Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 25, 2011 3:30am-4:00am EDT

3:30 am
that's because one. of the. markets why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy cause a report on. your weather isn't here's a look at the top stories as president obama pledges with his british counterpart to increase pressure on the levy leader there's growing opinion to the fans of tandem change to offensive by only increasing conflict zones to. thousands of georgian for towns service press harder for president saakashvili to resign as many other countries struggle with object poverty and corruption. the war in the middle east moves from the front line to online as palestinians and
3:31 am
israelis clash over facts all with your t.v. out. of the top stories and we continue here in r.t. to discuss the palestinian israeli conflict and all across dog debate shall. tomorrow's choppers come to moscow with dashboards digitized upgraded and automated guided by gyroscopes propelled by power salute the engines russian motors ready to . leave the future. if. you think.
3:32 am
the low end welcome to 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 us 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. 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 log dot com and a columnist for now lebannon and paul sam he's an adjunct scholar at the middle east institute and a 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
3:33 am
encourage it but first let's have a look at the chess board and some of its pieces. u.s. president barack obama is faced with a daunting task help broker a peace settlement between israel and the palestinians that both parties can live with while of the same time be accepted by the international community it is early days but obama's latest initiative has so far only expose the divisions between washington and tel aviv as well as galvanize what is called the israel lobby in the u.s. all the while the palestinians are listening on the sidelines but they're my position of pass american administrations obama said last week that any future settlements should be based within borders 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 established thorvald states responding to these words israeli prime minister
3:34 am
benjamin netanyahu told obama he found his vision and feasible does that mean straining a deep divide that could do any us bit curious by peace talks and israel's most reliable supporter in the u.s. 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. game of common interests and shared values. you wonder stand with great depth that israel is the only country in the middle east that shares america's commitment to freedom democracy and peace obama's words at the same apac conference surprisingly showed a different tension as he recast his stance on the one nine hundred sixty seven borders and was anything with reagan about america's commitment to israel's security no vote at the united nations will ever create an independent palestinian
3:35 am
state and the united states will stand up against efforts to single israel out at the united nations or in any international forum israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate that is my commitment that is why i was told you later netanyahu appeared on par with obama and celebrating us israel cooperation this broad support for is really not it states. tremendous group and command history. to my country and so a band of the day the so-called peace process resolving the israeli palestinian conflict is also a one step forward to start a back and deal compromises and one way of ministration the israelis and a pact has been the political calculus for decades but both players have solved nothing about my face is a very hard reality continue failed policy or chile give this conflict everything
3:36 am
and something approaching a reset the ball is still on obama's court russia china i crossed party. ok if i am to you first hussein in washington i guess around washington today do you think that obama caved. to internal pressure. and just really kind of within a matter of hours he switched gears very very quickly why is it not go right ahead i just well i completely disagree with this is i think that's a complete i think is a terribly superficial reading that's been made by people 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. i am for size all the things that the audience would like to hear but he also reiterated his position and a plea negotiations have to be based on the sixty seven borders and other things
3:37 am
such as the you know the international impatience including the american impatience with the lack of progress on peace and the untenable situation in israel finds itself pursuing this occupation over millions and millions of stateless palestinians for whom it has no solution no answer no plan no method of dealing in the long run so i don't i mean i think if you go 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. also not tell you i was covering his right flank in israel and trying not to be outbid by people like i would do or lieberman and other politicians in his right and so i think that there was
3:38 am
a lot of political calculus in histrionics here but i don't think obama shifted one bit ok it is a very interesting point and if i can go to you like is there any difference in american policy now from george w. bush to kill barack obama. yeah i'm afraid there is i don't agree with you said on that p. 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 its birth so those are the armistice lines where the armies happened to stop their invasion that's not the international law line in fact 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 israel is called today and some area and many of
3:39 am
your viewers know it is the west bank say something in just one second let me just finish this first point the those the disputed territory is. under the palestinian authority patient all going to go to the arab side in fact it's disputed territory the un resolution two forty two envisioned that israel would have secure borders creating 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 a resolution through for it to go ok so these so-called one hundred sixty seven lines i mean you know this guy this guy was going to jump to poland asking are these disputed territories or these disputed territories because most generous knowledge of international law will say these are these are this is an occupation going on there and that under international law they say occupation must come to an end paul go ahead you got the floor. i'm a lawyer by training but i don't think international law can be
3:40 am
the ultimate resort in the powered this is a political speech and 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. clearly i think. in this carol. obama said he said based on the nineteenth sixty seven borders which has been the assumption for years look at the. between the prime minister olmert president abbas just a few years ago what he's doing and all of the.
3:41 am
excitement is absolute was absolutely foreseeable is he setting down a marker saying that the border. changes will be comparatively minor and they have to be reciprocal and read by go through 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 policy. hold on a second. there are a couple things here first. it's proper to invoke to for truth the basis for what obama was referring to in terms. sixty seven borders with lance also yes i do think
3:42 am
it's been implicit since two for two but you can't invoke two four 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 for two reiterates the length of the 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 prime minister sharon 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
3:43 am
from jerusalem so it is not as if two four two four seven six the 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 u.n. security council and international law i cannot again before we go to the break and thirty seconds before we go to break i had. well i dispute that as well i don't have enough time to go into the details there but the 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 agreement that i'm not part agreement and the arab refusal to meet for direct talks with israel is the real obstacle to peace right now and unfortunately the jump in here we're going to break here after that short break we'll continue our discussion on the so-called peace process state party.
3:44 am
in. the in. the. the in the. news today violence is once again flared up. and these are the images. from the streets of canada after. charley corporations are rooted a. lead. wealthy british scientists not. tied to.
3:45 am
the market. to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with meit's cause or no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kinds a report. you can see . and. welcome back to cross talk i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're talking about obama's peace initiative. to keep. saying. ok dan if i can go back to you at apec 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
3:46 am
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 we were terribly 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 alternately political but israel does not recognize that what 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 recognition that israel is a 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
3:47 am
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 solved you know if you prepared to the fundamental question is that you know this is good but war is one of nine hundred forty eight nine hundred sixty seven started when israel did not control some area i'm going to find out if i go to hussein hussein i mean if there's a few countries in the world breaking the ice israel's ok go ahead hussein ok i mean is it really a recognition issue i mean listen it can't be a recognition issue because the kilo 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
3:48 am
the state of israel you return the state of israel only recognize. the p.l.o. as the legitimate representing the palestinian people so you know the arab league has adopted 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 soldiers of a representative of the palestinian people what we have unfortunately 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 truce alone an accession 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 need gate 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 and most israelis regard what they call judea
3:49 am
and samaria and the whole rest of the world calls the occupied palestinian territories as part of their patrimonial homeland find 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 compromises and i think to ignore that and to look at the occupied territories in isolation from the rest of mandatory problems silencio poor israel's being asked to give up this is very important territory that so dear to us ignores the palestinians have already agreed to giving up the overwhelming majority of what they regard as to be fair here that speech areas. like. yeah i
3:50 am
like to recall the former is true rarely foreign minister of the even says bad is true or twenty years ago it has still learn to take yes for in the end sir and the arab state as. pointed out have been offering peace and recognition to israel since two thousand and two and our pride you know your surges led be one of our you can also serve prevnar if you sixty seven lines were auschwitz bar porters there is a wide consensus. being the minority the last one is many times it regretted that characterization with faggot is both the error of the political and military situations have changed
3:51 am
absolutely and fundamentally since both forty eight and sixty seven this point unlike forty eight israel is the most powerful country in the region israeli security has to be assured there are plenty of things in place suit take care of there and of course these have to be recognized in the peace agreement what this is about policy and was very old one million voters want to rattle lends a lead me one more sense israel wants to keep the settlements with. sane pointed out have been declared. to
3:52 am
international law and opposed by everyone all right gentlemen let's see this game this equal time here is t.v. with everyone i want to go to. because i want to be fair to everybody but i agree with paul that's ultimately. about coming to an agreement that is agreeable to all sides but they've got a mention elephant in this room is hamas and the power that they weld in gaza and the hamas fatah agreement what fatah did what the p.a. palestinian authority did and you green through 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 law 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
3:53 am
a terrorist organization by the u.s. by the european union and really by anyone with little common sense i'm just has been lobbying 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 what this is the same conversation with we've been having for twenty years on this i want to ask all of you guys a question here are we getting to a one state solution now because it looks like you know go ahead hussein because you know the more we delay this here now 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 to give up their national projects but for the
3:54 am
foreseeable future in my lifetime there will be no one state open court solution close quote what there will be is either a two state peace agreement or a ongoing and increasingly bitter bloody and religious conflict we have to avoid can i make two quick points against the present president on the hamas deal president obama said he raises important and legitimate questions for which policies 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 or have representation in the cabinet or have any diplomatic role is making a huge assumption that isn't justifiable a lot ok dan you want to jump in they're going to play head here. let me just say
3:55 am
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 last question so it appears that the palestinians are trying to achieve their goals without negotiations of any kind and here we are looking exactly. zero you know that said now knowing where grazes to direct a lot of college i. know you. were there was. pick up your head talk. to pick. a point because green says the eight hundred pound gorilla u.k. and the void dealing with it i don't mean that hamas has the see the table what hamas is said in lipstick
3:56 am
always and has to be possible otherwise they can't have any influence is there thirty per cent of the palestinians has to. the p.a. under us to do the new girl. live in israel are online gentlemen gentlemen we're. going to have between you we're almost out of time i'd like to give dan the last thirty seconds go ahead dan thanks so much the problem with this is that wishful thinking won't make hamas actually. engage in a conflict ending agreement their good will and their intentions are very suspect israel the vast majority of israel's israelis want peace but they won't trust any
3:57 am
government that has participation by hamas to keep it and israel is not going to make the kinds of concessions that the palestinians will want 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 or a gentleman will run out of time here we've run out of time i sincerely thank all of my guest today in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here and our teeth see you next time and remember cross talk with us. if. you can.
3:58 am
3:59 am
download the official antti application q i phone or i pod touch from the i choose apps to. charge the flight.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on