09/12/2017 Dateline London

Hello and welcome

to Dateline London.

I'm Shaun Ley.

Recent days have tested

the proposition that in relations

between nations it's negotiation

rather than innovation

that wins the day.

On Friday, after Brexit talks went

to the wire and beyond,

Theresa May appeared to snatch

victory from the jaws of defeat.

Has she improved the odds

for a successful departure

for the UK from the European Union?

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump

went the other way, declaring

that the United States

would unilaterally recognise

Jerusalem as Israel's capital,

ending 70 years of studied

neutrality on one of the issues that

has prevented a settlement

of the conflict between

Israelis and Palestinians.

Could breaking out of positions

adopted more than a lifetime ago be

a catalyst for change?

Team Dateline this week are:

Ned Temko, political

commentator and former editor

of The Jewish Chronicle.

Agnes Poirier of Marianne,

the French magazine.

Nesrine Malik, who

analyses Arab affairs.

And Michael Goldfarb,

the America journalist

and podcaster Welcome to you all.

In the year since he was elected US

President, Donald Trump's supporters

have explained his sometimes

contradictory positions by advising,

watch what he does,

not what he says.

Well, this week words

and actions were as one.

During the election campaign,

Mr Trump said he would recognise

Jerusalem as Israel's capital,

and on Wednesday he did just that.

On Friday, Palestinian

protestors responded

with what they called a day of rage

- an appropriate description that

captures both their anger

and their impotence.

Ned Temko, he has broken out of this

position that has been established

policy, whether Democrats or

Republicans have been in the White

House, for decades now. Could he

encourage others to do the same?

Know, in a word. I would be

astonished. Words and actions where

the same, but it is Trump musical

theatre. Despite this statement, he

also signed the six-month waiver, as

did his predecessors to avoid

actually having to move the American

embassy any time soon to Jerusalem.

His argument is they would have to

establish a new building and all the

rest of it.

And the real problem,

like so much in the Trump

Administration, it has nothing to do

with foreign policy. It was a

petulant, superficial decision,

ticking a box, driven by domestic,

political considerations. It is

almost an act of diplomatic arson.

You can argue how great will the

damage be? There is some reason to

feel happy, that is the wrong word,

a little bit relieved more people

haven't died as a result of the

inevitable violence that followed

this. It is also true, if you are

looking for silver linings, there

wasn't much of a peace process to

destroy any more. But here is what

matters. In order for short-term

political gain and particularly with

evangelical voters in southern

United States, who will vote next

week on whether to elect a credibly

accused paedophile to the United

States Senate. That is the world we

live in now. But he has put

America's fingers on the political

scales inside the Middle East, in a

way, quite rightly, both parties

were wary of doing. What he has

done, he has weakened the shrinking

number of credible Arab leaders who

still wanted and believed in a two

state negotiated solution. People

like King Abdullah of Jordan, and

the Palestinians. He has an bold and

people like Hamas, Iran, arguably

Isis, Al-Qaeda spin offs. So

whatever gradually reducing

prospects there were four a

negotiated two state solution, seem

much worse.

Michael, that is the

case for the prosecution, is there

any case for the defence?

Know. I

don't know if there is a case for

the defence. After a year we can say

that decision-making is not... It

means nothing.

A decision was made.

Is it possible that decision changes

the game?

If you look at the

players, it is the same people. 50

years since the occupation began or

the victory in the 1967 war. I don't

want to get too many angry e-mails.

It has been half a century and if

you look at the names of the people

who have been negotiating out of

this, the only way you get out of it

is to die. Arial Sharon is dead,

Yasser Arafat is dead, Yitzhak Rabin

was murdered. If you look at the

roll call of names, maybe it does

change the game. The immediate

response amongst the younger

generation of Palestinian

negotiators, there is no two state

solution, we want to be citizens,

let's play the demographic game.

That could be a game changer. Iran

was mentioned. It is important to

remember that over the last two

months, there have been changes

afoot negotiated by, not the State

Department book by Jared Kushner,

son-in-law. He went to Riyadh, Saudi

Arabia. He has been three times, has

built a relationship with the

crowned prince. I would be very

surprised if this hadn't been

discussed in those overnight

meetings.

Just picking up on that

point, you can see this as a

concession to Israel's position, but

others have suggested that it is not

so much as a punishment to Mohammed

Bass, the Palestinian leader,

because he went to Riyadh and he was

given instructions by the Saudi

Arabian government, get this thing

going. He effectively said to Trump,

not on these terms. Is it possible

to see it this way?

Less in terms of

a particular interest and more in

terms of the overlapping golf powers

in Israel, definitely. What has been

really clear is the shifting

calculus of the Middle East in the

Arab world. When the last Gaza

assault happened, it was outraged.

Both on the government side and also

on the street. It is very different

now. What has happened is two fold.

Interests have begun to overlap with

Israel in terms of Saudi Arabia and

the National Arabian Emirates who

are aligned because of the

emboldening of Iran and the Trump

administration and Jared Kushner

played that angle very well. The

second thing is, the Arab street, I

hate that term, but it is inept

after the Arab Spring because you

have three states that have been

taken out of the equation, Yemen,

Libya and Syria. The remaining

states have become so paralysed by

post Arab Spring political status...

Places like Egypt?

Yes, people would

come out onto the street, they were

corralled the Arab league members.

Now, the Palestinian cause has

become less useful to Arab leaders,

who would use it as a valve to

release tension and stress and make

the right noises. The second thing

is, nobody wants people on the

street any more, it is too risky, a

tinderbox.

Agnes, we had President

Macron saying it isn't helpful,

which is a bit of an understatement,

but it gets to the point. Everybody

seems to have said it isn't helpful,

yet President Trump has done it.

What happens next?

Can I be the

devil 's advocate for one minute.

Because, the lines are shifting in

that region. Imagine for 90 seconds

it is a plan to restart the peace

talks, which are dead, as you said.

And to bring Israel into some

concessions. Now, Israel and Saudi

Arabia...

Are almost on the same

page, yes.

Trump is pro-Saudi

Arabia, anti-Israel and it creates a

new thing. It adds pressure on Abass

to do something. I don't believe it

is a plan to restart the peace

talks! What it shows, because

Jerusalem is so many different

things to so many different people.

It is a symbol and it should remain

a symbol rather than become a

concrete territory that you start

dividing. Again, it is the lack of,

a complete ignorance of history from

Trump. Jerusalem is the capital city

of the world's imagination, it is

imaginary. It is where Cain killed

Abel. Where Abraham almost killed

his son. You should stay away.

Jerusalem is their city anyway.

If

you look the kind of threads of

reassurance, one of the great things

and Michael is right, we have got to

get used to a new approach to

decision-making, but even in Trump's

statements, there was this kind of

post modern moment after he had

said, I have given everything to the

Israelis. In which he says, I will

not prejudge, even the kind of

boundaries and sovereignties in

Jerusalem. He knows.

Perhaps Agnes

is right, even if she doesn't

believe it has health, this is a

clever ruse to get the Israelis

talking again.

Stop!

I am trying.

There is no cleverness involved.

Even if it is a happy accident?

This

was a pledge made, not just to the

evangelicals, but the people who

bankrolled him, the hard right

inside the American Jewish community

which is extremely active. It is the

minority. But because it is a very

active minority it wags the dog a

bit. I don't think there is any

cleverness, except in the typical

way as Ned pointed out at the

beginning. It doesn't change the

calculus much. He didn't say and we

are moving the embassy any time

soon.

One other thing to pick even

though there is this potential

communality between the Gulf states,

moderate Sunni regimes and Israel

because of Iran and because of

Hezbollah and the kind of shifting

sands and region, for political

cover, and for that to be made

overt, this complicates that

relationship. It doesn't ease it.

The common interests are true, you

are right, but even if you are the

brightest, new Crown Prince in Saudi

Arabia, you need to be cognisant of

the limits of what you can say or do

against the background.

I think

those limits are shifting.

Have they

shifted sufficiently?

I think we are

in the process of seeing something

extraordinary in the Middle East

which is no longer a red line issue.

Some people would say some of the

Arab governments have paid lip

service to it anyway.

Yes, you have

diplomatic representation. In Israel

and Jordan. There is flights between

these places every day. Nobody is

under any illusions. I would like to

pick up on one thing Michael said

that this doesn't change the

calculus. I think Trump is beginning

to do some real damage here. I think

people make this understandable

distinction, under Obama, things

look a certain way but underneath it

all, bad things are happening. All

Trump is doing is removing the mask

and showing things as they are. But

there is some merit, some benefit to

at least the appearance of

symbolism, the respectful symbolism

and the respect for appearances. I

think Trump with the Muslim ban and

a Jewish recognition, he needs to

talk to his base and say, see all

these buttons we weren't allowed to

push, I am going to press every

single one of them.

I think you are

right, but different example because

where Trump is hurting, is next week

where there will be further

discussions on peace in Syria,

right! Where is the united states of

America, in less than a year? He was

only sworn in on January the 20th.

The idea the United States is so

pulled back from the conflict.

From

the world.

I am OK with the US being

removed, but I am not OK with is

during this has put its finger on

the scales in the Middle East and

emboldened these calculations in the

Gulf states.

Yesterday at the UN, a

few European countries came up with

probably another good intention, but

you know, to sort of lead on future

restarting of peace talks.

The

leadership role is up for grabs.

The

final irony is, we were saying, what

did he get in return? This is a guy

who had a book ghostwritten for him

called The Art Of The Deal. Both

here and perhaps even more brazenly

on the withdrawal from the Pacific

trade partnership, he withdrew

America from the game in return for

nothing. It is puzzling.

We believe

that puzzle hanging in the air for

another week.

As we discussed here a week ago,

it was a divided island rather

than a divided city which could have

scuppered Theresa May's attempts

to get other European Union leaders

to start talking about the terms

on which the EU will trade

with the UK after it

leaves 15 months from now.

On Tuesday, the Democratic

Unionists, from Northern Ireland,

on whose ten MPs the Conservative

Government depends

for its survival, objected.

It took until breakfast time

on Friday for the British Prime

Minister to provide the reassurances

that allowed the DUP

to withdraw its objection -

at least for now.

Agnes, is there a sense in Brussels,

do you think, it is good to get a

deal with Theresa May because if

they don't, we might end up dealing

with a different British Prime

Minister, one who is considerably

less willing to do a deal?

It is

good to do a deal, I will rejoice,

as the Sun newspaper said this

morning. The Daily Telegraph, which

is also a Brexit newspaper, says it

is capitulation.

Another person said

it is fudge.

On the Irish border,

definitely fudge. If it is victory

for Theresa May, I wouldn't want to

see what defeat looks like. Finally

we have an agreement to go further.

It took 18 months. That was the easy

bit. OK. There is less than a year,

I repeat, less than a year to

negotiate the transitional

arrangement and to agree on a

framework for the future

relationship. Because then you need

a few months of ratification.

October, we need an agreement.

Brexit is happening. Theresa May has

a few weeks over Christmas to

actually come to a position and the

Tory party and the Cabinet is split

down the middle. You have one side,

they want access to the single

market, but no free movement. You

have the other side, the loonie

Brexiteers.

As you would

characterise them, they wouldn't

characterise themselves like that.

Of course not. They want a Canada

style plus agreement. That is to

say, free trade agreement. The

problem is, when one solution, the

Norway style agreement, you can have

no border, no hard Irish border. But

with the hard Brexit solution, you

need a border in Northern Ireland.

We have parked a deal for the other

day. -- for another day. Even if

there was a bit of drama on the way,

it is a good sign, isn't it? A

willingness on both sides to get

something. No side wants no deal?

I

believe you cannot fast forward

reality. But when reality arrives,

you have to deal with it. There has

been this extraordinary fantasy. One

of the things Britons, I am a

British citizen now, they have to

realise the information they have

been given for decades, the reality

of the EU and Britain's relationship

inside it has been filtered through

some severe propaganda machines in

the daily press. Every once and

while there is a reality because

they negotiating. It took them nine

months, but they could have agreed

that the week they walked in. We

could be discussing the transitional

arrangements, 58 papers and dealing

with those relationships. That is

done. What I think has happened this

week. Reality has hit. The

inevitability of a significant sum

of money to cover commitments made

through our current membership has

been agreed. Yet, still you have the

two guys vying to replace Theresa

May at some point, Boris Johnson and

Michael Gove, two ex-journalist, one

used to be irregular on this panel,

giving all kinds of confusing noise.

Boris Johnson says we can get back

the and get control of our borders.

You are not in the EU, you are not

in Schengen. What are you talking

about, you are the Foreign

Secretary.

It is fair to say if you

belong to any organisation, Nato or

the EU, you have pooled sovereignty.

We are saying we want to take back.

You can go to the city and to any

banker and say, we are not governed

by any treaties that governs how you

behave, that is why they get away

with murder in London, and you have

these expensive restaurants I cannot

afford to eat in.

You won't be able

to get a cheap meal in Paris if

President Macron has his way because

he wants the bankers there. There

has been little sign of this on the

ground so far, this rush out of the

EU by financial services.

Nurses and

doctors are going to leave.

Financial services?

Under the Canada

agreements, it will not cover us.

They won't be able to trade in

euros. If Britain wants to get out

of it with its head up...

You are

saying there could be a scenario

where the EU would not permit

trading in euros in the City of

London as a kind of spite to Britain

because it is leaving?

No, as a

matter of fact. It is part of the

negotiation. Britain wants to go.

The problem is, Brexiteers want

their cake and to eat it. They want

something that doesn't exist. They

are riddled with contradictions and

demands, they live in fairyland.

Mutually exclusive demands.

I feel

sorry for Theresa May because if she

had come away and said, what the EU

is proposing is ludicrous and I'm

going to walk away, that would have

been a disaster. If she had agreed

to what our reasonable demands, and

the only type of Brexit the EU can

get, which is ensure European

citizens and their families, 3

million of them, their rights are

met and access in work and stuff,

then she is accused of capitulation.

And the problem is, and this is

where Michael Gove and Boris Johnson

are mendacious creeps, there are

people who are angry, foaming at the

mouth. If you have heard people over

the past 24 hours, absolutely livid

at this agreement, talking about the

EU as if it was their next-door

neighbour who had done a land grab.

Michael has been here a long time.

You reported on Northern Ireland in

the 90s, so you know the UK

policies. To be fair to Mr Gove and

Mr Johnson, they are the present-day

generation of something that started

30 years ago.

It has destroyed

successive Tory prime ministers in

government.

To me, I can remember

the Maastricht negotiations and

these 4am runs by John Major. What

did he do? He Britain out of the

euro and Britain out of Schengen.

You would have thought he would be

considered a great lion.

Two

giveaways this last week, one, this

splendidly, ridiculously, honest

David Davis, acknowledges to the

committee, they haven't done the

work to assess the potential impact

on the British economy of these

various options of Brexit. That is

strange enough, you wonder what they

have been doing for the last ten

months. But even more bizarrely, the

Cabinet is yet to have a discussion

on what Britain wants Brexit to be.

They can't agree, it will be civil

war.

You know why David Davis can

say he doesn't believe in it, public

opinion, if it goes wrong, it won't

be his fault, it will be remain as

false, the EU's fault.

I think it is

the French's faults.

I get e-mails

every day saying France is there.

We

should move it out from Britain,

Britain, Britain and get the

framework wider. The German head of

the social Democratic party said

yes, it is time for France and

Germany to work together. If you

want to move the project forward,

it'll be easier without Britain and

they will be happy to see the back

of us.

That is where we came in, the

whole point was we were going to

prevent Germany and France doing

deal.

How is that working out for

you.

That's all we have

time for this week.

Do join us again next week

same time, same place.

But for now thank you for

watching and goodbye.