The two-state solution, of which that formula was part, is no longer supported by anybody, not just to the center right but even in the center. You would have to go to the left to find anyone who supports the two-state solution.

Correct me if this is wrong, but it seems like you are saying that politicians are reacting to the fact that even people in the center right are very opposed to the two-state solution. If there is a larger moral issue here, is it not the job of politicians, even center-right politicians, to lead on this issue rather than to exacerbate it?

Excuse me for saying it, but that would be The New Yorker’s interpretation of what is a moral imperative for Israel, which is very different from what Israeli leaders see as a moral imperative for them.

That’s fine. If you want to make the moral case—

The morality is maintaining the territorial integrity of the Jewish homeland and the security of the people of Israel. That is the imperative. A normal society is triangular in shape. At the top of the triangle, you have the military and industrial élite, and at the base you have the young. The military and industrial élite in most countries are right wing, and the youth are left wing. Agreed? That’s the case in the United States and the case in Europe. In Israel, it is exactly reversed. Our military and industrial élites are left wing, and our youth is right wing.

Left wing? Not just center left?

Let’s not parse it. They are not right wing.

They are not right wing historically? They are not right wing in whether they wanted Bibi to be Prime Minister? They are left wing in some sort of ideological sense? I know previous heads of the military have come out more for peace than politicians have, but is it fair to call them left wing?

Let’s say they are not right wing, O.K., but the youth are definitely right wing. If you want to get into detail, what constitutes left wing in this country today?

I don’t know. I am curious what you think.

People who are open to a peace process that might involve—might, I stress—a two-state solution. But you don’t see Benny Gantz coming out for a two-state solution; you don’t see Yair Lapid coming out for a two-state solution. That’s why I stress the “might.” But I wouldn’t get hung up on whether our military and industrial élite are center or center left. It is that our youth are right. And the base of our pyramid is much wider than any other country, because we have three times the natural growth rate of Europe. And it is not about religious people.

Does—

Let me finish this. If you want to understand this, you have to let me finish. We have the highest percentage, of any Western-style democracy, of the population under the age of thirty. That population does not remember the Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords—it remembers Israel withdrawal from territory, whether it be Lebanon or Gaza, in an effort to sort of jump-start peace, and not getting peace, getting thousands of rockets. This is the generation that came of age in the second intifada. If I went into an audience of people that you would call millennials, and I talked about the peace process and the two-state solution, people would look at me like I am crazy. Because this is where we get to the moral imperative: for them, the moral imperative is, if you are giving up territory, you are going to die. You are not going to get peace. The opposite of peace—you are going to get terror.

Is that what annexing settlements and building more settlements is about? The safety and security of the Jewish people?

It’s assuring that you won’t be withdrawing from them so fast. Remember, this is a deeply traumatized generation. This is a generation that—virtually everyone in it has lost friends and family members to terror. And Israel, in contrast to every other Western society, becomes more traditional, more religious, and you can’t overlook the fact that people are deeply connected to the land of Israel.

Right, I am trying to disaggregate the ideas that this is being done for safety and security and there is no alternative, and that it is being done because people are traditional and religious—

That’s my point. It’s not just security. It’s also ideology, it’s also belief.

Do you think that there are moral consequences to those beliefs, if they include increasing settlements in the West Bank?

I have to distinguish between what’s right and what’s smart.

Increasing settlements is which?

Again, you want to put this in black-and-white terms, but it is not black and white. Increasing settlements where? They are not all the same.

Sure. I just didn’t understand what you meant by right versus smart. I didn’t mean to interrupt you.

It is definitely our right. I think it is our incontrovertible right as Jews to live anywhere in our ancestral homeland.

Really?

No question. No question about it. Anywhere. And a member of the Sioux nation has a right to live on Sioux-nation territory. These are our tribal lands. The cradle of our civilization.

Just to be clear: You were born in New York, correct?

I was.

So you think that you, as a Jewish person born in New York, have a right to be anywhere in Israel—

Absolutely.

Plus the West Bank, plus Gaza.

Absolutely. Not Gaza. We can debate whether Gaza is part of the land of Israel.

O.K., Israel plus the West Bank.

Even if you wanted to include Gaza, I’d say absolutely, yeah. The question is what is smart. What’s possible.

Who gave you the right to live anywhere you want in the West Bank? That’s what I am trying to understand.

Absolutely.

Where did you get that right?

It’s my heritage for three thousand years. It’s the same exact right I have from where I am talking to you. I am talking to you from Jaffa. I live in Jaffa. The same right I have to live in Jaffa I have in [the settlement] Beit El or Efrat, or in Hebron. Exact same right. Take away one right, the other right makes no sense. By the way, P.S., most of the lands of pre-1967 Israel are not even in the Bible. Haifa is not in the Bible; Tel Aviv is not in the Bible.

O.K., I just want to understand this because I don’t want to misunderstand it. You are saying there are Palestinians living in various areas of the West Bank right now—

There are, indeed.

—which may or may not at some point become a state. But you are saying that, wherever they are living, they have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.

I didn’t say that. Don’t impute words to me I didn’t say.

I’m sorry, I thought you just said that.

No, I did not say that in any way. Listen, I don’t think I want to continue this interview. I don’t think this is a constructive interview. You can do with it—I would like to request you withdraw it. I don’t think you are actually interested in anything I have to say. And that’s been my experience with The New Yorker all the time. You guys are just into delegitimization. You are not really interested. Why don’t we call it quits right here, and I will pull this interview? I am relying on you to do that, as a journalist.

I have some other questions you might be interested in.

I’m sorry, I am not interested, because you are not interested in anything I have to say. I get it. I get what you are trying to do. You are not actively participating. That’s it. Let’s just pull it.

You don’t even want to hear my other questions?

Nah, not really.

I am curious about American-Israeli relations.

But you are not interested in this; you are not actually interested in what I have to say. And I can see already you are going to put things in my mouth that you have taken out of context.

I am not going to take anything out of context.

Sure you are. You already have in the questions. Your questions are hostile, but they are not even informed hostile. You are not that good. So let’s just pull it, and we will call it quits, and please don’t call me again. Take care. [Hangs up.]