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

format_quote Originally Posted by Izyan

So because his dad was a member of Irgun that makess him evil? Do you blame Osama Bin Laden on his father? Emanuel was instrumental with helping Clinton push Israel to accept Oslo Accords.

What did Oslo accomplish?

The Palestinians are in the same situation if not worse. Never shall Israel accept a peace treaty as they continue to build settlements in which they shall soon claim that they cannot just remove all the jews living there. No worries, Us Muslims are very strong willed people and we have waited longer during the Crusade period for the liberation and unity of Muslims. Then came Saladin who expelled the Christians and united the Muslims into the strongest force in the world. Soon Israel will exist only in the books of history and artifacts

format_quote Originally Posted by sudais1

What did Oslo accomplish?

The Palestinians are in the same situation if not worse. Never shall Israel accept a peace treaty as they continue to build settlements in which they shall soon claim that they cannot just remove all the jews living there. No worries, Us Muslims are very strong willed people and we have waited longer during the Crusade period for the liberation and unity of Muslims. Then came Saladin who expelled the Christians and united the Muslims into the strongest force in the world. Soon Israel will exist only in the books of history and artifacts

did Saladin not have the Druze fighting for him (and Jews were not against him either as far as I know both of them despise the current versions of Muslims)?

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

Obama didn't drop international affairs to Emanuel. He hasn't picked the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. If you want to know who will play a large role in foreign affairs I would look at Joe Biden. Emanuel is the White House Chief-of-Staff, which is important, but not so much in the arena of foreign policy.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the role of White House chief of staff. The Secretary of State and Defense Secretary are tasked with executing foreign policy as crafted by Obama and his advisers in the Oval Office. Rahm Emanuel is key among them, and by virtue of that, he has a direct say on foreign policy.

The secetary of state is there to reiterate government policy to different people in different parts of the world on different issues.

Hi there.

I disagree with you here. The CoS is not going to have a direct say on foreign policy. He may have some input in the process, but there are other senior advisors who will have more sway. The SoS is not just an order taker and will most likely have a much greater role.

Thanks.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

I'm not sure where you heard that, but it isn't the case. Rahm Emanuel is the guy who manages day to day White House business. Emanuel will manage the staff, as the name implies, and manage the president's schedule and access to members of Congress.

The guy is responsible for passing through legislation in congress, he has a reputation for being a bit of a political bruiser. Apart from cheif of staff, read the reasons as to why he was assigned the post. He's been taken on board also to play the dual role of adviser to the president, one of many, but a key strategic adviser nonetheless. There's no point deliberating over the precise remit this guy has when it's obvious to all and also stated by Obama himself that his role extends well beyond "day to day white house business". He's effectively been conferred political carte blanche from the president elect.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

All that is much different than being responsible for formulating foreign policy, which Emanuel will not do. That isn't his area.

He won't formulate it arbitrarily yes, but to suggest definitively that he won't even have a say in it's formulation is wrong.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

Rahm is not a foreign policy minded individual, and that is not why Obama wanted him as chief-of-staff. I don't see him playing any role in formulating foreign policy, but time will tell.

Time will tell, but looking at it in a dispassionate way, if events transpire in the occupied territories and Obama is forced to seek counsel from his advisers, surely you don't expect an outspoken vehement pro-israeli not to take part in discussions about how to deal with such contingencies.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

Rahm is hardly the only pro-Israel voice in the U.S. government. The vast majority of the government and the American people support Israel.

True he's not the only one, but his overt association with pro-israeli lobbyists and other aspects of his family history, single him out as someone who will be an integral part of any discussion on israel, iran, lebanon etc and other broader regional issues.

By the way, i don't believe that vast majority of the American people support israel. Perhaps in the sense of one nation supporting another, but i think those who are not aware of the histroy of the region, the realities of occupation, the horrors of israel's crimes against the Palestinian people, it's repeated violations of international law etc will adopt very different views of israel, if this were presented to them in an objective manner in the mainstream US media.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

That might be true if the enemies of Israel weren't so closely linked to the enemies of the United States.

It doesn't have to be the case. If the nature of israel's strategic relationship with the US is imparted in earnest to the american electorate, we would hear greater calls for reform of foreign policy.

I think the manner in which the "war on terror" was presented in the american media, portrayed the US and it's key client regime of israel as being vicitimized by a vast international syndicate of fanatical zealots who were bent on wreaking havoc on the US and it's allies. This perverted people's judgment about who is cuplable for the international crisis and fomenting a climate of global antagonism that utlimately culminated in the inception of Al Qa'ida. The root of the issue has always been US foreign policy, and the uncondtional support it extends to israel. Unless the inimical effects of such dangerous policies are communicated to the american electorate, and not the opposite, in which the oppressed are portrayed as the aggressors, then only can we have a change in attitude towards israel in the US.

Hi.

format_quote Originally Posted by nocturnal

The root of the issue has always been ...

The way the Palestinian suckers (population & terrorists) have allowed israel to justify their brutal occupation. If the palestinians wanted the American electorate to change their views, then they would stop the implicit support of the uncivilized and brutal tactics of the small fanatical portion of their population. Every missile lobbed, every suicide boming is a justification for Israel to continue their horrific acts.

No one loves a beat up underdog more than the American people. Unfortunately, the true situation of the Palestinian people continues to be obscured by the actions of a crazed few.

Thank you.

(Palestinians - Worst marketing job ever.)