The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Can Trump Bring Stability to the Middle East?

Episode Date: November 28, 2024

Donald Trump's return to the White House coincides with a war raging on multiple fronts in the Middle East, with Israel battling Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, not to mention ongoing tensions with Iran. Will his new administration be able to bring both conflicts to an end? Host Steve Paikin asks: Einat Wilf (Former member of the Israeli parliament); Khaled Elgindy (Senior Fellow, Middle East Institute); Ahmed Alkhatib (Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council), and Jon Allen (Former Canadian Ambassador to Israel). See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The more you know, the more you'll grow. At TVO, we know that informed minds lead to great transformations. But we need your support more than ever before. Right now, you can double your impact. Donations made by December 3rd will be matched up to a total of $150,000. Your support helps provide in-depth journalism, documentaries, learning resources, and kids programming that help you discover the you you didn't know you could become.

Exciting, isn't it? Visit tvo.org slash Giving Tuesday to make your donation today and discover your 2-Point TVO. As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, he does so with a war raging in the Middle East, notwithstanding the ceasefire reached between Israel and Lebanon. In addition, the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which may complicate matters even more. Let's delve into all of this with, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Enaat Wilf, former member of the Israeli Knesset, that country's parliament, and co-author of The War of Return, How Western

Indulgence of the Palestinian Dream Has Obstructed the Path to Peace. In Chicago, Illinois, Khaled El-Gindy, Senior Fellow and Director of the Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs at the Middle East Institute. He's the author of Blind Spot, America and the Palestinians from Balfour to Trump. And here in our studio, John Allen. He's former Canadian Ambassador to Israel and Senior Fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. John, it's good to see you again. Thanks for coming in. to Israel and senior fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.

John, it's good to see you again. Thanks for coming in. And to our friends in Points Beyond, thank you for joining us on TVO tonight. I want to start with a, I guess just to get a gauge of where the three of you are on this question. Do we have any reason to believe that Donald Trump's approach to this region of the world in his next term will be any different than it was during his last term. Einat Wilf, why don't you start us out on that? It's tough to know.

We can gauge through the nominations and the declarations, certainly the nominations on issues facing Israel. So the ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, the ambassador to the United Nations, which is obsessed with Israel, so Huckabee, the ambassador to the United Nations, which is obsessed with Israel, so Elise Stefanik, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, are all strong pro-Israel supporters.

So hopefully this sends a message that this is going to be the direction of his administration. He's also made it clear that he wants to pursue peace. He definitely feels that after ending his previous term with four peace and normalization agreements and momentum for more, he feels that the momentum was stopped by the policies of the Biden administration, and he's clearly eager to renew that momentum. Khaled El-Gindy, how do you see it?

Well, Donald Trump is notoriously unpredictable, but there is not a whole lot of mystery given that we have the record of the first administration and based on the appointments, I think we're not just talking about a pro-Israel orientation. We're talking about the most far-right extremists, even messianic ideological views coming into this administration, people who openly say that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no such thing as an occupation. You have noted well-known Islamophobes and other bigots entering this administration. So it is, I think, an understatement to simply call it pro-Israel. It is aligned with the most extreme

messianic elements of the Israeli government, which of course is also quite extreme. These are people who believe that God is in control of events and there is no need for things like diplomacy or, you know, they're in a realm of the other world and not a normal politics. So I think it's an extremely dangerous administration that is shaping up, particularly when you combine it with a far-right extremist Israeli government that believes, some of whom believe in expelling Palestinians and in annexing the West Bank. It's a different ballgame, I think, Trump too, than Trump won.

John Allen, how do you see it? Well, I think I agree with both in a way. I think what we have to see is whether or not the people that Trump has appointed have any real power or what is really going to happen is that Donald Trump is going to decide what he wants to do. Clearly if Mike Huckabee had his way there would be no two-state solution and the West Bank would be annexed tomorrow and I don't think that's going to happen. I certainly hope it doesn't happen. And we do know that Donald Trump wants to make deals. He tried to make the deal of the century with respect to Israel- Palestine last time. It wasn't much of a deal for the Palestinians and he may

well try that again, putting pressure on Palestine to come to the table. We'll see. There is also the possibility of a Saudi Israel US deal. That deal, the last time it was being negotiated, pre Octoberober 7 did not have much or anything for the Palestinians. But the Saudis have now changed the game, and they are demanding sometimes a path forward to the two-state solution, sometimes a Palestinian state,

depending on when they've been speaking lately. So let me stop you there, because there's so many good points that everybody's made so far that I need to follow up on. Let me start with the ambassador to Israel that Donald Trump has just appointed, and that's Mike Huckabee since his name came up. And, Ina Wolf, let me get you to start on this.

He is an evangelical Christian. He does believe, as Khaled said, that the end times can only happen, and the Messiah can only return when all the Jews return to Israel, which will bring about the revelations as described in the New Testament. And I wonder if that gives you pause at all for the possibilities in the region. First of all, there tends to be a general misunderstanding of evangelicals in the U.S. The tiny minority are

what you described as millenarians. The vast majority simply believe that if you bless Israel and the Jewish people, you will be blessed. Also, they tend to be people who belong to the view that they read directly the Old Testament, so they have a clear understanding which is constantly being denied by our enemies of the historical, cultural, ritual, uninterrupted connection between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. There's no doubt that he believes in annexation and all I can say as someone who herself does not support annexation is that last time that we even had the threat of annexation, what we got was four peace and normalization agreements.

So given the vast imbalance in numbers, seven million Jews surrounded by 500 million Arabs, which despite positive developments in the Gulf are still by and large devoted to what Ambassador Abba Eban called poliside, the non-existence of the Jewish state, supported by 2 billion Muslims, who largely are of that view. It's not too bad to have about 100 million evangelicals who support a president who basically will therefore perhaps force the Arab and Islamic world

to contend with the idea that Israel is not a temporary aberration in the region and that they finally have to bring to an end their century-long war against the existence of a Jewish state and any borders. Khalid, as you look at Team Trump, Mike Huckabee in Israel, Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Elise Stefanik as the new United Nations ambassador, what emerges from that list as far as your

characterization of the possibilities in the region? Yeah, I think the common thread running through all of them is an intense hostility toward all things Palestinian, you know, across the spectrum, ranging from anything and anything and everything that Palestinians do is illegitimate. Palestinian politics are illegitimate. Palestinian aspirations are illegitimate. On one hand, like Marco Rubio, all the way to the to the other end of the spectrum, Mike Huckabee and Pete Hegsa, the designated defense secretary who simply don't believe in a Palestinian people and believe that God orders events in the Middle East and therefore, you know, what sort of

diplomacy could be allowed. But it's clear the one thing they all have in common is an intense hostility toward Palestinians. And that's the problem here. It isn't Israel's place in the region. Israel is a nuclear power. It's the most powerful force militarily in the region. It has wreaked havoc on Lebanon, destroyed the entirety of the Gaza Strip, killed tens of thousands of people. Everyone in the Arab and Muslim world understand that Israel exists because they live with the

consequences of Israel's existence in terms of the atrocities that we've seen particularly in the last 14 months. Well, let me just jump in there for a second. Let me jump in. They may understand that Israel exists, but obviously there are significant factions in the Middle East that don't acknowledge that Israel exists. That's fair to say, isn't it? It's true.

Most countries don't recognize Israel formally, And that has to do almost exclusively with Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinian people, the expulsion or flight of Palestinians, two thirds of the Arab population of Palestine in 1948, the occupation of the remaining parts of Palestine in 1967. So the core issue has always been the Palestinians and their rights. And Israel has, as it's moved more and more to the extreme right, has become even more

intransigent and unwilling to accommodate even the most basic Palestinian rights. Never mind the right of self-determination, the right simply to live on their own land is not something that this extremist government is willing to accept. That's not necessarily the case of previous Israeli governments who were willing to accommodate Palestinian political aspirations. Yes. Let me get John in here in as much as I'd like you to comment on the team

that Trump has got on this file, if you like. From this standpoint, and I don't want to exaggerate this, but there is that expression, only Nixon could go to China. Is it possible that Trump has picked a very pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian group that at the end of the day could surprise us by maybe ushering in something we don't anticipate in a positive way. Well, I'm going to go back to what I said originally. That group is not going to surprise you.

That group is pro-Israel, either anti-Palestinian or anti-two-state, or maybe not quite completely, but they're very, very pro-Israel. So it's not going to be up to that group to bring peace to the Middle East. It'll be up to Donald Trump himself. I want to go back though to what Inad had to say, because there are two other numbers that are important. 7.5 million Jews in the region and 7.5 million Palestinians in the region.

And no peace and security is going to happen until there is a separation of those two. And I also- Hang on, John. Hang on. 7.5 million Palestinians? 7.5 million Arabs in the region. OK, it depends how you want to count. 20% are in Israel.

OK, it depends how you want to count, though, right? I mean, 7.5 million Jews, but depending on how far afield you want to look... Well, yes, that's what I wanted to address. Could be hundreds of millions of Arabs, right? It could be. But what the Arabs have said and what the Saudis have said since the 90s with their Arab peace initiative is that the Arab people are to recognize a Palestinian state, all of those Arab states will recognize Israel. The deal has been on the table for a long time. There are complications to the deal, refugees, Jerusalem, et cetera. But those complications have existed.

So all of those Arab states, which Anat mentioned, and there's no question there are problems, and we're not talking about the Iranians, we're talking about the Arabs, the deal is on the table. And if Israel wants to move towards that and move towards a state, then those countries will recognize Israel.

And that can help deal with this problem of hatred, et cetera. And Nuts, you've heard a lot there. I want to give you a chance to respond. It's exactly the reverse. The only issue has ever been the complete and total Arab and Islamic rejection of the equal right of the Jewish people as a people to self-determination in their historic homeland.

The Jewish people, deeply cognizant of their status, is a minute ethnic, national, religious, and linguistic minority, and an overwhelming Arab and Muslim Middle East, I mean the seventh century conquests of North Africa and Levant were successful, so good for them. Cognizant of our status as a minority have always agreed, going back to the existence to the creation of Transjordan, to a two-state solution as long as one of the two is the Jewish state. And the Arabs have always rejected a two-state solution if one of the two is a Jewish state. The Arab peace initiative is also no such initiative.

It demands it's a take it or leave it demand that all Arab countries agree to, which should already give you a clue. Demanding Israel go back to the 1949 ceasefire lines, plus it demands this idea of refugee return, which has only ever meant the way to undo the idea of a Jewish state. There has never been an Arab peace initiative that recognizes the idea of a Jewish state that makes it clear to the Palestine Arabs that they are not refugees when they live And therefore, every time, even with different Israeli governments, when Palestinians were faced with a choice, you can have your own state in the land, going back to 37, but the

Jews will always be the ones who are going to be the ones who are going to be the ones who are going to be the ones who are going to be the ones who are going to be the ones who are going to be the ones who are going state in the land, going back to 37, but the Jews will also have their own state. They could never accept the Jews as their equals, as sovereign, and that has only ever been at the core of the conflict. All right, Khaled, let me bring you to more present-day developments, and that is the attempt by the International Criminal Court to have a role in what's going on here. They issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel.

They issued arrest warrants for, how would I describe this? I'm not sure what the point was, since some of the arrest warrants they issued were for leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah who are thought to be dead now as a result of developments there in the last few weeks. Tell me what you think the practical effect of the ICC putting out these arrest warrants is. Well, the development itself, the issuing of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders or any

Israelis is unprecedented. There has never been any meaningful attempt at accountability for Israel's very long history of atrocities going back to even 1948, but you know all through the many wars in 1982, the second Intifada we've seen many such cases. So it's unprecedented in that sense that Israel has never been held to account, particularly given the special relationship with the United States, which has always deflected any sort of accountability, responsibility for Israel's actions. And I think it's a very important precedent. Of course, neither Netanyahu nor Galant are going to show up at The Hague anytime soon, but it does have an impact in the sense that all signatories to the Rome Statute, including all nations of the European Union, are obligated to enforce these arrest warrants.

And many European countries have said that they would abide by the arrest warrants, including the UK and others. Others have said that they would not. Let me pick up on that. Yeah, I'm gonna pick up on that with John, because Canada's prime minister is one of those who has been on record and saying, we are one of the original signatories to the

creation of the International Criminal Court. We believe in the rule of law. He didn't say it specifically that if Benjamin Netanyahu comes here, we'll arrest him and take him to the Hague. So that's what I want to ask you. Can you imagine a scenario, and the Israeli Prime Minister does come to Canada from time to time, can you imagine a scenario where he shows up at Pearson Airport and the RCMP arrest him and take him to the Hague?

I can't imagine a scenario where Benjamin Netanyahu will travel to any country that is a signatory to the ICC statute and which is obligated to arrest him he just won't go there. That's a long list. It's a very long list. That's 124 countries. Three countries so far have said they would not abide. One is the United States which is not a party. The other is Hungary and the third is Argentina. Those are the only three countries that have suggested he could visit without being arrested. That may change, I don't know, but yes the Prime Minister said he would follow the rules of the ICC. The

obligation is to arrest if he comes. In that I want to ask you, and I guess we should preface this question by saying when you were a member of the Knesset, you and Mr. Netanyahu were not in the same party. In fact, I suspect you have a pretty different view from him on a lot of what goes on in Israel. But tell us, practically speaking, is the Israeli prime minister a prisoner in his own country right now? I don't know that in terms of the practicalities.

I know that more countries have recently started to say that they will not implement it, either the Czech Republic, France just issued it. Also, there have been some rumblings for the court that if Israel has some commission, then they will withdraw it, so perhaps actually realizing that they have overreached, because legal scholars

have made it clear that first it has no jurisdiction. The claims that were based were actually proven to be false. So this politicization is actually in many ways could be endangering the entire, the court itself. But Netanyahu is known to be, should we say, a person who does not take risks. And it's likely that he will not take those risks until he could be assured that he will travel and not

be arrested. OK, let me now turn to the possibilities. And again, we remember when Trump had his first term that he did surprise a lot of people by managing to get signed the so-called Abraham Accords, which included deals between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Israel and Bahrain. And of course, until October 7th of last year, John, there was a great deal of conversation about the possibility of getting Saudi Arabia to sign on next.

How do you see the prospects of that happening in Trump too? Yeah, let me just say that you've got four countries there, UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, who did recognize Israel. And you've got the Palestinians who also have recognized the state of Israel. So which Palestinians? The PA, the Palestinian Authority, which is the government in control in Palestine.

But not Hamas and not his belong. No, absolutely not. And the PLO. But do I see the, I can certainly see Donald Trump trying for a deal. There's absolutely no question about it. Donald has said that Barack Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and he wants it. So he is going to do everything he can to make

some big deals. I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to make a deal with Iran. But on the Saudi Israel US side, yes, I think he will want to. But as I said before, the Saudis have now said that's conditional on movement on a Palestinian state. So whether or not Donald decides he wants to incorporate that, that it's worth it for him to push for a Palestinian state, he may well be able to get the deal of the century. Khaled, what do you think the chances are for a Saudi-Israeli-American agreement? I don't think the chances are very high. I mean, it's something, clearly, that was a priority for both the Biden administration and Donald Trump.

The Saudis are the big prize in the Arab world, and it would effectively mean the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the Saudis have made clear that they're not going to move on normalization with Israel until there's movement toward Palestinian statehood. And Palestinian statehood is the death knell of Netanyahu's coalition. That's the one thing that could bring down this coalition, that in ending the Gaza war. And so I don't see any scenario

in which Prime Minister Netanyahu would ever agree to even a rump state, state-like entity like what was proposed in his first term, because that would torpedo his coalition. and the Saudis have made clear that they're not going to accept anything less so I don't see that happening without intensive US pressure and I Don't see US pressure on On on this Israeli government coming

We haven't seen it from Biden and I don't see it coming from Donald Trump either on this Israeli government coming. We haven't seen it from Biden, and I don't see it coming from Donald Trump either. And not everybody agrees that Saudi Arabia would be the big prize for Israel, but I wonder from you, whether you take them at their word that there will be no agreement

until there's progress made on the Palestinian issue. I have to say that this is actually the easiest thing Israel has, and I think even someone like Netanyahu can do that. All that Israel has to do is actually make it clear that there is a path to Palestinian state, the only one that has ever been. The day that Palestinians end their century-long war against Zionism, the day that they develop

a constructive vision of wanting to live next to a Jewish state, rather than devoting their capabilities to trying to prevent it and then to undo it, the day that they understand that they are not multiple generation refugees when they live in the West Bank and Gaza, and that they do not possess an imaginary right of return. That day, they will discover, as has been the case for the last century, that the Jews have never been the problem. We've always agreed to a two-state solution, provided one of the two is the Jewish state. Which means that even the PA, unfortunately, never recognized the idea of the right, the equal right, I'm not greedy, not exclusive, not superior, the equal right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historic homeland, which means no return and no perpetual refugeehood.

I repeat that because those are the two most effective litmus tests to know whether there is true reconciliation with the idea of a sovereign Jewish state. So when you say people recognize Israel, I commend them for recognizing reality, but actually there are none who recognize the equal right or not say none, maybe the UAE, the equal right of the Jewish people as a people and a nation to self-determination in their historic homeland.

So the problem is not pressuring Israel. The Jews have always said, yes, provided the one non-negotiable is that we have a Jewish state. Khaled, as we look at the other side of the coin and let's talk about pressure, do you think it's possible that Saudi Arabia could use its influence with Donald Trump to pressure him to be more even-handed and less pro-Israel in the region? Yeah, but I think it's important to just respond to what Inat said because there's a lot of imaginary history and complete disregard for massive... I mean, just the whole history of international law is completely thrown out. Refugees do not have imaginary rights. They're rights enshrined in international law and they're

recognized universally everywhere except Israel. In terms of the point about Israel always ready to accept a two-state solution, all you have to do is go back to last July, when the Knesset overwhelmingly, the unanimous rejection by all Israeli Jewish Zionist parties of a two-state solution. So it's a not really who's not kind of reality based, because this was just a few months ago. As far as Saudi Arabia, yes, the Saudis are the main source of leverage here in terms of trying to convince either the Israeli leadership or the Trump administration of any kind of movement toward Palestinian statehood.

So it really comes down to how badly does Donald Trump want it? Does he want it bad enough that he would be willing to put pressure on Israel's far-right government in a way that would actually bring down that government? So this is existential for Netanyahu in the sense that his personal and political survival depends on keeping his coalition together, that's how he avoids going to jail, and the only way to do that is to give his far-right extremist coalition partners everything they want. Everything they want in Gaza, everything they want in the West Bank, and he's done that, and I don't see that changing.

John, it's interesting. We have two leaders here, both in Netanyahu and Trump, who need to win and stay in power to avoid going to jail. It's a very odd moment in world history. Having said that, do you think the Saudis can use their offices in this case to influence Trump to be less pro-Israeli in the hopes of moving towards a better outcome? Well, let me just say that Donald Trump's got four years in the White House. Bibi Netanyahu has to go to elections in 2026.

That's still a long time from now. It is too long, in my view, but the polls suggest that he will not be re-elected. That could change. We know that. But if he is not re-elected, and if somebody like Naftali Bennett becomes the prime minister with a more moderate coalition, you might find somebody in the Israeli parliament

and a leader of Israel who was much more interested in having a deal with the Saudis and in thinking about moving towards a Palestinian state. We will have been two or three years past October 7, which is time needed to heal the wounds on both sides. And you will have a more pragmatic government. We've seen the Bennett government before, and they were pragmatic. And then maybe we'll see an opportunity for the Saudis and Donald and Bennett and company

to move towards a better future. Hey, Nat, do you see a better future if Netanyahu is not prime minister and somebody else is? Regardless of who's prime minister, the one non-negotiable that the Jewish people have in the state of Israel is that we want to be sovereign in our own state, in our own homeland. You will never find a government, and you had, you actually had Israeli governments, Barack, Olmert, who offered Palestinians a state only to be rebuffed and have it followed up with violence. Even with Trump, I remind you that it is Netanyahu himself who said yes to Palestinian

state as part of the Trump peace plan. And it is the Palestinian leader who said true to their century long, uh, battle, no, no, and a thousand times no. So the issue is not one singular leader. The issue is what the people want. And unfortunately, it's always been this. The Jews wanted a state that is the one non-negotiable, they're willing to have it a small state, they said yes to partition, they said yes to multiple plans from 1937 to 47 to 67 to 2000 to 2000 and A to the Trump peace plan, they've said yes to two state solutions and the Arabs and especially the Palestinians are yet to say yes to two state solutions, and the Arabs and especially the Palestinians are yet to say yes to any plan that will let a Jewish state live.

So if anyone truly wants peace, the only obstacle has ever been the Arab and especially Palestinian rejection of the Jewish right to self-determination. Solve that and you solve the conflict. Khalid, can I get you to speak to that? Yeah, it's completely ahistorical, has no resemblance to the reality on the ground.

The absence of peace comes from the fact that the denial of Palestinian rights, and in the case of the current Israeli government, the denial of their very existence. Palestinians, 5 million Palestinians live under Israeli rule with no rights at all. And in Gaza, they don't even have the right to live. They don't have the right to go to school because most of the schools have been destroyed. All of Gaza's hospitals have been attacked. All of its universities have been destroyed.

been destroyed, all of Gaza's hospitals have been attacked, all of its universities have been destroyed. This is an existential war for Palestinians, not to have a free state, but simply to live and survive as human beings. So what is at the core of this conflict is the systematic denial, dispossession, and subjugation of an entire people. It's why the international human rights community unanimously, virtually, has described the reality that exists in the West Bank and Gaza as apartheid. And that's why Israel is facing a genocide case in the International Court of Justice and why Israeli leaders have arrest warrants.

Because what is at the core of this conflict is the violence perpetrated and subjugation and denial of Palestinian rights. That is the center of this conflict. And when that ends, then there can be peace and perhaps reconciliation. John, I'm down to my last minute here and I want to put this to you. This is a part of the world that never fails to break your heart. Every time it seems there is a glimmer of hope, those hopes are dashed. So I want to ask you about the glimmer of hope that we may have seen earlier

this week, namely the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, which the Biden administration apparently looks as if it has got nailed down. You want to read a lot into that or a little into that? Well, I think we've got to have hope. For the period from 2006 until a year ago, there was a deal. It was not fulfilled by Hezbollah in the sense that they moved south of the Latani River. But there was no fighting between Hezbollah and between Israel during that time. And there was no need to evacuate 60,000 Israelis.

My hope is that Hezbollah will be pushed north of the Latani River. Israel will withdraw. And evacuees will be able to come back to their homes on both sides, a million in Lebanon and 60,000 in Israel. And that the Iranians and Hezbollah will have the brains not to try and challenge Israel again the way they did.

Hezbollah is there as a deterrent for Iran. It doesn't have to attack Israel the way they did. Hezbollah is there as a deterrent for Iran. It doesn't have to attack Israel the way it did post October 7. I hope we go back to that and I hope we can see some peace in that part of the region. I know how impossibly difficult this issue is to discuss in a civilized fashion and I want to thank all of you for doing so. Strong passions on all sides but this was a most illuminating and helpful conversation. My thanks to Anat Wilf, the former member of the Knesset in Israel, Khaled El-Gindy from the Middle East Institute, John Allen from the Munk

School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the U of T. Thanks so much everybody. Thank you. Thank you.