In the May-June 2013 issue of PCG's recruitment magazine Gerald Flurry called Glick "Israel’s best columnist". In the August 2014 issue Gerald Flurry referred to Glick as "one of the greatest journalists in the Jewish state today, and perhaps one of the best in the world." Clearly PCG's leader, Gerald Flurry, is quite impressed with Glick's writings.
Since 2007 PCG's leaders have often quoted this columnist. These include Brad MacDonald (18 times), Stephen Flurry (17 times), Gerald Flurry (9 times), Joel Hilliker (5 times), Richard Palmer, Brent Nagtegaal (2 times each), Robert Morley, Callum Wood and Don Jacques (1 time each).
Caroline Glick cannot be blamed for having some non-Jewish religious organization based in Edmond choosing to give so much credence to her writings. I am not aware of any evidence that PCG has communicated with her. This post is not about Glick. This is about PCG and noting that the PCG leadership have decided to place great trust in this columnist and have exploited her writings to make PCG's writers seem knowlegible about political affairs.
Noticeably they never seem to criticize anything that they quote from this columnist. The way they quote this columnist shows that the PCG leadership have chosen to place a lot of trust upon this columnist.
Sadly some people, even among a few ex-members of WCG, shamefully bear hatred against the Jewish people in their hearts and seek to divide us along religious lines. Over the years such people have concocted many terrible lies and dehumanizing stereotypes to demonize and devalue Jews. One such dehumanizing stereotype is that they "control the media." This is a lie. We must focus on facts. There is no single political interest among the Jews.
Rather the Jews are like the world in miniature. Among Jews there are -- politically and religiously speaking -- many differing interests. Some are left wing. Some are right wing. About 80% of American Jews vote for the Democratic Party. Jews in the State of Israel tend to vote for right wing parties more than American Jews. Some are religious. Some are extremely religious. Some are secular. Some are converts from another religion. Some decide to convert to another religion. Some are Atheists. Some are rich. Some are poor. Some support the State of Israel. Some criticize and condemn the State of Israel.
We need to treat Jews as equals. We must give no place to anti-Semitism or any other form of racism. We are stronger together.
Below is a compilation of the many times PCG's leaders have chosen to cite Caroline Glick.
Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor for the Jerusalem Post, recently summarized the shocking details of the 2006 report. Among the findings were details about exactly who is financing the illegal construction, where much of the construction is taking place, and the Israeli government’s impotent response.
Shocking facts one and two: financing and location. “The political aim of the illegal construction is made clear by its financing sources,” reported Glick. (Israel Fails to Curb Palestinian Territorial Incursions, May 31, 2007.)
Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor for the Jerusalem Post, summarized the shocking details of the report. “The political aim of the illegal construction is made clear by its financing sources,” reported Glick. “Since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, the PA, Saudi Arabia and the EU have spent millions of dollars in financing illegal construction in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, often on state and privately owned lands” (May 14). (Brad MacDonald, One Building at a Time, July 2007.)
In the Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick discusses the behind-the-scenes powers at play.... (State of Emergency in Lebanon, September 23, 2007.)
“Perhaps Israel’s greatest diplomatic failure since 2000,” Caroline Glick wrote in a Jerusalem Post column, “has been its failure to disavow Barak’s offers and remove them from the negotiating table. Once Arafat refused Barak’s far-reaching concessions and chose instead to launch a war against the Jewish state, Israel had numerous opportunities to make clear these concessions were no longer on offer. Disavowing them is crucial not simply because they are diplomatically unwise. They are strategically suicidal” (October 4). (Stephen Flurry, Can This Man Save Israel?, October 29, 2007.)
As Caroline Glick wrote, “Abbas’s stances are a reflection of his inability to make any concessions for peace” (Jerusalem Post, October 4; emphasis mine throughout). ...
Noting the one huge difference between today and the 2000 talks, Caroline Glick wrote, “Seven years ago, Barak’s offer of territory was based on the expectation that in exchange for territory the Palestinians would eschew terror and live at peace with Israel. Today, after seven years of war that was largely directed by Fatah, after Hamas’s takeover of Gaza and Iran’s takeover of Hamas, this expectation is no longer realistic. By offering Barak’s concessions for a second time, Olmert isn’t simply offering land. He is sending the message that Israel neither expects nor demands that the Palestinian state live at peace with Israel” (op. cit.). ...
“Perhaps Israel’s greatest diplomatic failure since 2000,” Glick wrote in her column, “has been its failure to disavow Barak’s offers and remove them from the negotiating table. Once Arafat refused Barak’s far-reaching concessions and chose instead to launch a war against the Jewish state, Israel had numerous opportunities to make clear these concessions were no longer on offer. Disavowing them is crucial not simply because they are diplomatically unwise. They are strategically suicidal” (op. cit.). (Stephen Flurry, Can This Man Save Israel?, November-December 2007.)
On Friday, Caroline Glick wrote in her column for the Jerusalem Post, .... [A quotation follows.] (The Weekend Web, December 2, 2007.)
On Friday, November 30, Caroline Glick wrote in her column for the Jerusalem Post (emphasis mine throughout).... [A quotation follows.]
Caroline Glick wrote.... [A quotation follows.] (Gerald Flurry, Annapolis: Hitler’s Kind of Peace!, December 10, 2007.)
At the Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick highlights the frightening trend of “lawyerizing” life in Israel. [A quotation follows.] (The Weekend Web, December 23, 2007.)
In 2006, a separate survey sponsored by the privately funded Office for Public Inquiries for East Jerusalem confirmed that Palestinian Arabs have constructed 20,000 to 40,000 illegal structures throughout Jerusalem. But what was most revealing in this report, poignantly analyzed by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post in May 2007, was that the large majority of the illegal construction occurred with virtually no opposition from the listless Israeli government.
One of the most alarming points to note in this series of reports and articles is the details about the political motivation behind the illegal construction, and who is sponsoring, even financing, the illegal activities. “The political aim of the illegal construction is made clear by its financing sources,” reported Glick. “Since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, the PA, Saudi Arabia and the EU have spent millions of dollars in financing illegal construction in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, often on state and privately owned lands.” (Brad MacDonald, Remodeling Jerusalem, January 17, 2008.)
In the wake of the Annapolis peace talks, Caroline Glick wrote: “This week the Bush administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.” (Brad MacDonald, Holocaust Hypocrisy, January 31, 2008.)
On Nov. 30, 2007, Caroline Glick wrote in her column for the Jerusalem Post: “This week the Bush administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.
“Evident everywhere, the discrimination against Israel received its starkest expression at the main assembly of the Annapolis conference on Tuesday. There, in accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs. …
“It is true that Israel has security concerns, but as far as [U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice is concerned, the Palestinians are the innocent victims. They are the ones who are discriminated against and humiliated, not [Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni, who was forced—by Rice—to enter the conference through the service entrance” (emphasis mine throughout)....
Caroline Glick wrote, “Israel’s humiliated foreign minister did not receive support from her American counterpart. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who spent her childhood years in the segregated American South, sided with the Arabs. Although polite enough to note that she doesn’t support the slaughter of Israelis, she made no bones about the fact that her true sympathies lie with the racist Arabs.
“As she put it, ‘I know what it is like to hear that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are a Palestinian. I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness.’
“Rice’s remarks make clear that for the secretary of state there is no difference between Israelis trying to defend themselves from a jihadist Palestinian society which supports the destruction of the Jewish state and bigoted white Southerners who oppressed African Americans because of the color of their skin” (ibid.). (Gerald Flurry, America Is Copying Chamberlain’s Mistakes, February 2008.)
Ehud Olmert, however, seems safe—at least temporarily. Why? Caroline Glick noted that after Winograd’s interim report directly assigned blame to three individuals—Olmert, Amir Peretz (then defense minister), and Dan Halutz, the IDF chief of staff—two of them, Peretz and Halutz, were forced to resign. “But Olmert held on and quietly conspired against his own committee,” she wrote, speaking of the fact that Olmert had commissioned the group to begin with. “With Olmert’s backing, the IDF’s solicitor-general Col. Orna David repeatedly petitioned the Supreme Court and secured rulings prohibiting the Winograd Committee from recommending that Olmert or anyone else be compelled to resign for their dereliction of duty.” (Joel Hilliker, Evaluating Israel’s Errors, February 13, 2008.)
At the Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick also highlights what Mughniyeh was planning, as opposed to his past crimes. “Most of the reports of his death treated Mughniyeh as a has-been,” she wrote. “Coverage was devoted to his attacks against American, Israeli and Jewish targets in the 1980s and early 1990s. Yet at the time of his death, Mughniyeh remained one of the most dangerous and prolific terror operatives in the world.” ...
They reacted differently to the news of Mughniyeh’s death, Caroline Glick writes.... [A Quotation follows.](Stephen Flurry, The Weekend Web, February 17, 2008.)
Today, it is widely recognized that al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups have stationed themselves throughout Europe, Britain and even America. Attacks are imminent. In January, during a raid on a Paris apartment occupied by a Hezbollah cell, French officials reportedly seized documents, including tourist maps of Paris, London, Madrid and Rome marked with red highlighter showing routes, addresses, parking lots and truck-stopping points. Among the documents, as Caroline Glick noted, were “maps point[ing] to several routes to Vatican back entrances.” (Brad MacDonald, Resurrecting the Spirit of the Crusades, April 17, 2008.)
Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Caroline Glick made an interesting observation in her column about Obama’s position.... [A quotation follows.] Glick also makes some interesting points about how President Bush’s administration has been weakened since 2001 and how it may be setting the stage for even more radical policies during a possible Obama administration. It’s worth reading in its entirety. (Stephen Flurry and Richard Palmer, This Week in Jerusalem, July 25, 2008.)
Israelis are not the only ones impacted by the mistakes of Israel’s current government, Caroline Glick wrote today. ... Jordan, Glick wrote, can’t be seen in the Arab world as being harsher with terrorist prisoners than Israel. (Stephen Flurry and Richard Palmer, Jerusalem Watch: Syria Seeks Missiles From Russia, August 22, 2008.)
This inversion of the intent of international law, as Caroline Glick notes at the Jerusalem Post, fails to protect the state that is under attack. It rather shields the aggressors from retaliation. (Stephen Flurry, Jerusalem Watch: Hamas Sure Was Busy During Ceasefire, November 21, 2008.)
Even now, without a bomb, Iran almost daily reminds us that we are living in a very different world than it was even 15 or 20 years ago. As Caroline Glick wrote in the Jerusalem Post recently.... [A quotation follows.]
Do you get the sense that some people—perhaps many—see the extreme danger ahead if we fail to alter our course? “Unless something changes soon,” Glick concluded, “the consequences of the jihadist-multicultural alliance will be suffered by millions and millions of people.” (Stephen Flurry, Are We Living in the Last Days?, December 5, 2008.)
Yet, despite these realities on the ground, as Caroline Glick recently noted, “President-elect Barack Obama will move quickly to place massive pressure on the next Israeli government to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the interests of advancing a ‘peace process’ with the Palestinians and the Syrians.” In another column, Glick wrote.... [A quotation follows.] ....
Back in July, on the heels of Barack Obama’s much ballyhooed visit to Israel, Caroline Glick told National Review that while Obama would simply roll over a left-leaning Israeli government.... [A quotation follows.] (Stephen Flurry, The U.S.-Israeli Collision Course Is Near, December 26, 2008.)
He sees radical Islam seeking confrontation with Catholicism! “Both Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza have been busy this Christmas week showing Christendom just what they think of it,” Caroline Glick wrote last week. “On Tuesday Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a sharia criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, the code legalizes crucifixion.” Hamas now endorses nailing the enemies of Islam to the cross! (Brad MacDonald, The Crusades Are Critical History, January 1, 2009.)
Caroline Glick wrote something similar in the Jerusalem Post: “Iran daily threatens to destroy the U.S., annihilate Israel, close the Straits of Hormuz, use nuclear weapons and proliferate nuclear weapons to other states. … Yet one of the first foreign-policy initiatives promised by the incoming Obama administration is to attempt to diplomatically engage Iran with the aim of striking a grand bargain with the mullahs.” She concluded, “Unless something changes soon, the consequences of the jihadist-multicultural alliance will be suffered by millions and millions of people” (Dec. 2, 2008). (Stephen Flurry, Are We Living in the Last Days?, February 2009.)
The international community has promised $5.2 billion in aid to help Gaza rebuild, with $900 million of that coming from the United States. Many are concerned, however, that the money will benefit Hamas, both directly and indirectly. A large part of the aid is expected to be given to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)—which systematically provides political cover for Hamas. “UNRWA openly collaborates with Hamas,” wrote Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post. “Its workers double as Hamas combatants. Its refugee camps and schools are used as Hamas training bases and missile launch sites.” (The Week in Review, March 7, 2009.)
Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick wrote last Friday that the Obama administration.... [A quotation follows.] (Brad MacDonald, Duped by a Smile, March 12, 2009.)
The political aim of the illegal construction is made clear by its financing sources, Caroline Glick reported in the Jerusalem Post in 2007: “Since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, the PA, Saudi Arabia and the EU have spent millions of dollars in financing illegal construction in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, often on state and privately owned lands” (May 14, 2007; emphasis mine throughout). ...
Glick answers: “In an effort to degrade the Jewish character of [Jerusalem] …” (op. cit.). (Brad MacDonald, Who Put These Poor Palestinians in Harm’s Way?, May 29, 2009.)
But why speak as though that technology isn’t being exported? North Korea’s links with Iran’s nuclear program are well documented. The nuclear site in Syria that Israel destroyed in September 2007 was running North Korean technology. “North Korea’s nuclear program, with its warhead, missile and technological components … endangers not just the likes of Japan and South Korea, but all nations whose territory and interests are within range of Iranian and Syrian missiles,” wrote Caroline Glick. How is this not yet considered a “grave threat”? ...
“This point was brought home clearly by both Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s immediate verbal response to the North Korean nuclear test on Monday and by Iran’s provocative launch of warships in the Gulf of Aden the same day,” wrote Glick. (Joel Hilliker, Happy Memorial Day. I Have a Nuclear Bomb., June 3, 2009.)
Jerusalem Post journalist Caroline Glick reported that George Mitchell, one of the U.S. State Department’s peace envoys trying to bring peace to Israel, has said that for all these past years Israel has been lying to the United States! Most authorities know that is shamefully untrue. (Gerald Flurry, How President Obama’s Cairo Speech Will Shake the Nations, August 2009.)
At the current pace, Caroline Glick believes, Iran will have sufficient quantities of uranium to build two atomic bombs by February. (Stephen Flurry, Surrendering to Iran, September 18, 2009.)
It was President Obama who insisted Israel cease all construction. Yet when Netanyahu obliged him and announced the 10-month freeze, he was greeted with news the following day in Yediot Aharonot that Obama’s administration “now wants Israel to release a thousand Fatah terrorists from prison,” Caroline Glick wrote. “The Americans also want Israel to allow U.S.-trained, terror supporting Fatah paramilitary forces to deploy in areas that are currently under Israeli military control. Moreover, the Americans are demanding that Israel surrender land in the strategically crucial Jordan Valley to Fatah” (November 27). And President Obama expects all of that from Israel before it even starts negotiations with the Palestinians. ...
Even by agreeing to negotiate with Hamas, Glick pointed out, “Netanyahu conferred legitimacy not only on the terror group, but on the act of taking hostages. After all, until Hamas had Shalit, no government in Israel was willing to cut a deal with it.” (Joel Hilliker, What Is Benjamin Netanyahu Thinking?, December 23, 2009.)
That relationship, as well as the one with Israel, has turned extremely chilly during the Obama presidency, as the Trumpet has documented in recent issues. A shocking example occurred in November, during a visit to D.C. by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Caroline Glick reported, “It isn’t every day that a visiting leader from a strategically vital U.S. ally is brought into the White House in an unmarked van in the middle of the night rather than greeted like a friend at the front door; is forbidden to have his picture taken with the president; is forced to leave the White House alone, through a side exit; and is ordered to keep the contents of his meeting with the president secret” (Jerusalem Post, Nov. 13, 2009). (Joel Hilliker, Heralding the End of an Empire, February 2010.)
“Since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, the PA, Saudi Arabia and the EU have spent millions of dollars in financing illegal construction in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, often on state and privately owned lands,” reported Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post (May 14, 2007). ...
Glick answers: “In an effort to degrade the Jewish character of [Jerusalem]” (op. cit.). (Brad MacDonald, Silwan: The Untold Story, March 4, 2010.)
Already Israel is now seriously considering asking the EU to send monitors to Gaza’s border crossings (Jerusalem Post, June 21). This would be “a first step towards surrendering its sovereign control over its borders,” explained Caroline Glick. ...
By siding with Hamas against Israel, as Glick noted on June 15, the West also backed Hamas against Fatah. This is why, in a meeting with President Obama after the flotilla incident, Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas insisted that the West should not act in a way that could be construed as a Hamas victory. He actually said the blockade should not be lifted—and that additional aid should be delivered through land crossings rather than by sea!
But rather than side with the more moderate Palestinian faction, U.S. President Barack Obama chose to stick with Hamas. During Abbas’s visit to Washington, President Obama announced that America would be sending $450 million in aid to Hamas. “So too,” Glick wrote, “Abbas is forced to cheer as Obama pressures Israel to give Hamas an outlet to the sea. This will render it impossible for Fatah to ever unseat Hamas either by force or at the ballot box. Hamas’s international clout demonstrates to the Palestinians that jihad pays. (Stephen Flurry, Israel the Outcast, August 2010.)
As columnist Caroline Glick recently noted, “Obama is so firm in his belief that Jews should be denied civil rights in Israel’s capital and in the heartland of Jewish history that he has provoked multiple crises in his relations with Israel to advance this bigoted view. Almost from his first day in office Obama has struck out a radical position in which he has insisted that Jews must be prohibited from building anything—synagogues, homes, nurseries, schools—in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria on land they own. Jews—Israeli and non-Israeli—should be barred from exercising their property rights even if their construction plans have already been approved ‘in accordance with local laws and ordinances.’”
Last week, according to Glick, Mahmoud Abbas described his Jew-free vision of a future Palestinian state: “I will not agree that there will be Jews among nato forces and I will not allow even one Israeli to live amongst us on the Palestinian soil.” ...
What these events actually reveal is a shameful and dangerous double standard that, as Glick pointed out, favors Muslim rights over the values of most Americans and turns a blind eye to Palestinian racism while denying Jews their civil rights. (Stephen Flurry, Ground Zero Mosque: A Shameful Double Standard, August 20, 2010.)
Meanwhile, Israeli officials said Israel was considering asking the European Union to monitor Gaza’s land crossings. This would represent “a first step towards [Israel] surrendering its sovereign control over its borders,” wrote Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post (June 21). (WorldWatch, September 2010.)
America’s decision to abdicate leadership is having a disastrous effect on the Middle East, and has resulted in what Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick terms “strategic dementia.” Motivated by a deeply rooted anti-imperialist agenda, “the overarching goal of Obama’s foreign policy has been to end U.S. global hegemony.”
The result? America’s president “looks to the UN as a vehicle for tethering the U.S. superpower” and “views U.S. allies in the Middle East and around the world with suspicion because he feels that as U.S. allies, they are complicit with U.S. imperialism,” writes Glick. (Brad MacDonald, The World Is Coming Apart—Where Is America?, March 24, 2011.)
The response from the White House was a little more nuanced. However, despite intense opposition from many within Congress who consider the unity government a joke, it seems many, including some key players in the peace process, consider the unity government a genuine opportunity for peace! As the Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick wrote, the “signals emanating from the White House and its allied media indicate that Obama is ready to plow forward” and “make the case for demanding that Israel surrender Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to Hamas and its partners in Fatah.” ...
This reality was explained by Caroline Glick Tuesday: “The assertion that Israel’s establishment was a catastrophe for the Arabs makes clear that the Palestinian leadership has no interest in living at peace with Israel. … If Israel’s existence is the Palestinian catastrophe, then obviously, every patriotic Palestinian must seek Israel’s destruction.” (Brad MacDonald, Hitler, the Palestinians and the West, May 19, 2011.)
“Quite simply, Obama’s speech represents the effective renunciation of the U.S.’s right to have and to pursue national interests,” Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick wrote last week. “Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the U.S. has in the region—first and foremost, the U.S.’s interest in securing its national security.” (Brad MacDonald, Is President Obama Breaking the Brotherhood?, May 26, 2011.)
Although tomorrow’s mass protests could get ugly, they are unlikely to elicit many significant changes. Despite what you hear in the Western media, Egypt’s pro-democracy activists, the thousands of people protesting in the streets in February, do not hold the reins of power. In fact, that responsibility hardly even rests with Egypt’s military council anymore. In Egypt today, as the Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick wrote recently, “neither the military nor the protesters are calling the shots anymore .…”
Rather, Glick wrote, ruling Egypt is now the “job of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Brad MacDonald, The March of the Brotherhood, July 7, 2011.)
However, behind the scenes, there is evidence that Turkey is pushing for much more dramatic changes. According to the Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick, Turkey has been actively interfering in the revolt against Assad. Meanwhile, Turkish humanitarian relief agencies are hosting Syrian opposition leaders in Turkey. ...
“Erdogan’s clear aim is to replace Iran as Syria’s overlord in a post-Assad Syria,” says Glick. (Robert Morley, The Battle for Syria, August 2, 2011.)
Though the intimidation and humiliation of Israelis visiting Turkey marks a new low point in the Israel-Turkey relationship, there is more at stake. As the Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick wrote on Monday, “No, Israel wasn’t the target audience the Turks were playing to on Monday. Their target audience was the Islamic world generally and the Arab world specifically” (emphasis added throughout).
In her column, Glick recalled Turkey’s strategy over recent years to shed its moderate identity and reposition itself as a more conservative Islamic state. Needless to say, the chief means of appealing to the Muslim world has been to fire regular volleys at the Jewish state. “Given how well scapegoating Israel has served him, [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan clearly believes it is a no-risk strategy for raising his star from Cairo to Algiers,” Glick wrote. ...
“We need to recognize that what we are experiencing now is the beginning, not the end, of Turkey’s slide into the enemy camp,” Glick wrote. “Erdogan is openly taking steps to transform Turkey into an Islamic state along the lines of Iran. And the further he goes down his chosen path, the more harshly and aggressively he will lash out at Israel.” (Turkey Humiliates Israel, Courts Radical Islam, September 7, 2011.)
On Tuesday, Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick endorsed similar measures. Israel “must prepare for the possibility of war,” she warned. “It must increase the size of the idf by adding a division to the Southern Command. It must train for desert warfare. It must expand the Navy.” ...
Turkey’s growing animosity toward Israel is deeply sobering. As Caroline Glick wrote recently, “We need to recognize that what we are experiencing now is the beginning, not the end, of Turkey’s slide into the enemy camp. Erdoğan is openly taking steps to transform Turkey into an Islamic state along the lines of Iran. And the further he goes down his chosen path, the more harshly and aggressively he will lash out at Israel” (emphasis added). (Brad MacDonald, Israel Enters Nightmare Scenario, September 15, 2011.)
However, behind the scenes, there is evidence that Turkey is pushing for much more dramatic changes. According to the Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick, Turkey has been actively interfering in the revolt against Assad. Meanwhile, Turkish humanitarian relief agencies are hosting Syrian opposition leaders in Turkey. For now, Syria needs Turkish support, so Ottoman influence in Syria will probably grow. But according to Stratfor analysts, Erdoğan’s party wants Syria’s Islamist organizations to gain political space—with the goal of becoming their eventual sponsor. “Erdoğan’s clear aim is to replace Iran as Syria’s overlord in a post-Assad Syria,” says Glick. (The Battle for Syria, October 2011.)
Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick endorsed similar measures. Israel “must prepare for the possibility of war,” she warned. “It must increase the size of the idf by adding a division to the Southern Command. It must train for desert warfare. It must expand the Navy” (September 12). ...
The loss of Turkey as a more moderate Arab state and Ankara’s growing animosity toward Israel is deeply concerning for the Jews. As Caroline Glick wrote, “[W]e need to recognize that what we are experiencing now is the beginning, not the end, of Turkey’s slide into the enemy camp. Erdoğan is openly taking steps to transform Turkey into an Islamic state along the lines of Iran. And the further he goes down his chosen path, the more harshly and aggressively he will lash out at Israel” (ibid, September 5). (Brad MacDonald, Breaking Down the Wall, November-December 2011.)
Head a little farther east and we come to Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood and hardline Islamist political parties trounced their competitors in parliamentary elections last November and December. In the first two rounds of voting, Egypt’s Islamist parties garnered nearly 70 percent of the vote! It’s now abundantly clear, lamented Caroline Glick last December, that “Egypt is on the fast track to becoming a totalitarian Islamic state” (emphasis added throughout). (Brad MacDonald, Ethiopia in the Crosshairs, February 2012.)
He filmed it all, as Caroline Glick noted, because he “took pride in killing Jewish children.” And beyond that, “he was certain that millions of people would be heartened by his crime. By watching him shoot the life out of Jewish children, they would be inspired to repeat his actions elsewhere.”
Given the popularity of such videos on jihadist websites, it’s hard to argue with Glick’s conclusion. (Stephen Flurry, Race to War, May-June 2012.)
Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post made some important points recently about Olmert’s unpopularity here in Israel and the media frenzy surrounding these charges of corruption.
Olmert deserves to be harshly criticized, Glick says. Objectively speaking, he was the worst prime minister that Israel has ever had, she wrote. “Olmert lost the war with Hezbollah in 2006. He lost Israel’s campaign against Hamas in 2008-2009. He failed to block Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. He weakened Israel’s international position and its alliance with the U.S. And so on and so forth” (July 11).
But what’s even more despicable than Olmert’s failures as prime minister, Glick points out, is how the media rushed to crucify a weak leader, rather than accept blame for its own crucial role in Israel’s string of defeats. (Stephen Flurry, Ehud Olmert and Israel’s Leftist Media, July 13, 2012.)
For a closer look at this incredible article from my father in 2009, as well as Caroline Glick’s insightful commentary on where this approach from the Obama administration has gotten us today.... (Stephen Flurry, The spectacular failure of America’s Muslim outreach, July 15, 2012.)
On Sunday, Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick wrote that “today Morsi completed the Egyptian revolution. Egypt is now an Islamic state. Its leaders drink from the same well as al Qaeda, Hamas and all the rest. Egypt, with its U.S. armed military, has reemerged after 30 years as the greatest military threat that Israel has ever faced.” (Brad MacDonald, Egypt: Morsi Sheds His Moderate Cloak, August 16, 2012.)
Israel’s enemies, in other words, are gaining ground—and fast! And it doesn’t seem to bother Israel’s traditional ally in Washington. As Caroline Glick commented in the Jerusalem Post, “The U.S.’s astounding sanguinity in the face of Morsi’s completion of the Islamization of Egypt is an illustration of everything that is wrong and dangerous about U.S. Middle East policy today” (August 16). ...
America, it seems, is oblivious to the dangers of exposing Israel’s southern border to an increasingly hostile Islamic regime. As Glick laments, “Obama administration officials have behaved as though nothing has happened, or even as though Morsi’s moves are positive developments” (ibid). (Stephen Flurry, Is Morsi Using Sinai Instability to Break Peace Treaty With Israel?, August 20, 2012.)
Watching events in Egypt during August, Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick wrote one of the most alarming articles you could ever read. “On Sunday [August 12], new president Mohammed Morsi completed Egypt’s transformation into an Islamist state,” she wrote (August 16; emphasis added throughout).
Glick was referring to President Morsi firing the commanders of the Egyptian military, which was his only real opposition in the country, and replacing them with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists—then doing the same with all the editors of the state-owned media.
The radical terrorist Muslim Brotherhood is now in control of Egypt! And to think, members of both of America’s political parties helped bring this about!
“Morsi gave himself full control over the writing of Egypt’s new constitution,” Glick continued. She quoted Israel’s former ambassador to Egypt as explaining that, with these moves, Morsi “now holds dictatorial powers surpassing by far those of erstwhile president Hosni Mubarak.”...
“Egypt will certainly seek to export its Islamic revolution to other countries,” Glick warned.Exactly right. That is just what will happen—and it is exactly what is prophesied: Egypt is going to export its revolution to Libya and Ethiopia. This is already well underway in Libya. ...
“The U.S.’s astounding sanguinity in the face of Morsi’s completion of the Islamization of Egypt is an illustration of everything that is wrong and dangerous about U.S. Middle East policy today,” Glick wrote. Can anybody logically disagree?
Ms. Glick lives in Israel, and she knows how dangerous it is now. ...
Egypt’s transformation into a radical Islamist state will also have enormous consequences for America. “The U.S. is far more vulnerable to interruptions in the shipping lanes in the Suez Canal than Israel is,” Glick explained. Yes, Egypt controls the Suez Canal, and it can impost a high tax on the oil or do just about anything it wants to. That bodes very badly for the United States. (Gerald Flurry, Egypt Unites With Iran and Fulfills a Bible Prophecy, October-November 2012.)
A recent article in The Jerusalem Post by Caroline Glick talks about the subject that this prophecy covers, and it shows precisely how this prophecy is being fulfilled today! (Gerald Flurry, The Key of David, Judah's Wound, December 9, 2012.)
Although they don’t see its connection to the prophecy in Hosea 5, some people are beginning to see what a wound the land-for-peace process is. Here is what journalist Caroline Glick wrote on Nov. 23, 2012.... [A quotation follows.] Though she probably doesn’t realize it, Glick is talking about what the Bible calls Judah’s “wound.” ...
This scripture is talking about a falsehood or fraud involving a peace pact. Caroline Glick calls it a “fake peace process.” God calls it “a wound under thee.” Glick calls it a “strategic trap.” God calls it a snare. It looks good, yet it is a deception. ...
Do you recognize how precisely this prophecy is being fulfilled? Glick’s words are almost biblical! She is saying the same thing that the Bible prophesied in precise detail and that is now coming to pass. (Gerald Flurry, The Profound Secret of an Ancient Prophecy, February 2013.)
Caroline Glick wrote, “Obama wants to hurt Israel. He does not like Israel. He is appointing anti-Israel advisers and cabinet members not despite their anti-Israel positions, but because of them. … Obama wants to fundamentally transform the U.S. relationship with Israel. … [T]he most urgent order of business for Israelis is to stop deluding ourselves in thinking that under Obama the U.S. can be trusted” (Dec. 16, 2012). (Gerald Flurry, The Hidden Cause of Society’s Deadly Decline, March 2013.)
Caroline Glick, who I believe is Israel’s best columnist, expressed bewilderment over it: “Given that all of these [policies toward Israel] are positions he has held throughout his presidency, the mystery surrounding his decision to come to Israel only grows,” she wrote in a March 20 column. “He didn’t need to come to Israel to rehash policies we already know” (emphasis mine throughout).
She noted that the president also didn’t come to apologize for the anti-Israel policies of his first term. His administration still speaks about its support for the Arab Spring as if it was excellent policy, even after we can see how it empowered radicals within Libya, Egypt and other countries. This has put Israel’s very survival in jeopardy!
Glick drew attention to one revealing detail of the trip: the president’s choice of speaking venues. On one hand, he turned down an invitation to speak before Israel’s elected representatives at the Knesset, which is highly unusual. On the other hand, he chose “to address a handpicked audience of university students—an audience grossly overpopulated by unelectable, radical leftists.” President Obama really identifies with academics, intellectuals and radicals. He went to Israel to speak to these radical leftist students, and that is where he got a lot of the television coverage. He actually denied a couple of colleges that wanted to send students that were more on the conservative side.
As Glick pointed out, “What we can say with certainty is that the administration that supports the ‘democratically elected’ Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and did so much to clear all obstacles to its election, is snubbing the democratically elected Israeli government, and indeed, Israel’s elected officials in general.” Mr. Obama has invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House. He visited Cairo to address all of Egypt and insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood attend, against then President Hosni Mubarak’s wishes. Yet he won’t visit the Knesset in Israel! Isn’t that strange? It certainly proves that we can’t take what this man says at face value.
Glick considers it a mystery. But there is a definite reason behind the president’s choices. (Gerald Flurry, The Mystery of President Obama’s Visit to Israel, May-June 2013.)
According to Caroline Glick, “The Egyptian military is now fighting Hamas in Sinai. The military-backed government blames the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood branch for fomenting the Islamist insurgency there. Egyptian forces have destroyed much of the tunnel network linking Gaza with Sinai that had enabled the cross-traffic of terrorists and munitions between the areas. This week, Egypt announced plans to demarcate Egypt’s territorial waters along Gaza to prevent the transfer by sea of weapons and terror operatives between them.” (Brent Nagtegaal, Is Iran About to Lose Its Proxy Hamas?, October 15, 2013.)
Mr. Obama’s animosity for the Jewish state is even more overt. From the Cairo speech, to the appointment of anti-Israel officials in his administration, to his penchant for always siding with Israel’s enemies and always undermining of Israeli foreign policy, to the shunning of Israel’s leaders. The truth, as Caroline Glick wrote in December 2012 (and this week), is that President Obama “wants to hurt Israel. He does not like Israel. He is appointing anti-Israel advisers and cabinet members not despite their anti-Israel positions, but because of them. … Obama wants to fundamentally transform the U.S. relationship with Israel.” ...
What happened in Geneva reveals something deeply wrong with America! Neville Chamberlain wanted to stop Hitler. President Obama clearly has no intention of stopping Iran. America’s president, as Melanie Phillips, Caroline Glick and a few others have also written, is engaged in a war on Western civilization, including the United States and the Jewish state. The question is, where does that deadly sentiment originate? (Brad MacDonald, The Geneva Deal Is Worse Than You Know, December 3, 2013.)
Finally came what Israeli journalist Caroline Glick called “the most significant international event since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991″—Washington offered Tehran relief from the economic sanctions it is suffering for its nuclear program. What made this so significant? Glick explained: “The collapse of the Soviet Union signaled the rise of the United States as the sole global superpower. The developments in the six-party nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva last week signaled the end of American world leadership” (Nov. 14, 2013; emphasis added throughout). (Joel Hilliker, What Happens After a Superpower Dies?, January 2014.)
This scenario is by no means implausible, and many commentators already acknowledge its likelihood. “Six months will turn into eight months or 12 months,” the Jerusalem Post recently wrote, “and the Iranians will continue to play for time.” The result of this foot dragging, Caroline Glick said, “will be Iran with a nuclear bomb or nuclear arsenal in its basement, waiting for a propitious moment to conduct a nuclear weapons test or attack.” (Don Jacques, Is Iran Setting Itself Up for an Attack?, April 9, 2014.)
“Reasonable people disagree about the contribution the security fence makes to the security of the Israelis,” Caroline Glick wrote in the Jerusalem Post on May 28. “But no one can reasonably doubt that it was built to protect Israelis from Palestinian terrorist murderers. And Francis ought to know this. Francis’s decision to hold a photo op at the security barrier was an act of extreme hostility against Israel and the Jewish people.” That is exactly right! Yet almost nobody criticized Francis for this provocative act. ...
During Sunday mass on his trip, Pope Francis prayed with Fouad Twal, a Palestinian archbishop who serves as the Catholic Church’s Latin patriarch of Jerusalem. “In his sermon, Twal accused Israelis of being the present-day version of Christ-killers by referring to the Palestinians as walking in the footsteps of the divine child, and likening the Israelis to King Herod. In his words, ‘We are not yet done with the present-day Herods who fear peace more than war, and who are prepared to continue killing’” (Glick, op. cit.). ...
Caroline Glick wrote, “Francis stridently condemned the anti-Jewish attacks in Brussels and Paris. And during his ceremonial visits to Yad Vashem, the Wailing Wall, and the Terror Victims Memorial, he said similarly appropriate things. But all his statements ring hollow and false in light of his actions” (op. cit.).
This is one of the greatest journalists in the Jewish state today, and perhaps one of the best in the world. She sees through what the pope did and is not afraid to speak out about it. She concluded by saying: “Israelis and Jews around the world need to be aware of what is happening. Francis is leading the Catholic Church in a distressingly anti-Jewish direction.” ...
“In one of his blander pronouncements during the papal visit, Netanyahu mentioned on Monday that Jesus spoke Hebrew,” Glick wrote. “There was nothing incorrect about Netanyahu’s statement. Jesus was, after all, an Israeli Jew. But Francis couldn’t take the truth, so he indelicately interrupted his host, interjecting, ‘Aramaic!’ Netanyahu was probably flustered. True at the time, educated Jews spoke and wrote in Aramaic, and Jesus was educated, but the language of the people was Hebrew, and Jesus preached to the people in Hebrew. Netanyahu responded, ‘He spoke Aramaic, but He knew Hebrew’” (op. cit.). ...
“Reuters’ write-up of the incident tried to explain away the pope’s rudeness and historical revisionism, asserting, ‘Modern-day discourse about Jesus is complicated and often political,’” Glick continued. “The report went on to delicately mention, ‘Palestinians sometimes describe Jesus as Palestinian. Israelis object to that.’
“Israelis ‘object to that’ because it is a lie.” (Gerald Flurry, The Dark Side of the Pope’s Visit to Jerusalem, August 2014.)
For the Obama administration, what it really boils down to is a fear of what Netanyahu may achieve. Israeli reporter Caroline Glick stated, “More than anything, [President Obama’s actions] expose a deep-seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that Obama’s policies toward Iran and toward the Islamic world in general pose to the global security.” ...
As Glick noted in her article, the U.S. has already hinted at its desire to topple Netanyahu. Speaking before the Trilateral Commission, Secretary of State John Kerry threatened that Israel was destined to be an apartheid state if more concessions were not made to the Palestinians. He said, “If there is a change of government [in Israel], or a change of heart, something will happen.” (Callum Wood, Netanyahu: The Last Defense Against a Deal With Iran, March 2, 2015.)
U.S.-born Israeli journalist and writer Caroline Glick summarized the relationship this way: President Obama “wants to hurt Israel. He does not like Israel. He is appointing anti-Israel advisers and cabinet members not despite their anti-Israel positions, but because of them. … Obama wants to fundamentally transform the U.S. relationship with Israel” (Dec. 16, 2012). That was written over two years ago. The relationship has since gone from bad to worse. (Brad MacDonald, Breaking the Brotherhood, April 2015.)
He understands Israel’s security concerns. ... Current trends led Jerusalem Post deputy managing editor Caroline Glick to proclaim, “Today Israel’s closest ally is Egypt. Under Obama, the U.S. is a force to be worked around, not worked with” (February 5). (Brent Nagtegaal, Why Won’t the U.S. Embrace Egypt?, May-June 2015.)
Caroline Glick wrote: “The notion of jihad is fairly simple. It asserts that Islam is the only true religion. All other faiths are wrong and evil. It is the destiny of the one true faith to reign supreme. The duty of all Muslims is to facilitate Islam’s global rise and dominion. How this duty is borne varies. Some take up arms.” (Trumpet Hour, Week in Review: Europe’s Immigration Crisis, Russians in Syria, Chemical Warfare, EPA Power Grab, and More, September 5, 2015.)
“Rather than develop comprehensive plans for dealing with this enemy, the Americans, the Europeans and others have opted for a mix of policies running the spectrum from appeasement to whack-a-mole operations,” wrote Caroline Glick in a piece published on Tuesday. The Paris attacks are beginning to force Europe to confront this failure, while America continues in its delusion that everything is fine. (Stephen Flurry and Richard Palmer, Paris Attacks: A Milestone in European Unity, November 19, 2015.)
And so it is readily apparent that PCG's leaders are quite reliant upon and trusting of Caroline Glick's writings.