Transcript: How to Bring Peace to the Middle East

 

Date of recording: June 13, 2024, The Savvy Street Show

Hosts: Vinay Kolhatkar and Roger Bissell. Guest: Daniel Pipes

 

For those who prefer to watch the video, it is here.

Editor’s Note: The Savvy Street Show’s AI-generated transcripts are edited for removal of repetitions and pause terms, and for grammar and clarity. Explanatory references are added in parentheses. Material edits are advised to the reader as edits [in square brackets].

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

Hello and welcome back to the Savvy Street Show. We have an impossible topic today, which is “Bringing Peace to the Middle East.” But fortunately, we have an expert with us today who will be introduced by my usual co-host, Roger Bissell, the musician, writer, and philosopher. Welcome to the show, Roger.

 

Roger Bissell

Well, thank you, Vinay. And I want to welcome our guest, Mr. Daniel Pipes. He is a historian. He has led the Middle East Forum since its founding in 1994, and he has taught at Chicago, Harvard, Pepperdine, and the US Naval War College. In addition, Mr. Pipes has served in five US administrations, received two presidential appointments, and testified before many congressional committees. The author of [18] books on the Middle East, Islam, and other topics, Mr. Pipes also writes a column for The Washington Times, and his work has been translated into 39 languages. So, welcome to the show, Mr. Pipes. [Thank you.]

Would you describe your political views more as libertarian or conservative or—just tell us where you see them as fitting in the conventional political spectrum.

 

Daniel Pipes

I’m a conservative, and I mean by conservative—somebody who makes changes as needed, but is cautious about those changes, as opposed to a liberal who is incautious about changes. Just take, for example, genders. Humans have for a very long time understood there are two genders. Liberals are ready to have 70 genders, [as] I think Facebook has. I’m reluctant to go there. I’ve got to make sure that this is the right thing to do.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

Thank you. Let me start with a question related to Islam. I’ve heard this claim before from Peter Townsend, Harry Richardson and Sam Harris. The Harris video has been taken down [by YouTube], and the claim is that among Muslims there are concentric circles of awareness and only the innermost circle is exposed to the totalitarian text of the Islamic canon. Do you subscribe to that view? And is it only from that innermost circle that arise the jihadis?

 

Daniel Pipes

Muslims generally are aware of the nature of their religion, but the overwhelming majority, don’t see fit to pursue it.

I don’t think I agree, no. Muslims generally are aware of the nature of their religion, but many, most, the overwhelming majority, don’t see fit to pursue it—to, for example, see Muslims as superior to non-Muslims and have the right to do anything they want basically with non-Muslims; [other dichotomies include] men and women, free persons and slaves. If you take a country like Iran, for 45 years now, the Iranians have been subjugated to an extremist version of Islam. Everybody must be aware of it, but most reject it, overwhelmingly so; the Iranians reject the extremist version of their government. So I think it has more to do with temperament than knowledge.

 

Roger Bissell

Well, one consequence that we see of this concept that’s floating around called hate speech—especially when they make it a crime like in some of the Western countries of the European Union—is that it might stifle even a peaceful discussion of a topic such as Islamism. Do you foresee that forums such as yours, the Middle East Forum, at some point will come under legal attack for this [hate speech]?

 

Daniel Pipes

Well, fortunately, we operate in the United States, where there is a First Amendment and the right of free speech. Were there not, were it in any other Western country, I would be worried. Yes, look at Canada right next door, where free speech is being systematically eroded. So, I think the United States stands out as the exception. But even the First Amendment could be mangled and reduced. So, I think we’re better off in the United States than anywhere else, but still even here we have to worry about it. And even if it isn’t the government, it can be private bodies. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center has acquired a semi-governmental authority [de facto status]. And if it doesn’t like you, if it puts you on its so-called hate list, you’re going to have a lot of troubles.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

Well, it’s fortunate you are in the US. Are you on any of those hate lists of Southern Poverty Law Center, by the way?

 

Daniel Pipes

I myself have been attacked multiple times by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

No. I myself have been attacked multiple times by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but I’m happy to say I and the Middle East Forum are not on these lists. There would be negative consequences if we were.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

This brings me to the next question, which is the philosophical roots of the Far Left and the New Left lie in Marxism and neo-Marxism, respectively. Marxism, obviously, is atheistic. Islamism is intolerant. And yet, the New Left appeases Islamism at every opportunity. Leftists are rallying for Palestine, and they donate to each other’s causes. So, what is the end game of this unholy alliance . . . for both sides, actually?

 

Daniel Pipes

Well, it’s simple. They have a common enemy being the West, being modern democratic society. They share some things in common, to be sure, but not too much. And so, they work together up to a point. If they’re successful, then they break up. Look at Iran, 1979. The communists and the Islamists worked together. The Islamists got power, and they smothered the communists, outlawed them, persecuted them. I think that’s the general trend. Work together until you win, and then you fall apart.

 

Roger Bissell

Yes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I remember many years ago when I was in high school, I would watch Saturday night wrestling, and they had the good wrestlers and the bad ones, and they would have tag-team wrestling and you would have two villainous wrestlers who would be trying to beat up the good-guy wrestlers. And sometimes the two bad guys would take pokes at each other, too. Sometimes I see this happening on the political stage, and I think that’s just like professional wrestling! Although the consequences are a lot graver.

You have a new book, Israel Victory, and we’d like you to share a brief summary of what it’s about. I don’t have a copy of it handy, or I would hold it up and let the audience see.

 

Daniel Pipes

The book is in two parts. The first half looks at how we got into the mess we’re in, where the Israelis and Palestinians are in, and the second offers some ideas how to get out of that mess.

 

Roger Bissell

Well, that’s very brief. Would you care to expand on that a little bit?

 

Daniel Pipes

How we got into this mess, or how they got into this mess; I note that in the 1880s, the pattern was set, which made sense at the time, which was the people we now call Palestinians said to the Zionists, we hate you, get out of here. We want nothing to do with you, we want to kill you. And the Zionists, who were few in number and weak, said no, no, no, we have benefits to bring you. We’re coming from the modern West. We’ll bring clean water and ports and roads, and you’ll gain economically.

This made sense at the time when the Palestinians were far more powerful than the Zionists. But the bizarre thing is that 140 years later, this same pattern is still in effect, with the Palestinians saying we hate you, we reject you, we want to kill you, and the Israelis now saying, no, no, no, we’ll bring you benefits. You will be better off with us.

I argue, as a historian, that both of these mentalities are unique to the two parties. You don’t see them anywhere else in such a sustained manner. Both of them are eccentric. They’re counterproductive. They make no sense. So, what you have are fossilized mentalities from close to 150 years ago. That’s, simply put, the problem.

The remedy lies, I think, in the Israelis understanding their own mistake and adopting a new policy: not one of conciliation, appeasement, enrichment, placation, but of determining to cause the Palestinians to understand that they are weak, and they are defeated.

I believe Israelis need to change in order to get the Palestinians to change.

I’ve spent some time looking at the universal notions of victory and defeat, and the basic rule is that only when one side gives up, can you move on. So long as the two sides are in contention, say in the Koreas for 70 years, you don’t have any resolution. You have to have a resolution. Think the US Civil War, think World War II, think the Vietnam War. Clear resolution, war is over, you move on. I am advocating that the Israelis adopt this model of victory.

Then I get into how that might be done and, in brief, I argue that while violence is certainly necessary, violence doesn’t offer the solution. Violence should be minimized. What the Israelis should do is something they have not ever done, which is try and convince the Palestinians that Israel is a good place, a worthy place, a potential ally, a potential source of benefits. The Palestinians have not been confronted with this message. So, I believe Israelis need to change in order to get the Palestinians to change.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

Okay. You have outlined a six-step plan to bring peace to Gaza, and one of the means is a financial starvation of the Palestinian Authority. How would you bring that about?

 

Daniel Pipes

Let me correct you a little bit. The article you’re referring to concerned not “bringing peace,” but recognition of the Palestinian Authority as Palestine, as the State of Palestine. I point out that while there is much talk of this, and while the Israeli government is reluctant about this, in fact, we have two key texts, in 2002 and 2009, from the American president and the Israeli prime minister, American president George W. Bush, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And in these two speeches of 2002, 2009, each of them laid out three conditions before the Palestinian Authority could be recognized as the State of Palestine.

I say that these are important conditions. These six conditions should be adhered to. The PA should—must—fulfill these conditions before there can be recognition as a state. And then, what I argue is that the Palestinian Authority is not going to do this. It’s been around now since 1994, for 30 years. It has not fulfilled any of these conditions and in fact has done quite the opposite. It’s a barbaric, extremist, totalitarian organization. So, I would rather see it collapse, and that’s where the financial deprivation comes in.

Financial deprivation is rather easy for Israel to do because Israel hands over a very large sum in cash to the PA. Two-thirds of the PA budget comes from these taxes. If the Israelis said, “Hey, PA, you’re not fulfilling your obligations and therefore we don’t have to fulfill our obligations,” they could cut off that transfer of funds, and the PA would probably promptly collapse. That would be a good thing, just like it would be a good thing for Hamas to collapse. These are evil, totalitarian entities.

 

Roger Bissell

You spoke a few minutes ago about Israel reaching out to various people in the region—I don’t know if it was just the Palestinians—but offering them an alternative to hostility and conflict instead of cooperation, maybe even alliances and so on, if I understood you correctly. Now, one of the problems in the region has been that there have been harsh attacks, not just on Israel, but also on Arabs who would collaborate with Israel. Do we have a reason to think or to hope that it would be different in the future, that if there were a real breakthrough of a peace possibility that we would stop seeing these attacks on anybody who dares to talk in a peaceful, cooperative way with Israel.

 

Daniel Pipes

If you don’t mind my saying it, I think you’re behind the times. Judging by your gray hair, like mine, you were around when the Arab states were fighting Israel. It was between 1948 and 1973. There was war after war, 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973. Arab states, big armies, air forces, navies, tanks. They attacked Israel, and they failed, they failed dismally, and after 1973, they pulled out. After that, there’s never been a serious war by the Arab states against Israel.

The Arab states are pretty much out of it. Even Syria and Iraq, which would have been fanatically anti-Israel.

Indeed, the Arab states said, “You know what, we can’t do this anymore.” The Egyptians made a peace treaty, as did the Jordanians, and later the Emiratis, Bahrainis, Sudanese, and Moroccans. The Arab states are pretty much out of it. Even Syria and Iraq, which would have been fanatically anti-Israel . . . you don’t hear anything coming out from them.

Instead, you’re hearing the hostility to Israel coming from the Palestinians, first and foremost, and secondly, from Iran and Turkey, which are latecomers. Iran and Turkey were actually quite friendly to Israel in that initial period of ’48 to ’73. Only after the Arab states pulled out did Iran and Turkey jump in. So, the Arab states want to end this conflict; they’ve made it clear, one way or another that they’re not seeking more trouble with Israel. They’d like to come to terms.

That [NYU Abu Dhabi] campus banned keffiyehs and other symbols of anti-Israel hostility.

It’s the Palestinians, the Islamists, the Turks, the Iranians, the Left which, right around the world, are enthusiastic for the Palestinians. The encampments on American universities are a good symbol. But you’re not seeing encampments in Arab countries. In fact, interestingly, New York University was disrupted in various ways by these anti-Israel demonstrators. NYU has a campus in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates. That campus banned keffiyehs and other symbols of anti-Israel hostility. It’s quite dramatic. There are plenty of examples like that where one sees more hostility come from the Left in the West than from regular Muslims in the Muslim world in general and the Arabic-speaking Muslim world in particular.

 

Roger Bissell

Well, then, when there is hopefully a victory for Israel, what will be the chief signs or indications that we’ve gotten over the hump, that we finally are on the road to peace?

 

Daniel Pipes

Well, it will be the Palestinians, not the Arab states, that will be critical here. The Palestinians have been hostile so long, so viciously anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli for so long, it’ll take a good while for the Israelis to trust them. The way I put it is when the Israelis living in the West Bank have no more need for security than the Palestinians living in Israel, then you’ll know that the resolution has come. (I avoid the word “peace.” It’s a very complicated word. I talk about resolution.) I think we can see a resolution, but it’ll take time. The Israelis are rightfully very suspicious.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

We spoke about how the neighbors—I guess you meant Egypt and Jordan—have given up the idea of another war. But then around that, we have the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, and beyond. At any given time, I understand they have 20 to 23 million immigrant workers, which is 10 times the population of Gaza. Is there any possibility of a solution there, perhaps with Mr. Trump, where all the Gazans at least temporarily are relocated in Saudi Arabia and the other GCC countries?

 

Daniel Pipes

The West can’t take everybody’s refugees. I advocate that there be regional refugee areas. So, if you’re a Middle Easterner, you go to the Middle East.

I don’t think so. The dynamic of Palestinian nationalism is such that for the Gazans to leave for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else will be seen as a kind of betrayal. You can witness that already. Gazans who want to leave are being told, no, you can’t leave. Your destiny is in Gaza. You have to stay. So, the notion that the Saudis or others would welcome them in and say, here’s a job, here’s your house—that is very remote.

At the same time, I would argue that around the world there’s a tendency to see the West as the only place for refugees. The West can’t take everybody’s refugees. I advocate that there be regional refugee areas. So, if you’re a Middle Easterner, you go to the Middle East; if you’re African, you go to Africa; East Asian, you go to East Asia. Now, there are, of course, exceptions. But to expect everyone to be taken in by the West is an impossibility. Africa is booming demographically, and one can imagine Africa simply taking over Europe by virtue of immigration. I don’t think that would work and [it will] cause great problems and anger. So, I think Africans should focus on finding places in Africa to take refuge.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

Which kind of goes back to the UN. I’ve argued the same. The UN refugee status should be where your first point of disembarkation, the first host country should be one where you can assimilate easily, and the Gazans are Islamic, they speak Arabic. They can easiest assimilate in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I mean, Egypt will take $5,000 per Gazan, which is 10 billion, and they’re faced with a 400-billion-dollar debt problem at the moment but looks like the local opinion is against it.

 

Daniel Pipes

Very, very much so.

 

Roger Bissell

I have a question that—I can bring back some of my own personal history on this—but it has to do with the idea that democracy might be a big solution to the world’s problems, and the more democracy that we have, the better. I remember being in high school and college when the United States was being drawn or drawing itself into the Vietnam conflict. This was in the 1960s, and I am as old as I look. I remember some people said that we were there to fight for the self-determination of the Vietnamese people. In other words, if they wanted to have an election and vote in a communist regime, well, that’s democracy. So, fast forwarding to 2024: what if there were legitimate elections in Palestine, or in Gaza or the West Bank, that elected a PA or Hamas or similar groups to power? That would be democracy at work, but would that really be a step forward, or would it throw the whole attempt to get a resolution off the rails again?

 

Daniel Pipes

Democracy requires an educated public, educated here meaning not just knowing the alphabet, but understanding the principles of public life, understanding the nature of political discourse, understanding the limits of one’s abilities to engage in violence, accepting differences of religion, opinion, and so forth. It is not something that one is born with. It requires a tutorial over decades, if not centuries.

Biden has a certain affinity for Israel, but he also has a left wing of the Democratic Party that despises Israel.

Well, Biden, we know. Biden is predictable. Biden has a certain affinity for Israel, but he also has a left wing of the Democratic Party that despises Israel. And he somehow has to find a medium between his own pro-Israel, and his party’s anti-Israel, sentiments and what it leads to is an oxymoronic policy that just makes no sense.

Trump, on the other hand, is unpredictable. Who knows who he’s last talked to, what his emotions are? I, for example, note that while he had close relations with Netanyahu through their respective times in office, Netanyahu congratulated Joe Biden on Biden’s becoming president and Trump was furious with him. Will Trump still be furious should he be reelected president four years later, January ’25 as opposed to January ’21? I don’t know. But with Trump, you enter into the world of unpredictability.

There are some advantages in what is known as cowboy politics; your opponents are leery and cautious. But a canny cowboy is one thing, and an emotional self-indulgent cowboy is another. I have no idea what a second Trump administration would mean for anything, and in particular, for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

Okay, we’re nearly at the end. Roger, do you have any last questions to ask of Mr. Pipes?

 

Roger Bissell

Actually, just to revisit one of the questions about government stifling of discussion—then Mr. Pipes, you mentioned the quasi-governmental [role of the SPLC]; this also happens at universities, many of which accept federal funds. So, American tax dollars are going into those universities, and if they’re not allowing a robust, even-handed, discussion of the issues, then it would seem there would be some conflict. I don’t know whether this would rise to the level of a constitutional conflict, but it certainly would not be a good atmosphere for intellectual discussion.

 

Daniel Pipes

Educational institutions, not just universities, but all the way down, K to 12, have become mechanisms of imposing a viewpoint.

The First Amendment says that you won’t be jailed for your political views, for your ideas. It doesn’t say that the university has to endorse your views or allow your views or publication or podcast. We as private individuals can pick and choose and reject and accept what we want. So, the problem lies not in the First Amendment or the government, but it lies in the development of institutions like educational institutions, not just universities, but all the way down, K to 12, that have become mechanisms of imposing a viewpoint. They are propaganda vehicles rather than educational vehicles.

I’m not talking about everything all the time, but one sees this problem even in math and biology, where [some] elements now are propaganda. It’s very worrisome, and it’s not really something the government can address. What one needs are new institutions to compete with the old ones.

It’s odd to note that in the United States, it was rather common for wealthy individuals to found colleges and universities, in the 19th century. With hardly any exceptions, it doesn’t happen anymore. I think it should. There are plenty of people with a lot of money. And those who’ve looked at it say that three, four billion dollars should suffice to establish a really good university. Well, where is the Adelson University or the Musk University and the like?

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

Well, unfortunately, if there is one, then maybe George Soros would be the first one to do it.

 

Daniel Pipes

Well, he did already in Europe—the Central European University. That’s an exception.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar

Okay, we are at the end of the show. So, to those who have been listening or watching, thank you for tuning in to The Savvy Street Show. Keep tuning in to make yourself more and more savvy. Bye for now.