As Nicholas Kristof’s Israel venom and infatuation with the Palestinian-victimhood narrative have increased, his columns have become other-worldly. His most recent contribution is a plea for a Palestinian women’s movement of Gandhi-like proportions on the West Bank:
But imagine if Palestinians stopped the rock-throwing and put female pacifists in the lead. What if 1,000 women sat down peacefully on a road to block access to an illegal Jewish settlement built on Palestinian farmland? What if the women allowed themselves to be tear-gassed, beaten and arrested without a single rock being thrown? Those images would be on televisions around the world — particularly if hundreds more women marched in to replace those hauled away.
“This is what Israel is most afraid of,” said Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, a prominent Palestinian who is calling for a nonviolent mass movement. He says Palestinians need to create their own version of Gandhi’s famous 1930 salt march.
No, I think Israelis are most afraid of having their children blown to smithereens by terrorists. Or incinerated in a nuclear attack. Or killed by rockets launched from behind the skirts of Palestinian women.
But let’s get back to Kristof. What if Palestinian women didn’t delight in their children’s martyrdom? Yes, what if they didn’t send their offspring to Hamas summer camps? What if Palestinian women in ever-increasing numbers didn’t themselves resort to suicide-bombing? Yes, then it would just be a question of convincing the Palestinian men not to slaughter Israelis. But in the real world, far too many Palestinian women are either victims or enablers of the cult of death (and sometimes both).
Despite all evidence to the contrary, Kristof stubbornly clings to the notion that Israel is engaged in violence for violence’s sake against innocents. When he asks, “What if the women allowed themselves to be tear-gassed, beaten and arrested without a single rock being thrown?” you wonder if he’s serious. I mean, obviously, there wouldn’t be a need for tear gas if the rock-throwing stopped – and no need for checkpoints and fences if the terrorists stopped killing Jews. But let’s not let logic or reality mess up another ode to the nobility of the Palestinian cause.
Nevertheless, maybe Kristof is on to something. So let’s play along. What if Palestinian leaders had spent the past 60 years building civil institutions, training scientists and architects rather than terrorists, naming squares after artists rather than murderers, instituting the rule of law, stamping out terrorism, spending billions in aid for the welfare of their people rather than squirreling it away for themselves, and reading Gandhi rather than Nazi tracts? Not only would Palestinians have had their own state but we would also have been spared years of Kristof’s drivel.
It’s not a deal-breaker, not even close to it, BUT… this business about being for the Bridge to Nowhere (before she was against it) is going to bite a little. The force of the bite is greatly mitigated by the fact that Obama-Biden are — of course — two of the most pork-addicted members of the Senate, and represent the more pork-addicted Party.
But still — simply because of the totemic significance of the Bridge to Nowhere — it would be nice if Palin could come to the debate with completely clean hands on that issue. Oh, well.
Biden has foreign policy “experience” due entirely to seniority. Merit has nothing to do with it. A very mediocre angry lawyer and liberal pol from a reliably liberal state, with a mediocre mind and a good dentist. His policy advice is consistently obtuse and wrong.
Is this the best they can do?
I think there is a way to properly present this story. She was for it while running because she was not full apprised of the details. But once she got into office she realized the absurdity of it. It’s okay to change your mind once you acquire more of the facts.
Moreover, and this is a technical point, a governor is in a much different position than a federal legislator. The federal money, after all, comes from the states, and many smaller states, like Alaska, pay a disproportionate amount of federal taxes per capita in comparison to more politically powerful states like New York and Illinois. The fact that she used the money for something else other than the bridge one could argue is consistent with her obligation as governor to make sure Alaskans received their fair share.
Of course, these sorts of qualifications empties the initial claim of its impact. But there should be a way to communicate her principled stands without sounding disingenuous.
By now i
The final word on the story of the bridge is “Where’s the bridge ?” Who was the person who deleted it from the budget. That dog just won’t hunt,
Senator Obama characterized Governor Palin’s attitude towards the “Bridge to Nowhere” as being “before it before she was against it.”
I’m not certain that the charge will stick, like it did to Senator Kerry’s opinion of funding the War, since those were Kerry’s own words. Governor Palin’s characterization of the episode is that she said “thanks, but no thanks,” to that “Bridge to Nowhere,” and she shouldn’t have too much difficulty framing that phrase as consistent: “Thanks (yoink! I’ll take the money), but no thanks (to spending it on the bridge; I’ll find a better use for it, suckers).”
Biden’s a loose verbal cannon and a walking, talking gaffe machine. I’ll bet he can’t change his nature after 35 years; it’ll be a miracle if he can get through the debate without some significant “gotcha moment”.
Palin’s on the ticket, OTOH, b/c of her debate performances, speaking skills, and her reformer credentials as governor and oil commissioner. I think she’ll be fine (or any slip-ups are likely to be overshadowed by SloJoe’s).
What a nice, low-key panel. Even saying “tell me if you want to do a rebuttal.” The round table is nice too.
If Palin does well in the ABC interviews I’m sure we’ll hear that she’s been intensely briefed over the week and was filled to the brim with talking points and has little in-depth knowledge.
If she makes an in-artful statement the chortling will begin.
The polling will probably just inflame the media even more, but they’ll abide by the old saw: “don’t get mad, get even”. For example, from the AP:
LEE’S SUMMIT, MO. (AP) – John McCain and Sarah Palin criticized Democrat Barack Obama over the amount of money he has requested for his home state of Illinois, even though Alaska under Palin’s leadership has asked Washington for 10 times more money per citizen for pet projects. …. Obama hasn’t asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident. Alaska asked this year for earmarks totaling $198 million, about $295 for every Alaska citizen.
Strangely enough, beauty pageants are actually highly competitive, high-pressure events. I know a girl who said she got punched by a fellow competitor backstage at one.
Basketball point guards need an aggressive mentality to be competitive. They also have to know where to distribute the ball. Hunting moose requires patience, and, especially in Alaska, endurance. Hockey is a rough sport that requires endurance and speed. Mayors of small towns have to get along with even their enemies, if at all possible. Governors are indeed policy wonks. Palin is definitely as, or more, qualified than either Obama or biden, to be Prez.
Palin just has to be herself; she already knows how to body-check. She will do fine. Keeping her hidden has allowed the excitable press to jump to the wrong conclusions and be suckered into the game of lowering expectations. It’s hard to set the bar lower than by comparing her to Dan Quayle.
JPod, the same can be said about mayors. Yes, even small time mayors. The amount of detail about operations they’re confronted with is staggering, often necessitating quick learning of sewerage disposal, asphalt quality, sod, police and fire techniques and aparatus, not to mention the arcane rules, regulations and principles of municipal accounting.
After watching videos of her she is not going to have any problem swatting away the nonsense that dems are trying to stick on her about her record. She’s not only good with the wonky stuff but also talking about it in a way that it paints a vivid picture of her philosophy of governance.
I’m actually amazed that the left is trying to hit her with the whole “I was for it before i was against it” regarding the bridge considering what made Kerry look like a moonbat was trying to take credit for his original position AFTER he had changed it. Hardly the same thing.