A Hero Speaks: Natan Sharansky on the US and Israel At This Hour

>> Peter Robinson: Wisdom, moral authority, a life of genuine sacrifice, Natan Sharansky uncommon knowledge, now.

>> Peter Robinson: Welcome to uncommon knowledge, I'm Peter Robinson. Born in the Soviet Union in 1948, Anatoly Sharansky earned a degree in mathematics from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, then began work in a state research lab.

In 1973, he applied for an exit visa to Israel, was denied on security grounds, and then became a dissident. Arrested in 1977, he spent nine years in Soviet prisons. On his release in 1986, he emigrated to Israel, where he took the name Natan. Natan Sharansky served from 1996 to 2005 as a minister in four successive Israeli governments.

From 2009 to 2018 he served as chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, working with the Jewish diaspora around the world. Natan Sharansky has published a number of books, including his 1988 memoir Fear No Evil, his 2004 volume The Case for Democracy, and his 2020 book Never Alone.

Mr. Sharansky and I are speaking in New York, where last night he was honored by Commentary Magazine. Nathan Sharansky, welcome to New York.

>> Natan Sharansky: Thank you very much.

>> Peter Robinson: Questions about what we got wrong US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, on September 29 2023 quote, the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.

Eight days later, the attack by Hamas, how could we have been so wrong?

>> Natan Sharansky: Well, look, in this case, not only America was wrong, Israeli military was wrong, Israeli politicians were wrong, I think this mistake, well, wrong concept started 30 years ago from Oslo agreement. When in principle there was made a decision that the best way to guarantee peace is to have agreements with the dictators, to give to these dictators as much power as possible and to make sure that they, on one hand will be afraid of us, on the other hand, we will give them enough money in order they will be in peace with us and they will control their own people.

And that's what we did 30 years ago with Oslo Agreement when we brought Arafat to pass and said he will be the leader of the Palestinian people. Then we did it with Hamas when Hamas defeated Arafat, and we decided that on one hand we'll be striking Hamas, on the other hand, we'll be giving them some money, at least they will be peacified.

And it was all done under the strong pressure of the freehold, and first of all, under the strong pressure of America was saying the more materials, the more money, the more conditions you'll give to the other side, the more the chance that they will be interested in peace.

And it was absolutely wrong conception, we had to fight the terrorists and the same time to respect the rights of the other people by not supporting their dictators.

>> Peter Robinson: Mm-hm, another question, what went wrong? Protesters in this country responded to October 7th by demonstrating on college campuses against Israel and in favor of the Palestinians.

One of the slogans, from the river to the sea, a call for the destruction of Israel, at Columbia University here in New York, students put up tens of tents, establishing a Gaza solidarity encampment. From a Columbia University report on anti-Semitism on its own campus, quote, one student placed a mezuzah on the doorway of her dorm room, as traditional Jews have done for centuries.

People began banging on her door at all hours of the night, demanding that she explain Israel's actions, close quote. Here in the United States, here in the city of New York, home to a million Jews,anti-Semitism, what went wrong?

>> Natan Sharansky: I would say the situation is much worse than you just described, I was in Colombia twice since the war started, I was in many other universities.

For 20 years, we were warning, and I personally was warning, that universities become the more the hotbed of the anti-Semitism, not only the anti-Semitism of this, understanding that the liberal revolution starts from violence. And we need liberal revolution in America, that's why what was amazing on the 7th of October was the most awful, the most brutal pogrom in the modern history, where not only thousands were killed, raped, all types of tortures, children are burnt alive in front of their parents, some kind of sympathy, solidarity.

On the 8th of October, we have demonstrations in the universities and speeches of so called liberal professors who are saying that is the beginning of liberal revolution. And this hope could show very clearly that so-called progressive woke movement is not part of liberal society, it's the enemies of liberal society.

And here these anti-Semites who want to destroy us, and terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah in a unique way found common language with so called progressive forces of the Universities of America. And united, their desire to declare Israel as the last colonial state in the world, as the one which is illegal, and that's why oppressed Palestinians are always right, and oppressed and colonialist Israel is always wrong.

And what to do when it begins? Liberal progressive revolution, there is violence, that's how it was accepted, I think. That was our opening for many liberal Jewish organizations who wanted to believe that progressive movement is their closest ally and they found out that that is their enemy.

>> Peter Robinson: I see, Natan, from your time in the Soviet Union, from your book, Fear No Evil, you wrote a question, which remains a question for anyone who reads the book.

Why is it so important for the KGB to destroy each individual? Why is it that even if he has spent years in prison and is no danger to it, the KGB will still want him to confess?.

>> Natan Sharansky: Well, I know the nature of dictatorial regime, totalitarian regime like Soviet, was that they have to keep people under the control, physical control, and their minds under control.

Because their power is all based on fear. The moment people will stop being afraid, that is usually the end of dictorial rule. But in order people should be afraid, they should know that you cannot go against this regime. That's why every dissident, every free thinker, is a danger for the stability of the regime.

Because the moment this virus of freedom will be released, the moment, one after another, more and more double thinkers are becoming dissidents. It's out of control It's out of control, that's why it's very important for them to show that nobody can be out of our control, that even if somebody will speak against and then he will retreat.

And that's why you see one free thinker in the country of 200 million people is a threat for KGB.

>> Peter Robinson: I want to return to Israel in a moment. But first is how it all ended in the Soviet Union. The question here is the role of the United States.

When we spoke some years ago, you agreed that credit for the fall of the Soviet Union belongs to the dissidents, to Reagan and the Americans, and then to Gorbachev. I think you put it that way quite strictly.

>> Natan Sharansky: Yeah, Gorbachev was a little bit as unsalted butter. So, but I said the third place is also very good.

>> Peter Robinson: All right, third place is not bad. A bronze medal, Max Boot has just published a new biography of Ronald Reagan, and it includes this passage. Quote, one of the biggest myths is that Reagan had a plan to bring down the evil empire, and that it was this pressure that led to U.S. victory in the Cold War.

In reality, the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union were the work of Mikhail Gorbachev." This battle over history is going to be taking place.

>> Natan Sharansky: Yeah,well, of course look Gorbachev was a good communist Communists really believed, I would say even naive communists kept believing in the communist rule.

But he was rather young to understand, to look at this and say it's not working. It's not working, we cannot be competitive, we cannot be productive. So we really have to give to people a little bit of freedom, but he understood it's dangerous, ut what to do? The West is pressing.He told in his memoirs, in the conversations also with me, that before I became the leader of the Soviet Union, I was a minister, and I go abroad.

And in each place, whenever I start talking about the trade, they talk to me about the dissidents. And the moment I start speaking about peaceful coexistence, they insist that they must have the upper hand and have these weapons in this space because they don't trust us. And so there is no other way to restore this trust.

But to give some freedom, to release some dissidents, to let the Jews go. And he really believed that that's how he will improve communism. He didn't understand that there is no such thing as a little bit of freedom. You're giving people a little bit of freedom, they demand more.

He brought down Iron Curtain after he went to Washington, there were 250,000 Jews demanding him let all people go. The next day you can see today in the archives, they are just recently published. Reagan starts speaking to him and said, before we go to our topics, you saw yesterday my people were demonstrating?

He said, yes, we noticed it, and we will take it into account. So in order to reach agreement with Reagan, first of all, about the arms control, because he was very concerned, he decided he'll make a freedom of immigration. The more you bring down the Iron Curtain, people run away.

People won't run away to their nationality, to their religious beliefs to their thoughts. On the other hand, yes, I don't think that Reagan had as a target, we have to destroy Soviet Union. But he did believe, and he said it, that Soviet Union will collapse because it all built on keeping people under the control.

And they will not be able and we have to help those people who want to be free and he tried to help on one hand and you can see it all his negotiations. He was very tough on arms control. On the other hand, he was saying again and again, it will solve our problems with question of human rights.

It will make it easier for us to solve other problems. And he knew the nature of this regime, he said, it's evil empires, that's very important to understand. Not like Nixon and Kissinger's regime, he was not thinking how to appease them, how to adjust, how to ask them, give us 100,000 people and do whatever we want.

He knew that it's evil empire, and we have simply to help these people to get freedom.

>> Peter Robinson: You're talking to a Gentile and an American. Would you please help me understand Israel? I have a couple of questions for you. Here's one, in my experience, Tel Aviv is thoroughly secular, an hour away, Jerusalem is very religious.

So you have in the same country, Jews who don't believe in God and Jews who believe in God more than they believe in Israel. In a certain sense, how do you keep over the long term, under immediate threat, like the country is under now, of course, but over the long term, how do you keep a country together?

A Jewish state together when the citizens themselves have such different conceptions of what it means to be Jewish?

>> Natan Sharansky: We look, through thousands of years, we are battling and fighting with one another, having different conceptions. In fact,all the religious religion built on Talmud.What is Talmud? People are sitting at the table and arguing on one hand, on the other hand, that every sentence of Jewish wisdom is attacked from both sides all the time.

You say from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in one family the other family. We, I and my wife have very different levels of religiosity. And of course, people who are coming from 100 different countries where they go to Jew means different things and live together, they are very different.

But we all feel ourselves part of this incredible journey through a thousand years, which started from Exodus from Egypt and goes to this day. And people who are in Israel, there those people who believe that they are part of this journey, and that's why it was such a shock, I would say, for many of us, this young Generation, TikTok generation, they are all on the screen or go to Thailand for inspiration.

And the war started, and such a nobility, such a devotion, such a sacrifice. And not only this, you can see it in one letter after another of the soldiers before they die their families that they all feel they're fighting the thousand years fight for our right to continue this voyage.

This path as Jewish people who are bringing all these values around which they are arguing all the time. So, yeah, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, they are very different the way how they are expressing this belief that they belong to the ancient people, but they are united with this belief.

>> Peter Robinson: Birth rates have fallen below replacement level around the world, Western Europe Japan, China, the United States. Demographer Nick Eberstadt, quote, Israel reports fertility levels well above replacement, and since birth rates among Arab Israelis have been falling, the upswing is due entirely to Israeli Jewry, with the increase attributable not just to the Orthodox, but it's a less observant Jews too.

All across the world, women are saying, I don't wanna bring children into the world. And in Israel, this small country in extreme danger, these good Jewish women are saying, here is where I want to bring children into the world, why?

>> Natan Sharansky: Not only women it's a decision of the people who have this full, meaningful, interesting life to continue.

This feeling that you continue the life of 1000 years you and you want that it will be continued. Look, Israel, Jews and Israel is extremely optimistic society, extremely optimistic.

>> Peter Robinson: Even today?

>> Natan Sharansky: Even today if you ask, there are polls of Americans. Do you think that tomorrow will be better than today?

70 something percent say that today is better than tomorrow. In Israel, when you make this post, 70% of people say that tomorrow will be better than today, and that not only during the war, it's all the time. And I tell you why I believe it goes through all my books, that all the people in the world want two things, to be free and to have a meaning in the life, to be free, that nobody will tell me what to think.

But to have a meaning that your life is bigger than your physical survival, you have identity, you have group of people that you want to be with them. It's very difficult to have both. Europe almost gave away their identity in order to be free as they understood and In the Middle East, we are around the countries who are insisting on their identity and ready to give away the freedom.

Israel is, among all these dictators, insisting that it is a democratic country. It belongs to free world insists that it is a Jewish country. There is a lot of meaning and a lot of freedom in our life, and that's what makes this life so optimistic, so full, so interesting.

And yes, Israelis today, and yes before non religious want to have at least four children to make sure that tomorrow will be better than today.

>> Peter Robinson: All right so, it's the meaningfulness, even in danger, even in the present moment, life means something.

>> Natan Sharansky: Meaningfulness of the free life.

>> Peter Robinson: Freedom Israel and the United States. Let's go back to the beginning president Truman recognizes the State of Israel upon its creation in 1948, and at least since the Yom Kippur War of the United States has represented Israel's principal ally. The United State provides us with $400 UN aid we open our markets to you and so forth.

Let me put it to you blindly what you have for us, what does the United States get out of this alliance with Israel.

>> Natan Sharansky: Well, the fact that America was among the first who recognized Israel, Soviet Union, Stalin also was among the first. But there is huge difference.

Stalin recognized Israel because you hope that in the struggle against Britain, these socialists, Israel will be on our side, and he hoped to have some use of it. When he understood he was wrong, he started fighting against Israel. America did it because, first of all, Jewish citizens, but then also non Jewish citizens, felt that this is a country which is based on the same principles that we believe in.

There is direct connection between the ideas of the founding fathers of America and ideas on which Jewish civilization and the state of Israel are built. And it is reminded again and again, as I said, in today's confused world. When American society is sometimes so confused, and then thinks how to go back to American values when our woke moment is against American values.

Israel is a country which, in all situations, reminds everybody that we are fighting for our freedom and our identity. We are fighting for your right to live in freedom in accordance with your identity. And that's message which Israel delivers, not through diplomats, but through its very life. And I don't think that America and the free world has such type of ally, not only the Middle East, but in the world.

And yeah, I think that it is in the best interest of the healthy American society to have strong Israel.

>> Peter Robinson: All right Ross Douthat in the New York Times, quote, the strategic situations in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have something important in common. In both cases, the American government has found itself stuck in a supporting role.

If the United States can't exert real leverage over countries that it arms and supports in We will end up hostage. We end up hostage to too many interests, not our own, close quote. So to put that crudely, if we arm Zelensky and say, go do whatever you want to do, we give to Zelensky the right to start a conceivably a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union that we would inevitably be drawn into, like goes the reasoning.

If we give Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government too much freedom for movement, too much responsibility for deciding how far to push it in Iran, how far to push Lebanon. Then we're giving him the right to start a war into which we may find ourselves drawn. So that's at least if we're drawing this out on a chalkboard and giving us a seminar on international relations, this is at least a concern no,

>> Natan Sharansky: Well, if don't think that we are living in the world without any values, that America can exist absolutely as a superpower without believing. In any values and without design to defend them, then it seems theoretically right. But I'd like to say that America really doesn't care who controls the situation in that part of the world or Israel or Hamas or Hezbollah.

But wait a minute but Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists. They killed so many American citizens. Well, we'll prefer that there would some balance. If that is the point of view, you're right, but then it's suicide. It's really suicide for America to believe that Hezbollah, they can coexist with Hezbollah and Hamas, and nuclear fundamentalist Iran, and we're okay.

And the same about Ukraine and Russia. We can say that it's not our business after all, it's very far from us. Putin wants, exactly like Iran, to change the rules by which this world is run. That he wants to rebuild his empire, and for this can descend the rules which were accepted in Helsinki agreement, that you're not changing the borders by force.

That small countries in Europe should not be afraid of stronger countries who are their neighbors, because that is a new order. He wants to destroy this order. He wants to finish it and if he will defeat Ukraine, it's very important part of his rebuilding empire and changing all the relations of the world.

So Putin's war against Ukraine is a threat to the order of the free world. In the same way the fight of Iran through Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel, it's a way to change the rules of the world, to make terror controlling the free world. So yes, the free world, it is the top interest of America that Israel will defeat terrorism, and that Ukraine and her allies will stop aggression of Putin.

>> Peter Robinson: Iran, this past summer, Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, just this past summer, said that Iran's breakout time, the time needed to produce enough weapons grade material for nuclear weapons. I'm quoting him now, is probably one or two weeks. One or two weeks to nuclear breakout. Iran already possesses ballistic missiles and on And on October 1st of this past year, Iran demonstrated that it is willing to use, not nuclear, but ballistic missiles on Israel.

So you've got a week or two to weapons grade material, a year or perhaps to building these into warheads that can be carried by ballistic missiles. Is this an acceptable state of affairs for Israel?

>> Natan Sharansky: It's absolutely unacceptable. And Israel at least for the last 20 years, works very hard to organize pressure on Iran on one hand and to slow down their capabilities to build nuclear weapons on the other hand.

You probably know that we had many different operations of our intelligence which postponed it for five years, for two years. Only recently our attack with our airplanes and our rocket missiles definitely postponed, from all that we know it postponed for some time the development of these weapons. But no doubt in the end we have to attack, not to attack Iran as a people, the people can be our very important allies.

But this regime and to destroy their nuclear facilities. There is no doubt that we'll have to do it very soon. And the question is if America will be with us in this attack, and that's the big question that all the Israelis are thinking about. That's why whenever the elections, there is one criteria with which Israelis look on the American government, whether they'll be with us in our fight against Iran.

>> Peter Robinson: So if I may, of course, what I'm coming to is we've just elected a new president, and from your lips to his ears, we hope.

>> Natan Sharansky: Yeah.

>> Peter Robinson: So Israel retaliates, you just mentioned this, Israel retaliated against Iran on October 26th. Israel's, I beg your pardon, you chose to, not you personally, the government chose to leave Iran's oil refineries and nuclear program untouched.

But it destroyed much of Iran's air defense batteries, as if to warn that the Israeli Air Force could return at any moment. And when it did return, it could work its will. Is that warning going to be enough?

>> Natan Sharansky: No, it's not only warning, it's also preparation. If in the next few months, we will decide to attack nuclear facilities, Iran doesn't have anti-aircraft facility to stop us.

>> Peter Robinson: That was not just a warning.

>> Natan Sharansky: They had very developed advanced Russian systems of S-300s, S-400s. All of them, all of them were destroyed and Iran could do nothing against it. So yes, we have to see, they'll need like one year to restore these capabilities. That is a time when we can attack, whether we will attack depends on many things, and one of them is where will be America with us in this case.

>> Peter Robinson: Okay, so you know the argument, if I may, since you are at the table, let's pretend for a moment that we're in Mar-a-Lago, and they're-

>> Natan Sharansky: Yeah.

>> Peter Robinson: Threshing all this out with the new president elect. And the argument runs as follows, Mr. President, we have very limited resources, very limited resources.

We've made what some would say was a mistake in permitting Ukraine to go through so many of our munitions, we no longer have munitions left. If China moves on Taiwan, it will be very difficult for us to move against China or to protect Taiwan. We're already over committed, with regard to Israel, let them delay, and delay, and delay, and we'll deal with it when we can, fair?

What do you say to President Trump?

>> Natan Sharansky: Well, I would say it so happens that America is put in the position where they are the main defender of the free world, of their own world, but also, they are the leaders of the free world. And if the free world will be destroyed or any part of the free world will be destroyed, America will be weaker.

It so happened that America has the potential to have another weapons to give to their allies and to defend themselves. But for this, they have really actively used their power, their political pressure, so very actively. And it will be disaster, civil disaster for America if Israel will lose its war to the terror.

It also will be the disaster for America if Putin and China will reestablish their real empires controlling half of the free world. You are put in this position, you have all these facilities, you have to decide what is the right way to use all your power for the interest of the free world and first of all your people.

>> Peter Robinson: As we speak, the conflict in Gaza continues, Hezbollah retains the ability to strike Israel with rockets and Iran is threatening, threatening at least, to attack Israel again. And of course, the hostages are still missing. Do you still consider yourself a religious man?

>> Natan Sharansky: No, the best time to feel yourself religious man was in prison, when you really can talk to God directly without anybody interfering, and that's when I started really feeling the power of religion.

Think now also, you can see our most non-religious soldiers when they're fighting, when they're writing. How they feel themselves inside the history, inside that covenant which was made between God and our people. That they are fighting for the future of all the world, for that heritage which was given to us by Kadosh, ruled by our God.

Look, today we are in much, on one hand tragic, people are dying and killed, many of them are very close friends of our children, our neighbors and so on. On the other hand, if to think strategically, we are in much better situation than a year ago. It was frightening even to think that we will enter the other now all the leaders of Hamas, those who are there, those who are abroad are killed.

Hezbollah, it was the strongest army created by Iran and they were really planning to take the whole cities of Israel as hostages. All their leadership is destroyed, they are almost non existent. And Iran, for the first time in 20 years that we are dealing with them, Iran is clear that it is very vulnerable and if necessary we can destroy.

So yeah, the Gods show us his ways in strange ways, but he shows us.

>> Peter Robinson: Do you still carry your Psalm book that you had in prison?

>> Natan Sharansky: All ways.

>> Peter Robinson: Will you close our conversation by reading the 23rd Psalm? The passage about

>> Natan Sharansky: Yeah, well, I will read one similar phrase.

That was the first phrase, and when I go through the valley of death, I fear no evil because thou art with me.

>> Peter Robinson: Natan Sharansky, thank you. For Uncommon Knowledge, the Hoover Institution and Fox Nation, I'm Peter Robinson.