TRANSCRIPT: The Islamic Republic of Terror: Hezbollah & Hamas: Naftali Bennett

JORDAN B. PETERSON: And what are the issues that are dividing them? I mean, we’re seeing something like a devolution into group identity politics broadly in the West. And obviously the danger in that, at least one of the dangers is that it undermines the primary narrative, let’s say, or identity that holds everyone together. So that’s obviously dangerous if you don’t like a descent into chaos.

But now I understand the identity politics that characterizes the United States, say in Canada, UK, et cetera. I’m not exactly clear what the identity fragmentations are, I guess, on the Jewish side, but also between the Jews and the Arabs in Israel. So how exactly is the domestic landscape fractionating as far as you’re concerned in Israel?

Israel’s Domestic Issues

NAFTALI BENNETT: Well, I believe that this is an artificially manufactured grouping for political reasons because there’s a lot of benefit in creating camps in politics because you have your base and you eat them up and you get them mad at the other side.

But I think it’s phony. I think it’s not predicated on real big debates because here’s the interesting thing. And you asked me about issues. If you actually analyze the big issues that supposedly tear ourselves apart, actually most Israelis agree on them.

It’s three areas. It’s religion and state. It’s the judicial reform and it’s the Palestinian issue. OK, so I can tell you in 40 seconds where almost everyone agrees that on religion, Israel is a Jewish state.

We want our kids to love our tradition, to love our heritage, our history, to be knowledgeable about it. But we’re also against laws that coerce religion. And I’d say 80 percent of the Israeli Jews agree on that. So this is an artificial battle which is done for political reasons.

On the judicial issue, also here, there’s a fairly simple compromise. Basically, what happened over the past 40 years was the judicial system usurped a lot of power from the executive, from the government. But over the past seven years, there’s been a very gradual incremental rebalancing. So we have many more conservative judges who say this is not our business.

Government, I love hearing that when a judge says this should not come to the court, this should be a political decision. And so the whole craze about the judicial reform, in my opinion, was mainly about the terrible way the government introduced it. It didn’t introduce a change in order to improve the lives of our people. It seemed and it articulated vengeance.

We’re against the other side. We’re going to aggravate those lefties. And again, I’m a right wing guy, but I don’t think that when I’m prime minister or education minister, my goal in life is to get the other side to be terrified or aggravated. I would call it a poke you in the eye attitude.

So it’s more about that. And even on the Palestinian issue, the de facto argument today almost doesn’t exist. And I’ll explain. For about 50 years, there’s been a big divide where the left supported a two state solution and the right opposed it.

The past 20 years, the second intifada, and especially now, post October 7th, mainstream Israelis do not believe anymore that we should be founding a Palestinian state, certainly not in the near future. So we agree that right now, one way or another, we’re not going to allow a Palestinian state. So why not be together in government and we can defer continuing to argue about it in six to eight years where I’ll argue and fight against it. They’ll support it.

But in the short term, there’s no disagreement. There’s no support for a two state solution. Nobody. Yeah, I think it would be a total disaster.

But there’s others who think that I’m wrong, which is fine. But I’m wrong, which is fine. We can argue and debate that in between us eight years from now. We don’t have to waste our energy right now.

Judicial Reform in Israel

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So this judicial issue. So my sense is that, I mean, I’ve seen arguably similar moves in Canada in particular where the judiciary has increasingly taken on the role of the legislative branch, partly because the legislatures don’t like to make complex decisions and then they default to the judiciary, which is not a good thing in the long run because it undermines parliamentary supremacy.

So has something analogous to that been going on in Israel? And you said there’s been a rebalancing, but that it was handled badly on the messaging side. It became what? What did it become?

NAFTALI BENNETT: Become something like a battle between the legislative branch and the judiciary? Yes. And that’s that. Well, you basically articulated it precisely right.

As I said in the past, we had a fairly minimalistic Supreme Court that was very hesitant and not inclined to cancel laws or to override the government. It did it from time to time, but on a very cautious way. What happened beginning the late 80s primarily was the Supreme Court became way more active and gradually began canceling laws and creating its own self-made constitution based on what’s called basic laws in Israel. But they went too far.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And was that primarily a leftist movement on the judiciary side?

NAFTALI BENNETT: I would say so. I would say. Yeah.

Yeah. Now, in many cases, you said it so right. In many cases, it was a result of government not being courageous enough to solve some or to figure out some very fundamental issues like the draft law of ultra orthodox. So the when the politicians are not courageous enough, they throw it to the Supreme Court and then they attack the Supreme Court for getting involved in what they couldn’t solve.

Now, there was already a gradual process of rebalancing that was happening in prior to this craze of the past couple of years. So things were on track to gradually get better. I remember as minister, you know what, as prime minister, I cannot recall one event where I wanted to get something done and I knew how I’m going to do it. And the legal folks stopped me.

I do remember as minister, there was one or two cases that it really got me angry. And I thought these, you know, the judicial system is too too aggressive, but it was on track. And then the government came. And as I said, they talked about a resolution.

They said, we’re set up with those lefties. And it’s funny because I’m a right wing guy, but what they came to do was to punish the other side, to terrify the other side. And guess what? They succeeded.

The other side, which is lots of very decent people, about half of the country that, you know, serve in the military, risk their lives, pay taxes, hardworking people, much of the middle class in Israel, the secular middle class, they indeed got terrified. They felt subjectively that there’s a government that wants to punish them and no one should feel that their government hates them. And that created a rebound effect of these huge protests and refusal to serve in reserve, which is a terrible thing, right? Because we need our army.

And what happened essentially year 2023 was a horrible year prior to October 7th. The whole country went crazy in this internal war. We got distracted from our enemies. Our enemies saw that we’re killing ourselves from within.

They saw our national immune system is getting weaker and weaker. And they waited and bam.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Do you think that was associated with that internal strike?

NAFTALI BENNETT: Absolutely.

Absolutely. The cost of internal this attack two years ago, four years ago, 10 years ago, 12 years ago, we know from intelligence, from hard intelligence that they were following this. And you know what their biggest mistake was that they attacked. We were doing a great job tearing ourselves apart, right?

That attack, a horrendous attack stopped the craze. And now we have another opportunity to get our act together. And we have to seize this opportunity.

The Second Intifada

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So let’s talk about. Well, first of all, I’d ask you just for a definition, because there’ll be lots of people who don’t know this. The second intifada. Tell us about intifada and exactly what it means.

NAFTALI BENNETT: The intifada, the second intifada started in, I believe, October of 2000, where just as a way of background, beginning 1993, all the way to 2000, Israel engaged in the Oslo Accords, a labor led government led by Yitzhak Rabin, the prime minister that was thereafter assassinated.

They believe that we need to reach a compromise with the Palestinians and ultimately believed in the two state solution. At that time, I was a soldier. I opposed it, but I could understand the other side. I can understand that they had a theory that if we hand over land, they’ll fulfill, the Palestinians will fulfill their national aspirations and we’ll live side by side by peace.

And a slim majority of Israelis believe. Yeah. Hence, what happened was already in the 90s, as we handed more land over to the Palestinians, it started in the labor government. Then Netanyahu continued and handed, I believe, about 13% of Judea and Samaria, the AKA the West Bank to the Palestinians.

The Oslo Accords and Second Intifada

NAFTALI BENNETT: We began seeing more and more terror from the very areas we vacated. What happened in the Oslo Accords, though, was the Palestinians formed an entity, a government called the Palestinian Authority. And a big tract of Judea and Samaria, of the controversial territories, was handed to them, almost half. And they govern it to this day.

What happened in October 2000, there was a violent uprise and war against Israel that started and it manifested itself in daily suicide attacks where Palestinians came in usually with explosive vests, entered a bus in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, blew themselves up, killing a dozen Israelis almost every day. It was horrible. It was a terrible period. And I had been living in Manhattan running my company, but the R&D center was in Israel.

It was back and forth. And finally, we had enough. And in March of 2002, we went forward with Operation Defensive Shield and we recaptured those territories militarily. And to this day, the way it runs is they govern themselves on the civilian aspect.

So they have their own government. They had elections. It’s a democratic government, so they only had elections once. They pay their own taxes. They have their own anthem, their own parliament, what have you. But the overall security responsibility is Israel’s. And that’s why we don’t have this sort of terror stemming from the PA that we saw from Gaza.

Dr. Peterson’s Perspective on the Middle East Situation

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, okay. So let me switch a bit to, I’m going to ask you a complicated question. I want to lay out, if you don’t mind, how the situation in Israel looks to me. Not that that’s particularly important, but it’ll give you a chance to restructure the story if necessary.

I want to tell you how it looks to me from the outside, and I’ve been trying to sort this out very carefully in my imagination, so that I can have a clear head about the circumstances in the Middle East. Okay, so I’m going to start with the Abraham Accords, and they’re very striking to me, because I saw a number of, the first thing they indicate is that there are profound divisions within the Arab world with regard to Israel and how Israel should be treated and dealt with. And the Abraham Accords formalized an agreement with a number of Arab states that Israel should be regarded as a valuable trading partner. Now, the reason for that, as far as I’m concerned, is threefold.

The previous approach wasn’t working. Israel’s proved itself to be an economic powerhouse. It’s starting to, it’s like a second Silicon Valley in many ways. There are extreme economic advantages to partnering with Israel, trading with Israel, learning from the Israeli experience.

And then Israel is also a formidable military powerhouse. And so the combination of those three things was sufficient, along with some alteration in the stance on the more forward looking Arab side to make agreements of peace with Israel a reality. And we saw that happen in the Abraham Accords. Now, my sense is the Abraham Accords are viewed with something you might describe as extreme skepticism and horror, even by the Iranians, most fundamentally, because they don’t want to see that.

They’re sworn enemies of the United States. They’re sworn enemies of Israel. They’re sworn enemies of many of the Arab states that signed the Abraham Accords. They’re seriously not happy about this.

And they’ll do anything to undermine and destroy it, along with Israel and the United States. And so, okay, so then let’s think about that in relationship to Palestine. So you’re putting forward something approximating a two-state solution. That’s been a solution that’s been proffered in the past.

But the problem with a two-state solution is it’s predicated on the idea that the parties involved in establishing the states want states and they want peace. And my sense of it is that Iran would sacrifice every single Palestinian in a heartbeat if they could do serious damage to Israel and the United States in doing so. And Iran continually funds the agitators in, let’s say, Hamas and Hezbollah, for example, to do nothing but cause Israel and the United States problems. And they don’t give a damn in any way, shape, or form about the Palestinians.

And so I don’t understand at all, first of all, how the Israelis can negotiate with the Palestinians, with the Iranians lurking behind them, doing nothing but to cause causing trouble and funding at every possible opportunity, every way of breaking down any possibility of peace. Because what do they care whether the Palestinians make peace with the Israelis? That’s just annoying to them from a foreign policy perspective. So I don’t see any victory.

I don’t see any potential for solving that problem as long as Iran is pulling the strings behind the scenes. It’s in their best interest, given their stated foreign policy objectives, to keep the Palestinians and the Israelis at each other’s throats for as long as possible. And if that does in the Palestinian people, oh, well, you know, collateral damage in the bigger game. So, and then, okay, so I want to add it now.

Now, so uninformed people in the West might be thinking that by standing with the poor oppressed Palestinians, they’re, what would you say, they’re showing their solidarity with the oppressed people of the world. But they’re certainly not allied with the mainstream of peace-loving Arabs around the world, peace-loving Muslims, as far as I’m concerned. And they’re crawling into bed with a state that’s hated, not least by its own people. Like it’s a brutal, awful, terrible state.

And it wants to destroy the United States and Israel. And so all the protesters on American campuses who are hypothetically supporting the poor, oppressed, victimized Palestinians, and I know there’s plenty of complex things to say about that, are really acting as proxy agents for Iran. And the Khamenei came out on Twitter, not very many months ago, and basically said exactly that, congratulating the American protesters, for example, for supporting his agenda. Right.

I mean, it was mind-boggling. It didn’t seem to slow down the protests at all. Okay, so the first question, having laid that out, is like, is there anything that I’m missing with regards to the positioning of Iran in relationship to Israel and the United States?

The Octopus Strategy Against Iran

NAFTALI BENNETT: I think you’ve hit the nail on its head.

About a decade ago, I came up with a strategy against Iran, and I called it the octopus, terror octopus, or octopus strategy. The first thing was to understand what’s going on, and then you can build a strategy. What’s going on in the Middle East is about 70 percent of the problems in the entire Middle East stem from the Islamic Republic of Iran. I would view it, it’s a very radical regime, by the way, also incompetent and corrupt, a bit similar to the Soviet Union of the 80s.

But what it does, it exports its ideology and terror with its arms all across the Middle East. Every country it touches, it ultimately destroys. It’s like the anti-Midas touch. Look at Lebanon. Look at Syria. Look at Iraq. It’s like Yemen. So in all these places, it builds a local proxy, sometimes based on Shiites that live there, but not always.

For example, Hamas is a Sunni organization. It empowers them. It funds them. It provides them weapons. It trains them, and ultimately, it also commands them to generate terror, not only against Israel generally, but also against Israel. Now, if, and I’ll say straight at this point, we need to topple the Iranian regime. That’s what we need to do, and it will fall. The mistake that Israel has made for the past 30 years, and I was a soldier, I was fighting Hezbollah, which is essentially the fingertip of one of its tentacles.

The mistake was that we have expended and exhausted ourselves fighting those fingertips of the octopus, and instead of directing our energy to topple the goddamn head of the octopus. And what I did as prime minister, I gradually, I wanted to not have wars on our borders because that’s playing to their strategy, and redirected our efforts to the head of the octopus. Israel has done a lot of work throughout the years on the nuclear dimension, but my point was it’s not only about nuclear. Let’s topple the regime.

Now, how do you do it? I’m not talking about all-out war. I look at the Cold War as a very good, you know, analogy, and ultimately the Soviet Union fell without war. America never bombed.

You know what I did when I became prime minister? The first month on my job, I dedicated to deep study of Iran, its society, its economy, and what America did in the 80s to accelerate the toppling of the Soviet Union. It turns out America did a lot. Reagan’s America empowered oppositions in Eastern Europe.

Why can’t we do that? It strengthened the enemies of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Mujahedin, etc. Later it had unintended consequences, but my point is that we need America and Israel and the West to apply tremendous diplomatic, economic pressures and covert, overt, cyber, lots of stuff to accelerate the demise of Iran. This regime will fall because it’s much weaker than we think.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So to continue the… What sort of support do you think the Iranian government has in Iran itself? I mean, my sense is…

NAFTALI BENNETT: Very little.

It’s despised by its people. I’m saying this as a fact. It has all the plagues of this sort of regime. The children of the leaders are all corrupt, you know, driving in their cars, Lamborghinis, whatever, while the people in many areas of Iran don’t even have good tap water.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. And it could be a very rich country. It was doing quite well in the 70s.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yeah.

And so I believe that this regime will topple, will fall either, but it could be in 50 years or it could be in five years. And what I did when I met the Biden administration and the folks there outlined a bunch of about 30 different vectors of action that we can take, soft action, and sort of divided the job between us and them. There’s some areas that we could… Give you an example.

Every time there’s protest there, you know what the first thing the regime does? It turns off the internet. So you can’t communicate. Why don’t we ensure that the internet’s on with technologies like Starlink, etc.

There’s lots of stuff, easy stuff, cheap stuff that we can do to accelerate the toppling. All we need to do is help the Iranian people, which are a great people. And unfortunately, my successor discontinued this policy, but I think it’s time to…

Western Stance on Iran

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So what sort of, what do you see happening in the West, in the United States, with the rest of the Western countries with regard to their stance contra Iran?

And I’d like to hear about what you think is being done that’s actually effective. And also what you think is being done that isn’t effective or counterproductive.

NAFTALI BENNETT: By and large, they’re not doing enough. And everything I described, there’s a bunch of moderate Arab states, Saudis, Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, let’s say Jordan.

There’s lots of subtleties here, but I would just say all of them hate radical Islam. Hate radical Islam in one of two strands, either the Shiite strand, which is Iran, or the Sunni strand, which is the Muslim Brotherhood. They can’t always voice this publicly, but they need Israel to lead the way. Their biggest dream is for Israel to step up to the plate.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Step up to the plate and what, in relationship to radical Islam?

NAFTALI BENNETT: Fight radical Islam. Weaken it. Choke the money.

There’s so much that we can do with great ROI. I mean, it’s not the most complicated stuff that we’re not doing. America is perceived in the region, and I’m not going to talk about one side or another, as unstable and sort of doesn’t see things through. So, you know, you might be there today, but you’re out tomorrow.

And in this sense, Israel is there. We’re here to stay. We didn’t choose our neighborhood, but we’re stuck in the neighborhood. And we’re a reliable partner.

Granted, October 7th, we took a hit on our credibility because it should not have happened. But I think we’re in the process of strengthening again. And, you know, stuff that’s happened over the past month or so that seemed pretty clever. That’s the sort of thing that we’ve got to be doing.

Radical Islam and the Broader Islamic World

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So, let’s talk about radical Islam for a minute, and maybe we can use that as an entry point into discussing the relationship between religion and politics more broadly, because I would really like to do that. So, the first issue is it’s interesting to me that there are a variety of forward-looking leaders in the Muslim world who, for example, have been pushing forward the Abraham Accords, normalization of relations with Israel, but even more importantly, the establishment of truly productive relations. So, it’s obviously that within the broader confines of the Islamic world, the possibility for peace and productive peace exists.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Absolutely.

The Psychology of Bad Actors

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay. So, then the next issue, I’m trying to work this out in the West in general. So, you know, there’s always a percentage of truly bad actors in any population. So, the psychological data indicates that the prevalence of pure psychopathy in the population is, to be conservative, let’s say, 3%.

So, those are seriously bad actors, and we want to say a few things about the psychopathic types. Okay. So, they’re Machiavellian. They only use their language to manipulate for their own benefits, right?

They’re parasitic predators. That makes them psychopathic. They’re narcissistic, which means they want undeserved attention and will do anything to get it, and to top it all off, because that’s not enough, they have strong proclivity towards sadism, which is positive delight in the unnecessary suffering of others. Okay.

So, these are bad actors. Now, the question is, how do they operate? And we actually know the answer to that. They like to hide behind a mask of victimization, because that’s very effective.

So, the psychopathic types are always claiming that they’re the victims, and that there are people they can identify as oppressors, and the moral thing is to stand with them. But the other thing they do is hijack the political agenda on both sides. So, for example, the psychopaths will use compassion to manipulate the left, and they’ll use free speech issues to manipulate the right. But they don’t care, because they’re not political at all.

What they are is out for themselves 100%. And then, what even makes the situation more dire is that the psychological literature indicating that the psychopathic types can be rehabilitated is dismal, to say the least. Again, it’s no. No is the simple answer.

And again, I’m speaking of, I’m speaking, let’s say, of the 1% of criminals who are responsible for 65% of the crimes. It’s not corrigible. Okay. Now, you know, a person who deviates from the path of law and order and makes a mistake once, that’s a whole different issue.

NAFTALI BENNETT: But I don’t think that this is the explanation to what’s going on in the Islamic world. Because while there are psychopaths, like Saddam Hussein was a psychopath, definitely, and Yahya Sinwar was a psychopath, I’m not sure other radical Islam leaders are necessarily psychopaths. I think they truly believe that the world needs to needs to act according to Sharia law.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, this is what I’m trying to untangle.

It’s like, it’s such a difficult thing. Because you have, on the one hand, the obvious fact that there are, there’s much movement in the Islamic world to establish peace with Israel and to move their populations forward in a productive manner. But then you have this horror and separating out the religious claims from the manipulation of the religious claims by the self-interested psychopaths. That’s a very difficult thing to manage.

NAFTALI BENNETT: I think what undermines this case is the numbers. I think, look, I don’t have the data regarding what percentage of Muslims support radical Islam. I’m not saying they engage in terrorism, but they support my hunches, a fairly high percentage. And we can’t just…

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Are they better? Okay, I’ll push back slightly because I’m wondering, you know, is that also because it’s easier for the psychopathic self-interested manipulators to manipulate a comparatively undereducated population and to get away with their claims that really what they’re doing is abiding by the doctrines of the one true religion? Right. Because when you’re dealing with a population whose fundamental ideational structure is encapsulated within a single religious viewpoint, it’s a lot easier for the bad actors to manipulate.

NAFTALI BENNETT: So they definitely use this, first of all, to deflect all their incompetence. Yes, yes, definitely. But that’s not, that doesn’t mean you’re a psychopath. It just means, you know, you’re a cynical person.

You want to continue governing. I’ve seen lots of people do that. And I think that, I’ll tell you what I think about how we need to go about fighting radical Islam. And this is something that evolved.

I think, especially in the case of Gaza, everyone asks me, but Hamas is an ideology and you can’t kill an ideology. That’s half true. I agree that there’s no point in trying to persuade people, don’t be radical, don’t be Hamas supporters. Hamas enjoys a great popular support in the Palestinians’ population, about two thirds.

But there is a way to get them away from Hamas by defeating Hamas. I’ll give you an analogy. Had we, you probably know way better than me, let’s hypothesis. Had we done a poll in Nazi Germany in December of 44, right?

Everyone knew where it’s going. My belief, I have no basis for this, is that a vast majority of Germans still supported the Nazi ideology.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Slightly, very likely. Yeah.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Now, within several years after the war, we had a new Germany. What happened was, there was a step before persuading their hearts and minds that Nazism is bad. There was something way more important, that Nazism is gone. So, first defeat Hamas, first defeat the Nazis.

And so, it’s no longer a matter of whether it’s good or bad. It’s gone. It’s gone. We killed them.

They’re done. Now, get on with life. And only then, I think, I’m asking you actually, psychologically, can the individual open his mind to hear other arguments.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, I think there is.

Well, first of all, we hope so. And that’s what I think that we need to do. We need to defeat Hamas, and then begin changing the hearts and minds.

Historical Precedents and Democracy in the Arab World

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, I think the historical precedents that you outlined are the correct ones.

The same thing happened in Japan. And very rapidly, right? And very thoroughly. I mean, Japan went from that war-like state that it was to a very peaceful and productive society overnight.

Well, and you can say exactly the same thing about Germany. So, you know, and thank God for that. All right. So there’s good historical precedent. Whether that’s the relevant case, that’s a different issue. But it’s not unreasonable. It happened.

NAFTALI BENNETT: We have no success in sustainable Arab democracies.

It’s just a fact. You know, you look, none of the countries in the Middle East, even the stable ones, are democracies. And it gets you thinking that maybe we’re trying to implement something to square a circle. And maybe there needs to be some sort of a hybrid.

Give you an example. One of the great leaders today, I believe, is Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed of the Emirates. He’s a remarkable guy. And are the Emirates a full-blown democracy?

No, they aren’t. But is he doing good? Is the vector a good one? Absolutely.

And so we have to be creative about these sort of things. Not impose our values and structures where it won’t necessarily succeed.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, we don’t. This gets us farther down the religious rabbit hole, too.

We don’t know what the grounds for democracy are. Right. You know, democracy emerged in its modern form as an offshoot of Judeo-Christian culture. And I think you can make a strong case that, and I’ve felt this particularly from studying the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment, is that once the presumptions of Judeo-Christian morality are axiomatic, it’s possible to erect a democracy that’s functional and stable.

NAFTALI BENNETT: That’s very interesting.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: There are preconditions for liberal individualism. And one of the preconditions is that your society is basically peaceful and everybody trusts one another. Right.

And then, well, now you can all go out there and be individual and liberal and vary in your creative ways and that’ll work. It isn’t fluke, obviously, that there aren’t functional democracies in the Arab world. Now, why there aren’t functional democracies are a hard thing to pull off. And there are many places in the world that don’t have.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Functional democracies are hard in America and Israel as well.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yes, exactly. Exactly. And they’ve had a hard time really getting themselves going in South America, for example.

Like the one countries that were settled by England tend to have functional democracies and countries that were settled by any other country, France, Spain, Portugal.

The Miracle of Israeli Democracy

NAFTALI BENNETT: And Israel is a remarkable miracle in that sense, because the Jews had been in exile and diaspora for 2000 years. They didn’t have, you know, we were organized in small communities, not as a nation. And to have these folks come from all around the world back to our homeland and form a stable democracy, it in itself is a miracle.

That’s for sure. But, you know, when you think about it, it makes sense because Judaism, as it evolved in the diaspora and previously in the two previous states we had in Israel, was a very democratic and open for debate society.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Open for debate. Yeah.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Debate is at the core of Judaism. You know, when you have the Orthodox Jews study Talmud, Talmud essentially, people don’t know what I’m going to, about this. Talmud is sort of the a law code of Judaism. But the Talmud is not about the bottom line.

It’s not a set of, it’s not a book of rules. It’s a very, you can fill a library with it. What it is, it’s debates between rabbis. They debate the most arcane, strange topics, but no one cares about the bottom line.

You learn to debate. It’s a very intellectually challenging thing. It’s like a combination of mathematics and logic, but it’s all about debate. And then 400 years later, rabbis in Europe continued, or in North Africa, continued the debate.

There’s layers of debate. And the method of study in Judaism is also unique. It’s called Hevruta. Here’s how they taught Jews for millennia.

Two guys sit one next to another and learn together and debate. That’s what they do. You don’t sit, the structure was not a teacher in a classroom. And we’ve been doing this for thousands of years.

And I believe, by the way, that’s part of the secret of the startup nation, is that we’re such a debating people. And at its best, it brings you innovations. I remember in my startup company, we were yelling at each other the whole time. You know, anyone who came into my company heard screaming between the VPR and DIN, but it was positive.

At its worst, it can tear apart societies when the debate is not for the right reasons.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, well, so that means upward-oriented debate. Well, it seems to me that it seems to me that that implies that maybe one of the things that the Jewish state and Christian or Judeo-Christian democracies have in common is something like a conceptualization or an embodiment of the logos, right? The idea that the way that you make progress forward is through thought, and that’s mediated by speech, and that speech has to be free, and it can be intense.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yeah, and so think about that. The most respected person in the community for those 2,000 years was the rabbi, and the rabbi was typically the smartest guy. He was best at studying Talmud. That’s how the most famous rabbis like Maimonides, who was also a physician, and first and foremost, they were the best at study.

And by the way, they also got the best, their children got the best marriages of usually the wealthy, and that created a very positive cycle, a genetic cycle, which made for very smart folks all across the Jewish world. The good thing is that rabbis get married and have kids. Priests do not, and so you take a really smart guy, but then he doesn’t have children.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, that’s a problem.

NAFTALI BENNETT: By the way, in Israel today, Israel is the only Western country in the world with positive demographic growth.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, right, that’s a remarkable thing, too.

NAFTALI BENNETT: It is.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: I wonder why?

NAFTALI BENNETT: Why do you think?

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: I don’t know.

NAFTALI BENNETT: You don’t know. I don’t know.

Israel’s Demographic Growth

NAFTALI BENNETT: You know, I have all kinds of ideas. By the way, people think it’s only because of the ultra-orthodox, because they do have a lot of kids, but even if you carve them out, the secular are also net positives. You need 2.1 to retain a population. We’re at about 2.3 with the secular, and all in all, at three kids per family.

I don’t know exactly why.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, well, that’s a real mystery. I mean, it seems to indicate something. You know, it’s a wild hypothesis that there’s a certain degree of existential threat that might optimally facilitate the desire to have children, right?

NAFTALI BENNETT: I agree. I think that’s part of it.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: You can be more cavalier, I suppose, about life in general. Like, one of the things I noticed about being in Jerusalem, I’ve been there a couple of times, is the intensity of life.

It’s an unbelievably intense place.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Jerusalem is intense, yeah.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: In some ways, people are conducting themselves as if tomorrow is uncertain. Now, they’re wealthy, and they have opportunity, but tomorrow is still uncertain.

I wonder if, you know, Hemingway said at one point that every generation needed a war to sort out what was important, and sufficient existential threat might play that role of focusing.

Impact of October 7th on Israeli Society

NAFTALI BENNETT: You’re off to a very salient point. Because October 7th shook us. I grew up, I was born in 72, a year before Yom Kippur War, which was sort of the last time that we thought existentially that we were at a threat.

So, I cannot remember it. My childhood in Mount Carmel in Haifa was very similar, by the way, to the mountains over here. It was a very standard and regular Western childhood, and my whole generation grew up taking Israel for granted. We did not feel that there’s any existential threat.

October 7th shook that complacency. We now understand it again, what’s evolved from October 7th, by the way. This is a fascinating insight that not many people are aware of. On October 7th, basically, there’s two stories.

One is a massive institutional failure of the State of Israel on our most fundamental objective, which is to protect Jews from pogroms, from a long massacre, and Jews being helpless. You know, we’ve always had terror, but a terror attack usually wraps itself up within five seconds to five minutes. It’s done. This was different.

So, it was a huge failure of intelligence, of operations, and the government melted down for the months subsequent. So, that’s the bad news, but the amazing news is that we discovered that the younger generation of Israel, boys and girls, let’s say from 18 to 40, are incredibly strong, tough, courageous, willing to sacrifice their lives. Let me illustrate this. On that morning of Sabbath, October 7th, as the news percolated, thousands of Israelis, boys and girls, got in their cars, civilians, and drove down to the Gaza area to fight and defend people they’ve never met.

There are brothers and sisters that they’ve never met. Many of them lost their lives while doing it, and that is the supreme level of courage. I was in Manhattan on September 11th. That’s where my headquarters were.

I remember the buildings on fire, and there was a river of people running away to the north or walking very quickly to the north. Only the firefighters went south, which is okay. People move from harm’s way, but this younger generation on October 7th just went and fought, sometimes with their bare hands, sometimes with a pistol against machine guns, and these boys and girls are the toughest we’ve had. When I compare them to boys and girls of their age, let’s say 21 year olds, let’s say here in America, I do a lot of universities, and I see the nonsense that they’re being fed with or the way they’re being developed versus our kids.

It’s not that I would choose this. It’s a horrible thing to have to fight wars, but we are developing, I coined the term, a nation of lions, a courageous younger generation, tough, resilient, being embedded with values of work ethics, working as a team, dedicating yourself, spending 10 months fighting terrorists, and then I see what kids hear. They need the right pronoun. Otherwise, they’re triggered, and they need a safe space and microaggressions and all this nonsense, which builds very feeble people.

I have a newsflash. The world out there is a tough world, and you need strong kids, and the reason I’m so optimistic about the next 50 years of Israel, this is our finest generation. Remember, American GIs came back from Europe, and they carried America for its best 50 years, from 45 to, let’s say, 2000. These boys and girls, including my own son and daughter, my oldest son, Yoni, he’s now joined the army in a combat unit, but he was still a civilian this year.

You know what he did the entire year? He volunteered with children of evacuees and went to do farming because we didn’t have hands to do it. My daughter was volunteering in farming, but they’re typical. They’re not unique, and I’m so darn proud of them, and I know that that year of farming or fighting is developing them so much more than any university.

So by the time they’re going to enter the civilian world after army, we are manufacturing these super men and women who are going to carry Israel forward, innovation, self-reliance, responsibility. They’re going to be amazing.

The Importance of Responsibility and Family

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: You know, we don’t know how much that like kind of a heroic commitment to the future has to be inculcated or developed in young men and young women so that they’ll take up the responsibility, for example, any responsibility for that matter, but certainly the responsibility of having a family.

And so I guess part of the problem possibly with being wealthy and secure is that you could always, it always appears as though you can put things off.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yes.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. You can always wait another day, another week.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yeah, well, tick tock, man, life’s short.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yes. And you miss things a lot faster than you think. And so, you know, like I’ve calculated, for example, and I think this is about right, that the typical person is lucky with regard to, so we know, for example, that half of women in the West now will be childless at 30 and half of them will never have a child, right?

That’s the 90% of them appears will regret it. That’s one in four. So it’s one in two at 30 who don’t have a partner or a child. This is already, you know, I came back from the South Korea last week. They are at 0.8. And you’re going to have one kid who is going to have to support four grandparents.

Well, I was thinking about establishing a relationship, you know, you’re a fortunate person indeed if you get to try out five people in your lifetime, like, you know, people don’t understand how constrained the choice realm is, even for people who are highly successful, like, you could easily be, I imagine it’s probably one in five people, who don’t have five people to choose from, you know, in the course of sequence, as a mate, yeah, yeah, in terms of sequential relationships, like, well, you imagine it takes what, if the person’s a stranger, it takes a year to sort of assess them, something like that, really?

Well, I mean, well, that’s the question, like, how long does it take you to reasonably assess someone romantically and practically as a long-term partner, you know, it’s going to be something between six months and a year.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Because not that I’m, I’m not espousing this, but the ultra-Orthodox Jews, they don’t have any of this, they have set marriages, they have an opportunity to meet three, four times, but that’s about it, and then they get married and with very low divorce rates, you know, I cannot attest whether they’re happy, they’re unhappy, I’ve got no idea, but it’s very interesting, it gets you thinking.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, well, definitely, and it, well, it’s a complicated problem to solve, and so you’re lucky if you have five kicks at the can, and that’s, and, and, you know, that’s completely independent of the question of whether alternative forms of marital arrangement are more appropriate, lots of cultures have used them, and I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that those people are necessarily more unhappy or that the relationships are less stable, right?

I think people in those relationships probably assume that they’re going to have to do some work on an ongoing basis to make it work right from the beginning, but, but my point is more that it’s easy to overestimate the amount of time you have to do anything, like the window to have children is relatively short, the window to get married, it is very short, and the advantage of a certain degree of existential threat is it brings that home.

NAFTALI BENNETT: It does.

The Influx of Talent into Israel’s Public Sector

NAFTALI BENNETT: You know what, continuing that point, there’s now a very positive wave of young men and women, the most talented, that I get phone calls almost every day of amazing people that would have gone to the private sector, and now they say, you know, we need to save Israel, and we’re going to get this influx of the most talented people because this was not the case.

Israel, by and large, for the past several decades, very, you know, the best of the best went to high tech, and now we’re going to get some of them, or even successful entrepreneurs entering politics. I’m fairly rare, I think I’m the only, certainly the only prime minister who was the CEO of a company, but founder in politics, I’m one of the very few that came from high tech and founded a company, ran two companies, knows business, and we’re going to get this best and brightest into Israel’s public sector, and that’s why I’m incredibly optimistic, except barring the one issue which I talked about, which is the domestic wars, you know, I believe.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: The polarization.

NAFTALI BENNETT: The polarization.

The Danger of Internal Division

NAFTALI BENNETT: I think Lincoln said a house divided cannot stand, and that is true with the Jews, especially true with the Jews. Do you know, Jordan, the current state of Israel is the third instance we have a sovereign Jewish state in the land of Israel. We had it twice before, what’s called First Temple, that was King David and Solomon, then several hundred years later, the Second Temple, for several hundred years, but what people don’t realize is that in our first commonwealth and second one, we were united and sovereign only for about 80 years. David’s grandchild, Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, he screwed up and the kingdom of Israel divided into Judea, two tribes, and Israel, ten tribes, and they never got together again, and subsequently the Assyrians conquered Israel, those ten tribes, and we lost them.

We lost 80% of the Jewish people, and all Jews today are descendants of Judea, that’s why we’re called Jews. So it was because of an internal divide that we lost our sovereignty. Fast forward to our second commonwealth, also it went on as a sovereign state only 75 years. The Hashemites, Judah the Maccabee, etc., their great-grandchildren, there were two brothers who fought each other in the year 76 of the kingdom, I think we’re talking about 80 BC, and it was Jews who invited the Romans into Judea back then.

We were so stupid because we couldn’t get along, and now Israel’s in its eighth decade, and this time we have to get it right, because the most important thing is the eternity of the state of Israel. But my point is what killed us twice before was domestic divide, internal division, not external enemies.

The Security Failure of October 7th

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So I want to return to the issue of, there’s two issues you brought up that I’d like to discuss if that’s okay. Everyone outside of Israel, and obviously many people within Israel, are wondering how did the events of October 7th come about?

Now, we already outlined the structure of Israel’s external enemies. You have Iran, you have them in coups with Hamas, there’s all sorts of bad players there, so they’re just looking for an opportunity. You said the internal division that was obvious in Israel. A massive distraction.

NAFTALI BENNETT: You know, if our enemies could choose one wish, it would be year 2023, the internal divide. If you were a genie and you came to Khamenei and said, what do you pray for? He would say that if there’s internal division, those eight or nine, ten months, ten terrible months of division where we’re killing each other. So that’s his best wish.

And as I said, had they not attacked, I don’t know what would have been left of our country because we were killing ourselves. And it seemed almost insolvable, unsolvable. So I would call it weapon of mass distraction is what happened. We don’t need, you know, there’s tons of Iranian bots that are fomenting and Russian bots, but we’re doing a good enough job killing ourselves, even without the Iranians and the Russians.

And we Israelis have to tackle this and solve it. The only way, in my opinion, is unity governments, left and right, bipartisan for the next decade.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: To bring the warring sides together.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yeah, because you’re in the tent.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. Well, you are anyways. Right. You’re stuck with each other anyway, regardless of how divided you are.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Well, the same thing is the case in the United States with the 50 50 divide between the Democrats. What you’ve seen over the past 30, 40 years, you know, that those famous polls that would you have your child marry someone who’s Democratic if you’re a Republican and the huge divide which happened in America and that sort of thing might happen in Israel if we that that’s where it gets terrible because it’s fine to have different policies. But I won’t marry someone who, you know, whose parents hold a different political opinion.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Because it’s not about opinions. It’s about tribalism in the negative sense.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah. So one of the things that’s very mysterious to outsiders, and as I said, likely Israelis themselves, is like, how do you account in a non finger pointing way, let’s say.

For this apparent massive security failure, like when I look at that, I think. I’m trying to put myself in the position of the security people, and I know, you know, a tiny bit about security, having to be concerned about it from time to time. It’s a lot harder to keep things secure than it looks.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yes.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: There’s lots of points of attack and entry. And unless your state is totalitarian to the extreme and you’re watching everyone for every second, God only knows what your enemies are going to get up to.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Well, I think that there’s a couple of things. So we talked about one, the fact that we weakened ourselves and distracted ourselves.

I mean, quite literally, we were focusing not on our enemies, but on ourselves. And by the way, so fragmented attention and think of when you have very talented and smart people using their energy to kill each other, they’ll do a good job at it because Israelis tend to be very talented and smart. So if you direct it inward, you’ll kill yourself. That’s that’s definitely, you know, I think this would not have happened if we didn’t have that horrible year of 2023.

I also would say that this is sort of a rule in history of mental rigidity, of leadership, sort of what happens in terms of intelligence. Think Stalin Barbarossa, Stalin Barbarossa, he had the German army amass hundreds of thousands, I believe even millions of soldiers on the border with the Soviet Union. You had all the information there, but there was a concept and a worldview that he was convinced that there’s going to be peace with Hitler and he didn’t let the facts confuse him. To some extent that happened here.

The Security Failure and Mental Rigidity

NAFTALI BENNETT: We looked down at Hamas, Hamas was sort of the weak little brother that the government had erected, you know, this big wall and fence with all these gadgets and technology. And it was a sense that it cannot be penetrated. And then when the facts began coming, I think there was a not good environment in the intelligence system that did not foster dissent. The best things happen when anyone can speak up.

And at the end, a military organization is not democratic. And somehow we know now that some people had thought that there would be attack, but they were silenced. It’s a terrible thing. I try to do in any organization I run, whether it’s a high tech company or a platoon or Ministry of Education or prime minister, I have a habit of trying to bypass the whole hierarchies and talk to the end people almost on a random basis.

I give out my cell phone number so I can hear what’s going on. But its hierarchies are very dangerous in that sense.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Mm hmm. So you don’t think there is a good stultification within?

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yes. Because, you know, you have a distraction, some presumption, some stultification of.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: OK, OK. So now let’s turn to this issue of the defeat of Hamas.

You talked about your optimism with regards to the restructuring, the potential restructuring of the attitude of of people in Gaza. If the Hamas enterprise was. Taken out.

NAFTALI BENNETT: I want to qualify that. I’m not sure.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah. OK. Fine.

NAFTALI BENNETT: I can talk about abilities. I can’t talk about motivations. I don’t presume that we have the abilities to drastically influence motivation. What we can do is set up a civil entity there governed by a combination of Egypt, local competent folks from Gaza, Saudis, Emirates, and stop immediately, stop the incitement in the mosques, in the media and in the schools. If we do that, it might succeed. It might not.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. Right. I don’t know.

And that incitement. I know you don’t have an exact number, but what’s your sense of the degree to which that incitement is continually fomented by Iranian actors, for example, funded at least.

NAFTALI BENNETT: And well, in Gaza, it’s a mix between the Iranian Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood is a fairly effective movement. You know, Turkey governs Turkey and Erdogan, who’s a real bad guy. And and in Egypt, there is a lot of grassroots support for a Muslim Brotherhood.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Tell us about the Muslim Brotherhood. We talked about Iran a little bit. Inform us a little bit about the Muslim Brotherhood and what it constitutes, its origins and so forth.

NAFTALI BENNETT: So I believe it started fairly early in the previous century. And the idea is to radicalize the people and ultimately to govern by Sharia law, by religion precisely. And so it’s an independent variant of the same exact thing.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Exactly. Those that possesses the Islamic Republic.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Right. So Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni and Sunni, whereas Iran is Shia.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. And so it’s a different strand of Islam.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Muslim Brotherhood does a lot of social activities in order to garner popular support. And it’s a fairly simple ideology in that sense. And they have, you know, branches everywhere.

Israel’s Military Campaign and Vision of Victory

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: OK, so let’s let’s talk about the the military and sociological aims of Israel post October 7th. So, first of all, I guess I would here’s here’s a bunch of questions. How effective has Israel’s military campaign been?

What do you say to people in this constant agitation with regards to the genocide that Israel is conducting in in Gaza? And so what’s your view of the manner in which this defensive war has been conducted? And then I would I’m very curious, like, what’s a vision of victory? Like, I’m always curious when a war breaks out.

And this is because of the way it started. In some ways, it’s just it’s it’s it’s its own unique entity. But like, I’m all I’m very confused about what what victory would look like and what what’s the victory? What is victory defined by Israel now in relationship to this?

So you could win the war and lose the public opinion about, for example, which wouldn’t be good.

NAFTALI BENNETT: So I’ll answer question one, three and two.

OK. So how’s it going? Well, the military itself has been very successful, very effective. The soldiers, the reservists, especially Israel, is based on a massive reserve service.

So you continue doing reserve till about forty five, age of forty five. However, in my opinion, the government lacks a coherent strategy and did not outline what a victory is. That precise question, we’ve never been told what does it actually mean? And, you know, I would have gone about this whole war in a very different way.

I thought that we should apply a siege on northern Gaza, allow all the civilians to get out. But we would screen and basically smoke out the terrorists from the tunnels without having to have so much friction and cost for everyone. That was not adopted. That plan, a siege plan, they decided to go in kinetically, which is a legit decision.

It has its advantages, but also that is not being prosecuted the way it should. If you’re going to fight, fight. Right now, there’s no war in Gaza. There’s not a war.

There’s no fighting going on where we’re at three percent intensity. And the notion that Israel should have long, low intensity wars of attrition, I don’t buy that. I think that’s the wrong strategy. Israel should have short, high intensity wars if we have to do a war.

That’s what we always did. The 56-year war was just a few days. The six-day war was indeed six days. Yom Kippur war was two and a half weeks. And suddenly we’re in this protracted, dragged on thing. Why is it bad for us? Many reasons. First and foremost, global opinion needs a short time span for us.

Even if it’s very high intensity, lots of buildings fell or whatever, but you move on. There’s something new on the agenda. Taylor Swift comes out with a new song and everyone changes topic. But the fact that we’re dripping this and we’re always going to be inferior in world opinion. So the less they talk about us, the better off we are. That’s one mistake.

Second one, it also puts tremendous pressure on our economy, on our reservists. And that’s exactly what Iran wants us to do. Iran wants to exhaust us in a slow, dripping war. That’s why I think I would surge and defeat. And if we’re not going to do that, I would cut a deal, a big deal, and bring the hostages home. I would invite them to come home and fight another day.

What does victory look like? Again, I can say what I would have set the parameters. It’s Hamas raising a white flag and getting on ships and being transferred, 5,000 or 10,000 Hamasniks being transferred out of Gaza to some Arab state. But we let them live.

That would be the deal. The leverage would be, if you don’t do that, we’re going to kill you. But we’re not doing that. So we don’t have the leverage.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And are those key players already identified? Those 5,000?

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

We, you know, ultimately we’re probably going to be able to kill Yigit Senwar and get the hostages home. We have a hundred hostages that Hamas is still holding, a hundred Israelis that were kidnapped from their beds at 6.30 or 7 in the morning, just citizens of Israel. And the most fundamental ethos in Israel is you don’t forget anyone. You don’t leave anyone behind. And this is unacceptable.

Global Protests and Anti-Israel Sentiment

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: In the U.S., there’s been widespread protests, especially on university campuses, but also spilling through the cities. And you see that in London, for example. You see it in France.

It’s a worldwide campaign. And so, first of all, what’s your sense of how those campaigns were organized and who’s lurking behind the scenes there? And then I guess the next thing I’d like to know is what, you have an opportunity, many opportunities, but this is one of them at least, to say something to people who believe that they’re on the side of the good when they’re protesting Israel’s actions in the Middle East after October 7th.

So let’s start with those protests emerged very rapidly, and they’re very, very, very, very well organized. I mean, I’ve seen the plans, for example, for the protesters and their community at UCLA. I mean, it’s a multi-pronged strategy. Unbelievable. Yeah.

So it’s at hand, right?

NAFTALI BENNETT: I mean, I believe they’ve pulled in the Antifa types and the professional protesters and they more or less know what they’re doing. But what works clearly, clearly, it’s working. I see here a merge of two different strands that almost are opposite of each other.

But in a peculiar way, they they they merge. The first one is radical Islam. We’re not going to change any of their minds. And I, I believe that there’s significant money, you know, Qatari money, Iranian money being funneled towards this.

Qatar, by the way, is in my eyes, a terrible regime whose hands are soaked in blood. And they have a facade of World Cup and this and the Olympics and stuff like that. But they they they play a two sided game. They foment, support, fund terror as we speak.

And they pretend to be Western, you know, progressive folks. And like Iran, everyone at least knows that Iran is a terrible regime. So that’s one strand. The other strand is radical, progressive, woke idiots, for the lack of a better term, naive people who view the world in a neo-Marxist frame where there’s always a victim and a victimizer.

And Israel, you know, look, I’ve got white skin here, so I’m the bad guy by definition. Forget the fact that the land of Israel has been my homeland for 3,800 years. Forget the fact that much of those 3,800 years, we had a state in Israel. And when we weren’t in that state, we were praying three times a day.

I pray every morning. We will return to Jerusalem now. We are in Jerusalem. And it’s incredibly difficult to pull someone out of that frame, because basically if you’re the aggressor and he’s the victim, he’s allowed to do anything.

He’s allowed to murder people, torture people, because he’s the victim. And factually, that just is not true. The Arabs have huge areas of land, I think hundreds of times the size of Israel. I’d let your viewers know, they probably don’t know, Israel in its entirety is the size of New Jersey.

That’s how big we are. It’s a tiny, tiny country. And before the Jews came back home, beginning in the late 1800s, it was a desolate, barren, miserable land infested with mosquitoes and malaria. And there was always Jewish presence, but it wasn’t under Jewish governance.

And as Jews came around the world and began to flourish this desolate land, Arabs began coming from Iraq, from Egypt. In their names, Palestinian names, many of them are called al-Masri, which means Egypt. Masr is Egypt. Al-Baghdadi, al-this, al-that.

They say that, which is fine, that’s okay, but you know, go get a life, stop being victims, go build your future. And it seems to me that their core ideology is to prevent us from having a state and not, rather than them, having their own future.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, well, the victim-victimizer narrative is a very pervasive. Because tell me, why are so many people against Israel and what can we do about it?

NAFTALI BENNETT: You’re the psychiatrist here.

The Politics of Envy and Anti-Semitism

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, I think part of it is the politics of envy. You know, the Jews are the perennially successful minority. Even in the story of Exodus, the reason that the Pharaoh rises up against the Jews is because they’re disproportionately successful in Egypt.

Even though the Egyptians were beholden to them not long before that. They’re disproportionately successful. Okay, so-

NAFTALI BENNETT: Joseph helped Egypt thrive.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, right, absolutely.

So part of that narrative is that the influx of Jews was actually of great utility to the Egyptian population. But then the Jews became disproportionately successful. And that always happens. It always happens.

And so then the issue is, well, what do you do with the disproportionately successful? And the response to that is twofold. You can be happy for the fact of their productivity and their success because they share their knowledge and their abilities with everyone around them. And the rising tide lifts all boats.

Or you can decide that anybody who has more took it and is a thief and a crook. And there’s always corruption in every enterprise. So there’s always things you can point to. So what I see is that the Jews are also the perennial canary in the coal mine.

When societies take a turn against those who are successful and start to define them as criminals, the Jews are the first people to be targeted. And all that indicates-

NAFTALI BENNETT: And that’s more in the socialist type societies or communist societies. But, you know, anti-Semitism also thrived when Jews were miserable and unsuccessful. So we weren’t always- not in every pocket were we successful.

The Persistence of Anti-Semitism

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And yet, like, it’s everywhere. And well, there’s also, you know, the mere fact that ethnic differences can easily be inflamed and that people are radically, you know, we’re relatively insular by our psychology. You know, it’s me. And then it’s me and my family.

And then it’s me and my family and my community. Right. It’s harder for us to extend that ethos of concern as people get more distal. And there’s-

NAFTALI BENNETT: Which makes sense, by the way.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, of course it does, because something has to mediate in-group identity or we wouldn’t be social. Right. Obviously, I care more about my child than a stranger. Right. I mean-

NAFTALI BENNETT: Right.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. And you might say, well, you shouldn’t because there’s no logical reason, right? Rejoinder to that is, well, I don’t have infinite resources.

I can’t care for every child in the world with the same intensity as I would for my own child because there’s too many of them and too little of me. So I’m going to be local. What do you think we can do? Because, you know, sometimes I’m flabbergasted.

I’m always interviewing the CNN, BBC and all that. And I feel sometimes I’m barely moving the needle. And, you know, the reality is so different than what we’re portrayed. And what do you think we can do about it?

Addressing the Victim-Victimizer Narrative

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, I think going after the victim victimizer narrative is a good long-term strategy because it’s extremely pathological. And so to the degree that we’ve been messaging around this, that’s in various enterprises that I’m involved in. That’s what being one of our primary targets of concern. There’s something wrong with the politics of envy.

If you divide the world up into oppressor and oppressed, and now you’re good merely because you are on the side of the oppressed or are an ally, that’s just too simple a moral equation. And there’s every bit of reason for skepticism in relationship to that. But it’s also very bad for you to regard yourself as a victim because you lose agency and you lose hope and you’re subject to someone else’s will.

NAFTALI BENNETT: It’s funny, you know, my dad may rest in peace, Jim Bennett, he was raised not far from here in San Francisco.

And I guess the biggest thing I took from him was he never whined. He never complained. And it was self-reliance. That’s that he always faced whatever situation and took responsibility.

He didn’t talk about it. He just did it. But one of the things you see so deeply ingrained in me and that’s why when I see, you know, whiners, and not to say that there isn’t discrimination, there’s discrimination and people don’t have the same starting point, but it’s such a, how will it be able to sustain itself, this ultra-progressive movement, if they manufacture people who are designed to not take responsibility?

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So it ought to collapse, ultimately.

And historically, movements like that do collapse. Envious, resentful movements collapse, they don’t work. So, well, one of the things that you see in the Old Testament accounts is that the Jewish people are characterized in their covenant with God, they’re characterized by, when they’re good, they’re characterized by a refusal to construe themselves as victims. So the main upwards thrusting theme in the Old Testament accounts is the fact that the Jews always presume that if there’s punishment wreaked upon them, that that’s a consequence in some manner of their own insufficiency and not the…

NAFTALI BENNETT: Though in the desert during those 40 years, man, they were complaining and whining.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, right. But that might be the reason that they had to spend 40 years and die out.

NAFTALI BENNETT: It is, why?

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So the next generation…

NAFTALI BENNETT: It’s exactly why.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: They’re also not presented as morally laudable for presenting themselves as victims. Right.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Right, because Moses is on the side of God, and God and Moses share the opinion that the Israelites who are whining away as they make themselves away so painfully through the desert, lost as they are. By the way, you know, if you’ve ever been to Sinai, if you walk quickly, it could take seven days.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, right. Well, so the upshot of the story is that if you’re confused and resentful enough and you have the habits of slaves, it can take you forever to get nowhere.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Right.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, and that’s exactly right. You just have to die out.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yeah, well, it’s three generations, right?

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Something like that. Right, yeah. Right, and that is the consequence of their slavish habits, right? They’re used to being told what to do. They can’t settle their own affairs. They can’t regulate their own behavior. Right. They’re very impulsive and hedonistic.

As soon as Moses disappears for 15 minutes, they’re off dancing naked, drinking too much, and worshipping the golden cow. They have the habits of slaves, right? And the rectification of that, and this pertains to what you said earlier about building resilient young people, is that you don’t want to raise young people with the habits of hedonistic slaves.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Right. By the way, the 12 spies, so essentially 10 of the spies came back whining.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, that’s right. And 10 of the spies came back saying, all right, you know, it’s going to be tough. They didn’t, you know, they saw the giants and all that.

They said it’s going to be tough, but it’s a beautiful, wonderful land, and let’s go do it. Well, it’s not surprising that that part of the story popped into your mind, because it’s very germane to this discussion, is that so Moses and his people are on the threshold of the promised land. Right. So they’ve succeeded in crossing the desert and escaping from tyranny.

So they send out scouts of the future, essentially.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yeah, right.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And some of the scouts come back and say, well, the future is already occupied by people we can’t possibly defeat. You are nothing but a power-mongering tyrant who led us through the desert.

We were better off with the Egyptians. It’s like, what’s going on here? If I remember the story correctly, the earth opens up to swallow the faithless scouts.

NAFTALI BENNETT: No, no, no, no. That’s a different story. No, the earth opens up on a different guy called Korah.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Oh, that’s right. Okay, okay, that’s right.

NAFTALI BENNETT: So anyways, the end of the story is exactly what you said, which is the leadership is transferred to the… By the way, they were leaders of their tribes. They weren’t just scouts. I mean, the sages tell us that they weren’t just scouts.

They were actually the leaders of the 12 tribes, and they had to be replaced. But one of the most fascinating periods is the initial entrance into Israel back then by Joshua, and then the subsequent hundreds of years where suddenly a slave nation is governing itself, not as a kingdom, not as the United Kingdom, but as a tribe.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: With distributed responsibility.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Very distributed, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, in the ethical… Too much, by the way. Not too much distribution, but too much selfishness of tribes. Too many times they didn’t help each other when they ought to have. And then comes, you know, Saul and King David and Unite Saul.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, right, right. Well, the moral upshot of the story is that in the face of the challenges of the future, you’re required to be realistically optimistic, right? It’s a moral requirement.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yes.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And that, yeah, yeah.

NAFTALI BENNETT: I love that term, realistically optimistic.

That’s my way in life, realistically optimistic.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: The faith element of that is that, well, yes, of course, this is going to be difficult and challenging, and there are ways it could go wrong, but if we maintain our covenant with God and we continue to aim upward and act appropriately, there’s no challenges that we can’t overcome.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Right. And that’s the right thing to teach young people.

Realistic, optimistic, and one other element, action-oriented. The Bible is all about action. It’s, and generally Judaism, this is the Jewish faith, cares little about your feelings. So, you know, here and there, there are blips, but by and large, you are measured by what you do, not by how you feel.

And if you do something wrong, you can’t repent just by feeling bad. Or if you see a poor person, oh, you feel for him. But if you don’t act, it doesn’t count. It’s called a mitzvah, a good deed, and a chet, which is a bad deed.

That’s what I love about, and what I take from Judaism primarily is the action-oriented element of it. It’s all about doing and not just pontificating. Indication of commitment to faith is manifested in action. By the way, what the Jews responded when Moses came down with the Ten Commandments when they didn’t screw up, right, they said in Hebrew, it’s called naaseh v’nishmah, we shall do and we shall listen, which is a strange thing.

He tells the rules and they said, we’ll do it and we’ll listen. Not we’ll listen and we’ll do. And there’s a meaning to it, and you as an expert in psychology, I think the best way to inculcate a habit is by doing it. Just by doing it again and again, it becomes part of you as opposed to teaching it.

And that’s why, you know, my dad didn’t preach us a lot. He just did. And that’s how we learned from them through doing. And so, you know, I have a very strong inclination to action, very little patience with people who just, you know, talk about it.

Addressing Progressive Critics of Israel

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So let’s close. I had asked you if there’s anything in particular you’d like to say to the, let’s say, progressive types who are agitating on behalf of Hamas in the United States and the rest of the West. Like, if you were going to say something reasonable to them, you know what I mean? Something that isn’t necessarily finger-wagging or dismissive.

To make a case, like, how would you explain why what they’re doing is misguided?

NAFTALI BENNETT: Well, I would start with talking about the state of Israel and its beauty in the following sense. Sometimes I feel that Israel is this experiment of God or someone that puts us smack in the middle of all the worst conditions possible in every dimension, you know, no water. So he wants to see how we’ll deal with it.

And we generate water. We have the highest rate in the world of desalinated water.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, an impressive accomplishment.

NAFTALI BENNETT: All right.

And then we’ve got no oil. So we have to, you know, mine our mines, right, and build a knowledge base. Then he puts the craziest enemies around us, and we’ve got to fight and innovate there. But then he plants them amid, in this asymmetric terror where they embed themselves within civilians, and he tells the Jews, you go pave the way and show everyone how to fight terrorists in the most moral way possible.

That’s what we’re doing. I don’t know who did that pager thing, but whoever did that pager thing is the single most pinpointed way, because by definition, only bad guys got the pagers. Only commanders in Hezbollah got the commanders, and you kill them and maim them. So in a sense, we’re showing, we’re sort of trailblazers of how you operate with good morals in the real world, not in some theoretical, Ivy League university world, but in the real world.

You know, we’ve got rockets, so we innovate the Iron Dome. The next thing is going to be laser. And I think that our destiny of the State of Israel, first, is to be strong and be, but secondly, we are not only a startup nation, but in a sense, a nation that paves the way of solutions to the world’s biggest problem. Let me give you one of them.

There’s a small problem. You have that iPhone over there, and we’re all addicted to that thing, and social networks, and what’s happening to the younger generation. I want to tell you about this startup that’s dealing with, how do we cut that addiction? So it’s called Sabes.

It was innovated 3,300 years ago. It’s this notion that once a week, Friday afternoon, you turn off all those machines. You don’t use them for 25 hours from about 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday night, and you do this peculiar thing where you sit with your children at a table. You do kiddush, which is the blessing, and you talk about things. You look at your children. You spend two hours at a long dinner without iPhones because you’re not allowed to, and that’s an example for how we can use the tenets of Judaism to help tackle some of the world’s biggest problems, and so if I have to wrap it up, what is Israel?

Israel is the Jewish state, a democratic state. It’s 10 million really good people in very tough circumstances who are trying to do their best to flourish and do good, and sitting in Berkeley or in Harvard and second-guessing us when we’re fighting these crazy people. We saw what they want to do. On October 7th, we had a preview of what would happen in all of Israel.

It would be a second Shoah, a second Holocaust if we lay down our arms, if we’re soft. We don’t have any margin of error. As a prime minister, that was the one thing that I realized that I need to govern a country. Fine, but the first and foremost thing is that we are under existential threat all the time.

We have no second chances. So give us that slack. We’re not a perfect nation. We’re imperfect. We’ve got our flaws, but we’re trying darn good to be strong and to be good, and that’s commendable, and stop this anti-Semitism and this hate against this wonderful country.

Conclusion

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: All right, sir. Well, it was good talking to you. Thank you very much for sitting down with me today. Much appreciated. Well, and good luck sorting out your internal divisions.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Oh, yeah.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yes, your internal enemies. That’s the next big challenge.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Yeah. I don’t know yet how we’re going to tackle it, but we’re going to have to find a solution.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, well, you can at least start by reminding everybody what they have in common, so and how important that is.

NAFTALI BENNETT: That’s a good point. Yeah, yeah.

DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, we’ve been starting to do that sort of thing in the U.S. and in Canada, and trying to identify the core set of values and beliefs that unite everyone, and there are plenty of them, you know, and that’s what defines a nation. So, all right. So, for everybody watching and listening, I’m going to continue this discussion, as I always do on the Daily Wire side, and I think I’ll walk Mr. Bennett through his autobiographical history and talk more about, well, his experiences running his companies and his transition into the political realm.

And then also, I’d like to expand on that personal narrative to discuss a little bit about the conditions that have made for Israel’s remarkable economic and military success, particularly over the last couple of decades. So, if you want to join us for that on the Daily Wire side, that’s where the discussion is heading. Thank you very much, sir. And thank the film crew here in L.A. today for making the second podcast of the day possible. That’s much appreciated.

Related Posts

• Transcript: World’s First AI Actress Interview on Piers Morgan Show: ft. Tom Conti, Tom Bilyeu & Prof Jiang
• In Vivo Podcast: w/ Cathy Tie and Prof. Jiang on Editing Embryos (Transcript)
• Transcript of Evy Poumpouras Interview: Read People, Spot Lies & More – FO563 Raj Shamani
• DOAC AI Emergency Debate: ft. Ed Zitron, Andrew McAfee, Nate Soares & Roman Yampolskiy (Transcript)
• Transcript of Norman Finkelstein Interview: Tucker Carlson Show