Friday
Nov072008
Obama, His Chief of Staff, and the Middle East
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 16:13
Dr Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a colleague at the University of Tehran, offers this comment on Barack Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff:
I think I can safely say that most people in the Middle East have always felt that a new president in the White House, effectively means a continuation of the same American policies in the Middle East.
The fact that Obama's first appointment, and one of the most important appointments that he could possibly make, was to choose a person whose middle name is Israel will cause major waves in the Middle East. Those optimists who thought change meant the end of apartheid in Palestine or at least some sort of relief for the nearly starving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip will feel deeply disappointed and hurt. The choice of Rahm Israel Emanuel who has been selected as the US president-elect's chief of staff will do Obama no good if he wishes to change the image of the US in the region and it will reaffirm the widely held belief that the United States government simply can not free itself from the Zionist lobby.
Dr Marandi's comment indicates to me the challenges already facing the President-elect, a day after the Bush Administration declares that it has abandoned all hopes of brokering a Middle East peace before its departure.
I doubt that the root problem is the choice of Emanuel. His father was Israeli, and thus Emanuel was born as a dual US-Israeli citizen; however, he renounced Israeli citizenship when he was 18. In 1991, he served as a civilian volunteer with the Israeli Defence Forces. Despite this background as well as his middle name, his primary engagement as both a key staffer for Bill Clinton as a Democratic Congressman has been with domestic issues. He has criticised the Palestinian leadership, both Fatah and Hamas, but his comments are far less strident than those offered by other US politicians and pro-Israel activists.
Instead, my suspicion is that Obama made a rod for his own back earlier this year with his appearance before the America Israel Public Affairs Committee. That speech may have been politically necessary to ensure the Democratic nomination, but Obama re-cast himself from being a proponent of "engagement" of both sides to a backer of Tel Aviv.
It is in that context that a Chief of Staff's middle name and ethnic background take on significance. It is transposed into the belief that Obama's primary advisor, including advice on foreign affairs, is an Israeli citizen --- incorrect both in the understanding of the Chief of Staff's role and in the facts about Emanuel --- and thus it adds to the high hurdles the Obama Administration faces before it can even begin to think about a restoration of American credibility on the Israel-Palestine issue.
I think I can safely say that most people in the Middle East have always felt that a new president in the White House, effectively means a continuation of the same American policies in the Middle East.
The fact that Obama's first appointment, and one of the most important appointments that he could possibly make, was to choose a person whose middle name is Israel will cause major waves in the Middle East. Those optimists who thought change meant the end of apartheid in Palestine or at least some sort of relief for the nearly starving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip will feel deeply disappointed and hurt. The choice of Rahm Israel Emanuel who has been selected as the US president-elect's chief of staff will do Obama no good if he wishes to change the image of the US in the region and it will reaffirm the widely held belief that the United States government simply can not free itself from the Zionist lobby.
Dr Marandi's comment indicates to me the challenges already facing the President-elect, a day after the Bush Administration declares that it has abandoned all hopes of brokering a Middle East peace before its departure.
I doubt that the root problem is the choice of Emanuel. His father was Israeli, and thus Emanuel was born as a dual US-Israeli citizen; however, he renounced Israeli citizenship when he was 18. In 1991, he served as a civilian volunteer with the Israeli Defence Forces. Despite this background as well as his middle name, his primary engagement as both a key staffer for Bill Clinton as a Democratic Congressman has been with domestic issues. He has criticised the Palestinian leadership, both Fatah and Hamas, but his comments are far less strident than those offered by other US politicians and pro-Israel activists.
Instead, my suspicion is that Obama made a rod for his own back earlier this year with his appearance before the America Israel Public Affairs Committee. That speech may have been politically necessary to ensure the Democratic nomination, but Obama re-cast himself from being a proponent of "engagement" of both sides to a backer of Tel Aviv.
It is in that context that a Chief of Staff's middle name and ethnic background take on significance. It is transposed into the belief that Obama's primary advisor, including advice on foreign affairs, is an Israeli citizen --- incorrect both in the understanding of the Chief of Staff's role and in the facts about Emanuel --- and thus it adds to the high hurdles the Obama Administration faces before it can even begin to think about a restoration of American credibility on the Israel-Palestine issue.
tagged Barack Obama, Israel, Palestine, Rahm Emanuel in Middle East & Iran, US Politics
Barack Obama, Israel, Palestine, Rahm Emanuel in Middle East & Iran, US Politics
Reader Comments (10)
Emanuel didn't choose his middle name. I'm named after Philipp Melanchthon, the Reformation-era theologian. It was an embarrassment as a child. I have great respect for the man, but I wouldn't give that name to a child.
It is things like this, the 'Culture of Peace' initiative, the proposed UN resolution on defamation of religions, and the proselytizing document 'A Common Word Between Us and You' that make that region so difficult for the West to find common ground with.
It’s a shame.
The important point is that he is a Jewish supporter of Israel and that he is the gatekeeper to the ovel office.
Last night I heard from my Jewish friend that Emanuel volunteered to serve in the Israeli army and did a two-month stint at a base in northern Israel during the 1991 Gulf War .
As Israeli radio stations and newspapers reported Emanuel's Occupied Jerusalem-born father was once a member of Irgun, an underground, ultra-nationalist Jewish movement that fought British troops before the 1948 creation of the state of Israel.
I heard that he said at an annual dinner held by Washington journalists last year, :
"I am a man who has been called temperamental, vindictive, foulmouthed and mean. And that's just my mom bragging about me,"
Due to Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff , on Thursday Israeli media hailed his choice and even called him "our man in the White House."
I think It is obvious he will exert influence on Obama to be pro-Israeli.
Mohammad,
He served as a civilian volunteer, rather than in a military capacity.
I believe it is true that his father was in the Irgun but I am uncertain whether his father, in later life, was an active Zionist.
He is a hard-nosed political operative, but I am not so sure he will be active in setting the Administration's Middle Eastern policy. That said, which Israeli media called him "our man in the White House"?
I think the decision reflects the America's internal political realities, as Dr. Lucas stated.
I also think it has to do with the fact that Bush has been harshly criticised in all areas of his international role. This effectively undermines America's reputation. Bush's willingness to confront crisis after crisis (and in the fashion he has confronted them) has actually caused the general American public and the international community to view any American action against US interests to be a political error that is borderline criminal activity. And so with this incoming administration, the rest of the world has the impression that America will not act if confronted. After all, Obama did campaign on the promise that he would not make any great waves, and that the United States will want to ignore challenges from its foes. In other words, America is self-paralyzed. To Iran, Russia, North Korea, and even non-hostile Brazil, America will be nothing more than a barking dog and they will exploit this weakness as they seek to redefine the international system, entrenching multipolarity. Obama will take a pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, but the perception of a self-paralyzed America is the very last thing Obama wants -- especially when confronting/negotiating with Iran. Iran will probably be the thorniest of foreign policy challenges. So, I think the appointment of Emanuel is a symbolic one, but effective. This may also be the reason why Obama is considering Republicans for other cabinet positions.
If you think I'm wrong on this, then please let me know.
I forgot China.
"any American action against US interests"
I meant any American reaction to threats against US interests. Again, my apologies.
So sorry Scott for my delay, I've just seen your comment, regarding your question of which Israeli media has talked about "our man in the white house" I heard it on Al-Arabiah TV channel which was quoting from "The Maariv Daily", but here is a weblink on which you can find out about it.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/search.html?query=our+man+in+the+white+house+&sel_144=1&searchAction=googleSearch&cx=partner-pub-6812552107781082%3Agof51c-i6ox&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=windows-1255#1774
Mohammad,
Thanks so much. I have included this in the updated item: "Obama, His Chief of Staff, and the Middle East (Part 2)".
Some of these points assume first, that Rohm Emanuel will make policy,and second, that he espouses the same views as his father. The answer to the second question, from what I have read, is that he is a keen supporter of a two state solution, perhaps even a peacenik! But since he will be implementing rather than making policy, his views on the peace process will hardly have the central influence over US foreign policy that Mohammad R's points seem to assume.