Tzipi Livni, Joint leader, Zionist Union, Israel HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk I am Sarah Montague. The decades, many have

assumed that the only way there will be peace in the Middle East is when

the Palestinians have their own state. But President Trump has made

it clear that America is no longer wedded to the idea. Two states, one

state, I can live with either one, he said. My guest is Tzipi Livni.

She is the head of the Zionist Union movement in the Israeli parliament

and a former Foreign Minister. She said that the only way to achieve

foreign peace is to have two states for two people. But why is that?

Could one state where dues, Muslims, and Muslims live in peace? -- the

Jewish people, Muslims, and Christians live in peace?

Tzipi Livni, welcome to HARDtalk Thank you Sarah. Why do you think

the only solution is to stay for two people? The conflict is a national

conflict between two national movements, one desires, which acted

for many years in order to establish a state for the Jewish people, and

the other is the national Palestinian movement. And as far as

my understanding goes, and according to negotiations that we had before,

the idea is to end the conflict and to end all claims between these two

movements, the state of Israel and the Palestinians is to have

different states for two different peoples, and which people implement

their own right of self determination. And in Israel, Israel

is a Jewish democratic state, and the meaning is that Israel is the

nationstate of the Jewish people, with integral rise to all of its

citizens, because it is a democracy, and because this is also our Jewish

values. There is an argument that that has been tried for decades, or

at least that has been the ambition for decades, unsuccessfully, which

is perhaps one reason that the Israeli President talks about

annexing the occupied territories, and he says that there won't be one

law for Israel rallies and another for non- Israelis, you would grant

citizenship to all residents, and it would be one Gallagher and

democracy. This was the idea of many members, including my parents, after

1967. The idea was that we would give equal rights to those living

between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea, but in the end,

this one, can lead to a situation in Israel in which it would stop being

a true Jewish democratic state. We could have one state with everybody

living there, but I don't think it would be living happily ever after,

it would be more bloody, with this ongoing conflict amongst us. I

believe this is the vision of Zionism, to create a state of the

Jewish people, and in this state, everybody is an equal right citizen.

Is it down to demographics, then, the idea that if you take in 2.5

million Palestinians, that is the end of the Jewish state? Yes. In the

end, listen... We live and my values are to keep in harmony the values of

Israel as a Jewish democratic state. But this is also an issue of number.

We need to have a Jewish majority in order to maintain the value and not

have a clash between parties. Sopai had to start between the entire land

of Israel and keeping the state of Israel as a Chua crash -- Jewish

Ducati state, I prefer to divide the land and to keep the Israeli values.

I would buy to refer, also, too... This is also the idea back in 1947,

when the United Nations wanted to end the ongoing conflict that was

here before the state of Israel was established. And the whole idea was

to divide the land into two different states. Just on this

question, the idea of what one state could look like. The PLO Secretary

General has warned that the way that some people envisage it, you would

have - it would be an apartheid system. Is that something you fear,

to? Israel would not be an apartheid state. I would fight against it

inside Israel, because this is against our values. -- too. You

recognise that as a fear of having one state, do you? I believe that

this is something that most of us, Israelis, would reject. This is

against our values. And therefore, in choosing between all the options,

as an Israeli, I believe that the Israeli interest is to divide the

land into two different states. Frankly, I am not fighting for the

establishment of a Palestinian state. I am fighting in order to

keep Israel as a Jewish democratic state. And from his point of view,

he is fighting to fight and create a Palestinian state, because he

represents the national aspirations of the Palestinians. I would like to

say something about what President Trump said. What he said was what

make you happy makes me happy, but he also said it depends on both

sides. So in a way, I am not against thinking outside of the box. And the

other idea they can give an answer to our aspirations, to the

Palestinian aspirations, and keep Israel as such, B. I mean... But as

you said, this is exactly the point that he made, that it has worked so

far. He said it is something very different that has not been

discussed before. He went on to say it was a bigger and more important

deal it in that it would take on more countries and encompass a

larger territory. You recognise that by opening this up, there could be

some chance of a very different route, but one that leads to peace?

Frankly, I believe that even before entering into their negotiations on,

Israel is need to decide what is our direction, what is our goal. And in

a way, when President Trump put this on the table, I am using it, in

order to safety Israelis OK, the two options of the table. What do we

provoke? Even understanding that there would be no situation in

Israel in which you have two different types of citizenship,

because Israel is not to be an apartheid state. And maybe by

raising this option, this can lead to an internal debate in Israel,

because I know that the vast majority of Israelis support the

idea of two states for two peoples, not for the Palestinians, not for a

any president of the United States, or a favour to the Arabs of

Palestinians, but because this is a way to keep Israel as such. And so I

believe that the debate is something that is maybe good to have. But what

we know is that based on information that has come out in the last days,

not least from your fellow leader of the Zionist Union, Isaac Herzog, he

has talked of the deal that was on the table last year and the -- from

the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and Benjamin Netanyahu, that

he walked away from. Selling that would cause a freeze of settlements,

some sort of proposal for a conference on peace deal. And you

know that I and in opposition with Isaac Herzog. What we believe is

that the best thing for Israel is to try again and again until we find a

way to end the complex, based on the idea of two states were two peoples.

And opportunity. Year ago, the opportunity is still on the table in

a way. But with regimen that Yahoo! Is by Minister, because your

colleague has accused him of being a serial refuser and will judge on

that failure. -- but with Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister. That is

true. But there is criticism on the other side. It is true and it is now

more clear to the Israelis that what this coalition represents is

something that would not lead to peace or the end of conflict, and

more and more voices within this coalition, led like Benjamin

Netanyahu are talking about something against the interests of

Israel. And now what we represent is something which is completely

different, and in the end, we will reach elections in Israel, hopefully

sooner, and put this on the table, and say this is what I represent.

And we represent something else. But I do agree that this is the

responsibility of any leadership, and by refusing to all these, you

know, Tilse or suggestions, and negotiations, that are based on not

only be relations between the Israelis and but also on the ability

to change the situation. -- all these, you know, ideas or is.

-- all these, you know, ideas or suggestions.

Most people want to normalise the situation, but the glass ceiling is

the Israel Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, Benjamin Netanyahu

was not willing, couldn't, didn't want to, it was less important, to

say yes to all of these offers that were on the table. And they are on

the table right now, I believe. The offers are still there, but what,

can you say no because of those with whom he is in coalition? Goes to the

right of him? Excuse me. This is the excuse. This is the coalition that

Benjamin Netanyahu fought. He had another coalition. We were in the

coalition. We represented the idea of two states, or basically the idea

of concessions and steps towards the Palestinians, and he toppled his own

government and elections by saying that he wants to form a coalition

based on what Benjamin Netanyahu called a natural partner. It is

true. Would you go back into government with Benjamin Netanyahu,

if he were to be open to accepting the deal that you say is still on

the table, a deal to head towards peace? When a year ago, when this

deal or the offers or what was on the table, was, when I was told

about it, and asked whether I wanted to join the government based on

this, I asked several questions. If you question is, frankly. Is he

willing to free settlements outside of their blocks? Is he willing to

give up the far right in his coalition? Is he willing to make

more positive comments on the Arab peace initiative. When the answer

was no, I said no to the question of whether I would join the coalition.

And therefore, I am in the same position. The reason for me to be in

politics and to try and move forward towards peace treaty. If we have

problems on the way, and sometimes we have problems on the way, so

let's and find a way to move forward. And settlement activities,

especially outside of the fence, or legalising illegal outposts are a

against what I think is in the interest of Israel. And this is

something which should be avoided, and as long as Benjamin Netanyahu

supports it, I cannot be party to that. OK. You talk about the

outposts. But we are in a situation where the United Nations has again

condemned the building of settlements, and we have had people

suggesting, or even President Trump saying that he would like to see a

whole back on building settlements, because it is seen as a ready

prospect of a 2-state solution, but you are happy for there to be some

settlements. And you continue building in settlement blocs, with

new? Every... Also the Palestinian negotiators, I believe that any

American president understands that when you are finalising the border

or delineating the border between Israel and the future Palestinian

state, we need to take into consideration what we call blocks of

settlements. These are the places in which most of the Israelis living.

Hundreds of thousands of them. And the good news is that it takes only

a few percentage of the West Bank, and therefore when the Palestinian

start speaking about adjustment to the 67 line, and want compensation

to this, this is something that is negotiable. OK, but you will know

that the recent UN resolution, 2334, passed in December, when the United

States abstained, allowing it to be passed, it reaffirmed that the

building of settlements on Palestinian territory occupied his

1967 was a flagrant violation of international law, and did not just

in which between the settlement blocs and the outposts.

I am familiar with this, unfortunately and I believe that any

understanding that this block should be part of an agreement, part of

Israel and what I criticised the Israeli government with is when you

do not make your priority, when you do not come saying I am willing to

give up the places which are outside of the block, I am willing to freeze

as a message of goodwill the outposts and settlement that are

outside of the block so the minute the Israeli government cannot make

these priorities the world is not making these priorities... What

percentage of the settlement do you think are acceptable? That you

categorise and settlement block because for people on the outside it

is hard to get their head around this to get some sense of what you

think is acceptable? World, are you not going to negotiate this with you

but when I said that it takes only a few percentage is, we are all

talking about 1 digit and therefore there are gaps... 1 digit, less than

10% of all the settlement that have been built? Yes and this is

something that should be negotiated between us and the Palestinians and

they want compensation for it but it is not important what you think

personally or what others are thinking about, settlement

activities whether they are part of the international law or part of the

Jewish people coming back to the land of their forefathers, we are

talking about realities on the ground and since most Israelis that

a living in what we call blocks of settlement, the realistic solution

should take this into consideration because otherwise it is impossible

to think you can reach an agreement. I can assure you, as the chief

negotiator on the listing inside and also the Palestinian side, they

understand this as well. In the past we got President Bush saying this

she will be taken -- should be taken into consideration when we finalise

an delineate the lines... We are with a different US administration,

1 that has talked about being keen to move its embassy to Jerusalem

from Tel Aviv and that is something you would support? I am an Israeli,

Jerusalem is our capital. But you are also a politician, you know the

consequences of that. But this is an American decision. Even if it were

in west Jerusalem... This is an American decision and, as I said

before, as an Israeli Jerusalem is our capital and I hope that you do

not expect me... That I would represent here in HARDtalk is the

outcome of this and what the Arabs would say... But you have in the

past been honest enough to say, look, I going to beat politically

correct about this and talk about settlements as a burden, this is

something widely read the notes... As far as the embassy moved is

concerned, it would be seen as highly provocative and unnecessary a

move, are you not prepared to say that? No, because I believe it

depends on whether it would be 1 step doing okay we are taking the

embassy to Jerusalem and that is it or whether they would recognise

things that are connected also to the interests of others in the

region. I believe this is a question of not only taking the embassy but

the context in which it will be done... The former director-general

said that that would be the end of 2 states? As I said before I am sure

the American, the new administration and I know that they started already

asking our neighbours, the Palestinians, what would be the

implications and it is for them to say how this is going to impact them

and I hope that... Is it true that you have been offered a job at the

United Nations? I prefer not to refer to this publication and

speculation. But you had a meeting... This is going to be my

only answer, I am sorry. But you can answer these questions. You have a

difficulty with travelling, not least before when you came to London

there was a summons issued for you, you are going to be going to Belgium

in January, a trip that was cancelled and it is known that

prosecutors as their way going to ask for you to be questioned. Do you

have a difficulty with travelling, and fear that there would be arrest

warrants issued from operations from when you are were a minister in

Gaza? Note, I do not. As you know I visited London and did not go to

Brussels for other reasons. In fact I did not know about this story. But

I will check it. They want to say something about this in general, not

about the and not about travelling. Israel is fighting terror and the

operations from Gaza are against the organisation that is a religious

conflict, it represents extremist Islamic ideology that is against not

to say peace but even at the existence of the state of Israel...

We only have a few minutes, the operation was in response to the

firing of rockets into Israel... It is very important for me to say so,

Hamas are acting in terror against our citizens and I believe is not

only derived but the responsibility of any Israeli leader as a member of

Cabinet to fight against any State in the free world that would do...

But other states have not had the response the United Nations deep to

Israel. He went report accused Israel of committing actions

amounting to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity... Know, I

know that was a report and afterwards Israel opened everything,

we're checking ourselves, our Supreme Court is checking every

event that is happening. Frankly, Justin Morrow we are going to have

the verdict of an Israeli soldier that acted against what we believe,

not only international laws, but our laws, but I want to tell you

something here, I just came from Munich, there was the security

conference in there, as are said before, we are members of the free

world, we are fighting together with others against terror and it is in

order to defend civilians and avoid any civilian casualties and while

you me these questions, the Foreign Minister of Iran has stated they

support Hezbollah, other terror organisations. So I willing to

answer any questions and I proud that I had in my life the

possibility to be a member of the Israeli Cabinet and the fight

against terror. Do you think residential thinks peace is more

likely in the Middle East? I do not know. I want to at 1st said the

former administration, secretary Kerry invested in it and highly

appreciated it. The good news is that President Trump said I want to

make a deal and he said that this is his priority and are therefore any

American president who wants to make a deal, speaking about peace in his

1st meeting with the Minister of Israel, it was good to hear and it

is true that he said not only the 2 state solution but if he wants to

invest in it, if he wants to achieve peace, let's hope this will happen

is it is a common interest. Thank you for coming on HARDtalk. Thank

you.