Imagine a Middle East with a HAMAS-led Palestinian government, a Hezbollah-led Lebanese government, and a pro-Iranian government in Iraq. Do you believe that Israel has the capability to endure such a situation? Do you believe Israel is preparing for a Middle East of this nature? If so, how?

The only way Israel can survive is by maintaining qualitative military superiority over all of the combined Arab armies and Iran. There is not an Arab or a Muslim army in the Middle East which would not be compelled to destroy Israel if it had military superiority, and I include amongst those Jordan and Egypt. For example, Jordan has a very substantial Palestinian majority, and today it is among the most radical, anti-American, and anti-Israel countries in the Middle East. That radicalism just happens to be suppressed by a monarchy supported by American and other military assistance. But if you ask the people of Jordan today—would they like to see Israel destroyed?—the overwhelming response would be yes. Egypt perhaps to a lesser degree, but we are seeing increasing Islamization and radicalism in Egypt as well—again, suppressed not by democracy but by authoritarianism. So Israel can only survive by its superior military capacity, which is why the threat of an Iranian nuclear delivery system is essentially the only existing threat that Israel faces today. It faces threats from HAMAS, from Hezbollah, and it would face threats from an Iraq under the influence of Iran, but without a nuclear threat, Israel has the capability to handle these conventional threats to its existence. The Middle East has become increasingly dangerous, which is one reason among others why Israel should try to make separate peaces, if it can, with Syria and other countries in the region. It will never be able to make peace with radical Islam, Iran, Hezbollah, or HAMAS, so it has to try to make as many peaces as it can with less extremist governments.

What do you see as the future of HAMAS? Can it accept a peaceful and productive role in the Palestinian government and the peace process with Israel, or will it be forever relegated to terrorist or agitator status?

I think there are three options. One is that HAMAS will show its true self, which is a terrorist, rejectionist group that will never rest until Israel is destroyed. The second is that there could be a complete conversion in which HAMAS would become much like the Palestinian Authority, recognizing Israel and accepting all of the previous peace agreements. I believe, however, that the most likely is the third option—that HAMAS, as a result of being elected, will say one thing and do another. That is, it will continue to speak belligerently, it will never recognize Israel, it will not accept previous peace agreements or agreements leading toward peace, and it will continue to allow a hudna (a temporary truce) to exist for a rather lengthy period of time. Thus it will permit a kind of détente to exist, much like the kind that exists now. Currently HAMAS is not a major source of terrorism against Israel—Islamic Jihad is. HAMAS is in a truce with Israel, which I believe resulted from HAMAS' decision to surrender when Israel succeeded in killing several of its leaders and threatening the remaining leaders. It was only because Israel operated from a position of strength that it was able to attain the cease-fire with HAMAS. The question faced by Israel and the United States now is what to do with a HAMAS that talks belligerently out of one side of its mouth, but acts in a somewhat more moderate way.

Is there a role for the United States, Europe, or other Middle East countries in brokering a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians?

There certainly are roles to be played by the United States, European countries, and other Middle East countries, but they have to ensure that Israel does not endanger its survival by minimizing its ability to defend itself. This is why the Saudi peace process, which is praised by former President Carter, is a total non-starter and a phony. It leaves open the option of return of refugees, which would make Israel vulnerable to quickly becoming another sort of Islamic, HAMAS-run state. Although I think Saudi Arabia has a role to play—which it has not played honestly at the moment—I think Syria has a bigger role to play. If Israel can make a separate peace with Syria, the United States should encourage it. Although Syria will never completely make peace with Israel, it may perhaps end its official state of belligerency, which would be a promising step forward. The United States can clearly play a very important role in the peace process, but it has to insist on maintaining its current position that it will not negotiate with or reward a terrorist government run by HAMAS.

In the long run, will the Western reaction to the election of HAMAS—the suspension of funds, and its hard-line stance toward negotiation with terrorists—prove ultimately beneficial or harmful to the peace process?

It would prove very beneficial if the West were to stick to this reaction, but unfortunately I do not think it will. I think what is going to happen is that as a result of the phony rapprochement between HAMAS and the Palestinian Authority, France, Germany, and Russia will peel off. The United Nations will also peel off, leaving the United States, Israel, and perhaps Britain as the only countries taking a hard-line stance against HAMAS. HAMAS is very clever, and it believes in the idea of “divide and conquer.” This most recent phony effort to create a mixed government without recognizing Israel is an attempt to isolate the United States and Israel, and it may succeed.

What role has the United Nations played, if any, and is there anything else that it can do?

The United Nations has played very different roles over the years. Obviously, in the beginning of the establishment of the state of Israel, it played a very positive role by ending the mandate and making it possible for the state of Israel to declare itself a nation. Between 1967 and the present, however, the United Nations has played a very, very destructive role in the peace process. Particularly in the 1980s, 1990s, and the first half of the first decade of this century, it has been totally one-sided against Israel in every respect. It has not only negatively affected Israel, it has negatively affected human rights all over the world by focusing so much on Israel that it neglected the genocides in Africa and in other places in the world. However, the new Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon seems to be more pragmatic and more even-handed in his approach to the Middle East. The recent effort to change, or at least to reinterpret, the Charter to permit pre-emptive self-defense is a step forward. Right now, however, the heavy burden of proof is on the United Nations to prove that it is not just a lobbying group for Palestinian interests against Israeli interests.