Mouin Rabbani
speaker
309 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Mar 2024
last heard Mar 2024
Mouin Rabbani’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
Okay, so... That does matter.
So for years, the Israeli... and US demand was that the Palestinians recognize 242 and 338. They did, but you're saying, okay, we demanded that they do this, but it was meaningless when they did it. Then the demand was that- It was a tactical thing, yes. Then the demand was the PLO recognize Israel. Tactical. Okay, we demanded that they did this, and they did it, but it's meaningless.
Yes. But the point is, the Palestinians, demands are constantly made of them. And when they accede to those demands, they're then told, actually, what you did is meaningless. So here's a new set of demands. I mean, you know, it's like a hamster. There's no new set of demands. It's like a hamster.
It's like a hamster stuck in a wheel that will be told, if you run fast enough, you'll get out of the cage.
And what is the formal position of this Israeli government?
Okay, it's predecessor. And it's predecessor. And it's predecessor. Come on.
What I said. You didn't say that. Dismantle Israel. What I said and I've written.
I've written extensively on this issue, on why a two-state settlement is still feasible, and I came out in support of that proposition. Perhaps in my heart you can see that I was just bullshitting, but that's what I actually wrote. That was a number of years ago, and just as a matter of historical record.
Beginning in the early 1970s, there was fierce debate within the Palestinian national movement about whether to accept or reject. And there were three schools of thought. There was one that would accept nothing less than the total liberation of Palestine.
There was a second that accepted what was called the establishment of a fighting national authority on Palestinian soil, which they saw as a springboard for the total liberation of Palestine. And there was a third school that believed that under current dynamics and so on, that they should go for a two-state settlement. And our...
friend and correspondent, Gauter Loerse, has written a very perceptive article on when the PLO, already in 1976, came out in open support of a two-state resolution at the Security Council. PLO accepted it. Israel, of course, rejected it, but the resolution didn't pass because the US and the UK vetoed it. It was both of them.
Okay. Yeah. But the fact of the matter is that the PLO came to accept a two-state settlement. Why they did it I think is irrelevant. And subsequently, the PLO acted on the basis of seeking to achieve a two-state settlement. The reason I think, and I think, Norm, you've written about this, the reason that Arafat was so insistent
on getting minimally acceptable terms for a two-state settlement at Camp David and afterwards was precisely because he knew that once he signed, that was all the Palestinians were going to get. If his intention had been, you know, I'm not accepting Israel, I simply want to springboard, he would have accepted a Palestinian state in Jericho. But he didn't.
You're right. He should have accepted it. But if you're correct, okay, that he was really out to eliminate Israel, then... He wouldn't have cared about the borders. He wouldn't have cared about what the thing said about refugees. He would have gotten a sovereign state and used that to achieve that purpose.
But I think it was precisely because he recognized that he was not negotiating for a springboard. He was negotiating permanent status that he was such a stickler about the details.
If you want to dismiss international law, that's fine, but then you have to do it consistently. You can't set standards for the Palestinians but reject applying those standards to Israel. If we're going to have the law of the jungle, then we can all be beasts and not only some of us. So it's either that
or you have certain agreed standards that are intended to regulate our conduct, all of our conduct, not just some of us.
Well, you're saying, you know, international law and the millionth UN resolution, you're being very dismissive about all these things. And that's fine, but then you have to be dismissive across the board.
Yeah, but hold on, hold on. Every United Nations Security Council resolution, irrespective of under which chapter it was adopted, is by definition binding. binding not only on the members of the Security Council, but on every member state of the UN. Read the UN Charter. It's black and white.
It's actually not that vague because the term land for peace- originates in 242.
Showing 241–260 of 309 · page 13 of 16
← Previous
Next →