Robert Greenway
speaker
38 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Mar 2025
last heard Mar 2025
Robert Greenway’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
It might. Again, two observations. First is after the exchange of remains of hostages, there's not that much sympathy left for Hamas. They're losing, I think, a great deal of their support, and there's a tremendous amount of fatigue on the issue more broadly. Second, that the Israeli populace, by and large, feels significantly aggrieved, certainly now.
And I don't think they're going to be quite as affected by international condemnation if military operations in any scale resume. And again, the critical part here is they've got a more supportive partner in Washington this time around. So I don't suspect that the Israeli calculus is going to be affected by international condemnation at this point.
Well, on the first point, a fair amount of aid is being introduced into the area and has been for some time. The statistics are public. The difficulty is your second point, which is the distribution. Again, there's limited infrastructure to do it and there's limited capacity to do it. The only governing organization that unfortunately exists inside of Gaza has been Hamas.
And so that infrastructure now is increasingly reliant. Now, there were those that would say that UNRWA performed this function in partnership with other NGOs. Many of them have complicated relationships and many were providing material support to Hamas. Some were engaged in operations with Hamas and are no longer capable.
So it's the distribution that's a problem, but it's not a volume issue really at the end of the day. It's just reinforcing Hamas's position as the only governing entity in Gaza that serves no one's interest actually.
Insofar as we know, it's a difficult question to poll any population, certainly in a conflict scenario. As far as we know, Hamas remains the overwhelmingly popular choice, but I think that's not so much about support for Hamas as it is a lack of a credible alternative. And the conditions themselves. So it is an unknowable question.
But I think at the end of the day, an alternative has to be introduced. Unfortunately, none has materialized. The Palestinian Authority itself is serving now two decades of a four-year term. So Mahmoud Abbas has his own popularity issues in the West Bank. So I think the challenge is there is no emerging Palestinian leadership either in Judea, Samaria, West Bank or in Gaza.
Yeah, I think the only thing that's changed, the cause for optimism is I think there's a shift inside the region that recognizes that more has to be done. And the graveyard of ideas, that is the Israel-Palestine question, is no longer, you know, we're no longer resurrecting and exhuming these bodies and attempting to impose a solution on them.
I think it's a recognition that something different has to be done. President Trump has shifted the debate. And I think the region knows it. What I would expect is there be greater regional participation in the solution. I think that's a good thing. That gives me at least some optimism for the future.
I think that's a part of it. I would expect, too, there'll be high level engagement with the Trump administration, perhaps at a state level in the near term. And I think all that is good. I think at the next summit, they're going to discuss what options are available. They're committed to a solution. They have a couple of questions. But again, I think we're in a different place.
The negotiation has shifted. We're not looking at resurrecting old ideas that haven't worked and aren't likely to. And I think now we're looking at new ideas that might. That's a good thing.
I think four important things have been initiated by the current administration. First is the commitment to ending the conflict as a result of the first time to bring the Russians, bring Putin and his team to the table to have discussions. I think that's useful. I think that's necessary. Second, he's reached out to all parties.
And I think on the European side of it, including Zelensky, who has just arrived, I think, at Joint Base Andrews while we're speaking. That's also, I think, a good and necessary thing. The third is the economic agreement, which I think, in my understanding, is actually larger than mineral deposits inside Ukraine, but it could encompass areas of energy and maybe even technology.
I think that's important, too, to establish an economically viable path for Ukraine, not just now, but post-conflict. And a relationship with the United States that will protect and defend serves an important interest. Lastly, I think... we've seen the Trump administration expand the scope of the problem to where U.S.
interests reside, namely cooperation between Russia, China, and frankly, not yet mentioned, but Iran and North Korea. All of that are grave threats to U.S. interests. All of that are part of the conversation and negotiation, and again, have to be from a U.S. perspective.
So I think it's early to see which form it's going to take, but I think so far, at least we're seeing movement toward peace, which before, of course, after three long years, we've seen none of.
I think it's ridiculous, of course, on its face. They're clearly the aggressors here as they were in 2014. But I also know that if you're trying to negotiate a deal and you're focused on the outcome, then the outcome is what matters most. So, you know, the U.S. administration and others may find themselves in uncomfortable positions doing awkward things.
But if it gets to the right outcome, then so be it. But clearly on its face, it's an absurd statement.
Showing 21–38 of 38 · page 2 of 2
← Previous