the world is turning. eight speak with one voice. jovial g eight summit on r.t. . live from moscow this is r.t. really twenty four hours a day top stories this hour president obama meets his british counterpart to reaffirm their common foreign policy goals including their commitment to ousting libya's colonel gadhafi concerns grow the two nations all the only ones benefiting from lead joint military ventures. leaders of g eight countries arrived in france ahead of this year's summit taking place of the resort town of deauville it's the first meeting of this kind since the unrest in the arab world and the war in libya two of the issues expected to be discussed at the tools. and protests as in georgia

a push for president saakashvili his resignation for thousands taking to the streets of the capital for a fifth day that announcement of the rule of the government that they call democratic and corrupt. to preserve that for a moment with more on our top stories in the news update in full in about fifteen minutes from now in fact i should say thirty minutes from now in the meantime we've got some hot tempered debate for you over the own going palestinian israeli conflict. is next. tomorrow's choppers come to moscow quick dash forces are taxed radar upgraded and automated guided by gyroscopes propelled by powerful new engines russian motors ready to move to. the future covered.

can. follow and is welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle cox before more talks u.s. president barack obama's most recent attempt to broker a peace settlement between israel and the palestinians faltered only hours after it was announced israel and its allies in the 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. start. to 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

edition log com and a columnist for now lebannon and paul sham 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. here is president barack obama is faced with a daunting task help broker a peace settlement between israel and the palestinians that both parties can live with well at the same time be accepted by the international community it is early days but obama's latest initiative has so far only expose the divisions between washington and tel aviv as well as galvanize what is called the israel lobby in the u.s. all the while the palestinians are listening on the sidelines but they're my position and fasten your kind of ministrations obama said last week that any future settlements should be based within borders established and recognized by

international war we believe the borders of israel palestine should be based on the nine hundred sixty seven lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states responding to these words israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu told the family he found his vision and feasible was them straining a deep divide that could do any of us very curious by peace talks and israel's most reliable supporter in the us the american israel public affairs committee or a park reminded obama any peace talks with the palestinians must have the blessing of what is called the israel lobby in the us the relationship between united states and the jewish state of israel is a. common interests and shared values. you wonder stand with great depth that israel is the only country in the middle east that shares america's commitment to freedom democracy and peace obama's words at the same path

conference and surprisingly showed a different tension as he recast his stance on the one nine hundred sixty seven borders and was anything with worrying about america's commitment to israel's security no vote at the united nations will ever create an independent palestinian state and the united states will stand up against the first a 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 had to appear on par with obama and celebrating us israel collaboration this broad support for israel of the united states. tremendous group and commend the strength. from my country and so a band of the day called peace process resulting bizarrely palestinian conflict has lost a one step forward to start

a back kind of deal compromises along. the israelis and a path has been the political calculus for decades but these players have solved nothing about now faces a very hard reality continue a failed policy or chile gave this conflict everything and something approaching a reset the ball is still in obama's quite russia china across. ok if i can go to you first hussein in washington i guess around washington today i do think that obama caved. to internal pressure. and just really kind of within matter of hours he switched gears very very quickly why not go right ahead i. completely disagree with that so i think that's a complete i think it's a terribly superficial reading that's been made by people on all sides and i think if you if you look at the text carefully from thursday and at 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 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 that israel finds itself pursuing this occupation over millions and millions of state was promised to us for whom it has no solution no answer no plan no method of dealing in the long run so i don't i mean i think if you 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 not only i was covering his right flank in israel and trying not to be outed 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 in histrionics here but i don't think obama shifted one bit ok i think it's a very interesting point and if i can go to you like is there any difference in american policy now from george w. bush to 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 nine hundred sixty seven lines which of course are really the one hundred forty nine armistice lines just a quick read of history which were established when the arab armies from jordan egypt syria and even lebannon invaded israel following its birth so those are the armistice lines where the armies happened to stop their invasion that's not an

international law line in fact international law that applies is un resolution two forty two which calls for secure borders for israel and envisions that the disputed territory what we now call the israel is called today and some area and many of you are lying over to the west bank say some thing in just one second let me just finish this first point that the disputed territory is. under the palestinian authority patient all going to go to the arab side in fact it's disputed territory the un resolution two forty two envisioned that israel would have secure borders creating some of that land for peace that's what they did in the border with egypt when they made peace there and that's what the ultimate to peace ought to be based on resolution two forty two ok so the so-called one hundred sixty seven lines can i mean i was going to paul and ask him are these disputed territories or these disputed territories because most dangerous collars of

international law will say these are these are this is an occupation going on there and that under international law this is the occupation must come to an end go ahead you've 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 the world government which we won't and i don't think we can wait that long it has to be resolved. quickly i think. miss carol. obama said he said based on the nineteenth sixty seven borders which has been the assumption for years

look at the new good. between the prime minister olmert president abbas just a few years ago what he's still 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 a contrary to george bush what is different i agree is the tone and the starting point ok go ahead jump in part you know become kind of. a hold on a certain day. you know. there are

a couple things here first. it's proper to invoke two for two as the basis for what obama was referring to in terms. of sixty seven borders with land so also yes i do think it's been implicit since two for two but you can't invoke two four two and then question the fact that israel is the occupying power in those territories because two for two specifically designates israel the occupying power to first the territories occupied by israel in the recent conflict and the preamble to two four two reiterates at length 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 of true promise of sharon where he said the agreement would have to reflect changes on the ground in other words some settlement blocks probably will be annexed to israel and the palestinians have understood that from the mid ninety's on and his statement in two

thousand and five that any changes to the armistice line of one hundred forty nine would have to be mutually agreed upon in other words that israel can't just pick and choose there is by the way another important security council resolution which is for seven six from nine hundred eighty which says that israel has to withdraw from jerusalem so it is not as if two four two four seven six the security council resolutions give israel the option of keeping all of jerusalem is not only out keeps talking about that is that is not ok according to the u.n. security council and international law i cannot again before we go to the break and thirty seconds before we go to break go ahead. 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 agreement and i'm lost because 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're going to break here after that short break we'll continue our discussion on the so-called peace process state party. taking. control of the. twenty years ago largest country in. the suitcases of. leaflets how did you look at each began a journey. where did it take a. look at the. america's cup childbirths come to moscow with josh ford's digitized radar upgraded

an automated guided by gyroscopes propelled by powerful new engines russian motors ready to move the sun coming. up the future covered. kate snow. welcome back to cross talk i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're talking about obama's peace initiative. can you. say. ok dan if i can go back to you at apec the executive director of the organization warned obama against treating both israel and the palestinians quote even handedly that's a pretty interesting statement treat both of them differently how do you how do you

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 and any peace agreement to give up something tangible its territory that contrary to the way some people have put it i do agree with paul it's ultimately political but israel does not recognize that what the 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 ending recognition that israel is a state of the jewish people and that there is not going to be no further territorial demands you know to the core issue in the middle east unfortunately as

is often placed as though it were a territorial issue and actually it's about the world's recognition and particularly arab recognition that there should be a jewish state in israel once you get that part settled all the details about territory well the other details are easily are actually easily solved you know if they pair to the fundamental question is you know this is that the war is still of one hundred forty eight one hundred sixty seven started when israel did not control scenario or i'm damned if i'm going to if i go to hussein hussein i mean if there's a few countries in the world recognize israel's ok go ahead hussein ok i mean is it really a recognition issue i mean listen it can't be a recognition issue because the 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 and formally committed to recognizing the state of israel you return

the state of israel only recognize. the p.l.o. as the legitimate representative the palestinian people so you know the arab league has a doctor the r. 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 a recognition from the sole legitimate representative that i was seeing people what we have fortunately really is a territorial dispute because last monday i mean seven days ago eight days ago prime minister netanyahu gave a speech before the knesset in which he said there would be no negotiations on jerusalem 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 find that's true and you have to understand palestinians see all of israel also as part of their patrimonial homeland and in one nine hundred forty seven forty eight when israel was created palestinians were at least three quarters majority now when they recognize israel in its sixty seven borders they gave up seventy eight percent of what they regard as their country it is the mother of all 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 is being asked to give up this is very important territory that so dear to us ignores what palestinians are already agreeing to giving up the overwhelming majority of what they regard as she lets me fair here let's be fair there's a parallel like i had you ben. yeah i like to

recall what former is true rarely foreign minister of. bad israel twenty years ago it has to learn to take yes for in answer and the arabs say as. saying pointed out have been offering peace and recognition to israel since two thousand and two at our price you know your surgeon said they want to sign up you can also serve the people nine hundred sixty seven lines were auschwitz for porters there's a wide consensus. really only. the last of his many times regretted that characterization this badly it is both in the air of the political and military situations have changed

absolutely and fundamentally since both forty gait and exist seven this point unlike forty eight israel is the most powerful country in the region israeli security has to be assured well 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 and the israel one million voters who want the right old lands let me one more sense israel wants to keep the settle in tune with. sane pointed out have been declared.

to international law and oppose everyone. to the militants in this game to say course i'm sorry with everyone i want to go to. 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 record or has in it elements of a terrorist organization hamas is designated as

a terrorist organization by the u.s. by the european union and really by anyone with little common sense has been lobbing missiles into israel for years and killing thousands of civilians you know hussein i'd like. to see because i can i can i just really join somewhere here it's because because they are there because we're this is the same conversation we've been having for twenty years on this i want to ask all of you guys a question here are we getting to a one state solution now because it looks like go ahead hussein because you know the more we believe this here now hussein first go ahead. ok thank you know no we're not. there there is no such thing as a one state solution fact we have a one state exactly exactly sadly 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 what they'll be is either a two state peace agreement or a ongoing and increasingly bitter bloody and religious conflict we have to avoid that can i make two quick points the president president on the hamas 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 or so to leap to the conclusion that hamas is going to control this government or have a major part in or have representation in the cabinet or have any diplomatic role is lisa is making a huge assumption that isn't justifiable at all ok dan you want to jump in they're going to go ahead here. let me just say the the 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 then we have a live exactly similar position against israel you know that said now knowing where grazes to direct i was told the champaign park i have no no you. or there was. i had. to pick up. a point because grete says the eight hundred pound gorilla kayenta ovoid dealing with it i don't mean that hamas has the seed at the table what hamas is said in lipstick

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

government that has participation by hamas to keep it and israel is not going to make the kinds of concessions that the palestinians will want for peace under any participation by hamas so the last point is i agree there may not be a one state solution in the near term but there also may not be a two state solution as long as the arab side doesn't view it as a conflict ending or a gentleman will run out of time here we've run out of time i sincerely thank all of my guest today in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at our keith see you next time and remember rastafarians.

wealthy british style sun. sometimes. markets. can. find out what's really happening to the global economy.