for a mm hm. hello, welcome to wells apart, was considered, there was miles davis, if these railey palestinian conflict has long been overshadowed by many other hot wars. that it's still continuous influencing. geopolitics in barely perceptible. you have fundamental waste is a fair resolution even possible at this point and can these really palestinian

stalemate for any card one inside the war. and ukraine want to discuss that. i'm now joined from long done by daniel levy, a former israeli peace negotiator, and president of the us middle east project. it's really be great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you. i've done a good to be with you. now let me start with that and use the subject that is israel's old new prime minister benjamin netanyahu expressing his willingness and readiness to mediate the conflict in your cranny. all sides agreed to that. um, do you think israel or this israeli government in particular have a solid piece making credentials or potential for that matter? but it's an interesting way of approaching the question. no, i don't think it's prime minister netanyahu credentials is a peacemaker. of would possibly stand him in good stead to play a role in the ukraine crisis. he by mr. hutton,

you may well disagree with me and say, look, i've done amazing things between israel and certain gulf and arab states with the so called abraham records. but these were very much stitched together by the united states and given that the parties involved will not actually in any conflict situation, i don't think this really falls into the realm of peace making. so i don't think it's not in ya who's credentials as a peacemaker. open the possibility of him to have a rose in this crisis. what may open that possibility and i'd be very cautious in suggesting he has a role. but what melton, that possibility is that he does have a long standing relationship with president putin. nothing. yahoo is a known figure on the international stage. people may remember that the short lived

premier ship of natalie bennett. there was some sense that he might shuttle between the russian and ukrainian parties. i never took that seriously. i think if there is an opening for diplomacy, it might be that we can take nothin yahoo more seriously because he has that relationship on the western side. and on the russian side, i'm not sure the relationship with president lensky of ukraine exists. and i, i think that could become an obstacle, let zoom out a bit and just recognize that it doesn't feel like we're in a negotiating deal making moment at the moment. well, that's why here we are not there yet, but given your particular expertise in the israeli palestinian conflict, i wonder if we ever i'm going to be there given how many years it has taken. now i know that you've been instrumental to the 994. all the law courts. do you think

the international community perception of this conflict changed bittman now and 30 years ago, i would just not fill a position of humility but more even historical accuracy. i was involved in that but not instrumental. ok, well you've been involved in that because i believe by you william then in p, if am i wrong? no, no, you're not wrong in terms of my belief in peace. but i think sometimes frameworks ossify sometimes frameworks that were appropriate at a particular moment in history lose their ability to be relevant. and in that respect, i think we already deep into a reality in which the architecture of the peace process is not fit for purpose. if there is ever going to be a peaceful outcome on palestine, israel,

it will not be as a consequence of carrying on with the peace process, getting the parties to negotiate. there may have been a moment. i probably am on the side of those who think there was a possibility in the ninety's, but that framework really now just serves to perpetuate the conflict. and i think is important to recognize that when we talk about perpetuating the conflict, this is quite convenient for the israeli site. the price for these rady side is minimal, both in direct terms of casualties, but also internationally reputation. lee, israel does very well. economic is expanding its network of relations. it pays no price the its occupation and illegal annexation. but of course, it's the precise reverse for the palestinians. so the status quo is quite on

bearable for the palestinians in terms of the conditions under which they live. you mentioned in one of your article that the so called peace process to which outside power is including whole members of the un security council. family service has entered a new level of disconnection from reality to the extent of becoming little more than a rhetorical device. why do you think this rhetorical device is being maintained for so many years, rather than recognizing the ugly reality as it is? that's a very good question. because it's convenient. because if you are an actor in the international community who either does not want to link your bilateral relationship with israel, through its treatment of the palestinians. because bodies may be politically contentious in your domestic politics. maybe it's just awkward in terms

of commercial relationships, military relationships, technology relationships. then you stick with the convenient and because the conditions of the palestinians are not considered by enough people to beat sufficient reason to revisit their relations with israel and they are not sufficiently disruptive. we have a very weak palestinian leadership. therefore, the convenience remains. and i think for other countries who perhaps look at that equation and say that's not great. it's only going to get worse. it's explosive, it would be better if we could do something about it. they look at it and they say, oh yes i, i remember i have many other things that are a high priority for me as a stay tact from my national interests. i'm not going to volunteer to step into the

breach and lead on this. and if we're talking about the palestine, israel situation, there is a reality. there is a reality of america being very much the premise into power is the prime mover, almost having a monopoly on how the world relates to the situation. and america is neither willing to relinquish that role, nor to use that role to hold israel accounts willing to advance be slow. mr. b, i did want to discuss american policy in relation to some other countries and some other conflicts as well. but before we go there, you mentioned that for many countries, it's simply convenience. you go along with the set status. well, isn't it also so gratifying to return to the beef making efforts once upon a time and to sort of earn the some will good points of having tried to do something . i mean, is it simply a matter of it being, you know, so pragmatic war,

do you think in this case, perhaps this countries can also feel good about themselves about actually trying to do something by not doing anything? well, precisely, all, john, i think were well past that point. actually, i think anyone who, who thinks they look good at the moment. as a consequence of perhaps occasional rhetorical flourishes of sounding like you're a supporter of peace because you may mention to states or call on the parties to de escalate and negotiate. i don't think any one looks good, making that case set against the backdrop of the realities on the ground. if anything. and i will say this, i think the west in convincing much of the rest of the world on the particular point around ukraine and,

and russia's actions in ukraine. i think one of the problems to the west is the rest of the world looks at this and says, why are you applying one standard in this conflict? and you're ignoring those standards in other places. i think palestine is very high up there on the list of examples of where you do not apply the same stand. well, i think if you say that the world is out, well, how's the mark when it could genuinely approach any piece, making efforts on the you very with alice that bullet. any question? i think we are way past any qualms about the double standards i'm in. i don't think anyone question them at this point of time. they have become so obvious, but going back to israel, correct me some wrong. what i think israelis policy over the last couple of decades have been based on the promise that the reality on the ground be settlements or cross border strikes. i'm more and more and more sort of vital for israel's

position than any international public opinion. what aside your personal abuse on that, don't you think that that has been an effective policy especially given and we have discussed somewhat pretentious stance of the so called international community? well, i think there are 2 paul important points in relation to that box on the 1st is that you know, i do want to make clear that you, you are of course, absolutely. right. yeah. breaking news double standards. of course we're very, very used to this. it doesn't mean that there is not an intrinsic value to international law, whether it's applied to russia's illegal actions in ukraine. americans, illegal actions in iraq, israel's illegal actions in the occupied palestinian territories. we pay a price as a community of nations citizens here of this planet when we are so cynical in,

in our collective approach, each $1.00 in their own where it's convenient. yes. where it's not convenient, no inch the specific israeli palestinian incense this is exactly the point. the point is that the israelis of looked at this and they tested the proposition. can we get away with it and the result of the test as consistently been. oh boy, yes. we can very, very little costs. and so when people say to these railways, you come inside these radian tunnel debate. we called you that the world won't accept it. the lived experience of these rays is that every day you can violate international law. you can settled, you could entrench, you can impose permanent restrictions, freedom on palestinians, and the world exercises its vocal colds at best. but does not practically lift

a finger to hold you to account until that changes. i think we can expect things to only get worse and babs, much worse. it may be that the change is violence. this is what if, if your and non violent means don't do that job, then violence becomes the recourse. an armed resistance is of course, part of any conflict. well, necessarily mean we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back to this conversation in just a few moments. h in, ah, or he's got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy conference taishan, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic. development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful. very

particular. i'm time to sit down and talk with ah, hold them back to you as a partner with daniel levy, a former israeli peace negotiator and the president of the us middle is project. next time we meet before the break, here we were talking about various forms of by breaking international law. you mentioned the illegal russian actions in your brain, and i think legality is also,

you know, it has many degrees too. and i'm not asking you for any endorsement moral endorsement endorsement of the russian policy. i don't think russia requires that at this point or can hope for that at this point of time, but contrasting or comparing russian policy to died of israel. israel as far as i know, has been trying over the last couple of decades to entrench itself on the palestinian territories without formally annexing them and without formally taking responsibility for governing those territories properly for granting the people that proper rights that government services, you know that the ability to leave that lives. we and i think russia made a different choice is one where the annexation, which again, i'm not asking you to doors, but when it comes to international community, obviously an annexation is far more egregious. but isn't the same for the people

who leave on those territories? because as far as i'm concerned, i think it puts more honest, more responsibility on to the government governing governance to provide something for those people. well, yes, you're right. you won't get the endorsement. but what i'm drawing attention to is when international lori is broken, what i'm not drawing attention or suggesting is the same, is these different situations? i think what is more similar is where areas have been targeted with a clear expectation of civilian casualties. i think the question of annexation and assuming responsibility of course, it's also linked to what happens to the population in terms of has one encouraged forced population transpose,

something israel did with the palestinians at the moment of its creation in the 1947 to 1949 was, does one take responsibility for the populations that one has annexed among can make cases about the difference with crimea? for instance, no one gets into the question of how does one understand the absence of that annexation on the question of palestine, jerusalem was illegally annexed the golan heights, which is a situation between israel and syria, was illegally annexed. but as you point out, you have not seen the annexation of the west bank. hardly. that's an internal, political disagreement inside israel. but hopefully the way israel

work in the management of that situation was to create a palestinian authority. agree to the creation of that or 40 and this is why said the peace process. he's no longer fit for purpose. because over the years what we've seen is that that palestinian authority has increasingly become not a voice to palestinian liberation, but a sub sub contractor. so israel doesn't have to pay the donor community pays. israel doesn't have to amex and take responsibility and say all these people and out next to my territory. do i give them equal rights? do i formalize what organisations that issue rights? what should i missed? the international court system of a party. and then the other dynamic, of course, is what is the global geo political context in which one is operating? is it a context in which there is a very clear challenge to rush elections in ukraine? glass is a very clear acquiescence to israel's actions in palestine and it's when you put

all of those together that you begin to get a picture of okay, what can be done in this specific situation? now if i may draw one more parallel between days, really palestinian conflict, the stalemate, and the war in the crane. i think ultimately both of them are about the issue of land, you know, historic land well gets to leave on that land. which language should people encourage to speak which culture or religion they are allowed to practice and so on? do you think these railey policy and situation as far as any lessons here on what to do and what not to do to minimize 1st of all, the bloodshed and then historic hostility? i mean, i would add to the mix of the fact. as you mentioned, oksana of course, power our relations i think it's too early to make a designation as to whether one has a balance of power in the rash,

ukraine situation, in terms of the extent the longevity of western backing for ukraine. i, i simply don't know, though we know yet nor do i at least, abbot clear enough sense of how willing russia will be to invest over what period of time with what goals in mind in ukraine. so i think 11 has to kind of asked those questions about power relations and i think that that quite crucial. what i would say is where there is a complete absence of balance when there's such a huge a symmetry. when the external intervention is to increase the

a symmetry and here i'm talking about the palestine. israel situation, of course not the rushing grain situation. the idea that one can have 2 parties negotiating a solution from such positions of a symmetrical power, i think is a clear lesson from israel palestine. therefore, one has to level to a degree at least that a symmetry. so that israel has a degree of accountability before one can expect these radio to move if i can carried over to the russia ukraine situation. i think the less one of the things that i'm looking at that is the extent to which there is an absence of an attempt at politics and diplomacy. and not really worries me because your question was less than the bloodshed. part of the answer is don't conduct military actions where there is such a clear likelihood of civilian casualties. but another part of the answer is,

keep the doors open to diplomacy. have those channels and be watching that track the whole time. but i fear there is a real unwillingness to do that at the moment on the ukraine crises. and i've been a part of that is coming in significant measure from the west. well, speaking about the where the united states is the culture of player and the primary sponsor of one of the sites in both of this constantly. and i understood that your position has been the american policy is not the most conducive to piece at this point of time. but i wonder if you would expand more on this sort of whole policy because both in israel and the ukraine, what the united states is trying to ensure is having a foothold onto significant territory. and that is perhaps one of the reasons why there is no pushing the western side for peace because they, they, they intend to secure that would hold with themselves what would possibly encourage

them to. not necessarily let it go, but ting agreed that the ukraine could be a neutral territory, which i think would be quite satisfactory to russian in a way it's, it's, it's of course almost the opposite dynamic working in each of these situations. i have my own view of how the relationship between nato and the post soviet space was handled. i think this could have been avoided. i don't think ukrainian membership of nato was a serious enough prospect to have not offered clarity on i do think that you could make the case in the ukraine situation that had the west in not part of the world. simply said ok. it is what it is we,

we look the other way, let it standing would have been unprecedentedly weakened given where we are talking about geographically, given the continued existence of over nato. i think the question in that scenario is what point does one transition into the kinds of compromises that will probably be necessary to bring this to a close in the other situation rather than saying ok here we have a party that is able to get away with this how do we create a balance? it is it is absolutely refused itself from playing that role visa be depositing and, but i don't think it's about territory. i don't think it's about

a foothold and this is really important. i don't think those things apply to israel . palestine, i think what applies to israel palestine is primarily not only but primarily domestic american politics, which is always a factor, sometimes a dominant factor. it may be an important factor in holding back a diplomatic process in ukraine. i don't think we know that yet. it is certainly a factor in why we have not seen israel held to account and more prospect of peace in that area. now if i may ask one more question, we should have maybe they say those parallels are sufficient and let me know about that. but i find sometimes the current israeli politics and the current ukrainian politics, domestic politics, very similar in a sense that there is a lot of hard liners who can really and almost deliberately use vitro, like

a rhetoric in order to win votes. and there is absolutely no political punishment for that. i think at some point it became a political necessity to be as hard liners in a small because you can be towards your neighbor in order to get to power. now, do you think this political dynamic would have been in place in both israel and ukraine if it weren't for a very powerful foreign backing? do you think those conscious would have been able to maintain this kind of political discourse? very davis was hatred. if they were left to their own devices, if they had to manage their own security on their own. so 1st of all, i don't think that description of the drivers of an internal debate a unique to ukraine or israel. i don't think also they're not unique ukraine in that complex or being in a different political scenario. but hard line rhetoric is coming from from at least

both directions. your specific question i think is important. the both of the conflicts you refer to and well beyond that. and it's the question of moral hazard, as i would call it. which is. if you have an external backer, blurt gives the impression, at least they will have your back. if you do things that are dangerously escalator, it and that's the moral hazard that you are then more likely to do those things. and that's why your external backers would be well advised to not encourage you to indulge in overreach. now, i would argue that it may well be too early to suggest that is in play in terms of ukrainian dynamics. and what ukraine has faced in terms of the attack on ukrainian

sovereignty. i think after so many years, we can make a pretty clear designation that that is the case on these rightly side. and so what you see is not israel under some kind of onslaught, but in the context of permanent occupation, you have still more extreme policies. narratives rhetorics these be the palestinians, coming out of the israel government. mr. lenee, it's been great pleasure talking to you. thank you very much for that. thank you. it's on and thank you for watching focus here again on well, the part ah ah,

ah luis hunter, russian state will never see as tight as i'm phoning or something with stevie when else with we will then in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on to rush up to date and even our video agency, roughly all band on youtube. and still with

me. a iranian president, right? these 1st ever state visit to china is to kick off on tuesday. it come does beijing and her on to expand their economic cooperation despite growing pressure from the west. and as ukraine shells, cities in the bath using nato supplied weapons, the block secretary general urges the alliance to ramp up production fun. today, march 20 years since the un report on the absence of weapons of mass destruction in iraq, which was insufficient to stop the us from starting the war actively justified by western media, one war reporter hears her memories of the events. i went out with

a unit, there was.