>> Daniel Pipes: I can't quite answer that, but I can give you. >> Peter Robinson: You're allowed to adjust the question as necessary.

Transcription

1 >> Peter Robinson: Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge, I'm Peter Robinson. Daniel Pipes is the director of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank, currently the Taube/Diller distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution. He earned a doctorate in early Islamic history from Harvard University in The author of 12 books, Dr. Pipes also writes a weekly column for the Jerusalem Post. A Religion of Peace, 2 quotations Daniel, the first from President Bush on September 17, "The face of terror is not the true face of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace." The second, Robert Spencer in his book The Truth about Muhammad. "Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. This is false and falsehoods are never productive." In its nature, at the core of Islam, are we talking about a religion of peace? >> Daniel Pipes: A religion of peace, if Islam prevails then there'll be peace. But for Islam to prevail, the rule has required and will require a lot of war. Now I think it's not a good idea to try and define a religion of more than a billion people and nearly millennium and a half in a word. There has been a lot of warfare in Islam. There will be, there is warfare, there will be warfare, Islam is not peace. And by the way, while Robert Spencer repeats that point, President Bush has not. He was ridiculed for it and he has avoided that kind of expression. >> Peter Robinson: Yes, I did have to reach back all the way to 2001 to find it. Alright. So, let me give you another quotation. Raymond Ibrahim in National Review Online last May, quote, this is a longish one but I want to set it up and have you comment. "The ideology of radical Islam, radical Islam is grounded in a religion and a God replete with eternal damnations and rewards and thus not easily discredited. None of the Al-Qaeda radicals initiated the many commands that create strife between Muslims and non- Muslims, they only upheld them. Immutable verses from the Koran as well as countless statements from and examples by Mohammed are the ultimate source of this animosity." Here's the question, you've said that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. For a moment, set aside the political distinction between radical and moderate, between the two, radical and moderate, who has the better theological argument? >> Daniel Pipes: I can't quite answer that, but I can give you >> Peter Robinson: You're allowed to adjust the question as necessary. >> Daniel Pipes: I present to you 3 forms of Islam >> Peter Robinson: Alright. >> Daniel Pipes: --broadly speaking, traditional Islam which was a compromise between the dictates of the religion and the practicalities of daily life. For example, the religion demands no interest on money. Commerce requires interest on money. Traditional Islam found a way to fulfill the letter of the law while in fact having interest on money. And then there's radical Islam which is a twentieth century phenomenon, with early roots to be sure with a twentieth century phenomenon. It is a transformation of Islam, the religion

2 into Islamism or radical Islam or totalitarian Islam, the ideology, an ideology comparable to fascism and communism. It takes certain aspects of the religion and takes them to the extreme. And then there is moderate Islam which by and large is a hypothesis. It doesn't really exist yet. It exists in the minds of a few people. It exists in the practical applications of many people. But as a movement comparable to radical Islam, it doesn't yet exist. I believe it can exist. I think our policies should devote it to making, to helping it come to existence, but at this point it's barely there. So, I would rather not say which is more in keeping with the Koran because I'm not a Muslim in the first place, I'm not a theologian. I'm not--it's not up to me to say that, but I can say with some certain degree that the Koran can be read many different ways or to quote an Egyptian to help philosopher. The Koran is like a supermarket, you can take from it what you will. >> Peter Robinson: Alright, so you see the anxiety that I'm getting at. The notion that Islam arises in roughly 700 and by roughly 3 centuries later that's swept across Northern Africa, it's gotten as far as Paris, pushed back to Spain, that- so the anxiety is that there is something inherently aggressive and expansionary about this religion slash political construct slash culture and that whenever the west is weak, Islam becomes aggressive. >> Daniel Pipes: Fair enough. >> Peter Robinson: That is fair enough, as a historical point that is fair enough. >> Daniel Pipes: Fair enough that Islam has within it an aggressive quality. Jihad is the conquest, is the drive to conquer lands to bring under Muslim control. That's there. Now, Jihad is there historically, what Bin Laden or how many have done with Jihad is to turn into something yet more aggressive. A traditional Muslim would not have understood or expected 911. That wasn't within the definition of Jihad. It didn't go to the enemy, to the none--not even enemy, to the non-muslims capitals that attack them like that. >> Peter Robinson: Alright, the state of Israel. This year, Israel marks the sixtieth anniversary of its existence as a sovereign state. Let me hit you, this was famous. As soon as I tell you the source, you'll know what's coming. The columnist, Richard Cohen in the Washington Post in 2006, quote, again longish but there's a lot here on which I'd like you to comment. "The greatest mistake Israel could make is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It's an honest mistake, a well intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable. But the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims has produced a century of warfare and terrorism. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself." Six decades of the state of Israel, a noble mistake? >> Daniel Pipes: On the contrary, a tremendous success. If you look at Israel itself whether it be from the point of view of per capita income, scientific achievements, cultural attainments, liberal political culture, you see a successful modern state. The trouble Israel has is that its neighbors don't accept it. Indeed, the range of assaults on Israel is perhaps unprecedented world's history. Everything from weapons and mass

3 destruction to conventional weapons, agree, to terrorism, to economic boycott, to demographic assault, to ideological undermining in an extraordinary array of assaults, but Israel has does far successfully withstood it and created something very valuable in the middle of a region that is politically very sick and very troubled, with Saddam Husseins and Gamal Abdul Nassers and so forth. Ayatollah Khomeinis, there's nothing to compare to as well as a bastion of modern liberal society. >> Peter Robinson: Alright, let's work on this Palestinian question. It's Brent Scowcroft writing in the New York Times. "What is required is to summon the will of Arab and Israeli leaders led by a determined American president to forge the various elements into a conclusion," he's talking about a 2 state solution to the Palestinian question, "that all parties have already publicly accepted in principle." First of all, 2 state solution okay with you in principle? >> Daniel Pipes: I believe there should be no discussion whatsoever of final status until the war is over. >> Peter Robinson: And the war defined how? >> Daniel Pipes: Well, there's a war taking place since 1948, sixty years ago in which the Palestinian, Arab Muslim goal has been to eliminate as well. And Israeli goal has been to achieve the acceptance of Israel by its neighbors. And until that's resolved, well, I don't deny that in the basements of chancellors they should be thinking about this, there should be no public discussion of it whatsoever, 1 state, 2 state, no state, not if a topic for discussion until the Palestinians accept Israel. Now, Scowcroft is assuming that the Palestinians are looking at some formal documents. >> Peter Robinson: Mhmm. >> Daniel Pipes: In fact, if we look at any election, any survey or the actions and statements of Palestinians who see that overwhelmingly by ratio about 4 to 1 Palestinians do not accept the existence of a Jewish state. Until that change, I don't see any point in having any kind of negotiations whatsoever. >> Peter Robinson: Why is the--i'm asking sort of baby questions, but they're so fundamental that I want to hear you comment on them. After the end of the Second World War, estimates vary, but it's some tens of millions of people who >> Daniel Pipes: A hundred million is the usual. >> Peter Robinson: --a hundred million who are relocated, Poles move, Germans move, people are relocated hither and dither and >> Daniel Pipes: Pakistanis, Indians, Vietnamese, Koreans. >> Peter Robinson: Alright, and only the Palestinians remain in this squalid conditions

4 >> Daniel Pipes: That's right. >> Peter Robinson: --in an indeterminate status all this decades later. >> Daniel Pipes: Exactly. >> Peter Robinson: Why? >> Daniel Pipes: The >> Peter Robinson: Why is the problem >> Daniel Pipes: political reason is that the Arab states at that time wanted to keep the Palestinians as a dagger and that Israel to keep this problem alive. The technical answer would be that in contrast to all other refugees who are defined as refugee, and the refugees defined as the person who leaves the country. The Palestinians were defined, the Palestinian refugees are special, the UN designation and they are the persons who leave the country plus the descendants. So, if you take the largest number estimated for Palestinian refugees in 48, 49, call it 700,000. Sixty years later, how many are there left? 60,000, 80,000, 70,000 not that many, and getting smaller on the day. But, the special Palestinian definition means that 700, 000 grows into four and a half million to 6 million, 10 million, who knows where it's gonna go. And only are the descendents of the refugees also considered refugees, but so if--so are the children of Palestinian, non-palestinian marriage. So, it grows like that. >> Peter Robinson: Okay, now you mentioned that Israel wants acceptance by its neighbors, this for me is one of the great puzzles about modern Israel. Why? Why is it impossible for Israelis to say, we have about the best piece we're going to get right now. It depends on the notion that the IDF are, relative to their Arab neighbors, invincible and that the state of Israel has the will to use the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces, when it needs to do so. And that's about what we're going to have to live with for some undetermined period of decades. Why is there this craving to continue to probe on the diplomatic front after rebuff, after rebuff, after intifada, after intifada? Why? >> Daniel Pipes: Good question. Well for 45 years, roughly from 1948, the creation of Israel till 1993, the Oslo Accords. What you just described was more or less the Israeli point of view, or to put it slightly differently, deterrence. >> Peter Robinson: Right. >> Daniel Pipes: We will wait them out, we will show them we're strong, we will punish them for transgressions and we will just hope that one of these days the Arabs come to accept us. But since the Oslo Accords, the dominant policy has been resolution. The first one is victory, and since '93 it's to get resolution or to translate into policy terms. The approach has been appeasement. We'll give you something and accept us in return has failed, but the Israeli body politic has lost its taste for going on with deterrence and

5 seeking to resolve a problem through appeasement and although as you point out has been rebuffed time and again, there is no taste, there is no heart for going back to deterrence, and one watches on Israel it's drifting. It has really no policy at this point. >> Peter Robinson: Israel in peril. Henry Kissinger said on this very program earlier this month. "We may soon reach a point at which one has to come to 2 conclusions. One, that Iran is clearly going to go ahead to build a capacity that must lead to a nuclear capability, and secondly that the present methods of restraining Iran are not succeeding. Does one then decide to go into a blockade of Iran or into real global sanctions or other steps, I prefer to leave that until we are closer to the moment, but we have to accept the fact that such a moment may be coming." Has that moment already arrived? >> Daniel Pipes: It's coming as Mr. Kissinger pointed out. I'm less cautious than he, and I would say that we need to make it very clear to the Iranians very, very clear. That should they continue down the path they're following, they will pay heavily for it and I would hope that all those parties, the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese in particular who are low to see an American attack on Iran, will jump on this bandwagon and make it clear for Iranians that they will pay a heavy price, thus >> Peter Robinson: Daniel, aren't you outlining a possibility that has already been precluded? We know the Russians are gonna jump on the bandwagon. >> Daniel Pipes: Well, there, if we can >> Peter Robinson: We know the Europeans have no enthusiasm, don't we? >> Daniel Pipes: But, what do they most dread? They most dread an American attack. I think it should be possible to say, "Look, if you don't want an American attack, then you have to join us in being very serious with these Iranians and making clear to them that we will attack if they don't stop." In other words, the ideal resolution is for the Iranians themselves to close down this project, not for us to do it. >> Peter Robinson: Right. Right. >> Daniel Pipes: And I think the only realistic way of doing that is to have everyone convey the message to Iran that watch out. You're gonna pay heavily in terms of security, in terms of the economy. >> Peter Robinson: And you think that there's a realistic prospect that in the waning eight and a half months of the Bush administration >> Daniel Pipes: I don't see it happening. >> Peter Robinson: You don't?

6 >> Daniel Pipes: No, I don't. I mean, that's what I'd like to see. What I suspect will be the case is that should the democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something and should it be Mr. McCain who wins, you'll punt and let McCain decide what to do. >> Peter Robinson: Well, let me give you then the Krauthammer option. Charles Krauthammer, April 11, 2008 in the Washington Post he says in effect, it's over. The Bush administration is not going to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability, so what it should do is issue the following statement. It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran or originating in Iran as an attack by Iran on the United States. In other words, offer the same nuclear guarantee to Israel that we offered too, that we still--it's still on the books, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the NATO alliance. >> Daniel Pipes: Right, I don't see any, I disagree. >> Peter Robinson: You do. >> Daniel Pipes: On the one hand, I don't see any reason to decide in the spring that President Bush will not act in the next, what? 8 months, 7 months. I just don't see on what basis one draws that conclusion. And secondly, the Israelis are quite confident to take care of themselves. Study shows that were there to be a nuclear exchange, the number of Israelis killed was a very large and serious number for Israel would be paltry compared to the number of Iranians killed. Their Israeli nuclear capability is substantial. >> Peter Robinson: Alright, let me ask you another question about the Israeli capability. >> Daniel Pipes: So in other words, in terms of deterrence the Israeli >> Peter Robinson: They're already in good shape. >> Daniel Pipes: Yeah. >> Peter Robinson: Alright. >> Daniel Pipes: And they're making it clear, a minister and a government a few days ago made a statement to the Iranians, "Watch out. We will wipe you out if you try to do anything towards us." >> Peter Robinson: Does it make sense for Israel to be much more public about its nuclear capability during the cold war? Down to quite a low level of detail, raw data, but what we had was known publicly because we wanted it known publicly, so and so many MIRVs and such and such an arsenal, should they do that? >> Daniel Pipes: The Israeli policy has been for 50 years now to be very secretive about their nuclear capabilities. I think that is an outdated policy.

7 >> Peter Robinson: You do? >> Daniel Pipes: Probably would make sense for them too, boast about it a bit at this point. >> Peter Robinson: July 7th 1981, Israeli fighter jets take out the nuclear reactor at Osirak, 11 miles outside Baghdad. And we now know that in September of 2007, the Israelis destroy a nuclear reactor in Syria that the North Koreans were helping to build in Syria. Does Israel have the capacity to cripple? Let's put- make this the weak formulation to delay the Iranians in acquiring a nuclear capability. >> Daniel Pipes: Here's they do. There are 3 routes they could take, a northern route and the other Turkey-Syrian border, essential route across Jordan and Iraq and a southern route via the Jordanian >> Peter Robinson: You're talking about air routes? >> Daniel Pipes: Yeah. >> Peter Robinson: Right, alright. >> Daniel Pipes: The middle one is actually most interesting because it require getting permission from the United States, who knows? It would probably take in the order of 25 F15's and 25 F16's. It would take the kind of >> Peter Robinson: Combined. You're talking about a total of 50 >> Daniel Pipes: 50. It would take the kind of ordinates that we have been supplying to the Israelis, it would require a high degree of intelligence which presumably have, and probably would require striking 3 targets and Isfahan and Iraq and Natans [phonetic]. And studies based on public information suggest that while this would not be a full grown conclusion as it would be in the case of United States. >> Peter Robinson: Right. >> Daniel Pipes: It's a pretty good chance that the Israelis could pull it off. >> Peter Robinson: Let me ask you one final question about this Iran and Israel and the United States. As between, I'm not even sure how to formulate this so I ask you the question. You feel free to reformulate it if you like to, but what I'm getting at is, as between a greater American role in protecting Israel and a greater Israeli role in protecting Israel, that--or let's say you had a choice between president Bush taking out the nuclear capability in Iran and the Israeli's doing so for themselves, which do you prefer? Which is better for the United States and which is better for Israel over the longer term?

8 >> Daniel Pipes: I'd rather see the United States do it. >> Peter Robinson: Why is that? >> Daniel Pipes: You know, this is not a unique Israeli problem. This is a problem for many points of view, for example, it's a problem that if the Iranians do build and weaponize their nuclear weapons, they would then be breaking the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in a way that has not been done before and would be a signal to others that you can do it freely as well. That's not an Israeli issue particularly. >> Peter Robinson: Oh, yeah. >> Daniel Pipes: I also think we have much greater capabilities, and I also think that the September Israeli raid on Syria presents a very interesting opportunity. What if we do something similar? Quietly go in, blow a few things up, don't declare anything to the outside world, let the Iranians make the difficult choice. Do they acknowledge that they've had these facilities destroyed or do they go quiet as the Syrians did? >> Peter Robinson: The politics of Israel and the United States, this year the Bush administration requested 2.5 billion in aid for Israel, more than double the 1.1 billion requested for Afghanistan. Israel is a rich country. We open this interview by talking about what a miracle the state of Israel is after 6 decades, the prosperity, the technical prowess. Afghanistan is a poor country, why should we support Israel at such high levels? >> Daniel Pipes: And why should we support Afghanistan at such high level as well? I'm against it. I think that this aid now at such a high level since 1980 is a mistake. It is very costly to Israel. >> Peter Robinson: 1980 because of the Camp David Accords, right? >> Daniel Pipes: It is costly to Israel in terms of public opinion. This country which is resentful in terms of the inevitable implications of getting aid which are negative for Israel >> Peter Robinson: That is to say they become to some extent a client state? We're talking about the psychological effect on Israel. >> Peter Robinson: Psychological [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Daniel Pipes: It's not a good thing. I believe in foreign aid for 2 purposes and neither Israel nor Afghanistan fit that definition, or those 2 definitions. One would be emergency, blankets and soup. >> Peter Robinson: Humanitarian aid.

9 >> Daniel Pipes: Yeah. When there's some disaster you come in and you help people. >> Peter Robinson: The tsunami. >> Daniel Pipes: Right. >> Peter Robinson: Alright. >> Daniel Pipes: And the seconds is to put it brutally, to bribe when we wanna get something and the way to get it is to pay for it. But I don't believe in development aid. I don't believe in military aid over the long term. No trade on emergency basis perhaps, but I don't believe in it. I don't think it's good for us, I don't think it's good for the recipients. >> Peter Robinson: Alright. I'm trying to think where this is going to be more unpopular, certain corridors in Washington or certain in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The now notorious John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt writing in their recent book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, "Support for Israel is undermining relations with other US allies helping inspire a generation of anti-american extremist and complicating US efforts to deal with a volatile but vital region. I'll give you plenty of time to knock down the premise if you'd like to, but here's the question or another piece of the premise. In short, the largely unconditional special relationship between the United States and Israel is no longer defensible on strategic grounds." As I said, they're notorious and I know you have opinions about them and I wanted--feel free. But they're getting at something which is real politic time. What's in it for us? Why is it in the interest of the United States to have such a close relationship with Israel? >> Daniel Pipes: Walt and Mearsheimer have a--somewhat primitive point of view. It goes back to 1950s when there was an assumption that either you're with the Israelis or you're with the Arabs, zero sum. If you're friendly with the Israeli, you lose the Arabs. What became clear in the course of the '70s and later decades is that you can have both. In fact, you are stronger by virtue of having good relations with Israel, both in a military sense and you've got this powerful allied state that brings many benefits to you, and also in a political diplomatic sense in that you can influence the most powerful actor in the region. And we have benefited from that. So, this notion that the better your Israel ties are, the worst your Arab ties are is primitive and inaccurate. We have flourished by having both. We are all the stronger for having good ties with both sides. >> Peter Robinson: Alright, what would happen when here is this again and again, although it tends to be sub rosa because it's so, it's not politically incorrect but it's incorrect, the notion that if only we backed away from Israel, suddenly things would get better between us and the Arabs. Give me the scenario if we did back away, we did stay, we took various steps, we visibly placed greater pressure on Israel to do what various Arab nations want us to do with regard to the Palestinians, although I know the aims

10 there and desires are conflicting. But, play out how we would be weaker if we backed away from Israel. >> Daniel Pipes: We'd be weaker in 2 senses. First, our standing in the Arab world will go down because we would lose influence in Israel. And secondly-- >> Peter Robinson: Explain that. >> Daniel Pipes: Well, as I just suggested before our influence over Israel is a source of strength for the Arabs. >> Peter Robinson: Alright. >> Daniel Pipes: And secondly, we would be weaker in a sense that if Israelis withdrew from the west bank and if they went back to the fourth of June 1967 boundaries and so forth, it would insight the Palestinians and others to expect more. In other words, were the Israelis to go back to those 67 borders, there are 2 possible responses, one is the Arab say "Oh, thank you by supporting, we're grateful. We're not gonna leave you alone." Or, I think far more likely, "We're winning, we're on a roll, we got Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, now lets get Jerusalem and then Haifa and then Tel Aviv and no more Israel. And that I think would be detrimental to our interest in every possible way. We don't want to see the hot war, Arab hot war against Israel take place. We want it to settle down and be resolved. >> Peter Robinson: We've been talking about the present moment. Let's talk about decades, several topics, Europe. The Muslim proportion of the population in Europe is growing. Amsterdam is likely to become majority Muslim by 2015, Russia, from the Urals to the Pacific, majority Muslim by You see 3 alternatives and I'd like to go quickly through all 3. It's television, so we can talk about the rise and fall of empires in 90 seconds. Please, you give me the odds. First, indigenous Europeans and immigrant Muslims find a way to live together in harmony, how likely? >> Daniel Pipes: Five percent. >> Peter Robinson: Alright. Second, Europe comes to be dominated by the Muslim religion and culture becoming Eurabia, in effect a part of the Muslim world. >> Daniel Pipes: 47 and a half percent. >> Peter Robinson: Oh, that's the likeliest? >> Daniel Pipes: Well, no. The other one is 47 and a half percent too. >> Peter Robinson: Oh, I see, alright. The third possibility is that Europeans who still make up 95 percent of the population, I'm quoting you directly. "They can at anytime reassert control should they see Muslims posing a threat to a valued way of life." That's

11 >> Daniel Pipes: In other words, I can't choose between those latter two. >> Peter Robinson: But you do consider it likely that Europeans might in some way or another reassert control over the con--indigenous Europeans. >> Daniel Pipes: I think that as likely as their simply continuing the trends of the last 5 decades. >> Peter Robinson: If you look out 10, 2, 3 decades and your two likeliest alternatives, Muslims become dominant or Europeans reassert their own culture. >> Daniel Pipes: Leading to civil strife. >> Peter Robinson: That's the question. Both of those are likely to involve civil strife or not. >> Daniel Pipes: If the current trends continue there may not be a civil strife. One just has a quiet transformation of the continent into what some people are calling Eurabia. >> Peter Robinson: I see, alright. >> Daniel Pipes: You can just go quietly into this new order with the sharia Islamic domination. But if the Europeans reassert themselves I think it's likely that there will be strife, yeah. And I think the French riots of October, November 2005 are precurse of what it might look like. Those were not particularly lethal. The future ones are probably more lethal that is widespread violence and assertion. >> Peter Robinson: So we have already reached the point at which if the basket of countries that has represented our closest allies since certainly in the last 5 decades, if the basket of countries in Europe wish to reassert European political values, European culture, there will be strife. >> Daniel Pipes: I believe it will be now. >> Peter Robinson: We've already reached that point. >> Daniel Pipes: I believe so. >> Peter Robinson: I'm going to ask a couple of questions that I hope have more cheerful answers. >> Daniel Pipes: I've learned although I'm fairly optimistic and cheerful person and private when it comes to my Middle Eastern and Islamic career, it's a good career move to be pessimistic. It usually works out.

12 >> Peter Robinson: Alright, Israel and once again I'm quoting you directly, "Nuclear annihilation, conventional military attacks, economic boycotts, demographic overwhelming, ideological undermining, you name it, the threats to Israel are across the spectrum." A decade from now, will Israel be in a stronger position, a weaker position or about the same as it is now as vis-a-vis the Arab world? >> Daniel Pipes: That s a tough one. >> Peter Robinson: You do have a sense though that things are on, things have to get better or they will get worse. This is a critical moment. >> Daniel Pipes: I don t know. I see the Israeli body politic as lost. Not having any idea what to do. >> Peter Robinson: That's what I don't understand. Here you have--what is the Jewish population of Israel now? >> Daniel Pipes: Six million. >> Peter Robinson: Six million. People living under--nobody moves to Israel for the weather, right, is it not? >> Daniel Pipes: Well, it's actually not so bad. >> Peter Robinson: No, no, no, I don't mean to say that the weather, but the only possible reason to continue living in Israel is some sense of mission. Some sense of participating in a great cause. Isn't that the case? >> Daniel Pipes: Sure, but most of the Jewish Israelis are not immigrants at this point, they're born there. It's, you know it's >> Peter Robinson: And they just wanna be like, they want normalcy, is that it? That's the great desire as this point? >> Daniel Pipes: Yeah. This is the emotion that surge to the front you know in late '80s and early '90s. As the economy started to take off, the technological boom underlying was a sense of we're a western state, we're the only western state that has to assert its security on a daily basis that's being assaulted in all these different ways. Let's normalize. Let's get this to be like living elsewhere, and if that requires giving up territory, if it requires making other sorts of concessions, okay do it, give it up. And earlier I-I characterized that as appeasement. It works with say tribal leaders in Africa, that's what the British found in 19th century. It doesn't work with ideological dictators such as Hitler or Brezhnev or Arafat. >> Peter Robinson: And that remains the dominant mindset or outlook

13 >> Daniel Pipes: Well, I can't say it has. Appeasement has been shown not to work and that's why I call it lost because the terms is too difficult. No one wants to go back to that, very, very few. And appeasement didn't work, so nobody really wants to go back to that, or not many. And so we're left with nothing. >> Daniel Pipes thank you very much. For Uncommon Knowledge, I'm Peter Robinson at the Hoover Institution, thanks for joining us.