Today, Explained - A pro-Israel case against Israel

Episode Date: March 7, 2026

Ambassador Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff, says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who's at the center of the Iran conflict, has isolated Israel like never before.  This episode was produced by Jesse Ash, edited by Miranda Kennedy, fact-checked by Andrea Lopez-Cruzado, engineered by Shannon Mahoney and hosted by Astead Herndon. Rahm Emanuel appearing before Congress. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images. You can also watch this episode on video at youtube.com/vox. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. New Vox members get $20 off their membership right now. Transcript at ⁠vox.com/today-explained-podcast.⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Every family tree holds extraordinary stories, especially those of the women who shaped who we are. In honor of International Women's Month, Ancestry invites you to shine a light on their legacy. Until March 10th, enjoy free access to over 4 billion family history records and discover where they lived, the journeys they took and the legacy they left behind. Start with just a name or place and let our intuitive tools guide you. Visit Ancestry.ca to start today. No credit card required. Term supply. and welcome to Today Explained Saturday.

This week, we talk with Rahm Emanuel, former congressman, White House Chief of Staff under President Obama, two-term mayor of Chicago, and the former ambassador to Japan under President Biden. Now, why talk with Rahm? Well, first, very few people have operated at every level of power in American politics like he has. Also, Emmanuel has a specific lens

when it comes to the growing conflict in Iran. He was one of the people who up negotiate peace agreements alongside President Clinton in the 1990s. Emmanuel was also in the Obama White House as they took the first steps toward the Iran nuclear deal. Emmanuel also has a long and testy history with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who's at the center of this conflict

and is increasingly a controversial figure in domestic politics. But my first question to Rahm Emanuel was pretty simple. What should we call the guy? Ambassador, Mayor, Congressman, let's dig in. We thank you for joining us since a particularly newsy time. I know that you're someone who has led the Democratic, has been a big part of shaping the Democratic Party over the last 20 years. I want to start there.

If you were in Congress right now, I'm sure you followed Congressman Rokanez War Powers Resolution that he's tried to put on the floor along with Congressman Thomas Massey. I was wondering if, you know, what do you think about that war powers resolution? and would you vote for the president to have to come to Congress for approving the Iran strikes that we saw? Short answer is yes, but let me fill in the blanks because I think it's important. One is the Congress is a day late and a dollar short. You knew this and they should have been forcing this issue and debating it. You didn't even need to get a vote.

They should have been debating this. Second piece, and the reason on me yes is a, the, A, the president is eight-minute video over the weekend uses a term war. So once he says that, it is, it triggers it. you could argue through the merits of this, but we're going to go after the nukes, we're going to go after the ballistic missiles, we're going to go after the capabilities, the proxies, and left it in the strategic or military area. I'm not sure based on history, and that includes both Democrat, Republican president, you would do that.

But once he says war and once he says regime change and moves it into the political column, then you absolutely have to have that vote and you have to have that debate. I mean, I think that makes a clear point about the process. I also want to ask about the substance. since the White House has given contradictory, varying reasons for this. It's like al-a-curt. You can pick whatever you want from the salad bar. Absolutely.

From every interview he's given, he said everything from this isn't regime changed, this maybe is regime changed, to this is kind of punishment for years long, anti-American crimes. But let's try to take the reasoning that White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt said that this was about permanently decapitating Iran's nuclear capability and punishing a regime that was fundamentally anti-American. If President Trump, and hypothetically, would it make that case in front of Congress and you were there, would you have voted to authorize the stress? So let me, again, let me go back a second here.

First of all, the administration is silent to a fault when they start. Literally, not only the president is silent, his cabinet isn't even even out trying to explain it to the country on Sunday morning. So you've gone from silent to multiple choice. And I took note of this. You had the Secretary of State Secretary of Defense. The two individuals that sit on either side of the president in the cabinet room. based on ranking in the cabinet, et cetera. Secretary of Defense Heggseth walks the president's comments over the weekend back to more of a strategic.

Secretary Rubio implies other things that the United States got led into this. And the President of the United States says, all of it and above and more, et cetera. So to me, that is a real challenge. The second thing is, and I do think, you know, my guess is if it was left to the strategic, the President of the United States has latitude, doesn't mean we don't. have a debate as a country about it. The political component of this is what has hurt the cause, because at this point, the president, if he had stuck in the administration to not only more limited, you could have argued the country would back it. Second, he'd be at the point right now

of serious success versus, you know, you're not going to decapitate. In 15 months, this president has taken military action against eight countries. I just, just in 15, now we got three more years to go. in 15 months, Iran twice, but you have Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Venezuela. Now, I'm losing Nigeria. Now, they may have said, this could be a calculation. Intelligence gives the president a briefing and say, look, if you don't move now in a year from now, or just say six months from now,

here's where our thought is both on nuclear startup and on ballistic missiles, then you have a case in a situation, which is either this window closes and you don't act, and they're just, you think, and there's probably true given the Iranian history, they're not really negotiating with you. They're acting like they're negotiating with you. And what goes into the Oval Office, and now do I think that they had a thorough discussion sitting around the situation room the way the President Obama had 14 separate meetings about Afghanistan? No. I think he decided, down to Mar-a-Lago, the last person to talk to him, and there

he goes, which has been the history. Yes, it has. I wanted to ask about that. You mentioned your years in Obama's White House as Chief of Staff. You worked with him as he helped to warcraft, the Iran nuclear deal. Obviously, Trump pulled out of that, but there was an opportunity for the Biden White House maybe to rejoin that early 2021. They chose not to be embraced and tried to negotiate a stronger deal than never really came together. I wanted to know if you thought that was a mistake. So, again, each of these are not yes or no. So here, let me look thinking. I supported, first of all, I was made. First of all, I was made. when the, we started earlier, but I was mayor when the agreement came. I was forward. It's a 51-49 decision. The criticism of it, I was forward for, and here's the bet. Look, I always joke, but I mean this.

What comes into the Oval Office is bad and worse. And so when you're sitting down in the situation, you're trying to weigh equities and trying to look around the corner, I think that's why I had my own kind of indigestion, but in the end of the day, as mayor, supported that agreement because I thought the equities slightly tilted over the liabilities. I do think, given the six years blind, you just don't hit reset. There's no reset.

I have been there eight years. So does President Biden want to engage in something else to improve, given what we have missed? He should have because Iran wasn't standing still. More with Rahm Emanuel in a minute. At Medkan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health. From the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body check-up that provides a clear picture of your health today and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer.

The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan. Live well for life. Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. We're back. It's Today Explained Saturday, and we're talking to Rahm Emanuel. You know, Secretary Marco Rubio recently said that the administration, his justification, Secretary Marco Rubio gave his own justification for what happened over the weekend.

Separate from the rest of the administration saying that Israel, he said the administration, knew Israel was going to strike Iran, and that would trigger retaliation against American forces. And so the administration decided to act preemptively. Now, you dealt with Netanyahu directly when you were in the White House. I wanted to know your view of this situation. When you look at the kind of chain of events that led to Saturday, do you see a White House that got rolled by Netanyahu. Well, I don't because there's so much meetings of coordination.

The idea that one of the, if you look at Netanyahu, and I, as you know, because we talked about it beforehand, I mean, in 2009, he publicly calls me a self-hating Jew. The only person he attacks in his book is me. We go all the, we'll go. Yeah, yeah. Tell me some of those stories about you all's relationship. Well, it gets down to,

as having spent my time with President Clinton on the two-state solution, Oslo Accords, why plantation agreement, et cetera, and believing, like Yitzhak Rabin did, and like many elements of the Israeli defense and national security apparatus, the best way forward is a two-state solution. I saw what he was doing on housing as what would break the foundation of that two-state solution and set it to his face. Unlike others who may have whispered it behind their back, I didn't need a war to know in 2009 this prime minister was committed into doing something. that I think would undermine not only the state of Israel, but undermine America's national security interests in that region. And we just went at it to the point that, I mean, President Obama

had to basically separate us verbally. This is where? Well, we had a big fight in the Oval Office. We also, there was a famous phone call the president's talking to the prime minister and the prime minister's going on and on about me. And finally, President Obama says, look, Rob doesn't hate you, but you should know calling them a self-hating Jew probably didn't help you either. Okay. That's what President Obama relate to. me the next day. There will never be a river to the sea and there will never be a greater Israel. Both our heads and tail of the same coin. They're both basically wrong, in my view. That said to the question as it relates here, Prime Minister Nenegh, who never went

against a president. Never. Now, he wanted Obama to take the section. He wanted Joe Biden to take the section. He never took it, pulled the trigger solo without a president of the United States or the United States backing. So the idea that he was going to unilaterally do this, and the United States had to get ahead of him, I don't buy. Just based on history. That's number one. Number two, I'm not giving a pass to the White House. Like they have no agency. Right. Right. Forget about it. Right. Think of that no. Just not only know, you could have stuffed him like every other president. Now, as I was looking this up, I was seeing some quotes from you talking about your relationship with Netanyahu. And you said quote, I don't think he would use the word relationship.

Well, you're back and forth with the prime minister. And you said that you felt that he was leading Jews quote back into the ghetto. That felt like a strong statement to me. I wanted you to explain that yourself. Yeah, look, today Israelis are saying they can't travel to Europe. You have Israelis that cannot participate in scientific conferences. You have cultural institutions of Israel, cannot participate or go perform other places. you are being denied entry,

I'm using that metaphorically as well symbolically, as well as literally, into other countries because one of the desires is to be, as Bengorian said, the founding father, to be a nation among nations. And literally,

Jews and more specifically, Israelis are being cut off from participating intellectually, culturally, academically, go down sports-wise, talent-wise, you know, in parts of the world community

that you're, that your own people want. Second, there's been more people leaving than coming. So I think the prime minister, and I never thought a prime minister, would lead the Jewish people into what I said, and I mean it both literally, but more symbolically, into a ghetto where they're not permitted out.

And that has been the consequences of his decisions. Never has Israel been more strategically secure and never has it been more politically isolated and vulnerable. in the 80 years of history. There's also been obviously a political backlash in the United States. Polling shows that for the first time Americans see this conflict

and sympathize with Palestinians over Israelis. And among Democrats, that number has shifted dramatically, specifically as a perception shift driven by the response to the attacks on October 7th. I wanted to know for you,

70,000 people were killed in Gaza according to the Red Cross. More than 70% of Democrats think a genocide occurred. I wanted to put that question in front of view. Do you think that the military actions constituted a genocide? No, look, here's what I think.

One is a number of prime ministers have said that. That is a legal, that is a firm legal question. I think this, with Israel. Isn't also a moral question? Yes, but when you say is a genocide, there is a legal. For sure. Okay, and I'm not a lawyer and you're not a lawyer, but that is a legal definition.

I hear you. There's a great book called East West Street about that term and the crimes against humanity about how those two terms come to be. post-war War II. So my own view is Israel has a right to self-defense. What the Prime Minister did in how they pursued this war of self-defense and what they did, way dramatic.

The amount of Palestinian deaths was not necessary for Israel's security or reestablishing deterrence. So never again, there's 1,200 people not only get killed, but raped, and children are shot in front of their parents and parents are shot in front of their kids and sexually abused. And 250 people taken hostage. That deterrence was accomplished way earlier than, and you were, as I said, you know, I'm using this figuratively. You're telling me the difference between 40,000 and 70,000 Palestinians that made Israel more secure.

But I also think Israel has, as I said, more strategically secure and more politically isolated than ever before. Last question on this front. Earlier this week, Gavin Newsom compared Israel to an apartheid state and said that the U.S. has no choice but to reconsider military support. It stuck out to me because that felt like, you know, maybe a signal of the shifting median democratic position on this front. Can I go one thing back? Yeah, sure for sure. So one is it's a generational thing if you look at it. Yes, it's more intense among Democrats, but it's basically 30 and younger regardless of party affiliation.

That is definitely true. Okay, second, thanks for that. And movement among independence, moving among Republicans, all across the board. Second, I said this to other places. I want to repeat this point. I said it to a mid-east group of both Israeli-N-Ares. I said, look, when President Obama runs for president in 08, in 07, he goes to Israel. He goes and makes sure that he's wearing a yama, he goes to the wailing wall.

There will be no Democratic nominee or candidate, rather, in 2028, who's going to the wailing wall. You don't think so? Nope. And if you think they're going to Jerusalem, it's to get gas on their way to Romala. Okay? So just get ready for this because of what the prime minister has done. And he is paying a consequence on this. Now, look, in that sense, I think that the change in politics.

Now, one, I don't agree. You know, I want to see what Gavin said because I don't like it just through a social, I've seen that on social media, so I don't, I want to see what he said, I want to see what else he said that wasn't in there. A few things I would say, one, you know, in the Supreme Court is an Arab-Israeli that did not exist in during apartheid. there are members of the Knesset, the Israeli government, that I think it's 11 seats in the last count, or maybe 15,

that are Arab-Israeli parties, and also in parts of the Arab-Israeli community that lives within, quote-unquote, Israel proper, is actually not equal citizenship. You have certain rights that you can participate, and certain rights you're a second-class citizen in your own country. I don't believe it's apartheid, but there's more than just a few blemishes here

that Israel is not fully engaged its citizens, all its citizens, and that, most importantly, the Arab-Israeli population that exists within Israel. Well, let me remove it from the comments from Newsom. You've often heard democratic politicians and Republican ones say that our relationship with Israel is based in its reality of the only democracy in the Middle East. Do those blemishes you're laying out add up to a democracy? Well, you can say that about certain things in the United States. You can, definitely. Okay.

So do they have an election? Do they have a free press? all those things exist? Do they have other pieces that make up a political process? Now, as the Prime Minister, trying to change judiciary? As a Prime Minister, when you look at all the cases against him, what is the one common theme? Him trying to change the way the media covers him and the free press. And also, while Israeli Arabs have the right to vote, they serve in government, they serve in all kinds of professions, etc. In fact, some of them, like the Druze, serve in the military. All that said, there is clearly not an equal status. I think it's an incomplete take, just sit there and say and paint it with a broad brush. Okay. But so I would say, like us, this is a never-eering process to improve ourselves and achieve all, and making everybody feel like they participate in the democratic system. And Israel has its own bigger challenges.

Yeah, it definitely, though, feels like the next Democratic nominee will be asked about the question of U.S. aid to Israel and the question. Well, I'm, this is, that's easy. And so that's why I also want to put that one in front of you, too. I mean, look, again, getting back to Prime Minister Nanyahu. who, which, again, in 2009, you want to spart a country? Yeah. You called for it? You're on your own. I don't think, I think actually it's a mistake in Congress to say, we're going to restrict

how you use. My view, we're not giving you the aid. You want to buy defense equipment? You're like anybody else out there. You're going to have to pay for yourself. The idea that we're going to continue to subsidize your defense budget, not happening anymore. And that's what the prime minister says is, have at it, brother. Yeah, I'm curious when that shift happened for you.

I mean, you're someone who served in the Israeli defense forces in the 1990. 90s, you probably didn't always think that. Like, when did that rubicon cross-feed that you felt? First of, I served two weeks of the friends of, and that was during the Gulf War. That was. Yeah, I should say that. I should say that. A little context there. Yes, important. But I'm saying for you, when did that shift happen? When Israel, look, I suppose if you step back and look at it wide, I actually think the Prime Minister Netanyahu has turned his back on the Zionist ideals of the establishment of the state of Israel. I think he's turned his back on the founding principles of the state of Israel, both in Israel and outside Israel.

Yeah, I think that comes through in the critique. I want to also move on. We're talking about an issue in the news. I want to talk about an issue you want to be more in the news in terms of education. Oh, this is my part of the show. This is your time of the show. I want to talk also about the things. First step was yours.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is the things that we have to, we must talk about. And I know we also want to talk about the things you want to talk about. You know, education has been a big part of what you've been talking about over the last year. And I wanted to have a sense of like, why. You know, a lot of Democratic politicians have frankly abandoned K through 12. Are you, what's the bet here and what's the importance? There's both personal and as well as political.

Let me start with personal. So when I, up to my mother's anger, I gave up my ballet. career and I had a scholarship to the Joffrey Ballet School. I studied to become an early childhood educator. That's what I interest. As you know, when I was mayor of Chicago, we created universal kindergarten, universal pre-K, never existed. But as a party, you can't believe in equity and be complacent with 50% of your kids not doing reading and math at grade level, which is where you are. I find it weird that I am the only person talking about this. You've advocated for a social media ban for kids modeling your proposal after something that's been passed in Australia.

Intuitively, it makes sense to me, particularly as, you know, we've seen a study after study that shows the impacts of social media, particular to teens. But it does feel a little, I don't know if what the word is, a little anti-freedom maybe. I mean, like, why shouldn't a parent decide whether their child or teenager has, why can't they decide their social media responsibility for themselves? I do not. Okay, I have three kids. They're all grown up.

I'm not, not every parent has the agency that Amy and I have. And I've, you know, I'm the biggest battler against tobacco companies. They come and spend money. I drove our teen smoking down to single-door. You couldn't sell a cigarette in Chicago within 600, 500 feet of a school door. Could not do it. Raised all the tobacco prices to the highest, and we gave free eye and dental care to kids. Now, let me just be clear.

You think mom and dad can take on Facebook by themselves and TikTok? No. You, Washington Post, six weeks ago, wrote a great story. about all the documents out of Instagram saying how they're going to target kids. No parent, not even too good parents with a lot of agencies, I don't mean good parents, but parents with a lot of agency

can face off TikTok and Instagram on their own. There are times in which the government has to come in and like against the tobacco companies, like others pushing an addictive product, those algorithms are addictive, you need to level the playing field. So my view, 16, you're not allowed to get a social media app. And you've got to give kids the space

to get the moral foundation of the capacity to manage TikTok and Instagram with some, I'm not saying 17's the exact number. I do, but Australia is at 16. But at that point, give them the sense to give them back their own childhood. We have seen banning the telephone in the classroom has had immediate impact on social networks, on friendships, on books being hired out, taken out of libraries. So to me, this is the right thing to do to give our kids back their childhood. And it's been stolen from them.

I totally understand the banning in the classroom. Let me tell you this. The other thing, I don't mean to wait. This civil liberty argument? Yeah. Okay. Is that not a real one? The fact that's like, for a 16-year-old?

No. It's not a, it's not. No, no. You know what? The question? When they're targeting your kids, look, it's either the adults or the algorithm. Who's going to raise that adolescent? And they have been up front in those documents.

And it reminds me of when we finally got the tobacco company documents, and they had been doing everything we accused them of and they said it's not true. That document from Instagram how you have to grow by targeting kids tells you everything you need to know and our kids need protections. I just want to push back one more time though.

Theoretically, you can be a teen on Instagram and be getting information. You can be understanding the world around you. You can be a social water cooler for friends that does not necessarily lead to the things that we see that are bad. Now, I know the realness of the algorithm. I know the realness of the negative effects on folks,

but I'm saying isn't this kind of baby with bathwater, no child under 16, should be able to use social media? First, in this case, I would say that, and if you look at the business model of all these social media apps, none of them make money teaching the words to kumbaya. Their model is to separate you, not bring you together. And there's lots of great research showing when depression, suicide, senses, isolation, alienation kick in. And it's exactly in 2012 when Instagram and Facebook take over.

TikTok's made it much worse. I'm not saying there isn't some virtue, but I'm not ready to give up adolescence for that virtue. You said this earlier, but you've openly considering a run for president. You've made clear kind of what you want to focus on, as you've done in this conversation. What's the decision factor then? What are you waiting for to decide about what whether? The reaction to this podcast. It all lives and dies right now. Right here. Look, one of the things is Look, I think tough times require a tough leader and I think we're in tough times. Second, do I have the answers to what I think ails America? Part of one, I'm going to be going to Wisconsin pretty soon. I've been

in Iowa. I've been in Mississippi. I'm going to go all parts of the country. Democrats don't go. Third, having run for office before, you've got to know your head, your heart, and your gut are in the same place. I don't know that. And that process, both of those last two, that process is evolving at this time. So I'll be checking myself, and it's the last office I would ever run for. And if I got what I want to do, I don't ever believe in what it could or shoulda. And I'm going to make sure if I decide to do it, that I have what I think ails the country. I've proven in my record

whether it was taken on the pharmaceutical industry, the tobacco industry, the gun lobby, insurance company, the banks, the health insurance company, I've taken them on and beaten them. So I think right now we're in a place where those guys need another two by four upside their head.

I'm going to give you the option if you think education is core. If you think the American dream and making it more affordable's core, I have proven record getting this done. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it, Mayor.

Thank you. Thank you. Ambassador you. That was Ambassador Rahm Emanuel, former mayor of Chicago. This episode was produced by Jesse Ash. It was edited by Today Explained executive producer, Miranda Kennedy,

fact-checked by Andrea Lopez Crusado, and mixed by Shannon Mahoney. Thanks as always to supervising engineer David Tadishore and Christina Vallis, our head of video. Every Saturday, we'll be in your video and audio feeds, with an interesting interview in culture or politics. You can also watch the Saturday interviews this week and every week on the Vox YouTube channel.

Subscribe at YouTube.com slash Vox.