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.