This commentary is a response to a commentary titled “Palin Lets Her Religion Show, Confuses Prophecy with Actual History” which was written by Yahoo Contributor Network member Saul Relative on May 24, 2011.
COMMENTARY | First, let me say that if Sarah Palin runs for the G.O.P. nomination for the 2012 Presidential campaign (she won’t), I won’t vote for her. Second, since I didn’t see the interview that this commentator is writing about, I can only respond to the ONE quote from Mrs. Palin that he includes – “‘Anyone who studies history,’ Palin told Fox News, ‘studies the Old Testament, studies geography understands that Israel now is surrounded by enemies at all times. It should be now that America takes a stand in defending our friends in Israel.'” – and Mr. Relative’s take on it.
The way I read this commentary, it is the writer who is conflating the mere mention of The Old Testament with prophecy. Granted, she could have made the exact same point without mentioning The Old Testament, but there is nothing in that quote that is not true. A study of history, including The Old Testament, shows that Israel is now, and has long been, surrounded by enemies. Same goes for “studying” geography, i.e. looking at a map. Now, it is true that The Old Testament includes much that is not history, and much that is a matter of faith more so than fact. But, it is fact that when it comes to matters of place, meaning where the “tales” took place, archaeologists continue to find evidence that shows that where Israel is now is where the “stories” of Israel back then took place.
Mr. Relative goes-on to make generalizations and assumptions about Sarah Palin’s religion which only prove to be totally meaningless when he states, “Although her exact beliefs about religion are unknown, Palin has been associated with the Christian Pentecostal movement,” and offers nothing to back that association up. But, I’m not so concerned about that. Maybe that’s her church, maybe their believes are as Mr. Relative states. Not my problem, or the country’s problem, even if she does become President. As I said, Mr. Relative basically admits he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in this regard and makes any point he may have had meaningless.
No, my biggest issue with his commentary is this – “For emphasis she says that Obama wants Israel to ‘negotiate with terrorists’ (a direct slap at Hamas, a group recognized by the U. S. as a terrorist organization …).” Mr. Relative implies, through the use of quotation marks, that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, then notes that they are a terrorist organization, and, worse still, that it’s a bad thing for Sarah Palin to “insult” them by calling them terrorists. NEWS FLASH for ya, Saul – HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, and just because Fatah has made a deal with them does not change that one bit. The only things that will change that, if anything, are a recognition of Israel’s right to exist where it is and time.
Now, since I’m getting a little bored with this myself, and since I’m pretty sure the opinions of Saul Relative (if that is your real name) deserve no more attention than, to be honest, mine, here are a few “quick hits”.
1. – “… currying favor among the evangelical Christians that believe Israel’s security is pivotal in End-Times prophecy …” or currying favor among those who want to support the only Democracy in the Middle East. Just as easily the latter, but Saul heard “Old Testament” and his mind took it from there.
2. – “In Palin’s words, history has displayed that the Old Testament, geography, history, and the troubled situation with Israel’s neighbors are all indicative of prophetic fulfillment.” So say you. How about an actual quote from Mrs. Palin backing this up?
3. – ” … the truth of the matter is that the current strife between the state of Israel and Palestinians is a culmination of several wars between Israel and her Muslim neighbors and the gradual and sometimes forced displacement of Palestinians from the region since the turn of the 20th century and the formation of the Israeli state.” Do you mean “the turn of the 20th century” was May 14, 1948, or 1947 when the U.N. partitioned the region, or the First Aliyah from 1882 and 1903? Why not just say, “The current strife is because the Muslims don’t want the Jews there”? That’s what all that amounts to, anyway.
4. – “Palin suggests that the U. S. should remain supportive of her long-time ally in the Middle East.” HER long-time ally? I wasn’t aware of any treaties or trade deals Sarah Palin has made with Israel, either personally or as Governor of Alaska, or even Mayor of Wasilla, for that matter. Are you implying she has more foreign policy experience than just her extensive work with Canada involving oil? That seems like breaking news, if you ask me.
Finally, in response to the notes about Saul Relative at the end of his commentary, here’s a little about me. I belong to no church whatsoever, nor do I give money to any religious group. I generally view religion as a waste of time, at least for myself. However, I respect the rights of others to live according to their religious views, when those views don’t involve blowing people up, and I suspect that Mr. Saul Relative doesn’t understand what that really means. MeSTM