The Region: Rahm Emanuel? Really?

By BARRY RUBIN

05/06/2011    

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=223761

 

 

When President Barack Obama trots out his former chief of staff to write an

article in defense of his love for Israel, you know he understands that he's

in trouble.

You know President Barack Obama understands he's got problems with Israel
(and with its supporters in the United States) when he trots out Rahm
Emanuel to write an op-ed in defense of his alleged love for Israel.

Emanuel may have been born to an Israeli father and had his son's bar mitzva
in Jerusalem, but to have him attest to Obama's credentials on Israel is
like having Mel Gibson act as a spokesman for Australia, or Arnold
Schwarzenegger for Austria, or Dominique Strauss-Kahn for France's tourism
board. In other words, it's totally meaningless and even - for those who
know something about the individuals involved - counterproductive.

There are, however, two important things it tells us about Obama and his
administration: First, they are detached from reality enough to think this
is a clever idea. Rather than going to someone actually recognized as being
pro-Israel or active in Jewish affairs, he turned to a political crony
disliked by both communities.

Despite the near-fanatical support for Obama by the majority of American
Jews, he is totally deaf to their concerns and feelings.

Second, it shows that Obama always prefers a cheap public relations gesture
to a substantive policy action.

Just because Emanuel was born to an Israeli father doesn't mean he knows
much about the country. I was struck by the total vacuousness of his big
argument: "President Obama, like every student of the Middle East,
understands that the shifting sands of demography in that volatile region
are working against the two-state solution needed to end generations of
bloodshed."

If Obama is a student of the Middle East, he gets an "F."

I'm a student of the Middle East, and I think that's total nonsense.

Why is the "demography" in the region against the two-state solution?
Because there are more Palestinians? Who cares? That has absolutely zero
political impact.

Israel does not rule the Gaza Strip. Hamas does.

Israel does not rule the people of the West Bank (as opposed to territory
there without any people living in it). Fatah does.

Hello? That's been the basic situation now for 17 years. (Not the Hamas
part, the Palestinian Authority aspect.) So what if the Palestinian
population doubles, triples, quadruples? That has no effect on Israel's
status as a democratic state.

There is something interesting going on here. Unlike the peace process
rhetoric of the 1993-2000 period, nobody dares to talk about how wonderful
life for Israel would be if it turned over all the territory captured in
1967 and accepted a Palestinian state. They can only say that things will be
worse if it doesn't.

People in Israel don't believe this, and for good reason.

For one of Obama's closest advisers to write something like this in a major
newspaper - with the text approved, no doubt, by the White House - proves
that these people are totally out of touch with the situation. It is the
equivalent of someone writing about Russia as if it were still the Soviet
Union, thinking Britain still rules a worldwide empire, or believing
creatures from the planet Beldron-5 have landed on Earth and taken over
Luxembourg.

It is delusional.

What truly represents the "shifting sands... working against the two-state
solution" and leading potentially to more "generations of bloodshed" is the
rising tide (the mixed metaphor is deliberate) of revolutionary Islamism
that this administration does not try to dam up. It is Obama's support for
revolution in Egypt and opposition to it in Syria. It is the refusal to
recognize that the Palestinian leadership is the cause of failure for every
peace effort since 1947 (partition into two states) - no, I should say 1939
(the British effort to give the whole thing to the Arabs after 10 years).

It is the Obama administration's inability to understand that the failure to
achieve peace is not based on borders or Jerusalem, but on the continued
attempts by Muslims generally to wipe Israel off the map. Indeed, partly
thanks to Obama's policies, they are more confident of doing so than they
were 10 or 20 years ago. (They're wrong, but they are - literally - going to
die trying.) That Emanuel can write such nonsense and not be laughed at is a
sign of how off-kilter is the whole Western debate on the Middle East.

FINALLY CONSIDER the logical fallacy of arguing that things are becoming
worse, so Israel must rush into peace now. If things are going to be worse,
why make concessions in exchange for a piece of paper that will be torn up,
and that is guaranteed by people who can't be trusted? Here, Mr. Emanuel,
are the tests Obama will fail: 1. Will the United States call for the
overthrow of the anti-American Syrian dictatorship? 2. Will the US
government take strong action as Egypt moves to become a radical state and
stops observing the US-guaranteed peace treaty with Israel? 3. Will the US
government take strong action to stop helping the Fatah-Hamas government,
which openly incorporates terrorist and genocidal forces? 4. Will the US
government take strong action to stop the transformation of Turkey into a
semi- Islamist, anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, anti-American regime allied
with Iran? 5. Will the US government reverse its policies, so that once
again America is a world leader that protects its allies in Latin America
(against radical regimes in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil and Cuba); Central
Europe and the south Caucasus (against Russia); and elsewhere? Since the
answer to all those questions is "no," why the hell should Israel risk its
existence on your (bad) ideas and (worthless) promises? Indeed, Israel is
not going to commit suicide because you tell it to. On the contrary, Israel
and the half of your own people who have woken up to your dangerous
mismanagement are trying to stop you from committing suicide on their
behalf. I hate to use the most over-used analogy in the world, but arguing
that Israel should make a deal right away because of the "shifting sands" is
like British prime minister Neville Chamberlain arguing in 1938 that the
Czechs had better give up the Sudetenland fast, before the real radicals
take over in Germany.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
Center (www.gloria-center.org) and editor of Middle East Review of
International Affairs (MERIA) Journal and Turkish Studies. He blogs at
http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to