第 389 期·中文精讀

本雅明·內塔尼亞胡:以色列、巴勒斯坦、權力、腐敗、仇恨與和平

Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel, Palestine, Power, Corruption, Hate, and Peace

以色列總理談以巴衝突的歷史與現實、權力與腐敗指控,以及仇恨迴圈中實現和平的可能。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

採訪開始不到三分鐘,Lex Fridman 就丟擲了一個很不客氣的問題:你被很多人愛,也被很多人恨,事實上,你可能是這個世界上最被恨的人之一。如果此刻有一個年輕人心裡裝著這樣的恨,你想對他說什麼?

內塔尼亞胡的第一句話是:「我不同意你這個問題的前提。」

接下來他列舉了自己的民意基礎:剛給伊朗電視臺做過一次採訪,六千萬觀眾;幾年前錄的一段影片,兩千五百萬伊朗人看過;他領導的以色列跟四個阿拉伯國家簽了歷史性的和平協議,那些協議是跟他籤的,不是跟別人籤的。他糾正 Lex 用「愛」這個詞:「我說的是尊重,不是愛。」

這場對話從一開始就定下了基調。Lex 想聊的是人類的恨、戰爭的痛、歷史的教訓,內塔尼亞胡想聊的是成就、威脅和戰略。兩個人在同一段對話裡,幾乎不在同一個頻道上。

反猶主義和反錫安主義,他說他不區分

Lex 把話題拉向歷史,問從第三帝國的崛起到希特勒式的仇恨,能學到什麼。

內塔尼亞胡給了一個拉丁語短語,然後把它翻譯成大白話:壞事要在它還小的時候掐掉。針對一個群體的仇恨、妖魔化、取消合法性,是極危險的東西。當年從猶太人開始的仇恨,很快就蔓延到了全人類。

「如果有人說要消滅你,就像今天的伊朗,就像當年的希特勒,而人們覺得那不過是說說而已,那你就必須認真對待他,在早期就採取行動阻止他。不要讓他獲得做這件事的手段,因為到那時可能就太晚了。」(內塔尼亞胡)

Lex 追問得更細:這些威脅背後的仇恨裡,有多少是反猶主義,多少是反錫安主義?

內塔尼亞胡的回答沒有留縫隙:這兩件事他不分。你不能說「我不反對猶太人,我只是覺得不該有個猶太國家」,這就像說「我不反美,我只是覺得不該有美國」。在他看來,今天反錫安主義就是反猶主義,反對猶太人的人,也反對猶太人的國家。

這個邏輯很乾淨,但它也把一個巨大的爭議空間壓扁了。批評以色列政府的某項政策,和否認以色列建國的正當性,中間隔著一大片灰色地帶,而內塔尼亞胡在這段對話裡沒有興趣去分辨。

那場把以色列撕成兩半的司法改革

2023 年 7 月,採訪發生時,以色列正處在建國以來最嚴重的內部撕裂中。數十萬人上街,抗議政府推動的司法改革。批評者說,這套改革會削弱最高法院,把權力集中到政府手裡,把總理變成獨裁者。

Lex 把這個說法直接唸了出來。內塔尼亞胡的反應是:「這很荒謬。有這麼多示威和抗議,這也叫獨裁?」

他的反駁分幾層。第一層是,很多上街的人並不知道在討論什麼,他們是被口號動員起來的,而今天的大資料和社交網路可以精準地往人腦子裡灌口號,製造大規模動員。第二層是,他自己定義的政治立場:一個 19 世紀的民主派,小寫的 d。民主是什麼?多數人的意志,加上少數人(他更願意說「個人」)權利的保護。怎麼同時避免暴民政治和獨裁?靠立法、行政、司法三權之間的平衡。

然後是核心論點:這個平衡在以色列前五十年是存在的,後來被「這個星球上最激進的司法機構」逐步奪走了。法院在過去二三十年裡,把議會和行政的權力一點點收歸自己。他說,他們現在做的,只是把鐘擺撥回來,撥回到所有議會制民主國家和美國都通行的位置。

「我們要的是制衡,不是不受約束的權力。我們要獨立的司法,但不要全能的司法。」(內塔尼亞胡)

他接著丟擲了兩個具體讓步。第一個是關於「推翻條款」,原本的方案允許議會以 61 票(也就是一票多數)否決最高法院的任何裁決。他說改革一推出他就表態,這個全面推翻條款必須去掉,而它現在已經不在了。第二個是關於法官遴選機制,批評者說讓民選官員參與選法官就是民主的終結,他反問:那照這個邏輯,美國不是民主國家,法國也不是,這個星球上幾乎所有民主國家都不是。

他真正的火力集中在以色列的特殊安排上:在原有體制裡,在任法官對選法官擁有事實上的否決權,這意味著法院在自我遴選、自我複製。

這裡值得停一下。內塔尼亞胡的整套論述,核心是把「司法改革」重新定義成「恢復平衡」。這個框架很有說服力,也很有煽動性,因為它把支援改革的人放在「捍衛民主」的位置上,把反對者放在「捍衛既得特權」的位置上。但有一個問題他繞過去了:為什麼這場改革會在 2023 年、由這個深陷腐敗審判的總理、在這個時間點推出?權力的動機和政治的說辭,從來不是一回事。

從一萬七千美元到五萬四千美元

Lex 提到很多科技公司對司法改革感到不安。內塔尼亞胡的回答轉向了經濟成績單。

他說自己對以色列的自由市場改革有功。幾十年裡推動了幾十項改革,把以色列的人均收入從 1.7 萬美元推到 5.4 萬美元,按 IMF 的名義 GDP 人均口徑算,超過了日本、法國、英國、德國。

怎麼做到的?他的說法是:釋放了人口中潛伏的天才、主動性和創業精神。為此必須建立自由市場。

第二個引擎是軍隊和安全部門。長期的國防投入製造了大量知識工作者,這些人退役後變成知識型創業者。這套迴圈不是政策設計出來的,是安全壓力逼出來的副產品。

他給了一個具體例子,用來證明競爭能創造崗位。當年以色列有一家國有的電信公司,他推動引入競爭,對方警告說要裁員。那家公司從 1.3 萬人減到 7000 人,但新進入的公司創造了 4 萬個崗位。

然後是當下的證據:英偉達決定在以色列建超級計算機,英特爾剛剛決定投資 250 億美元建新廠。內塔尼亞胡說,他並不好奇為什麼。「人才在這裡,自由在這裡,而且會一直在這裡。」

Lex 問他對 AI 的看法,提到他跟 Sam Altman 和 Elon Musk 都聊過。內塔尼亞胡在回答裡給了一段很紮實的觀察。

他說他不懂的東西他不會假裝懂,但有一點他明白:AI 正在以幾何級數發展,而人類在政治生活和日常生活裡,對幾何增長沒有直覺。人的理解方式是線性的增量,「你正在爬一道越來越陡的雪坡」這件事,對絕大多數人來說是完全陌生的。

從那些對話裡,他得出了幾條結論。第一,不可能不全力進入 AI。第二,需要監管。第三,全球性監管不一定會有。第四,結局不確定。

他自己加了一條推理,這段話值得單獨拎出來:如果 AI 真的發展到能控制人類,那大概也是人類實現全球統一監管的唯一機會。因為如果不存在這個共同的威脅,沒有任何國家會主動退出競賽去合作。每個國家都怕自己讓出競爭優勢,所以國內監管有天花板。

他還講了一個往事。大約十年前,一位科學顧問硬塞給他一本小說,講的是中美未來的網路戰。他不讀小說,只讀歷史、經濟和科技,這一點他追隨丘吉爾的說法:事實勝過虛構。但那本書他一個晚上讀完了,然後把專家團隊叫來,說我們要把以色列變成全球五大網路強國之一,而且要快。後來他們做到了。

在他看來,AI 比網路戰更大,而且跟網路戰糾纏在一起。兩者結合會非常強大。

然後是那個真正讓他猶豫的問題:就業。

他說有一個假設被廣泛接受,但他不確定它成立:農業革命和工業革命創造的崗位多於消滅的崗位。他覺得這個說法一點都不顯然。

「如果讓我下注,AI 消滅的崗位會遠遠多於它創造的崗位,它會迫使我們的經濟模式、經濟模型和政治發生結構性變化。我不確定這會把我們帶向哪裡。」(內塔尼亞胡)

他甚至推演了兩層。第一層,如果 Elon Musk 說的「稀缺的終結」真的到來,極少數人創造巨大的附加值,那你就得對他們徵稅去補貼其他人。可是如果你徵稅而別的國家不徵,資本就跑光了,這是國際層面的問題,會一直困擾各國。第二層,就算你把錢發給了那些沒參與 AI 經濟的人,他們做什麼?

他在這裡說了一句很樸素的話:你剛認識一個人,寒暄之後第一個問題就是「你做什麼工作」。人是用職業來定義自己的。沒有職業,這件事會很難。人們會把更多時間花在自我尋找、藝術和閒暇上,他理解這些,但這不構成一個完整的答案。

Lex 在這段裡站到了樂觀的一邊,說也許天真地相信 AI 會創造更多崗位。內塔尼亞胡說:「寫下來,我們過幾年查。」Lex 說已經在記錄了。內塔尼亞胡說,不用說「這輩子之後再看」,幾年之內就能見分曉。

腐敗案、間諜軟體,和那句「他們對他做了什麼」

Lex 問了一個很直接的問題:你當過六屆總理,掌權超過十五年,你擔心權力對你本人的腐蝕嗎?

內塔尼亞胡的回答是「一點也不」。理由是他被一個使命驅動:確保猶太國家的存續和繁榮,包括經濟繁榮、安全,以及與鄰國實現和平。他說,以色列選民一次又一次投他,而他在媒體裡沒有任何權力,在很多圈子裡也沒有任何權力。

他講了一個故事。大約十五年前,貝盧斯科尼問他:Bibi,你手上有幾家以色列電視臺?他說一家都沒有。貝盧斯科尼不信,追問「你控制的一家都沒有?」他說不但一家都沒有,而且它們全都反對我。貝盧斯科尼問:那你雙手被綁在背後,怎麼贏的選舉?他說:用最難的方式。

這個故事的用意很清楚:一個被主流媒體持續攻擊的人還能反覆當選,說明他不是靠壟斷權力取勝的。但 Lex 沒有停在這裡,他把腐敗案擺上了桌面。

內塔尼亞胡的回應是把問題翻轉過來:你應該問的是,這些案子後來怎麼樣了?

他說這些案子正在眼前崩塌。他舉了一個細節:在他那個案子裡,三位法官把檢方叫來,說你們那個旗艦的受賄指控已經不存在了,而這發生在辯方一個證人都還沒傳喚之前。他說這件事連以色列主流媒體都報道了,因為震動太大。

然後他給了一串數字和畫面:大約 2.5 億謝克爾被用來調查他,查他的銀行賬戶,派人去菲律賓、墨西哥、歐洲、美國,對身邊所有人使用這個星球上最先進的間諜軟體,威脅證人,告訴他們「想想你的家人,想想你妻子,最好告訴我們我們想聽的」。他說這些都在庭審過程中被揭出來了。

「現在大多數人不再問『內塔尼亞胡做了什麼』,因為顯然他什麼都沒做。他們問的是『他們對他做了什麼』。」(內塔尼亞胡)

情緒最重的地方出現在這一段。他描述了對政治人物使用間諜軟體、把人關進滿是跳蚤的牢房二十一天、無理由傳喚人家八十四歲的母親、在走廊裡帶出對方的情人。他說,人們現在想糾正的,是這種腐敗。

這段陳述需要被認真對待,也需要被審慎對待。它出自一方當事人之口,而案件在當時仍在審理中。但它揭示的東西超出個案:一個國家用反恐級別的工具去調查政治對手,這件事本身,比任何一個人的罪與非罪都更值得追問。

他們不想要一個國家,他們想要一個沒有以色列的中東

Lex 把話題轉向巴以問題:和平共處最大的障礙是什麼?

內塔尼亞胡重複了他講了幾十年的那個論點:巴以衝突持續一個世紀,根本原因是巴勒斯坦方面持續拒絕承認在任何邊界內的猶太國家。以色列建國前他們反對,建國後他們反對;以色列沒有控制約旦河西岸和加沙時他們反對,控制了以後他們還是反對。邊界在哪裡,從來不是問題的核心。

他把領土爭端和這件事分開:領土爭端是「你住這邊我住那邊,我們商量邊界在哪」;而現在的爭論不在邊界上。巴勒斯坦社會內部是分裂的,但所有派別有一個共識:任何地方都不該有猶太國家。哈馬斯的方案是恐怖手段,另一派的方案是政治手段慢慢瓦解它。

Lex 追問:就算作為兩國方案的一部分,他們也還是反對這個理念?

內塔尼亞胡說,他們不想要一個以色列旁邊的國家,他們想要一個取代以色列的國家。他舉了兩個例子。以色列單方面撤出加沙,實際上在那裡建立了一個哈馬斯政權,對方沒有說「太好了我們有自己的土地了,我們來搞建設吧」,而是把它變成了發射了一萬枚火箭的恐怖基地。以色列從黎巴嫩撤出,黎巴嫩被真主黨接管。

「每一次我們只是走出去,我們得到的都不是和平。我們沒有用土地換到和平,我們用土地換到了恐怖。」(內塔尼亞胡)

他在這裡給了一個地理尺度,用來解釋為什麼兩國方案在物理上就很難成立:整個所謂約旦河西岸加上以色列,寬度大致相當於華盛頓的環城公路,可能略寬一點。一架普通 747 飛過去兩分半鐘,戰鬥機一分半鐘。領空怎麼分?沒法分。電磁空間怎麼分?沒法分。

所以他的方案落在一個原則上:巴勒斯坦人應該擁有治理自己的一切權力,和不威脅以色列的任何權力。換句話說,總體安全責任留在以色列手裡。

他自己也承認這不算完整的主權,「你要拿走一部分主權權力,尤其是安全方面的」。他給這個東西起了一堆名字:有限主權、自治 Plus,隨便你叫它什麼。他說,除了極左,以色列各政治派別的大多數人都同意這一點,他們其實不怎麼爭論了。

關於定居點,他把問題反過來了

Lex 問得也很直接:這屆新政府把擴大西岸定居點當作優先事項,批評者說這會加劇緊張、破壞兩國方案,你能理解這個視角嗎?

內塔尼亞胡說能理解,但對方不明白自己錯在哪。

他的第一個論據是數量:住在猶地亞和撒馬利亞(即西岸)的以色列人,大約 90% 住在城市街區裡,所有人都承認這些街區在任何未來安排中都會屬於以色列。所以他們在爭論的是一件其實已經定了的事。他指著窗外說,一公里之外就是耶路撒冷,半個耶路撒冷自然地長過了 1967 年的邊界,你不會去拆掉半個耶路撒冷。

第二個論據是那剩下的 10%,散落在小社群裡。人們說這些人得撤走。他反問:為什麼?

他在這裡做了一個類比。1967 年前的以色列境內有一百五十多萬阿拉伯公民,沒有人說為了和平必須對本國阿拉伯公民進行種族清洗。猶太人可以住在阿拉伯人中間,阿拉伯人也可以住在猶太人中間。

「那些說我們不能住在祖先家園的人,在推進的是什麼?沒有人說這些是巴勒斯坦地區,也沒有人說這些是以色列地區。我們聲稱擁有它,他們也聲稱擁有它。我們和這片土地的聯絡只有三千五百年而已。這是一場爭端,我同意。但我不同意我們應該把阿拉伯人趕出去,我也不認為他們應該把猶太人趕出去。」(內塔尼亞胡)

他把這套邏輯推到外面:如果有人說,跟以色列實現和平的唯一辦法是建立一個種族清洗過的巴勒斯坦實體,那是荒謬的。如果有人說猶太人不能住在倫敦或紐約的郊區,那話也不好聽。而世界現在正在推的方案,恰恰是「猶太人不能住在阿拉伯人中間,阿拉伯人也不能住在猶太人中間」。

他提出的替代方案是:不驅逐任何人。巴勒斯坦人住在主權以色列境內的飛地裡,以色列人住在對方的飛地裡,靠隧道和立交橋提供交通上的連續性,而不去追求領土上的連續性。他說這事他們現在就在做,而且確實有效。

繞開那 2%,直接去找 98%

整場對話裡,內塔尼亞胡講得最有戰略感的一段在這裡,也是他本人最得意的政績敘事。

他先描述了舊正規化:幾十年來所有人都說,你不解決巴勒斯坦問題,就進不了阿拉伯世界。這條邏輯被普遍接受。跟埃及簽了和平條約(貝京和薩達特),跟約旦簽了(拉賓和侯賽因國王),然後是四分之一個世紀的停滯,因為大家都覺得必須先過巴勒斯坦這一關,而巴勒斯坦那邊要的不是一個能接受的方案,是要以色列消失。

他的判斷是:如果再等半個世紀,那就得永遠等下去。

所以他換了一條路。他說,巴勒斯坦人只佔阿拉伯世界的 2%,其餘 98% 你根本不用等。他決定直接去阿拉伯國家的首都,簽了《亞伯拉罕協議》(Abraham Accords),把方程式整個翻過來,順序從由內而外改成由外而內。阿聯酋、巴林、摩洛哥、蘇丹,四國突破。現在他想用沙烏地阿拉伯來完成一次量子躍遷。

關於沙特,他引用了一個典故。一戰後凡爾賽和會上,威爾遜總統說「我相信公開的盟約,公開達成」。內塔尼亞胡的修正版是:他相信公開的盟約,秘密達成。所以沙特和以色列的和平不會在公開討論中推進。

他給出的因果鏈是這樣的:巴勒斯坦人之所以寄希望於消滅以色列,部分原因是他們假設遲早有一天,其餘 98% 的阿拉伯世界會一起動手。當這個希望被拿走,他們才會轉向現實的共存方案。而這些方案當然需要以色列方面做出妥協,他說自己完全清楚,也願意做。

「如果我們為了爭取那 2% 而去等,我們會失敗,而且我們已經失敗了。如果我們去找那 98%,我們說服那 2% 的機會反而大得多。」(內塔尼亞胡)

然後是《亞伯拉罕協議》到底怎麼破冰的。他給了兩個原因。第一,他對伊朗採取了極強硬的立場,海灣國家明白伊朗對他們是巨大威脅,因此有了共同利益。第二,以色列多年的經濟改革把它變成了技術強國,這能實實在在地改善他們國民的生活。

破冰的觸發點很有戲劇性。他在美國國會發表演講,公開挑戰在任的美國總統,反對那個他認為是給伊朗鋪一條黃金大道通向核能力的伊核協議。演講進行中,以色列代表團接到海灣國家的電話,對方說:我們不敢相信你們總理在做什麼,他在挑戰美國總統。

他說自己沒有選擇,因為他認為國家的存續受到威脅。他也強調,無論美國政府換誰,美國始終是以色列不可替代、不可或缺的盟友,家裡人可以有爭吵,但還是家人。

那些電話最終導向了秘密會面,秘密會面最終開花成了《亞伯拉罕協議》。

他把這件事的格局推得更大:如果阿拉伯和以色列的衝突能結束,那可能開啟以色列和整個伊斯蘭世界敵對狀態的終結,那會是一件很了不起的事。他用的比喻是畫畫:他要在更大的畫布上作畫,然後再回頭處理巴以問題,而不是死等著先解決巴以,結果永遠畫不了大畫。

烏克蘭、核武器,和那些他不想現在說出口的想法

Lex 問他,作為一個研究歷史的人,怎麼看在另一個地方發生的戰爭,能不能把中東的經驗用上去。

在內塔尼亞胡眼裡,烏克蘭戰爭屬於歷史上野蠻的恐怖之一,是一場巨大的悲劇。然後他說了一句很謹慎的話:如果他有機會用自己的人脈幫忙結束這場悲劇,他會去做。他認識兩邊的人,但他不會貿然跳進去,要等到條件創造出幫助停止殺戮的可能性時再動。他說這也是他措辭謹慎的原因,因為那可能是他能做的最好的事。

他真正的分析在這裡:烏克蘭讓你看到的是,當一個擁有核武器的國家對一片領土有領土野心時,會發生什麼。整個方程式的性質變了。

他補了一句判斷:他不認為人們會樂於使用核武器,他也不確定俄羅斯那邊會毫無顧忌地用。但他強調,重點不在用不用,而當這個變數存在時,整個配置就完全不同了,所以解決這場衝突必須極其小心,不能讓它脫軌。

然後他把話拉回中東:這就是為什麼不能讓伊朗擁有核武器。伊朗是一股有進攻性意識形態的力量,先支配穆斯林世界,再消滅以色列,然後成為全球力量。它有核武器和沒有核武器,是完全不同的兩件事。這也是他的主要目標之一:阻止伊朗獲得大規模殺傷性手段,而伊朗公開說過這些武器會用在我們身上。

關於怎麼結束烏克蘭戰爭,他說自己有想法,但不認為現在值得討論,因為以後可能用得上。

Lex 追問對話的力量:你跟澤連斯基和普京都有聯絡,兩個人坐在一個房間裡談,能不能結束戰爭?

內塔尼亞胡說,那是多種因素的組合,核心是利益,以及你有沒有辦法把雙方推到某個點上,讓他們相信這場對話會帶來有用的東西。他認為他們現在還沒到那個點。

Lex 又往人性深處推了一層:這裡面有多少是基本的自負和固執?兩個人坐在一個房間裡,意識到彼此都是人,而烏克蘭和俄羅斯之間還有一段相連的歷史。

內塔尼亞胡的回答很冷:他不認為他們現在有能力走進那個房間。你可以設想那會是好事,但走進房間這件事,有時比房間裡發生什麼更復雜。關於談判的前期談判,關於談判的談判,會沒完沒了。他們連那一步都還沒到。

這段話聽起來像是在推脫,但它其實點出了一個很現實的東西:談判本身是一項工程,需要大量的鋪墊、試探、中間人和各方都能接受的臺階。兩個領導人坐進一間屋子,那通常是最後一步,而不是第一步。

歷史,歷史,還是歷史

Lex 提到內塔尼亞胡的書,問他從父親那裡學到了什麼。

他父親是一位歷史學家,教了他幾件事。

第一件:一個生命體存續的第一個條件,是及時識別危險。如果做不到,你很快就會被吞噬、被毀滅。他說,猶太民族當年就失去了及時識別危險的能力,差一點被納粹的威脅吞噬和毀滅。所以當他看到有人重複納粹的目標,說要毀滅猶太國家時,他會努力及時動員這個國家和世界,因為他認為伊朗是全球性威脅,不只是對以色列的威脅。

第二件是他當選前問父親的一個問題:當以色列總理最重要的素質是什麼?父親反問:你覺得呢?他說,你得有願景,同時得有朝著願景前進的靈活性,要靈活,但得知道自己在往哪走。父親說,這個任何崗位都需要,大學校長、公司領導,誰都需要。他又問:那當以色列的領導人需要什麼?

父親的回答讓他愣住了:教育。你需要廣博而深厚的教育,否則你就會受制於你的幕僚、媒體,或者隨便什麼東西。

他說,在政府裡待得越久、被選民重新選上越多次,就越明白父親是對的。你得不斷問自己:我們想把這個國家帶向哪個方向?怎麼達成?同時你得明白,新的學科在不斷出現,你的智識資本得不斷補充。

他引了基辛格的一個說法:一旦進入公共生活,你就開始消耗智識資本,待得久了很快就會耗盡。內塔尼亞胡不同意。他認為你必須不斷增加對變化中事物的理解,因為父親說得對,你得邊走邊拓寬、加深自己的教育。不能坐下來想:我在大學裡、在波士頓、在 MIT 學過一些東西,夠了。不行,學,學,學,永遠別停。

Lex 順勢建議:那在總理充裕的空閒時間裡,不妨加一點文學,比如陀思妥耶夫斯基。

內塔尼亞胡說,他讀過,但他覺得有比陀思妥耶夫斯基更重要的東西。他講了一個故事:Dan Rather 幾年前帶著孫子來見他,孫子是常春藤的學生,十八歲,想從政,問該學什麼。他給了三個詞:歷史,歷史,歷史。這是政治生活的基礎學科。然後你還要學經濟、學政治,如果你有軍事背景更好,他在這上面有優勢,但其他學科得自己去補。而且永遠補不夠。所以讀,讀,讀。如果讓他選,他讀歷史,歷史,還是歷史,而且要讀好的歷史著作,不是爛書。

這一段是整場對話裡最不像政治人物發言的部分。內塔尼亞胡在這個話題上明顯放鬆了,語速變快,甚至帶著點老師傅的味道。政治人物談教育,通常談的是投入、公平、競爭力這類詞。他談的是一個非常具體的問題:如果一個決策者的知識結構停留在二三十歲,他做判斷時會依賴誰?答案是他的幕僚、他的顧問、他讀到的評論。換句話說,他會變成一個執行別人判斷的人。

這個提醒對普通從業者同樣成立。技術領域尤其如此。你現在掌握的框架,如果是五年前形成的,那麼面對新問題時,你實際上是在用一個過期的模型做推理。工具在換代,對工具的理解也在換代,而對工具所在世界的理解,換得更慢。

關於死亡

Lex 的最後一個問題是:你談的是國家的存續,但你本人是必死的。你會思考自己的死亡嗎?你怕死嗎?

內塔尼亞胡反問:你不怕?

Lex 說怕。

內塔尼亞胡說,誰不怕呢。如果你是有意識的生物,人類大腦最不幸的一點就是它能設想自己的消亡。我們每個人都得跟這件事達成某種妥協。但真正的問題是:什麼會留下來?在我們之後,什麼還在?你得定義你想影響多少後代。

「我無法影響人類的程序。我們都只是塵埃,小小的塵埃。所以關鍵不在這裡。對我來說,我把一生獻給了非常明確的目的:確保猶太國家的未來、安全,我想說永久性,但那顯然是一件有限的事,以及猶太民族的未來。我認為這兩者不能分開存在。」(內塔尼亞胡)

他說自己把一生獻給了這件事,希望在他在世的時間和在任的歲月裡,對此有所貢獻。

Lex 收尾時說,從 MIT 到六屆總理,你的人生真是非同尋常。然後節目最後,他引了甘地的一句話:以眼還眼,只會讓全世界都瞎掉。

這句話放在這裡,是一個很有分量的註腳。整場對話裡,內塔尼亞胡的邏輯始終建立在同一個基礎上:有人要消滅你,就在他還小的時候掐掉他;有人給你土地換來的只有恐怖,那就再也不給土地;有人不承認你的存在,那就繞開他去跟別人談。這套邏輯有它的歷史依據,也有它的現實效果,但它本質上是一種生存邏輯,和解不在它的射程之內。

而 Lex 的那句話,問的是另一個方向:一個人、一個民族,如果一輩子活在「及時識別危險」的模式裡,會付出什麼代價?

這場對話只談了一個小時。原計劃是三小時,因為以色列國內的抗議被壓縮了。兩人約定以後再談更久。或許那時候,有些問題會被問得更深。

順便說一句,節目結尾有一段被剪在正片之外的內容。Lex 說,現在關掉麥克風,我要逼你告訴我,Elon Musk 和 Mark Zuckerberg 打起來誰會贏。內塔尼亞胡說,我到外面告訴你。整場採訪裡,唯一一個他沒有正面回答的問題,就是這個。

以下是從這場對話裡能帶走的東西。同意不同意內塔尼亞胡是另一回事,但這些思維方式值得拆開看看。

  • 把「幾何增長」當回事。內塔尼亞胡說人類對指數曲線沒有直覺,這句話是對的。無論是 AI 能力、公司規模還是債務,看到「每年翻倍」這類描述,別用線性直覺去估。自己動手算一遍第 10 年、第 20 年的數字,你會被算出來的結果嚇一跳。這個動作花五分鐘,能改掉一個很貴的思維習慣。
  • 分辨「誰在說話」和「他說了什麼」。內塔尼亞胡談司法改革時,把自己放在「恢復三權平衡」的位置上;談腐敗案時,把敘事翻轉成「他們對他做了什麼」。這兩套說法都拿出了具體事實,也都帶著立場。聽任何強勢人物論述時,同時問三個問題:他的核心利益在哪裡?他繞開了什麼?他的對手會怎麼反駁?三個問題問完,你對同一段話的理解會完全不同。
  • 留意「由外而內」這類破局思路。《亞伯拉罕協議》的核心操作,是繞開最難的 2%,先搞定 98%。這個套路在很多領域都能借用。產品賣不動,是先啃最挑剔的那批使用者,還是先做能帶來口碑的那批?團隊卡在一個死結上,是先硬碰硬,還是先在別處積累勢能再回頭?遇到「必須先過這一關」的說法,先問一句:這個前置條件真的是必需的嗎,還是隻是過去的習慣?
  • 把教育當成一項長期工程,而不是一段經歷。內塔尼亞胡轉述父親的話:你需要廣博而深厚的教育,否則就會受制於你的幕僚、媒體或者隨便什麼東西。判斷自己的狀態,標準很簡單:過去五年,你主動補了幾個新領域的知識?如果答案是零,那你現在做判斷用的框架,大機率已經過期了。給自己定一個具體的量,比如每年認真讀完兩本本行業之外的書。
  • 對 AI 的就業衝擊,先做最壞打算。內塔尼亞胡說如果讓他下注,AI 消滅的崗位會多於創造的崗位。這個判斷可能是錯的,但值得當成一次壓力測試:如果你的崗位有 50% 的內容可以被自動化,你手上有沒有一項短期內難以替代的能力?如果沒有,現在開始積累,比等到那一天再準備要從容得多。真正被淘汰的人,往往是在衝擊到來之前就停止了學習。
文稿來自 Lex Fridman 官網公開發布的官方 Transcript(含說話人與時間戳)。
Benjamin Netanyahu (00:00:00): We should never, and I never sit aside and say, oh, they’re just threatening to destroy us. They won’t do it. If somebody threatens to eliminate you as Iran is doing today, and as Hitler did then and people discounted it, well, if somebody threatens to annihilate us, take them seriously and act to prevent it early on. Don’t let them have the means to do so because that may be too late. Lex Fridman (00:00:26): The following is a conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu, prime Minister of Israel, currently serving his sixth term in office. He’s one of the most influential, powerful, and controversial men in the world, leading a right-wing coalition government at the center of one of the most intense and long-lasting conflicts and crises in human history. Lex Fridman (00:00:47): As we spoke, and as I speak now, large scale protests are breaking out all over Israel over this government’s proposed judicial reform that seeks to weaken the Supreme Court in a bold accumulation of power. Given the current intense political battles in Israel, our previous intention to speak for three hours was adjusted to one hour for the time being, but we agreed to speak again for much longer in the future. I will also interview people who harshly disagree with words spoken in this conversation. I will speak with other world leaders, with religious leaders, with historians and activists, and with people who have lived and have suffered through the pain of war, destruction and loss that stoke the fires of anger and hate in their heart. Lex Fridman (00:01:35): For this, I will travel anywhere no matter how dangerous if there’s any chance, it may help add to understanding and love in the world. I believe in the power of conversation to do just this, to remind us of our common humanity. I know I’m under-qualified and under-skilled for these conversations, so I will often fall short and I will certainly get attacked, derided and slandered. But I will always turn the other cheek and use these attacks to learn to improve, and no matter what, never give into cynicism. Lex Fridman (00:02:12): This life, this world of ours is too beautiful not to keep trying. Trying to do some good in whatever way each of us know how. I love you all. Lex Fridman (00:02:25): This is The Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Benjamin Netanyahu. Lex Fridman (00:02:35): You’re loved by many people here in Israel and in the world, but you’re also hated by many. In fact, I think you may be one of the most hated men in the world. So if there’s a young man or a young woman listening to this right now who have such hate in their heart, what can you say to them to one day turn that hate into love? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:02:58): I disagree with the premise of your question. I think I’ve enjoyed a very broad support around the world. There are certain corners in which we have this animosity that you describe, and it sort of permeates in some of the newspapers and the news organs and so on in the United States, but it certainly doesn’t reflect the broad support that I have. I just gave an interview on an Iranian channel, 60 million viewers. I gave another one, just did a little video a few years ago, 25 million viewers from Iran. Certainly no hate there I have to tell you, not from the regime. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:03:45): And when I go around the world and I’ve been around the world, people want to hear what we have to say. What I have to say as a leader of Israel whom they respect increasingly as a rising power in the world. So I disagree with that. And the most important thing that goes against what you said is the respect that we receive from the Arab world and the fact that we’ve made four historic peace agreements with Arab countries. And they made it with me, they didn’t make it with anyone else. And I respect them and they respect me and probably more to come. So I think the premise is wrong, that’s all. Lex Fridman (00:04:24): Well, there’s a lot of love, yes. A lot of leaders are collaborating are – Benjamin Netanyahu (00:04:32): Respect, I said not love. Lex Fridman (00:04:34): Okay. All right. Well, it’s a spectrum, but there is people who don’t have good things to say about Israel, who do have hate in their heart for Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:04:45): Yeah. Lex Fridman (00:04:46): And what can you say to those people? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:04:49): Well, I think they don’t know very much. I think they’re guided by a lot of ignorance. They don’t know about Israel. They don’t know that Israel is a stellar democracy, that it happens to be one of the most advanced societies on the planet. That what Israel develops helps humanity in every field, in medicine, in agriculture and in the environment and telecoms and talk about AI in a minute. But changing the world for the better and spreading this among six continents. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:05:21): We’ve sent rescue teams more than any other country in the world, and we’re one 10th of 1% of the world’s population. But when there’s an earthquake or a devastation in Haiti or in the Philippines, Israel is there. When there’s an devastating earthquake in Turkey, Israel was there. When there’s something in Nepal, Israel is there, and it’s the second country. It’s the second country after, in one case, India or after another case, the United States, Israel is there. Tiny Israel is a benefactor to all of humanity. Lex Fridman (00:05:57): So you’re a student of history. If I can just linger on that philosophical notion of hate, that part of human nature. If you look at World War II, what do you learn from human nature, from the rise of the Third Reich and the rise of somebody like Hitler and the hate that permeates that? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:06:19): Well, what I’ve learned is that you have to nip bad things in the bud. There’s a Latin term that says [foreign language 00:06:29], stop bad things when they’re small. And the deliberate hatred, the incitement of hatred against one community, it’s demonization, delegitimization that goes with it is a very dangerous thing. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:06:48): And that happened in the case of the Jews. What started with the Jews soon spread to all of humanity. So what we’ve learned is that we should never, and I never sit aside and say, “Oh, they’re just threatening to destroy us. They won’t do it.” If somebody threatens to eliminate you as Iran is doing today, and as Hitler did then, and people discounted it, well, if somebody threatens to annihilate us, take them seriously and act to prevent it early on. Don’t let them have the means to do so because that may be too late. Lex Fridman (00:07:21): So in those threats underlying that hatred, how much of it is anti-Zionism, and how much of it is anti-Semitism? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:07:31): I don’t distinguish between the two. You can’t say, “Well, I’m, I’m okay with Jews, but I just don’t think there should be a Jewish state.” It’s like saying, “I’m not anti-American, I just don’t think there should be an America.” That’s basically what people are saying vis-a-vis anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:07:49): When you’re saying anti-Zionism you’re saying that Jewish people don’t have a right to have a state of their own. And that is a denial of a basic principle that I think completely unmasks what is involved here. Today anti-Semitism is anti-Zionism. Those who oppose the Jewish people oppose the Jewish state. Lex Fridman (00:08:15): If we jump from human history to the current particular moment, there’s protests in Israel now about the proposed judicial reform that gives power to your government to override the Supreme Court. So the critics say that this gives too much power to you, virtually making you a dictator. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:08:35): Yeah. Well, that’s ridiculous. The mere fact that you have so many demonstrations and protests, some dictatorship, huh? There’s a lot of democracy here, more rambunctious and more robust than just anywhere on the planet. Lex Fridman (00:08:52): Can you still man the case that this may give too much power to the coalition government, to the prime minister, not just to you, but to those who follow? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:09:04): No, I think that’s complete hogwash because I think there’s very few people who are demonstrating against this. Quite a few, quite many, don’t have an idea what is being discussed. They’re basically being sloganized. You can sloganized, you know something about not mass media right now, but the social network, you can basically feed deliberately with big data and big money, you can just feed slogans and get into people’s minds. I’m sure you don’t think I exaggerate, because you can tell me more about that. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:09:38): And you can create mass mobilization based on these absurd slogans. So here’s where I come from and what we’re doing, what we’re trying to do, and what we’ve changed in what we’re trying to do. I’m a 19th century democrat in my, small D yes, in my views. That is I ask the question, “What is democracy?” So democracy is the will of the majority and the protection of the rights of, they call it the rights of the minority, but I say the rights of the individual. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:10:11): So how do you balance the two? How do you avoid mobocracy? And how do you avoid dictatorship? The opposite side. The way you avoid it is something that was built essentially by British philosophers and French philosophers, but was encapsulated by the Founding Fathers of the United States. You create a balance between the three branches of government, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:10:41): And this balance is what assures the balance between majority rights and individual rights. And you have to balance all of them. That balance was maintained in Israel in its first 50 years, and was gradually overtaken and basically broken by the most activist judicial court on the planet. That’s what happened here. And gradually over the last two, three decades, the court aggregated for itself the powers of the parliament and the executive. So we’re trying to bring it back into line. Bringing it back into line, into what is common in all parliamentary democracies and in the United States, doesn’t mean taking the pendulum from one side and bringing it to the other side. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:11:29): We want checks and balances, not unrivaled power. Just as we said, we want an independent judiciary, but not an all powerful judiciary. That balance does not mean, bringing it back into line, doesn’t mean that you can have the parliament, our Knesset, override any decision that the Supreme Court does. So I pretty much early on said, after the judicial reform was introduced, “Get rid of the idea of sweeping override clause that would have, with 61 votes, that’s a majority of one, you can just nullify any Supreme Court decision, so let’s move it back into the center.” So that’s gone. And most of the criticism on the judicial reform was based on an unlimited override clause, which I’ve said is simply not going to happen. People are discussing something that already for six months does not exist. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:12:20): The second point that we received criticism on was the structure of how do you choose Supreme Court judges? Okay, how do you choose them? And the critics of the reform are saying that the idea that elected officials should choose Supreme Court judges is the end of democracy. If that’s the case, the United States is not a democracy. Neither is France and neither are just, I don’t know, just about every democracy on the planet. So there is a view here that you can’t have the sordid hands of elected officials involved in the choosing of judges. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:12:59): And in the Israeli system, the judicial activism went so far that effectively the sitting judges have an effective veto on choosing judges, which means that this is a self-selecting court that just perpetrates itself. And we want to correct that. Again, we want to correct it in a balanced way. And that’s basically what we’re trying to do. So I think there’s a lot of misinformation about that. We’re trying to bring Israeli democracy to where it was in its first 50 years. And it was a stellar democracy. It still is. Israel is a democracy, will remain a democracy, a vibrant democracy. And believe me, the fact that people are arguing and demonstrating in the streets and protesting is the best proof of that, and that’s how it’ll remain. Lex Fridman (00:13:49): We spoke about tech companies offline, there’s a lot of tech companies nervous about this judicial reform. Can you speak to why large and small companies have a future in Israel? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:14:03): Because Israel is a free market economy. I had something to do with that. I introduced dozens and dozens of free market reforms that made Israel move from $17,000 per capita income within very short time to $54,000. That’s nominal GDP per capita according to the IMF. And we’ve overtaken in that Japan, France, Britain, Germany. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:14:29): And how did that happen? Because we unleashed the genius that we have and the initiative and the entrepreneurship that is latent in our population. And to do that, we had to create free markets. So we created that. So Israel has one of the most vibrant free market economies in the world. And the second thing we have is a permanent investment in conceptual products because we have a permanent investment in the military, in our security services, creating basically knowledge workers who then become knowledge entrepreneurs. And so we create this structure, and that’s not going to go away. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:15:09): There’s been a decline in investments in high-tech globally. I think that’s driven by many factors. But the most important one is the interest rate, which I think will, it’ll fluctuate up and down. But Israel will remain a very attractive country because it produces so many knowledge workers in a knowledge based economy. And it’s changing so rapidly. The world is changing. You’re looking for the places that have innovation. The future belongs to those who innovate. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:15:41): Israel is the preeminent innovation nation. It has few competitors. And if we would say, “All right, where do you have this close cross-disciplinary fermentation of various skills in areas?” I would say “It’s in Israel.” And I’ll tell you why. We used to be just telecoms because people went out of the military intelligence, RNSA, but that’s been now broad based. So you find it in medicine, you find it in biology, you find it in agritech, you find it everywhere. Everything is becoming technologized. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:16:17): And in Israel, everybody is dealing in everything, and that’s a potent reservoir of talent that the world is not going to pass up. And in fact, it’s coming to us. We just had Nvidia coming here, and they decided to build a supercomputer in Israel. Wonder why? We’ve had Intel coming here and deciding now to invest $25 billion, just now, in a new plant in Israel. I wonder why? I don’t wonder why. They know why. Because the talent is here and the freedom is here. And it will remain so. Lex Fridman (00:16:52): You had a conversation about AI with Sam Altman of Open AI and with Elon Musk. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:16:57): Yeah. Lex Fridman (00:16:57): What was the content of that conversation? What’s your vision for this very highest of tech, which is artificial intelligence? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:17:09): Well, first of all, I have a high regard for the people I talked to. And I understand that they understand things I don’t understand, and I don’t pretend to understand everything. But I do understand one thing. I understand that AI is developing at a geometric rate and mostly in political life and in life in general people don’t have an intuitive grasp of geometric growth. You understand things basically in linear increments. And the idea that you’re coming up a ski slope is very foreign to people. So they don’t understand it, and they’re naturally also sort of taken aback by it. Because what do you do? So I think there’s several conclusions from my conversations with them and from my other observations that I’ve been talking about for many years. I’m talking about the need- Benjamin Netanyahu (00:18:00): … observations that I’ve been talking about for many years. I’m talking about the need to do this. Well, the first thing is this. There is no possibility of not entering AI with full force. Secondly, there is a need for regulation. Third, it’s not clear there will be global regulation. Fourth, it’s not clear where it ends up. I certainly cannot say that. Now, you might say, “Does it come to control us?” Okay, that’s a question. Does it come to control us? I don’t know the answer to that. I think that, as one observation that I had from these conversations is if it does come to control us, that’s probably the only chance of having universal regulation, because I don’t see anyone deciding to avoid the race and cooperate unless you have that threat. Doesn’t mean you can’t regulate AI within countries even without that understanding, but it does mean that there’s a limit to regulation because every country will want to make sure that it doesn’t give up competitive advantage if there is no universal regulation. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:19:19): I think that right now, just as 10 years ago, I read a novel. I don’t read novels, but I was forced to read one by a scientific advisor. I read history, I read about economics, I read about technology. I just don’t read novels. In this, I follow Churchill. He said, “Fact is better than fiction.” Well, this fiction would become fact. It was a book, it was a novel about a Chinese/American future cyber war. I read the book in one sitting, called in a team of experts, and I said, “All right, let’s turn Israel into one of the world’s five cyber powers and let’s do it very quickly.” And we did actually. We did exactly that. I think AI is bigger than that and related to that, because it’ll affect … Well, cyber affects everything, but AI will affect it even more fundamentally. And the joining of the two could be very powerful. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:20:19): So I think in Israel, we have to do it anyway for security reasons and we’re doing it. But I think, what about our databases that are already very robust on the medical records of 98% of our population? Why don’t we stick a genetic database on that? Why don’t we do other things that could bring what are seemingly magical cures and drugs and medical instruments for that? That’s one possibility. We have it, as I said, in every single field. The conclusion is this. We have to move on AI. We are moving on AI, just as we moved on cyber, and I think Israel will be one of the leading AI powers in the world. The questions I don’t have an answer to is, where does it go? How much does it chew up on jobs? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:21:19): There’s an assumption that I’m not sure is true, that the two big previous revolutions in the human condition, namely the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, definitely produced more jobs than they consumed. That is not obvious to me at all. I mean, I could see new jobs creating, and yes, I have that comforting statement, but it’s not quite true, because I think on balance, they’ll probably consume more jobs, many more jobs than they’ll create. Lex Fridman (00:21:58): At least in the short term. And we don’t know about the long term. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:22:01): No, I don’t know about the long term, but I used to have the comfort being a free market guy. I always said, “We’re going to produce more jobs by, I don’t know, limiting certain government jobs.” We’re actually putting out in the market, will create more jobs, which obviously happened. We had one telecom company, a government company. When I said, “We’re going to create competition,” they said, “You’re going to run us out. We’re not going to have more workers.” They had 13,000 workers. They went down to seven, but we created another 40,000 in the other companies. So, that was a comforting thought. I always knew that was true. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:22:36): Not only that. I also knew that wealth would spread by opening up the markets, completely opposite to the socialist and semi-socialist creed that they had here. They said, “You’re going to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.” No. And made everyone richer, and actually the people who entered the job market because of the reforms we did, actually became a lot richer on the lower ladders of the socioeconomic measure. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:23:05): But here’s the point, I don’t know. I don’t know that we will not have what Elon Musk calls the end of scarcity. So you’ll have the end of scarcity. You’ll have enormous productivity. Very few people are producing enormous added value. You’re going to have to tax that to pass it to the others. You’re going to have to do that. That’s a political question. I’m not sure how we answer that. What if you tax and somebody else doesn’t tax? You’re going to get everybody to go there. That’s an international issue that we constantly have to deal with. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:23:42): And the second question you have is, suppose you solve that problem and you deliver money to those who are not involved in the AI economy, what do they do? The first question you ask somebody whom you just met after the polite exchanges is, what do you do? Well, people define themselves by their profession. It’s going to be difficult if you don’t have a profession. People will spend more time self-searching, more time in the arts, more time in leisure. I understand that. If I have to bet, it will annihilate many more jobs than it will create and it’ll force a structural change in our economics, in our economic models, and in our politics. And I’m not sure where it’s going to go. Lex Fridman (00:24:40): And that’s something we have to respond to at the nation level and just as a human civilization, both the threat of AI to just us as a human species and then the effect on the jobs. And like you said, cybersecurity. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:24:55): What do you think? You think we’re going to lose control? Lex Fridman (00:25:00): No, first of all, I do believe, maybe naively, that it will create more jobs than it takes. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:25:05): Write that down and we’ll check it. Lex Fridman (00:25:07): It’s on record. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:25:09): We don’t say, “We’ll check it after our lifetime.” No, we’ll see it in a few years. Lex Fridman (00:25:12): We’ll see it in a few years. I’m really concerned about cybersecurity and the nature of how that changes with the power of AI. In terms of existential threats, I think there will be so much threats that aren’t existential along the way that that’s the thing I’m mostly concerned about, versus AI taking complete control and superseding the human species. Although that is something you should consider seriously because of the exponential growth of its capabilities. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:25:43): Yeah, it’s exactly the exponential growth, which we understand is before us, but we don’t really … It’s very hard to project forward. Lex Fridman (00:25:51): To really understand. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:25:52): That’s right. Exactly right. So I deal with what I can and where I can affect something. I tend not to worry about things I don’t control, because there’s at a certain point, there’s no point. I mean, you have to decide what you’re spending your time on. So in practical terms, I think we’ll make Israel a formidable AI power. We understand the limitation of skill, computing power and other things. But I think within those limits, I think we can make here this miracle that we did in many other things. We do more with less. I don’t care if it’s the production of water or the production of energy or the production of knowledge or the production of cyber capabilities, defense and other, we just do more with less. And I think in AI, we’re going to do a lot more with a relatively small but highly gifted population. Very gifted. Lex Fridman (00:26:53): So taking a small tangent, as we talked about offline, you have a background in TaeKwonDo? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:27:00): Oh, yeah. Lex Fridman (00:27:01): We mentioned Elon Musk. I’ve trained with both. Just as a quick question, who are you betting on in a fight? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:27:08): Well, I refuse to answer that. I will say this. Lex Fridman (00:27:13): Such a politician, you are. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:27:14): Yeah, of course. Here, I’m a politician. I’m openly telling you that I’m dodging the question. But I’ll say this. Actually, I spent five years in our special forces in the military, and we barely spent a minute on martial arts. I actually learned TaeKwonDo later when I came to … It wasn’t even at MIT. At MIT, I think I did karate. But when I came to the UN, I had a martial arts expert who taught me TaeKwonDo, which was interesting. Now, the question you really have to ask is, why did we learn martial arts in this special elite unit? And the answer is, there’s no point. If you saw Indiana Jones, there’s no point. You just pull the trigger. That’s simple. Now, I don’t expect anyone to pull the trigger on this combat, and I’m sure you’ll make sure that doesn’t happen. Lex Fridman (00:28:15): Yeah. I mean, martial arts is bigger than just combat. It’s this journey of humility. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:28:21): Oh, sure. Lex Fridman (00:28:23): It’s an art form. It truly is an art. But it’s fascinating that these two figures in tech are facing each other. I won’t ask the question of who you would face and how you would do, but … Benjamin Netanyahu (00:28:34): Well, I’m facing opponents all the time. Lex Fridman (00:28:36): All the time? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:28:37): Yeah, that’s part of life. Lex Fridman (00:28:41): Not yet. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:28:41): I’m not sure about that. Lex Fridman (00:28:42): Are you announcing any fights? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:28:44): No, no. Part of life is competition. The only time competition ends is death. But political life, economic life, cultural life is engaged continuously in creativity and competition. The problem I have with that is, as I mentioned earlier just before we began the podcast, is that at a certain point, you want to put barriers to monopoly. And if you’re a really able competitor, you’re going to create a monopoly. That’s what Peter Till says is a natural course of things. It’s what I learned basically in the Boston Consulting Group. If you are a very able competitor, you’ll create scale advantages that gives you the ability to lock out your competition. And as a prime minister, I want to assure that there is competition in the markets, so you have to limit this competitive power at a certain point, and that becomes increasingly hard in a world where everything is intermixed. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:29:49): Where do you define market segments? Where do you define monopoly? How do you do that? That, actually conceptually, I find very challenging, because of all the dozens of economic reforms that I’ve made, the most difficult part is the conceptual part. Once you’ve ironed it out and you say, “Here’s what I want to do. Here’s the right thing to do,” then you have a practical problem of overcoming union resistance, political resistance, press calumny, opponents from this or that corner. That’s a practical matter. But if you have it conceptually defined, you can move ahead to reform economies or reform education or reform transportation. Fine. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:30:38): In the question of the growing power of large companies, big tech companies to monopolize the markets because they’re better at it, they provide a service, they provide it at a lower cost, at rapidly declining cost. Where do you stop? Where do you stop monopoly power is a crucial question because it also becomes now a political question. If you amass enormous amount of economic power, which is information power, that also monopolizes the political process. These are real questions that are not obvious. I don’t have an obvious answer because as I said, as a 19th century Democrat, these are questions of the 21st century, which people should begin to think. Do you have a solution to that? Lex Fridman (00:31:27): The solution of monopolies growing arbitrarily- Benjamin Netanyahu (00:31:30): Yeah. Lex Fridman (00:31:31): … unstoppably in power? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:31:33): In economic power, and therefore in political power. Lex Fridman (00:31:36): I mean, some of that is regulation, some of that is competition. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:31:40): Do you know where to draw the line? It’s not breaking up AT&T. It’s not that simple. Lex Fridman (00:31:49): Well, I believe in the power of competition, that there will always be somebody that challenges the big guys, especially in the space of AI. The more open source movements are taking hold, the more the little guy can become the big guy. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:32:02): So you’re saying basically the regulatory instrument is the market? Lex Fridman (00:32:09): In large part, in most part, that’s the hope. Maybe I’m a dreamer. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:32:13): That’s been in many ways my policy up to now, that the best regulator is the market. The best regulator in economic activity is the market and the best regulator in political matters is the political market. That’s called elections. That’s what regulates. You have a lousy government and people make lousy decisions, well, you don’t need the wise men raised above the masses to decide what is good and what is bad. Let the masses decide. Let them vote every four years or whatever, and they throw you out. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:32:54): By the way, it happened to me. There’s life after political death. There’s actually political life. I was reelected five or six times, and this is my sixth term. So I believe in that. I’m not sure that in economic matters, in the geometric growth of tech companies, that you’ll always have the little guy, the nimble mammal, that will come out and slay the dinosaurs or overcome the dinosaurs, which is essentially what you said. Lex Fridman (00:33:25): Yeah, I wouldn’t count out the little guy. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:33:27): You wouldn’t count out the little? Lex Fridman (00:33:28): No. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:33:29): Well, I hope you’re right. Lex Fridman (00:33:31): Well, let me ask you about this market of politics. So you have served six terms as prime minister over 15 years in power. Let me ask you again, human nature. Do you worry about the corrupting nature of power on you as a leader, on you as a man? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:33:48): Not at all. Because I think that, again, the thing that drives me is nothing but the mission that I took to assure the survival and thriving of the Jewish state. That is, its economic prosperity, but its security and its ability to achieve peace with our neighbors. And I’m committed to it. I think there are many things that have been done. There are a few big things that I can still do, but it doesn’t only depend on my sense of mission. It depends on the market, as we say. It depends really on the will of the Israeli voters. And the Israeli voters have decided to vote for me again and again, even though I wield no power in the press, no power in many quarters here and so on, nothing. I mean, probably, I’m going to be very soon the longest serving prime minister in the last half century in the Western democracies. But that’s not because I amassed great political power in any of the institutions. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:34:56): I remember I had a conversation with Silvio Berlusconi, who recently died, and he said to me about, I don’t know, 15 years ago, something like that, he said, “So Bibi, how many of Israel’s television stations do you have?” And I said, “None.” He said, “You have none?” Lex Fridman (00:35:23): Do you have? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:35:24): “Do you have?” I said, “None. I have two.” He said, “No, no. What, you mean you don’t have any that you control?” I said, “Not only do I have none that I control, they’re all against me.” So he says, “So how do you win elections with both hands tied behind your back?” And I said, “The hard way.” That’s why I have the largest party, but I don’t have many more seats than I would have if I had a sympathetic voice in the media. And Israel until recently, was dominated completely by one side of the political spectrum that often vilified me, not me, because they viewed- Benjamin Netanyahu (00:36:01): … vilified me, not me, because they viewed me as representing basically the conservative voices in Israel that are majority. And so the idea that I’m an omnipotent, authoritarian dictator is ridiculous. I would say I’m not merely a champion of democracy and democratization. I believe ultimately the decision is with the voters and the voters, even though they have constant press attacks, they’ve chosen to put me back in. So I don’t believe in this thing of amassing the corrupting power of if you don’t have elections. If you control the means of influencing the voters, I understand what you’re saying, but in my case, it’s exact opposite. I have to constantly go in elections, constantly with a disadvantage that the major media outlets are very violently sometimes against me, but it’s fine. And I keep on winning. So I don’t know what you’re talking about. I would say the concentration of power lies elsewhere, not here. Lex Fridman (00:37:15): Well, you have been involved in several corruption cases. How much corruption is there in Israel and how do you fight it in your own party and in Israel? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:37:24): Well, you should ask a different question. What’s happened to these cases? These cases basically are collapsing before our eyes, there was recently an event in which the three judges in my case, called in the prosecution and said, “Your flagship, the so-called bribery charges is gone, doesn’t exist,” before a single defense witness was called. And it sort of tells you that this thing is evaporating. It’s quite astounding even that I have to say, was covered even by the mainstream press in Israel because it’s such an earthquake. So a lot of these charges are not a lot. These charges will prove to be nothing. I always said, “Listen, I stand before the legal process.” I don’t claim that I’m exempt from it in any way. On the contrary, I think the truth will come out and it’s coming out. And we see that not only that, but with other things. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:38:28): So I think it’s kind of instructive that no politician has been more vilified. None has been put to such a, what is it? About a quarter of a billion shekels were used to scrutinize me, scour my bank accounts, sending people to the Philippines, into Mexico, into Europe, into America, and everybody using spyware, the most advanced spyware on the planet against my associates, blackmailing witnesses, telling them, “Think about your family, think about your wife. You better tell us what you want.” All that is coming out of the trial. So I would say that most people now are not asking, are no longer asking, including my opponents. It’s sort of trickling in as the stuff comes out. People are not saying, “What did Netanyahu do, because apparently he did nothing?” “What was done to him?” is something that people ask. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:39:31): “What was done to him? What was done to our democracy, what was done in the attempt to put down somebody who keeps winning elections, despite the handicaps that I described? Maybe we can nail him by framing him.” And the one thing I can say about this court trial is that things are coming up and that’s very good, just objective things are coming out and changing the picture. So I would say the attempt to brand me as corrupt is falling on its face. But the thing that is being uncovered in the trial, such as the use of spyware on a politician, a politician’s surroundings to try to shake them down in investigations, put them in flea-ridden cells for 21 days. Invite their 84 year old mother to investigations without cause, bringing in their mistresses in the corridor, shaking them down, that’s what people are asking. That corruption is what they want corrected. Lex Fridman (00:40:46): What is the top obstacle to peaceful coexistence of Israelis and Palestinians? Let’s talk about the big question of peace in this part of the world. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:40:55): Well, I think the reason you have the persistence of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, which goes back about a century, is the persistent Palestinian refusal to recognize a Jewish state, a nation state for the Jewish people in any boundary. That’s why they opposed the establishment of the state of Israel before we had a state. Now that’s why they’ve opposed it after we had a state. They opposed it when we didn’t have Judea and Samaria, the West Bank in our hands and Gaza, and they oppose it after we have it. It doesn’t make a difference. It’s basically their persistent refusal to recognize a Jewish state in any boundaries. And I think that their tragedy is that they’ve been commandeered for a century by leadership that refused to compromise with the idea of Zionism, namely that the Jews deserve a state in this part of the world. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:41:49): The territorial dispute is something else. You have a territorial dispute if you say, “Okay, you are living on this side, we’re living on that side. Let’s decide where the border is and so on.” That’s not what the argument is. The Palestinian society, which is itself fragmented, but all the factions agree, there shouldn’t be a Jewish state anywhere. They just disagree between Hamas that says, “Oh, well you should have it. We should get rid of it with terror.” And the others who say, “We know we should also use political means to dissolve it.” So that is the problem. Lex Fridman (00:42:28): So even as part of a two-state solution, they’re still against the idea. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:42:33): Well, they don’t want a state next to Israel. They want a state instead of Israel. And they say, “If we get a state, we’ll use it as a springboard to destroy the smaller Israeli state.” Which is what happened when Israel unilaterally walked out of Gaza and effectively established a Hamas state there. They didn’t say, “Oh good, now we have our own territory, our own state. Israel is no longer there. Let’s build peace. Let’s build economic projects. Let’s enfranchise our people.” No, they turned it basically into a terror bastion from which they fired 10,000 rockets into Israel. When Israel left Lebanon because we had terrorist attacks from there, then we had Lebanon taken over by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that seeks to destroy Israel. And therefore every time we just walked out, what we got was not peace, we didn’t give territory for peace, we got territory for terror. That’s what we had. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:43:35): And that’s what would happen as long as the reigning ideology says, “We don’t want Israel in any border.” So the idea of two states assumes that you’d have on the other side a state that wants to live in peace and not one that will be overtaken by Iran in its proxies in two seconds and become a base to destroy Israel. And therefore, I think that most Israelis today, if you ask them, they’d say it’s not going to work in that concept, so what do you do with the Palestinians? They’re still there. And unlike them, I don’t want to throw them out. They’re going to be living here and we’re going to be living here in an area, which is by the way, just to understand the area, the entire area of so-called West Bank and Israel is the width of the Washington Beltway, more or less. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:44:26): Just a little more, not much more. You can’t really divide it up. You can’t say, “Well, you’re going to fly in. Who controls the airspace?” Well, it takes you about two and a half minutes to cross it with a regular 747. With a fighter plane it takes you a minute and a half, okay? So how are you going to divide the airspace? Well, you’re not going to divide it. Israel’s going to control that airspace and the electromagnetic space and so on. So security has to be in the hands of Israel. My view of how you solve this problem is a simple principle. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves and none of the powers to threaten Israel, which basically means that the responsibility for overall security remains with Israel. And from a practical point of view, we’ve seen that every time that Israel leaves a territory and takes its security forces out of an area, it immediately is overtaken by Hamas or Hezbollah or Jihadist who basically are committed to the destruction of Israel and also bring misery to the Palestinians or Arab subjects. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:45:40): So I think that principle is less than perfect sovereignty because you’re taking a certain amount of sovereign powers, especially security away. But I think it’s the only practical solution. So people say, “Ah, but it’s not a perfect state.” I say, “Okay, call it what you will. Call it, I don’t know, limited sovereignty. Call it the autonomy plus. Call it whatever you want to call it.” But that’s the reality. And right now, if you ask Israelis across the political spectrum, except the very hard left, most Israelis agree with that. They don’t really debate it. Lex Fridman (00:46:14): So a two-state solution where Israel controls the security of the entire region. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:46:18): We don’t call it quite that. I mean there are different names, but the idea is yes, Israel controls security in the, is the entire area. It’s this tiny area between the Jordan River and the sea. I mean it’s like, you can walk it in not one afternoon. If you’re really fit, you can do it in a day, less than a day. I did. Lex Fridman (00:46:39): So the expansion of settlements in the West Bank has been a top priority for this new government. So people may harshly criticize this as contributing to escalating the Israel-Palestine tensions. Can you understand that perspective, that this expansion of settlements is not good for this two-state solution? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:46:59): Yeah, I can understand what they’re saying, and they don’t understand why they’re wrong. First, most Israelis who live in Judea, Samaria live in urban blocks, and that accounts for about 90% of the population. And everybody recognizes that those urban blocks are going to be part of Israel in any future arrangement. So they’re really arguing about something that has already been decided and agreed upon, really by Americans, even by Arabs, many Arabs, they don’t think that Israel is going to dismantle these blocks. You look outside the window here, and within about a kilometer or a mile from here, as you have Jerusalem, half of Jerusalem grew naturally beyond the old 1967 border. So you’re not going to dismantle half of Jerusalem. That’s not going to happen. And most people don’t expect that. Then you have the other 10% scattered in tiny, small communities, and people say, “Well, you’re going to have to take them out.” Why? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:48:05): Remember that in pre-1967 Israel, we have over a million and a half Arabs here. We don’t say, “Oh, Israel has to be ethnically cleansed from its Arab citizens in order to have peace.” Of course not. Jews can live among Arabs, and Arabs can live among Jews. And what is being advanced by those people who say that we can’t live in our ancestral homeland in these disputed areas. Nobody says that this is Palestinian areas and nobody says that these are Israeli areas. We claim them, they claim them. We’ve only been attached to this land for oh, 3,500 years. But it’s a dispute, I agree. But I don’t agree that we should throw out the Arabs. And I don’t think that they should throw out the Jews. And if somebody said to you, “The only way we’re going to have peace with Israel is to have an ethnically cleansed Palestinian entity,” that’s outrageous. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:49:00): If you said you shouldn’t have Jews living in, I don’t know, in suburbs of London or New York and so on, I don’t think that will play too well. The world is actually advancing a solution that says that Jews cannot live among Arabs, and Arabs cannot live among Jews. I don’t think that’s the right way to do it. And I think there’s a solution out there, but I don’t think we’re going to get to it, which is less than perfect sovereignty, which involves Israeli security, maintained for the entire territory by Israel, which involves not rooting out anybody. Not kicking out, uprooting Arabs or Palestinians. They’re going to live in enclaves in sovereign Israel and we’re going to live in probably in enclaves there, probably through transportation continuity as opposed to territorial continuity. For example, you can have tunnels and overpasses and so on that connect the various communities. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:49:57): We’re doing that right now, and it actually works. I think there is a solution to this. It’s not the perfect world that people think of because that model I think doesn’t apply here. If it applies elsewhere, it’s a question. I don’t think so. But I think there’s one other thing, and that’s the main thing that I’ve been involved in. People said, “If you don’t solve the Palestinian problem, you’re not going to get to the Arab world. You’re not going to have peace with the Arab world.” Remember, the Palestinians are about 2% of the Arab world, and the other 98%, you’re not going to make peace with them. And that’s our goal. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:50:39): And for a long time, people accepted that. After the initial peace treaties with Egypt, with Prime Minister Begin of the Likud and President Sadat of Egypt, and then with Jordan between Prime Minister Rabin and King Hussein. For a quarter of a century we didn’t have any more peace treaties because people said, “You got to go through the Palestinians” and the Palestinians, they don’t want a solution of the kind that I described or any kind except the one that involved the dissolution of the state of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:51:08): So we could wait another half century. And I said, “No, I don’t think that we should accept the premise that we have to wait for the Palestinians because we’ll have to wait forever.” So I decided to do it differently. I decided to go directly to the Arab capitals and to make the historic Abraham Accords and essentially reversing the equation, not a peace process that goes inside out, but outside in. And we went directly to these countries and forged these breakthrough peace accords with the United Arab Emirates, with Bahrain, with Morocco and with Sudan. And we’re now trying to expand that in a quantum leap with Saudi Arabia. Lex Fridman (00:51:56): What does it take to do that with Saudi Arabia, with the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:52:01): I’m a student of history, and I read a lot of history, and I read that in the Versailles discussions after World War I, President Woodrow Wilson said, “I believe in open covenants openly arrived at.” I have my correction. I believed in open covenants secretly arrived at so we’re not going to advance a Saudi-Israeli peace by having it publicly discussed. And in any case, it’s a decision of the Saudis if they want to do it, but there’s obviously a mutual interest. So here’s my view, if we try to wait for the 2% in order to get to the 98%, we’re going to fail and we have failed. If we go to the 98%, we have a much greater chance of persuading the 2%. You know why? Because the 2% the Palestinian hope to vanquish the state of Israel and not make peace with it, is based, among other things, on the assumption that eventually the 98%, the rest of the Arab world, will kick in and destroy the Jewish state, help them dissolve or destroy the Jewish state. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:53:08): When that hope is taken away, then you begin to have a turn to the realistic solutions of coexistence. By the way, they’ll require compromise on the Israeli side too. And then I’m perfectly cognizant of that and willing to do that. But I think a realistic compromise will be struck much more readily when the conflict between Israel and the Arab states, the Arab world, is effectively solved. And I think we’re on that path. It was a conceptual change just like I’ve been involved in a few, I told you the conceptual battle is always the most difficult one. And I had to fight this battle to convert a semi-socialist state into a free market capitalist state. And I have to say that most people today recognize the power of competition and the benefits of free markets. So we also had to fight this battle- Benjamin Netanyahu (00:54:00): … free markets. So we also had to fight this battle that said you have to go through the Palestinian straight, S-T-R-A-I-T, to get to the other places. There’s no way to avoid this, you have to go through this impassable pass. And I think that now people are recognizing that we’ll go around it and probably circle back. And that, I think, actually gives hope not only to have an Arab-Israeli peace, but circling back in Israeli-Palestinian peace. And obviously this is not something that you find in the soundbites and so on, but in the popular discussion of the press. But that idea is permeating and I think it’s the right idea, because I think it’s the only one that will work. Lex Fridman (00:54:50): So expanding the circle of peace, just to linger on that requires what? Secretly talking man-to-man, human-to-human, to leaders of other nations and- Benjamin Netanyahu (00:55:03): Theoretically, you’re right. Lex Fridman (00:55:04): Theoretically. Okay. Well, let me ask you another theoretical question on this circle of peace. As a student of history, looking at the ideas of war and peace, what do you think can achieve peace in the war in Ukraine looking at another part of the world? If you consider the fight for peace in this part of the world, how can you apply that to that other part of the world between Russia and Ukraine now? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:55:38): I think it’s one of the savage horrors of history and one of the great tragedies that is occurring. Let me say in advance that if I have any opportunity to use my contacts to help bring about an end to this tragedy, I’ll do so. I know both leaders, but I don’t just jump in and assume if there’s be a desire at a certain point because the conditions have created the possibility of helping stop this carnage, then I’ll do it. And that’s why I choose my words carefully, because I think that may be the best thing that I could do. Look, I think what you see in Ukraine is what happens if you have territorial designs on a territory by a country that has nuclear weapons. And that, to me, you see the change in the equation. Now, I think that people are loathed to use nuclear weapons, and I’m not sure that I would think that the Russian side would use them with happy abandon. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:56:59): I don’t think that’s the question, but you see how the whole configuration changes when that happens. So you have to be very careful on how you resolve this conflict. So it doesn’t… well, it doesn’t go off the rails, so to speak. That’s, by the way, the corollaries here. We don’t want Iran, which is an aggressive force with just aggressive ideology of dominating first the Muslim world, and then eliminating Israel, and then becoming a global force, having nuclear weapons. It’s totally different when they don’t have it than when they do have it. And that’s why one of my main goals has been to prevent Iran from having the means of mass destruction, which will be used, atomic bombs, which they openly say will be used against us. And you can understand that. How to bring about an end to Ukraine? I have my ideas. I don’t think that’s worthwhile discussing them now because they might be required later on. Lex Fridman (00:58:06): Do you believe in the power of conversation? Since you have contacts with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin, just leaders sitting in a room and discussing how the end of war can be brought about? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:58:19): I think it’s a combination of that, but I think it’s the question of interest and whether you have to get both sides to a point where they think that that conversation would lead to something useful. I don’t think they’re there right now. Lex Fridman (00:58:37): What part of this is just basic human ego, stubbornness all of this between leaders, which is why I bring up the power of conversation, of sitting in a room realizing we’re human beings, and then there’s a history that connects Ukraine and Russia? Benjamin Netanyahu (00:58:52): I don’t think they’re in a position to enter a room right now, realistically. I mean, you can posit that it would be good if that could happen, but entering the room is sometimes more complicated than what happens in the room. And there’s a lot of pre-negotiations on the negotiation, then you negotiate endlessly on the negotiation. They’re not even there. Lex Fridman (00:59:11): It took a lot of work for you to get to a handshake in the past. Benjamin Netanyahu (00:59:15): It’s an interesting question. How did the peace, the Abraham Accords, how did that begin? We had decades. We had 70 years or 65 years where these people would not meet openly or even secretly with an Israeli leader. Yeah, we had the Mossad making contacts with him all the time, and so on, but how do we break the ice to the top level of leadership? Well, we broke the ice because I took a very strong stance against Iran, and the Gulf states understood that Iran is a formidable danger to them, so we had a common interest. And the second thing is that because of the economic reforms that we had produced in Israel, Israel became a technological powerhouse. And that could help their nations, not only… in terms of anything, of just bettering the life of their peoples. Benjamin Netanyahu (01:00:12): And the combination of the desire to have some kind of protection against Iran or some kind of cooperation against Iran and civilian economic cooperation came to a head when I gave a speech in the American Congress, which I didn’t do lightheartedly, I had to decide to challenge a sitting American president and on the so-called Iranian deal, which I thought would pave Iran’s path with gold to be an effective nuclear power. That’s what would happen. So I went there. And in the course of giving that speech before the joint session of Congress, our delegation received calls from Gulf states who said, “We can’t believe what your prime minister is doing. He’s challenging the President of the United States.” Well, I had no choice because I thought my country’s own existence was imperiled. And remember, we always understand through changing administrations that America under… no matter what leadership is always the irreplaceable and indispensable ally of Israel and will always remain that we can have arguments as we have, but in the family, as we say in [foreign language 01:01:32], it’s the family. Benjamin Netanyahu (01:01:35): But nevertheless, I was forced to take a stand. That produced calls from Gulf states that ultimately led to clandestine meetings that ultimately flowered into the Abraham Accords then. And I think we’re at a point where the idea of ending the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Arab-Israeli conflict can happen. I’m not sure it will. It depends on quite a few things, but it could happen. And if it happens, it might open up the ending of the Israeli-Islamic conflict. Remember, the Arab world is a small part, it’s an important part, but it’s small. There are large Islamic populations and it could bring about an end to an historic enmity between Islam and Judaism. It could be a great thing. Benjamin Netanyahu (01:02:31): So I’m looking at this larger thing. You can be hobbled by saying, “Oh, well, you’ve had this hiccup in Gaza or this or that thing happening in the Palestinians.” It’s important for us because we want security. But I think the larger question is can we break out into a much wider peace and ultimately come back and make the peace between Israel and the Palestinians rather than waiting to solve that and never getting to paint on the larger canvas? I want to paint on the larger canvas and come back to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Lex Fridman (01:03:16): As you write about in your book, what have you learned about life from your father? Benjamin Netanyahu (01:03:21): My father was a great historian and well, he taught me several things. He said that the first condition for a living organism is to identify danger in time, because if you don’t, you could be devoured. You could be destroyed very quickly. And that’s the nature of human conflict. In fact, for the Jewish people, we lost the capacity to identify danger in time, and we were almost devoured and destroyed by the Nazi threat. So when I see somebody parroting the Nazi goal of destroying the Jewish state, I try to mobilize the country and the world in time because I think Iran is a global threat, not only a threat to Israel. That’s the first thing. Benjamin Netanyahu (01:04:17): The second thing is I once asked him, before I got elected, I said, “Well, what do you think is the most important quality for a prime minister of Israel?” And he came back with a question, “What do you think?” And I said, “Well, you have to have vision and you have to have the flexibility of navigating and working towards that vision. Be flexible, but understand where you’re heading.” And he said, “Well, you need that for anything. You need it if you’re a university president or if you’re a leader of a corporation or anything, anybody would’ve to have that.” I said, “All right, so what do you need to be the leader of Israel?” He came back to me with a word that stunned me. He said, “Education. You need a broad and deep education, or you’ll be at the mercy of your clerks or the press or whatever. You have to be able to do that.” Now, as I spend time in government, being reelected by the people of Israel, I recognize more and more how right he was. Benjamin Netanyahu (01:05:37): You need to constantly ask yourself, “Where’s the direction we want to take the country? How do we achieve that goal?” But also understand that new disciplines are being added. You have to learn all the time. You have to add to your intellectual capital all the time. Kissinger said that he wrote that once you enter public life, you begin to draw on your intellectual capital and it’ll be depleted very quickly if you stay a long time. I disagree with that. I think you have to constantly increase your understanding of things as they change, because my father was right. You need to broaden and deepen your education as you go along. You can’t just sit back and say, “Well, I studied some things in university, or in college, or in Boston, or at MIT, and that’s enough. I’ve done it.” No, learn, learn, learn, learn. Never stop. Lex Fridman (01:06:34): And if I may suggest as part of the education, I would add in a little literature, maybe Dostoevsky, in the plentiful of time you have as a prime minister to read. Benjamin Netanyahu (01:06:44): Well, I read him, but I’ll tell you what I think is bigger than Dostoevsky. Lex Fridman (01:06:47): Oh, no. Who’s that? Benjamin Netanyahu (01:06:49): Not who’s that, but what’s that? Dan Rather came to see me with his grandson a few years ago. And the grandson asked me, he was a student in Ivy League college. He’s 18 years old and he wants to study to enter politics. And he said, “What’s the most important thing that I have to study to enter a political life?” And I said, “You have three things you have to study. Okay? History, history and history.” That’s the fundamental discipline for political life. But then you have to study other things, study economics, study politics and so on, and study the military if you have… I had an advantage because I spent some years there, so I learned a lot of that, but I had to acquire the other disciplines. And you never acquire enough. So read, read, read. And by the way, if I have to choose, I read history, history and history. Good works of history, not lousy books. Lex Fridman (01:08:02): Last question. You’ve talked about a survival of a nation. You, yourself, are a mortal being. Do you contemplate your mortality? Do you contemplate your death? Are you afraid of death? Benjamin Netanyahu (01:08:15): Aren’t you? Lex Fridman (01:08:16): Yes. Benjamin Netanyahu (01:08:16): Who is not? I mean, if you’re a conscience, if you’re a being with conscience, I mean, one of the unhappy things about the human brain is that it can contemplate its own demise. And so, we all make our compromises with this, but I think the question is what lives on? What lives on beyond us? And I think that you have to define how much of posterity do you want to influence. I cannot influence the course of humanity. We all are specs, little specs. So that’s not the issue. But in my case, I’ve devoted my life to a very defined purpose. And that is to assure the future and security, and I would say permanence, but that is obviously a limited thing, of the Jewish state and the Jewish people. I don’t think one can exist without the other. So I’ve devoted my life to that. And I hope that in my time on this Earth and in my years in office, I’d have contributed to that. Lex Fridman (01:09:29): Well, you had one heck of a life, starting from MIT to six terms as prime minister. Thank you for this stroll through human history and for this conversation. It was an honor. Benjamin Netanyahu (01:09:44): Thank you. And I hope you come back to Israel many times. Remember it’s the innovation nation. It’s a robust democracy. Don’t believe all the stuff that you are being told. It’ll remain that. It cannot be any other way. I’ll tell you the other thing, it’s the best ally of the United States, and its importance is growing by the day because our capacities in the information world are growing by the day. We need a coalition of the like-minded smarts. This is a smart nation. And we share the basic values of freedom and liberty with the United States. So the coalition of the smarts means Israel is the sixth eye and America has no better ally. Lex Fridman (01:10:33): All right. Now off mic, I’m going to force you to finally tell me who is going to win. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg? But it’s a good time that we ran out of time here. Benjamin Netanyahu (01:10:41): I’ll tell you outside. Lex Fridman (01:10:44): Thanks for listening to this conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Mahatma Gandhi, “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” Thank you for listening and I hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處