Speaker unverified: belief

Transcript context

…itics, you don’t have to like the guy. There was no question. Nobody argues it that whenever the negotiation started up, the Palestinians just kept saying the same things. No. No. They kept saying no. No. Professor Morris, with due respect, incorrect. They kept saying, “International legitimacy, international law, UN resolutions.” They said, “We already gave you what the law required. We gave that in 1988, November 1988, and then ratified again at Oslo in 1993.” And they said, “Now we want what was promised us under international law.” And that was the one point where everybody on the other side agreed. Clinton, don’t talk to me about international law. Livni during the Olmert administration. She said, “I studied international law. I don’t believe in international law.” Every single member on the other side, they didn’t want to hear from international law. And to my thinking that that is the only reasonable baseline for trying to resolve the conflict. And Israel has, along with the US- When has international law been relevant to any conflict basically in the world? That’s why- Over the last 150 years. That’s why the Palestinians have to recognize Israel because that’s international law. But international law is- [inaudible 03:58:00] have to recognize Israel because that’s international law. No, but international law is meaningless. That was UN Resolution 242. Conflicts are not solved by international law or in accordance with international law. Yeah. But then, Professor Morris, for argument’s sake, let’s agree on that, strictly for argument’s sake. What’s the alternative? Dennis Ross said, “We’re going to decide who gets what on the basis of needs.” So he says, “Israel needs this. Israel needs that. Israel needs that.” Dennis Ross decided to be the philosopher king. He’s going to decide on the basis of needs. Well, if you asked me, since Gaza is one of the densest places on Earth, it needs [inaudible 03:58:50]- Tel Aviv. Yes. It needs- It needs part of Sinai. That’s what Gaza- It needs a nice big chunk- Of Sinai. Not Sinai. That’s what it actually needs. Okay. I don’t even want to go there. It needs a nice big chunk, but I have to accept international law says no. Okay. International law is irrelevant. Now, Benjamin says, “I think the Israeli offer was reasonable.” Okay. And he’s a reasonable guy. You know that. Okay, I don’t want to go there. I’ve debated him and partly agree with you. But who decides what’s reasonable? I think the international community in its political incarnation, the General Assembly, the Security Council, all those UN Security Council resolutions saying the settlements are illegal, annexation of East Jerusalem is null and void, and the International Court of Justice, that, to me, is a reasonable standard. And by that standard, the Palestinians were asked to make concessions, which I consider unreasonable or the international community considers unreasonable. tice, that, to me, is a reasonable standard. And by that standard, the Palestinians were asked to make concessions, which I consider unreasonable or the international community considers unreasonable. I think that the issue is when you apply international law or international standards, I wouldn’t say what Benny Morris says, that they’re irrelevant, but I think that these have to be seen as informing the conversation. I don’t think these are the final shape of the conversation. I don’t think, historically, Israel has ever negotiated within the strict bounds of whether we’re talking Resolution 242, whether we’re talking about any General Assembly resolutions. That’s just not how these negotiations tend to go. You might consider international opinion on things, but at the end of the day, it’s the bilateral negotiations, oftentimes historically started in secret, independent of the international community, that end up shaping what the final agreements look like. I think the issue with this broad appeal to international law is, again, going back to my earlier point about all of the euphemistic words, all it simply does is drive Palestinian expectations up to a level that is never going to be satisfied. For instance, you can throw that ICJ opinion all you want, it was an advisory opinion, that came in 2004, how Palestinians gained more or less land since that 2004 advisory opinion was issued. So what would your standard be then? Both sides have to have a delegation that confronts each other and they assess the realistic conditions on the ground, and they try to figure out, within the confines of international law- See, the problem with that- … [inaudible 04:01:13] both sides are reasonable for. But for instance, this statement of retreat from the West Bank. What is it? 400,000 settlers? How many settlers live in the West Bank now? Probably half a million. Yeah. Depends if you include the Jerusalem suburbs or not. Yeah. 4 or 500,000 people. I think it’s 700,000. With the Jerusalem suburbs, perhaps. Yeah. Half a million people are- But Israel calls that Jerusalem, not settlements. I know that, but that’s not what the law… The law calls it null and void. [inaudible 04:01:34]. The law is irrelevant. We can say whatever we want until we’re blue in the face, but half a million Israeli people are not being expelled from [inaudible 04:01:41]. It’s not going to happen. My response… You’re basically saying, if I understand correctly, there’s only one way to resolve this, and that is through direct bilateral negotiation? Probably, yeah. Okay. Or ideally. So I’ve taken over your house. Okay. You’re not going to go to the police because the law is only of limited value. So you come over and sit in what is now my living room that used to be your living room and we negotiate. The problem there is that you’re not going to get anything unless I agree to it. And standards and norms and law and all the rest of it be damned. So you need to take into account that when you’re advocating bilateral negotiations that, effectively, that gives each of the parties veto power. And in the current circumstances, the Palestinians have already recognized Israel. ount that when you’re advocating bilateral negotiations that, effectively, that gives each of the parties veto power. And in the current circumstances, the Palestinians have already recognized Israel. You keep bringing that up like it’s a significant concession. It’s not true. It’s not true. It’s called the law. It’s not even true. It’s called the law. Even though they signed a piece of paper- The recognition from Palestine isn’t doing anything for- Hamas totally rejects- I’m not talking about Hamas. Hamas is the majority among the Palestinian people. They won the elections in 2006. Actually, they won a majority of the seats. Yes, exactly. They didn’t win a majority of the votes. Every opinion poll today says the majority of Palestinians- That sounds right. … support Hamas. That sounds right. And Hamas absolutely rejects Israel. So if Arafat, in 2003, 1993 or whatever, issued a sort of recognition of Israel- It wasn’t a sort of recognition. Okay, a recognition of Israel. It’s meaningless. It’s meaningless. It’s meaningless? Anyhow, I don’t believe that Arafat was sincere about it. Does it matter what you or I think about what he felt? Well, most Israelis do, and that does matter. Okay. That does matter. But Hamas says no and Hamas is the majority today. So for years, the Israeli and US demand was that the Palestinians recognize 242 and 338. They did. But you’re saying, “Okay, we demanded that they do this, but it was meaningless when they did it.” Then the demand was that- It was a tactical thing. Yes. Then the demand was that the PLO recognize Israel. Tactical. Okay, we demanded that they did this, and they did it, but it’s meaningless. And they never changed their charter, the PLO. You may remember that. In fact, in 19- They supposedly abrogated the old charter but never came up with a new one. No. So there’s no new [inaudible 04:04:05]. But in 1996- And Farouk Kaddoumi said, “Of course, the old charter is still enforced.” Yes, yes. But the point is, the Palestinians, demands are constantly made of them. And of Israel. And when they accede to those demands, they’re then told, “Actually, what you did is meaningless, so here’s a new set of demands.” I mean, it’s like a hamster- There’s no new set of demands. It’s like a hamster stuck in a wheel- No, no, let me tell you what the bottom line is. … that will be told, “If you run fast enough, you’ll get out of the cage.” No, no. The bottom line is that Israel would like a Palestinian Sadat. It wants the Palestinians… Listen. Listen. Just let me finish. This is really a worst-case scenario that you’re talking about now. Okay, let me just… Because they shot Sadat, but anyhow. For good reason. The Israelis- For good reason? … want the Palestinians… Israelis want the Palestinians to actually accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel and the Zionist project and then live side by side with them in two states. That’s what the Israelis… I don’t even know if it’s true- And what is the formal position- I don’t even know if that’s true today because there may be- And what is the formal position of this Israeli government? No, no. I’m saying I don’t know if it exists today.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.