Political Punch

Arabs account for over 95% of the Semitic people. Saying or doing something against them is anti-Semitism. Everyone should watch out for this fact. There is lots of anti-Semitism being directed against Arabs. Worse than that, it's being encouraged by the media.

I should make clear that this issue of mopping is a distraction from the question of why Rahm's closest family is discussing his role in the white house with the foreign press.

For better or for worse if the parent of the CHIEF OF STAFF wishes to talk about the direction of US foreign policy to FOREIGN press he needs to be completely shut down.

Does he or does he not have the ear of the president? Does he speak for his son? Why is he speaking about US foreign policy to foreign press?

The elder Emanuel needs to be completely repudiated. A simple statement that he is not now and never will be authorized to speak for the administration or his son would begin the process.

After reading some of the comments I think obamas in for a rough ride. He's going to be to far left for most of the country. But not left enough for alot of his radical supporters. He's stuck in the middle and nobody's going to be happy. Kind of like the current congress.

It's obviously what he was implying. To suggest otherwise is to deny the plain meaning of the words. What was the "What is he, an Arab?" in there for if it had no relevance to the point Rahm's father was making? Then it was a total non-sequitur, you're saying?
Posted by: Kathy | Nov 13, 2008 9:11:11 PM
No the "what is he an arab" part has to do with pushing support for Israel. because an arab wouldnt .Get it? He said it badly but thats what i get from reading it a few times.

A phony apology by Emmanuel or Obama for the politically motivated uncivilized comments made by the very person who instilled similar values in Emmanuel (his Dad)is nothing but a sham political cover-up to shield the anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian stand taken by Obama during his campaign. Obama famously said that he would not talk to Palestinian "terrorists" as if the terror unleased by the 51st State of US (Israel) on Palestinian or the democratic terror wars waged on the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (and possibly India very soon) by the US is nothing to apologize about. Yes, Emannuel is anti-Arab by birth and upbringing and he has been Obama's closest friends all these years, and he is the one who advises the incoming President of "Change". I don't see sny change when it comes to protecting the Israeli holocast and aparthied.

If Mr. Rahm were Arab, his father thinks his influence might be anti-Israel. If Rahm were going to be mopping floors in the White House, his father thinks he might be uninfluential regarding foreign affairs. But because Rahm is Jewish and will be Chief of Staff, his father thinks he will have a pro-Israel influence. I don't think Rahm's father has expressed any opinion on the conditional probability of an Arab's being a janitor.

What people here appear to conveniently forget is that the staunch stance towards Israel, and the antagonism against the rest of the Middle East, would´ve remained unmutable with either Republican or Democrat at the helm. The major difference, in my opinion, comes that the Republicans are more quick to turn to military action, therefore if McCain had won it should've been of no surprise to anyone if a war against Syria-Iran begun even before finishing those in Iraq-Afghanistan. The Democrats on the other hand tend to make better use of diplomatic-economic pressures/incentives for whatever purpose they have.

However, as national politics work, the parties' allegiance is first and foremost to "special interests" groups, be it the military-industrial complex, big pharma, trade unions, financial sectors, or AIPAC. So, by simply studying the main "donors" to the different campaigns we can establish the policies that a given government will take. And by the looks of Obama, I would say that surrounding himself with people of the Clinton term, is a way of repaying his debt to the Clintons, but also means a continuation of the Clinton Era. In this aspect, I don't see any cessation of hostilities between Israel-the rest or vice versa in the near future. At least not till the day that the US stops nursing Israel as if it were a defenceless little lamb and the rest of the region a pack of rabid, hungry dire wolves, and frankly, Rahm's credentials and appointment is a clear testament that as far as the Middle East goes, there will be nothing new under the sun.

Too bad, Obama truly had the opportunity to change the world and lead it to a new direction. But it looks like he chose to simply take a trip around the ol' block.

I'm surprised that Rahm didn't say, “I can no more disown him that Obama could disown his White Grandmother or the black community.”

Did Obama apologize to our military personnel for accusing them of killing civilians and children in villages of Iraq? Obama would have to apologize everyday of his life for everything that was said and done against his opponents during election year 2008.

If we're gonna live as Americans in our great nation, we need to stop being so sensitive, and treat and respect each other as Americans and not members of an ethnic group. Our allegiance should be to our great nation, our beautiful American flag, our democracy, our military, and forget about our differences be it party affiliation or religion.

We need to show more respect towards our parents. Rahm Emanuel is not responsible for his father's remarks. You don't go against family in public. Family is sacred, just as God and Country!

Rahm Emanuel's father is free to say whatever he wants. Emanuel should not have to apologize, disavow or repudiate his father's remarks. It's like asking a son to go against, disrespect, and humiliate his father publicly.

If all ethnic groups are gonna be sensitive and overeact over any remarks, and demand politicians to disavow and repudiate demeaning, smearing comments made by politicians' family members, I want Obama to apologize to all Hispanics of Mexican descent for running his ad calling Mexicans "Mexicanos estupidos!"

What is saying is obviously just that Jews are pro-Israel; Arabs are not. A little simplistic but not racist.

Posted by: 'Margaret J. '
'Democratic Neocons in the White House do not stand for "change."'

Democratic Neocons?
uh oh... here we go again, inanely mixing political systems....

I was just getting relaxed not hearing the 'socialist, marxist, fascist' chant... but NOOoo,
there you go again.....

The comments by the father are disturbing and illustrate a fundamental racist attitude towards Arabs. Israel stands for apartheid and it is time for the U.S. taxpayer stop funding this racism. Democratic Neocons in the White House do not stand for "change."

c'mon now,... how can the christian fundamentalists get the 'raputure' and eventual 'armageddon' if America doesn't support Israel?

The problem with such apologies--political apologies, that is--is that they rarely come from the heart. They are rarely imbued with meaning and substance that suggests we won't see such rhetoric or behavior again.

When we receive political apologies we must see that there is some weight behind them--which is why Congress' apology for slavery fell short, too, as it did not come with a demand for reparations.

But while Emanuel's words are racist and disturbing, what I find more disturbing is his father's participation in Irgun--a pre-state Jewish militia defined by the British as terrorist at the time--and his own participation in the Israeli army just a few years ago. These actions speak louder than words to me and demand repudiation as well. But more importantly, I think we need to see some evidence that neither these words nor these actions will be sanctioned by the Obama administration.

Is this the "change" we need: another pro-Israel cheerleader/fundraiser in the White House?

oh its only getting started kids...good times to come. Once the Obama draft is in its GO time./ Look at what you voted for...HAHAHAHAHA

Great job Mary Rose and Kareem!
Keep up the good work!

I think the mop comment was about his sons influence in the white house. Don't get me wrong im sure dad has no love for arabs but that's not what he was implying.

It's obviously what he was implying. To suggest otherwise is to deny the plain meaning of the words. What was the "What is he, an Arab?" in there for if it had no relevance to the point Rahm's father was making? Then it was a total non-sequitur, you're saying?