tv [untitled] May 25, 2011 5:30pm-6:00pm EDT
the old free blog video for your media project free media gone to our teton tom. news today violence is once again flared up. and these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. trying to call for the day. kick. start. the low and welcome the cross talk i'm peter lavelle cox before more talks u.s.
president barack obama's most recent attempt to broker a peace settlement between israel and the palestinians faltered only hours after it was announced israel and its allies in the u.s. made it clear that they will have a say when it comes to the terms and conditions of any negotiations is obama's peace ideas already dead on arrival. can. still. get cross-talk the peace process i'm joined by my guest in washington daniel pollack he is co-director of government relations for the zionist organization of america we also have hussein ibish he is the author of the if this blog dot com and a columnist for now lebannon and paul sam he's an adjunct scholar at the middle east institute and professor of israel studies at the university of maryland ok gentlemen crossed this is cross talk and i mean you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it but first let's have a look at the chessboard and some of its pieces. u.s.
president barack obama is faced with a daunting task how broker a peace settlement between israel and the palestinians that both parties can live with while the same time be accepted by the international community it is early days but obama's latest initiative has so far only exposed the divisions between washington and tel aviv as well as galvanised what is called the israel lobby in the u.s. all the while the palestinians are listening on the sidelines but there might be the position of passing miracle administrations obama said last week that any future settlements should be based within various established and recognized by international law we believe the borders of israel palestine should be based on the nine hundred sixty seven lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are stablished for both states responding to these words israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu told obama he found his vision and feasible as
the menstruating in the divide that could do any u.s. bid to revive peace talks and israel's most reliable supporter in the us the american israel public affairs committee or a pac reminded obama any peace talks with the palestinians must have the blessing of what is called the israel lobby in the us the relationship between united states and the jewish state of israel is a. common interest and shared values. you wonder stand with great depth it is really is the only country in the middle east that shares america's commitment to freedom democracy and peace obama's words at the same impact conference surprisingly showed a different tension as he recast his stance on the one thousand nine hundred seventy four hours and was anything but the rage about america's commitment to israel's security no vote at the united nations will ever create an independent palestinian state and the united states will stand up against the first
a single israel the united nations or in any international forum this rules legitimacy is not a matter for debate that is my commitment that is my place to all of you larry netanyahu appeared on par with obama and celebrating joyous israel collaboration this broad support for israel states. crewmembers who gives tremendous strength. to my country and so a ban of goods a full stop a so-called peace process resulting the israeli palestinian conflict is lost one step forward to steps back. compromises along the administration the israelis and a path has been the political calculus for decades but both players have solved nothing obama faces a very hard reality continue a failed policy or truly give this conflict everything and something approaching a reset the ball fell in a bomb a squirt russia china for across our team. ok
if i hear you first hussein in washington i guess around washington today i do think that obama caved. to internal pressure. and just really kind of within a matter of hours he switched gears very very quickly why not go right ahead i just well i completely disagree with that this is i think it's a complete i think is a terribly superficial reading that's been put on all sides and i think if you if you look at the text carefully from thursday and the weekend there is no change in policy the stances are exactly the same there is a slight shift in tone in the sense that a pack obama emphasized all the things that the audience would like to hear but he also reiterated his position that negotiations have to be based on the sixty seven borders and other things such as the you know the international impatience
including the american impatience with the lack of progress on peace and the untenable situation that israel finds itself in pursuing this occupation over millions and millions of stateless promised to use for no solution or answer no plan no method of dealing in the long run so i don't i mean i think if you look past the sugarcoating the substance was absolutely unchanged and if the israelis were unhappy on thursday. they had no particular reason to be happier on the weekend i think part of their outrage was designed to give g.o.p. candidates republican candidates trying to unseat obama in two thousand and twelve cover for issuing denunciations which they did and that also not only i was covering his right flank in israel and trying not to be outwitted by people like i would do or lieberman and other politicians to his right and so i think that there was a lot of political calculus and histrionics here but i don't think obama shifted one
bit ok and it is a very interesting point and if i can go to you what is there any difference in american policy now from george w. bush to barack obama. yeah i'm afraid there is no i don't agree with his saying on that he the difference is that what the president called the one nine hundred sixty seven lines which of course are really the one hundred forty nine armistice lines just a quick bit of history which were established when the arab armies from jordan egypt syria and even lebannon invaded israel following your spirit so those are the armistice lines where the armies happened to stop their invasion that's not the international law line in fact the international law that applies is un resolution two forty two which calls for secure borders for israel and envisions that the disputed territory what we now call the israelis call today and some area and many of your viewers i know it is the west bank say something just one second let me
just finish this first point that the disputed territory is. under the palestinian authority taishan all going to go to the arab side in fact it's disputed territory the u.n. resolution two forty two envisioned that israel would have secure borders trading some of that land for peace that's what they did on the border with egypt when they made peace there and that's what the ultimate peace ought to be based on resolution two forty two ok so the so-called one hundred sixty seven lines can i mean i was kind i was going to jump to paul and ask him are these disputed territories or these disputed territories because most inner scholars of international law will say these are these are this is an occupation going on there and that under international law is the occupation must come to an end go ahead you've got the floor. i'm a lawyer by training but i don't think international law can be the ultimate resort in the party this is
a political speech and there is in till we have the world government which we won't and i don't think we can wait that long it has to be resolved. because i think it is miss carroll. obama said he said based on the nine hundred sixty seven borders which has been the assumption for years look at the good. between prime minister olmert president abbas just a few years ago what he's doing and all of the. excitement is absolutely was absolutely foreseeable is
he said ing town a marker say that the border. changes will be comparatively minor and they have to be reciprocal and read by both parties this is not contrary to george bush what is different i agree is the tone and the starting point ok go ahead jump in part you know that you. know there was a. hold on a certain day. there are a couple things here first is that it's proper to invoke two for two as the basis for what obama was referring to in terms. sixty seven borders with land so so yes i do think it's an implicit since two for two but you can't invoke two for two and then question the fact that israel is the occupying power in those territories
because two for two specifically designates israel the occupying power to first the territories occupied by israel in the recent conflict and the preamble to two four to reiterate a lengthy inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war so you know what we're dealing with then is what was laid out in two parts by the bush administration in two thousand and four his letter to promise so short on where he said that an agreement would have to reflect changes on the ground in other words some settlement blocks probably will be annexed to israel and the palestinians have understood that from the mid ninety's on and his statement in two thousand and five that any changes to the armistice line of one hundred forty nine would have to be mutually agreed upon in other words that israel can't just pick and choose there is by the way another important security council resolution which is for seven six from nine hundred eighty which says that israel has to withdraw from jerusalem so it is not as if two four two four seven six security council resolutions give
israel the option of keeping all of jerusalem as netanyahu keeps talking about that is that is not ok according to the un security council and international law i cannot again before we go to the break and thirty seconds before we go to break go ahead. well i dispute that as well i don't have enough time to go into the details there but the fact is we have to ask ourselves why did president obama bring up this controversial issue in this way at this time and the answer has to do with something we should go into the hamas fatah agreement the master part agreement and the arab refusal to meet for direct talks with israel is the real obstacle to peace right now and unfortunately the job and here we are a break here after that sure break we'll continue our discussion on the so-called peace process state authority. in.
wealthy british style. markets. find out what's really happening to the global economy with my stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our key. download the official t. out location on the phone the i pod touch from the i choose ops to. launch all chief life on the go. video on demand policies mindful of costs and r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. question on the call to calm. him to keep the system.
welcome back to crosstalk i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're talking about obama's peace initiative. ok dan if i can go back to you ed apac the the executive director of the organization warned obama against treating both israel and the palestinians quote even handedly that's a pretty interesting statement treat both of them differently how do you how do you interpret that. well it's really simple the united states is an ally of israel and both countries share both the security concerns and alliance and we work together militarily and economically but the reason that that's the correct thing to say is
that israel is going to be asked and any peace agreement to give up something tangible its territory that contrary to the way some people have put it i do agree with paul it's ultimately political but israel does not recognize that what the jews called today and some area is someone else's territory we think it's ours and that's something that people often don't seem to understand so israel is being asked to sacrifice a tremendous amount and they're simply not going to do it unless there is a conflict and the recognition that israel is the state of the jewish people and that there is not going to be no further territorial demands you know that the core issue in the middle east unfortunately is is often placed as though it were a territorial issue and actually it's about the world's recognition and particularly arab recognition that there should be a jewish state in israel once you get that part settled all the details about
territory well the other details are easily are actually easily saw you know it's been here to the fundamental question is you know this is yet the war is still of nine hundred forty eight nine hundred sixty seven started when israel did not control some area jorge i'm going to find out if i go to hussein hussein i mean that there's a very few countries in the world breaking the ice israel's ok go ahead i'm saying ok i mean so is it really a recognition issue i mean listen it can't be a recognition issue because the p.l.o. which is the sole legitimate representative that i was seeing people recognize israel formally in the letters of recognition of mutual recognition in nineteen ninety three and formally committed to recognizing the state of israel you return the state of israel only recognize. the p.l.o. as the legitimate representative the policy of people so you know the arab league has the doctor the our peace proposal which which which offers israel normalization of all the arab states in return for withdraw from occupied territories and israel
has peace treaties with egypt and jordan and it has recognition from the sole legitimate representative of the palestinian people what we have fortunately really is a territorial dispute because last monday i mean seven days ago eight days ago prime minister netanyahu gave a speech before the knesset in which he said there would be no negotiations on jerusalem an exhibition of settlement blocks without distinguishing between the long term israeli military presence in the jordan valley and along the jordan river and other demands that really negate the possibility of the creation of a palestinian state so to downplay the territorial question is wrong now let me point out something to dad he's right most israelis regard what they call judea and samaria and the whole rest of the world calls the occupied palestinian territories . as part of their patrimonial homeland fine that's true and you have to understand palestinians see all of israel also as part of their patrimonial homeland and in
one nine hundred forty seven forty eight when israel was created palestinians were at least three quarters majority now when they recognize israel in its sixty seven borders they gave up seventy eight percent of what they regard as their country it is the mother of all compromisers and i think to ignore that and to to look at the occupied territories in isolation from the rest of mandatory problems silencio poor israel's being asked to give up this very important territory that so dear to us ignores what palestinians are already agreed to giving up the overwhelming majority of what they regard as be fair that's the fairest. like i had you jump in. yeah i like to root called former is true rarely foreign minister of. israel twenty years ago it has. to take yes for in the end sir and the arab states as.
pointed out have been offering peace and recognition to israel since two thousand and two. are price you know he also said to be want to sign up even also scared but the one hundred sixty seven lines were auschwitz more porters there is a wide consensus. feelingly. the last call is many times it regretted that characterization this fagot is both the arab political and military situations have changed absolutely and fundamentally since both forty eight and six the seven at this point unlike forty eight israel is the
most powerful country in the region is rarely security has to be assured but there are plenty of things in place to take care of that and of course these have to be recognized in the peace agreement what this is about policy in the israel one area and watches is one of the article didn't let me hear one more sens israel warrants to keep the settlements with. pointed out have been declared. to ensure national law and opposed by everyone you are a gentleman let's see this game to say what. you would i want to go to day ok because i want to be fair to everybody. i agree with paul that sultan only. about
coming to an agreement that is agreeable to all sides the big i mention elephant in this room is hamas and the power that they well in gaza and the hamas fatah agreement what fatah did what the p.a. palestinian authority did and agreeing to this deal with hamas is essentially completely sabotaged the entire american approach to peace and that's what's really happening today the united states laws as both of you gentlemen well know prohibit any united states aid to any entity that is controlled or repertoire has in it elements of a terrorist organization hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the us by the european union and really by anyone with little common sense i'm not so it's going to loving missiles into israel for years and killing thousands of civilians you know hussein i'd like. to see because i can i can i just really join somewhere here it's because because they are there because
would this is the same conversation we've been having for twenty years on this i want to ask all of you guys a question here and we getting to a one state solution now because it looks like go ahead hussein because you know the more we delay this here no hussein first go ahead. thank you know no we're not . there there is no such thing as a one state solution fact we have a one state exactly exactly and it is it is very right and it is extremely ugly and there is no way to fix it internally so the only solution there might be a one state outcome after decades of horrible bloody conflict in which both sides are so decimated and exhausted they give up their national projects but for the foreseeable future in my lifetime there will be no one state open quote solution close quote what will be is either a two state peace agreement or a an ongoing and increasingly bitter bloody and religious conflict we have to avoid that can only two quick points go against the present president on the hamas
started deal president obama said it raises important and legitimate questions for which i was seems have to provide a clear answer that's right that's the international position they want to see how this is implemented you know no there is no nobody knows what the details of what this is actually going to look like or so to leap to the conclusion that hamas is going to control this government or have a major part in it or have representation in the cabinet or have immediately magic role is lisa is making a huge assumption that isn't justifiable at all ok can you want to jump in they're going to go ahead here. just say the entire palestinian holistic big picture consists of the following the agreement with hamas refusal to engage in direct talks and continued incitement these things together really raise questions like it appears that the palestinians are trying to achieve their goals
without negotiations of any kind and. you know that said now knowing where grazes to direct a lot harder job and paul go ahead i know you. were there was. picked up. to. a point because greek hamas is the eight hundred pound gorilla u.k. and ovoid the dealing with it i mean that hamas has the see the table what hamas is said in lipstick always and hast still be possible of the wise thing they can't have any influence is there thirty per cent of the palestinians has to allow the p.a.
under us to do the. shooting with the israel army on my gentlemen gentlemen we're trying to stop the guy i didn't give it we're almost out of time i'd like to give dan the last thirty seconds go ahead and thanks so much the problem with various is that wishful thinking won't make hamas actually. engage in a conflict ending agreement their good will and their intentions are very suspect is raul the vast majority of israel's israelis want peace but they won't trust any government that has participation by hamas to keep it and israel's not going to make the kinds of concessions that the palestinians will one for peace under any participation by hamas so the last point is i agree there may not be a one state solution in the near term but there also may not be
a two state solution as long as the arab side doesn't view it as a conflict ending all right gentlemen we've run out of time here we've run out of time i sincerely thank all of my guests today in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here and our keith see you next time and remember cross talk means. you. see. the thing. the thing the think they'll.