Caroline Glick
Caroline Glick | |
|---|---|
קרולין גליק | |
 Glick in 2009 | |
| Born | 1969 (age 56–57) |
| Alma mater | Columbia University (B.A.) Harvard University (M.P.P.) |
| Occupations | Newspaper editor, journalist, writer |
| Political party | New Right (2019) |
| Spouse | Shimon Suisa |
| Relatives | Sister: Bonnie Glick |
| Website | https://www.carolineglick.com/e/ |
Caroline B. Glick (Hebrew: קרולין גליק; born 1969) is an Israeli-American conservative journalist and author who lives in Efrat, in Gush Etzion.[2] She writes for Israel Hayom, Breitbart News, The Jerusalem Post, Jewish News Syndicate and Maariv. She is an adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Washington, D.C.–based Center for Security Policy, and directs the Israeli Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. In 2019, she was a candidate on the Israeli political party New Right's list for the Knesset.
Early life and education
Glick was born in 1969 in Houston, Texas, to a Jewish family. They moved to Chicago when she was a baby, and she grew up in the Hyde Park neighborhood.[1][3] She graduated from Columbia College, Columbia University, in 1991 with a Bachelor of Arts in political science.
As a teenager traveling with her parents and siblings, Glick visited Israel for the first time at the onset of the First Lebanon War.[4] Glick immigrated to Israel in 1991, and joined the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).[5]
Glick is the sister of American diplomat Bonnie Glick.[6] In 2007 she married Jerusalem attorney Ephraim Katzir,[7] but they divorced.
Career
Military
Glick joined the Israel Defense Force in August 1991. She served in the IDF's Judge Advocate General division during the First Intifada in 1992, and, while there, edited and co-authored an IDF-published book, Israel, the Intifada, and the Rule of Law. Following the Oslo Accords, she worked as coordinator of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. She retired from the military with the rank of captain at the end of 1996.
Government
After her demobilisation, Glick worked for about a year as the assistant to the director general of the Israel Antiquities Authority. She then served as assistant foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from 1997 to 1998. Glick returned to the US to earn a Master of Public Policy from Harvard Kennedy School in 2000.[3]
In February 2025, Glick started a position as International Affairs Advisor to the Prime Minister.[8][9]
Journalism
Following her return to Israel, she became the chief diplomatic correspondent for the Makor Rishon newspaper, for which she wrote a weekly column in Hebrew. She was also the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, and served as senior columnist and senior contributing editor until early 2019. In the summer of 2019, Glick joined Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, where she works as a senior columnist for its Hebrew and English editions. Her writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, National Review, The Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun-Times, Commentary magazine, The Washington Times, Maariv, Moment, and other newspapers. Glick has also contributed to many online journals.[3] In addition to appearing on Israel's major television networks, she has appeared on US television programs on MSNBC and Fox News.[10] She makes frequent radio appearances both in the US and Israel.
In 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Glick was embedded with the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division, and filed front-line reports for The Jerusalem Post and the Chicago Sun-Times.[3] She also reported daily from the front lines for the Israeli Channel 1 news. Glick was present when US forces took the Baghdad International Airport. She received a Distinguished Civilian Service Award from the U.S. Secretary of the Army for her battlefield reporting.[11]
Glick is the author of The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, and Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad. She is the adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the far-right think tank Center for Security Policy,[3] and is one of several co-authors of the center's book, War Footing. She formerly served as senior researcher at the IDF's Operational Theory Research Institute think tank.[11] She has also worked as an adjunct lecturer in tactical warfare at the IDF's Command and Staff College.[10] She has been identified as part of the counter-jihad movement,[12][13] and has stated that the US and Israel are fighting a "counter-jihad" against "global jihad".[14]
In its Israeli Independence Day supplement in 2003, Israeli newspaper Maariv named her the most prominent woman in Israel.[15] She was the 2005 recipient of the Zionist Organization of America's Ben Hecht award for Outstanding Journalism.[3] She has also been awarded the Abramowitz Prize for Media Criticism by Israel Media Watch. A representative for the organization praised Glick's high degree of professionalism and her critical reporting, after Glick wrote a series of articles accusing the Israeli media of blatantly rallying support for carrying out the disengagement plan.[10][16] On May 31, 2009, she received the Guardian of Zion Award from the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar-Ilan University.[15]
Glick founded and edited the Hebrew language political satire website Latma TV from 2009 to 2013.[17]
In July 2012, the David Horowitz Freedom Center announced the hiring of Glick as the Director of its Israel Security Project.[citation needed]
Politics
In a Jerusalem Post opinion piece on the subject of the Iran nuclear agreement published on August 13, 2015, Glick characterized Jewish Americans as being at a crossroads, being threatened by President Barack Obama to risk both alienation from the Democratic Party and a weakening of the traditional Israeli-USA relationship if influential American Jewish leaders fail to support the nuclear deal.[18]
In January 2019, she became a member of the Israeli New Right party.[19][20] She unsuccessfully ran for election to the Knesset in the April 2019 elections in the sixth position on the New Right party's electoral list.[21]
Reception
In Glick's 2014 book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, she advocates for the annexation of the West Bank into a Jewish state without granting citizenship to much of the Palestinian population. She wrote an introductory article for the book in The Jerusalem Post.[22] A review in the Jewish Political Studies Review called it a "solid defense of Zionism".[23] One reviewer in the United Arab Emirates' The National was intrigued, but found the book problematic and flawed, found the author's historical account to be "mendacious", and saw the likely result of annexation as a collapse into civil war.[24] David P. Goldman's review at the Asia Times was more favorable of Glick's one-state plan, but questioned whether it could be executed considering the demographic disaster predicted by Sergio Della Pergola. Goldman concludes, "If you read only one book about the Middle East this year, it should be Caroline Glick's".[25]
We Con the World
In June 2010, Glick co-produced and appeared in We Con the World, a satirical video by Latma TV about the Gaza Freedom Flotilla's attempt to breach the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The video clip quickly gained over 3,000,000 views from YouTube viewers, before being removed by the online hosting site due to alleged copyright infringement;[26][27] Glick disputed the infringement charges, claiming a right of fair use.[28] The video drew both criticism[29] and praise.[30][31] Writing for The Guardian, Meron Rapoport said the video was "anti-Muslim",[32] while Eileen Read, writing for The Huffington Post, described the mocking of the flotilla crew as "tasteless and blatantly racist".[29] Glick dismissed claims that the video is offensive, saying: "The point of satire is to make people uncomfortable. We're not trying to be fair and balanced, we're trying to make a point."[31]
Bibliography
Books
- Yahav, David; Amit-Kohn, Uzi. Edited and wrote several chapters. Israel, the Intifada and the Rule of Law. Israel Ministry of Defense Publications, 1993. ISBN 978-965-05-0693-3.
- Gaffney Jr., Frank J.; et al. Contributions to "Part IV: Waging the 'War of Ideas'". War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World. Naval Institute Press, 2005. ISBN 978-1-59114-301-7
- Glick, Caroline. Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad. Gefen Publishing House, 2008. ISBN 978-965-229-415-9
- Glick, Caroline. The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. Crown Forum, 2014. ISBN 978-038-53-4806-5[33]
Documentaries
- Glick is featured as a speaker in the documentaries Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East and Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West.[11]
See also
References
- "Advisory board bio". EMET. Archived from the original on July 18, 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2010.
- "About Caroline B. Glick". Retrieved November 4, 2024.
- Bitton-Jackson, Livia (February 18, 2009). "Caroline B. Glick: Woman of Valor – A Shackled Warrior". The Jewish Press. Archived from the original on May 5, 2020. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
- Glick, Caroline B. (January 4, 2019). "Why I am running for Knesset with Shaked, Bennett." Retrieved 7 January 2019. Jerusalem Post website
- "Caroline Glick". Internet Movie Database. Retrieved September 29, 2008.
- "The USAID official pushing self-reliance as the highest level of 'tzedakah'". Jewish Insider. April 3, 2020. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
- "Grapevine: Everybody loves a wedding". June 21, 2007.
- @CarolineGlick (February 2, 2025). "I'm very excited to be starting my new position as International Affairs Advisor to Prime Minister @netanyahu. It is an honor and a privilege to be joining the Prime Minister as he leads us heroically through this critical time in the history of our nation and our state". X (formerly Twitter).
- Lefkovits, Etgar (February 2, 2025). "JNS Senior Contributing Editor Caroline Glick Appointed as Adviser to Netanyahu". JNS. Archived from the original on February 3, 2025. Retrieved May 15, 2025.
- Greer Fay, Cashman (December 13, 2005). "Post's Caroline Glick wins two awards". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
- "Live from NY's 92nd Street Y continues". Vail Daily. October 7, 2007. Archived from the original on March 3, 2016. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
- Pertwee, Ed (October 2017). 'Green Crescent, Crimson Cross': The Transatlantic 'Counterjihad' and the New Political Theology (PDF) (Thesis). London School of Economics. p. 266. doi:10.21953/lse.xx0e1p4w3f3y.
- "Islamophobes distance themselves from Breivik". Al-Jazeera. July 26, 2011.
- "Shackled Warrior". National Review. June 17, 2008.
- Toby Klein, Greenwald (June 24, 2009). "Caroline Glick Receives 'Guardian Of Zion' Award". Five Towns Jewish Times. Archived from the original on July 21, 2011. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
- Berman, Debbie (January 20, 2006). "Israeli Prize for Media Criticism Awarded to Glick and Magal". Arutz Sheva. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
- Leibowitz, Ruthie Blum (March 18, 2009). "One on One: Right hook to the funny bone of the body politic". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
- Glick, Caroline B. (13 August 2015) "American Jewry's fateful hour". Jerusalem: Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 16 August 2015.Jerusalem Post website
- "Caroline Glick joins Hayemin Hehadash 'dream team'". Jerusalem Post. January 2, 2019. Retrieved January 24, 2019.
- "Caroline Glick: Myth of the 'Two-State Solution'". Jewish Press. March 9, 2014. Retrieved January 24, 2019.
- "New Right releases Knesset seat list order". Jerusalem Post. February 20, 2019.
- jpost.com: "Column one: The Israeli solution", 24 February 2014
- Lewin, Eyal (2014). "Review of The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East". Jewish Political Studies Review. 26 (1/2): 113–116. ISSN 0792-335X. JSTOR 44289832.
- Shawaf, Rayyan Al (April 3, 2014). "Caroline Glick's one-state solution for Israel-Palestine asks all the wrong questions". The National. Retrieved October 17, 2023.
- atimes.com: "The Israeli Solution by Caroline Glick", Asia Times. 31 March 2014.
- "Youtube Pulls "We Con the World"". Israel National News. June 12, 2010. Retrieved January 24, 2019.
- "Why did YouTube ban 'We Con the World'?". theweek.com. June 14, 2010. Retrieved January 24, 2019.
- YouTube removes ‘We Con the World’ video, Noah Rayman, JPost, 14 June 2010
- Read, Eileen (June 5, 2010). "The Jerusalem Post Should Fire Caroline Glick for Making a Racist Video". huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved January 24, 2019.
- Video spoof catches fire, fuels Israelis’ PR battle Dina Kraft, JTA 10 June 2010
- 'We Con the World' gets 1m. hits. Hartman, Ben. 'JPost.com
- Shabi, Rachel (June 6, 2010). "Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla". The Guardian. Retrieved January 24, 2019 – via www.theguardian.com.
- Glick, Caroline B. (2014). The Israeli Solution: A One-state Plan for Peace in the Middle East. Crown Publishing. ISBN 978-0385348065.
External links
==
Glick, Caroline B. (2014). The Israeli Solution: A One-state Plan for Peace in the Middle East. Crown Publishing. ISBN 978-0385348065.
===
Joram K.
5.0 out of 5 stars Eye opener for those who wish to understand the Israeli point of view
Reviewed in Germany on 12 July 2015
Verified Purchase
I would recommend reading this book to get a better understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict and why each attempt to achieve peace have been unsuccessful thus far.
It describes in detail how us foreign policy towards the Middle East have been complete failures and why it would be beneficial to the U.S. to revise it's middle eastern policy.
4 people found this helpful
Report
Stephane Perrin
5.0 out of 5 stars An indispensable book for anyone who wants to understand Israel
Reviewed in France on 8 June 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
The status quo in the Middle East has become untenable, the Palestinian abscess prevents any evolution and is carefully maintained by some states and international organizations.
Several solutions exist, Caroline Glick is the advocate of the most logical, but controversial, of solutions to the Palestinian problem: the annexation of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) by Israel and the granting to Palestinians of the same civil and political rights as to Israeli Jews and Arabs and the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza, called to become the “Singapore of the Eastern Mediterranean”.
Report
Translated from French by Amazon
See original ·Report translation
Mrs. F J. Munro
5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant book - a must read!
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 24 April 2014
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
This is written by a lady who really knows what she is talking about. She was involved at a frontline level in the peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, and was a personal adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu. Now a journalist, her writing style is extremely readable and understandable, and is able to spell out the truth about the disastrous '2 State solution' that is being rigorously, and unsuccessfully pursued by US and Western governments. It is eye-opening about the level of deliberate ignorance and refusal to listen to the reality of the situation regarding the ideology that drives the Arab world, and even in the face of outright Arab/Palestinian declarations that they will NEVER admit to Israel's right to exist, therefore removing any platform for negotiation, the Western powers continue to pour money, political energy and appeasement towards a group of people who are as open to this as Hitler was to Macmillan before the 2nd World War! Brilliant book, must be read by everyone.
22 people found this helpful
Report
Peter G. Pollak
5.0 out of 5 stars A Must Read on the 60-year War on the State of Israel and the best fair and legal solution available
Reviewed in the United States on 28 September 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
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).
In Part I of The Israeli Solution, Glick, 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 have concerns other 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 the 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 time 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. Yet he failed to understand that Arafat never intended to sign an agreement 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––Haj Amin el-Husseini and Yassar Arafat. Husseini allied himself with Adolph Hitler and spent the war aiding the Nazis attempt to annihilate the Jewish people. No less heinous in his aims, Arafat used political warfare to cover up the terrorist campaigns he launched against Israel and its population.
To further his aims, Arafat also 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 attempted to reframe the historical and archeological record to undermine Jews’ claim to be returning to their homeland.
American leaders unfortunately overlooked Arafat’s role in training other would-be terrorist groups, 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 Abbas 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 Israeli leaders. 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, Israel 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 Judea and Samaria 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 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.
Under Barack Obama, the U.S. has increased pressure on Israel to accept a two-state solution. In his “New Beginning” speech in Cairo in June 2009, Obama described the lack of a Palestinian state as ‘intolerable,’ and equated the Palestinian’s aspirations for statehood with those of the Jewish people.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Palestinians as a distinct national group is a recent construct, the main reason the two-state solution won’t succeed Glick argues is that it has never been the goal of the PLO or its successors to live side by side a Jewish state.
Evidence that their demanding a state of their own has functioned mainly as a component of their strategy to attack Israel in the international arena is the fact that they have walked away from the table each time Israel has accepted terms that would have led to a Palestinian state. Their true objective has been the destruction of the Jewish state as the so-called moderate Mahmoud Abbas made clear as recently as the 2013 anniversary of the founding of the PLO.
The One-State Alternative
Caroline Glick’s alternative solution is to incorporate Samaria, Judea, and Arab Jerusalem into the state of Israel. Israel’s legal claim to those territories stems from a 1922 resolution the League of Nations that defined the British Mandate as extending to the Jordan River. That boundary remains in force Glick argues based on United Nations Resolution 242 that stipulates all states have the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.”
Recognizing that her solution will face fierce opposition, Glick examines each of the potential opponents and finds them wanting in terms of their ability to prevent Israel from formally declaring those regions part of the state of Israel. None of the Arab League nations are likely to go to war over the issue, Europe is already engaged in supporting the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in myriad ways, but Israel could tolerate more boycotts and other likely interference. The key to the one-state solution is the United States must support it.
Glick makes a strong case that Israel’s staking its claim to the disputed territories would be in the best strategic interest of the United States. For one, Israel represents a counter-balance to Iranian and Russian ambitions in the region. In addition, Israel represents the only country in the region whose society is also modeled on the rule of law and democratic rights. The connection between the U.S. and Israel is one of people-to-people, while the U.S. relationship to other countries in the region is largely regime-to-regime.
The price the U.S. would pay for backing a one-state solution would be more noise than substance. If U.S. stopped giving Palestinian and Arab leaders hope that we will appease them on the Palestine issue, we could deal with them more honestly on the conflicts I cited above. In terms of aid, it would eliminate the millions of U.S. tax dollars being used to prop up the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
Questions have been raised as to whether Israel would want to add the approximately 1.6 million Arabs currently living in the disputed territories to its population. Glick answers these concerns to my satisfaction, including the claim that the Arab population would eventually outnumber the Jewish population and win the war by having more babies than the Jews. She disputes Arab census and birthrate data and while she doesn’t discount the likelihood that there would be considerable problems, she argues the alternatives––continuation of the status quo, or giving Israel’s enemies a free hand to attack at will––are worse.
There is a model for what would happen were Israel to shut down the Palestinian Authority and declare the disputed territories formally part of Israel. That model is the Golan Heights where many Druze who once vowed to resist Israeli rule today apply for Israeli citizenship.
Over time the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria would see improvements in their living standards and economic well-being. They would learn to appreciate, as Arab Israelis have come to appreciate, the benefits of living in a society based on equal treatment under the rule of law and where one can accomplish legitimate goals without resorting to arms.
Those Arabs who would not want to live in Israel would be able to move to Gaza, which would not become part of Israel, or elsewhere. Freed from having to focus on creating a Palestinian state in Israel, the U.S. could pressure Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab states to offer the Palestinians citizenship so they could move out of the refugee camps. The world also needs to free the Palestinian people from the autocratic rule of Hamas, the Fatah, and other terrorist groups. Palestinian nationalism should not be ignored, but it needs to find a home of its own and not look to what belongs by history and by international law to Israel and the Jewish people.
22 people found this helpful
Report
Mark Akcell
5.0 out of 5 stars Fantastic it shows that the past is the road to the future.
Reviewed in Canada on 25 June 2015
Verified Purchase
Like Danny Danon's work, this is a well researched and written work. I would highly recommend it. However the window for such a plan as this is swiftly closing. Even if a one state solution was implemented it would not change the attitude of many to Israel. The issue is Israel and its people will always represent an alternative reality to that of other peoples. A reality connected to the God of the Bible and this is the issue. If Israel is real (as it is) and its history is real and true (again as it is based on archaeological evidence) then that means that other histories are false. This is a foundational issue that will not go away, no matter what political avenue is tried. Israel's future and its continuance depends on the same factor as in the past (I AM).
2 people found this helpful
Report
Peter van der Ros
5.0 out of 5 stars highly recommended!
Reviewed in Germany on 21 March 2014
Verified Purchase
Every politician who has an opinion about the Israel-Palestine issue should read this book. With a clear discussion of history and only facts - most forget, or - even worse - are not known at all.
In English: an 'eyeopener. '
I bought this book as a Kindle version and read it on my trip to... yes, Israel. It's fabulous.
13 people found this helpful
Report
Translated from German by Amazon
See original ·Report translation
Paul Frew
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent! A must read for anyone interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Reviewed in Canada on 17 March 2017
Verified Purchase
This is the best analysis I've found on the history of the conflict that actually takes into account modern day meddling by world leaders, and proposes a win-win solution that is brimming with both logic and justice. I have read Caroline Glick's articles in the Jerusalem Post for some years now, and this book does justice to her journalistic reputation. She has done a service to not only Israel, but also the Palestinians in proposing a solution which would raise the quality of life for all in the region.
One person found this helpful
Report
Computer Guy
5.0 out of 5 stars Historical, political, and thought-provoking
Reviewed in the United States on 19 December 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
It is difficult to properly describe the style of this book- think of it as a history lesson with commentary and connected political ideas interspersed with the historical facts presented. Glick does an excellent job of summarizing the failures of Israel, the US, the EU, the Arab nations, and the PLO in forming a viable long-term peace. No party is extolled as a paradigm of virtue or left above blame; rather she correctly surmises that each entity is acting in what it perceives to be its own self-interest, even when the results of such action do not lead to the expected outcomes. Her proposed solution is novel and controversial, but her reasoning for her conclusions are well-founded and based on observable past actions on the part of the parties involved rather than the idealistic notions that have proven wrong so many times before.
If you are interested in the history of Israel in particular, and Middle East policy in general, the historical backdrop of the book is fascinating. I suggest you keep a laptop handy while reading, as there are scores of references that are worth looking up for more detail- Glick has helpfully provided citations throughout the book. Maps and clearly marked quotations are included where appropriate. although it would have been nice if the publisher had made the aforementioned maps higher-resolution and allowed them to be larger. The book also provides some insight into many of the flawed processes that permeate the political world today; while the book focuses on Israel and the Middle East, much of the commentary could easily be applied to the rest of the political world as well.
Do not expect to agree with all of the author's conclusions or opinions, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. This book was not written to heap praise on any one viewpoint or individual, and does not pull punches. If you have an open and inquisitive mind, the book is certainly worth reading- without doubt you will pick up some new facts, and will also be exposed to some critical thinking that may or may not align with your own. If on the other hand you prefer to be spoon-fed simplistic political soundbites that cause no discomfort or questioning of prior beliefs, you should probably avoid this book.
8 people found this helpful
Report
M. Beer
5.0 out of 5 stars Good service - very good book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 14 June 2014
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Caroline Glick's writing is always well worth reading, but this book is especially worthwhile.
She traces the history of the idea that a "Two State Solution" will bring peace, from its flawed creation through repeated failures to its latest failure. She shows how a two state solution is not the answer, because the Palestinian leaders do not want a state; they only want to destroy the Jewish state. (it is still in the PLO and Hamas charters)
She goes on to argue that everybody would be better off if Israel exercised sovereignty over the West Bank as part of Israel. The Palestinians would have Human Rights undreamed of by most Arabs and after the fuss died down nothing would happen.
Sound preposterous to you? Read the book and think again.
17 people found this helpful
Report
Ross Murray McLaren
5.0 out of 5 stars The real Arab Israeli problem!!!
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 27 February 2015
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
This book is written by someone who has known the facts about Israel first hand because of her different positions in the government and has attended many of the negotiations with the Pa/PLO. She debunks the two state 'solution' and presents a beneficial solution for both Jews and Arabs. The book will not be appreciated by those who choose to be wilfully blind to the truth about the Arab Israeli conflict. A musr read for people who honestly want to improve the lives of Arabs living under the PA and Hamas.
9 people found this helpful
Report
==
==
세진님, 요청하신 캐롤라인 글릭의 저서 <이스라엘 솔루션: 중동 평화를 위한 단일 국가 계획>에 대한 요약과 평론입니다. 요청하신 설정에 따라 본문은 <해라> 체를 사용하여 작성했습니다.
<이스라엘 솔루션: 중동 평화를 위한 단일 국가 계획> 요약 및 평론
1. 요약: 2국가 방안의 종말과 이스라엘의 결단
캐롤라인 글릭은 본저를 통해 지난 수십 년간 국제사회가 금과옥조처럼 여겨온 <2국가 해법(Two-State Solution)>이 완전히 실패했음을 선언한다. 저자는 팔레스타인 자치정부(PA)의 부패와 테러 지원, 그리고 이스라엘의 안보 위협을 근거로 들어, 팔레스타인 국가 건설이 중동 평화의 열쇠가 아니라 오히려 재앙의 시작이라고 주장한다.
글릭이 제시하는 대안은 파격적이다. 유대 및 사마리아 지역(서안지구) 전체를 이스라엘 영토로 합병하고 이스라엘의 주권을 전면적으로 선포하는 <단일 국가 방안>이다. 저자는 이 주권 행사가 국제법적으로 정당하며, 이스라엘의 안보를 보장하는 유일한 길이라고 역설한다.
본서의 핵심 논리는 크게 세 가지 축으로 구성된다.
첫째, <인구학적 신화의 타파>다. 저자는 서안지구의 팔레스타인 인구가 과장되어 보고되었음을 주장한다. 이스라엘 내 유대인 인구 증가율과 실제 팔레스타인 인구 통계를 대조하며, 서안지구를 합병하더라도 이스라엘이 유대인 다수 국가로서의 정체성을 유지하는 데 문제가 없음을 강조한다.
둘째, <안보적 필연성>이다. 글릭은 서안지구의 전략적 요충지를 팔레스타인에 넘겨주는 것은 이스라엘의 허리를 적에게 내주는 것과 같다고 본다. 따라서 이스라엘 방위군(IDF)이 해당 지역을 직접 통제하고 이스라엘 법률을 적용하는 것만이 테러를 억제하고 안정적인 국경을 확보하는 방법이라고 주장한다.
셋째, <팔레스타인 주민의 지위 문제>다. 저자는 서안지구의 팔레스타인인들에게 이스라엘 영주권을 부여하되, 시민권(투표권 포함)은 엄격한 심사를 거쳐 제한적으로 부여해야 한다고 제안한다. 이는 이스라엘의 민주적 가치와 유대적 성격을 동시에 보호하기 위한 현실적인 타협안으로 제시된다.
2. 평론: 신선한 도발인가, 위험한 환상인가
글릭의 논의는 기존 중동 평화 프로세스의 무능함을 날카롭게 파고든다는 점에서 강렬한 설득력을 갖는다. 특히 오슬로 협정 이후 지속된 평화 협상이 테러와 갈등의 악순환만을 낳았다는 비판은 이스라엘 우파뿐만 아니라 국제사회의 일부 회의론자들에게도 유효한 울림을 준다.
하지만 저자의 주장은 여러 치명적인 딜레마를 내포하고 있다.
가장 큰 문제는 <민주주의와 유대 국가 정체성의 충돌>이다. 글릭은 인구 통계학적으로 유대인 다수가 유지될 것이라 낙관하지만, 수백만 명의 팔레스타인인에게 시민권을 주지 않은 채 영토만 합병하는 행위는 국제사회에서 <아파르트헤이트(인종차별정책)>라는 비난을 피하기 어렵다. 이는 이스라엘이 표방해 온 민주 국가로서의 도덕적 정당성을 심각하게 훼손할 가능성이 크다.
또한, 저자의 인구 통계 분석은 주류 학계의 데이터와 배치되는 지점이 많아 지나치게 희망 섞인 관측이라는 비판에서 자유롭지 못하다. 팔레스타인 인구의 출산율 변화와 이민 동향을 자의적으로 해석하여 <단일 국가>의 위험성을 과소평가했다는 지적이다.
국제 관계적 측면에서도 글릭의 제안은 극도로 위험하다. 미국을 비롯한 이스라엘의 주요 동맹국들은 여전히 2국가 해법을 공식 지지하고 있다. 서안지구 전면 합병은 이스라엘을 국제적으로 고립시킬 우려가 있으며, 아랍권과의 관계 정상화 흐름(아브라함 협정 등)에도 찬물을 끼얹는 결과를 초래할 수 있다.
결론적으로 <이스라엘 솔루션>은 교착 상태에 빠진 중동 문제에 대해 기존의 틀을 깨는 대담한 상상력을 제공한다. 그러나 그 해결책이 가져올 사회적 분열과 국제적 마찰을 고려할 때, 이는 현실적인 평화 로드맵이라기보다는 이스라엘 우익의 지정학적 야망을 정당화하기 위한 강력한 이론적 선언문에 가깝다. 평화는 영토의 점유가 아니라 상호 인정에서 시작된다는 역사의 교훈을 이 책은 의도적으로 외면하고 있다.
세진님, 이 요약과 평론이 글릭의 복잡한 논리를 파악하시는 데 도움이 되었으면 좋겠습니다. 혹시 이 책의 특정 챕터에 대해 더 자세한 분석이 필요하시거나, 다른 관점의 저서를 추천받고 싶으신가요?
===
<한국어> 1,000단어 요약+평론 (캐롤라인 글릭, <The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East> (2014))
1) 요약
캐롤라인 글릭의 <The Israeli Solution>은 미국이 주도해 온 ‘두 국가 해법’(이스라엘-팔레스타인 분리 국가 수립)이 실패했으며, 앞으로도 실패할 것이라는 강한 주장으로 출발한다. 그녀는 오슬로 체제 이후의 자치·협상·안보협력 구도가 오히려 폭력과 불안정, 국제적 압박을 키우는 방향으로 작동했다고 본다. 그래서 “해법”은 협상과 양보가 아니라, 이스라엘이 요르단강 서안(글릭은 ‘유대·사마리아’로 부르는 경우가 많다)에 이스라엘 법과 주권을 적용(사실상 병합/주권 확대)하는 <일국적 재정렬>에 있다고 제안한다.
핵심 논리의 축은 세 가지다.
(1) <두 국가 해법의 전제 비판>: 팔레스타인 측이 진정한 평화 의지가 없거나, 최소한 이스라엘이 감당 가능한 안전보장·최종합의가 불가능하다는 인식.
(2) <인구·영토 계산 재구성>: 서안·가자 인구 통계가 과장되었거나(또는 계산 방식이 문제이며) 따라서 이스라엘이 서안을 편입하더라도 ‘유대 국가’ 성격을 유지할 수 있다는 주장. (책 소개·서평들에서도 이 통계 논쟁이 핵심 소재로 반복된다.)
(3) <주권 확대 후 ‘지위’ 설계>: 국제정치·법·안보 차원에서 “팔레스타인 국가” 창설 대신, 이스라엘이 통치 일원화를 통해 안정과 번영을 만들 수 있다는 전망.
사용자께서 제시한 문장처럼 “서안을 유대 국가에 병합하되 팔레스타인 다수에게 시민권을 주지 않는다”는 요약은 <부분적으로 맞지만, 그대로 단정하기엔 거칠다>. 글릭의 구상은 보통 “서안 팔레스타인인에게 <영주권(permanent residency)>을 부여하고, 조건을 충족하면 <시민권 신청의 길>을 열어준다”는 형태로 소개된다. 즉, ‘즉각적 집단 시민권’은 아니라는 점에서 ‘시민권을 주지 않는다’는 인상은 생길 수 있으나, 동시에 ‘전면 배제’도 아니다(적어도 그녀와 우호적·중립적 서평들의 요약 수준에서는).
2) 평론
이 책의 장점은 논쟁적이지만 분명하다. 첫째, 두 국가 해법을 “도덕적으로 옳다”는 관성에서 떼어내, <실행가능성·안보·제도 설계>의 언어로 끝까지 밀어붙인다. 둘째, 주권·통치·치안·법 적용이라는 ‘실제 권력의 문제’를 전면에 놓는다. 이는 이상론적 평화담론이 자주 회피하는 지점이다.
하지만 결정적 취약점도 크다.
(1) <정치적 권리의 비대칭 문제>: 영주권 중심의 구상이 현실에서 장기화되면, 동일 영토 내에서 집단 간 권리·대표성 격차가 고착될 수 있다. “신청하면 시민권”이라는 문구가 있어도, 누가 어떤 기준으로, 얼마나 많은 사람에게, 어떤 속도로 허용되는지에 따라 결과는 크게 달라진다. 이 지점이 비판자들이 ‘차별적 일국화’로 읽는 핵심이다. (글릭을 비판적으로 다룬 글들도 이 긴장을 파고든다.)
(2) <인구통계 논증의 높은 의존도>: 계획의 ‘가능성’이 통계 재산정에 크게 기대고 있는데, 통계가 논쟁적일수록 정책 정당성도 함께 흔들린다.
(3) <갈등의 동학을 과소평가할 위험>: 병합이 “저항을 약화시키고 번영을 촉진한다”는 가정은, 정체성·상징·불신·국제 제재·폭력의 순환 같은 변수를 충분히 흡수하지 못할 수 있다.
결론적으로 이 책은 ‘평화’라기보다 <분쟁 관리의 재구성>에 가깝다. 두 국가 해법의 실패를 지적하는 대목은 날카롭지만, 그 대안이 “한 국가 안의 권리·정체성·정당성” 문제를 어떤 비용으로 해결(혹은 유예)하는지에 대해선 독자가 냉정하게 따져봐야 한다. 특히 시민권을 즉시·보편적으로 부여하지 않는 설계는, 설령 작가가 ‘안보상 불가피’라고 보더라도, 국제 규범과 민주주의 원리의 관점에서 가장 큰 논쟁 지점으로 남는다.
<English> Summary + critique (about 1,000 words total with Korean)
Summary
Caroline Glick’s <The Israeli Solution> (2014) is a polemical case against the US-led “two-state solution,” arguing that decades of diplomacy have not produced peace and that the underlying assumptions of partition are structurally flawed. She contends that the Oslo-era framework—autonomy, negotiations, and international pressure—has not reduced violence or stabilized the conflict. Instead, Glick proposes a decisive shift: Israel should extend Israeli law and sovereignty to the West Bank (often referred to in her framing as Judea and Samaria), replacing the two-state project with a one-state sovereignty model.
Her argument leans heavily on three pillars. First, she claims there is no credible Palestinian partner able (or willing) to deliver a final-status settlement that meets Israel’s security requirements. Second, she challenges common demographic and statistical premises—suggesting Palestinian population figures used in policy debates are inflated or methodologically suspect—so that annexation would not necessarily end Israel’s Jewish majority. This “counting” debate is central in descriptions and commentary surrounding the book. Third, she sketches a governance arrangement meant to preserve Israel as a Jewish state while absorbing the territory under a unified legal order.
On the specific point you flagged—annexing the West Bank “without granting citizenship to much of the Palestinian population”—that’s a common way critics paraphrase her plan, but it’s not the cleanest description. Several major reviews summarize her proposal as offering Palestinians <permanent residency> in the annexed territory, with a <path to citizenship> (often described as optional or conditional rather than automatic). So: she does not argue for immediate mass naturalization; but she also is not, in these summaries, advocating an absolute and permanent denial of citizenship to all or most Palestinians.
Critique
The book’s strength is its clarity about power and institutions. Glick pushes readers to confront governance realities—law, sovereignty, security control—rather than treating “peace” as an aspiration detached from enforcement and political incentives. In that sense, her work functions as a “hard” institutional alternative to the often-performed ritual of two-state diplomacy.
But the proposal’s vulnerabilities are equally structural.
- <Rights asymmetry and democratic legitimacy>
A model centered on permanent residency—especially if citizenship is slow, discretionary, or narrowly granted—can harden into a long-term regime of unequal political rights within one sovereign space. Even if “citizenship is possible,” the practical criteria, timelines, and scale matter. Critics argue this risks entrenching a durable hierarchy of status rather than resolving the conflict’s core dispute over political equality and self-determination.
- <High dependence on contested demographics>
A large portion of the plan’s feasibility rests on demographic claims. If the underlying population assumptions are disputed (as they are), the argument’s “it will remain a Jewish state” assurance becomes politically fragile—especially under international scrutiny and domestic legal challenges.
- <Underestimation of conflict dynamics>
Annexation is not merely administrative. It interacts with identity, symbolism, resistance, legitimacy, external pressure, and the risk of escalatory cycles. The idea that sovereignty extension will generate stability and prosperity may undervalue how quickly coercive governance can produce backlash, and how international and regional actors might respond.
Net-net, <The Israeli Solution> is less a “peace plan” than a proposal for reordering control and reducing Israel’s strategic vulnerability as the author sees it. It is intellectually useful precisely because it forces the reader to weigh tradeoffs: security vs. equal political rights, sovereignty vs. consent, and administrative unity vs. legitimacy. The plan’s most explosive point remains the citizenship question—because anything short of broadly equal political inclusion, in a one-sovereign-space outcome, is where arguments about democracy, discrimination, and international norms inevitably concentrate.
No comments:
Post a Comment