the democrats are willing to offer the full package, there no temptation for many to leave, and that’s the situation right now. But the tension really does exist, but does not come to the surface because Democratic party leaders are making only very very limited moves to restrain jewish colonial chauvinism. Viz, the ’settlement freeze’, otherwise known as “hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit”.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Once again, Matt, email me when something of actual consequence happens on the ground in Israel.

So far all I’ve seen is Obama talking…and talking…and talking.

When he starts talking about foreign aid cutoffs to Israel and refusal to militarily support Israel if it unilaterally attacks Iran, maybe I’ll start paying some attention to the TALK.

Until then, your water carrying for this foreign policy bozo is embarrassing. But then, so is your typing and grammar and that doesn’t seem to bother you either.
JM Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
When he starts talking about foreign aid cutoffs to Israel and refusal to militarily support Israel if it unilaterally attacks Iran, maybe I’ll start paying some attention to the TALK.

I guess this is your excuse for not paying attention at all. In the meantime,

George Friedman – STRATFOR

Therefore, Obama has decided to create a crisis with Israel. He has chosen a subject on which Republican and Democratic administrations have had the same formal position. He has also picked a subject that does not affect Israeli national security in any immediate sense (he has not made demands for changes of policy toward Gaza, for example). Obama struck at an issue where he had precedent on his side, and where Israel’s immediate safety is not at stake. He also picked an issue on which he would have substantial support in the United States, and he has done this to have a symbolic showdown with Israel. The more Netanyahu resists, the more Obama gets what he wants.

…

For Netanyahu, this is the worst terrain on which to fight. If he could have gotten Obama to attack by demanding that Israel not respond to missiles launched from Gaza or Lebanon, Netanyahu would have had the upper hand in the United States. Israel has support in the United States and in Congress, and any action that would appear to leave Israel’s security at risk would trigger an instant strengthening of that support.

But there is not much support in the United States for settlements on the West Bank. This is not a subject around which Israel’s supporters are going to rally very intensely, in large part because there is substantial support for a two-state solution and very little understanding or sympathy for the historic claim of Jews to Judea and Samaria. Obama has picked a topic on which he has political room for maneuver and on which Netanyahu is politically locked in.

Given that, the question is where Obama is going with this. From Obama’s point of view, he wins no matter what Netanyahu decides to do. If Netanyahu gives in, then he has established the principle that the United States can demand concessions from a Likud-controlled government in Israel and get them. There will be more demands. If Netanyahu doesn’t give in, Obama can create a split with Israel over the one issue he can get public support for in the United States (a halt to settlement expansion in the West Bank), and use that split as a lever with Islamic states.

Thus, the question is what Netanyahu is going to do. His best move is to say that this is just a disagreement between friends and assume that the rest of the U.S.-Israeli relationship is intact, from aid to technology transfer to intelligence sharing. That’s where Obama is going to have to make his decision. He has elevated the issue to the forefront of U.S.-Israeli relations. The Israelis have refused to comply. If Obama proceeds with the relationship as if nothing has happened, then he is back where he began.

Obama did not start this confrontation to wind up there. He calculated carefully when he raised this issue and knew perfectly well that Netanyahu couldn’t make concessions on it, so he had to have known that he was going to come to this point. Obviously, he could have made this confrontation as a part of his initiative to the Islamic world. But it is unlikely that he saw that initiative as ending with the speech, and he understands that, for the Islamic world, his relation to Israel is important. Even Islamic countries not warmly inclined toward Palestinians, like Jordan or Egypt, don’t want the United States to back off on this issue.

Netanyahu has argued in the past that Israel’s relationship to the United States was not as important to Israel as it once was. U.S. aid as a percentage of Israel’s gross domestic product has plunged. Israel is not facing powerful states, and it is not facing a situation like 1973, when Israeli survival depended on aid being rushed in from the United States. The technology transfer now runs both ways, and the United States relies on Israeli intelligence quite a bit. In other words, over the past generation, Israel has moved from a dependent relationship with the United States to one of mutual dependence.

This is very much Netanyahu’s point of view, and from this point of view follows the idea that he might simply say no to the United States on the settlements issue and live easily with the consequences. The weakness in this argument is that, while Israel does not now face strategic issues it can’t handle, it could in the future. Indeed, while Netanyahu is urging action on Iran, he knows that action is impossible without U.S. involvement.

This leads to a political problem. As much as the right would like to blow off the United States, the center and the left would be appalled. For Israel, the United States has been the centerpiece of the national psyche since 1967. A breach with the United States would create a massive crisis on the left and could well bring the government down if Ehud Barak and his Labor Party, for example, bolted from the ruling coalition. Netanyahu’s problem is the problem Israel has continually had. It is a politically fragmented country, and there is never an Israeli government that does not consist of fragments. A government that contains Lieberman and Barak is not one likely to be able to make bold moves.

It is therefore difficult to see how Netanyahu can both deal with Obama and hold his government together. It is even harder to see how Obama can reduce the pressure. Indeed, we would expect to see him increase the pressure by suspending minor exchanges and programs. Obama is playing to the Israeli center and left, who would oppose any breach with the United States.

Obama has the strong hand and the options. Netanyahu has the weak hand and fewer options. It is hard to see how he will solve the problem. And that’s what Obama wants. He wants Netanyahu struggling with the problem. In the end, he wants Netanyahu to fold on the settlements issue and keep on folding until he presides over a political settlement with the Palestinians. Obama wants Netanyahu and the right to be responsible for the agreement, as Menachem Begin was responsible for the treaty with Egypt and withdrawal from the Sinai.
joe from Lowell Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
So far all I’ve seen is Obama talking…and talking…and talking.

Pretty rich, coming from you. You’ve spent every day since Obama’s election assuring us he intends to attack Iran based on the language he uses, but suddenly, we can’t draw conclusions about his foreign policy based on what he says, silly!
DMonteith Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I think that a leftist rag like Newsweek…

The only reason that I still have a computer with which to post this comment is that I did not have a coffee in hand when I read this.

Van den Heuvel, all ur base are belong to Zakaria!!!!
joe from Lowell Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I think that a leftist rag like Newsweek makes it a point to indicate that Cantor is the only Republican Jewish member of Congress just shows how much the left relies on identity politics (and the left’s racism) in order to attempt to keep the country divided and Democratic voters stupid.

And also, Barack Obama is a secret Muslim who hates white people! Who plays identity politics!

Lol.
LaFollette Progressive Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Obama hasn’t delivered on the vast majority of his promises yet, so it’s much, much too soon to judge the quality of his Presidency.

However, there is no questioning his ability to show up in public, say eminently reasonable things about contentious issues, draw praise from all corners of the world, and drive conservatives into slobbering, incoherent, borderline schizophrenic fits of pure, white-hot, race-obsessed rage.

It’s as if the mere fact of his political success has shattered the entire worldview of movement conservatives and left them all broken husks of men, impotently clenching their fists and shouting “socialism” at random intervals, like Tourette’s sufferers.

Thanks for stopping by, SteveAR.
otto Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
However, there is no questioning his ability to show up in public, say eminently reasonable things about contentious issues, draw praise from all corners of the world, and drive conservatives into slobbering, incoherent, borderline schizophrenic fits of pure, white-hot, race-obsessed rage.

True dat.
David Sucher Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Why is anyone surprised? Have we all forgotten (the cliche) of “Nixon going to China?”
Jesse M. Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I think that a leftist rag like Newsweek makes it a point to indicate that Cantor is the only Republican Jewish member of Congress

They didn’t, that was Matt’s comment. You could tell because it wasn’t an indented block of text like both the quotes. Pretty common convention on blogs.
Bloix Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Thanks for that, JM. If Stratfor is correct, then Obama is intentionally provoking a split between the secular Israeli majority and the fundamentalist settler community. Up until now, the secular majority has been willing to sit in Tel Aviv, make money, and pretend that the West Bank isn’t happening. They know they’ll have to face down the crazies some day, but the truth is just too difficult to bear, so they ignore it. But Obama is going to make them do it. And that’s a strategy that Emanuel is knowledgeable enough and tough emough to have developed.
El Cid Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
If Stratfor is correct, then Obama is intentionally provoking a split between the secular Israeli majority and the fundamentalist settler community.

Duh. This is one of the most obvious parts, although it’s not restricted to a split between the secular Israeli majority and the fundamentalist settlers, but a wedge driven by Obama and happily accepted by many Israelis between the set formed by fundamentalist settlers and those politicians who would back them above all, and everyone else.

Obama chose to emphasize one of the weakest points in internal Israeli politics, one which cannot be so easily portrayed by hawks and liberal hawks as representing ‘all’ Israel or the unquestionable good of the Israeli state.
nbt Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Jesse #15: Uh, no, read again, carefully this time. MY was quoting the phrase “only Republican Jewish member of Congress” which also appears in the Newsweek block quote.
LastSilmaril Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
If Cantor were referring to mainstream Orthodox and Conservative positions, then his comment definitely holds water…

-e
jeff Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
His father, Benjamin, had been a member of the Irgun, the right-wing Jewish militia that existed before Israeli independence

If the Irgun was simply as stated, can we call Al Qaeda a right-wing Muslim militia that existed before the World Caliphate.
stras jones Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Seriously, Matt, there’s been no indication at all that Obama is willing to actually do anything to stop Israeli settlement expansion – much less tear down existing settlements, as would be required by any two-state solution worthy of the name. So far there’s been a lot of talk by Obama, and a lot of talk by AIPAC and the Israel hawks, and nothing in the meantime has actually been happening. Bush told Israel that settlements were bad; Clinton told Israel that settlements were bad; every president for the last twenty years has told Israel that settlements are bad. Is Obama willing to cut off the billions of dollars the U.S. gives to Israel every year? Is he willing to impose sanctions? What’s his plan, other than to give another speech?
Ed Marshall Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
You’ll have to wait and see what Obama does with the Security Council. The president can’t stop Congress from sending money to Israel. They will flip shit and attach that money to every bill that comes out of every committee.

The back chatter is that what he is going to withdraw is the veto, and that opens the door for all kinds of ill-effects for the Israelis that don’t have a legislative chokepoint.
El Cid Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
So far there’s been a lot of talk by Obama, and a lot of talk by AIPAC and the Israel hawks, and nothing in the meantime has actually been happening. Bush told Israel that settlements were bad; Clinton told Israel that settlements were bad; every president for the last twenty years has told Israel that settlements are bad. Is Obama willing to cut off the billions of dollars the U.S. gives to Israel every year? Is he willing to impose sanctions? What’s his plan, other than to give another speech?

My guess is that we’re mainly at a stage where the U.S. is hoping that somehow a strong public stance somehow changes the decision-making within Israel. So all of those remain the pertinent questions.
fostert Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
“Have we all forgotten (the cliche) of “Nixon going to China?””

That’s not a cliche, it’s a Zen koan. It pivots off the original “Why did the Bodhidharma go to China?”. But the Nixon version provides even more mystery and insight than the original version. So it’s a Zen koan too. The answer of course, is that it cannot be answered. It can only be pondered. And ponder we will.
SLC Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Jeffery Goldberg has an interesting take on the Bibi/Osama front. He thinks that what Obama is really trying to do is destabilize the Bibi government and force the latter to reconstitute it with Kidema replacing the right wing parties.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/

Is Obama Trying To Overthrow Bibi?
It seems to me that Obama is trying to force the collapse of Netanyahu’s government. I base this mostly on intuition. Of course, the Obama Administration would never claim to be interfering in the internal politics of another country, but it seems obvious that Netanyahu’s narrow coalition won’t survive sustained American pressure on the settlements question. Netanyahu is in a terrible spot: He must preserve, at all costs, Israel’s strategic relationship with Washington; on the other hand, he has right-wing coalition partners who are myopically obsessed with the status of the Neve Manyak outposts. Something is bound to break, and when it does, the Netanyahu government collapses. Which doesn’t mean that Netanyahu is out of power. It means that he then shares power with Tzipi Livni’s centrist Kadima Party. If I were an American policymaker, that’s the Israeli coalition I would hope for: Netanyahu-Barak-Livni, rather than Netanyahu-Barak-Lieberman. You watch: It’s coming.

I would say that this makes sense because President Osama would prefer that Bibi, as a representative of the right make the final agreement with the PA as it would then be more likely to stick.
fostert Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
As an aside, Doonesbury did the best take on Nixon going to China. He had Uncle Duke going to China. That’s where Honey comes from.
fostert Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Interesting, SLC. But I don’t buy it. Obama wants that agreement to be fully agreed upon by Bibi. I think he’s going to get Asian on Bibi. By that, I mean force him into a situation where he capitulates to save face. But Obama gives him a way out that still can be spun as a win. Everyone saves face, nobody knows what the hell happened, and everyone not involved decides it’s somebody else’s problem. This method has worked for millennia in Asia. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama learned that as a kid in Indonesia.
Dan Kervick Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
The recent discussion about Obama in the Jewish community, both among his supporters and opponents, is becoming as nutty and unhinged as the ravings of the Glenn Beck fringe on the right. Some people are coming out to wring their hands and moan “Obama is pushing us to the brink!” about mere calls for a mere freeze on settlements, a move to which I thought most US leaders were at least publicly committed well before Obama came along. I suppose the idea behind these ostentatiously paranoid writhings is to lay down some markers so that if Obama actually decides to do something modest to back up his words with actions, these complainers can say, “Now he has gone too far!”

At the same time, Obama’s loyal fans are treating him like some kind of combination of JFK and Noam Chomsky, who is finally “standing up” to the Israeli government. I think those supporters should reflect on how much they are enabling Obama’s opponents by praising the president profusely for taking positions that are only somewhat irksome to the most right wing government in Israeli history, and that so far consist mainly of symbolic gestures – like following an unconventional itinerary in the Middle East, and emitting a few non-hostile verbal sounds about Muslims – and are yet to include a single concrete action.
Don Williams Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Re George Friedman in the cited Stratfor article:
“The technology transfer now runs both ways, and the United States relies on Israeli intelligence quite a bit. In other words, over the past generation, Israel has moved from a dependent relationship with the United States to one of mutual dependence.”
—————–
Yes, we really appreciate how the all-knowing Mossad warned us about that Al Qaeda attempt on Sept 11, 2001.

I guess we should also thank Bibi –and Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres — for warning us in 2002 that we needed to invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein before he used those nukes he was developing.

And everyone knows that it is only Israel’s protective stance toward us that keep Iran from attacking the USA.

Money can’t BUY friends like that — although at $6 Billion per year, we sure as shit are trying.
anonymous Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Religion has brought so much harm to this earth. Surely there is no god that would have sponsored any of it.
fostert Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
“for warning us in 2002 that we needed to invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein before he used those nukes he was developing.”

Dude, take some more acid. Hussein wasn’t developing any nuclear weapons. His advisors might have claimed so to get better jobs, but an an actual program, well, you’re higher than.. wait a minute… after that bong hit, you’re still higher than me.
fostert Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
BWWWOOOOOUUUUUGHGHGHGHG!
Alan Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Political theater. It’s all choreographed, including this. Rahm is watching Israel’s back, even as the Obama team pretends to be more even handed.

Who’s the senior White House official anonymously giving positions to the Jerusalem Post? It’s Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod.
fostert Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:05 am
“BWWWOOOOOUUUUUGHGHGHGHG!”

That’s my typing interpretation of of very special sound. It’s when you have a lot of smoke in your lungs, but the situation requires that you cannot exhale. So you talk to your mom for a while, and you’re looking for somewhere to exhale because your mom or someone else might catch you. And then you finally find the place, and you just blow your lungs. And it makes this sound:

BWWWOOOOOUUUUUGHGHGHGHG!

It’s the sound of holding your bong hit too long and then releasing it. But there probably should be a few ‘CH’s after the ‘W’s. Otherwise, a good try at the spelling.
Hector Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Fostert,

Be careful. You’re obviously a very smart guy, but if you do too many bong hits you may end up a ditzy airhead like our Mr. Yglesias, spouting Foucault while you nod allong with everything Miss Amanda Marcotte has to say.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Once again – email me when anything CONCRETE ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

What part of that didn’t any of you get?

I don’t give a SHIT about Obama’s “strategy” until it starts showing results – which so far have been nil.

Kervick is right – every time Obama talks a good game, everybody treats him like he’s DONE something – which he hasn’t.

Talk is cheap.

And for fucktard Joe, get back to me in four years when Iran hasn’t been attacked by anybody, has not built any nuclear weapons, and both the US and the Israelis are ignored as paper tigers because they did absolutely nothing about the so-called Iran “crisis”. Because Obama is STILL on their case for absolutely ZERO reason.
NM Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Huh? What’s wrong with Foucault?
fostert Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 1:50 am
“you may end up a ditzy airhead like our Mr. Yglesias, spouting Foucault while you nod allong with everything Miss Amanda Marcotte has to say.”

I laughed my ass off when I read that. And in a good way. As for bong hits, there really doesn’t seem to be much correlation between success and smoking pot. Among the successful, some toke and some don’t. But they never care either way. People are graded on their accomplishments and their mistakes. Not on what molecules they might intake.
Obama And His Views On Governance | Tea Break Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 3:24 am
[...] And His Views On Governance June 10th, 2009 // Via Matthew Yglesias, I came across this article in Newsweek examining Rahm Emanuel’s role in Obama’s Middle [...]
Thlayli Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 5:08 am
What’s wrong with Foucault?

Or Marcotte, for that matter?
fostert Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 5:34 am
For the record, I have no idea who Amanda Marcotte is. And I know enough about Focault to not want to know any more. So it’s a little strange that I’d be associated with such people. But it was funny anyway. As for the people I actually do associate with, well, they’re just regular people who raise their kids and toke up sometimes. Every year we say we’ll do the Halloween party again, but everyone’s afraid of my tea. I make quite the tea. You’ll either remember how good it was, or you won’t remember anything at all. Either way, you’ll enjoy it. But it’s certainly not for kids. They get some nice nannies to play kid games while we adults have fun.
SLC Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Re Don Williams

Ah me, Mr. Williams just can’t help himself from repeating the big lie over and over that the Government of Israel was responsible for the Iraq adventure, despite the statements of former Colin Powel aide Lawrence Wilkerson that Sharon personally advised against invading Iraq. And before fuckface Richard Steven Hack tells us that the Government of Israel favored invading Iran, Colonel Wilkerson tells us that there was a big if there. Namely that if the US Government was going to engage in military action, Iran was a more important target then Iraq.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3444393,00.html
abb1 Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Bloix, settlers are not fundamentalists. Well, not religious fundamentalists, anyway. At least not in Ma’ale Adumim, where I spent a few days some years ago. A vast majority are secular professionals. They are all Zionists, of course, and racist swine, so, yeah, they are fundamentalists all right, only not in the sense you implied.

Anyhow.

So, this Rahm Emannuel guy is not a Zionist, is this what the post says? Is that right? Could someone confirm or refute it, please.

Thanks.
abb1 Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Well, “racist swine” is redundant after “Zionist”, so please scratch “racist swine” in comment 43.
stras jones Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 7:56 am
So, this Rahm Emannuel guy is not a Zionist, is this what the post says?

I think all this post says is, “someone on the Israeli far-right says that Rahm Emanuel isn’t being openly far-right enough – and that means progress!” It’s Matt’s current m.o. on foreign policy, which is to sidestep making actual arguments in defense of administration policy, but rather to link to someone else kind-of trying to do so, and then flailing about half-heartedly afterward.
abb1 Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 8:08 am
There is no “far-right”; either he is a Zionist or he is not. If he is a Zionist, then all these stories of how “tough” he is – he planted them himself.
Don Williams Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Re SLC at 42: “Ah me, Mr. Williams just can’t help himself from repeating the big lie over and over that the Government of Israel was responsible for the Iraq adventure,”
————
1) Till the cows come home, SLC. Once more — with feeling:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654345

2) An extract –from Bibi’s testimony to Congress and the American People:

“NATANYAHU: “First, I must state clearly that the need to topple Saddam is paramount. I think the commitment of America and Britain to dismantle this terrorist dictatorship before it obtains atomic bombs, before it obtains nuclear weapons, deserves the unconditional support of all sane governments and all sane people around the world. ”
Don Williams Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Re the need for the USA to take out Saddam Hussein, here is the ..er.. Amen Chorus of Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654354

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654366
SLC Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Re Don Williams

Just to set the record straight, here is reproduced the article about Colonel Wilkersons’ interview. So unless Mr. Williams is prepared to brand the colonel a liar, there is no doubt that the Government of Israel advised against the invasion of Iraq. Note also that, contrary to the lies posted on this blog by ex-con Richard Steven Hack, the Israeli Government did not, repeat did not, propose an invasion of Iran. They merely expressed the opinion that Iran was the enemy, not Iraq.

Israel warned us against Iraq invasion, US official says

Chief of staff of former secretary of state reveals that large number of senior Israeli officials warned Bush administration that invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to region. ‘The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy – Iran is the enemy,’ he says

Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 09.01.07, 10:22 / Israel News

WASHINGTON – A senior official at the US State Department has said that political, diplomatic and military officials in Israel warned the United States against invading Iraq even before the American forces entered the country, the Inter Press Service news agency reported over the weekend.

According to the official, Israel tried to convince the Bush administration that the main problem in the region was Iran, not Iraq.

US in Iraq
Report: Thousands of US arms missing / Yitzhak Benhorin
Government Accountability Office report says 190,000 American assault rifles, pistols go missing on way to Iraqi security forces
Full story
The man, Lawrence Wilkerson, was a member of the US State Department’s policy planning staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell.

In an interview with the news agency, he said that “the Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy – Iran is the enemy.”

According to Wilkerson, different sources in Israel explained to senior US officials that “if you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy.”

Wilkerson noted that the main point of their communications was not that the US should immediately attack Iran, but that “it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein” from a focus on the threat from Iran.

The message was conveyed by a large number of senior Israeli officials to their American counterparts, including political figures and intelligence sources.

According to Wilkerson, the Israeli advice was apparently triggered by reports reaching Israeli officials in December 2001 that the Bush administration was beginning serious planning for an attack on Iraq.

Journalist Bob Woodward revealed in Plan of Attack that on December 1, 2001, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had ordered the Central Command chief, General Tommy Franks, to come up with the first formal briefing on a new war plan for Iraq on December 4.

Advertisement

Soon after Israeli officials got wind of that planning, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked for a meeting with Bush primarily to discuss US intentions to invade Iraq.

In the weeks preceding Sharon’s meeting with Bush on February 7, 2002, a procession of Israeli officials conveyed the message to the US administration that Iran represented a greater threat, according to a Washington Post report on the eve of the meeting.

This is the first confirmation of the issue on the part of such a senior American official, following many hints heard on the Israeli side. The remarks were made in contrast to attempts by Israel’s opposers in the US to blame Jerusalem for the American invasion of Iraq.
SLC Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Incidentally, in evaluating the objections that Israeli officials raised to the prospect of an invasion of Iraq and regime change therein, it should be noted that they were absolutely correct in their assessment. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein has led to the destabilization of Iraq and the increase of Iranian influence in the Arab world, just as those officials predicted.
abb1 Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Article about an interview – lol. Colonel – lol; and what did a corporal say about it? Tell us, Medium Lobster.
Don Williams Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Pretty pathetic , SLC. I provided numerous US news reports in which Bibi, Sharon and Peres PUBLICLY told the US Congress and the AMERICAN PEOPLE that Saddam Hussein was a threat who needed to be taken out immediately.

You totally ignore those facts and try to argue that it doesn’t matter because they tried to get Bush to attack Israel’s other enemy –Iran — FIRST.

You keep evading the MAIN POINT: Which is that the leaders of the LIKUD deliberately helped Bush and Cheney LIE America into an unnecessary war that has killed 4500+ US soldiers and has crippled thousands more for life.

Why should we , the American People, not consider Bibi Nathanyahu to be an Enemy — and NOT an Ally? Do you think that no Jewish Americans have died in Iraq?
Hector Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Fostert,

The notorious Miss Marcotte is an extreme feminist, pro-choice blogger who was fired from Mr. John Edwards’ presidential campaign for uttering blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary. I will not link to her website, but you can look her up.
Hector Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Fostert,

As for the late and unlamented Michel Foucault, his preaching of nihilistic promiscuity was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of American young people from venereal disease.
Don Williams Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Re SLC at 50: “So unless Mr. Williams is prepared to brand the colonel a liar, there is no doubt that the Government of Israel advised against the invasion of Iraq.”
———–
They obviously did NOT advise against the invasion of IRaq — and I think it is deceitful for you to say so.

LOOK at all the news stories in which Bibi, Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres STRONGLY and PUBLICLY urged the American people to take out Saddam Hussein.

All that you have is an Israel news story which claims that Israeli leaders urged Bush IN SECRET to attack Iran FIRST — then Iraq.
SLC Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Re Don Williams

Once again, Mr. Williams gets his timing all wrong. The cheerleading that he refers to occurred after the advice provided by Israeli government officials, including then Prime Minister Sharon, was rejected. Mr. Williams has a legitimate beef that the officials who he refers to should be criticized for going along with the Bush Administrations’ invasion plans against their better judgment, just as all the Democrats in Congress who voted to approve the administrations’ approach should be criticized. However, Mr. Williams’ claim that the Government of Israel was responsible for the invasion of Iraq when they advised against it is preposterous.
SLC Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Re Don Williams

All that you have is an Israel news story which claims that Israeli leaders urged Bush IN SECRET to attack Iran FIRST — then Iraq.

1. The news story cites an interview given by Colonel Wilkerson to another news agency. If Mr. Williams has some evidence that the news story in Ynet is inaccurate, he should provide it.

2. Mr. Williams repeats the big lie propagated by his ex-con pal Richard Steven Hack, that Israeli officials proposed that Iran be invaded first, then Iraq. The interview with Colonel Wilkerson says no such thing. However, I will let the readers make their own determination of what the colonel said.

By the way, it appears that Mr. Williams is quite reluctant to brand Colonel Wilkerson a liar, maybe because he is a regular guest on Rachael Maddows’ program. I suggest he make it or get off the pot.
abb1 Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:28 am
If Mr. Williams has some evidence that the news story in Ynet is inaccurate, he should provide it.

This is some Zionist news agency, isn’t it? Well, enough said, case closed.
mds Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:29 am
As for the late and unlamented Michel Foucault, his preaching of nihilistic promiscuity was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of American young people from venereal disease.

And all this time, I’ve been blaming Diderot for young people having sex. And conservative Christianity for the sex being unprotected. But it turns out it was Foucault all along. I guess the name should have been a tip-off. Thanks, Hector!

Also, fostert, Mr. Williams was being sarcastic @ 29. Though since it led to bong inhalations, Michel Foucault, and Amanda Marcotte all being linked together, I’m not complaining.

And the pendulum was Léon Foucault’s idea, in case you were wondering.

Oh, right, Israel. It’s true that talk is cheap. But Bibi is looking a little bit uncomfortable anyway. And Congress hasn’t completely capitulated yet, either, and that’s the biggest weak point in any US attempt to get at all serious about Israel / Palestine.

And from the Stratfor article above:

Israel is not facing powerful states, and it is not facing a situation like 1973, when Israeli survival depended on aid being rushed in from the United States.

If this is the actual viewpoint of Bibi (and of the minister-without-portfolio who called for an embargo), then these people had better STFU about “Amalek” already.
chris Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Incidentally, in evaluating the objections that Israeli officials raised to the prospect of an invasion of Iraq and regime change therein, it should be noted that they were absolutely correct in their assessment. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein has led to the destabilization of Iraq and the increase of Iranian influence in the Arab world, just as those officials predicted.

Of course, we didn’t need the Israelis to tell us that. Several American experts on the Middle East said the same thing, which is why Bush fired them and replaced them with yes-men.
abb1 Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:54 am
The article is bullshit. There can be no split between any parts of a Zionist government; disagreements between them are marginal, if any at all. They only need these different parties for PR purposes, in reality it’s one Zionist party.
SLC Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Re abb1

I see that Mr. abb1 is smoking crack a little early this morning.
rea Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:37 am
All you loons are giving drug use a bad name here–why don’t you be quiet, and let the adults have a conversation?
Hector Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
SLC,

No, I suspect Mr. Abb1’s mental defects are due to the effects of goat-borne syphilis. Promiscuous bestiality might be endorsed by Foucault but it still has its drawbacks, as anyone except a bunch of postmodern p*ssy pigf*ckers like Mr. Abb1 would realize.
Mythbuster Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Is Zionism a mental disorder?

Proof:

SLC: “see that Mr. abb1 is smoking crack a little early this morning.”

Hector: “No, I suspect Mr. Abb1’s mental defects are due to the effects of goat-borne syphilis. Promiscuous bestiality might be endorsed by Foucault but it still has its drawbacks, as anyone except a bunch of postmodern p*ssy pigf*ckers like Mr. Abb1 would realize.”
Elwood Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Is nobody else who reads this blog old enough to remember George H. W. Bush breaking with Israel over essentially the same issues? I’ll always remember the spat because James Baker was speaking to the media instead of Israeli diplomats because they literally weren’t talking. Baker said “If they change their minds, our number is still 202-xxx-xxxx” Needless to say, the quote made the evening news and the White House switchboard was subsequently slammed with calls about job losses and the recession.

I do still remember the number, but have my reasons for not posting it. It’s probably on the Web site these days anyway.
Drive-By Jewish Curmudgeon Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
How many cocks have you sucked lately, Mythbuster? Shut the fuck up about Zionism, because no one will take away our homeland from us after what we fought for it, not up even pig fucking Americans like you.
SLC Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Re Elwood

Mr. Baker also said fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.
Hector Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Mythbuster,

I’m not a Zionist, nor am I a philosemite. Jew-haters and soulless cosmopolites piss me off, that’s all. I believe in Two States for Two Peoples.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
June 11th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Lying POS SLC continues to maintain that Israel did not support an attack on Iraq. As Don Williams has pointed out, they certainly did. More importantly, as Don correctly points out, according to Flynt Everett and Hilary Mann, the Israelis wanted the US to attack Iran first, NOT Iraq. They only came on board with attacking Iraq first when the neocons and Cheney assured them Iran would be next after the “cakewalk” in Iraq.

SLC continues to lie his ass off, as befits a scumbag Zionist. Zionists lie like they breathe – without effort or hesitation. Scum of the earth that makes an honest bank robber look like a the Flying Nun compared to them.

Hey, Curmudgeon, your pathetic little country is on its last legs, and will soon be sent to the dustbin of history with the rest of the colonialist, fascist, imperialist, racist, rogue, illegal, terrorist states.
SLC Says:
June 11th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. hack appears to have reading comprehension problems to go along with his delusions of grandeur. If there are lies being told as to who supported what relative to the Iraq adventure, it is Colonel Wilkerson who is the liar, not I. But like Mr. Williams, Mr. Hack is strangely reluctant to brand the colonel a liar.

As for Mr. Hacks delusions about the durability of the State of Israel, that state will be around long after Mr. Hack has departed this world for potters’ field.

Matt Yglesias

Rahm and the Israelis

71 Responses to “Rahm and the Israelis”

Blogroll