סיפוח עכשיו

by Caroline B. Glick, קרולין ב. גליק, אורי רדלר (Translator)

אחרי שמונים שנה ונהרות של דם פתרון שתי המדינות נכשל. הגיע הזמן לחשוב מחוץ לקופסא.

הספר שהסעיר את הקונגרס האמריקני – עכשיו בעברית!

כבר למעלה משמונים שנה, מתקופת המנדט הבריטי ועד ממשל אובמה, נכשלים כל הניסיונות ליישם את פתרון שתי המדינות. הגיע הזמן לחשוב מחוץ לקופסה.


לפני כשנה חוללה המהדורה האנגלית של סיפוח עכשיו רעידת אדמה בפוליטיקה האמריקאית. מושלים, סנאטורים, חברי בית הנבחרים ואפילו מועמדים פוטנציאליים לנשיאות ארצות־הברית, הודו כי תפישתם ביחס למדיניות האמריקאית הרצויה במזרח התיכון השתנתה.

Genres: Israel, Politics, History, Middle East, Nonfiction, Jewish, Science

367 pages, Paperback

First published August 13, 2013

About the author

About Caroline B. Glick
(from her website)

I grew up in Chicago’s ultra-liberal Hyde Park neighborhood. Hyde Park’s most famous resident is Barack Obama.

I made aliyah to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving my BA in Political Science from another radical liberal stronghold — Columbia University in New York, otherwise known as Beir Zeit on the Hudson.

I joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, I served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In this capacity I was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

In 1997 and 1998 I served as assistant foreign policy advisor Binyamin Netayahu during his first stint as Prime Minister.

From 1998-2000 I returned to the US for graduate school. I received a Master’s in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Although I spent most of my free time hiking in New England, it did not escape my attention that much of the faculty at the Kennedy School was not particularly fond of America, (Alinsky’s organizing methods were taught in a required first year course for MPP candidates) — or of Israel.

The latter truth was exposed for all the world to see when my former professor Steve Walt co-wrote the updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with his friend from my childhood hometown – University of Chicago’s John Mearshimer.

After I finished graduate school I returned to Israel and began writing at Makor Rishon newspaper, (Hebrew). I served as chief diplomatic commentator and edited magazine supplements on strategic issues for Makor Rishon until 2007.

In March 2002, I accepted the position of Deputy Managing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. At the Post I write two weekly columns. These columns are regularly syndicated. My current title is Senior Contributing Editor.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, I covered the US-led war in Iraq as an embedded journalist with the US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division. Reporting for the Post, Maariv, Israel TV’s Channel 2 and the Chicago Sun Times, I was one of the only female journalists on the front lines with the US forces and the first Israeli journalist to report from liberated Baghdad.

My writings, which have also been published in major US periodicals, journals and newspapers and online publications focus on the strategic, cultural and political issues challenging the Israel and the United States.

From 2004-2012 I served as the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC.

In 2012 I joined the David Horowitz Freedom Center in Los Angeles as the Director of the Center’s Israel Security Project. I remain the Center for Security Policy’s adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs. In both capacities, I travel regularly to Washington to brief senior officials and members of Congress on issues of joint Israeli-American concern. I also lecture widely throughout the US and Canada.

If you would like to have me speak to your community, please email me at caroline@carolineglick.com and I’ll be happy to try to schedule it during my travels in North America.

In 2009, I founded the Hebrew-language satirical media criticism website Latma, (latma.co.il). Latma uses satire to critique the Israeli and Western media’s radical leftist bias. The concept guiding Latma is that the main reason the Left is able to force Western societies to agree to its crazy policies is because the Left controls popular culture, and through that control, leftists dictate what is cool and what is not, and what is socially acceptable and what is not. That power in turn intimidates people into accepting policies and positions that they oppose morally and intellectually.

In its Israeli Independence Day supplement in 2003, Ma’ariv named me th

Reviews

[Kristina · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terribly written book. It Omits alot of history so that the author can prove how flawless Israel is. It takes a very Israel vs. the western World approach. To the point where the author basically calls everyone a racist because everyone is trying to get rid the Jewish state in one way or the other. Basically the author argues that if your leader is even a little pro-Palestinian , then you are anti-Semitic. Because no one in the world could ever form their own thoughts. Because the only People in the world that can form their own independent thought are Israelis.

don't worry. I'm not anti-semitic ; my country's leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants closer ties with Israel. Which means, that by the author's logic, I am not anti-semitic .

[Vheissu · Rating 1 out of 5]

Caroline Glick has a Solution, a one-state plan for Peace in the Middle East. Marshaling political, legal, historical, and demographic "facts," she presents a sure-fire solution to all of Israel's problems that is mostly preposterous.

Glick's solution is for Israel to "assert" its sovereignty over the West Bank, known also as Judea and Samaria, and deliver the blessings of liberal democracy and robust economic growth to the long-suffering Palestinians, who have been exploited and ruined by corrupt Arab leaders (PLO, Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, ect.). Gaza is left out of her greater Israel, for reasons she doesn't make entirely clear. The Palestinian people admire Israel, she claims, and would welcome the chance to dislodge their crooked Arab masters and live and work in Israel proper. Moreover, Israel has superior historical and legal claims to the (occupied?) territories compared with those of the Palestinians. This would be good for Israel's military defense although it would put a strain on the Jewish state's social welfare system. The neighboring Arab states are too weak--politically and militarily--to do much about the imposition of a one-state solution, and the Americans would be forced to abandon their foolish, if not pernicious, support of a two-state solution. Actually, Glick does more than just criticize U.S. foreign policy ("going back to Nixon"), she condemns American financial and military support for an obviously cruel, corrupt, criminal enterprise, the Palestinian Authority. Finally, she dismisses concerns that a one-state solution would jeopardize the democratic Jewish state by offering (dubious) demographic data that she claims show that Jews will always be a permanent majority (two-thirds) of the population in a single state.

There are two words, however, that never appear in Glick's work: popular plebiscite. This is strange but completely understandable on several accounts. First, chances are that the residents of the West Bank might very well reject absorption by Israel if given the chance. Notwithstanding Glick's assurances that the Palestinians admire Israel, she repeatedly notes the "deep seated prejudices" of Palestinian leaders and their indoctrination of hatred among Arab residents. Why people who harbor "deep seated prejudices" against Jews (attention Jon Drucker) would accede to absorption into Israel without any say in the matter and then happily accept their newfound status is a complete mystery to me.

Second, the days when a state could "assert" sovereignty over a territory without the consent of its residents are long gone. The U.S. tried it with the Louisiana Purchase, when international law on the matter was moot, and then spent nearly a century fighting bloody wars with American Indians who were weren't crazy about their new "White Father." In recent times, popular referendums on a nation's political status have become more common: Quebec had a referendum, Scotland had a referendum, Britain had a referendum on Brexit; hell, even the Russians pretended to have a referendum in Crimea! Glick, however, seems to feel that no such referendum is required for the absorption of the West Bank. Israel can simply "assert" its sovereignty.

Glick considers the international legal aspects of a one-state solution, but here her analysis is incomplete. She explains that "international law" derives from conventions, or treaties, which require the consent of states, and customs, which do not require the consent of states but allows "persistent objectors" to avoid customary obligations. Glick does not identify the international customs to which Israel has "persistently objected." But there is another type of international law that Glick avoids entirely: jus cogens rules. These are peremptory norms from which there can be no deviation by any state for any reason. One of those jus cogens rules is the self-determination of people, and no territory can be claimed by any state that violates this rule. Given Glick's preference that Israel simply "assert" its sovereignty apparently without a popular referendum on the matter explains her omission of the law.

Glick generously offers Palestinians the opportunity to claim Israeli citizenship after annexation, although those offers come with conditions. Not only would those with "past or current incitement to violence against Israel" be disqualified, but also those with a "past or current membership in terrorist organizations." Thus mere association--as opposed to actual illegal and violent behavior--disqualifies Palestinians for citizenship. Presumably the Israeli government would be the entity that qualifies and disqualifies candidate citizens, which raises another problem. Where will a new generation of Palestinian leadership come from that can give voice to acquiescent Arabs, assuming there would be any acquiescent Arabs? Would a new cadre of Palestinian leaders, vetted by the Israeli government, be considered the legitimate voice of the Arab people or Israeli stooges? In any case, Glick assumes that the numbers of Palestinians who would actually seek citizenship would be small, leaving a permanent, unrepresented underclass in the territory of Israel.

I have many more criticisms of the book that I will not present here. Suffice it to say, Glick's "Solution" may yet come to pass, and the world will have to live with it, come what may.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Israeli Solution: A one state-plan for peace in the middle east is an excellent and very compelling argument for the abandonment of the "two-state solution". Just today, I heard that, though Israel had accepted a cease-fire, Hamas rejected it. So Israel still has to defend itself against their enemies who do not desire peace with them, but desire their annihilation instead. This has been the case for many years, beginning even before Israel even existed as a state.

In this book, Caroline Glick takes us on a trip through history to examine the Arabs' constant rejection a Palestinian state. As she puts it so well, "Israel's desire for peace with the Arabs has been amply proven". They have put themselves at risk multiple times, releasing their proven enemies from prison, giving up land that could be used as a base of attack against them, even approving the entry of known terrorists into the land they relinquished. In peace talks they have been willing to make huge concessions, some in particular that would make them greatly vulnerable to their enemies, all in order to have peace with the Arabs; but the Arab's have consistently rejected these offers. Glick shows that history makes it clear that the Arabs do not want peace with Israel, nor do they want a Palestinian state, they simply do not want Israel on the map of the world.

Reading this book really made me ashamed of America. We have consistently supported and deferred to the Arabs for 20 years or more, and we have never supported Israel, our ally, as we ought. Glick points out that "In 2013 alone, the US committed $440 million taxpayer dollars to direct financial support for the Palestinian Authority." I was appalled to learn about how much America has snubbed and spurned Israel, treating them as the 'bad guy' simply for trying to defend themselves, and despite Israel's proven desire for peace. Even President Reagan literally protected Israel's enemies from Israel sending in Marines to protect them from Israel's forces. It was embarrassing, frustrating, but also interesting to see the comparison of Obama and Bush's policy towards Israel. Surprisingly, Glick shows that they both favored the Palestinians, "The distinction between Bush and Obama is rhetorical, not real."

Glick shows the absurdity of the United States make Israel give up land for a Palestinian state, "This demand is without precedent in the in the history of warfare. There is no precedent of a civilian population, displaced by a war that their leadership started and lost, claiming a right to return to territory that they failed to conquer." By the same argument, America should start giving back the land they conquered from the Confederates, and then in turn, both the Union and Confederates should give America back to the British and then the "Native Americans" . And every country should be held to this standard and so the world will be in chaos with everyone trying to figure out what land belongs to whom as they go further and further back into history to see who had what land, and who should give it up to a certain people, and who that certain people should give it up to…and it won't end for a long time, if ever.

This book is a very concise argument, one that emphasizes the obvious in a readable way. This book serves as an excellent history lesson regarding the State of Israel and its relations with the United States. Glick has a good, logical, present day application of that history. There is repetition, but, in my opinion, it is done in a way that enhances the argument, rather than rendering it boring.

I highly recommend this book if you are interested in learning more about America's role in the Middle East conflict, or if you are wondering what position to take on the issue.

Thanks to Blogging for Books for sending me a free review copy of this book(My review did not have to be favorable)

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seminal, must read works exist in literature, philosophy, and political theory. For example, can one study the Cold War without having read George Kennan or discuss ethics without having read Rawls? In that vein, anyone who seeks to defend a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to have read Caroline Glick’s The Israeli Solution (2013).

Since Glick’s book is fairly recent, you are forgiven if you haven’t heard of it or haven’t got around to reading it. My hope is that this review will convince you to remedy that lapse.

The first part of this review covers Glick’s analysis of the two-state solution; her alternative is the subject of part two.

In part one of The Israeli Solution, Glick, who is a senior correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, examines the history and politics of two-state solution, focusing primarily on the U.S. since America with its military and financial resources is, for better or for worse, the central outside player in the conflict.

Why does Glick call a two-state solution an illusion, a false-hope, a chimera? From Jimmy Carter on, American presidents have viewed solving the conflict as the key to peace in the entire region––from North Africa to the Fertile Crescent. “[M]ost American policy makers,” Glick writes, “share the view that the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would remove the principle cause of the violent extremism that afflicts the Arab and the larger Islamic world.”

Glick disputes that thesis. Rather than consider the possibility that Arab leaders has other concerns than their hatred of Jews, American leaders have blindly sought to pressure Israel to swallow untenable peace terms thinking regional peace would ensue. Hopefully, that blinder has been removed from policy makers’ eyes by the rise of ISIS, the civil wars in Yemen and Syria, and the global spillover of the Shia-Sunni conflict, none of which stem from the lack of a Palestinian state.

A Ninety-Year Failure

The two-state solution was invented as a response to the unwillingness of Arab leaders to live along side Jews who had returned to their ancient homeland. It has been presented as the basis for peace plans nine different times over the past nine decades, each one a failure. Worse, unquestioned adherence to this “solution,” has “weakened the U.S. position in the Middle East.” Each time the U.S. has put its reputation and resources into a two-state plan the outcome has resulted in the region becoming “less stable, more violent, more radicalized, and more inimical to American values and interests.”

Why hasn’t the two-state solution worked?

The primary reason the two-state concept has failed is, as Glick states, that the “two-state formula is based on the proposition that the root cause of the Palestinian conflict is Israel’s unwillingness to surrender sufficient lands to the Palestinians, rather than the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and their continued commitment to its destruction.”

Take, for example, Yasser Arafat’s walking away from extensive and foolhardy concessions forced upon Israeli leaders by Bill Clinton, including agreeing to shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. How did Arafat respond to Israel’s willingness to give him most of what he demanded? He launched a war of terror whose toll over two years exceeded seven hundred killed and four thousand wounded.

Clinton devoted the last months of his presidency to trying to get the two sides to reach a final settlement at the expense of greater problems. Yet he failed to understand that Arafat never intended to sign an agreement that left the state of Israel in existence and only engaged in negotiations to strengthen his position at home and weaken international support for Israel.

Arab Anti-Zionism and World Politics

In Part I of The Israeli Solution, Glick reviews the careers of two men who played key roles in developing the notion of a Palestinian people as well as leading attempts to prevent the formation of a Jewish state (Haj Amin el-Husseini) and once formed to prevent that state from surviving (Yasser Arafat). Husseini allied himself with Adolph Hitler and spent the war aiding the Nazi plan to annihilate the Jewish people. No less heinous in his aims, Arafat turned to political warfare to cover up the terrorist campaigns he launched against Israel and its population.

To further his aims, Arafat turned to the Soviet Union, joining in their effort to weaken the U.S. internationally by defining the U.S. as a supporter of racist colonialism exemplified by the Jewish state. To label Jews the oppressor, Arafat and the U.S.S.R. sought to deny the fact that today’s Jewish population descended from the Jews of the Bible and reframe the historical and archeological record to undermine Jews’ claim to be returning to their homeland.

American leaders unfortunately overlooked Arafat’s role in field training would-be terrorists, including Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, Germany’s Red Army faction, the IRA, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guard. Arafat’s techniques included airplane hijacking, bombings, ground assaults, assassinations, and even surface-to-air missile attacks against jetliners.

Ironically, throughout most of his career Arafat paid little attention to the Arab refugees of the 1948 war or to those living under Israeli control in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, and Gaza. Only after local protests erupted in those regions in the 1980s did he see the possibility of using Palestinians in his war against Israel. Sadly, the U.S. helped finance that war and even trained Palestinian Authority soldiers some of whom used their new weapons to attack Israeli civilians.

The Moderate Palestinian Leader

No discussion of the two-state solution would be complete without focusing on Arafat’s successor, current Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. Some have tried to paint as a moderate and a man with whom a peace settlement can be reached. Glick destroys that chimera as well, showing Abbas to be cut from Arafat’s mold as a man skilled in the use of diplomacy on behalf of his ultimate goal, which is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. Abbas has waged war through the international press, the U.N., and NGO’s––while refusing to negotiate directly with Israel’s representatives. As an example of how little interested he is in a two-state solution, Abbas spat in the face of logic by petitioning the U.N. to create a Palestinian state along the very boundaries his predecessors rejected in 1947.

Amazingly, the U.S. has continued to put their faith in and finance Mahmoud Abbas despite his forming a political alliance with Hamas and despite Hamas’ having thrown the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza and killed or jailed many of its operatives.

As an aside, it is important to understand what distinguishes Hamas from the PLO/Fatah. While Arafat and his mentor Husseini were Arab nationalists first and Muslims second, the founders of Hamas are Muslims first and foremost. To them, Israel stands in the way of the establishment of Allah’s kingdom on earth, and like all infidel nations, including the United States, it must be eradicated.

U.S. Interests and the Two-State Solution

Unfortunately, many Americans believe the U.S. support for Israel is largely a function of sympathy based on the destruction of European Jewry. As a result, they overlook the extent to which Israel advances and protects U.S. interests in the region. Further, they fail to consider the consequences were Israel to be forced to retreat to indefensible boundaries by ceding all or most of the West Bank to the Palestinians.

An Israel reduced to pre-1967 borders would be vulnerable to being destroyed by jihadist militants attacking from Gaza and the hills of Judea. That is something the U.S. would result in the U.S. being drawn into the conflict at who knows how large a cost in dollars and lives. Further, Israel would no longer represent the one stable, self-sufficient non-expansionist democracy in the region.

By giving in to those who use terrorism to advance their aims, the U.S., were it to force Israel to give up Judea and Samaria, would be sending a message to jihadists across the globe that the U.S. will not stand up to terrorism and will not protect its allies when push comes to shove.

For all those reasons, the U.S. must abandon support for the two-state solution. But what policy should it support in its place? That’s the subject of part two of my review essay as I examine Caroline Glick’s alternative.


* Because I read The Israeli Solution in digital format I cannot cite page numbers to the print edition.

[A.C. Cuddy · Rating 5 out of 5]

“A manifesto that exposes the flaws in the tw0state policy of the United States toward Israel and the Palestinians and offers a direct and powerful call for Israeli sovereignty in the region.”

This book, The Israeli Solution: A one-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, is perhaps one of the most insightful books written about the generations-old “problem” of what to do with the Israeli’s and the Palestinian’s. It seems like every US president, past and current, have or have had “the answer”. Yet not one of them has or did. In this 250+ page manifesto, that is so impeccably researched and cited, the author, Caroline Glick, offers a one-state plan for peace in the Middle East – The Israeli Solution.

In this book, Ms. Glick takes the reader back to the beginning. Back to the beginning of the “problem” and systematically walks us through the decades of mistrust and misconceptions. She exposes the long history of Palestinian outright anti-Semitism and their refusal to negotiate in good faith as well as their rejection of Israel’s right to even exist. This is not a new concept. This Palestinian thought process has existed from the beginning and the continued US efforts to bring about a two-state policy will never come about with the current Palestinian ideology. In the end, she points out the flaws and the huge errors made by those in power in the US in continuing this approach and she offers and alternative path to stability in the Middle East.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wa... : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”.

*Reviews of this book were posted at the following locations:
Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Deeper Shopping, and to be featured on my blog at http://titus3.wordpress.com

[Liz Terek · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Israel Solution: Caroline Glick
Caroline Glick has penned a proposal of a one-state plan to achieve peace in the Middle East. From a majority standpoint, Biblical scholars & those of devout faith will agree that Israel should be given dominance over its own land. After all, Israel is home to God’s chosen people.
Diplomats & politicians, however, disagree. Their stance is that peace equals a picture of 2 states (Israel & Palestine) living harmoniously. Caroline Glick’s position is that the 2 state policy is erred to its core.
As a contributing editor for the Jerusalem Post, Glick is certainly able to propose an articulate answer with expert status. Her knowledge is without equal among writers concerning this topic. In ‘The Israel Solution’, readers will become acquainted with the historical background of the 2 state policy as well as the falsehoods which accompany it.
Methodically, Caroline Glick walks us through all the INS & outs that one needs to know in order to make an informed, confident opinion. Readers in the field of theology or political science (including students of either), should absolutely invest their time & money in ‘The Israel Solution’. Beyond secular media, it’s often difficult to hear views on this topic. Those view we do hear tend to be biased. Kudos to Ms. Glick for being balanced.
Don’t dismiss this as a book for scholars! Anyone wanting to know exactly what’s happening in the Middle East can enjoy & appreciate this book. Incredibly well done, it’s a 5 star piece. More info is available via the publisher www.waterbrookmultnomah.com
I received a print copy in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.

[Charlene Mathe · Rating 5 out of 5]

The unexpected benefit of this book is Caroline Glick's review and analysis of historic claims to The Land, the performance of claimants in providing institutions of sovereignty, and the fundamentals of international law that should be applied to assert Israel's sovereignty on the Mandate area, less Gaza (because Israel formally relinquished it) and Jordan (which was awarded sovereignty in 1946). At a time when the West and the U.N. are doubling down on the delusion of a two-state solution, I urge people to read this book for a totally different perspective. We really need this reality check now!

[Sarede Switzer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worthwhile read for anyone interested in the Israel/Palestinian crisis.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

This may indeed be the most important book on Israeli policy published this decade. Well-researched with innumerable citations, Glick explains why the two-state solution proposed by the Oslo accords
is a complete and utter failure. Glick furthermore sets out in terrific detail the legal proof of Israel's sovereignty to Judea and Samaria and explains why fully incorporating those portions of the Jewish homeland under Israeli civil law is the best solution for peace in the region.

At the root of the conflict, Glick explains, is a jihadi mentality among Arabs committed to destroying Israel because they want the Middle East to be free of all Jews and Christians. Israel is the ancestral homeland of only one people -the Jews, whose history and continuous presence there for
4000 years stands alone and is proven over and over again by historical documents and artifacts, which the Islamic Jihadis are making every effort to destroy and erase with the complicity of
UNESCO.

Modern day Israel derives from the mandate of the League of Nations which gave all of the Mandate including Hashemite Jordan to the Jews to settle. The UN recommended partition in 1947 but the Arabs led by Al-Husseini, who was Hitler's henchman, rejected partition. Jordan then illegally occupied Judea and Samaria.

At the heart of this book is an analysis of the demographics of the region and a startling conclusion that PLO censuses of the area were false and that therefore incorporating Judea and Samaria into Israel would not affect the democratic character of it.

That's all well and good but your blood will boil when you read in exquisite detail about the farce of negotiations with the PLO, the
greatest con job in the history of the world. Israel at the behest of the US and Europe appeased the terrorists over and over again and no final agreement could ever be made because the terrorist Jihadi PLO
will only accept a Jew-free Middle East. Nothing will ever be acceptable
to the PLO but the ethnic cleansing of every Jew from Israel. They have never hid their goal but no one cares because they have succeeded in conning the world with smiles while never renouncing murder.

It is an infuriating book to read because it lays out step by step the trap Israel and the West have fallen into in pretending that a two state solution will ever satisfy the PLO terrorists who are committed to
ethnically cleanse Israel of Jews and have even made it a capital crime to sell land to a Jew.

Appropriately one of the last chapters calls out Kerry for his Alice in Wonderland view of the region and his sick habit of justifying terror.

[Tom · Rating 1 out of 5]

A Treatise on the Innocence of Israel would have been a more apt title for this book. I selected this book to get a better understanding of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the potential solutions thereto. I cannot pretend to have a thorough understanding of the conflict, but the The Israeli Solution did very little to better it: Glick presents the reader with a one-sided narrative, pointing towards the innocence of Israel while assigning all blame to Palestine.

In the first part of the book, Glick sets out her case against Palestine, in essence, arguing that Palestine's sole objective is the destruction of Israel. She discusses the emergence of the conflict over the past century, giving ample consideration to deaths and casualties on the side of Israel, but barely taking note of the deaths or casualties on the side of Palestine.

Subsequently, in part 2, Glick presents her case for the one-state plan, which calls for the "application of Israeli law over Judea and Samaria [and to] govern these areas as normal parts of Israel". The annexation of Judea and Samaria is, according to Glick, justifiable because Israel "needs to be able to defend itself from the threats of Palestinian terrorism and external forces alike". Equally important, denying Israel's claim to Judea and Samaria would "mean denying Jewish history and heritage, and so emptying the Jewish state of meaning". Concluding that, "Israel cannot do that".

Fortunately, in the eyes of Glick, this solution would "end the authoritarian repression that the Palestinians suffer under the rule of the Palestinian Authority", who now "find themselves living in a liberal democracy where their individual rights are protected". This, of course, sits rather awkward with the reality in where Palestinians in Israel are generally treated as second-class citizens.

I mean, it generally felt awkward how Glick stresses the 'burdens' associated with Israel asserting its control over another state, for example when she notes that "implementing Israeli laws in Judea and Samaria will doubtlessly cause a host of difficulties for Israel-not least, that such a move will burden its welfare services".

I just really would have liked to learn whether Palestinians may have legitimate concerns with such annexation and what that could mean for these people.

[Danny · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'll be brief, as this is part of my ongoing effort to understand all sides of the conflict. Obviously, Caroline Glick has deep ties to the Israeli side of this issue, but this did not poison the narrative outright. The Israeli Solution is thoroughly sourced, with footnotes for every statistic and claim, especially when it involves the more outrageous words and actions from Israel's enemies.

I love that Glick explores the second- and third-order effects of this hypothetical scenario of the one-state solution based on each country's or entity's past behavior. This is wargaming/red team analysis at its finest.

You might expect a pro-Israel book to talk about what Palestinians need to do (or stop doing), and likewise a pro-Palestine book to talk about what Israelis need to do. Not so in this book. Although I'm sure Glick has plenty of ideas for the PLO/PA, the real call to action is directed first at Israel and second at her ally, the United States. Taking the responsibility for change upon yourself instead of pointing fingers at others, what a neat concept!

Consider that when the broad-brush view of the problem from the Israeli side is that they keep getting attacked, the easy answer is to demand that the Arab world stop the violence. But I did not open this book for easy answers, and thankfully I was given none. The "Israeli Solution" is one that Israel enacts, and--in theory--everyone benefits from.

Lastly, Glick admonishes both the U.S. and the EU for the former's misunderstanding of the situation and the latter's blatant anti-Semitism. Good on you for giving it to us straight, with an attitude that says "I expected better from you." It's true that the West is not the white knight in this story, and there is a price to pay for neglecting the relationship with Israel in light of its rising stardom in energy, defense, and solutions to climate change catastrophes.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Parts of this book are "must read" stuff, especially the sections on actual on-the-ground demographics as demonstrated by consistent data and multiple analyses by professionals in free countries. There's also good historical stuff included (although little breaks new ground, the portion on the British experience during the Mandate is little covered in the West, so worth the time).

The main point is right up front and then doggedly pursued: it is more consistent with right, international law, American interest, Israeli interest, and the interests of the Arabs of the disputed territories for Israel to assert its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. It is also more supported by those who would so be freed from the PA's kleptocracy (although, on that point, the data cites is a little less consistent than Glick makes it out).

I will say that she over-argues some points and embraces a reverse fallacy -- that if something is wrong it's opposite must be right in ways that don't hold up. She confuses a correlation with causation along the way -- that we've misunderstood the greater Middle East while fixated on the prospects for peace with the Arabs of the territories under the rule of the PLO doesn't mean that we've misunderstood the greater Middle East _because_ of our misreading of the prospects for peace...

But with those grains of salt, this is a pretty solid walk through the silent alternative. And that alternative needs to be reviewed, since it's the most credible way from the current morass toward a lasting, just peace.

[Ben Pashkoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This took me way too long to finish - not because it was difficult or not interesting, rather, worth dwelling on many of the points she makes. I cannot doubt her integrity or the facts as she presents them. Granted, she has an ax to grind, but the facts she presents are accurate. SOME of the conclusions that she draws, I do take issue with, but the overall premise - that the US and the EU are either deluded or under still a pall of Antisemitism is unquestionable. It is also (or should be) obvious that there is NO 2 state solution to our problems here that is feasible, and (IMHO) a 1-state solution has many unknown risks involved. She seems to draw that the possible risks are outweighed by the potential benefits. I simply am not sure. I am not as certain as she HOW the Arab world would react, and at the time of publishing this book, ISIS was not the power it is now.

[Gk68 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliantly articulated and fact-based reality check by
a passionate and well-informed journalist, analyst.
Worthy of serious consideration. Refreshing, yet sobering,
account and analysis.
Dr. Gary K.

[Alan Zwiren · Rating 5 out of 5]

You may not agree with it all and I thought the chapter on the US response was a little lacking; however it is a a very important work challenging the status quo since Oslo proposing a way to break the stalemate! Even if you don’t agree it forces you to look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and brought a new lens!

[Sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although the author is a bit redundant, especially in the final several chapters, she makes an outstanding case for the world to drop the "Two-State" solution between Israel and the Palestinians. To sum up the reason here would take too long, but suffice it to say, the "Palestinians" would end up being much better under a One-State solution, with Israel applying Israeli law to both Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank). Glick states that it would ensure that all of those individuals would, as Israeli citizens, have all benefits and privileges that current Israelis have. It would have the benefit of providing Israel with very defensible borders. The case for this solution, pointed out very nicely, and presented well, is both international law and customs (again, read book for more information). She points out that the Palestinians already have a state of their own, it's called Jordan, as established by the United Nations in 1947. Another positive for this solution would be that the United States could stop spending $300 to $400 million every year to the corrupt and terror ridden PLO and Palestinian Authority; both harbingers of terror and terrorist activities. I find it revolting, and disgusting that this government tries to buy the friendship, and cooperation, of people who would stick a knife in our back just as soon as look at us...that would be the PLO and PA. There is more, much more, but in reading it, with a fairly open mind (realizing how much of a chance this idea would get in world opinion), she makes a great deal of sense. Good book good read, provides alot of soul-searching and thought provoking ideas. It also makes sense; which is why it will probably never work, in reality.

[Justin Howe · Rating 4 out of 5]

For decades, America has assumed that the source of conflict in the Middle East is the absence of a Palestinian state, and has therefore pursued creating one. While Israel has graciously accommodated this goal, Caroline Glick explains why the "two-state solution" is a failed model for peace and stability in the Middle East. Instead, she suggests that Israel should apply its sovereignty and law to the West Bank, incorporating it into greater Israel. The book does an excellent job of explaining the history of the conflict, legal precedents, international laws, and likely reactions of Palestinians, Arabs, and Europe. The book concludes by claiming that key to a One-state Solution is the support of the United States. Unfortunately, both Republican and Democrat presidents have continued to push for the failed two-state solution.

[Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a word: Thorough.

The Israeli Solution is a very dense book full of information. You have historical data about Israel, Palestine, and just about everything regarding the two. It's exhausting to read at times, but complete for anyone doing research on this topic from the Israeli point of view.

Is it easy to read? Parts of it are. Parts of it are so boring you want to tear your eyes out. In the end, though, it's a pretty good book if you are interested in facts, backed up by lots and lots and LOTS of research. Seriously, I fact-checked a good deal of the sources, and they are what they say they are. I was impressed.

Many people will argue that it is biased, and it is. It's extremely pro-Israel. Is that wrong? Perhaps for some, but from what I understand from my Palestinian friends and colleagues, maybe more people should be pro-Israeli rule.

[Bethany · Rating 5 out of 5]

For anyone interested in the Middle East conflict, this is a must read! This is a superbly written, well researched book about the Israeli and Palestinian conflict that argues passionately for Israel and settles many misconceptions about the true situation. I know there is so much information in here that I never realized and I feel like it was presented in a very readable way.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who is even remotely interested in supporting Israel and wants to be better informed on the matter.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher but the opinions expressed are entirely my own.

[Arthur Rabinovitz · Rating 5 out of 5]

ooops i finished this a long time ago

[عز الدين · Rating 1 out of 5]

بينما بدأت أصوات فلسطينية جديدة بالمطالبة بتمكين حل الدولة الواحدة من جديد، لكن بصيغة مختلفة أكثر وأميل إلى الواقعية السياسية منها إلى الحل النهائي الذي يضمن حياة ديمقراطية ومتساوية للجميع، كانت فكرة حل الدولة الواحدة تسقط في الجهة المقابلة، حتى من خطاب المعارضة الإسرائيلية، مقابل التركيز على حل الدولتين.

في مقابل ذلك، فإن، هناك صياغة جديدة لنموذج الدولة الواحدة، من جانب واحد، بدأت تتبلور في السنوات الأخيرة داخل بعض الأوساط اليمينية، تعتمد بشكل أساسي على الضم، باعتباره "حلًا إسرائيليًا". يتبنى هذا الطرح مجموعة من المعايير التي يسعى من خلالها كما يقول القائمون عليه، إلى المحافظة على دولة ديمقراطية ويهودية آمنة في نفس الوقت.

تمثل الصحفية والمدونة اليمينية المعروفة، كارولين غليك، أبرز الدعاة لهذا التيار، من خلال المساهمات العديدة لها في الصحف والمدونات اليمينية، وكذا في كتابها الصادر عام 2014، بالإنجليزية تحت عنوان "الحل الإسرائيلي: خطة الدولة الواحدة من أجل السلام في الشرق الأوسط"، وبالعبرية تحت عنوان "الضم الآن" في نوع من المعارضة لفكرة "السلام الآن".

يأتي كتاب كارولين غليك، في سياق متواصل من المناظرات الإسرائيلية المستمرة عن ضم الضفة الغربية أو الانسحاب منها، وهو بالتالي جزء من النقاش العام عن الحلول المقترحة أمام الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي، وحول "جدوى" حل الدولتين بشكل أكثر تحديدًا.

تركز مساهمة كارولين غليك مثلها مثل معظم المساهمات في طرفي هذا النقاش، على النجاعة الأمنية لهذه الحلول، وعلى قدرتها على الحد من ا��مخاطر الوجودية التي تهدد بقاء إسرائيل، كدولة يهودية وديمقراطية في نفس الوقت.

تنتقد كارولين غليك باستغراق، ما تقول إنه هوس أمريكي وغربي بحل الدولتين، باعتباره نموذجًا يمكن أن ينهي الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي إلى الأبد، وهو ما تحاول طوال الكتاب نفيه من خلال عدة محاور.

أولًا: إن إعطاء دولة للفلسطينيين، هو الأخطر على الإطلاق على إسرائيل، لأن الفلسطينيين، مع تاريخ طويل من معاداة السامية كما تقول، سيصبحون أكثر قدرة على تهديد أمن إسرائيل، وتستشهد كارولين غليك بالنموذج الفاشل أمنيًا للانسحاب من غزة، الذي لم ينه التهديدات الأمنية القادمة من هناك. في المقابل فإن إعطاء دولة مستقلة، سيفتح الطريق أمام عودة عدد هائل من اللاجئين الفلسطينيين، الذين سيرجحون الكفة الديمغرافية لصالح الفلسطينيين، وسيضاعف خطورتهم.

ثانيًا: إن التوجه نحول حل الدولتين، بالنسبة لكارولين غليك، يعتمد بالأساس على "أسطورة" القنبلة الديمغرافية، التي ينظّر لها اليسار الإسرائيلي، ويصدقها الغرب. تقول هذه الفكرة، إن إسرائيل في حال لم تنسحب من الضفة الغربية، وفي حال اتخذت أي خطوة نحو الضم، فإنها ستواجه حقيقة لا مفر منها، وهي أن الفلسطينيين سيصبحون أغلبية داخل حدود فلسطين التاريخية. وبالتالي فإنه لن يعود بإمكان إسرائيل أن تكون دولة يهودية وديمقراطية في آن، لأنها إما ستخسر الأغلبية، أو أنها ستضطر لمنع الفلسطينيين الذين سيتم ضمهم من التصويت.

في محاولة للرد على هذا الادعاء، تورد كارولين غليك مجموعة من الادعاءات:

تستخدم فرضية "فجوة المليون" الشهيرة، التي تقول إن مركز الإحصاء الفلسطيني يتعمد إضافة أكثر من مليون شخص فلسطيني، من خلال نتائج الإحصاء التي ينشرها، لأنه يقوم بعد سكان القدس مرتين (يعدهم مرة ثم يضيف عدد فلسطينيي الداخل من الإحصاء الإسرائيلي، الذين يتضمنون أصلًا سكان القدس)، وكذلك يستثني الهجرة العكسية، ويستمر في إحصاء السكان الفلسطينيين الذين غادروا من البلاد، وكذلك في عد أبنائهم. وبالتالي، تجادل كارولين غليك استنادًا على هذه الفرضية، بالإضافة إلى استعراض زيادة الخصوبة اليهودية في السنوات الأخيرة، أن العرب لن يصبحوا أغلبية أبدًا، وبالتالي فإنه لا يوجد أي قنبلة ديمغرافية موقوتة، وليست هناك حاجة لحل الدولتين.
إن العرب معجبون بإسرائيل، لأنها الدولة الديمقراطية الوحيدة في الشرق الأوسط، وبالتالي فإنهم يرغبون بالعيش فيها، تحت أوضاع اقتصادية وحقوقية أفضل من أي مواطن في دولة عربية محيطة، بما في ذلك السلطة الفلسطينية. وتدعي كارولين غليك بكثير من الغرابة ومن دون أي أدلة، أن معظم الفلسطينيين سيختارون العيش في إسرائيل، حتى من دون مواطنة كاملة.
لا يعني ضم الضفة الغربية، إعطاء حق التصويت الفوري للعرب، حيث إن هناك عدة شروط من أجل الحصول على الجنسية الإسرائيلية، منها أن الشخص لم يكن منتميًا في أي وقت من حياته لأي "جهة إرهابية"، وأنه لا يحمل أي أفكار عدائية ضد إسرائيل، مع مجموعة من الشروط الصارمة الأخرى، التي تضمن "مواطنًا إسرائيليًا صالحًا"، ليس عنده أي تطلعات قومية.
في مقابل هذا النموذج، تقترح كارولين غليك فكرة الدولة الواحدة من طرف واحد، بمعنى الدولة الواحدة التي تقوم على ضم الضفة الغربية تحت السيطرة الإسرائيلية الكاملة، وإنهاء السلطة الفلسطينية، مع أقلية عربية "صالحة" تحمل ولاءً كاملًا لإسرائيل، ومجموعات من "غير الصالحين" الذين لن يحصلوا على الجنسية الإسرائيلية، أي حل للدولة الواحدة من دون فلسطينيين.

يعتمد كتاب كارولين غليك بشكل أساسي على طرح "المجموعة الأمريكية اليهودية للأبحاث الديموغرافية" التي يقودها الدبلوماسي الإسرائيلي المثير للجدل، يورام إيتنغر، والتي لا تضم أي متخصص في الديمغرافيا، فيما تصدّر نتائج يوتوبية للجمهور الإسرائيلي تطمئنهم أنه لا يوجد أي شك في بقاء اليهود كأغلبية حتى بعد الضم، على النقيض مما يقوله الديمغرافيون الإسرائيليون المعروفون، مثل أرنون سوفير، وسيرجيو ديلا فيرغولا. وعلى أية حال، فإن هذه المجموعة قائمة على نزعة أيديولوجية مسبقة مناصرة للضم، وينتمي مؤسسوها إلى الأوساط الداعية للاستيطان و"فرض السيادة" على الضفة الغربية.

كما يحتوي كتاب كارولين غليك على كثير من التناقضات، والرؤى التوراتية للصراع العربي الإسرائيلي، ورغم أن المؤلفة تدعي، من دون أي دليل، أن معظم الفلسطينيين معجبون بإسرائيل ويريدون العيش فيها، فإنها لا تنفك تؤكد في أكثر من موضع في الكتاب، أنهم يظهرون عداء واضحًا للسامية. كما أنها تتبنى خطاب الاشتكاء التقليدي في أوساط اليمين الإسرائيلي، للقول إن السياسات الأمريكية تعادي كل ما هو إسرائيلي.

يجسد الكتاب تبلور صيغة جديدة حول الدولة الواحدة في الأوساط اليمينية الإسرائيلية، ليست إلا تغطية لصيغة للضم والاستيطان، بهيئة حل إسرائيلي لا رأي للفلسطينيين فيه، ولا وجود لهم كمجموعة قومية، داخله.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rejecting a two-state solution was still considered rather extreme when this book was written, but sadly has become the prevailing view since Oct 7, and can no longer simply be ignored as a "radical right-wing delusion". Figuring that Glick is just about as good as anyone at presenting that type of view, I decided that I could just about muster the ĥeshek [strength/patience/energy/fortitude] to read her vision for how formal annexation of the occupied territories would work.

Unsurprisingly, there are lots of problems with the book, even if one accepts without question the validity of Israel's right to the land.

Right off the bat, she starts with the premise that the Palestinians don't want their own state, their only desire is to destroy Israel. She implies that these two goals are mutually exclusive, as if it never occurred to her that they may want to kill Jews whilst also living free in their homeland. As a result of this faulty logic, she avoids the issue of whether the Palestinians deserve the right to self-determination or sovereignty, since in this framing it's not even something that they desire.

She then goes on to equate the PLO with the PA and by extension with the Palestinian people as a whole, considering all three as the same single entity. This allows her to use Arafat and Abbas as strawmen to conclude that supporting a Palestinian state is a Bad Idea.

She rejects the widely held notion that Israel has to choose between being a democracy and retaining a Jewish majority. Through some shady math, she calculates that even with all of the Palestinians in the West Bank, there would still be a 2/3 Jewish majority. Notable is that she excludes Gaza completely from the equation, under the guise of it somehow reverting to Egypt, nevermind that they've said time and again that they want nothing to do with it. And of course the book was written years prior to Oct 7 and now Israel has a whole new set of issues to contend with there, so ignoring it isn't going to work [predictably she now advocates the "conquest and occupation" of Gaza, see https://carolineglick.com/why-has-gal... for details].

Despite her assertion early in the book that the Palestinian people are a concept invented in the 1920’s, later on she has no problem with identifying the “ethnic Palestinian" populations in Jordan and Syria. But then she changes her mind again and rejects out of hand any identification with the land or role they may play in the future as irrelevant.

The convoluted legal argument as to why Israel is allowed to unilaterally extend sovereignty over the occupied territories reminded me of US libertarians trying to explain to the police officer who pulled them over for speeding why they are exempt from having to obey traffic laws.

I could go on, there is some sort of circular logic or distortion on almost every page. But the worst part is that she doesn't really ever present an actual plan. She spends multiple chapters painstakingly making the case why Arafat is not a "partner for peace" even though he was already dead for a decade when the book was published. The concept of a new generation of leadership arising is apparently not one that she even considers. But even putting any notion of negotiations aside, there is scant attention to how annexation would work in practice. She entirely glosses over the details, eager to resume her griping over how terrible and awful the EU, the US, the Arabs, and everyone except Israel is wrong. I was really hoping to get a better understanding of her vision for a future without a Palestinian state, but she's so caught up in past grievances that she can't articulate the path forward.

On the positive side, although it's only peripherally related to the purported subject of the book, she does make some good points about American policy towards the Palestinians. She rightly points out that Bush's popular "pro-Israel" speech and Obama's despised "anti-Israel" speech and associated policies were essentially identical in every important way, and both merely a straight continuation of what Clinton had laid out. Also, she convincingly attributes the survival of the PLO post Lebanon eviction in 1982 and post Kuwait war in 1991 to American support, without which it would have withered. And refreshingly she doesn't even spare Saint Reagan, rightly holding him accountable for the needless deaths of the 241 US Marines he hung out to dry.

[Peter Stricker · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have pretty much followed the history of Israel throughout my life, as I was born three months after the Israel received its statehood in May, 1948. However, the book offered an excellent and detailed refresher, including filling in many gaps in my knowledge and recollection.
The author, Caroline Glick, is eminently qualified to write this book, as she has studied the subject not just as a journalist, but as a member of the IDF, attaining the rank of captain before retiring from the service and devoting her time effort for the Israeli cause.
Since there are already over 40 reviews, I will offer just two of my takeaways I to share with the community:
1. I never know that the 1949 UN Armistice line which gave control of Judea and Samaria to Jordan is not be construed as the “legal” borders of the State of Israel, as that did not go through the normal process of a formally sanctioned agreement among the parties - it was just an affirmation that after the 1948-49 war, that’s where the lines stood when the armistice was signed. So legally, the 1922 Balfour Declaration, as sanctioned legally by the League of Nations was still technically the legal borders of Israel. The 1967 was simply reclaimed those borders, but also added the Golan Heights out of necessity of protecting the Megiddo (known in English as Armageddon) Valley.
2. The author makes a very logical case for a one-state solution, as all prior two-state initiatives have been derailed by the Palestinians. She makes her case by a “cost/benefit” analysis of all the stakeholders and concludes that the one-state solution offers the most “value” to all sides. But what is truly ironic, is that this past week, as I was reading the book, the US Administration has announced a renewed two-state initiative, even though they have read this book several years ago. Go figure!
In my opinion, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
Overall, regardless of which side of the reader is on, the information in the book is extremely well annotated and accurate.

[Louis Lapides · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can highly recommend this book for anyone wanting to know the American conservative perspective on Israel as it relates to the One State Solution. The book was replete with a detailed recounting of the history of Israel. Caroline Glick did a decent job of making her case known. She was thorough in her attempt to convince the convinced that their position is the best option.

I was disappointed Glick did not represent more Israeli Left wingers who argue for a two state solution. Most of Glick’s representatives from the Left did not come from interviews, but from books and articles. I think the book suffered because of this omission.

I wanted to see the author interact with today’s Israeli citizen caught in between their love for Israel and the perceived oppression of Palestinians. Glick did not teach much on the issue how how Israel is painted by the hard Left. I wanted more perspectives from the common Israeli and Palestinian, not just political leaders and officials. She made her case that the Left especially the European flavour hates Israel. European politics towards the Jewish state are not formed by equity or an historical view of Israel, but by their antisemitism.

[Gay Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Caroline B. Gluck gives a well documented analysis of why all previous attempts at a two state peace plan for Israel and Palestine were destined to fail. She presents the Israeli solution of one state and
discusses why Israeli citizenship for Palestinians within the borders of Israel would be more successful for lasting peace and security in the Middle East. She exemplifies how Israel’s Arab and Jewish citizens work and live together peaceably, for example in Israel’s health-care system.
Recommended for an informative reading experience.

[Shoshana Stubin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I moved to Israel in July of 2022, so having just finished this book now, with the hindsight of the past few years since it was written, has been particularly interesting. I believe that the author was absolutely correct in her reasoning, and I can't help but wonder whether the current war with Hamas might have been avoided if Israel had unified the land as per her advice. Very well detailed and insightful.

[Tara Mizrachi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Must Read Book

Caroline Glick has written a must-read book. She brings out the facts with clarity. Everyone should read this book in order to understand Israel and the Middle East.

[Peg - The History Shelf · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing.

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting points, even if I don't necessarily agree.

[Matt Kimsal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh...2.5 stars. Not what you might call unbiased. This did provide a useful background on the divisive issue of Israeli and Palestinian statehood, but again, it was not unbiased.