![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
« Previous Goldberg | Next Goldberg » Why Sarah Palin Endangers American National Security (and Israel's, as Well)
Jul 20 2010, 3:09 PM ET
A Goldblog reader writes, with more invective than is minimally necessary:You describe yourself as pro-Israel. Sarah Palin is pro-Israel. You describe yourself as anti-Islamist terror. Sarah Palin is anti-Islamist terror. Yet you criticize her constantly for her stances on these issues. Why are you so craven? Does your liberalism trump your Judaism?There are those on the Interwebs who doubt whether I possess any sort of "liberalism" whatsoever, but let's put that issue aside, because this reader asks a fair question: Why do I find Sarah Palin dangerous?There are two reasons, the first having to do with Israel, the second with America, though they are related. I certainly appreciate the sincere feelings of Christian Zionists. I have theological, spiritual, political, and personal trouble (nobody knows the troubles I've seen) with the branch of Christian Zionism that yearns for the destruction of Israel because it holds that Armageddon will be the harbinger of Christ's return, and Sarah Palin has affiliated herself on occasion with people who adhere to this branch. But mainstream Christian Zionists -- people who believe that God blesses those who bless the Jews -- well, I'm not going to argue with that point. It is not, then, Palin's theology that bothers me as much as her actual understanding, or lack of understanding, of Middle East politics that is so troublesome. 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. The organization that hopes to build the mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, is a moderate Muslim group, striving for better relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. It is in the direct interest of American national security to strengthen those groups that argue against Islamism. Palin's opposition to the mosque -- and by extension, to the enfranchisement of moderate Muslims -- is a gift to Islamists, proof to their potential followers that America is as intolerant of Islam as Europe is, proof that it is America, not Islam, that wants to see our civilizations clash. We as a society should embrace those Muslims who want to live the American dream; their lives, as free, devout and proud Muslims in a diverse country, are a refutation of the radical notion that the West is forever aligned against the interests of Muslim believers. Opposing the building of mosques by anti-jihadist Muslim groups in this country is perhaps the best way to radicalize American Muslims not otherwise prone to radicalization.
It is true that this country is home to a non-insignificant number of already-radicalized Muslims. There's no point in denying that. But there's a war on -- a clash within a civilization -- and we can affect the outcome of this war by embracing those Muslims who are ready and willing to live in our multi-confessional country, while fighting those who violently oppose American values. Sarah Palin, from what I see so far, views Islam as a monolith, and because of this view, she argues for policies that could do severe damage to American national security. This is a complicated war we're in, and Sarah Palin is, by the evidence at hand, dangerously simple-minded.
Jul. 26th, 2010
« Previous Goldberg | Next Goldberg » Why Sarah Palin Endangers American National Security (and Israel's, as Well)
Jul 20 2010, 3:09 PM ET
A Goldblog reader writes, with more invective than is minimally necessary:You describe yourself as pro-Israel. Sarah Palin is pro-Israel. You describe yourself as anti-Islamist terror. Sarah Palin is anti-Islamist terror. Yet you criticize her constantly for her stances on these issues. Why are you so craven? Does your liberalism trump your Judaism?There are those on the Interwebs who doubt whether I possess any sort of "liberalism" whatsoever, but let's put that issue aside, because this reader asks a fair question: Why do I find Sarah Palin dangerous?There are two reasons, the first having to do with Israel, the second with America, though they are related. I certainly appreciate the sincere feelings of Christian Zionists. I have theological, spiritual, political, and personal trouble (nobody knows the troubles I've seen) with the branch of Christian Zionism that yearns for the destruction of Israel because it holds that Armageddon will be the harbinger of Christ's return, and Sarah Palin has affiliated herself on occasion with people who adhere to this branch. But mainstream Christian Zionists -- people who believe that God blesses those who bless the Jews -- well, I'm not going to argue with that point. It is not, then, Palin's theology that bothers me as much as her actual understanding, or lack of understanding, of Middle East politics that is so troublesome. 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. The organization that hopes to build the mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, is a moderate Muslim group, striving for better relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. It is in the direct interest of American national security to strengthen those groups that argue against Islamism. Palin's opposition to the mosque -- and by extension, to the enfranchisement of moderate Muslims -- is a gift to Islamists, proof to their potential followers that America is as intolerant of Islam as Europe is, proof that it is America, not Islam, that wants to see our civilizations clash. We as a society should embrace those Muslims who want to live the American dream; their lives, as free, devout and proud Muslims in a diverse country, are a refutation of the radical notion that the West is forever aligned against the interests of Muslim believers. Opposing the building of mosques by anti-jihadist Muslim groups in this country is perhaps the best way to radicalize American Muslims not otherwise prone to radicalization.
It is true that this country is home to a non-insignificant number of already-radicalized Muslims. There's no point in denying that. But there's a war on -- a clash within a civilization -- and we can affect the outcome of this war by embracing those Muslims who are ready and willing to live in our multi-confessional country, while fighting those who violently oppose American values. Sarah Palin, from what I see so far, views Islam as a monolith, and because of this view, she argues for policies that could do severe damage to American national security. This is a complicated war we're in, and Sarah Palin is, by the evidence at hand, dangerously simple-minded.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views.
The financial reform bill passed by the Senate on Thursday mandates the creation of a new federal entity charged with protecting consumers from predatory lenders.
But if Geithner has his way, the most prominent advocate for creating the agency may not be picked to lead it.
Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School whose 2007 journal article advocating the creation of such an agency inspired policymakers to enact it into law, has rocketed to prominence since the onset of the financial crisis as one of the leading reform advocates fighting on behalf of American taxpayers.
Warren has been an aggressive proponent for the bureau in public and behind the scenes, working regularly with President Barack Obama's top advisers and the Democratic leadership in Congress. Since 2008, she has overseen the Congressional Oversight Panel, a bailout watchdog created to keep tabs on how two administrations spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street while struggling to keep distressed homeowners out of foreclosure and small businesses from collapsing.
Yet while her work on behalf of a federal unit designed solely to protect borrowers from abusive lenders has been embraced by the administration, Warren's role as a bailout watchdog led to strained relations with the agency her panel has taken to task with brutal reports every month since Obama took office: Geithner's Treasury Department.
It's no secret the watchdog and the Treasury Secretary have had a tenuous relationship. Geithner's critics have enjoyed watching Warren question him during his four appearances before her panel. Her tough, probing questions on the Wall Street bailout and his role in it -- often delivered with a smile -- are featured on YouTube. One video is headlined "Elizabeth Warren Makes Timmy Geithner Squirm."
Story continues below
While her grilling of Geithner in September, over what members of Congress have called the "backdoor bailout" of Wall Street through AIG, inspired the "squirm" video, just last month Warren pressed Geithner on the administration's lackluster foreclosure-prevention plan, Making Home Affordable. Criticizing him for Treasury's failure to keep families in their homes, she questioned Treasury's commitment to homeowners.
Warren's persistent oversight is part of the reason for Geithner's opposition, according to the source.
In addition, her increasing public profile could make it difficult for Geithner, who will oversee the unit until it's transferred to the Federal Reserve. His role would involve trying to balance her advocacy on behalf of borrowers with the demands of the nation's major financial institutions, his traditional constituency.
Geithner's objections to Warren taking over that role also involve her views on Wall Street, sources say. The longtime professor believes the nation's megabanks are Too Big To Fail and have been among the biggest abusive lenders in the country. Her toughness on giant banks is said to be a longtime source of tension with Geithner.
Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, is also said to have a strained relationship with Warren, though his stance on her nomination is not known.
Democrats in Congress have been among her most enthusiastic supporters. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank is one of many influential members who hope she'll get the nod.
And while labor and consumer groups often butted heads with Geithner on various aspects of the financial reform legislation, they have lauded his support for strong consumer protections. Warren, however, has been referred to as a "rock star" among consumer advocates. Many have told HuffPost they're hoping Obama picks her to head the new bureau.
Geithner's opposition could have political implications for a White House determined to prove it's gotten tough on Wall Street. Since March, Obama has devoted four of his weekly Saturday addresses to highlight and promote the consumer agency.
In March 2009, in response to a question during a town hall event in Southern California about the bailout for Wall Street firms and whether Obama supported tougher consumer protections on credit cards, Obama promoted Warren's academic work:
"The truth of the matter is that the banking industry has used credit cards and pushed credit cards on consumers in ways that have been very damaging," Obama said according to a transcript. "There's a woman named Elizabeth Warren who's a professor at Harvard who did a great deal of study around this. And she made a simple point. You know, if you bought a toaster, and the toaster blew up in your face, there would be a law, a consumer safety law, that would protect you from buying that toaster. But if you get a credit card that blows up in your face, that starts off at zero-percent interest, and once they kind of suck in the -- buying a bunch of stuff and suddenly it's 29 percent; and if you're late two days, suddenly, you know, you just paid another $30, and all kinds of fine print that a lot of folks didn't understand -- well, somehow that's okay.
"I think generally having some consumer safety, some consumer protection around credit cards, is important," Obama added.
Three months later, the administration released its blueprint for how it wanted to fix the nation's broken financial system. Warren's idea for a consumer agency was a heavily-promoted part of it.
Warren, a Treasury Department spokesman and a White House spokesperson all declined to comment for this article.
Get HuffPost Business On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Know something we don't? E-mail us at huffpostbiz@gmail.com
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is trying to block President Obama from appointing one of the best consumer watchdogs in the nation to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by Congress to rein in Wall Street.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views.
The financial reform bill passed by the Senate on Thursday mandates the creation of a new federal entity charged with protecting consumers from predatory lenders.
But if Geithner has his way, the most prominent advocate for creating the agency may not be picked to lead it.
Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School whose 2007 journal article advocating the creation of such an agency inspired policymakers to enact it into law, has rocketed to prominence since the onset of the financial crisis as one of the leading reform advocates fighting on behalf of American taxpayers.
Warren has been an aggressive proponent for the bureau in public and behind the scenes, working regularly with President Barack Obama's top advisers and the Democratic leadership in Congress. Since 2008, she has overseen the Congressional Oversight Panel, a bailout watchdog created to keep tabs on how two administrations spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street while struggling to keep distressed homeowners out of foreclosure and small businesses from collapsing.
Yet while her work on behalf of a federal unit designed solely to protect borrowers from abusive lenders has been embraced by the administration, Warren's role as a bailout watchdog led to strained relations with the agency her panel has taken to task with brutal reports every month since Obama took office: Geithner's Treasury Department.
It's no secret the watchdog and the Treasury Secretary have had a tenuous relationship. Geithner's critics have enjoyed watching Warren question him during his four appearances before her panel. Her tough, probing questions on the Wall Street bailout and his role in it -- often delivered with a smile -- are featured on YouTube. One video is headlined "Elizabeth Warren Makes Timmy Geithner Squirm."
Story continues below
While her grilling of Geithner in September, over what members of Congress have called the "backdoor bailout" of Wall Street through AIG, inspired the "squirm" video, just last month Warren pressed Geithner on the administration's lackluster foreclosure-prevention plan, Making Home Affordable. Criticizing him for Treasury's failure to keep families in their homes, she questioned Treasury's commitment to homeowners.
Warren's persistent oversight is part of the reason for Geithner's opposition, according to the source.
In addition, her increasing public profile could make it difficult for Geithner, who will oversee the unit until it's transferred to the Federal Reserve. His role would involve trying to balance her advocacy on behalf of borrowers with the demands of the nation's major financial institutions, his traditional constituency.
Geithner's objections to Warren taking over that role also involve her views on Wall Street, sources say. The longtime professor believes the nation's megabanks are Too Big To Fail and have been among the biggest abusive lenders in the country. Her toughness on giant banks is said to be a longtime source of tension with Geithner.
Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, is also said to have a strained relationship with Warren, though his stance on her nomination is not known.
Democrats in Congress have been among her most enthusiastic supporters. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank is one of many influential members who hope she'll get the nod.
And while labor and consumer groups often butted heads with Geithner on various aspects of the financial reform legislation, they have lauded his support for strong consumer protections. Warren, however, has been referred to as a "rock star" among consumer advocates. Many have told HuffPost they're hoping Obama picks her to head the new bureau.
Geithner's opposition could have political implications for a White House determined to prove it's gotten tough on Wall Street. Since March, Obama has devoted four of his weekly Saturday addresses to highlight and promote the consumer agency.
In March 2009, in response to a question during a town hall event in Southern California about the bailout for Wall Street firms and whether Obama supported tougher consumer protections on credit cards, Obama promoted Warren's academic work:
"The truth of the matter is that the banking industry has used credit cards and pushed credit cards on consumers in ways that have been very damaging," Obama said according to a transcript. "There's a woman named Elizabeth Warren who's a professor at Harvard who did a great deal of study around this. And she made a simple point. You know, if you bought a toaster, and the toaster blew up in your face, there would be a law, a consumer safety law, that would protect you from buying that toaster. But if you get a credit card that blows up in your face, that starts off at zero-percent interest, and once they kind of suck in the -- buying a bunch of stuff and suddenly it's 29 percent; and if you're late two days, suddenly, you know, you just paid another $30, and all kinds of fine print that a lot of folks didn't understand -- well, somehow that's okay.
"I think generally having some consumer safety, some consumer protection around credit cards, is important," Obama added.
Three months later, the administration released its blueprint for how it wanted to fix the nation's broken financial system. Warren's idea for a consumer agency was a heavily-promoted part of it.
Warren, a Treasury Department spokesman and a White House spokesperson all declined to comment for this article.
Get HuffPost Business On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Know something we don't? E-mail us at huffpostbiz@gmail.com
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is trying to block President Obama from appointing one of the best consumer watchdogs in the nation to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by Congress to rein in Wall Street.