← Unholy: Two Jews on the News
Unholy: Two Jews on the News
Rahm Emanuel
00:45:53
Fresh off his tour of Israel and Europe, this week on Unholy Conversations, Yonit and Jonathan speak to Rahm Emanuel—former Chief of Staff, Congressman, Chicago Mayor, Ambassador to Japan and perhaps future presidential nominee. They dive into his recent charged conversation with New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, his take on Israel’s current choices, whether he considers himself a Zionist, and if he’s any closer to making a decision on a presidential run.
Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:00]
Rahm Emanuel
When you're mayor, time goes faster and you got to make choices. What's an A? What's a B? When we got to the Middle East, I said, look, you are your father's son. I'm my father's son. You chant a river to the sea and that means there will never be a Jewish homeland for Jews who had faced the Holocaust. And I said, I want you to hear this over my dead body.
- [00:26]
Jonathan Friedland
Foreign.
- [00:32]
Yanit Levy
It's Tuesday, time for our Unholy Conversations episode. I'm Yanit Levy in Tel Aviv.
- [00:37]
Jonathan Friedland
And I'm Jonathan Friedland in London.
- [00:39]
Yanit Levy
And this week a special conversation with a man who knows the Middle east very well, has a lot to say about it and is considering running for president of the United States.
- [00:51]
Jonathan Friedland
Rahm Emanuel is a fabled name of American politics. A former mayor of Chicago, a a former member of Congress, formerly chief of staff to Barack Obama, a senior advisor to Bill Clinton, an ambassador to Japan. Or as he put it to my co host on Channel 12 recently, he looks like a guy who can't keep a job. Rahm Emanuel, welcome to Unholy or welcome back to Unholy.
- [01:18]
Rahm Emanuel
Former's my middle name.
- [01:20]
Yanit Levy
It looks like we should also add seriously considering running for president, but we'll get to that later. So we really appreciate you coming on again and you're after your whirlwind Torah proposal made in Israel. A lot of headlines made there. We're just I would want to begin with something happening really just in these kind of the next hour which is the meeting between 8th meeting actually between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. If the president sitting in the White House was Ram Emanuel, how would that meeting look like? And of course the prime minister would still be Benjamin Netanyahu. What would that meeting be like today?
- [01:55]
Rahm Emanuel
Well, first of all, you and Israel will make that decision on October 27th. I mean it would be look, it will be as frank and honest as it was back in 2009 when I told the Prime Minister 18 years ago that what you are doing on the housing in the west bank is not only provocative on upends the potential for a two state solution, but more importantly will lead to Israel's isolation and perpetual conflict. As you know, Yonit, as I said, if there was a prediction I wanted to be Wrong on in 2008, it was that prediction. I happen parenthetically I happen to think that both that warning but also encouraging President Obama to do and fund the original days of startup of the Iron Dome research, they're heads and tails of the same coin. Both are part of Israel's security. And if I would say, and directly that is, and I said this in the speech and you noted it because we talked about in the interview when I was in Israel. Israel has never actually engaged in the other parts of its national security toolbox, economic statecraft, diplomatic, political persuasion, cultural attraction that would make the most of its military efforts. Now on taking to the north, there is a little effort and more than a little on Lebanon and seizing that moment, working with the Lebanese government as a true partner. There seems to be some more than just subtle discussions on a security agreement, not a full peace with Syria. That to me is taking the steps. And I would say that America will use its political power and capacity in the Middle east to enhance that. But you cannot become a one dimensional power which is what you have become and has led not only to Israel being militarily more secure, but politically, diplomatically more vulnerable than it has ever been in 78 years of history. Last thought, and I know you asked only for one question in the last two years in Israel, more people have left than have come. That is different than every other year for the last 78 years. So the Israelis themselves are voting on this and they're voting negatively. So that's why I would have a direct conversation. There's no with an ally, there's no beating around the bush.
- [04:24]
Jonathan Friedland
So as Yoni mentioned, you've been on a kind of whirlwind tour. You've been delivering this message to lots of people, including in Israel, I'm interested to know. I mean there's always a why now? Question why you've been doing that now. But I'm also interested to hear what reaction you've had to this message. Yes, among the Israelis that you were saying to directly. But also this is the bit that I'm particularly interested in your fellow members of the Democratic Party in the US particularly on the progressive wing. You've had some tough things to say to them. How have they been reacting to you and to this message?
- [04:56]
Rahm Emanuel
Well, you know, one is if I can't do a plea for, you know, I did go to Berlin to give a new vision of NATO moving it from common defense to collective deterrence. And given what's happened over Romania's airspace, I said he is not going to stay in Ukraine. He's going to enlarge this problem. So I don't want to say I was. Since nobody else will say it, I'll say it for myself. I thought I was a little prescient, but I mean, my point is, look, I say this jokingly, but I'm actually dead serious. A president of the United States has to know the classroom, the family room, the boardroom, the break room, and the situation room. One party is stuck in the bathroom and the other party is stuck in the bedroom, and it's not doing anything for America's future. Now, I went out on three things. One, and I'll get right back to this. I thought it was important to tell an ally the truth face to face so nobody could say I never did it, I don't want to do it. Later on. Here it is, and I can. We'll walk through that. Two, I think the defense alliance we have with NATO allies is essential for America's security and it's under new strain. It needs a new definition of purpose. Third, I've said this before, but I want to repeat it. I said it recently at the Aspen Security Conference. The United States number one export today around the world is our political dysfunction at home. Under the name of Donald Trump. China's number one export is its economic dysfunction at home. The two superpowers in the world are exporting their dysfunction and the rest of the world is caught in a crosswind. 1. You have the president of the United States. You can see what he's doing in Brazil, in Germany, he went out, refused to meet vice president, refused to meet with the government, but met with a neo Nazi party. And you can see that around in China, their decision to suppress the consumers in China, the domestic market is requiring them to lean on manufacturing and they're destroying everybody else's manufacturing. So both superpowers are exporting their domestic dysfunction, one on the political front and one on the economic front. Now, I say those three things because I think if you're thinking about it, which I am running for president, you better know your way around the Situation room. The world is too precarious for on the job training. So a lot of people think, and I'll just be frank and honest about it, while my resume is long and great, in a period of change, that's a liability. Well, you can always try on the job training, see how that works because we got it right now in the White House. A dysfunction, a guy that doesn't know his way around the world and thinks everything is basically what gratitude you could do for his ego, which he's replaced as America's national security. He's put his own ego in front of America's national security. You can see that on Saudi Arabia. You can see it on a Lot of different things across the globe. So that's why I did it. Now, second, I went after the Democratic socialists because I do believe politics. I've done politics my whole life. I've never lost an election my name was on. I've never lost a national election either making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House or helping Bill Clinton or Barack Obama get elected. The Democratic socialists are affecting our ability to make this a referendum on Donald Trump, his corruption and the rubber stamp. Republican Congress I am not for. And Democrats are not for defunding the police, open borders and letting criminals out of prison. You have your own party go over there. And I just came back from Omaha. It's one of the only seats in the country that Kamala Harris won that had a Republican congressman. Congressman Bacon has decided to step down. It's the best opportunity to pick up. They're now calling her DSA Denise. That gets in the way of prosecuting her Republican opponent. Just last week or two weeks ago voted against increasing the minimum wage that had passed as a referendum in the city of Omaha to 70 to 30. Now I happen to think the Democratic Socialists think the Democratic Party's a problem. I do not. I actually think that President Trump and his corruption and the fact that the Republicans in Congress basically took the third branch of government and put gone fishing on the window as the problem. Now you can either fight the Democratic Party or you can fight Donald Trump and the Republicans. I know where I stand. And I think the Democratic socialists are actually adversely affecting our ability to prosecute what I happen to think is a perfect election referendum on Donald Trump.
- [09:32]
Jonathan Friedland
Let me bring you back to the particular issue with the dsa, the left, which is on Israel and deposition on Israel.
- [09:39]
Rahm Emanuel
I feel like, Jonathan, you're at the Emanuel dinner conversation when I have three points I'm not allowed to just get through. I'm teasing. What would you like to ask? What was the other question?
- [09:48]
Jonathan Friedland
Because the sharp end of this disagreement you have with the DSA in terms of our focus is the things you've had to say to them about their position on Israel. I know, for example, that you had a meeting at some point earlier where quite strong words were spoken between you and Mayor Mamdani in New York. So interested to know what you said to him and interested to know how he reacts to what you're saying.
- [10:12]
Rahm Emanuel
That's not a fair. I was direct as I think you could. I think if. Look, I'm self aware. I'm on the spectrum when it comes to candor. Okay. Now that I know, let's say you're
- [10:24]
Yanit Levy
quite Israeli when it comes to candor.
- [10:27]
Rahm Emanuel
So we had a. He reached out and asked for a meeting. He was. It was his first election, not the final election. He wanted, I mean, his. Through his staff, Patrick Espard worked as political director of the Obama White House. I knew him when I was chief of staff. Patrick and I get along. He also, I think in the second term, served as our ambassador to South Africa under President Obama. So anyway, he wanted to talk about what it means to be a mayor. And all mayors, like Mayor Khan in London, we have a secret handshake. We all work with each other. You now have a mayor as prime minister. And so we talked for an hour and a half. I would say the first hour and 15 was all about being mayor and stuff like that. As I said when he walked in, because it wasn't a tough. I said to him, I said, I'm not sure who's going to hate this meeting more, my rabbi or aoc. And he left. And I said, I've listened to her speeches and I listened to my rabbi's sermon. I go for my rabbi. So we had a. Now the first hour and fifteen of an hour and a half was about being a mayor. What do you have to do in the job? And we discussed. I gave him my personal view that I thought his childcare was an A. I thought some of the other stuff, like free buses was a B. But, you know, you'll make that decision. I, when I was mayor, extending the school day because Chicago had the shortest school day in the United States of America and the shortest school year. We had no kindergarten, we had no pre K. All the things that we changed, which gave four years to a child's education, that was my A. And I would go through hell to get that A. I think his childcare was an A. So we talked like that. And I said, when you're mayor, time goes faster and you got to make choices. What's an A? What's a B? When we got to the Middle East, I said, look, you are your father's son. I'm my father's son. You chant a river to the sea, and that means there will never be a Jewish homeland for Jews who had faced the Holocaust. And I said, I want you to hear this over my dead body. Now, I'm opposed to a Greater Israel. And you heard this at the speech in Tel Aviv. I happen to think a river to the sea, Greater Israel is a fantasy chanted by two fanatics. I said, and the Difference between you and I. It's actually where I first practiced or thought of this idea. I said, the difference between you and I is you chant a river to the sea. I believe both of those lead to perpetual conflict. The greater Israel and the river of the sea. And that's the difference between us. I know where there's a line. You don't. And your policy will lead to perpetual conflict. Because no, even if you're not a religiously observant Jew, just culturally observant Jew, or you don't even deal with the idea that the state, a Jewish democratic state, will be eliminated is never going to happen. And the sooner we start working on reconciliation and not more just reconciliation, the concept that Jews and Palestinians can live side by side, which is what Hamas wanted to end. And I said, you as a mayor will have a big voice. Now, pause. I use this analogy. I said, look, mayors deal with domestic stuff, picking up garbage, cleaning graffiti, aging them. I said, but Chicago has the largest Polish population in the world, except for Warsaw, bigger than any other Polish city. We have the largest Croatian population outside of the capital of Croatia. And I went down the. I said, we're the fifth largest city in Mexico based on our exit. So you're going to deal with foreign policy. You have a big voice. And I said, you should understand. Don't play politics with it. You have a responsibility to actually, in this troubled time, to be a soothing voice. And I said, your policies today I disagree with, because there will never be a river to the sea. And you shouldn't be chanting something that will lead to perpetual conflict. And that's what we said.
- [14:37]
Yanit Levy
Can I ask what his response was? Because judging by his current comments, I'm not sure he listen to everything you said.
- [14:44]
Rahm Emanuel
You know, neat. You can. Well, let's just break the news. Not a lot of people listen to everything I have to say. Now, look, I happen to think, Obviously, and I'll say it this way, when you know something you're saying is false, that doesn't add to your credibility. I don't. Other things that you want to speak about. And he knew before what he said about arresting the prime minister, that it was just catnip for the base. It had nothing to do with the truth. That won't stay in that lane that comes out of your account. But look, he, I don't. We had, you know, we talked for 15 minutes. I would not, I didn't put, let me say this. He didn't put a press release out afterwards saying, you know, I'm re. I'M reconsidering my position. As I said when I first started, you're your father's son. I'm my father's son. There will never be an end to the Jewish democratic state. There will be a hell to pay if you think that's going to happen. So the sooner we work on what I believe is at least what I have tried in my whole life, from the Oslo Accords forward, to find a place where you can have Palestinians and Israelis live side by side, one representing the other's sovereignty aspirations, the other one representing people's security. And again, I don't want to. In the speech, I call out both the Arab world, but more importantly the Palestinian leadership, because three separate times, three separate times, they were offered 100% to 98% to 97% of what they wanted. It's one thing to say, no, legitimate. I would think that's a bad negotiating position when you get 98%. But your response then was violence, killing civilians. You've lost all credibility. You're lucky I'm even thinking about a forced shot.
- [16:44]
Yanit Levy
It is true that you spoke a lot about the sort of the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority. You talked about corruption, you spoke about the responsibility of the Arab League. And I think that there were many people in this country that were. That did say, like. It's very difficult to say. You can listen to. It's hard perhaps to hear what you have to say. But you can't say that you're not someone who cares about the state of Israel, your biography, everything you've been doing. I wonder if I could ask you what I didn't in that interview in Tel Aviv.
- [17:13]
Rahm Emanuel
You can ask me anything you want. I don't know. I'm not sure I'm going to answer it.
- [17:17]
Yanit Levy
Would you consider yourself a Zionist? Would you use that term in the Democratic Party?
- [17:22]
Rahm Emanuel
Well, one is, I consider myself a patriot, an American patriot. That's first and foremost. Everything I said in Israel was not only to tough love to the Israeli public, but it was also what I happen to think is in America's interest. And I want to add this point. We're doing this interview and now we're involved in our. In the last 25 years, our second war in the region. We've lost 50,000Americans either dead or wounded. We spent over $2 trillion. I'm not interested in a third war now. I personally am first and foremost an American patriot. And I. And that patriotism films what's in our national security interest. I happen to think an good ally in Israel is in our national security interest. But when it gets off sides, I'm going to tell you off sites as I did back in 09 on settlements. Now you need I flip the question to you. Would I be an Israeli? Would I be a Zionist? Is it a Jewish democratic state or one that's going towards a Greater Israel thinking it has its own policy to the river Sea? So my definition in the historic term as it relates to what I happen to be in the Israeli tradition would be a qualified yes. But I am not part of what I think members of the Israeli government are pursuing. And that is not consistent with the Zionist vision. Even Jabotinsky talked about. If you go back to the history talked about the Palestinians or Arabs that lived there and making them feel part of the new Israel that is not being pursued by this government. And so therefore we don't share that vision. And I'm very clear about that. I'm not part of that. And I actually think it's counterproductive and I think it actually takes the whole mission design the. If you go back to Ben Guria, not only a nation to nation, but a light onto other nations. Where is the Nobel laureates of Israel? Where is the academic scientist that not only solving medical cures but help deal with drought and solve hunger issues across Israel? There is so much that Israel and the Israelis can offer the world in these troubling times. That to me is Israel that I believed in and I still believe in, but it has been cut off from the world because of the choices of this government. And I am not part of a greater building off of a Greater Israel. I don't think that's in the Zionist vision. Now maybe we have different Zionist visions and I definitely not interested. And I want to get back my core principle is what is America's interests?
- [20:13]
Jonathan Friedland
Yeah. Just as you set it out, in
- [20:16]
Rahm Emanuel
which I judge everything by.
- [20:17]
Jonathan Friedland
Sure. As you set it out in your speeches in Israel and subsequently and you sketch out, for example that 23 state solution, it seems in everything you say that the gateway to that is some kind of pathway to a Palestinian state, that that's how this thing is going to have to play out. What do you do with the fact that most Israelis cannot countenance that idea? They say after October 7th, we're not going to give it a fourth shot to use the phrase you used before because, you know, we've seen the reality after October 7th. I'm curious to know how you, as somebody who's on, you know, would like to see this, this different Outcome. How do you wrestle with that?
- [20:57]
Rahm Emanuel
Okay, one. Without saying I want to be careful. I had a very long conversation with both the President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton without I don't want to. I'm sensitive to the sensitive still in the sense when you have a conversation with ex president, even when they're president, you're respectful of the privacy. I get why, which is why I say the politics around a two state are gone. The politics on the 23 state are different. So hold that. Which is why it works both in Israel in the region and here at home for different reasons. But one of the things you do in politics is align people's interests so they add people walk out with it. That's what James Baker would call the politics of diplomacy. The headline of his book 1. The Arab world wants stability, Israel wants security, Palestinians want sovereignty. You align those three to work together. Prior to October 7th, Saudi Arabia was getting close to a single agreement with Israel. Maybe part of the Abraham Accords, maybe just standalone. Obviously post October 7th they can't go there. And you and I are having this conversation on the heels of what just happened last week with the nuclear agreement which was supposed to be the carrot pre October 7th for a Saudi Israel deal. Two who is behind the Arab League proposal? Saudi Arabia. It's their proposal, they drove it. So you give them the political cover of numbers, they get the numbers at 21 rather than just Israel and Saudi Arabia. 2. Israel for a whole different set of reasons gets also the comfort of numbers. 21 nations would get him diplomatic cover. They get something that Israel's always thought, which is a recognition of all the countries in the region of a Jewish democratic state, the state of Israel. 3. Yes, the Palestinians get sovereignty and self determination and that's the price. But a two state, it ain't worth the sacrifice. 23 states, now you're dealing with the different dynamics of politics. And then third for America, which is not third but primary. As I said to you, we have fought two stupid wars. I'm not actually interested in seeing if we can actually get it right the third time. And a 23 state solution works to our political, strategic, economic, diplomatic, whatever category you want to use advantage. Now I happen to think since Saudi Arabia at one time was inching very close to an agreement which October 7th was determined to blow up, they need the comfort and the COVID politically of 21 other nations aligning with it. Otherwise they can't get into this deal. 2. Now maybe Israel enjoys this political isolation. I don't believe it does Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum and the vote, 21 nations saying diplomatic and Europe gets to watch Israel work towards peace now. Wow, there's a novel idea I never thought of. You get caught trying and the Palestinian leadership, while the Palestinian people forget the leadership because I don't have a lot of respect for it. They get what they have desired, which is both self determination and sovereignty. But more importantly, they have to stand up. And the Arab League takes responsibility for standing up a partner that when you're offered X, you're not stupid enough to turn it down and then return to violence as if you're building trust on the other side. Here we're all going to talk about trust at some point. That's also true between the United States and NATO allies, which is what I try to address. There's also truth as it relates to trust between Israel, the United States, Israel, other. You can't be a trusted partner if when you say no politically, you get to blow up buses on Dizzingoff or Ramakan, you just don't. That's what you're doing is destroying trust so nobody else can be a partner to that. You own that now. A lot of kids today and a lot of members of Democratic Socialists think history started when they were born. Breaking news. There's history. Okay. It didn't start when you were born and your mother told you you were special. Okay? That's not how history works. There's a long history here. As I said in the opening part of that speech, I get why the Israeli public, as you said, Jonathan, could get pretty cynical. We made efforts three times and not only did you say no, you ended up blowing up buses and killing civilians. What makes you a trusted partner? You own that. So therefore the value of a 23 state is greater than a 2 state for all the parties. That's why you got to make the politics work for the policy. I have worked long enough in life where I have done, the politics is over here, the policy is over here. And you can't reconcile. But when you align the politics with the policy, you're pedal to the metal. And so stability, I'm sorry, regional stability, Arab interest, Israel's security and political recognition, Israel's interest, sovereignty, Palestinian people's interests, and America can avoid a third war. That's how you align the politics with the policy. Sorry for Political Science 101,
- [26:52]
Yanit Levy
that's fine. I just wonder if you've had since presenting this plan, and rightfully so, I think pointing the finger also not only at Israel, but also as we said, the Palestinian Authority in the Arab League. Have there been any movements, any murmurs, anyone picking this up in any way?
- [27:12]
Rahm Emanuel
A again, I want to be careful. A foreign minister of a major Arab government told me they not only had read the speech, but their head of state was had read it also. And they said without paraphrasing, at least this is one person that understands the politics of the region. I ain't going to say anything more because I'm not interested in anybody else going into a witness protection plan prematurely. But you know, again, I want to say this. You know this and Jonathan, you know this. The Arab league proposal starts in 02, gets updated in 13. As I said, game on. It's your idea. I'm in. Now, you don't get to send throw that into the arena and go back to the mezzanine seats. Eat your popcorn and watch this game. No, you're going to get down here with the rest of us gladiators and you're going to put some sweat equity behind your idea. I'm a yes on your idea. The price for your idea is you have to stand up for Palestinian leadership. That's your job. You don't get to throw that on America and see if we can spend. I'd rather spend if we're going to do anything. Our political capital on that versus all the capital we're spending on a stupid war in Iran. But you guys, your idea. I'm in. I was a yes at the front door. Now you got to roll up your sleeves and put some sweat equity into this deal because it's your idea.
- [28:42]
Jonathan Friedland
No, I like that. One of the things you've mentioned there was the Israelis and the sense of political isolation. And some people pretend that they don't mind it, but actually it's a problem, as you said. I want to know what you would say to those Israelis. Actually, some Jews too, who would say, look, none of this isolation has anything to do with the way Israel behaves. The world has always been hostile to Jews. Diaspora Jews were naive for thinking it could ever be different. Israel was always going to be treated as a pariah. That was written in. And nothing you're going to do, any plans, initiatives, is ever going to change that. You hear that, you encounter it. What do you say to it?
- [29:20]
Rahm Emanuel
Well, one is, that's just not true. That's a rewrite of history. Now put a pin in. I'm going come right back to that.
- [29:28]
Jonathan Friedland
Sure.
- [29:29]
Rahm Emanuel
The infamous, the infamous rabbi sermon. You may forget you're a Jew, but an anti Semite Will remind you, right? Okay. Now, Jonathan, not a long time ago. It feels a long time ago. Five years ago, Israel was a startup nation. Everybody admired it for a country of only 9 million in its technological prowess. And I use technology not just in the sense of military weapons, but what it was doing from cybersecurity to in an era of no water, how to turn a desert and have it bloom agriculturally. And also could become a major helper to African countries dealing with hunger and dealing with resource shortages. Actually the definition you said always we were, we were never. Israel was not always a pariah. That's just not true. Now I'm not saying there wasn't anti Semitism Rahm Israel Emanuel is not naive to that. But the image that you cast is not actually a correct image. Now I say that also you didn't have five years ago European nations talking about boycotting Israeli products. You now have a problem since 4% of the Israeli economy is in the tech space, yet it's 60% of your exports and Europe is your major market. That did not exist 10 years ago. That just is a fact. And the challenge Israel, etc. Has in America did not exist five years ago. That is also true in parts of Asia. And so I said it to be make a point. I don't mean to do this, but you lost Europe, you're losing the United States and you picked up Somaliland. As my mother would say, such a deal, like, who knew, who knew this could be the debt that was it. But the fact is I don't now look, Yanit's more the expert than us. Although I spent a lot of time, I would be shocked to tell you think that the Israelis, not even the Israeli government, whether it's true or not, when you had the Eurovision contest on music, spent a lot of money to break out of the isolation they spent. They're spending now $50 million in America to persuade America Israel's an ally. So if they do like their isolation, they're sure not acting like they like it, even the government voices.
- [31:57]
Yanit Levy
But what I would push back if there was an Israeli in the conversation. Maybe she would say that it's not only she's busy doing an important interview. I would just say it isn't only Israel's fault in the sense of even. And you know when you said that line about how it's not okay, good, we can. No, but it can't be only our fault, right? I mean, even when you look at the Democratic Party and you have people saying, you know, that Israel is As bad as Hamas or people celebrating after October 8th.
- [32:27]
Rahm Emanuel
And that woman just elected Congress, as I said in the speech, and you know this, to all those who on October 8th were celebrating 1200 people being killed, hundreds raped, sexually abused and 250 civilians mainly being taken hostage, you are morally brain corrupt. Could not be clear. I have no room for people who are doing social media in America or anywhere in the world celebrating what happened on October 7th. I for one, was for the ceasefire on October 6th. 20,000 Palestinians worked in Israel, 180,000 from the West Bank. What was it that you hated about those 200,000 people earning an income living side by side with Israelis. So I'm not all those people. I have no room in my heart for you. You are morally bankrupt. I said it publicly. I have said it repeatedly as ambassadors. As an ambassador when a mayor in Nagasaki try to isolate Israel, stood up and defended Israel and led to the other, other countries and ambassadors boycotting the Nagasaki memorial services. I'm clear about that. You can say whatever you want. I'm consistent. And that's hard for a former ballet dancer who's pretty flexible. I'm consistent.
- [33:57]
Jonathan Friedland
We needed to add that to our list of formers. I'm very glad you've put that in there.
- [34:01]
Rahm Emanuel
Yeah, you got to make one. You got to make one Jewish mother in Chicago happy because she thinks I have failed in life until I achieve that accomplishment.
- [34:10]
Jonathan Friedland
Yeah, no, it's an unlikely one. It's become kind of de rigueur on the Democratic left of the party to accuse Israel of genocide. That word, to the point where it's almost now a kind of shibboleth, that it is expected of figures in the Democratic Party to say it and they come under pressure to say it. So two thoughts here. Questions. Is it getting to the point where for somebody like you or a Josh Shapiro to get a hearing in the Democratic Party, it's difficult unless you say the G word. But this is the other thing I'm interested in because you're right there in the bear pit. What have you found is an argument, if you have found one, that is effective in pushing back against that claim, which is obviously so, you know, radioactive for Jews, for Israelis and others. How have you found yourself, when you're arguing, able to push back on that to the extent you are?
- [35:04]
Rahm Emanuel
Yeah. So Professor Lumpkin in Ukraine develops a term in 1942 that actually America's Supreme Court justice who goes to the Nuremberg trials, Jackson adopts. There's also another professor, same university years earlier, who developed crimes against humanity. And it was actually a test going into the Nuremberg, whether it be genocide or crimes. So there's a history to this term, and more than history, there's a moral and legal clearance. It should not be diminished. Now, do I understand the politics of having a country that comes from the ashes of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau, Bokenwelt, accusing that of genocide? Do I get the politics of that? Yeah, but you're diminishing a term. So if you're going to do this, let's do it. Where is Sudan on your list and how come you haven't asked me about it? Where is Putin? Who's talked about eliminated that the Ukrainian people aren't a real people, it's not a real language, it's not a real country. Where's Putin on your list? Where is Armenians on your list? Where is Pol Pot? And as it relates to Cambodians, where is Rwanda and the Houthi and the Tutsis? So if you're going to ask it, let's ask it. But if you're not, if you're going to ask about one country to score political points and then diminish both the legal, moral and historical term that has consequences beyond your politics today, so I'm for it. Maybe the problem is some of you who don't ask about Sudan or Rwanda, you don't consider black lives as important as I do. So because if genocide is going to be used and bandied around, it has a historic legal and moral precedent. I am not a lawyer, but I'm not into diminishing a term that has potency just to score political points. So where's your claim on Sudan, which is going on right now, which the United nations just said, and the fact that you don't ask about it is more revealing about you than the term where is Rwanda? In that effort, which also was labeled by the United nations and you've never asked about it? Where is Putin as it relates to how he has talked about The Ukrainian, stolen 25,000 kids from their parents, said it's not a real language, not a real people, not a real country. Where is your moral, legal and historic indictment of that? And given the fact that you don't tells me more about you than it does about genocide going on. Now, I am not for like Omar and like members of the IDF leadership who question the way the war was prosecuted, that is a legitimate critique and needs to be evaluated both by not just the idf, by others and members of the Israeli society which are doing it and others that will weigh in on it. But I am not into taking a term and trying to score political points that then beyond this moment in time will live as a consequences. And given the fact that you have left all these other countries and clearly as if you look at the term and what I understand of it, there's this great book called East west street that kind of does the history, both of the two professors and the history of the terms. So that's my legal expertise is that book and other readings I've done. It is the total elimination of a people, its languages, etc, not just its language, but actually recognizing it as a legitimate people. So you should be not just careful. But I'm not into scoring political points that then diminish something that has legal, moral, historical precedent that should stand as a measure universally, not selectively. Which is where you're. That is why I say it's revealing that you've never asked me about Sudan, which is happening today. It's revealing you never asked me about Putin today. Revealing about you.
- [39:25]
Yanit Levy
I want to ask this. I've been listening to you very closely for many years, as you know.
- [39:30]
Rahm Emanuel
Well, that's pathetic.
- [39:33]
Yanit Levy
In any case, I've been listening for you many years, always candid, always sharp in your analysis. It does seem over the past year, it sure does seem like you're running for president in the way that you speak, in the way that you present yourself. Not that I think that you will declare this on the unholy podcast, although
- [39:51]
Rahm Emanuel
we book to do that for you to happening.
- [39:54]
Yanit Levy
But are you clear closer now to that decision than you were three months ago?
- [39:58]
Rahm Emanuel
Yeah. Yeah.
- [39:59]
Yanit Levy
Okay.
- [40:01]
Rahm Emanuel
Hey. Yeah. So we were having dinner last night, Amy and I, she goes, you keep telling people we're gonna have a family discussion. I'm family. Anytime you want to have a discussion, let's have it. Am I closer? Sure. But it all comes down to not just my decision, but it comes. You know, I said this a hundred times. I believe what's ailing America is the disappearance of the American dream. You used to be able to buy a home at 26, today it's 40. Your health care was supposed to be a peace of mind. It's now a nightmare. Your 401k was supposed to be your retirement plan. Now it backstops your paycheck because your paycheck doesn't cut it. And your kids, when they went to college were supposed to be on their way and now they end up in your basement for life. Every piece of the American dream or the middle class life is broken. Do I think I have a plan not only to fix it, but the guts to get it done. I do. But that would be the biggest, most important project in my life and I could go off sail, have a good time. Amy and I are in the next chapter of our lives. I happen to think not that every election is important because we're writing the chapter of American history and its future more important than its history. The question is in this election, with so much of the future at stake, because we have had two presidents, Biden and Trump, back to back over a decade of trying to restore a past that's never coming back, I want to have a discussion about building a future that has more people believing in America rather than giving up on America.
- [41:45]
Jonathan Friedland
There was an exchange on CNN the other day that talked about who codes who presents as Jewish. And Josh Shapiro said the contributor on cnn, he just presents as more Jewish than Jon Ossoff. This was the question. So to me, I wonder, how does Rahm Emanuel, does he present to an American electorate in a way that you could see American voters voting for a guy who's as Jewish as you are, Rahm? That's the question.
- [42:11]
Rahm Emanuel
Okay. Well, I have six elections in the city of Chicago that's pretty ethnic and I'm six for six of which the Jewish population in both the congressional district and the city of Chicago is 2%. And in both elections, Jonathan, you don't know this, but there were pretty ugly things said. I have absolute confidence in the American people to judge me on my character, judge me on my what I've done, what I have fought for. Was I the guy that fought the NRA to get the assault weapon ban and get it done? The guy that President Clinton sent in to get 10 million kids whose parents worked full time but no healthcare for the children, 10 million kids that healthcare. Was I the guy that fought to get universal kindergarten and pre K for every kid in Chicago and also the first city to ever do free community college? If you got to be average and 20,000 kids got that, they will judge me on my character, both the good, the bad and the ugly. I don't never have shied away from my background. You can't do it with Rahm Israel Emanuel. And here's the other point. My moral education comes from the Bible, from the Torah. It's what guides me into a life of making sure that 10 million kids have the same health care that my kids have, not based on income, but based on a right. And so it's important to why I decide to improve the lives of Kids, others and their families. And it is my moral. And if you don't, can't vote for me, you shouldn't vote for me. I don't want your vote because I'm not abandoning my faith for it. The faith you should worry about is that the American people have lost faith in America. That's the faith you and I have to work on. My faith is not your problem. And if it is, vote for somebody else. The faith we need to work on, the faith that I will never accept is that I see a generation of Americans who've lost confidence and faith not only in themselves, but in America. And if we can restore that, game on. Let's go.
- [44:15]
Yanit Levy
Ambassador Rahm Emanuel, always a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you so much for talking to us.
- [44:27]
Jonathan Friedland
So a completely fascinating conversation as we knew it would be. I thought that last bit in a way talking, I mean, he's obviously running, I think we can say that. But when he said, you know, he's really thought about it, if you, if you, if my faith is a problem to you, don't vote for me. He's. But he thinks he can win, win votes. Even as a Jew, I would say as a Jewish decoded Jew. He presents Jewishly. He's not going to get away from that. And he's saying it's never been a problem for him before. He's been elected in Chicago, he's been elected elsewhere. I think he's running and I think he thinks that his Jewish identity is not going to hold him back.
- [44:59]
Yanit Levy
Yeah. Well, I think the whole description of his conversation with Zoran Mamdani was fascinating and newsworthy. I think the way he answered the question would you define yourself as a Zionist? Is quite interesting and not a short answer on that question. And also I think the, the issue of the topic of genocide, this is the most, the more he talked, the more you think to yourself this is the most pro Israeli stance the Democratic Party can present today in the main kind of mainstream of the Democratic Party. It would be very interesting to see what would happen if he does officially have that conversation with his wife he was alluding to and decide to run for president.
- [45:41]
Jonathan Friedland
So that is our unholy conversation for this week. We will be be back with our regular episode at the end of the week. For now though, thank you as always to Michal Porat and I will see you yonit later on in the week.
- [45:53]
Yanit Levy
We will.