Sarah Palin, or Edith Bunker or Biblical Esther or whoever she is supposed to be, just posted to Facebook, and it’s worth taking a look at her latest attempt to be relevant:
Friends, please take time to read this article as it rips the veil exposing Obama’s priorities in dealing with a nation known for consistent terrorist intentions. Our president and his anti-peace foreign policy supporters have not acted in the interest of our ally, Israel, resulting in dangerously compromised American interests.
The only thing standing between a president who’d jeopardize our country by ignoring our Constitution, and foes capitalizing on lopsided international treaties that weaken our allies, is Congress. The GOP majority must stop giving lip service to halting liberals’ fundamental transformation of our relationships with friendly nations and finally take a stand by exercising its constitutional right and responsibility to approve international treaties. Certainly they must with such grave consequences involved. We must realize Iranian leadership refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, and, in fact is hell-bent on Israel’s, and ultimately our, annihilation. Congress must not sit back and watch our own president flirting with the devil.
– Sarah Palin
Wait a second…I thought Obama was the devil…? Doggone it, I’m not sure who I am supposed to hate now.
I mean, well, there you go, dontcha know, you bet. Who knew that “not acting in the interest of our ally, Israel” (apparently, our only ally in the world), has “dangerously compromised American interests”?
Funny. I don’t remember Israel ever worrying about American interests. They just sort of run off and do stuff unilaterally and expect us to clean up after them.
Being that I am American citizen – presumably like Sarah Palin though I can’t be sure – I’m more interested in what’s good for the United States than what is good for Israel, and let’s face it: the two do not necessarily coincide.
But let’s take a look at this piece from Townhall, called “The Marshall Island’s Cautionary Tale,” by Caroline Glick, posted yesterday.
Glick wants to talk about the Marshall Islands-registered ship seized by Iran, Tuesday, and how the Marshall Islands are protected by the United States.
“Given the US’s formal, binding obligation to the Marshall Islands,” she says, “the Iranian seizure of the ship was in effect an act of war against America.”
I am just wondering: when Israel attacked the United States Navy’s USS Liberty in 1967, was that an act of war on the United States?
According to Glick and Palin, we should have declared war, by golly.
Israel apologized and pretended that it was all a mistake, but of course, as it turns out, Israel knew perfectly well it was attacking its ally.
After all, the United States went to war against the Barbary pirates for boarding American vessels. One of the reasons we went to war against Britain in 1812 was because the British were boarding American vessels.
Or can Israel do thing other nations cannot?
Glick insists that Obama’s efforts toward peace with Iran are directed against Israel, when in fact, they are simply directed at peace with Iran. Peace is generally considered preferable to war. I mean, I haven’t heard that either Glick or Palin intend to enlist and lead the way against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.
So, too, Obama says his goal is to advance the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
But his pressure and hostility toward Israel does nothing to achieve this goal. The goal of a policy of acting with hostility toward Israel is not to promote peace. It is to distance the US from Israel and align America’s Israel policy with Europe’s preternaturally hostile treatment of the Jewish state.
She goes from 0-60 there in record time, and with record lack of thought – or evidence. She has already begun with the assumption that Obama is hostile to Israel, and then made the events she discusses fit into her preconceived outline.
She insists that, “There is a thread that runs between Obama’s policy toward Iran and his policy toward Israel,” and “That common threat (I believe she means “thread”) is mendacity. Obama’s actual goals in both have little to do with his stated ones.”
Coming from a piece as mendacious as her own, this really gives you no pause at all. This is rather like the author who pretended to be Paul of Tarsus, in forging a fake letter to Timothy, warning against people forging letters from Paul.
And you can take Glick’s warning just about as seriously. She hasn’t forged anything. She just hasn’t told the truth.
If you doubt my conclusions, just consider the fact that Sarah Palin endorses Glick. Really, that says about all you need to know.