-
SPACE
Should We Be On The Moon?
-
THREATS
Will Iran Attack Israel?
-
SOTU
Highlights From Obama’s SOTU
Posted By Blake Hounshell
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 11:32 PM
Share
I haven't read the former Alaska governor's new book, but I see that she's already brought the crazy in an interview with ABC News.
"I disagree with the Obama administration" on Israeli settlements, Palin told Barbara Walters. Fair enough. It sure seems like the administration's heavy focus on getting Benjamin Netanyahu to commit to a settlement freeze has backfired, making the Israeli prime minister more popular than ever and exposing the impotence of Palestinian leader Mamoud Abbas in the process.
But that's not what Palin meant.
"I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow," she continued. "More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."
This is, quite frankly, morally and strategically obtuse. Setting aside the "right" of Israel to take land that the Palestinians see as theirs, as Israeli author Gershom Gorenberg wrote last January in FP, the settlements are hugely problematic for peace:
The message written on the landscape is simple: Every day, the settlements expand. Every day, Israel grows more entangled in the West Bank. To a large degree, the Israeli and Palestinian publics have accepted the need for a two-state solution. But time, and the construction crews, are working against it. No one knows exactly where the point of no return is—when so many Israelis will have moved into so many homes beyond the pre-1967 border that there is no going back. But each passing day brings that tipping point nearer. If a solution is not achieved quickly, it might soon be out of reach.
This is why, from their inception, successive American presidents of both parties have denounced this colonization of the West Bank, although rarely, such as when George H.W. Bush put real pressure on the Israelis by temporarily holding up loan guarantees, have they done more about it than talk. Even George W. Bush, the bulk of whose Israel policy can be fairly summed up as "Let Ariel Sharon do what he wants," at least expressed his displeasure over the settlements every now and again.
So Palin is way out there on the lunatic fringe, supporting an Israeli policy that all serious people understand to be deeply corrosive to the prospects for peace and to Israel itself. But I'd also note that her lack of precision in talking about the issue, while hardly surprising, betrays a continued lack of familiarity with even the most basic nuances of the conflict. She doesn't, for instance, make any distinction between existing settlements and new ones, which is at the heart of the debate right now.
It's depressing to think that this lazy, uninformed woman might have been a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Apparently the woman knows nothing about demographics, nor does she care. The Jewish population in Israel is set to be overshadowed by the Arab population in the near future, and if we count the population of the West Bank and Gaze it may already equal the Jewish population. In addition, currently there are perhaps as many (or slightly more) Jews in the United States as in Israel, few of whom show any signs of leaving for Israel. I can only hope that she is playing to the crowd*, because if she is earnest then I am ever more disturbed that people voted for her and disillusioned with democracy.
Unfortunately she's not the only one:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthofnations/archive/2009/08/18/mike-huckabee-the-settlements-and-the-one-state-crowd.aspx
The question is not what Palin thinks but what the people behind her think. She, like Reagan, is likely heavily scripted. Her comments indicate the thinking of the neo-con's behind her rise. They are a truly terrifying group.
Overlooking the obvious aren't you
I am not sure why you don't explicitly mention the obvious here: she is referring to the end of days and the third temple - I am not christian and even I caught the reference. There is no room for Palestinians in the mythology, so of course the Jewish state will have to be "whole".
She is completely insane.
I agree with all that has been sad, but have just more thing to add. This unprepared but highly ambitious and sefl-serving woman, a rather lethal combination, essentially came to national prominence because she was chosen by a United States Senator to be a heartbeat away from the American Presidency. I find that more frightening than the woman herself.
Yes, much better to have a VP (and for that matter, a President) who was against the Reagan Cold War buildup that led to the collapse of the USSR, who voted against the first Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, who voted for the Iraq War, and who was against the surge in Iraq that salvaged things.
I feel so much better about things...
This discussion is either obtuse or mendacious
This discussion is either obtuse or mendacious. Of course the Palestinians "want". They want Tel Aviv and Haifa as well. Too bad. The Arabs refused the UN partition and tried to destroy Israel by war. They lost. Repeatedly. Now they want not just a do-over by the international community, but also more. Let's recall that East Jerusalem was taken by force by the Jordanian army; the Israeli Army then took it back. One can't start the clock with the Jordanians in forcible possession, as if that were the base case.
Jordan has now given up any claims to their forcible taking, by treaty. Jerusalem is back to being Israeli and they have every right to build anywhere in their capital city, And it is the State in control that gets to say where their capital is, not some would-be Palestinian usurpers,.
Most of this discussion is irrelevant in any case; the Israelis have offered unconditional negotiations; the Palestinians have refused. The world now knows that they are not interested in peace, just the destruction of Israel.
Given all this, a negotiated solution is out of reach. The Israelis, despite their continuing and massive restraint, will eventually have to act to resolve the situation. That resolution isn't going to be what the Palestinians "demand" but what the Israelis are willing to give.
Any other path leads to war.
Using this legitimate analysis, to which there are competing analyses, is no basis for calling Palin names or trying to demonize her. So to do shows the fundamental weakness (or the mendacity) of the name-callers.
I agree with most of what's been said - Sarah Palin is crazy, or at least complete irrational and ignorant which in my book is about the same.
@blue13326 - the nuclear build-up a/o Reagan did not cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. People who readily resort to this fallacious cliche only persist in demonstrating their lack of knowledge of the USSR, which in fact imploded due to a variety of "domestic" issues.
@Commentator - It is inevitable that in this subject the politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict will get overheated. However, on a purely legal standpoint, your argument has no basis. Israel is an occupying power as defined by international law and the UN Security Council and is obligated as such to comply with a set of laws, not least of which are the Hague & Geneva Conventions, which make population transfers and attempts to change the population make up (ie. through colonization/settlements) illegal.
Also under international law - a point that has been reaffirmed in countless general assembly and UNSC resolutions, East Jerusalem was illegally annexed by military force. Jordan itself illegally annexed the city, and thus its presence or lack thereof has no bearing on Israel's own attempt at annexation. The missing reversioner and terra nullius arguments continually put forth by Israel to justify holding E. Jerusalem has no basis in international law. The taking of territory by force or through military conquest is unqualifiedly illegal in international law. Period. It doesn't matter who they took it from or if they consider the force to be defense rather than offensive.
It is completely false that under international law Israel is an occupying power.
The legal definition is (legal-dictionary.thefrreedictionary.com):
Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily.
Since there never was a Palestinian state, there cannot have been invasion of the territory of another state. End of story.
By the way, Jordan WAS an occupying power in East Jerusalem and repeatedly violated international law, desecrating holy places, using tombstones for paving blocks, engaging in ethnic cleansing, etc.:
General Assembly Resolutions do not constitute international law.
Just to avoid more fruitless debate
Although it is true that General Assembly resolutions do not constitute international law, the creation of Israel by the UN General Assembly was at the request of the mandatory power, the British. Thus it was empowered by the legal transfer of decision in THIS CASE from the mandatory power at their request. The UN GA vote was thus an agency act on behalf of the British rather than an act on the authority of the GA itself. Since the British were legitimately in possession, the chain of custody from them to the Israelis is complete. In contrast, since the Arabs refused the partition, there was no chain of custody of that sovereignty, and they lost any rights they might have had by making war instead. Since then we have seen a series of abuses of Palestinians by them in refugee camps (I have visited those formerly under Jordanian administration and they were a disgrace), and by a series of lost wars followed by international whining and posturing as victims.
It's like the kid who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court on grounds he is an orphan.
Just to avoid more fruitless debate
Although it is true that General Assembly resolutions do not constitute international law, the creation of Israel by the UN General Assembly was at the request of the mandatory power, the British. Thus it was empowered by the legal transfer of decision in THIS CASE from the mandatory power at their request. The UN GA vote was thus an agency act on behalf of the British rather than an act on the authority of the GA itself. Since the British were legitimately in possession, the chain of custody from them to the Israelis is complete. In contrast, since the Arabs refused the partition, there was no chain of custody of that sovereignty, and they lost any rights they might have had by making war instead. Since then we have seen a series of abuses of Palestinians by them in refugee camps (I have visited those formerly under Jordanian administration and they were a disgrace), and by a series of lost wars followed by international whining and posturing as victims.
It's like the kid who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court on grounds he is an orphan.
Palin has drawn more vicious and extensive criticism than almost any other political figure. Why"
1 She is a conservative woman, a source of deeply seated fear among activist liberal women because she stands for the validity and legitimacy of many things they hate, calling attention to their own hypocrisy and special pleading.
2. She is a real and present danger to the left; if her momentum builds among the uncommitted, she can be both a viable and successful candidate next time around.
3. She doesn't change with the winds, but holds to her values.
4. She has rational positions which cannot be discredited on facts or logic, so nutty charges of "crazy" are used--a sure sign of the craziness of those making the charges.
5. Her public profile is that of a regular person, not an elite Harvard intellectual. Let's recall that in addition to the current administrations madness, "the best and the brightest" brought us Vietnam.
6. Her values are directly opposed to those lefties who want to socialize America, and should she be elected she is guaranteed to undo most of their so-called reforms.
Chipotle Mexican Grill links of london jewellery . The fast food at these casual links of london eateries feels slow, links london jewelry thanks to organic ingredients cheap links of london , custom combos, link of london and an emphasis on freshness. links of london sale Traffic is down at many locations, links of london jewelry but the company has been able to compensate by raising prices, links london Olive Garden. links of london Charms More food for less money hits the sweet spot these days, links of london Charm which makes the family-style portions at this casual Italian chain a hit with diners. links of london Necklaces Olive Garden is a division of Darden Restaurants, links london Necklace which also operates Red Lobster, links of london Bracelets Longhorn Steakhouse, links london Bracelet and a few smaller chains. links of london Sweetie Bracelets Olive Garden has been the best performer of the bunch, links london Sweetie Bracelet with same-store sales down slightly but overall sales up, links of london Friendship Bracelets thanks to about 35 new outlets links of london Sweetie Watches that have opened over the past year links london Friendship Bracelet
Herve Leger
Dresses, evening, cocktail, prom dresses, formal gowns from dresses. ... line of short prom dresses which debuted at this year's New York fashion runway
Herve Leger Dresses
Herve dresses
Fashion Gowns
Cheap Evening Dresses
Party, Evening and Celebrity dresses – endless selection of styles, colours and the latest celebrity trends – in the Goddiva boutique at fantastic prices
links of london specialises in quality handcrafted designer stering silver jewelry, links of london Shop provides hundreds of discount, cheap and links of london
links of london Bracelet
links of london friednship
Links of London, the leading British contemporary jeweller was founded in 1990 by jewellery designer Annoushka Ducas and her husband John Ayton. Excellent craftsmanship, generous tactile forms and the use of the finest materials remain integral to each collection.
links of london store
links of london
tiffany jewellery
links of london Charms
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
Jan/Feb 2012
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Inbox
(18)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE