Rabbi M. Lerner bemoans Obama's Emanuel pick

[mhgaffney]

Rabbi Michael Lerner is the editor of a progressive Jewish journal by the name of Tikkun.

His article pretty much says it all.

MHG

NEWS ADVISORY:

Rahm Emanuel is no Reason for Hope or Celebration


by Rabbi Michael Lerner

Election night tens of millions of us wept for joy. We sang the songs that we had sung as young men and women when we were fighting segregation in the south and then in the North, some of us being beaten, others jailed, some even killed. For the first time in three decades we could sing "Imagine" and "The Times They are a'Changing" without feeling that we were holding onto utopian fantasies that had been
buried by the cynical realists who have shaped public discourse.

How exciting to believe again in the possibility of America as the potential embodiment of our ideals for social justice, peace, and ecological sanity. We could hardly believe our own eyes-we were living through the rebirth of a nation and its attempt to heal its racist past.

So no wonder why many of us were shocked and deeply disappointed when we learned on Thursday that Congressman Rahm Emanuel was to be the Chief of Staff in the Obama White House.

Emanuel, for those who don't recall, was the Congressman who traveled the country in 2006 finding "suitable" candidates in "swing districts" to run against Republican incumbents, and in many instances he succeeded. But his theory of how to succeed was destructive: he sought the most conservative possible candidates in each district, insisting that local Democratic Party organizations reject more liberal candidates who, he feared, might not win.

There were many among the House Democrats who deplored this tactic. The main issue on the mind of the electorate was the war in Iraq, and public opinion had moved so far in opposition to that war that the Democratic leadership in the House was pushed to proclaim that it would cut off funding for the war if Democrats won control of Congress. Well, the outcome was that Democrats did win control, but since the candidates that Emanuel picked were more conservative and militarist than the mainstream of the Party, they were not reliable allies when it came to voting against war funding. Instead of cutting fund for the war, Nancy Pelosi's House increased the funding, explaining that they had to appear "responsible" in order to solidify their control of Congress in 2008..

Clever? Not for the people, Americans and Iraqis, killed or wounded in the meantime.

This was no mistake on Emanuel's part. Rahm Emanuel has a long history of militarist ideology behind him. His father was a member of the ultra-right-wing terrorist organization Etzel that killed British civilians as part of their anti-British struggle in Palestine in the 1940s. Emanuel, himself a citizen of Israel as well as the United States, [and who actually joined the Israeli Defence Force] has been one of several Congressional leaders enforcing the "Israel Lobby" concensus on the Democrats, in the process shutting out the peace voices that believe Israel's security would be better served by the U.S. putting pressure on Israel to end the Occupation, move the Wall to inside the pre-67 boundaries, and remove the settlers from the West Bank or tell them to live there as Palestinian citizens.

It's not just the pro-peace and reconciliation forces that are unlikely to be given a serious hearing in a White House in which Rahm Emanuel controls who gets to talk to the President. Emanuel will almost certainly be protecting Obama from all of us spiritual progressives and those of us who describe ourselves as the Religious Left-so that our commitment to single-payer universal health care, carbon taxes for environmental protection, a Homeland Security strategy based on generosity and implemented through a Global Marshall Plan, will be unlikely to get a serious hearing in the White House.

When these issues were avoided by Obama during the campaign, most of us spiritual progressives told ourselves, "He's just being political, but once elected he'll reveal himself committed to the values that he whispered into our ears privately over the course of the past many years." The Rahm Emanuel selection is an early warning that the peace and justice agenda dropped by Obama after he won the Democratic nomination may be permanently on hold, and the progressives themselves may have to settle for "access" and flowery words at an inauguration address rather than the substance of change. For many of us, just the fact of having a brilliant young black man in the White House will be such a healing experience that we won't care about this newly emerging reality: unless Obama creates some other path to access and to public input into his policies by those of us who helped build his electoral success, or unless we organize to do so outside the framework of his campaign organization, we may be in for lots of disappointments.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine www.tikkun.org, chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives www.spiritualprogressives.org, author of 11 books (most recently the 2006 national best-seller The Left Hand of God) and as a member of Rabbis for Obama recently debated Bill Kristol about how Jews should vote in the election. RabbiLerner@tikkun.org

[Rohirrim]

We've already seen what the takeover of the GOP by the extremist Right did to that Party. Now Gaff bemoans that the extremist Left isn't taking over the Dem Party. Good.

BTW, "spiritual progressive?" WTF is that, commies who do Bikram Yoga?

[enjolras]

This guy projected what HE thinks Obama SHOULD believe on to Obama, and then is disappointed when Obama lives up to the things he said?

It's really confusing.

I hate to sound like an apologist... but this is nothing.

[cutthemdown]

Sounds good to me. A more conservative democratic party is one I like better.

[Paladin]

Geezus. Can you neocons stop bleeding on the new carpet? Get a room.

[mhgaffney]

Since when did people who opposed the war become extremists?

[cutthemdown]

I'm confused whose unhappy with this pick? Not conservatives who are pro Israel right? I mean this pick and Obama saying Jerusalem will always be the Jewish capital shows he is firmly behind the Jews. Is that what liberals are upset about?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Since when did people who opposed the war become extremists?

It sounds to me like their agenda is a whole lot more than just anti-war. We've tried desperately to free ourselves from the insanity of the Religious Right and now you want us to jump into the laps of people who call themselves the Religious Left? No thanks.

[cutthemdown]

Obama is shaping up to be even more pro Israeli then both Bushes or Clinton IMO.

I think with Obama he is so focused on what he sees an injustice in America that he isn't really that interested in the plight of the Palestinians. Obama smart enough to know saying that Jerusalem would always be the undivided Jewish capital means no peace deal or accord.

Now that his Chief of staff is staunchly pro Israel it looks like the Palestinians are out of luck.

Also in his book Rahm Emmanuel says he feels the USA should have mandatory service to the country of at least 6 months.

He's pretty nationalistic, fairly militaristic, hell I like him!!!!!! good choice by Obama.

I even hear Obama may ask Gates to stay on as defense sec for a little longer.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Obama is shaping up to be even more pro Israeli then both Bushes or Clinton IMO.

I think with Obama he is so focused on what he sees an injustice in America that he isn't really that interested in the plight of the Palestinians. Obama smart enough to know saying that Jerusalem would always be the undivided Jewish capital means no peace deal or accord.

Now that his Chief of staff is staunchly pro Israel it looks like the Palestinians are out of luck.

Also in his book Rahm Emmanuel says he feels the USA should have mandatory service to the country of at least 6 months.

He's pretty nationalistic, fairly militaristic, hell I like him!!!!!! good choice by Obama.

I even hear Obama may ask Gates to stay on as defense sec for a little longer.

The Palestinians are not "out of luck." The position of Rahm is that the people are being manipulated by Hamas and the PLO and need to find their own solution. Hamas is being manipulated by Iran, whose mullahs want to impose an Islamic state from Iran to the Mediterranean. The Palestinian people are simply pawns in the argument. The Israelis are in the position of having to create a peace with the Palestinian people while fighting off the influence of radical fundamental Islam whose goal it is to wipe Israel off the map.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The Palestinians are not "out of luck." The position of Rahm is that the people are being manipulated by Hamas and the PLO and need to find their own solution. Hamas is being manipulated by Iran, whose mullahs want to impose an Islamic state from Iran to the Mediterranean. The Palestinian people are simply pawns in the argument. The Israelis are in the position of having to create a peace with the Palestinian people while fighting off the influence of radical fundamental Islam whose goal it is to wipe Israel off the map.

I guess if the Palestinians can live without Jerusalem as there capital they could still be winners. Rahm and Obama are clear on that issue and I don't think they would be able to go back on it.

[Drek]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Since when did people who opposed the war become extremists?

People who want to stop funding our troops forcing them to all be pulled out instantaneously are extremists. Which is basically what this article is asking for.

Iraq is screwed up, largely because of Bush. It is the next president's responsibility to get us out of Iraq but in a responsible manner.

Also, the extreme left can suck it. Blue dog dems are here to stay. They are the true reflection of America. A centrist nation that leans right on financial and economic values and left on social and civil issues.

[Pseudofool]

This pick speaks nothing of Obama's policy or direction, it speaks to Obama's desire to get things done. Which shows he's serious as opposed to simply ideological. This is a fine pick. If Obama was leaf in the wind their could be some worry, but Obama has the type of character that isn't going to pushed around.

[W*GS]

The harping from the loony left has already started on Obama. He must be doing something right, then.

[Pseudofool]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The harping from the loony left has already started on Obama. He must be doing something right, then.

I'm pretty far left, and I don't get the outrage. I'm not sure you want a lefty to be your strong-man in the whitehouse.

[Paladin]

I agree with Drek. While I am partial to calling myself an Independent, I do identify with the Blue Dogs most of the time.

But it is critical that the US gets out of Iraq. Having a disengagement plan is not a bad idea. We are already seeing some reduction in that some of the "Surge" level numbers are being reduced. Praeteus (sp?) is not a Rummy-style mime who follows the script. My guess is that he will talk with Obama about getting out soonest....

I do not think it is the US's responsibility to assure Iraq's perpetual safety against Iran. The Iraqi's themselves need to decide whether they are going to be Shia or Sunni.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I even hear Obama may ask Gates to stay on as defense sec for a little longer.

That would be great. When Bush put Gates in as SofD there was finally an
adult in charge of something in the Bush administration, Gates is the main
reason we aren't at war with Iran.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

That would be great. When Bush put Gates in as SofD there was finally an
adult in charge of something in the Bush administration, Gates is the main
reason we aren't at war with Iran.

....and maybe developing a more reasonable outlook on Iraq....

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The harping from the loony left has already started on Obama. He must be doing something right, then.

Watch us end up defending Obama and them attacking all the time just like usual.

[Pseudofool]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Watch us end up defending Obama and them attacking all the time just like usual.

So the left both worship Obama and are likely to attack him? Obama is a politician who shouldn't be above criticism. I know this is hard for people on the right to understand, who never ever question their leadership (or else they'd be anti-ameircan, right?).

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

So the left both worship Obama and are likely to attack him? Obama is a politician who shouldn't be above criticism. I know this is hard for people on the right to understand, who never ever question their leadership (or else they'd be anti-ameircan, right?).

not true I critique often I just don't make giant leaps to assign blame to a President just to meet my partisan goals.

But I'm really happy with this pick as Chief of staff. Being pro Israel is something I agree with. I'm glad to see Obama is going to continue that. Rahm Emmanual is a Zionist and Obama listens to him.

Obama only said he would talk to people like Iran, he didn't say he would listen to there B.S.

[SoCalBronco]

So Gaff is quoting and agreeing with Rabbis, now?

What is this....alternate universe day or something?

[watermock]

Lets see what kind of cabinet Obama places, or has placed around him. I'm afraid it's going to be surprising with the names I've heard mentioned, like Reubin, Volker, Emanuel...

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The Palestinians are not "out of luck." The position of Rahm is that the people are being manipulated by Hamas and the PLO and need to find their own solution. Hamas is being manipulated by Iran, whose mullahs want to impose an Islamic state from Iran to the Mediterranean. The Palestinian people are simply pawns in the argument. The Israelis are in the position of having to create a peace with the Palestinian people while fighting off the influence of radical fundamental Islam whose goal it is to wipe Israel off the map.

Rohirrim is clueless.

Here are the facts. I've stated them before on this board -- many times -- but Rohirrim and others are dense between the ears. They don't get it.

Everyone in the world understands what the terms of a genuine peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians must be. It is only Americans who do not understand this. Two posters on this thread have expressed confusion. The reason for their confusion is because the US media (much of which is Zionist controlled) has lied and lied and lied about this conflict for many years: how it arose, what it's about, and what needs to be done to end it. No wonder Americans don't understand.

For there to be peace -- Israel must abide by UN Security Council Resolutions -- and withdraw its occupation troops from the West Bank -- which is Arab land. This part of Palestine will become the future Palestinian state.

Most Israelis support this land for peace solution. Most Israelis also support talks with Hamas -- which -- despite what Rohirrim stated - - is NOT controlled by Iran or anyone else. Hamas is a homegrown Palestinian nationalist movement. Period. End of story.

The problem is that radical hard line Zionists do NOT want a peace settlement -- and they are a majority in AIPAC -- the Jewish lobby here in the USA. The hard liners also exercise power in Israel far beyond their numbers -- Sharon was of this persuasion -- thanks to US government support for their extremist cause.

Hard line Zionists are NOT interested in a peace treaty with Palestinians -- nor with the surrounding Arab states. They believe they can impose their will upon the region. Their solution to every problem is more force.

The question Americans today should be asking is this: Why is the US government presently aligned with extremists in Israel and in AIPAC ? Why are we not supporting the more moderate Jewish majority who want peace?

This is the important question. As I indicated -- i thas been obscured by a US media that is almost totally controlled, and does not tell the truth.

As for Obama, he traded his independence for financial support from Wall Street -- which he used to defeat McCain. Obama made a fateful decision -- out of sheer expedience -- to surrender US Mideast policy to the hard line Zionists in return for $$$$$$$.

His appointment of Emanuel -- which puts an Israeli citizen in a key position of control in the White House -- was only the first chit in return for all of that money. Make no mistake, in the coming days Obama will be required again and again to betray the cause of peace.

Obama has already lost control of US Mideast policy, which is now being formulated by Zionists. This means there will be no peace treaty.

In essence, Obama's presidency has ended even before it has begun.

I fear the result will be a catastrophic global war -- because the most important priority in the world today must be a settlement of the Palestinian/Israel conflict -- and a wider regional peace agreement -- - to be followed by withdrawal of US forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Without such an agreement -- the prospects are bleak. Indeed, now that peace is OFF the table -- what is to prevent a wider war? If it happens it will make Iraq look like a warm up.

Folks, this is the reality. It is not a pretty thing.

MHG

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Since when did people who opposed the war become extremists?

His acceptance speech was at Grant Park. This was the scene of one of the worst anti war "riots" in 1968. You don't think he was making a statement with this. Obama does not want war but peace has a price.

We are in bed with Israel. We could not turn our backs on them even if we wanted to. The Arabic mind is not forgiving. If we stay with them we are infidel devils. If we leave we are infidel betrayers. Expedience has very little to do with a lack of real choices.

The Arabs are seriously divided and in Middle East you do not negotiate from a position of weakness or lack of power. Jews, like them or not, are on the front lines of change in the Middle East. There will come a point when Obama will have to meet with Arabic leaders but right now he needs to line up the powers that ARE before he can change the powers that BE.