Yaron Lectures: U.S.-Israel Relations

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.