hello and welcome to worlds apart albert einstein is often credited for defining insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result this is the argument behind the trumpet ministrations deal of the century aimed at hooting and to these really palestinian conflict is the american president indeed insane or perhaps a genius for breaking with the old framework to discuss that i'm now joined by.

former deputy israel's national security council is to ask the un it's good 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 don't all champ and benjamin netanyahu are unbearably vain the times i think of 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 negative ways 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 asio and i know that you are very critical of the deal as are many. negotiators former negotiator on both of these really and 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 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 negotiating team started with a huge fat chance of success you made a point in one of your recent articles that the goal of these deal as you see that is to smash the oslo accords as well as to state idea as such has been the oslo process been clinically dads long before tromp was even they lacked it to office well this plan finds israeli palestinian conflict

a certain juncture we all agree i think those who supported all slow and those who are against arsenal 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 and there's 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 all spaces to get to some sort of a compromise an agreement yet that merican 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. bandon the process rightfully or not and the israelis and americans continued alone and while we have in front of us is a and alleged peace proposal that completely neglects or disregards the palestinian side you know even 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 are they actually in

a much stronger position now than they have every been to demand what they really want because the 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 now 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 would 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 was saying ok let the palestinians propose a calm. they're all for 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 confusion there but i think you 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 that they still have some room to maneuver i think you know if i were a palestinian or anybody looking at this objective is a for both the i would not see a lot of potential for the palestinians to change significantly any of the articles of the agreement mr ass and 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 of the behalf of the you

know we can minister 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 as quote unquote israel's helpful errand boy sure the trumpet ministration is far more a virtue i would say far more transparent in its bias for israel but hasn't done by it's 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 israel 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 through his pants 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 with 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 decision that my food the 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 the leaving 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 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 at the visor. 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 there are most often commitments secondly all of the 5050 by the way is not so much as to what they have at the moment but still something. yes but i don't think you can buy off national aspirations and reject them and writes 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 battery life for your children 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 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. you create fear no no no you are wrong i'm sorry there is a there is a man i think these maps past still to be negotiated it's not like as seal decision that now no no no no you're wrong you're wrong and for with all due respect you're wrong what the way i understand it ok and i'll be happy to revise myself but my understanding so far is what i'm saying is wrote is allowed 50 percent of the west bank which includes the jordan valley and all 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 alas 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 states.

what politicians do. put themselves on the line they get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be president. some want to. have 2 going to be press as a white woman for 3 of them or 10 people. i'm interested in the waters of our.

welcome back to worlds apart and that's. and for my deputy had these relics 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 what the trump proposal is suggesting is swapping some land that is currently internationally recognized as palestinian and occupied by israel that is primarily like a tit in the west bank for the land that is internationally recognized as israeli blockade is 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 an ex ation but is run of 16 percent of the west bank and i don't think this is for the palestinians this is a century 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 no codes but every other again attempts negotiations international resolutions and so on it's essentially 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 to the. it's 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 and the border crossings between palestine or israel and jordan and gaza and egypt the electromagnetics fear and so on and so for the palestinians really will not have independence in terms of running their foreign relations security domain economic relations or anything else 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 bad there it fulfills the maximum expectations but the problem 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 at least a 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. 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 no strengthened in their desire to abandon the so-called 2 state solution and all the 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 for and israeli side and on the palestinian side 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 and this guy you were previously predicting the failure of the plan i mean that these are all hypothetical let's back 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 do you know of this 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. he 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 now. not so much about the tears of the player but on if and what this plan will 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 was far more positive not only among the arriving as you have a large but more broadly now i now his main challenger and they have coming elections late tonight general jim and gans was also present in the white house when the deal was rolled valid and u. conn interpreted that 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 seem confidantes in nappanee a whole i pleased that the efforts at the hygiene 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 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 guns which is the main contender in terms of the reaction of guns and bill and what you're right it was going on a 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 some 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 you look at the reactions of

other interested parties from egypt 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 isn't that a sign that 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 terrence 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. ball. it is involved as as an endorsement it's not endorsed meant it's a cautious reaction designed to a number one not provoke trump number to 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 these really elections with it wait and see what would happen on the ground what would be the arab reaction and so on well i want to ask you specifically about the russia's reaction and i think you cannot accuse russia of during 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 speculated bob 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 an analysis of us russell 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 different 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 would be surprised if there would 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 conflict based on the realities of 967 or even the early 99 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 it but i guess we'll have to wait and see in the meantime mr apjohn thank you very much for sharing your analysis with asked 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.

join me every thursday on the alex simon show and i'll be speaking to guest on the world of politics sports business i'm show business i'll see you then. both of those. are the least. least.

least. just days out of prison and a prime time to kill and suspect good terrorist is shot and killed by police in london after stabbing 3 people and what authorities are probing as is the most inspired time. peace plan that triggers violence accused of taking sides in the middle east as palestinian authorities cut ties with washington and israel and protests break out in the west bank also ahead. of. the u.k. set sail from the e.u. on its post brigs it a voyage but after 47 years of cooperation there are fears of economic storm.