The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 311. Does Israel have the Right to Exist? | PM-Elect Benjamin Netanyahu

Episode Date: December 5, 2022

Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: https://utm.io/ueSXhDr. Jordan B. Peterson and Israel Prime Minister-Elect Benjamin Netanyahu discuss the history of Israel, its status as an embattled nation, the importance of the struggle for statehood, why and how the PM came back from political demise, and his vision for the future.Benjamin Netanyahu was recently reelected as Prime Minister of Israel, having previously served in the office from 1996–1999 and 2009­–2021. From 1967–1972 he served as a soldier and commander in Sayeret Matkal, an elite special forces unit of the Israeli Defense Forces. A graduate of MIT, he served as Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations from 1984–1988, before being elected to the Israeli parliament as a member of the Likud party in 1988. He has published five previous books on terrorism and Israel’s quest for peace and security. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife, Sara. In his newest book "Bibi: My Story" the newly reelected prime minister of Israel tells the story of his family, the story of his people, his path to leadership, and his unceasing commitment to defending his country and securing its future. - Links - For PM Netanyahu: Website: https://www.netanyahu.org.il/en/about Twitter: https://twitter.com/netanyahu?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor “Bibi: My Story” (Auto-Biography): https://www.amazon.com/Bibi-My-Story-Benjamin-Netanyahu/dp/1668008440/ref=asc_df_1668008440/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=598351558985&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11889172108090091078&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1026083&hvtargid=pla-1653483412543&psc=1 - Chapters - (0:00) Coming up(1:25) Intro(4:03) Moses and the first settlers(10:55) Response to the Palestinian claim(16:07) The basis for a claim(22:55) Making something of it(26:04) The refugee problem(30:00) Ultimatums and progress(33:34) Herzl, Bipartisan world support(39:38) the Balfour Declaration, Hitlerism(44:40) The importance of power and productivity(50:50) PM Netanyahu’s goal, the three pillars of peace(51:48) Steps toward economic freedom(55:55) The fat man thin man diet(59:50) Brush with political demise(1:04:00) Bibi: My Story(1:04:40) What guides a leader vs a politician?(1:10:00) The Abraham Accords, Obama(1:17:00) Israel and Donald Trump(1:18:38) Why has the process stalled with Biden? // SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co...Donations: https://jordanbpeterson.com/donate // COURSES //Discovering Personality: https://jordanbpeterson.com/personalitySelf Authoring Suite: https://selfauthoring.comUnderstand Myself (personality test): https://understandmyself.com // BOOKS //Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: https://jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: https://jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m... // LINKS //Website: https://jordanbpeterson.comEvents: https://jordanbpeterson.com/eventsBlog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/blogPodcast: https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcast // SOCIAL //Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpetersonInstagram: https://instagram.com/jordan.b.petersonFacebook: https://facebook.com/drjordanpetersonTelegram: https://t.me/DrJordanPetersonAll socials: https://linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson #JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus #podcast 

Hello, everybody watching and listening. I have, I'm always excited to talk to the guests that I'm talking to, which is why I bring them on the podcast to begin with. But today, we have something that I think is unique. I'm going to be speaking with Benjamin Netanyahu, who was recently elected as Prime Minister of Israel. This is a very interesting development, as far as I'm concerned. It's the first time I've had the opportunity to speak with someone who is a sitting head of state or soon will be. And I think the reason that that's relevant and worthy of note is because it's one of the markers for the development of a new kind of political dialogue. We're in a situation now where it's possible to sit with a political leader and have a genuine conversation for a long

period of time. We'll go at least 90 minutes. Unscripted so that there's no sound bite quality or editing to it. You just get the unvarnished words of someone who's in a position to make decisions that affect all of us. And so I'm very excited about this. I'll read the bio and then we'll go on to the interview. Benjamin Netanyahu, as I said, was recently reelected as Prime Minister of Israel, having previously served in the office from 1996 to 1999 and 2009 to 2021.

From 1967 to 1972, he served as a soldier and commander in Seyret, Matt Gull, an elite special forces unit of the Israel Defense Forces. A graduate of MIT, he served as Israel's ambassador to the UN from 84 to 88, before being elected to the Israeli Parliament as a member of the LaKud Party in 1988. He has published five previous books on terrorism and Israel's quest for peace and security. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife Sarah. In his newest book, BB, My Story, the newly reelected Prime Minister,

tells the story of his family, his people, his path to leadership, and his unceasing commitment to defending his country and securing its future. Hello, Prime Minister Netanyahu. Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me tonight. I've been reading your book, your new book, BB, My Story, and it weaves an interesting personal tale,

familial tale and political cultural tale altogether. And there was one particular element of it I wanted to begin discussing with you that's I think of broad interest. One of the things I realized when I was reading was just how ignorant I am in some fundamental sense about the history of the development of the Jewish state of Israel. And I know that there's tremendous constant noise about issues as fundamentalist. Israel's right to exist even, and you start by talking about in your book, you embark on explaining that, at least in some part, by talking about

Herzl, and his terror, that anti-Semitism, that the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe was going to cause a catastrophe, which was obviously a justified terror. Would you be kind enough to walk me and my viewers and listeners through your rationale for the moral justification for Israel, the political justification as well? And I'm going to do what I can to my limited ability, let's say to push back. I've heard the arguments of often young people who are more prone to give credence and sympathy to say to the Palestinian viewpoint. And I'd like to rectify ignorance and maybe help my viewers and listeners do the same

thing. So would it be useful to start with Herzl? Well, I'd actually, Herzl was what I call our modern Moses, but I'd actually start with the original Moses. The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel, what is now the state of Israel. Have lived here and have been attached to this place for about 3,500 years, three and a half millennia.

Now, for the first two millennia roughly of that time, we were living in what is described in a text commonly known as the Bible. So the Bible describes how the Jewish people lived on this land, where attached to this land, fought off conquerors, sometimes were conquered, but stayed on their land. And that continued for a very long time, until roughly the six, seven century actually, after the birth of Christ. Okay? For roughly for two thousand years, we were conquered by the Romans, we were conquered by the Byzantines. They did a lot of bad things to us, but they didn't really exile us, contrary to what people think. The loss of our land actually occurred when the Arab conquest took place in the 7th century.

The Arabs burst out from Arabia and they did something that no other conqueror, not the Romans, not the Byzantines, not the Greeks before them, not Alexander the Great, nobody did before. They actually started taking over the Great, nobody did before. They actually started taking over the land of the Jewish farmer. They brought in military colonies that took over the land and gradually over the next two centuries the Jews became a minority in our land. So it is under the Arab conquest that the Jews lost their homeland. The Arabs were the Colonials. The Jews were the natives dispossessed. Well, that happens in history.

The Jews were dispossessed. We were flung to the far corners of the earth, suffered unimaginable suffering because we had no homeland. But we didn't disappear. And we never gave up the dream of coming back to our ancestral homeland. So generation after generation, the Jews could be in Warsaw, they could be in Yemen, they could

be in China. And they said next year in Jerusalem will come back next year in Jerusalem. Well that was made possible because the Arabs who had conquered the land, basically left at Barron. They never made it their own. It was a barren land. It really had practically, it left it barren. They never made it their own. It was a barren land. It really had practically, it was an empty land. And in the 19th century, the idea of coming back next year in Jerusalem became a reality, by the way, in part because of

Christian Zionist support for the idea of the great return. The Jews came back in the 19th century to the land of Israel. The result of this return was that we started building farms, factories, places of employment. Arabs from nearby countries started immigrating and they now became, they called themselves Palestinians. They reconstructed history and said, we've been here for centuries. No, they haven't. They weren't there at all and they didn't have a national consciousness. We came back, made it our land, and we said, okay, we now we live together. We decided to establish a state in 1948. That's 75 years ago. And we said, everybody can live here. The Arab said, there can't be a Jewish state.

You have no right to be here. It's our land. It's not your land. It's been our land for 3500 years. If you you took over somebody's apartment, knocked them out, dispossessed them, and they never gave up the claim. They said it's our claim. And you left this barren dump, okay? And the families, the progeny of the people you kicked out came back, rebuilt the house. You cannot come back and tell them, you don't belong here. We're going to kick you out, especially since your late co-comers who've come to live in you know in part of the house, which is what the so-called Palestinians are, okay? We say that you can live here, we can live here, but it's our land, it's our state. And the reason this conflict continues is because the Palestinians, who

represent the colonial powers, the Arab conquest of the Middle East and beyond, they're saying, we have no right for a Jewish state. Well, we do. If any people has any right to a state, if any people never gave up their dreams of returning to their ancestral home, if any people rebuilt their home from nothing, from barren, wasted land, it's the Jewish people, to tell them, you have suffered more than anyone else. You have never lost your dream of coming back and rebuilding your national life in your ancestral home land. You have no right to be there. But the Arabs who are trying to destroy you, they have that right. That is a complete perversion of history and also a complete perversion of justice.

The Jews belong to this land, this land belongs to the Jews. The Palestinians are free to live here next to us among us, but they're not free to demand the dissolution of the Jewish state. That is not justice. That is injustice. That's the shortest lecture I can give you about Jewish history. So you, so why do you think the claim that the Palestinians were somehow there in Israel first and have been displaced in a colonial occupation, let's say, by the Jews. Why do you think that idea has gained such caches, not least in the West? Because of ignorance.

I mean, what do you mean they were here first? You know, you're familiar with the story of Jesus, right? Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, two thousand years ago. He was a rabbi from the Galilee. He came to Jerusalem, he turned the money tables of the tables of the money changers on the temple mount. Where did that happen? Did it happen in Tibet? It happened here.

Jerusalem was our capital. King David made it our capital three thousand years ago. So the Jews are here to try to say that they weren't here and that the Palestinians were here thousands of years ago is ridiculous. Anybody, you know, anybody who can, you can actually Google this and find out how absurd this thing is. So as far as reinventing ancient history, that is, that is unpartenable because anybody can find out and understand that the Jews were here for thousands of years, the Palestinians weren't here. As far as modern times are concerned, what the Palestinians have said is, oh, and I write

this in my book, and I show it because it's so comical. What they say is, we were here. Palestine was a verdant land in the 19th century, teaming with Palestinians until the Jews came in, took it over and threw it out. Well, that's what Arafat effectively said in his infamous speech in the United Nations, blaming Zionism, equating Zionism with racism. Well, there's only one problem with that.

He said that the Jewish invasion of this Verdun Palestinian homeland happened in 1881, okay? The problem with that is that 12 years before a famous visitor, among hundreds of visitors, named Mark Twain, visited the Holy Land. And he describes a totally different picture. He describes Palestine, I'm quoting him, is a vast wasteland. He said, only imagination can grace this barren land with the pomp of circumstance in life. It's just, he said, we travel for a whole day. We didn't see a human being, one single human being.

He said Jerusalem sits in sack loth and ashes. And as he was saying that, it's the Jewish return that began, the Jewish return that began building the land. Well, perhaps one could argue, it's obvious that Mark Twain was not in the service of the Jewish state because it didn't exist. He wasn't in the service of the Jewish lobby because it was in the Jewish lobby. He was just reporting what was there. Could there possibly have been a tremendous influx of Palestinians between 1869 and 1881, the year that Arafat says the Jewish invasion began and destroyed the Palestinian paradise? Well, Alas, no. Because in the year 1881, another famous visitor, visits Israel, and he writes, visits this land. And he writes also his memoirs, okay? His

name was Arthur Pendran Stanley. He was a very famous, very famous courteier of Queen Victoria's Court, okay? And he came here on a special visit. And he says, I look south and I look north, he says, I'm in Judea. And I see nothing. He says, a barren expanse. And they both express both twain and Arthur Penren Stanley, say the same thing. When, when, or when will the Jews come back and bring this land to life? And the answer is, right then, we came back, brought it back to life. There were Arabs living here, but it was, as I say, a barren wasteland. But Arabs began to immigrate naturally because we created a rise in the standard of living that attracted Arabs for neighboring states. Those Arabs are now those, the descendants of those Arabs

who migrated as a result of the Jewish return, many of them now are considered Palestinians. So what I'm saying, and I'm saying this to you, Jordan, and to your audience, there has been a complete fabrication of history. It's the biggest lie of the big lies that have permeated the 20th century and the 21st century, is to say that the abs who were here before, that is the Palestinians were here before the Jews, when we were here for thousands of years, that we are the colonial, when in fact it was the abs who were the colonial, who dispossessed the original natives, and that is the Jews, that we came back to this land that was laid bare in by the Arab conquest, barred back to life, and allowed Arab immigration, what we call an Palestinian immigration, to come back in.

And now they say to us, an unimaginable Hutzpah. You know, they say, you don't belong here. They recreate ancient history. They recreate modern history. And this is a lot of, ho come, it's ridiculous.

It's absurd. So some of it also seems to be, I would say, technically speaking, something like a time frame problem. I mean, you said the Arabs came in in the seventh century, and that's a long time ago, and so from the seventh century to now, you might think about, you might think of that as being a time frame long enough to allow for a valid claim of sovereignty ownership, but the Jews rejoinder is, well, we have a much older claim than that, one that spans 3,500 years. And the problem I have with that conceptually, and then I'll get to some other issues

that are relevant to this, is that it's not exactly obvious what time frame of analysis should be primary. You have a very important point. And I don't really know how to solve that. I do. I'll answer your question. It's a valid question. If the Arabs have encountered the land in the seventh century and dispossessed to Jews

over the next two centuries, the Jewish farmers kicked them out and so on, if they establish a viable state, a viable national identity, they're and so on, you're right. These things happen in history. You're supplanted by another people, fine. But that's not what happened. The Arab conquerors themselves were replaced by other, first of all, they did nothing with the land.

It's just barren. They actually built one town, one town. It's called Romley. That's it. Hundreds and hundreds of Jewish biblical sites and hundreds and thousands of, hundreds of new sites that we built. The Arabs built one place, one town called Romley. That's it. So they did nothing with the land. Then they were replaced by other conquerors. Other conquerors came in. The Mamluks, the Ottomans, ultimately the British, a series of conquers. In other words, they took over the land, lost the land, and did nothing with the land. So if they had done what you say, if they had created, if that house that we were expelled from was taken over by another people, another family. They built a family there, they are children, grandchildren, they extended the porch, they built a parking garage and so on. It's gone. What can you do? You

still have the ability to demand reclamations, compensation and so on. But you know, tough luck. That happens in history. But that's not what happened. Once the Jews were conquered by the Arabs, the Arabs did nothing with it, lost the land to others. Now we come back and bring it back to life, 13 centuries later, and perform this miracle. And they fabricate a history where we were there all the time. It was a verdant homeland. It was built up. It was nothing of the kind. It was desert. It was nothing. Now, it's not merely Mark Twain and Penrens Stanley will say that hundreds and hundreds and

hundreds of travel logs over the centuries of famous French poets of the Swiss travelers of German theologians, everybody, but of poets writers, travelers who describe exactly the same thing. There was nothing there. There was no Palestinian state. There were no Palestinians that even the Arabs even didn't call themselves that. They were calling themselves parts of southern Syria, whatever.

There was no national consensus. There was nothing to form the consciousness about. In the 20th century, the Arab world and the Palestinians and their supporters in the West, among the intellectual elites, basically erased history and recreated a fake history. A fake history that derasinates the Jewish roots that are unparalleled. There is no other story in the history of nations where people fought for so long for the land, for thousands of, 2000 years. What dispossessed for them came back to it, did not kick out an existing population with a national consciousness, rebuilt the land, and now are being told you have no connections

to it. You were, you know, you're the colonial's. No, we're not. We're not just to give this, just to give this a fine point because this is so crucial what we're discussing. I discussed it and considered Relenthan my book because people are so ignorant of history. We are not the Belgians in the Congo. We're not the Dutch and Indonesia? We're not the British in South Africa. We had been there all the time. We had been in the Congo. We had been, if you will, the equivalent in Indonesia. We were kicked out of the Congo and nothing happened in the Congo. Nothing. No other people there,

no development, nothing. Okay? Now we come back to our land, build it up, enable immigration from Arabs or now called Palestinians for neighboring lands, and they tell us, oh, you don't belong here, you dispossessed us. This is essentially what Arab propaganda and Palestinian propaganda has done, and what I labor not only in the present book, my own history, maybe my story, but in a previous book, a place among the nations to debunk. And you know what, the interesting thing is this, so far, it's quite amazing. No fact that I put forward in any of these books has ever been challenged, not one. Not one, usually when people, place among the nations, my previous book, answering much of the questions that you ask,

usually, polemical books are challenged. You know, the critics, and in my case, critics from the left, they'd find, you know, some straggler, some factoid that is wrong, some formulation that is unfortunate and so on. Okay? Nobody ever challenged it. It got in those days, rave reviews from the New York Times, from great writers like Connacruz of Brian and Paul Johnson and others. These are great writers and it wasn't challenge. My current book has not been challenged on historical facts.

Nothing people can argue about my opinions, but they don't argue about my facts. I'm very, try to be very rigorous about the facts. This whole attack on the Jewish people's right to live in their, in the Jewish homeland, the attempt to erase the Bible and to erase the history after the Bible and to recreate a modern fantasy that doesn't exist, based on the Palestinians who want to destroy us, who support terrorism, who are anti-democratic, or anti, or basically new colonials, because they're really the colonials, that is something that I think has,

it's not really folly. It has something fundamentally wrong morally, because it is both untrue and unjust. OK, so the claim so far, if I'm going to say lean in the direction of your argument without leaning too far and too obviously, I would say is something like this and tell me if I've got it right. There's a host of competing claims to the territory that now constitutes Israel.

And you could have some debate about, perhaps technically, about which of those claims should reign supreme. The additional case that you make, however, is that the Israelis, the Jews, have done a tremendous amount of work in improving this territory. And I know there is a principle of ownership in Western common law, and English common law. And I'm not a lawyer, so I may muck this up to some degree, but I understand the principle. If you own territory, vast swath of land, and you're doing nothing to it, and someone comes and squats on it and spends a lot of time improving it, at some point they actually develop a valid legal claim to the property itself. And so it, there seems

to be something intrinsic to our notion of valid ownership that if you're going to occupy a territory you actually have to do something with it that's productive. And so that's at least part of the claim you're making at the moment to buttress the notion that the Jewish people have a valid claim to the present territory. Well, and there are a lot of movement back and forth, but the Jews have actually taken the land and made something of it. Well, I'm saying something else though. I'm saying that they held the land for 2000 years, were kicked out. The Arabs came and conquered it and immediately lost it to others and did nothing with it.

The others did nothing with it. So it was basically, they took over my apartment, okay, a long time ago. The guys who took over, who basically kicked me out, were kicked out themselves, the apartment was laid barren, and many decades, in this case, centuries later, I come back to this barren mess. Okay, there's ruin, and I build it up back, and I not only improve it, I not only make my ownership based on improvement, but that nobody else did anything with it.

There was no someone else. There practically were no tenants. Right. That's my argument. Right. You're a well-in. You're also making the case that when the Jews came to Israel, they were doing what they could to coexist with the people who were there, the sparse number of people who were there, but also to set up a state that would invite other people who weren't Jewish to live there as well. So it wasn't an oppressive regime in any sense of the word. We know what happened. We know that when 75 years ago, when the state of Israel was declared,

you didn't have a single Arab refugee. I mean, the Arabs say now that their enmity to Israel and the reason they went to war with Israel was because of the Arab refugee. But there wasn't a single Arab refugees or Palestinian refugee when Israel was established. In fact, the refugees are the results of Arab aggression and not its cause. And in fact, the Arab onslaught, five Arab armies that attacked the tiny Jewish state in

its inception. The tiny, these five Arab armies created two refugee problems. One, the Palestinian refugees who fled before the advancing armies, being promised that they could come back in a few days because the Jews would be annihilatedilated driven to the sea. That didn't work out, thank God. But in those five Arab states, they lived many Jews. Those Jews were summarily kicked out after our war of independence. So the Arab onslaught on Israel, an Israel's inception produced two refugee problems. One, Palestinian refugees, Arab refugees, we call them Palestinians. And the second is Jewish refugees. Now Israel with less than 1% of the total landmass of the Arab states takes in the same number

of refugees, Jewish refugees, as you had Palestinian refugees. You don't see them here. They're integrated into our society, into our government, into business, into everything. We solved, without the court of copia of Arab oil, we solved our refugee problem caused by the Arab onslaught on Israel. The Palestinian refugee problems kept alive by the Arabs that have a hundred times more land, infinite oil resources. They keep it alive as a battering ram to produce exactly the propaganda that you say. So basically what the technique of Arab propaganda has been, and I describe it to some extent in my present, in my biography too, because you have to understand it, you have to see it to believe it,

is to turn the results of Arab aggression against Israel into its cause. They first did that with the refugees when Israel was established. They didn't accept Israel's right to exist, even though we were a tiny country. They tried to attack us again 19 years later and destroy us. That's called a six-day war. In six days, we pushed back the Arab countries and took over our ancestral lands of Judea Samaria. And again, what the Arab said is exactly the same thing. They said that our occupation, our so-called occupation of the heartland of the Jewish people, Judeans America, that produced the war. No, that didn't produce the war.

It was the result of their attempt, their second attempt, to annihilate us. So this technique of reversing causality, that is accusing Israel, basically, turning the results of Arab aggression into its cause, is again one of these ways of creating the deal of jirrmization of Israel. The reason we have not had peace with the Palestinians is not because of the Arab refugees, there weren't any when they attacked us. The reason is not the territories, we didn't control Arab territories. These territories, they were in Arab hands before the Sixth day war. All of these things are a result of the Arab aggression and what is the cause of the

Arab aggression? It's the persistent Arab refusal to accept a Jewish state in any boundary in our ancestral homeland. And if you remove that, you get peace. Now, how do we know that we get peace? And if you remove that, you get peace. Now, how do we know that we get peace? Because this persistent Arab refusal has dissipated. It's dissipated over time. It's the strength of Israel, as I describe in my book, as Israel becomes not merely a fact, but a permanent fact in the Middle East.

So they know they can't get rid of it. So Arab countries begin to make peace with us. And I had the privilege, which I described again in my book, of forging four Arab peace agreements, four peace agreements with Arab states, because that barrier, that obstacle of refusing to accept a Jewish state and any boundary has disappeared. Where does it persist in the Palestinians, or one to two percent of the entire world, wagging the, you know, it's the tail wag in the Palestinians, or one to two percent of the entire world, wagging the, you know, it's the tail wagging the dog,

or they tried until recently, they were quite successful wagging the dog. They, Palestinians, cling on to the fantasy of eliminating Israel, denying us our historical and present rights to live anywhere in this land, refusing to any kind of practical compromise, refusing to accept

the declaration of Israel and the UN, the partition resolution we did, they refused, refusing any kind of realistic negotiation for peace. What has happened and what, here's what happened, Jordan. For the last quarter of a century, after the initial peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, for 25 years we had no peace treaties with any Arab country. Because the elites, the foreign policy elites and the experts and the intellectuals explained, you cannot make peace with the rest of the Arab world unless you make peace first with the

Palestinians. There's a problem. Right, right. Well, you can't because the Palestinians are not interested in peace with Israel. They're interested in the peace without Israel. They're not interested in a problem. Right, right. Well, you can't because the Palestinians are not interested in peace with Israel. They're interested in the peace without Israel. They're not interested in the state. Next to Israel, they're interested in the state instead of Israel. So if you wait for the Palestinians who wait another quarter of a century, another half century,

another century, another century, you're not going to get anywhere. I had to break that log, Jim, and I described how I did that in my book. I had to go around the Palestinians, go to the United Arab Emirates, go Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and make peace with them. Why did they change their attitude towards Israel? They changed it because of the result, the growth of Israeli power. As Israel became more powerful technologically, we made a free market revolution that released the genius of Israeli power. As Israel became more powerful technologically,

we made a free market revolution that released the genius in our people. Israel became the innovation nation. You can't do that if you're paying 75% marginal tax rate, right? So we got tax rates put in basically a capitalist economy and Israel exploded, but it also became very powerful militarily because we could now afford to fund the combination of economic power through free markets and military and intelligence power that combined to give us diplomatic power.

And with that Arab leaders in the area began to see it, not as their enemy, but as their indispensable ally against the force that was threatening both Israel and them, and that's Iran, Iran's aggression. And secondly, they saw the innovation that Israel is a font of tremendous technology that could better the lives of their people. And therefore, we made these historic peace agreements in record time, people. And therefore we made these historic peace agreements in record time because now we were no longer bound by the Palestinian straight jacket that you're familiar with in Toronto and New Zealand. And so the Arab world is not there. Some of it is, but a lot of it is changing. And so my idea is how do you solve the Palestinian problem? Anytime they want to truly sit down and negotiate, be my guest.

I'll be happy to do that and I've tried that in the past. But in reality, I'm taking, I took a different track. Instead of saying, first we'll solve the problem with the Palestinians, then we'll solve the problem with the Arab world. I actually reversed it. I said, let's go to the Arab world. And let's get peace with the Arab world and then circle back to the Palestinians if they're ready to come before five.

But if not, let's get peace with 99% and then try to make peace with a 1% as opposed to let's try the implacable 1% and wait until we get to the other 99%. That's a complete reversal of concept. It's still being challenged. You'll see some of the old guards still saying, no, no, we have to go to the Palestinians

before we go to the Arab world and we'll never get peace. So I want to divide this into two tracks now. I want to, first of all, investigate some of the history behind the willingness of other states to support the Jewish claim to a homeland in the Middle East. Because I think that's quite interesting. And then I want to speak more about the Abraham Accords, which you discussed. So one of the things that fascinate me, well, historically, but also in your book, is

your discussion of the ball-ford declaration. And so that's obviously before the utter catastrophe of the Holocaust and the catastrophes the Jewish people ran into in the middle of the 20th century. By already, by the time of the ball-ford declaration, there was some sense, at least in Great Britain, that the claim that Herzl had put forward, for example, that the Jews and the world would benefit from a Jewish homeland in the Middle East had some validity. So why do you think that developed?

And then how do you think it extended? Because you got bipartisan support for the notion of a Jewish homeland from the Americans by 1944. And then of course, there was the UN 1947 declaration. So it's not as if the Jews imposed this vision on the Middle East by themselves. There was support all over the world. And so I'm, could you walk us through

how that support developed? Why you think it developed? Yeah, it developed because, because certainly in the 19th century, in the early 20th century, there was a propaganda that I described rewriting the history and not taking root. And most educated people knew the history of the Bible,

the history of the Jewish people, their dispossession, what they thought were the horrors that you suffered in their exile and dispersion, which was nothing compared to what was going to come later in the Holocaust. But that was enough for them. And they basically knew that the land was practically empty, and that there were people there, but it was practically empty. And it made sense that both from a biblical prognostication,

for those who had a religious orientation and also a humanist view that this evil of history, this injustice of history, would be corrected, that this long suffering people, the Jews who contributed so much to civilization and to history and to morality, the idea of morality, it's the Ten Commandments, you know, that became the code, the moral code of the world, and so many other things, the birth of Christianity. Many of the ideas, the moral ideas that we have originated on these hills where I'm sitting in right now, this tiny, you know, dusty edge of Asia, where this tribe, strange tribe, lived here and talked about, you know, man's the fact that people should not remain slaves,

that there should be a law that applies to all of them, that kings are not divine, that subject to moral authority and censure, and all sorts of other crazy ideas like that. It's all originated here. And so the educated leaders that met in World War I after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, they had to decide who gets what? And they came upon the idea of self-determination,

that is that people should have, the ability to govern their nations, obviously with civic rights for other peoples living in their midst. And they concluded knowing the history that I just described that is so unknown today on college campuses in a among so-called intellectuals or anything about that, that the Jews deserved this right to rebuild their national life

in their ancestral homeland. That's how it developed. But the first one to actually bring it forward, you mentioned in the beginning of your comments, was Theodor Herzl. Theodor Herzl was a giant of history. He was a journalist. He was a Jewish journalist in the late 19th century. He was born in Hungary, but worked for a very prestigious paper in Vienna. When he was dispatched to Paris as a correspondent, he saw the infamous Drifest trial where a Jewish officer in the French Army was falsely accused as it later turned out of the espionage in betrayal and was sentenced to devil's island and other horrible things. And he said this,

if this can happen, if this can happen to the Jews in the apex of Western civilization, then it could happen anywhere. And he predicted that within a few decades the fires of anti-Semitism would consume the Jews of Europe, that they would be slaughtered. He actually saw that. He wrote these things in 1900 roughly and before. And of course, the Holocaust came less than half a century later. And he said there's only one solution for this.

The solution is to have the Jews, the solution is not going to be to integrate the Jews and societies because that's not going to work. The solution would not be to eliminate nationalism through communism and other cosmopolitan internationalism. Right. That's not going to work either. And in fact, he was right because so much of anti-Semitism came from Stalinism and so on. Okay. It's not merely Nazism, it's Stalinism too. So either it's not going to work. He said there's only one solution. The Jews should have a nation of their own. That is a country of their own. And he sought to persuade first the German Kaiser, and after that the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul to give the Jews

a state of their own, and he didn't succeed. He died after eight years, that's it, eight years. But in these eight years, he launched this movement that turned the dream of ages, you know, century after century, next year in Jerusalem. He turned it from a prayer, from a dream, into a practical plan. My grandfather, Nathan, Nathan Milikowski Netanyahu, he was enthralled by Herzl. He became a tremendous speaker at the age of 20. Thousands of people crowded to hear him throughout Europe, Eastern Europe, Poland.

There were press records of Czech, how people fought each other. They broke windows. They fought physically to hear this young man speak about the Jewish, about Herzl's vision coming back to the Jewish homeland. Well, Herzl died, coming back to the Jewish homeland. Well, Herzl died, he died too early. And his followers continued the dream even though he was dead. My grandfather was one of them, my father was one of them, but they didn't succeed.

So now we fast forward, in 1917, they succeed partly because the British Empire, which now, after the defeat of the Ottomans, controlled what is now the land of Israel, decided to give the Jews a homeland. They didn't say it's state yet, but they said a homeland. It was clear it was a corridor to a state. This was met by Fervid Arab opposition. By many of the Arabs who had immigrated to Israel to the, what is now the land of Israel, they said, stop,

you can't come anymore, okay? They decided we're just gonna oppose any Jews left. And the British, back down, they back down from the so-called promise they gave, it's called the Balfour Declaration, where they promised the Jewish woman, they backed off, okay? And now the Jews are stuck there in Europe. They can't migrate because Jewish abrogation was effectively blocked by the British who betrayed their promises to the Jewish people. And now Hitlerism rises.

1933, it arises to power. My father, who later became a great historian of the Jewish people, he's all of 23 years old. And here's what he writes with a rise of Hitler. He says, Hitlerism will annihilate all the Jews of Europe and its racial anti-Semitism that would consume every last June. And the only way we can fight it is to persuade the civilized world that it is not only the Jews who will be annihilated or threatened. It's their civilization too. This young Benzion Netanyahu, 23 years old, writes in 1933, if more people had heated what he wrote. Then perhaps we would have avoided a tremendous catastrophe that occurred to my people, but

also to the 60 million who lost their lives in World War II. Well they didn't. Now my father saw this coming, and a few years later he went to the United States in World War II. And he sought to recruit American public opinions, a young man in his early 30s. He's trying to recruit American public opinion to recognize that it's not merely for the sake of justice, doing justice with the Jews who are being incinerated in Europe. It's for American interest and Western interest to have a strong Jewish state, a strong Jewish state.

And finally, you know, he makes his way up the ladder because one official hears him, brings him to another because he argued something that no Jew had argued before, no Zionist leader argued before. They all argued the moral case, which we've been discussing at some length in this book, but my father, he didn't, he didn't abandon the moral case. He argued it with great passion, but he turned when he went, when he talked to statesmen, as he taught me, when you talk to public opinion, you talk about justice. And you have to argue the justice of your cause. That those who are unjust do the same, so you may as well do it, to protect yourself against the people who lie, the people who cheat or present themselves as moralists while they

blow up babies deliberately. Speak of human rights while they trample human rights. You have to argue justice and speak the truth But when you speak to statesman as my father told me you have to Tell them you just have to speak of interest. That is what my father did Mm-hmm, and at the end of World War two, oh, that seems to be what you did with the Abraham Of course exactly right that by also by allowing or by facilitating Israel's development into an that by also by allowing or by facilitating Israel's development into an economic powerhouse, you've also made the country, you help build the country into something that could be practically

allied with as well as, let's say, making them simultaneous. Well, exactly. And that's really, you hit exactly on the vision because my purpose in life inherited from my grandfather and from my father and my fallen brother, my brother who fell while leading the most celebrated rescue mission in modern times, the historic rescue of Antebi where he died. I described that moment when I learned about it in some detail. And also what happened there, which is not fully known. But I inherited from them a life of purpose. And the purpose was to assure the prosperity, security, and permanence of the Jewish state

in so far as you can offer anything permanent in our world. And to do that, I realized that Israel had to be not only to fend off the false claims that tried to deny its legitimacy as a state and our historic rights and our ancient homeland, but quite separate or complementing that is to make Israel very powerful because history is very unkind. And productive, and productive, not just powerful, right? Because the other advantage you had with the Abraham Accords was that you could present Israel as a compelling partner

in economic development to Arab states that were actually hungry for a pathway forward out of their uni-dimensional dependence on oil wealth, for example. Exactly right. When I say powerful, I don't mean militarily powerful. And that's exactly what I I point out in the book and I said normally if you ask Israelis before that what is powerful well powerful means having a strong

army I concluded very early on having served in the army I served in a special unit in a lead unit and I described my brushes with death and clandestine missions and far into the enemy, beyond the lines of enemy lines and many firefights that I was in, and one I nearly drowned in the Suits Canal, and one I was shot while rescuing, while taking part in a rescue of ostriches and a hijack plane and so on. So I had intimacy with the military, obviously, because I was also served for five years in the special unit as a soldier and officer. That's quite a big adventure story as you must have read.

But I understood early on that to have military power, you have to pay for all these things. You have to pay for F-35 aircrafts, you have to pay for submarines, for tanks, for drones, for cyber, for intelligence, it's all very expensive. How are you going to pay for it? Oh, well, in Israel, semi-socialist Israel that I grew up in, it's very obvious. You tax the rich. Well, the problem with that is you don't have enough rich people and they're all going to leave to other places with lower taxes.

So I figured that the way you can actually enable Israel to be strong militarily is you have to make it strong economically. But to make it strong economically you have to completely overall Israel's economic system from semi-socialism to free market capitalism. And I entered public life, essentially, with that view. And I became first prime minister, then finance minister and again prime minister. I led a free market revolution that turned Israel from basically a supplicant to one of the most advanced economies on earth. Just to give you an example, when I became, when I was,

when I was a first elected prime minister, Israel was well behind all the Western European economies, certainly the United States and Canada, in terms of per capita income. Well as a result of the changes that I put forward and I described in the book, Israel became in per capita income, wealthier than Japan, France, Britain, Germany. It's actually outstripped them all. And the power, my vision was that the fusion of free markets and technology, which we invest in all the time in our military, that produces this tremendous effluorescence, effluorescence, and that gives you the power combination.

The power combination is not merely the military, which you can now afford. It's the civilian technology, which you can now afford. It's the civilian technology which you now develop. And so Arab states could see, well, Israel is a strong country. And with enough resolute leadership, it will oppose Iran, the threatens both of us. But Israel also produces a fantastic desalination. Israel produces tremendous developments in energy, tremendous digital developments, tremendous developments in health and so on. We were the first to leave COVID

because of our databases that we developed for the population and so on. We were the first to exit COVID and rebuild our economy very quickly. So the combination of civilian technology and military and intelligence capability produced this desire on the part of the Arab to make peace with us. And you know the attitudes, those ingrained attitudes, anti-Israeli attitudes that are still right in the Arab rule, begin to change because here's what happened. Because I could make these peace treaties with the Gulf States. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis now fly over the skies of Saudi Arabia, land in Dubai, or Abu Dhabi, or Bahra'id. And Arabs there embrace the Israelis who are coming there,

and Arabs and Jews are dancing in the streets. Now they're making joint ventures together. You know, they have economic interests, but also the views, the cartonish absurdities of Arab propaganda are dissipated with this human contact. So the new kind of peace that we have, a peace based on power and interest is actually changing the previous assumptions about Israel and many parts of the Arab world. My goal, and I say this openly, my goal, if as I hope our former government very soon,

is to continue the expansion of the circle of peace to the rest of the Arab world. But I don't think it's gonna be actually hit quantum leap again, a quantum leap again, because there is a country there that is a close neighbor that is extraordinarily important and that's Saudi Arabia. And if I can achieve a Saudi Israeli peace, we will be well on the root of ending the Arab-Israeli conflict,

and we'll be left with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but it will be a lot more manageable, and we will have changed history. The idea is peace through strength. It's an old idea, I didn't invent it, but the strength that I'm talking about is the combination of economic, military, and diplomatic strength. I call it the three pillars of peace. Could you walk us through what you did on the economic front? I have two questions there. What did you do on the economic front to move Israel from relatively far-left leading socialist state to a free market economy? So that's, I'd like to know the details.

And second, why do you think that given the radical success of your free market maneuvers, that the more socialist vision was so attractive to Israelis for such a long period of time? So let's start with the first one. Tell us what you did on the economic front to allow for the emergence of this Silicon Valley like Miracle in Israel that's unfolded over the last 15 years, something like that? 20 years, yes, exactly 20 years. 20 years. Well, the first thing I did was if I can borrow a phrase from the Clintonites, never let

a good crisis go to waste. We had a tremendous economic crisis when I took over as finance minister in 2003, horrible things. And the country was still along semi-socialist lines. And I decided, and most people thought it was because of the collapse of the dot com markets, if you remember that, which it was, but it was a tiny factor of it. It wasn't a really important one. Or they thought it was because we had terrorist attacks, which was also part of it. But I thought it was a structural problem. Why were we before the dot com collapse, before this or that explosion of terrorism. Why were we a gifted people, a people with a pretty good educational system? How come we were trailing all the countries of Western Europe? And the

idea was, well, education is enough. If we have good education, we'll get well. That's hogwash. I mean, the Soviet Union had tremendous education. And they had tremendous mathematicians, tremendous physicists, tremendous metallurgists. They were dirt poor, and yet when any one of these people was put on a plane and someone managed to smuggle himself to Palo Alto, they were producing wealth within days because you had a free market there. So technology, by itself, doesn't produce wealth. Free markets and technology, free markets do produce well, but free markets with technology produce unbelievable, unbelievable spurts of growth and wealth.

And that was my vision for Israel. I had this crisis now, and I said, in a crisis, I could do imponderable things. I could do things which were never accepted. So what I did was, you know, I spent, first of all, I was told I was told by my advisors having bid prime minister before and now being a prime minister and Sharon's government, they said, who's in his 70s? They said, look, if you want to be prime minister again, whatever you do, don't take on the finance ministry because you'll have to cut budgets, you'll have to do horrible things, and you'll

never be Prime Minister again. And I said, well, what do I want to be Prime Minister for? It's to put off pushback the Iranian threat, including their quest for nuclear weapons, and to liberate the Israeli marketplace. So, the Israeli economy. So, if I achieve at least one of those goals, that's a pretty good thing. They said, okay, but remember, you'll never be Prime Minister again. This is 20 years ago, okay. I became Prime Minister, find this minister.

He used the crisis. After three weeks of working 20 hour days, I put forward my vision to Israel, which answers your question. I said, I fell back on a vision because people were living exactly as you say in semi-socialist Israel. They were awash with false economics, basically, saying divide the pie, divide the pie, don't increase the pie. That was basically what they all grew up with, and unless unless you get mugged by reality, it's very hard to change it. But we were being mugged by economic reality again and again and again, and we didn't change.

Now comes my opportunity. It's three weeks into by being taking up the finance ministry, I give a press conference. And I fell back on my first day in the military, in basic training. It's a long line, the company's put in a long line on a big square, and the commander points to me, and he says, you, Netanyahu, look to your right. Put the man on your right on your shoulder, I did.

He then looks at the next guy, puts the guy his right, on his shoulder, and so on. Well, I had a pretty big guy on my shoulders, because the commander blows the whistle, barely took a few steps together. This is a race. It's called the elephant race. The guy at the bottom is the elephant. The guy at the top rides the elephant. The next guy was the smallest guy in the platoon in the company. And he had the biggest guy in his shoulder. He collapsed on the spot. The third guy was a big guy, and he had a relatively small guy, and he shot off like a rocket and took the race.

And I said to the Israeli public, all national economies are pairs of a private sector, of a public sector, sitting on the shoulders of a private sector. The private sector is the one that produces the wealth, or most of it, okay? The added value in the economy. And in our case, the public sector became too big, and we were about to collapse.

We were about to collapse like the guy next to me. So here's what we're gonna do. We're gonna put, the fat man, this became known as the fat man, thin man, example, and taxi cab drivers and comics spoke about it. It actually went into the Israeli cycle. If you ask people now in Israel, Fatman Thinman, they know what I'm talking about. The Fatman at the top, okay, we're going to put on a strict diet, very hard to do politically. You're going to cut government budgets, okay?

And the Thinman at the bottom, we're going to put a lot of lungs, a lot of oxygen in his lungs. And what is oxygen? Well, many things. But number one, number two, and number three is low taxes, low taxes, low taxes, because that's why people risk, you know, that's why they work. That's why because they don't want to pay it to the fat man at the top. They want to have it themselves. And once we have that, we have to, the guy can race forward, right? Run forward and take the race compared to other economies. Well, not true, because as he begins to run,

he hits a ditch and then he hits a wall and then he hits a fence. And these are called barriers to competition. We have to deregulate the excessive regulation that semi-socialist Israel had and still has to some extent, but we've done a lot there. So it's three things. Compress the fat man, lower taxes, and do other things to make business very attractive and easy, and remove barriers to competition. And frankly, that's what I did. I don't describe the 80 or so bajuri forms that we did, but I did them in a crisis. And the reason I could get away with it in a crisis is because you know, things are so bad, they were so

bad that they'll let you do it. But I paid heavily and I almost disappeared from politics. When I when I later ran for, you know, as a leader of LeCoud, my party compressed to 10% of the Knessas. That's it. Right now we're the biggest party. But I was merely destroyed. So my advisors who told me don't take the finance ministry, why aren't that wrong? I was declared dead. Having survived several brushes with death as a as a

commando soldier, I now survived the brush with death politically. So I was de-ulagized. People said that Tanyal Great did great things in the economy, but he's dead. He's down to 12 seats out of 120 in our parliament. It's finished. Thank you for what you did. Go away. Okay. I recovered from that. And I was reelected. So why did you pay? Why did you pay the price? Like what? Oh, why? What was it about your reforms that made that price inevitable? Because part, first of all, the most important part is that in order to put the fat man, the public sector on a diet, I had to cut back Israel's lavish welfare system, which encouraged people to live on the

dole and not to go out and work. So when I cut child allowances, which in Israel were extraordinary, they'd go up with each success of child. So, you know, by the time you got to the sixth child, and you had like the Bedouins in the negative, they had 16 children from multiple wives, they could drive the BMW Jeep as their second car in the sands of the negative. I mean, and this was leading to demographic

and economic collapse, okay? And the same thing was happening in other sectors, the ultra-orthodox community and so on. They didn't work. They just had a lot of children, which the other, you know, the public, the private sector had to pay for. And when you cut that, well, Jordan,

I can tell you, you don't become very popular, okay? It's not cutting government. Well, there's a lot of short-term pain there, Ray, that's, there's short-term immediate pain that's concrete for a lot of people when you cut. And if the benefits only kick in in the medium to long-term, then you have a, well, then you have obviously a problem of emotion. Well, I'd like it to be... The cost is upfront and the benefits later.

You're absolutely right. And you have to be prepared for that. That's what leaders do. If you want to lead, you have to have a purpose. And your purpose has to be beyond yourself. And you have to be ready to shed political blood, your own. You have to be ready.

Otherwise, you can't lead. Otherwise, it's meaningless. You're always looking at the polls. You're always looking. Do you have a vision of what to do? I had a clear vision. And I wanted to make Israel a power among the nations. And the things, and I paid for it.

And I nearly died politically. In fact, I was eulogized twice because you got to realize power among the nations and the things and I paid for it and I nearly died politically. In fact, I was eulogized twice because you got to realize that I checked, you know, somebody showed me the statistics the other day. So I'm the longest serving Prime Minister of Israel 15 years and in a year, if I as anticipated will form a government in a few days, in a year's time I would be the longest serving leader of a democratic country in the last half century but I'm already Beating the odds in a different way because a lot of people came back once from political death. That's happened

When to Churchill is an example it's rakrabian a visual The late you talk about being was another example and you can find them in other places. Not that often, but you can find them. But the last time somebody came back twice to do a comeback twice was 75 years ago, three quarters of a century ago. And the reason that's happened is because you're quite right. If you're able to survive political death, then people appreciate what it is you did for the country and for them, even though you could be swept by tremendous hostile presses in the case in Israel, but you can overcome that. And in Israel's case, in my case,

in the story of my life as I describe it, it was to bring into effect this vision of Israel of a powerful state that has this tremendously creative economy, along with a powerful military, opening the door to peace with its neighbors, and also fighting what is a global threat. Iran, with nuclear weapons and inter-continental ballistic missiles that can reach Canada and the United States and anywhere, is a threat to all of humanity.

And by protecting Israel, by fending them off, I, of course, protect Israel. But I think we protect the larger international community. People appreciate that. That's why I'm sitting with you a few days before I expect to go back into office because we can have this free-range in conversation now. I can talk about my book, which I unabashedly

am trying to plug in this conversation. And I urge you to read it for two reasons. One, as you say, to understand the better, the history of the Jewish state, the national, the Jewish national movement Zionism that led it, the reality of the Middle East and how it's changing, by the way, for the better, the threat of Iran, all of these things. And my contacts with the success of American presidents were very different from one another, and I've had to deal with quite a few of them, and there's an interesting story. But I think beyond that, I think it's to live a life

of purpose. Okay, well, you had to be guided by and have faith in principles that were outside of short-term advantage in order to do what you did. And that's the story that you lay out in your book. And that seems to be in accordance with the facts on the ground. When you, in your political experience, no doubt you've dealt with political leaders who have a vision and who are abiding by principles. And then you have dealt with political leaders who don't. And one of the questions I have for you as a consequence is, what is it that you think that the leaders who don't, who aren't guided by principle and vision, what is it that they're pursuing? And in your

experience, is that more common on the political front than guidance by vision and principle? common on the political front that guidance by vision and principle. In general, yes, it's more common. And that's why people don't have high respect for politicians. They speak of principle, but they're usually interested in personal power. For me, power by itself is meaningless. Power for what? I mean, I can make a living, better living out. Well, that's what I'm asking.

Well, that's exactly what I'm asking. I don't really understand, I don't understand the drive for power, so to speak, or authority or influence outside of the realm of guiding principle, because it, like, if it's just a shallow hedonism, let's say, or a desire for a claim, I would think also there's easier and more productive ways of pursuing that. I certainly agree with you. You're right because Israeli politics isn't exactly a walk in the woods. I mean, or a rose garden. It's very cruel. And my family and myself who's subjected to incredible calamity and slanderers and lies, it's horrible. So unless you have an overriding purpose,

there's no point to come back twice from political death to have been utilized usually unfavorably. Doesn't, you don't come back for the perks of power, which are absurd anyway. I mean, anybody who could learn a living will do better than what the heads of state get in the Western world. They're forced into a drug co. It's nothing. Believe me, you get better accommodations when you're in the private sector. So that's not the reason.

For me, as I said, I've lived the life of purpose to revamp, to assure Israel's permanence. My father and my grandfather worked very hard, labored very hard to assure that the Jewish people would come back, would have a state. And I worked very hard to assure that they'd keep a state and that that state would become a power among the nations. By the way, the University of Pennsylvania has this annual poll in which they asked 17,000 opinion leaders in, I think, 20 countries to rank the powers of the world.

And in the decade that I led Israel in between 2010 to 2020, Israel was consistently ranked, consistently ranked as the eighth power in the world. Now you got to understand, we're one tenth of one percent of the population of the world. You know, we're gonna reach 10 million soon. Ahead of us, our country is with billion people, hundreds of millions of people, tens of millions of people,

and below is to say, but we stand out, this tiny, tiny country. And the reason that's so is because I put this vision that is my purpose in life into being, but the jury is still out. It's not that you can sit on your laurels. I can't say, oh, well, and I'm coming back in. I've done it. I wrote my biography, my autobiography. That's it. No, you have to constantly work at it. You have to constantly increase, increase the economic power, increase the innovation, increase the circle of peace, expand it, block those who would, who trample us. You know, it's not automatic, it's not obvious that history will be kind to the good.

It's not true. History has been kind to the bad. History has been kind to the worst people. I mean the Jinguaskan ruled a good chunk of the world for over a century and created horrible, you know, terrible horrors. The Roman Empire, you could judge it this way or that way, but they ruled through the force of arms and subjugation for hundreds centuries. Okay. The history in Martin Luther King said the arc of history bends towards justice. Maybe so. But that arc is very brittle and it could be broken by the most the dark forces. And there's lots of variability. Lots of variability. And right now the darkest force in our immediate vicinity is this horrible regime in Tehran, in Iran that everybody can see

its horrors. What it's doing to those incredibly brave men, incredibly brave women were dying on the streets there. And that, if I say that the arc of history will bend towards catastrophe, if these I atollas, these thugs, these theological thugs, would have nuclear weapons in the means to deliver them to every part of the earth. So I've made it my life's mission so far successful

to prevent them from having that. But it's an ongoing thing. The jury is still out. There are many things. It's not guaranteed. Right, right. Well, part of the reason you were able to offer something attractive to the Arab countries

with whom you signed a peace accord was because you had something to offer, as you mentioned before, in relationship to Iran. And so let's talk about the Abraham Accords a bit more. Now, you're going to be moving back into office in the upcoming weeks and all likelihood. And you indicated your continuing interest for obvious reasons in expanding the Abraham Accords.

And you mentioned Saudi Arabia. If what can you explain a little bit about your vision of the most likely pathway forward on the Abraham Accord front? Are the Saudis next to sign so to speak? Is that backening on the horizon? I can't speak for them, but the Saudis are tremendously important. I think it should be understood. It's not just another country that would be added to the roster of peace. This is by far the most significant and influential Arab country, although there are some remarkable examples of achievement in the United Arab Emirates and other places in the Arab world. But the Saudis undoubtedly are in a category of their own.

And yes, I would like to have peace with them, certainly begin with normalization. But you have to, the answer is, will they be there, first of all, where are they? This is an interesting question. There's no way that we would have been able to achieve the peace accords, their normalization accords with the Emirates and Bahrain without tacit Saudi approval.

There's also no way, no way that we could fly above the skies of Saudi Arabia without Saudi approval. There's no way that I could speak the other day as I did when the elections results were known with my Saudi friend, Muhammad Soed. I call it the Lecude Branch Manager. He speaks on Saudi Internet, okay? And he congratulates me. And he says, baby, we're for you. Speak zebra by the way. We're for you.

He visited Israel. There's no way that this is done without approval. Why did this change take place? And that could be an indication of where we go from here. The quantum leap in our relations with the Gulf States took place in 2015 when President Obama, when the United, or rather, would a joint session of Congress invited me to speak before it on the impending nuclear deal that President Obama was going to sign with Iran, even though

I knew that I couldn't reverse it, I couldn't get two-thirds majority in the Congress to resist it, I thought I could get a majority to oppose it and I did. Consistic not only of Republicans but quite a few Democrats, but I knew I couldn't get two-thirds. I can't get two-thirds in the arkeness in our parliament, I certainly couldn't get it in the American Congress, but I went to speak there. And I spoke, by the way, Jordan, I described the speech, I never prepared for a speech like this in my life. And I prepared my speeches right up to the podium, I change them on the podium. I'm so stickler for the precise words.

So while I came into just a side, I came to Washington. You'll read this in the second part of the book. But I came to Washington to challenge a sitting president. It's a very, very difficult thing to do. And even though, you know, Bama was the quintessential example of a leader who was there not for power itself,

but for purpose. He had an ideology. It's just that his ideology clashed with mine. He believed that, you know, peace will produce power. And I believe that power produces peace. And if you ask me to do a peace treaty that will basically leave me shorn of my power, it won't last for five minutes. So we had a difference of views, but it clashed, literally clashed with the question of the Iran Accords, which I thought merely paved the way for Iran to become a military nuclear power which will threaten all of us.

So I, not light-headedly, but after considerable deliberation, went to Washington. I arrived in Washington, even before I'm going to go over the speech, and I tried to practice the speech. And my sinuses are clogged. I have that condition. And I put more and more in those, and they're getting clogged. They're both clogged. And I try to practice the speech, and I'm stopped in mid sentence, every mid sentence.

And I say to my wife, this is the worst thing that could happen. The most important speech of my life, and I'm stuck because of these horrible nose drops, and I fling them in the air, and they try to give me bowls of steam, they bring them in, nothing happens. She says, well, sleep it over in the past by morning. Well, it didn't, and I didn't sleep a wink. I get up in the morning, we make our way towards the Capitol building, and I say, what? What in God's name am I going to do? I mean, I can't deliver a line of the speech. And as we see the steps of the Capitol,

lo and behold, like a biblical miracle, the sinuses cleared, the waters received. And I go in and I give the speech, which was very well received, very well received. And here's what happened, and this is the relationship to Abraham Accords. As I'm giving the speech in a joint session of Congress, my delegation receives calls in real time from these Arab states, some of them, and they say, we can't believe what your prime minister is doing.

He's challenging a sitting American president president the most powerful man in the world That led to clandestine meetings between me and these Arab leaders and I won't itemize the Where they were in the Gulf they were in the Red Sea they were in a yacht. I landed in a helicopter on a yacht You can believe it my security people said that's too dangerous. I said, skip it. We're doing it. And this led to the Abraham Accords that were later culminated with the help of President Trump and he had an important role here. And I value and I appreciate that. I'll never, never stop appreciating this because I think it was very important. But it took me a while to persuade him. He got very little credit for that too, by the way. Well, he got all the credit for me, but it took me three years to persuade him because he was going

down the Palestinian, the Palestinian rabbit, or the, uh, Ron Durmer, my ambassador to Washington tried to say the difference between. He said, look, he said, getting a peace treaty with, uh, I'm not a golf player. So he said, getting a peace treaty with the I'm not a golf player. So he said, getting a peace treaty with the United Arab Emirates is a 15-foot pot. Getting peace treaty with Saudi Arabia is a 30-foot pot. Getting a peace treaty with the Palestinians is a 150-foot pot 50 foot pot through a brick wall. So it took me about three years to persuade the president what I said to him and I also described this in my book. I said in the very first meeting I had with Trump in the White House as president. I said to him, Donald, there are four peace

treaties waiting to be plucked. Right, you know, plums ready to be plucked off the tree. And I itemized the country. And I suggested that he bring an aircraft carrier to the Red Sea and invite me and these Arab leaders there to discuss Iran's security. I said, that will produce peace treaties right off the bat. And he didn't buy it. He thought I was trying to evade the Palestinian track. And I said, okay, we'll try the Palestinian track. And we worked on that. And of course,

we produced a template, which I think is very productive. But the Palestinians wouldn't come. Just as Arafat couldn't make peace any more than he could fly to the moon, the present leadership can't do it because they'd have to give up what is really guiding the Palestinian national movement, which is not to build the state, but to destroy one, the Jewish state. So that didn't go anywhere. And so we tried the other track, the track of peace through strength, the path of peace for peace, the peace for economy, peace for other things, and boom, it exploded.

Now, will Saudi Arabia be next? It's up to them, of course. But I think that this will be a worthwhile goal for me. I believe for the entire world. And I believe for the leaders of Saudi Arabia it could be a tremendous, tremendous change. So why do you think the Biden administration hasn't jumped on the Saudi Arabia opportunity, especially given that the Biden administration hasn't jumped on the Saudi Arabia opportunity, especially given that the Biden administration and the Americans in general would have benefited

from closer relations with the Saudis given the current state of energy, what you say, uncertainty that plagues the United States and the rest of the world. I mean, it just seemed to me that that, again, that was low-hanging fruit that was just ready to be plucked, because I knew that the Saudis, for example, were on board at least tacitly behind the scenes in relation to the Abraham Accords. And it seems obvious beyond belief that a Saudi Israel peace accord would be of benefit obviously not only to the Saudis and the Israelis, but to everyone in the world, especially given the threat of Iran. So I don't understand why this process has been

stalled. And so what do you, what are your feelings about that? Well, probably for two reasons. Of course, I'll have an opportunity to speak to President Biden who's been a long time friend. 40 years, we've known each other since we were both young men. I came to Washington as a diplomat, young diplomat, and he came as a young senator. So I definitely intend to take it up with him. I think there are two schools of thought that push back this obvious opportunity that you describe.

The first is the Palestinian straight jacket that says and it's still lingers among the foreign policy elites. I mean they've been added for decades. They can't let it go. They say, well, no, you have to peace means peace with the Palestinians. Peace in the Middle East is not in the Middle East. It's peace in the tiny part of the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians, but peace with the entire world, that's not peace. Or you can't get to it before you get through the 150-foot plot through the Iron Wall, which means you'll never get to it. That's the lingering thing among the foreign policy.

It's maybe changing because the Abraham Accords sort of started shaking people up to see that there are other opportunities, broader opportunities for peace than they ever imagined. The second reason is that for Saudi Arabia, I think, making that transition requires continually abituating Saudi public opinion, but also conforming to the broader Saudi interests, there are two interests that Saudi Arabia has. It wants to modernize Saudi Arabia. There's no question that the current leader, Muhammad bin Salman, wants to modernize Saudi Arabia, propel it to be an advanced country.

It doesn't mean democratic country, not in the way that we think, but look at the United Arab Emirates or look at Singapore for that matter They're not exactly European style looks and books style democracies, okay, but they have degrees of freedom in the economy and the life of the people that is Obviously very different for what you have in Iraq or Syria. It's different thing altogether. Okay So I'm sure that they want to go there, but to that he would want to go there. But for the Saudi leadership to go there, they would have to, I think, be assured that their national interests and especially their national security interests

are protected. And that requires a certain flexibility on the part of those who want them to take this move. I'm talking about the United States. So it may be that there's a lot more to discuss. I'm low to be more specific. I obviously have given this some thought. And I'd like to have a go at it, obviously, very soon. I hope. Hello, everyone. I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guest on dailywireplus.com.