The Left’s Only Enemy

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s legal term in office expired nearly four years ago. But his supporters don’t care. In Israel, Washington and throughout the world, Abbas’s supporters extol the authoritarian leader as a great moderate. In 2002, desperately searching for a face for the Palestinians that wasn’t Yasser Arafat’s face, the Left pushed Abbas out from behind Arafat’s shadow. Abbas, who served as Arafat’s deputy for 39 years, was upheld as a great moderate and placed in the invented position of Palestinian prime minister.

The fact that Abbas was an inveterate Jew-hater who spent four decades in the senior leadership of a terrorist organization and whose doctoral dissertation was a long denial of the Holocaust, was brushed aside.

His leftist supporters don’t care that he says Israel has no right to exist. They are untroubled by his 2008 rejection of then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s unprecedentedly generous offer of peace and Palestinian statehood. They don’t mind that Abbas has refused to negotiate peace with Israel for the past four years. They don’t care that he has signed two unity government deals with Hamas or that he seeks to gain sovereignty for a Palestinian state through the UN and so establish a Palestinian state in a formal state of war with Israel.

They don’t care. But most Israelis do. Due to their recognition of his hatred for Israel and due to the terrorism Abbas has condoned and financed for decades, the vast majority of Israelis do not consider him a potential partner for peace. They do not believe that either Abbas or the Palestinians as a whole are remotely interested in being appeased by Israel.

As a consequence, most Israelis greeted Abbas’s speech at the UN General Assembly last week with indifference. In that speech, Abbas made clear – yet again – that he remains Arafat’s loyal deputy. The majority of Abbas’s speech involved a litany of libels against Israel, which he accused of everything from terrorism to apartheid, colonialism, racism, murder, theft, etc., etc., etc.

Then he moved on to his demands. In addition to reinstating his demand that Israel agree to every Palestinian demand as a precondition for negotiations, Abbas demanded that Israel release all Palestinian terrorists from its prisons.

No, none of Abbas’s attacks had an iota of truth to them.

But who cares? Abbas certainly doesn’t. And neither do his supporters. Their support for Abbas has nothing to do with what he says or does. It has to do with who they are and what they want. Abbas is their prop, not their partner.

Abbas’s Israeli supporters are the core of far-leftists who brought us the phony peace process with the PLO. Two thousand dead Israelis later, and with no peace in sight, their camp is much smaller today than it was in 1993. But it is still dedicated. And it is overpopulated by members of the media.

TIPPING HIS hat to this group, this week Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced in a media interview that he thinks that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from much of Judea and Samaria.

For most Israelis, Barak’s plan is self-evidently insane.

We left Gaza and see the consequences of that unilateral withdrawal every day as southern Israel is bombarded with missiles and rockets. We left and Gaza was transformed into a hub for global jihad, increasingly indistinguishable from Sinai. The very notion that our defense chief could suggest adopting an identical strategy for Judea and Samaria is both obscene and frightening.

What can he be thinking? Barak is thinking about elections, which are apparently about to be called. Barak thinks his best bet politically is to try to win the support of Abbas’s ever shrinking support base.

Barak lost his political base when he left the Labor Party and formed his own Independence faction with other breakaway Labor politicians at the beginning of 2011. He needs Abbas’s Israeli supporters to vote for him if he is to get elected to the next Knesset. Even more crucially, Barak needs Abbas’s supporters in the Israeli media. So to win their support, he opted to run on a platform of expelling Jews from their homes.

Barak’s move doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know about him. He remains the political opportunist he has always been. His move is interesting because of what it reveals about the nature of Israel’s Left.

There is no rational way to argue that Israel can gain any advantage by surrendering Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians. If Israel departs, either Abbas will gobble up the territory and demand more, or he will swallow the concession and get swallowed by Hamas, which will demand more – as happened in Gaza.

Either way, Israel loses.

But that doesn’t matter for the Left. The Left continues to support Israeli withdrawals because its members know that the biggest loser of such an action won’t be Israel as a whole. It will be the Israeli Right. And that is all the Left cares about.

The only enemy they are interested in fighting, the only adversary they wish to defeat, is their fellow Israelis. And in a bid to win their support at the ballot box – and on the evening news – Barak has decided to embrace their cause. He will fight their fight against their Israeli enemies for them.

The Israeli Left is not alone in its belief that its number one priority is to destroy its domestic political opposition. Throughout the Western world, the political Left is increasingly rallying around positions that are in fundamental conflict with their nation’s interests as well as with the specific ideological commitments of the Left, for the sole purpose of gaining and maintaining power.

In recent weeks, the Left in the US has exposed its motivations and purpose in profoundly troubling ways. If Jewish settlement of the Land of Israel is the core of the Zionist revolution, freedom of speech is the foundation of America. Without Jewish settlement, there is no Israel. Without freedom of speech, there is no America.

IN RECENT weeks, US President Barack Obama and all of his senior aides and supporters have launched an assault on freedom of speech. They have attacked previously unknown figures because they dared to exercise their freedom of speech to produce an anti-Islamic film and broadcast it on YouTube. The White House pressured Google (which owns YouTube) to take the movie down. Obama’s media supporters have gone along with this shocking assault on bedrock American principles.

The Left’s support for Obama’s bid to repress freedom of speech in relation to the movie was not an isolated incident. Today the enlightened leftists of New York and Washington are apoplectic because a federal judge required New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority to post paid advertisements by the Stop the Islamization of America human rights group calling for Americans to support Israel against jihad.

The content of the ads is self-evidently reasonable. They read, “In any war between the savage and the civilized man, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

SIOA’s founder Pamela Geller submitted the ads to the MTA last year in response to a rash of anti- Israel ads calling for the US to end its support for the Jewish state. Those ads were published on New York buses and subways and on public transportation around the US.

The MTA rejected SIOA’s ad but the group sued. Citing the US Constitution, the court required the MTA to post them. When after a year’s delay the ads were finally posted last week, the US Left in the media and beyond had a collective fit.

From The New York Times to radical rabbis to pro- Islamic Christian pastors to The Washington Post, everyone is wringing their hands. In a televised debate with Geller, the anti-Israel evangelical pastor Rev. Jim Wallis condemned the ads, told Geller she was going to get Christians killed, (by what or whom, he never said), and demanded that Geller silence herself. As he put it, “Stop talking.”

It is important to be clear. The American Left doesn’t have a problem with free speech, per se. And they aren’t concerned – as Wallis would have you believe – that calling jihad savagery is going to get people killed, (by not-at-all savage jihadists).

The problem with messages like Geller’s is that talk about jihad distracts people from what the Left wants them to be thinking about.

Like the Israeli Left, the American Left doesn’t want Americans to think about the actual threats to the US emanating from the Islamic world. They want the public to think about what for them is the only real threat to their values and their ability to win and wield power.

That threat doesn’t emanate from the Islamic world where women are treated worse than farm animals, homosexuals are hanged in public squares, Christians are forcibly converted and assaulted, churches are burned to the ground, the annihilation of the Jewish people throughout the world is an ardent desire, and “Death to America” is a political program.

For the American Left, the primary threat to their way of life comes from people who oppose abortions and gay marriage and gun control. It comes from people who oppose unionization of government workers and nationalization of healthcare.

And it comes from people like Geller who state the obvious about jihad.

The reason that Islam is supposed to be immune from criticism is that for American leftists as for Israeli leftists, the only important battle is the one against domestic foes. And just as the abysmal results of leftist policies have left the Israeli Left with no choice but to shoot the messengers, so too the American Left must deal with policy failure by silencing the opposition.

In Israel, leftist appeasement of Palestinian terrorists has led to a horrific death toll and the obvious absence of peace. So the Left must silence those who have the temerity to oppose that failed policy. The Right’s most visible members are the religious Zionists, who are disproportionately situated beyond the 1949 armistice lines, and so the Left must destroy them through expulsions, no matter what the cost to Israel.

In America, the Left’s most conspicuous failure is its claim to promote women’s rights, equality and civil liberties in the culture war, even as it defends the Islamic world’s addiction to female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor killings and executions of homosexuals for the “crime” of being gay. So the Left must silence critics of jihad and Islamism, and hope no one will notice its hypocrisy.

The upshot of all of this is that the Left must be denied its ability to dominate national discourses. Because Abbas and the pathologically Jew-hating society he leads is a threat to the Jewish state, while religious Zionists are not. And the assaults on American embassies throughout the Islamic world are not due to Internet movies, but to the savagery inherent in jihadist Islam.

In these perilous times we cannot permit ourselves to be led astray by those who insist we are our worst enemies.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Abbas’s Israeli supporters are the core of far-leftists who brought us the phony peace process with the PLO. Two thousand dead Israelis later, and with no peace in sight, their camp is much smaller today than it was in 1993. But it is still dedicated. And it is overpopulated by members of the media.

    TIPPING HIS hat to this group, this week Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced in a media interview that he thinks that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from much of Judea and Samaria.

    For most Israelis, Barak’s plan is self-evidently insane.

  • An American

    Great article.

  • Schlomotion

    Leaving aside that Abbas is probably justified in being an "inveterate Jew hater" since Jews assassinated his last boss, and also ignored the validity of his election, and also roll over his country with bulldozers, Ms. Glick is just complaining. In that complaining she and her republishers are trying to tar Leftists in Israel along with people all over the world who do not have a favorable view toward Israel's actions. Americans would do well to call the bluff of the foreign Likud trying to make itself a force of the American right.

    In Ms. Glick's rage and exasperation, she says "The reason that Islam is supposed to be immune from criticism is that for American leftists as for Israeli leftists, the only important battle is the one against domestic foes."

    Preposterous! Islam is not immune from criticism. To many, many, many people, Islam stinks. Still, Ms. Glick is trying to construct a blanket criticism against non-Likudniks in America and Israel. She fails. She fails to show that Islam is a threat to America (of course, the high holy day of 9/11 may be trotted out again). The argument that we should be more concerned with our own domestic bad-doers is a sound one. Ms. Glick can only replace it with some remote fear, some Israeli paranoia that doesn't translate well into American.

    • 2Anglico

      "Abbas is probably justified in being an inveterate Jew hater", That about says it all, doesn't it??
      He would be "justified" in killing all the Jews, wouldn't he??
      Since a lot of Jews have been slaughtered by Arabs, would not that justify the Jews slaughtering all the Arabs??
      Keep your head in the sand.

    • Advocatus

      Shlo, any chance you may develop some reading skills (one should not expect critical thinking skills from ya, no worries) somewhere along the line?

      Now: if Abbas has been a Jew hater for several decades, how could he have suddenly developed a justified hatred of the Zionists after "assassinating" his last boss a mere few years ago, as per your assassment of his psychology? Any idea of cause and effect much?

      Similarly, any proof Jews assassinated Arafat? Nah, of course not. Day in, day out, you rail at contributors to this website for asserting as fact what you take to be unsubstantiated innuendo about Arab/Muslim intentions. Fine. Yet here you are trotting out yet another brainless calumny against Israel. What's up with that?

      As for Islam not being immune to criticism, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Get out there and tell some of our more excitable Muslim friends that "Islam stinks" — and see what happens.

      But I forget: you're a pathetic loser, a moral pygmy and a spineless coward. Well done, mate. time to pat yourself on the head as usual.

      • Schlomotion

        You are confusing ability to read with willingness to agree with the presented narrative.

        Leaving aside for a moment that Israelis surrounded Arafat and kept him under de facto house arrest until his prognosis was fatal and then for PR purposes allowed him to die in a French hospital, there is still the issue of polonium traces and a history of bogus medical reports issued by Israeli physicians later contested by Israeli newspapers.

        Per your other point, if you want Muslims harassed, you'll have to do it yourself.

        • Advocatus

          Not even close to a coherent reply, Schlo, but why bother?

          "Per your other point, if you want Muslims harassed, you'll have to do it yourself."

          Right. So you have got on with the program of turning Muslims into victims whenever they go on murderous rampages at the slighest excuse, have you now, Flippo? Now they are being "harassed" even as they are lynching, knifing and bombing their hapless victims to death, are they not? The poor babies.

          • Schlomotion

            I know it's hard when people don't answer the way you want them to. It's much easier when you can speak for everybody. I have to laugh at how obligatory you find it to be for other people to denounce your same enemies. This is because you believe, as some others do, that Israel has some kind of right to run up a tab of bad behavior against other peoples' outstanding tabs of bad behavior.

            I see that for what it is: a credit scam.

          • Advocatus

            I don't expect other people to answer the way I would want them to. Certainly not you. But a modicum of reason, common sense and articulacy would help matters, yes. I am more than ready to be proven wrong by reason and a cogent counterargument. You are able to muster neither.

            Now, you may have noticed that my answer to you did not relate to the behavior of Israel, but rather to a couple of tendentious points you raised seemingly out of the blue as is your wont. As usual, since you can't answer with any coherence, you fall back on your default position of dodging the issue and trotting out another line of pseudo-intellectual nonsense. That sort of debating technique may serve you well on Daily Kos, but I'm afraid you'll have to try to do better with me.

          • Schlomotion

            I'll put it on my to-do list.

          • Advocatus

            By all means, feel free.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Can you fit it in between your daily prayer schedule? I hope you're putting proper effort into establishing your zabiba.

        • Drakken

          Your effing hero Arafat died from aids and thank God(not allah) that he did. Your so called education is way beyond your capabilities Sparky. Keep siding with the muslims savages shortbus because sooner or later when you dance to the fiddlers tune, your going to have to pay the fiddler.

    • fiddler

      "of course, the high holy day of 9/11 may be trotted out again"

      How dare you!

    • Omar

      Oh, Schlomotion. You never stop repeating your hate propaganda online, don't you? The fact remains that Israel has tried to make peace with its neighbors for a long time, while its adversaries like Hamas and the Palestinian Authority don't want to make peace. Abbas needs to know that the free world doesn't play games with the peace process. You need to know the real truth about international conflict instead of repeating propaganda from leftists and Islamists.

      • Schlomotion

        "the free world doesn't play games with the peace process."

        That's why the settlement building is bad for Israeli's milking global sympathy.

        • Omar

          Schlomotion, Israel and the West have tried to make peace for a long time. The Islamists have tried to destroy the Jewish state for some time now. Why are Israeli settlements a problem? There are over a million Arabs living in Israel with more rights as Israeli citizens than people living in other countries in the Middle East. The Middle East conflict is still going on mainly because the Islamists and their despotic allies are racists and bigots who want world domination (a world where Sharia is the law). Bottom line: the free world (America, Britain, Israel and their allies) want democracy, freedom and peace, while the Islamists (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and their allies) and their leftist allies (Russia, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Sudan and their allies) want world domination and totalitarianism. That's the reality.

          • Schlomotion

            Israel and the West. That's interesting grouping.

            "Why are Israeli settlements a problem?" Why is annexation in violation of international accord illegal? Hmmmm. Good question. Why is stealing illegal? Sorry. Just can't wrap my brain around the complexity of the question.

            "Bottom line: the free world (America, Britain, Israel and their allies)"

            Wait a second. You said Israel and the West a moment ago. Now it's "America, Britain and Israel?" Somebody's confused. Is this another one of those funny examples where Israel belongs to two cases and neither case at the same time?

          • Omar

            Schlomotion, Israel and the West are mentioned together because Israel shares the West's vision of democracy, freedom, human rights and peace. The Islamists want to destroy those freedom-loving values and replace them with imperialist totalitarianism (in which Sharia is the law of the land).
            "Why is annexation in violation of international accord illegal?"
            Israel did not annex Gaza nor the West Bank. While Israel acquired the territories from its defensive military action during the Six Day War in 1967, the Israeli government gave the inhabitants of those territories the path to forming their own sovereign state, which the PLO has rejected over and over again. When the IDF withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas took over, destroyed progress in Gaza, and started launching rockets into Israel. Also, from 1949 to 1967, Gaza and the West Bank were illegally annexed by Egypt and Jordan, respectively. Yet, no one complained about those illegal annexations, and that is because the goal of the Islamists is not a state, but for the destruction of Israel.
            Also, I brought up America, Britain and Israel because those three countries are currently leading the world wide freedom and democracy movement. While the free world as a whole has been leading the freedom movement, it is the three countries that are the leaders of the freedom movement. Also, the three countries (America, Britain and Israel) are not only being targeted by the Islamists and their leftist allies outside, but also are being targeted from within. In the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood has been trying to infiltrate the U.S. government and society by forming different front groups. In addition, the leftists who are allied with the Islamist front groups also want to transform the United States into a totalitarian country. In the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, there is a Communist separatist movement that is trying to force the island territory to secede from America in order to install a totalitarian Communist dictatorship aligned with Cuba and Venezuela, despite the fact that the majority of islanders in Puerto Rico favor either becoming America's 51st state (statehood, which I support as well as half of the island's population) or remaining a territory. In the United Kingdom, there are separatist movements (like the SNP in Scotland) that are trying to install far-left regimes or something similar. Of course, the Islamist threat in Britain is as much internal as it is external. Israel, of course, faces the most threats from adversaries, since it is much smaller than the U.S. and the UK. The reality is that America, Britain, Israel and the rest of the free world support democracy, freedom, peace and stability, while the free world's leftist and Islamist adversaries support imperialism, oppression and totalitarianism. That's the reality.

          • Schlomotion

            That is quite a nice fantasy you have got going on there. It really is so far off, that rather than take issue with every single sentence, it makes more sense to link you to Why I Dislike Israel by Philip Giraldi. It really does state everything I would have said to you in response to this post.


          • Anonymous

            Giraldi is an antisemitic pig, as are you. He heads the Jew-hating CNI, fed his pearls of antisemitic "wisdom" to lunatic Ron Paul, and teaches you your filthy catechism of Jew-envy-based hatred.

            Stop blaming the Jews for the act that you are an unimportant failure in life. Blame you parents for giving them your defective genes, and blame yourself for being you.

          • Schlomotion

            Thanks, nobody.

          • noitomolhcs

            Your life-embittering hatred, based on envy of Jews who manage to make successes of themselves in life, which has grated on your empty soul over many years of unfulfilled false belief in your own "talent," combined with the practical consequences of your massive, unrelenting failures in life, including insufficient money in your pockets to actually cause ANYTHING to happen, is your fate in life. You will never dig out of it, since you have no talent other than spending countless hours posting countless meaningless screeds expressing hatred of Jews.

            By the way, the Giraldi filth that you cited is almost entirely lies.

            Cry over the fact that Romney is going to win, turd-walker.

          • Schlomotion

            I have heard your tale before, that to criticize criminals who happen to be Jewish is a form of envy. You invest a lot of effort in harping on what you think are emotional soft points for me. You assume that I have goals of having talents recognized, acquiring a lot of money, and aspiring to, say, a Caroline Glick. I am laughing as I type this. I don't care about recognition. I don't care about money, and I don't care about "measuring up" to the "experts" on here. That's a hoot.

          • noitomolhcs

            blah efffffing blah

            Giraldi is a liar, and you are his running dog …

            Once Romney is elected, most Americans will do better. Your failure as a man up to the present moment makes it likely you will be amongst those who do not.

            Enjoy the pro-Israel future, swine.

          • 0.57721

            It is amusing to picture anus-in-motion: an utter failure in the "idea business," since almost no one knows who he is, cares about his "opinions," etc., sitting in his crappy home, with out any meaningful money, rationalizing his failures after-the -fact by claiming he doesn't care about the many things that he has failed to achieve in life, and most fun of all: anus-in-motion ***LAUGHING*** as he types.

            Yes, that's the delectable picture: an unmitigated failure, about whom no one cares, to whom almost no attention is paid, laughing to himself. Verily, he is the authentic idiot telling the tale.

          • Schlomotion

            Meaningful money. Hmmmm. Deep, meaningful money.

          • orontes

            I'll explain it to you, loser: You can't buy shiiiit.

          • Touchstone

            Elsewhere on the catbird site you link to, there's a list of recommended books, virtually all of them painting Zionism as treason and Israel as evil:

            The catbird site is far more obsessively anti-Israel and anti-Zionist than Front Page is pro-Israel. It's amusing that you dedicate big chunks of your life to condemning Front Page but promote a site that features monomaniacs of an even higher order of magnitude. (It's also amusing that you'd have the nerve to call yourself a Zionist while endorsing, at least indirectly, a site that demonizes Zionism in the strongest terms.) Hypocrisy runs deep in the DNA of Israel-bashers.

            If you want to check out Giraldi's true home base, read his weekly column at You'd feel very at home among the commentators there. The moderators will instantly ban anyone they deem guilty of "hasbara", which, in the parlance of the rabid anti-Israel lynch mob, means "anything said in Israel's defense" or perhaps even "any view that diverges from that favored by the one-dimensional Zion-targeting cyborg terminators who brook less dissent than Himmler did."

          • Schlomotion

            "Elsewhere on the catbird site you link to, there's a list of recommended books, virtually all of them painting Zionism as treason and Israel as evil."

            I know. It's pretty hard-core but academically well presented. I just found it yesterday. I was surprised how well Mr. Giraldi stated what I have been thinking for a long time.

            "It's amusing that you dedicate big chunks of your life to condemning Front Page but promote a site that features monomaniacs of an even higher order of magnitude."

            Higher orders of magnitude are useful as force multipliers. I think that what you disparage as monomania is a virtue. I am thinking of the Ballad of John Henry.

            "Hypocrisy runs deep in the DNA of Israel-bashers."

            You can't really expect everybody to follow the same rules. We are not all the same. You can be a Zionist and also demonize Zionism in the strongest terms. Look at Nigel Farage. He sits on the EU list of MPs and does nothing all day but dismantle the EU. Perfectly sound move. What you call hypocrisy is simply trying to hold higher people to lower standards. I know that will get you all in a ruffle as you try to matchey-match my criticism of faux Israeli moral superiority to my apparent lack of criticism of my own superiorities. I know that's not permissible in your framework. In my own, however, once you pass a certain amount of floating point calculations per second, you really do become self-aware that some of these rules are just not for you. I for example can be "in a group and yet not in a group" as easily as the next Zionist, the main difference here is that I don't have the endorsement of fellow Zionists. It happens often enough. You join a group that you mostly disagree with and you undermine a lot of their stupider and more dangerous ideas and you give yourself much leeway. Really, even Frontpage has staff that do that, namely running a Zionist attack formation within an Islamic or multiculturalist info center. Trying to keep it sophisticated here.

            I know all about I was a big fan of Justin Raimondo for a while, but I think Philip Weiss does a better job screening facts. I hope they form a supergroup with John Mearsheimer, Kevin MacDonald, Kenneth Waltz, Max Blumenthal, and Michael Rivero.

          • Touchstone

            "You can be a Zionist and also demonize Zionism in the strongest terms."

            In the "strongest terms"? No, not really, unless your idea of strong terms is considerably less intense than mine. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's the cliche that applies best to your inconsistent positions. You don't want to be pigeon-holed but you don't mind doing a great deal of pigeon-holing. You don't want to be held to the same standard of behavior as others. You don't want to accept the consequences of your enormous outpouring of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and frequently anti-Jewish hostility.

            I don't have the problem of a rigid "framework". You have the problem of zero framework, or close enough to zero that, in effect, it doesn't exist. You can't be against just about every living Zionist while saying a few nice things about Herzl (from way, way back in the days of Tolstoy and Chekhov!) and consider yourself as belonging to the group that, at most basic, wants Israel to survive. You can't be condemning and insulting and belittling and demonizing that group all day long, every day of the week, and still credibly claim to be a member of that group. I'm hardly "rigid" for expecting you to meet the bare minimum standard of NOT TRASHING ALL PEOPLE AND THINGS PRO-ISRAEL, which goes hand in hand with not endorsing paranoid, conspiracy-obsessed bigots like Giraldi. Upwards of 90% of his columns are devoted to bashing Israel. He has written things like "Israel is capable of any and every evil" (I'm paraphrasing, but almost verbatim). He caters to a hysterical crowd that sounds like they're one terror attack from lynching any Jew they can get their hands on. Supporting Giraldi and supporting Israel seem to me like mutually exclusive positions. Naturally, you'll react by explaining how unenlightened I am for saying so.

            "You join a group that you mostly disagree with and you undermine a lot of their stupider and more dangerous ideas and you give yourself much leeway."

            But that's not what you're doing. You're undermining without being a member. Just what was it that qualified you for membership in the club anyway, to the extent that one exists? The main difference between you and other hardcore Israel-bashing critics is that you maintain a pretense of membership in the pro-Israel club, perhaps because you assume your criticism will carry more weight if it's seen as coming from within the ranks of Zionists. But that just makes you resemble a Trojan horse rather than a maverick. I suppose one day Ahmadinejad will stumble upon the same ploy and suddenly pretend he's a self-hating Jew who's been trying to set his brothers straight all along. I give Giraldi the same odds.

          • Schlomotion

            What do you think "the consequences of [an] enormous outpouring of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and frequently anti-Jewish hostility" really are? Is it similar to the Clinton Impeachment or other ceremonial but defanged types of consequences? Are you only talking about labeling and disdain?

            I don't think it's unenlightened to view Giraldi and Israel's right to exist are mutually exclusive. I just think it's intransigent. I think Giraldi is conceptually much more diametrically opposed to Israel's current claims and ambitions than to its rights.

            I agree with and like your last paragraph a lot. I think it mirrors the criticism one might level at a diaspora Zionist. It's a solid polynomial and one could easily replace "Israel-bashing" with "America-bashing" and replace "Zionists" with "conservatives." AIPAC and JINSA, and most of this pro-America faux-rightist stuff that Likud pumps into the US via Canada is very appropriately named Trojan horse politics and Trojan horse journalism. It reminds me of how Russia Today operates. I think renaming the David Horowitz Freedom Center was another Trojan horse move to make the demagoguery against college "proletarians" look more like a human rights project.

          • orontes

            Learn how to correctly use the word 'polynomial' , idiot.

            You "worked your way" through college ?????

            You wuz robbed, fool: get your money back. They owe it to you.

            Use it to stock up on xanax for election night, when a pro-Israel President will be elected. You'll need LOTS.

          • Schlomotion

            I was using the word correctly. For any Hasbarists or Sefer Yetzirah/Aryeh Kaplan fans that might be reading this and want to increase their abilities, I am employing this model:


          • Touchstone

            I suppose the consequences depend on the context. In the context of this internet messageboard, the only consequences for you are that you're likely to be considered an enemy in perpetuity and not believed when you claim to be a fellow Zionist who's simply trying to guide his wayward comrades.

            It strains credulity to think that Giraldi is preoccupied solely with Israel's "claims and ambitions". The man seems to have dedicated most of his waking hours to discrediting and undermining Israel and its supporters. It's not words alone which convey meaning. The volume and single-minded monotony of those words also tell a tale. To me they tell a tale of a man obsessed, eager to express his prejudice in the hopes of winning converts to his cause.

            It's also the words left unsaid which round out the picture. He gives a pass to radical Muslims when articulating his harsh assessments of Israel, as if Israel has nothing significant to contend with. No wonder you see eye to eye with Giraldi's latest rant: You share his total dedication to anti-Israel condemnation, his prolificity, and his determined non-consideration of Islam as a factor influencing Israeli policies and actions. To you and Giraldi and his readers, Israel exists in a vacuum, and must be ruthlessly targeted to the exclusion of everything else in the universe, all of which must be put on hold until Israel is successfully destroyed. In his mania, Giraldi has reduced the world to an existential struggle between America versus Israel: the former won't survive until it casts the latter adrift (meaning, until it feeds it to its enemies).

            Thirty thousand murdered Syrians don't register a yawn on But if one Arab is harmed as a result of Israeli action, that site's contributors go ballistic. The double standard is breathtaking. There's something very imbalanced in the unhappy world of anti-Israel critics. I point out this blatant hypocrisy all the time, but to no avail.

          • Schlomotion

            The idea that Israel exists in a vacuum is really the old Israeli idea. The idea that they are surrounded by enemies on all sides is a new idea. This particular rhetorical trope of making the unsaid louder than the said, making the silence and the negative space louder than the speech or the sculpture, and the reliance on Cantorian ladders between whitespace between words is probably what turned me off the most about Elie Wiesel, even back when I was 15; his blatant disregard for solid objects, and his total departure from content. No. I don't think Israel hovers in space. I know that it is a brand new country built on top of an ancient country and partly on top of a neighboring country, and that it has outposts and town criers in the United States too. I don't think it should be destroyed at all. Housebroken on some newspapers, yes. Given a specific amount of yardage, yes. Put on a humane (financial) diet, yes.

          • Omar

            Israel has been surrounded by enemies since its modern creation in 1948. In all those years, its adversaries have never wanted to make peace with the Jewish state (except for some leaders, like Anwar Sadat of Egypt, who was assassinated by a Muslim Brotherhood fanatic in the 1980s). The reality is that Israel has tried to make peace with its neighbors for a long time, while its adversaries keep advocating for the destruction of the Jewish state. That's the reality.

          • Schlomotion

            I disagree. Israel has a "trying to make peace" routine that it has been playing as a running joke since I started watching in the late 1970s and really watching as the decades went by. Invariably when Israel or its spokesmen refer to the "trying to make peace" overtures of Israel, they do it when Israel is specifically calling for a war.

            Let's remember that the most honest and closest time Israel ever "tried to make peace" was Yitzhak Rabin, and he was summarily executed as a "rodef" by the Kach Party. The Kach Party was then outlawed, but then one of their prominent members Mike Guzofsky became the head spokesman of the settlers' movement.

          • Touchstone

            "Israel has a "trying to make peace" routine" — A "routine" for which many of its citizens died, especially since Oslo. Yeah right, it's all just an act.

          • Omar

            The Kach Party was already outlawed before Rabin's assassination. The difference between Israel and its adversaries is that Israelis and the Jewish people condemn the actions committed by Jewish extremist groups like Kach (which is outlawed by the Israeli government), while Israel's adversaries like Hamas, Hezbollah, the regime in Iran and their allies cheer and celebrate whenever Islamists kill innocent Israelis and Jews. Also, Mike Guzofsky is a pariah among Jews, while Yusuf Al-Astal is well liked among Hamas members. Both men, by the way, are banned from entering the United Kingdom. The reality is that Israel has tried to make peace with its adversaries for a long time, while the Islamists have openly called for Israel's destruction so many times. That's the reality.

          • Touchstone

            "The idea that Israel exists in a vacuum is really the old Israeli idea. The idea that they are surrounded by enemies on all sides is a new idea."

            Nonsense. What I'm saying is that Israel truly is surrounded by enemies (as any child can see), but its critics attack it AS IF it's alone, in a vacuum, with no external factors (i.e. its enemies) influencing its politics, policies, decisions and actions. You think you caught me in a contradiction, but you really just didn't understand what I was saying: Israel is both in a vacuum (in the minds of its critics) and surrounded by enemies (in the real world).

            "This particular rhetorical trope of making the unsaid louder than the said" — You're distorting what I wrote, YET AGAIN! I never said the unsaid is LOUDER or more important. That's YOUR inference, based on nothing but your own whim. I just said it rounds out the picture. It adds more colors to the canvas. It's not the dominant part of the painting. Stop distorting what I write to make points. Elie Wiesel will have to defend his own habits; I for one stand falsely accused. But judging by how often you distort my words, I'm inclined to think you're distorting Wiesel's too, as in the hyperbolic statement, "his total departure from content". Total? Total?! I think not.

            "it is a brand new country built on top of an ancient country and partly on top of a neighboring country" — Where do you get this junk from? What ancient country was it built on? Before Israel, there was a large expanse of land called the Ottoman Empire. Palestine was a region of it, not an "ancient country". Within that region, Jews bought land from local landowners and built settlements. When they declared statehood, they hadn't usurped "an ancient country" or its inhabitants. Then the surrounding Arabs invaded (see earlier note on Israel being "surrounded by enemies"), and that launched the conflict. It was the Arab invasion (whose strident objective was genocide) that was the true "Nakba". You've been imbibing poison for too long, and you're drunk with it. You can't just reduce history to a cartoon and believe you've made a respectable point.

            "Housebroken on some newspapers, yes." — Well, doesn't that say it all. Jews don't rate any higher than puppies. It's gratuitously insulting, condescending remarks like this that lead people to think you're a bigot and come here only to provoke and cause pain. Do you discuss other countries in such arrogant terms, or just Israel? It's fashionable to reduce the Jewish experiment in self-determination to the level of house-pet defecation, isn't it? Not accurate, not true, not decent, not respectable — but fashionable.

          • Schlomotion

            I agree with your first paragraph. I think it's accurate. I have no problem agreeing with:

            "Israel is both in a vacuum (in the minds of many of its critics) and surrounded by enemies (in the real world)."

            I would add, that Israel also acts like an enemy often, while professing good will, but really just wanting the whole unadulterated territory for itself and the favor of world opinion at the same time. Is that unfair? It seems like a fair assessment to me. I also agree that I exaggerated about Wiesel when I said "total departure from substance." I think he roots himself in substance and departs from it as needed.

            By "ancient country" I mean Israel. Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews begged, borrowed, bought and stole land on top of what was ancient Israel and ancient Judah. Slowly, they are trying to roll back anything and any inhabitant that might have settled there between 79 AD and 1948, including in territories that collapsed in 586 BC, and also including parts of the Philistine States. They feel obligated if not entitled to meddle in Aram, Assyria, and Ammon because once upon a time, non-Arab Semites sprawled that far. It would be as if Americans reclaimed Caucasus and started harassing the surrounding hostile countries of Russia, Armenia, Iran and Turkey. In many ways, modern Israelis simply superimpose themselves on some biblical ruins.

            When you say things like "the Jewish experiment in self-determination" those things sound good. I think where Zionists go awry is where they attempt other-determination, and where they do not exercise self-sufficiency economically and militarily. Again, in principle, Meyrav Wurmser's Clean Break Strategy is almost inspiring. It's not followed though.


          • castalia

            My friend, Mr. Anus-in-Motion is a failed wannabe pundit who does not merit careful attention or response. Although he believes he has some intellectual depth, and attempts to use multi-syllable words (but frequently stupidly misuses them, revealing his actual 2nd-rate intellectual status), the best response is NOT to dignify him with an elaborate response.

            What, then, does he merit? Simple: call him what he is, a turd floating in the sewer. He is a crude pig, and deserves nothing more than to be called out.

          • Schlomotion

            People want to be pundits? I have never considered this. I just always assumed they had nothing better to do.

          • Touchstone

            I appreciate your sentiments, but we're all independent operators here. Each of us can do as we please. Nobody answers to anybody else.

            People who want to shun him are free to do so. People who want to respond to him are just as free to do so. We can all decide for ourselves what response another poster merits.

          • Omar

            Schlomotion, you just keep posting more Islamist propaganda to annoy freedom fighters, don't you? Obviously, Philip Girardi supports the Islamists in their quest for world domination.

          • Omar

            I'm sorry. I meant Philip Giraldi Sorry for the typo.

        • Kufar Dawg

          Israel doesn't need to milk sympathy from anyone Abdullah, the actions, dialogue and dogma of your islamofascist brethren are all they need to garner sympathy.

          How many rockets and mortar rounds have been fired into Israel since 2008? Over ten thousand, all fired without provocation.

          • Schlomotion

            Funny how uppity some people get about having no water and being denied sea travel.

          • kufar dawg

            LOL, in the 21st century, Israel has already uncovered a boatload of weapons bound for Gaza Abdullah and while lying muslimes such as yourself might like to call ammunition and weapons humanitarian aid, not everyone is stupid enough to believe you.

            As to your "no water" argument, I call shens Abdullah and ask you to prove your point.

            Does your zabiba hurt this morning Abdullah?

          • 123

            Who has "no water"????

            You are, as usual, a filthy liar.

            A pro-Israel President is about to be elected, you offal: enjoy that.

        • Drakken

          Build baby build, at least the Israelis build things, the sub human muslims just destroy, fu-kem!

          • Kufar Dawg

            One of the first actions of the islamofascists when they took over Gaza was to destroy the few remaining synagogues there.

    • poppakap

      Slomo, FPM's resident troll-in-chief, opens his piehole to spew more anti-semitism hoping someone, somewhere, will recognize the brilliance of his writing and offer a job.

      Here's an idea; try Al Jazeera. Just pray they don't discover your unrequited man-love of several FPM writers.

    • Ghostwriter

      This coming from a Jew hater who thinks that Jews should play no role in politics,blames Jews for all the world's problems,and would happily dance on the graves of Jews. You're a slug,Schlockmotion. No amount of sophistry can ever change that.

    • 0.57721

      Intestine-ion-motion writes: "Abbas is probably justified in being an "inveterate Jew hater" since Jews assassinated his last boss." That is an unsupported, unproved accusation, you filthy piece of crap.

      Intestine-in-motion, a vile nonentity, is upset that no pays any real attention to him, upset due to the fact that he is a middle-aged loser with insufficient money to be free from those in his life who daily tell him what to do, or to influence anyone else on the planet to do anything. He is a powerless, unhappy man. He had hoped to be a man whose written work changed SOMETHING, but that never happened. He obsesses about Jews, having posted literally thousands of screeds relating to Jews and Israel over the past year: literally THOUSANDS.

      Here's a hint, intestine-in-motion: if you spend less time writing about your obsession, perhaps you would be less of a failure in life.

      Here's another hint: B. Hussein is going to be defeated at the polls, a—-hole, and replaced by a supporter of Israel. Suck on that tonight.

      • Schlomotion

        It's funny how much you people rely on internet links to maintain Israel's public image. Lacking that you want someone to write you an essay with footnotes proving common knowledge to people who cringe behind aliases. Even though your "Israel-advocacy" is sad comedy and not angering in any way, I ponder the pains you took to make your name show up as a dot, and imagine what life must be like for someone who never says these things in person to anyone.

        • bkopicz

          “imagine what life must be like for someone who never says these things in person to anyone” – this coming from a paid troll calling himself Schlomotion and hides behind a cartoon character – yeah right

          • Schlomotion

            How much do you think I get paid? I'm curious.

          • bkopicz

            Way too much

          • Kufar Dawg

            If I paid you a penny for your thoughts I'd expect change.

        • 456

          You're losing the war, a–hole-in-motion: A new, pro-Israel president is about to be elected.

          Savor it, pig.

    • Mike Villano

      Keep opening your ignorant malignant and malicious pie whole to expose your hatred of the good and your arrogant ignorance for all to see and witness.
      Schlo, you are a perfect flawless example of a brainwashed fool whose mentality functions in perfect tune according to the programming of a dead false prophet named Karl Marx.
      Schlo is his intellectual progeny and the "thoughts" that flow from him define poor factually enslaved impoverished Schlo who probably believes he is a rational atheist as he openly worships the false god of government and smears those of us who refuse.

      • Schlomotion

        It's always amusing when someone openly expresses his discomfort with whom he is speaking and then overtly tries to move the discussion into a place where most of his previous thinking has been done already. In your case, Mike, you are trying to slowly move me into the position of "rational atheist Marxist,"a sub-category that you have built up some kind of rote response to. That makes you a little more robust than Kufar Dawg but not by much, really.

        In fact, I read the Communist Manifesto in high school and I don't agree with it, and am not a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. I also don't care if I am called one, so play away. I am certainly not a big government person. My views on government are informed by Thomas Paine and Henry David Thoreau. As to religion, I don't believe in God. I don't care if you do, why you do, or why you don't. That's a personal comfort decision for you to make for yourself and no other person.

        You really ought to try to put half as much thought into your comments as you put into your angry letters to the L.A. Times. Try to look at it like you are writing letters. Otherwise, you are not measuring up to your benchmarks.

  • bkopicz


    Great article that list many of my concerns with the Left’s love affair with the Islamist. How they are so willing to give up free speech, concern for the physical safety of women and gays and even their own lives. The idiotic decisions of the left are paid by all of us.

  • dave

    @shlomotion, your position is so dated. We have been brainwashed with it for 20 years now and are sick of it. Islam is the religion of permanent offence and it doesn't matter how much appeasement you try it is never enough. We don't care about Mohammad and we will never become Muslims, and that I'm afraid is why they hate us, foreign policymaking is an excuse. We all know Islam wants to rule the world and convert us all or kill us, they say it enough and we can read it in the Koran. You need to move your argument on and ask yourself who you would like to see as the dominant world power whether you like the idea or not. That is reality. Humanity has always been at war and thank God for the USA and Europe who have managed to defeat many totalitarian ideologies. We are not perfect by Amy stretch, but the best there is

    • aspacia


      I do not read or respond to the myopic factless schlock. He is a pseudo intellectual who frequently misuses academic words.

  • geopeyton

    The Right constitutes a far greater threat to the Left's power than actual enemies of the nation.

    • aspacia

      geo, why? Provide valid support for your claim. I find most on the Right far more open-minded than violence prone, fallacious Left.

      • geopeyton

        I did not explain myself well, as I thought it was self-evident. I did not mean the Right would resort to violence in any way, simply that conservative ideas are a far more effective rebuttal of Leftist power than the violence of the Islamists. It will take years, maybe even decades or centuries, for the Islamists to pose a real problem for the elites of the Left. They are insulated from the violence. Whereas the Right need only win a few elections to relegate the power of the Left to the shadows, albeit temporarily.

        Hope that clarifies things a bit. Please let me know if I need to explain further.

        • geopeyton

          One little further thought: it's ironic – and telling – that the Left consider themselves to be the defenders of the little guy, while they do not seem to care one iota for the little guys in Africa, the Middle East, etc. The Left chooses to make thoughtful freedom loving people such as the wonderful Caroline Glick to be the bad guy, not the sickos that are strapping bombs to other people's children.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    It is obvious from this article that there is a duality of evil as personified by jihadists and leftists,
    historically both desire the death of Israel, the jihadists, evil to the core wish to burn the bodies
    of Israelis and the leftists wish to warm their hands at the fire and maybe cook a few marshmallows.
    Interestingly the left may not have time to digest their snack and stupidity before becoming
    joint heirs to their own perfidity and dance in the flames. There should be a call for suicide by
    all leftists to show solidarity with the Islamists, that gotten out of the way maybe Israel can deal
    with the reality that they must defeat death, death is what assails them in depraved human form.

  • aspacia

    Historically, the Left has ignored the misdeeds of communist and socialist dictators. Their ignorance will lead to more appeasement and another major war.

  • Drakken

    Israel will never! ever! get any peace from the muslims unless it is peace of the grave. We should encourage the commi/leftist to openly side with and join their muslim allies in Gaza in order to push them into the sea, two birds with one stone as so to speak and an object lesson of side with the enemy you perish with them.

  • Mike Villano

    Ms. Glick is the world's greatest living truth teller.
    And she is so spot on about the malignant Left in both Israel and the US.

    Just like they did during Vietnam and the Cold War, they prefer attacking the Americans doing the actual dirty work of fighting and blaming us rather than ever lift a finger against or even so much as a verbal peep against monsters like communism and Islamic jihad.
    Reagan was "evil incarnate" while the USSR was the "moral and material equivalent of the USA" and Americans were "paranoid about the Red Scare" that MURDERED more than 100 million poor innocent souls.
    Bin Laden was a misunderstood victim while Bush was, is and will be for who knows how long "evil incarnate and the Devil" according to the Left.
    You all know who you are.

  • ralph USA

    1 love Ms Glick! Romans 11: 26-32 and Romans 15:11