backing israel. western governments avoid criticizing intense bombing of gaza. how has this policy affected the conflict today? this is inside story. hello, there. the death toll in the gaza war continues to rise as israel

pounds palestinian's with bombing in densely populated areas. since israel was founded, the united states has been its ally, sentiments expressed by the u.s. president after hamas gunmen killed hundreds on saturday. >> the united states has israel's back. james: the u.k. is another of israel's strongest backers. >> we already have a long-standing relationship with israel. we are one of their strongest allies. we will continue to provide whether it is diplomatic intelligence or security support. james: the eu commission president was quick to support

israel. she set she spoke to isaac herzfeld and conveyed. or to israel in the face of the terrorist attack by hamas. the eu mourns the victims of the senseless attacks and stands by israel. the u.s. and that eu also provide financial and humanitarian support. the biden administration has provided half $1 billion in funding. hours after the attack by hamas, european commissioner declared millions will be cut, but the eu has clarified funding will continue for now. let's bring in our panel of guests. abdullah al-arian, associate professor of history at

georgetown university in qatar. he is a specialist on u.s. middle east policy. maria luisa fantappie, head of the middle east and africa program for the italian think tank, istituto affari internazionali. richard boyd barrett, member of the irish parliament with the people before profit party. a warm welcome. israel is backed by the united states. >> no surprise really in this policy. this has been part of u.s. policy for some time. i would like to focus on some of the differences. i think what we are seeing over the course of the past decade has been a complete abandonment of becoming a so-called honest broker. the u.s. never effectively manage to offer the palestinians

, being denied their own liberation, their own state. there was a thought in the 1990's that the united states could sponsor the so-called oslo accord, but from the very beginning it was very clear that israel had no intention of actually living on the two-state solution and instead use that opportunity to double and triple the number of settlements that sought expansion against all of the palestinian territories. later on, we see this blockade of gaza beginning and the encirclement of what is now over 2 million people. i think what is really distinct about the last decade in particular is that trumpcare

nothing for the plight of palestinians. instead focused on the idea of normalization between israel and a number of arab states. in the meantime, the palestinian question was no longer on the back burner. there has been no discussion whatsoever. and then we get to the biden administration and they inherited the trump foreign policy to the middle east. we see no distinction. the biden administration endorsed the move of the u.s. embassy to jerusalem, which was an incredibly volatile move, upsetting what was seen at that

point something of a no go. of course, we see this push to double down on the normalization agreements between israel and saudi arabia. i think there is something to be set about the fact that u.s. policy has gone more staunchly in opposition to any notion that there should be anything of a settlement for palestinians who continue to be stateless and stuck in this apartheid situation. james: maria, you could say what we are seeing is what we have seen play out many times before in gaza, but there are big differences too. the scale of the israeli casualties, the largest loss of life in the country's history. also, this time there are captives inside gaza. >> definitely, they say

something that is quite unprecedented. the level of infiltration within the israeli territory. to a certain extent, it is something that came also as a shock to the western and european public opinion. and this is why also there has been sacha schizophrenic -- such a schizophrenic response come up because the level of the violence has been so shocking to the public and this has created a very emotional response to a certain extent. definitely the eu has been always supporting the idea of the two-state solution. but the problem has been that

the first responses were actually much more inclined toward showing solidarity toward israel, which is normal. however, [indiscernible] this has created some confusion on where the eu stands with this conflict. so a lot of emotions and little attention for what has been that eu strategy toward this conflict for many years. james: richer, you are also in an eu capital. does the emotion she talks about explain the fact that early white house statements seem to lack any of the usual calls for proportionate response or exercise of restraint? >> yes, i think that is the

case. and -- take for example our minister of foreign affairs yesterday who was being interviewed yesterday on the radio and he felt able to say that israel was acting in self-defense. so when he was questioned about israel's threats to starve gaza and all of its population of water, energy, and food, he could use terminology like self-defense. obviously, i challenge that very strongly and said this is not self-defense. you would be punishing 2.2 million people, to bombard with massive artillery strikes the most densely populated

residential area in the world for war crimes. those who were speaking on behalf of palestinians were you pushed on the defensive. i think the u.s. and israel feel emboldened to act with greater impunity than they might otherwise feel. we seeing that with the explicit and brazen threats by israel to commit and indeed they have started to commit war crimes in front of the eyes of the world, and the united states stands firmly behind them, and many if not most of the european union

leaders equally given legitimacy to what israel is doing. it is really shocking. the truth of the matter is that what happened -- the loss of life is happened -- terrible -- i feel many people would feel none of what happened and could have happened weren't non--- were it not for a years long seizures on gaza -- see -- seige on gaza. that is the real context is the ongoing crimes against humanity being committed against the palestinians. but there is no doubt israel feels emboldened at the moment. james: richard has laid out the narrative as he sees it.

tell us a little bit about how this is seen in the u.s.. i watch u.s. media as well. i love most of the time in new york. -- live most of the time in new york. do you think the prisoner part of it and the word hostage perhaps explain some of the reporting and some of the actions by the administration? >> part of it is the media coverage. there is a narrative that immediately takes hold the moment events like this happen. that narrative tends to paint one side as an aggressor and one side is victim and then erase all history, all context, as if everything occurs in this bubble

on the day of these horrific events. james: the historical context of hostage crisis, going all the way back to 1979, in fact president biden was one of the closest supporters of president carter. do think that historical echo may perhaps explain why the occupant of the west wing is pursuing the policy he is? >> i do not know if that would necessarily be the connection. let's not forget, there are palestinian americans that are constantly being victimized, that are being killed by israel. we know the case of your colleague, a palestinian-american journalist. if you look by -- at the attempts by the family to look into her killing last year, there was almost no response.

the u.s. secretary of state was not flying to israel to have conversations about the safety and return. there is a fair question there, why is there a double standard? why are some american citizen lives worth less than others? this comes out of a much deeper affinity the u.s. has had with the state of israel irrespective of its actions. there is now consensus about the fact that there is an apartheid system in place. we have seen violence of the scale on multiple other occasions. it has been in large part because of the u.s. offering a green light we have never seen up to this point. in terms of the violence we are seeing, not just in gaza but in the west bank with some of the shooting sprees we are seeing.

i think there is a deeper context that seems to be ignored. we do not hear about most of this in the u.s. media. public opinion has aligned in a particular way very much in keeping of the narrative that they can make incredibly racist, genocidal remarks. the media does not make any kind of an attempt to challenge the narratives. james: parallels with 9/11, we are in a religious war. i apologize we stand with israel. the u.s. secretary of state nice rally prime minister singh --

and the is really prime minister. would you make about language? >> think he is absolutely right. i think public opinion over the last number of years has increasingly become aware of the apartheid nature of the israeli regime, its ongoing campaigns of ethnic cleansing. its dysfunctional, abnormal character has been highlighted by the amnesty international reports and human rights watch reports about the apartheid nature of that state. on the one hand, israel has been delegitimized, but now israel and its backers feel they have an opportunity to push back against all of that.

they start the plot of the story at what happened over the weekend as if there was no other context. they relied on the lack of knowledge or awareness of the background to all of this. of significant sanctions to kind of ignore all of that history. so it all just started at the weekend. that is not true. i will give credit to the irish president -- former irish president who was being interviewed on the radio. she was making the point that during the summers she warned that if the impunity israel was enjoyment in terms of the ethnic cleansing, the ongoing

settlements, if these matters were not going to be addressed by the international community, that she feared that we were facing into a terrifying escalation of violence. she was absolutely right. that is the context. but of course, israel and the united states want to pretend that there was no history to all of this and it all began with the events of the weekend. and they are trying to use it to justify an even more savage escalation of the war on gaza and on the palestinians generally. james: this is a complete indictment of the biden strategy, which seems to have been a continuation of the trump strategy, which is basically to ignore the palestinians and try

to get an economic peace with arab countries. >> i think this has played out in a tragic way. [indiscernible] there is original context in which this attack took place. it is one which for several weeks and months there has been enormous pressure exerted by washington on saudi arabia and on the golf -- gulf to go ahead with this normalization deal. if this normalization deal, which could have happened around

a certain amount of military infrastructure, this deal would have happened obviously the palestinian issue would have been obliterated completely from the discussion because despite the wishes of saudi arabia that they wanted to deliver something, there was no actually wishes from the government to actually deliver anything on this. the israelis were convinced the saudi's would be ok with just the military deal. the washington administration probably thought the same. that obviously has created the pushback, not only from local movements like hamas, but also from many other regional players

. i think the attack of hamas brings back the palestinian issue. it is important to say that part of this tragic event is a direct result of the u.s. strategy which forced the hand and did not understand that in order to achieve normalization unique time, unique concession -- you need time, you need concession. they did not want to pressure the israeli government to make concessions. if you compare this approach

with what we have seen with the chinese approach, chaz been trying -- which has been trying to broker a deal, the chinese strategy has been so far more successful. i think there is a lot of rethinking of how washington moves when it comes to normalization. i think normalization could be possible but not without steps forward on the palestinian issue. james: abdullah, we see secretary blinken in the region now. he is showing support for israel , but he is also focusing on humanitarian corridors and safe passage. there have been detailed negotiations between the israelis and the egyptians and the u.s..

the secretary of state will be coming to qatar. there were reports that egypt is not allowing a mass movement of people into its territory. could we be looking at some sort of deal where nationals are allowed out and the rest of the population of gaza get stuck? >> i do not think we have any indication that there is a specific concern for u.s. citizens there. in terms of what the response has been for people who have attempted to go to the border, as we have seen instances of israel bombing crossing, so people who are trying to cross at that point. there has also been the denial of israel that if egypt would try to offer aid, they would also be bombing the aid convoys.

there is a question about who controls the border between palestine and egypt. there is another point worth considering, which is going back to the previous conversation about the view of these normalization agreements from the arab side as well. we have transition from a period in which many of the region rulers would pay lip service to the notion of the palestine issue to the point where it gets completely erased. now we are looking at over decades in which many of these governments are ruling their own populations quite ruthlessly so it is not surprising they would not entertain the notion of justice for palestinians. james: maria, back to you.

we have seen the responses of the u.s. and the european union. they look very similar, but do you think within the eu camp there is perhaps some unease behind the scenes? in my day job at the united nations, i spoke with diplomats who show disquiet about the is really right wing government. >> definitely, there are different member states, different policies, different approaches. there has been definitely discomfort with the netanyahu government. overall, there has always been a discussion about supporting the israeli concerns when it comes to security concerns of israel.

this is something that is always present. the other question to ask is more of what role for the eu also in this situation. after this very confusing response where one commissioner came out saying we will have to cut the humanitarian aid to palestinians, going back to this position and saying we will not. there has been a very confusing response in the first days. now however, in the interest of the eu and the u.s., really avoid [indiscernible] such an emotional response are not helping. the idea of how to start

leveraging on those regional players, especially in the gulf. engage with them and try to really support a containment of this conflict and not spread out. james: let me put that to richard. what should members of the public do? >> certainly what i am doing and what others of like mind are trying to say in the face of people being horrified, that we have to get to the root cause. if this is not going to get even worse and continue forever, we

need to get to the root cause. in my view and what i have been arguing very strongly, is that the root cause of this is the apartheid nature of these really state, the colonialist nature of the israeli state. it is based sign the ethnic cleansing of palestinians, on the denial of their most basic rights. it is based entirely on the ruthless and brutal suppression of palestinian rights. in the same way apartheid in south africa was not acceptable, a movement inside south africa as well as internationally and only lead to the dismantling of that regime. that is the only way we are going to get peace and justice in palestine. james: thank you to all of our

guests. a fascinating conversation. you can see it again on the website, aljazeera.com. am sure the ongoing war will be the focus of our conversation for some time to come. goodbye for now.