Global News Podcast - The World Debate: What can stop the war in Gaza?

Episode Date: July 23, 2025

In this special edition of the Global News Podcast, Nick Robinson discusses what can end the conflict in Gaza with a panel of experts and politicians.

This is a special edition of the Global News podcast from the BBC World Service. I'm Uncle Desai with the World Debate, which asks what can stop the war in Gaza? As 28 countries, including many of Israel's allies, demand an immediate end to the conflict, does international condemnation make any difference? And what role can Donald Trump play in ending the fighting? Joining us is a panel of experts, including Palestinian economist, Raja Khalidi. There are only two powers that would appear on the globe capable of getting that ceasefire and the end to the war. Obviously, the American president,

and secondly, the Israeli people. And senior member of the liquid party in Israel, Michael Kleiner. Israel is interested in stopping the war. Israel didn't start the war. The moment we will get back the hostages and Gaza will be demilitarised, Israel will stop the war. As well as our international editor, Jeremy Bowen. So let's join our host for the debate, Nick Robinson. There is one question being asked with increasing intensity here in the UK and right around

the world. What can stop the war in Gaza? We'll address that question with voices from Israel and the Palestinian territories and those beyond who've got knowledge and experience of the region and of international diplomacy, alongside me throughout our international editor, Jeremy Bowen. Now, for some, the answer to the question that we're asking tonight is all too simple. Hamas should release the hostages seized in Israel 653 days ago on October 7th, 2023, the day it murdered, raped and kidnapped, attacking the old and the young, the sick and the healthy,

peace campaigners as well as soldiers. Others say, no, whatever happened on that terrible day, it is Israel which must now stop its attacks on Gaza, attacks that have claimed the lives of more than 2,100 Palestinians so far this month alone and more than 59,000 lives since October the 7th, according to figures from the Ministry of Health in Gaza, which like every public body in Gaza is run by Hamas. Now, that in a sense has been the argument which has raged ever since that fateful day.

But what changed this week is that the government here in the UK, the governments of 27 other countries and the EU, agreed a statement declaring that the war in Gaza must end now because they wrote in a joint statement, the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. So let's begin our debate tonight by introducing our panel and asking briefly each in turn whether that condemnation of Israel by the UK and by those other countries can will make any difference. First joining us from Westminster Baroness Armin Kahelet, who was a senior adviser to Foreign Secretary William Hague. She came to the UK as a refugee in the 90s with her family when war broke out in Bosnia.

Baroness Hellich, do you have any belief, any hope, that those words of condemnation will make any difference? These are very strong words, but if previous statements made in a similar vein are anything to go by, whether they were made in January or May or June or July this year, then this will have no effect whatsoever. Words are strong, condemnation is strong, but effect has so far been negligent. I see no reason why on this occasion we would have a different result.

What's turned next to Israel joining us from Tel Aviv is Michael Kleiner, a senior member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's governing Likud party. Is that analysis right, Mr Kleiner, that they're not listening in Jerusalem? Benjamin Netanyahu will not be listening to these words. I don't know if the words are that war should stop. Israel is interested in stopping the war. Israel didn't start the war. The moment we will get back the hostages and Gaza will be demilitarized, Israel will stop the war.

I don't know what this declaration is changing because we are interested anyway to end this war. This declaration will not change the condition. We will not give up on demilitarisation of Gaza, we will not leave Hamas in Gaza and we will not give up the release of the hostages. Joining us from the city of Ramallah in the West Bank, part of the Palestinian territories, is Raja Khalidi, a development economist, who was coordinator of the UN's Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian people. We have not heard much hope so far that these words will make any difference, Mr Khalidi. Do you think they'll make a difference?

No, they can't and they won't. They can't because I think they're coming maybe a year too late. Ceasefire was something that was relevant as a demand, global demand a year ago, but today what is required is much more than that, an end to the war and end to the other acts of attempted ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. So I mean, that's the first thing. But more importantly, there are only two powers that would appear on the globe capable of getting that ceasefire and the end to the war. Obviously, the American president whose fickleness leads us to not really be able to know what that might lead to.

And that's shown over six months where the war has really been worse than it was the last six months of the Biden term. And secondly, the Israeli people. And I think that's where it really will make a difference. If the Israeli people tolerate the continuation of the sort of policies that this government has led for the last two years, then I think we have a problem. And until that changes, a ceasefire might be possible, but it's not going to be an end to the struggle. Will Barron There is a ferocious debate going on within Israel. There has been ever since

October the 7th about the right way forward, which is why we have a second voice on our debate tonight from Tel Aviv. Professor Yuli Tamir is one of the founders of the peace movement Peace Now. She was a minister when the Israeli Labour Party was in power, serving Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. Do you think the voices of the critics of Benjamin Netanyahu within Israel, of the people perhaps as we just heard from Mr. Kaladi, will make a difference? Well, I'm sure that we will make a difference. We are fighting in the streets and I think though the war is going on and the hostages are still there, the public opinion in Israel is changing.

And you can't see it right now because we are governed by a government that is actually not expressing the voice of the people, but the voice of a small group of political activists who are very much to the right of the Israeli public. So we have to go through the painful process of election and internal struggle in order for our voice to be heard. But I think this voice really exists and it's important to acknowledge that the criticism does not come only from outside, it comes from within. A lot of people in Israel are terrified and very very painfully reacting against what the Hamas did on the October 7th and support

the war in the first stages. But now we all believe that this has gone too far. Too many civilians are being injured and killed. Too many people are starved to death and the hostages are there. Well, finally, in our panel here in Broadcasting House with me alongside me is Lord MacDonald, Simon MacDonald, head of the Foreign Office until 2020, the top diplomat, top civil servant then, but also a former British ambassador to Israel. We're hearing quite a lot of skepticism that the words of the international community can make much difference at all. Do you think there's a chance they will? No, I think the 28 countries will discover pretty smartly that their words don't really

have traction in Jerusalem. Part of the problem is that although they are frustrated, even angry with what is happening in Gaza, they all at the same time continue to believe in the state of Israel and Israel's right to defend itself. So there's an awkward balance to try to strike. The only international players that really cut through in Jerusalem are the United States, as already mentioned, and some of the Arab countries. Israel is interested in peace with its neighbors, they could make representations no doubt in private that I think would have a greater chance of cutting through. Well, we're going to come to the role of the United States, we'll come to that debate inside Israel, also the debate if there is one taking place within the ranks of Hamas

about what they should do, but I want to begin where this week, in a sense, began, Jeremy Bowen, with this statement. Now, a cynic would say this is a statement written by politicians designed to get pressure off their back from their electorate saying, you're not doing enough. You talk to these guys, is there more hope than that, that these words make much difference? No, I think that they feel that it's important that they say these words. I think they are aware of the reality that the only foreign opinion that really counts with Israeli government is the opinion that comes out of the White House. But also, and I think this applies to Britain's Foreign Secretary David Lammy into the Labour government, they're under pressure from their own backbenchches who believe a lot more could be done, that there are tools they have chosen not

to use. One of them, for example, being recognition of a Palestinian state as aware of putting pressure on Israel and signaling they want to get towards this so-called two-state solution in Palestine alongside Israel, and also a series of legal measures that could be taken based on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that said that the occupation, the whole occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and that Britain and other countries could therefore take a series of sanctions and measures that would hurt Israel and put pressure on

them. Well let's talk about that agenda to start with. The agenda in other words of what the government here in the UK, other western governments could do. Baroness Hellich used to advise a British Foreign Secretary. Correct. If you were back in that old job taking the list that we've just been given by Jeremy Byrne, a list that we heard in debates in the House of Commons, in the House of Lords about this. What might you recommend if you wish to up the pressure? Well, I'm sure that this is already being done and that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will have been presented with a list of options and those options would

go from sort of lower level to the upper level, the most drastic level of things that could be done, and they would have to judge it on the basis of what can make a difference, number one, and number two, how that is going to affect the relationship between our country, United Kingdom, and our allies, and including Israel. But I think we have now reached a stage where all options have to be on the table. We ought to rewire the way we think about this conflict. And imagine that this is a country which is not an Israel, which is our friend, and we stood by it in October, rightly so, because they were under a terror attack. But imagine it's a different country that is starving people, that is killing children, that is destroying homes, that is destroying

health system, that there is no water, that there is no food, what would we do? That is, that should be our starting point. Well, give us as a starting point for policy, though, which of the things that you just heard Jeremy Bowen outline, is it pursuing action on alleged war crimes in the International Criminal Court? Is it an extension of the arms embargo? Is it a sanction against more Israeli ministers? What things would you recommend? And then I'll come to our other panellists to say how they'd react to that.

I think personally that we should, all of those options ought to be on the table, including recognition of the Palestinian state, not that it would have any immediate effect. It would not open the borders. It would not immediate effect. It would not open the borders, it would not stop bombing, it would not stop starvation. It wouldn't do it, but that should be on the table. Well, let's pursue that one for a second then and let's bring in Raja Khalidi, who's on the line from Ramallah on the West Bank. If overnight the British government, presumably in alliance with the French, the Canadians, with others, was to say, right, we formally recognize the existence,

not in theory, we formally recognize the existence of Palestinian state. Would that bring any comfort to Palestinians? Would it make any difference to whether the war ends? I don't think it would either. I mean, it might bring some moral just, you know, self-justification to Palestinians, but it certainly won't make any difference in any sense to the political struggle or the war. However, recognition, I think, for it to be more than a hollow diplomatic sort of, recognition of the Palestinians' eventual right to a state,

I think there's ways that, even through some basic economic measures, multilateral, international economic measures, that the idea, the concept of an eventual sovereignty of Palestine in the form of a state to be yet negotiated, et cetera, et cetera, alongside Israel. But the elements, the economics and the economic elements, which are symbolic as well as essential to sovereignty, and I'm thinking of international loans, trade status, and, and, and even monetary affairs should be internationalized, I think. And that would then give some meaning to the idea of recognition because you're recognizing a state of Palestine which is responsible for these terrible, you know, for these huge challenges

to come and which is of course dedicated to resolving disputes peacefully and which is has a democratic etc. constitution, all of those things. But that I think is a way forward, yes. Obviously we have the question of Israel to Deal with well, let's let's turn to Israel. We've got two Israeli guests today, but first of all Michael Kleiner senior member of Benjamin Matanyahu's Likud party in Israel were Western governments more of them could some have already to say right. We recognize the state of Palestine them, because some have already to say, right, we recognize the state of Palestine, theoretically to start with, while negotiations go on. Would that put pressure on the Israeli government?

Would it simply be dismissed? No, I guess it will get the opposite reaction because Israel will understand that you are blaming the victim, accusing the victim, but we got used to it through, even before Israel was established in the 2000 years as a Jewish people, so we know that we are always accused for every atrocity. The only guilty in this war is Hamas.

Hamas started the war. Hamas didn't want to stop it. Israel was ready to stop this war at any moment. Every Palestinian child or a civilian or uninvolved that was killed is to blame on Hamas. The same as in Second World War. Millions of Germans were killed and nobody blamed Britain or the United States, but everyone blamed Adolf Hitler for starting the war. Even the atrocities of the Soviet Union done against Germans were on the shoulders of Hitler and not on the shoulders of Stalin.

You make your point very clearly, Mr. Kleiner. We'll come in a second to Professor Tamir, who is also Israeli, but has a very different view of the world to yours, to react. But you're listening to this, Lord MacDonald. Let's imagine you're back in your job advising a foreign secretary as the top diplomat in the country. He or she says, does it make any difference if we recognise the state of Palestine to this? I would urge the foreign secretary not to recognise and for two main reasons.

One, there are criteria by which a state is judged before recognition. Basically three, a permanent population, which Palestinians clearly have. Second, defined borders, which they don't have. And third, an agreed government, which they don't have. So technically they don't make the grade and second what happens next the act of recognition doesn't really amount to very much it would incense the Israelis it would incense the Americans and people would ask well where's the beef what's the follow-up and the follow-up is very difficult to deliver. We'll come

to what other measures then it might be possible to take in a second but Professor Tamir, Yuli Tamir, would that reaction that we heard a second ago from Michael Kleiner be the reaction of all Israelis or would some say well no that's that is an important symbol of the fact the international community believes still in the idea of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution? First of all, luckily many Israelis don't follow what Mr Kleiner says and do take responsibility for what is happening now in Gaza. I don't think we are to blame for the opening of the war but certainly what is going on we share the responsibility for a lot of the horrible things that are happening there. Second,

we're narrowing the question for the recognition of a Palestinian state. The big issue is whether we have to deal with a political solution or whether power is the solution for the conflict. I'm convinced that power is not going to solve the issue. We are not going to obligate the Hamas. We cannot win this war only by power. So the question is, can the UN, can the EU, can the world offer means of political negotiations that both sides will benefit from in order to move forward? Otherwise, we're stuck in

violence against violence and everybody is suffering, including unfortunately our poor hostages in Gaza whose government, whose our government are not really interested in freeing right now. Before we move to what this whole conversation might mean for the occupant of the White House, who everyone I think in this discussion agrees is the key player here, Jeremy, one of the things on your list was an arms embargo. Now David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, was on the Today program only this morning, listing all the things that his government had done to express its unhappiness with what was happening in Gaza and insisting that pretty much all the arms that could be used in this conflict

have already been banned from being exported. There are still some who say, no, no, there's more that could be done. There's more that can be done. There are some exceptions that have been made, including things that are involved other contracts like the ones, for example, involving the F-35 American warplane, which Britain contributes parts to and parts of that system. Those also are political gestures. In fact, Israel's war effort depends on supplies from the United States. That is what matters to them. That's where they get the bulk of their lethal equipment from. Under the Biden administration, when there were large formations of American troops, of Israeli troops moving through Gaza, there was an extraordinary air convoy of supplies at all times coming into Israel. The Americans kept them going. They keep the tap flowing. So for the rest

of the world, it's about making those political moves, I think, rather than actually affecting Israel's power. Baris Helic, we've had a conversation for a few minutes now, which pretty much everybody, whatever their perspective is saying, well, all these things are gestures. There might be important gestures. There might be signals you want to send. None of them are actually going to do what this debate asks, which is stop the war. Do you accept that? Yes, I do. But on the other hand, I think we can't stop talking and we can't stop working and we can't stop seeking a solution.

And I, you know, for example, I have just urged the Foreign Secretary to travel to Gaza. This is he and his counterparts ought to make a visit and take international, independent international journalists who would report on what is going on there, because this may be just what is needed for the public here in this country, elsewhere in the United States so they can speak up the way that your Professor Tamir was talking about voices of people of Israel who are different from the voices that the government projects. What they will see is that actions that have been taken so far have produced no effect

whatsoever, nothing has changed condemnation strong language, etc. It is all good It looks like the end of term tidying up today by the 27 plus United Kingdom Will it actually make any difference on the ground in July and August? I doubt and now Lord McDonald you have a public rather than just a private voice in the offices in Whitehall. Is your brutal conclusion that, yeah, we just have to accept, actually, we can't stop the war in Gaza. We can talk about it all we like, we can angst all we like, we may rage about it, but we can't stop it. Yes, but, but we can talk to the Americans, particularly to the president. One of the big problems, though, in dealing with President Trump on this issue is that

Mr Netanyahu is one of his favorite international leaders right now. One of the big achievements for Donald Trump this year was the joint American-Israeli raid on the Iranian nuclear program. And you're suggesting, are you, that in a sense Donald Trump doesn't want to fall out with someone that he's had success in a joint enterprise with? That's not the sort of thing he does. That's not the sort of thing he does. I'm Uncle Desai and you're listening to a special edition of the Global News podcast

where we bring you The World Debate, which is asking what can stop the war in Gaza. Coming up, our panelists examine what Hamas is looking for in a peace deal and whether the American president has the power to end the conflict. Trump can say to the Israeli Air Force over there, Ram, stop, and they all turn back home. And when Trump says, I want my citizen back, the hostage that was an American citizen, and he gets that person back, means that he controls the city.

We'll be back with more from the debate right after this. Now let's rejoin Nick Robinson with the world debate. Let's just listen to Donald Trump because in recent weeks he has spoken again and again of his hopes that another deal between Israel and Hamas is possible to produce a ceasefire and the release of some of the remaining hostages. I think there's a good chance we have a deal with Hamas during the week. You know, we've gotten a lot of the hostages out, but pertaining to the remaining hostages, quite a few of them will be coming out.

We think we'll have that done this week. Not definitely. There's nothing definite about war and Gaza, but there's a very good chance that we'll have a settlement and agreement of some kind this week and maybe next week if not. Jeremy Bowen often plays the role of the Today Programme of us playing clips like that and saying yeah but I believe it when I see it. He keeps saying it, it keeps not happening. Well Trump's technique is to try to talk something up and then push and hope it's going to happen and it hasn't happened and why hasn't it happened? It's happened because, it's not happening because a lot of it comes down to one key

point in the negotiations that have been taking place in Doha, in direct negotiations. And that's essentially that Hamas has made pretty clear they will give all the hostages back if Israel leaves Gaza. And Israel has said, you can give the hostages back, but we're not going to leave Gaza unless we decide to. It's going to be up to us. And let's not forget, there was actually that multi-phase ceasefire deal that came in at the end of Joe Biden's period in office, where the second phase was meant to end with that.

And then on March the 18thth the Israelis took the decision to end that ceasefire by launching a series of very loud, noisy, destructive, deadly attacks on Gaza and since then there have been more people displaced in Gaza than the entire population of Manchester here in the UK and thousands more have been killed. Michael Kleiner, as a supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu, indeed president of the Supreme Court, the Likud party, the governing party, do you accept that description,

that there could be a deal and has been a possibility of a deal over many weeks, but Israel won't pay the price necessary for it? No, I don't accept it. On the contrary, it was both Mr. Blinken, who blamed always Hamas, that at the last moment was torpedoing any agreement. And now in the United States, all the people involved said that Israel made a lot of concessions, shown a lot of flexibility, and Hamas is the one torpedoing the agreement. Israel is ready to withdraw from Gaza, provided it will be demilitarized and the people of the few leaders of Hamas or Aleph will be deported in an agreement.

And then it is for the sake of the Palestinians also, because as long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will not be any construction and they will continue to be in ruins. But will you listen to Donald Trump, Mr. Kleiner, if he becomes frustrated with you, and we've seen what he's like when he's frustrated, haven't we? We saw when there was talk about Israel and Iran, he said they don't know what the F they're doing He is capable of losing his temper Do you fear sometimes that our great sponsor the president of the United States is going to lose it with?

Your prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and tell him get on with it There are always some people in New York Times is very hopeful for this to happen But it doesn't happen because on the same page, both want to end the war, both want to continue the Abraham Agreement that will not continue until this war is ended and Gaza will be demilitarized and the hostages will come back home.

And let me remind you that it started, the 7th of October was a reaction to the Biden-Netanyahu Agreement with the Saudis to start a negotiation to continue to continue the Abraham agreement. Forgive me interrupting Mr. Klein. People who don't know what the Abraham Accords are, I don't mean to be rude by interrupting you. But in other words that was the arrangement, big and important deal done under Donald Trump's first term in the White House, in which Israel had proper relationships with the Gulf states and there was a great

dream that that would include Saudi Arabia as well. And you're saying that Hamas wanted to torpedo that by launching... President Biden in the meeting with Netanyahu agreed that the Saudis said that they are going to it and then this started to torpedo the continuation of this peace agreement. I want to continue discussing what Donald Trump should do if you'll forgive me Mr Kleiner. Forgive me sorry thank you for contributing I want to carry on with what Donald Trump might do or should do. Let me bring in a voice of the Palestinians. Now, just to stress, Roger Khalidi is a development economist. He's not a politician in the Palestinian Authority

of the West Bank and certainly not a supporter of Hamas in Gaza, but he is someone who understands Palestinian thinking well. What is the greatest hope of what the American president might do if he's to make a difference? I mean, I'm going to have to, you know, before I'll answer that, but you know, you've answered us a couple of questions, which I think are circumventing some essential issues here. One thing is that, you know, especially in terms of the idea of what the likelihood is of this EU position having an effect, I think that, you know, we avoid discussing the fact that

Israel is part of a US, EU and wider security technological arms, I won't say empire, but it has certainly global reach. And it's also part of the financial underpinning. So you know the Palestinians obviously are out of that and the Arabs by the way are largely out of that they maybe won't buy in now. So this is you know if you want to talk about why the Europeans are not doing anything that has effect then you have to look at that to begin with. Second thing I think that you need to we haven't we haven't talked about nobody's has really mentioned, is that this idea that whether it's a 2000 year struggle and conflict or a 75 year one,

the point is now we're supposed to be talking about ending that conflict, not another 30 years of postponing. So the problem is that this is the second thing, which is that the Western governments, unlike their peoples who are in the streets saying it's something else, have bought in and continue to buy into the Israeli narrative not only with the right to self-defense infinitely and regardless of the crimes that it might entail but also in the idea that Palestinians have no agency.

Yeah, but forgive me Roger Kelly, I want you to bring you to what Donald Trump might do because I, you've made your points clearly. Donald Trump will look at those things. He'll look at the financial. I think it'll give that, he doesn't look, the only positive difference between Trump and Biden, the Palestinian vantage point so far is that Trump is not an ideological Zionist. And so he's not been, he won't be, you know, sort of easily seduced by the sort of messianic ideas that some of his Christian evangelists supporters and many in government in Israel

spout. So I think that's the best support. And forgive me, let me just spell out what you mean by that because it won't be obvious to people who don't know the region well. Yeah, I'm so sorry to interrupt, but it's important we explain things to people who don't follow this in huge detail. When you talk about him being an ideological Zionist, well Jeremy, do better than I can. Well, Zionism was the idea that the Jews needed a home of their own in what they came to believe was their historic homeland of Palestine.

And that movement started in Europe in the late 19th century. And in their first conference, they predicted they'd have a state within 50 years and that pretty much happened. And crucially amongst the people, they just heard called the ideological Zionists, they want to expand it. Yeah and as they discovered when the first Zionist, there was a deputation that was sent out and famously one historian has written that they telegraphed back the bride is beautiful, but she's already married, meaning the land has people in it. Yes.

And the fear of some, the hope of others is that Israel is expanded to include the Palestinian territories. Now, Judea and Samaria, as the West Bank is known to those people who believe in expanding Israel in that way, and also into Gaza as well. Let me bring someone who would not share that vision but is an Israeli and a former Israeli minister, Professor Yuli Tamir, one of the founders of the Peace Now movement. You listen to what we've heard about what Trump might or might not do and think what, Professor Tamir.

That Trump can say to the Israeli Air Force over Tehran, stop and they all turn back home. And when Trump says, I want my citizen back, the hostage that was an American citizen, and he gets that person back, means that he controls the scene. And unfortunately, he controls the Israeli government. We lost a lot of our sovereignty in this struggle because we are now totally led by

the wishes, the decisions, the eclectic decisions of President Trump. And if he wishes to stop the war and to bring the hostages back, he will do it. And I know now, Witkoff is in the region. He is again and again claiming that he is about to release the hostages. He's the only one who can do it because Netanyahu fears Trump and he is dependent on Trump for the continuation of his government. And that's the one and only thing that Netanyahu cares about. Yep, Steve Witkoff we're talking about, by the way, who's his friend and ally and a businessman who is undertaking these talks on behalf of President Trump in the region. As the bringer of truths,

Lord MacDonald, the rather brutal truth sometimes from politicians, do you think that analysis, regardless of whether you agree with Donald Trump or not, the analysis, which is he could press the button in effect, he could switch off this conflict if he wanted to, Donald Trump, by simply saying to the Israeli government, you don't get the money, you don't get our support anymore, is that right? Paul Williams It's an unequal relationship, correct, but the Israelis have agency in this relationship. They need America, but they are not, I think, slavishly following US opinion. And as I've already said, Netanyahu has a pretty good relationship with Trump. Of all world leaders, I think Trump listens most

attentively to Bibi Netanyahu, so he's not in a mood to put massive pressure on him. And in part, Jeremy, because what Netanyahu will be saying to Trump, as Lord McDonald was suggesting before, is look, look at the victories we're having. We've defeated His Balah in Lebanon. We've changed the government or helped to change the government in Syria. We are on our way, he will claim, to defeating Hamas. We have neutered the Iranian nuclear program. Why would we break this relationship now? Will that not be the message coming from Jerusalem? Yeah, and Trump appears to respect strength and he likes success more than anything.

He hates anybody who might be called a loser. You know, but however, there's also stuff he doesn't like and he's made clear he doesn't like the sight of starving children on his TV, watches a great deal of TV and on social media. Now that is something that will impact with him. And the prophecies, the predictions and projections of starvation in Gaza are clearly coming true.

Israel denies it's happening, but the evidence absolutely belies that, that there isn't food there. Today the the French news agency AFP even put out a statement saying that their correspondents there are not filing in the way they normally do because they're hungry and that they're out looking for food. Well let's end our conversation with discussing the parties themselves because we've talked about the influence on them from outside. Let's talk about Israel and, of course, Hamas. Roger Khalidi, can I return to you speaking on the West Bank and just remind people and stress that you are in no sense a spokesman for either Hamas or indeed for the Palestinian Authority or an observer of these things.

What pressures though do you detect there are on the remaining fighters of Hamas to actually reach a deal and to release some of these hostages? Look, the pressures on Hamas, I mean, Hamas has been ready to do this deal. I mean, New York Times told us that for about a year this is the deal that's been on the table. There's going to be some modifications brought, you know brought to bear over after a year's additional fighting and destruction of Gaza, et cetera. But so we know that this is not a deal that is brand new. So Hamas has been here at this stage, more or less. Now, the issue of day after demilitarization of Gaza, even that we've had fairly explicit statements by Hamas, if not to public, then we've heard that it's been explicitly said to the mediators that demilitarization is something they accept and, you know, handing over the government to a Palestinian government

is something that they accept. So, you know, let's remind ourselves that the Palestinians, Hamas aside for the moment, but after two years battering, Hamas as well I would say, have been the party that has been committed to the two-state solution since 1988. Israel came to it and then we've been with them. Not Hamas. Let's be very, very, very clear about that. They want the destruction of the state of Israel.

I said I put Hamas aside, but I also said that Hamas now having been battered is definitely singing a different song. Okay but anyhow my point is why would you believe them if you were Israel though why on earth would you believe anything Hamas says given the appalling death, destruction, murder, rape and kidnapping? That Hamas has been has been has been military really vanquished, at least in terms of being a threat to Israel. It remains obviously a guerrilla threat to Israel as long as Israel is occupied in Gaza Strip. But we also know that any ceasefire deal will include international security guarantees for Israel, de-militarization, handing over… So that's already been openly discussed. Let me pop back to Michael Klein.

Openly at least, that's what I read in the Israeli press perhaps Haaretz of course maybe is a rosy picture. Which is a liberal Israeli newspaper for those who are not readers of Haaretz. Michael Klein, let me just put that to you, which is how much ever much you loathe Hamas and most people would say with pretty good reason, the argument being made they are no longer a threat to the existence of Israel. Yes, of course, that they would like to target individual Israelis, as no doubt Hezbollah and others want to do, and the Houthis in Yemen, but they're not a threat to Israel

per se. What will be a threat is if everyone in that region loathes Israel with a vengeance for the rest of their lives? If Israel withdraws without making sure that the Gaza Strip is demilitarized and Hamas is out, Hamas will stay in Gaza. It will pose a danger not to the existence of the state of Israel, they never did, but it will pose a danger to the southern settlement, not settlements, townships in the south of Israel,

which they attacked, and they will be able to badger them and to disturb them and send rockets, and they will try to rebuild, they will get money, and instead of investing it in rebuilding Gaza, they will invest it in rebuilding the tunnels, and rebuilding the weapon workshops, and they will pose a danger for the Palestinians no less than for the Israeli southern settlements. Just a moment to bring in finally Professor Yuli Tamir. Do you think that Netanyahu is thinking about the future of Israel or the future of himself?

Mostly about his own future, and I think his own future depends on his government right now. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. The future of Israel depends on a negotiation with the Palestinian government, not the Hamas. I have zero trust in the Hamas, but the Palestinian government needs to replace Israel. Israel cannot occupy Gaza. Israel cannot settle in Gaza. To replace Israel. Okay, this is what you said. Needs to replace Israel. This is your opinion, probably. This is what you said. Needs to replace Israel, you said. You know, don't interrupt me. I've listened to what you say with a lot of disagreement, but quietly.

Both of you from Tel Aviv, time is short, so finish your point if you would, Yuli. Yeah, I just want to say that really the future lies in finding a replacement for the Hamas, a Palestinian replacement, and that is what Prime Minister Netanyahu prevented for years and years. This is why he supported the Hamas, rather than creating a chance for a Palestinian authority to govern Gaza and the West Bank. Thank you. A final thought, Mr. Kleiner, thank you. We've got that. Thank you. I'm afraid we're going to have to let our guests in the region go because we're almost

out of time. I want to return though to where we began with Baroness Hellich. Even more depressed now hearing these arguments, hearing this sense that there is little that can change, little that will be done. No, I believe that there are things that can be done that I believe that it can change and I believe the moment will come when the killing and massacres are going to stop. What we must not do is walk away in depression and say, well, we'll be back in September and we'll touch upon this again.

Simon McDonald? I'm pretty depressed about it. I think Mr Netanyahu's strategy only makes sense if there are no Palestinians in Gaza. And Jeremy Bone, for those looking for some hope, is there some? I'm probably the wrong man to come to. Wars will end, this one will end, the conflict sadly has gone on for more than a century and there is no sign that it's going to get anything other than worse unless there are political initiatives that work that do go towards that somehow revitalise this idea, perhaps of a two state solution, because at the moment it is an empty slogan.

And that's all from this special edition of the Global News Podcast. There will be a new regular edition later. If you want to comment on this podcast or the topics covered in it, you can send us an email. The address is globalpodcast at BBC dot co dot UK. And you can also find us on X under the handle at BBC World Service. And you can use the hashtag global news pod. This edition was mixed by Rosanwyn Darrell and the producer was Alfie Habishan. The editor is Karen Martin and I'm Uncle Desai. Until next time, goodbye.