Editorial of The New York Sun |
One of the things that Sarah Palin did on her stopover at Israel was announce that she was eager to return for a longer visit, and we found ourselves wondering whether she will eventually make a visit to the Machpelah. For the first body laid to rest there in the cave purchased by Abraham was that of Mrs. Palin’s namesake, Sarah, Abraham’s wife and the mother of Isaac. We have sometimes found ourselves wondering whether the affection Mrs. Palin exhibits in respect of Israel is related to the fact that the former governor — the Alert Alaskan is our favorite alliteration for her — is named after the first, the most beautiful, and the most prickly of the Jewish matriarchs.
We were put in mind of this not only by Mrs. Palin’s visit to Israel but also by the contretemps that followed the suggestion by a leading journalist in Washington, David Frum, that Mrs. Palin was alienating Jewish voters by failing to arrange her visit through a the Republican Jewish Coalition, of whose board Mr. Frum is a member. The RJC has been paving the way for one of the most important migrations of American Jews, from the Democratic Party to the party of Lincoln and Reagan. It’s sometimes lonely but always heroic work, and no doubt there were those in the RJC who wished they could have been the organizing party of Mrs. Palin’s first visit to the Jewish State.
The contretemps, however, was a matter of politics rather than principle, and how could it be otherwise? For on the substance, Mrs. Palin has been a passionate supporter of Israel. This seems to be well-recognized by the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition Matthew Brooks, who made a point late last week of defending Mrs. Palin’s most recent critique of President Obama. Mrs. Palin, moreover, is, so far as we can detect, the only politician, in either party, who has been prepared to speak up for the right of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria and in terms — she has spoken of the need for Israel to be able to accommodate more Jewish immigrants — that would please the most ardent protectors of the Machpelah.
Not that there is unanimity among Israelis or Jews themselves on the settlers. There are those who believe that the expansion of the settlements is in and of itself a threat to the political, if not theoretical, security of Israel. It’s hard to imagine that Mrs. Palin is unaware of this. All the more remarkable that at the start she is prepared to position herself where she has. To those who say this only marginalizes her even more, we would repeat the aphorism of the late editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley: Change happens on the margin. It is no small thing that Republicans have in the wings as a possible contender for 2012 a candidate who echoes, as Mrs. Palin did this past trip, Jabotinsky’s famous advice to the Jews to avoid apologizing.
* * *
Here at home the central point we keep making about Mrs. Palin is that of all the streams of American conservatism hers is the one that is most welcoming to Jewish Americans. Her mantra is what she calls constitutional conservatism, meaning one that is grounded in the bedrock of the American Constitution. It is different from what, in a previous generation, was called Christian Conservatism, a political flag that rallied a magnificent band of followers but that was not the logical rallying cry of Jewish Americans. It is also different from libertarian conservatism, which has attracted legions of lovers of individual freedom but which, with its hostility to an activist foreign policy, often finds itself at odds with the pro-Israel community.
Constitutional conservatism, by contrast, is grounded in a founding law that welcomes everyone — Christians, Jews, Muslims, and those of a secular bent. Mrs. Palin would be the first to recognize that nothing she has done, or ever will do, could rank her with the Sarah who married Abraham. But she has already emerged not only as a remarkable friend of Israel but also as a political matriarch here at home for articulating a widely welcoming political philosophy on the Republican right.
What you’re missing is that the Liberals stand up with the antisemites in public, as do the NDP mainly when they are scoring brownie points with the unions. They are purveyors of antisemitism. Harper is recognized as being pro-Israel – a position that costs him large ethnic and social-activity communities particularly in the urban centres. I think he’s doing a good job of maintaining his principles and exercising the proper timing and pace to keep the antisemites in check. After all, he’d be of no value if he were out of office. It’s one thing to dump on Irwin Cotler who sat in the Liberal government and was a “loch fun a bagel” (a bagel hole)and quite another to vilify a prime minster who puts his neck on the line.
Of course it’s easy – because it’s true.
Didn’t Harper send his Jewish audience into paroxyisms of delight when he said he would confront anti-Semitism in Canada “no matter the cost”? Now, you say that Canadian universities are “not his jurisdiction”?
I did not suggest he prosecute them – even though Canada is supposed to have laws against “hate crimes”. I wanted him to speak out and expose them by confronting them. If not, what good were his words?
What “cost” did he say did not matter?
Of course they are, but shouldn’t they be exposed and confronted with Harper’s moral authority?
This is a straw man. Harper did not commit the federal government to confronting anti-Semitism – he committed himself and the moral authority he carries as the Canadian PM.
So, you would fault liberals, most of whom don’t give a poop about Jews, to speak up against their liberal friends and the anti-Semitism they engage in, but you would give a conservative politician like Harper a pass, even after he made a public committment to confront anti-Semitism. What am I missing here?
It’s an easy accusation that Harper hid under his desk. Very unfair. It’s the university that should be faulted; it is not Harper’s jurisdiction. Apartheid week is at least three levels of government away from Harper’s. He can try to rectify the situation and has been doing so by cutting off funding to anti-Israel organizations. One thing about Canada is that government works. There is minimal government involvement in everyday life for just about every Canadian and we like it this way. I’ve covered Apartheid events at various universities and put the blame squarely on the schools’ administrations. McMaster, in Hamilton, takes a hard line and while there are apartheid events, they are mainly in the shadows. I see no reason for the federal government to be involved nor should they be blamed. I would, however, fault federal politicians like the Liberal and NDP party leaders and members who either support or do not criticize those events.
Marshall, with all due respects, does it really matter what Canada endorses? After telling a Jewish audience he would oppose anti-Semitism “no matter the cost”, Stephen Harper ran and hid under his desk instead of confronting manifest incidences of anti-Semitism at York and McGill Universities.
If the Arabs had accepted the partition of 1947, accepted by Israel’s Zionist founding fathers, there would have been a two state solution, analogous to India and Pakistan. Every Israeli government has accepted a two-state solution in principle. Some Israelis try to ignore this fact while trying to blame the US for suggesting what Israeli governments have accepted. What has prevented this continues to be Palestinian intransigence – thus a tense status quo prevails.
How can you blame gentile politicians for using “two state …” when the supposedly official Jewish leadership will not contradict them? In my advice to the Conservative Party fighting the current Federal election in Canada, I have advised the party never to use the words “two state” and to sidetrack it by affirming that Israel is in complete compliance with international law and is consistent with Canada’s concept of democracy, justice and freedom for all her citizens. It may be the only government in the world that does not, at the political level, endorse two states although that might not be said of the bureaucracy. It’s important for politicians to know that “two state …” is, itself, politically incorrect and to work for the gradual phasing out of the ridiculous objective.
Why are you running to Ted for help? Why don’t you and Linda address my FACTUAL comments?
Ted
Can you address mine and Lindas comments
Oy, veh!
Linda, I hate to tell you this but a two state solution has been part of Israeli government policy since 1947. The last time I checked Sarah Palin was not even a gleam in her father’s eye at the time.
I hope you are not accusing the Israeli government of treason for thinking of “….surrendering land vital to Israel’s defense-the Biblical, militarily strategic high ground of Judea and Samaria – half of Israel, to Jew-hating, barbaric enemies. Enabling the planned Second Holocaust.”
Q: How would you solve Israel/Palestinian conflict?
PALIN: A two-state solution is the solution. That needs to be done, and that will be a top agenda item under a McCain-Palin administration. Source: 2008 Vice Presidential debate against Joe Biden Oct 2, 200. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Foreign_Policy.htm
A sincere, true ally that seeks Israel’s survival will fight with all their might against surrendering land vital to Israel’s defense-the Biblical, militarily strategic high ground of Judea and Samaria – half of Israel, to Jew-hating, barbaric enemies. Enabling the planned Second Holocaust.
Perhaps because its the right thing to do? This continues to be an idiotic allegation. Why? Because there are committed, left wing Christians who do not support Israel.
Palin had draped an Israeli flag on her office wall in Alaska before anyone outside her state had even heard about her.
How is Israel being sucked into a “dangerous situation” by Palin’s support for Israel?
There are alleged Israelis on this forum who oppose anyone who supports Israel who are also guilty of this.
.
Look on the bright side – she will continue to keep a fire lit under whoever is elected. There are many of us who believe that she is more valuable to the conservative movement, which includes the implacable support for Israel, than being elected President and being demeaned, diminished and demonized by the US 4th. Estate acting like a 5th. Column, just as they did to Bush 43, and just as they impeded and interfered with Palin as Governor of Alaska by unrelenting bogus and picayune charges almost all of which were proven false. Public personalities in the US cannot fight back against libel and slander through the legal system – they can only do so in the court of public opinion, which is where Palin has established herself as one of the foremost and most feared conservative leaders, supported by the growing Tea Party movement, by the entire left wing.
Unfortunately Sarah Palin is like “Resolution 242” — nobody knows what it is but it must be pro-Arab because Arafat & Co. used to refer to it constantly. A lie told often enough …
Sarah has been vilified so often and by the most skillful twisters of truth that there is little hope she can be politically resurrected by 2012. No doubt, she is the president America needs but as happened in Canada when a straight-shooter named Robert Stanfield led the Conservative party against Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals and he was called “the best prime minister we never had”, Sarah will go down in history as a missed opportunity for the United States.
May Sarah be blessed for her words and actions. She gets it!
Ted
We are being sucked into a danerous situation re Sarah Palin
I found her statement very welcome but please we need to see the overall situation
Sarah Palin’s affection for Israel is the real thing; I remember her mentioning reading the ‘Book of Esther’ to her youngest daughter as bedtime story.
This reads like a Jewish version of Pravda.ru — romantic, nationalistic, and baseless. Palin supports Israel, for all I can see, becase she is a committed Christian. Otherwise, how should we attribute Mike Huckabee’s support of the same country? Admiration of Michael the Archangel? Perhaps Michail Gorgachev, then, is also a Zionist.