Tel-Chai Nation

Betsy Newmark wrote two topics in which she argues about why conservatives shouldn't destroy the Republican party, and this got me to thinking even about what needs to be done here in Israel. She points first to John Podhoretz at NRO's The Corner, who says that:

The immigration debate is a very heated and passionate one, and the heat and passion on the part of those on the restrictionist side have been useful tools for pushing the conversation in your direction. But there's a difference between heated disagreement and the insistence on lock-step uniformity. Suddenly, immigration restriction has become one of those issues about which one is not permitted to disagree, because to disagree is to join with the forces of Evil. Those who favor a less restrictive policy are said to be bought and paid for by Big Business, to want to oppress poor American minorities who can't earn a decent wage, and to seek the cultural destruction of America. Chief among these villains, it appears, is the president of the United States, whose efforts on behalf of conservative causes — from faith-based policies to stem-cell research to a strict-constructionist judiciary to entitlement reform and massive tax cuts — have all fallen down the memory hole. He is not a conservative, my e-mailers tell me. He is Jorge Arbusto, an agent of the Mexican government. And neither, by the way, am I, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and someone who left mainstream journalism to toil in the fields of conservative media when conservative media weren't cool, to put it mildly.

This inability to stomach disagreement on a hot-button issue should be troubling to anyone and everyone who has found an intellectual home on the Right — in part to avoid the kind of crippling self-censorship that has afflicted the P.C. Left.

This reminds me that in Israel, there really have been similar problems among conservatives/righties. If we were to bring up Jewish residents of places like Judea, something really wrong was done in past years: righties were shunning lefties, if not secularists, apparently because they thought that they'd really cause harm to their communities. But that's actually what ended up damaging them, to say the least.

And Betsy argues:

People shouldn't be insulted or shunned because they have different views on the issue. Disagreeing about this question doesn't mean that conservatives don't have a lot more that binds them together than tears them apart. I guess I'm a Big Tent type of conservative. I just have no patience for those who want to take their marbles and stay home because of dissatisfaction with Republicans or with the President on certain issues. I have my own strong feelings about mistakes that the GOP Congress and the President have made. However, I know that I'm not going to get a more compatible lineup if the Democrats win. The results of throwing such a tantrum might be satisfying to conservatives for a few days. But when they start seeing conservative judicial nominees or tax cuts being successfully blocked, it's going to be cold comfort to know that they sent a message.

And with the strength that incumbents have in getting reelected, those disgruntled Republicans could be setting up a Democratic Congress for quite a few terms. And if Hillary wins in 2008, we'll be back with that sinking feeling we had in 1992. Is that what these all or nothing conservatives want?

While Betsy Newmark may have some arguments that I disagree with, I most certainly commend her for this one. Some people on the right in Israel brought about the damage to the Likud party for one by sticking to selective memories, something that leftists in the US also have a problem with, and based their choice of whom to vote for on the premise that a political party that ostensibly voted in favor of withdrawals from Judea, Samaria and Gaza is totally and eternally disqualified. Well in all due honesty, if you don't want more troubles being caused, is that the way to go? By taking that kind of selective position, where you say that a party is worthless crap just because specific members did this or did that is doing little more than to do the damage done last March! That's also why the National Union is simply disqualified from leading anyone in Israel - because they never really did.

Betsy also points in the second post to a column written by Lorie Byrd on Town Hall:

What makes the current debate over immigration or spending different from the Miers case is that there is no other individual that can simply withdraw to solve the problem. The president is the one that would be damaged, and unless someone impeaches him, he isn't going anywhere for a while and he will be addressing other issues such as the war on terror, Iraq, taxes, social security reform, and judicial appointments.

Voicing opposition to your president or party should not be discouraged. The fact that we have that freedom is one of the things that makes this country great. I was not opposed to those conservatives that split with the president over Miers vigorously fighting that battle. Most did so in a civil and fair manner. There were some, however, that used the dispute to call for the destruction of the Republican Party. I fear that some are now presently pursuing that course over the issue of illegal immigration.

Disagree, dissent, march, email, telephone the White House and the Congress, heck, even mail a brick, but it doesn’t make sense to completely destroy the man who will be leading the country for two more years, or to destroy the Republican Party unless you are ready to accept the agenda of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.

To translate that into an argument for Israel, here's some advice for whomever Israelis angry at Benjamin Netanyahu for past actions are reading this: don't destroy or even advocate destroying Netanyahu and the Likud just because of his or other members' errors past. Byrd herself recently left her co-blogging job at Polipundit because the blogmaster of that particular blog started imposing a policy upon the other co-bloggers there that they should be voicing things only according to his positions, and look what happened - they split up.

That should come as an important lesson to everyone in Israel NOT to let past misgivings cloud their better judgement. And who's to say that, for example, a politician who's religious couldn't get a prominent place in the Likud, whether in their central committee or in the Knesset? It's not like there's some law against it, and by making an effort to enter and climb the ladder there could yield some promising results.

For the record, I found an interesting comment in Betsy's Haloscan box that's worth noting:

...If the Republicans want to act like children, then they will be treated like children.

As will the National Union, and, now that I think of it, they were. See, this is one more reason why I feel I have to speak out against them, probably even more than I do against the Shas party - because while I find Shas to be opportunists, I find the National Union to have something in common with moonbats, believe it or not: they don't seem to have any clear positions or goals, probably not even on living in the Judean desert!

That's why, for those who care about the future of the Land of Israel, you'd be well advised to turn your support towards the Likud party, and help give them something they could use: special development branches and lobbies, the development of Israel included.

One more thing. I'd like to let Lorie know that I too am sorry it ended up coming down to this, that Polipundit goofed off so badly. I do hope the problems can be solved. Until then, I too would like to wish her well as she continues blogging solo at her own blog.