Names will never hurt me – the double standard

Recently a number of bloggers got bent out of shape by comments made by incoming Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel’s father,

“Obviously, he’ll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House.”

Time Magazine:

But that does not mean that Rahm Emanuel, or Barack Obama for that matter, can easily ignore the fact that Benjamin Emanuel recently said a nasty thing about Arabs in the Israeli press. This is from the Jerusalem Post’s account of an interview Benjamin gave after news of his son’s appointment to the Obama administration was announced:

Samir Kuntar’s friend, Dion Nissenbaum:

Emanuel’s appointment upset some in the Middle East who fear that Obama’s new gatekeeper and White House alter-ego will be unquestioning in his support for questionable Israeli policies.

And his dad’s comments only aggravated things.

Worst of all, Helena Cobban’s Just World News, used the opportunity to accuse Rep. Emanuel, not so subtly, of dual loyalty.

But what I as a US citizen want to be assured of at this point is two things:

1. At any point that the interests of the US and the current government of Israel might diverge, can we be assured that all members of our president’s staff are acting 100% in the interests of the United States? and

2. Can we be assured that the president is getting the widest range of excellent, relevant, and fact-based advice from all his advisers in the tricky and very sensitive realms of Mideast policy?

The ensuing firestorm ended when Rep. Emanuel apologized for his father’s remarks.

While I was originally jarred by what he said, I’m in agreement with Daled Amos and In Context, I don’t think that Dr. Emanuel’s comments were intended the way the AADC and its apologists alleged. He wasn’t suggesting that Arabs ought to be washing floors, but that his son had influence (he wouldn’t be washing floors) and that he’d be pro-Israel (he’s not an Arab.) The two statements were conflated by the anti-Israel crowd who were already suspicious of Rep.Emanuel because he was born in Israel.

But what to make of these following incidents.
Meryl notes that at least week’s Saudi sponsored Interfaith conference Western educated, liberal Palestinian PM, Salam Fayyad was guilty of an omission.

The Palestinian Prime Minister, yet another so-called moderate, managed to speak at the UN interfaith conference about how holy Jerusalem is to the world’s major religions—and utterly leave out Judaism.

In Context points out (not for the first time) that the Palestinians under the jurisdiction of “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas, sentenced one of their own to death for helping Israel fight terror attacks.

And finally there’s the moderate, Abbas himself who took to threatening Israel this past weekend. But as Elder of Ziyon points out, this ought not to be so casually dismissed:

Which goes to show that the PLO letter to Israel at Oslo that solemnly promised to abandon violence was not worth the paper it was written on. And brings up the question that people are afraid to ask: what is to say that any “peace agreement” will not be torn up as well?

I’ll admit, that I’m happy that the Washington Post and New York Times, as far as I can tell ignored Dr. Emanuel’s remarks. They were, at worst, clumsy. But even if they were meant as (mis)construed, Dr. Emanuel is not a person of influence in the new administration. Absent compelling evidence, It should have had no bearing on his son’s ability to do his job. The outpouring of outrage is more a reflection of the sentiments that only Helena Cobban was honest (and vile) enough to express openly: that somehow support of Israel is de facto proof of dual loyalties.

This is especially apparent when those in authority in the PA continually express their support for conflict with Israel and deny Israel’s basic right to exist. That doesn’t upset the likes of Helena Cobban, Jake Tapper, Michael Scherer or Dion Nissenbaum at all. Denial of the very premises of a peace settlement by the Palestinians is a matter of course, not worthy of comment, but the slightest hint – no matter how specious – of pro-Israel leanings is a matter of overblown concern. This isn’t simply a matter of being critical of Israel, but of anti-Israel, if not antisemitic feelings.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.