Skip to main content

tv   HAR Dtalk  BBC News  February 24, 2017 8:30pm-9:01pm GMT

8:30 pm
' across scotland and up later across scotland and perhaps northern ireland by sunset also with some showers. comparing saturday and sunday, a mixed bag, but at least those temperatures into double figures, but breezy. hello this is bbc news with me nicolas selman. here are the headlines. the conservatives celebrate their by—election victory in copeland, an area that labour has represented for 80 years. theresa may said that it was an endorsement of the government ‘s performance. but labour sort of the threat from ukip and saw the stoke by—election. the labour leaderjeremy corbyn said that it was proof that hope triumphs over the fear. authorities in malaysia ‘s, says that the cousin of —— half brother of a north korean leader was killed by vx nerve agent. the woman has died after debris hit
8:31 pm
herfrom the woman has died after debris hit her from storm doris, the woman has died after debris hit herfrom storm doris, she has been named as tammy martin. donald trump ta kes named as tammy martin. donald trump takes another swipe at the media and says that plans for his mexican border wall are well ahead of schedule. royal bank of scotland reports the loss of £7 billion for 2016, far worse than previous years, and the ninth consecutive year of losses. now on bbc news, it is hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm sarah montague, for decades many have assumed that the only way there would be peace in the middle east is if the palestinians have their own state but president trump has made it clear that america is no longer wedded to the idea. two state, one state, i can live with either one he said. my guest is tzipi livni, the
8:32 pm
joint leader of the zionist union opposition in this radio parliament and a former foreign minister. she has said that the anyway to achieve peaceis has said that the anyway to achieve peace is to have prostate for two people. but why is that? could one state where dues cumbersome san christians all treated equally have a greater chance of delivering peace? tzipi livni, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, hello sarah. why do you say that the only way to achieve peaceis say that the only way to achieve peace is two state for two peoples? the conflict is a national conflict
8:33 pm
between two national movements, one is zionism, that acted for many yea rs is zionism, that acted for many years in order to establish a state for the jewish people, years in order to establish a state for thejewish people, and the other is the national palestinian movement. and as far as my understanding goes and according to negotiations that we had before, the idea is, to end the conflict. and to end all claims, between these two movements, between the state of israel and the palestinians, is by having different states for two different peoples, in which each people, i implemented their own right of self determination. and israel, is a jewish democratic state. that means that israel is the nation state of the jewish state. that means that israel is the nation state of thejewish people with equal rights towards the citizens because israel is a democracy and because these are also oui’ democracy and because these are also ourjewish values. democracy and because these are also our jewish values. there democracy and because these are also ourjewish values. there is an argument that has been tried for
8:34 pm
decades or at least that has been the ambition for decades, u nsuccessfully the ambition for decades, unsuccessfully which is perhaps one reason that israel's president talks about, annex think all of the occupied territories. he says that there won't be one law for israelis and another for non—israelis, you would grant citizenship to all residents, and it would be one egalitarian democracy? this was the idea, of the likud, and others after the 67 war. the whole idea would be that we would live happily ever after, giving equal rights to those between the jordan after, giving equal rights to those between thejordan river and mediterranean sea but in the end that leads to a situation in which israel, would stop being a jewish democratic state. and we would have a binational state, one state with everybody living there but i think it would not be you know, living
8:35 pm
happily ever after, it would be more bloody. with this ongoing conflict amongst us, and this is against what i believe is the vision of zionism, to create a state for thejewish people. and in this state everybody‘s equal rights citizens. is it down to the demographics, the idea that if you take into and a half million palestinians, that is the end of a jewish state? yes, in the end of a jewish state? yes, in the end, listen, we live and my values are to keep in harmony the values are to keep in harmony the values of the state of israel as a jewish democratic state. this is also a question of numbers, we need to have a jewish majority in order to have a jewish majority in order to keep this and not to have a crash between the values of israel as a jewish and democracy. and therefore ifi jewish and democracy. and therefore if i need to choose between the entire land of israel, and keeping the state of israel, as thejewish democratic state, i prefer to divide the land and to have israel and keep
8:36 pm
the land and to have israel and keep the israeli values. i would like to refer also, this was basically the idea in 19a7. the united nations wa nted idea in 19a7. the united nations wanted to end the ongoing conflict that was here before the state of israel. . and the idea was to divide the land into two different states. 0n the land into two different states. on this question, the idea of what one state could look like, the plo secretary general, has warned, that the way that some people in visit it, it would be an apartheid system, is that something that you would fear to? israel would is that something that you would fear to? israelwould not be is that something that you would fear to? israel would not be an apartheid state, i would fight against it inside israel because thatis against our values. but you recognise that as a fear of having one state? i believe that this is something, that most of us, israelis, would reject. this is
8:37 pm
against our values, and therefore in choosing between all of the options, i believe that the israeli interest is to divide the land and to have two different states. frankly i'm not fighting for the establishment of the palestinian state. i am fighting in order to keep his role asa fighting in order to keep his role as ajewish fighting in order to keep his role as a jewish democratic state, and somebody else's fighting to create a palestinian state because he represents the national aspirations of the palestinians. i would like to say something about what president trump said, what he said he's not, what makes you happy makes me happy. but he also said it depends on both sides. so in a way. i mean, i'm not against thinking outside of the box, and there is another idea that can give an answer, to our aspirations and the palestinian aspirations, another idea that can keep israel as
8:38 pm
such. let it be. but as you say, this is exactly the point that he made that it hasn't worked so far and it is something that is very different, it hasn't been discussed before. he said it was a much bigger deal and more important deal in that it takes a bigger country and covers a much larger territory. do you recognise that by opening this up, there could be some chance, of a very different route but one that leads to peace. i believe that first eaten before entering into the negotiations from israel, israel is going to decide what is our direction. what is our goal. in a way, when president trump put this on the table, i'm using it in order to say to israel. it is ok, the two options on the table. what do we prefer in an understanding that they would be no situation in israel in which you have two different kinds
8:39 pm
of citizenships, because israel is not going to be an apartheid state. maybe by raising this option this can lead to an internal debate in israel, because i know that the vast majority of israelis support the idea of two states for two peoples, not for the palestinians, not as a favour to any president of the us or the arabs, or the palestinians, but this is a way to keep israel as such. therefore i believe even the date is something that is good to have. what we know, information coming out over the last few days, not least, from your fellow leaders of the zionist union. isaacs herzog. he has talked of a dealfrom the us secretary of state john he has talked of a dealfrom the us secretary of statejohn kerry, which was put to the prime minister benjamin netanyahu, and one that he walked away from, one that would
8:40 pm
have involved a freeze on settlement construction and reaching out to arab nations, with some sort of proposalfor a comp arab nations, with some sort of proposal for a comp rancid arab nations, with some sort of proposalfor a comp rancid peace deal? datacom prensa key skill. and you know i'm in the opposition with him. a lot of us would believe that with what would represent the interest with this role would be to try again and again until we find a way to end this conflict based on the idea of two states for two peoples. there are opportunities. not only a year ago. this opportunity is on the table in a way. but, with benjamin netanyahu, the prime minister, your colleague has refused calls him a serial refuser and said that he will be judged on it. yes that is true, we tried to negotiate, i also have criticism on the other side by the way, but it is true and now it is more clear to the israelis that what
8:41 pm
this coalition represents is something that would not lead to peace 01’ something that would not lead to peace or to the end of conflict. and more and more voices within this current coalition led by benjamin netanyahu current coalition led by benjamin neta nyahu are talking current coalition led by benjamin netanyahu are talking about annexation, something that is against the interest of israel, now what we represented something that is completely different, and in the end, with each elections in israel, hopefully sooner, and put this on the table and to say ok, this is what i represent and we represent something else but i do agree, that this is the response that is of any leadership, and by refusing to all of these deals suggestions negotiations, that are based not only on relations between israelis and the palestinians, but also on the possibility to change the situation, the strategic situation of israel in the region. with the arabs. they know, most of the arab
8:42 pm
world, the moderate arab sunni state wa nt to world, the moderate arab sunni state want to normalise the relations with israel, at the glass ceiling is the israeli—palestinian conflict and therefore we can do something that is bigger. and unfortunately, benjamin netanyahu, was not willing, couldn't, didn't want to. less important to say yes to all of these offers that were on the table. and are on the table right now i believe. the offers are still there but he is saying no because of those that he is in coalition with, to the right of him? excuse me, this is the excuse, this is the coalition that he formed. he had another coalition, we we re he formed. he had another coalition, we were in this coalition, that represented the idea of two states, the idea of concessions and steps towards the palestinians. and, he
8:43 pm
said that he wanted to form a coalition on what benjamin netanyahu called his natural partners. it true i'm not his natural partner, would you go back into government with benjamin netanyahu if he were to be open to accepting the deal that you say is still on the table, a deal to head towards peace? one year ago, when they offered what was on the table, when i was told about it and i was asked whether i wanted to join the government i asked several questions. a few questions. is he willing to free settlements outside of it? is he willing to give up the far right in this coalition? is he willing to make more positive comments on the arab peace initiative and when the answer was
8:44 pm
no. i said initiative and when the answer was no. isaid no initiative and when the answer was no. i said no to the question whether i would join the coalition and therefore i'm in the same position. the reason for me to be in politics and to try and move forward , politics and to try and move forward, if we have problems on the way, and sometimes we have problems on the way, so let's find a way to move forward and settlement activity especially outside of the fence, or legalising illegal outposts, against what i believe is the interest of israel, this is something that should be avoided. as long as netanyahu should be avoided. as long as neta nyahu supports it should be avoided. as long as netanyahu supports it i cannot be pa rt netanyahu supports it i cannot be part of his government. we are in a situation where the united nations has again condemned the building of settlements, we have had people suggesting, even president trump saying we would like to see you hold back on settlements, because it is seen as back on settlements, because it is seen as eroding the prospect of a two state solution, but you are, happy for there to be some
8:45 pm
settlements, indeed he would continue building in settlement blocs, wouldn't you ? continue building in settlement blocs, wouldn't you? the palestinian negotiators, i believe that any american president understands, that when the border is finalised or deleting the border, we need to take in consideration, what we call blocks of settlements, these other places in which most of the israelis are living, hundreds of thousands of them had the good news is that it ta kes them had the good news is that it takes only a few percentage of the west bank, and therefore when the palestinians start speaking about adjustment of the 67 line, this is something that is negotiable. legalising. the recent un resolution 2334, that was passed in december, when the united states abstained and allowed it to be passed, it
8:46 pm
reaffirmed that the building of settle m e nts reaffirmed that the building of settlements on palestinian territory, was a flagrant violation of international law and it did not distinguish between the settlement blocs and the outposts as you were trying to do? i am familiar with this, unfortunately, and therefore i believe that any agreement would lead to an understanding that these blocks of settlement should be part of a final agreement, part of israel and frankly what i criticised the israeli government by saying that when you do not make your priorities, when you do not come saying ok, i want to keep the blocks but i am willing to give up the places which are outside of the block, or i am willing to freeze for now as a message of goodwill the outposts and settlements that are outside of the block so the minute the israeli government cannot make these priorities the world is not making these priorities... what percentage of the settlement do
8:47 pm
you think are acceptable? that you categorise and settlement block because for people outside of israel it is very hard to get their head around this and so to get some sense of what you think is acceptable? well, you know that i'm not going to negotiate this with you but when i said that it takes only a few percentages, we are all talking about one digit and therefore there are gaps... 0ne digit, less than 10% of all the settlements that have been built? yes and this is something that should be negotiated between us and the palestinians and they want compensation for it but it is not important what you think personally or what others are thinking about settlement activities whether they are part of... against the international law
8:48 pm
or whether they are part of thejewish people coming back to the land of our forefathers, we are talking about realities on the ground and since most of the israelis that are living outside of the 67 line are living in what we call blocks of settlements, so the realistic solution should take this into consideration because otherwise it is impossible to think that we can reach an agreement. i can assure you, as the chief negotiator on the palestinian side, and also the palestinian side, they understand this as well. in the past we got president bush saying this that this should be taken into consideration when we finalise and delineate the line, trust me, the problem that we didn't reach an agreement was not about this percentage... we are with a different us administration, that has talked about being keen to move its embassy tojerusalem from tel aviv and that
8:49 pm
is something you would support? i am an israeli, jerusalem is our capital. but you are also a politician, you know the consequences of that... but this is an american decision. you know it would be seen as israel's annexation ofjerusalem. even if it were in westjerusalem... this is an american decision and, as i said before, as an israeli, jerusalem is our capital and i hope that you do not expect me... that i would represent here on hardtalk the outcome of this and what the arabs would say... but you have in the past been honest enough to say, look, i'm not going to be politically correct about this, i'll talk about settlements as a burden — here we are with something that is widely recognized... i am still talking about new settlements as a burden...
8:50 pm
as far as the embassy moved is concerned, it would be seen as highly provocative and unnecessary move, are you not prepared to say that? no, because i believe that it depends on whether it would be one step doing "okay, we are taking the embassy tojerusalem and that is it" or whether they would recognise things that are connected also to the interests of others in the region. so i believe this is a question of not only taking the embassy but the context in that it will be done, i have some ideas about it but... the former director—general of israel's foreign ministry says everyone knows that to unilateral move is the end of two states? is he wrong? as i said before i am sure that the american, the new administration and i know that they started already asking our neighbours, asking the palestinians,
8:51 pm
asking abbas what would be the implications and it is for them to say how this is going to impact them and i hope that... is it true that you have been offered a job at the united nations? i prefer not to refer to this publication and speculations. but you had a meeting with antonio guterres... this is going to be my only answer, i am sorry. but you can answer this question, you have a difficulty with travelling, you have a difficulty with travelling not least because when you came to london there was a summons issued for you, you are going to be going to belgium in january, a trip that was cancelled and it is known that prosecutors there were going to ask for you to be questioned. do you have a difficulty with travelling, a fear that there will be arrest warrants issued which stem from 0peration cast lead in gaza,
8:52 pm
when you were foreign minister? no, i do not. as you know i visited london and did not... the trip to brussels was cancelled for other reasons. in fact, i did not know about this story that was raised in the newspapers. but i will check it. but i want to say something about this in general, not about me and not about travelling. you know israel is fighting terror and the operations in gaza are against terrorist organisations that doesn't represent a national conflict but a religious conflict, that in a way represents all the extremist islamist ideology that is against — not to say peace — but against even the existence of the state of israel... 0peration cast lead was in response to something else. crosstalk. we only have a few minutes, 0peration cast lead was in response to the firing of rockets into israel...
8:53 pm
sarah, it is very important for me to say so, hamas is being delegitimized by the entire international community. they are acting in terror against our citizens and i believe that this is not only the right but the responsibility of any israeli leader as a member of cabinet to fight against terror as any state in the free world would do... but other states have not had the response the united nations did to israel. a un report accused israel of committing actions amounting to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. no, i know that there was a report and afterwards israel worked in order to open everything, we're checking ourselves, our supreme court is checking every event that is happening. frankly, just tomorrow we are going to have the verdict of an israeli soldier that acted against what we believe, not only the international law, but our laws, but i want to tell you something here,
8:54 pm
ijust came from munich, there was the security conference there, and as i said before, we are members of the free world, we are fighting together with others against terror and it is in order to defend civilians, trying to avoid any civilian casualties and while you me these questions, the foreign minister of iran has stated support terror, support hezbollah, they act in terms of terror also on european soil so i'm willing to answer any question and i'm proud that i had in my life the possibility to be a member of the israeli cabinet and the fight against terror. do you think president trump means peace is more likely in the middle east? i do not know. i want at first to say the former administration, and especially secretary kerry,
8:55 pm
invested in it and i highly appreciated it. the good news is that president trump said "i want to make a deal" and he said that this is his priority and therefore any american president who wants to make a deal, speaking about peace in his first meeting with the prime minister of israel, it was good to hear and it is true that he said not only the two state solution but if he wants to invest in it, if he wants to achieve peace, let's hope this is what will happen — is it is a mutual interest for all of us. tzipi livni, thank you for coming on hardtalk. it's a common interest. thank you. well has promised, today was
8:56 pm
certainly a lot calmer than yesterday, we have had some sunshine, in fact a lot of us did, look at the clear skies. the towers bubbled up a little bit, that means the weather is unfortunately going downhill. the winds are increasing and we will have some rain as well. the weekends and not looking all that promising because of this weather system that is waiting in the wings, coming off the atlantic in the next few hours or so and the wind and the rain will come splashing through. the summary for this weekend, is certainly a mixed one. at least it will be miles, quite a lot of the south—westerly is. so around about now onwards, it is. so around about now onwards, it is raining in some northern areas for quite some time, the cloud will keep on increasing, you can see
8:57 pm
where it is raining, to the south is just that little bit drier, in spots, nothing more than that. most of the heavy rain will fall across western scotland and the north west of england. then tomorrow additionally, the winds will strengthen and we are talking about gale force winds around the coast and across the hills, and the hills of wales, really blustery therefore the south—west of the country, cornwall, devon into most of the west country, rain at times and basically the further east and south—east, the light it will be. even the drier bits, between the blobs of rain, there might be some sunshine. the thinking is, around about lunchtime, we start to see brighter weather coming into scotla nd brighter weather coming into scotland and northern ireland. places like belfast, glasgow and edinburgh are in to some late sunshine whereas many of the central and southern areas are going to stay
8:58 pm
cloudy with that rain waxing and waning throughout the day. this is saturday's rain, this weatherfront is sunday's rain. sunday, once again, the weather goes downhill after a brief, writer interlude through the morning, in fact actually these eastern and central and southern areas might stay dry all through the day, look at that rain piling in. and we have got those strong winds, around these coasts, and, the weather we are watching is this north—western portion of the uk, certainly cumbria and into lancashire, quite heavy rain during the course this weekend. wherever you are, whatever. this is bbc world news today, broadcasting in the uk and around the world. i'm peter gulacsi.
8:59 pm
—— geeta guru—murthy. it was badly hit. malaysia and police confirm there was an air of chemical attack on the korean leader's brother. donald trump hits out at the press and confirms he intends to build the wall on the border with mexico. we are building the wall.
9:00 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on