to talk to you thank you very much for your time great to be here thanks for inviting me now when dealing with bombastic and self aggrandizing people it's a it's a natural tendency in all of us to devalue or downplay the significance of what they're saying or what they're doing and both donald trump and benjamin netanyahu are unbearably vain the times i think you have with agree on that but putting that aside don't you think that trump and his team deserve a credit for at least trying something new yes i would give them credit for trying i would argue that they're probably at least as far as trump is concerned are not. shall we say motivated by the purest of intentions one might say that you know purity usually is not part of international relations and that's true as well but as somebody who has been involved in previous peace attempts this one feels different mostly in.

and while i do agree that it is it is good to try and it is good to try something new and something else there needs to be some very basic conditions that are met in order for such a plan to be able to be called a peace plan rather than much more of a political scheme well mr atta and i know that you are very critical of the deal as are many ob there are negotiators former negotiator on both of these really on the palestinian side but the counter argument from the trunk team is that with all your negotiating and strategic foreign policy experience you guys haven't been able to solve the problem for many decades and in fact you allowed it to deteriorate let is now try a different approach why is that not the sound simple position it is on its face but you know not everything that is different would necessarily be. productive and

would and might and may succeed in place of the previous attempts that failed and this one i think 1st of all one could argue to what extent is it really different secondly in terms of its chances of success i think unfortunately there are very slim but then the chances of success especially with the conflict that the like these really palestinian conflict always sleep i mean no need to match the oslo accords as well as state idea as such have in the oslo process been clinically dad long before tromp was even the alacrity to office well this plan finds israeli palestinian conflict at a certain juncture we all agree i think those who supported all slow and those who are against all slow that it has not succeeded certainly in terms of if you look at

the timeline we were supposed to have been by now long after a permanent status agreement and we're nowhere in there such an agreement and things on the ground of that era to we all know the story the question is ok so where do we take it from here one possibility or kind of the natural possibility if you will would have been to try and do the provera proverbial exercise of banging the 2 heads of israelis and palestinians together and trying to get them under american auspices to get to some sort of a compromise an agreement yet the americans started out though with such a proposal and many media and he joins but they never this is ministration started out with the same premise that they need both sides around the table in order to negotiate over history but because the palestinians found out that this administration is completely tilted towards the israeli side they abandon the process rightfully or not and the israelis and americans continued alone

and what we have in front of us. is a and the alleged peace proposal that completely neglects or disregards the palestinian side you know if it is even and as an israeli when i look at it and i try to analyze it one has to wonder what are the chances of success of a one sided plan designed to create a 2 sided agreement while i actually would take an issue with that because specifically sad that eve the palestinians were to come to the negotiating table they would be rewarded with flexibility and we often hear that indeed the palestinians were excluded from the process but aren't they actually in a much stronger position now than they have every been to demand what they really want because they champ team is describing the proposal that they have on the table as an opening bid this is not a final agreement and the palestinians if they want to can still try to twist both

of these railways in the americans into giving them more that's a critical point and i would argue that the americans have already retreated from their original position because when this whole thing was presented and discussed for almost 3 years now the russian no that was presented was this is going to be a take it or leave it proposition and as late as just one week ago trump was quoted as saying that you know both sides will have 6 weeks to decide if they want to enter into it or not. the americans probably because of the kind of reactions that they're getting behind the scenes are as you say at least some of them there there are mixed messages on bail is saying ok let the palestinians propose a counteroffer and some are saying still that this is a take it or leave it proposition this is why fingers need to happen very quickly and gently and so on so i think there is

a little bit of. susan there but i think you would agree and everybody looking at this plan would agree that it attempts to try and shape the contours of negotiations and the final agreement even if rhetorically telling the palestinians the big guys still have some room to maneuver i think you know if i were a palestinian or anybody looking at this subject of business for both i would not see a lot of potential for the palestinians to change significantly any of the articles of the agreement mr ason hasn't that always been the case because for example norway's leading authority on negotiations he'll be a blogger who looked into the history of the oslo process to be hasta of the you know we just ministry of foreign affairs way back in early 2000. concluded that the whole process was always conducted on israel's promises that norway was essentially

acting ass quote unquote israel's helpful errand boy sure they trumpet ministration is far more averts i would say far more transparent in its bias for israel but hasn't done bias always been a bad hit in the peace process again good point and a valid $1.00 and $1.00 could argue that there was a tilt towards his run in previous attempts as well one could say that this is kind of built into the asymmetries between the 2 sides obviously the palestinians are the weaker side and israel is the stronger side the us was always tilted towards israel other media to respect less so but nevertheless it's clear that the palestinians have always been on the weaker side of the equation and that has been the case always i'm sure when they agree with me from your personal experience i mean my family experience surely tells me that a weaker side sometimes has far more power of the proverbial stronger side and i

think the main do. cision that most would that boss and people around him will have to make at this point with regards to this proposal or any other would be not about law but the rather about time whether to continue insisting on the 1967 terms or a broad embrace the reality of 2020 and it's undoubtedly a very difficult choice they'll be doomed either way but as an israeli what do you think would serve the palestinian people of believing and future palestinian people better well frankly the main problem the palestinians have is the problem of legitimate leadership and unified the ship because there are if you will between the west bank and gaza and between fatah and hamas and because obama's and as a leader has lost a lot of his legitimacy this is part of the explanation of their even relative weakness and i think that unless and until the quote unquote put their act together

and elect a new legitimate unified democratic leadership i think they won't be able to advance forward on any idea of the $67.00 to the old idea or this plan they simply lacks legitimacy i would add to that that i think they're split not only between the 2 territories or between the 2 governments but also between several generations essentially they now have to choose between their grandparents and their grandchildren and he my personal opinion as much as we are obliged to respect our ancestors i think we owe no more to the current and future generations now trump is approaching that from his very american tallis position he's offering $50000000000.00 in development founds to the palestinians and he's advised and summon a son in law already said that he has secured soft commitments for much of that money do you think that can entice the palestinians to. at least give it

a look if not the try unfortunately not. first of all this is in the sky it's not american money and the question of can say that he has soft commitments i think they're most often commitments secondly all of the 5050 by the way is not so much as what they have at the moment that's still something. yes but i don't think you can buy off national aspirations and legitimate rights by any amount of money sort of not this kind of money and it's not even really money but is it really really about buying off because for the 1st time the palestinians are offered the concrete contours of their future state it's not like they are. not given anything in return and israel according to these plan also have to make certain concessions the territorial concessions should we really frame that in the

same old language of selling off your grandparents why shouldn't be reframed into something more positive like for example securing batter life for your grandchildren let's take a step back and try to give as much as possible an objective assessment of what is being all food and really try to distance also from an israeli or a palestinian perspective ok on territories previous agreements semi agreements understandings negotiations have spoken about anywhere between 2 and 80 percent off the west bank territory being next by israel in exchange for land swaps. this one talks about 30 percent rather than 2 or 830 percent is to add say on that keep in mind there's a still ask them it's a no concrete figure no no no you're wrong i'm sorry there is a there is a man i think this map past still to be negotiated it's not like as sealed decision

that no no no no you're wrong. you know wrong then for with all due respect you're wrong what the way i understand it ok and i'll be happy to to revise myself but my understanding so far is what i'm saying is wrote is allowed 30 percent of the west bank which includes the jordan valley and all of the territories of the settlements existing settlements and the areas around them for zoning and planning purposes only known for the person well mr this is indeed a crucial point a lats go back to you in just a few moments we have to take a very short break now but we will be back very soon stay tuned. join me every thursday on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to guests of

the world of politics sports business i'm showbusiness i'll see you then. welcome back to worlds apart with aaron that's on for my deputy had off israel's national security council to absent just before the break we started talking about land swaps and you were mentioning that israel now has an opportunity to annex as you said up to 30 percent of the west bank territory but that's not the whole deal because one of the trump proposals is suggesting is swapping some land that is

currently internationally recognized. palestinian and occupied by israel that is primarily like a date in the west bank for the land that is internationally recognized as israeli and located in the proximity to gaza so it's not just taking everything from the palestinians it's also giving something in return and the question i want to ask you is whether you think it's an aqua to blow proposition in cultural religious economic and security terms for both sides right so as i was saying i was comparing it to previous plans previous plans spoke about 2 to 8 percent this one speaks about 40 percent and you are right it does mention land swaps which were all or also mentioned in previous plans but the land swaps are approximately 14 percent so we're talking about a net annexation by israel of 16 percent of the west bank and i don't think this is for the palestinians this is essential to a nonstarter add to that the fact that it renders the palestinian mini state

completely non contiguous and it contradicts and not only do those vocal about every other again attempt negotiations international resolutions and so on it's essential it gives them something that may be. nominally termed as a state but cannot really be seen objectively as anything resembling a real estate so i think on land and on statehood this is drastically worse from a palestinian perspective and again from an objective perspective compared to previous plans and to that the security the overwhelming security responsibility that israel has always demanded and is now getting it is complete control of the airspace. there it's already waters in front related to gaza any border crossings between palestine or israel and jordan and gaza and egypt

the. electromagnetics fear and so on the so for the palestinians really will not have independence in terms of running their foreign relations security domain economic relations or anything else if there will be essentially relatively large but this contiguous enclave within israel proper when you compare that to an ideal picture of what the palestinians would like to have this is certainly bad but when you compare it to the reality this is more than they have at the moment and in a conflict like that even a conflict like that is everest solved it will inevitably leave everybody short of what they wanted the question is not to have their it fulfills the maximum expectations but the rather whether the the bare minimum is satisfied and from your answer i'm i'm hearing that you believe that it's an absolute nonstarter for the palestinians 1st of all yes but i don't think this is the right formulation of the

question when you talk about such conflicts international conflicts long and long standing as you mentioned earlier religious historic territorial and so on demographic conflicts one needs to take a balanced look at any kind of a proposal and in order for this to work and to produce stability you have to as you say satisfy the minimum demands of both sides from a long term perspective and i think this plan not only fails it doesn't even try to satisfy the basic interests of the palestinian people the way they describe them and let's talk about what will happen ok what i think will happen as a result of this number one it will strengthen those on the palestinian side who already wished and are now strengthened in their desire to abandon the so-called 2 state solution and 4 and one state what they would call

a one state solution i would call it once the situation. because it's inherently unstable and it's not a solution it's something that majorities both israeli side and on the palestinian side to object to but this would now be enhanced because of the way this plan was formulated and is that this is also a little bit of a pie in disguise you were previously predicting the failure of the plan i mean that these are all hypothetical let's about to talk about the the current reactions to these deal which i think were far more muted than many have expected and speaking particularly about the palestinian authority we haven't heard any threats of action mahmoud abbas didn't cut off security cooperation with israel although he did say that he's people will throw these deal of the century into the garbage can of history do you take that as a positive on negative reaction because it's hard to tell i think it is an initial reaction. i think he was also taken by surprise like everybody else in terms of the

timing of the publication of the plan and maybe also some of its contents and was also taken by surprise by the muted reaction of the arab states and maybe some of the european states maybe also russia. is finding out unfortunately from his perspective that his more and more isolated and i don't think we have seen the last of his reactions and as you know we are trying to get in are a big resolution and would probably also attempt maybe a move at the u.n. and so on the question i think on his mind and on everybody's mind is no not so much about the tears of the play but on if and what if this plan would actually be implemented unilaterally by israel in the coming weeks before the march 2nd elections now mr absalom you mansion the reaction of the arab states and russia and i do want to talk about that but before we do that let's talk about these really

reaction which i thought well. far more positive not only among the arriving as you have a large but more broadly that i now his main challenger and they have coming elections late tonight general jim gans was also present in the white house when the deal was rolled valid and yukon in charge prayed god as anything but a symbolic blasting and a desire to be part of it what do you make off move to broaden the pool of potential israeli stakeholders isn't that the sign off perhaps he's will team confidants in nappanee a whole i please don't ask for it at how the bats had of the march elections i think it was a smart move on trump's understanding that the neo's relative weakness and very real prospect of nothing now is a losing the election or some other way shape or form having to face trial as we know he was indicted he relinquished his immunity in just

a few days ago and there's no doubt anymore that he will have to stand trial either as prime minister or as just a member of knesset or maybe he would resign when those so i think smartly took care to invite the guns which is the main contender in terms of the reaction of guns and doing what you're right it was one of the one of positive reaction let's split hairs here and see a what's called the denominator we can identify and what are the differences between these 2 main political blocs in israel the common denominator is they both acknowledge accept the trump plan as a positive plan and this is natural because everything we've discussed so far shows that from a purely israeli perspective it gives israel what it always demanded around the negotiating table and then so this is where the 2 parties and the 2 contenders

actually. agree where they disagree is where a gun says this is a good plan this is a good starting point i want this to be the basis of negotiations but the emphasis is on the goetia i want to negotiate with the palestinians with the arabs with the international community and i want to take any unilateral action without coordination with the international community incidentally that's also what the so-called international community is saying because if we look at the reactions of other interested parties from it jim to jordan to russia nobody rejected the deal out of hand in fact all these nations statements urging both sides to embark on direct negotiations and consider the proposal on its merits is then. perhaps the international community may also indeed be open q abandoning the old framework for settling these conflicts i think 1st and foremost it is

a signal of the disunity of the international community and of the fear if you will and terence that trump has managed to inspire all across the international community and the region nobody wants to or almost nobody was doing steps enough oversleep iran turkey and maybe a few others nobody wants to be seen as kind of could i do wish trump personally however this should not be mistaken at least in terms of some of the. parties involved as as endorsement it's not indorsement it's a cautious reaction designed to a number one not provoke trump number 2 not take any unnecessary risks and kind of a wait and see approach if you will more than anything else wait and see what would happen in the israeli elections with it wait and see what would happen on the ground what would be the arab reaction and so on well i. i want to ask you

specifically about the russia's reaction and i think you can't have accused russia of hearing trauma too much i mean the relationship is there between our countries are as bad as it can ever be but i was personally surprised by how both muted though almost encouraging it has been so far in fact some analysts speculate that god the kremlin may tacitly in-doors the deal if that is indeed the case do you think it may improve the proposals chances of success well 1st we don't have enough time to go into another 6 of us russia relations but i would argue that one needs to differentiate very sharply between the trump putin relation and the us russia relations trumpeting relations are interesting and kind of. mutually conducive if you want the u.s. russia relations are probably not the worst ever but i would certainly not describe

them as positive relations with respect to the reaction to the plan and the potential of. cooperation between russia and the u.s. on the plan. i think there's an interesting prospect here if we look back at previous. peace initiatives such as the madrid conference and others the russia us cooperation on any kind of a peace plan is very powerful because traditionally of course from difference through perspective in the our perspective the choice was always kind of between the american camp and the russian was were not of the cold war in the us or still there is a lot of this residual strategic thinking in the hearts and minds of many including obama's and who as we know has studied in russia and has kind of a warm special relations personal relations with with the russian state so i

do think there is potential here. i have to say that i will be surprised if there will simply be a whole hearted endorsement of the plan mr and so nobody's talking about whole hearted endorsement of the plan but i personally see and number of reasons why the kremlin the would one to facilitate transit mediation efforts not dillies because i think the logic of this proposal is far more in cuba with. the sort of the released approach that the kremlin preaches in international on the international irene and trying to solve these conflicts based on the reality itself $967.00 or even the early $99.00 is the also of course that you mentioned is an anachronism and maybe a tromp for the crown and to realize it i think beyond the question at this point is whether the palestinians will accept you but i guess we'll have to wait and see

in the meantime mr apjohn thank you very much for sharing your analysis with ask me have to leave it there but we really appreciate your being with us today thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to see you again next sunday on worlds apart. during the great depression which old mr remember there was most of the family were employed. there wasn't it was bit you know much worse objectively than today but there was an expectation that things were going to get better. there was a real sense of hope. there isn't today today's america was shaped by the turn

principles of concentration of wealth and power. reduced democracy attack solo do no engineer elections manufacture consent and other principles according to. one set of rules for the rich. that's what happens when you put her into the. roof will switch is dedicated to increasing virtue of just as you'd expect one of the most influential intellectuals of our time speaks about the modern civilization of america. let's talk about 20th century socialism this is when governments made mal investments and then they bailed out those mal investments and so the economy went

bankrupt versus 21st century capitalism this is when banks make malinvestment they when they go bad they bail out the malinvestment and that cycle continues until the economy goes bust and that's more. are. you. that c. was.

the u.k. set sail from the e.u. on its post voyage but after 47 years of cooperation there physically economic storms on new to me and scotland to northern ireland. a peace comment triggers violence donald trump's accused of taking sides in the israel palestine conflict as the palestinian authority's cup ties on protests break out in the west bank. as fears globally of the corona virus outbreak that is a reported spike and discrimination against chinese people.