Ignoring Krauthammer or aiding Second Coming? Palin predicts Jewish “flocking” to Israel
Nov 22nd, 2009 | 56 responses
Somehow I missed Sarah Palin’s proclamation, in an interview with Barbara Walters last week, that Jews are flocking to Israel, right now. Here’s the transcript for the relevant section:
Barbara Walters: Governor, let’s talk about some issues. The Middle East. The Obama administration does not want Israel to build any more settlements on what they consider “Palestinian territory.” What is your view on this?
Sarah Palin: I disagree with the Obama administration on that. I believe that, um, the Jewish, uh, settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And, um, I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell, um, Israel that, that, uh, the Jewish settlements cannot expand.
Barbara Walters: Even if it’s Palestinian areas?
Sarah Palin:I believe that the Jewish settlement should be allowed to expand.
Why Walters didn’t do her journalistic best and follow up on Palin’s assertion (in bold above) about the flocking, if only to hear whether theories like this one are behind Palin’s ability to ignore the immigration statistics and trends in Israel, including the fact that immigration has hit all-time lows there, including a 3,000 person drop from 2007 to 2008, is beyond me.
In getting advice about serving on city council, I recently was advised that the response, “I don’t know,” is acceptable at times. Like, when, for example, you don’t actually know something. Palin’s response to Walters would have been completely adequate (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not), if she’d left out the section I’ve bolded.
It is this adding in of assertions that lack any basis in reality that sink Palin’s credibility as a person with the potential to lead a major super power. It’s one thing to swap Iraq for Iran and Iran for Iraq, like she did with Sean Hannity the other night (a forum topic on Hannity’s website on that very mix-up has been deleted). I recently wrote a column where I asserted something about abortion rights advocates when I meant abortion rights opponents (it’s since been corrected).
But in the case of Israel’s settlement policy, there was no need for Palin to fabricate, unless she’s truly pushing the theological notion of the Second Coming. I’m honestly not sure which upsets me more, as something being promoted by a person being taken this seriously by so many Americans – making stuff up to give a false sense that you know a few things, or believing, as supposedly 50-60 million Americans do, that Jews will indeed flock to Israel and be converted as part of the Second Coming of Jesus.
It’s also an indication that she hasn’t listened to Charles Krauthammer or anyone else who has said for more than a year that if she wants to be a contender (and maybe this is our answer – she doesn’t) for the U.S. presidency, she better bone up on some knowledge.
56 Responses to “Ignoring Krauthammer or aiding Second Coming? Palin predicts Jewish “flocking” to Israel”
Well – I don't and haven't really talked in terms of The Truth. People may pick and choose what they accept, reject, think exists, doesn't exist. Being open-minded has to do with the ability to open one's mind to the existence of realities that clash with or otherwise expand that which one has previously thought to be circumstances surrounding some situation. I think of it like a bug's eye with hundreds or thousands of facets. The more facets we use to view something, the more perspectives we can take into account or consider when trying to make sense of what is going on, defining the problems and seeking solutions. There's no value in me discounting your perspective, so I'm not. I'm only saying that there are more facets to the circumstances.
And Sarah Palin would be wise, if she wants to be the head of this major superpower, to research and understand more facets to the “flocking” of Jews.
For people really interested in understanding the different flavors of Jewish organizations in America, this report on CNN is worth reading and/or watching:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/20/…
http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.5615897…
Hey Jill –
I'm not sure, but I think I may have crossed a line with my line of questioning, and if so, I want to apologize. It looked like you were willing to answer other people's slightly off-topic questions asked in good faith, and since the internalization of bigotry by members of oppressed groups is something that I encounter a lot in my own activism (and is something I certainly have to fight in myself at times), I was hoping you'd be willing to share if you've encountered it with regards to this topic. If I was out of line, again, I truly meant no offense.
Jill you are at least as persistent as I so in this regard I see you.
Believe it or not there was a time I thought Israel held all the
answers………… I like to think it took some doing for me to
incorporate the complicated opinion I now hold…………I know too
that there is a wave that is building of others who hold similar
opinions to mine. More and more people are beginning to see Israel as
the major obstacle, not the only obstacle, but a major one. I see too
from your mammo post that there are facts and beliefs and you hold
strong ones and you fight for what you believe, that's good. The
opposition should be as loyal and dedicated. As for S. Palin, she's just
an excuse to talk, that's all.
Nope – I think I just lost track! Still digging out from what I pushed aside while campaigning, getting up to speed on Thanksgiving planning and getting back into some routine of blogging, while figuring out what topics I'm going to be blogging about less and less (ones that really would impact my constituents, so not likely to affect much here). And this is a long thread (I'm proud of that though!).
Ok – yes – I understand what you wrote here:
“I think that the mention of the word “anti-Semitic” seems to close down conversation on the topic or dismissed out of hand, instead of being one of the aspects considered and talked through. For example: what if the charges of anti-Semitism against Obama's aides are valid, and might we be able to tell? How might that affect policy, and what kind of foreign policies would we expect?”
The only thing I'd add is that 1) some people like to reinforce what they see as a difference between calling someone a racist and saying that something is racist. I think that's worth thinking about. To tell someone that you think they ARE anti-Semitic versus telling something that what they've just SAID is anti-Semitic (or what they've just done) also could be seen as two different things. It's a bit like being taught, as a parent, to never tell your child, “Bad boy!” but rather “you are not bad, but what you did was a bad thing.”
Do you know what I mean?
Now, as far as being a conversation stopper, I think that that will be the case if people don't know what they're saying – and a lot of peopl DON'T know what they are saying and so they do in fact stop talking once 1) in their mind, someone is a racist or is anti-Semitic and 2) they go ahead and say that. But frankly, I've seen this and I've had this happen in conversations with people on the right or far right, more than with people on the left. But that's my experience.
I think if you watch the video I linked to above, you'll see a fascinating exchange between the J Street guy, whose org. is left of mainstream Judaism (though not necessarily out of the mainstream, unlike what AIPAC wants people to think – I definitely disagree w/AIPAC on that opinion) and the AJC exec dir. who very aptly represents pretty much exactly how I approach the dilemmas related to Israel, Gaza, West Bank, Middle East etc.
Wow – I hate to admit this but it's surprising me that we could have such a long thread about such rich topics when all I was doing was pointing out how little real knowledge I believe Sarah Palin possesses!
This is a great comment from you, thank you.
First, you wrote, “More and more people are beginning to see Israel as
the major obstacle, not the only obstacle, but a major one.” Ehhh I don't know if I believe this. But in part, it's because I never DIDN'T see Israel as a major obstacle. I mean, all these parties are – they match each other well that way. They are, after all, ancestral brothers.
“The opposition should be as loyal and dedicated.” You know, that is something that I agree with 1000% – it's why I work on and support women getting into political office, regardless of party or ideological background, so long as they show loyalty, dedication and integrity to listening, debating, working to resolve. Not just hearing their voice and seeing their name and their photo.
“As for S. Palin, she's just an excuse to talk, that's all.” Now THAT has got to be nearly THE best comment in this entire thread!
Have a great Thanksgiving.