Israeli P.M. Netanyahu and President Trump, have pushed a proposal to annex The Jordan Valley and parts of the West Bank forever. Now ... Netanyahu says in order to make peace with UAE he will DELAY the annexation but the deal “remains on the table”.
From Jericho, Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat, tells BACKSTORY's Dana Lewis if Israel proceeds it will inflame and destabilise the region. That the proposal will give extreme elements more influence.
In Tel Aviv, Journalist Nurit Ben predicts the proposal won't get traction and is already losing support.
And speaking from Jerusalem, Professor Gerald Steinberg, Author of Menachen Begin and Egyptian Peace Process, says the proposal will at least bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, because the status quo can't last.
Israeli P.M. Netanyahu and President Trump, have pushed a proposal to annex The Jordan Valley and parts of the West Bank forever. Now ... Netanyahu says in order to make peace with UAE he will DELAY the annexation but the deal “remains on the table”.
From Jericho, Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat, tells BACKSTORY's Dana Lewis if Israel proceeds it will inflame and destabilise the region. That the proposal will give extreme elements more influence.
In Tel Aviv, Journalist Nurit Ben predicts the proposal won't get traction and is already losing support.
And speaking from Jerusalem, Professor Gerald Steinberg, Author of Menachen Begin and Egyptian Peace Process, says the proposal will at least bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, because the status quo can't last.
We are at the watershed moment. Israel slept for the next parts of the occupied West bank. As a lot of Palestinians, many Israel is, and the broader international community. If implemented annexation with constitute the most serious violation of international law, grievous bodily harm, the prospect of a two state solution. I call on the Israeli government to abandon its annexation platters.
Speaker 2:Hi everyone. And welcome to this special edition of backstory. I'm Dana Lewis.
Speaker 3:[inaudible]
Speaker 2:The sound of growing desperation and discontent, Palestinian and pro peace Israelis demanding the Israeli government and the white house reverse a middle East deal. We won't call it a peace deal. It is designed by president Trump. Son-in-law Jared Kushner, which should tell you everything because he certainly no expert on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has never wanted a Palestinian state next to Israel. And he's called it the ultimate deal next to president Trump, who of course never wanted to miss a chance to self indulge said he had succeeded where other presidents had failed.
Speaker 3:[inaudible]
Speaker 4:All prior administrations from president Lyndon Johnson have tried and bitterly failed, but I was not elected to do small things on Sunday. I delivered to prime minister Netanyahu. My vision for peace, too many plans tried to pressure Israel to withdraw from vital territory. Like the Jordan Valley. You mr. President, you recognize that Israel must have sovereignty in the Jordan Valley and the other and other strategic areas of Judea and Samaria.
Speaker 2:Oh, and there were no Palestinian leaders at the white house press conference because they call it a steal of the century, a land steal where Israel could annex, which is a nice word for illegally seize up to 30% of Palestinian land in the West bank and the Jordan Valley. Now I was a correspondent in Jerusalem during the nineties and beyond when there was a real peace process called the Oslo Accords, but then prime minister had Rabin was assassinated shot in the back at a peace rally and Aviv by a Jewish extremist. We who fought against you. The Palestinians we say to you today in a loud voice and enough of blood and tears And Palestinian extremists off a series of bus bombs, killing Israelis in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. And I was back again in the West bank during the siege of yes, sir. Arafat's compound where the car I was driving came under heavy gunfire by Israeli soldiers, despite it being marked in bold lettering TV. As a journalist, I had been teargassed in Dodge stones and even Cobra helicopters, firing 30 millimeter chain guns into Ramallah, Israelis and Palestinians have rocked each other's worlds with tragic violence. And I think Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries will never swallow what's on the table right now. Not this deal never, but Hey, don't take my word for it. On this backstory, a range of views on the Israeli annexation scheme, the deal or the steal of the century,
Speaker 5:All right. Journalists, nor eat. Ben has covered the peace process. If you want to call it that for a long time. And she's a very experienced journalist from Israel. Can you tell me, first of all, what do we call this deal? It is not a peace deal,
Speaker 6:Right? I don't think you could call it a deal out. We haven't been able to be described as a deal for a long time. I mean, as you know, in the very beginning, uh, president Donald Trump called it the deal of the century, then exactly a year ago, when I was in Bahrain covering the first unveiling peace for prosperity, this economic first part, they switched the rhetoric. I think very intentionally to call it the opportunity of the century. And at this point, I don't know what we can call it at all. It really is sort of an idea or a vision, but it's really at a point of view relevance. I think at this point, I mean the Palestinians cut off all ties with the United States, with the white house about two years ago. Now during the embassy move, they have no interest, uh, you know, in, in hearing about it and speaking about it much less sitting down in actual table together and in any other way, it hasn't really advanced. And then if annexation does move forward in any way, I think that will really put out the final embers.
Speaker 5:So what, let let's talk about it in terms of let's give the white house, uh, Jared Kushner and, and, uh, the president, the benefit of the doubt for a minute and, and prime minister Netanyahu and say, okay, they have a real proposal. And the proposal is what we're going to annex up to 30% of Palestinian land and they get what in return and why would this ever work?
Speaker 6:Well, why would ever work, uh, you know, I don't want to speak for them. Uh, you know, we would allow Israel, as you say, to extend sovereignty to about 30% of the West bank, including, uh, all settlements in the Jordan Valley. And then there would be sort of the rest reserved for Palestinians for a set period. I believe about four years in which they would be expected to meet a certain set of conditions, uh, stopping incitement, stopping, uh, stipends to terrorists, uh, giving citizens full civil rights, uh, and on and so forth. But honestly, nobody's going to get, uh, nobody's going to get that far.
Speaker 5:All right. Well, when I heard about it, you know, after covering Oslo where the Palestinians were offered Jerusalem as a Homeland, uh, they were offered a continuous piece of land in the West bank. They were offered continuing negotiations on either right of return of, of millions now of Palestinians that were pushed out in 48 and 67 or some kind of compensation. And the latter being the more likely, why, what are they getting out of this? I really don't understand some kind of economic boost or what, what are they trying to sell them?
Speaker 6:Well, I think, I mean, I think that that was the way the Trump administration saw it. And again, I mean, I think the, the, the real economic part of it that I saw and most up close was again in Bahrain, where they were trying to unveil this economic part. And you had a prominent ambassadors from Arab Gulf States. Uh, you had some Palestinians flying under the radar and so on. And, and the real mentality was look, nothing has worked so far. You have a lot to gain economically that economics needs to proceed piece. And that obviously the economic situation in the West bank is bad and God disastrous. And their perspective was we, it was a sort of regional picture of once again, that they could finally, because of the warming ties between Israel and the Gulf Arab States, because of the sort of impatience in the Gulf Arab States who say, you know, behind the scenes. Well, you know, we don't have so much patience for ideal. We don't have patients for the Palestinians anymore. We want to take a step forward. We want to help them, but we also want to benefit from whatever cooperation we can get with Israel. And so I think that was part of their fundamental argument is, you know, the train is leaving the station, you stand a lot to gain from it. So come sit down and talk. But as we see it, nothing has so far come out of them.
Speaker 5:I think that the Palestinians are not going to be dragged in behind that train, if they're not, they're unwilling to go. So it's, can we just separate the, the president and the American interests and Netanyahu for a minute. And from, from the American side, why would they support something that's kind of a nonstarter? Is it because they, can you, do you think that there's political theater they're coming up to an election in the U S and they can say we have a middle East peace deal.
Speaker 6:Well, I think that's there, there's a few parts to that answer. I mean, first of all, I think that the reason this is being discussed in Washington now, and we've seen this week, all of these conversations behind the scenes with all the people involved, including us ambassador to Israel, David Friedman is because Netanyahu has, since the reveal in January made this an issue he's been pushing it more and more. So it sort of pushed the Trump administration to sit down and think, well, what do we agree to? What do we not agree to? Um, that being said, there seems to be a split within the administration itself, from what I understand, you know, there's Jared Kushner, senior advisor to the president who has been a key part of this deal and has been really working in the Gulf angle quite a bit throughout who sees annexation as part of this broader deal that was laid out, sees it as leverage that could be used to get eventually the Palestinians to make concessions, to come to the table and so forth. And then there's ambassador David Friedman. Who's a big proponent of settlements. And who seems to be pushing this far more aggressively as far as president Trump himself. I mean, I like you, and I think every other journalist wouldn't presume to know what he's thinking or, or what his plans are. Uh, I don't really see what is in it for him, because other than the distraction, as you mentioned, which of course is valid, is a valid point. A domestic distraction can always,
Speaker 5:Well, they need, I think he needs a, he needs some international boost. W w whether it, whether it be in the mix with the Serbs and Kosovo, which he's not going to get now and, or maybe a middle East peace deal. So maybe that would have helped him in Jared cook, you know,
Speaker 6:Oh, wait, if we're talking about a deal. Absolutely. I mean, he certainly wanted the victory of being the first president to actually achieve some real form of middle East peace. Sure.
Speaker 5:But I mean, they rolled it out, they rolled it out as a deal. I mean, there was the theater minus the Palestinians, which was a pretty big hole, but there was the theater of that news conference in Washington where they said, you know, we have, we have, this is historic. I mean,
Speaker 6:Absolutely all of that theater aside, what I'm speaking about. And I think you're, you're talking about the deal and I sort of, I'm moving on to speak about even just this annexation, because I think the political theater that has that they've managed to get out of the deal, um, has, has maybe come to an end. I mean, we saw the reveal with Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu in the same room with prominent Gulf Arab ambassadors, uh, taking the stage, taking the podium directly after president Trump, almost as if it was his, you know, space, uh, in Jerusalem. Uh, that was, as you say, sort of the ultimate political theater and potentially a very good distraction for president Donald Trump in a way to put himself on the international stage. But when we get to this point, when the deal is no longer, really a concrete discussion, even an annexation is specifically from that, from the discussions happening now in Washington, which are centered on annexation, what do we do about it? What do we say to Netanyahu? What do we Greenlight? Would it be not for that? I mean, Trump, you know, his evangelical base, which has been a key point in Israel, they're not too interested in annexation, not in the same way that they were in the embassy.
Speaker 5:All right. What about, are they interested in annexation? Doesn't I mean, nothing yet, who is the right and has always been, is, does he, he certainly needed this maybe before the election, uh, you know, you can, you can talk about it. How much did he actually, how much did he actually garner from that? But I mean, is this just playing to his base as well?
Speaker 6:Danielle overall, um, I know you followed, you know, all of this and been a correspondent in Jerusalem. You've probably seen various iterations of it because he has been the prominent public figure in Israel for so long, he's promised weeping annexation and time. And again, in election cycles that plays ideally to his base, the right wing, the further right wing, the settler movements, uh, he never, it never materializes. He's never fulfilled those sweeping annexation promises this time. Uh, you know, after January, when the peace plan was revealed and Nitel sort of immediately took it as an opportunity to announce, Hey, this is the green light, we have to do it. It does feel a little bit different. Um, you know, you could say Israel is in a perpetual election cycle three and about a year. So, you know, they're always looking towards the next and it's currently in a very fragile government. So that is one piece it's always there. And the other part might be legacy, you know, and it's, and, you know, I think is very much also looking towards his legacy within his own country, towards his own base. And, and this may be part of it for him.
Speaker 5:I'm curious about the Israeli left. If I can just very quickly touch on it, because there was a real peace movement in the nineties when you'd sack Rabine came out and announced Oslo one and Oslo two, and prior to the assassination, there was real hope. And, you know, we witnessed the redeployment of troops out of Bethlehem in Jericho and Ramallah, and suddenly Palestinian kids weren't coming out and throwing stones at Israeli soldiers anymore. Um, there was this real moment and this breath of maybe these people can live beside each other, and this is going to work and then spiraling down into violence of, of the bus bombs and then another Intifada, which became far more violent than anything we'd ever seen before. Is the Israeli left, still hanging in there, or they just seem, or they so despondent and disappointed with the original process that they think you can never arm a Palestinian. If you want to call it the state of two state solution, we don't, it'll never work because they're fundamentally philosophically against the state of Israel.
Speaker 6:I think the Israeli left is definitely still hanging in there in terms of ideology. There's certainly a belief that Israel itself that the Israeli people can not have a solid future without a Tuesday solution. Something that is less and less popular in general, but is less and less spoken of in general. Uh, I would say that it's the left itself, that in the broader political map has shrunken. So substantially because as you point to, I mean really after the second Intifada sort of to just kill a, you know, all these ideas that in retrospect seem, you know, ridiculous, naive, you know, here's this, the moderate, the left wing saying, look, we can have these look, we've made these great strides, and this is going to open up the different future and the second Intifada. And I mean the daily suicide bomb, the sheer amount of fear and death that there are really served in retrospectives. That is what I think is the depth
Speaker 5:You and I take for granted that a lot of people remember these things, but I mean, you know, bombs on decent Gulf street and in Tel Aviv.
Speaker 6:Yeah. Every single day. I mean, there, there was not one day where people didn't wake up to yeah.
Speaker 5:I mean the violence as, as terrible and inhuman as it gets really, I think,
Speaker 6:Yeah. I mean, true and everywhere, you know, in, in every, in shopping malls and Televiv and clubs, uh, you know, across the country, no place was safe. And, and that was obviously a massive national collective trauma. I mean, I'm American. I was born and raised in the United States. So I had a, you know, a family here, but I watched it from abroad. Um, so I can't say I lived through it. I certainly saw the impact. It had, you know, uh, culture wise and every morning you turn on the TV, there was a different, uh, basketball, I think over time
Speaker 5:I covered it and I can tell you, it was a course. It was, uh, some of it was just horrible and these are not Israeli soldiers against Palestinian man. I mean, these are, you know, grandfathers and grandmothers and kids in cafes. And I mean, it's, you know, I think personally, I think it's just disgusting violence and you can't justify it in any way, but I mean, getting back, but the Palestinians has suffered violence on their side. So when we come back to annexation, if it is forced through and Netanyahu tries to physically move on the ground in annexation, do you think that that will, first of all, I want to ask you about the Palestinians, will that usher in a new period, do you think of violence at a new Intifada, perhaps if you want to call it that and how will Egypt in Jordan and the neighbors next to Israel react to that as well?
Speaker 6:Well, so on the Palestinian side, in terms of violence, I think there's two sort of things to look at. There's the very initial what's going to happen in the immediate aftermath. If let's say even a small, you know, smaller version of annexation is approved by the Trump administration, because an important note, it will not go forward. The Israeli government will not go forward without a green light from the administration. Uh, and then there's the bigger, more longterm picture in context, uh, in terms of the immediate violence. I mean, I've talked to in the last few days, uh, several different Palestinians, former ministers and officials, I honestly don't think anybody knows even the Palestinians or Israeli security officials, uh, exactly what to predict. I think it's safe to say it would be an immediate, a very volatile period demonstrations for sure. The degree to which those demonstrations become violent, as you know, depends on so many different factors, because the way one thing starts in this region can snowball very quickly into something. Absolutely, absolutely. And the smallest thing or misinterpretation, or, or not, or, or a death, uh, can obviously snowball into something totally different. Um, I think an important thing to watch in terms of violence is Hamas actually, because Hamas, uh, for those who aren't familiar with this, you know, with all the very complicated internal politics, also within the Palestinians, a bitter rival of out the Palestinian authority that rules the West bank, they have
Speaker 5:The more moderate, the more moderate authority. Absolutely.
Speaker 6:Absolutely. And, and Masa has every reason to try to take advantage of a situation like this. They have a presence in the West bank in places like Hebron to sort of try to sew some chaos, uh, try to push the Palestinian authority even further into a quarter. So that's a factor to watch. And then there's the backdrop as well in terms of the tinderbox that you mentioned, and that's at the Palestinian authority. I think it was in may, just about a month ago, moved to cut off all its agreements with Israel. And there are many, I mean, there are many active agreements between Israel and the West bank that really helped run the day to day and insecurity and otherwise. And part of that, uh, is deciding to no longer accept the tax money that Israel collects on their behalf. So it, Israel passes on this tax money and then the Palestinian authority uses that money to pay its people salaries. So the moment they say, we're not even accepting the money from Israel, they can no longer pay salaries. And we've seen before they've attempted it before it wasn't really successful. It obviously causes an enormous amount of distress on the Palestinian public as well, because they need to get paid. They need to eat. And of course, we're talking about coming out of a global pandemic where, you know, tourism is zero in Bethlehem and Ramallah and so on. Um, so I think that only serves to, to show how much more it could be a Tinder box, but again, it's very difficult to predict.
Speaker 5:All right. And very quickly, each of Jordan,
Speaker 6:Jordan, I think is almost as important if not more to watch other than the Westbank itself. I mean, we've seen, we've seen, they've already spoken out very strongly. The King said that they would withdraw ambassadors would even consider scaling back the pre peace treaty. Jordan is certainly in a position to spearhead a very strong international diplomacy against it. More so than the Palestinians. I think it's a U S ally. Um, and of course, Jordan Hall also has about 2 million Palestinians living there. And so also violence within Jordan on the streets of Jordan. Also putting pressure on the Jordanian King is certainly something to watch. Egypt has been relatively silent so far, but I can't see that a step like this, even for those nations that don't have a peace treaty like Egypt with Israel, but who have been getting closer and closer to Israel. Some of those Gulf nations very hard for me to see them being able to, you know, keep silent and not really posing a United front. If something like this happens
Speaker 5:Well, that's some kind of deal they're talking about this annexation. Yeah, no, he'd been great to talk to you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 6:Thanks very much. Dana,
Speaker 5:Joining me now from Jericho, which is, if you didn't know, is in the Jordan Valley is cyber Erekat. The secretary general of the PLO executive key is one of the recognizable voices of the Palestinian struggle for a Homeland for decades.
Speaker 7:You must be tired of all this. I can't, I can't be tired. I can't be tired. It's it's it's about a life or death. You know, three days ago I buried my nephew 26 year old, who was shot and killed him. But there's rallies in cord blood. If I get tired, it means more than the sample. It means that the cycle of violence and killing off will continue. And the only way to stop this is to end this tragic is through execution. So how can someone get dark brand to save the lives of his children and grandchildren?
Speaker 5:I saw the video of your nephew as the car ran into the Israeli checkpoint. Um, and first of all, let me say, I'm very sorry for your loss. I mean, he was a young man, what is he? 28.
Speaker 7:He was 26 and he was going to bet lamb to bring his sister from the Corvair that's along and her wedding day, 23rd of June, between seven and 10:00 PM. And if you notice the video, the car's thread was going five kilometers an hour, and then I'm a driver to leave the car. If you see the video. And, uh, he lived the car, raised his hand, start to speak to them, but they did not give him, give him a chance. They shot him five times and killed them in cold blood. And no one of them was threatened at that time. And, uh, I'm sure that something went wrong with the car. And when someone goes on committed suicide on the day of his sister's wedding, what someone promising as Amadou has a printing company and so on, it's just, it's just, you know, they killed with them unity. And then if as a Palestinian today, I cannot make a mistake. If I pass a soldier, I cannot put my hand in my pocket because you may shoot me suspecting that I'm bringing something. I cannot fall. I cannot make any mistake. I cannot do anything. It's just trigger happy colors and the roadblocks.
Speaker 5:Well, I guess the Israel, the Israelis would say that, you know, that to them seemed like an attack on their, on their post. But regardless, I mean, this shows the way the two sides view each other. I mean, what one side views each other as one side views, one is a SU a potential suicide bomber. Every time they come in contact with a Palestinian and Palestinians view, Israeli soldiers as somebody that will turn a gun on them and pull the trigger,
Speaker 7:They act with men and it's not, you know, of course it's personal. It's my nephew. This is the second nephew I used in three years.
Speaker 5:Okay. Let's let's turn the clock. Let let's, let's talk about the peace process because when I met you in the nineties, people don't realize now, I mean, there's already another generation or two, you know, suddenly look, if every day we used to go out and cover Israelis, firing rubber bullets at Palestinians, Palestinian kids coming out of school, throwing stones and, and getting, getting shot and some would die. And some were mortally injured. And suddenly you were the chief negotiator on a peace process called the Oslo peace Accords and is really troops pulled out of, and this may seem like a distant memory, but I mean, Israeli troops left because to a large degree, they left Jericho, Hebron, Nablus, Bethlehem, and suddenly Palestinian kids. I remember came out of school and they played games instead of throwing stones at end with Israeli soldiers, it was a extremely promising time. Doesn't it disappoint you all these years later, we are still so far away from actually realizing a real peace process where the two sides are divorced.
Speaker 7:I agree with you. I don't think we have been in a much worse situation than we are now, uh, as Palestinians and Israelis. And I'm afraid that it's going to get worse due to the fact that, uh, the agreements reached with the Israelis in the nineties were not implemented. Settlement activities, uh, continues, continued. And then it was culminated by the administration and the U S headed by people like questionnaire and green glass and Freedman who, who believe that this issue is not for it's the God decided, they said all the issues. And they came with this idea without, you know, I saw it on TV about my future, and they wanted to impose and dictate on me. And you know,[inaudible] determination, not stare at nothing. And, um, that's the tragedy, the tragedy at the end of the day, it's going to end one Palestinians and Israelis set on the table in accordance with the terms of reference read between the two sides.
Speaker 5:What do you, what do you call Jared Kushner's, you know, net that Netanyahu Trump's so-called deal that you didn't participate in. How would you characterize it?
Speaker 7:I had anybody wardrobe and I met these people, you know, Oceanaire and his team and present from 57 times in 2017, they never shared anything with me. I shared everything with them. And, uh, they had a group of ideologues who believe that, uh, Palestinians are not people with national rights. They should be subjugated to Israel. They should be living in enclaves and Israel should control their airspace, that water, the international passengers, their roads, their futures, their land, their natural resources. And, uh, they don't realize that we are 99% literacy rate as Palestinian 2020. We have the highest PhD master's bachelor's holders as per capita. And yet they're trying to impose on us. Now. It's not a plan of peace. It's a plan of apartheid of, of what I call one state two systems plan that is attempting not to learn the lessons of history. You know, when you come to the next session. So what happened when Algeria and France? 430 years, what happened when Iraq and excavate in 1991, the next station has been with those political blind leader leaders who thought that power can get them the results they want.
Speaker 5:And what did they offer you in return? What did they offer you? A return, some kind of financial and a buyout.
Speaker 7:You want what? They want me to join the Zionist movement. They put thin conditions on me that I have to accept that from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean is the Jewish historic land. They want to deny the fact that I'm speaking to you from Jerry Coleman, 11,000 years old, I was here at 5,600 years before and came and buried my town Jericho. I have my own neurotic. I'm not asking them to believe in my narrative or my story or my history or my religion, but they should respect me now with this, with the fact that it's written in this agreement by questionnaire that from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean, it's the Jewish historic land. I'm to, I'm an alien in my land. I'm man in house. And then they said they have the overriding security responsibility. And they say, I have nothing to do with Jerusalem. Instead of capita, I have nothing to do with the refugees that nothing is going to be in my hand. That's what they say. And, and at the end of the day, that's what they want me to do. And if I don't do that, Oh, I don't want to negotiate. I want, I want a conflict. I want peace. They use everything against me and, and the heartless. I don't know. You know, when you have people around the court saying that we share the same values, what values, what values do you share? When someone like Tom POC, I walk with Jesus through the settlements. Jesus, this is not who Jesus is. This is not what Jesus is. This as is for life. GSS cares for the lives of Palestinians, Israelis, Africans, Latins. Jesus is his peace. All right? So the Prince of peace
Speaker 5:[inaudible], they are going to announce not a peace deal, none of negotiated anything
Speaker 7:And imposed annexation,
Speaker 5:Uh, which would carve out as you understand it, carve out Palestinian villages, which would remain as Palestinian enclaves. Israel would apply some sovereignty over them. You won't get the vote in Israel, obviously, because you're not going to become part of Israel. It sounds like Swiss cheese, where you do not get this continuous piece of land, which would be a Palestinian state because that's what you want. It
Speaker 7:That's true. That's what they offered. That's what they showed. That's what they want. They said even[inaudible] last month. And he said, look, Palestinians must understand that they will live in, in clips. That's you said that.
Speaker 5:So let's define an enclave story. Sorry to interrupt.
Speaker 7:I don't believe it's trying to get you the map.
Speaker 5:Actually, you have the West bank territory and an enclave would just be kind of a little Island surrounded by Israeli roads, Israeli patrolled roads, Israeli soldiers.
Speaker 7:Well much like you are now. No, no, I'm no, I'm better. Now. I'm much better. Now. I that's the irony, you know, with the Oslo course, we have three contractual agreements that specified six issues that will be negotiated between the two sides, wrestle and border assessment for GS water security. And then we said, uh, abundant aggression of the council, 18 months, always that can a stricter to become under my jurisdiction, except for issues to be negotiated, permit status. What they do, what they, what they're doing now is saying, forget about UN forget about international law. There is a new game in town. You are defeated. You must come to your knees and accept Israel one, and you will live here. As we want you to live. We will decide your way of eating, drinking, studying education roads. You have an notice of determination. You're not at people. That's what they're telling me. And, uh, w what this will do, this will, this will do one thing of, and next day, I think it is the moderates like myself or[inaudible] who wants to make peace. Peaceful means no violence who accepted the solutions to for 200, three, three, eight credit disappearing act. And then, you know, as you said, now, so generation generational changes now. So many in the Palestinian young community, which is the majority now, okay. They say you don't want two States. Let's see if we can entertain the idea of one state, equal rights, Jews, Muslims, and Christians can live as equals. Oh yeah. This it's like throwing a nuclear bomb in Israel, because they want to say Jewish democratic state. How can you have a Jewish democratic state? When today I have Erica, the Christian Muslim, Palestinian from my hometown Jericho, Jordan river for the Mediterranean, I am 50.9% of the population treatment and Netanyahu are 49.1% of the population. How can you just think of people who are trying to impose at one 21st century apartheid, segregation and subjugation of Palestinians?
Speaker 5:All right, let me, can I just, can I just ask you from the Israeli side, the Oslo peace Accords allowed you to arm to patrol your own areas? Yes. And then suddenly look, I was there between Israeli soldiers and Ramallah. When it started falling apart, I was literally crawling on my hands and knees and on my chest, when Palestinians opened fire, after Israelis had opened fire. And, you know, I don't know who fired the first shot that day, but it rapidly unraveled to the point that, you know, fast forward in the, in the months and years, Israeli say the left wing Israelis who really believed in a peace process and don't want to be in the westbound and don't want Geza. They said, okay, you can never arm these people, because what all we got were bullets and bus bombs in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem. And that left wing really has largely evaporated. Has it not the peace movement inside Israel has, has evaporated feeling greatly disenchanted with the idea that they would ever live side by side with a Palestinian state, especially in armed war.
Speaker 7:And that's what you get. Natanya horn, 1993, when we signed the Oslo accord, he stood up behind a bit in front of a picture of Robin, the prime minister at that time, put the coffea in his head. And he said, this is the last thing I'll do. I will vary this shameful agreement.[inaudible] so everything he did in his life was to destroy the two state solution. He's, he's a man. I known him for 53 years. And when you w if I want to sum him up for you, I will tell you two things. One, he believes that there was no past before him, and there will be no future without it's the M E syndrome M E that's what the constant is lie. Secondly, ideologically, he believes that Israel is much more powerful and prosperous in conflict, not in peace. And, and, and when you have an American president, who's his main ally w also has a doctorate present Trump that nations either want to be strong or to find strong nations, to protect them at the right price. You know, the jungle has a little chaos has order, but if you combine Netanyahu's doctrine with Trump's doctrine, what do you get? What are you good?
Speaker 5:Do you, do you think? And I remember those days, because it's important what you say, because there were posters all over Jerusalem with Yitzhak Rabin in like the Arafat coffea. And they were saying he was a, you know, I think in Hebrew, they said it was Dean wrote death. And that was why, why that's largely what led to his assassination and the turning back of the peace process. Even though Netanyahu said he would never turn the clock back on the peace process. And there was no way of doing it. But in fact, he, he managed to turn the peace process back on its heels. Do you believe that there was another leader if Rabine had lived, do you think that Oslo would have been implemented? And we would be at a much different place than, than we are today?
Speaker 7:If it had been, had lived, would, would have pieced by now we'd have to stick solution or more. It wasn't taken to jail and accused in these positions, we would have had peace and every time an Israeli leader moves towards that reality of two States somewhere, somehow they make him disappear.
Speaker 5:So very quickly, if you could just answer kind of yes and no. So we can just run through the list, um, access to Jerusalem and Jerusalem is the Palestinian capital in this deal.
Speaker 7:Nope.
Speaker 5:Right of return or some compensation for, for refugees.
Speaker 7:Nope.
Speaker 5:A continuous, a piece of land, a Homeland for Palestinians that go back to probably the 67 borders, including Gaza with some kind of connection to Gaza.
Speaker 7:No. So what's in it for you surrender and yes, they quality piece based on the truth. And actually he wants to destroy people like me, unlikable Mosin and like Palestinian peace scam who wants to live and let live, who have recognized the state of Israel. I live in peace and security on 70th percent of historic, which mandated Palestine and for, to have a state on 22% of the land was Ben gas and his Jerusalem. He can't stand us. They can't stand us because what do they say about us? We're the people who want to achieve peaceful negotiations, non violence through the head of the international community. We want democracy, human rights, women's rights, that all will flow. So he really wants to execute all of us. He wants to execute the idea that peace is possible. And when someone like the ambassador Friedman, who says, it's not us who recognized Jerusalem as capital it's God. So Judaism, Judaism was never a threat to us. As Palestinian is never a threat will never be addressed. Judaism is one of God's great religions. So on the 20, 21st century, when a group of people come to you and tell you that this is a religious conflict, what do you think they're doing? Don't you think that in my side, I have some people who refused to shake my hand because I recognize Israel. Cause they only negotiate with Israel and they insist in turning it into a religious conflict. This is not a religious conflict. Religion is Judaism, Christianity and Islam are for peace saving lives. You know, our conflict is territorial differences, uh, narratives national and can be solved through negotiations. But this group of people, I mean Israel, since 2017, they don't have national negotiators anymore. You know, in the past I used to call my colleagues who my contract.
Speaker 5:They say, you don't need your shade. They blame the Palestinians for not wanting to negotiate for not accepting many deals before them.
Speaker 7:You know, that's, that's that broken record. But as ask an Israel, tell them who is your chief negotiator, who is the Israeli chief negotiator. Who's signed by the cut's counterpart since 2017. They have none. They have none, their chief negotiators, Friedman and questionnaire. And I in each meeting I had with questionnaire. I urged him that he sit me up with Israelis because they have no problem with the U S my problems with Israelis. I need to negotiate with the Israelis and he refused. And then he just copied and paste the most extremist positions with councils and introduced it in the so called plan of peace and prosperity. This is, this is the Mo this, this group of people, the so called American peace team has put Palestinians and Israelis at least 50 to 60 years back.
Speaker 5:Last question, that's always a tinderbox. Won't this cause another Intifada or an uprising or more violence. I mean, it's not gonna bring it.
Speaker 7:It's not gonna, it's not going to bring peace. It's gonna bring more suffering for Palestinians and Israelis. They know, you know, Palestinians will not accept to be subjugated, to live as slaves. Uh, look, I was 12 years old. I was born on this house in Jericho. I was 12 years old. When that patient came to my hometown chair, I'm 65 with eight grandchildren. Say they are next to the Jordan Valley, as they say 94%. And I'll be in clear what was changed. What? I changed my name. When my grandchildren have changed their names, what will they do if they don't have hope and their mind, if they don't have the possibility of living in dignity and peace and freedom, what I'm doing now is trying to keep the hope alive in the minds of Palestinians. Oh, and I'm killing Palestinians. Don't despair. You're not alone. We can do it, but all what questionnaire and McKinney and Trump are doing are killing Palestinians every day. And no, don't listen to him. You will never be free. You will never have a state. You will never be independent. You'll never live in dignity. We will, you will have to live as a subject to the Israelis, an apartheid system. Yes, we are different. That's why they're telling them. And do you think Palestinians will stand on line stacks? They will defend themselves. They will defend themselves. Do you change, do you hope for just a change of administration in the white house later this year? Would that, would that at least get peace talks going? What I hear? I saw a letter yesterday, actually 189 congressmen and women. That's not where the next session and not at the front plan. I saw 32 senators doing this. This is radiant. She had this very much. I sold 222 Israeli generals generals writing against the next session and against this and showing the dangers of this. I saw 192 nations worldwide standing shoulder to shoulder with me to say no to the next session yesterday negotiations yesterday, this boosted solution that gives me hope by the time should come. That this nation's[inaudible]. If you move with annexation, there'll be consequences. And, and that, that that's what that word, what would it stop it? But if he continues with the immunity that he can do anything and get away with it, all right, he is not going to make peace. He's going to destroy any attempt to make peace with anyone. You know, an excession will mean the end of any possibility of a negotiated agreement. Annexation would pause the best trip and Jordan's national security center, general security, the same thing to Egypt, same thing to the next session would mean strengthening all elements in the Arab. My mother, more who are extremists, who also want the conflict to be a religious one. That's a very dangerous game to play. You know, you cannot kill ideas as well as bullets. You cannot prevent RDS to travel with, or without visas. If you want to defeat extremism in this region. And we shouldn't defeat extremism in this region, we shouldn't, we shouldn't defeat ISIS in this region. We shouldn't be feeding all those. We'll try to use God for their political purposes and so on. And this can be done through two things. One is peace between Palestinians and Israelis and my opinion. It's living a little bit. It's a state of Palestine. What is Jerusalem? It's capital to live side by side in peace and security with the state of Israel on the 67 borders. And secondly, democracy in the Arab world. And anyone who says Arabs monthly for democracy is a racist.
Speaker 1:So I'm Erica. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 5:All right. Joining me now from Jerusalem is Gerald Steinberg, who is an author of manakin Bagan and the Egyptian peace process. It was a, uh, a peace process that was signed in 1979. Gerald, maybe I can ask you, and I know you're a professor at Barlin university as well. I can ask you, are there any parallels between this never ending peace process with the Israeli and Palestinians and the deal between Israel and Egypt?
Speaker 1:If anything, the two cases highlight the differences, both begging and other relief. There were leaders of countries, they were very strong leaders. They had very clear ideas of what their interests, both their national interest and their own personal political interests were. And they're able to put the pieces together and say, okay, so that one's land back one Sinai back and begging Watson into conflict and a real peace agreement. We don't have that situation. There's no real strong Palestinian leader. Who's able to bring about Palestinian people to agreeing, to sit side by side with Israel, to States and all of that.
Speaker 5:Well, I mean, it's a, it does seem that there are some pretty clear, um, demands by the Palestinians and demands by Israel. I mean, and I've always thought, I mean, I was a correspondent and I was based in Jerusalem for years and I've always thought, why can these two sides not get it together? The Palestinians want a Homeland. Israel wants security. Uh, and at one point was, was willing to compromise on all sorts of different peace plans that were in the process, essentially land for peace. And yet we never see it come to fruition.
Speaker 1:It's from an Israeli perspective, from my perspective. And I think that reflects what Israelis have been voting. We had three elections last year and a half. They all came out, but mostly the same Israelis don't see Palestinians interested in the peace part of it. They're not interested in sitting side by side with Israel. They still have this image goes back to 47, 48, rolling back the clock so that there is no, no Israel. There's no state that defines itself as a Jewish home. This the net nation, state of the Jewish people. And that's something that the Palestinians just need to accept. The Israel's not going to disappear. You can't negotiate yourself out of existence. And it always comes down to that. It always comes down to the Palestinians demanding right of return for millions of what they call refugees. So 90, but talking about 1948, it always comes down to, has to be a state of all the citizens and not the define itself as a, as a Homeland for the Jewish people, with Hebrew language and all the other things. So maybe during your time as a correspondent here, that was something that wasn't emphasized when you talk to Palestinians, but we see it all the time. We see,
Speaker 5:Well, I, I would, I would say a lot of Palestinians in the West bank. And then I would differ with the Hamas mainstream in Gaza, which wants to push this reel back into the seat. But th the, the, the mainstream, you know, PLO, Palestinians that were living in the West bank generally would say yes to recognition of Israel. And they have in the Oslo peace Accords, uh, not, not this complete denial of in Israeli state,
Speaker 1:Sort of, but then when it comes down to putting it down into details, and that's what we've, we've been since also, it was a 93, it was the declaration of principles. It let's said we're going to establish a Palestinian authority and we're going to negotiate the risk. So when, and the conflict is the term, that's been used a lot who Barack in 2000, went to camp David with Clinton and said, okay, what's going to do lots of these concessions security and other things land. We need end of conflict. And when it comes down to Palestinian saying, okay, we're not going to go demanding reversal of the 47 partition resolution of 48 recognition of Israel, the end of the war. They were Israel emerged as a viable country. That's what the can't do. The Palestinians can bring themselves to that largely in their own conversations. So you, you watch it on radio and television. You listen, you read in the newspapers and you see this it's Israel is an illegitimate state. Israel does war crimes though, but the whole BDS movement, it's all about erasing Israel as a legitimate country as it
Speaker 5:It's interesting. I don't want to get into it now, but I made it. It's interesting that one of the chapters in Oslo to have a call it a chapter, call it one of the focuses of Oslo. Two was that they dropped this rhetoric. They stopped talking about Israel and they, uh, as, as a state that has to be pushed into the sea and they stopped some of the horrible propaganda that's been on Palestinian TV, uh, you know, embracing and celebrating suicide bombings, and different things. And then they start not programming, but informing their people about what Israel really is and how the two sides should be able to live side by side. That's maybe what you see, but we don't see it. And I don't think I say that's what it was called for in the accord, but it was never implemented. That's right. Yep. And that's, we're still there.
Speaker 1:So if that's, we're talking about 94, 95, nothing's changed since then. And it's become much more deeply ingrained Israelis, understand this is the critical issue that needs to be overcome. And we're just not, we're not seeing any movement.
Speaker 5:Awesome. What do you call, what do you call this proposal now that you know, Jared Kushner, who I don't think knows very much about Israeli, Palestinian conflict at all, but what do you call this deal on the table? Do you call it a peace deal?
Speaker 1:I don't use that language. I know they do. And other in Israel, including the prime minister and others who call it a deal of centuries are often used. I think it's really an attempt to move away from where we are today, where we've been stuck for so many years. It's been 53 years since the 67 war, 72 years, since 1948, we're all stuck in this situation and it's not viable. You can't maintain it this way. You don't know when you cross over, you drive out of Jerusalem, you go into any direct, almost any direction except towards the West, towards Tel-Aviv you drive North or South or East. And are you, where are you? Are you in a Palestinian area? Are you in Israeli area? It's no man's land. There is no consistent legal process that goes on there who owns land, how it gets transferred is all very confusing. Even if you get the car accident, where do you deal with the, whether it's insurance or legal process, that's just not working in the status. So this, this is considered to be a step, many Palestinians, we'll call it a dramatic step backwards. I mean, Netanyahu thinks it's a step forward. And, and so does Trump, who would love to Trump that he's brought about some kind of, you know, great agreement and Palestinians would certainly argue that, but it's essentially, as you understand it, this is an expansion of Israeli sovereignty. Uh, and they are taking Palestinian land. They are annexing up to 30%. Now the question is, what's going to, if there is going to actually be some sort of a change in this situation, calling it, applying Israeli law, annexation, or sovereignty, it's a whole separate debate. If that territory is going to encompass is going to accomplish just a couple of small cities that are outside of Jerusalem and a little bit further North, not really affecting talking about two or 3% of the land. They're already tens of thousands of Israelis who have been living there for dozens of years. That's not a big strategic change. A lot of this debate is more symbolic and ideological and the, the language is very loaded, but, but this is legal annexation. I mean, this is just not a conversation. This is, this would be legal, legal annexation of the Jordan Valley. Well, if they do the Jordan Valley and I'm guessing they're not going to do the Jordan Valley, not at this time, I think they're going to do minimal for all sorts of reasons. And, uh, as I said, a couple of the small cities that are outside of that, that are right on the old, remember, there's never been any border. There's only been a ceasefire armistice line from 1949. So these are the things that have changed since 19. You mean like, you mean like cities of like my, my layer demean.[inaudible] big now. That's, that's huge just for people that, that don't have never been to the West bank or Israel, and they don't understand tens of thousands, maybe tens of thousands. And also there are satellite. It has his own, uh, suburbs. And maybe you want to say, it's only, it's a 10 minute drive outside of Jerusalem. All the roads are connecting to it. So the fact that it really is part of Israel accepted legally in terms of Israeli law. And in terms of, of other issues that have to do with status it's situation is ambiguous. And that's a constant problem. So, sorry, go ahead. I was going to say, if we move away, this is my own personal view. If we move away from the status quo, that's been in existence for 53 years. And in view of many people has gone beyond what's tenable. Then you, maybe you start a peace process. Maybe you say to the Palestinians, okay, this you've been able, we've all been lived with this undefined situation for 53 years. It's not working. It's not working for you or for us. You've got you Palestinians. Can't just say no to every other plan. You've got to come up with something that is really to live with. So forget about this issue of million flooding is where with millions of Palestinians that are called refugee 72 years later, talk to us about something that is based on the status quo that we can both live with us to the back backend of that thing. What are your core interests that we can live with? We'll tell you what our core interests are that we can live with. Let's find a package that's not going to happen until Palestinians realize that time is working against them in a very negative way. And that I'll say that in favor of Cushner and ambassador David treatment under the Trump plan, that what they've done is they've moved us out of absolutely zero the point 0.0 that we were in 1967,
Speaker 5:How much you mean time is working against them because Israel continues to expand settlements while the conversation does, or doesn't go on about what a final peace deal might look like.
Speaker 1:And not only is Israel doing facts on the ground, if you want to use that term. But also we've got, we've seen that a lot of the Arab countries, Saudi Arabia, UAE, other countries, Egypt, for sure want to also see some sort of agreement and are not going to continue to support an untenable Palestinian position forever
Speaker 5:Over, uh, over a thousand parliamentarians from the EU have signed an open letter, expressing their opposition to Israel's plans for annexation. Uh, the, the head of the UN has called it, uh, you know, devastating effects for the region. I mean, Netanyahu doesn't have a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1:[inaudible] well, you've, you've been a correspondent who, you know what Israelis think about the UN and about the EU?
Speaker 5:Not, not much of the UN that's for sure, because Israel feels that the UN has always been sympathetic and leaning towards the Palestinian cause. And not really not really recognizing a lot of the security concerns of Israel. Would you sum it up like that?
Speaker 1:And the UN is deeply ingrained in the Palestinian narrative. The whole history of, of saying Israel should never have been created. All that stuff. They they've placed a number of people in those positions and we keep hearing it over and over again. DVU yeah, a thousand parliamentarians. And they're out of, I don't know how many there are, but also the U S doesn't do any things to help Israel strategically. It doesn't deal with Iran seriously. So they come there, nobody listens to them. Here is this,
Speaker 5:This destroyed the notion of a two state solution. A lot of Palestinians would say it does. And it cuts up a potential Palestinian Homeland into Swiss cheese where you, you really don't have a continuous, uh, area of land, but there, there would be Israeli settlements here and there and roads cutting them up. And even some Palestinian villages suddenly will find themselves as islands amidst and annex Israel.
Speaker 1:That's not going to happen in my view. I think all those maps are not realistic. If the Palestinians have something that's going to work, put it on the table, but you can't just say no to every possible framework. They're not even engaging. There's been no serious engagement with Israel, really since after also there've been bits and pieces of it, but they don't have, and there's no Palestinian discussion about talking about widespread public discussion about what sort of packages could be put on the table that we could all live with
Speaker 5:Isn't that because they don't feel that they don't feel that Netanyahu is a realistic person that they can negotiate with. I mean, he, after the, the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, and th the deaths of Oslo one and Oslo two, they, they don't feel anything on the table. That's going to advance their cause. It's just going to take
Speaker 1:The backwards well, Israeli scene, I think from the Palestinians that indicates that they're ever going to be interested in peace. You got to move away from both of those stereotypes and look at, look at reality on the ground. And if in fact we're going to study, if this process complicated as it is, and what really is a clash on the question of whether it or should, or shouldn't extend sovereignty to certain areas, if that forces the Palestinians to go, I would say back, they really hadn't been at the table to think realistically about a two state solution. That in fact, instead of closing the door for movement, towards that, it opens it because it's been closed now for at least 20 years. Right. But forces them back. How can you force them back? I mean, they are,
Speaker 5:They are entitled to negotiate and believe that the settlement they're going to get for their people, not under pressure, but, but under, uh, a long, long, you know, decades, as you mentioned a discussion, well, in the end, bring about a realistic Homeland for them. You can't
Speaker 1:Force them anywhere. The Palestinian goal is the elimination of Israel. That's the broad, well, you say that I, I'm not sure that most of the textbooks, you look at what they teach to their schools. You see what they say to each other and in speeches and platforms and the media, we've got a lot more access to that. We had it 30 years ago. We see it all. And I think that is very accurate. There's a new book. That's out that I suggest that you and other people interested in this read spike, a D Schwartz and a Wolf it's called the war of return. And it documents going back actually before 47, but mostly from 47, how the Palestinians have adopted this myth and cling to it. And how honoring you also the UN agencies and a large part of the Western intelligentsia have bought into this idea that the Palestinians have a case for eliminating Israel. So Palestinians believe in this mythology, it's still deeply ingrained. They, I think mainly in Western Europe, we support Israel
Speaker 5:Well, and, but look, I, I'm not an academic as you are, but I, and I've not consulted the Israeli government, but, but I have written on patrols in the West bank and the Gaza strip with Israeli soldiers. And, uh, I have Israeli friends and a lot of them always supported the idea of land for peace. They don't go to the West bank. They don't go to Gasa certainly they, they don't. They would like to live a normal life inside Israel and be done with this never ending conflict. And the idea that they can drag the Palestinians to the table and impose some kind of peace deal has been tried before. And it didn't work. And a lot of Israelis, I think there, there isn't much of a left wing left anymore, but a lot of them certainly would like an embrace, a peace that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians. If the conflict would stop, if the armed conflict would stop,
Speaker 1:If the armed conflict would stop, that's a huge, huge condition. Cause we have never seen it stop. We have, we had a terrorist attack. You two or three days ago, a car ramming before that we have to drive by shootings. We've got it all. It's a different form, but it's still out there. It doesn't get the same media attention. Israel has gotten better at protecting its citizens against it, but they still are. You still see the hatred, you see it on an everyday basis. That's what Israelis, the term end of conflict. Israelis need to see end of conflict, which does mean the end of Israel.
Speaker 5:It's always a tinderbox there. Don't you fear that if Netanyahu goes forward with this, I mean, obviously the, the American seemed to be backpedaling on the, the, the length and breadth of annexation, but if they go forward with annexation,
Speaker 1:Don't you feel that's just going to bring you more violence. I think that there is a reasonable concern about that. I'll use the term stability Israelis, like everybody else wants to ability and yeah, another round of violence and other wave of terror, bombings and bus bombings. And all of that is something that is of concern. And there's a lot of discussion. You hear at least from about security services, telling the Tania about this. Look, I think nothing's been set in stone yet. Everything is, is very ambiguous. It's we're talking about it. So all these things have to be done very, very carefully. There are clear risks in doing what was talked about a few months ago, and I seen it Tanya Hawaii. And remember we have a complicated government. Now we've got a, a fill in a stand in for the prime minister, uh, who could not set up a government on his own. He didn't have enough votes. He needed Bennigan's former chief of staff. Who's now also the defense minister and who has, I think, a more security based, more cautious approach to this things are different than, than the sometimes they're portrayed. And I don't think we're going to see a reckless Israeli policy. Reckless would then lead to is a, of could lead to a lot of violence, but we also have to move away from ground zero. How do we get out of the situation when you're locked in for 53 years, where Palestinians have a veto on changing anything on the ground, they're waiting for Israel to self destruct, and we have to be careful about that or not self destruct, but over, over time, over generations, Palestinian view is it's not going to be what it is, what is now so Israelis. And that's why they turn Yahoo and people who have this view get a majority in the elections. As you said that the Israeli left us as we could, there is no real peace camp. They lost a tremendous amount of credibility. Hostel was a disaster for Israelis because it led to this massive round of violence is something we'd never saw before is really stopped wanting to go back there. So you really have to have Palestinian engagement on the substance and not just on the surrounding, uh, language. Oh yeah, we, we want to have two States, but we don't want you to be one of them. That's what we hear.
Speaker 2:Gerald Steinberg, professor of political studies at borderline university. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. And that's our backstory on the Palestinian Israeli conflict. It is solvable don't believe otherwise, but forcing either side to accept annexation or security, compromises, or agreements that don't bring real peace, just perpetuates
Speaker 8:Violence in fuels, extremism on both sides. And that makes it all the more difficult for mainstream moderates. And they are the majority to promote and agree on peace. I'm Dana Lewis, please subscribe to backstory wherever you listen to podcasts and share. Talk to you again soon.
Speaker 3:[inaudible].