Israeli Academic: Americans are Naive on Security, Europeans are Corrupt

Dan Schueftan: Yes, in 1993, Israel was foolish enough to adopt this mindset during the Oslo process. I'm not saying we can't talk with the Arabs—we have talked. We maintain very good relationships with several Arab countries, and these relationships function at a high level without us constantly having to use force.

But if those who are not radicals still feel solidarity with radicals and feel uncomfortable when Israel takes action, then we say: so be it. If Europeans don't like it—then they don't like it. If some Americans dislike it—then some Americans dislike it.

Interviewer: What is Israel’s current position in the Middle East?

Dan Schueftan: Seventy-five years ago, Israel was a very small, weak, and impoverished country. Today, it is the most significant power in the Middle East.

Until recently, we were a regional power only militarily, economically, and technologically. Politically, however, we were not fully integrated players. We were isolated, and even when we had good relationships, they remained secretive, conducted "under the table."

What’s happening now—especially since the war on October 7 [2023]—is that Israel is becoming a political player as well. Arab countries realize that they need Israel. It's no longer just "okay, we reluctantly accept them"; now it's clear that they cannot do without Israel.

Interviewer: Why is that?

Dan Schueftan: Because we're a highly effective ally. We're the strongest force available to Arab countries against their own enemies—stronger than other Arabs and more reliable than the Americans. Because in the United States, you might end up with someone like Barack Obama, whom you cannot trust, or Joe Biden, whom you can trust only partially.

We share three common enemies with most Arab countries: Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and frankly, American stupidity.

What the Arab states want—and what we've already achieved—is a stronger relationship with the United States. Even when the president isn't friendly, even when there are disagreements, the relationship between Israel and America continues to strengthen. Meanwhile, we no longer listen to the foolishness coming from Washington.

That's exactly what the Arabs want as well—good relations with the U.S. without having to listen to Washington’s nonsense.

Interviewer: What kind of nonsense comes from Washington?

Dan Schueftan: Take one example unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict—the Houthis in Yemen before October 7. You have a group of barbarians. What do you do with them? You crush them. You eliminate them.

Yet, what do Obama and Biden do in their endless stupidity? They remove the Houthis from the terrorist list. They pressure Saudi Arabia and the UAE to end their war against the Houthis. They even impose a partial arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, limiting their ability to fight the Houthis. And then they give humanitarian aid to the Houthis. It’s the most foolish policy imaginable.

Interviewer: And then the Houthis began firing at ships…

Dan Schueftan: Of course—because they understood that the Americans are fools.

Eisenhower was a fool. Kennedy was a fool. Carter was a fool. Obama was a fool. They helped their enemies and undermined their allies. Because they were naive enough to believe that radicals were inherently good people—just give them humanitarian aid, and they'll transform into Americans like everyone else. They believed that within every Saddam or Sinwar, there’s a little Thomas Jefferson waiting to come out—just offer some aid, and Jefferson emerges.

When a crocodile attacks, give it a banana—that’s American logic. And it's not just the left-wingers; it's also the right-wingers. Neoconservatives believed you could bring democracy to Iraq. You need a highly developed sense of humor for that. Or promoting women’s rights in Afghanistan. The foolishness is endless.

Interviewer: But Israel still has to cooperate with the Americans.

Dan Schueftan: Yes, you cooperate with them, but you never actually listen to them. During this war, the only thing we listened to from the Americans—because we had no choice—was giving humanitarian aid to Hamas. And we did—large amounts of it. But when you're dealing with barbarians, why give them anything at all?

But the Americans are foolish. By the way, Europeans are even more foolish—but we don't listen to them anyway. We have a great system with them: they talk, and we simply don't listen.

Interviewer: Is that your relationship with Europe?

Dan Schueftan: My uncle had a hearing aid, and my aunt talked all day. They had the perfect marriage. He turned off his hearing aid, and she talked. She was happy; he was happy.

That's exactly our relationship with Europe. They speak. We don't listen. They need to talk. We must not listen. And it works perfectly.

In Europe, there was one interesting exception—Joschka Fischer when he was Germany's foreign minister. He came to Ariel Sharon and said: "Look, Israel has been attacked. Israel wants to respond in a certain way, but I’d like to try my approach. Give me two weeks—let’s see if it works. If it doesn't, I'll support you."

Sharon waited two weeks. It didn’t work. And Fischer supported Israel.

Interviewer: Could this relationship change?

Dan Schueftan: Things are moving positively in Europe now because of two events: the Ukraine war and the German resistance to mass immigration in 2015. So Europe is changing.

You’re from Estonia. You live in the real world—because you're the next target after Ukraine. What Trump is doing now regarding Ukraine might negatively affect you, but you're fortunate to be part of NATO.

Interviewer: What's the problem with Americans and Europeans? Why are they so foolish when it comes to security issues?

Dan Schueftan: With Europeans, the problem isn't really stupidity—stupidity is an American problem. With Europeans, it's about their circumstances. Europe hasn’t had to think about survival for 80 years.

They believed they didn't have to live by the sword because they lived under the protection of America's sword. But that corrupts—and it has corrupted Europe. My kind of liberal, Adlai Stevenson, once said, "Power corrupts, but weakness corrupts absolutely." That's exactly what has happened.

Interviewer: Why did Israel make such a mistake in the 1990s? Didn't you yourselves legitimize Yasser Arafat and his terrorist organization?

Dan Schueftan: Yes, Israel wasn't the only one, but when Israel legitimized Arafat, the whole world followed suit.

Look, I liked Yitzhak Rabin very much. I knew him for years; we worked together. But when he announced the Oslo process, I told him, "Why did you announce it in September? You had the perfect date—April 1. You should've announced Oslo on April 1, because it was a joke."

My problem wasn't with Israel making concessions. I was even prepared to go further than Rabin in terms of concessions. But I said: it will fail. There's not even one chance in a billion that it will succeed.

Interviewer: Why?

Dan Schueftan: Because the Palestinian national movement isn't just flawed—it's fundamentally rotten. They're incapable of making a historic compromise; it's against the very essence of their movement.

Palestinian political culture is a combination of corruption, violence, and victimhood. There’s nothing constructive there. They don't build a state; they don't even want to build a state.

By the way, most Arab countries haven't done anything in the last hundred years toward building a modern state.

Interviewer: But some countries are modernizing, like the UAE, aren't they?

Dan Schueftan: I like the Emirates very much. I'm going there next week. But the UAE just highlights what's not happening elsewhere in the Arab world.

Maybe the Saudis are starting to think in the same direction, but it’s much harder for them than for the UAE. And it’s completely absent in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Algeria. These countries have no future.

I say this with sadness—as an Israeli, not as some humanitarian romantic, but as an Israeli. I wish Egypt could be an anchor of stability in the region. But Egypt is doomed; it has no future.

The only way Egypt might have a future would be through a cultural revolution—but Egyptians aren’t ready for that.

And the Palestinians—they’re the worst in the entire Arab world. Because for 75 years, they've been taught: be a barbarian, and we'll give you billions of dollars and praise you at Harvard.

They have zero motivation to civilize. They’re rewarded for remaining uncivilized. There’s no chance of a peace deal with them. Zero. Not small, not negligible—zero.

It’s a completely destructive cycle: every time they attack Israel, the war ends and they're given billions in humanitarian aid. They start wars and then get rewarded for it. Why? Because Europeans are fools. And Americans are fools too.

Interviewer: I know many Israelis are frustrated by the repeating pattern: Israel is attacked, wins militarily, but then everything is reset, the aggressors receive a "motivational package," and it all starts over again. Palestinian radicals can't ever truly "lose" a war.

Dan Schueftan: In a way, that's true. But they live in misery. They enjoy it. They live in misery—and they know it, because they don't care about their children's future.

Do Europeans understand this? No. Do Americans? No. Do they understand what Israel goes through? No. Do I care? Yes, but not very much. I've learned to live with it. If we're hated—well, we have 2000 years of experience with that. You learn to live with it.

Look, in Antarctica you learn to deal with the cold. In the Sahara, you learn to handle the heat. If you're Jewish, you learn to live with being hated. You adapt. You don't expect anything different. Of course, nowadays, some people "love" us so much they want to destroy us—because they don’t realize their ideas would destroy us. So we've learned simply not to listen.

Interviewer: What do you think of the two-state solution?

Dan Schueftan: Since 1967, I've supported the idea of withdrawing from most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I don't want this land—I want to leave. When it became clear we couldn't give the West Bank to Jordan, I said, "Let's do it unilaterally."

So when I say the two-state solution won't work, it’s not an excuse to stay—I want to leave; I just don't have anyone to hand it over to.

The Palestinians... I don't know what will happen in 200 years. Maybe they'll become like Norwegians, who knows? But in the foreseeable future—they want their own state solely to destroy mine.

It would just make it easier for them to kill us. That's literally the only goal they have. Their only role models are terrorists who kill Jews. And the more Jews you kill, the more schools they name after you.

If you tell Europeans this, they'll reply, "Yes, but that's because of Israeli checkpoints." And I say, "You know what? Go live your carefree European life. Talk to the wall. I'm not listening. You don't know what you're talking about. You're living in La-La Land."

I'm not even angry.

Interviewer: Do you still support unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, especially after what happened in Gaza?

Dan Schueftan: Yes, but only in a way that allows us to intervene when necessary.

First of all, I would forcibly prevent any kind of Palestinian sovereignty. Because whatever they receive, they will use against us. That’s literally the only reason they want anything—to use it against us. If they had free movement into and out of the West Bank, they'd bring in Iranians, Shiite militias, the Quds Force—God knows what else.

So, I would dictate clearly what they cannot do. I don’t want to live among them, but I need to retain the ability to go anywhere at three in the morning to stop the next terrorist before he reaches Tel Aviv.

Any form of sovereignty—I would draw the line right there. Not because I want the land, but because whatever is given to them is inevitably turned against us.

By the way, there's one question I've been asked thousands of times in my academic career: "Do you really mean they wake up in the morning with the goal of killing us?"

My answer: Yes.

Does every single one of them feel this way? No.

Do I know if it's the majority? I don’t.

But it doesn't matter—because the segment of society for whom violence is normal is so large that positive-minded people can't control them. They don't even try.

This is what we’re dealing with. We've had a hundred years of Palestinian violence.

The only reason—not one of many reasons, but the only reason—that there are sometimes calmer periods is because they fear us. Because we have repeatedly shown we're willing to do things the Europeans and Americans dislike, and they can’t stop us. That’s the only reason their violence occasionally pauses.

I don't want to be there, but I must have the power to dictate what cannot happen there—because what they want means my death.

Interviewer: This all sounds very hopeless.

Dan Schueftan: When they did have someone genuinely trying to build a state, he wasn't supported. For example, Salam Fayyad—he was Palestinian Prime Minister (under various titles from 2007 to 2013), and my friend—a real state-builder in the best sense, but he never had more than two percent popular support.

Good people don't stand a chance. The bad ones are in control. Those who aren't bad but don't want the bad ones to rule, don't dare confront them. So the bad ones keep ruling.

If Israel weren't occupying the West Bank right now, Hamas would be in power there, because they’d kill everyone else. That's what we've been dealing with for 100 years.

I expect the next generation or two will face the same situation, because I see how they're raising their children—they teach them that killing me is the only way to gain respect and dignity.

Again, just as people living in the Sahara get used to the heat, or people in Antarctica get used to the cold, I've gotten used to hatred. I live in an environment where hatred is constant.

Interviewer: Politically speaking, are you on the left or right in Israel?

Dan Schueftan: I'm extreme center. Radical center. Most Israelis are in the center.

Interviewer: In the West, Benjamin Netanyahu is portrayed like some kind of demon—someone who wants to attack and colonize everything. But my impression is that he’s a cautious (opponents might even say cowardly) incrementalist?

Dan Schueftan: Look, most educated Israelis hate Netanyahu.

I've known Netanyahu personally for decades. He's a combination of very strong strategic insight and very poor character. But what are the alternatives?

The opposition consists of people who strategically aren't capable of anything. Personally, I like them. I'm even friends with some of them. But when it comes to quality—very disappointing.

Most of Netanyahu's decisions during the war were correct. I assume the opposition, had they been in power, would have made quite similar decisions.

Interviewer: It seems Israelis—or at least a large portion of them—want someone like Netanyahu, but not Netanyahu himself. They want his policies but not his personality.

Dan Schueftan: Exactly. They want someone as smart as Netanyahu, as resilient as Netanyahu, but without his character flaws.

I'd like to meet a woman who looks like Marilyn Monroe and is as smart as Marie Curie. But combinations like that simply don't happen. That's life.

And in politics today—350 million Americans gave us the choice between this and that.

Interviewer: Why is politics the way it is today?

Dan Schueftan: Because people listen to journalists, and that's the worst thing they could do. Too much transparency. Most things should happen in the dark. Issues shouldn't be too transparent, because when the government debates decisions, they're not actually discussing the issues. They're performing for the record. They don't ask what's good or bad; they ask what looks good or bad.

If I were prime minister, I'd say: "I'm only serving one term. I'll ignore public opinion. I'll do what I think is right. After that—everyone can go screw themselves." I'd insult people every day. Because if you're trying to be loved, you're probably on the wrong path.

Interviewer: You're straightforward.

Dan Schueftan: No. I'm just rude and arrogant—even arrogant by Israeli standards.

Interviewer: What's Israel's greatest achievement?

Dan Schueftan: Despite constant warfare, threats, hatred, and isolation, we've managed to channel most of our resources into building the country and society.

Amidst war, terror, hatred, and loneliness, each decade our economy grows stronger, science more advanced, culture more diverse and pluralistic, democracy stronger. That's what we do—we build a nation.

In my lifetime, Israel’s population has increased twentyfold. We’re a very open society. A highly successful society. We have a good life. It might sound trivial—but for me, it’s incredibly important—that an educated, secular, prosperous Israeli woman wants three children.

To me, that's the most powerful sign of optimism. We're a "childocracy." Children rule. Look (shows photos)—here's a picture of my dictators. Here's one: my daughter. Here's another: my grandchild.

I've sent four children to the military. They returned as better people. Young men. Young women. I've been through eight wars, and I have a wonderful life.

When I spent two years in Washington as a visiting professor at Georgetown University, with red carpets everywhere—I couldn't handle it. Every two months I had to fly back to Israel, because I love my life here. Do I complain? Of course. If you don't complain, they take away your Israeli citizenship.

We whine and complain all the time—but we have a very good life. Each decade life gets better. Yet, each decade we go out to the streets screaming, "Democracy is finished!", "Dictatorship is coming!", "Civil war is imminent!"

It’s so idiotic you have to be a complete fool to take it seriously. That’s precisely why educated people believe it. I tell all my master's classes: Anyone can be stupid, but if you want to be a proper idiot, you need a degree.

Interviewer: What's Israel's greatest achievement in the Gaza war?

Dan Schueftan: The greatest achievement of this war is the incredible resilience of Israeli society—even when we have the worst government we've ever had. Imagine Britain during the Blitz—but instead of Winston Churchill, you have today's clowns.

We have no leadership. Yet our society is so strong that we manage without leaders. Of course, it would be better to have leadership—serious and inspiring leadership. But we don’t.

And we continue living a good life—even during war, even a long war, even when resources are stretched to their limits. Even when there are hundreds of thousands of parasites among us known as the ultra-Orthodox.

Interviewer: You mean the Haredim? Parasites?

Dan Schueftan: Yes, the Haredim. Still, we have a good life despite them. Do we have problems? Sure.

But we've significantly improved our position in the Arab world. We've significantly improved our position in the West. We've proven to the radicals that we can hurt them very, very, very badly—even when they started the war under ideal conditions for themselves. Peace would be nice. But we can live without peace, too.

Interviewer: Hamas started the war under ideal conditions?

Dan Schueftan: Yes, they began this war under ideal conditions for them—they had hundreds of kilometers of tunnels, human shields, the world's most fortified territory—and we were completely unprepared. They also had the BBC, the New York Times, and the UN.

But now we're so strong we can ignore them all. We can ignore the BBC, CNN, the New York Times, the International Court at The Hague, the UN—everyone.

And we can say, in very polite diplomatic language: "Go screw yourselves." We’ll do what we believe is right. And you’ll complain. And we won’t listen.

Interviewer: But what about the rules-based international order?

Dan Schueftan: Are traffic signs necessary? Yes. Would it be nice if everyone followed them? Sure. But if the people running the traffic lights are criminals—like those institutions I mentioned—then you have to ignore them.

Interviewer: Can you ignore the UN?

Dan Schueftan: Yes. All we need is an American veto in the Security Council. Then we can ignore the UN. If the Secretary-General of the UN is hostile toward Israel, fine.

It would be nice if he weren't, but can we ignore him? Yes. Can we ignore the Hague Court? Yes. It's unpleasant—but that's all it is. And we must ignore them. Because they're not against our policies. They're against our very existence.

Interviewer: Are they stupid or malicious?

Dan Schueftan: Both. But above all, they're morally twisted. They claim they're criticizing our imperfections—but they're actually serving the barbarians.

Are we imperfect? Yes. Do we make mistakes? Yes. Do we sometimes accidentally do wrong things? Yes. We're human. All humans do.

But these institutions—they've prostituted themselves so profoundly. They listen to barbarians because they're part of a system in which most countries are barbaric.

The UN has a "one country, one vote" system—although most of these countries don't even have a "one person, one vote" system. The whole concept itself is sick. The assumption that all peoples are equal is sick. They're not equal. North Korea is not equal to the United States. They are morally inferior, and their vote shouldn't carry the same weight.

Interviewer: But North Korea has one vote, the same as the U.S.

Dan Schueftan: Exactly, and that's deeply wrong. If you have a congress of rapists discussing women's rights—that’s the UN. Okay, maybe not everyone is a rapist, but most are rapists or their supporters, or they say things like, "Well, the rapist had a tough childhood, we should understand him."

So, I’m the woman. And I have to be strong enough to ignore them. The ability to ignore them is incredibly important. By the way, that's exactly why they hate us even more—because we ignore them. And we show that we can ignore them.

It reminds them of how irrelevant they really are. If even a small country like Israel can ignore them, what’s their value?

Interviewer: Recently, the U.S. essentially voted against Ukraine—and Israel went along with the U.S.?

Dan Schueftan: I think that was a mistake. A big mistake. Probably Trump's biggest mistake. Look, Trump doesn't have a strategy—he has instincts. Some are good, but here he's causing huge damage.

One positive aspect is he's forcing Europe to arm itself. That's good. But the overall trend is negative. Maybe it won't go further—I don't know.

Interviewer: And Israel also voted against Ukraine at the UN.

Dan Schueftan: We didn't really have a choice. America is our only ally at the UN. We have to vote alongside the Americans. And anyway, UN votes are meaningless. I've worked in foreign policy for years—it’s always been that way.

Interviewer: Estonia has generally voted pro-Israel, but last year our stance started wavering a bit...

Dan Schueftan: You're not as crazy as Ireland or Spain. Ireland is disgusting. Spain depends—the right wing is pro-Israel, the left is against. In Ireland, everyone's anti-Israel. In the Czech Republic, everyone's pro-Israel. Those are the two extremes. The Norwegians? Repulsive.

But you know what—who cares? So Ireland is against Israel. What's the impact? Zero. What do I care about Ireland? Absolutely nothing. You want to love us? Great. You want to hate us? I’ll ignore you.

Interviewer: What's next in the Gaza war?

Dan Schueftan: We must ensure Hamas never returns to power. We've been at war with Gaza for the last hundred years, and we'll be at war with Gaza for the next hundred years. They're barbarians.

Interviewer: What's your view on Lebanon’s situation? I've been there—it's a lovely country, but no longer really a state.

Dan Schueftan: I've been there too, but I had to bring the entire Israeli army along. Lebanon is thoroughly corrupt—there’s nothing there that's not corrupt. The best thing that could happen is if the French got their mandate back.

Lebanon constantly cycles: good life—civil war—good life—civil war.

They have no future. They can't build a society or nation beyond sectarian identities. Right now, things are slightly better. Hezbollah is weaker. Iran is weaker. But Lebanon remains hopeless. If it used to be 80 percent bad, now it's 60 percent bad. Okay?

Interviewer: How close is Iran to having a nuclear weapon?

Dan Schueftan: Regarding uranium enrichment—they're already there. As for weaponization—we don't know. It could take a year, or it could happen sooner.

Interviewer: Why doesn’t Israel take action?

Dan Schueftan: Two reasons. First: Barack Obama turned Iran into a nuclear-threshold state. When Iran was vulnerable, Obama chose to surrender. Today, even if we destroy their facilities, they can rebuild them quickly.

If Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran, I hope the goal won't just be destroying their nuclear program. The goal should be destroying Iran’s economy—making life in Iran impossible, completely weakening the country, and pressuring for regime change. But if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the main responsibility lies with Obama.

The Iranians aren't Arabs. Once, Iran and Israel were friends. If this regime collapses, Iran and Israel could become the two most successful countries in the Middle East. Iran could be an ally of the West—of Europe and the U.S. Unlike the Arab world, Iran has the infrastructure of a diverse society.

Iran can change—just as Germany and Japan changed after World War II. Gaza can't. Iran can.