that a 2 state solution is no longer achievable through negotiation is correct there is no way to given the legacy of american for some support for israel you expansion essentially over the decades given the kind of political culture and political system that israel has developed there really isn't a way to negotiate something between palestinians and israelis on the other hand there are what i don't like about the questioner trump plan and what is left out by the administration is that going forward when you think about alternatives to a 2 state solution or alternatives to the endless diplomatic merry go round it never leads to it you've got to focus on the idea of equal political rights for all people who are controlled by the same government palestinians in the west bank and effectively in gaza as well are controlled by the israeli government just as much as the people who live within the green line and all of them should have the same rights to participate in the government that rules their lives that standard

looking at equal rights for all is another way to end the occupation other than withdraw now can i ask you one more question about trump because i think what's interesting about your analysis is that you seem to be suggesting that trump despite professing himself as the biggest friend of israel is the 1st american president to accidentally or not question doc logic that you just mentioned of this merry go round unproductive negotiations that have become a bit of a ritual for every incoming american president and that ultimately i would argue play into israel's hands i use saying that interactively perhaps trumps approach may be more challenging for israel than let's say a bomb as approach has been well 1st of all though he hasn't engaged in actual negotiations the trumpet ministration has been playing this game this merry go round game on. most of the time the merry go round has to do with thinking about

whether negotiations are going to start back channel negotiations about the kinds of negotiations that could begin news reports leak that certain plans have been broached or have not been broached all of that the trump administration has been doing in spades so it has not yet abandoned this merry go round but the idea that if it ever does produce an american position that does not call for a 2 state solution or does not even call for palestinian israeli negotiations that would be a break with the past we don't know whether they're all ever be an announcement of what the trump administration's position is we just don't know now as you just pointed out that there has been 2 years of. rumors speculations leaks about these grand planned we haven't heard much about it but i think what many people have

noted that while the previous administrations may have followed the wrong logic at least they try to project an image of a neutral broker the trumpet mr is not even trying to do that whatever proposals the white house the trumps white house may come up with do you think the palestinians will have it in themselves to consider those proposals in good faith after the trumpet ministration has been so on their bastardly pro israel no because i don't i don't think they will consider them. if it's a bad faith move but they won't consider them because i don't believe they'll be any political aspect to them i think if they ever come out what it will be was an endorsement of the netanyahu position which is effectively a slow motion implementation of apartheid in which some lip service is given to improving the standard of living of the palestinians who live in the ghettos enforced by jewish israeli. settlements and roads and checkpoints and that is not

a negotiate if it's a negotiation system negotiation of a political surrender so i don't really think that the p.l.o. respond to that i think what the israeli military is concerned about is if should the americans produce such a plan it will be furiously rejected by the palestinians in the street and that will result in perhaps a collapse of the palestinian authority and much more violence in the west bank so that's one reason why i i'm not so sure that it's going to be announced anyway because i don't think netanyahu really wants even a plan that aligns exactly with what he wants to be announced i think there's an irony that you were pointing to earlier that the united states is now backing is now advancing a process that could very well lead in most to a by international society i mean there already is a bi national state is what i call in my forthcoming book paradigm last

a one state reality between the river and the sea is not a solution but it is a reality there is one and only one state rules of 13 f. 14000000 people but it rules them in different ways in different zones and that's not unusual for non-democratic states which israel has evolved to become let me ask you specifically about this one state configuration which you say is already a reality because israel effectively east controlling all the area between the jordan river and the sea without granting all the people who leave their basic human rights not even equal we are talking about basic human rights why would israel under its current leadership want to change that what possible motive could it have to addressing the problem and the suffering of the palestinians well i don't really think the current government does have an incentive to do that although it's trying to find some ways to manage the conflict. a lower cost to

basically to rule the prisoners it has in gaza has a lower cost but. the way these things change with the way protracted conflicts like this change the way democracies deal with beings with having to integrate millions and millions of people that they ready have felt suspicious and fearful of for generations it takes a long time it takes struggles for suffrage struggles for citizenship in the united states for example when slaves were freed in the 80 after the civil war they weren't automatically created is made citizens that took a struggle then it took a struggle whether black citizens would have the actual same rights as whites and then whether they would be implemented and that's row who goes on today when the irish catholics were incorporated into britain and mass when britain annexed ireland in 1900 it took generations before they became full british citizens able

to exercise enough rights in the british parliament to eventually secede from from britain part of ireland so it we're in for generations of struggle it's not going to be a decision by the israeli government to solve the problem we are in a very different situation the history missed the peace train that could have led i believe to a tuesday know a negotiated 2 state solution the odds were probably always against it but it was missed as a possibility that existed in the 1980 s. and 1990 s. and after of 2000 very very unlikely to have been achieved and now impossible now these 2 stark examples that you mentioned the blacks in the united states and the irish but then the british empire all those changes for possible because ultimately both we read in the united kingdom as united kingdom yes all those changes were possible. mainly because both the united kingdom and the united states. insisted on

seeing. democracy so what we're ultimately talking about here is is a quality or more specifically the ethnic composition of the israeli democracy do you think that the upper hand sions that the current israeli leadership has about the granting all people under its control equal rights do those apprehensions ultimately. go down to security concerns or is it all ideological and more specifically is it tied to the ideology of zionism erasing many questions but let's revisit the american case for a moment it wasn't all the case that abraham lincoln who fought the civil war fought it because he imagined the united states would be a multiracial democracy you never imagined that in so far as he talked about what would happen to the slaves you talked about sending them back to africa there was the united states thought of itself as a white christian country and did not think of itself as a multiracial democracy that it came about as the an internet as

a result of the elites not as a result of the government but as a result of generations of political struggle in which eventually democrats for example democratic party that was segregationist and pro-slavery back in the day became needed and now needs huge turnout of minority voters if it will ever take power the same thing kind of thing happen with the liberal party in britain and eventually in israel moderate jewish political groups will never take power again in israel unless arabs vote in large numbers including arabs who should eventually and can eventually get the vote in the west bank and even in gaza but that will require political struggles within the jewish state it will change it it won't be what we think of now as a jewish state just as united states is not what they thought it was 100 years ago a white christian country that happened to be democratic for them but not for all let me ask you one more question. about zionism because from what i understand when

it 1st appeared in the late 19th century it was primarily a political movement for and national home and later a state for the jewish people but it was couched in primarily civil of rather than religious terms that we are increasingly hearing both from the israeli and american right even signing isn't being redefined right now well zionism was had a very strong political content it had also cultural content it was not always committed to a jewish state that's something that happened in the 1920 s. and thirty's but even ben do have been korean who became one of the foremost data zionist before this for the world war one was not in favor of a jewish state so the you don't have to think of zionism as connected directly to a jewish state if you can think of zionism as a movement that through its entire period of time as you say from the late 19th century on has been committed to

a large prosperous and secure jewish community in the land of israel most of zion us have come to think that that requires a jewish state it didn't at one time and in the future it may not either but they'll be quite a bit of political struggle around that question and one of the things that will fire that struggle with the implications of one government ruling over a population which includes more arabs right now then jews between the river and the city professor listed we have to take a very short break but you will be back in just a few moments. this in petersburg international economic forum is a unique event in today's business world. over the last 20. the forum has become

a leading global platform for discussing the key economic issues facing russia emerging markets and the world thousands of business community members attend the forum to address today's and vital issues. special forum coverage on r.t. . what politicians do something to. put themselves on the line they get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be president. or some want to. have to go right to the press it's like the 43 in the morning can't be good. i'm interested in the waters of the. city. it's up to us to see on his attorneys wanted for you to get help for your own cause

a little bit. more which if. there's a renewal if they give you to you they get out just to know people you see posting it's going to recruit see what's good. in a country that's the thought of you. if you have that printed if you're not that you. are. welcome back to worlds apart i am listed professor of political science at the university of pennsylvania professor before the break we talked about how the world

in general in the united states in particular should be shifting their attention from israel and doing its control over gaza and the west bank which he said is not going to happen anytime soon to the transformation of israel as a country that grants equal rights to all people under its control that since to be pretty concise. just in to be declared american values the spread of democracy human rights for all but i also i'm also suspecting that it's going to undermine the american foreign policy in the middle east with its very very specific reliance on israel. reliance on israel is not the word i would use we are primarily associated with israel but i think more than rely on israel lot of what israel does is a burden to us it hasn't been really helpful except in very narrow areas of intelligence i take for example the the whole issue we have now about possibly going to war with

iran and intelligence reports that no one has seen that have produced a lot of belligerent behavior by john bolton and the white house what it appears that it's actually is really an israel meeting with israeli intelligence people in the white house a couple weeks ago in which there are scenarios for what may be happening that serve is really interest not american interests are what either scared american officials or put in the hands of people like john bolton the the material they needed to try to fire up the boiler for a war in the middle east so this is not helpful to the united states but it is something that comes about because of our close political and diplomatic association with the israeli government now the prospect of a military confrontation with iran is never too far off but this past week it came

to the fore again that with the united states sending its fleet to the region do you think though tromp anatomy are really on the same page when it comes to taking action against iran do they really want the same things you know i think you're absolutely right i think. argued for quite a while that netanyahu and his government have been trying to get you know. states to attack iran for quite some time at times bluffing and threatening that israel is about to attack iran so the united states should do it 1st but never really intending to attack right now with netanyahu in his delicate political position uzi is threat faced with charges that he could be arrested unable quite yet to form the government that he thought he would be able to do so a little more easily wondering what the next explosion with gaza is going to look like and whether he'll be suffering as a result of that right now i don't think he wants a full blown war in the middle east but but there is something going on which

is something that netanyahu has government has wanted it's kept its eye on one thing and that is we do sing the iranian profile military profile sufficiently so that israel can operate in lebanon and in syria without having to wonder whether it will pay a cost to iran that is to say if iran had nuclear weapons or the capacity to get nuclear weapons or to run could fire missiles at israel either from western iraq or from lebanon from its proxies hezbollah that would limit israel's ability to use its air force against targets in syria or lebanon or gaza even israel does not want to limit itself in its use of force to deal with problems in the region and it's only iran that would could keep israel from from using force at will at

sensually no cost i think that it reports in these roy press suggests this that what was conveyed to the americans was that there are missiles controlled by iranians in the western desert of iraq in that they could be used against israel and israel would like those weapons eliminated if that takes american to add. action that might be one way to do it and i love. i'm concerned that in the hands of people like john bolton this could be promoted into something that appears to the american public as an iranian threat against the united states and then when we put massive forces in the region in ratchet up the tension intended consequences of small events that neither the iranians nor the americans might have control over could produce a war you're attributed that to john bolton who has never seen a country that he doesn't want to intervene in but i think it was also we heard

a similar rhetoric from badgeman that's on yahoo this week who really sought to portray the current tangents with iran as the rainy and aggression against the united states and i think there was subtle difference rhetorical difference between how netanyahu or tromp describe the situation do you think we may be seeing some of the divergence emerging emerging here because these 2 leaders keep claiming that there is no daylight between the 2 but they seem to be netanyahu seems to be stretching things even by champion standards you know i think i do agree with you that in this issue trumps instincts are don't get into a war this is bad this is contrary to what i said before which usually doesn't bother him too much but this is such a massive possibility of losing control that it seems like he doesn't want to do it and netanyahu is leading him down his path he let him all the way down

a path to decide to get the united states out of the nuclear deal which was a catastrophe and which in really stands by that decision is what producing the context within which the current crisis. has emerged. and if netanyahu continues to talk about the iranian regime not only is the nazis. and this is $938.00 but also that their enemy is not just israel but is the united states the united states is being attacked. trump in a position of having to choose between maintaining his his close alliance with netanyahu or paying a political cost that i don't think he will pay so just as trouble effect if we back down when he was when it's shown that mexico would not pay for the wall he backed down and backed away when his whole idea of making it a deal with the north koreans fell through i think his intention or his likely course of action will be to back away from this the question is whether between

israelis and in the momentum of american military operations and iranian iranian activities whether can trump can control of events i think it's a very good point tying it to the electoral politics in the united states steve bannon former advisor to trump in his recent interview sad that he believes the next presidential campaign will be decided on china the trade negotiations so from his perspective at least there is no point for trying to get himself involved in another middle east adventure but i think there is a number there is a number of presidential candidates on the democratic side of the american political spectrum bernie sanders being one of them to see gapper being another who are bringing up the really an issue as as a complaint issue already do you think that's a good move don't you think that that may provoke trump into action even though in politically he did not intend to do that if it did provoke him into action it might

that might actually backfire that's that's what i think would happen it would backfire against trump himself so i personally think that the that that will not occur that is the critics coming from the democrats are obvious and inevitable so close behind the catastrophe of the iraq war. which we entered with on the basis of of evidence evidence that was manufactured by people who wanted to go into iraq for other reasons it seems so unbelievably uncannily similar to what certain people in the white house and elsewhere perhaps are cooking up for iran that that the democrats can't be expected not to attack on that line i think it's possible just as likely as what you say is that it would pull trump toward saying i'm not going down at road i'll be too vulnerable the democrats can make mincemeat out of me on that issue especially since it's against a background of

a series of foreign policy of not failures from the american public point of view it seems like foreign policy is out of control we lost with the mexico lost with north korea oh we're in a trade war with china that half the country is going to there are 3 quarters of the country is going to lose from economically and now who knows what's going to happen in afghanistan next month certainly we didn't win in syria and now we're going to go to war with iran. by the way we're going to put 126000 troops in the middle east are we going to put them in saudi arabia the last time we put that money troops in saudi arabia we ended up with osama bin laden so things don't look that promising politically down that road now a conflict with iran maybe unlikely but i think it's also clear that the iranians are very worried about the jerk corney and american sanctions especially on oil trade i spoke to the iranian defense minister just a few weeks ago i'm he was pretty straightforward that iran will defend its vital

economic interests with all the resources that it has do you think the extract sick of maximum pressure can produce iranian compliance i don't think so because i'm a i'm compliance we if iran complies means regime change which to john bolton is what it means obviously it can't if it means iran read. turns the negotiating table and negotiate with the united states another deal that's one that trump likes as opposed to the one that he backed out of i don't think that will happen and unless the the other great powers that signed in to the deal agreed to this deal should be improved so i think that the route to that to that outcome is for the united states to work with the other signatories on that agreement to come to and to an assessment of where the future ought to be in our relationship with iran i think ultimately put my cards on the table eyes is that. the only way to prevent

a nuclear is ation of the middle east is to agree that it will be nuclear weapons free zone the iranians the egyptians many other countries have proposed that the one country who is in the middle east that has not agreed to it that i know of is israel and the united states is in an uncomfortable position on an issue doesn't want to speak publicly about it but has maneuvered to prevent the question of a nuclear free zone from being on the negotiating table for the middle east as a whole but that would be a way to end the whole worry about the iranian nuclear capacity because none of the countries in the region would have a nuclear capacity and in any event israel's nuclear capacity which is justified on the basis would deter countries like iran it obviously is not working or the israelis don't think it would it is working to deter iran or they wouldn't be so upset about the possibility that. that iran would get. list i think that prospect is even less likely than the 2 state solution but unfortunately we have to

leave it there thank you very much for being with us and sharing your perspective today you're welcome thank each of yours to keep this conversation going our social media pages and hope to syria get on the same place same time here on worlds apart .

leg. length. lens. play. live live. live . live. live. oh. please. liz. let's

just see. clay. lift. playing. and a very warm welcome to you watching on since last. now that's just. certain i want to do things that show me very do we try to be very clear. the way you go to. management. and they are they they when they have them they have.

to. ask him you need to feel that you need. something yeah i'm them what do you how much. do you want to. come to mind if. i want to be in the book there's you still want to talk more next time. in 2040 you know bloody revolution here to correct the demonstrations going from being relatively peaceful political protests to be creasing the violent revolution is always spontaneous or is it you know we hear i mean you know i lived with video with him in the. school in the middle of the former ukrainian president recalls the events of 2014. those who took. it invested over $5000000000.00 to assist

ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic. led. tensions between the u.s. on the run continue to escalate tehran ses it's got no interest in going to war. president putin says he has been urging iran to stick to the hard 2050 nuclear deal despite the u.s. withdrawing from it. also coming up on the program this hour human rights advocates raise the alarm over the u.k. defense. proposal for british saying immunity for criminal offenses dangerous precedents. on the world's biggest tech companies pledge to crack down on violent content on below new rules.