America can't ever be neutral when it
comes to Israel of the Jewish people
Jerusalem the u.s. funds the Israeli
military to the tune of three billion
dollars a year at the UN Israel has no
stronger advocate than the United States
does against and when it comes to the
neverending peace process with the
Palestinians
critics say Israel could have a more
favorable mediator America will stand by
the side of Israel every step of the way
and all the while Israel's expansionist
settlement project shatters Palestinian
dreams of statehood my guest tonight has
been at the heart of us-israel relations
for decades and has been a trusted
adviser to presidents and secretaries of
state alike it's been my conviction for
40 years
that peace is possible but after the
latest failure has this former
negotiator now changed his tune I'm Mary
Hasan and I've come here to the Oxford
Union to go head-to-head with Martin
Indyk former US ambassador to Israel who
served as President Obama's special
envoy on the Middle East I'll challenge
him on whether his country has acted as
Israel's lawyer at the expense of the
peace process and why it is that the
United States always seems to have
Israel's back no matter what
tonight I'll also be joined by dr. Garda
Carmy a Palestinian author and activist
and research fellow at the University of
Exeter's Institute of Arab and Islamic
studies rachel char be an award-winning
journalist and author of not the enemy
Israel's Jews from Arab lands and
professor Allen Johnson senior research
fellow at bike on the Britton Israel
communications and research centre
ladies and gentlemen please put your
hands together for Martin Indyk
currently executive vice president at
the influential Brookings Institution in
Washington DC he also led the most
recent u.s. attempt to restart peace
talks in 2013 Martin Indyk your former
boss US Secretary of State John Kerry
has said that the United States can
quote serve as the facilitator the
honest broker in an effort to reach a
peace deal in the Middle East but given
the u.s. supports funds arms Israel the
occupying power that's nonsense isn't it
the United States has never been an
innocent abroad to quote the title of
your book it's never been an honest
broker well maybe first of all thank you
for having me I I would say that the
United States is pro-israel and that's
what gives it its influence in the peace
process and that's the heart of the
matter
we are not neutral we don't claim to be
neutral we have an alliance with Israel
but in order to achieve another interest
that we have which is peace in the
region stability in the region and and a
settlement that provides for the
legitimate national rights of the
Palestinians we need to be able to
influence Israel Israel as you say is
the octopods I worked out for over 30
years well it's worked out very well in
the case of Egypt it worked out well in
the case of Jordan and we're still
working at it in the case of the
Palestinians most people when they look
at this subject would say you know if
you were going through problems with
your wife god forbid and you had to get
marriage counseling would you ask your
wife's best friend to do the counsel
sure you would I was probably the only
man fully understand my wife would know
how to influence my wife absolutely
seriously
absolutely you think that marry Sansa
should be done by dealing with marriage
counseling here it's an analogy it's a
point that most people understand that
if you want to broker an agreement
between two sides you have to have some
credibility with both sides you can't be
seen as Israel's lawyer
that is not a role that we should play
and when I was in the negotiations now
heading them up for secretary Kerry it
was a promise that I made to the
Palestinians that we would not
coordinate with the Israelis and agree
on the with the Israelis in advance and
try to impose it on but in earlier
negotiations you accept the Americans
did that there were times when we did it
David example in 2000 the line about
Israel's lawyers from your former State
Department colleague Aaron David Miller
who advised six secretaries of state on
Middle East negotiations he said at Camp
David
US officials acted as Israel's attorney
catering and coordinating with the
Israelis at the expense of successful
peace negotiations he says both he and
you brought a clear pro-israel
orientation to the u.s. peace process
planning yes I am pro-israel and proud
of it but I'm also Pro peace and
determined that the best way to serve
the the Israel that I believe in which
is an Israel that is at peace with its
neighbors in particularly with the
Palestinians is to do whatever I can to
help both sides achieve you say both
sides Nabil shaft says that you and
Dennis Ross quote defended Israel more
than the Israeli delegates did
that's what shaft says well that's novel
shaft what can I do have you heard that
from Sabra let me ask you about they
don't have cyber guts quote on that I
don't think some Erica thinks that the
US government has been even-handed but
that's the question for another day
here's what so many people find so
fascinating and frustrating across the
world the United States not only insists
on leading this process but when things
go wrong when Israel say violates
international law the u.s. then promptly
steps in to protect Israel from
criticism from censure over the past
forty four years I believe the United
States has vetoed 42 resolutions at the
UN Security Council critical of Israel
in 2011 the u.s. vetoed a Security
Council resolution which basically had
copied and pasted US policy on
settlement expansion into a UN
resolution you vetoed your own policy in
order to protect the Israelis first of
all there are other things in that
resolution that were unacceptable to the
United States and against US policy so
so that was a problem but secondly the
United Nations in general and Security
Council in particular are very hostile
places to Israel and so
we want to try to keep it out of the UN
Security Council out of the UN General
Assembly and try to focus it on a direct
negotiation between the parties now
there are times when it might be
appropriate for UN Security Council
resolution for instance there's a
settlement resolution coming up now if
it doesn't have objectionable things in
it I personally don't think it wouldn't
be a bad thing for the United States at
least to abstain on that so that the
settlers in Israel understand that it's
not cost-free abstained that's as far as
you'll go the whole world is outraged by
Israeli set an expansion illegal
settlements and the best the US can do
is an abstention that would be huge
Maddi it means that the resolution would
go through do you know how much money
the United States gives to Israel every
year yes Clemmie crime of somewhere
between 3 and 3.5 billion 3 and 3.5
billion dollars have you ever thought
about withholding any of that money in
order to try and get the Israelis to do
the right thing again there are two
points here first of all it's all
military assistance not economic
assistance Israeli economy is it makes
you complicit in the occupation
incidentally fine we're complicit in the
occupation we're doing our best to try
to end the occupation okay that's that's
why you're staining that's what we're
about
so the first point is it's it's military
assistance so to cut that aid because we
disagree with Israel's policies is to
send a message to Israelis that we're no
longer going to be supporting their
security and why is that a problem it's
not just because they face some real
threats in the region but because if
they feel that they cannot rely on the
United States when it comes to their
security how we're going to get them to
take risks for peace but the US
government has withheld money from the
Palestinians but you said should never
withhold any money from the Israelis I'm
saying that that there are consequences
for withholding money in the present
situation which would be negative
towards the efforts of with we're trying
to make to achieve peace I'm not sure I
could be any more negative let's go to
the panel who are waiting patiently
Rachel Sharpie is an award-winning
British journalist of Iraqi Jewish
heritage author of not the enemy
Israel's Jews
from Arab lands Rachel as someone who's
reported from Jerusalem over several
years followed these issues closely do
you think the fact that the u.s. is so
openly pro-israel that does or doesn't
undermine peace talks you know the u.s.
openly says that Israel is its strategic
Ally it likes having a very highly
militarized and pro US ally Israel in
the region that's a u.s. foreign policy
interest you talk about wanting a
peaceful solution you talk about
mediation implicitly there is an
assumption of you neutrality there that
you constantly breach and even if we're
to accept it on the terms that you set
which is being pro-israel gives you a
lever great use it you have consistently
failed to use it you've consistently
allowed Israel to be unaccountable to
not uphold international law to
constantly violate Palestinian rights
what's the point of having a lever if
you don't use it we have used the
leverage we've used it repeatedly and
that has produced on repeated occasions
offers from Israel to the Palestinians
which have gone a very long way to meet
their needs and nobody else not the UN
not the EU not the United Kingdom has
been able to do that only the United
States has been able to do that Alan
Johnson was a professor of democratic
theory before joining by calm the
Britain Israel communications and
Research Center as a senior research
fellow Allen other governments come
together as they did in 2011 for example
to try and pass this UN Security
resolution basically calling for
settlement expansion to stop which I
assume you support why can't the United
States get behind those efforts why
can't it use that leverage in your view
I think there's an assumption behind
this discussion which is that the peace
process made has made no progress in
fact huge progress has been made
Palestinians have recognized Israel
Israel which used to jail people for
speaking to the PLO has shaken hands on
the White House lawn Mahmoud Abbas was I
think 30 times in and out of the prime
minister's office and Giroux settlements
have doubled Gaza has been bombed three
times yeah I agree with you but in terms
of the indispensable partner
that israel needs in this process i
think that remains the united states
whatever we think of that okay
i just want to bring in garda commie
british Palestinian academic activist
author of return a Palestinian memoir
got economy what do you say to mountain
India when he says look the Palestinians
need the Americans to be close to the
Israelis because you're not gonna be
able to get a deal out of the Israelis
with that American involvement well all
I could say is I've been listening to
Martin Indyk very patiently and honestly
I hope you won't be offended if I tell
you I have never heard so much baloney
in my life they're gonna deal with the
specific point the main reason I mean
quite apart from the partiality that the
US has towards Israel which you've
confessed the very way in which this
conflict is viewed is wrong it's
fundamentally wrong we do not have equal
parties so your talk about we will leave
it to the two parties it's total
nonsense because what we do have is a
dominant powerful backed by the biggest
and most important set in the world on
one side and on the other and occupied
people with no friends and no resources
that's the truth so why don't you start
dealing with reality and show a bit of
honesty I'm sure you're a nice man okay
it's not come across that Martin deal
with that specific point if the
Palestinians do not want the United
States as the broker of the negotiations
they are free to go in and seek any
other mediator why do they accept the
United States and media actually they
are for the US famous for the UN to be
mediated you said it's our interest to
take it away from the UN you just said
it to me why they want to negotiate with
Israel they want the United States in
the room they don't want the United
Nations in the room when they want to
impose the settlement on Israel that's
when they go to the United Nations but
the problem with imposing a settlement
on Israel is the only one that can
impose a settlement on Israel is the one
that won't do it which is the United
States okay
conundrum isn't a problem United States
is this great power and the world sees
the United States you know you push
around the United States you get
punished with all sorts of sanctions you
Asian sometimes Israel never seems to
suffer any consequences for whatever it
does John Kerry turns up in Israel in
2014 the defense minister Moshe Ya'alon
criticizes his mission as being
motivated by a sense of Messiah nism Joe
Biden goes to Israel in 2010 they
humiliate the vice president by
announcing 1,600 new settlement units
while he's in town America does nothing
why does it continue to tolerate
basically being slapped in the face by a
close ally yeah I had a problem with all
of that I think that we do need to make
it clear to Israeli ministers on the
right who think that they can clip a
coupon at America's expense that it's
not accepted how did you make it clear
well you know they don't have to be
welcomed in Washington for example
they'd have to be welcomed to emotion
and the Prime Minister of Israel turns
up in Congress last year to give a
speech denouncing the president the
United States signature foreign policy
achievement zero consequences what does
he get in return
40 billion dollars over the next 10
years that's a good deal yeah and I'm
sure that there there are people in
Israel who say he got away with it I
think that the Prime Minister made a big
mistake I'm on the record many times to
say you have to apologize for it I don't
think that that matters I think he
shouldn't have made the speech they
shouldn't have gone behind the
president's back and yet in 2010 you
wrote an email to now being released as
part of Clinton's emails in which you
told her negotiating team that Netanyahu
lacks a generosity of spirit and
humiliates his Palestinian counterparts
you then however advised them
nevertheless put your arm around Bibi
because there's no substitute for
working with him and the purpose of
embracing him is to nudge him forward
it's basically no consequences for bad
behavior you reward bad behavior he's
really bad
he's self-defeating I think you call
this tactics but nevertheless give him a
hug put your arm around him yes but it's
no consequences it's this see that's the
theory
what does that mean put your arm around
be me so you were really calling for a
headlock not a hug is that what you're
saying close to it yes okay I'm just
wondering have you asked thank you for
that'd - have you ever asked for the
American government to put their put
their arm around the palestinian
president just having two only Israeli
absolutely yeah absolutely because you
don't account for the other side of this
at all
okay and neither do you but let me let
me which is that the United States has
moved dramatically on the Palestinian
issue from treating it only as a refugee
issue and insisting that it be dealt
with through Jordan to recognizing
Palestinian national rights recognizing
recognize a Palestinian no we have
worked harder than anybody else and I
apologize to nobody for the efforts that
we've made to try to resolve this
problem just very quickly I notice in
your book you refer to Arafat as quote
an artful dodger and as a bizarre
merchant I couldn't find you using such
disparaging some might say racial
stereotypes about Israeli leaders in
your book in the same way I'm just as
your boy you know of course bizarre
Magellan to extort a customer in a hurry
no he always had to extort a customer in
a hurry but in any case customers in a
hurry are the most vulnerable to
extortion
you know Arafat is exactly what I
described there and another phrase
you've used over the years is
demographic threat in reference to the
growing Palestinian population inside
the green line many Palestinians will
say it's dehumanizing it's inflammatory
racist even to refer to Palestinian
babies as a demographic threat I've
never heard that before I think that
that that it's a complete
misunderstanding of what the reference
is to the demographic threat is the idea
that if Israel doesn't find a way to
make peace with the Palestinians it's
the Jewish nature of the state and the
Democratic nature of the state will be
in jeopardy
there'll be in conflict because by 2020
2025 by some Counting already
Israel will no longer have a majority of
Jews in in the Jewish state you're
saying the choice that's the demographic
threat you've said the choice between
being Jewish and being democratic Israel
have to make that choice we are at that
point you have said you've said the
Israeli settlements could quote drive
Israel into an irreversible binational
reality even though you believe there's
no other solution apart from the
two-state solution I always hear US
officials saying this the window is
closing the time's running out there's
point of no return as being reached at
what stage does it become too late in
your view I honestly don't know what I
know is when we get to that point the
two-state solution will be resurrected
like the kings and queens of England you
know the peace process is dead long live
the peace process it keeps on coming
back amazing thing baby amazing thing
got a commie do you agree with Martin
Indyk that it can't be too late because
the two-state solution will simply be
resurrected when the time is right there
is no possibility of two states for a
very simple reason that the land the
territory that would be needed for a
Palestinian state hardly exists it's
full of Israeli settlements but secondly
without the United States being able to
use any kind of pressure on Israel
there will be no two-state solution
there'll be nothing and the truth is
that the u.s. is unable to pressure
Israel it's not unwilling it's unable
today Israel is a one state it rules and
other people it occupies them in one
state but the the problem with that one
state is it's an apartheid state one
side has rights the other has none so
the issue really is not having two
states
the issue is converting this apartheid
situation into one of equity and equal
democratic rights and no apartheid
that's the thing before us okay let me
bring in Alan Johnson who's shaking his
head there I just disagree with God not
on the basis of the settlements aren't a
problem no disagreement there the facts
though if you talk to settlement watch
piece now people involved in Israel in
this process they say to you
6% land swap will bring about 35 of
every 40 settlers back into little
Israel proper Israel that's doable that
kind of land swap the EU supports it the
United States supports it and crucially
the Arab League now supports it you
asked a question before when does it
become impossible I'll give you my
answer when it becomes politically
impossible for Israel to bring back over
the number of settlers that are needed
in order to make the two states well the
reason I don't think we're near there
yet many settlers are economic settlers
they will come back with a compensation
and relocation package the Israeli
public itself when asked before recent
election if we have to face austerity
what should be top of the list for
budget cuts they said the settlement
project so why hasn't it happened maybe
I think your assumption is that Israel
holds peace in the palm of its hand it
just won't open it but it holds the
decision to build settlements in the
palm of his hand and it keeps doing it
you do focus on settlements which is
fair and I agree their problem but you
don't focus on the other side and
Israeli niches percent in violence
Palestinian terror of his Palestinian
rockets from Gaza when I got figure when
I get a different from a country that
blindly backs the Palestinians I promise
you I'll ask him that question
interesting you keep saying settlements
are a problem a unnamed US official from
the peace talks told the Israeli press
that the primary sabotage was the
settlements that was widely believed to
be you was it you
well that was an unnamed official so
okay but you're not denying it so I'm
sure that unnamed official knew what he
was talking about good so we so me you
and the unnamed official all agree that
the primary sabotage was done by the
settlements Rachel shower you wanna come
in here we are talking about people's
lives every day that you fail people
will die and suffer so you know it's not
it's not a it's not a diplomatic spin
game that we're trying to win here I
know that okay I live with that every
day
okay well that's good to know believe me
on the settlements we have been watching
this peace process for a long time Oslo
Camp David Annapolis
Washington and then 2014 with you
involved again we all know you didn't
discover in 2014 that the settlements
are the biggest obstacles to peace
give them that you all know that and yet
you're still reluctant to push that
lever it just creates the impression
that for you the process is more
important than the piece and therefore
you are constantly undermining the piece
well I think that's that's a fair
criticism what happened in 2014 was that
John Kerry threw a Herculean effort
managed to get the parties back to the
negotiating table unfortunately the only
way he was able to do that was to work
out a deal in which there was 9 months
of negotiations in exchange for four
tranches of prisoner releases that's
what the Palestinians chose there was a
second door which was a settlement
freeze and they didn't they didn't
insist on that at the time they went for
a prisoner deal but they didn't expect
Netanyahu to expect that once every time
on this program and he said that he did
it for the prisoners I know but the
problem was there was no agreement yet
stop the sellable you should tell that
was the settlements ok Crudup the
negotiate it was it was the settlement
to screwed up the negotiations you admit
that ok it's not an admission it is a
charge it was a major problem fine not
an ending you've said in the past that
you shared Bill Clinton's view on Middle
East peace making that it was better to
try and fail than not to try at all
given you've tried and failed under both
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama do you
personally still hold that view yes and
I will never give up it's a Churchillian
dictum never ever ever ever give up and
and why is because it is better to try
and fail they're not to try it all we're
gonna have to take a break there in part
2 we're going to talk about the
us-israeli relationship and what's
behind that relationship head-to-head
we'll be back after the break
you
welcome back to head to head on al
Jazeera English my guest here in the
Oxford Union is Martin Indyk former US
ambassador to Israel Martin
there are many competing theories as to
why the United States government is so
pro-israel some say it's because of
shared values others say it's due to
strategic interests others say it's
because of the power and influence of
pro-israeli lobbying organizations in
Washington DC
I just want ask you first about the
strategic argument General David
Petraeus former director of the CIA has
said that the israel-palestine conflict
ferments anti-american sentiment even
the late Mayer degan who was head of
Mossad of Israeli intelligence has said
quote Israel is gradually turning from
an asset to the United States into a
burden do you agree with them no I don't
agree with that I think that Israel
particularly in its relationship now
with Egypt and with Jordan is working in
a common strategic interest to deal with
threats in the region beyond the issue
of Palestine but I do believe that
making progress on the Palestinian issue
enhances America's credibility in the
region and failing to make progress on
the Palestinian issue hurts America's
credibility in the region and what about
the power and influence of pro-israeli
lobbying organizations in DC like AIPAC
the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee which you worked for briefly
in the 1980s would you say it's all a
conspiracy theory it's all anti-semitism
to talk about the power of lobbying
organizations or would you say no
actually they do put a straitjacket on
US governments and hinder interests of
the u.s. in the region AIPAC is indeed a
powerful lobby on behalf of Israel
there's no doubt that its influence
constrains what an administration can
consider they would do you said in 2006
the lobby at Congress has put a
straitjacket on administration's in a
way that has not been productive for
American interests that's me that is you
know I don't recognize debate okay well
you've also said and I hope you
recognize this one that you've taken a
lot of heat from the Israel lobby
you have the scars to show for it
correct thereby accepting that the
pro-israeli organizations play a
detrimental and powerful role in mental
I think that well if you're working for
peace and they're scarring your back
then are they not dental meant
peacemaking is bloodsport when you're in
the arena you inevitably face criticism
you know precisely because I'm seen to
have come from the pro-israel community
there is an expectation that all I will
do will represent is represent Israel's
interests and my answer is no I'm there
to represent America's interests in
making peace which I happen to believe
also serves Israel's interests but they
some of them don't agree listen to zero
Stern hell award-winning Israeli
intellectuals self-proclaimed
super Zionist he says a pax role is
absolutely disastrous
because it prevents any possibility to
move with the Palestinians we cannot
move without American intervention but
we are more or less free of American
intervention this is a pax job to give
the Israeli government a sentiment of
impunity APEC is caught in a kind of
bind here because even though as I say
they represent the pro-israel community
in the United States they also adhere to
the policies of the Israeli government
and as a result they're caught often in
the situation especially when there's
tension or confrontation between an
Israeli government usually a right-wing
government but not always and an
American administration you say they're
aligned with Israeli government viewed
except they don't actually represent
American Jewish opinion all that often
when it comes to Israel Palestine well
he's afraid there are 18,000 Pro
Israelis at the APEC conference that was
a pretty strong expression of
representation there and then but this
there are others in the Jewish community
that don't agree with the kind of
kool-aid test that that AIPAC presents
okay
and one last question before we go to
our panel you've been associated with
you spoken at Jay Street which was found
in 2009 as a kind of progressive
counterweight to AIPAC in 2014 the
conference of Presidents of major
American Jewish organizations voted not
to admit J Street into their
Rella group because in the words of one
orthodox leader its positions are out of
the mainstream of what could be
considered acceptable the conservative
American Jewish establishment has shut
down progressive Jewish voices on this
is your time and again hasn't in the
United States and I think they're made a
huge mistake in doing so they've
actually boosted J Street dramatically
it's been totally counterproductive but
J Street need needs to be part of the
dialogue it is it's made itself part of
the dialogue precisely because they are
pro-israel and pro-peace and that that's
critically important it's especially
important for a younger generation of in
the American Jewish community who need
to be able to to support Israel in a way
that that makes sense to them and J
Street has a way to reach them in a way
that APEC has great difficulty doing
let's go back to our panel god akame is
a British Palestinian activist author
author of a recent memoir return got a
commie there's no pro Palestinian
version of AIPAC is that why the
Palestinians are not getting their
voices heard in your view in the u.s. no
but it's one of the factors there's no
doubt that if there were a Palestinian
organization or propolis news that was
funded so heavily as the other side is
that it would help but I don't believe
that that's the central problem here you
have a vicious circle in which Israel
rampages around the region rampages
against the Palestinians and nobody does
anything to stop it
where is this rail rampaging around the
region now oh really
so you've seen beginning of the Syrian
Golan Heights bombing Lebanon still
being in occupation of part of Lebanon
Oh Bobby Jon seriously you've had five
Israeli Prime Minister's I was involved
in this all offered the regime of Hafez
al-assad and and Bashar al Assad full
withdrawal from the Golan Heights all of
them and it comes back to the
Palestinians we had Barack and Albert
offering the Palestinians 95 to 97% of
the West Bank and all of Gaza and they
didn't take it dunya so you know there
are two sides to every story yes not
just Israel I'm I'm glad you've got lots
of friends here but what I wanted to say
to you is rather like you know you you
steal my wallet which has let's say
hundred dollars in it and then I come
along and say let's come to an agreement
about this and you say fine I'm gonna
offer you I'm gonna offer you $60 I keep
the 14 now anti Jerez
see you have more threads that I have in
the audience but it's look if you cannot
be satisfied it's fine I understand but
if you can't be satisfied with 95 to 97%
of the West Bank Gaza then we cannot
have a two-state solution because we
don't have time we can't get into this
but your 95 97 you know is questioned by
many Israeli as many Palestinians many
of us there okay
it was there were people who were there
also we disagree now yeah they happen to
be called Palestinians look it it's easy
to make fun of this you were there in
terms of what Clinton offered them and
both sides tabled reservations to the
Clinton parameters in December 2000 as
you all know no Allan Barak accepted
them that's not true but we'll have to
excuse me I was there okay when the
facts came from Barack's office to my
residents okay in Israel with the formal
decision signed by the Prime Minister
accepting the Clinton parameters so
don't tell me that I don't know what I'm
talking okay Allen Johnson Allen Johnson
was a professor of democratic theory
before joining bike on the Britton
Israel communications and Research
Center as a senior research fellow at
Allen you work for what's called by some
of your critics Britain's pro-israel
lobby surely you wouldn't dispute the
groups such as a pact in the United
States do exercise a lot of power and
influence and sometimes many times in a
way that prevents the making of peace in
the Middle East I think it would be
ridiculous to say that AIPAC didn't
exercise significant influence I think
though it's vastly overstated and the
proof of that was that when Barack Obama
wanted to drive through the p5 plus one
Iran nuclear deal
they had no impact meant one of the
point there's a common sense amongst
people which i think is some distance
from where AIPAC is and I think we saw
that most clearly with their treatment
and reception of Donald Trump at their
recent conference I mean the whooping
and the hollering and the cheering of
Donald Trump I thought was appalling and
for two reasons one who trembles Trump
is the most for most American
anti-muslim bigot he's the misogynist
and he's a xenophobe and secondly Sahu
AIPAC is which it it will be seen by
many Jews and many non-jews as
they'll be estranged from the pro-israel
case because they're liberals they're
Democrats and they have very different
values to that huge mistake Rachel shabi
is an old winning British journalist
Iraqi Jewish heritage author of not the
enemy Israel's Jews from Arab lands
Martin was saying he doesn't think that
Israel is a strategic burden to the
United States many have argued it's an
asset in some ways where do you stand on
that debate now first of all just
because we're falling into this dynamic
of being very partisan and intractable
conflict actually it is perfectly
possible to one peace and justice for
both Israelis and Palestinians please
let's not lose sight of that that
position exists it's perfectly tenable
secondly I disagree with you harder I
don't think that the u.s. is unable to
exercise make Israel exercise restraint
I think it's unwilling to do it because
Israel is a strategic asset you pretend
to be about peace and democracy in the
region and you know it just creates
murmurs mammoth problems I mean that is
the bit that's problematic that is a bit
that is seen as hypocrisy marginal
utilities no I don't think that anybody
is under any illusion that the United
States is in Israel's corner we don't
hide that we say it shout it from the
roof why does John Kerry say we cut it
on it's broken what because the two are
not inconsistent I know this is hard it
is very hard to admit very other two are
not inconsistent because it's an attempt
to try to listen to both sides figure
out what their basic needs are and come
forward with a plan that would be
acceptable to both sides okay
let's go to our audience we've been
waiting patiently here in the Oxford
Union let's take the gentleman in the
glasses in the third row as a human
rights lawyer in the past in Israel I
feel that I cannot raise my family in
Israel and indirectly because of
America's support of Israel Israel is no
longer a viable democracy one that is
currently and over the past five six
years is constantly in conflict with
weeding its Jewish identity and it's
Democratic identity and while America
almost every country in the world in
terms of protection of human rights it
does not do that and human rights
organizations are currently under
constant threat and America cysts
nothing about that thank you well first
of all that's not true
if you go and look on the State
Department website at the latest Human
Rights report on Israel you will see
some pretty harsh criticism of Israeli
actions in the West Bank and if you go
back through the years you will see very
harsh criticism that said it is a
democracy and it's a shame for Israel
that you had to leave because you need
to be there and all of these NGOs that
are under attack there need to be
defended and the United States will
stand up for them and the United States
is telling the Israeli government we
will oppose that kind of legislation
that some of your Knesset members are
trying to pass but when you say we don't
agree with what you're doing and they
say who cares
what do you do about it if you're
talking about cutting aid if that's what
you're talking about us yes I can
imagine that some circumstances would
arise that has happened before and I
don't rule it out that it would happen
in the future let's go back to our
audience let's go to the gentlemen here
in the second row and I want to go to
the back my grandad left Palestine to
Lebanon in 1947 and so my question to
you is how can you justify denying
Palestinians right of return as a
precondition to peace whilst abetting
settlers to live in Israel not
Palestinian refugees need to have a
solution to their problem and to their
suffering but it cannot come at the
expense of Israel's existence and so the
two have to be reconciled there is a way
of reconciling them it's in the Clinton
parameters to give the Palestinians a
right of return to Palestine can a
choice about other places where they
could go including is
and plus compensation for their
suffering and and that package of a
solution for the powers that have the
Palestinian refugees is going to have to
be part of a final status agreement that
ends the claims as well as ending the
conflict okay let's go back to our
audience let's go to someone my question
is how do you justify thousands of
American Jewish like young teenagers
join the Israeli army every year because
I have paid a visit to Jerusalem and
then I met several of them and there are
over idealised on this holy war
sometimes I felt like how is that
different from like the British jihadis
over idealize their holy war what
American Jews can become Israelis join
the Israel Defense Forces they have to
operate under Israeli Defense Force
Regulations and as far as I know those
regulations don't provide for holy jihad
but I think that there are some American
Jews who are settlers who are ideologues
and and as I said before that kind of
approach which is designed to take the
West Bank because that's the land that
God gave to Israel is is an approach
that is against a two-state solution and
therefore I am against it ok let's go
back to the audience gentlemen here in
the second row in the suit as an Israeli
I'm feel very privileged to believing it
at a time that the Jewish people for the
first time in around 2,000 years do have
the ability to defend themselves so it's
understood why it's expected that Israel
makes concessions more than others but
for my experience working with peace
groups and Palestinians in the West Bank
they have never taken responsibility or
agreed that they need to make
concessions themselves Tara have started
from the 1920s before there were any
settlements ok this day what do you
think the
- shut the concessions that the
Palestinians to do if they even need to
do anything we flee you know I think
it's it's not accurate to say the
Palestinians have made no concessions
the Palestinian Authority leadership in
the PLO have accepted to live side by
side with Israel that is an historic
compromise in which they're only
claiming what is it 40 percent of
historic Palace 22 percent 22 percent so
that's number one number two they have
accepted that there should be land swaps
and land swaps would enable Israel to
absorb some 75 to 80 percent of the
settlers who live in 6% of the West Bank
provided that Israel provides six
percent of Israel proper for the
Palestinians we go to the lady right at
the back yes I just wanted to ask you
why do you think is it okay for Israel
to have a covered nuclear bomb but not
for Iran an Iran with nuclear weapons
threatening to destroy Israel would
trigger a nuclear arms race if not an
American Israeli attack on Iran and
that's why you don't think Israel having
nukes triggers a new regional arms race
well you know if Israel has nukes
so if do they not have news
if disease rayul not have nukes if
Israel has nukes what's interesting
there I mean there's a widespread
assumption that Israel has nuclear
weapons it has not triggered an arms
race in the region do you share that
assumption you clear weapons the
Egyptians
I know Israeli policy is not to admit to
nuclear any of Israel not an Israeli can
you tell me if they have nuclear weapons
enjoy yourself maybe I'm not going to
answer your question why because you
know it's an issue which I as a
government official former government
official a US still if it's not Israeli
goes nothing I got the US government say
if Israel has nuclear plan on it the
issue is whether Israel threatens the
region none of the Arabs around Israel
consider that Israel's capabilities
present a threat to them they do
consider that Iran's nuclear capability
presents a threats go to this gentleman
on the beard israel has broken
65 UN resolutions Iraq broke two and was
invaded destroyed and pumped why are
there such double standards in dealing
with countries who violate United
Nations resolutions I seem to be putting
this wrong where I'm supposed to be
defending history I'd rather defendant
yesterday Israeli asked about Iraq
America America invaded Iraq I think
he's making the point that the United
States invaded Iraq for defying 22 UN
resolutions and Israel has defied lots
of resolutions and it doesn't even get
and so it might get an abstention so we
should we should invade Israel no not
invade but how do you explain the double
standards in terms of treatment of
countries and in our law the double
standards argument is is a argument that
is used by Israel and by critics of
Israel so you know I I don't find it's a
particularly productive way of dealing
with the problems the United States yes
we have double standards it's true
we have double standards we do our best
to try to be consistent but it's not
always simple
this is you know it's simple to read to
do it in the Oxford Union but it's not
always simple when you're in government
when you've got a way different
interests one of which is a very
important human right standard as
Americans that is important okay but
there are a lot of other interests at
stake too and sometimes the balance
doesn't come out it's the province of
ours to be right okay you make Sweden
friends you made the point last question
gentlemen here in the jacket I worked as
a UN medical officer in Gaza for a
couple of years
in 2014 the Wafaa Rehabilitation
Hospital for substantial buildings was
raised by Israeli attacks with us arms
now that same year as you know already a
lot of civilians were killed again with
us arms three that meant a great deal to
our family was a woman who was eight
months pregnant and her three year old
child and six year old child now those
two children were two of over 500
children that were killed during that
assault they were good friends of us
they are no longer the family was
destroyed the US continues to arm Israel
with state-of-the-art weaponry to the
teeth can the u.s. justify in the light
of the use of those arms against medical
facilities and women and children on the
scale that it continues to provide them
first of all on a personal level I just
say that the killing of innocent
children is unacceptable by anybody I'm
not trying to put it as a justification
but I am trying to put it in context
that Israeli civilians were coming under
attack by Hamas rockets to ended up to
be thousands of them but I'm not
presenting it as an excuse okay I hope
you understand that it's not acceptable
that children die but when Hamas hides
its rockets in civilian areas purposely
doing so in order that when Israel comes
to try to destroy the rockets
it kills Gaza and children okay well
that creates a circumstance in which
Hamas also needs to take responsibility
one final question we run out of time
you were at the heart of the us-led
peace process under both presidents
Clinton and Obama you've been a special
envoy a senior State Department official
a US ambassador to Israel given that
process has clearly failed whatever
happens in the future
as of now has failed there is no peace
there is no process do you feel
personally responsible for that failure
in any way yes and what can you do about
that now
seriously you went back in 2014 10200 I
tore my last breath I will not give up
on trying to resolve this conflict in a
way that meets Palestinian legitimate
national aspirations to an independent
and viable contiguous state living
alongside Israel Jewish state in peace
Moulton Indyk on that note thank you for
joining me
thank you so much for coming here to
join me on head-to-head and take all
these questions thanks to our panel for
putting some questions and thanks to our
audience here in the Oxford Union that's
our show thanks for watching dad thank
you