Well I’m no expert on end times philosophy, but doesn’t it have something to do with the destruction of Israel after the gathering? In which case, what good are the settlements? Or, does she mean the settlements are needed in order that they can be destroyed?
I don’t mean to poke fun at her, but this statement about days and weeks and months is just plain dumb. It has so much less to do with need (if need was the issue Israel could build in the Negev) but of politics and diplomacy and conviction. There are many ways to go with this but I’d go with something like: First, Israel shouldn’t be asked to unilaterally surrender any settlement development without a final peace agreement. To do so is to concede the bargaining chip before achieving the goal of peace. More to the point, from a negotiating stance, Israel SHOULD make a big show and make a big effort to constantly build because this construction irritates their enemies and, if their enemies truly want peace and a state for Arabs, they have to come to terms with Israel or else eventually make their optimum deal improbable to achieve. Israel won’t move 400,000 people from Jerusalem - they did move 40,000 from Gaza.
As for conviction, there is the greater question of whether America should participate in any negotiation which involves a Judenrein Arab state next to Israel. Imagine the outcry if Israel said “ok, we will make peace with the Palestinian if all the Arabs living in Jaffa will leave Israel.” But somehow, the Administration thinks its OK for the Arabs to say “we can’t make peace if Jews live on this land”. Such racist double standard! The American position should be mainly that only the parties themselves can ultimately maintain the peace between them, but it is irrelevant which race/religion/”nation in the old sense of the word” lives on which side of the so-called green line since the two sides will decide where to draw the border if and when they come to peace. Some Jews can and should live in an Arab state just like some Arabs can and do live in a Jewish state. Construction in and of itself preempts nothing.
But like sycophants our Administration kowtows to the Arab line and criticizes Israel for maintaining a race-neutral conviction while retaining its negotiating leverage. It’s asinine.
But Sarah Palin isn’t doing Israel many favors here. She seems oblivious to basic history of the conflict and makes it worse by these bizarre remarks. Not just the weeks and months part, but it is rather condescending for her to say “Jews need a place to live”. WTHeck does that even mean? Why can’t Jews live anywhere they want, just like everyone else? What if she said “Blacks need a place to live”? It would be met with outrage.
Well maybe it’s because she didn’t SAY
“Jews need a place to live”.
She SAID
“because all the Jews moving to Israel need a place to live.”
Moving to ISRAEL makes the whole premise of your statement sound flimsy and nitpicky.
Other than that, I agree with you that we HAVE places to live. And the criticism from the white tent and the world at large seems to be we don’t have the RIGHT to live anywhere.
As for conviction, there is the greater question of whether America should participate in any negotiation which involves a Judenrein Arab state next to Israel.
That really should be the issue, shouldn’t it. That moral failing crosses party lines