Podcast: The path to a two-state solution for Israel & Palestine: Former PM Ehud Barak's perspective

TRANSCRIPT: The path to a two-state solution for Israel & Palestine: Former PM Ehud Barak's perspective

Ehud Barak:

I never lost sight of the idea that the only long-term viable solution for this conflict in the Middle East remain unfortunately the two state solution.

Ian Bremmer:

Hello and welcome to the GZERO World podcast. This is where you can listen to extended versions of my interviews on public television. I'm Ian Bremmer, and today I'm asking a basic question that could not be more complicated to answer. Is a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians even possible? And if so, what would it look like?

Joining me today is a man who came closer than any other Israeli leader in modern history to brokering such a deal, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In July of 2000 at President Bill Clinton's invitation, Barak joined Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman, Yassar Arafat at Camp David for a two-week summit aimed at brokering and enduring peace. And although that summit ultimately ended in failure, there are lessons that can be applied to the very different world we live in today. So here's my conversation with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Speaker 3:

The GZERO World Podcast is brought to you by our lead sponsor, Prologis. Prologis helps businesses across the globe scale their supply chains with an expansive portfolio of logistics real estate, and the only end-to-end solutions platform addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today. Learn more@prologis.com.

GZERO World would also like to share a message from our friends at Foreign Policy. Global Reboot, a podcast from Foreign Policy Magazine was created as countries and economies emerged from the pandemic and called for a reboot. On each episode, host and foreign policy editor-in-chief Ravi Agrawal asks some of the smartest thinkers and doers around to push for solutions to the world's greatest problems, from resetting the US-China relationship to dealing with the rise of AI and preserving our oceans. Find Global Reboot in partnership with the Doha Forum wherever you get your podcasts.

Ian Bremmer:

Ehud Barak, so good to have you back on GZERO World.

Ehud Barak:

Thank you for having me.

So I mean this is obviously a difficult topic and one you have a very strong set of views on. But I want to start with your role historically. Because back in 2000, you came closer than really anybody in managing a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine. I mean of course as we know very painfully, it didn't happen. But I'm wondering what that experience brings for you in thinking about where we are today and how we respond to the war between Israel and Hamas.

Ehud Barak:

In the Middle East, things are moving. They're developing very fast. So to try to draw direct similarities or lines of short from about almost 25 years ago, it's a little bit too long.

So basically I think that different people, the all different consequences are from the same development, many concluded for what happened in 2000. We've tried, President Clinton and myself to deliver, Arafat tried to have a breakthrough. Some people draw the consequence that it can never fly. It was known in advance, it can't fly. They're the same. They're all same, nothing has changed and it'll never fly.

And others like me think that it didn't fly, that's a matter of fact. But it doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that it didn't fly. We didn't have a partner in Arafat for that time for 2000. It doesn't mean anything about now. I never lost sight of the idea that the only long-term viable solution for this conflict in the Middle East remain unfortunately the two state solution. Not because we're ideal because we are different nations with different history and different wishes and dreams.

Between the Mediterranean and the river there are living 14 or 15 million people about give or take, half Jews, half no Jews. If this is only one political entity reined over by Israel, this will inevitably, that's a critical word, either not Jewish or non democratic. Because if this block of millions of Palestinians can vote, it's immediately overrided by national state. Within very short time historically speaking, it's a binational state with mostly majority that's not allowed to dream.

And if they cannot vote permanently, they already do not vote temporarily for 56 years. Quite temporary. But if we announce it to be permanent, that's not a democracy.

Ian Bremmer:

So-

Ehud Barak:

So we have compelling parties stemming for our own needs, our Israeli needs of our future identity, security, you name it, to disengage or to master the willpower and the readiness to take tough decision and serve the votes from the Palestinian.

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, I understand what you're saying. And certainly I would love to see such a solution. But when I see the present government, which has been increasing the settlements, the illegal settlements on West Bank land, making it harder and harder for Palestinians to live there. When I see the efforts to try to pressure Egypt, Jordan, other countries into accepting more Palestinians from Gaza, that implies that the solution that they see is less land and fewer Palestinians and Israel just takes over more of it. Am I correct in reading it that way or is there something else going on?

Ehud Barak:

If your conclusion is that Israel is the only or the main responsible for the situation, you are wrong. But if you mention a matter of effect that this government doesn't want to see two state solution, that's objectively accurate. That's why I think we, the Israeli people have to replace it with a better prime minister who will think differently.

About a little bit less than half of the public thinks like me. But more than half, and we are still a democracy think like Netanyahu. And he made a lot of, on 7th of October, a real set of theories that were promoted by Netanyahu along the last, almost a generation collapsed. There was a collapse of the idea that he promoted for more than five years now that basically Hamas is an asset and Palestinian story is liability rather than the other way around. He acted actively in order to make it happen.

The idea was politically motivated. He basically said as long as he can keep the Hamas active, kicking and alive and suppressing the Palestinian authority, whenever you or the EU or the UK or the America will come to us and ask why the hell you don't negotiate with the Palestinians about something reasonable? You can tell, "Oh, we are ready, but what can we do? Mohammad Shtayyeh doesn't control half of his own people, the half in Gaza. And the Hamas, no one expects us to deal with Hamas. This is a terrorist organization." So it was a kind of poison pill against any viable political process.

And now many interpret this event of 7th October as a proof in a distorted way to resist merger, a proof that we can never do anything. These are barbarians, they're like Nazis, like Daesh. And so it's true that the behavior of these perpetrators of 7th of October was extremely barbarian in nature, in practice. And they deserve to be toppled down from control of Gaza and probably destroyed militarily speaking. The operators of this event in 7th of October should be eliminated whatever cost.

But having said that, Hamas is a movement. It's still a movement. In any leading Arab country, you find a sister movement, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt, [inaudible 00:09:08] in Turkey. The dominant power, one third or quarter of the Jordanian parliament. Even in Israel you have a party of other party, which is in a way sister movement. All of them condemn terror. But they are ideologically kind of sisters. So we don't pretend to erase the idea of Hamas or the dreams or wishes from mind. But we determined to destroy the military infrastructure and the retention to control our immediate other side of the village.

Ian Bremmer:

What we have seen in the last month, a shift away from enormous sympathy for Israel on October 7th to a growing criticism of the way that Israel is fighting the war, the extraordinary numbers of Palestinian civilians. Were seeing friends like France's Macron, like Canada's Trudeau increasingly saying that the Israelis need to stop, that there needs to be a ceasefire. We need to move to a ceasefire. Has Israel fallen into a trap in the way they're fighting this war, Ehud?

Ehud Barak:

Probably there is no easy way to avoid what you call this trap. We are determined to destroy Hamas. It cannot be completed from the air. It needs thousands of pairs of boots on the ground. So we're compelled to make this activity and we're compelled in order to reduce the death toll for our people to use these air strikes and so on.

We are committed to the international law, not less committed than the United States when they fought against Daesh and Al-Qaeda, wherever in Iraq, in Mosul, in Iraq and other places. And we are, every target is processed by different teams, two independent teams. And the [inaudible 00:11:23] was really fitting in a place where a target is at. We warn everyone ahead of time, we're going to attack in this and that place.

And when you think of it, in terms of the causal chain that leads to a human being Palestinian or Israeli losing his life. In both cases, the direct result of a causal chain where at the head of it sits the Hamas. In the massacre of 7th of October, it's clear they came there in a barbarian act. Did whatever they've done kind of really Daesh like or Nazi like picture.

But on the other hand, when it comes to the citizens, they are basically use handguns to the temples and enforce it upon them to stay with them. So if you accept the idea they can get impunity by really threatening the life of people, they will get impunity. So on one hand they're murdering, on the other hand, they're so careless about the life of their own people. Israeli general will never give an order to a pilot to drop a bomb on an active hospital. Not to mention that I doubt whether the pilot will follow such an orders. And we're in regard to humanitarian, it took some time. Humanitarian activity, it now goes much better.

Ian Bremmer:

And we've heard that from you, US intelligence, this is not just coming from the Israeli defense forces. It's very clear that Israel would not be targeting at a hospital just to kill innocent civilians. It's very clear they're doing that because there are military targets there. And using a hospital for military purposes is itself a war crime. So I understand that situation.

But I'm not just talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that when the war started, Israel announced a general siege on Gaza. They did not allow humanitarian goods or equipment in. And even now five weeks in, the amount of material coming in is incredibly limited. I mean my question is, when we talk about a humanitarian pause, we talk about a temporary ceasefire. No one in the West is saying Israel needs to live with Hamas forever. But Israel does have the ability to defend itself. Why couldn't Israel take longer? Why couldn't Israel wait until more civilians were protected? Why couldn't they wait until more countries were working together with Israel? Why did everything have to be done so immediately?

Ehud Barak:

Well, we probably in retrospect would've done it faster moving from 20 trucks per day to 100 and if needed 200 trucks as long as there is certain inspection that they do not bring the explosives or rockets into the place or fuel for that purpose. And that it doesn't reach the hands of Hamas, but the hands of those poor people who are now living outside their original home, but in some tent camps in the southern part. We will allow it probably we had to allow it a little bit earlier.

But we cannot slow down. From our experience first of all, it always happens that whatever you do, you're doomed to lose gradually the legitimacy and the support of the world. So if we would've done it slower, we would lose it before we have any achievement. And you have to understand, the Hamas guys are basically also, they're sophisticated. They're learning very fast from experience. So if you do everything very slowly, they have enough time to raise the bow for you in terms of deaths of your own soldiers.

And so once in military operation, once you've started, you have to ask yourself what's the faster way to end it, not the slower one? And it's clear to me that it won't be forever. I have in certain way, question mark about our own tactics. I think that there is certain gap between what the military armed forces understand and what the objectives of the political level. The political level kind of ordering from the armed forces to provide total destruction of military capabilities and capacity to govern the Gaza Strip by Hamas. This is according to the military sources will take many months, probably a year to complete. But it was clear in advance when the order was given, there will be no many months or a year or so. It will be full of short and longer humanitarian stops. Some negotiations stops for the hostages-

Ian Bremmer:

The hostages. Yeah, of course.

Ehud Barak:

Some development in the north with the Hezbollah that will need the attention to go there. So we're entering into long, long story. It's not going to be a short story. So in a way we have to never lose sight of the real need to cause such a damage to the Hamas that will enable a real discussion of what comes next to whom we hand over the control of it.

Ian Bremmer:

And that's what I want to ask because I mean we've seen Netanyahu say, I mean Hamas has to be destroyed. Everyone agrees with that. You're not going to have leadership from Hamas. Netanyahu has said that there's not going to be Palestinian authority, that it's not acceptable for the Palestinian authority to run Gaza. Which implies that he's not prepared to allow democratic elections in Gaza anytime soon. I mean, if you don't have the will of the Palestinian people, then how do you avoid a long-term occupation by the Israeli military? What else is there?

Ehud Barak:

I think that the disregard Netanyahu is wrong. I think that it's the wrong objective or wrong trajectory. And probably reality will show that it's impractical what he has in mind.

I think that the, probably not the only, but one of the only options is to basically make sure that once we destroy the physical capabilities of Hamas and it's probably hopefully desperation to reign over the area. The most probable solution is to bring a multinational force led by Egypt, backed by Arab League and even UN security council [inaudible 00:18:41] if Russia would not [inaudible 00:18:42]. Or American led such force and they will take it from us for limited period, let's say three months or six months. During which the Arab League will approach [inaudible 00:18:58] or the Palestinian authority and propose to them even demand from them to come to take over this asset which originally was theirs under the original Oslo agreement. It was given to the Palestinian authority.

It was taken from them by a coup d'etat, violent coup d'etat illegally in a way because the political system in the Palestinian so it is presidential system. The fact that they won over election in Gaza doesn't justify them taking it in a coup d'etat.

So basically I think that there is Arabic legitimization if it comes from the Arabic platform, Israel, to call upon the Palestinian soldiers. And I've think that the time is right. There is ripeness in the Arab world to take step to correct this. And I think that those Israelis do not see because of now the blood is boiling, that's not the right time to talk with Israelis about now opening a new chapter in regard to the peace. It seems that we have to be go the other direction. Many Israelis probably go now to the right.

I listened to some talks in the social networks of the right wing in Israel. Some Israelis, they'll think the only way to survive in the Middle East is to forget for a generation or two about the moral of the prophets and all the Israeli aspirations you have to be better than other people. And just go down, to be as barbarian as the neighborhood and then they will learn.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, no. We see a lot of that. Let me ask you, I mean there's been a lot of talk recently about being able to release some of these hostages. Still over 200 hostages being held now for over a month in the most abysmal conditions imaginable. The cutteries have been involved in very active diplomacy. It felt like it was close, for weeks now maybe 50, 60, 70 women and children to be released. Part of the sticking point apparently is whether or not any members of Hamas that are held as prisoners by Israel could be released in return.

Do you think it is appropriate for the Israelis to be involved in a negotiation like that with a terrorist organization like Hamas? And also if we see some of these hostages released, is that an off ramp? Is that a place that can allow for broader negotiations? Is that a way that you could get a ceasefire to last for a period of time? Does that give you some hope?

Ehud Barak:

I'm not sure that the reality is that Israel is putting a block because it refuses to release some prisoners. I personally think that Israel should propose publicly that we are ready to exchange all the hostages for all the prisoners. We have some 6,000 of them. I think that Israel already the certain delay, the government put the releasing of the hostages on the same level as destroying the Hamas. It's two different objectives-

Ian Bremmer:

Very different. Contradictory objectives in many ways, right? Yeah.

Ehud Barak:

In a way, contradictory in a way, to certain extent complimentary because Hamas doesn't have any incentive. It doesn't feel any pressure.

Ian Bremmer:

Correct.

Ehud Barak:

It's true that in a way it's contradictory. I think that proforma, it's stated well. But the question is what is the real attitude? Real attitude to the best of my judgment should be that releasing the hostages is in a way the more important element. Because these are not normal hostages. This is not a soldier that became hostage because of certain failing military operation or whatever. These are people who were abandoned in their homes. They were abandoned by Israel. They're there because of grand negligence on behalf of our government outsourcing, whatever. So you cannot seriously now consider in cool heads to now sacrifice them. First, they were abandoned. That [inaudible 00:23:37] is not intentional. But now a decision to give a priority to kill another 300 or 1300 terrorists, but at the same time sacrifice these hostages, it doesn't make sense morally. It doesn't make sense. It won't fly in our culture.

So I believe that every passing day become more and more clear to the government, to the war cabinet that this issue, whenever you have an opportunity, even if to is to release part of them, let's say young kids and elderly people, whatever. I don't want to dive into the detail, I don't know them. Basically I think that it should and will be given a priority. And if it leads to probably there is some negotiation, but if it leads to stop fire for two days or three days or whatever, we will have enough time to run after the last Hamas. And there are still many of them, including the top leadership.

So it's a long story. There will be certain negotiation. I believe that Israel deliberately does not let the Hamas play with the operation by just kind of spreading proposals. Whenever it'll come concrete, and there are many, many mediators dealing with it, american, Germans, Turks, Swedes, I don't know, Egyptian folks who [inaudible 00:25:08]. Whenever there will be a serious practical question, we will need certain signal of seriousness probably to release one in order to feel, to put one in the hands of the Egyptian to see that they're really mean business. And then to run any such proposal of whatever size will be taken into account very seriously in order to allow it to be completed.

Ian Bremmer:

So last question for you, which is that over the last weeks we've seen an extraordinary spike in antisemitism around the world, including in my country. We have a lot more support for extremism in movements against Israel and against the Jews. When this war is over, what can Israel do? What must Israel do to try to move forward, to try to end and that movement? To live in peace with committed enemies of your country and of your people?

Ehud Barak:

Look the same way that I told you about other aspects of the operation. We should be even more determined, more tough on the execution of the operation, but at the same time should be open to the fact that at certain point it should be turned into an opportunity also. To check whether we cannot move forward on the almost forgotten the peace process or at least process toward peace process. The same applies to this issue. Antisemitism is there before even both of us were born and it'll probably remain when we pass away. And I do not like to blame ourself for antisemitism. We have to come back to the principle that led Israel for its establishment led by [inaudible 00:27:20] originally. We have to always, always fight for holding the moral high ground. We're in a tough neighborhood, normalcy for the week now second opportunity to those who cannot defend themselves.

It's really tough neighborhood, but even within this tough neighborhood, Israel should always keep the moral high ground. Always prove in acts and deeds, not just in rhetoric that we are ready to take risk in order to pacify the thing or to solve problems. And it hopefully will convince, especially the young generation to realize that Israel is not a bad guy.

There is certain shallowness in the way that it spreads now in the campuses. People see on the screens the social network and the screens. You see the Israeli is heavily armed to their teeth in those heavy tanks and APCs shooting. And they see the Palestinian going here and there. It automatically seems that these Palestinians are the Davids and we are the Goliaths which in a way not true. We have to keep the moral high ground, keep commitment to international law. Do it determinately, but always bearing in mind the limitations of realistic kind of steps. Something to be serious in the world.

Ian Bremmer:

Ehud Barak, thank you for joining us today.

Ehud Barak:

Thank you.

Ian Bremmer:

That's it for today's edition of the GZERO World Podcast. Do you like what you heard? Of course you did. Why don't you check us out at gzeromedia.com and take a moment to sign up for our newsletter. It's called GZERO Daily.

Speaker 3:

The GZERO World podcast is brought to you by our lead sponsor, Prologis. Prologis helps businesses across the globe scale their supply chains with an expansive portfolio of logistics real estate, and the only end-to-end solutions platform addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today. Learn more at prologis.com.

GZERO World would also like to share a message from our friends at Foreign Policy. Global Reboot, a podcast from Foreign Policy Magazine was created as countries and economies emerged from the pandemic and called for a reboot. On each episode, host and foreign policy editor-in-chief, Ravi Agrawal asks some of the smartest thinkers and doers around to push for solutions to the world's greatest problems, from resetting the US-China relationship to dealing with the rise of AI and preserving our oceans. Find Global Reboot in partnership with the Doha Forum wherever you get your podcasts.