As my husband, Yisrael Medad, blogged and others have told me, my Caroline Glick post was mentioned and quoted in Ha’aretz, ROUTINE EMERGENCIES, by Allison Kaplan Sommer. I don’t pay for their “premium” which gives unlimited access to their site. I couldn’t get the article on my computer, so people sent it to me by copying, which of course can be done. I’m only going to quote the relevant sections about me and what I think Sommer got totally wrong.

It is such outspokenness that causes some of Glick’s fans on the right to voice distress – not pleasure – at the prospect of her signing up with the Likud. Batya Medad, writing in the blog “Shiloh Musings” warned that if Glick joins Netanyahu, that her one-state solution “hard-hitting opinions” will be “muzzled window-dressing” in the Likud, and she will merely act as “window-dressing” for Netanyahu. “It’s because I agree with and respect Caroline Glick that I want her to stay on the outside where she won’t be muzzled and disciplined. We need an “untied” Caroline Glick!!” Medad and company needn’t panic just yet. Glick’s Likud spot is far from a done deal, and she hasn’t even confirmed that an offer was made. It’s not clear precisely how politically advantageous for Netanyahu choosing her would be. Glick is far from a household name to non-English speaking Israelis, and her public repudiation of the two-state solution puts her in the politically problematic right end of the Likud spectrum. It’s not a political position she can fudge or conceal. Her latest book, after all, is titled The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.

First of all, to refer to Glick as “far from a household name to non-English speaking Israelis” is totally false. She is bilingual and has an extremely large Hebrew-speaking fan base. Latma was/is in Hebrew besides a couple of their songs. I think the Anglo writer Allison Kaplan Sommer is just projecting her own language restrictions/limitations here. There’s plenty of Hebrew on Glick’s facebook page, and she has been in Israel for a long time.

I’m a cynic and I have a nasty suspicion that Bibi wants Glick in the party Likud Party Knesset list for one reason and one reason only, to get votes. As much as he couldn’t stand Moshe Feiglin, he can’t deny that Feiglin brought in votes, but it was clear to all that those votes won’t return. Feiglin supporters didn’t even show up to vote in the Likud Primaries. Many are joining Bennett’s Jewish Home, or Otzma Yehudit or are just plain disenchanted with politics.

Caroline Glick will attract votes and I’m sure that the “election events planners” would love a debate between her and Ayelet Shaked who agree on just about everything except which party to support.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu will reportedly be offering the reserved spot for women on the Likud list, position #11, to Caroline Glick, according to an Israel Channel 10 report.

If it proves to be true, that’s awesome.

If she says “yes”, even more so.

Glick told The Jerusalem Post, “I have not been offered anything in a formal manner but I am flattered to hear I’m under serious consideration.”

It’s always a pleasure to watch Caroline Glick take on those that attack Israel or try to explain why attacking Israel is OK.

H/T ElderofZiyon

We found out that the three boys, Eyal, Gilad and Naftali, were murdered shortly after their abduction. I’m sure we’ll hear the full story, in horrifying detail, at some point.

I can’t imagine how the families must feel. Or rather, I can imagine it but I am certain that their actual experience must be far worse than what I can imagine.

There have been so many terrorist murders, so many murders of children. The Ma’alot massacre, The bus of blood, the Haran family, the Sbarro bombing, the Dolphinarium, the Fogel family. The Palestinians and their supporters tell you it is “resistance to occupation” but in fact it is pure evil, hate made substance. Hate made flesh.

The Left says that it is our fault that they are doing these things because we are not giving them what they want. But what if what they want is to kill us?

Societies protect themselves against murderous criminals by killing or imprisoning them in order to separate them from normal society.

“If a man comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.” Good advice, but how do we follow it when a whole culture has been created out of the idea that they should kill us?

The Palestinian people have demonstrated by the whole-hearted support shown for the kidnappers, the murderers, that they are satisfied with the path they have taken, the path of hate.

The problem is not a few extremists or criminals or terrorists who need to be killed or captured. The problem is a culture whose essence is to negate ours. These acts will not stop until the culture changes or dies out, or we completely separate ourselves from it. I don’t think our society can tolerate living as a target of terrorism forever.

First we have to decide that yes, we want our society, the Jewish people, to survive, and to continue to do so in its historic homeland. It’s not such a forgone conclusion — many, especially the intellectual elite among us are not so sure. But let’s suppose that we do. Since the nature of the Palestinian Arab culture is not under our control, since we can’t educate them or change them, our survival depends on separation and deterrence.

Then we need to look at geography and military realities. What territories do we need to control as a necessary condition for our survival? Authorities agree that the Jordan Valley and the high ground of Judea and Samaria must remain under our control. This isn’t a political issue, and we don’t need to bring in the spiritual dimension to decide this. It is simply a fact that follows from the topography of the region.

But some of the area that is essential is heavily populated by Arabs, many of whom belong to terror organizations and most of whom wouldn’t accept Jewish sovereignty.

Caroline Glick is probably correct that annexation of all of Judea and Samaria wouldn’t create an Arab majority. She estimates that the Arab population of Israel would go from about 20% to about 30%. She believes that the same relationship that has been established with the Israeli Arabs could be extended to the Arabs of the territories.

The lesson I have drawn from these murders is that she is not correct. It won’t work. This marriage cannot be saved. The educational enterprise of Yasser Arafat and his followers, aided by the West, has succeeded — perhaps beyond expectations. There is no going back. The Palestinian Arabs will not, cannot, coexist with the Jewish people.

For three hours on Monday, March 3, Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met in the Oval Office with U.S. President Barack Obama. Obama has been carrying the torch for the so-called “Two State Solution,” which he inherited from his predecessors. He made it clear, as he has repeatedly in the past, that he wants Netanyahu to get with the program.

If Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach,” Obama said. “It’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”

Not really.

Caroline Glick, the journalist and deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post has articulated precisely that. And right on cue, too.

Glick’s book, “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East”  (Crown Forum 2014) was released on Tuesday, March 4, and this Jewish Press reporter sat down with her that afternoon in a mid-town delicatessen in New York City, to talk about the book.

Glick wrote the book, she said, because she realized that the vast majority of pro-Israel Americans think the only way to support Israel is to support the option of the so-called “Two State Solution.”  They believe that because it is the only thing they hear from their leadership.

“But after twenty years of abject failure, of nothing but death and destruction in the wake of the Two State effort, surely it is time to begin a discussion about alternatives. My book is meant to be the starting point for that discussion,” Glick said. “And I can’t thank President Obama enough for providing me with the perfect invitation!”

Glick’s credentials for writing such a book are comprehensive. From 1994 – 1996, at the height of the “peace negotiations,” she was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team, and she was personally involved in the negotiation of a half-dozen major agreements with the PLO.

In 1996, when she completed her IDF service, Glick became Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s assistant foreign policy adviser. By the time the Palestinian Arabs had officially stopped pretending to be a part of a peace process and instead were fully engaged in their bloody and extended terror campaign, Glick was a columnist and editor for major Israeli papers, including the Jerusalem Post.

Glick’s book is divided into three parts.

The first part deals with a detailed history of the failed attempts to create two states in the tiny area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.  Although most careful observers of the Middle East will flatter themselves that they know this history well, it is doubtful that anyone has had a more up-close and personal opportunity to observe, analyze and record this history than Glick.

The second part of the book lays out what she believes is the best option for moving forward for all citizens living in the area currently known as Israel and the disputed territories (also known as Judea and Samaria or the West Bank).

Glick’s plan is liberal, democratic, and it provides the best chance of a good life for the greatest number of people who live in the area, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian.

The third part of the book addresses the likely responses to the One State of Israel plan. She articulates and addresses the anticipated responses by Palestinian Arabs (both terrorism and diplomatic threats), by others in the region (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan), by the European community, and by the United States.

The harshest response, Glick anticipates, will come not from the Palestinian Arabs, but from the European community. The answers she offers are not sugar-coated. They are realistic and well worth the consideration.

In this week’s edition of Latma, Israel’s only right-wing, news-satire show, the anchors hinted that this edition of Latma may be the last show they produce. Latma has been in danger of closing since the beginning of the summer, as it hasn’t been able to raise sufficient funds to continue production.

Latma is the brainchild of Caroline Glick, who has run around the world raising money for the past few years to support the popular pro-Zionist news show. Latma’s mission is to counter the numerous post-Zionist shows on Israeli TV, as well as the mainstream Israel news media, which leans strongly to the left.

If Latma is allowed to close, it will be a distinct failure of the Jewish Right to put their money where their mouth is.

While the Israeli Left have seemingly unlimited funds from Soros, the New Israel Fund, the EU and others, the Jewish Right seem to be living in a barren wasteland when it comes to investing in pro-Zionist activities to counter the NGOs and media on the Left.

Will someone wake up in time?

I mentioned the debate here.

Here’s Dayan speaking:

Caroline Glick’s words can be found here at the 49th minute or so.

Here’s what she wrote about the experience:

…in one particularly ugly segment, Levy made the scurrilous accusation that Israel systematically steals land from the Palestinians. Both Dayan and I demanded that he provide just one example of his charge. And the audience raged against us for our temerity at insisting that he provide substantiation for his baseless allegation. In the event, he failed to substantiate his allegation.

At another point, I was asked how I defend the Nazi state of Israel. When I responded by among other things giving the Nazi pedigree of the Palestinian nationalist movement founded by Nazi agent Haj Amin el Husseini and currently led by Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, the crowd angrily shouted me down.

I want to note that the audience was made up of upper crust, wealthy British people, not unwashed rabble rousers. And yet they behaved in many respects like a mob when presented with pro-Israel positions…

I was prepared to conduct a civilized debate based on facts and reasoned argumentation. I expected it to be a difficult experience. I was not expecting to be greeted by a well-dressed mob. My pessimism about Europeans’ capacity to avail themselves to reasoned, fact-based argumentation about Israel has only deepened from the experience.

Visit My Right Word.