tv Quadriga - The International Talk Show LINKTV May 18, 2018 7:00am-7:31am PDT
can bring atether wi art music simpo vebeheonversat to ft re t link melinda: hello, and welcome to "quadriga." this week, 70 years to the day since israel was founded, the u.s. reversed years of foreign policy, and made jerusalem byael's capital official officially relocating its embassy to jerusalem, and by sending donald trump's daughter
ivanka, along with her husband, jared kushner. tois problematic palestinians who see jerusalem as their capital. it turned into the bloodiest protest in years, coming just after trump's announcement the u.s. will no longer comply with the iran nuclear agreement, but instead, reimpose sanctions. the embassy launch was the second move with highly disruptive implications for the already highly volatile middle east. can and should europe counter trump and the middle east? is there any role for europe? these are our guests, it is a leisure to welcome the nora muller, director of international affairs at the korber foundation. decisionsfter trump's in the middle east, europeans must do damage control. i am proud to have on the program shoddy results. -- shani
rozanes. she works at dw. to says they are failing fill the void left by american policy. very glad to have back on the program, alan posener. he works on the newspaper in germany,ora: -- in "die welt." when europe and the u.s. do not work together, europe becomes invisible. 2400 people injured on monday. you vigorously defended the u.s. decision to relocate the embassy at the end of last year. do you abide by that opinion in the face of this bloodshed? more thanlutely, ever. this has nothing to do with the moving of the embassy. this bloodshed was planned by hamas and its iranian backers
for over a year. ,his march of return re-conquering israel, was planned for over a year. it is to mark what they call nakba day, the day of catastrophe, the day israel was founded and many palestinians lost their homes. they have been wanting these martyrs for months and months. they planned towards that. there would have been violence at the border anyway, no matter what mr. trump did or did not do. please, do not conflate these the movement of the embassy to jerusalem, which is a -- putting aceful new plaque on a building that already stands there, and this terrible incitement by hamas to send people into their deaths at the border. the palestinians who stormed the fence did have multiple reasons to be frustrated, including the
weakness and corruption of their own administration and of course, israel's intransigence. can we really lay this violence act that donald trump's door as many have been doing? nora: i would argue there are many other reasons for palestinians to be frustrated. but i do believe the embassy movement to jerusalem is of a very inflammatory nature. it is not for no reason that the issue of jerusalem has been delayed in the peace negotiations between palestinians and israelis to the final talks. ground, facts on the which are not only facts on the ground, but art to the benefit of just one party of the conflict, without giving a similar concession, a similarly
important concession to the other side, is a highly problematic move. whyquestion you ask is, would the americans do this at this point in time? to me what is the return on investment, if you will. that is the question we really have to ask to washington. melinda: i want to ask that question in a moment. shani, donald trump has defended israel's use of force monday, but there has been widespread condemnation elsewhere of what critics say was a very disproportionate use of live ammunition against mostly unarmed protesters. called itternational a scandalous violation of international law and human rights. how do you see it? it keeps israelis much
more calm -- as we could see monday, with of the moving of justlaque, yes, it is not a plaque, it is a symbol. in that aspect we could see that ceremony as cementing that bond that conservative religious bond between israel and america. as long as they have backing, they feel fine and solid and quiet, despite the fact this is controversial, and rightfully so. himself, his story is not really aligned. the first explanation, harmless people unarmed. but then a hamas spokesperson confirmed 50 of the casualties were actually hamas people. they were shooting their own arguments in the leg, and not
being consistent with their claim of what happened. controversial, yes, but it always is in this region. melinda: the data that was chosen for this controversial move was in fact the time of year when tensions between israel and palestinians are at their highest. anniversary of israel's founding and anniversary of the palestinian explosion. should the u.s. have known it was adding fuel to a fire? let's hear about what the main protagonist had to say. mr. netanyahu: it is a great day for israel. it is a great day for america. it is a great day for our fantastic partnership, but i believe it is also a great day for peace. is a trump: israel sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation, to determine its own capital. the united states remains fully committed to facilitating a lasting peace agreement.
what we saw in jerusalem today was not the opening of an embassy, but the opening of an american settlement outpost. alan, hasn't the u.s. in essence given up any pretense of being impartial or being in the role of an arbiter between the two sides? and if so, what are the consequences for the peace process? alan: america, i hope, was never impartial as regards israel. i wish europe would be less impartial, because it is perfectly clear the position of the west has to be on the side of the region's only functioning democracy. democracy,0 years of never been in doubt.
hasough the state itself been attacked time and time again by its neighbors, surely that is a reason not to be impartial. want to come to a peace deal they have to realize, and europe needs to send this israel is nothat going to go away and their friends are not going to go away. we are friends of the israeli. we are certainly not friends of or recently abbas said -- about the holocaust. don't we have any principles here? standing behind israel and telling the other side, we are here, what are you giving us? melinda: how do you see it? nora: from a german point of view it is clear israel's -- this is part of our because theelieve,
and wes are our friends, feel they are going wrong with settlement communities, we have to be critical in that regard. about is that is at the core of our engagement in the middle east peace process. yes, americans have taken themselves out of the game in terms of their ability to be an honest broker, to some extent. yes, this would be the european moment to jump in and take over that role. i would not necessarily say we do not have any tools in our diplomatic toolbox. whether thee europeans can filled that vacuum that was left by washington. melinda: let me come back to that in a moment. we do have a sound bite from angela merkel.
let me ask you two questions. israel as a democracy, people worry if we go on much longer without something like a two state solution or some other outcome of a peace process, that israel will find itself forced to choose between being a democracy and being a jewish state. would you say in fact there is urgency here, in terms of where the so-called dormant peace process is going? shani: i think what you are saying is exactly the point. there is more than one way to be pro-israel. alan takes one stance, pro-regime, pro-government, backing not only israel as a state, but this particular government and its policy. says there is more than one way.
there are many loud voices within israel saying, settlements are not conducive, not to the peace process or israel's future, if we do not want to jeopardize the jewish majority of the state and allow it to be a separate state and not one state, which it might end up being, if we look at the demographics, the numbers, with so many palestinians inside. if we do not want to give palestinians their rights, how can we be a democracy? this is at the heart of what we are talking about. there is no doubt this current regime is not in too much of a rush. they know they have the backing of the white house. probably maybe for eight years. policies andt the what he has been doing so far, his strategy is waiting it out, seeing how the rest of the arab world -- where does this go,
especially following the arab spring. this is what he believes is the right thing to do. som not certain there are many voices within israel that think it is the only way we should go, or the smartest. melinda: donald trump is a firm believer disruption can produce surprisingly constructive results. the fact is, conventional diplomacy has, so far, achieved only a stalemate. how confident are you that by shaking things up he can, in some way, reactivate something like a constructive peace process? alan: i am very confident. is not true that conventional diplomacy created a stalemate. conventional diplomacy over the eight years of the obama administration created a catastrophe for everyone concerned in the middle east. look at syria, look at the palestinians, look at yemen, look at the rise of iran, look
at lebanon. situations, all caused by doing nothing. taking the do-nothing approach, we are putting everything on the table, you deliver. it is already working. after trump said we are moving the embassy to jerusalem, up came prince salman been mohammed, who said to abbas, publicly, you need to recognize israel and deal with the reality. the president of egypt tried to convince hamas not to do these demonstrations. you can see already how the perfection of america as being firm and not some kind of pudding is forcing the arabs to face up to reality. this is good, not bad. mohammed bin slaman --
salman is being cautious. relianceee saudi is in bringing washington and israel and saudi arabia together. they canill feel deliver a peace deal to the middle east, i wish i could have your optimism. i think you are delusional, alan. melinda: i want to take us back to our topic of europe's role. i mentioned a soundbite of angela merkel. let's look at that. she has rather self-critical remarks to make during her first speech to the parliament after being sworn in again. europe is directly impacted by this situation. at the same time, we have not done enough to work out a political solution to this dispute.
i acknowledge this. i have no delusions about the complexity of this situation, but i believe we must become more involved in resolving this dispute, and germany will do that. i guess you agree germany should be more because you wrote in your book on female diplomacy, and you referred to it in your opening statement about damage control, but what exactly would that mean in this case? what concretely should germany and europe be doing? nora: this talk about the deal of the century and the ultimate deal. melinda: in regard to iran. donald trump talks a lot of deals. nora: i was talking about the israeli-palestinian conflict. i do not believe in this ultimate deal trump has been promising. i think where europe can come in
is taking us back to realities on the ground and making small steps, opting for more of an incremental approach. i sometimes use the image of a marathon. at this point in time, because peace does not seem to be around the corner, we have to opt more for the shorter run rather than a two kilometer marathon. europe could propose a more where weal approach, can start rebuilding trust between the parties of the conflict. that could be on the israeli side, maybe a freeze of settlement, no more construction work beyond the green line. whereas on the palestinian side, to theould be an end payments of the families. these could be initial steps to help rebuild trust.
there is a role for europe to be played there. melinda: you said in your opening statement you do not see europe stepping into the void. what would you want to see them do? shani: the using of the term europe is misleading. what is europe? britain,e still have but that is not going to last for too long. melinda: we do have a european union. we are talking about austria, czech republic, romania, who sent their delegates to join the americans for the embassy. they are part of the e.u. will they support everything may or juncker are bringing? you see macron from france and angela merkel -- macron is young, energetic, once to bring france into as much as -- we
have seen a big -- great deal he is done. about foreign policy is the marathon. they are not even putting their shoes on. there is no clear policy for the e.u. let me -- nora: let me just come in. melinda: quickly, because i want to get to iran. nora: when you look at european efforts to keep up the jcpoa -- melinda: the nuclear agreement. nora: exactly, it is more than just a show. to europeans try to stand up the americans, to some extent, although it is not a position we want to bn. we want to be in a working partnership. we see the german, french and
british foreign minister stand up together, trying to work out how we can salvage. it is in our own security interest, by the way. melinda: we have a short report on where things stand with iran. let's take a look at that. and france britain are still committed to the iran nuclear deal. their foreign ministers will work with iran to try to keep it alive. this agreement directly affects the security interests of europe. theret this agreement, will be more insecurity and uncertainty about developments in iran and the near and middle east. >> the deal lifts economic sanctions on iran, provided tehran limits nuclear activities and allows international inspectors to verify compliance. but now, president has restored
the old sanctions and threatened to in's -- restore new ones on businesses that trade with iran. >> we are going to see whether the political views expressed by the remaining participants in jcpoa can be translated into specific action. the u.s. has stepped up the pressure on the europeans. can they stand up to washington? alan, they claim they want to do just that, a blockade resolution, a tactic that was used in regards to cuba sanctions, telling european companies not to comply with new u.s. sanctions. cannot possibly be effective? you talked about europe and the u.s. working together. is there any possible compromise you see out there?
what a path we have come to in asking this question. the only way we can put pressure to comply with the deal is by re-imposing sanctions and then saying, we want to do this, that and the other. no, iran is not compliant. say it is an enriching amount of uranium, but they are not complying with the deal. there are also resolutions about du missiles into by -- in they areb not allowed to supply weapons to hezbollahai. . there are also resolutions about the missiles in dubai.
they are not allowed to supply weapons to hezbollah. we are supplying weapons to people who kill us. we must stop this. melinda: they have talked about bringing the issue into a larger package. europeans were willing to talk about this, were they not? nora: absolutely. i think the nuclear deal, the jcpoa, is a nonproliferation arms-control deal, which has nothing to do with iran's regional activities, nothing to do with the ballistic missiles or human rights. those are separate issues. i think it is very important to address these issues. have alieve europeans role to play because, unlike the americans, they have ways and means to talk to tehran. alan: what success have we had up to now? i have always heard we have to strengthen reformers in iran. reformers are not in power.
the people in power are people who want to eliminate israel and her building missiles that can reach europe. what back channels? melinda: let me bring shani ro zanes into this because we are very near the end of our program. we are closerng to a comprehensive deal on a ran on all of these points. what do you think is the likelihood of that? shani: the chances are slim to none. had he wanted to improve the deal, he should have stayed with negotiations. he has been very harsh. record,king at trump's he is promising better deals when it comes to paris, obamacare, better health care for americans. i have not seen him finding constructive solutions yet. melinda: let me ask you this, coming back to the european's move, you want to see bolder actions from the e.u.
are you satisfied with the blocking resolutions that would tell european companies, do not go along with the u.s. sanctions? if so, who will indemnify them for their losses? shani: it shows the helplessness of europe. they are desperate, grasping at straws, and this is what they can come up with. toyou said some other way implement it, enforce it, very limited. i am not sure europeans of the guts to go into this trade war with america. ian: i do not want -- nora: do not want the show to end on this note. it is one part of a wider package europeans are trying to put together to salvage the jcpoa. are we: one sentence, seeing irreparable divisions between the u.s. and europe? alan: if europe does not get its act together, yes. melinda: only in europe? alan: yes, we need to deliver and be hard in the iranians and not the americans. we are choosing the wrong enemy.
to people who rarely have one. many young men in brazil end up in jail. what's the solution? in zambia, small farmers are being resettled to make way for large-scale agriculture. what does this mean for them? and in india we look at the caste system. how do millions of dalits cope with being right at the bottom