Editor’s note: Below are the video and transcript to Caroline Glick’s address at the Freedom Center’s 2014 Texas Weekend. The event took place May 2nd-4th at the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas.
CAROLINE GLICK: It’s really great to be here in Texas. I already managed to buy cowboy boots for my son, so I’m pretty much set. (Applause.)
Anybody have any idea where we can get cowboy hats? I’d love to know. Then we’ll be done and can come back here when they’re 15.
But it is a pleasure to be here, and thank you.
And so now that I’ve gotten all the pleasantries and happiness in being in Texas out of the way, let’s talk about what’s really depressing.
It’s amazing. You know, the Peace Process fell apart over the past six weeks. (Applause.) I don’t know if you know that, but there’s no more Peace Process, and I know you’re all shocked by that because everybody was probably totally optimistic that for the first time in 90 years the Arabs, the Palestinian Arabs were going to say, We accept Israel’s right to exist. They’ve never done it before, but suddenly, because John Forbes Kerry is such a brilliant man and such a great negotiator and just leader in general, just all-time good guy, right? Is John [O’Neill here?]
Anyway, then everything would be great, right? And then it all failed.
Now, there’s a stunning interview that was published yesterday in (inaudible), which is Israel’s -- one of Israel’s largest tabloids. It came out Friday. Friday papers in Israel are like the Sunday papers. And an unknown American official -- and I am willing to put good money on saying that it was Martin Indyk -- but he gave the most extraordinary interview to (inaudible), where he engaged in rank anti-Semitic diatribes against Israel in order to blame Israel for the failure of the Obama administration’s Peace Process.
And I actually just got this on email -- sorry, Congressman Gohmert -- while you were speaking. So it took -- I had to read it, but I want to read it to you just for a second, just some quotes, which are extraordinary.
It said here, One bitter American official told (inaudible) -- the reporter -- I guess we need another intifada to create the circumstances that would allow progress. It says, We need another Palestinian terror war against Israelis, where Israeli men, women and children get slaughtered in order to create the circumstances that would allow the progress. A third intifada, the Americans made clear -- quote -- would be a tragedy -- you can see them crying.
The Jewish people -- here is the good part -- the Jewish people are supposed to be smart. It is true that they’re also considered a stubborn nation. You’re supposed to know how to read the map. In the Twenty-First Century, the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli Occupation. The Occupation threatens Israel’s status in the world and threatens Israel as a Jewish state.
(Inaudible) went on, Pressed by (Inaudible), the reporter, on perceived international hypocrisy over Israel’s presence in the West Bank -- And you have to understand, just for a second (Inaudible) is a radical leftist whose formative years were spent in the Communist Youth Movement in Israel, and, yet, here, he is pressing these American friends of his -- on perceived international hypocrisy over Israel’s presence in the West Bank when the world -- quote -- closes its eyes to China’s takeover of Tibet, it stutters at what Russia is doing in Ukraine, et cetera.
The Americans were quoted as responding, Israel is not China. It was founded by a UN Resolution. Its prosperity depends on the way it is viewed by the international community.
The American who was speaking to (Inaudible) also said that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel likes it or not, meaning [whether the state] is in a state of peace with Israel or in a state of war with Israel, it’s going to happen, and since Israel owes its own very survival to the good will of the UN, we can expect, then, that the United Nations will then abrogate Israel’s sovereignty somehow or another in some fashion.
Now, what’s amazing about all of the -- aside from the fact that it just makes my fist clench up without me even, you know, realizing it -- is that this is really sort of par for the course, because this interview with Israel’s leading reporter in Israel’s -- one of its largest-circulation newspapers comes, of course, just a few days after John Kerry called Israel an apartheid state or that we will be an apartheid state.
And that itself, you have to understand, is an American embrace of an anti-Semitic meme that was created by the KGB in the 1960s, before the Six-Day War, by the way. The first time that the Soviets used it was at the UN Subcommittee Against Discrimination or something like that, in 1964. So this has been going on since well before there was any Israeli settlements beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines.
And this has been propagated over time. Everybody remembers the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 from 1975 that referred to Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, as a form of racism.
As Daniel Pipes said last night in his introduction to Ambassador John Bolton, Bolton’s role in having that resolution cancelled in 1991 was really decisive in terms of that happening.
But the fact that the resolution itself was rejected or was cancelled in 1991 didn’t mean that the sentiment behind it in any way went into remission. That has, since 1975, been really the guiding principle around which the entire UN system revolves, which is to try to somehow or another act in a concerted fashion in order to remove the international legitimization that was given to the Jewish national movement and the Jewish national home in 1947 in the UN Partition Resolution of the General Assembly [when it won].
So this has continued to be really the central motivating factor of the UN system generally since 1975, despite the good efforts of the George H.W. Bush administration in the early 1990s.
But this is, then, what we’re seeing now is a violent response by the Obama administration directed against Israel for the failure of Kerry’s intention of forcing Israel to make all of the necessary concessions to the PLO within nine months, so that he could get his Nobel Peace Prize, just like his boss got.
And this really -- What’s so interesting about this drive that has been very willing, and, in fact, almost automatically devolving into rank anti-Semitism, the demonization of Jews, is just how extraordinarily hysterical the response has been. Why are they so hysterical? Why are they behaving like this? What is happening?
And I think that I know two aspects to it, and they both go to the heart of the nature of the two-state solution that they all claim is the be-all and end-all of U.S. Middle East policy, and specifically of Israel’s right to exist, as far as the U.S. Government is concerned.
So the two-state solution, you must understand it, and I go through this in the first part of my book, is based on two things, really, religious faith and Jew hatred, and they’re intertwined, and I will explain why.
When you look at what just happened in the last couple of weeks, well, the Palestinians refused to negotiate with Israel, so that this Peace Process that has supposedly ongoing for nine months has actually not involved face-to-face negotiations between Israeli negotiators and PLO negotiators at all. What we’ve seen is Martin Indyk and his team coming in and having conversations, on the one hand, with Israel and having conversations, on the other side, with the Palestinians, and then sort of acting as the go-between, because the Palestinians refused to sit at a table with Israelis.
So there haven’t actually been negotiations going on that have failed. There have been meetings of Israelis with Americans, on the one hand, and Palestinians with Americans, on the other. That has been the Peace Process, such as it is, since Kerry announced it with great, you know, ceremony and excitement nine months ago. So it hasn’t been a peace process.
The other thing is that, from the outset, and not surprisingly, PLO chief, Mahmoud Abbas, who serves as the president of the Palestinian Authority, despite the fact that his term of office ended in January of 2009 and there hasn’t been an election since 2006, he said, and continuously said over and over and over again that he will never recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, ever.
So what are we talking about? Well, essentially, we’re talking about something other than peace, right? Because if the Palestinian leader, who’s supposed to be moderate, who’s supposed to be a man of peace says, Over my dead body will a Palestinian leader ever recognize the right of Israel to exist, then we’re not talking about peace. You can’t talk about peace if you’re leading to an agreement between one side that won’t recognize another side, but that the side that isn’t recognized is expected to give up its capital city to the guy who won’t recognize it. That’s not peace. It’s something else.
And, then, after he did that, and then the Americans came in and tried to figure out a way to kind of square that circle by maybe saying, Well, maybe we could change the drafting. Maybe we could change the structure of the sentence, so that you can say something like, We recognize that there are Jewish people in Israel or that Jewish people like Israel, and maybe that would be acceptable to the Israeli government.
The Palestinians said no, and they also said, And, by the way, we’re signing a unity deal with Hamas, which is recognized by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, and, therefore, anyone who comes into direct contact with them is actually committing a felony under U.S. law and the United States is required, by U.S. law, to end all support for the PLO, including all military support.
Did you guys, by the way, know that the U.S. has been building a Palestinian army since 2007? Just for knowing, as they say. That’s supposed to stop. You’re not supposed to be giving them $500 million in budgetary assistance either. That’s not supposed to be happening anymore, because it’s all a complete breach of U.S. law, not to mention the law of nations, because the UN Security Council passed a Chapter 7, a binding international resolution, 1379, after 9/11 that said that anybody that provides this kind of support for a terrorist organization has committed an act of war against the community of nations. So this is a requirement under U.S. law and under international law for the U.S. to cut off all relations with the PLO.
But, instead, what we see is this hysteria, this mass hysteria of Obama administration officials that, again, have been more than willing -- Their default position has been to descend into the gutters of anti-Semitic rhetoric, to attack Israel, to delegitimize Israel and even to threaten its very existence with terrorism and with a removal of international legitimization for Israel’s very existence.
Now, why? So the two-state paradigm -- the two-state solution that they have this faith in is so attractive to them because what it says is that the core of all the problems in the Middle East -- of Jihad everywhere, of misogyny, of economic backwardness, of anti-Americanism, of anti-Westernism, of anti-Christianity -- it’s all due to the absence of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River on land that is (inaudible) the Jews control.
And if Israel would just get out of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, then we’d have no problem. Then it would be okay to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and all of these green-on-blue shootings would end, because everybody would love America because they had gotten the Jews out of Jerusalem, and everything would be great.
Now, it’s a very attractive idea, for so many reasons, but the main one is that it blames the immediate victim of Islamofascism or Islamic [supremism], of Arab supremism and fascism for everything that they do against it and everything that they do against the world. It’s the Jews’ fault. It’s the Jews’ fault. Those greedy, money-grubbing, land-stealing Jews, right? They won’t leave Jerusalem, and that is why we have all of these problems in the world.
It is incredibly convenient, and therefore attractive, to blame Israel for everything. You don’t have to think about anything. You can pretend that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. You can call the U.S. war on terrorism an overseas contingency operation and not turn into a laughing stock because it’s all the Jews’ fault. It’s all the Jews’ fault, and that, of course, makes sense.
Why has John Kerry been to Israel 12 or 13 times over the past 14 months, when the entire Middle East is blowing up, without any connection whatsoever to how many Jews live beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines? Because if that’s really the cause of everything, then what does he care that children are being annihilated and killed with chlorine gas in Syria? What does he care that Iran is building nuclear weapons? What does he care that Hezbollah is doubling its strength and going through massive military experiences or al-Qaeda members from Europe, from the United States, and, of course, throughout the Islamic world who are all converging on Syria in order to go through their -- whatever the Islamic version of baptism of fire would be?
It’s not important. It’s irrelevant, because if Israel is to blame for everything, then the only thing that you should be focusing your attention on is Israel. You should be, as he is, trying to actively subvert the political standing in Israel of the elected government of this democracy, and you should be threatening the Israeli people with economic isolation and with murder, at the hands, by the way, of the same military forces that U.S. military trainers have been training since 2007, and ignoring everything else, because Israel is the only thing that’s important.
Now, that kind of blame-the-Jew mentality gets wrapped into an overall faith, right? This is completely irrational. This has been a position that the British took before the United States did back -- beginning in the 1920s and moving on until the British moved out of the promised land in 1948 and made room for Israel to establish its independent state in accordance with the law of nations, not in accordance with the UN non-binding General Assembly Resolution that became null and void the minute that every Arab state rejected it in 1947.
But I digress. The point is that the reason why the two-state formula has been working as the -- Has been comprising the basis of international thinking about the Arab conflict with Israel is because it is so attractive to blame the victim, especially when the victim happens to be Jews. [Hey], they’ve been doing it for over 2,000 years. It’s a default position for millions and millions of people all over the world that’s popular, and it is faith based.
Why is it faith based? Because it’s not reason based. Because it has absolutely no basis whatsoever in anything resembling facts. It has nothing to do whatsoever in anything representing rationality or logic. And so it has to be faith. You rule out every logical, every rational category of thought, and all you are left with is faith.
And so when somebody’s messiah fails him, does he recognize this and move on to another religion? No, he strikes out at the source of what he perceives to be that failure. This is supposed to be a panacea. A panacea is a miracle. It’s something divine. This is supposed to solve everything, and these Jews, they won’t stop building. They won’t stop recognizing one another’s property rights. They won’t stop giving due process to people.
So we’re going to blame them and we’re going to threaten them with terrorism and with economic isolation and with international delegitimization, because they’re horrible. They’re terrible people. Look what they did. They just showed my messiah to be false. How dare they. I’m right. My faith is perfect faith, and, therefore, they must be the devil. And that’s how he’s behaving. That’s how all of these Americans are behaving now, and it is terribly frightening.
And the thing is that how have they maintained this over time, for 90 years? How, for the past 21 years, have they forced Israel to maintain faith with this thing that has caused the murder of over 1,000 Israeli civilians? Murder in the most heinous of ways, by suicide bombers, whose bomb belts are packed, not only with explosives, but with nails to cause maximal suffering to the victims. And who do they blow up? Families. Children. Jews.
It’s maintained through threats, like we see. You’re going to get whacked by terrorism. We’re all going to take our money out of Israel. Oh, and demography. By the way, if you don’t quit Judeo-Samarian Jerusalem tomorrow, well, the Arab womb is going to overwhelm you. They’re having 75 children per woman, you know? And within three minutes there’s going to be an Arab majority west of the Jordan River and you’re going to have to choose whether you want to be a bunch of racists or you’re going to give up your right to Jewish sovereignty over the Jewish homeland.
Then there’s also, You’re an occupying power, right? This land belongs to somebody else. You have no right to be here. Settlements, Jewish communities built beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines -- And by the way, just for knowing, the Armistice Lines, what are they? Israel was invaded at the moment of its birth by five Arab military forces, unlawfully, in breach of the law of nations in the most obvious way.
The Armistice Lines are the lines to which the Israeli army, which was made of a bunch of peasants and Holocaust survivors, managed to push them back before the international community descended on Israel and said, Okay. Accept an armistice. That’s what the Armistice Lines were. There is no legal basis for these lines. It was just the lines to which we were able to beat back a foreign invasion of our national territory. Okay? That’s what they are. They’re completely arbitrary.
But they say, If you don’t give up all the land beyond these lines to people who won’t even recognize your right to exist, including your capital city that was built by King David and has been your capital city since then, you’re going to be overrun, and all of your democratic Jews, the only democrats in the entire Middle East, are going to have to decide whether you want to be racists or not. And since we know about the latent evil of Jews, we -- meaning the United States Secretary of State and his entourage -- can safely tell the Trilateral Commission that you will become an apartheid state, because we know you’re going to choose evil, right?
But you know what, it’s not true. Jews are having more children than Arabs. It’s a Jewish womb. Mine, you know, all of us who are having babies, that are the problem for the Arabs, not the other way around, because who would have thunk it, Jews know how to go forth and multiply. (Laughter.) And we are.
Isolation, they tell us. Isolation. You note that next year, according to the Israeli Ministry of Trade, Asia is going to outstrip the United States as Israel’s largest trading partner. Year on year, we’re getting five and 10 percent increases in our volume of trade with China, with India, with South Korea, with Japan. We’re not being isolated. We’re being shunned by, oh, who? Europe.
Now, what’s surprising about it is that they’re being supported by the United States, but [Boeing] is just setting up a new center in Be’er Sheva. Doesn’t sound like American industry really had heard that they’re supposed to be shunning Israel. And, by the way, neither have European firms, because, despite the fact that the epicenter of the economic war against Israel is in Europe, Britain keeps expanding its trade with Israel five percent a year. So go figure.
But we’re going to be isolated. They’re going to be mean to us. Well, that’s new, Europeans being mean to Jews.
And then fed by lies. The UN established Israel. So (inaudible) referred to it before, I just think it’s very important to get this out: No, it didn’t. No, it didn’t. The United Nations General Assembly did not establish Israel in 1947. It recognized standing international law, because in 1922, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine gave sole sovereign rights to the land of Israel, including Israel within the 1949 Armistice Lines, unified Jerusalem, the entire West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip to the Jews, and that assertion that the sovereign rights to the land belonged to the Jews alone was never abrogated or superseded. So the law actually says, no, it belongs to the Jews.
And then, of course, there are the national rights. And the international law determination of sovereign rights to the land of Israel that was made by the international powers in 1922 at the League of Nations was based upon a 3,000- or 4,000-year history of the Jewish people in the land of Israel that was widely recognized as the only nation in the world that had a sovereign claim to the land of Israel, so it was the basis of historical right that formed the basis of the international legal recognition of the sovereign rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.
And UN General Assembly Resolution  that partitioned the land between a Jewish state and an Arab state was not a legal document. It was not legally binding, and it was cancelled immediately after it was passed when the Arabs rejected it and went to war against the Jewish state, so that it has no legal standing. It could never have formed the basis of anything because it’s not a legal document. It’s a UN General Assembly resolution. It does not have the force of international law, period.
But here is an American diplomat threatening Israel, that we are going to remove the international sanction, legal sanction that was given to the land of Israel to become a Jewish state or to the Jewish people to assert its sovereign rights over the land of Israel because Jews continue to build in Jerusalem and in Judea and in Samaria.
And we have people like Susan Rice and John Kerry and Obama saying that Jewish settlements beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines are illegitimate. Well, no, they’re not. I’m not a lawyer, but, apparently, I know the law a whole lot better than you do, because you’re just making this stuff up. You are just making this stuff up. None of the things that you are saying has anything to do with law. It only has to do with using legal terminology to defame innocent victims. And that’s what they’re doing.
You know, I wrote my book -- My book basically is divided into three parts. The first part is the 90 years of failure of the two-state solution. Amazing. This is the bipartisan plan. You know, in a U.S. that is completely divided among Republicans and Democrats, everybody who’s [everybody] supports the two-state solution. Just ask. Everybody but everybody supports it. George H.W. Bush supported it. George W. Bush supported it. Clinton. Obama, of course. Nixon. Reagan. Ford. Carter. Everybody.
Why? Because it’s convenient, but it always failed, amazingly always failed. Truman supported it. Failed. Ike supported it. Failed. Everybody supports it. And it keeps on failing. I think the only one who didn’t support it was LBJ. God bless him (inaudible) from Texas. (Laughter.)
You know I was born here? I was. I was born in Houston Methodist Hospital. My true claim to fame.
But I think he was the only -- Well, John F. Kennedy might have, too. And that’s it. Everybody else supported partition. Everybody else supported a weak Israel. Everybody else supported Israeli attempts to appease its Arab neighbors who don’t recognize its right to exist. So that’s part one.
And how this has dumbed down U.S. foreign policy, because if the centerpiece of your Middle East policy is this notion that everything will be solved if Israel coughs up its land to its sworn enemies, then how far are you going to get in actually understanding the region? Right? If you think that the most important aspect of the Middle East’s problems is that there’s no Arab state -- additional -- twenty-third Arab state west of the Jordan River, on land that’s currently controlled by the Jews, then how well are you going to understand Iraq? How hard are you going to try to understand Iran? How well are you going to understand Egypt? Not well at all, because your whole thinking is based on a total lie, and it’s based on something that is totally irrational. But if that’s the basis of your Middle East policymaking, then you’re necessarily going to discount the importance of everything else.
You can talk to the Taliban, and whether you’re Condoleezza Rice or Susan Rice -- because it really doesn’t matter what they think, cause at the end of the day, you push the Jews around enough they’ll cough up Jerusalem and everything will be fine. Doesn’t -- You know, the Taliban are insignificant. They’re unimportant. They’re objects. They’re not actors. They’re not responsible. They have no moral agency.
The second part of the book, I say, Okay. Enough. So now that we’ve described the failure, let’s talk about what can we do, how do we get off this train?
And the answer is the Israeli solution. You know what, when you look at the situation objectively, you realize that there’s only one thing that works in the Middle East today. There’s only one little engine that not only could, but is puffing along, doesn’t matter how steep the train is, we can just go up those Alps.
Why? Because we work really, really hard, and that’s Israel. That’s the only thing that’s working in the Middle East today. Look at anything. Close your eyes and put a finger on the Middle East and wherever you land, like pin the tail on the donkey, it’ll be a mess, unless your finger happens to land in that smidgen of land called Israel that’s so tiny that its name on world maps is written in the Mediterranean Sea. That’s the only thing that’s working.
So you want to make it not work? You want to go ahead and say, Okay. Israel, give up your ability to defend yourselves? Shrink yourself into indefensible borders that no one, but no one could defend in world history, and then place on your border, not just the PLO and Hamas, but all of the millions of foreign Arabs who today live in al-Qaeda- and Hamas- and Iranian- and Hezbollah-controlled refugee camps in such holiday spots as Lebanon and Syria, and deal with it, and it’ll be great.
Oh, no it won’t. You’ll be overrun before my oldest kid gets bar mitzvahed. Do that. That’s a great idea. We’re your best friends. You can trust us.
If you want to get away from that, how do you do it? What do you do? [We say], no, instead of shrinking into indefensible borders, expand them. Expand them. You know what, forget about this nonsense with the Occupation. Let’s base U.S. policy on law. Let’s base U.S. policy on rights, and let’s base -- what a concept -- U.S. policy on strategic rationality.
And let’s stand with our allies and against our enemies and say to Israel, You know what, forget it. We want more Israel. Apply your rights. Apply your sovereignty. You have them, [to] Judea and Samaria. That’s it. That’s it. We’re going to forget about this whole Palestinian statehood thing, because we recognize the fact that they don’t want a state. They want to destroy Israel.
Now, what would happen? Well, Israel would do with Judea and Samaria exactly what it did with Jerusalem and with Golan Heights in 1967 and in 1981 respectively, give permanent residency status, which means full civil and legal rights to the non-Jewish residents of the area, the same as the Jews have. And they’ll have the right to apply for Israeli citizenship, and if they abide by the criteria, including loyalty to Israel and rejection of terrorism, non-membership in terrorist organization, non-involvement in anti-Semitic incitement and solicitation of murder, they’ll get it. No problem.
You know why? Because there is a Jewish majority -- guess what -- a very solid and growing Jewish majority west of the Jordan River, not including Gaza. We left Gaza in 2005. Although, with Gaza, we’re still the majority, but no reason to include it. We’re gone. Let them be an independent state of Palestine if they want. Let them be part of Egypt if they want. Whatever they want. Not part of Israel.
So we’re talking about Judea and Samaria. We’re talking about the West Bank. Apply Israeli sovereignty to those areas. For the first time, the Palestinians will have -- will be the only Arabs in the world that have full civil rights, whose legal rights are protected by a rule of law, whose human rights are respected by the rule of law, whose civil rights are respected by the rule of law, because Israel is the only country that is not ruled by the rule of the jungle.
You know, in my book, Part 3 talks about how other international actors -- the Palestinians, the Arab neighbors of Israel, the European Union -- are likely to respond to an Israeli move to apply its law to Judea and Samaria. And my conclusion is that the party that is likely to have the most negative response to it is not the Arabs. It’s the Europeans, because their whole unified foreign policy is really just based on hostility to Israel. They don’t have anything other than that, so that if Israel were to apply its laws to Judea and Samaria then they would react in a very foul manner.
But, unfortunately, when I look at these statements by Kerry and by an unnamed U.S. official, I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that the Obama administration may actually respond with greater hysteria than Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, who is, you know, unapologetically anti-Semitic. Lady Ashton.
And, you know, people say, Well, how can this work, Caroline? And what I say is my book, I think, is step one in a multiyear campaign that, first and foremost, has to involve getting out the facts, getting out the facts to the American people and even getting out the facts to the Israeli people, although we don’t need them as much, cause we get it.
But, you know, let’s talk about who the land actually belongs to under international law. Let’s have a discussion about occupation. Let’s talk about the fact that this is a lie and this is a malicious slander of Israel to claim that we are somehow or another illegally occupying land that belongs to us by sovereign right under international law, not to mention history.
Let’s talk about the nature of Palestinian nationalism and show that the father of Palestinian nationalism was a Nazi and that he is still considered the George Washington of the Palestinian national movement, a Nazi, Haj Amin al-Husseini.
Let’s talk about what moderation really means in Palestinian terms. It means being willing to talk and shoot at Jews, as opposed to just shoot at them, and that that isn’t moderation. Let’s just mention that, you know, and let us talk about the fact that Israel is the most important ally that the United States has in the Middle East, that, as Israel’s minister of defense, Moshe Ya’alon, said, Israel is an aircraft carrier, a U.S. aircraft carrier, from an American perspective, from its northern tip in Metula down to its southern tip [in a lot] by the Red Sea. Let’s talk about this.
You know, we heard a lot today and yesterday about the Obama administration, and John Bolton said that the greatest threat to U.S.’s national security is the president. And it is very dangerous and very frightening what’s happening today in the United States of America, but we’ll only fix things in the United States if we have a discussion about what’s really happening. That’s why gatherings like this are so important, and that’s why truth is so important. I mean, it was Jesus who said, The truth will set you free. Jesus was a Jew. (Laughter.)
We have to talk about these things. We have to talk about the truth. We have to cast aside these illusions that are based upon false faith and that are based upon hatred of Jews. We have to stop blaming the Jews for the pathologies of their victimizers, of their oppressors, of their would-be destroyers. We certainly have to stop making it the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy.
You know, in Israel, things are actually going pretty well, as I think the extremely fruitful Israeli womb indicates. When things go well in Israel, we have more children, not fewer. We’re an international outlier. The more wealthy we become, the more prosperous, the more kids, because, for us, finding out who our inner self is involves going to the delivery room as often as possible.
This is a healthy society. This is a society that believes in itself, that believes in who it is. And our alliance with the United States throughout these years had more to do with trying to find an outside power to help us along when we’re in this horrible neighborhood.
It had to do, also, with idealism, that we saw in the United States, we still see in the American people, kindred spirits, people who value the same thing, yes, who have faith in the same God as the people of Israel, and we abide by that. And I think most Americans still do as well.
And we just have to get this message out. We have to get this message out. This land belongs to the Jews. And it will happen, cause a two-state solution is a faith. It is not a policy, and it is a false faith. It will always fail. At the end of the day, this is going to happen. We will apply our laws to Judea and Samaria, because it’s the only viable option, and thank God it’s a viable option. We have to make sure it stays a viable option. We do that by making sure that Israel stays strong and secure and continues to believe in itself. And I think that we’re doing that in Israel.
And I think that the United States has to stand by Israel, because I think part of regaining its sanity in foreign affairs involves recognizing why it is that Israel is such an indispensable ally to the United States. And, by the way, it’s all there in my book.
And those are my thoughts and I’d be happy to take questions, unless we’ve run out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: We have run out of time.
CAROLINE GLICK: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Thank you, Caroline. (Applause.)
CAROLINE GLICK: Thank you.