American Perspectives continues now with your Own Brook, the executive director of the ain
Ran Institute, spoke recently about Israel and the Middle East conflict. This event
took place at the University of Pennsylvania in April. It runs about an hour
and forty five minutes. When you have time to ask questions in the question
and answer period following the lecture, we ask the introductory comments be brief out
of courtesy to the speaker and to others in the audience waiting to ask questions.
We have circulated index cards for those who wish to write down their question.
And now I would like you to join me in extending a warm welcome
to doctor your Own Brook. Thank you Evan. Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen. Thanks Aaul, Thank you all for coming. As military operations in
Iraq wind down, we're hearing an increasing chorus of pundits, both American and
Arab, calling for the Bush Administration to next devote its efforts to resolving the
Israeli Palestinian conflict. Indeed, the administration itself has chosen as this time to
launch its so called roadmap for the solution of this issue. The idea is
that By pressuring Israel to compromise, America is going to win friends in the
Muslim world at a time when so many are angry at the United States over
Europe. According to the pundits, it is America's support of Israel that has
caused many in the Arab world to hate us and motivated them to commit acts
of terrorism against US. The hatred some ad is after all justified because America
has been unfair in its dealings with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. We have sent
Israeli's aid, sold them weapons which they use to victimize the Arab population.
We have been helping Israelis oppress the Palestinians, they claim, and for these
sins we are feeling the retribution of the Muslim world now. Paradoxically, to
some extent, this view is correct, but for reasons other than those given
by the critics of US policy, I would argue that America has not done
enough to support Israel. America has been half hearted in supporting its ally,
and that is one reason why we have been targeted by terrorists. Essentially,
with every helping hand and offered to Israel, America is simultaneously undercut the Israelis.
Since nineteen sixty seven, America's support of Israel has followed a consistent pattern.
America has befriended Israel, offered it aid, expertise, money, and
helped it become strong in the face of its would be destroyers. Yet it
has time and time again pressured now i'd say blackmailed Israel to back down,
to make concessions, to compromise on principles with its Arab neighbors and with the
Palestinians. Of course, Europe and much of the rest of the world have
since nineteen sixty seven become increasingly hostile to Israel and increasingly sympathetic to Israel's enemies.
The West is in the process of abandoning its one bastion of Western civilization
in the Middle East. By weakening Israel, America and the West are betrayed
the shortsighted, unprincipled approach to foreign policy. I will argue that it is
in America's own self interest morally and practically to support Israel against its Arab and
Palestinian enemies. Now, indeed, the moral and the practical are in life
in harmony as applied to this conflict, and really in every aspect of life.
The IMO is indeed impractical. It just doesn't work. Thus, no
practical solution to this conflict is possible. Divorced farm morality, this conflict cannot
be understood and no solution proposed without identifying the moral character of each party and
treating that party according to what they deserve based on that mall characterization. There,
I want to step back from the endless newspaper headlines and dig deeper into
this conflict. I want to begin by asking a few questions about the conflict
itself. Who is in the right, who isn't the wrong? Whom should
America support? In my view, we should support Israel because in this conflict,
Israel has rights on its side. It is them all side. Israel
is acting in self defense, and any pressure on it to compromise is pressure
on the good to compromise with evil, pressure on a friend to take just
a little bit of poison. The Abs and the Palestinians, i will argue,
are in the wrong and we should not support the establishment of a Palestinian
state. You will see that by compelling Israel to compromise with its enemies,
America has made this conflict worse, not better. And has emboldened in the
process militantly slam to strike against us. The so called peace process can lead
only to more violence in Israel and to war elsewhere. Since the Oslo Agreement,
Israel has suffered greatly for its overtures of peace, but America and by
extension, the West, are also suffering and will continue to suffer as long
as Israel is viewed in the Arab world as weak. America's self defense is
intimately connected with that of Israel. It is right and proper for us to
side with the Israelis. If we don't, we will be fanning the flames
and inviting further aggression. As the commentator Daniel Pipes wrote well before September eleventh,
quote, Israel's perceived weakness is now an American problem, and the aggressive
euphoria being expressed by the Arab speaking masses poses a direct danger to the United
States. Unquote. We saw the magnitude of that danger on September eleventh.
So let us now look. It's on the history behind this conflict. In
this conflict, I want to ask, as I said, who is right?
In essence? Does Israel have a right to exist? Yes? Without
question. Now let me be clear, Israel's right to exist has nothing to
do with ancient or biblical history. It has nothing to do with religious or
so called collective rights. There is no such thing as collective rights, Jewish,
Palestinian or any other. Israel's right to exist lies in the Israel created
itself out of nothing. Its founders created a free country in a region dominated
by totalitarian, corrupt regimes. Israel's right to exist is based on its mall
standing as a free nation. Now, when the first Jewish immigrants came to
Palestine, it was a barren and uncivilized place. As Mark Twain, who
visited Palestine in eighteen sixty seven, wrote, Palestine was a quote desolate country
whose soil is rich enough but is given over holy to weeds. A desolation
is here that not even imagination can grace with a pump of life and action.
There was hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the
cactus, those fast finds of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country
uncourt Indeed, at the end of the nineteenth century the population in Palestine,
response swamps were everywhere, and over half the territory was desert. The new
immigrants bought land, and on that land they built cities. They dried swamps,
and they cultivated desert. They brought in irrigation, grew crops, and
in general conquered nature for their own means. They reclaimed land, They built
villas, swimming pools, and modern sanitation. They built universities, opera houses,
and to an area of nomadic tribes and substence farmers, the Jews brought
industry, libraries, hospitals, art galleries, higher education, and the rule
of law. In short, they brought Western civilization to a mid Eastern hell
home. They transformed Palestine from a backward and sponsely populated piece of land into
a thriving, relatively Western civilized place. Like nineteenth century homesteaders in the American
West, Israel's founders earned the rights to the land, They supported themselves.
They created a society in which life was not merely a struggle for subsistence,
but one in which men could live in freedom and prosper It was a society,
despite some flawing us, that built the foundations that protected and sustained human
life. Thus, in essence, it was a moral society. Now,
what was the reaction of the inhabitants of the area who witnessed Israel's flowing.
How did the Arabs of the Middle East respond, for the most part with
violence. Instead of thanking these new inhabitants for the economic prosperity and political freedom
that they brought, for the hospitals and universities that they built. From very
early on, the Arabs harassed, attacked, and tried to rid the land
of these new immigrants. Now you might suppose that they had legitimate grievances,
such as the widely believed story that Israelis who came to Palestine before nineteen forty
eight, the year Israel was founded, displaced the Arab population. All this,
indeed is false. Israelis bought the land that they developed or settled on
unclaimed land. Indeed, before Israel's founding in nineteen forty eight, there was
an influx of Arabs into Palestine. They were drawn there by the unmatched jobs
and standard of living, generally by the economic opportunities available in the developing New
States, with the drying of the swamps, the establishment of utilities, and
the building of hospitals. In addition to employment opportunities, the general quality of
life of the Arab population improved, and with it there was a significant increase
in life expectancy within the Arab population. To the extent that the Arab population
in Israel has been willing to accept the values that these Westerners book with them,
they have arrived and succeeded. The material evidence of this is visible in
the relatively high standard of living to be found in many Arab villagers, and
by the fact that many Arabs when they return from visiting their relatives in Egypt,
or Syria or Jordan, bless allah for being born in Israel. These
Arabs are far freer in Israel than in any other or any Arab country.
They vote, they serve in parliament, even in the cabinet. Some serve
in the Israeli Army, fighting to preserve their freedoms. Yet this makes no
difference to the rest of the Arab world. In spite of being offered a
Palestinian state as part of the United Nations resolution that established Israel, the Palestinians
joined the armies of seven Arabs states in war, invading Israel the day it
declared its independence in May of nineteen forty eight. Since then, Israel has
been under constant attack from its Arab neighbors, it fought five bloody wars,
all in self defense. Given that the Arabs are far better off as Israeli
citizens than in any other Mid Eastern country, given that they have no real
objective historical grievance against Israel, why do they not try and emulate Israel's success
instead of attacking her? What is their motivation? Now? When a person
sees that a different culture can produce a much better life, greater knowledge,
greater mastery over nature, greater comfort and security, greater respect for the individual
than his own culture, that person has two choices. He can adopt the
new culture as a blessing, or he can seek to destroy it and ultimately
himself. The Arabs are guilty of what Einrand called quote hatred of the good
for being the good. As she wrote in another context, quote, they
do not want to own your fortune. They want you to lose it.
They do not want to succeed, They want you to fail. They do
not want to live, They want you to die unquote, As the commentator
commentator Ed Locke writes, the Palestinians quote hate the Israelis not because of their
vices, but because of their virtues. Their ability to better their lives by
embracing reason, science, technology, and individual rights. Israel, despite its
own growing crop of religious mystics, ends the triumph of secularism and freedom in
the Middle East. Israel stands for the principle of progress, stands for the
principle of life itself. Now, this is what makes Israel a mal country.
It's pro life, pro freedom, pro reason, essential nature. And
this is also the reason that it is hated. Now. According to the
ethics of Iran's philosophy, the philosophy of objectivism, a good man who is
one who lives by the guidance of reason. He lives for the sake of
his own happiness, achieving his ends by his own efforts, neither sacrificing himself
to others nor others to himself. A moral state, a mal country is
one that protects a man's rights to pursue his own ends, that secures his
freedom to act and protect his property. A country that offers this, a
country that enables men, Arabs, Jews, all men to thrive, is
indeed a moral country. In essential terms, Israel is such a country,
and therefore has a moral right to exist. Yet many in the Arab world
and the Palestinians, particularly the Arab leadership and the Arab intellectuals, have hated
these Westerners and the values they represented from the day they appeared in Palestine.
They objected, as they still do today, to the very formation of an
Israeli state. Although the Arabs are the aggressives, they betray themselves as the
victims. Now, I say, no, regardless of its victories, Israel
is in the rights. It is the victim. It has always been the
target of aggression. The wars that has waged and the territories that has conquered
were all acts of self defense. But the problem here it's not merely that
the Arabs claim to be the victims. It is an America like many other
countries, except that Israel and her aggressors are morally equal, that in this
conflict, both sides have legitimacy. Now, I have argued that Israel is
the moral party, that is, a state that protects individual rights and freedom,
It alone is entitled to invoke a right to exist. American foreign policy
should reflect that fact. Now, while Israel's rights to exist and its position
as in all country are valid, in the interest of objectivity, I would
say that I have certain reservations regarding Israel. As I mentioned, there is
no such thing as collective rights to a state, and as a consequence,
it's a mistake for Israel to long term identify itself and consider itself a Jewish
state. Indeed, Israel's biggest flaw is the lack of complete separation between state
and religion. In addition, It's socialistic policies violate the individual rights of its
own citizens and have driven many Israelis to leave the country and of course held
it back economically. However, these detriments by no means undercut Israel's value as
a country or the morality and righteousness of their position in the Middle East.
This is especially true when compared to their neighbors. Now, given this as
a context, how should we view the Palestinians and the claims that they not
that terrorized Israelis are the victims? Well, let's consider the evidence. Are
they the victims? What can be said of the supposed historical grievances against Israel?
Despite their claims that they are victims of a Zionists plot to strip them
of their land, the Palestinians were their aggressors. In the nineteen ninety In
the nineteen forty eight war, they turned down the offer to establish their own
state alongside Israel, a larger state than that which they now demand for themselves.
Rejecting the offer, they opted to join Israel's enemies in the goal of
erasing it from the map. When the Arab armies invaded Israel in May of
nineteen forty eight, the Palestinians joined them. At the time, what they
saw was not the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. What they saw
was the complete destruction of Israel. A secretary general of the Arab League,
Azamfasha, made clear in nineteen forty eight quote, the Arabs intend to conduct
a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian
massacres and the Crusades end quote. So the fact that there is no Palestinian
state today is not the fault of the Israelis. Rather, by rejecting the
offer of establishing a state in nineteen forty eight and then initiating force again against
Israel, the Arabs negated whatever rights they had to a state. Now,
what about the claims that the Palestinians were displaced turned into refugees by the Israelis,
while the large majority of Palestinians fled out of fear of the violence their
own leaders were initiating. Many, particularly the community leaders, the rich,
and the intellectuals, fled before any hostilities begun. It was not necessarily the
Jews they feared, but the conflict itself. In some cases, Palestinians left
their home because of coursion of their own leadership, and while Israel did occasionally
drive out small numbers of Palestinians, this was due primarily to unplanned military considerations
and was an act of self defense. The dominant attitude among Palestinians at the
time was that they had been victims of their own leadership, who had deserted
them and had promised them a quick return home, rather than victims of Israeli
hostility. As the historian your short parat Rites quote, the nineteen forty eight
war was launched by the Arabs who rejected the United Nations partition solution. Those
who begun the war are responsible for its consequences, including the expulsion of Arabs
from places where they continued presence could have constituted a mortal danger to the young
state of Israel. Fighting for its very survival unquote. Also note that Israel
offered to take back one hundred thousand Palestinian refugees in nineteen forty nine, but
that offer was rejected by the Arab states. Since then, these same Arab
countries have done nothing to help these refugees. They have treated them poorly and
use their existence as a public relations and political tool. If the Palestinians had
accepted the founding of two states in Palestine, or if they had not fled
their homes, no refugee problem would have arisen. Indeed, the Jewish leadership
based all of their ensuing decisions on their assumption that the Palestinians would remain equal
citizens of the new state of Israel. As David Ben Gurion, who would
go on to be Israel's first Prime Minister, told the leadership of his party
in nineteen forty seven, quote, in our state, there will be non
Jews as well as Jews, and all of them will be equal citizens,
equal in everything without exception. That is, the states will be theirs as
well unquote. So by looking back at history, we see that the Arabs
have been their aggressors. They have been the initiators of forced but some people
argue that that was the past, and the Palestinians have suffered enough that they
have changed and that they now deserve their own state. Well, let's go
back to the evidence. In what way have they changed? Do they now
recognize the right of Israel to exist? Have they accepted the fact that the
initiation of force is not a means of negotiating? Absolutely not. The Palestinians
have chosen the worst, most lowly form of violence to pursue their cause,
indiscriminate terrorism, and for their leaders, they have chosen some of the bloodiest
terrorists in history. Yasir Araphat and the PLO have a long history of terrorism
and violence. Over a span of thirty five years, Arphat and the PLO
have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israeli, American, Lebanese and
Palestinian civilians. Arfad has orchestrated the kidnapping and murder of Israeli school children,
the hijacking of airliners, countless car bombings, and death squad killings. In
recent years, Arphad has been using Hamas and Islami jihad as the arms of
terrorism. While he has pretended to be a peacemaker. Every Israeli compromise has
been met with more and more violence, violence used as a tool to pressure
Israel to make even more concessions. Indeed, a Palestinian state under current conditions
spells doom for Israel, because any such state would only serve as a beachhead
for terrorist activities against Israel. Alford's ultimate goal is not a small Palestinian state
in the West Bank and Gaza. Alford aims at the whole of Israel.
A Palestinian state is just the first step. The desire of the Palestinian leadership
not to make peace with Israel and indeedja race it from the map, is
made further evidence when one listens to the radio stations sanctioned by the Palestinian authority,
or when one reads the textbooks from which Palestinian children are being taught.
As the commentator Daniel Pipes has observed, quote, school curriculum, camp activities,
programming, and religious indoctrination all portray Israelis in a Nazi style way as
subhuman beings worthy of killing unquote. As illustration in a televised public sermon in
June of two thousand and one, a Palestinian religious leader declared, quote God
willing, this unjust state of Israel will be erased, this unjust state of
the United States will be erased. Unquote. It is well documented that the
textbooks in Palestinian schools are filled with vile anti Semitism. They are also filled
with a rejection of any legitimacy for the state of Israel, and that,
to quote such a book, there is no alternative to destroying Israel unquote.
Or in a fifth grade Arabic language text quote remember the final and inevitable result
will be the victory of the Muslims over the Jews unquote. And on a
popular children's TV show on Palestinian TV, a little girl sings in Arabic quote,
will sing my sister constantly about my life as a suicide warrior unquote,
as a teacher cheers on Bravo, Bravo. Now, these are just a
few of the many, many examples of the fierce hatred with which the Palestinian
schools indoctrinate they youth. No surprise that Ramas and Islami Jihad have an easy
time finding young Palestinians will need to give up their lives to make these ideas
come true. Thus, there is every reason to believe that the Palestinian leadership
views a state in the West Bank and Gaza as just one more step towards
the complete annihilation of Israel. Indeed, our Phat himself has repeatedly said to
his own people that any compromise with Israel is just one step towards the ultimate
goal of an Arab Palestinian state that will take Israel's place. His continued sponsorship
and use of terrorism, and rejection of any deals offered him I think prove
is a ultimate aim. By choosing the road of violence against peaceful, free
countries and preaching the virtues of violence to young Palestinians. Alphad and his regime
have forfeited any claim, any legitimacy that they might have had to a country
of their own. Only a sick and cynical world could grant such a man
that Nobel Peace Prize. But some say this is all a result of the
occupation. If given a state of their own, things would be different.
Well, what can we expect if the Palestinians have their own sovereign state?
Can we expect the peace loving, freedom loving Palestinian country? Will it share
the West's respect for individual rights, the individual rights of its own citizens.
If so, maybe there's still some hope. Well, let's consider the track
record of the current Palestinian authority, the temporary governing body of Gaza Strip and
the West Bank. Our Foot is indeed the dictator of these areas and everything
but title. Palestinians live in constant fear of having their property arbitrarily confiscated by
our Arafats. Corrupt police force. Laws prohibiting free speech are common and are
enforced brutally to silence those who oppose him. Our Fat shuts down radio and
TV stations. Indeed, Palestinian media, there was free to express itself under
Israeli rule, is now forced to tow Arafat's party line. When Palestinian journalists
stray, they are detained, tortured, and sometimes murdered. Hundreds of dissenters
of all strikes have suffered such a fate under Ourfat's regime. A few months
ago, the media finally focused on another form of barbarism, that Palestinian authorities
are engaged in the torture and murder of so called collaborators. Just a few
months ago, a middle aged mother of six and her niece were brutally tortured
and murdered by the authorities for supposedly collaborating with Israel. How did they know
that the women were collaborators because a relative again and the extreme torture accused these
two women. This has been going on for over ten years in both the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We're even selling land to a Jew is
reason for execution. Alfhad's current regime is barbaric and oppressive. One can logically
predict the conditions in an independent Palestinian state would be even worse, since they
will not be the focal point of international attention as they are right now.
Now, viewed in this context of dictatorial rule, the alleged right of the
Palestinians the self determination is groundless. No group has a right to its own
state if what it seeks is a dictatorship. Arafat's Palestinian self determination really means
more of Arafat's despotism. It means granting legitimacy to a state that is utterly
hostile to its own citizens. As Einrand wrote, quote, the right of
the self determination of nations applies only to free societies or to society seeking to
establish freedom. It does not apply to dictatorships. The only legitimate reason to
found a new state is to escape tyranny and secure freedom. Thus, America's
founding fathers rightly fought for independence from England's oppressive rule. The United States was
founded on the recognition of individual rights. A country's right to exist as a
separate political entity is derid from the individual rights of its citizens. A regime
like that in Iraq, for example, and much of the Middle East,
unfortunately, that denies its own citizens their individual rights has no right to exist
itself. What Palestinians desire is the right to be rightless serves in a state
run by a ruthless dictator. Now, nobody has a right to create and
maintain such a state. Palestinians would be better off staying un the Israeli rule,
as some Palestinians will admit when they feel safe to do so. Under
Israeli rule, their rights are protected to a much greater extent than they would
under the Palestinian authorities authoritarian regime. Indeed, Palestinians rely on the relative economic
freedom and prosperity offered in Israel to make their living. They protest whenever Israel
closes its borders because they are out of work. In contrast to what has
been achieved in Israel, the Palestinians have created very little of their own,
not under Jordanian rule pre nineteen sixty seven and not since now. Israel also
offers Palestinians more precious values than merely economic ones. What Arab country gives its
inhabitants the liberty to protest, to publish articles and books opposing the government,
as many Jews and Arabs do in Israel. What Arab country has free elections
or a judicial system in which all are treated ea fully before the law.
In one Arab country can so called occupied people rely on the law and protest
their fate all the way up to the Supreme Court, as those Palestinians under
Israeli control still can none, not a single Arab country. It Israel.
Palestinians have more freedom, more economic opportunities than they have in any other Arab
country, and they and then they could possibly have in a future Palestinian state,
if the choices between a Palestinian state run by terrorists like our Foot and
remaining under Israeli rule, the latter is by far the better option for the
Palestinians Now, if the Palestinians were serious about having their own state, their
own free state, they would start by deposing and resting Yasarafa for his crimes
against his own people. In place of the terrorists now representing them, Palestinians
should send to the negotiating table representatives who believe in and honor individual rights,
leaders who plan to establish a free, civilized country where violence is abhorred and
suppressed. Palestinians should treat Israel as an older and wiser neighbor from whom they
have much to learn, rather than as an enemy to be destroyed. Only
when Palestinians are willing to negotiate with Israel on such terms will they have earned
the right to a state of their own. Now, given this background information,
it should be no surprise I think that the peace process has been such
a complete disaster. Just as the mal is practical, so the imor is
impractical. And at the heart of the peace process is the immorl premise that
there is a mal equivalence between Israel and her enemy. But as we have
seen, Israel and the Palestinians are not moral equals. Israel is in the
right, the Palestinians are the aggressors, and any compromise between good and evil
means bleeding the goods to feed the evil. Any compromise between Israel and the
Palestinians hurts Israel and emboldens the radical militant forces within the Palestinians. Although the
Land for Peace doctrine, which is the essence of the peace process, seems
to offer a mutually advantageous settlement, it is a deception. A necessary condition
for peace is the cessation of Arab violence, particularly terrorism, but to attain
it. To attain the cessation of violence, Israel is supposed to surrender territory
is crucial to its continued security. Territory is the war won in a war
instigated by Arab countries in nineteen sixty seven. To attain land, however,
the Arabs are supposed to concede nothing. They need only withdraw the use of
force. Like any aggressive they are in essence holding Israel hostage, and like
any victim, Israel by paying the ransom, gains no value. Then they
did not already have a right to the implication of such a trade. Land
for Peace, sanctioned by both America and Israel over the last thirty years,
implicit in This idea is that Israel is in the wrong, that Israel is
the aggressor and owe's restitution to its Arab neighbors. If Israel is in the
rights, why must concede. Israel won the contested land in a wolf of
self defense, so why should it give it back. Far from securing peace,
compromises only weaken Israel and embolden its enemies. When Nazi Germany was appeased
in nineteen thirty eight by being allowed to claim Czechoslovakia as part of the Aryan
People's Homeland, an earlier version of Land for Peace, the result was to
encourage Hitler to start a World War America and Israel must recognize that peace cannot
be achieved by surrendering to those US who are relentlessly opposed to the existence of
the State of Israel and who are hostile to the value of freedom in Israel
and for that matter, in their own countries. Thirty years of the Land
for Peace doctrine have left Israel with the best a cold peace with some of
its neighbors, but also it is left it vulnerable to Arab hostility. Hatred
of Israel has increased, along with a decrease in the respect it once engendered.
This process is accelerated since the beginning of the hostile peace process in nineteen
ninety three. Indeed, since since Ourphats returned to the West Bank and Gaze
in nineteen ninety four, Israel has seen nothing but an intensification of the violence
and hatred against it. And what was the Palestinian's response to the complete capitulation
of the Israeli Prime Minister Ailoed Baroque in Camp David, where Alferd was offered
a Palestinian state on ninety seven percent of the land that he demanded. Well,
since then, Israel has been in a state of undeclared war. It's
six million civilians have suffered over twelve thousand, five hundred terrorist attacks. They
have buried more than five hundred victims, a per capita death toll that is
more than six times that of September eleventh. Escalation of violence is the consequence
of dealing, negotiating, compromising with terrorists. It is a consequence of rewarding
violence. It is the consequence of the peace process. Since Ostler, Israel
has appeared and acted week it has dealt with the Palestinians with kid gloves.
It withdrew in humiliating facs from Lebanon, and it is shown ever weakening mal
assuredness in its cause. How many last opportunities has Israel given yes or our
offer? How many times has it sworn to end Palestinian terrorism. Israel's concessions,
Israel's weakness, rather than discouraging hostility, have indeed made the conflict worse
and abought Israel much harm. Now much of this harm, indeed, much
of the compromise, much of their appeasement, has been at the urging of
Israel's so called ally, the United States. Now there is a whole history
of America pressuring Israel to concede, to compromise, to withdraw when it should
not. Have a whole history of the US harming Israel interests. Now you
can ask me about this history in the Q and A. I just want
to focus on the last decade or so. In recent times. There was
America that prompted Israel to begin negotiating with our fat in nineteen ninety three,
and since then it has pressured Israel to give more and more, culminating in
the complete Israeli capitulation in Camp David two years ago, and over the last
two years, every time Israel acts in self defense against the Palestinian authority,
it is the Bush administration that keeps holding them back and forcing them to retreat.
This in spite of the fact that after every such retreat terrorism spikes.
It is outrageous that in the midst of its own war on terrorism, the
US is forcing Israel to negotiate and compromise with terrorists. In spite of the
fact that when Israel is tough, terrorism against it declines, America continues to
rebuke Israel when it acts in self defense. Note how the US has pressured
Israel into withdrawing from Arafat's compound twice during the last year. Well. Notice
the scandal about six nine months ago over Israel's assassination of the Hamas terrorist leader
Selishadata. The Palestinian authority refused to arrest him, even though he was responsible
for organizing and funding suicide bombings. The scale of his evil is comparable to
that of Bin Laden, As Israel rightly pointed out this quote, military action
against one of the most dangerous Hamask terrorist leaders was a justified action of self
defense unquote. The day after the bombing, which also killed fourteen civilians.
Israel called the mission a success. President Bush, however, sharply condemned it
as heavy handed and a barrier to peace. Bush was not alone in this
condemnation. Echoing him were the leaders of Europe, the UK included, and
the UN General Secretary. The British called it unacceptable and counterproductive. Forty eight
hours later, Israel issued a mealy mouthed topology for the attack. Now that
I submit is not the face of a country certain of its morrow rights to
defend itself, Nor is such criticism from the United States the action of a
true ally. And not only as America doing an enormous injustice to Israel,
but it is also committing an enormous injustice to its own citizens. By weakening
Israel, America's damaged its own national self interest. America has been propping up
regimes around the Middle East that have supported terrorism and supported anti American actions until
recently. It has done nothing in response to Islami terrorism against US interests,
And how could it when for years it has been telling Israel that it had
no right to do the same. The US has sacrificed its western ally,
the one island of civilization in the Middle East, in the name of what.
In the name of appeasement, in the name of short term gain.
America has hoped for decades that if it is nice to the Arabs, they
will support us. They have hoped that by pressuring Israel, by arming the
Egyptians, the Saudis, and the Jordanians, they will gain friends in the
Middle East. They hope that all this would secure the supply and reduce the
threat of terrorism. All this has all failed, as September eleventh proved.
Yet we continue to indicate our interest in trying to buy Arab sympathy with Israeli
blood. The tragic fact is that America's relationship with Israel indeed made September eleventh
possible. Evidence in our advice to Israel, in our advocacy of the peace
process, in our endless calls for Israel to appease its enemies. Evidence in
America's action is our own moral weakness been laden had ample evidence to believe that
the United States would not retaliate in significant fashion. After all, haven't we
for decades told Israel to appease terrorists? If our fat the father of Internet
national terrorism, could be invited to the White House, what would America possibly
do to its own terrorists. If America stopped Israel from retaliating against our fight,
how could it morally justify retaliating against its terrorists. If Israel is unjustified
and assassinating a Musk terrorist leader, how can America justify assassinating its terrorist nemesies.
Now, this hypocrisy, this double standard, has only weakened America's mall
confidence in its warn terrorism and emboldened its enemies. American pressure on its Western
ally to compromise and appease can be interpreted in only one way. That it
America holds compromise and appeasement of supreme that if attack, it is likely to
negotiate rather than retaliate. Indeed, just as we forbid Israel to retaliate against
terrorist attacks. So again, until very recently, we have done nothing in
response to the Islamic terrorism against the United States. September eleventh was not the
first terrorist to act against America. Do you recall what we did in retaliation
for the attacks on the USS coal or the US embassies in Kenesy and Tanzania,
or the US soldiers in the barracks in Saudi Arabia, or the attack
on the World Trade Center nineteen ninety three, or the pan Am Flight one
oh three, or the two hundred and forty four Marines who died in Beiruts
in a suicide bombing in nineteen eighty three. Do you recall what we did?
Well, probably you don't, because we didn't do anything. Bush's announcement
after September eleventh, and again this week that he supports a Palestinian state and
that he supports the Roadmap further undermines his credibility in the fight on terrorism.
How can he, on one hand reward and arch terrorists and create a new
terrorist sponsoring country, and on the other hand claim to seek the eradication of
terrorism from the world. This hypocrisy is not missed on the Arab world.
The white people like being lauden. A year ago, President Bush proclaimed an
ultimatum to the world, either you're with us or you're with the terrorists.
Although Israel is clearly with us, we have all too often treated it as
if it were against us. America, its critics say, oh September eleventh
to its support of Israel. Yes, America shortsighted, unprincipled support of Israel
has in fact done untold harm to Israel and untold harm to America's interests.
Our failing was that we did not provide Israel, the true victim of this
conflict, with enough support. Our failing was that we were moral cowards.
We feared declaring one side of the conflict good and the other side evil.
Being moral cowards in politics means that we counsel and practice appeasement towards our enemies.
Terrorists can sense our weakness. That they struck us is no surprise our
failings have invited such attacks. Now, there is no such thing as the
peace process. Peace cannot be achieved by the just compromising with its enemies.
Peace requires that the perpetrator of violence, the initiated a force, stop all
acts of aggression and prove, over time and with unequivocal evidence, that it
has truly forsaken violence as a means for achieving its goals. Only then,
only when violence has ceased, can peace be discussed. Every attempt in history
to circumvent this requirement has landed in disaster. If America is serious about its
war on terrorism and its desire for peace in Israel, it must take decisive
action to reverse the mistakes that have been made over the last few decades.
The US must make it clear that it does not view Israel and its Arab
neighbors as morally equal. Israel is a free, Western and peaceful state.
As such, it is America's only true ally in a region dominate by despotism.
Only Israel shares America's values and can be counted on in a true crisis.
The quality of our alliances with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for example,
is being made clear now during this current crisis. These are regimes we cannot
trust. They have an r turning a blind eye to Islamic terrorism against the
West, and in some cases are actually financing this terrorism. In the name
of both what is right and what is practically necessary, America's Maral evaluation must
be made explicit and clear. The US must allow and encourage Israel to destroy
Palestinian terrorism once and for all. They must be no further concessions, no
discussions with Effort and other Palestinian terrorists. America should also make sure that Israel
maintains its military superiority in the region. This can be achieved by eliminating the
military assistance that America provides Arab countries like Egypt. It is important to the
US that Israel be perceived by the Arab world as strong, indestructible, and
supported one hundred percent by the United States. It must be made clear to
the Arab States and to the Palestinians that they must reconcile themselves to the very
existence of Israel, that they must stop all acts of hostility and show a
real intention for peace. The oners must be put on their aggressors to show
that their intentions are real. Thus, the oners must be put on the
Arab States. Ultimately, a strong, confident Israel is vital to US interest
in the Middle East. It is crucial to our fight against terrorism, to
the elimination of unconventional weapons in the high hands of despots like Saddam Hussein,
and to the protection of the flow of oil to the West. America's unequivocal
support of Israel will send a message that we support our allies in deeds,
not just in words, that we support the Western values that our allies share
with us. More fundamentally, by supporting our allies on principle, we broadcast
loudly that we oppose terrorism absolutely on principle and in action. But it is
not enough for America to rely on Israel, especially after September eleventh. America
needs to continue asserting itself in the Middle East. A US that unequivocally supports
Israel and pursues its own self interest confidently and forcefully in the Middle East will
actually gain respect in the Arab world. It will be perceived as a power
that should not be fooled with. It will show the world that we are
committed to the values of Western civilization and that we will defend them to our
last breath, and that we will not yield on those values. Such uncompromising
commitment to freedom and to Western values is the most powerful weapon we possess now.
Ultimately, peace will come to the Arab world, to the Middle East
only when they adopt Western values, values of reason, individual rights, and
freedom. Until the Arab populace is free, free of political enslavement by their
own governments, and free from the mysticism of Islamic fundamentalism, no peace is
going to be possible. Only when the Arab world experiences the equivalent of the
Enlightenment, a rediscovery of reason, will it rise above its Middle Ages culture,
whether they like it or not. The solution to Arab poverty to Arab
political plight to Arab frustration. Is the West and what it represents. Not
the West's destruction has been Ladden would suggest, but the West's victory the adoption
of the West by the East. But for this to happen, we in
the West must first believe in our own values. If we continue to reject
our own Western heritage, we can expect little from the rest of the world.
A rediscovery, a renaissance of reason is first needed. Here. We
must rediscover our values and reignite the just pride we once had in them.
The future of the world depends on it. Thank you, Thank you again,
doctor Brooke. We'll now have about forty five minutes for Q and A,
and I'll just come around with the microphone. So go ahead and stand
up if you have a question, and I'll get to you. For one
is always the hardest. Who's standing raise your hand? Am Okay, you're
standing for a question. I'm sorry, go ahead. There is no such
thing as collective. But there is also no such thing as collective. Get
suppose there is an individual, a man in the mind, born a what
are his minds? Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, an individual
born in a totalitarian regime or born to leaders that are that violate his rights
will suffer from that violation. Uh. Somebody born into Nazi Germany, whether
it's Jewish or otherwise, is going to suffer the consequence of not of the
Nazis of Hitler's both from the Nazis and farm Western bombing of German cities and
moral people. Somebody morow who lives in Palestine, who's completely rational, would
seek the annihilation of the Palestinian authority. Somebody in that position would seek to
move to Israel if they could, or to move to the West to the
extent that they can. Israel will admit him under certain circumstances. Absolutely,
But more fundamentally, such a person would completely understand Israeli aggression in its own
self defense and would actually start up a Palestinian resistance movement fighting yes off in
his own regime and help the Israelis to do it. Look, there were
lots of people in Iraq who didn't share Saddam Hussein's a fanatical you know,
despert. Yet a lot of civilians died who might have been innocent. People
who live in a country suffer the consequences of their own leadership and I'd say
they suffer it doubly so if they don't actually rise up and try and get
rid of that leader. But even if they do and they fail, they
are still going to suffer when they get killed by an America coming into Yoko
on America, coming into Japan, on America, coming into Nazi Germany.
That's life. Yeah, next question, I have to follow the mic.
Well, my question might sound a little bit off face, but it really
isn't because I disagree with you a little bit. Sure, Okay, what
about the status of Jerusalem the United States Senate. I believe the Congress voted
to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. And I understand your secular I am
mirandos. I am a libertarian, but I am not secular when I am
a Jew, and I believe that Jerusalem is all of Jerusalem belongs to the
State of Israel. It is the capital. And that's my own belief.
And I wanted to hear what you had to say. Thank you. Oh,
I mean, I agree with you that Israel should decide what its own
capital should be. And as I said, Jerusalem, just like the rest
of the West Bank, was one in a war of self defense and Therefore,
unequivocally, Israel has a right to that land if it chooses to keep
it, and if it chooses to establish its capital in the entire Jerusalem area,
it has every right to do that. It owes no obligation to the
Christians, or to the Muslims, or to anybody else. So I agree,
for secular reasons, not for religious reasons, that I believe that a
state has a right to determine its own capital, and that Israel has a
right to determine Jerusalem as its capital. And again, I think the United
States moving its embassy from juisdem to Tel Aviv was another sign of American weakness,
another step towards emboldening. They have a bold in the Muslim world against
the United States. It just showed that the United States could be bullied by
a few weak Arab countries. The guy in the back there's been standing from
the beginning, wait for the mic, because no, they won't they need
the mic. Since we were in a medical center, I figured I should
add a little bit of a medical information to your speech, and being a
graduate of PEN I feel almost an obligation to do that. I'm actually a
resident in the Department of orthopedics next door, and let me just give you
some facts and you can interpret them on your own. Since September of two
thousand, fifty two women have given birth at Israeli checkpoints. Twenty nine of
those women aborted. Since September two thousand, thirty five ambulance drivers have been
shot and killed at checkpoints. Since September of two thousand, ninety five human
beings have died at checkpoints, coming in and out, unfortunately unable to reach
hospitals or physicians to give them adequate care. Since September two thousand, seven
hundred and thirty five ambulances have been shot at and destroyed at checkpoints. My
rhetoric regarding terrorism unfortunately seems unfounded because there doesn't appear to be any data that
you cite. I did Site twelve twelve thousand, five hundred years more information
on what you consider terrorism. In light of those facts, well, I
think that I I mean, I'm not going to dispute the facts that you
presented. I don't know if that you or not, but I'll assume that
they're No. I'll assume that they're true because I have no problem with those
facts. Every drop of blood shed in those incidents and in many many others
that you didn't cite, because clearly more Palestinians have died since December two thousand,
or any of those dates, any date that you would pick, then
Israeli's clearly more Palestinians have died. There's no question about that. Every drop
of blood is the fault of the Palestinians themselves. Every drop of blood is
the more responsibility of the Palestinians' leaders who have brought them to the state.
Every drop of blood is the responsibility the Hamas and the Islami Giad suicide bombers.
If you see an ambulance, an ambulance doesn't stop at a checkpoint,
and you know that Palestinians have used ambulances to do a suicide bombings, you
shoot at that ambulance absolutely, and I completely think that that is justified.
If you know that without those checkpoints, without stopping people at checkpoints and searching
those ambulance, you know that a building in Tel Avion could be blown up,
you better stop them at the checkpoint and you better search them. And
if anybody dies, If anybody dies, it's on the hands of yes Arpa
and the Yesha has had hundreds of opportunities to renounce terrorism, to change his
ways to work towards peace, and he has rejected and turned his back on
if you one of those, because that's not what he wants. So the
terrorism is absolutely one sided. All of these incidents that you mentioned are acts
of self defense of Israeli self defense. I remember not that long ago,
fifteen years ago, there were no checkpoints in the Wist bankers. There were
no checkpoints in the wisbank. The twelve year old kids are shot with M
sixteen's because they are placed. Well, let me answer that there are some
twelve year olds who do get shot by M sixteens. Why because next to
them is standing at Palestinian with the Kalechnikov shooting at Israeli soldiers. It is
the responsibility of the Palestinians who put twelve year old children in the line of
fire on purpose, so they will die while the TV cameras are rolling,
so that the West will get upset. It is the responsibility of Palestinian parents
who send their children out there to be killed purposefully for this purpose. That
is the atrocity. The atrocity is that the Palestinians put their children in harm's
way on purpose. They are the terrorists. They were at a tank.
They were not This is all. This is all propaganda and nonsense. Twelve
year old kids are not just shot, you know, because the Israelis,
because the Israeli tank can't get through. This is propaganda. You say the
text books that the children, the Palestinian children are following our preaching hatred for
Israel. I mean these young children can't discern between the truth and the non
truth. Then the renaissance in that world is going to be a long time
in coming. Absolutely, the renaissance in that world is going to be a
long time in coming. And I think that you will see evidence of that.
You know, if I can make a prediction, you can always call
me on it afterwards. I think that these attempts to create democracy out of
no way in you walk right now are going to fail. They might not
fail short term, we might see a few years of democracy, but long
term they will fail. You cannot bring about political freedom divorced of its requirements.
The West didn't get political freedom in the Middle Ages. The West didn't
even get political freedom in the Renaissance. When did the West get political freedom
after the Enlightenment after a whole generation went through a period that raised reason out
of where the Christians that buried it during the Middle Ages raised reason and put
it on its pees distal, as Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers indeed did
with the founding of this country. That's what made freedom possible in the West.
And for the Islamic qual to become free, political, free, which
I hope they do one day, they need to go through an enlightenment.
They need to go through a rebirth of reason, Reason which once was prevalent
in the Middle East during the ninth and thirteenth century when they had their Golden
Age, but has since been lost and has since been buried by their own
Islamic fundamentalists, just like the Christian fundamentalists and in the Dark Ages buried reason
for Christianity's sake. The Muslim fundamentalists the buried reason for Islamic for the for
the Muslim's sake for the last what seven hundred years. It's going to take
a lot more than a few marines to establish democracy in a country like you.
Walk with all the best you know, the best wishes and best efforts
that we can have. You need to change the underlying ideology, the underlying
philosophy of that entire region. They have to accept, as I said in
my talk, Western values of reason and individual rights in order to find to
found a you know, truly free countries. And note that even in the
West today we don't respect reason in individual rights, So how do we expect
anybody else to have any respect for them? So it's going to be a
long time, is the quick answer. Some reports have with that Arafat is
one of the world's two or three hundred riches men with a fortunate in the
billions pilfered from the coffers of both the European Union and America. How do
you believe we should go about this whole issue of Arafat and the money that
he's taken for his own gain. That's a good question, because I was
I was quite I didn't know the details of this, but I just I
think it was three or four weeks ago Forbes magazine ran the four hundred Richest
People, and they had a little box about Yester Effort, and according to
Forbes, they estimate his wealth at a minimum, I think it was three
hundred million dollars. How do you get three hundred million dollars as the head
of their Palestinian authority. If you're not either getting paid for killing people by
somebody, or you're not stealing it off of the money that's supposed to go
to your people, there's no other way to do it. He hasn't produced
anything. There's no Palestinian Microsoft that Yester Elfit is the head of and therefore
made a lot of money. He hasn't created any wealth. He has not
been productive in that sense. So he's stealing it and has been stealing it
or getting paid again for the terrorism that he's engaged in for the last what
is it, almost forty years now? So what should we do with Yester
Effort? Well, I think we should do with what with Yes of Effort
was the Israelis have wanted to do to yes Offort for last forty years.
I think it is a mistake to talk about kicking him out of the West
Bank and sending him to some Arab country. He's been in another Arab country
in Tunisia for many, many years and created havoc from there. The only
thing that can be done with Yes to offer, the only just thing,
the thing that justice requires, is to arrest him, try him, and
hang him publicly for the world to see what is done with terrorists. So
nobody should ever mistake what the West will do when it catches terrorists. I
mean, there's no difference here between what the Israelis did to Eichmann in nineteen
sixty and what they should do with Yesser. Effort is exactly the same,
and they should make a public trial out of it to show all of his
crimes and why this is the only just thing that should be done. I
remember reading shortly after the Sixth Day War somebody had written, when in the
history of the world have the losers dictated the prospects for peace except for this
particular situation. I thought it was very well put. The other thing I'd
like to say is I was visiting FORENZONICI boots when they had a terrorist infiltration,
and I understand what that fear is like. It's the most incredible thing
that I've ever experienced, and I don't really wish to ever do it again.
But if these people have to live with us on a daily basis,
my hearts go out to them. My question, though, is why is
Jordan not considered a Palestinian state? I've never really understood that as I would
like to. So why is Jordan not considered Palestinian state? Before I say
that, let me just say I agree with you completely. Having lived in
Israel or most of my early life, I know what it's like to go
through when terrorists infiltrate and so on. And that's the reason why they have
the checkpoints in the West Bank. It's why it's the reason why people are
dying at the checkpoints, because Israel has to protect itself. He's gone.
As with regard to Jordan, look, Jordan's should be a free country,
be ruled by king or any other deaths spot. And the fact is that
ethnically most of the population, well over fifty percent of the population of Jordan
is Palestinian, and I think Jordan should be open to accepting more people who
would want to move there, and if it was free, it would in
a sense become the Palestinian state. The only reason Jordan is not a Palestinian
state is because a long long time ago, the British promised it to the
Faisal family. Because they made a mistake during World War One, they promised
Saudi Arabia tore two different families to the Saud family which rules it today,
and to the Faisal family, and as a consequence, they had to give
these guys something else, and they gave them, you know, just a
little history that they gave them Jordan, king of Dullah, and then they
gave them Syria. And the Syrians didn't like the Saudi Arabian coming to rule
over them and they kind of kicked him out. So you know what they
did with him, They made him king of Iraq and he was king of
Iraq until the early nineteen fifties. So you know, the only reason Jordan
is a Hashemite empire and not a and not a you know, a Palestinian
state is because the British gave it to the Ashamans, gave it to a
particular tribe in Saudi Arabia, which actually who actually ruled over Mecca and Medina,
the Holy Cities of Saudi Arabia when you know when the Sawods kicked them
out. So it's history. You know, there's no reason it should be
a Palestinian state. Oh no, because nobody, nobody talks about history.
We don't know history. We ignore history. History is unimportant. The only
thing that we care about is you know is how do we get by tomorrow?
How do we survive tomorrow? How do we cut the next shortcut that
we can tomorrow? And you know, our school system lacks history education or
universities don't really teach history. You know, the Middle East isn't bad shade,
but so is this country. I wanted to ask you fundamental question.
You talked about collectivism and individual rights, and yet it seems to me that
in the Iraq War, we saw twenty twenty year old American soldiers dying,
and I think in some cases they said for something greater than themselves. This
has certainly been the history of the Israeli state since nineteen forty eight, and
before that, young men and older men and women have died for something greater
than themselves. And on the other hand, you have laz fair capitalism,
you have the Carlisle Group, which regularly trades with Saudi Arabia, source of
terrorism throughout the world. You have the recent yo see Guinness ur stick scandal
in Israel, and I'm wondering how you can justify and I do love your
defense of Israel, but how you justify the lase fair individual capitalism given the
fact it seems to me that it is a collective identification with either America or
in my case, so I consider myself a religious jew the identification with the
Jewish people that gave rise to Israel. And it seems to me that there
is an element of validity to a collectivist view. Okay, why the soldiers
going to battle? And why is it from a purely individualistic, selfish,
egoistic perspective that they are willing to risk their lives for their country? Why
is there? Well, first of all, they don't always do it for
the right reason. Many people go to battle for the wrong reason, and
they do it for collectivistic reasons, which I think they are the wrong reasons,
and they do it, and you know, and in many places in
America and in the United States, many of the soldiers indeed do it for
collectivism, and I think that's wrong. How could I justify it from an
egoistic perspective? I like the Marine I like you know, I watched before
the Iraq War as the Marines will be interview and when they were asked,
why are you fighting? Anybody? Remember what they said? They said,
I'm fighting for my kids, I'm fighting for my wife, I'm fighting for
my family. I'm fighting so for my kids won't have to live in a
world where Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Not to me, that
is egoism. They are fighting for the values the people in this case,
the values that they view as the most important values in their lives, their
kids, their wives, their close family. And I think if you took
it to more abstract level, if these were slightly more intellectual soldiers, as
I wish they were and hope one day they will be, they would say
I'm fighting because in a world that has weapons of mass destruction in the hands
of despot, that is a world I do not want to live in.
That is a world that I can't go into mall without thinking whether it'd be
blown up or knock. That is a world in which my life is not
worth anything. That is a world in which my freedom is not worth anything.
I am fighting for my life. I am fighting to be able to
be free. I am fighting for my values, for the right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not everybody's right to the life liberty
mine, but of course mind involves everybody's. If I'm gonna fight for mine,
I'm gonna fight for everybody's because it would be meaningful just to fight for
mine. So I think there are plenty of rational soldiers out there who may
be can't articulated, but who are completely igoists or who are in i UQ
because they understand that Iraq poses a threat to them, to them and the
things that they hold dear, including these abstract values that maybe they can't put
words to, but you know, neither can I intellectuals. But that's what's
behind what they say. They are fighting for the American way, you know,
for the that's what they mean. They're fighting for freedom. And you
could say, look, I would rather commit suicide in a sense then live
under a Nazi dictatorship. That is the selfish thing to do. Well.
I would certainly fight against a Nazi dictatorship and risk my life then live under
it. And for that matter, I would be willing to fight and risk
my life daily to prevent militant Muslims who would blow themselves up in a second,
from possessing nuclear weapons or chemical weapons or other types of weapons. So
when there's a real threat today values, it's completely egoistic to fight for them.
Collectivism, on the other hand, is what leads Nazis to fight for
Nazism, It's what leads Arians to fight for the arent nation. It's what
leads you know, Christians to go on a crusade, and it's what leads
Osama bin Laden to go on a Muslim crusade against the West. It is
those feelings of doing it for the you know, some greater good other than
oneself that can only That's the only way you could explain the kind of suicide
missions that Muslim fundamentalists are involved in. Collectivism as the principle defining the reason
one fights has always led to complete an utter disaster. And I believe that
even in Israel, to the extent that they fight for purely collectivistic reasons,
that weakens them and ultimately will lead to their destruction. And the more they
move towards an individualistic society where the Israeli soldier can't say proudly that he is
fighting for his values, for freedom, for individual rights, for capitalism,
the better the soldier will be and the healthy Israeli society will be, and
the longer it will survive. At Community College of Philadelphia, and last week
we had a guest lecturer from Penn professor Ian Lustik, who informed an audience
that the United States Congress is controlled by the Israel lobby, compared Israel to
a drug addict, and it kind of went downhill from there. Some enraged
students started talking about their claims that there never was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem,
and it became more interesting after that. What I'm interested in is the
kind of the general political tone being set from the White House since at least
June twenty fourth of last year, when the President has started using words like
occupation and settlement on a consistent basis. One never hears about the Polish occupation
of Silesia and Pomerania and East Prussia, or about settlements, and it seems
that that kind of rhetoric has the effect of delegitimizing the state of Israel as
a whole. Now, when I discuss this with my conservative Jewish friends,
they say, they they wink, and they say, don't worry, he's
just saying that. But he actually the White House has so many conditions on
the Palestinian state that they'll never be able to achieve it. And it's not
a realistic concern. But yet one hears about the timetable. By two thousand
and five, there will be a state, come hell or high water.
So are these people right? Is this is the White House being too clever?
Well, let me put it this way. Even if the White House
is being clever here than making a faithful mistake, a mistake which we will
be the consequences. As I said in my talk, whenever they appease tourism,
whenever they appease the tourists, even in woods, not in actions,
they are emboldening the tourists. Every day that George Bush goes out there talking
about the road map, some junior bin Laden is gaining strength. Some young
terrorists are saying, Wow, if only we can survive long enough, if
only we can make our claim strong enough, if only we can kill enough
people, they will ultimately listen to us, and they will give us.
They will give us something. But let me say that I don't believe it's
just a game. I believe that this administration really wants to solve They want
a Palestinian state, They want to solve this problem. And I think this
is administration is a bizarre combination of some very good stuff and some very very
bad stuff. You know, they've done some good stuff since September eleventh,
and they've done some awful stuff since September eleventh. They've they've gone to war,
which you know, I think is a good thing, and then they've
executed a war which in a way which I think sends the wrong messages to
the world. You know, everything they do is is is this mixed bag
of contradictions, and I think as a consequence, they're not really winning the
war. I think it's this contradiction that prevents them from winning it. For
example, this administration fears, in my view, naming the enemy in the
war on terrorism, which isn't terrorism. I mean, that's a joke.
There are lots of terrorists around the world that we're not at war worth with
war worth one group of terrorism. And indeed, it's not even a war
against terrorism. It's a word against an ideology that is using terrorism right now
as a tactic. Might use other techniques in the future, like all out
war, just plain old war, the wars against militanty slamp. That is
the ideology that is attacking us, that is the ideology that preaches our destruction,
and that is an ideology that sends these terrorists out to suicide. Mission.
Why won't they say it? Why won't they say it? How can
you fight a war when you're afraid to name the enemy? Imagine fighting World
War two without saying we want to destroy Nazism. Instead of that, we're
saying, we just want to capture Hitler and a few of his leaders,
will kill them. But uh, and we don't hate the German people.
We like the German people. They're okay. And indeed, moderate forms of
Nazism are okay. It's just the extreme form that you know, we don't
like. But we're not war with even that, we're not in war with
it. That's the equivalent, you know, project that on Japanese imperialism on
any form. You cannot fight a war like that, And indeed, I
think I think we're not. I think our war in Afghanistan was a pathetic
example of a war, and indeed, I think we did not achieve any
of our real targets other than doing a work with the Taliban regime. You
know, we didn't get the major terrorists out of that war. And I
think even the war in you Walk is going to come back to haunt us
because we did, because we fought what I consider compassionate war. And I
think it's a mall abomination. Going back to the ambulance question, it is
a mall abomination for one marine to die because we would not kill civilians,
one American to shed blood because we didn't let the helicopters fire for far enough
because we weren't sure if it was a civilian target or not. One marine
to die because we wouldn't shoot at a mosque. Do you know what they
did last week at a mosque? The three Sheite spiritual leaders, well one
of them slaughtered that other two. They were butchered in a mosque, not
just in a mosque, in the holiest mosque to the Sheite religion. There
was blood shed on the floor. And we won't shoot at a mosque and
a marine dies, And that to me is a mal atrocity of this administration.
For what what are we doing this for? To make that out of
street love us. You think they're gonna love us because because we only killed
a thousand civilians and not two thousand civilians. Of course not, if anything,
they lose respect for us because we don't fight a war the way it
wars are supposed to be. F There's no such thing by the way,
as MSNBC and c spent all these not c spent as MSNBC and CNN and
Fox saying there's no such thing as the rules of law of war. War
is the negation of rules. It is the it is there. There is
the reversion to pure brutality. There's no such thing as acting nice in a
war. That's a complete denial of what was about. Was about killing people.
There's no way to kill them nicely. There's no way to execute a
war with compassion. And when you do, you send again the wrong message
to the rest of the war. You send the message your moral weakness and
cowardice. And I think that we are going to suffer the consequences of sending
such messages into the decades to come. And man in the back has been
patiently waiting to ask a question for a long term thank you without arguing much
of your presentation, because I firmly believe in a strong world case for Israel,
and you made much of it. And perhaps I did miss this at
the beginning because unfortunately I was late, But could you comment about the following.
The fact is that whatever we feel about a Palestinian state, many in
Israel, many Israelis find great difficulty in fulfilling their humanity, their rights there
and ran principles of self respect and what they're about in ruling over a million
people who don't want to be ruled over by then now, I certainly agree
with you. I'm sure I don't know the depth of the history. But
Jordan didn't want them either, I know that, and he still try to
give them to Jordan. But the fact is that why is Israel willing to
negotiate, to talk, to try to make some kind of compromise, is
because they don't want to rule over these people. I would also just like
to comment because I recall very well. I believe I was in Israel at
the time of that killing of the terrorist leader, which certainly was an admirable
end and one which I would, under circumstances have to support. But at
the same time, it was more than just collateral damage that fourteen civilians were
killed. It was obviously known that civilians were going to be killed because of
where he was and the amount of ammunition that was dropped on him. And
I think that was the criticism, not killing this man, but when there
perhaps were other opportunities other ways, or maybe that opportunity should have been missed.
But anyway, I'd like to get back to that as part of that
whole context, namely, the individual within Israel that wants to retain, whether
you know this lecture is part of that or not, once retained, the
jewishness of the Jewish state and their sense of also being a free, Western
thinking individual who doesn't want to rule where people do not want to be ruled
over by him. Let me let me start by commenting on your on your
second comments, and then I'll get to the broad of question. If Israel
had been able to kill Shidata, they would have done it previously. That
is, he's been on there, on the top. He was at the
time at the top of the target list for years and they were not successful.
And I would argue, and I know that this sounds inhumane and and
soul on, but I think it indeed is humane that even if a hundred
people would have done and Israel would have known that a hundred people would have
died, it would have been justified, or a thousand people it would have
been justified. The fact is that that when Israel is tough, when Israel
is strong, they don't come back it's when Israel is weak and leaves the
territories. It's when they come back. When we held those territories, when
we were tough with them, they did not attack Israel. They they are
emboldened by Israel's weakness, just like Issambi in London is emboldened by America's weakness.
And when Israel apologized for killing the fourteen civilians, it again emboldened them
because now they know that if they surround themselves with women and children, if
they drive everywhere with women and children, if they only walk around in crowds,
Israel won't do anything to them. And indeed, Saddam saying, I
think has escaped because he learned that lesson, and Assambi London certainly escaped Affghanistan
because he learned that lesson because he, according to the New York Times,
at least on several occasions, they knew where he was and he was surrounded
by women and children, and therefore they didn't attack him. So you get
the perpecty. You know, evil what perpetuate itself because it has no problem
using women and children to its own devices. But you know, think back
on just to finish this point of civilian casualties. Think back on what the
United States did in World War Two in order to win that war. Before
Nagasaki in Hiroshima, even before the atomic bombs that killed one hundred thousand civilians,
even you know, months months before that, the United States bombed Tokyo
and every other major city in Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilians,
because they thought it would shorten the war. They didn't do it. It
wasn't collateral damage. Oops, we missed the military target. We hit a
civilian. They killed civilians because civilians became a military target, because that would
shorten the war and guarantee American victory. Nobody in America made a peep out
of that. Nobody objected to that, because we lived in a time when
we had a lot more confidence in our maral righteousness. And I don't think
that was wrong. What we did when we flattened Dresden in Germany. I
don't think that was wrong if it saved American lives, if it led to
a shorter World War two. And I think the same is true in Israel.
If Israel to kill a leader of a terrorist group has to kill civilians
in the process, so be it their blood is on that terrorist leader's hands,
not on Israeli's hands. Now, with regards to the broader question,
there is no question that Israel supports compromise and appeasement and supports dealing with the
Palestinians. I mean, you know, in that sense, they're often ahead
of the Americans. Indeed, I believe that the biggest enemies of Israel,
the most significant enemies of Israel, teach at the Haifa University and Television University,
just as I believe the biggest enemies of the United States teach at pen
and other places like this. So I think of Israeli intellectuals are its biggest
enemies, just like American intellectuals America's biggest enemy. They have bought into the
altruistic, collectivistic philosophies that are destroying the West, and by doing so they
are going to commit suicide. Either commit suicide or lead to a much bigger
war long term in the Middle East, just as I believe that the West
is committing suicide by more and more over time accepting altruism. Altruism is the
idea of self sacrifices them all a standard, and collectivism is the idea that
groups matter. Not individuals, that everything should be sacrificed to the group,
that by adopting altruism and collectivism in the West, we are abandoning our roots
in the founding documents of this country, and as a consequence of committing suicide
qua West. And I think Europe is a few decades ahead of the United
States on the march towards the Abyss, but we're not that far behind them,
and Israel is there with us as well. So let me put it
this way. If Israel truly, if is really truly believed in ain RAN's
values, then they wouldn't like the occupation. Nobody likes an occupation, but
they would recognize that occupying these people, at least for a while, and
probably a long while unfortunately, is necessary for their own survival, and therefore
they would do it. And they would realize that the only way to change
the Palestinians to the point where you will be able to grant them their own
state maybe one day, or grant them full citizenship in Israel one day,
is by occupying them, maybe for generation, maybe for two, and re
educating with Western values, trashing those books that they're studying with now and replacing
them with real history and real values and respect for reasons, science and individual
rights. But as I said at the end of my speech, Israel's not
going to come to that conclusion. Neither we in the United States going to
come to that conclusion until we adopt reason, science and individual rights as I'm
moto as the values that we are willing to fight for, and we're not.
We're you know, we have a murky perception of what democracy is.
The way we're gonna we're gonna bring to Iraq where collective, all these collectives,
these ethnic groups are gonna be represented at the table. The Fani fathers
didn't talk about the Irish Americans and Italian Americans and the Jewish Americans being having
a place on the table. They talked about individual rights. If we went
to Iraq and preached individual rights, maybe we would have a chance. But
going to Iraq and talking about Chited rights and Kurdish rights and Sunni rights and
not even that, they're getting to the absurdity of declaring the rights of the
twenty second smallest minority. You know, there's Zyrians, so they're you know,
these tiny little groups, they all have rights because they are a group.
They are collective. So we in the West have abandoned those values.
No wonder we are weak, No wonder we are committing suicide. No wonder
we advocate for the Palestinians. And of course the more collectivistic, the more
altruistic we are, the more we commit sus up all other French. How
to have one French? You know? One? More questions? Go ahead,
questions? Oh you don't meet to pick that's right, I don't know
who had the handle first. Yeah, I don't know. I you know
the one you're next to. I guess I have no preference. Thank you
for coming here today and speaking here. I just had a question. You
answered a little bit of that in the previous question. Previous question, but
I'd like you to elaborate on that if you could have been I agree with
you that, yes, Sir Rafat is not gonna be a vehicle for peace,
and he does need to be removed. But from there you implied that
yes, Sir Raifa equals Palestinians, and on that basis tonight, the existence
of a the right of a Palestinian state to exist. Now, how can
you justify sealing the fate of a people based on the actions of the desk
spots controlling them. And I mean if Islama bin Laden used that kind of
reasoning, and he did, and we got September eleventh, you know,
being for But he didn't because Wassam bin Laden has no grievance against anybody.
He just kills for the sake of killing. He has no justification. And
if you could argue that eighty percent of the Palestinian people are freedom loving,
individual rights loving, they want to live next to Israel, they want to
live in peace, then I would be with you and say let's form a
coalition with those eighty percent, kill Alaphat and the leadership and give them one
absolutely. But they don't. They're not that way. Oh you can finish
yes, being morally superior to Islama bin Laden, how can we resort to
the same lodge because he does? And what do you suggest if if we
don't have a Palestinian state, what do you suggest we do with the Palestinians?
Well, as I said, I don't think we're on the same mall
plane as universe as Issam bin Laden. Indeed, because he is initiating force
and we are using four and self defense, and that puts an extreme opposite
in terms of the morality of what we are doing now, the question was
what should what do we what of the other people within the Palestinian leadership.
Let's let's interpret it that way to the question, and then I'll go to
the what should we do with the Palestinians. Look, Yas offered to spend
the last thirty five years killing anybody who opposed his views within the Palestinian leadership.
I mean he's purged him left and right, over and over again.
The people today who are within the Palestinian leadership, ah, yes, so
offered cronies. So it's not like there's somebody else to take his place.
And indeed, this prime Minister that they've chosen right now is a perfect example
of that. He's been a member of the PLO from the beginning. He's
been a part of it as a terrorist organization from the beginning. He has
supported Yes offered from the beginning, and throughout he has advocated for the for
the you know, for the elimination of the state of Israel. Quas say,
from the beginning. He pretends to be a peacemaker, as a pragmatist,
just like Yes off It pretends to be a peacemaker and a practical man.
He indeed wrote his dissertation at I can't remember the university, but he
wrote his dissertation on basically quoting Holocaust deniers. So you can add to that
that he is an anti Semite. I refer you to Jeff Jacobe wrote an
excellent op ed in the Boston Globe. I think it was a week or
two ago about who this guy really is. You know, this is just
another yes or offer in sheep's clothing, that's all. There's no difference.
And as I said, if it were true that the overwhelming majority of the
Palestinian people were peace loving, individual rights loving, they would have killed yes
or off it a long time ago and replaced him with somebody and keme to
Israel with a peace plan, which you know, which was based on freedom
and mutual existence. So what can we do with the Palestinians? Well,
as I said, I believe that at least for a generation, you know,
maybe sooner, I don't know, but at least for the near future,
Israel has to reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza. It needs to go
in there and eradicate all terrorist activity. It needs to destroy the infrastructure,
It needs to destroy the leaders. It needs to prison however many it takes
to stop the terrorism, and it needs to replace the textbooks, It needs
to replace the teachers if necessary. It needs to change the environment within the
Palestinian world, within the West Bank and Gaza, just as it did to
some extent and with some limited success in the nineteen seventies. But unfortunately Israel
made a very big mistake in the seventies, and that was that in order
to establish an opposition to yasu Offer and Palestinian nationalism, it's helped establish militanty
Slam through the Hamas movement, which is well helped fund during the nineteen seventies,
and of course is suffering the consequences of that to this day, just
like we in America funded Usama bin Laden in order to fight communism, we
suffer the consequence of that bad decision to this day. So what they need
is a secular, pro individual rights, pro freedom educational system in the Palestinian
territories. They need to let that function for a while and see what happens
and if the Palestinians politically mature to the point to which Israel is one hundred
percent convinced that they have no intention of annihilating Israel, that they will form
a truly free, representational, individual rights respecting country. Then I have no
objection in principle under those conditions to forming a Palestinian state. But those conditions
are necessary to form such a state, and until those conditions come abide,
any forming of such a state is an act of suicide. So I am
not very optimistic for two reasons. Well, for one major reason, because
I don't think is what we'll do it. And the reason I don't think
Israel will do it is because Israel is being corrupted by bad philosophy, just
like the rest of the West, as I noted, And it's it's in
a sense more corrupt because the Israelis tend to be more intellectual, and uh,
you know, the more corrupted becomes, the more dangerous of a place
it's going to be, and the more you know. But in that sense,
I'm pessimistic about the West in general, and I think the only hope
for the West and for Israel is, as I said, a return to
reason and individual rights. And I think the only philosophy advocating consistently for reason
and for individual rights is Iinman's philosophy, objectivism. So until we take over
the world, things are not looking good. Thank you.