DANIEL PIPES SPEAKS AT DUKE
By Lee Kaplan
FRONT PAGE
Durham, North Carolina- Daniel Pipes, the head of the Middle East Forum and an advisor to President Bush in the War On Terror, spoke tonight at Duke University prior to the Palestine Solidarity divestment conference that is taking place here this weekend.
The subject of his lecture was “The Palestinian-Israeli War: Where Did It Come From and How to End It.” As a preface to the actual speech, Dr. Pipes expressed his umbrage about the upcoming Hate Fest by stating, “ I am appalled that the administration at Duke University allowed the Palestine Solidarity Movement to hold this event.”
He continued by thanking the Duke Conservative Union for the great research they did in two open letters sent to Duke President Richard Brodhead condemning the event, and by illustrating how at past conferences the speakers and organizers, as well as two current speakers at this weekend’s event, Charles Colson and Fadi Kiblawi, have both openly encouraged suicide bombings and terrorist attacks against Israelis. He also pointed out that six people actively involved in the organization of the event are members of both the International Solidarity Movement that aids PLO terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza. Campus Vice President for Governmental Affairs at Duke, John Burness, has consistently tried to maintain that the ISM was not a part of this conference, even though some of the organizers openly admit their membership and affiliations.
Pipes briefly commented on the history of the conflict, and pointed out that when Israel began in 1948 it was based on a socialist past akin to political attitudes so prevalent on campuses today. The Soviet Union had actually supported the creation of Israel at that time along with many leftist groups. He told how the kibbutzim, farm movements and labor party actually dominated Israeli politics for the first 30 years of the Jewish state. He mentioned how numerous American liberals supported the nascent country, such as Harry Truman and others from the Democratic Party. He then pointed out how conservatives like Dwight Eisenhower were ambivalent about Israel.
He continued by explaining that from 1970 to about 1990 support for Israel by both political parties in the U.S. was virtually indistinguishable, but that during the 1990’s there was a new distancing by liberals from Israel. This coincided with a warming of relations with conservatives that has been a counterweight to the coldness and opposition Israel is now facing more often in the U.S. and other countries. He discussed the Durbin Conference where Israel was unfairly condemned as a racist state and violator of human rights by many of the most oppressive regimes in the world and how since then the Left is condemning Israel more and more. As an example, he cited the situation on U.S. campuses where Israel is routinely attacked, clearly a reference in part to the Palestine Solidarity Hate Fest scheduled this weekend. He called for a reclamation of our universities to bring them back to mainstream education rather than to a biased emphasis on left wing views.
Dr. Pipes then launched his lecture by explaining the war between the Palestinians and Israelis is “not a cycle of violence, not random violence, not an age-old feud like between the Hatfields and the McCoys.”
“It’s war. Violence is a symptom of the conflict that has many meanings and goals,” he said. He emphasized that such goals are very important and that most plans currently used for arriving at peace will not work.
He called for a change in U.S. policy.
Describing the eleven years since the Oslo Accords in 1993 to when the Intifada began in 2000, Pipes made an analogy between two handshakes. In September, 1993 on the White House lawn, Yasser Arafat had shaken hands with Yitzhak Rabin which led some national leaders to declare that “the impossible is within reach.” He explained that Oslo was perceived as a brilliant solution and a way to bring dignity and economic revival to the Palestinian people. Instead, he pointed out, after seven years the Palestinians faced more poverty, radicalism and corruption—including suicide bombings—than ever before.
On the Israeli side he told of 1,500 dead and over 6,000 maimed. In addition, Israel has suffered diplomatic and economic decline aside from all the terrorism.
“Oslo was supposed to mean a new epoch but it simply didn’t work,” he explained.
Dr. Pipes then explained why: “There was no real intent on the Palestinian side to live up to or fulfill the agreements.” First, he stated that in September 1993, at the height of the Oslo agreement, the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist on paper only. Whereas Israel and the West took the agreement to mean an end of 45 years of war and a recognition of Israel’s right to exist, Arafat had no intention to doing so. If acceptance of Israel’s right to exist was actually achieved, then the next step would have been the settling of lesser issues such as borders, water, natural resources among normal issues between states.
Reminding the audience that the 1990’s were the period of the dot.com boom, of economic expansion, he explained that Israel had thought Oslo would mean an end to a tribal conflict and said Israel was flexible, restrained and generous in its offer to the Palestinians. He explained how a curious idea percolated about solving the ongoing war based on the notion “to enrich your enemy.” With the encouragement and aid of the U.S., the EU and Japan, an effort was launched to enrich the Palestinian economy and provide jobs, schools, homes and many other services.
However, all of the above was received as demoralization by the Palestinians who regarded these things not as goodwill but instead encouraged the ambition to destroy Israel. Money for peace was used to prepare for war as the Palestine Authority purchased weapons and set up a military and intelligence infrastructure for war. This only served to make Israel even more vulnerable.
He explained how a nascent Israel defeated five Arab armies in 1948 only to have the Arabs prepare for another round. In 1967, Israel overcame three Arab armies to win a decisive victory yet again. Over the following decades, the Arab world began to see they could not destroy Israel. This was further reinforced when Saddam Hussein was defeated in 1991.
During the seven years after Oslo, Israel continued to make one concession after another, but by 2000 the drive to destroy Israel only grew worse and worse as evidenced by Arab rhetoric, political statements and terror attacks. Arafat could barely deliver his own government.
“What was needed was not signatures…Arafat’s signature was worthless.” He explained. Dr. Pipes then cited the lynching of two IDF reservists seven years later in Ramallah as the example of the contrast with the handshake at Oslo in 1993: one of the killers held up both of his hands drenched in his victim’s blood and shaking them for the world to see.
“We need to learn from these mistakes,” Dr. Pipes said. “First, the presumption a paper agreement would create a real change. Second, that the Palestinians were ready to give up their goal to destroy Israel.” Going back to the notion of war, he told the audience how Germany in the First World War, after a defeat, came back a second time to try again.
He cited numerous wars in the past where enemies that were not completely vanquished once and for all rose again to continue protracted wars. He pointed out how the U.S. had to go into Iraq again after the war in 1991 and how that had also worked against the Taliban.
“What is needed in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is not more negotiations, but rather to get one side to give up.” He continued, “We must draw a conclusion: Do we want Israel to exist and be accepted as a flourishing democratic state or destroyed.” The Arab goal is to destroy Israel, but Israel wants to be secure.
He urged no financial aid, diplomacy, no state and no recognition for the Palestinians until they are fully defeated as America’s enemies were defeated in past wars. He said that eliminating Arafat was not the answer because another leader might make war even more successful, and described the Security Fence as just a wall that cannot stop a real war that is going on nor lead to long term peace. Unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza would only be perceived as weakness by the Palestinians. He cited the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon that was done as a goodwill gesture in the early 1980’s but was declared a victory by the other side as an example. Transfer of populations, international troops, even a Marshall Plan for the Middle East were all ruled out as only temporary solutions that would not end the war. Only the absolute defeat of the Palestinians could bring an end to bloodshed.
“Once they give up, only then can they build an economy. As long as they are brainwashed, or give up their children for suicide bombings, only when they realize they are defeated can they make progress.” Palestinians must accept their defeat and the outcome would be good for all parties in the conflict, not just for Israel.
Later he explained the hypocrisy of American policy that condemns the Israelis for using targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders or fighting terrorists in ways that might lead to civilian casualties.
He explained the difference as being that the U.S. is at war but the Israelis are in a diplomatic process. Although, he left it up to individual attendees to decide for themselves if they felt supporting a democratic Israel was more viable than aiding the Palestinians to destroy it, Dr. Pipes’ speech emphasized that the way to end the conflict is to pressure our own government to consider the conflict a war between a democratic ally, Israel, and the Palestinians and to conduct our foreign policy to that end in order to stop terrorism and bring peace to the Middle East. |
