Click here to oppose his nomination to the US Institute of Peace
Daniel Pipes is fundamentally opposed to peace and reconciliation in the Middle East, except as a consequence of total Israeli military victory and the total defeat and subjugation of the Palestinian people, which is a recipe for endless conflict. Following is a selection of some of his comments:
I. Pipes opposes President Bush‘s vision of two states living side by side in peace:
Instead, the President outlined his vision for a “provisional” Palestinian state and demanded an end to what he called “Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories.” Both of these constitute very major benefits to the Palestinians; as such, they represent rewards for suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and the other forms of terrorism. (National Post, June 25, 2002)
These plans, of which the best known is the Bush administration’s “road map,” run the gamut from tough-seeming to appeasing. But they have two qualities in common. All of them give up on the Oslo-era assumption of Palestinian-Israeli comity as the basis for negotiation. But at the same time, all of them proceed from a fundamentally flawed understanding of the conflict and therefore, if actually implemented, would be likely to increase tensions ? it is a mistake to discuss “final-status” issues, i.e., how things will look when the conflict is over. (Commentary, February 2003)
II. Pipes opposes U.S. efforts to revive peace talks:
The Bush administration should take two steps to speed this process: Let Israel respond as it sees best, and stop bestowing undeserved gifts on the Palestinians (the latest: promises of a state in 2003). (New York Post, January 7, 2003)
For the U.S. government, this means halting counterproductive efforts at brokering a cease-fire… (New York Post April 2, 2002)
The new administration has already implemented two excellent policy changes concerning the Middle East: a focus on containing Iraq and a retreat from Arab-Israeli negotiations. (Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2001)
The premise behind these statements is that diplomacy plus compromises can end the Arab-Israeli conflict. (New York Post, May 6, 2002)
The short-term goal is not to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, but to enhance Israeli deterrence capabilities. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000)
III. Pipes is a bitter opponent of the Oslo peace process:
Third, and most profoundly, the [Mitchell] report emphasizes getting the two parties back to the negotiating table, as though this were an end in itself. It seems oblivious to the important fact that negotiations over the past eight years did not bring the parties closer to a settlement but, to the contrary, exacerbated differences and had a role in the outbreak of violence. (Washington Times, May 30, 2001)
Thus have Israeli policies since 1993 brought the region closer to all-out war than at any time since the mid-1960s. (Jerusalem Post, January 31, 2001)
IV. Pipes advocates Israeli military “victory” over the Palestinian people:
Palestinians need almost as much to be defeated by Israel as Israel needs to defeat them. (Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2001)
Talk-talk is always better than war-war, but in some cases an aggressor cannot be dissuaded by talk alone, and so war is a necessity. Sadly, that is the case with the Palestinians today. (Washington Times, May 30, 2001)
First and foremost, it means that Israel’s enemies must be convinced that they have lost. Actually, not all its enemies, just the Palestinians. (Commentary, February 2003)
The implication is clear: if Israel is to protect itself, it must achieve a comprehensive military victory over the Palestinians? (New York Post April 2, 2002);
History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present policies it will get closer to victory. (“The Only Solution Is Military,” New York Post, February 25, 2002)
Encourage Israel to appear fearsome. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000)
Thus all who hope for a resolution of the Palestinian problem should urge the Sharon government to squeeze the PA just as hard as it can. (Jerusalem Post, March 14, 2001)
V. Pipes has repeatedly predicted that an Israeli military solution is at hand:
History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present policies it will get closer to victory. (“The Only Solution Is Military,” New York Post, February 25, 2002)
I predict that this round of the Palestinian war on Israel, now 19 months long, will collapse fairly soon – probably well before the end of this year. (Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2002)
The current campaign of Palestinian violence will end before long, probably by the end of 2002. (Slate, May 21, 2002)
Appearances to the contrary, Israel is defeating the Palestinians. (“Israel is Winning,” New York Post, August 6, 2002)
VI. Pipes is opposed to ending the Israeli occupation:
Israelis may well tire of keeping ultimate control over the West Bank and Gaza, but the just-deceased Oslo experiment in Palestinian autonomy (1994-2002) demonstrates that they have no choice. (Wall Street Journal, at April 15, 2002)
No more Israeli territorial concessions. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000)
On the minus side, Sharon has indicated a troubling intention to reach a “long-term peace agreement” with the PA, something that is plainly unrealistic. (Jerusalem Post, March 28, 2001)
“…the land-for-peace premise was false?” (New York Post, June 4, 2002)
VII. Pipes is opposed to Israel‘s withdrawal from Lebanon in accordance with Security Council Resolution 425:
The paralyzing divisions of the ’90s have nearly disappeared, as have the self-hating “post-Zionism” themes (which ridiculed Israeli patriotism) and the defeatism (which prompted a unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon). (New York Post, December 17, 2001)
? when Israel did the world’s bidding and retreated from Lebanon, it disastrously reduced its own security. (Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2002)