There as jubilation in Tel Aviv as Haaretz, the Israeli daily, boasted Nov. 6: “Obama kick-starts transition, picks Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff.”
Best known for his fundraising prowess among wealthy Jewish Democrats, the naming of Emanuel as the first presidential appointee echoes Sarah Palin’s famous one-liner, “I love Israel.” That claim was voiced in her vice-presidential debate with Delaware Sen. Joe Biden who is featured on a YouTube video famously proclaiming, “I am a Zionist.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZmO80dLfE
In sharp contrast to Obama’s claim that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Emanuel claims he would do it again today. As chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he directed party funding to pro-invasion candidates and recruited candidates to oppose anti-war Democrats. Known in Washington as an outspoken pro-Israel hard-liner, he joins speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in bringing to the Middle East peace process a record of support for Tel Aviv’s targeted assassinations of Palestinian political leaders.
Those Americans who sought a break with pro-Israel policies can anticipate an “assistant president” who is the son of a Jerusalem-born member of the Irgun, a Zionist-terrorist group active in Palestine from 1931-1948. Born an Israeli due to his father’s dual Israeli-US citizenship, Emanuel relinquished his Israeli citizenship when he turned 18 but not his fierce allegiance to the Zionist state.
As chair of the Democratic Caucus and fourth ranking in the House leadership, Congressman Rahm Israel Emanuel escorted Sen. Obama to a June 2008 board meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee just after the candidate proclaimed Israel’s security “sacrosanct.”
America’s interests have long been imperiled by its support of Tel Aviv’s expansionist goals in the region. Yet the candidate of change appointed as his closest adviser someone who in July 2006 sought to cancel a speech by visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki due to his comments criticizing Israel’s attack on Lebanon. That assault killed almost 1,000 civilians, laid waste to Lebanon’s infrastructure and left behind a UN-estimated one million unexploded bomblets that continued to kill and maim Lebanese, primarily children. As many of the cluster bombs fired in the closing hours of the war were American-made, the US was widely portrayed as complicit in Israeli conduct that was widely condemned as a war crime. The result stoked the anti-American sentiment essential to sustain both terrorism and American support for the war on terrorism.
Emanuel’s rapport with AIPAC’s extensive financial network enabled Bill Clinton to amass a record-breaking $72 million in 1992. Those funds helped his fledgling presidential candidacy weather the media storm over an early sex scandal and a controversy over his Vietnam-era draft status. Emanuel’s aggressive pro-Israel fundraising strategy also drained funds from rival Paul Tsongas who soon withdrew, citing a shortage of funds. Emanuel then served for five years as a senior strategist for the Clinton White House before joining investment bankers Wasserstein Perella where he became managing director of the Chicago office. What message is conveyed by Emanuel’s appointment? What change can be expected in the influence wielded by the Israel lobby that successfully induced the US to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 9/11 in which Iraq played no role? What changes will an Emanuel-administered presidency seek in the financial practices that catalyzed the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression?
With the Israel lobby firmly entrenched in the White House, the Senate and the House, Tel Aviv remains well positioned to continue-without change-its influence on US policy. As the lobby sought — and received — frequent pledges of no change in the US-Israeli relationship, Obama campaign operatives isolated the candidate from the influence of anyone with “pro-Palestinian” opinions. The presidential staffing is now in place to continue that practice — with clear precedents for the impact on presidential decision-making should the US again be attacked. With Tel Aviv still intent on inducing an expansion of this war to Iran, the role of those closest to the president will continue to be key.
Only recently did the leadership of the 9/11 Commission concede the fierce opposition — from other commissioners — to their proposal that testimony be heard about the motivation for that attack due to US support for Israel. That anti-Zionist motivation remains unacknowledged in mainstream media. Yet of the top 50 neoconservatives who urged that the US invade Iraq in response to that attack, 26 (52 percent) were Jewish, compared to 1.7 percent of the US population. That pro-Zionist motivation remains unacknowledged in mainstream media.
In parsing the message signaled by this new president’s first appointment, is this high-profile selection a hopeful sign of change in US foreign policy? Or was this appointment meant to appease the Israel lobby? Is Rahm Israel Emanuel a harbinger of change Americans can believe in? Or was his appointment a sign the fix is in?
— Jeff Gates served as counsel to the US Senate Committee on Finance, 1980-87.
He has since advised governments of 35 nations.
