Should the US be neutral on Israel-Palestine? | Head to Head

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

Channel: Al Jazeera English

Views: 616,925

Rating: 4.6386728 out of 5

Keywords: UN, Barack Obama, palestine, Bill Clinton, Benjamin Netanyahu, Head To Head, Israel, HeadToHead, Martin Indyk, Netanyahu, conflict, aipac, united nations, Mehdi Hasan, middle east, Should the US be neutral on Israel-Palestine, US-Israel, Camp David talks, US Israel, US Palestine, Palestine Israel, Jared Kushner, Jared Kushner Israel, arab world, occupied westbank, East Jerusalem, al jazeera, al jazeera english, aljazeera, aljazeera english, aljazeera live, aljazeera news

Id: sKC9k4_gQls

Length: 47min 45sec (2865 seconds)

Published: Fri May 13 2016