Israel Victory, How Zionists Win Acceptance and Palestinians Get Liberated Transcript

Laurie: Good afternoon, and welcome to EMET’s weekly webinar. Today’s webinar features the brilliant historian, Dr. Daniel Pipes. Dr. Pipes will be discussing his new book, Israel Victory, How Zionists Win Acceptance and Palestinians Get Liberated. In the interest of time, I am going to forego reading Dr. Pipes’s extensive bio. If you are not already familiar with Dr. Pipes work, please refer to the invitation for today’s program for details of his biography.

Thank you all for your continued support of the important work that we do here at EMET. I encourage everyone to consider sponsoring a future webinar, or making a donation at https://emetonline.org/. This will allow us to continue fighting for Israel, the Jewish people, and for U.S. national security. Today’s webinar will be recorded and available for viewing at a later date. Please feel free to share the link far and wide. If you have any questions, you can place them in the Q&A function at the bottom of your screen. I will try to address as many as possible later in the program. Please limit your submissions to brief questions only.

Welcome, Daniel, and thank you so much for joining us this afternoon.

Dr. Pipes: Thank you, Laurie. Thank you for the kind words.

Laurie: I have been a big proponent of the Middle East Forum’s Israel Victory Project since you first announced it in the 2000s. I am happy to hear that you wrote a book laying out the historic basis and practical reasoning behind your thesis. I am also pleased that you are helping to define what victory actually means, what has prevented it until today, and how to achieve it. I am glad you have framed your analysis in the context of current world conflicts. We can discuss how October 7^th altered your analysis a little later. Please start by sharing with our audience what you view as an Israeli victory. How realistic you believe it is in the context of today’s geopolitical situation.

Dr. Pipes: Conflicts and wars end when one side gives up. It is intuitive. If we are fighting, we need to keep fighting until one side gives up. The Korean War illustrates this premise. Neither side has given up. The conflict between North and South Korea could reignite as we speak. The fact that conflicts end when one side gives up, is a basic fact of human life. Since we dropped the atomic bomb to end World War II, we no longer adhere to this principle. We, and others, appear to have forgotten this basic premise when it comes to the Palestinians. We are not trying to win. We are trying to manage the conflict and management never ends. I am suggesting we should stop managing and start winning.

Laurie: It seems to be a matter of common sense, and yet it has been so difficult to achieve. The first half of your book examines the two main barriers to an Israeli victory. The first of those is Palestinian rejectionism. In your book, you point out this encompasses the 140-year-old Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel, and their unwavering commitment to its destruction. You also point out that the Palestinian identity became inextricably tied to rejectionism and this connection has survived numerous wars and treaties. So, can you spend some time discussing Palestinian rejectionism, including their use of violence and delegitimization?

Dr. Pipes: The people we now know as Palestinians rejected Zionists back in the 1880s. Even back then, they declared they did not want the Zionists. They proclaimed they hated the Zionists and they were going to kill them. By the 1920s, this attitude had evolved into something larger, more nationalistic and more ideological. This has remained the dominant attitude of Palestinians towards Israelis, Israel, Jews and Judaism. It is a dysfunctional attitude but it is deep, broad, and dominant. As you mentioned, it includes both violent and non-violent aspects. The violent aspect is obvious and includes murder and other forms of destruction. The nonviolent aspect is delegitimization. Delegitimization asserts Israel is an apartheid state and a white nation. Israel is accused of being a neo-Nazi, colonial state.

Palestinian violence against Israel has not succeeded in the sense that it has not demoralized Israel. To be sure, it has cost human lives, but it has not fundamentally altered Israel’s progress. On the other hand, delegitimization against Israel has been successful. Since October 7^th, around 1,300 Israelis have lost their lives. However, the larger threat to Israel is the possibility that the next president of the United States views Israel as an enemy, a terrorist and a genocidal state. I think that could be far more consequential to the existence of the state of Israel, than the deaths and the violence.

Israelis have generally focused on violence, rather than delegitimization. They have sought to deal with the most immediate threat because it is in front of their faces and it is bloody. The threat of delegitimization is more abstract but it is actually more threatening.

Laurie: You describe Israeli conciliation as the second barrier to victory. Conciliation is the process through which Israel strives to achieve acceptance from Palestinians through enriching and placating them, rather than coercing them. You wrote, “Conciliation is to Zionists as rejectionism is to Palestinians, a constant and unique mentality that goes back to the Ottoman period. It represents the polar opposite of rejectionism, but has lasted equally long and has a no less futile record. As with rejectionism, conciliation once had a certain logic, today it lacks any.” Can you elaborate on this? Please explain why Palestinian hatred and violence is unending despite Israel constantly enriching and placating them.

Dr. Pipes: The concept of rejectionism is somewhat well known. Conciliation is my own term and is derived from what I have observed through my own analyses. I have not seen the term used elsewhere.

There have been many changes in the world since the 1880s. However, some elements have remained constant. In the early days, there were few Zionists and they remained weak for decades. Now they are strong, yet their conciliation mentality remains unchanged. To this day, it is the guiding principle as regards how Israelis relate to the Palestinians. I see two themes within conciliation.

The first is enrichment. As early as the 1880s, the first Zionists promised their Palestinian neighbors they would bring better roads, cleaner water and new ports. They promised the Palestinians they would benefit from their presence. As recently as a few weeks ago, the Israelis agreed to send money to Gaza. They hope to obtain psychological and political results by enriching the Palestinians. Israeli attempts to enrich Palestinians are a constant.

The second theme within conciliation is what I call placation, I trace placation back to the Oslo Accords, around 30 years ago. Until then, the Israeli security establishment was quite tough. Since Oslo, the security establishment has become very timid and very cautious. It does not want to upset anyone. Tactically, they do violent things but strategically, the goal is to be gentle with the Palestinians. They are hoping to avoid the Palestinians becoming upset or violent.

The combination of enrichment and placation, amount to what I call conciliation. Conciliation has not worked. It runs contrary to everything we have learned through all of human history. When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine two and a half years ago, the West did not respond by sending him money to appease him. Rather, they cut off almost all commercial ties with Russia. That is the natural response. It was the natural response in ancient times, medieval times and in modern times. It was the rational response before and after the invention of the atomic bomb. The objective is to weaken your enemy and not to strengthen him.

Zionist history shows that Israel has not adopted a natural response to its enemies, rather it has acted to strengthen and improve the lot of the Palestinians. This response goes against all logic, and it has not worked.

Laurie: I am glad you brought up the Oslo Accords. I think it is important to spend a few minutes discussing their impact. You describe the signing of the Oslo Accords as Israel’s Nakba. Oslo was intended to bring peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. You assert it had the opposite effect in that it rewarded Palestinian hostility and actually led to an extension of the conflict. You list 27 plans designed to end the conflict since Oslo. You argue that rather than bringing peace, they have bolstered the Palestinians’ perception of Israel as weak and ripe for collapse. You point out that Israel withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon in 2000 and then from Gaza in 2005. These were examples of cases when Israel made unilateral offers of peace. You stated, and I quote, “Thus did Israel’s extravagant mistakes turn a would-be peace process into a war process.” What are the lessons that Israel should have learned from all of these mistakes over the past three decades? Do you believe Israel has actually learned any lessons from their previous mistakes?

Dr. Pipes: No, they have not learned lessons from their past experiences. For a few weeks after October 7^th, it appeared they had learned something, but now I do not believe that is the case. Prime Minister Netanyahu talks about victory but it does not seem as if the security establishment supports him. A significant part of the population wants the hostages back at all costs. I do not think there has been a big change in the Israeli approach and I think conciliation continues because it is tradition. Zionism is based on positivity towards the Palestinian enemy.

When discussing conciliation, I am referring specifically to the Palestinians and not to the Arab states. Syria and the other Arab states are a very different topic. I am talking about Israel’s approach to those who lived in then British Mandatory Palestine and I am including those from today’s Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

The Palestinians are a very special case. The attitude of the Palestinians is unique from a historical perspective. To maintain a genocidal rage for a century and more, is extraordinary. There are no comparable cases. For example, the Turkish-Armenian conflict resulted in an attempted genocide a century ago but it is now over. Genocidal Turks are not planning to murder Armenians. There are tensions to be sure and I am not going to glorify the situation but it was a brief genocidal moment, and it ended.

The genocidal impulse of the Palestinians is unique. It has continued for around a century and a half, and outsiders tend not to understand how different this conflict is from others. The war between Egypt and Israel was a normal struggle, but the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not. It takes an understanding of how unique it is, to begin solving it. Outsiders who have attempted to resolve this struggle, have failed completely because they did not understand how exceptional it is. George Mitchell succeeded in brokering peace in Ireland. Mitchell was appointed by both Clinton and Obama to try and solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Mitchell failed completely because he did not understand it is not the same as Ireland. It is something sui generis.

Laurie: Do you think there is anybody in the current international leadership that understands the problem?

Dr. Pipes: Javier Milei of Argentina, perhaps.

Laurie: I think a lot of us Jews are saying we are going to end up in Argentina if things continue going the way they are here.

What role has the U.S. and the rest of the international community played in helping to sustain Palestinian rejectionism? What role have they played in furthering Palestinian delegitimization of Israel? Recently, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opined that Israel is violating international law by occupying the West Bank and Jerusalem. The International Criminal Court (ICC) threatened to issue arrest warrants for Israel’s leaders. These are just some examples illustrating the anti-Israel animus pervading the UN and other international organizations. Given this animus, is it even possible for Israel to defeat the Palestinians? Can an aggressive Israeli PR campaign change three millennia of hating and scapegoating Jews? Is Israel alone at this point?

Dr. Pipes: I do not think Israel has been abandoned. It has strong relations with the United States. Israel has strong allies. They are not uncritical allies, but they are allies. Israel is not alone by any means.

For Israel to shift from management to victory will create problems. As we will discuss in more detail later, I do not see Israel defeating the Palestinians as a military campaign. I see it more as a psychological campaign. The Biden administration is the first one in decades without a plan as to how to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is a really good thing. I have many criticisms of Biden and his administration vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinians. However, I applaud them for not having a plan. Trump had a plan. Obama had a plan. Bush had unending numbers of plans. Clinton had plans. The first Bush had plans. Reagan had plans. Carter had plans. Finally, we have an administration without plans. That is a good thing.

Laurie: Can you share with us how October 7^th altered your views about what is needed for Israel to achieve victory? Eugene Kantorovich wrote, “Hamas’s grisly terror raid on October 7^th has proved to be the single most stunningly successful act in gaining support for the Palestinian cause.” Do you agree with Eugene? In this context, please share your thoughts on the absolutely insane post October 7^th push for a Palestinian state by the Biden administration and the international community.

Dr. Pipes: There are a lot of questions there. For about three weeks after October 7^th, I thought my book was no longer needed. At that time, I believed Israelis had concluded by themselves that they needed victory. By the end of October, I realized their perspective had not changed. Prime Minister Netanyahu has spoken of victory over 60 times in 60 different speeches. Netanyahu came to the United States a couple of days ago on his new Wings of Zion plane. He was pictured with a baseball cap saying “Total Victory” in English. So, the concept is in the air, but current policy is not really designed to achieve victory.

October 7^th created a very intense hostility toward Israel and it is coming from the left in particular. Note, I say the left and not the Muslims. The left created the encampments at American universities in the spring. The harder left you are, the more intense is your antagonism toward Israel. You see the same happening in Congress. Rashida Tlaib is possibly the furthest left member of Congress and she is the one calling Israel a genocidal state. The animus against Israel from the left has been aroused.

That said, I think there has been a pro-Israel arousal on the right, albeit less dramatic. For example, the first thing Mike Johnson did when he became Speaker of the House, was to push through aid to Israel. That was in spite of the animus toward Israel in Congress.

So, October 7^th has aroused stronger feelings about Israel on both sides and I do not think it is all negative. I would also argue that the anti-Israel antics of the far left are counterproductive. A few months back, the far left was blocking people from getting to major airports around the United States. They desecrated US military memorials and impeded medical procedures at hospitals. I do not believe this is the way to win friends and I think many anti-Israel activities are counter-productive.

Laurie: Can you also touch on the insanity of insisting on a two-state solution? Please also address the Democratic congressmen who boycotted Bibi’s speech this afternoon.

Dr. Pipes: The tradition of boycotting Netanyahu began in 2015, at his last address to the joint session of Congress. I do think any other foreign leader has been boycotted, but it is now a tradition to boycott Netanyahu. I do not think it is terribly important, but it does demonstrate the uniquely high emotions that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict engenders.

Again, it is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not the Arab-Israeli conflict that engenders this level of emotion. Between 1948 and 1973, the Arab states were in conflict with Israel. During that time, we did not witness such levels of emotion. Emotions were high but not as high as now. Today’s levels of vitriol are unique, especially since the conflict is a small one between a small state of under ten million people and a non-state actor. This is not China and India fighting each other, but yet it engenders intense emotion.

As for the two-state solution, I see it somewhat differently from many of my friends. The idea of a two-state solution now is absurd. Why should the Palestinians be strengthened when their driving ideology is the destruction of Israel? Why would Israel accede to that? Why would Israel’s friends want that? It is crazy.

That said, I believe the creation of the Palestinian state is a viable solution once the Palestinians accept the existence of the Jewish state. The goal of my book is to make that possibility a reality. It will take decades but the two-state solution will be a pretty good solution at the right time.

For many years, the Egyptians have indicated that they do not want to go back to Gaza. Similarly, the Jordanians have indicated they do not want to go back to the West Bank. So, what is the alternative? I am totally against Israel running these areas. I think that would be a huge mistake. I do not think Israel should seek to rule Gaza. Therefore, I am not against the two-state solution in principle. I am very much against it at present and for a long time to come. However, I am fine with it as a goal for the future.

Laurie: You mentioned you were disappointed by the way Israel is fighting the war post October 7^th. How much of that can be attributed to international pressure and, in particular, pressure from the Biden administration? We know the Biden administration threatened to withhold weapons and demanded that Israel provides humanitarian aid in the war zone.

Dr. Pipes: Friends of Israel are constantly tempted to blame the United States and other Western countries for Israel’s mistakes. Israel’s mistakes are of its own making. The fact that the Israelis don’t have the weapons they need is their fault. The fact that the Israelis left the West Bank in 2005, and allowed Hamas to come to power, is their fault. Do not blame the United States. Do not expect American politicians to fix the mistakes that Israelis have made. These are Israeli mistakes. The Israelis had no plan on October 7^th. They were completely unprepared. Not only were they unprepared to defend the territories that Hamas invaded that day, they had no plan thereafter. It took them weeks and weeks to formulate a plan.

What you see on Israel’s side is an incompetent security establishment. I know that is a radical thing to say. Most people think of the Israeli security establishment as tremendously accomplished. It was. Even before Israel became a state, its small population managed to defeat its enemies over and over again. Israel’s victories in 1948-49 and 1967 were extraordinary. These accomplishments ended in 1967, 57 years ago. 57 years is a long time! All we have witnessed since then is incompetence and strategic failure. This excludes tactical successes like the Entebbe hostage rescue or the stealing of Iranian nuclear files.

After 1967, the Israelis made tremendous mistakes in the West Bank and Gaza. The 1973 Yom Kippur war was obviously a terrible mistake, when Israel was completely unprepared. 1993 was also an incredible mistake. Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, or her 2005 Nakba, was an own goal. Israelis have created their own problems and should not blame them on the Americans and others.

Laurie: I completely understand and agree with what you are saying. However, both Obama and Biden have created daylight between the U.S. and Israel. This past weekend, there was a terrific interview with Israel’s foreign minister, Israel Katz, in the Wall Street Journal. He said that Israel operates under the principle that our soldiers will fight for us and we do not ask for anyone else to put boots on the ground. However, he emphasized that Israel cannot stand alone. Israel needs strong and unwavering US support and it needs its enemies to know it.

I also agree with Trump as regards October 7^th. I do not believe October 7^th would have happened had he remained in office. Had Trump remained in office, we would not have witnessed the daylight we have seen between the US and Israel and the Saudis would probably have joined the Abraham Accords by now. Assuming October 7^th did happen under Trump, I believe the war would have played out differently. This is because I think Trump would have made sure Iran and its proxies aware the US was backing Israel both militarily and cognitively. So, I mean, isn’t Israel’s victory dependent on who occupies the White House?

Dr. Pipes: No. There has always been daylight between Israel and the United States, between Jerusalem and Washington. Pick any president and we can look at the record and see there were many tensions and problems between the two countries during their presidency. Overall, I would say the Obama years were really quiet. Obama made Netanyahu wait while he finished his dinner. There was a great deal of upset about this but there were no fundamental problems during Obama’s presidency. There were problems during the Trump years. Remember when Netanyahu misunderstood Trump and thought he was endorsing annexation of the West Bank? He had a lot of problems. There are always problems and there will always be problems. Israel and the US are two very different states in two very different geographical locations. I would not say that the Biden administration has had particularly great problems as regards its relationship with Israel although there has been a certain coolness between the two governments. The Biden Administration was cool toward the Abraham Accords initially but it adopted them eventually. It did provide arms and intelligence to Israel.

The claim that Americans do not fight on behalf of Israel is nonsense. On April 13^th, for example, the United States came to the defense of Israel when the Iranians attacked with drones and missiles. We protected Israel. They needed us and we protected them but Israel has its own decisions to make as a sovereign state. For decades now, it has made wrong decisions at fundamental levels. What kind of insanity was it to agree to leave Gaza? It is pure incompetence to allow an enemy leader to take over an enemy population at your doorstep. Who does that? No, let Israelis take responsibility for their errors. Do not blame Iran on America.

Laurie: You mentioned the Iranian attack on Israel. It is true the US and other countries did come to Israel’s defense. Mike Doran and Tony Badran have written about Obama’s realignment of the Middle East. He discussed how this realignment empowered Iran and its proxies. I would say Trump’s sanctions did appear to bring Iran’s economy to its knees. Instead, now we have been pumping money back to Iran. These funds empower both Iran and its proxies, including the Houthis. What are your thoughts on that?

Dr. Pipes: I agree with your analysis. There is no question that Obama, and now Biden, have tried to placate Iran. No question, but let me ask you something. In 2008-2009, Bush was leaving office and Obama was coming in. Why did the Israelis not take out the Iranian nuclear facilities at that time? They could have. Why did they not do it? They took out the Syrian facilities in 2007, just a year earlier. They took out the Iraqi ones in 1981. Why did they not take out the Iranian facilities? Why did the Israelis allow this to go on? Why did the Israelis allow Hezbollah to build up an arsenal of around 200,000 missiles and rockets in Lebanon? Israel cannot blame Americans for this.

I am not whitewashing American policy. I am not saying American policy is not important, but I am saying that its importance is secondary. The Israelis have their own security concerns, and they have made mistakes, whether it be regarding Iran or the Palestinians. The Israelis should have taken care of the Iranian nuclear facilities a long time ago. They should have done it before they were placed so deeply underground.

Laurie: That is an excellent point. I always understood Israel did not attempt to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities because they did not have the bunker busters they needed to succeed. However, I agree they missed an opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities in 2009, before Iran moved everything so deep underground.

In February, I visited Israel with the Middle East Forum. At that time, my takeaway was that Israelis were completely united in the need for victory. I fear that a lot has changed since then. I suspect some of the unity that I saw in Israel has dissipated since then. We see that Israelis in Washington are protesting Bibi right now., Has the length of the war and the failure to bring the hostages back home weakened Israeli unity? You lay out a case for Israel’s victory and defeat of the Palestinians in the final chapter of your book. How do you see this playing out in the coming months and years?

Dr. Pipes: You were on the ground and I will not dispute your experience. However, my analysis of Israeli attitudes since October 7^th is different. I see Israel divided into two camps. The first is the victory camp, or the destroy Hamas camp. The second is the bring the hostages home camp. They are contradictory. Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas to get the hostages home and simultaneously destroy Hamas. It is one or the other. The hostage camp is strong. It is on the streets and it has representation in parliament. It has a powerful voice, and it has impeded Israeli actions to a considerable extent.

There are over a hundred hostages left in Gaza. As long as these hostages remain in captivity, Israel remains divided. The victory impulse is impeded by the bring home the hostages impulse. Let me remind you that it was the Israelis who fashioned this notion of never negotiating with terrorists. What has happened since then? Immediately after October 7^th, the urge of a large part of the population was to negotiate with terrorists and to bring them back no matter what. I have quotes from ex-generals who say the most important thing is to bring back the hostages. What kind of understanding of security and strategy is that? Your goal is to bring back the hostages? That is the goal?

Laurie: I had this exact conversation with some Israelis a couple of days ago and I have had similar conversations with family in Israel. They believe that Israel will never be the same if the hostages are not brought back. They think Israel will be destroyed if it abandons the hostages. They believe Israel should negotiate for the hostages and bring them back and then destroy Hamas. I tend to agree with your perspective as relates to defeating Hamas versus bringing back the hostages. This conflict will never end if you keep negotiating and handing over a thousand criminals for one Gilad Shalit. That said, I do not have a child fighting the IDF or living in Israel.

I want to touch on the Abraham Accords. On the one hand, we could argue that the Abraham Accords proved that a strong Israel leads to peace. On the other hand, we could argue that they led to October 7^th. This is because it appears Hamas attacked Israel on October 7^th, in part to stop the Saudis from joining the Abraham Accords. How do you think that these Gulf nations and others in the region are viewing Israel’s actions in the Gaza war? In particular, how do they view Israel’s restraint with Hezbollah and, until recently, the Houthis?

Dr. Pipes: My understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict is as follows. Until 1948, there was a local conflict with the Palestinians.  In 1948, the Arab states entered the conflict. These states included Egypt, Jordan and Syria. For 25 years, the Arab states dominated the conflict. Those of you who were around then will remember the balance of power charts showing Israeli tanks, planes, and ships on the one hand, and Jordanian, Syrian, Egyptian forces on the other. These were two sets of states fighting each other.

Starting in 1973, the Arab states began to pull out. Since then, the Arab states have continued to pull out and the conflict has reverted to a struggle between Palestinians and Israelis. Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem in 1977 was the first major signal of this. The trip was followed by a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. A Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty followed in 1994. In 2020, four more Arab states joined in.

The Arab states have been quiet since October 7^th. Even states like Iraq, Syria and Algeria, have been quiet. They put out perfunctory condemnations of Israel, but they had no energy behind them. They have no real interest in becoming part of the conflict. From 1948 to 1973, the Arab states found anti-Zionism to be a useful, mobilizing force. Then they realized it was a tiger they could no longer ride, and they pulled back. It was expensive for them. They lost people and they pulled back. The Arab states have been pulling back more and more. As of right now, they are out. Iran and Turkey are in, even though they were not initially part of this hostility to Israel.

The Arab states are no longer part of the conflict and this has been codified in the Abraham Accords. The Saudis are coming closer to joining the Abraham Accords. This is another indication that supports the assertion the Arab states do not want to fight Israel. Indeed, some of them want Israel as an implicit ally against Iran, the real threat to their existence. So, the Arab states are not the issue.

The encampments at American universities are not about the Arab states. The Arab states are far larger than Israel in every sense, geographic, demographic and economic. Nobody in the West particularly cares about the Arab states. The passion is about the Palestinians and not about any Palestinians. The left does not care about the Palestinians of Syria who are under extreme duress due to the civil war there. They are also not concerned about the Palestinians in Lebanon who have faced extreme levels of discrimination. They care only about Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and, to a lesser extent, eastern Jerusalem. That is all the world cares about, and they are all Israel’s problem. Israel has the problem of the Palestinians, the Gazans, the West Bankers, and the eastern Jerusalemites.

When the Arab states signed their accords with Israel, the Left did not care at all. Israeli peace with the Arab states was not its issue. It does not care about the cost of cottage cheese in Israel or about Ashkenazi-Mizrahi relations there. In the same way, it does not care about Israel’s relations with the Arab states.

The world, and the Left in particular, is concerned about the so-called open-air concentration camp, or prison, of Gaza. They also care about the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. So, that is what Israel needs to address. Israel needs to address the circumstances of West Bankers, the Gazans, and the eastern Jerusalemites. To move forward, I think Israel needs to address these people and it has not yet done so.

That is what I try to address in this book. Israel must convince Palestinians they are making a mistake in believing Israel is their dire enemy. A few years ago, Mahmoud Abbas claimed (in Germany!) that the Palestinians have suffered 50 Holocausts. It is up to Israel to convince them otherwise. Israel has the power to influence Palestinian ideas. I believe quite a few Palestinians already understand this. These are Palestinians from Gaza, the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Many Arabic speaking, Muslim Israeli citizens also understand Israel is not their enemy.

There is considerable dissent amongst Palestinians but it is suppressed and Israel does not pay any attention to it. Israel has never sought out its friends among the Palestinians. It has never applauded, funded them or helped them. That is what I am advocating. I am not advocating warfare. I agree that Israel should still continue to pay attention to, say, American college students. They are important. However, Palestinians are more important than American college students. It does not matter whether they are in jails, in the schools, or elsewhere, Israel should pay attention to this population.

The Israeli attitude is that Palestinians are their permanent enemy. It is understandable. They have been enemies for generations but that does not mean they must always be enemies. I believe the Israelis should focus on their Palestinian neighbors. They should help those who are friendly to them, and encourage others to change their views and end this conflict. It is pretty simple and seems obvious but it has not been tried.

Laurie: The southern communities like Kibbutz Kfar Aza welcomed Palestinians from Gaza into their homes before October 7^th and the results were catastrophic. Post October 7^th, polling indicates that the Palestinians living in Gaza still support Hamas. Not only that, but even the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria seem to support the actions of Hamas on October 7^th. How do you reconcile that with your thesis?

Dr. Pipes: There are plenty of Israelis who have been friendly towards Palestinians. They have driven them to medical appointments. They have invited them into their homes. I am advocating a tough police state approach that is not based on kindness, appeasement or conciliation. It is about being tough and about working with your friends against your enemies.

To be specific, I want to see an Israeli-sponsored, Gazan-run police state in Gaza. It is not about being nice. I want to see the Gazans in charge, and I want to see decent Gazans apply police state tactics to run Gaza. I do not envision a democracy in Gaza for many years to come. Eventually, sure, it will be great. For now, I want to see a tough police state like you see in Egypt and Jordan. I want to see a police state where if you lead your life without politics, you are okay. If you mess with politics, you are in trouble. If you attack the ruler or the leader, you are in big trouble.

So, I am not about being nice to the Palestinians. I want Israel to use its strengths to push the Palestinians in the right direction. The approach I am advocating is primarily psychological and not military. Israel should revert to force when it has so but it should not depend on force.

I am a believer in ideas. I live in the world of ideas. Especially since the 1920s, the Palestinians have developed some terrible ideas. Amin al-Husseini was their leader at the time. He was so extreme there is strong evidence to suggest he influenced Hitler to engage in the Final Solution. Palestinian rejectionism has remained in place since then. It is not as strong as it was then, but it is still a prevalent ideology and it needs to be fought and replaced with other ideas. It does not need to be fought by force, but by other ideas. Israel can sponsor these ideas.

The Palestinians who are friendly to Israel are weak. They do not have money or power and they cannot make the changes needed on their own. They need Israel’s help. I am advocating for Israel to provide this help. Israel should develop a different kind of society with its Palestinian friends, or at least those who are not enemies.

I am not sure if Israel still has a chance to implement this approach since it has bungled Gaza so badly. A few months ago, it looked like they could and I hope this is still possible. I hope the Israelis will break with conciliation. They should not see the Palestinians as people they are nice to, but as people they may influence using their power.

Laurie: I am looking at the audience questions. I think this is a good follow up to your response just now. How do you facilitate the acceptance of Israel by the Palestinians?

Dr. Pipes: First of all, you look at what is going on in schools, in the media, in sermons and in jails. Then you use the educational system and the religious system. You use the political system and the media to help bring about change. Israelis do not use these tools effectively. They do not even use them properly in Israel. The Arabic language schools in Israel are hostile to Zionism. The Arabic media in Israel is hostile. Israel is a democracy and you cannot do the same things in Israel proper as you can do outside of it. In the West Bank and Gaza, the Israelis can take steps to change the Palestinian mentality. I am not encouraging violence.

Not all Palestinians are hostile to Israel. Going back a century or more, I estimate that around 20% of Palestinians were willing to live with the Yishuv, and then with Israel. I would like to see Israeli policy dedicated to increasing that 20% to 30, 40, 50, 60 and then 70%. That should be the goal. Now, how exactly they go about that is not really within my area of expertise. I am not a psychologist or a colonel in the IDF. As such, I cannot provide too many of the specifics, but I would like to see that be the goal. I would like to see messaging be the mechanism to achieve that goal.

Unfortunately, as I said before, Israelis preemptively give up this goal by assuming that Palestinians are the perpetual enemy. I draw the analogy to lions and hyenas. If you know anything about the animal kingdom, lions and hyenas have been enemies since time immemorial. Israelis and Palestinians are not animals. They are not predestined to be enemies forever. The Israelis can bring about changes. However, Israelis must change their own attitudes and their own mentality first. That is the change I am trying to spur from the outside with this book.

Laurie: This is a timely question. Hamas and Fatah signed an agreement yesterday in China. What do you think is the impact of that?

Dr. Pipes: They have signed such agreements before and they have not led to much. I tend to disregard this as just one of many other insignificant efforts. Maybe I am wrong and it will lead to something this time, but I am inclined to think that it will go nowhere.

Look, their goals are identical. They both want to destroy the Jewish state but their means, tactics, personnel and ideology differ. The PA, like the PLO before it, is a chameleon willing to do what benefits it at the time. It can be leftist. It can be Islamist. It can negotiate with Israel and it can attack Israel. It does all of those things. Hamas is a far more ideologically consistent enterprise with strengths and weaknesses derived from that. Overall, it looks like its ideological commitment is a strength right now. Hamas is doing much better than the PA. Short of the PA capitulating to Hamas I find it hard to believe they will reach a meaningful agreement. So, I tend to think it will be just one more piece of paper.

Laurie: There is a question about the willful blindness of the West to the fact that the Palestinians do not want two states. Rather, they want one state without Israel. What are your thoughts on that?

Dr. Pipes: Yes, there is a willful blindness, or to put it differently, there is a misunderstanding of the conflict. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is viewed as a conventional war. It is viewed as a fight over borders which can be managed with compromises on both sides. Compromise is feasible if the fight is over water, electricity, roads or land. Westerners fail to understand Palestinian rejectionism. They fail to comprehend that Israel is facing an unrequited genocidal movement that will not accept its existence.

In my book, I compare this genocidal Palestinian rejectionism to the French Revolution and to Soviet Russia. The French Revolution was something completely new in history. People had a difficult time comprehending what they were experiencing because there were no prior events which were comparable. Soviet Russia, a totalitarian regime, was also unlike anything that had come before it. I would argue that Palestinian genocidal rejectionism is comparable to the French Revolution and Soviet Russian, albeit on a much smaller scale. It is something new. It does not exist elsewhere and there is nothing similar to compare it to. Therefore, it is difficult for those who live in and around it to understand what it means.

Laurie: I want to follow up on what you discussed regarding a police state in Gaza. How would you prevent it from becoming a Hamas-run town?

Dr. Pipes: I am not sure if it is still possible. I would like to see the Israelis finding Gazans willing to work with them. I want to see them establish an administration, a police force, and other institutions of modern life. The Gazans would run Gaza but the Israelis would remain in the background, making sure that they do the right thing. It would be a little like a colonial administration. In time, as the institutions mature and trust grows, the Israelis would withdraw. Initially, the Gazans would work under Israeli auspices. There is a reason I am saying that the Israelis have not been forceful enough. Until now, Gazans who have shown a willingness to work with Israel tend to get murdered. This prevents others from coming forward. The Israelis should have provided proper protection for these people. Apparently, they did not.

Laurie: Are there individuals in or outside of the Israeli government who could help the country take the steps that you advocate?

Dr. Pipes: Yes and no. There are definitely elements in the Likud party who agree with my approach. The foreword of my book was written by Danny Danon, the former and current Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. There are others like him who agree. However, convincing the security establishment is a challenge and is going to be very difficult. There are also others outside of the Likud party who agree with the approach. Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are on the same wavelength but they take a somewhat different approach. For example, they want to annex the West Bank. There are Kahanists, former Kahanists, in the case of Ben-Gvir, who want to expel the Palestinians. I share an analysis of the problem with them, but not the solution. Their proposed solution is far more aggressive than mine.

So, there are certainly individuals who agree with the plan I am proposing and the support is growing. Around 2001, I felt very isolated in my views about how Israel should go about achieving victory. Now I do not feel isolated. I find that there is substantial support for my idea. We have done a number of surveys of Israeli opinion and they show a majority support for this idea depending on how you ask the question. There is support in principle but implementing the ideas in practice is more difficult.

Laurie: I think Gilad Erdan would be a terrific advocate. I assume he went back to Israel and resigned his post because he has intentions of running for higher office at some point. Just before we end, can you tell us briefly about the Israel Victory Project at the Knesset? You had an event yesterday.

Dr. Pipes: We did indeed. We have a caucus. Members from many different parties have joined the Israel Victory Caucus. They agree with the fundamental premise. We are hoping that the media, intellectuals, reservists, high school educators and others will adopt our idea of how to achieve victory. We are hoping they will abandon the idea of managing the conflict and embrace a real understanding of the nature of Palestinian rejectionism.

The conflict does not need to be permanent and we need to take the appropriate steps to initiate change. Things can change. You mentioned that I am a historian. The fundamental insight of historians is that things change over time. Just because something has been in place does not mean it has to remain. The British and French fought for 750 years, and then they ended it one fine day in 1904. They have been pretty good pals ever since. Things can change.

Laurie: On that very positive note, I want to thank you so much for joining us, Daniel. I greatly appreciate it. Hopefully many people will share the recording. It is an important conversation. Again, thank you very much. I wish everybody a wonderful afternoon.