TRANSCRIPT: GLICK/GELLER INTERVIEW

Raw transcript (I will correct when i get back to NY)….much love and thanks to Liam and KGS You da best! You must get her latest book Shackled Warrior, Israel and the Global Jihad -buy it here

UPDATE:  Here's the MP3 file folks were clammering for. hat tip eretz

Pamela Geller: Hey it’s Pamela we’re at Atlas on the Air. Special show today, with the brilliant bombshell, Caroline Glick, who has a new book out that if you haven’t gotten it you’re not allowed to listen to the show because this is what you have to be reading: “The Shackled Warrior”. It’s a compendium of her columns but it’s put together almost like a puzzle. Because whose analyses is more brilliant, more succinct, more prescient that Glick’s? I think she’s on the line let’s go direct to Caroline.

CG: Hi Pamela

Geller: Hi, gorgeous how you doing?

CG: Great to be on your show.

PG: Great to have you. What a book. First of all, explain to our
listeners what you tried to achieve. I know its columns, but it’s very
timely, it’s very fresh and it’s very original. So give us an idea what
you were thinking when you put it together.

CG: Well what I was thinking when I put it together is how best to tell
the story about Israel as the frontline state in a global jihad. And I
was trying to figure out what book to write and I realised that what I
do twice a week with my columns is that I take the events of the day
and put them into a larger context of what’s happening in the world. I
look at the iceberg instead of the tip of the iceberg and I figured out
that if I took a bunch of columns and I organized them by theme and
chronologically, then you could really get a 360-degree analysis of
what’s happening in our world today. Whether it’s how important Israel
is and why the Muslim jihadists see it as their frontline state in
their global jihad; or whether it’s the West’s refusal to accept the
importance of Israel and why Israel’s defence is crucial to the future
of western civilization; and whether it’s Israel’s own great difficulty
in acknowledging its need to fight and win and defeats its enemies. All
of these things come out almost on a daily basis in the news and it’s
just that because we are only looking at the events of the day and not
looking at them in the wider context of what’s happening we sometimes
miss it. And so I thought that if I took my columns and I put them
together in a way that describes all of the various themes and why
Israel is central to all of them, then it would provide a reader with
an overall understanding of the world, of the global jihad and of
what’s happening in the west and of what’s happening in Israel and
that’s why I wrote the book the way that I did and put it together the
way that I did. I’m pretty, actually, happy with the way that it came
out you know most of the times we writers never like what we write. But
I’m pretty happy with the way that it came out and it’s doing fairly
well actually for a book of it’s kind, it’s number 19 on Amazon’s
bestsellers’ list for international security, so.

PG: Which is fabulous and it’s on Amazon it’s available at Amazon
the link is on my site so if you haven’t gotten your hands on that book
you ought to. As far as Israelis being on the frontline of a global
jihad I mean the impetus do you believe that what propels the jihad
against is Israel is the innate Islamic anti-Semitism in the Koran. I
am sure you know like Bostom’s book which is like an encyclopaedia of Islamic anti-Semitism. I mean is that the impetus?

CG: You know there are a lot of impetuses for what’s going on. I think
that it’s important to place things in perspective. Yes there is a lot
of anti-Semitism in the Koran and in Islamic teachings. Where Jews are
portrayed as monkeys and dogs and pigs and Muslims are told to kill
Jews as a part of their religious obligations. But you have to
understand that, you know, these teachings are just some of the
teachings in the Koran and their importance on a daily basis rises and
recedes depending on political developments in the world. So you could
ask the question well the why was this not as prevalent as it is today?
And I would say that politics is what determines whether specific
ideologies become prevalent or irrelevant for peoples’ daily lives and
what we see today is a West that is not willing, because of
multiculturalism and other ideologies that are reigning in Western
intellectual life, to defend itself and to assert the values on which
it’s based. And so a vacuum is created and it’s filled by people who
preach hatred, and who preach genocide and who preach global
domination: the world of Islam. So I think that there are forces and
there are counterforces and usually in times of peace they cancel one
another out, so that nobody is too aggressive and everybody has a way
of trying to, of curbing, you know, various incendiary parts that tend
to be latent or are already there in their founding documents and when
one side is not defending itself then the other side will push forward,
it’s just the nature of the way that people do business and so I think
that that’s important that its not just any sort of inherent
anti-Semitic texts or anti-Semitic texts that are in the Koran but
rather how those play out in today’s politics that makes them relevant
to the lives of Muslims and to the lives of non-Muslims in the world.

PG: I mean it’s one thing to say that the West is not defending
itself, which clearly it isn’t. But you see an aggressive campaign. I
mean you have the UCU in England now debating a motion, which not only
raises the spectre, yet again, of another academic boycott of Israel,
but demands that Jewish and Israeli academics explain their politics as
a precondition to, you know, normal academic contact. This is an
aggressive campaign not a benign kind of…

CG: …Well, I think that again, you know, they’re not standing up for
British values; they’re not standing up for the British right,
essentially to be British. And so you know, when you are in a situation
of cultural collapse, like we see going on, particularly in Britain,
these days people tend to take sides and the most vocal people who are
calling for Britain not to assert itself are also not surprisingly the
people who are calling for Britain to collaborate with the enemies at
their gates the people who incited and carried out the July 7 bombings
and they are actively collaborating with them against the people who
they consider to be their common foe which are the Jews. And the reason
why there is this sort of red-green alliance of communists or radical
leftists and Islamists is because for both of them the Jew is
emblematic of human freedom, of competition, of rights and when they
want to strike them down because of their ideological preferences for
different forms of totalitarianism their first target is always the
Jews. And, just you know as an aside, I think it’s important to
understand, that you know, these calls for boycotts of Israeli
universities and academics are seasonal propaganda initiatives that try
to demonize Israel, you know, every spring or every fall, or whatever.
But it’s important to understand that there is an academic boycott of
Israeli institutions by British universities; it’s been going on for
several years and whether it’s institutionalized in a vote or not the
fact of the matter is that, university departments and professors in
Britain and publications systematically boycott their Israeli
counterparts. And I think, you know, that it’s important to realize
that it’s already happening it’s not a “are they going to decide
boycott Israel or not?”. They are boycotting Israel; it’s just a
question of how often they want to bring it up.

PG: I understand but the inquisition of professors is a whole new step.
I think it’s a, you know, dastardly really virulently Jew-hating step.
I mean…

CG: I totally agree with you. I’m not saying it to mitigate, to give
some sort of justification for them, I am saying it is even worse than
it seems. Because in addition to the fact that they are already
boycotting Israeli academics and institutions, they are using it not
just quietly and saying “we prefer not to deal with Jews” but they are
doing it in a way that gives them constant propaganda initiatives and
campaigning items. Because they pretend that they are not doing it but
they are because they have embraced this anti-Semitic ideology which
they call anti-Zionism and they use it in their everyday lives that’s
how prevalent it is in British culture today and that’s why Britain is
such a problem.

PG: It’s such a problem.

CG: Britain has always been a problem. Britain was supposed to, Britain
pledged itself by international law in 1917 and again then in 1923 with
the Balfour declaration and then its acceptance of the League of
Nations mandate for Palestine to establish a Jewish state in Palestine
and right after they got that power officially in 1923 but unofficially
as early as 1917 when General Allenby conquered the country from the
Turks they went about systematically breaching their commitment to the
Jews and to International law by doing everything they could to destroy
Zionism to destroy the Jewish National Liberation Movement to prevent
Jewish immigration and then of course during the holocaust it was the
British more than any other country that ensured that the Jews in
Europe were annihilated by the Nazis because they blocked any
possibility of escape from the cars that took the Jews to Auschwitz by
closing the borders of the land of Israel to Jewish immigration. So
Britain’s role in this kind of anti-Zionist campaign has been ongoing
for 80 years.

PG: You know, in speaking of Europe, you know in chapter 8 of your
book, which I think is “The European Betryal”, you make a very
interesting statement about how Europe, post-war Europe, has fetishized
the Holocaust, with their constantly, you know, mourning the dead Jews
and so on and so forth. But the live Jews they’re basically throwing in
front of the bus. What’s the connect on that?

CG: Well we ought to realize that the Holocaust, while it was a
German initiative, it was carried out directly and indirectly by every
nation by every nation in Europe save for perhaps Danes. Because, they
actively collaborated with the Nazis in handing over their Jews. You
know, we always think of Holland as somehow enlightened because of Anne
Frank, but we forget that Anne Frank was killed in the Holocaust
because she was exposed by Dutch Nazis who transferred her to the
Gestapo with her family and sent them to Auschwitz to be killed. And in
fact, Holland had the highest rate of collaboration with the Nazis in
Western Europe. I think it was 95% of Dutch Jewry was transferred to
Nazi control and annihilated in the Holocaust. It’s higher than any
other Western European country and it’s important for us to acknowledge
these historic realities because what they tell us about Europe is that
Europe as a continent decided that it would be a good idea to get rid
of the Jews. And, the lesson they took away from that is in insidious
because the lesson that Europe had decided to avail itself to in the
aftermath of Auschwitz is not that evil is bad and they behaved like
monsters but rather that everything was caused by nationalism and
therefore what we really need to do is have a European Union that will
obviate our need for nationalism so that we can become this
transnational gobbledygook and we’ll all get together and therefore we
won’t have another Auschwitz. But really the lesson should have been
“we were evil and we have to be good and that is the lesson that we
have to learn and that we have to be able and willing to make moral
distinctions and stand for the good and fight evil”; and that’s
something that the Europeans refuse to do. And we see that today with
their fetishization of the Holocaust where they constantly have these
memorials, at the same time they are condemning Israel for every single
act of self defence, no matter how benign that it takes to prevent the
slaughter of Israeli citizens. And so I would say to these Europeans
that nationalism isn’t bad. After all, American nationalism wasn’t bad;
it’s never been bad. British nationalism hasn’t been bad. French
nationalism wasn’t bad. Polish nationalism isn’t bad. Czech nationalism
wasn’t bad. The thing that was bad was Germany, which decided to
embrace madness and evil as its central unifying characteristic under
the Nazis, and that is what the problem was. It wasn’t nationalism per
se and it’s still isn’t nationalism per se. So they took all the wrong
lessons from World War Two and have been applying them, while ignoring
the only lesson that’s really relevant from World War Two, which is
that you have to choose good and defend good and fight with the
intention of defeating evil.

PG: Well those that are attempting nationalism in Europe now are
being labelled as fascists and Nazis. It’s like a dirty word,
nationalism in Europe; it’s like a right wing plot to kind of
annihilate the Muslims in Europe

CG: There are fascist elements in some of nationalist parties in
Europe, like the British nationalist party has openly pro-Nazi leanings
and it’s important to point those out and to fight them. I think the
problem is that, because of the kind of lessons that were taken away
from World War Two, particularly by Western Europe, there never
developed a habit of liberalism, with the John Stewart Mill-ian type of
liberalism, in many of the states of Europe and as a result the notion
of a benign nationalism, of a self preserving nationalism – as opposed
to an aggressive hateful nationalism – has not developed In Europe to
the extent that of course it exists in the United States and I dare say
in places Canada and of course in Israel. And so there is a tendency,
unfortunately, in some of these nationalist parties in Europe almost as
a default mode become nationalist socialists that is Nazis. And so that
is something [ ? ]. I am concerned that Europe will in fact move from
cultural collapse, which is where it has been, particularly in past 5
years and it will move from that kind of cultural collapse to a sort of
a xenophobic fascism and that’s why it’s important, not only of course
in the Arab world, but also in Europe and throughout the world for
people who are liberal nationalists, and again in the sense of John
Stuart Mill and Hayek and not in the sense of Gloria Steinem and Barak
Obama, it’s important for liberal nationalists to join together and
help one another throughout the world so that we can be a force that is
a force good against evil and not just one evil engendering another
one.

PG: I don’t know, I don’t have much faith in Europe standing up for
herself. In your third chapter “Israel Alone”, I think you were quite
right that Israel is alone and my problem is that I don’t know why
Israel isn’t more adamant about her existence. I mean the Arab world in
its laws of shari’a, in its terrible oppression, in its subjugation and
slavery of women in large part, is obstinate, unmoving, in its adamant
way of life. I don’t understand why Israel is constantly making excuses
for itself. I don’t know that, Olmert…listen…I know that Barack is
calling for his removal today; he can’t function in this job.

CG: One corrupt loser politician is calling for the resignation of another corrupt loser politician.

PG: Right, exactly. So, I mean, what happens then? It’s not Olmert it seems to be you know a sickness the system there.

CG: You have to understand also that classically in Jewish history,
particularly since the 20th Century the leaders of the Jewish
communities whether in Israel or the United States have been extremely
weak and the kind of salvation efforts that been undertaken by Jews
tended to be carried out by common folk and not by our literatti or our
gliteratti or our wealthy leaders, and I think that we see the same
thing kind of happening today. For instance, next week APAC is having
its annual policy conference and all of the panels that they have about
the Palestinians, are dialogues between people who all support
establishing a Palestinian terrorist state. There is no discussion as
far as I can see on their schedule on whether it would be a good idea
for Israel to give the Golan Heights to Syria, which is an Iranian
proxy. So you know this is a failure on the part of the American Jewish
leadership to address the salient issues of the day. And I find this
very disturbing both in the United States and of course in Israel where
we have the same problem with our leadership: whether they’re our
political leaders, or our cultural leaders, or our academic leaders, or
our media leaders, what we see is this abject failure to base policies
on what actually is; what is reality, as opposed to how we would like
the world to look. Part of the problem is that the hatred of Israel and
the rejection Jewish peoples’ right to empowerment and to national
sovereignty is so overpowering and so huge that people simply don’t
know how to deal with it and so rather than deal with it they prefer to
deny it. Because, if you accept just how hateful Palestinian society is
and has become particularly since the onset of the so-called peace
process in 1993. You see that there is literally no way to appease the
Palestinians without committing national suicide. There is no way to
establish a Palestinian state that will not be used as a base for
continued warfare against Israel, a subversion of Israeli society, with
the aim, the expressed aim by all Palestinians factions to undermine
Israel to the point where it simply collapses. And so the fact that no
debate is being carried on, whether in Israel or in the United States,
about what to do, given this situation which is an exposed reality,
which you do not have to look for because it is right there in plain
sight, shows just how failed the leaders are of the Jewish world at
this moment of crisis, and I find it very frightening.

Pamela: It's disturbing. Listen, this is the first AIPAC I'm not going
to for that very reason, the last AIPAC I went to, you know I have to
tell you, Barack Hussein Obama was there, it was the same day the man
made a statement in Iowa that "nobody suffered more than the
Palestinian people", and I have to tell ya they couldn't kiss his ass
enough. And even today, I don't know if you saw this, this pathetic
attempt by "Jewicidals" to convince Jews to vote for Obama.

Have you heard about this movement, this bridge builder movement,
bridges across the world, they're going to be assembling, Jews are
going to be assembling, it's organized by the International Democrats
Association, I didn't even know that there was such a thing. I thought
it was the UN. (laughter) Where Obama is a bridge builder, I mean this
is what they are calling him, which is so Orwellian because he is the
most divisive candidate in presidential history, I have to tell you.
And they are going to go to these bridges in Paris and London then
Vancouver then Niagara Falls, Johannesburg, Istanbul, Rome, Cambridge,
Dublin, I mean the list goes on and on. Human bridges, to convince
people that he is good for Israel. It's unbelievable.

Glick: I'm sure that most of the people going and standing on these
bridges are products of fine university educations, the finest that the
western world can provide.

Pamela: Well that's another thing, I mean the jihad on all fronts, the
academic front, the economic front, you know the social front. I read
an add the other day, "you don't need to be a Muslima to wear the
headdress". And that story I broke last Friday about Rachael Ray
wearing the Kafiyya in the Dunkin Donuts add. It's insidious!

Glick: Well it's everywhere and I support things like Atlas Shrugs, and
other blogs that are pointing this out are so crucial because people
need to understand that what we're getting is ah..poison. What we are
getting constantly is this drum beat of saying "deny, deny, deny", just
cancel any pride that you may have and who you are because, if you have
it then, you know, you are a closet racist, and you are a horrible
person. And I think that it is so important for people to understand
that this is simply not true.

Now you know, reality does have a way of coming up and biting people,
and it also has a way of coming up and strengthening people, that when
people are actually pushed to the wall, they'll say:

"wait a minute, there is no reason for me to be giving up everything I
believe in- wait a minute, this isn't right, wait a minute, all these
people running around telling me how moral they are, are collaborating
with murderers. And why would I want to be a part of this? And how can
these people be taken seriously on an intellectual level and how can
they be respected on a policy level?

And I think that you know it's possible it certainly isn't necessarily
going to happen, but I think it's possible that during the course of
this campaign for the presidency in the United States, and in light of
the extraordinary progress, and extraordinary victories that the US
military is accomplishing in Iraq today, you're going to have more
people…… (25:36)

Glick: ……..You see that there is literally no way to appease the
Palestinians without committing national suicide. There is no way to
establish a Palestinian state that will not be used as a base for
continued warfare against Israel, a subversion of Israeli society, with
the aim, the expressed aim by all Palestinians factions to undermine
Israel to the point where it simply collapses. And so the fact that no
debate is being carried on, whether in Israel or in the United States,
about what to do, given this situation which is an exposed reality,
which you do not have to look for because it is right there in plain
sight, shows just how failed the leaders are of the Jewish world at
this moment of crisis, and I find it very frightening.

Pamela: It's disturbing. Listen, this is the first AIPAC I'm not going
to for that very reason, the last AIPAC I went to, you know I have to
tell you, Barack Hussein Obama was there, it was the same day the man
made a statement in Iowa that "nobody suffered more than the
Palestinian people", and I have to tell ya they couldn't kiss his ass
enough. And even today, I don't know if you saw this, this pathetic
attempt by "Jewicidals" to convince Jews to vote for Obama.

Have you heard about this movement, this bridge builder movement,
bridges across the world, they're going to be assembling, Jews are
going to be assembling, it's organized by the International Democrats
Association, I didn't even know that there was such a thing. I thought
it was the UN. (laughter) Where Obama is a bridge builder, I mean this
is what they are calling him, which is so Orwellian because he is the
most divisive candidate in presidential history, I have to tell you.
And they are going to go to these bridges in Paris and London then
Vancouver then Niagara Falls, Johannesburg, Istanbul, Rome, Cambridge,
Dublin, I mean the list goes on and on. Human bridges, to convince
people that he is good for Israel. It's unbelievable.

Glick: I'm sure that most of the people going and standing on these
bridges are products of fine university educations, the finest that the
western world can provide.

Pamela: Well that's another thing, I mean the jihad on all fronts, the
academic front, the economic front, you know the social front. I read
an add the other day, "you don't need to be a Muslima to wear the
headdress". And that story I broke last Friday about Rachael Ray
wearing the Kafiyya in the Dunkin Donuts add. It's insidious!

Glick: Well it's everywhere and I support things like Atlas Shrugs, and
other blogs that are pointing this out are so crucial because people
need to understand that what we're getting is ah..poison. What we are
getting constantly is this drum beat of saying "deny, deny, deny", just
cancel any pride that you may have and who you are because, if you have
it then, you know, you are a closet racist, and you are a horrible
person. And I think that it is so important for people to understand
that this is simply not true.

Now you know, reality does have a way of coming up and biting people,
and it also has a way of coming up and strengthening people, that when
people are actually pushed to the wall, they'll say:

"wait a minute, there is no reason for me to be giving up everything I
believe in- wait a minute, this isn't right, wait a minute, all these
people running around telling me how moral they are, are collaborating
with murderers. And why would I want to be a part of this? And how can
these people be taken seriously on an intellectual level and how can
they be respected on a policy level?

And I think that you know it's possible it certainly isn't necessarily
going to happen, but I think it's possible that during the course of
this campaign for the presidency in the United States, and in light of
the extraordinary progress, and extraordinary victories that the US
military is accomplishing in Iraq today, that you're going to have more
and more people questioning the kind of rhetoric coming out of the
Barack Obama campaign, telling people that the United states is
essentially to blame for everything bad that's happened in the world in
the last eight years, at the very least.

So it's a possible consequence of this campaign obviously, it takes a
lot of work to make people recognize just how insidious all this is
given the media's blanket embrace of, and defense of everything that
Barack Hussein Obama says.

Pamela: They are totally in the tank, the blogs have been I think the
one driving force to bring out some truth, for them it's relentless, it
has to be like a swarm if you know what I mean, and it forces the
media, whether they like it or not to take notice. Even the Reverend
Wright came up through the blogs, I mean every..every "The Auschwitz",
I'm sure you saw that one his uncle freed, Auschwitz, then went into
the attic…

Glick: Oh yeah Auschwitz, then oops I meant Buchenwald.
 

Pamela: Yeah then oops, I meant a different relative
 

Glick: What was he saying? He was saying "look, it's all about me, I
personally, and if not me then a direct relative of mine is personally
responsible for everything good that's happened in the world". The fact
that none of this is true is completely immaterial.

Pamela: What's your take on his presidency before we get to Iran? Which
chapter was it , the threat of destruction, I'm sorry ah..on Iran I'm
not exactly sure? But I want to get to that in a second. So you know..I
would like your take on his candidacy, on his presidency, the fact that
he said he would meet unconditionally, I mean then he tried to say he
would use preparation, he would "preparation H it". You know how he
back peddles, he did say that he would meet with Ahamdinejad without
condition. What's your take on his candidacy?

Glick: I think that Barack Obama is a child. I think that, you know,
he's like a child. He can change his mind any time it comes convenient.
But unlike a child, I think that he is, his basic logic is informed by
this radically anti-American ideology. We see it expressed not only by
his wife and by his pastor, but also by him. When he says things like:

"Americans have to understand that the world isn't going to let us heat
our homes to seventy two degrees and whatever, buy our gas
guzzlers",..why not? You know, what is that about, is anybody blaming
the United States for the fact that gas is almost five dollars a
gallon? No. I don't think so, you don't see people demonstrating on the
streets of Europe saying, that the United States is responsible for
that. And Victor David Hanson was just in Europe, visiting American
military cemeteries for Memorial day, and he wrote a very important
piece I think, talking about the fact that, none of the things that
Barack Obama is saying that world thinks of America, is at all resonant
in Europe today, at least not in the areas that Victor Hanson visited,
and not in general.

You saw Sarkozy won a very large majority in the presidential vote in
France, and Berlusconi creamed the Left in Italy, for the first time,
in what since post war Italy or something? The Communists have no
representation in their parliament. These are spectacular reversals,
and I think that it is important to note them because it just shows how
absurd what Barack Obama is saying and how ridiculous his ideology is,
and how wrong it is. So I think that somebody who is both petulant, and
also informed by a horribly, horribly wrong ideology…will make a
horrible president.

Pamela: Horrible, horrible. I'm concerned of course with the Iranian
threat, because as we sit and we chat, we talk and we chat and we talk,
they are building nuclear weapons.

Glick: Yep.
 

Pamela: I mean, you saw, even the UN, I mean I don't know what your
take is there, but I really think that we really need to, I mean I
don't know what it takes to get rid of like a League of Nations. It
takes a war right, it takes a nuclear bomb, what's it going to take?
They do absolutely no good.

Glick: I think that you know, as far as the UN is concerned, you've
been better than the US State Department has been on the Iranian's,
because essentially what their report is saying is that Israel is
correct. All of their reports by the way, every quarterly report put
out for the past several years, has made clear that Iran is developing
an illicit nuclear program. And that it is doing so now, in contempt of
three binding UN Security Council resolutions, and every time that you
get another report like this, you get Condoleezza Rice coming in and
saying "well we need more sanctions", course none of the sanctions have
worked…

Pamela: Right
 

Glick: ..and so I think what that tells us more than anything else, is
it goes back to the weakness of the Jewish leadership, because the
Americans have (unclear 30:45) very clearly, in spite of president
Bush's towering rhetoric, which is never met by action on his part. The
United States under Bush is not going to do anything. The Mossad in
Israel has come out and said that "Iran will likely have a nuclear bomb
by 2009", and by the way, in my view, there is no reason to doubt that
Iran will conduct its nuclear test, not in the Persian Gulf, but in Tel
Aviv.

Pamela: Yes.
 

Glick: So here it is by next year they'll have a nuclear bomb, the
IAEA's latest report seems to agree with that. And we can assume that
the United States has taken itself out of the game…

Pamela: I'm sure
you've read Bolton's book, I'm not, listen, I have my problems with
Bush big time, but you know he was undermined also by the bureaucracy
and the careerists at State, and the foreign policy, you know, wonks.

Glick: He was undermined but he never asserted his authority, and I
think that at the end of the day, and Bush is correct that history will
judge him over time and the historical judgment that people change all
the time, and this is absolutely true. But I think that my view, and
it's also informed only by the fact that I'm caught up in events, is
that history will judge him as a failed president because he was a man
who sat in the Oval Office for eight years and never understood what it
meant to be president. Because it was true that he was undermined, but
he allowed himself to be undermined. He is an actor here, he has
allowed Condoleezza Rice and what Harry Truman referred to as a pin
stripe suits in the State Department, where the striped pants in the
State Department to take over his foreign policy and subvert everything
that he claims to believe in. So he made those decisions, he allowed
himself to be undermined by his own people, he has never stood up to
the people who say:

"Oh ok, you want to make sure the Palestinians fight terrorism? Fine,
lets establish a Palestinian state led by terrorists and that's going
to help somehow".

He never said that's ridiculous…
 

Pamela: No.
 

Glick: He never said anything to the people was said:
 

Oh you want North Korea not to have nuclear weapons, fine, well why
don't we appease them and give them lots of money so that they can have
nuclear weapons?

Pamela: Yeah that was nuts.
 

Glick: He never said no, we can't do that. He said Iran can't nuclear
weapons, and then sat back in May of 2007, when Condoleezza Rice said:
" Oh and the United States wants to negotiate with Iran". He never
said, "no we don't".

Pamela: Yeah intense pressure, I think he caved. I just think he caved,
I think he was a man alone and I think he caved to intense pressure,
both domestically, you see what, they buy into the whole media meme, of
talking and talking and talking, they've been talking, they've been
talking for six years. That's all the Europeans were doing.

Glick: For somebody living in Jerusalem it doesn't really matter to me
why it happened. What all this shows me, is how essential what is
happening in Israeli politics is for the future of the world, because
the United States has said we are not going to do anything, just by the
way the United States decided, "oh, there's railroad tracks leading to
Auschwitz, we're not going to bomb them, we don't want to get the
British angry with us. So you know, Bush came to the Yad Vashem, and he
saw the aerial photographs of Auschwitz and he asked Condoleezza Rice,
"Why didn't we bomb Auschwitz? Well for the same reason that you're not
bombing Iran". Because it's inconvenient to do so, so that means that,
the Jews are going to have to do it, and unfortunately today in our
moment of need, we are being led by corrupt and weak and stupid leaders
who will not do what it takes in order to defend Israel. So that's why
I find the situation very disturbing.

On the other hand, again I go back to saying, Israel was not established by Jewish elites, it was established by regular Jews…
 

Pamela: Right.
 

Glick: …and Israel is going to be defended not by the elites, but by
regular Jews, and we see that the tide has turned in Israel, in terms
of people willing to accept the lies of our politicians and I believe
that we in due course, and probably faster rather than slower, are
going to have leadership that we need in order to do what it takes.

Pamela: Who do you like?
 

Glick: The best candidate that we have who has a viable chance at
winning an election, is the head of Likud, Benyamin Netanyahu. He's the
most viable candidate, he's the only one who has also made very clear,
that he will do what ever is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons, as opposed to all the people who are in charge who are
more than happy to (unclear 35:30) Condoleezza Rice, then take care of
it.

Pamela: So you don't think he'll bend to the West, you don't think that
he'll bend to the US ala Oslo? Do you think he'll stand alone? Do you
think he's capable of standing alone?

Glick: I think he stood alone. He stood alone during the Clinton
administration, when the Clinton administration was forcing him to give
more and more land to Arafat. He didn't. He signed the Wye
implementation agreement and then he gave them nothing. And I think
that it's important to note that, and he stood alone against a storm of
media criticism in Israel, claiming that he had killed Yitzhak Rabin,
and that he was destroying their peace G-d and that he was essentially
the devil. And he stood alone against them, he reduced terrorist levels
in Israel when he was Prime Minister to almost zero.

He saved the Israeli economy which is the only reason that we're still
able to fight wars because we can continue to, we can fight and our
economy continues to grow.

Pamela: It's amazing, the Israeli economy and (unclear 36:39)
 

Glick: Yeah. And I think that Netanyahu was a good Prime Minister, and
I think that he will, he is certainly cognizant of what the demands of
the job are today, particularly vis-a-vis Iran, and I think that he
will do what is necessary. Yes I have faith that he will be able to do
it.

Pamela: So he would be the one to take out the nukes? Somebody has to
take out the nukes? I mean it's like the eight hundred pound elephant
in the room, somebody has to do it, it's not a question of who or with
Iran, it's a question of war with Iran with nukes without nukes. We're
at war with Iran, they're fighting us in Iraq, they're fighting us in
Lebanon, they're behind Hamas, behind Hezbollah..

Glick: They're in Gaza
 

Pamela: They're everywhere. I mean the thing about Gaza, Gaza it's such
a failed, it's not a state, I don't know what the hell it is, why isn't
that obvious to everybody? I mean, you see you gave it back, quote
unquote sovereign, and it's an abortion. It is a cesspool of barbaric
terror, and everybody is whistling Dixie! I don't get it!

Glick: Because if you acknowledge the fact that when Israel gives land
to the Palestinians, because it becomes bases for international
terrorism. Then you come up with the conclusion that Israel oughtn't
give anymore land to terrorists, but since that's the main policy of
the western world, by the way also the Israeli government today, nobody
is willing to acknowledge that. Nobody wants to change their policy,
nobody wants to acknowledge that Israel is the frontline state in the
global jihad, and saying that Israel has to fight, and has to stop
conceding land involves an acknowledgement of that basic reality, so
everybody says:

"well, Israel's horrible because it's only giving the Gaza Strip fuel
and water and medicine, and it's not also allowing Gazans to flow into
Israel to work."

You know that's the level of insanity that are international discourse
on Gaza has taken. It's really horrible that they're bombing Israel
every day..

Pamela: Every day, it's unbelievable, and you have a Leftist media
there. You know I'm surprised at the blogs, because really you know,
they are "so tech" ahead of everything in Israel, I mean they create
half of this stuff, you know that we use every day, that the blogs are
not a more powerful force there? It's surprising to me.

Glick: Well I am actually going to start a site in Israel, we are
developing it now, and more and more people are getting into the blogs
there. It takes a longer time, you have to understand that alot of
these things that are a social phenomenon like the blogosphere in the
United States, you have a different kind of society in Israel, it's
much more European which means that it's much more passive than
American society is, and so these things come, it's just that it takes
a little more time to catch on, and they're catching on.

Pamela: That's good to hear because you have to, you know, refute
Haaretz! I mean I can't even look at that publication, it's really
sickening. It's really the quintessence of Jewicidalness. You know, I
mean they hate the Jews! Really!

Glick: Well you have to understand that Haaretz's editorial policy is
of the 1950's, saying that Israel shouldn't allow Jews from the Arab
states.. after the establishment of the state of Israel, so there is
nothing inconsistent about Haaretz, they've always been anti-Zionist.

Pamela: And always stayed in business!
 

Glick: Yeah well, you know because you have the Sholkin family who
doesn't care if they're cutting losses, so that's the other problem is
that you have these conservatives who buy newspapers what they are but
you want to make a profit, and you have Leftists who by newspapers, who
say we don't care if we make a profit, we just want to propagandize,
and so the Right ends up not, you know conservatives, Right, or
whatever, not engaging that much in journalism or in buying media
outlets and the Left doesn't really care whether they're getting money
or not. They just want to get their message out an inundate public
discourse with lies.

Pamela: So have you officially endorsed McCain or what?

Glick: (Unclear:59) official endorsement, but if you want it sure, I
think that McCain would be a far better president then Barack Obama or
Hillary Clinton for that matter, and that it behooves everybody who
cares about international security, and American national security and
Israeli security to vote for him.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here