There is no other option. Rather than the two state
solution. The alternative is constantly
war. Let us agree about the rights of
the two people. The only group that has the
right to exercise some determination is the Jewish
people. What about me?
Why I have to be second class citizen?
Hassan is talking all the time using the phrases genocide and
apartheid. I think you're using phrases
that are just being bandied about without anybody knowing.
What genocide? Is no Anybody knows?
Well, it's been defined now. Mass killing of people, mass
destruction of infrastructure of people, this is.
Genocide 2. State solution is really
drowning in the details as nobody can agree on what you're
actually talking about. If there is a step towards
progress, what is the next step you think is achievable?
Hello and welcome to a special extended forecast, a more cast
if you like, which is coming to you from the King David Hotel in
Jerusalem, one of the most famous hotels in this city.
It's historic. It was once the base of the
British Palestine Mandate before the creation of Israel.
And we are here because we have recently had AUN General
Assembly resolution passed calling for A2 state solution
sponsored by Saudi Arabia and France.
We are seeing Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia all
going through the process of recognising A Palestinian state,
whatever that may mean, while the American say that state is
in fact no nearer to reality. But all of those countries also
talk about a two state solution, whereas in Israel, in this
country, the government rejects the idea of A2 state solution.
Hamas in Gaza have also traditionally rejected the idea
of A2 state solution. So what does it mean?
Is it realistic? Is it possible?
What are the obstacles? We have an eminent panel with us
here today in Jerusalem. Alan Baker is from the Institute
of Contemporary Affairs. He's a international lawyer and
he was also involved in drafting the Oslo Accords.
Tova Lazarov is a journalist and commentator, formerly deputy
managing editor of the Jerusalem Post Jarev Oppenheimer is a
activist. He formerly ran the Peace Now
organization and is a strong advocate of the two state
solution from an Israeli perspective.
And Hassan Jaberin runs an organization called Adala, which
is a legal centre for Palestinians in this land.
Thank you all very much indeed for joining us.
I mean, let's begin with the the people who think this is
possible if you like, because you you talk to so many people
in Israel and they'll say the two state solution time has
gone. You know, nobody's talking about
that right now. The hostages are still being
held. Forget it.
It's not going to happen. Jarif, why do you think it is
real and that it could be delivered?
First of all, there is no other option rather than the two state
solution, the alternative is what we are saying today, that
Israel is trying to control the Palestinians, maybe to expel the
Palestinians. And the outcome of that is a war
and it's constantly war. This will be the the the future.
It's this is what we are trying to do Physically there is a
chance for the two state solution.
Nothing dramatic says change in the West Bank.
It's true that half a million of Israelis are living there, but
most of them are living in the cities very close to the green
line and you can annex it into Israel and to have swap
territories. The question here is not about
the physical option of the two state solution.
It's about the motivation of Israelis and Palestinians.
And when I look at the Palestinians, I believe that
today they are much more eager than ever to get some kind of a
hope to change their destiny and to have a state next to Israel.
When I look at the Israeli society, unfortunately we are in
a minority right now. Most of the people don't want
it, afraid of it and wish to have the bigger Israel.
I think that the main obstacle for the two state solution is
not the Hamas, is not the Palestinians, is not the
settlers, because the number of the settlers that are living in
the heart of the West Bank is not is is didn't go up rapidly.
It's about the motivation of the Israeli white wing to block the
chance for the two state solution and to do whatever they
can physically and in the mind of the Israelis in order to make
it an impossible option. But it's the only option.
What difference do you think these moves have made, if any?
Or are these moves that we think are important in London and
Paris and New York, but actually make no difference, the
international movement, the resolution, the recognition?
First of all, I think that we need to show the alternative for
the war and the alternative for the occupation, and the only
alternative to the occupation and to the war is to have a
peace agreement and to have the two state solution.
There will not be any other solution that will guarantee
Israel to be a Jewish democratic state and a peaceful region,
prosperity and reconciliation. There's no other chance because
as long as one people will control the other people in
these, in the Jewish perspective, the minority is
going to control the majority. For sure there will be
bloodshed. No, no one can, can, can, can
expect other result. I don't know anyone that will
just say, OK, it's fine for me. And the next generation and the
next generation, we are just going to live under the Israeli
occupation that is that is becoming much more brutal and we
are fine with it. The international and move,
first of all, show both sides that there is an alternative to
the war and to the occupation. Second, if the international
community will be strong enough, eventually Israel and the
Palestinian will have to react and to accept it.
What is strong enough? There are many ways to to
practice it. OK, Alan, I mean, you seem to
have gone from a man who was heavily engaged in the peace
process to a man who now essentially supports the
Netanyahu government. No, no, not at all.
Excuse me, I'm an international lawyer.
I'm not politically identified with any party or with any
government. I was involved in the
negotiations of the Oslo Accords.
I've been involved in the negotiations on the drafting of
the International Criminal Court.
So my my position is basically a position, a position of
international law. I also sat in the General
Assembly for many, many years in the legal committee.
Right. So, so, So what do you think
about how realistic the situation is now and what
difference these international diplomatic measures are making?
OK, well, well first of all, resolutions to the General
Assembly have got absolutely no legal obligatory context there.
They represent the the political viewpoint of the majority of
states that voted in favour of them.
So a resolution that was adopted recommending because they can
only recommend a 2 state solution and whatever else they
recommended is not obligatory, it can only recommend and it's a
political resolution, it doesn't oblige anybody.
Secondly, a resolution calling upon for for a recognition of a
Palestinian state that doesn't exist when everybody knows that
no state exists is totally unrealistic and naive on the
part of those leaders, especially the presidents of of
France, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Prime Minister of
the United Kingdom, Australia, who who willingly went along and
supported this, knowing that they're supporting something
that's totally unreal. But they think they're putting
it on the agenda. Well, they think they're putting
it on the agenda and they they think they're slapping Israel in
the face. The other thing is the concept
of the two state solution. Now, it was a very noble vision
set out by by President George W Bush in in the late 80s, I think
it was. It was also part of the
partition resolution of 1947, which talked about a Jewish
state and an Arab state, but it's never actually been agreed
to by the parties. And as you mentioned, it's even
opposed by Hamas and, and even by the, the, the Palestinian
Authority. And So what is on the table and
what has been agreed to are the Oslo Accords and the Oslo
Accords. In the Oslo Accords, Israel and
the PLO agreed to conduct negotiations on the the
permanent status of the territories.
And these negotiations haven't yet started.
Do you think it's possible? Absolutely possible.
And that's why I was coming to this.
The aim of the negotiations is, as they say, a permanent status.
Now, this could be one state, it could be two states, it could be
3 states. It could be a federation, A
confederation, A condominium, a Co imperium.
It could be anything that the parties agree to if they
genuinely come and conduct bona fide negotiation.
But these calls by these leaders and by the General Assembly and
by others for A2 state solution are basically prejudging what
has been agreed upon as the outcome of a negotiation.
And so I personally, having been involved in these negotiations,
I, I object to, to going along with the concept of A2 state
solution. I don't object to the, the to
the idea. I just say that if and when the
time comes and we negotiate genuinely with a Palestinian
leadership that gets it's act together and is capable of
representing the Palestinian people and committing itself and
fulfilling it's commitments, then if the outcome of that
negotiation would be a 2 state solution then I would be all in
favour. If it would be a three state
solution, I'd be all in favour of that as well.
Hassan I think it's obedience for the continuation of the
incubation because Oslo was agreed in the beginning of the
90s and we are more than 30 years after that.
And we see that the settlements were expanded more, the number
of Palestinians that they were killed and daily they are called
getting bigger and bigger, the expansion of the settlements
getting bigger and there is no negotiation.
And the position of Israeli government is that there is no
right of self determination of the Palestinian Bieber.
So to come and to say let the two parties continue to
negotiate. This is illusion because there
is no negotiation and Israeli government deny the right of the
Palestinian for self determination.
So, so is your. Are you saying that Allen's
yeah, reasonable position is actually a way of all go with
continuing with? Due of respect to Allen and with
his motive, but to come and to say let the two parties continue
to negotiate. This is illusion.
You are saying let the occupation continues because
rally government has position. They see the West Bank and Gaza
and is Jerusalem part of great Israel and it's Israel.
They don't recognize the right of the Palestinian for self
determination. They see that the settlements
are part of Israel. So to negotiate with who and now
we have to evaluate and to ask why Oslo failed.
Oslo failed because there is no political will from Israel side
to end the occupation. Now I think that the discussion.
That's not what Bill Clinton says, of course.
Is it? Of course.
Of course he he blames Arafat. He can't blame Arafat, but I
think the BLO, especially Fatah, their main project is like Yariv
project, that two state solution and they are doing everything
for this solution and this may be what make BLO weak among the
Palestinian people because they are focused only in this issue.
So about Fatah, we know that they are for this solution, that
the only problem for this or the main problem is that there is no
political will in the Israeli side.
So when Alan said because I, I said of course Hamas is not in
favour of A2 state solution as things stand.
Alan said also also the the Palestinian Authority is not in.
No Palestinian Authority is in favour.
This is the main project for the Palestinian Authority and among
Hamas we hear people like hell Mashal is ready to accept 2
state solution. The issue here, the main issue I
think that there is no political will from Israel side.
But all of this discourse about two state solution is old
discourse. We have been in that for more
than three decades now. The discourse should shift.
We are in genocide era. The main problem is to end the
occupation. We don't have to speak about the
permanent solution. The permanent solution really
could be confederation, could be one state, could be 3 states.
We have to end and to work the international to end the
occupation. Why?
What does ending the occupation mean?
The occupation that the West Bank and Gaza and Israelism
won't be under military control of Israel.
And this switch to start to speak about ending of the
occupation rather about statehood.
This will switch the language from statehood to rights.
Let us agree about the rights of the two people.
I my position is that we have to accept that the two people,
Jewish people, Israel Jewish people and the Palestinian
people, both of them have the right of self determination and
historic Palestine. That every Palestinian person
and every Israeli Jewish person has the right to live with
equality and peace and historic Palestine.
If we agree on that, then we can say we want to divide the
country to two state, 3 state 4 state.
This won't be a matter but the problem of two state solution
that first we focus in borders without speaking about rights.
Now what's my problem here with the position of two state
solution that you speak about? That Israel would continue to be
Jewish and Democrat state, meaning that the Palestinian
citizens that they are comprised 20%, twenty, 1% of the Israeli
population would continue to be second class citizen.
That there is no solution for Palestinian refugees and also
what's the solution for half million Israeli settlers.
So 2 state solution in the meaning 2 state for two people
doesn't give me solution for crucial matters.
One of the crucial matters today is the nation state law that all
the words say that this is apartheid law.
Why it's apartheid? Because it said that the Green
Line is only for the Jewish people.
The only group that has the right to exercise determination
in the Green line is the Jewish people.
What about me? What about my rights?
I am Palestinian citizen. I am Arabic speaker and Hebrew
speaker and my Hebrew better than 95% of Israeli Jews.
Why I don't have the right of self determination as Israeli
Jew in the green line? Why I have to be second class
citizen? Why I won't have the right for
family unification? Why I won't have access to land
like any Jews? And I am native, I am not
immigrant. So this is the problem that when
we speak in Europe, when we speak about two state solution,
we ignore three companies, We ignore the right of Palestinian
citizen, we ignore the right of Palestinian refugee and we
ignore really right of settlers. I am not saying the settlers are
legitimate to be in West Bank because I will legitimize the
occupation. But I say well maybe really Jews
will have the right for movement at least if that was back.
But would you have agreement after you decolonize the
country, not through the colonialisation?
OK. But also, I mean, just to come
back to sort of, you know, the starting point for all of these
processes is always end the violence.
So and and accept the idea. So, so do you, you know, it's
kind of what you do with Hamas or whatever Hamas might become,
you know, do you think it is possible for the Palestinian
Authority, for the different Palestinian groups to remove
Hamas from the process and for, for that not to be an obstacle?
I, I think Hamas now in bad situation.
These are the Palestinian people.
I think that they made from Palestinian perspective very,
very huge mistake about the 7th of October.
And I don't think that they have the power of the 6th of October
today. And the majority of the
Palestinian people have now interest to stop the genocide
part of stopping the genocide to end the incubation.
So no one even that I am even that I have problem with two
state solution today I have to accept ending the incubation.
I will be happy if Israel leave E Jerusalem and Gaza and respect
because this occupation is the prologue occupation in the
modern history. This situation is the most
brutal occupation in the modern history.
Every day is immediate danger for the life of the Palestinian
because of this situation. So sometime I have no solution
but no option but to say you know if you give me now 2 state
solution I can understand and say I am against ending the
Commission. I'll, I'll come back to you in a
moment, but we, we must hear from Tova.
The question started with, is this realistic?
Can, can it be put back on the agenda?
And you know what do you need to do to do that?
Right. So I think the concept of two
states, right, which is the self determination of two people with
ties to the land, that's kind of an easy concept to say.
Sure, you know, if Jews have ties to the land, then they
should have a state. If Palestinians have ties to the
land, they should have a state. Theoretically speaking, it's
very easy always to talk about rights.
It's always the execution of the rights that is difficult.
And when both rights are pitted against each other as if there's
some mortal battle between, you know, if I give you these
rights, I'm going to lose mine and vice versa.
I mean, the two state solution is really drowning in the
details. It's not really drowning in
declarations. It's drowning because nobody can
agree on what you're actually talking about.
Are you talking about, you know? A Jewish state that's a state
for all of its citizens. I think that's what you were.
That's what you were referring to, right?
Israel as a state for all of its citizens.
Are you talking about an ethnically nationalist Jewish
state? If you have a state of
Palestine, can Jews be citizens in that state?
Can they be full citizens? Can they have full rights?
Right. If you talk about a border, is
it at the 67 line? Is it with the settlement blocks
like which, which definition of Palestinian statehood does it
include Jordan, which definition are you actually discussing?
So at the point where it was very easy to sort of more say
more broadly and inch towards it, people did that and then
many things historically came into play, but.
On But on the basic level, do you think Israelis are prepared
to accept the idea of a Palestinian state I.
Think that's what I'm saying. I'm saying globally, I think you
could create a situation where they would pragmatically.
If you're talking about two states at the 67 line, I don't
think you have many Israelis that ever said two states at the
pre 67 lines, right. If you're talking about security
guarantees such that you couldn't have an October 7th
style attack, yeah, I think you could get there.
But again, you, I mean, the, the two state, the two state
solution when it was put forward on the table, was put forward in
a situation where you essentially had the idea of two
governances, right? You didn't have the threat as
much from non state actors such as Hamas.
So now, even if you could move the dial back, I think that's,
that's what the UN resolution is about, right?
It's about can we get everything back to pre to October 6th?
Can you move the dial back if you don't have a solution to
what happens if you have a non state actor such as Hamas that
could come into play. Also, now you know we're talking
about a much broader regional picture.
Can you bring in the Abraham Accords?
Can the Abraham Accords shift the dial?
What incentives could be put on the table?
I mean, the Abraham Accords are in danger of being destroyed
now, aren't they? The attack on Qatar has put the
Abraham Accords in great peril. UAE is considering withdrawing
from the whole thing. Where can they turn it around
and find a way to put all the genies back in the box?
I'm saying you're sitting here, you're sitting here, you know,
at this massive tipping point where it could go either way.
But the but the idea of two states is really about the
details of it. Can you get everybody out of the
existential button, existential sort of crisis situation that
they're in now? OK.
I mean, yeah, I mean, there's a lot of scepticism on both sides
here, isn't there? I do think that the details are
already well known and they are well expect accepted by both
sides that would like to get the solution.
We know the settlements blocks and the swap and and the borders
and the all other issues are all almost as solved.
It's not about the details, it's about the willingness of the
Israelis to give up part of the Holy Land for the Palestinians
and to recognize that the Palestinians are human being and
they deserve a state like the like Israelis.
This is the main issue here and when I see the Israeli society I
see 2 main challenges. The first one is the people that
are passionate about the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza
because of the religious reasons, because of their belief
that democracy is important but not so important like the land.
And they prefer the land over democracy and they prefer the
occupation over peace. And they are the settler
movement I would call it. Not all of them are settlers.
Some of them are living within side Israel and this is the most
powerful political force in Israel for many years now, but
they are not the the majority of Israelis.
The issue here is about the mainstream Israelis that are not
living in the West Bank, that are not living in in in East
Jerusalem, that are not meeting Palestinians on the daily life
Palestinian mean Palestinian living in the West Bank, not
Israeli Arabs. And they're maybe ready for the
two state solution. They are the ones that supported
the hostile agreement and other process, but they were convinced
and they are convinced now that there is not an option.
Either it's not possible to have it or it's not safe to have it.
And the main thing that the Israeli government and the
Israeli right wing is doing all the time is to continue push the
message that forever it's going to be war.
And this is something because the Palestinians, they don't
like us, they want to kick us out.
They are criminals, they are terrorists.
And this is a fact that cannot be changed.
And if you are and they are so busy, try to hide, to hide the
alternative for the occupation and the war.
And this is what they are doing since October seven.
I thought that October 7 might change the Israeli view, because
before October 7, many Israelis fought that.
It's OK, We can control the Palestinians, we can have an
occupation, we can have siege over Gaza for decades and
nothing bad will happen. We can have peace with the
Emirates, we can fly abroad, we can have normal life, we can
have a very good economic situation.
We can be part of the world and it's fine.
And I thought that October 7th might change the perspective
saying to the Israelis enough, we need to solve the conflict,
otherwise it's going to be war again.
Unfortunately, the government and the Israeli white women,
some of the opposition, they are pushing forward a different
message that the lesson from October 7th is that we need to
be stronger, that we need to attack before we are being
attacked, that we need forever to attack them and maybe even to
expel them out. And this is a catastrophic
message and we need to counter this message and the world
should counter this message. And to say to Hamas and the
settlers and the Israelis, there are two option, either war and
destruction and isolation and bad things that will happen.
Or an alternative, giving up part of the land in order to
have Israel as a traditional democratic state and also a
peace in the region. And this conflict threats the
the the stability of the world, not just in this region.
I I find it somewhat strange, if not sad that that Yariv, my
colleague is, is, is hinting at the fact that well, October the
7th was Israel's fault and and therefore Israel should learn
from it. Was it Israel who attacked,
brutally attacked and raped and and burnt thousands of people?
Where did this come from? It didn't come from Israel.
It came from a, a, a state of mind, an attitude, a fanatic
Islamistic attitude among Hamas that that basically it's being
echoed on the the streets of London and on the streets of
Paris and, and, and various other places from the river to
the sea, Palestine will be free and there's no room for Israel.
And this is a genocidal attitude.
And so if Hassan is talking all the time using the the phrases
genocide and apartheid, I think you should look in, in all
directions, Hassan, because you don't recognise that.
Now let me, please. No, no, no.
I think you'll use. Excuse me.
I think you're you're you're excuse me.
I think you're using phrases that are, are sort of you, you
that are just being bandied about without anybody knowing
what genocide is. No, I excuse me.
Well, it's being defined now. Excuse me.
I excuse me. No.
Excuse me excuse. Me.
Would you allow me please to finish genocide?
Would you please allow me to finish my sentence?
Of. Course, genocide is defined by
the the the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.
And so, before throwing out platitudes that you've heard in
propaganda, look rich. Today the US and Commission of
Inquiry of the OBT, the Occupy terrorism, decided that what is
happening in Gaza is genocide. Would you please allow me to
finish? That you say and.
Then I like. Attitude.
Those UN bodies, UN bodies deciding that genocide is
happening in Gaza. I'd like to.
That's my attitude. I'd like to conduct a cultural
discussion, not interrupt each other.
So please allow me to finish and then you'll say what you want.
But I, I, as an international lawyer, I know what the
definition of genocide is. Excuse me.
Look, will you please that I'm. You know it's a sentence.
So, you know, you've taken me off the, the, the, the flow of
what I wanted to say. And So what I'm saying is that
the, what I wanted to say from the very beginning is this, that
the Oslo Accords, which I was involved in negotiating,
including negotiating directly with the Palestinian leadership
like Yasser Arafat, Muhammad, Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Allah and Sai
Barikat and Sai Barikat. And I drafted the two of us.
The provision in the Oslo Accords that says that the
Palestinian, that the, the, the PLO and the Israelis will
conduct negotiations in which both sides, each side will
present their basic rights and historic and legal rights.
And these will be negotiated, not dictated by aun resolution,
not dictated by a French President or British Prime
Minister, not dictated by terrorist organizations in.
Gaza Netanyahu to decide Netanyahu, that is, he is
genociding. That is the question.
Do you want related to Netanyahu to decide?
This is my question. Second, my question to you as
lawyer of international law, how do you define what's happening
now in Gaza? How what?
How you define you want? Me to define it?
Yeah. Will you allow me to answer
without interrupting me? Yes.
OK, What is? That the moderator.
Is that on the basis of of the the the the horrific massacre
that took place? Israel took actions to prevent
any further offensive action by Hamas.
These actions are still going on because Hamas is still declaring
its intent to conduct more and more. 7th of October. 70% of the
houses of the Palestinian people the self determined destroying
all the bending. Hold on, I'm sorry.
OK, I I. So you you reject the finding of
genocide, don't you? I I don't have enough data in
order to say that this is genocide.
Do you do you respect the UN Commission?
I I respect, but I cannot adopt the conclusion.
I say the reality. The reality is the Israeli
government is speaking about expelling the Gaza people,
making Gaza an impossible place to live and to move out the
Palestinians. They are not just talking about
it. They created this new system,
new government office. I will say section, government
section that is going to is working on this idea and talking
with other countries in order to expel the Palestinians.
So it's very clear that the goal of this war is not to fight
Hamas and it's not to release the hostages.
The goal of this war is to expel the Palestinians and to take
their land. It's not genocide, but it's not,
it's not something that I can accept as a human being, as an
Israeli, as a person that believe in democracy.
I will agree with you that it's not Auschwitz, but it's
genocide. I, I, I, I think that Israel is
not doing enough to stop the civilian casualties.
And I think that the reason why Israel is fighting Gaza, not
just Hamas, is because they believe that eventually this is
an historical time. They can take advantage of
October 7, use it as an excuse to expel the Palestinians, to
make Gaza a hell, a place that you cannot live, that you have
no houses at all, no infrastructure, nothing to force
them to move out, to call it that.
Immigration, voluntary immigration, and eventually to
take over Gaza. This is the main goal of the
war. OK.
I mean, Alan, I just want to come back to your your proposal,
if you like, which is that the Israelis and the Palestinians
should sit there and discuss their rights That that that is
not what Netanyahu is interested in in the slightest, is he?
So, So Hassan's point that, you know, you leave that to
Netanyahu is it's correct. It's not going to happen under
this government. Whether Netanyahu is interested
or is not interested is immaterial at the moment.
And I come here well. It's not.
Unlike my colleagues, I'm not coming here with a political
agenda. What I'm saying is this, Israel
is committed by an agreement that has been signed
internationally and witnessed by the President of the United
States, the President of the Russian Federation, the King of
Jordan, the President of Egypt, the EU and has been endorsed and
and the Prime Minister of Norway and has been endorsed by the
United Nations, witnessed. Therefore, all these parties and
witnesses can, should be going along with the aim to get back
to a negotiating mode. Now, how do we get back to a
negotiating mode? Are the Palestinians and the
Israelis in a position to get back tomorrow morning to a
negotiating mode? Regrettably, they're not.
Netanyahu says there will be no Palestinian state.
The Israeli government, Well, the Israeli government at the
moment is not in a position to to develop itself into a a
negotiating team that can negotiate in the same way that
there's no such thing as a representative of the
Palestinian people because there's Hamas and there's Fatah
and there's the Islamic Jihad and there's 300 other
organisations. So until the two sides get
themselves get their act together in order to conduct the
negotiations in accordance with what has been agreed upon and
what is what they're committed to, it will take time.
So it. Doesn't require Donald Trump to
have a change of heart and to tell Netanyahu he has to now end
the negotiation. It will definitely require
Donald Trump, but I think Trump has shown that he doesn't
negotiate in the same way that people have in the past.
I don't think that you're going to see a long term negotiation
process. I think you're going to see a
lot of behind the scenes movement.
I think you're going to see an attempt to revive the Abraham
Accords and to leverage that toward a solution.
I don't think the solution is going to look like something
that we had before, but I think you can't get, it's just it's
not possible that you're going to return this box to the to the
Oslo process. And I think the declaration in
September is about is part of signalling the end to that Oslo
negotiation periods. I think you're when we when we
got to when we were on October 6th, what was happening is that
people were hoping that they were going to have a deal with
Saudi Arabia that was going to return us to A2 state solution.
They thought they were making a deal with Hamas.
It's part of why they weren't as attuned to some of the things
that were about to happen. You're going to be going much
more in the direction of something that's regional rather
than something that's directly between the two parties because
you're going to need the region, something that was let that was
less thought about during Oslo. So I think I think it's just
going to be a completely different ball game.
And in which Saudi? Arabia is much more.
Important Saudi Arabia is going to be is going to be a huge
player here what Israel, what in other words, everybody's been
talking here in Netanyahu. Netanyahu is if he is, he is
this, you know, sort of 1 dimension kind of we love war
figure, but the truth is that Netanyahu is a very complex
politician. He, you know, he was the person
who signed the Y agreement. He, you know, he split Hebron.
He was, he did a moratorium on, you know, new new settlement,
new settlement housing when it was in.
So. So are you saying you think
Netanyahu could be a Rabin? I'm saying.
Netanyahu could bring peace. Netanyahu can be can turn the
dial in a dime and become any figure that you want him to be
if it's going to achieve some of his larger goals.
And keep him in power. And keep and yes, but I'm
saying, but if you can get, if you can get a, if you can get a
Saudi deal, if you can put a cap on a nuclear Iran, how the
Palestinians play into that when you have those levers is going
to be very different than when they.
Don't and can I just ask you just on the genocide point which
has been in, you know, again in the news this week because of
the UN Commission. But of course it follows, you
know, the international genocide scholars also saying this, lots
of organisations saying this, you know, you're not an expert
in genocide, but but do you whether you whether you accept
whether you're able to say it's genocide or not, does it make
you as an Israeli And do you think it's making Israelis think
are we doing something? Have we crossed the line when so
many people are saying this is genocide?
Or does the national psyche kick in of this is just global
anti-Semitism? I don't, I think that
unfortunately, with all due respect, I, I mean, I can't, I
imagine that if I am a Palestinian sitting in Gaza and
I'm looking around me at the destruction and looking at the
body counts, I imagine it would feel like a genocide, much like
it felt to Israelis on October 7th who looked at the
destruction of their world, that it was similar to the Holocaust.
I, you know, I, I, you know, I liked what you said that this
wasn't Auschwitz. Because I feel like for
Israelis, when you talk about genocide, you know, you're
talking about a Holocaust that you know, killed over 60% of
European jury it you get you use the word like genocide and you
traipse all kinds of buttons. I think everybody can globally
say that what's happening to civilians in Gaza is horrible
and that the death count is too high and that innocent civilians
should not be killed. It's a really simple concept and
I don't think you need to create this, you know, battle of
victims, one or the other around it.
I wish to share in my experience when I'm speaking with Israelis,
normally Israel, well, it's not like lunatics.
And I'm asking them about how do you feel about the Gaza people
that are suffering and being killed and the destruction is so
huge and they are saying I don't feel bad for them because what
they did to us on October 7th and we need to confront it.
The dehumanization process of the Palestinian in the Israeli
society with the help of Hamas that totally did a huge war
crime on October 7th. It's a it's a small world to say
a war crime about it. With the help of Hamas, the
dehumanization process of the Palestinians in is it's the in
in its peak. Israelis don't feel sympathy to
the Palestinians as a whole, especially to the Palestinian
Gaza. The pictures of the people of
Gaza cheering and happy when the hostages came, some some of them
came already dead to the to the Gaza and beaten.
But you don't need to feel sympathy for Palestinians to
think what you're doing is wrong.
Of I, I personally feel sympathy for the Palestinian for sure.
And I think it's, it's, it's madness and I think it's, it's a
violation of the international law and it's, and, and, and the
government is not telling the truth.
The reason why Israel is, is, is, is using such a force over
the population of Gaza, not just the Hamas is not military, it's
not the hostages. There was only one goal that can
that that can explain this use of power, this use of force.
And this is the idea of expelling the Palestinians and
moving them out of Gaza. And and as I said before, the
government not only talk about it but is doing things in order
to to make it happen. OK, Can we talk about the
settlers as, as one of the big obstacles to any kind of peace
process now, Hassan, you said, you said in a way you didn't
think the settlements were the, you know, the the brake on any
kind of future. But given what's happening,
given the expansion of settlements now the effective
division of the West Bank with this green light on a, on a new
expansion in this new corridor, are you saying it could just be
stopped? No, I am thinking that I am
saying that one of the failure, one of the reason why Oslo
failed, didn't succeed first because you have many, many
groups that they didn't have answer.
Robin was killed by a person who belonged to the settler group.
I am not saying all the settlers are killer, but he belonged the
person who killed the Rabin and he and many of the settlers
thought that Robin put them under risk.
Palestinian citizen of Israel. They said to themselves, we have
no answer. We will continue to be second
class citizen. The people in Gaza, 2 third of
them are refugees. They said, well, Oslo doesn't
give us answer as refugees and This is why you have many groups
that made Oslo not successful one.
And This is why I'm saying that we have to switch the discourse
from statehood to rights. And if we speak about rights,
it's easier in fact, because when we both borders all the
time partitioning make problems. Until now, the partitioning
between India and Pakistan still making troubles there and
partitioning of Palestine we still live.
There, but there is a conversation right Let.
As let as switch the conversation but.
Is a conversation about? Hang on, I just want to
establish. Is the conversation about rights
a stepping stone to a conversation about sovereignty
and borders and. It will lead.
It will. Lead state?
Or are you saying actually we could just have a one state
solution as long? As no I am not saying one state,
maybe 2 state, maybe 3 state, maybe confederation, but first
order to speak about the rights to agree that every person in
this land should be treated equally, every person, every
group should have the right of self determining.
But do you think the settlers in the expansion of settlements
have made this impossible now Now of.
Course, it's difficult. The the settlers are one of the
most strongest political wing in Israel.
One of the reason why the war is continued is because the power
of the settlers in this government, power of Smothridge
and power of Bengvir in this government and power of members
of the Likud that they support the settlers.
So settlers are very, very strong power.
One of the reason that the war is continued because of them.
I don't think that if we have politicians like him, the war,
the war, of course, will end tomorrow, Yastani or a year ago
or two years ago. But the problem that this
government is led by politics of settlers.
But I want to say something Christian, if you allow me a
minute. There is consensus among the
Holocaust and the genocide scholars that what's happening
in Gaza is genocide. And there is also consensus that
as that discourse in the world was switched and changed
immediately when the international media entered the
camps, Holocaust camps, and they saw the horrible things, then
something new came to the world, something that we know it now as
the language of human rights. The world was changed and now we
are living in the genocide era, in the genocide time.
The question is whether this debate will be all debate when
the media, international media, enter Gaza, the world see what's
happening in Gaza, what's happening in Gaza, and then
maybe we will have a new discord in the world.
I think about Netanyahu. I don't see Netanyahu.
We'll find a way to be out of being indicted before the ICCI.
Don't think that's easy. Any Arab leaders in the world
will shake his hand after they will see what's happening in
Gaza. I don't see that even Western
leaders will shake his hand after they will see.
Look what happened to the Prime Minister of Israel.
He cannot travel back to US and Hungary today.
Those the two countries that he can.
And what will happen after the end of the war, when the scene
of the genocide come out, all the world will start to compare,
really to compare. And I agree that there are
difference, but this is the main comparison between Holocaust
camps and Gaza. The only thing I would say, I'll
come further, but what I, what I, what I think is worth saying,
it is really not clear what the world will ever see.
Yes, there is no sign of the international media being
allowed. And we asked and we're not
allowed in. And they are destroying a great
deal of the evidence. So journalists.
So it's not clear what we would ever see if we were ever allowed
in Tova. Yeah, I just want to say that
the UN held a memorial service for the Iranian president when
he died in a helicopter crash. So I'm going to agree with you
that it's very hard to know what the UN would do.
And after that, it really will depend a lot on where, where
it's going. You know, do you, do you
actually have a comprehensive peace agreement for the region?
Could Netanyahu be revived by that?
I, I don't know, but I, I do, I do feel bad that there is one
piece of the storyline that has not been mentioned here, which
I, which I really do want to mention because we talk a lot
about, you know, Israelis and feeling threatened.
Should they not feel threatened? Is this a war about the
destruction of Gaza? I'm not saying that there aren't
people in in the Israeli government who haven't spoken
quite openly about wanting to expel Palestinians and, you
know, destroy Gaza. But, you know, in 2005, Israel
pulled out of Gaza, right? And in the in the lead up to
that, there was an argument between the left wing members of
the kibbutz team on the border and the settlers in Gaza.
And basically those members of the kibbutz team would say to
the settlers, you have to leave Gaza because you are what is
putting us in danger. And they would say to the people
in the kibbutz, right, No, no, no, it's the opposite.
We are here because we are protecting you.
If we leave, you will be attacked.
And that, and that was the argument.
And Israel left Gaza and Hamas seized control of the territory
in a coup kicking, kicking out Fatah.
And, and what should have been right a a lab for peacemaking,
what should have been a thing that would have inspired
Israelis towards taking risks, became actually the thing that
made it almost impossible to move forward.
To you said the staffers were right incidentally, whether it
was a coup or not as. Debate I'm saying an election,
but I'm well, no, there was there was a coup after the
election. So I'm sort of saying, if
January 6th had had become a coup, would you say it was a
coup or that Trump I'm saying are?
You saying the staffers were right to say we defend you.
I'm saying that Israelis, that argument echoes across the
decades. For Israelis, you're you're not
and and and and and and it in other words, there is like an
over focus here on how you know, oh, Israel isn't paying
attention. You know, Israel doesn't is this
doesn't care about the security thing as if this is just about
destroying Palestinians and it's not about security.
I think Israelis got a very powerful lesson about I think
Israelis who thought before you could withdraw from territory
because we have a strong army that can protect our border and
and we can play around a little bit with this, with this issue
of withdrawal got a wake up call.
And it's going to be much harder now to put forward a solution
unless you have a security current argument as to why that
would not happen. I.
Think it's, it's really important what Tofa said.
Because it's very it's a very crucial part of the discourse
with inside this. The idea of the fact that Israel
move out from Gaza, then we got Hamas and then we got October
7th is something very deep in the minds of the mainstream
Israelis, not the supporters of the settlers.
Having said that, it's not all the picture since then, Israel
didn't promote the idea of the two state solution, disconnected
Gaza from the West Bank, from East Jerusalem and for the world
and make it a siege over Gaza. Create a situation in which the
people of Gaza are totally locked in Gaza and eventually
also giving money to Hamas and empowering Hamas, knowing that
once Hamas is controlling Gaza, there will not be any, any
address to speak about the two state solution.
So it wasn't, it wasn't just by accident that this government
supported Hamas and try to harm the Palestinian Authority and
they are doing it these days as well.
They thought that Hamas can be an ally because Hamas is not
talking about the two state solution.
They're talking about one state that will not be Jewish will
maybe without Jewish people at all.
And therefore they are not the address for the permanent status
agreement. So this is terrific.
And they have no leverage of in the world because they are
considered to be a terrorist organization.
So let's give them money, let's empower them and let's we can
the moderate the alternative to Hamas, the Palestinian
Authority. This is part of the picture.
Alan, let me ask you about the settlements as well.
I mean, you know, there is this perception that the expansion of
the settlements has made the reality of a Palestinian state
impossible. Look, the the issue of
settlements and I'm quote, UN quote is a, a negotiating
subject in the in the final status negotiations.
So they could be Palestinian, they could be moved assuming
that we get back to a negotiating mode.
Israel is committed to this. The the the Palestinian
Liberation Organization is committed to this.
Obviously Hamas and and the various other factions don't
accept the very concept of of the state of Israel existing.
So the Palestinians themselves have to get over this, and in
the same way that Israel has to get back to its responsibilities
to negotiate. But it's impossible in the
context of this government, isn't it, with Scottish and Ben
Gavir in it? Look, Israel is a democratic
country. In the event that the Israeli
public decide that this government is not carrying out
the, the, the what it wants, then then it has the prerogative
to change this government. What I what I'd like to say is
this that without going to to to buzzwords used by by by by
Hassan and and others here, whether it's genocide or two
state solution, all these are buzzwords that are being thrown
out in the UN or by various leaders.
These aren't going to advance in any way getting towards some
type of peaceful solution or bomb was inage between the
Israelis and the Palestinians resolutions in the United
Nations that are encouraging Hamas to maintain their their
their imprisonment of the of the the hostages.
These aren't going to advance anything.
They're only going to advance the suffering of everybody on
both sides. And therefore I, I think the,
the responsible states, had they gone to the United Nations,
they, they, they wouldn't have gone along with, with what is a
farce of adopting a UN resolution which is meaningless,
which says nothing and which achieves nothing.
If I may say about the settlements, the settlement, the
construction of the settlements is a unilateral step by the
Israeli government. It's like negotiating over pizza
and one side is eating the pizza and one.
And when this government would like to build an E1 between
Jerusalem and the settlements of Malayalam, yeah, this is
strategic threat to the option to have the two state solution.
So what are we going to discuss with the Palestinians once the
settlements project is over and you cannot physically made make
the two state solution. And I think that when we look at
the policy of the settlements, there are good news and the bad
news, the good news is that most of the Israelis are not going to
live there. They don't want to live there.
It's not safe. Some many people have problem,
moral problem to live there. They are not part of it.
And when you see the numbers, you don't see a huge increase of
the numbers of settlers, new settlers that are coming from
Israel to live in the heart of the West Bank.
Most of them are coming to the settlements blocks that can be
annexed to Israel in a in permanent status agreement.
The bad news is that the people that do come there are much more
violence. They are much more motivated to
move out communities with inside Gaza and to take over the land.
And they are being backed up by the Israeli government, by the
Israeli police. And they are even giving money
for the, there is the new, they are building now farms that are
taking over huge part of the land.
But you don't need so many people.
You can have 20-30 people, youngsters mostly coming with
guns, coming with cars that they like, Rangers that they got from
the government, and they are threatening the Palestinian and
they are forcing them to move out.
I saw in my own eyes a Palestinian community that is
packing and moving out because they are afraid of the terror,
the terror of the settlers. And the settlers are using
violence and no one is doing anything about it.
And the situation of the Palestinian in the West Bank is
really, really bad because it's not just new neighbors that are
taking your land. These new neighbors are
threatening you. They are threatening your
family. They humiliate you and they're
creating your life like an impossible one.
And this is part of what this government is doing, supporting
the the the groups that are acting terror against the
Palestinians in the West Bank. And just to add data to support
what Reeve said that in the last two years, 1000 Palestinian were
killed in the West Bank by the settlers and the army.
And this is the biggest number, that of killing Palestinians in
the West Bank since 1967. And if there is any terror in
the West Bank, this is Jewish terror of the settlers and this
government empower them and give them money and armed support and
all of the powers to them. If there is terror, this is
Jewish terror in the West Bank. If there is violence, the
settler violence in the West Bank and the Palestinian there
under immediate dangers. I mean, what's interesting is
that what, whatever your perspective, you all seem to be
saying that the the settlers in themselves are not the obstacle
to a Palestinian state, that that is overcomeable, right?
So, So what what about the other things that have come up?
I mean, you know, and this feels like we're jumping way ahead and
of course we are. But when you get into these
negotiations, you're also going to be talking about refugees,
the right to return, the status of Jerusalem.
Yes, these are these are all negotiating.
Issues. Do you actually think these
things can be solved? The question who are the
partners from Israeli side to negotiate with Netanyahu cannot
be partner. Gan say I don't recognize the
right of self determination of the Palestinian people and I'm
against two state solution. Who is the partner Bennett?
Bennett is the only one who can replace Netanyahu.
He is supporting the policy of the settlers.
He is against Palestinian state. So first of all, let us decide
who is the Israeli partner with the Palestinian.
I don't know to expect what Bennett will do.
I'm not so sure he will be the new Prime Minister.
We cannot know. But about the idea, when you
look at these issues, these core issues, they are all solvable.
Once there is a will for a political solution, there is a
political solution for each of of these issues.
On the issue of refugees, it's very clear that if Israel will
be ready to accept the Palestinian refugees, we're not
talking about, we're not talking about two states for two people.
We are talking about two states for one people.
The Palestinians and and Israel will never accept it.
So this is a red line. We know that the 67 border is
the basic borders with swap territories.
We know that the solution to Jews.
This is the point. In.
This is the point in start of of a negotiation that aimed to
succeed. What do you what?
What do you mean? Sorry, Alan.
The the Oslo court said that that the negotiations will be on
Jerusalem, on settlements, on refugees and on borders.
In other words, there's no border.
The 1967 Line was a line that was never agreed upon as a peace
region. It was the Jordanians in the
Armistice agreements of 1949 who insisted that this time.
You are a lawyer as As for now, the 67 border is the border of
the state of Israel. Israel until now never annexed
the West Bank into Israel, not by.
And this was the decision by, made by Israel.
And even in East Jerusalem, the Palestinians living in East
Jerusalem, they did and that was annexed to Israel.
They're not Israeli citizens, they're just civilians.
It's not by choice. It's not this is the, this is.
This is what this is. This is their status.
They can ask and to beg Israel to change it and sometimes
Israel agree to some, but it's not their choice.
This is not true. They are being gone.
They are being. Gone.
Civilians and not citizens because they are living in the
other side of the Green Line and and and and the Austrian
agreement cannot be an alibi to the occupation.
And you are using the Austrian agreement that the expiration
date is already over the Austrian agreement.
Is not a peace agreement is it was something temporary and
there's the expiration date is over we are overdosed argument
don't use those argument as an alibi to build settlements and
to erase the green light you're. Misleading the interviewer and
you're misleading. Why what?
What is not for you? Because first of all, the Oslo
Accords never had an expiration date.
The only expiration date, and I was involved in drafting it, is
the five year period of the Palestinian Authority
government. That's the only expiration date.
There's no expiration date. Secondly, the residents of
Jerusalem have got the option by law to adopt Israeli
citizenship. Do you like some of?
The people that ask, I mean, would you please get
citizenship? In if you please allow me, on
the basis of cultural discussion, to finish a
sentence. But the truth is also important.
Well, are you allowing me or not, please?
Well, thank you very much. They were given the right by law
to assume Israeli citizenship. Some chose to do so.
Some were threatened by the Palestinian leadership not to do
so. This is the fact and this is the
law. Now you can argue and you can
smile and you can. Because it's come.
From your your political position, it's not political.
I'm explaining to you what the the legal situation is.
You either accept it or you reject.
It are you agree with me on the legal issue that a child had
been born if he he's in Jewish in Jerusalem, he will be citizen
automatically, but if he was a Palestinian he will be only
civilian. Are you agree with me this this
is this is the default what he can do with that later he can
beg the Israelis to to get to get citizenship and sometimes
they did. Mostly they don't because of
many excuses and it's take years to get it.
It's not something that my children or your children will
have to go through when they are being born and automatically
they are citizens of Israel. And this is because the Green
line is exist also in East Jerusalem, although we occupy E
Jerusalem to Israel. Do you?
I just, I just wanted to get back to your other point, if I
could, which is just a historical reminder that Ariel
Sharon was the father of the settlement movement.
When he first announced disengagement, people laughed.
They said, oh, yeah, he's really going to send in bulldozers to
destroy Gaza. And actually he did.
So I'm saying that political leaders move, at the end of the
day very much out of expediency and larger goals.
And he always had this phrase that said, you know what you see
from here? You know, what you you see from
here, you don't see from there. You know, the vision changes and
so does the policy. And so, well, I think it's I
agree that that Netanyahu is not going right now in the direction
of two States and he's spoken against it.
He's also the same person that gave the Bar Ilan speech in
which he talked about the rights of, of, of two peoples.
So it's hard to tell where, where the policy is going to go.
But definitely, yes, I think it's the policy and not the
people. And you had a question, I'm
sorry. Well, just finally, I mean, what
do you think is the next step? If there is a step towards
progress, what is the next step you think is achievable?
I think that for many years now there is a path to the two state
solution because in the past even before October 7th when you
had Hamas in power in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, so it
it was very difficult even to speak about the option to get an
agreement. Now there is a path, there is an
offer on the table to end the war, prisoners exchange deal,
the hostages coming back home, an alternative government in
Gaza that you are being led by the Palestinian Authority, Egypt
emirated in the in the Saudi moving forward to the two state
solution and having a regional peace between Israel and Saudi
Arabia and other countries. This is the path for some kind
of hope for Israelis and also for the Palestinians.
This is not something that was not there before.
Unfortunately, there is not enough political will and
there's not enough support among the Israelis for this, this
package, but this is where we have to go.
I think that the next question will come immediately after the
war is about the consequences of the war, about the
accountability, about the ICC about to indict who and who is
the war criminals here. I think this may the main, these
will be the main questions. And our question here wouldn't
be the major question will be the consequences of the first
question, because when you deal with accountability, then the
question of the Palestinian, the right of Palestinian for self
determination will become easier question.
Because then first you would say this people passed genocide,
this people were killed, 10% of this people were killed and Gaza
was destroyed. And we don't have this in the
modern history that one area totally was destroyed and most
of its people became disabled. This is the main question.
This is what we are going to face.
And after that will be clear that the Palestinian have the
right for self determination. I think this is what we now
denying. We are denying just because we
are living the moment. I am Palestinian city of Israel,
I want to tell you crash something.
Do you know how I feel? I am Hebrew speaker, Arabic
speaker. I am like the German Jew who is
walking in Berlin in 1937 when his state killing his people and
he is wondering whether my turn will come soon or not.
This is what we are living. This is exactly what we are
living. So the question 2 state one
mistake I think will be a minor question.
The main question is accountability and who is
responsible for the genocide and about building Gaza.
This is the main question. I don't think any Palestinian
now today is concern about one state, 2 state.
If I will ask the Palestinian people to have demonstration,
support 2 state or one state, I won't find 100 persons to
demonstrate. But if I will tell them
demonstrate to stop the war, to stop the genocide, millions will
come to demonstrate. Well, you know, without getting
into sort of buzzwords and empty phrases, I think to a large
extent what Yariv said is correct.
Once we get to the stage that the the war ends and the
hostages come back and there's some type of responsible
governance in the Gaza Strip, whether it's organised by the
Emirates and, and the Egyptians and, and the Americans or
whoever. Once we get there, then we come
to back to the issue of, OK, are we going to be able to negotiate
1234 states or whatever and this will then be the issue.
And it takes 2 to tango. This can't be imposed
unilaterally. It has to be something to be
negotiated. And in order to negotiate, we
need people to willing to build up mutual trust and negotiate
with each other. Now I'm sure that that Yariv,
myself and possibly Hassan, we could possibly form a very good
negotiating group to negotiate these things, assuming that we
allow each other to talk. But this has to this is the pre
free requirement. First of all, there has to be a
willingness to negotiate and there has to be with whom to
negotiate. And at the moment there there
there's no real genuine Palestinian leadership that that
that's not afraid and that that's willing and able and
capable to take on the mantle of representing the Palestinian
people to negotiate. I think once this happens, then
I think the Israelis will be very happy to negotiate with
them. Yeah, and you need to end the
war. You can't do anything until.
Yeah, that's the first thing. And the hostages are home.
What happens to Gaza is going to be very determinative.
In other words, if you have some kind of a solution for Gaza that
could again become a prototype for what you might be able to
see in the West Bank, I think you're going to have in his
election, right? So it could be that the, the
next step would be under an Israeli leader who we don't know
who that would be. And that would definitely change
the question. You're definitely going to need
new Palestinian leadership. So I think in spite of the
declarations on September 22nd, you don't you don't have a
recipe right now for a successful 2 takes, but you
could the end to the Gaza war, a good conclusion to the day after
for Gaza that could be a prototype different leadership.
Yeah, I think you could. And you're going to have an
that. Might mean releasing people like
Malang Barghiti. It could be all kinds of things,
yes. I mean, you know, there's we're
assuming we're we're throwing around all these things as if
the reality today is going to be the forever reality.
But it's not just like the reality in 2022 is not it.
Who is in leadership in the United States?
Does this all happen in the next couple years while Trump, you
know, is in power, who becomes U.S.
President afterwards, etcetera, etcetera?
What happens with Russia and Ukraine?
All of these, all of these are ingredients, you know.
So it it, it turns a very simple thing, which is the self
determination of people into a very complex equation.
We must leave it there. Thank you all very much indeed
for joining us. Thank you.
That's the forecast from Jerusalem, The more cast
forecast. Until next time, Bye.
Bye.