Jeffrey Goldberg accuses Sarah Palin of endangering America's security and Israel's.Why do I find Sarah Palin dangerous?I won't argue the mosque point here even though I agree with Palin that it's out of place at Ground Zero regardless of who is building it. But on Israel, Goldberg is plain wrong.
There are two reasons, the first having to do with Israel, the second with America, though they are related.... Palin has positioned herself as a territory maximalist, arguing for the righteousness of continued Jewish settlement of the West Bank, including those parts of the West Bank, presumably, beyond the security fence. This line of argument places her well to the right of the position taken, late in his career, of Ariel Sharon. As I have pointed out on innumerable occasions, this position, seemingly Zionist (or super-Zionist, even) on the surface, actually undermines the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, because settlements are the vanguard of eventual binationalism, not of a Greater Israel. Israel simply cannot absorb the West Bank's Arabs and remain either a Jewish state or a democracy. For an American politician to argue otherwise is a danger to Israel. Sarah Palin encourages the most recidivist elements of the Israeli right, and it is absolutely vital for the Israeli right to grapple with demographic, political and moral reality, before it's too late.
On the second point, the danger she poses to America -- and specifically, to American national security -- Palin has this week argued vociferously against the building of a mosque near the site of Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. She calls the idea of a mosque there a provocation. But it is her opposition to the building of a mosque that is provocative.
First, Goldberg ought to read some of the mea culpas made by prominent Israelis over the Gaza expulsion. Many of them believe that the 'two-state solution' is not possible, and that creating a 'Palestinian state that will live in peace and security alongside Israel' is not a viable goal. I agree with that assessment. It just isn't going to happen. For the 'Palestinians,' any such state is just a phase in the 'phased plan' that they introduced more than 40 years ago. They will never reach an 'end of conflict' resolution with us. Yasser Arafat wouldn't do it and Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad aren't capable of doing it and don't have the strength or public support to pull it off.
Second, Goldberg swallows the demographic poison pill lock, stock and barrel. But the demographic monster is a myth. I've discussed why it's a myth dozens of times in the last four and a half years, most recently hereand here. The biggest problem with the nasty demographic projections is that they are dependent upon the 'Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics' which - surprise - is highly politicized and unreliable. If the demographic issue is removed, is Jeffrey Goldberg willing to concede us the heart of our country?
Third, there are 22 Arab states and one Jewish one. There are plenty of places where the 'Palestinians' (most of whom were not indigenous to this country - read From Time Immemorial) could be settled. In fact, many of them already are settled in the Arab world but without political rights. The 'Palestinians' historically are neither a separate nation nor a separate ethnicity. Pushing the one Jewish state to indefensible borders in order to force a 'Palestinian' one within it, would make it highly unlikely that the Jewish state will be around much longer short of Mosaic type miracles on which we are instructed not to rely. The 1949 armistice lines - and anything close to them - are not secure borders. Sarah Palin recognizes that. Does Jeffrey Goldberg?
I happen to know that Jeffrey Goldberg doesn't care much for fellow Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan called the post I just challenged a 'must read.' Sullivan is widely acknowledged to be anti-Israel. Does Goldberg really want to be aligned with him?
