b’shalom

bananabrain

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/al-qaeda-no-2-calls-obama_n_144827.html

i am reminded of the time two soviet-era state councils accused each other of “zionist activities”. both were in mongolia.

b’shalom

bananabrain

I don’t like it, and yes I have a massive problem with it. But what I was getting at was the fact that it hadnt been widely discussed when anyone with any connection with the Palestinian cause was quickly labelled a terrorist and Obama HIMSELF moved to distance himself was an important statement on the current political climate — something which passed you by eager as you were to paint me as a hypocrite.

Which was by the nutbag loony right. Who you increasingly sound like.

Yeah, it was the nutbag loony right that forced Obama to move the two women wearing hijabs out of the frame? that drove Obama to disassociate himself from Rashid Khalidi. Seems like they have a lot of influence on the man’s actions.

You haven’t actually pointed out a single example of Rahm’s specific policy views on I/P, nor even demonstrated how this will affect Obama’s plans (who is going to appoint other foreign policy people).

I haven’t pointed out any of Emanuel’s “specific policy views on I/P”, but it’s clear that someone with such hardline views on Israel is unlikely to be impartial on the conflict. Emanuel, who also volunteered to support the Israeli army in 1991, has positioned himself to the right of Dubya on I/P. For example he was a signatory to a letter which a group of democrats sent to Bush in 2003 accusing him of being insufficiently supportive of Israel and he also supported a house resolution backing the terrorist Israeli bombing of Lebanon in 2006 — among many other acts that make his clearly manifest his staunchly pro-Israel bias.

How will this affect Obama’s plans? Well if one of his closest advisors and allies is an unapologetically anti-Palestinian, pro-Israeli hardliner, then you’d have to be extremely naive think it’s not going to influence his thinking — let alone that it won’t influence how Obama is perceived in the Arab and Muslim world. As for the power a chief of staff can potentially wield, I don’t think the bearer of the post is called “The Second-Most Powerful Man in Washington” for nothing.

bb:i struggle to reconcile these two statements. and, for the record, i think what the father said was a quite disgusting comment, but just shows you what i am faced with sometimes. hardly surprising from an ex-irgun-nik, i suppose.

Don’t struggle with it, I was merely agreeing with the point he was making: that Emanuel is bound to influence Obama’s decicion.

bb:“allegiance” would mean that he had sworn to serve “zionism”. i’m not sure that’s the case. who would he swear it to, anyway, aipac? there isn’t a monarch, which is what you need for allegiance. and what sort of zionism do you mean? labour zionism? mizrachi? revisionist? it’s all zionism to you, though, ain’t it?

Errr..Biden made the statement “I am a zionist”. Seems pretty straighforward to me. Maybe I should have referred to him as a self-proclaimed zionist.

Personally I don’t think anyone should be judged on what their forebears did or didn’t do

and, in the same post:

As Emanuel’s father rightly said

i struggle to reconcile these two statements. and, for the record, i think what the father said was a quite disgusting comment, but just shows you what i am faced with sometimes. hardly surprising from an ex-irgun-nik, i suppose.

And we shouldnt forget that Joe Biden has also declared his allegiance as a zionist.

“allegiance” would mean that he had sworn to serve “zionism”. i’m not sure that’s the case. who would he swear it to, anyway, aipac? there isn’t a monarch, which is what you need for allegiance. and what sort of zionism do you mean? labour zionism? mizrachi? revisionist? it’s all zionism to you, though, ain’t it?

b’shalom

bananabrain

I brought up Emanuel’s heritage to contrast it with the hysteria that even the slightest whiff of Obama’s associating with Palestinian ‘radicals’ brought with it

Which was by the nutbag loony right. Who you increasingly sound like.

Personally I don’t think anyone should be judged on what their forebears did or didnt do — that’s not how realpolitik works tho

Right… you don’t like it, but you’ll do it anyway if the person involved is Jew. Clearly then, you don’t see a problem with people demonising Ramadan on that basis. All is fair in love and war, innit?

I’m saying he shouldnt be trusted because of what he has done and said.

You haven’t actually pointed out a single example of Rahm’s specific policy views on I/P, nor even demonstrated how this will affect Obama’s plans (who is going to appoint other foreign policy people).

Basically, you’re just pasting Counterpunch’s smears, which sound suspiciously like Frontpage these days, except with people switched around.

No, but I doubt that it would be a non-issue if his father had been in eta or the IRA — especially as I’m not aware of his ever criticising his fathers past. In fact Emanuel has plenty of sins of his own to keep us all going.

Anas – Firstly, Rahm isn’t responsible for foreign policy. Secondly, the president is more responsible for FP, and Rahm has always been close to him as well as a seasoned operator on Capitol Hill

So the apologetics come thick and fast. For his chief of staff Obama chooses someone whose views on I/P — one of the most critical FP issues Obama has to resolve over the next four years — are to the right of Dubya, especially when it comes to the 2006 Lebanon War (after Iraq and Afghanistan one of the most shameful episodes in America’s recent overseas history), and this merits no criticism. As the article mentions the chief of staff has an extremely important advisory role which should be cause for concern on an issue on which Obama needs to be seen to be as nonpartisan as possible. As Emanuel’s father rightly said:”Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.” And we shouldnt forget that Joe Biden has also declared his allegiance as a zionist.

This also smacks of the people who says Tariq Ramadan should not be trusted because his grandad started the Muslim Brotherhood, regardless of what he says now. Hypocrisy mate – you’re full of it.

Except I’m not saying this at all. a) I brought up Emanuel’s heritage to contrast it with the hysteria that even the slightest whiff of Obama’s associating with Palestinian ‘radicals’ brought with it. Fuck even compare it to Tariq Ramadan who u mention. if youll recall he wasn’t even allowed into the country. Personally I don’t think anyone should be judged on what their forebears did or didnt do — that’s not how realpolitik works tho. b) I’m not saying Emanuel shouldnt be trusted because of who his dad was, I’m saying he shouldnt be trusted because of what he has done and said.

You would be crying Islamophobia if someone chosed a Muslim because of their skill, but others said because he was a Muslim he didn’t merit trust – the same applies here.

This also smacks of the people who says Tariq Ramadan should not be trusted because his grandad started the Muslim Brotherhood, regardless of what he says now. Hypocrisy mate – you’re full of it.

it seemed to me the point you were making was that the left had lost its sympathy for Jews simply because they’d become more assertive

no, the point i was making was that the left lost its sympathy for the jews because they didn’t require the patronage of the left. it happened (by extraordinary coincidence) about the time that the soviet union decided to back the arabs because the americans were backing the israelis.

Whereas in fact most of the left has not lost its sympathy for Jews as an ethnic group

oh, pull the other one. when did the left ever bother with the jews of ethiopia, iraq, iran, the soviet union, or yemen?

It has lost sympathy for Israel NOT because it’s a Jewish majority state but because of its actions in repressing the Palestinians and in occupying the West Bank and Gaza.

rubbish. that merely provides a convenient cloak of moral outrage which is absent from its positions on, say, left-wing dictators such as castro or dictators who are supported by ethnic groups whose support they need. i don’t see the hard left complaining about assad, or ahmedinejad, or the chinese leadership, or even kim jong-il. far easier to point at jews if they seem pushy or have american accents, because that’s what this is really about; this is just the class war wearing sunglasses.

b’shalom

bananabrain

In his first executive appointment as president-elect, Obama chose Chicago congressmen Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff. In case there was any question as to who claimed him as one of their own, the headline in the Israeli paper Haaretz (6 Nov. 2008)said it all:

Obama’s first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff.

The vulgar and boorish Rahm is son of Benjamin Emanuel, former arms smuggler to Irgun, a pre-Israel terrorist group which carried out numerous attacks on Palestinian civilians in addition to the 1946 bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel. His statement to Ma’ariv above remains consistent with Zionism’s historically racist overtones.

As many have since come to learn, Rahm Emanuel left the U.S. during the 1991 Gulf War for Israel. There he became a civilian volunteer responsible for servicing military vehicles near occupied southern Lebanon. As chronicled by Ali Abunimah in the Electronic Intifada, Emanuel has a track record on Israel well to the right of George Bush. This includes signing a 2003 letter justifying Israel’s policy of political assassinations and amazingly criticizing Bush for not supporting Israel enough. After throwing his weight behind a resolution backing the country’s vicious bombing of Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Rahm called on his own government to cancel a planned speech to Congress by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki because he had condemned Israel’s actions.

There are conflicting reports as to whether Emanuel is a dual American-Israeli citizen (Haaretz evidently thinks so). That, however, is far less important than Emanuel’s dual loyalty. As one of the most powerful positions in the executive branch of government, the chief of staff has the ability to control access to the Oval Office and play a key advisory role on policy matters. Emanuel has already demonstrated he places Israel’s interests on par or above that of the U.S., as he did in opposition to the proposed 2006 Dubai Ports deal, claiming it could harm Israel.

How would those on the soft left allay any fears us nutty hard leftists have about Obama’s choice here (one of many worrying appointments/statements he’s made)? And if you’re under any doubt about the underlying racism still affecting American politics, imagine if Obama had appointed a Palestinian to this post, or in fact any Muslim — I mean he wouldnt even allow two women with hijabs to be photographed behind him at a rally. My point is Obama might be a decent intelligent man, but he has to prosper in a political culture which is still deeply unjust.

Well it seemed to me the point you were making was that the left had lost its sympathy for Jews simply because they’d become more assertive. Whereas in fact most of the left has not lost its sympathy for Jews as an ethnic group, but it has lost what little it ever might have had for Israel — although this lack of sympathy for a state is often equated with anti-Semitism for propaganda purposes.

It has lost sympathy for Israel NOT because it’s a Jewish majority state but because of its actions in repressing the Palestinians and in occupying the West Bank and Gaza.

soru:If you believe the essence of the issue is that marketplaces are being bombed by imperialists, then you are hard left, and Obama, not believing that, offers you little or nothing.

Sorry to burst your bubble soru, but it’s not just the far left that believes this. A large number, if not the majority, of people across this planet tend toward that analysis. The views of this relatively small clique of self-righteous ’soft left’, ‘liberals’, these self appointed guardians of moderacy, seem to drift further and further to the right of the spectrum on many issues when you take a wider perspective

There would be little room for disappointment, unless you were seriously expecting him to get into office and open up the secret files on 9/11,.

Huh? I think you’ll find 911 conspiracy paranoia is just as common among those on the right (Alex Jones?) as those on the left, nice try though.

The hard left, for the most part, isn’t some kind of racial group that you remain a member of whatever your political views are. If you believe the essence of the issue is that marketplaces are being bombed by imperialists, then you are hard left, and Obama, not believing that, offers you little or nothing. There would be little room for disappointment, unless you were seriously expecting him to get into office and open up the secret files on 9/11, start the war crimes trials on his generals, or whatever.

In order to have the potential for disappointment in Obama, you have to be liberal or soft left. In that case, which you choose comes down more to personal temperament than anything else: the norm is probably to be guardedly optimistic until such time as proved otherwise. But others people are exuberant, or prefer to get their disillusionment in early.

None of that means much in terms of political prediction: everyone involved is just talking about themselves.

b’shalom

bananabrain

It is an aberration and an insult to suggest that people who wanted Obama to win are somehow incapable to criticise him or even admit he might be wrong on some issues because he is black. I mean, this is utter rubbish. You want to criticise Obama’s foreign policies? Fine. You want to criticise Obama’s domestic policies? Fine. But don’t bring race into it – he is a freaking individual capable of his own thoughts, which makes him different from every other African American, white, Asian politician.

No, the “disclaimer” made makes sense if as the ‘hard left’ argue many of Obama’s supporters are eager to blind themselves to all the evidence pointing to their saviour’s willingness to keep to the same unjust and imperialist assumptions in his foreign policy, and to pay undue heed to the same business interests in his domestic policies. The left certainly do criticise his attitudes toward domestic and foreign policy, very successfully. But the fact that many ‘liberals’ refuse to pay attention has made critics on the left wonder.

And like I said above since Obama’s race does play a significant role in how he is viewed, maybe not by you, but certainly by other Obama supporters, why does it suddenly become taboo, an abberation or insult to argue it may be a factor in his relative immunity to criticism from some quarters? Obama is an individual indeed, but in a country with a history of race politics like America’s, it’s hard not to conclude that his heritage is a significant factor in peoples’ attitudes towards him: we are not post race quite yet.

bb:confronted with assertive jews with loud voices, suntans and an air force they

an airforce they use to bomb marketplaces and residential districts to smithereens and to maintain a brutal and bloody 40 year occupation all in the name of an racially defined state — yeah it’s weird the left would have a problem with that.

it’s not the ‘far’ left that has a problem with minorities.

well, not as long as they look oppressed by people of whom the far left disapprove. once they start getting, well, assertive, the far left tend to go off them. it’s a version of the issue whereby people like ken livingstone, may he never return to politics, approve thoroughly of jews as long as they are bookish, powerless and preferably dead, or at any rate being murdered. the minute they is confronted with assertive jews with loud voices, suntans and an air force they get twitchy. the far left prefers to commemorate jews rather than engage with us, the exception of course being the sort of histrionic dissassociative jews who are also on the far left, of whom jacqueline rose is one.

it’s the same with brown and black people, they’re much easier to sympathise with when they’re starving in africa or south asia than when they’re middle-class pillar-of-the-community types who might just vote tory if not kept thoroughly aware of imperialism and racism.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Ben