Caroline Glick: Explaining the Right’s Alternative to the World
In her new book, journalist Caroline Glick lays out a political plan
built on application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
Here too, the question of how to deal with the demographic issue is a
leading concern, but in this case, Israeli sovereignty becomes a
surprising and essential demographic solution.
Journalist Caroline Glick has recently completed her book (in English)
about the alternative plan to the ‘Two-State’ scheme. Glick directs
her book ‘The Israeli solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the
Middle East’ to the American audience “so that they will understand
that the reason the United States’ Middle East policy has been such a
failure for the past two generations is because it’s been based on a
failed concept of carving a Palestinian state out of Israeli
territory.
Whereas in Israel, the conversation has begun about alternatives to
the ‘Two-State’ model, no such conversation is taking place in
America. Since George W. Bush officially adopted the idea and made it
the centerpiece of US Middle East policymaking, everyone has supported
the establishment of a Palestinian state. In truth ever since the
Nixon era, the paradigm that the United States has been promoting is
the paradigm based on appeasing the PLO at Israel’s expense.”
Before Richard Nixon decided to treat the PLO as a desirable
organization, US policy was not predicated on Israeli land giveaways.
“In ’67 there was no such concept in the United States. UN Security
Council Resolution 242, which set out the terms of an eventual peace
between Israel and its Arab neighbors, stipulated clearly that the
Arabs must recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace and
security within defensible borders and, only afterward, would
territorial changes be addressed…”
In Glick’s view, the US’s reliance on the ‘Two-State’ paradigm as the
panacea for all the Middle East’s political pathologies has been the
principal cause of most of its policy failures in the Middle East. “By
viewing the Arab world through the prism of the Palestinian conflict
with Israel, US policymakers’ perception of Israel and the war against
it has become distorted to the point of debilitation. The Americans
are so blinded by their belief that by establishing a Palestinian
state on territory Israel controls they will solve all the problems of
the region that they cannot understand the region.”
On a military level, according to Glick, this has blinded successive
American administrations to the strategic significance of Israel’s
military campaigns and so blocked Washington’s capacity to learn from
Israel’s experience or even understand that it is worth thinking about
Israel’s experiences.
In her book, Glick considers the US military intervention in Lebanon
in 1982 and its intervention in Iraq in 2003. She discusses how the
Americans’ refusal to learn from Israel’s experience in Lebanon, which
stemmed from its embrace of the ‘Two-State’ model, made it impossible
for them to understand the nature of the societies they were operating
in or to develop strategies that were relevant to their battlefields.
In Lebanon, she explains, the Americans sided with the PLO against the
IDF forces and deployed the Marines to force Israel out of Beirut
while protecting the PLO from the IDF. “This was the aim of their
‘peacekeeping mission,’” she says. “They were not prepared for the
reality. That reality dictated that the parties fighting in Lebanon
saw the US forces as an Israeli proxy. When they replaced the IDF
positions all of those forces that were fighting against Israel aimed
their guns at the Americans. The American misconception stemmed from
the fact that they saw themselves as a liberating force, in contrast
to the IDF, which they perceived as an occupying force. They were
incapable of reaching the right conclusions regarding the PLO, Syria
and Lebanon. The United States saved the PLO, and arranged a haven for
it in Tunisia because the State Department believed that their
generosity to Arafat would convince him to moderate his position,
agree to the ‘Two-State’ solution and everything would be okay.”
In Iraq, she explains, the Americans failed again because of the same
misguided approach. “They thought they had nothing to learn from the
Israeli experience of 18 years in Lebanon, because again, they were
convinced that they were liberators and Israel was the occupier. So
they marched blindly into Iraq. Most Israelis who understood Iraq and
what happened to us in Lebanon foresaw precisely what happened in
Iraq. But the Americans, who failed to notice the demographic
similarities between the Lebanese and the Iraqis, didn’t understand
the relationships between the groups and the Syrians and Iranians –
the sponsors of the war in Lebanon – and were blind to it. And again,
their blindness owed to their inability to see Israel outside of the
‘Two-State’ paradigm. For them, Israel is only useful if it is giving
land to Arabs. It isn’t an ally; it is an obstacle to Arab support for
the US.”
The ‘Two-State’ solution, she explains, is the end of analysis and
serious thinking about the region, not the beginning of it. “This is a
belief that absolves its adherents from considering reality. If all of
the problems of the Middle East stem from the fact that there is no
Palestinian state in the Land of Israel then you don’t need to learn
about the Arab world, the various ethnic groups, the contradictory
interests. There is no need for strategic thinking because every
problem is clearly a result of ’Israeli greed’.”
“The undertones of the ‘Two-State’ model are deeply anti-Semitic. And
this makes sense. The eternal characteristic of Jew hatred is its
rejection of logic and reason. If the Jews are to blame for
everything, then there is no reason to think anymore. Jewish guilt is
the catch-all explanation for everything that is happening, has ever
happened and will ever happen in the world. If the Jews are to blame,
then there is no reason to think anymore. There, you have the answer.
Punish the Jew and everything will be fine.”
In light of this, Glick sees the ‘Two-State’ model as nothing less
than a model based on an anti-Semitic world concept. And Jews are not
immune to the anti-Semitic rejection of reason. “The Israeli Left’s
belief in the ‘Two-State’ idea, despite innumerable proofs that it is
false, is nothing but a part of the world view that rejects logic and
reason.”
Glick divided The Israeli Solution into three parts. Part One is a
historical survey that lays out the failure of the ‘Two-State’
paradigm from the British Mandatory period to the present day.
In the second part of the book Glick examines the various aspects of
the application of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. She
provides an in-depth analysis of Arab and Jewish demography and shows
that, far from being an existential threat to Israel, demography is
one of our strongest assets. Glick demonstrates that if Israel were
to apply its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, and offer immediate
permanent residency to all its Palestinian residents, as well as the
right to apply for citizenship, Israel would still retain a two-thirds
Jewish majority. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the
Jewish majority would only rise from there on in.
“The high rate of Arab emigration from Judea and Samaria, and the
great potential for Jewish aliyah from Europe are clear indicators
that time is on Israel’s side. Moreover, the Jewish fertility rate has
outpaced the Arab fertility rate in Judea and Samaria and is closing
in on the Israeli Muslim fertility rate,” she explains.
Ironically, she notes, Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is
what will stop Jewish demographic erosion, in total contradiction to
the way in which the ‘Two-State’ advocates describe reality. “Tzipi
Livni speaks about a Palestinian state as a demographic solution
whereas such a state would turn demographics into a real threat. After
all, the Palestinian state would have control over its immigration
policy. And who are the Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon who would
immigrate immediately to a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria?
They are the hundreds of thousands of people who live in villages that
are called refugee camps and are controlled by al-Qaeda and Ahmed
Jibril’s PLO. This would be the implementation of the Palestinians’
so-called ‘right of return.’ Obviously, these people would not live
peacefully. They would incite the Arabs of the Galilee and the Negev
to wage a terror war against Israel. All of the moderate Arabs, who
are now well integrated into Israeli society, would be murdered like
the collaborators that were killed in great numbers by Arafat when he
came here. Only if we have exclusive control of the border can we
prevent a demographic disaster. Even if all of the Palestinians become
Israeli citizens we would prevent a demographic disaster by
restraining Palestinian control in the immigration policy.”
She also considers the record of success of the Israeli sovereignty
model – or the Israeli ‘One-State’ plan. “Israel has implemented the
Israeli ‘One-State’ plan twice – in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
And both experiences were successful.”
She devotes a chapter to Israel’s legal rights to sovereignty over
Judea and Samaria, and another chapter to its historic rights to
sovereignty over the areas.
She spends, as well, two chapters considering the civil rights aspects
of the Israeli ‘One-State’ plan and explains, “Israeli democracy and
the status of the civil rights of Israelis and Palestinians alike will
be massively enhanced if Israel applies its sovereignty over Judea and
Samaria. The Palestinians in particular have been the primary victims
of the ‘Two-State’ formula. From living in the freest society in the
Middle East, outside Israel under military rule, they became subjected
to the PLO’s jackboot. For the past 20 years, the Palestinians have
lived in a legal jungle, with no protected rights whatsoever and have
stood by powerless as their children have been indoctrinated to become
murderers and bigots. The Israeli ‘One-State’ plan offers them true
civil rights and corrects a situation that should never have been
created to begin with.”
Part Three of The Israeli Solution considers the likely responses of
the Palestinians, the larger Arab world and the European Union to an
Israeli move to apply its sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. The last
two chapters analyze how Israeli sovereignty over the areas would
impact Israel, and the United States. In general, Glick’s analysis led
her to the conclusion that the party that will react most harshly
would likely be the Europeans. “Today, the EU’s only foreign policy is
hostility towards Israel. This is made clear first and foremost in
their aggressive rejection of Israel’s sovereign rights to Jerusalem,
Judea and Samaria. The Arabs have other interests. The Palestinians
have limited capacities. The Europeans have nothing else going on. But
in the end, Israel has the means to mitigate the damage of European
anti-Israel actions. And a decision to apply Israeli sovereignty over
the areas will give Israel the strategic clarity to meet the challenge
in a coherent and constructive way.”
Glick says she got the idea of writing a book after watching the
vice-presidential debate ahead of the 2008 presidential elections. The
moderator asked Sarah Palin rhetorically whether she supports the
establishment of a Palestinian state. Palin looked slightly confused,
hesitated and answered positively. From watching this debate Glick
understood that in the absence of a clear, cogent alternative from the
Right, the world, even those who support Israel, would continue to see
the Left’s vision as the only vision on the table for discussion.
“I brief the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate
several times every year. Each time I present this plan on Capitol
Hill, the response borders on euphoria. In the United States, just as
in Israel, there are millions of people who understand that the
‘Two-State’ solution is a disaster. They are just waiting for someone
to tell them that they can abandon it. My book gives them, and the
Israeli public as well, the alternative that they are waiting for.”
Glick rejects the voices on the Israeli Right that promote the idea of
payment for Arab emigration or defining Jordan as Palestine. In her
view, these are irrelevant ideas that no one will accept, especially
the Palestinians themselves. “The only thing that should interest us
is that Judea and Samaria is Israel,” she says and notes that even
though providing the Palestinians with permanent residency and the
right to apply for citizenship is not a perfect solution and will
damage Israel on certain levels, “it is absolutely clear that it is
better than establishing a Palestinian state. Such a state would be
the ruin of Israel.”
Despite the risks, this policy will allow us to exist coherently as a
liberal, open and Jewish country with the ability to determine our own
fate, she explains.
In her new book, journalist Caroline Glick lays out a political plan
built on application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
Here too, the question of how to deal with the demographic issue is a
leading concern, but in this case, Israeli sovereignty becomes a
surprising and essential demographic solution.
Journalist Caroline Glick has recently completed her book (in English)
about the alternative plan to the ‘Two-State’ scheme. Glick directs
her book ‘The Israeli solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the
Middle East’ to the American audience “so that they will understand
that the reason the United States’ Middle East policy has been such a
failure for the past two generations is because it’s been based on a
failed concept of carving a Palestinian state out of Israeli
territory.
Whereas in Israel, the conversation has begun about alternatives to
the ‘Two-State’ model, no such conversation is taking place in
America. Since George W. Bush officially adopted the idea and made it
the centerpiece of US Middle East policymaking, everyone has supported
the establishment of a Palestinian state. In truth ever since the
Nixon era, the paradigm that the United States has been promoting is
the paradigm based on appeasing the PLO at Israel’s expense.”
Before Richard Nixon decided to treat the PLO as a desirable
organization, US policy was not predicated on Israeli land giveaways.
“In ’67 there was no such concept in the United States. UN Security
Council Resolution 242, which set out the terms of an eventual peace
between Israel and its Arab neighbors, stipulated clearly that the
Arabs must recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace and
security within defensible borders and, only afterward, would
territorial changes be addressed…”
In Glick’s view, the US’s reliance on the ‘Two-State’ paradigm as the
panacea for all the Middle East’s political pathologies has been the
principal cause of most of its policy failures in the Middle East. “By
viewing the Arab world through the prism of the Palestinian conflict
with Israel, US policymakers’ perception of Israel and the war against
it has become distorted to the point of debilitation. The Americans
are so blinded by their belief that by establishing a Palestinian
state on territory Israel controls they will solve all the problems of
the region that they cannot understand the region.”
On a military level, according to Glick, this has blinded successive
American administrations to the strategic significance of Israel’s
military campaigns and so blocked Washington’s capacity to learn from
Israel’s experience or even understand that it is worth thinking about
Israel’s experiences.
In her book, Glick considers the US military intervention in Lebanon
in 1982 and its intervention in Iraq in 2003. She discusses how the
Americans’ refusal to learn from Israel’s experience in Lebanon, which
stemmed from its embrace of the ‘Two-State’ model, made it impossible
for them to understand the nature of the societies they were operating
in or to develop strategies that were relevant to their battlefields.
In Lebanon, she explains, the Americans sided with the PLO against the
IDF forces and deployed the Marines to force Israel out of Beirut
while protecting the PLO from the IDF. “This was the aim of their
‘peacekeeping mission,’” she says. “They were not prepared for the
reality. That reality dictated that the parties fighting in Lebanon
saw the US forces as an Israeli proxy. When they replaced the IDF
positions all of those forces that were fighting against Israel aimed
their guns at the Americans. The American misconception stemmed from
the fact that they saw themselves as a liberating force, in contrast
to the IDF, which they perceived as an occupying force. They were
incapable of reaching the right conclusions regarding the PLO, Syria
and Lebanon. The United States saved the PLO, and arranged a haven for
it in Tunisia because the State Department believed that their
generosity to Arafat would convince him to moderate his position,
agree to the ‘Two-State’ solution and everything would be okay.”
In Iraq, she explains, the Americans failed again because of the same
misguided approach. “They thought they had nothing to learn from the
Israeli experience of 18 years in Lebanon, because again, they were
convinced that they were liberators and Israel was the occupier. So
they marched blindly into Iraq. Most Israelis who understood Iraq and
what happened to us in Lebanon foresaw precisely what happened in
Iraq. But the Americans, who failed to notice the demographic
similarities between the Lebanese and the Iraqis, didn’t understand
the relationships between the groups and the Syrians and Iranians –
the sponsors of the war in Lebanon – and were blind to it. And again,
their blindness owed to their inability to see Israel outside of the
‘Two-State’ paradigm. For them, Israel is only useful if it is giving
land to Arabs. It isn’t an ally; it is an obstacle to Arab support for
the US.”
The ‘Two-State’ solution, she explains, is the end of analysis and
serious thinking about the region, not the beginning of it. “This is a
belief that absolves its adherents from considering reality. If all of
the problems of the Middle East stem from the fact that there is no
Palestinian state in the Land of Israel then you don’t need to learn
about the Arab world, the various ethnic groups, the contradictory
interests. There is no need for strategic thinking because every
problem is clearly a result of ’Israeli greed’.”
“The undertones of the ‘Two-State’ model are deeply anti-Semitic. And
this makes sense. The eternal characteristic of Jew hatred is its
rejection of logic and reason. If the Jews are to blame for
everything, then there is no reason to think anymore. Jewish guilt is
the catch-all explanation for everything that is happening, has ever
happened and will ever happen in the world. If the Jews are to blame,
then there is no reason to think anymore. There, you have the answer.
Punish the Jew and everything will be fine.”
In light of this, Glick sees the ‘Two-State’ model as nothing less
than a model based on an anti-Semitic world concept. And Jews are not
immune to the anti-Semitic rejection of reason. “The Israeli Left’s
belief in the ‘Two-State’ idea, despite innumerable proofs that it is
false, is nothing but a part of the world view that rejects logic and
reason.”
Glick divided The Israeli Solution into three parts. Part One is a
historical survey that lays out the failure of the ‘Two-State’
paradigm from the British Mandatory period to the present day.
In the second part of the book Glick examines the various aspects of
the application of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. She
provides an in-depth analysis of Arab and Jewish demography and shows
that, far from being an existential threat to Israel, demography is
one of our strongest assets. Glick demonstrates that if Israel were
to apply its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, and offer immediate
permanent residency to all its Palestinian residents, as well as the
right to apply for citizenship, Israel would still retain a two-thirds
Jewish majority. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the
Jewish majority would only rise from there on in.
“The high rate of Arab emigration from Judea and Samaria, and the
great potential for Jewish aliyah from Europe are clear indicators
that time is on Israel’s side. Moreover, the Jewish fertility rate has
outpaced the Arab fertility rate in Judea and Samaria and is closing
in on the Israeli Muslim fertility rate,” she explains.
Ironically, she notes, Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is
what will stop Jewish demographic erosion, in total contradiction to
the way in which the ‘Two-State’ advocates describe reality. “Tzipi
Livni speaks about a Palestinian state as a demographic solution
whereas such a state would turn demographics into a real threat. After
all, the Palestinian state would have control over its immigration
policy. And who are the Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon who would
immigrate immediately to a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria?
They are the hundreds of thousands of people who live in villages that
are called refugee camps and are controlled by al-Qaeda and Ahmed
Jibril’s PLO. This would be the implementation of the Palestinians’
so-called ‘right of return.’ Obviously, these people would not live
peacefully. They would incite the Arabs of the Galilee and the Negev
to wage a terror war against Israel. All of the moderate Arabs, who
are now well integrated into Israeli society, would be murdered like
the collaborators that were killed in great numbers by Arafat when he
came here. Only if we have exclusive control of the border can we
prevent a demographic disaster. Even if all of the Palestinians become
Israeli citizens we would prevent a demographic disaster by
restraining Palestinian control in the immigration policy.”
She also considers the record of success of the Israeli sovereignty
model – or the Israeli ‘One-State’ plan. “Israel has implemented the
Israeli ‘One-State’ plan twice – in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
And both experiences were successful.”
She devotes a chapter to Israel’s legal rights to sovereignty over
Judea and Samaria, and another chapter to its historic rights to
sovereignty over the areas.
She spends, as well, two chapters considering the civil rights aspects
of the Israeli ‘One-State’ plan and explains, “Israeli democracy and
the status of the civil rights of Israelis and Palestinians alike will
be massively enhanced if Israel applies its sovereignty over Judea and
Samaria. The Palestinians in particular have been the primary victims
of the ‘Two-State’ formula. From living in the freest society in the
Middle East, outside Israel under military rule, they became subjected
to the PLO’s jackboot. For the past 20 years, the Palestinians have
lived in a legal jungle, with no protected rights whatsoever and have
stood by powerless as their children have been indoctrinated to become
murderers and bigots. The Israeli ‘One-State’ plan offers them true
civil rights and corrects a situation that should never have been
created to begin with.”
Part Three of The Israeli Solution considers the likely responses of
the Palestinians, the larger Arab world and the European Union to an
Israeli move to apply its sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. The last
two chapters analyze how Israeli sovereignty over the areas would
impact Israel, and the United States. In general, Glick’s analysis led
her to the conclusion that the party that will react most harshly
would likely be the Europeans. “Today, the EU’s only foreign policy is
hostility towards Israel. This is made clear first and foremost in
their aggressive rejection of Israel’s sovereign rights to Jerusalem,
Judea and Samaria. The Arabs have other interests. The Palestinians
have limited capacities. The Europeans have nothing else going on. But
in the end, Israel has the means to mitigate the damage of European
anti-Israel actions. And a decision to apply Israeli sovereignty over
the areas will give Israel the strategic clarity to meet the challenge
in a coherent and constructive way.”
Glick says she got the idea of writing a book after watching the
vice-presidential debate ahead of the 2008 presidential elections. The
moderator asked Sarah Palin rhetorically whether she supports the
establishment of a Palestinian state. Palin looked slightly confused,
hesitated and answered positively. From watching this debate Glick
understood that in the absence of a clear, cogent alternative from the
Right, the world, even those who support Israel, would continue to see
the Left’s vision as the only vision on the table for discussion.
“I brief the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate
several times every year. Each time I present this plan on Capitol
Hill, the response borders on euphoria. In the United States, just as
in Israel, there are millions of people who understand that the
‘Two-State’ solution is a disaster. They are just waiting for someone
to tell them that they can abandon it. My book gives them, and the
Israeli public as well, the alternative that they are waiting for.”
Glick rejects the voices on the Israeli Right that promote the idea of
payment for Arab emigration or defining Jordan as Palestine. In her
view, these are irrelevant ideas that no one will accept, especially
the Palestinians themselves. “The only thing that should interest us
is that Judea and Samaria is Israel,” she says and notes that even
though providing the Palestinians with permanent residency and the
right to apply for citizenship is not a perfect solution and will
damage Israel on certain levels, “it is absolutely clear that it is
better than establishing a Palestinian state. Such a state would be
the ruin of Israel.”
Despite the risks, this policy will allow us to exist coherently as a
liberal, open and Jewish country with the ability to determine our own
fate, she explains.
No comments:
Post a Comment