1) If only we had a leader (President) like Bibi. His moral clarity and conviction is amazing in today's world.
2) Bari, congratulations on an amazing interview. Rather than have these stupid presidential debates, all serious candidates should commit to a one hour interview with you! Maybe you could start with President Biden?
Item 1: Absolutely. I've followed the Netanyahus since Entebbe. One thing Bibi did not mention was that he, himself, has been wounded in combat. He is a clear-eyed realist who understands that Things Matter. Really matter.
The problem in the US is that this "administration" is only laser-focused on things that don't matter - like pussy hats - and completely oblivious to the things that do - like, say, the intentional, government-produced impoverishment of the middle class through inflation.
Item 2: Have Bari interview Alleged President Asterisk, Houseplant in Chief? You saw the depths of Bari's questions - a perfect match for Bibi's intellect. The head of the Biden Crime Family now has three remaining neurons limping along: one infected, one infarcted, and one inhibitory. What a waste of time!
Very insightful interview. Bari hit him with all the leftist attacks, and he handled each very well. He is a very exceptional leader.
The armchair leftist journalists that "supplied" Bari with her questions simply do not believe enemies exist who need to be killed to defend Israel or America. They are also the same journalists in Israel and the US who have colluded to blind so many Westerners to reality, and have destroyed our first amendment. I refer to the Twitter Files.
Thus, their attacks on Bibi are often fatuous. But it is wonderful to hear them aired out and blown up.
I do not think Bari is a leftist. I think she asked him the hard questions that were needed to be asked, she did it with courtesy and allowed him to answer fully. Further she gave respectful attention to his his answers. She is a good journalist.
My takeaway was about a third of the way through the interview. He described the government that supplanted him as left wing who embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. Any organization who embraces the Muslim Brotherhood is nutz. It seemed to me by Bibi's description of the government he threw out of office was trying to do to Israil what the left in our country is trying to do and that is to destroy their country.
You know, "Workers arise. All you have to lose are your chains."
What he's conveniently not noting is that he too was willing to partner with Ra'am, the Islamist party, in 2021 if it would have let him stay in power. Ra'am wouldn't bite, and went with Bennet/Lapid instead.
Israeli coalition politics is ... I was going to call it byzantine, but that's Greek ... maybe talmudic in its convolutions, like a knotty page of Gemara. I think even a lot of Israelis don't fully understand it.
This Islamist party, Ra'am -- I'll bet money that the Israeli government is in contact with counterparts in the friendlier Arab governments about it. Except for Qatar and Turkey, as Bibi mentioned, Ra'am and its parallel radical Sunni entities (like CAIR in the US) are banned in most Middle Eastern countries now. A decade-plus ago, these governments finally got it, that supporting or even tolerating these groups is toxic and dangerous. Imagine if CAIR were ejected from the US -- no Ilhan Omar or Linda Sarsour, who are basically front personalities for CAIR and Qatar.
This stupendous interview makes many points of diplomacy clear. These quotes captures a takeaway that cannot be ignored:
"But if you told them the way you're going to secure democracy is by giving the power to the anointed few who will decide for the unwashed many? They’d say that's ridiculous. But that's a view of democracy that is penetrating Western democracies and is very, very dangerous. It's not going to sustain them."
"It would be a tragedy if the United States abandons its role and stops believing in its mission to be the beacon of liberty and the world. "
"Get on with a program of liberty."
Americans have forgotten the difference between liberty and freedom. We use them interchangeably. This is a mistake. Bibi implies that he, for one, knows the difference, and is putting it to work in Israel.
Freedom as the political program promises to hoodwink reality by making it someone else's job to guarantee your freedom of speech, worship, want, and from fear. Liberty is political freedom, meaning freedom from the polity (elected and unelected) who want to rule your life's every breath.
I am pleased to see that Common Sense is taking us back to the days of its namesake, when everyone knew the difference between liberty and freedom. Thank you, Bari Weiss for this important interview with Bibi.
I have thought and have read that Liberty is equal to Freedom plus Responsibility. Freedom without Responsibility is Anarchy. And Responsibility with Freedom is Totalitarian.
No. That's the definition used to muddy the waters between liberty and freedom. You are born with responsibility for your own life. No one else is born with that responsibility for your life. That's a fact of nature.
In an advanced society, to bring a child into the world is to choose an obligation to raise that child to be self-sufficient. The individual has that responsibility from birth. Parenting is a voluntary multi-year obligation to prepare the child to assume a place in society.
Liberty is freedom from the political forces who would have you do their bidding: fight a war, get a vaccine, use new pronouns, stop using electricity so people with electric cars can drive their cars, pay the pols money for their privilege of telling you what to do.
Where would I get a right to force my ideas and actions on you, or anyone else? Where would I get a right to do your thinking for you? Where would I get any rights except to defend myself against force in an emergency. Where would I get a right to vote someone’s rights away?
If you believe that it is right for you to dictate her rights to the woman and take her rights away for the term of her pregnancy, you do not believe In inalienable rights. If all rights are conditional, then you believe we live by permission. You can assign agents of God on earth (bureaucrats) to carry out God’s will on Earth. You are presuming much and not letting the woman be responsible for her own life and soul.
If I believed in making case by case decisions for people I don’t even know, then there is a government of men, not objective law.
I don’t have this right and neither do one million people together have that right.
Murder is wrong. Abortion is a medical procedure before birth. If you don’t agree with it, don’t help the woman or support the practice. But it’s none of your business unless your government forces you to support it or you want your government to force people to punish it.
You then witness the erosion of all rights when those in power use that power to make you pay for a procedure you have every right to hate and refuse to bare the burden.
If the fetus’ “right” to life is more important to you than your own right to life, eventually no one will have any rights at all, and the tyranny of procreation by committee will be the least of your the problems. We see that now more clearly with other incursions on our rights and freedoms.
I think this is the Libertarian pro-abortion argument?
But, respectfully, you still want to ignore the humanity of the being within the womb, for expediency, convenience, mental health, etc… (actual threats to physical health such as treating an ectopic pregnancy do not count as abortion by moral philosophers).
“Murder is wrong” [but, implied] “Abortion is [just] a medical procedure” is a loaded assertion. If a developing human were slated to be murdered, and it was legally someone’s right, you’ve just drawn a line at the cost of that human. Dems often accuse Republicans of not wanting to care for children “once they’re born,”…but…with all the care centers and collection baskets religious people gather, outside of government, to assist the poor and desperate woman with her newborn and toddler… isn’t that pretty disingenuous? Mightn’t the opposite be true?
What if morally, we as women, first of all, must hold and accept that the developing being within a womb is a human being? If WE women don’t hold to that, don’t protect that truth and that life and that right of that human being to life, and stand by it as a principle, is there a viable consistency to human rights in a society dominated by tyranny of the strongest and fittest and most utilitarian?
In a society which seeks to separate freedom and pleasure from responsibility? What makes murder wrong in that society anyway?
"I think this is the Libertarian pro-abortion argument?"
I am pro-liberty for all individuals, which is entirely different from Libertarian, as follows:
With all respect for you, the woman who has to make a decision, and myself (three individuals), I propose a civilized society that promotes positive actions and moral restraints on those who would compel others to their bidding.
You propose to compel the woman to have the baby. Your high-flown language ignores the right of the woman to her own life. That's appalling to me. I want no part of compulsion whatsoever. Where do you get the right to tell me and anyone else that she has to have a baby? You want to compel others to your will "for a good cause." Compulsion is immoral, no matter how "good" the cause is. There is no compromise to propose evil against the woman because you think the potential baby is more important to the world than her life. I find that horrifying.
If you are convincing, go out and convince people. But if you are in the mindset of getting people to ban abortion by law, you are promoting compulsion (force) as a means to an end. The woman is not threatening you or me. She didn't do anything to warrant your threatening her. If she could take a morning-after pill, I wouldn't stop her. I would welcome a solution for the woman to act independently without either one of us (or anyone else) having to agree. The woman is the only decider in this case. If she needs help, I might help her, but you would not. Fair enough. I'm willing to mind my own business, but you are not. You are campaigning to compel others to agree and stop abortions, except for the rules you want. Different anti-abortion groups have different laws. Religions have different rules.
The proliferation of different rules indicates that all the rules are wrong and that no rational solution is possible. The government should clearly define murder as killing an individual. The murder or mutilation of a pregnant woman resulting in a fetus's death, can have a more significant penalty than the attempted murder of an individual. I can see the logic of that change when the woman has a fetus removed or killed by an assailant. The aggressor violated the woman's rights and destroyed a potential baby in her body that she wanted. Her body belongs to her by right.
I stand by my statement that murder is wrong and abortion is a medical procedure. I said it outright. I stand by that statement.
Regarding people using government money to assist women, babies, and toddlers, you know I'm against that. Private help is wonderful. I've made myself clear before this post, and you don't need to bring it up. It only shows that two wrongs don't make a right. A right and a wrong make a muddle, and that's the truth.
I tried not to get you worked up, but it happened anyway because some women cannot fight for both woman and unborn child.
I agree this is the most complex and fraught difficulty but we should be together on the need to create a society in which woman and unborn child are protected. You offer no consistent basis for even a def of murder, because we can kill an unborn child at will, if it’s inconvenient or distressing, or unwanted; you have no answer to freedom and pleasure without responsibility, and you call this simple logic that is distressing you, “high-flown language.” I’m sorry for distressing you but not for speaking truth about man and woman’s mutual responsibility towards the human beings they conceive, before they are born.
I would clarify your thought here only because common sense and human instinct have become so muddied today: You are *not* “born with* the responsibility for your own life. Children do not have the responsibility for their lives “from birth.”
The parents who conceived them have the responsibility for their children’s lives from conception until that moment their child is responsible for his or her own life. You see what I’m saying.
Yes, you are right. My comment needs clarification. I was using the wrong word.
I was talking about the physical capacity to survive outside the womb given the proper sustenance and protection. So I meant responsibility in a limited sense. Therefore, I would say that normal human babies are born with the potential to take responsibility for their own lives. Your point about the parents' responsibility need's also to be nuanced, and the parents' responsibility is to nurture the child to be self-responsible.
As far as responsibility from conception, that choice is for the mother to make, and for her to find a willing partner to help her or a willing person to help end the pregnancy. Unwilling, coerced individuals may make bad parents, and especially bad mothers.
When the time comes that science has advanced far enough, women who don't want the baby, and women who do want a baby but cannot have one, could arrange for a proxy female to have the baby. Our government won't allow this, but some others countries do. In addition, eventually science will advance until the fetus is able to survive and come to term in an artificial womb.
I suggest that the responsibility from conception is a religious theory that has no place in objective law.
With continued respect, Ilene, I think that the notion of parents not having responsibly from conception—the highest mutual moral human responsibility for the human beings they mutually conceive— while in utero, is entirely a construct, and a modern and even self-serving one at that! And the loss of humanity that you describe heedlessly therewith!
To She Has Invisible Friends: Without a doubt, I like your style. I agree with your assessment of parents who conceive a child and suffer a change of heart. However, no one has a right to deprive the pregnant woman of her right to end the pregnancy. She can find a willing doctor, a willing benefactor, or jump off a bridge. She has no right to coerce anyone into agreeing with her plan.
I find your distinction between liberty and freedom interesting, Ilene. What kind of liberty do you think Netanyahu himself will have when he could be leveraged by his soon to be partner Hamar Ben-Gvir, ultra-nationalist (and proclaimed terrorist by both Israel and the US back in the day..) for a senior position in a coalition government (defence?). The ends justify the means - and I think BiBi will cede to 'the anointed few', give them influence - all for him to claim power.
You make a very interesting point, Lee. I think Bibi himself will have the same kind of elite government as all the others who tout democracy -- that may explain why he comes in and then gets ousted.
This means he's a cut above those who don't recognize the difference between liberty and freedom, but is in the same boat as them when he tries to lead.
In the interview, he hints at a distinction between liberty and freedom in his talk. He warns about the dangerous problem for democracies. He doesn't pursue the issue in depth, and you wouldn't expect him to. After all, he's a politician, not a theorist. He doesn't know how to avoid that danger, and maybe he will figure it out when it looms next time.
I agree with him that the danger is real and ominous. At this juncture, it’s enough to get people to understand that. Getting most people to recognize the problem as a problem will be a tremendous job.
Promises of liberty preserve the rights of the individual. Guarantees of freedom in the FDR sense enslave some individuals to others.
Our Constitution is a shell of its original form. Most checks and balances are gone. The remaining are under attack -- the number of justices in the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the regulatory power of unelected bureaucrats, etc.
The distinction between liberty and freedom is real. It's existential. It's not going away. A society that champions freedom over liberty is doomed unless it learns the difference, takes heed, and implements a solution.
I am not a Constitutional scholar. I am a systems analyst, designer, and implementer. I have a lifelong interest and much success in getting to the bottom of things, and this is a problem that intrigues me.
You make a profound point. Do I assume that in your opinion liberty is ordained - with freedom merely proclaimed? By us? By a document?
Is liberty to be construed as individual, to be claimed by right? - but freedom viewed as collective, by statute? And how are the two entwined? Because, as I think you and I both would agree, the two are related.
Do I assume that in your opinion liberty is ordained - with freedom merely proclaimed? By us? By a document?
<<Neither ordained or proclaimed.>>
Is liberty to be construed as individual, to be claimed by right?
<<Both liberty and freedom are claimed by right. Both are legitimate concepts formed by people thinking about the need to understand how to live their lives. >>
- but freedom viewed as collective, by statute?
<<I view the collective as a shame, always.>>
And how are the two entwined?
<<There are groups of individuals, but no group has more rights that any one individual. Freedom and liberty have different functions in human life, as compared below.>>
Because, as I think you and I both would agree, the two are related.
<<Yes the two are related.>>
And which is the more valuable?
<<Value depends on context. On a desert island, devoid of population but yourself, liberty is of no consequence. Freedom is everything.>>
I think both, equally.
<<Liberty builds on freedom. They are not equal, they are blocks of the same safe-house, but one (freedom) is more fundamental. The other (liberty) is indispensable in an advanced society. >>
Freedom and Liberty Compared:
Freedom is the relationship of a human to reality in a state of Nature, as John Locke might have put it. No government directly impacts his life. He is free to work. Free to take responsibility. Free to refuse to take responsibility. Free to starve. His life, his work, his pursuit of happiness is his own.
Liberty is the relationship of the human individual to other individuals in a social context, in which a government has been formed to preserve the group from foreign aggression and the members of the group from internal aggression. Taking the fruit of another's labor by force or fraud is internal aggression. Governments are formed to prevent internal and external aggression.
However, it is aggression by the polity, the machinery of government, that is the root of tyranny. Safeguarding against tyranny is always the greatest danger of government. It has been thus since governments were formed.
The Founders knew, in colonial America, that the overreach of the King of England was the biggest threat to their lives. Not the Indians, the French, or any thieves or scoundrels among them. The litany of wrongs in the Declaration of Independence is a list of usurpations of power by King George III.
The complaints in the Declaration of Independence begin with this sentence,
"...let Facts be submitted to a candid World...."
There follows about 30 points of complaint, ending with,
"A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free people."
As we look around us, tyranny is obviously an unsolved problem. Liberty is the concept of political freedom -- freedom from the polity, meaning freedom from the people in power to use power for their own purposes or for the benefit of some at the expense of others.
The word, "Liberty" appears in the Declaration only once in the statement of inalienable rights. However, the long list of complaints clearly defines what the Declaration of Independence is about: the usurpations of King George III. The concept of liberty is the protection against usurpation of power.
Liberty is the soul of the Declaration of Independence. The world needs to recapture that soul.
Thanks to you and Lee for this utterly fascinating discussion of the difference between liberty and freedom.
A question on the latter, though. Who decides whether a government action is necessary or a "usurpation of power?" For every person who believes (for instance) taxes are necessary to manage a society, another insists that all taxes are theft.
So how do you maximize "liberty" and still have a functioning society?
You maximize liberty and freedom together by defining the concept of tyranny precisely.
Then you define government to prevent tyranny, and even the smallest step toward tyranny. How does tyranny begin? It begins when people choose the lesser of two evils. If the choice is between the lesser of two evils, evil wins.
I know this response is incomplete. I believe a complete, factual and sensible solution is possible. I also believe that recognizing the problem and accepting the possibility that there could be a solution is the biggest hurdle facing the human race. If an actual, permanent solution is inconceivable to humanity, the solution may not be discovered in my lifetime.
Unless the human race self-destructs, there will be enough evidence for later generations to solve. There is a possibility of failure in the short run. Eventually, someone will figure it out.
The specific transition from failing democracies and authoritarian states to maximum freedom and liberty will take time, but it will be the "idea whose time has come" when it arrives.
Based upon his earlier comments disparaging the intellectual elites’ continuing dominance in American Democracy that it was not meant as a compliment. Our intellectual decision makers have an amazing way of being able to ignore basic human nature.
Sorry to be pedantic but I wouldn’t say it’s amazing how they ignore human nature. It’s what you would predict if you consider who these people are. Our intellectual decision makers are a mix of megalomaniacs and simpletons.
The simpletons don’t ignore human nature. They are just unintelligent, so factoring something like that in creates a level of complexity they can’t manage. That’s how you get single-factor analysis gems like ‘virus bad close society virus stop’ and ‘Putin bad shoot boom boom until Putin lose’. They are just dumb people.
And then there’s the megalomaniacs who have ideas so great that the ideas will overcome human nature. Anyways, we are screwed.
I'm noticing Common Sense using the common mainstream journalism practice of regularly using the term "far-right" while never once using the term "far-left".
I'd love to see a thoughtful discussion of what those terms actually mean, where the center is and who defines it, and a sincere question to the CS staff as to whether they frame the right as radical on purpose or whether it's so normalized they don't think about it.
Other than becoming pro-life my views haven’t changed all that much since the 70’s! I cast my first vote for Jimmy Carter and didn’t change my D to R until around 2003 (?)
That is an accurate observation and excellent question. I'd love to hear the CS staff answer it; especially Nellie, whom I consider by far the most honest broker at CS.
First of all, Bari, thank you for listening and giving us the transcript.
But, more important, thank you for giving us Bibi. I wish that our own leaders were as thoughtful, as educated, as brave and as dedicated to their nation as is he. Israel is lucky to have him. We all are lucky that such men still stride the Earth as giants.
I am thankful that you have the courage and intellectual curiosity to give this great man a platform to present his story without all of the stupid and insane background noise that many confuse with sense. Great interview, I learned alot. Thank you, Bari
I just turned 60 and this completely confirms my understanding of: "The older I get, the less I know."
Bibi really gets subtly at all levels. In his former self, Bibi would have been done this interview and book promotion with Tom Friedman and The NY Times. Thank you Bari for being the new "Beacon of Light" for REAL journalism.
Phenomenal interview. Netanyahu is an historical figure. Not just in Israel, but for the world. Like him politically or not, what he has accomplished, what he did in his life, and what he has done for his country- and the region- will have long lasting impact on the rest of the world. I have always wished we had a leader in this country, with such a clear understanding of his/her own nation, hands that got dirty defending his/her own nation, hands that helped develop his/her own nation. Instead, what we get here are preeners who leave us questioning whether they actually love their country at all.
Bari, What a terrific interview and the courage to cover hot topics and a few softballs tossed in. I’m not an immediate fan of Bibi but given this interview I, for just one, will allow him the space to move ahead, not that he needs my blessing at all. I have same concerns about ultra religious and ultra nationalism making Israel smaller and less a force for good. Let’s see what levers Bibi holds and how he throws those levers.
I’ve shared this interview with about two dozen guys who monthly hold an ISrael discussion session which is rarely without disagreements. Thank you for your honest voice. And thank you for Common Sense.
I listened all the way through and that's saying something; I hate listening to podcasts, as a rule!
Bibi is smart, articulate, humorous, and focused on the mission. Attributes that our country seems unable to produce in our own leadership.
Perhaps the Afghan/Iraq war veterans now home and running for office, people like Ron DeSantis and Tom Cotton, can bring some of this moral clarity and courage back to our government.
My husband and I moved back to the U.S. this summer after living in Jerusalem for two years and, as Prime Minister Netanyahu stated in this interview, the Israelis don't mess around when it comes to national security. It was so impressive to witness firsthand.
In May of 2021 as Hamas launched bombs toward Jerusalem and I huddled in our apartment's built-in bomb shelter, I never doubted for a second that the Israeli military and the Iron Dome were going to do what needed to be done to end the threat. Despite several terrorist attacks and the conflict in May, I generally felt safe in Israel because I felt like they knew what they were doing when it came to defending themselves and their citizens. The U.S. could use a leader like Bibi.
Amazingly great interview. And thank you so much for providing a transcript.
I don't actually think the Palestinians are the tail wagging the Arab dog. I don't think anyone in the Arab world ever cared about the Palestinians until they figured out they could use them as a front for their hatred of Israel and Jews.
I'm a Jew, and I love Israel. Still. I think some more positive solution has to be found for the Palestinian problem. And that the day Rabin was assassinated was a sad, sad day for Israel, for the Jews, and for the world at large.
And that positive solution would be what, precisely? I just don’t see one until the day, if it ever comes, when the Palestinian Arabs give up their genocidal fantasies and bow to the reality that Israel is here to stay. Until then, they pose a problem to be managed, and in the changed circumstances of the Middle East, the problem they pose is eminently manageable.
All that is needed, which is shared by many Jews in Israel, is to extend Jordanian sovereignty to the Palestinian enclaves in Judaea & Samaria (secular West Bank) and then ceed the non Palestinian enclaves back to Israel.
Actually, the whole thing is Palestine -- both sides of the Jordan river -- a geographic, not an ethnic, political, or national, concept. (For example, the Jerusalem Post was originally called the Palestine Post.) The original idea circa 1920 was dividing part of it as the Jewish national home, the other part being an Arab state. The British made a mess of it, first by creating the kingdom of Jordan, but then conceding the idea that there needed to be *another* Arab state, the second one headed by violent, anti-Western rejectionists.
This led the British down the road to the infamous White Paper and their criminal wartime ban on Jewish immigration into Palestine (again, at the time, universally understood as a geographic concept).
Yes, correct. Thanks for the Tablet article. I had not seen this one yet. The British (and France for that matter) screwed up modern day Middle East after WWI by how they partitioned each of the Countries and the various tribes. One group, the Kurds, never got any land either, as they should have.
But the original Mandate for Palestine had all of it going to the Jews. However, the Hashemite King convinced the British to give him 77% (Transjordan) for favors done for the Allies during WWI. This is why we refer to Jordan as Palestine, as it was named Arab Palestine, with Israel being named Jewish Palestine.
I don't think there was ever an official concession of all of geographic Palestine to be the Jewish National Home. It was designated as "in" Palestine, but implicitly not "all" of it. Of course, British diplomacy historically was often deliberately fuzzy, to not tie anybody's hands prematurely. Britain was sometimes called "perfidious Albion" for that reason, although the need for creative ambiguity was often real.
The problem wasn't a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The problem was concessions to radical anti-Western figures like the Mufti (al-Husseini) and the eventual concession of a possible second Arab state. It was the need to keep that appeasement going (having done so much to create these radical forces in the first place) that bent British policy in the direction it went.
(There were other factors as well. The most important was the explosion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and movements in Europe after 1918. Through various channels, these had a profound impact on the nascent Arab nationalist movements and the embryonic Islamic revival. This development reached a fever pitch in the 1930s and 40s when Italy and Germany developed Arabic-language propaganda to spread antisemitic and anti-Western ideas. This effort left a long-lived residue in the Arab world which later mixed with Soviet-inspired ideas in the 1960s, like anti-colonialism. Fascism in these countries *was* the original anti-colonial/anti-Western movement. You hear echoes of this today, with Jews and Israel painted as Western imperialists.)
Perhaps that second Arab State was the initial “wedge” that became the two state solution, reducing the Jewish homeland. There are many stores of the various conflicts that occurred in the 1920’s and 1930’s leading up to the declaration of Statehood in 1948.
Yes, the "two-state solution" in western Palestine is the residue of the 1938 White Paper, with its concessions to the Mufti and his forces.
The origins of Jordan are also curious. The Hashemites were a Beduin ruling family of the Muslim holy places in Mecca and Medina, claiming descent from the Prophet. They were kicked out of those holy cities by the ibn Sa'ud family, later the ruling family of modern Sa'udi Arabia, in alliance with the ibn Wahhab family, leaders of the Salafi radical Islamic revival movement that we learned about 20 years ago. That alliance started in the 18th century (sic) as a reaction to the first modernizations of the Ottoman empire and the spread of European influences.
The British conceived of the idea of giving the Hashemites two thrones as a kind of consolation prize, because they had played the pivotal role of helping foment the anti-Turkish revolt co-led by Lawrence. They created the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (the eastern side) as one kingdom, and the kingdom of Iraq as the other. The Iraqi Hashemites were overthrown in the secular republican revolution in Iraq in 1958 and murdered by the Ba'athists. The Jordanian branch has been challenged a number of times by the Mufti's men and their heirs, most notably by the murder of King Abdullah in 1951 at the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
UNRWA keeps track of the Palestinians refugees. In 2019 that number was 5.5 million. In the book, The War of Return, by Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf, they state that the majority of those registered by UNRWA have never fled their homes, they are descendants, by now in the fifth generation, of the original refugees. Of the 5.5 million, 2.2 million live in Jordan, who were granted citizenship by Jordan between 1949 and 1967. Another 1.1 million live in Lebanon and Syria. Leaving 2.2 million living in Gaza (1.4 million) and the West Bank (.8 million).
Bibi’s strategy is correct, (1) eliminate Iran as a threat, and (2) make peace with Saudi Arabia and the other peaceful Sunni Arab nations and the Palestinian conflict will follow. This dynamic, creating peace with the majority of the Arab states (Abraham Accords) steps away from the failed approach of the Oslo Accords, which predicated Israeli-Arab peace on first solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An approach that is sadly still maintained by the US State Department and the Biden Administration.
The dichotomy between the unsuccessful Oslo accords and the successful Abraham ones is significant. It speaks to not only Bibi’s intentions but the Arab states as well. They were quite willing to abandon the Palestinians for what they perceived to be the greater good.
Thank you, in his book, Bibi discusses the back channeling that he did, long before Trump was elected, to lay the groundwork for the later to be named, The Abraham Accords.
And yes, the peaceful Arab countries care much more about their safety visa vi, the Iranian threat, than the plight of the Palestinians.
My belief is that Saudi Arabia will wait to sign an Abraham Accord agreement with Israel until after Salman bin Abdulaziz passes into the ether. Such agreement will be one of the first things that MBS does.
You didn’t listen to what Bibi said, he said the Palestinians don’t want peace. They want Israel. So no amount of negotiating and giving up ground for peace will settle the score. The Palestinians have to want peace and to recognize Israel. Until that happens, Israel needs a strong leader who will fight for Israel.
The evidence is pretty compelling that the Palestinians don’t want peace. How many intifadas do you need ?
Ehud Barak, in his book, My Country My Life, stated that there were two reasons Arafat walked away from the Camp David Accords in 2000: (1) the Palestinians rejected Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall, and (2) the Palestinians wanted the right of return. These demands are not from someone that wants peace. They are from someone that wants to displace someone.
Yes. The right of return is an extremely thorny issue. Agreed.
But imo (flimsy evidence, I must admit..) the Palestinian demand for right of return was simply a throw away in return for the removal of the sacrosanct Israeli precondition of acceptance of the right for the state of Israel to exist.
In my mind, if Israel did not demand that precondition, to be agreed upon before any negotiations were to begin, an agreement would have been in place decades ago - with the ensuing years de facto testimony of Palestinians recognizing the existence of a very powerful (and predominately Jewish) state beside them. Not all agreements need be verbalized or ordained. Just reality accepted.
In essence, Palestine can justly be accused of not wanting peace. As Israel.
Netanyahu wants peace with the Arab world, but not with his most immediate neighbours, the Palestinians - especially now since it appears that his potential coalition partners are ultra orthodox, ultra nationalist and hardly conducive to any concessions in that regard..
And this is why the whole situation with the Palestinians becomes ever more polarized—it's the fundamentalists on both sides, Arab and Israeli, that are driving the rancor.
Wow...Two Things:
1) If only we had a leader (President) like Bibi. His moral clarity and conviction is amazing in today's world.
2) Bari, congratulations on an amazing interview. Rather than have these stupid presidential debates, all serious candidates should commit to a one hour interview with you! Maybe you could start with President Biden?
Item 1: Absolutely. I've followed the Netanyahus since Entebbe. One thing Bibi did not mention was that he, himself, has been wounded in combat. He is a clear-eyed realist who understands that Things Matter. Really matter.
The problem in the US is that this "administration" is only laser-focused on things that don't matter - like pussy hats - and completely oblivious to the things that do - like, say, the intentional, government-produced impoverishment of the middle class through inflation.
Item 2: Have Bari interview Alleged President Asterisk, Houseplant in Chief? You saw the depths of Bari's questions - a perfect match for Bibi's intellect. The head of the Biden Crime Family now has three remaining neurons limping along: one infected, one infarcted, and one inhibitory. What a waste of time!
Such a contrast between Bibi and our Vegetable in Cheif.
Very insightful interview. Bari hit him with all the leftist attacks, and he handled each very well. He is a very exceptional leader.
The armchair leftist journalists that "supplied" Bari with her questions simply do not believe enemies exist who need to be killed to defend Israel or America. They are also the same journalists in Israel and the US who have colluded to blind so many Westerners to reality, and have destroyed our first amendment. I refer to the Twitter Files.
Thus, their attacks on Bibi are often fatuous. But it is wonderful to hear them aired out and blown up.
I do not think Bari is a leftist. I think she asked him the hard questions that were needed to be asked, she did it with courtesy and allowed him to answer fully. Further she gave respectful attention to his his answers. She is a good journalist.
Agree. Bibi knows very well the threats and is not a coward in the face of these threats. The left are just wrong on this one.
You spelled "Chief" wrong.
Would be nice if we knew your name and where you work. Using this fake name makes you a coward. Especially because you constantly attack others.
My takeaway was about a third of the way through the interview. He described the government that supplanted him as left wing who embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. Any organization who embraces the Muslim Brotherhood is nutz. It seemed to me by Bibi's description of the government he threw out of office was trying to do to Israil what the left in our country is trying to do and that is to destroy their country.
You know, "Workers arise. All you have to lose are your chains."
What he's conveniently not noting is that he too was willing to partner with Ra'am, the Islamist party, in 2021 if it would have let him stay in power. Ra'am wouldn't bite, and went with Bennet/Lapid instead.
He's a politician. What more can I say.
Yes, as Bibi made clear in his responses to Bari, there are partners who are window dressing who get no power.
Israeli coalition politics is ... I was going to call it byzantine, but that's Greek ... maybe talmudic in its convolutions, like a knotty page of Gemara. I think even a lot of Israelis don't fully understand it.
This Islamist party, Ra'am -- I'll bet money that the Israeli government is in contact with counterparts in the friendlier Arab governments about it. Except for Qatar and Turkey, as Bibi mentioned, Ra'am and its parallel radical Sunni entities (like CAIR in the US) are banned in most Middle Eastern countries now. A decade-plus ago, these governments finally got it, that supporting or even tolerating these groups is toxic and dangerous. Imagine if CAIR were ejected from the US -- no Ilhan Omar or Linda Sarsour, who are basically front personalities for CAIR and Qatar.
You can say, "Wow. That totally blows up my ignorant, ill-informed opinion."
Most people have a hard time admitting their miatakes
Yes, his book highlights that moral clarity with laser focus, which serves as the basis for his approach to diplomacy.
Interviews by Bari instead of debates!?!?! The best idea I heard in many years of complaints about presidential debates. Seriously, a great idea b
Thank you for the transcript! And thank you for this wonderful interview!
This stupendous interview makes many points of diplomacy clear. These quotes captures a takeaway that cannot be ignored:
"But if you told them the way you're going to secure democracy is by giving the power to the anointed few who will decide for the unwashed many? They’d say that's ridiculous. But that's a view of democracy that is penetrating Western democracies and is very, very dangerous. It's not going to sustain them."
"It would be a tragedy if the United States abandons its role and stops believing in its mission to be the beacon of liberty and the world. "
"Get on with a program of liberty."
Americans have forgotten the difference between liberty and freedom. We use them interchangeably. This is a mistake. Bibi implies that he, for one, knows the difference, and is putting it to work in Israel.
Freedom as the political program promises to hoodwink reality by making it someone else's job to guarantee your freedom of speech, worship, want, and from fear. Liberty is political freedom, meaning freedom from the polity (elected and unelected) who want to rule your life's every breath.
I am pleased to see that Common Sense is taking us back to the days of its namesake, when everyone knew the difference between liberty and freedom. Thank you, Bari Weiss for this important interview with Bibi.
I have thought and have read that Liberty is equal to Freedom plus Responsibility. Freedom without Responsibility is Anarchy. And Responsibility with Freedom is Totalitarian.
No. That's the definition used to muddy the waters between liberty and freedom. You are born with responsibility for your own life. No one else is born with that responsibility for your life. That's a fact of nature.
In an advanced society, to bring a child into the world is to choose an obligation to raise that child to be self-sufficient. The individual has that responsibility from birth. Parenting is a voluntary multi-year obligation to prepare the child to assume a place in society.
Liberty is freedom from the political forces who would have you do their bidding: fight a war, get a vaccine, use new pronouns, stop using electricity so people with electric cars can drive their cars, pay the pols money for their privilege of telling you what to do.
Where would I get a right to force my ideas and actions on you, or anyone else? Where would I get a right to do your thinking for you? Where would I get any rights except to defend myself against force in an emergency. Where would I get a right to vote someone’s rights away?
If you believe that it is right for you to dictate her rights to the woman and take her rights away for the term of her pregnancy, you do not believe In inalienable rights. If all rights are conditional, then you believe we live by permission. You can assign agents of God on earth (bureaucrats) to carry out God’s will on Earth. You are presuming much and not letting the woman be responsible for her own life and soul.
If I believed in making case by case decisions for people I don’t even know, then there is a government of men, not objective law.
I don’t have this right and neither do one million people together have that right.
Murder is wrong. Abortion is a medical procedure before birth. If you don’t agree with it, don’t help the woman or support the practice. But it’s none of your business unless your government forces you to support it or you want your government to force people to punish it.
You then witness the erosion of all rights when those in power use that power to make you pay for a procedure you have every right to hate and refuse to bare the burden.
If the fetus’ “right” to life is more important to you than your own right to life, eventually no one will have any rights at all, and the tyranny of procreation by committee will be the least of your the problems. We see that now more clearly with other incursions on our rights and freedoms.
I think this is the Libertarian pro-abortion argument?
But, respectfully, you still want to ignore the humanity of the being within the womb, for expediency, convenience, mental health, etc… (actual threats to physical health such as treating an ectopic pregnancy do not count as abortion by moral philosophers).
“Murder is wrong” [but, implied] “Abortion is [just] a medical procedure” is a loaded assertion. If a developing human were slated to be murdered, and it was legally someone’s right, you’ve just drawn a line at the cost of that human. Dems often accuse Republicans of not wanting to care for children “once they’re born,”…but…with all the care centers and collection baskets religious people gather, outside of government, to assist the poor and desperate woman with her newborn and toddler… isn’t that pretty disingenuous? Mightn’t the opposite be true?
What if morally, we as women, first of all, must hold and accept that the developing being within a womb is a human being? If WE women don’t hold to that, don’t protect that truth and that life and that right of that human being to life, and stand by it as a principle, is there a viable consistency to human rights in a society dominated by tyranny of the strongest and fittest and most utilitarian?
In a society which seeks to separate freedom and pleasure from responsibility? What makes murder wrong in that society anyway?
"I think this is the Libertarian pro-abortion argument?"
I am pro-liberty for all individuals, which is entirely different from Libertarian, as follows:
With all respect for you, the woman who has to make a decision, and myself (three individuals), I propose a civilized society that promotes positive actions and moral restraints on those who would compel others to their bidding.
You propose to compel the woman to have the baby. Your high-flown language ignores the right of the woman to her own life. That's appalling to me. I want no part of compulsion whatsoever. Where do you get the right to tell me and anyone else that she has to have a baby? You want to compel others to your will "for a good cause." Compulsion is immoral, no matter how "good" the cause is. There is no compromise to propose evil against the woman because you think the potential baby is more important to the world than her life. I find that horrifying.
If you are convincing, go out and convince people. But if you are in the mindset of getting people to ban abortion by law, you are promoting compulsion (force) as a means to an end. The woman is not threatening you or me. She didn't do anything to warrant your threatening her. If she could take a morning-after pill, I wouldn't stop her. I would welcome a solution for the woman to act independently without either one of us (or anyone else) having to agree. The woman is the only decider in this case. If she needs help, I might help her, but you would not. Fair enough. I'm willing to mind my own business, but you are not. You are campaigning to compel others to agree and stop abortions, except for the rules you want. Different anti-abortion groups have different laws. Religions have different rules.
The proliferation of different rules indicates that all the rules are wrong and that no rational solution is possible. The government should clearly define murder as killing an individual. The murder or mutilation of a pregnant woman resulting in a fetus's death, can have a more significant penalty than the attempted murder of an individual. I can see the logic of that change when the woman has a fetus removed or killed by an assailant. The aggressor violated the woman's rights and destroyed a potential baby in her body that she wanted. Her body belongs to her by right.
I stand by my statement that murder is wrong and abortion is a medical procedure. I said it outright. I stand by that statement.
Regarding people using government money to assist women, babies, and toddlers, you know I'm against that. Private help is wonderful. I've made myself clear before this post, and you don't need to bring it up. It only shows that two wrongs don't make a right. A right and a wrong make a muddle, and that's the truth.
I tried not to get you worked up, but it happened anyway because some women cannot fight for both woman and unborn child.
I agree this is the most complex and fraught difficulty but we should be together on the need to create a society in which woman and unborn child are protected. You offer no consistent basis for even a def of murder, because we can kill an unborn child at will, if it’s inconvenient or distressing, or unwanted; you have no answer to freedom and pleasure without responsibility, and you call this simple logic that is distressing you, “high-flown language.” I’m sorry for distressing you but not for speaking truth about man and woman’s mutual responsibility towards the human beings they conceive, before they are born.
I would clarify your thought here only because common sense and human instinct have become so muddied today: You are *not* “born with* the responsibility for your own life. Children do not have the responsibility for their lives “from birth.”
The parents who conceived them have the responsibility for their children’s lives from conception until that moment their child is responsible for his or her own life. You see what I’m saying.
Yes, you are right. My comment needs clarification. I was using the wrong word.
I was talking about the physical capacity to survive outside the womb given the proper sustenance and protection. So I meant responsibility in a limited sense. Therefore, I would say that normal human babies are born with the potential to take responsibility for their own lives. Your point about the parents' responsibility need's also to be nuanced, and the parents' responsibility is to nurture the child to be self-responsible.
As far as responsibility from conception, that choice is for the mother to make, and for her to find a willing partner to help her or a willing person to help end the pregnancy. Unwilling, coerced individuals may make bad parents, and especially bad mothers.
When the time comes that science has advanced far enough, women who don't want the baby, and women who do want a baby but cannot have one, could arrange for a proxy female to have the baby. Our government won't allow this, but some others countries do. In addition, eventually science will advance until the fetus is able to survive and come to term in an artificial womb.
I suggest that the responsibility from conception is a religious theory that has no place in objective law.
I’m glad we clarified that and agree, Ilene.
With continued respect, Ilene, I think that the notion of parents not having responsibly from conception—the highest mutual moral human responsibility for the human beings they mutually conceive— while in utero, is entirely a construct, and a modern and even self-serving one at that! And the loss of humanity that you describe heedlessly therewith!
It is its own rebuke.
To She Has Invisible Friends: Without a doubt, I like your style. I agree with your assessment of parents who conceive a child and suffer a change of heart. However, no one has a right to deprive the pregnant woman of her right to end the pregnancy. She can find a willing doctor, a willing benefactor, or jump off a bridge. She has no right to coerce anyone into agreeing with her plan.
I find your distinction between liberty and freedom interesting, Ilene. What kind of liberty do you think Netanyahu himself will have when he could be leveraged by his soon to be partner Hamar Ben-Gvir, ultra-nationalist (and proclaimed terrorist by both Israel and the US back in the day..) for a senior position in a coalition government (defence?). The ends justify the means - and I think BiBi will cede to 'the anointed few', give them influence - all for him to claim power.
We'll see how long that lasts..
You make a very interesting point, Lee. I think Bibi himself will have the same kind of elite government as all the others who tout democracy -- that may explain why he comes in and then gets ousted.
This means he's a cut above those who don't recognize the difference between liberty and freedom, but is in the same boat as them when he tries to lead.
In the interview, he hints at a distinction between liberty and freedom in his talk. He warns about the dangerous problem for democracies. He doesn't pursue the issue in depth, and you wouldn't expect him to. After all, he's a politician, not a theorist. He doesn't know how to avoid that danger, and maybe he will figure it out when it looms next time.
I agree with him that the danger is real and ominous. At this juncture, it’s enough to get people to understand that. Getting most people to recognize the problem as a problem will be a tremendous job.
Promises of liberty preserve the rights of the individual. Guarantees of freedom in the FDR sense enslave some individuals to others.
Our Constitution is a shell of its original form. Most checks and balances are gone. The remaining are under attack -- the number of justices in the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the regulatory power of unelected bureaucrats, etc.
The distinction between liberty and freedom is real. It's existential. It's not going away. A society that champions freedom over liberty is doomed unless it learns the difference, takes heed, and implements a solution.
I am not a Constitutional scholar. I am a systems analyst, designer, and implementer. I have a lifelong interest and much success in getting to the bottom of things, and this is a problem that intrigues me.
You make a profound point. Do I assume that in your opinion liberty is ordained - with freedom merely proclaimed? By us? By a document?
Is liberty to be construed as individual, to be claimed by right? - but freedom viewed as collective, by statute? And how are the two entwined? Because, as I think you and I both would agree, the two are related.
And which is the more valuable?
I think both, equally.
You make a profound point.
<<Thank you.>>
Do I assume that in your opinion liberty is ordained - with freedom merely proclaimed? By us? By a document?
<<Neither ordained or proclaimed.>>
Is liberty to be construed as individual, to be claimed by right?
<<Both liberty and freedom are claimed by right. Both are legitimate concepts formed by people thinking about the need to understand how to live their lives. >>
- but freedom viewed as collective, by statute?
<<I view the collective as a shame, always.>>
And how are the two entwined?
<<There are groups of individuals, but no group has more rights that any one individual. Freedom and liberty have different functions in human life, as compared below.>>
Because, as I think you and I both would agree, the two are related.
<<Yes the two are related.>>
And which is the more valuable?
<<Value depends on context. On a desert island, devoid of population but yourself, liberty is of no consequence. Freedom is everything.>>
I think both, equally.
<<Liberty builds on freedom. They are not equal, they are blocks of the same safe-house, but one (freedom) is more fundamental. The other (liberty) is indispensable in an advanced society. >>
Freedom and Liberty Compared:
Freedom is the relationship of a human to reality in a state of Nature, as John Locke might have put it. No government directly impacts his life. He is free to work. Free to take responsibility. Free to refuse to take responsibility. Free to starve. His life, his work, his pursuit of happiness is his own.
Liberty is the relationship of the human individual to other individuals in a social context, in which a government has been formed to preserve the group from foreign aggression and the members of the group from internal aggression. Taking the fruit of another's labor by force or fraud is internal aggression. Governments are formed to prevent internal and external aggression.
However, it is aggression by the polity, the machinery of government, that is the root of tyranny. Safeguarding against tyranny is always the greatest danger of government. It has been thus since governments were formed.
The Founders knew, in colonial America, that the overreach of the King of England was the biggest threat to their lives. Not the Indians, the French, or any thieves or scoundrels among them. The litany of wrongs in the Declaration of Independence is a list of usurpations of power by King George III.
The complaints in the Declaration of Independence begin with this sentence,
"...let Facts be submitted to a candid World...."
There follows about 30 points of complaint, ending with,
"A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free people."
As we look around us, tyranny is obviously an unsolved problem. Liberty is the concept of political freedom -- freedom from the polity, meaning freedom from the people in power to use power for their own purposes or for the benefit of some at the expense of others.
The word, "Liberty" appears in the Declaration only once in the statement of inalienable rights. However, the long list of complaints clearly defines what the Declaration of Independence is about: the usurpations of King George III. The concept of liberty is the protection against usurpation of power.
Liberty is the soul of the Declaration of Independence. The world needs to recapture that soul.
Thanks to you and Lee for this utterly fascinating discussion of the difference between liberty and freedom.
A question on the latter, though. Who decides whether a government action is necessary or a "usurpation of power?" For every person who believes (for instance) taxes are necessary to manage a society, another insists that all taxes are theft.
So how do you maximize "liberty" and still have a functioning society?
You maximize liberty and freedom together by defining the concept of tyranny precisely.
Then you define government to prevent tyranny, and even the smallest step toward tyranny. How does tyranny begin? It begins when people choose the lesser of two evils. If the choice is between the lesser of two evils, evil wins.
I know this response is incomplete. I believe a complete, factual and sensible solution is possible. I also believe that recognizing the problem and accepting the possibility that there could be a solution is the biggest hurdle facing the human race. If an actual, permanent solution is inconceivable to humanity, the solution may not be discovered in my lifetime.
Unless the human race self-destructs, there will be enough evidence for later generations to solve. There is a possibility of failure in the short run. Eventually, someone will figure it out.
The specific transition from failing democracies and authoritarian states to maximum freedom and liberty will take time, but it will be the "idea whose time has come" when it arrives.
“You do not have a proper democracy by having self-chosen moral people who are above the public”
———————————————————
*Vegas jackpot noises
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
Yeah, I underlined that statement as well. So well spoken.
I also loved the line that he would rather be correct, than politically correct
For me: that's what foreign policy does. It's a combination of interest and values, and you balance them.
Find any US politician willing to live that.
I was wondering whether his one-word assessment of Obama was not meant to compliment?
Based upon his earlier comments disparaging the intellectual elites’ continuing dominance in American Democracy that it was not meant as a compliment. Our intellectual decision makers have an amazing way of being able to ignore basic human nature.
Sorry to be pedantic but I wouldn’t say it’s amazing how they ignore human nature. It’s what you would predict if you consider who these people are. Our intellectual decision makers are a mix of megalomaniacs and simpletons.
The simpletons don’t ignore human nature. They are just unintelligent, so factoring something like that in creates a level of complexity they can’t manage. That’s how you get single-factor analysis gems like ‘virus bad close society virus stop’ and ‘Putin bad shoot boom boom until Putin lose’. They are just dumb people.
And then there’s the megalomaniacs who have ideas so great that the ideas will overcome human nature. Anyways, we are screwed.
I'm noticing Common Sense using the common mainstream journalism practice of regularly using the term "far-right" while never once using the term "far-left".
I'd love to see a thoughtful discussion of what those terms actually mean, where the center is and who defines it, and a sincere question to the CS staff as to whether they frame the right as radical on purpose or whether it's so normalized they don't think about it.
Good idea, and put a timeframe on it. Old fashioned “liberals” are today’s “far right”.
Other than becoming pro-life my views haven’t changed all that much since the 70’s! I cast my first vote for Jimmy Carter and didn’t change my D to R until around 2003 (?)
This would be a good debate to have, I agree.
The narrative is shaped hourly by these radicals, so I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an answer, however I thought your post was excellent.
That is an accurate observation and excellent question. I'd love to hear the CS staff answer it; especially Nellie, whom I consider by far the most honest broker at CS.
First of all, Bari, thank you for listening and giving us the transcript.
But, more important, thank you for giving us Bibi. I wish that our own leaders were as thoughtful, as educated, as brave and as dedicated to their nation as is he. Israel is lucky to have him. We all are lucky that such men still stride the Earth as giants.
A true mensch Bruce! A son of Israel.
We no longer have living leaders who have stared into the face of destruction as he has or our WWII leaders did.
I am thankful that you have the courage and intellectual curiosity to give this great man a platform to present his story without all of the stupid and insane background noise that many confuse with sense. Great interview, I learned alot. Thank you, Bari
Thank you Bari and Bibi, and I ordered the book.
I just turned 60 and this completely confirms my understanding of: "The older I get, the less I know."
Bibi really gets subtly at all levels. In his former self, Bibi would have been done this interview and book promotion with Tom Friedman and The NY Times. Thank you Bari for being the new "Beacon of Light" for REAL journalism.
Back when the NYT was actual journalism, which it hasn't been for 10+ years.
Was it ever? Are you sure? I think we’ve been duped for decades. It’s only more overt now, as the Left got more brazen.
I mean, where did the caricature of the NY press in all the old superhero comics come from?
Phenomenal interview. Netanyahu is an historical figure. Not just in Israel, but for the world. Like him politically or not, what he has accomplished, what he did in his life, and what he has done for his country- and the region- will have long lasting impact on the rest of the world. I have always wished we had a leader in this country, with such a clear understanding of his/her own nation, hands that got dirty defending his/her own nation, hands that helped develop his/her own nation. Instead, what we get here are preeners who leave us questioning whether they actually love their country at all.
Bari, What a terrific interview and the courage to cover hot topics and a few softballs tossed in. I’m not an immediate fan of Bibi but given this interview I, for just one, will allow him the space to move ahead, not that he needs my blessing at all. I have same concerns about ultra religious and ultra nationalism making Israel smaller and less a force for good. Let’s see what levers Bibi holds and how he throws those levers.
I’ve shared this interview with about two dozen guys who monthly hold an ISrael discussion session which is rarely without disagreements. Thank you for your honest voice. And thank you for Common Sense.
BLESS YOUR POINTED LITTLE HEAD, M BARI!!
What a *coup!!* I'm sure there's a lotta people blind with envy. And a TRANSCRIPT! <kissing feet ;->
Here hear!! Especially on the transcript, without which I would have missed this interview.
I listened all the way through and that's saying something; I hate listening to podcasts, as a rule!
Bibi is smart, articulate, humorous, and focused on the mission. Attributes that our country seems unable to produce in our own leadership.
Perhaps the Afghan/Iraq war veterans now home and running for office, people like Ron DeSantis and Tom Cotton, can bring some of this moral clarity and courage back to our government.
My husband and I moved back to the U.S. this summer after living in Jerusalem for two years and, as Prime Minister Netanyahu stated in this interview, the Israelis don't mess around when it comes to national security. It was so impressive to witness firsthand.
In May of 2021 as Hamas launched bombs toward Jerusalem and I huddled in our apartment's built-in bomb shelter, I never doubted for a second that the Israeli military and the Iron Dome were going to do what needed to be done to end the threat. Despite several terrorist attacks and the conflict in May, I generally felt safe in Israel because I felt like they knew what they were doing when it came to defending themselves and their citizens. The U.S. could use a leader like Bibi.
Amazingly great interview. And thank you so much for providing a transcript.
I don't actually think the Palestinians are the tail wagging the Arab dog. I don't think anyone in the Arab world ever cared about the Palestinians until they figured out they could use them as a front for their hatred of Israel and Jews.
I'm a Jew, and I love Israel. Still. I think some more positive solution has to be found for the Palestinian problem. And that the day Rabin was assassinated was a sad, sad day for Israel, for the Jews, and for the world at large.
And that positive solution would be what, precisely? I just don’t see one until the day, if it ever comes, when the Palestinian Arabs give up their genocidal fantasies and bow to the reality that Israel is here to stay. Until then, they pose a problem to be managed, and in the changed circumstances of the Middle East, the problem they pose is eminently manageable.
Status quo is good for now.
Jordan is Palestine.
All that is needed, which is shared by many Jews in Israel, is to extend Jordanian sovereignty to the Palestinian enclaves in Judaea & Samaria (secular West Bank) and then ceed the non Palestinian enclaves back to Israel.
Actually, the whole thing is Palestine -- both sides of the Jordan river -- a geographic, not an ethnic, political, or national, concept. (For example, the Jerusalem Post was originally called the Palestine Post.) The original idea circa 1920 was dividing part of it as the Jewish national home, the other part being an Arab state. The British made a mess of it, first by creating the kingdom of Jordan, but then conceding the idea that there needed to be *another* Arab state, the second one headed by violent, anti-Western rejectionists.
This led the British down the road to the infamous White Paper and their criminal wartime ban on Jewish immigration into Palestine (again, at the time, universally understood as a geographic concept).
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/failed-british-double-cross-israel
Yes, correct. Thanks for the Tablet article. I had not seen this one yet. The British (and France for that matter) screwed up modern day Middle East after WWI by how they partitioned each of the Countries and the various tribes. One group, the Kurds, never got any land either, as they should have.
But the original Mandate for Palestine had all of it going to the Jews. However, the Hashemite King convinced the British to give him 77% (Transjordan) for favors done for the Allies during WWI. This is why we refer to Jordan as Palestine, as it was named Arab Palestine, with Israel being named Jewish Palestine.
I don't think there was ever an official concession of all of geographic Palestine to be the Jewish National Home. It was designated as "in" Palestine, but implicitly not "all" of it. Of course, British diplomacy historically was often deliberately fuzzy, to not tie anybody's hands prematurely. Britain was sometimes called "perfidious Albion" for that reason, although the need for creative ambiguity was often real.
The problem wasn't a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The problem was concessions to radical anti-Western figures like the Mufti (al-Husseini) and the eventual concession of a possible second Arab state. It was the need to keep that appeasement going (having done so much to create these radical forces in the first place) that bent British policy in the direction it went.
(There were other factors as well. The most important was the explosion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and movements in Europe after 1918. Through various channels, these had a profound impact on the nascent Arab nationalist movements and the embryonic Islamic revival. This development reached a fever pitch in the 1930s and 40s when Italy and Germany developed Arabic-language propaganda to spread antisemitic and anti-Western ideas. This effort left a long-lived residue in the Arab world which later mixed with Soviet-inspired ideas in the 1960s, like anti-colonialism. Fascism in these countries *was* the original anti-colonial/anti-Western movement. You hear echoes of this today, with Jews and Israel painted as Western imperialists.)
Perhaps that second Arab State was the initial “wedge” that became the two state solution, reducing the Jewish homeland. There are many stores of the various conflicts that occurred in the 1920’s and 1930’s leading up to the declaration of Statehood in 1948.
Yes, the "two-state solution" in western Palestine is the residue of the 1938 White Paper, with its concessions to the Mufti and his forces.
The origins of Jordan are also curious. The Hashemites were a Beduin ruling family of the Muslim holy places in Mecca and Medina, claiming descent from the Prophet. They were kicked out of those holy cities by the ibn Sa'ud family, later the ruling family of modern Sa'udi Arabia, in alliance with the ibn Wahhab family, leaders of the Salafi radical Islamic revival movement that we learned about 20 years ago. That alliance started in the 18th century (sic) as a reaction to the first modernizations of the Ottoman empire and the spread of European influences.
The British conceived of the idea of giving the Hashemites two thrones as a kind of consolation prize, because they had played the pivotal role of helping foment the anti-Turkish revolt co-led by Lawrence. They created the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (the eastern side) as one kingdom, and the kingdom of Iraq as the other. The Iraqi Hashemites were overthrown in the secular republican revolution in Iraq in 1958 and murdered by the Ba'athists. The Jordanian branch has been challenged a number of times by the Mufti's men and their heirs, most notably by the murder of King Abdullah in 1951 at the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
'Jordan is Palestine.' Circa 1967, correct. But now?
Perhaps the Palestinians don't want Jordan governing them. And I doubt that Jordan would want to have anything to do with the Palestinians either..
UNRWA keeps track of the Palestinians refugees. In 2019 that number was 5.5 million. In the book, The War of Return, by Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf, they state that the majority of those registered by UNRWA have never fled their homes, they are descendants, by now in the fifth generation, of the original refugees. Of the 5.5 million, 2.2 million live in Jordan, who were granted citizenship by Jordan between 1949 and 1967. Another 1.1 million live in Lebanon and Syria. Leaving 2.2 million living in Gaza (1.4 million) and the West Bank (.8 million).
Bibi’s strategy is correct, (1) eliminate Iran as a threat, and (2) make peace with Saudi Arabia and the other peaceful Sunni Arab nations and the Palestinian conflict will follow. This dynamic, creating peace with the majority of the Arab states (Abraham Accords) steps away from the failed approach of the Oslo Accords, which predicated Israeli-Arab peace on first solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An approach that is sadly still maintained by the US State Department and the Biden Administration.
Strong post, Brian. Interesting stats..
The dichotomy between the unsuccessful Oslo accords and the successful Abraham ones is significant. It speaks to not only Bibi’s intentions but the Arab states as well. They were quite willing to abandon the Palestinians for what they perceived to be the greater good.
A Kissinger like gamble on both sides.
Interesting times indeed..
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2022/11/30/palestinian-terrorist-groups-continue-to-build-tunnels-under-unrwa-schools/
Thank you, in his book, Bibi discusses the back channeling that he did, long before Trump was elected, to lay the groundwork for the later to be named, The Abraham Accords.
And yes, the peaceful Arab countries care much more about their safety visa vi, the Iranian threat, than the plight of the Palestinians.
My belief is that Saudi Arabia will wait to sign an Abraham Accord agreement with Israel until after Salman bin Abdulaziz passes into the ether. Such agreement will be one of the first things that MBS does.
I agree that a more positive solution has to be found for the Palestinians. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be Netanyahu who finds it.
Exactly.
And this is why I'm not pleased with Netanyahu's reemergence into power.
You didn’t listen to what Bibi said, he said the Palestinians don’t want peace. They want Israel. So no amount of negotiating and giving up ground for peace will settle the score. The Palestinians have to want peace and to recognize Israel. Until that happens, Israel needs a strong leader who will fight for Israel.
Netanyahu would say that. He's been saying that for twenty years..
But that does not necessarily mean it's true.
The evidence is pretty compelling that the Palestinians don’t want peace. How many intifadas do you need ?
Ehud Barak, in his book, My Country My Life, stated that there were two reasons Arafat walked away from the Camp David Accords in 2000: (1) the Palestinians rejected Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall, and (2) the Palestinians wanted the right of return. These demands are not from someone that wants peace. They are from someone that wants to displace someone.
Yes. The right of return is an extremely thorny issue. Agreed.
But imo (flimsy evidence, I must admit..) the Palestinian demand for right of return was simply a throw away in return for the removal of the sacrosanct Israeli precondition of acceptance of the right for the state of Israel to exist.
In my mind, if Israel did not demand that precondition, to be agreed upon before any negotiations were to begin, an agreement would have been in place decades ago - with the ensuing years de facto testimony of Palestinians recognizing the existence of a very powerful (and predominately Jewish) state beside them. Not all agreements need be verbalized or ordained. Just reality accepted.
In essence, Palestine can justly be accused of not wanting peace. As Israel.
But that's just me..
The only thing keeping Netanyahu and his brethren from wiping out all the Palestinians is the media would find out.
Maybe instead of "giving up ground" - how about stop sending settlers to move into people's houses when they're away from home at a funeral?
Netanyahu wants peace with the Arab world, but not with his most immediate neighbours, the Palestinians - especially now since it appears that his potential coalition partners are ultra orthodox, ultra nationalist and hardly conducive to any concessions in that regard..
Right.
And this is why the whole situation with the Palestinians becomes ever more polarized—it's the fundamentalists on both sides, Arab and Israeli, that are driving the rancor.
"The Palestinian Problem."
Thank you for the transcript. Great interview.
Wow. What a contrast with the caricature presented to us in the MSM!
It was truly eye opening living there... the MSM never accurately reported what was really going on.