you think a lot of snow right some comments about lots of them coming in and you can also follow me on twitter at lauren lyster and we will be back here tomorrow for lots more news how can i. bring you the latest in some instances. some of. the few jerks covered. the a.

live. news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of chatter that. operations are. kick. start. the low and welcome the cross talk i'm peter lavelle cox before more talks u.s. president barack obama's most recent attempt to broker a peace settlement between israel and the palestinians faltered only hours after it

was announced israel and its allies in the us made it clear that they will have a say when it comes to the terms and conditions of any negotiations is obama's peace ideas already dead on arrival. can. get crossed off the peace process i'm joined by my guest in washington daniel pollack he is co-director of government relations for the zionist organization of america we also have hussein ibish he is the author of the amish blog 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 how broker a peace settlement between israel and the palestinians that both parties can live

with while of the same time be accepted by the international community it is early days but obama's latest initiative has so far only 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 paralyzed because this is passing here in this rationed obama said last week that any future settlements should be based within borders established and recognized by international law we believe the borders of israel palestine should be based on the nine hundred sixty seven lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states responding to these words israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu told obama he found his vision and feasible does 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 apac 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 interest 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 and the same impact conference and surprisingly showed a different tension as he recast his stance on the one thousand nine hundred seventy borders and was anything but rage 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 the united nations or any international force this rules legitimacy is not a matter for debate that is my commitment that is my pledge to all of you where

netanyahu appearing on par with obama and celebrating us israel collaboration this broad support for israel of the united states. tremendous will and gives tremendous strength. to my country and so a band of the day called peace process reserving the israeli palestinian conflict as a one step forward to step back and a deal compromises in one way or ministration the israelis and a pact has been the political calculus for decades but both players have. a very hard reality continue a failed policy or chilling of this conflict everything and something approaching a reset the ball is still in obama's court russia china across r.t. . ok if i can go to you first hussein in washington i guess or in washington today

i do you think that it caved. to internal pressure. and just really kind of within matter of hours he switched gears very very quickly why. go right ahead i. completely disagree with this is 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 texts 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 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 in pursuing this occupation over

millions and millions of stateless palestinians for whom it has no solution no answer no plan no method of dealing in the long run so i don't i mean i think if you go past the sugarcoating the substance was absolutely unchanged and if the israelis were unhappy on thursday. they had no particular reason to be happier on the weekend i think part of their outrage was designed to give g.o.p. candidates republican candidates trying to unseat obama in two thousand and twelve cover for issuing denunciations which they did and the also note i was covering his right flank in israel and trying not to be outwitted by people like i would do or lieberman and other politicians in 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 like is there any difference in american policy now from george w.

bush to kill barack obama. yeah i'm afraid there is no i don't agree with hussein 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 bit of history which were established when the arab armies from jordan egypt syria and even lebannon invaded israel following its birth so those are the armistice lines where the armies happened to stop their invasion that's not the international law line in fact 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 israel is called today and some area and many of you if you really know what it is in the west bank say something is just one second let me just finish this first point the those the disputed territory is . under the palestinian to target haitian all going to go to the arab side in fact

it's disputed territory the un resolution two forty two envisioned that israel would have secure borders creating some of that land for peace that's what they did on the border with egypt when they made peace there and that's what the ultimate peace ought to be based on resolution two forty two ok so these so-called one hundred sixty seven lines i mean it was kind of was going to be to paul in asking are these disputed territories or these disputed territories because most generous collars of international law will say these are these are this is an occupation going on there and that under international law they say occupation must come to an end paul go ahead you'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 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. in this carol. obama said he said based on the ninety sixty seven borders which has been the assumption for years look at the good. between their 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 said being town 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 policy you know. hold on a second. there are a couple things here first is that it's proper to invoke true for true as the basis for what obama was referring to in terms. sixty seven borders with lance 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 for

two reiterates the length of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war so you know what we're dealing with then is what was laid out in two parts by the bush administration in two thousand and four his letter to prime minister sharon where he said that agreement would have to reflect changes on the ground in other words some settlement blocks probably will be next to israel and the palestinians are 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 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 netanyahu keeps

talking about that is that is not ok according to the u.n. security council and international law i cannot again before we go to the break and thirty seconds before we go to break i had. well i dispute that as well i don't have enough time to go into the details there but the 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 i'm not fatah green and the arab refusal to me for direct talks with israel is the real obstacle to peace right now and unfortunately the job and here we are a break here after that short break we'll continue our discussion on the so-called peace process state authority. in. the.

download the official t.m. placation show by phone or i pod touch from the i.q. saps to. munch on sea life on the go. see video on demand cheese minefield comes an r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. question on the. wealthy british. market why not. come to find out what's really happening to the global economy

with max cons are no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to kaiser report on r.t. the admission free couldn't a should free in-store charge is free coming from inside the free risk free studio types free. the old free blog counseling videos for your media projects and free media don carty dr tom. played the game series. and. welcome back to cross talk i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're talking about obama's peace initiative the company says the same. ok dan if i can go back to you 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 paul 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 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 part settled all the details about territory well the other details are easily are actually easily solved if they care to the fundamental question is that you know this is yet the war is still of one hundred forty eight nine hundred sixty seven started when israel did not control some area. but if i go to hussein hussein i mean there's a very few countries in the world recognize israel's ok go ahead i'm saying ok it was a really interesting issue i mean listen it's it can't be

a recognition issue because the p.l.o. which is the sole legitimate representative i was seeing people recognize israel formally in the letters of recognition of mutual recognition in nineteen ninety three 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 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 so legitimacy representative of the palestinian 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 exhibition of settlement blocks without distinguishing between them

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 doubt 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

probably silencio poor israel's being asked to give up these very important territories and so dear to us ignores what palestinians have already agreed to giving up the overwhelming majority of what they regard as there are a few months be fair here that's the fairest. like. then. yeah i like to recalled what former is true rarely foreign minister of the even says it is true or twenty years ago it has. to take yes for in the end sir and the arab states as. saying 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 our even also said that the nine hundred sixty seven lines were auschwitz

more borders there is a wide consensus. really only. the last only as many times regretted that characterization this faggot is both the arab is the political and military situations have changed absolutely and fundamental east since both forty eight and six the seven at this point unlike forty eight israel is the most powerful country in the region is rarely security has to be assured but there are plenty of things in place to take care of there and of course it would be nice have to be recognized in the peace agreement what this is about policy in the israel one million doses is one of the radical

meant to let me know one more sens israel wants to keep the settle into which sane pointed out have been declared. to ensure national law and opposed by everyone you are a gentleman let's see this game to see what time it is t.v. it will certainly do what i want to go to do ok 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 i mention the elephant in this room is hamas and the power that they well of in gaza and the hamas fatah agreement what fatah did what they p a palestinian authority did in 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 laws 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 there's 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 jump somewhere here it's because because because would 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 and we getting to a one state solution now because it looks like you know go ahead hussein because you know the more we delay this here now hussein first go ahead. thank you know no we're not. and 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 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 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 it or have representation in the cabinet or have any diplomatic role is liza is making a huge assumption that isn't justifiable at all ok dan you want to jump in there going ahead here. let me just say that 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 agree with their lives exactly the same position against israel you know that said now knowing where grazes to direct why. go ahead although you just heard there was. i'd like to pick up. a point because greek hamas is

the eight hundred pound gorilla you kayenta ovoid the dealing with it i mean that hamas has the see the table what have mosses said in lipstick always and has to be possible of the wise thing they can tell have been any influence is there are thirty per cent of the palestinians has to allow the p.a. under us to do the. with the israel are on my gentlemen gentlemen we're. going to have it in you if it were 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 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's 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 all right gentlemen. 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 and our keith see you next time and remember crosstalk means. little. and. little.

little. h. i'm having here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture. little. the.

milk. if. it. is easy to. say. it's. the sound awful.