The Munk Debates Podcast - Munk Dialogue with Gilead Sher: why a two-state solution is the only viable path to peace

Episode Date: March 6, 2024

For decades, the two-state solution has been held up as the best chance for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. But in the aftermath of October 7th, and the security risks posed by a potential Palestinian state in the West Bank, most Israelis are souring on the two-state vision. A few Israeli leaders, however, still believe it is the only viable path forward. On this Munk Dialogue, we’re joined by one of the country’s biggest proponents for peace. Gilead Sher was Chief of Staff to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and served as a senior negotiator at the Camp David summit in 2000, which ultimately failed in its objective to lay the groundwork for a sovereign Palestinian State. Now, he is acting as a representative for the families of the hostages in Gaza as they desperately seek the return of their loved ones after more than 150 days in captivity. Gilead argues that in spite of everything that has unfolded over the past five months, a two-state solution remains the best - and indeed only - way to achieve safety, security, and prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians. The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths. Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 15+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/   Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran LynchBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You don't help the poor by making everybody poorer. The media has a frame, and the frame is Israel is the oppressor, and the Palestinians are the oppressed. I shouldn't be forced to acknowledge my privilege unless I desire for that to be part of my interaction with somebody else. What I know to be true and what all of my fellow Gen Z know to be true is that this is the most talented generation yet. With respect to every indicia of disadvantage, there is still a racial hierarch. And though I am, of course, an Anglo. I'm certainly not a fucking Saxon. Hello, Monk listeners.

Roger Griffith here, your host and moderator. Welcome to this, our continuing conversations called the Monk Dialogues. These are in-depth questions and answers of some of the world's sharpest minds and brightest thinkers. On each monk dialogue, we go deep into the big issues and ideas that are driving the public conversation. For decades now, a two-state solution has been held up as the best chance for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. But in the aftermath of October 7th, the security risks posed by a potential Palestinian state on the West Bank has most Israelis souring on the two-state vision. A few Israeli leaders, however, still believe that there is a viable path forward to an independent Palestinian state. On this monk dialogue, we're joined by one of them. His name is Gilead Shere.

Gilead was the chief of staff to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and served as a senior negotiator at the Camp David Summit in 2000, which ultimately failed in the objective to lay the groundwork for an independent Palestinian state. He is now acting as a representative for the families in Israel who have loved ones held hostage in Gaza and are desperately seeking their return after 150 days of captivity. Gilead argues in spite of everything that has unfolded over the last five months, a two-state solution remains the best and maybe the only way to achieve lasting safety, security, and prosperity for Palestinians and Israelis. Gilead, welcome to the Monk Dialogues. Thank you. So much to talk about, but let me engage with you first for the benefit of our audience

on the topic that many people are focused. on right now, which is what could or should or might happen after this conflict or as this conflict enters a different phase than the one that it's in now. Much of the debate seems focused on the idea that a two-state solution should be pursued in order to hopefully achieve some kind of lasting peace or settlement between Palestinians and the state of Israel. There's a lot of controversy in your own country around this whole debate and dialogue. Let's get your opinion as to the viability of a two-state solution, its desirability for Israelis and Palestinians,

and why you think it's a critical piece of this conversation that's now happening about the so-called day after. Well, I, for one, believe that the two-state solution is the best way to move forward, towards a normalization of the situation in the Middle East, and more particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian context. A border between two nation states, one Israel and the other one, a Palestinian demilitarized state

in the West Bank and the Gaza Street, is what would possibly provide the best chances for Israel to secure its future. as a democratic nation state of the Jewish people, and for the Palestinians to have a self-determination in a state of their own, be it a demilitarized state, but comprising the vast majority of the Palestinian people, and by that exerting their peoplehood under a sovereignty of their own.

Now, this is not a stand-a-lawful. peace. This is part of a normalization in the larger Middle East and perhaps the Middle East and North Africa. If we are looking a bit, we take an outlook, a broader outlook at the situation. And if you ask me in every crisis and we live currently in a horrific crisis, both Israelis and Palestinians since October 7s. And in every crisis, there is also opportunities. This is one of the opportunities to rearrange the Middle East in a way that would encompass also an Israeli-Palestinian end of conflict and finality to all claims. you know that within Israel right now, the preponderance of public opinion has turned sharply

against a two-state solution. Why do you think that this is happening? Is it temporary? Is it simply the product of the shock to the horrific attacks of October 7? What is your state of the state of play around the conversation about a two-state solution well you know after the horrific massacre that Hamas did in the on the 7th of October it is obvious that the narratives would would be different than the the day before now many Israelis identify Hamas atrocities with the Palestinian people's atrocities, which is completely wrong, because the vast majority of Palestinians

would like to live a normal life, as we all do. The extremists, on both sides, both the expansionists in Israel, the messianics, the ultra-right-wing, parts of the coalition and of the Israeli society, as well as, of course,

the extremists, the radicals, the perpetrators of terrorism, within the Palestinian society, namely Hamas, Islamic jihad and other Salafist groups, and even Fatah, in part, the parts that are not moderate as others, they all do not want a two-state solution. For them, this is the end of their struggle, towards a perpetual state of conflict that is encouraged by other radicals and expansionists, such as Iran and other Muslim fanaticists, as well as extremists in the Jewish-Israeli camp.

So you have to understand that speaking about the two-state solution is perhaps not the best way to address those conflicting narratives. The way to do it is to ask yourself whether Israel, that has been established 75, 76 years ago, on the basis of being the single sole Jewish democracy on the globe, based on universal human rights and foundations, democratic foundations, can secure itself as such for the future only by disengaging from the Palestinians because between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea,

we have more or less 15 million people, one five million people. Half of them roughly are Jews. The other half is non-Jews, non-Zionist, not Israeli lovers. So embracing them as part of the Israeli population is not a very good recipe for preserving the foundations of the Israeli democracy. but disengaging from them with a border between two distinct national entities would probably promote for generations to come a Jewish democracy with a minority, of course, of Arabs, of Israeli Arabs as equal citizens in the state of Israel, but not five million Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And that's the idea, disengagement, not, I mean, we talk divorce. We do not talk marriage. Yeah, and it's a very interesting way for us to think about it.

If we just explore this a bit further and we pushed our minds into a hypothetical future where there are two states, I think one could rightly assume that as a rules-based society that subscribes to many international bodies and declarations and rights and protocols that in such a scenario, the Israeli state would be, as you say, probably stable, probably peaceful, probably generally constructive in terms of its relations with other countries in the region. Can we make those same assumptions, though, about the Palestinian state? And if we can't make those assumptions, is there not a risk here, a potentially dangerous risk of institutionalizing in a Palestinian state the next iteration of Hamas, the next iteration of Islamic jihad, the next iteration of, as you say, these violent Salafist movements that would

use this territory, this state, to launch attacks, to threaten Israel, to perpetuate this conflict, as that, as you said, is exactly what their entire movement and ideology is dedicated to. It's an excellent question, but there are also solutions for that. You know, I was one of the peace negotiators in Beck in Camp David and Tabah. And we always talked about demilitarization of the state of Palestine once it is established, meaning that it cannot allow any foreign force, military force, on its ground that has animosity with Israel or whatever. They cannot have any kind of alliances with the enemies of Israel, military alliances. Israel has some warning, early warning stations and the right to deploy whenever an emergency situation occur.

So, well, this was about 24 years ago. But it has not changed. Right now, when we talk about normalizing the... Middle East, we also talk about the Arab states together with those with whom we have already these treaties, Egypt and Jordan, along with the Western free world, the EU, the United States, etc., would provide solid guarantees for Israel's security and for the Palestinian security, would provide robust monitoring of the Palestinian demilitarization, no Arabian, no ammunition, no air force or tanks or whatever.

And it is easier to counter terrorism when you talk state-to-state fashion than when you talk states to some amorphic entities such as the Palestinian authority currently. It is obvious that the Palestinian governance will have to be. reconstructed, we'll have to reform itself, we'll have to pass through several benchmarks or testing towards gaining governance capability and efficient governance tools. And it will take time. This is not in the immediate future that we talk. I think it will require a couple of years to allow this major change in Palestinian governance. And you can even see the beginning of that

by the diminishing of Muhammad Astagye, the prime minister, and the beginning of replacement of the current political government in the Palestinian Authority, of the Palestinian Authority by a more technocrat-oriented, technocracy-oriented governance that would allow a much better fight against corruption, a much better public order and police monitoring of the public order. So yes, of course, there are many, many, many impediments on the way forward and security is key to anything political to anything economic

to anything state to state and society to society and people to people contexts final question so yeah on this top before we move on do you believe that an independent Palestinian state is possible before or in the presence of an Iran that is currently constituted as it is, as a theocracy dedicated to Israel's destruction. Can we have a status quo ante with Iran as it currently exists and an independent Palestinian state? You know, a Palestinian state is not a reward to the Palestinians. It is indispensable for the independence of Israel. But a Palestinian state is not something that I would think is available right now.

It should be established on a performance-based, according to a performance-based plan, binding, benchmarked, monitored, and supervised by a collective of moderate Sunni Arab states such as in the Gulf states in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Western Arab axis that would counter Iran. hegemonic expansionism. I'm not talking about any kind of Sarasua'iante with Iran. I'm talking about countering this crescent that goes from Lebanon,

through Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen that a two-state solution is kind of a killing blow for this crescent. you know that's what keeps them united that what keeps the government in iran and the ayatollahs still in an overlapping hatred of israel that keeps them united with the society in iran it does not like anything else that they do if you're enjoying the monk debates podcast come over to our website at triple w monk debates dot com that's m unk debates with an ask com and check out our free monk membership.

As a complimentary monk member, you get all kinds of great perks and benefits, access to our weekly email, summarizing our best debates, and ticketing privileges at our main stage debates, special news information, and offers all courtesy of the monk debates. You can grab your complimentary monk membership again right now at triple w monkdebates.com. simply look to the top navigation on the website and follow the links. Thanks in advance for joining our community. You have an official role right now as an interlocular between the IDF, Israel's military forces and the families suffering under great uncertainty and great mental anguish

about their loved ones who are now hostage in Gaza. I'm not going to ask you about anything to do with the state of negotiations because you're privy to information that you're not able to share publicly. But I want you to talk to us a little bit about your interactions with the families of the hostages. This must be difficult, but I think it's important for our audience to hear just firsthand the kind of human anguish and torment that these families are experiencing. How are they dealing with this? It's just for many of us, unimaginable to think about what they must be going through right now

as this war extends day after day after day. Well, I think it has never happened in modern history, such a horrific abduction of civilians from their residences in the Kibbutzim, in the towns, in the Gaza envelope. My role is semi-official. It's not totally official. And I'm coordinating between the teams that are working on negotiating the release of the hostages

and the families. And indeed, the word that he used, the unimaginable ordeal that those people are undergoing since the 7th of October is they do not sleep. They leave a daily nightmare that is of course related to the fact that some of those people who were abducted on the 7th of October were raped, were mutilated, were wounded when when they were abducted or afterwards some of them were killed

were murdered by Hamas and some of them we do not have any sign of life since the 7th of October should imagine the families knowing that their dear ones

are somewhere underground in the tunnels the terror tunnels in Han Yunus or in Rafah or in in Gaza city or elsewhere under the ground in Gaza Street, that they serve as human shields to Hamas leadership, Hamas military leadership,

and that this is almost a situation in which you have lost from the first moment. There's no victory here. On the surface of October, the soul and body of Israel, were abducted. With those over 130 abductees, we had 240 some. And about about half of them were, were almost half of them were released over 100 with a ratio of, of an Israeli hostage compared to three or four terrorists that are in jails in Israel that committed the terrorist acts in

Israel against Israelis, against Jews, whatever. And now the price is going up because there are more so-called valuable persons under the incapivity by Hamas or Islamic jihad. And we in Israel is, is ready to pay very high prices in order to bring all of them, including the bodies, including those who were abducted as bodies already, because they were murdered on the 7th of October, and then transferred to Gaza. I'm not sure that any, any normal, ordinary person

could ever understand what those families are going through. And I'm, you know, I'm so humbled when I meet with them. And I see their courage, their daily insistence on getting their dear ones back, even those who know that the dear ones is just a body and not a living person. This has been especially personal for you. You're the chair of a large university that is literally adjacent or was adjacent to the border with Gaza. You lost a number of your members of your community on October 7. In a kind of microcosm, how is your university, your community, dealt with those losses?

What are the emotions like now as the months have gone by? Do you have members of your community who are being held hostage right now in Gaza? In the second and third circle of the community, yes, we do have members of the community that are hostages in Gaza. The 7th of October was just about a week before the beginning of the academic year. We have 8,000 students. So the Sapir Academic College, which as you pointed out, is situated less than two miles from the Gaza border. And it's the the only academic institution in the world that has been under fire literally for the last 23 years.

And still it has been a source of resilience and an anchor to excellence for the inhabitants of the Gaza envelope, in the Kibbutzim, in the settlements, in the in the towns and villages that were invaded by Hamas and the Gazans on the 7th of October. We lost, in the first circle, of our faculty, students, administrative staff and alumni, we lost 31 persons on the 7th of October that were living in those areas that I've just detailed. And right now we are in the course of the academic year. We study by Zoom. We resumed the total curriculum from day one from the end of December. It's very hard because some of them have lost members of families.

Some of them have lost relatives that are not first circle, but second and third circle. relatives. Some of them do not have where to live and they are displaced in other places in hotels and other residences across Israel but not in their former residences. So there's a lot of there's a lot of work to be done in terms of dealing with post-trauma of many of many of them of dealing with with other phenomena that you might imagine what they are going through. But still, I believe that rehabilitation relates to leading a normal life as soon as possible and as early as possible after the shock.

And this is what we've done. So, Gilead, my question for you is, do you think internationally we have lost, a sense of the moral weight that the hostages should play in terms of our understanding of this conflict and not simply assigning blame and responsibility to one party or another, but to acknowledge that Hamas has done something here, has perpetrated a real evil and that there needs to be an awareness of this in the context of how the rest of the world is looking at Israel today, how it's looking at Israel's response to this war and the actions that it is taking to try to reclaim its security. Yes, I do think that you have a very good point that the

international community in general is suffering from a very serious. lack of moral standard. We hear of, and we watch a lot of demonstrations and protest, you know, Palestine will be free from the river to the sea without knowing what it means, what sea and what river we are talking about. And that the practical pronunciation of this slogan is a genocide to the Jewish people. to the people who live in Israel and the annihilation of Israel altogether. So, yes, except for outstanding leaders such as President Biden and President Macron

and the president of Argentina, the newly elected one, and a few others, you know, people get used to that fact that, okay, there was. some attack by Hamas and that's it but when they come to the place itself and when even the harshest Palestinian supporters

visit the grounds of Kibbutz Beir or Nakhal Oz or near Oz or Kaffar Az they understand what happened. This is the most horrific

massacre of Jews, Israelis, and Arabs, by the way, Israeli Arabs as well, Bedouins since the establishment of the state of Israel, 76 years ago. And people lose the connection, the intellectual connection to that, and of course the emotional connection to that.

Just imagine, each one of you, just imagine having a child or a parent or a spouse or a sister in the hands of those tourists for over four and a half months after killing, murdering, beheading of over 1,200 innocent people. In one day, just imagine. So don't get used to it, okay? try to put yourself in their shoes. Gilead, final question.

I'm sure many of our listeners have picked up on this that are in our earlier discussion of a two-state solution, you express and evidence a great desire for peace with the Palestinian people. You clearly think that

this is important, you know, obviously to the Jewish state, but you are willing to recognize and acknowledge Palestinian's rights to an independent state. And I guess just hearing you now speak so emotionally and forcefully and with such moral clarity about the hostages and the suffering that they're enduring right now, how do you manage to reconcile those two things?

How do you manage to feel the righteous indignation that many of us share with you about October 7th and what happened? and yet still in your mind and in your heart keep an openness to this idea of acknowledging the Palestinians and acknowledging their right to self-determination. Many people, many people are unable to do this. Well, you know, it's very hard to look at a better future throughout bereavement and bloodshed and the atrocities of war. or it's not a good thing.

And it's always very difficult in intractable, protracted conflicts to look at a different reality and to think that it is possible to attain one sometime in the foreseeable future. Our conflict is very complex. It is multidimensional. It has religious components in it and territorial ones and emotional ones.

political ones, historic ones, you know, just name it. The core issues are, the core contentious issues are quite complicated. Jerusalem and the holy sites, territory, settlements, boundaries, the refugees, the Palestinian refugees, and of course the security arrangements and all this. But this conflict, much like many other intractable conflicts in history and in modern history, especially, should be resolved and could be resolved because the status quo or the management of a conflict is just an illusion. These are just illusions. Conflicts manages the people, the people do not manage the conflict. They have to resolve it. And, and you know,

conflicts are created by human beings and they are resolved by human beings. And I kept on repeating to whoever wants to listen what our former prime minister, Menachem Begging, told the president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, in 1977 when he came to Jerusalem. And this was just barely four years after the bloodiest war of Yom Kippur in 1973. And I quote Melachin begging, roughly, he said the following. We know that war is avoidable, but it is peace that it is inevitable. And I think that this is what the messages we should carry and we should plan for peace as much as we plan for war, if not more than that. It's a wonderful note of hope to end this wonderful discussion with you, Gilead, today.

On behalf of the entire Monk Debates community, thank you so much for coming on the program, for sharing your considerable knowledge, experience, and insights about issues of critical importance. Thank you again. Thank you. It's my pleasure. Thank you for inviting me. All the best. Well, that wraps up today's dialogue.

I want to thank our guest, Gilead, Share. You've given us a lot to think about. If you have feedback or reflections on what you've just heard, please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. That's MUNK Debates for the Nass.com. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of public debate and dialogue one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffith. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producing.

Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.