Glenn Beck continues to push the lunatic theory that recent events show that the left and the Obama administration are laying the groundwork for military action against Israel. In fact, Beck's theory rests on utter falsehoods and wild distortions.
Beck: "OurAdministration Is Siding With The Wrong Side" And "Protecting The Killers AndThe Terrorists," But "I Stand Tonight With Israel." From the March 29edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK:[T]he world is being led to the water that Israel is the evil one and it'sabout to drink. Don't drink that water. They have measurably -- no, it's theMiddle East. They have immeasurably more freedom than any other Middle Easternnation. Women are free to drive. Women and our daughters can walk alone in thestreets without being stoned or jailed. You can bring a Bible or a Quran intoIsrael. When a woman can't walk down the street alone and be safe, and notbecause she's in a dangerous neighborhood but because she walked alone withouta man, how do you possibly stand with that country? How do you possibly stand witha group of people that say, "I'm going to kill you if you don't go to myfaith"? A country that treats women or people who are at all different like adog, treats a woman as a piece of furniture or a sexual toy that can be rapedand the courts will allow it -- how is it that a country like ours actuallylistens to those evil people saying this is evil and we believe it? How manyIsraelis have taken someone off the streets and then beheaded them on videotapejust for political reasons?
Ouradministration is siding with the wrong side. They are standing against goodand encouraging evil in the Middle East. We are reprimanding the nation that isas flawed as we are and protecting the aggressors. We're protecting the killersand the terrorists. We have gone from a nation who was doing the wrong thing bysiding with Mubarak to a nation who is doing an even greater evil by arming AlQaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood which empowers Iran and also in the enddestroys Israel. It is not difficult to tell good apart from evil. Let's startwith some simple ideas -- voting rights. Generally speaking, which is better?Voting rights of Iran, Muslim Brotherhood, those who run Al Qaeda? How aboutfree speech? Rights of women? Rights of homosexuals? America and Israel, or thepeople we seem to be siding with? I stand tonight with Israel. [Fox News, GlennBeck, 3/29/11]
Beck: "Players In TheWhite House Are Pushing The Responsibility To Protect Act." From the March 29edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK:Let's look at the direction in the Middle East. Do you think it's headedtowards the -- towards the peaceful conclusion? To a happier world? Do youthink it's going to end well, or not so much? Are things happening that arebeneficial to the survival of Israel, or not so much? Is there any leader inthe world standing up for Israel, or not so much? Yeah, Bob, I'd have to go fornot so much. Israel is under attack, and let me show you just a couple ofthings.
OK.First of all, we have George Soros's powerful group and his players in theWhite House saying that there are obstacles. And also, his players in the WhiteHouse are pushing the Responsibility to Protect Act. [Fox News, Glenn Beck,3/29/11]
REALITY: No"Responsibility To Protect Act" Has Been Introduced During Obama's Time InOffice. Asearch of the Library of Congress' Thomas database shows that at no pointduring Obama's tenure has anyone in Congress introduced a "Responsibility toProtect Act." While there are Congressional resolutions asserting that theUnited States has a responsibility to protect the international communityagainst mass atrocities, no binding legislation has been passed to date.[Thomas.LOC.gov, accessed 3/29/11]
Beck Plays EditedVideo Clip Of Power To Suggest She Favors Using "Protect Doctrine" "AgainstIsrael." Fromthe March 29 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK:That brings us to the responsibility to protect doctrine. This states thatstates have the right to protect the population, in fact, the responsibility toprotect the populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, andethnic cleansing. That's apparently what was happening in Libya. That's what weused -- justification to wage kinetic military action against a country that,as Defense Secretary Gates said, was not a vital interest to the United States.But we had a responsibility to protect. And that was an idea spawned by noneother than Samantha Power. She's a White House aide and the wife of the mostdangerous man in America, Cass Sunstein. I'm thinking about calling them themost dangerous couple of the year, because she's now out in the press braggingthat it was Obama who triggered the Libya uprising. What? Excuse me? I'm sorry,hmm?
Power,before being in the White House, explicitly stated how she would deal withIsrael. Here she is.
POWER[video clip] What we need is a willingness to actually put something on theline in sort of helping the situation. And putting something on the line mightmean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financialimport. It may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, morethan sacrificing -- literally billions of dollars not in servicing Israelis',you know, military but actually in investing in the new state of Palestine, ininvesting billions of dollars it would probably take also to support I thinkwhat will have to be a mammoth protection force.... [A]ny intervention is goingto come under fierce criticism, but we have to think about lesser evils,especially when the human stakes are just becoming ever more pronounced.
BECK:Too high. That bad, bad Israel. The responsibility to protect doctrine. Itworked in Libya and they're going to try it again against Israel because thestakes are just too high. [Fox News, Glenn Beck,3/29/11]
REALITY: Power WasResponding To A Question About What Would Happen If "One Party Or Another" Were"Moving Toward Genocide." From an undated 2002 edition of ConversationsWith History, a program produced by the University of California-BerkeleyInstitute of International Studies:
HARRYKREISLER (host): Let me give you a thought experiment here, without asking youto address the Palestine-Israel problem: Let's say you were an adviser to thepresident of the United States. How would, in response to current events, wouldyou advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at leastone party or another be looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
POWER:Well, I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is theproblem, and I actually think in the Palestine-Israeli situation, there's anabundance of information, and what we don't need is some kind of early warningmechanism there. What we need is a willingness to actually put something on theline in sort of helping the situation. And putting something on the linemight mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political andfinancial import. It may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, Ithink, more than sacrificing -- literally billions of dollars not in servicingIsraelis', you know, military but actually in investing in the new state ofPalestine, in investing billions of dollars it would probably take also tosupport I think what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of theold, you know, Srebrenica kind or the Rwanda kind, but a meaningful militarypresence, because it seems to me at this stage -- and this is true of actualgenocides as well and not just, you know, major human rights abuses, whichwe're seeing there. But -- is that you have to go in as if you're serious, youhave to put something on the line. And unfortunately, imposition of a solutionon unwilling parties is dreadful. I mean, it's a terrible thing to do; it'sfundamentally undemocratic. But sadly, you know -- we don't just have ademocracy here either. We have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets ofprinciples that guide, you know, our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. Andthere, it's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, ratherthan a deference to people who are fundamentally politically destined todestroy the lives of their own people, and by that I mean what Tom Friedman hascalled "Sharafat." I mean, I do think in that sense, there's -- thatboth political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible, and unfortunately,it does require external intervention which, very much like the Rwanda scenario-- that thought experiment, of "if we had intervened early" -- anyintervention is going to come under fierce criticism, but we have to thinkabout lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are just becoming evermore pronounced. [Conversations With History, UC-Berkeley Institute ofInternational Studies via YouTube, accessed3/29/11]
Beck Falsely Claims SorosSees Israel As "The Main Problem In The Middle East To Transformation." On his televisionshow, Beck lifted a statement from Soros out of context to falsely accuse himof saying that Israel is " 'the main stumbling block' to the transformation ofthe Middle East":
BECK:While Soros' group advocates for these radical groups, he then singles outIsrael, calling them -- I'm quoting -- "the main stumbling block" to thetransformation of the Middle East. He added, in this report, "in reality,Israel has much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as theUnited States has, but Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interestsbecause the change is too sudden and carries too many risks."
Isn'tit good to have a grandpa or a great-great-great-grandpa that will just take usall by the hand and just fix all our problems, because we're just too dumb oryoung to understand. Remember, George Soros says Israel is the main problem inthe Middle East to transformation. It's too scary for them. [Fox News, GlennBeck, 3/29/11]
REALITY: Soros WasReferring Specifically To Support For Mubarak In Israel, Which Soros Argued WasNot In Israel's "Own Best Interests." In a Washington Post op-ed titled,"Why Obama has to get Egypt right," Soros wrote about the revolutions sweepingthe Middle East, focusing particularly on the situation in Egypt. From theop-ed:
Somehave articulated fears of adverse consequences of free elections, suggestingthat the Egyptian military may seek to falsify the results; that Israel may beadamantly opposed to a regime change; that the domino effect of extremistpolitics spreading to other countries must be avoided; and that the supply ofoil from the region could be disrupted. These notions constitute the oldconventional wisdom about the Middle East -- and need to be changed, lestWashington incorrectly put up resistance to or hesitate in supportingtransition in Egypt.
Thatwould be regrettable. President Obama personally and the United States as acountry have much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the publicdemand for dignity and democracy. This would help rebuild America's leadershipand remove a lingering structural weakness in our alliances that comes frombeing associated with unpopular and repressive regimes. Most important, doingso would open the way to peaceful progress in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood'scooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to runfor president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role ina democratic political system. As regards contagion, it is more likely toendanger the enemies of the United States -- Syria and Iran -- than our allies,provided that they are willing to move out ahead of the avalanche.
Themain stumbling block is Israel. In reality, Israel has as much to gain from thespread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel isunlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too suddenand carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigidand ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden tothe religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him. TheAmerican Israel Public Affairs Committee is no longer monolithic or the solerepresentative of the Jewish community. The main danger is that the Obamaadministration will not adjust its policies quickly enough to the suddenlychanged reality. [The Washington Post, 2/3/11]
Beck: Soros Sees America As "The Main Obstacle To A Stable AndJust World Order." From the March 29 edition of Fox News' GlennBeck:
BECK:George Soros is also the guy that believes that -- this -- quoting him: "Themain obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States." Whoa. Solet's see if we have this right. Israel and the U.S. is an obstacle to what heor his groups believe should happen. Huh!
Youknow who else thinks that? Osama bin Laden. Oh, I know. How about like Iran?Wait. We didn't stand up for the people of Iran. That's a weird coincidence.It's almost like Iran. Remember, they say we're the "great Satan" and Israel isthe "little Satan." They're just using "Satan" while he's using "obstacles."[Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/29/11]
REALITY: Soros WasCritiquing The Policies Of The Bush Administration, And His Top Priority Was"Changing That Attitude And Policies Of The United States." In his book TheAge of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror, Soros wrote that the"main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States"and this was because "the Bush administration is setting the wrongagenda." He went on to write that "[c]hanging that attitude andpolicies of the United States remains my top priority." From The Age ofFallibility:
Themain obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. This is aharsh -- indeed, for me, painful -- thing to say, but unfortunately I amconvinced it is true. The United States continues to set the agenda for theworld in spite of its loss of influence since 9/11, and the Bush administrationis setting the wrong agenda. The Bush agenda is nationalistic: it emphasizesthe use of force and ignores global problems whose solution requiresinternational cooperation. The rest of the world dances to the tune the United Statesis playing, and if that continues too long we are in danger of destroying ourcivilization. Changing that attitude and policies of the United States remainsmy top priority. [The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terrorvia Media Matters, 11/10/10]
Beck DistortsInternational Crisis Group Report To Claim It "Advocates For ... Radical Groups." Beckstated:
BECK:The only thing that would make George Soros look foolish is his ideas spokenclearly out in the open -- ideas that are wildly out of step with the Americanpeople and, I do believe, becoming dangerous, which is why he has to keep themin disguise. He has put together one serious operation. It's a seriousoperation that is on the wrong side of history.
Forexample, do you know about the Soros-funded International Crisis Group? Look upthe International Crisis Group. It is -- oh, it's quite amazing. And it seemsto be right in the center of almost everything that is happening overseas,especially in Libya now and Egypt. The International Crisis Group hasconsistently worked to support the groups in the Middle East who want toestablish an Islamic government, including the Muslim Brotherhood and even AlQaeda.
Thereis a report that came out in June 2008 -- it's this one -- it's entitled,"Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood: Confrontation or Integration?" Guesswhat they decided would be best? It was put out by his group, the InternationalCrisis Group, who I believe he sits on the board and so did [Mohamed] Elbaradeifor a while. Well, he resigned as soon as he got that call.
Thereport calls on Egypt's government and calls the crackdown of Egypt'sgovernment back then -- the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood as, quote,"dangerously short-sighted," adding, "the regime should takepreliminary steps to normalize the Muslim Brotherhood's participation inpolitical life." Oh, had Mubarak only listened. Had he only listened. Now,while Soros' group advocates for these radical groups, he then singles outIsrael, calling them -- I'm quoting -- "the main stumbling block" to thetransformation of the Middle East. [Fox News, Glenn Beck,3/29/11]
REALITY: ICG ReportStressed That Muslim Brotherhood Needed To Moderate And Alter Certain Views. In a June 2008report titled, "Egypt's Muslim Brothers: Confrotation Or Integration,"Soros-funded group the International Crisis Group analyzed the situation inEgypt in the aftermath of that country's 2005 elections, in which the MuslimBrotherhood captured an unprecedented 20 percent of parliamentary votes. Itoffered several recommendations to the government of Egypt and to theBrotherhood, including "amend[ing] the Society's political program." From thereport:
TheSociety of Muslim Brothers' success in the November-December 2005 elections forthe People's Assembly sent shockwaves through Egypt's political system. Inresponse, the regime cracked down on the movement, harassed other potentialrivals and reversed its fledging reform process. This is dangerouslyshort-sighted. There is reason to be concerned about the Muslim Brothers'political program, and they owe the people genuine clarifications about severalof its aspects. But the ruling National Democratic Party's (NDP) refusal toloosen its grip risks exacerbating tensions at a time of both politicaluncertainty surrounding the presidential succession and serious socio-economicunrest. Though this likely will be a prolonged, gradual process, the regimeshould take preliminary steps to normalise the Muslim Brothers' participationin political life.
TheMuslim Brothers also carry their share of responsibility. Although they havemade considerable efforts to clarify their vision and can make a credible casethat they embrace the rules of democratic politics, including the principles ofcitizenship, rotation of power and multiparty political life, serious questionslinger. Many of their pronouncements are ambiguous; not a few - including intheir most recent political program - retain a distinctly non-democratic,illiberal tone. This is particularly true concerning the role of women and theplace of religious minorities, neither of whom, for example, the MuslimBrothers believe should be eligible for the presidency. Clarification isneeded. Democratising the Society's internal practice also would help,particularly if the group's more pragmatic wing is able to make a credible casefor a doctrinal revision as the price to pay for political integration.
Tothe Society of Muslim Brothers:
4.Engage in a dialogue with members of the government, opposition and civilsociety, notably by:
(a)approaching officials and reform-minded NDP members to discuss conditionsnecessary for the Society's peaceful political integration;
(b)engaging with secular opposition parties and movements to form a consensus onhow the Society can best be integrated as well as wider issues of politicalreform;
(c)engaging with representatives of the Christian community in a frank dialogue onsectarian relations and the Society's stance toward religious minorities;
(d)supporting comprehensive political reform clearly, as opposed to a bilateralarrangement between the Society and the regime; and
(e) ensuring that consensus positions on these issues are formed within the Societyin a democratic manner to avoid contradictory approaches by members.
5. Finalise and amend the Society's political program, in particular by:
(a)altering its position on the role of women and non-Muslims in public life;
(b)continuing to seek input from a wide range of its members as well asnon-members; and
(c)clarifying relations between the Society and a future related political party.[International Crisis Group, "Egypt's Muslim Brothers: Confrotation OrIntegration," 6/18/08]
Beck Claims UnitedStates Will "Mount A Campaign Against Israel." On his radio show,Beck discussed the situation in the Gaza Strip, claiming that the Muslim Brotherhoodis "taking over the military in Egypt" and forming what he called a "mammothprotection force for the Palestinians." He then said: "I'm telling you, Israelis being set up." He continued: "And you watch, you mark my words,responsibility to protect will be used to go and mount a campaign againstIsrael. Please, I am begging Jewish-Americans to wake up. Please, wake up."[Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 3/25/11]
Frank Gaffney:"The Gadhafi Precedent: Could Attack On Libya Set The Stage For ActionAgainst Israel?" In a WashingtonTimes op-ed, Frank Gaffney commented on the U.S. decision to join amultilateral effort to establish a no-fly zone over Libya, writing that the"Gadhafi Precedent" could be "used in the not-too-distant futureto justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel." [The Washington Times, 3/21/11]
Fox Nation:"Could Attack On Libya Set State For Action Against Israel?" The Fox Nationwebsite highlighted Gaffney's article, using the headline: "Could Attackon Libya Set Stage for Action Against Israel?":
[Fox Nation, 3/22/11]
WorldNetDaily:"American Military Targeting Israel?" In a columnreferring to Gaffney's article, WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein wrote: "CouldPresident Obama's decision to sidestep Congress and strike Libya as part of aninternational coalition put the U.S. on a military collision course withIsrael?" He further stated: "While the prospect of American orWestern forces confronting Israeli troops may seem remote, one Middle Eastpolicy expert is warning the precedent set by Obama in agreeing to target Libyaopens the door to other possible United Nations-backed confrontations,including perhaps one day with Israel." [WorldNetDaily, 3/22/11]