easy. to see. it without you life from moscow recapping our top stories president obama meets his british counterpart to reaffirm foreign policy goals including the commitments are asking libya's colonel qadhafi the concerns of growth about the two nations being the only ones who benefit from their joint military ventures. france is a finance minister backed by the e.u. and the u.s. enters the race to become the next head of the i.m.f. the so-called the brics countries which includes russia call for a selection process for the world's top bank job to be based on

a merit and not nationality. protesters in georgia push harder for president saakashvili as a resignation with thousands taking to the streets of the capital for a fifth day they demand an end to the rule of the government which they call undemocratic and corrupt. and my colleague is here in half an hour's time but for now it's time for some hot tempered debate over the ongoing palestinian israeli conflict and is crosstalk. well. tomorrow's top choppers come to moscow with josh ford's digitized radar upgraded and automated guided by gyroscopes propelled by powerful new engines russian motors ready to. leave the future

covered. you can. follow and welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle talks 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 u.s. 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. you can. still. 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 he is the author of the

efficient 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 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 helped 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 raid is an issue that has so far only exposed 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 there might be the position of past 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 nineteen sixty seven lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states responding to these words israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu told obama he found his vision unfeasible as the menstruating a deep divide that could do any u.s. bid to revive peace talks and israel's most reliable supporter in the u.s. the american israel public affairs committee or a pac reminded of on my 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. common interests and shared values. you understand with great depth it israel is the only country in the middle east that shares america's commitment to freedom democracy and peace

obama's words and the same a path conference surprisingly showed a different tension as he recast his stance on the one thousand nine hundred seventy four hours and was anything but the rage about america's commitment to israel's security the vote of the united nations will ever create an independent palestinian state and the united states will stand up against efforts to single israel out at the united nations or in any international for israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate that is my commitment that is my pledge told you later netanyahu appeared on par with obama and celebrating to israel collaboration this broad support for israel of united states. crewmembers who gives command history. to my country and so a band of the. so-called peace process resolving the israeli palestinian conflict has lost a one step forward two steps back kind of deal compromises and ministration the

israelis and a path has been the political calculus for decades but these players have solved nothing obama faces a very hard reality continue a failed policies or truly give this conflict everything and something approaching a reset the ball is still in the bahamas court my chair and i are crossed. ok thank you first hussein in washington all of my guests are in washington today i do think that obama caved. to internal pressure. and just really kind of we didn't matter of hours he switched gears very very quickly why is it not go right this well i completely disagree with this i think that's a complete i think is a terribly superficial reading that people on all sides and i think if you if you look at the text carefully from thursday and of the weekend there is no change in

policy the stances are exactly the same there was a slight shift in tone in the sense that a pack of obama emphasized all the things that the audience would like to hear but he also reiterated his position that negotiations have to be based on the sixty seven borders and other things such as the you know the international impatience including the american impatience with the lack of progress on peace and the untenable situation israel finds itself in pursuing this occupation over millions and millions of stateless palestinians for whom it has no solution or answer no plan to deal in the long run so i don't i mean i think if you look 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 and that also note i knew 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 to his right and so i think that there was a lot of political calculus and histrionics here but i don't think obama shifted one bit ok and it is a very interesting point and if i can go to you what is there any difference in american policy now from george w. bush to barack obama. yeah i'm afraid there is i don't agree with you said on that the the difference is that what the president called the one 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 lebanon on invaded israel following its birth so those are the armistice lines where the armies happen to stop their invasion that's not the

international law line in fact the 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 israelis call today and some area and many of you are lying or what is the west bank so it's a thing in just one second let me just finish this first point that the disputed territory is. under the palestinian of trepidation all going to go to the arab side in fact it's disputed territory you know under a solution two for two envisioned that israel would have secure borders trading some of that land for peace that's what they did in the border with egypt when they made peace there and that's what the ultimate peace be based on resolution two forty two ok so the so-called one hundred sixty seven lines can i mean i was going to jump to paul and ask him are these disputed territories or these disputed territories because most inner scholars of international law will say these are

these are this is an occupation going on there and that under international law because the occupation must come to an end paula go ahead you got the floor. i'm a lawyer by training but i don't think international law can be the ultimate resort in the party this is a political speech and there is in till we have all world government which we won't and i don't think we can wait that long it has to be resolved. because i think it is miss carol. obama said he said based on the nineteenth sixty seven borders which has been the assumption for years

look at the good. between the prime minister olmert president abbas just a few years ago what he's doing and all of the. excitement is absolutely 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 both 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 part you know.

hold hold on a second. there are a couple things here first is that it's proper to invoke two four two as the basis for what obama was referring to in terms. of sixty seven borders with land sources i do think it's been implicit since two for two but you can't invoke two for 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 four to reiterate 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 promise so sure on where he said that the agreement would have to reflect changes on the ground in other words some settlement blocks probably will be next to israel and the persons 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 from jerusalem so it is not as if two for two and four seven six the security council resolutions give israel the option of keeping all of jerusalem as not only out he was talking about that is that is not ok according to the un security council and international law i can 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 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 fatah agreement promise the pa agreement and the arab refusal to meet for direct talks with israel is the real obstacle to peace

right now and unfortunately and i'm going to jump in here we go to a break here after that short break we'll continue our discussion on the so-called peace process state party. look to see. the. wealthy british style.

markets find out. why not what's really happening to the global economy with much stronger a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our team. the case against stewart. and. the. welcome back to cross talk like you're all about to remind you we're talking about obama's peace initiative looks. stands. ok dan if i can go back to you at apec the 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

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 militarily and economically but the reason that that's the correct thing to say is that israel is going to be asked in any peace agreement to give up something tangible its territory that contrary to the way some people have put it i do agree with call it's ultimately 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 the recognition that israel is the 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 is 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 settled all the details about territory well the other details are easily are actually easily solved with a pair to the fundamental question is it ok to get the war instead of nine hundred forty eight nine hundred sixty seven started when israel did not control some area or i'm going to if i go to hussein hussein i mean there's a few countries in the world recognizes israel's ok go ahead i'm saying ok i mean so is it really. i mean it can't be a recognition issue because the p.l.o. 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 formally committed to recognizing this issue is really returning 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 sole legitimate 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 under a slope 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 negate 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 most israelis regard what they call judea and samaria and the whole rest of the world calls the occupied palestinian territories as part of their patrimonial homeland fine 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 compromisers and i think to ignore that and to to look at the occupied territories in isolation from the rest of mandatory palestine and say oh poor israel's being asked to give up this very important territory that so dear to us ignores what palestinians have already agreed to giving up the overwhelming majority of what they regard as the fair game let's be fair to say let's play like

i had you jump in. yeah i like to recalled what former is true rarely foreign minister of the even says it is true twenty years ago it has. to take yes for in the end sir and the arabs say as. pointed out have been offering peace and recognition to israel since two thousand and two at our price you know he also said to be one of sarin are given also scared but even if you sixty seven lines were auschwitz borders there is a wide consensus here. legally or illegally last all these many times it regretted that characterization this fagot is both

the arab political and military situations have changed absolutely and fundamentally since both forty eight and six the seven at this point unlike forty eight israel is the most powerful country in the region israeli security has to be assured but there are plenty of things in place to take care of that and of course these have to be recognized in the peace agreement what this is about policy in washington the old one area in which is one of the article didn't let me go one more sense israel wants to keep the settlements with. sane pointed out have been declared.

to international law and posed by everyone. in this game to say what's on your list you think will certainly do what i want to go to do ok but again because i want to be fair to everybody. i agree with paul that's ultimately. about coming to an agreement that is agreeable to all sides the big unmentioned 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 agreeing to 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

a terrorist organization by the us by the european union and really by anyone with little common sense i'm not so it's going to. end all right israel for years and killing thousands of civilians you know hussein i'd like. to see can i can i can i just really jump somewhere here it's because because because we're business the same conversation we've been having for twenty years on this i want to ask all of you guys a question here and we get into 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. and 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 they give up their national projects but for the foreseeable future in my lifetime there will be no one state open quote solution close quote there will be is either a two state peace agreement or a ongoing and increasingly bitter bloody and religious conflict we have to avoid that can only two quick points against the president present on the hamas fatah deal president obama said it 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 are so to leap to the conclusion that hamas is going to control this government or have a major part in it or have representation in the cabinet or have immediately magic role is lisa is making a huge assumption that isn't justifiable at all ok dan you want to jump in you're going to play head here. to say 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 they and we actually see him as issue against israel you know that said now knowing where grazes to direct i was told. no you just heard there was a half. i'd like to make. a point because greek hamas is the eight hundred pound gorilla kayenta ovoid the dealing with it i mean that hamas has the see the table what hamas is said in

live to call ways and has to be possible of the wise thing they can to have any influence is there thirty per cent of the palestinians has to allow the p.a. under us to do the. asian with the israel our online gentlemen gentlemen we're. going to have to give it we're almost out of time i'd like to give dan the last thirty seconds go ahead. thanks so much the problem with various. wishful thinking won't make hamas actually. engage in a conflict ending agreement their good will and their intentions are very suspect is raul and the vast majority of israel's israelis want peace but they won't trust

any 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 guests today in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at our keith see you next time and remember cross talk with us.

live nation and free liquid intake and free lives for charges free. range lands.