In 2015 journalist Caroline Glick objects in a video (attached to a Jerusalem Post article) to something said by an ambassador from European country. He says that Israel is held to a different standard from surrounding countries because it is seen as European, and she objects very stringently that this is any kind of good idea and also expresses disrespect for Europeans over their 'Obsession' with Israel and their picking at it. Its actually a fairly entertaining small rant lasting about 4 minutes. Who’s brave enough to debate Caroline?
Does she have a point?
Let me add a little background to Caroline Glick. She's seen as a right leaning hot potato.
I'm unclear from dates given if this was before or after the above event but probably before: She criticized Jeffrey Goldberg editor of The Atlantic, saying he was anti-zionist. (Jeffrey Goldberg, anti-Zionist – Mondoweiss) He retorted through The Atlantic that she was delusional (The Delusions of Caroline Glick) Then she retorted on her site that he was 'Apoplectic' (Jeffrey Goldberg's meltdown - CarolineGlick.com)
I had to look that 'Apoplectic' term up. It meant, of course, something resembling or produced by apoplexy. Basically she connoted some kind of immorality about Mr. Goldberg.
Her views arise from a historic-continuous view of antisemitism. She says in a video what her views on this are, and to me her comments seem to make sense considering all of the history available. She says that antisemitism arises from the notion at the core of Judaism that individuals are responsible to reason about good and evil and to choose good personally. They have a notion of moral choice and personal responsibility for making choices which offends many. She says it is this embrace of reason which annoys and threatens those who reject reason (about moral choices). That is her explanation of antisemitism, roughly, as seen in the following video:
I am not claiming to be an expert on the views of Caroline Glick, Europeans, diplomats or of Jeffrey Goldberg. Nor am I claiming to be an expert on Israeli, European or other political matters.
Does she have a point?
Let me add a little background to Caroline Glick. She's seen as a right leaning hot potato.
I'm unclear from dates given if this was before or after the above event but probably before: She criticized Jeffrey Goldberg editor of The Atlantic, saying he was anti-zionist. (Jeffrey Goldberg, anti-Zionist – Mondoweiss) He retorted through The Atlantic that she was delusional (The Delusions of Caroline Glick) Then she retorted on her site that he was 'Apoplectic' (Jeffrey Goldberg's meltdown - CarolineGlick.com)
I had to look that 'Apoplectic' term up. It meant, of course, something resembling or produced by apoplexy. Basically she connoted some kind of immorality about Mr. Goldberg.
Her views arise from a historic-continuous view of antisemitism. She says in a video what her views on this are, and to me her comments seem to make sense considering all of the history available. She says that antisemitism arises from the notion at the core of Judaism that individuals are responsible to reason about good and evil and to choose good personally. They have a notion of moral choice and personal responsibility for making choices which offends many. She says it is this embrace of reason which annoys and threatens those who reject reason (about moral choices). That is her explanation of antisemitism, roughly, as seen in the following video:
I am not claiming to be an expert on the views of Caroline Glick, Europeans, diplomats or of Jeffrey Goldberg. Nor am I claiming to be an expert on Israeli, European or other political matters.