On March 17th, J.J. Goldberg opined in The Forward that Caroline Glick's appearance at Hillel violates the National Hillel Guidelines for Campus Israel Activities due to her right-wing views on Israel. In an article titled “N.J Hillel Hosts right-wing views of Israel 1-Stater. Relax, She’s Right-Winger,” he labels Glick as a “militant one-stater” who is a “fiery right-winger.”
After labeling Glick and portraying her as extreme, Goldberg attempts to argue against her new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East:
Some people might argue that annexing the West Bank would result in an Israel that is either not Jewish or not democratic, but Glick and most of her fellow Zionist one-staters don’t agree. Most tend to dismiss the demographic projections that show Jews becoming a minority. Others come up with theoretical Israeli constitutional arrangements that somehow add up to a state that’s Jewish in character and still democratic. Their claims might not seem plausible, but there’s nothing in the guidelines about plausibility.
Unable to successfully dispute her claims, Goldberg then attempts to reframe the conversation. He claims that Glick still violates the guidelines, but for reasons of incivility:
Where Glick and others like her might run afoul of the guidelines is in a separate clause that bars speakers who “foster an atmosphere of incivility.” The guidelines don’t define “incivility,” so we’re left again with a matter of interpretation. But Glick devotes a huge proportion of her writing to tearing down those who disagree with her and branding them as enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. I haven’t done a statistical analysis, but it seems as though she spends more time attacking Jews she disagrees with—along with allies of Israel, beginning with President Obama and his secretary of state—than advancing her own ideas.
After detailing a number of her “targets,” Goldberg draws attention to Glick’s criticism of J Street as she has stated that “J Street’s aim is to delegitimize the organized American Jewish community’s right to defend Israel.”
One of J Street’s founding missions was to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel, which includes attacking the pro-Israel establishment.
J Street also chimed in via Facebook and Twitter, in an attempt to level pressure against Hillel International:
Goldberg then continues to attack Glick’s style of writing and labels it as uncivil:
Her writing is a textbook lesson in the difference between robust debate and mud-slinging. Rather than grant that her opponents might have benign goals but mistaken ways of reaching them, she assumes that the dire outcomes she foresees coming from their prescriptions are obvious to them as well—and that they advocate them precisely in order to bring about disaster. That’s about as useful a definition of “incivility” as I can think of.
Ironically, Goldberg then admits that Glick’s style of journalism isn’t particularly radical, but can't resist attempting to slander center-right voices like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
What’s the point of all this? To prove that Caroline Glick doesn’t play nice? As a matter of fact, her style of journalism isn’t all that different from the kind you’ll find every day in Haaretz, Fox News, MSNBC and the Washington Post. It’s the way journalism is practiced these days. And politics, for that matter, if you follow what goes on in the Knesset and the House of Representatives. Not to mention the Netanyahu cabinet.