Queen Mary Global Policy Institute: This questionnaire is part of a research project about "civil society wars" between two groups of actors. Whereas one group accuses Israel of carrying out egregious violations of human rights, claiming that it has become an apartheid regime, another group of actors defends Israel, arguing that the criticism waged against it is a form of lawfare mobilized by terror apologists, anti-Semites and/or gullible progressives.
Can you please tell us whether you think this very broad characterization is accurate? If yes, where would you situate yourself within the fray, and, if no, how would you characterize the interactions among the civil society actors?
Daniel Pipes: Yes, it is broadly accurate. As for me, my work aims not to defend Israel's reputation but to help figure out how Israel can prevail over its enemies. I engage in strategy, not advocacy. See here for a more detailed explanation. Interactions between pro- and anti-Israel actors tend to be brittle and hostile, with almost no common ground.
QMGPI: What do you think is the ultimate goals of the civil society actors that are critical of Israel?
DP: They range from reform to elimination of the state, with an emphasis on the latter.
QMGPI: Can you describe your work in support of Israel? What are the major outlets/organizations you are active in? What is your role in each one?
DP: As I noted in reply to the first question, my work aims not to "support" Israel but to help it win. Toward this end, the Israel Victory Project is my key contribution. I have written some 65 articles about Israel Victory and devoted millions of dollars to its promotion by the Middle East Forum. I focus on writing, with occasional personal briefings, in-person lectures, and electronic media appearances.
QMGPI: Over the past two decades, have you come across North American, Israeli or any other civil society groups that have tried to undermine your work in support of Israel, and if yes, then how have they done this? What strategies did they use?
DP: Undermine? I prefer the word oppose. The Middle East Forum and I are constantly criticized for our positions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but I discern no specific strategy. This criticism comes from all over the world, though mainly from the West.
QMGPI: Looking back, do you think they have been successful in undermining your work? If not, why do you think they have failed? If yes, then in what sense?
DP: Partisan differences being so strong, criticism by anti-Zionists does me no harm; actually, it raises my stature among those I wish to influence. Ironically, criticism builds, rather than undermines, my work.
QMGPI: Zooming out, do you think they have been successful in undermining the work of other actors on your side of the political map? If not, why do you think they have failed? If yes, then in what sense?
DP: Again reverting to the first question, I do not advocate for Israel and therefore hardly ever reply to its critics, much less do I try to undermine them. My work on this topic seeks to help Israel win.
QMGPI: Over the past two decades, have you condemned or attacked the work of civil society organizations in North American and Israel that have been critical of Israel's rights-abusive policies? If yes, then why and how have you done this?
DP: No, I have not, with only slight exceptions. For example, I might occasionally review and ridicule a book that reads Israel out of existence (here) or review one that points out the illogicalities of the anti-Zionist argument (here). Likewise, I tweet my scorn.
QMGPI: Would you say there is a distribution of labor among civil society actors - with considerable overlap, of course - and at least some ad hoc coordination regarding certain campaigns? If yes, then is the relationship institutionalized, ad hoc, sporadic? Can you provide an example or two?
DP: Yes, there is specialization. Organizations variously focus on Christians (CUFI), on the media (CAMERA, Honest Reporting), on the military (JINSA), on high-level politicians (FoII), on the U.S. Congress (AIPAC, EMET) on the executive branch (TWI), on the United Nations (AJIRI), on professors (SPME), on students (Stand With Us), on Jewish leaders (APT), and so on. Others organizations provide information on the Palestinians (PMW) or on jihadis (IPT). It's an impressive network that routinely works together on an informal basis. Attempts to formalize this cooperation have not succeeded.
QMGPI: Do you know and have evidence of direct links between any of the civil society organizations and foreign governments, and if yes, what governments and civil society actors and what is the nature of the relationship?
DP: Obviously, many pro-Israel groups have ties to Israel; but they also have ties to Middle Eastern, European, and other governments around the world. These relationships have two main dimensions: influencing the governments and enhancing the organizations' reputations. Note that I did not mention being funded by those governments.
