Israel, Israel Palestine, Kushner Jared Kushner discussed on Worldly
It's finally here. The trump administration after teasing it for months maybe even years depending on how you time it has released its vision for Israel Palestine peace and it turns out. It's not so much a peace plan as it is a give everything everything Israel wants plan and then hope that leads to something that might be better. We'll get into whether there's actually any real aspirations for peacemaking in this plan and what it actually proposes today worldly part of the Vox media podcast network at beach. I'm here with Jim. Williams and Alex Ward. Hey team guest today That is call it L. Gandhi. He is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. And one of America's top experts on Israel Palestine. Really things He's sleep lanching when I say that Welcome welcome thanks could be the plan. It's here it's been called Depending on what you look at from prosperity to piece the deal of the century is a term that I think trump came up with making fun of it also calls itself the Vision inside the texts. So you know. Let's let's talk a little bit about what it actually does. I've set this up to be pretty bad right so called run. Run down the sort of big picture rules of the game as laid out in the deal. Yes so the the plan lays out out what it calls a vision for a two-state solution in theory At least that's how they're they're couching it. So the Palestinian state that they're describing basically would consist of about seventy percent of the West Bank In kind and of a fragmented Areas that are linked together through a network of tunnels and bridges and various infrastructure. But not actually actually territorially contiguous in addition to some swops In inside Israel In the south as well was A little bit in the north So that's the centerpiece of their plan. which is this Palestinian state that is essentially completely surrounded by Israel? So that's on On territory On Security Israel would have full control over everything between the Mediterranean NC and the Jordan River including the airspace territorial waters electromagnetic sphere Entering exit points The Palestinian NIAN quote state would not have the ability to enter into treaties with with foreign countries And of course Israel has overriding security. Control over the entire blanket area on Jerusalem Jerusalem is exclusively. Israel's capital of Palestinians. Estonians would be allowed to have a capital near Jerusalem. They could call it Jerusalem if they so desired but it would be outside. The plan is pretty clear that it would be outside of the security barrier or the wall as Palestinians call it and The plan is also explicit on the third major issue final-status issue which is Palestinian refugees and It stays pretty clearly that no single Palestinian refugee would be allowed to return to to to their homes in Israel and instead would have the choice between going back to a Palestinian entity to be resettled where they are in neighboring Arab states or in third countries and some sort of compensation package would be put together Over the long term. All all of this is contingent on obviously Palestinian acceptance but more importantly the Palestinian Entity could not come into into being until a whole array of Conditions had been matt the disarming of Hamas A long list of fiscal reforms of legal reforms. That Palestinians have to enact certain kinds of legislation and the decision as to win Palestinians met that threshold would be decided by Israel so it's a theoretical quote unquote state and one that frankly isn't all that appealing to Palestinians in the first place and as you said I mean pretty much gives Israel everything that it wanted An and I I should clarify. It's a wishlist not just for Israel but for Israel's right-wing explicit distinction because when I'm talking about Israel here I'm talking about the current government which does not represent the views of arguably most of the Israeli public depending and how you cut the polling right about half rough. Yeah Yeah Yeah but you know pretty. Remarkably the plan has the support of of Netanyahu's opposition of the Ben against the blue and white a coalition and even the president of Israel whose largely in a ceremonial remonial role. But still has influences and is seen as somewhat of a moderate And so there is a kind of Israeli consensus in Israeli early politics about this is a great plan and we should get on board I think the only real descent on this planet. Israel is coming from the joint lists which of course is predominantly lately made up of of Palestinian citizens of Israel and they're pretty much in the margins of Israeli politics so you know I think it's reflective of just how far to the right as really politics has moved In in recent decades there is much less support for the the plan. Here here we see Democrats especially being quite vocal in opposing it as a sham as a farce They're using that sort of language. Both Bernie Sanders offers and Elizabeth Warren. For example have criticized the plan. And we've seen a number of progressive members of Congress Also come out against the plan and I think that reflects a shift that's happening in American politics but from the standpoint of the Palestinians. This plan does not offer I mean it takes takes all of the issues that they care about a capital in Jerusalem. the refugees not even a symbolic Number of refugees that would be allowed to return and most importantly sovereignty self-determination are all off the table and so the vision that the trump plan represents is something thing more akin to Bantustans Than it is to to anything that we might call estate inside. What's advantage Stan? Bantustans were in south South Africa. These autonomous supposedly autonomous areas for black South Africans and as a way of segregating them from The white South African minority but still while claiming the black a majority had autonomy or statehood or sovereignty not And so these were sort of Isolated autonomous areas that were surrounded by South th Africa in Control very very similar to the plan that was laid out by the trump administration. So this sounds like apartheid. Then well that is that's the stick critique of it right is that it will lead to a permanent apartheid situation formalized and permitted by the United States right. I think the question of whether whether or not that is what the trump people wanted or thought of it is sort of separate and it's weather. I do think that it's hard to describe the end vision of this plan as anything but that so I wanna kind of step back just for a minute to kind of talk about how the the trump administration presented this. Right what the Just to kind of give listeners offensive you know how they are trying to sell this deal They essentially said Kushner Jared Kushner so that's White House senior adviser adviser and obviously trump's son-in-law He was the basically the grand architect this plan along with a core group of negotiators well. They're really negotiations gauthier shins but Core Group of advisers with them but they're essentially he's approach was look we've had these previous agreements over and over again. We've had all these negotiations none. None of them have ever actually led to complete final-status negotiations because all of these previous plans left the nitty gritty details to the end they laid out this broad framework during work like the Oslo process and basically said at the very end then the two sides. The Israelis in the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank will come together and and you guys will work out the saddest roussel. You guys will work out. You know land swaps in the West Bank and who you know which Pertz of of the West Bank Israel retains means which part are takes keeps in which parts you know will be a contiguous theoretically Palestinian state anyway so it was basically we. Don't WanNa get into the details tells but Kushner's approach was look. That didn't work so I'm going to go ahead and just decide the details for you guys. We're going to sit down. We're going to write down the details. We're going to have a very detailed the proposal and in that sense he succeeded right it is it does say no here. Here are the lines that are going to divide you. Divide or not divide Jerusalem as the case as maybe Here or the actual pieces of land you get you know Israel gets this thirty percent chunk of the West Bank. Meanwhile in return Palestinians Estonians. You got these two areas that are undeveloped. Land in the desert on the border Sinai in the border with Egypt And so that was basically the approach right. Look we're we're GONNA try this different method we're gonNA actually put it out there and you guys can take it or leave The problem is and we're GONNA get into that. Is that in doing so so they have actually made policy stated. US policy to be things that we hadn't stated before definitively that would be something we would support as a final status. We always said No. Leave it up to you guys. And that has essentially given Netanyahu at green light. So I think my favorite discussion discussion of the deal from jared and there have been many sort of cringe worthy interviews. Alex actually did a good piece on this For Vox is the time that he claimed that he read twenty twenty five bucks on the Israel Palestine conflict. It's on my head of started calling this jared's book report on the Israeli Palestinian conflict I think that that but sort of encapsulates the degree in care of thought that went into this. Because it's billed as a peace plan right but it was done in the way that Jen was describing without any consultation with one of the two sides that was supposed to sign on right like this was done by the trump administration in consultation with the Israelis elise with absolutely zero Palestinian. Buying whatsoever right. It isn't an attempts to say. Okay here's a mutually agreeable compromise. It's an attempt to dictate terms and I think the the best piece of commentary defending this deal which I think encapsulates the real spirit of it in a way. The trump administration won't won't actually say is this piece in the Washington Post by Isreaeli News analyst Eilon Levy and key the title of the piece is Israel won. He's really Palestinian conflict. Any plan has to reflect that and the court argument comes a little bit down And I want to read a short paragraph because I think it really is sort of an honest encapsulation of what's is happening throughout history. The victors always dictated. The ultimate terms of peace is that fair. Maybe is that how the world works in reality. Yes conflicts don't end when both sides agree agree that they are tired of fighting they end one side. The loser recognizes it. Can't keep up the battle and decides to get what it can before things get worse and there I think it is. It's red eye. I find this morally repugnant. As an argument right like it's basically a claim that anytime that somebody is victimized by another side international politics they just have to give up right and there's no such thing as fairness yeah. It's it's the million dialogue for those I are nerds. Who are listening here? just apply to the Israel Palestine in conflict But for those of us who have been committed to kind of just two state solution for a while and I grew up in a Jewish Zionist left-wing household. That was like our mantra growing up. This is a slap in the face and really quickly I mean. The trump administration had been pretty explicit leading up to the release that look Israel is has the advantage in Palestine does not and therefore it kind of has to accept some of these terms. I it mirrors or if not you know lends credence to that. That's the argument argument at least the thinking within the White House. I am not an expert on this situation but I am focused. A lot on trump's foreign policy was sort of a bigger stance and and I've talked to Jen about this. I kind of see this from the view like yet another maximum pressure campaign by the by the trump residents. They like that but just on the Palestinians I I. It's you know again. This is kind of like giving Palestine and ultimatum or something that is is the hope is would scare them so much that they would come to the table and look. It's one thing to do that against A nuclear power like North Korea. It's another thing to do it against Iran which you know you've you supports terrorism and has missile program in might someday one a nuclear weapon as nothing to do it against Venezuela for To It's a it's a more tenuous situation but A leader later that has completely decimated as country and there's another opposition leader. WHO's has the respect of you know? Tens of other countries but to do it against Palestinians is morally repugnant and You know the the. There's just nothing it's not like they're really going against a lot of aims of course Hamas yes but this is not a designed this kind kind of design just doesn't really make sense for this situation..