PILOT: Peace in the Caucasus?! UN’s Israel Notice, Hamas Blacklist, A-G Locked Out!

This pilot episode of The Deep Dive arrives ahead of our planned launch schedule. The collision of big stories this week made waiting impossible. Host Jacob Laznik provides essential analysis on the stories demanding immediate attention: the groundbreaking Armenia-Azerbaijan peace accord, the UN's official notice to Israel concerning sexual assault allegations, the formal blacklisting of Hamas, and the extraordinary incident that saw Israel's Attorney-General barred from her offices. While we're still smoothing out the rough edges and figuring out our groove, we're committed to bringing you the serious analysis these big stories deserve. We break down the facts, examine the stakes, and explore what lies ahead.

Editing and production by Shifra Jacobs and Yuval Barnea.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hi, and welcome to The Deep Dive, a new podcast
from The Jerusalem Post. We look at the top stories
of the week and dig a little deeper and start off,
we're gonna do a news review of the top stories
of the week. I'm joined here by our breaking news
desk manager, she re Parents. Thank you for joining us,
Thank you for having me.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
I'm doing good. How are you?

Speaker 1 (00:18):
I'm good? We say this every week. I feel like
but crazy week. A lot of stories, pretty much, Yeah,
let's discuss them.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
Well, first, I would be remiss if I didn't mention
in pop culture news Taylor.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
Swift's new album wasn't Nound.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
You're right, Life of a show Girl the most important
thing happening right now, very.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Much, I believe so.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
I haven't heard it obviously, it's coming out in October,
but her it's going to be fire.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
I don't know anything about this whole background, but like
I know something about like having the rights to her
own music. That's true.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
That major business news.

Speaker 3 (00:50):
Actually, she spent millions, so much of what she earned
on her record breaking erastour went into the purchase of
owning her own work.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
And yes, creators, who among us doesn't want to own
our own work.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
Can you imagine if suddenly, if suddenly someone told you
all the work you did at your podcast, you will
never get paid for it.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
No, there you go, that was a joke.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
That would be awful.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
It would be awful.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
That would be awful. It's a big.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
Because this album is ethically sourced. Because yes, amazing.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
Ethically sourced music, which we love to see.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
Happy to hear that. Now, let's talk about some bleak stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
In Jerusalem.

Speaker 3 (01:24):
We peaked at about forty two forty three degrees, but
our feels like was well into the fifties. I live
on this street. My two minute walk in here had
me sweating when I came.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
I have a ten minute walk from the train, and
doesn't matter what to do.

Speaker 2 (01:37):
I'm it's brutal.

Speaker 3 (01:38):
There's nothing to be done, Yes, absolutely nothing to do.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
It's unreal.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
But you know, while we're suffering, you know, I feel
like it's a lot harder on our soldiers right now.
If we're just in the heat all the time.

Speaker 3 (01:49):
Every extreme weather incident we have in Israel, summer or winter,
there's always in the back of everyone's minds we have
soldiers in the field, in the north, in the south,
already fighting through extremes and now they have to do
it in all that gear I've worn tactic technical vests
and helmets before.

Speaker 1 (02:09):
Not not agreeable. Yeah, and yeah, it looks like they're
not going to get a reprise anytime soon, because you know,
the warring street is about the new Gaza invasion plan,
which the idea of just confirmed. I want to be
I want to be clear here so people don't misquote it.
There isn't a perfectly set plan of exactly what's going
to happen. What's happened so far is the security cabinet

(02:32):
kind of approved of it. It started with Natanyawo deciding
that he wants to go forward with this, and the
Security cabinet proved it. And so today idea Chief of
Staffel Zamir, he approved the what they called the central idea,
as in they're going to adopt the strategy of the
complete occupation of the strip. They're just hashing out now
technicalities they talked about, you know, first evacuation to Malwassee

(02:53):
and then they're going to start, you know in certainly
Gaza City. So the understanding is that they're going to
move around some of those details before they officially go
through with it, and we don't know when they're going
to start enacting it. But the point is they I
think they now have the green light from all the
necessary parties, so I think we could expect.

Speaker 3 (03:08):
It'll you know, well, we'll get a little bit of
an early notice before the invasion begins, because there's hundreds
of thousands of reserve call ops orders in the works,
waiting in the wings for final approvals.

Speaker 1 (03:21):
Right because they have to switch out the manpower because people.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
Fatigue, they're going to exhausted.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
Not to mention, there is going to be some movement
along the soldiers who are already in reserves. People are
going to move from south to north. Northern border might
shrink a little bit as more manpower is called down south.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
So we'll see. Obviously, you know, the whole world is watching,
really waiting to see what happens. We're already seeing some
backlash of like the pre announcements to decisions that haven't
even happened yet. Following a list of other countries you know,
such as France, the UK, Australia also said that they're
intending to the clai Palesinians eight. Again, none of these

(04:02):
countries have done so yet this said they're planning to
do it in September, and like this UN General Assembly,
which can.

Speaker 3 (04:06):
I just say, I feel like using we're going to
allow other people self determination as a punishment to you.

Speaker 2 (04:14):
Bad luck, bad look for all of these countries. In
my opinion, I.

Speaker 1 (04:18):
Think it was historical really how in Kars Starmer, because
he kind of started this whole chain, right, like the
UK was like the first one that started this whole
ten reaction of countries coming out and saying it was
you know, he made this announcement and then kind of
nobody was happy obviously propose on you are like why
are you waiting? Like why is this a bargaining chip?

Speaker 3 (04:37):
He specified, We're only going to do it if you
Israel don't shape.

Speaker 2 (04:40):
Up, right so to speak.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
I mean, yeah, I'm I don't. Time will only tell
if these countries will really do it. But I think
if Israel thinks it's a bluff, I think we're really
calling their bluff because we don't. We need to keep
they said, sorry, Kirs Starmer said, we need to take
I don't forget the adjective, but like you know, like
substantive steps to bring the war to an end and

(05:05):
we're doing the opposite of that. So you know, can't
stop out stop. We'll see what very much. We'll see
if other countries join in, if that does anything. But
it looks like from here, it looks like we're just
going ahead with this.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
I mean, yeah, so Nita is pushing for full occupation,
but he doesn't want to keep it it.

Speaker 2 (05:23):
Don't worry.

Speaker 3 (05:23):
He wants to give it to somebody unknown. Even the
people who he mentioned giving it to have said they
have no idea they were known. I mean, Na has
been expanding his political party a little bit. He recently
just rejoined forces with Gidonsau. The prodigal son has returned
to the LIQUD.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
In a big move, and they're all very happy about it,
they say, if.

Speaker 3 (05:47):
Their social media is anything to believe, they are very
happy to be reunited this on again, off again relationship
that they have. I hope it lasts because one thing
our country needs is some stability in the government.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
Yeah. I mean, we've also talked about this previously. This
the amount of people getting replaced and replace him with
his mouth and like the peak of we really need
a draft bill is so say what you want about
either of them. But like, I just hope this sticks well.

Speaker 2 (06:15):
I believe Edustine will maybe make his way.

Speaker 3 (06:17):
Back into Natania's graces. Eventually he'll tweet something positive.

Speaker 1 (06:25):
I certainly hope so well.

Speaker 3 (06:27):
Can you imagine showing up to work and then the
entire building has had all its locks changed just to
keep you out?

Speaker 1 (06:33):
On Seriously, I love my job. They make that very clear.

Speaker 2 (06:37):
But if I.

Speaker 3 (06:37):
Showed up to work and all the locks were changed,
I personally would get the hint and just go home.
But when when Attorney General Galibaras Viana showed up to
work and found out that Justice Minister if Levin changed
all the locks to keep her out of the building,
which is, she has every right to be and her
office is also there because as of right now, her

(06:58):
firing is on hold from.

Speaker 2 (07:00):
The High Court.

Speaker 3 (07:04):
Uh He Then he openly admitted that he did it
because he just doesn't.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
Want her around and she did what she does best
and said that's not legal. And that is if I
could sum up our country's political situation right now, it
is petty fights.

Speaker 3 (07:18):
Yes, I'm half expecting the next letl Gallant will come
about when Tanyao blocks sal on Instagram he'll.

Speaker 1 (07:28):
Let him know o her truth social absolutely no, so
we'll see. Also we'll dive a bit deeper later on
an episode. But we're als gonna talk about, you know,
like how you N reports came out, how Hamas is
going to be blacklisted and maybe Israel, So stay tuned
for that, see what that means. And yeah, those are
the week's top stories. Thank you for joining us, Thanks
for having me. Now we're gonna take a look up
close at some conflicting reports and their implications. Joining me

(07:50):
is our legal correspondent, Sarah butN and Sarah, thank you
for joining me. Jake, how's it going busy?

Speaker 2 (07:54):
How are you?

Speaker 4 (07:55):
You know?

Speaker 1 (07:55):
Another hectic week?

Speaker 2 (07:57):
Can we talk about the weather for a second.

Speaker 1 (07:58):
Let's talk about the weather. Oh my god, wow, the
ten minute walker took me to get here was horrendous.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
I I have friends, I have glasses throw not on
right now. I have glasses and friends of mine in
not Jerusalem, so like tell of even places where it's
much hotter, said that they went out and their glasses
just they have some.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
We have a time of night it's like and that's
when it's cool.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
That's what it's cool. Anyway, Non weather news.

Speaker 1 (08:21):
Non weather news slightly more important. We've had a bunch
of obviously, you know, every week is a crazy week,
but we've had some very concerning reports, official reports, not
you know, initial reports, like actual certified reports coming out
from different bodies, and a lot of conflicting reports that
you know, kind of challenged them. So let's take a
closer look at those. So the first one is the

(08:42):
UN put a you know, a compiled list of countries
that it is adding to like a blacklist of you know,
systemic use. I think there was systemic use of like.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
Sexual sexual, sexual violence and conflict, right, something like that. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
Yeah, So to start off, they said that they're gonna
have blacklist CAMAS, which is a.

Speaker 2 (09:02):
Good thing they did. So I'll say that I I
saw I saw a draft copy of the report not
actually out yet, is not yet. It's today, it's coming
out today Eastern Eastern time, So in a couple of
hours from now, the draft of the report, and we can,
you know, assume that it's not going to change by then.

(09:22):
Is that Hamas is on that list, Hamas is joining
all the terrorist or groups that we know of kinds
et cetera, et cetera. Uh, for using sexual violence uh
as as a as a war tactic. That that's that
that there is the key thing that it is. It
is a pattern, and it is deliberate. And it wasn't

(09:42):
you know, a rogue actor.

Speaker 1 (09:45):
That was It wasn't like someone broke rank at exactly.
So what are the implications of being added to this list?
You know, there's this joke of like international law, they'll
buy a BYC doesn't matter.

Speaker 2 (09:55):
But like so, yeah, I mean you really touched on it.
That's really where the debate rages. And you know, there's
really a lot of validity to both sides. The side
that you that you said is you know it it
doesn't the phrase Hebrews doesn't have teeth.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
Yeah right, it doesn't.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
There's nothing super enforceable about it. So you know, it
doesn't really help us in our fight to actually bring
justice to the victims, many most of them, by the way,
we have to point this out, most of whom were
killed after these acts were carried out.

Speaker 1 (10:23):
So it's unfortunate. It's like a very it's a very
I don't want to say strong. And was it common.
Let's say that it's a very common tactic by people
who deny what happens October is the evidence where the testimony.

Speaker 2 (10:33):
Exactly exactly, so we have so then we really have
to focus on on the other side of it, which
argues that though it is symbolic and declarative, it carries
weight and the waves from from this statement can actually
have political and diplomatic implications for Hamas. So, first of all,

(10:54):
what going on the blacklist means is that there is
higher monitoring of this group by the UN. They'll need
to report stuff more. Obviously, it joins sanctions and Tramas
is widely recognized as a terrorist organization across several states
and you know, all over the world, so that that's
on the blacklist front and forceability. Listen, like, we're dealing

(11:14):
with a terrorist group. I don't think that it's outrageous
to say, like, I don't think that it necessarily is
absolutely nothing. I think it does. It can't. It has
the potential to carry some weight and to move the
needle a tiny bit, but it has to be used
in the right way. It has to be used in
the right way by leadership, by our diplomacy efforts to

(11:37):
really and let's not forget the victims. The victims are
the ones that ma the justice for this and beyond
the political chess board that that it's being played out in,
you have the victims and they need their day in court.

Speaker 1 (11:49):
So I guess I think I have two questions off
of what you just told me. The first being, once
this report is presented, does this de facto force you know,
like countries who are like, you know, party to the
UN to have to recognize it and then have to
act or is it just kind of like if they
want to use the initiative, they could base it off

(12:10):
of this and say, hey, this is I think I
think it's.

Speaker 2 (12:12):
More soft power. Y. Okay, they don't have they don't
have to do anything. Countries in general don't have to
do anything unless they signed onto a treaty. And when
you join the United Nations as a state, you sign
you agree to certain things.

Speaker 1 (12:25):
So then my second question, and this is like I'm
genuinely asking this and be trying to be facetious, and
I also don't know if this is something I have
the answer to. But you said part of one of
the implications of the blacklist is that it's going to
be more heavily monitored by the UN. So like has
the UN been like withholding monitoring of hamas just because like, oh, well,
we don't have an official blacklist, so like, I guess
everything's kind of fine.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
So I don't know enough. I don't know enough about
the UN's monitoring.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
I would hope already, but like, right, you would.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
But again, like that flees back into your the much
broader argument that I'm seeing of the legitimacy of you know,
this massive international leadership body that we have. How and
these are arguments that have been made against you n
for years that it's it's a it's a nice idea,
but in practice it doesn't really work. And we don't

(13:13):
have to go into the examples. There are so many
examples of where it doesn't work. I think there are
also examples where it has worked. But I think it
raises a very important discussion when it comes to international
national relations, international law, international leadership, of where do we
kind of go from here when we're seeing we're seeing
double standards, We're seeing you know, Iran being at the

(13:35):
head of the Women's Council or whatever. That was right
like that, they're right, right, So I think I think
it's important discussions that we need to have about how
we actually hold oppressors accountable.

Speaker 1 (13:46):
Absolutely right. And while we're on the topic of double standards,
because you know, we couldn't just talk about the UN
doing something right that there's the flip side of this
is that Israel was also notified, like warned in advanced Yeah,
that the UN is also seeking that Israel to this list. Yes,
I also think Russia, right, this says Russia would be too.

Speaker 2 (14:06):
Genuinely, I only looked at Israel, the Israel Palestine section
of the report and not past that.

Speaker 1 (14:11):
But yeah, talk about that. Why?

Speaker 2 (14:15):
Yeah, those those The reason Israel was put on notice
is UH following allegations of sexual abuse of Palestine detainees,
both from Gaza, which think about it. The military isn't Gaza.
It captures people, where does it bring them? It brings
them to detengent centers in Israel. If you remember the

(14:38):
Setteman case, UH, that that was that was your that
was like the big crown jewel of this of this UH,
of this crusade. The testimonies were awful. The testimonies were awful,
and I think that that is also why why this
has come about now. I do think there is room
to discuss not whether we should be keeping an eye

(15:00):
on what the IDF or the IS or prison service does.
We should we should as responsible citizens, we should be
looking and asking and making sure that we are holding
our people to We should not to the right standard
to the highest centers people exactly. Yeah, and we should
call them out and we should say right like, there
are things we should do in those cases. I do

(15:22):
think there is room to discuss whether it is valid
to actually draw a moral equivalency, because you can draw
action to action, right there was there's a legi sexual
abuse here, there's a lego sexual abuse here. But the
forces behind those actions are they really.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
A systemic idea of morally the same things? And I
wou't even say like equivalents because for me, this argument
of like moral equivalents doesn't make sense. It's more just
like did you cross the threshold or not? Like interesting
like when the when the Icco restaurants came out, they're like, oh,
they're equating BB to SINOIR. It's like, I don't think
they are. I just think that both BB and CINOIR

(15:57):
across what they consider to be bad enough for restaurants there.

Speaker 2 (16:00):
Not that that's the court that I think.

Speaker 1 (16:02):
As you're as you're here, if the line is here
and you're hearing someone else is there, you're not equal,
You're just you're just I'm not whatever like ice. Theres
a whole nother discussion in the warrants.

Speaker 2 (16:10):
But yeah, yeah, no, I I think I think that's
a really good way.

Speaker 1 (16:13):
To But when we talked about my hamas is being
added to this list, we said the understanding the conclusion
was this wasn't a one off, this is a systemic
policy use of tactic in war. So the u N
saying because the st mon thing like from what again,
just from what I've seen, it seems like it did happen.
The testimonies are like like there's a lot of testimonies,

(16:35):
very and just pot it. It doesn't look good, absolutely horrible.
I remember the day that, like the protests around a drupted.
It was like a very sad day to have to
cover the news. I was like, what what have we
been doing here? But like is the u N stating
that this too is a systemic part of idefs like
tactics of war or is this is this them just
like afraid about adding one and not the other, Like

(16:56):
what's what's going on?

Speaker 2 (16:57):
I don't listen. I don't know how to say what
to say with authority. I think that the responsibility here
definitely lies on Israel and is part of the broader
approach of international policing. The reason, the reason that Israel
is like trusted right quote unquote, is because Israel has
an independent judiciary that investigates itself. So you have so

(17:20):
you have you have a military prosecution. It exists specifically
for cases like these. So from the international courts perspective,
if we can trust the Israeli judiciary, we don't need
to get involved. That that is the general approach. So
we need to wait and see what comes out from
those cases. And we need a way to see where
the prosecution is on prosecuting nobuitarists from October.

Speaker 1 (17:44):
Seventh, right, So being added by being one that they
intend to add us to this list, does Israel still
have the opportunity to conduct this investigation come to the
un say hey whatever, and then if it does, they
could reverse it. Like that's still on the cars.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
I don't think they even need to go to the
like we just need to be like basically saying, don't worry,
we got this. We know how to investigate our own
We're fine.

Speaker 1 (18:05):
So this isn't like a final like we're blacklisted for good.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
Because this is like no, Israel was not blacklisted. Israel
was put on notice, which is just like a bit
of a yellow flag to say like, hey, take care
of this now before it gets worse. Also, keep in
mind that with such sensitive acts and crimes, alleged crimes,
the more time passes, the harder it is for you

(18:28):
to do anything. And that is I think also like
a fantastic honorable mention. First of all, with the Hamas
sexual assault pattern, the UN sent a mission to Israel
in January February ish, twenty twenty four. Report came out
in March, and recently just last month, the Dina Project,

(18:48):
which is a group of five women, you know, academics
in their own fields and gender and law and things
like that, they came out with this massive, massive report
that coalesced every thing that exists, and they basically proposed
to expand in in when you're prosecuting crimes, right, you

(19:09):
have you have a bunch of tools that you can use,
and you have a bunch of evidence. They could use
your best evidences, first hand evidence. I come to you
and I say I was attacked, right. Their proposal was
in a case like this where you don't have most
of that again, because a lot of victims kill, you don't,
it's really hard to pull the evidence. And also even

(19:30):
if you have survivors, let's remember that we're talking about
survivors of sexual abuse and assault, they might not ever
come forward. They they're dealing with trauma of their own.
Their proposal was to expand it some of them was
still hard to push yes, and we have to acknowledge that.
And they're so so brave for coming forward and for
actually for reaching a place where they can do it

(19:51):
and understanding how important it is to get to that point.
But what the Geno Project reports, it made a bunch
of suggestions. One of them was use all of the
eviden and cheery tools at your disposal, meaning people who
were there and they heard it, or they were there
and they saw it, and and they came and told
it didn't happen to them, but they saw it, So

(20:11):
use that and apply it to the group. If you're
if you're saying it was a pattern, if it wasn't
just a one off, then it was clearly an instruction.
Then it was something that when anyone who crossed the
border that day, they knew that that was kind of
part of the plan, right that that's their proposal, and uh,
credit credit to them, credit to the mission's, credit to

(20:32):
the survivors as well who have come forward, and you know,
we just hope that it can keep one day see
justice for for these victims.

Speaker 1 (20:42):
So I think one last question based off of this report,
and obviously the answer could just be now, but you're
talking about how, you know, expanding the use of all
evidentiary tools. Are they are they is there any like
are they trying to change any like landmark legal precedents
of like how to prosecute in an higher group?

Speaker 2 (20:58):
Or is this no? No, the answer is no.

Speaker 5 (21:00):
The The issue is just that when it's in such
a big group, in such a big event, where there's
so much going on in moving around, Uh, if you're
only relying on the.

Speaker 2 (21:11):
Most traditional methods. Again, all of these methods are kosher.
You can use that they have been used. It's just
a question of what has been used more And in
this case, your more direct evidence is what has been
used more and so and so you're more right, you're
going to be looking for that more. And what these
people are saying is we have to think a little

(21:33):
bit differently because these attacks are different. The attacks are
different attacks. This is a large scale attack with several
different several different attacks at the same time, different sites,
reported by different people. You need you need to look
at it with slightly different eyes if you want to
actually get some answers. And I'll add also that October
seventh is not meaning as well as not the only

(21:56):
the only, uh the only place where there has been
conflict related sexual violence of course, nearly every conflict all
over the world, So this model can also be applied
there as well. Right, like exported ours is un reports.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
You know, October sixth was a long time ago. But
they kind of batch you know what I mean, Like
whenever they put out these reports. It's not just on
one specific thing. They have special reports for those specific things,
but these kinds of things. Yeah, they batchel things together
and it takes a very long time. They compile a
lot of stuff.

Speaker 2 (22:20):
The client said to someone this morning, the clock moves
slow and un land. Well, I think I think they
I think they want to be thorough and they and
they really take that into account, and uh, you know,
we just got to keep fighting.

Speaker 1 (22:34):
Yeah, well, going back to both sides of the report,
I'm glad that at least, you know, the moral equivalency
I think still isn't even there because we're notified versus
them actually being blacklisted. So you know, we kind of
say this every week, but we'll have to wait and
see what happens with that. I hope it doesn't escalate
to us also being blacklisted.

Speaker 2 (22:48):
I have a hard time thinking that. Yeah, I have
a hard time believing that we'll get there. But before
we have, listen, we have a rest warrant. Who thought that?
Do you remember that day?

Speaker 4 (23:02):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (23:02):
I do. I was on shift. I was like, oh no,
all right. So then I guess moving to the next reports,
this wasn't necessarily just yesterday or last week. It's kind
of been ongoing, but the biggest culmination of it was yesterday.
So you know, a topic that I think is on
every news station all around the world is, you know,
is there starvation in Gaza? What is the scale of

(23:23):
starvation in Gaza? Who's responsible? Who's that risk of feminine dying?
You know, it's it's just everywhere. That started with like
a series of photos coming out of the Gaza strip
of children where then later you know, clarified to have
ganet or some other kinds of like disabilities in order
to make them look even more malnourised and like the
average person, which made international headlines stood different weeks. My opinion,

(23:44):
our whole response to them was kind of weak, a
little slow.

Speaker 2 (23:47):
My problem is different with that. I think that our
response really just misses the mark and the entire thing.
Because when you have is there servations or not servation,
people don't have easy access to food. Can we all
agree on that? We can all agree on that. Right
in a situation where you have such a large group
of people that doesn't have access to food, who are
the first to die your weakest? Of course, these people

(24:10):
are going to be dying first after having barely any
organized access to food for two years. And that and
that wasn't said. That wasn't said. It was just like
reviewing it, refuning this here and there. Hang on a minute,
like common common sense. Let's let's drag some common sense
in for a second. When you have such a massive
group of people that is malnourished and stress and traumatized,

(24:33):
and and we're not touching the other aspects of the war.
We're just talking about that. But when you have that,
of course your weakest are going to die first, and
and that's maybe what we're starting at risk of death definitely.

Speaker 1 (24:46):
So before we go into dissecting our response and how
tireble was, even more is bringing the CogAT report, like here's.

Speaker 2 (24:53):
Our okay, So let let's let's talk about COVID for
a second, because coct is coct is a military unit
that is response before civilian affairs in the Gaza Strip,
also in the West Bank, and they deal with this
stuff all the time. So CogAT is really the body
responsible for informing the press and informing the people what
goes in, how much goes in, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera. And then when you have eight organizations like

(25:16):
you had Israeli Aid organization yesterday, you had international organizations
today who came out and said we can't get our
aid in, CogAT is the one to respond to that.
And COOGAT responded and was like, that's not true. So
much went in the new they the government like switched
the registration mechanism, something technical that they say caused a

(25:38):
lot of groups to not be able to get their
food in. But I think it harks back to what
we just talked about about, you know, the debate of
like it's not whether yes or no, right people are hungry,
it's just a question of I think the Israeli response
has been we're doing what we need to do, like

(25:58):
we need to make sure the food gets in once
it's in not in our hands anymore, right, Like that
that's sort of been the gist of these rarely response.

Speaker 5 (26:06):
And and an international community does not deem that enough,
uh justified or not.

Speaker 2 (26:14):
I don't think that's justified, but but that's what we're seeing.

Speaker 1 (26:18):
I tend to agree. I don't even like, I think
it's hard to argue for we're doing exactly what's needed
if it's part of that's obviously not for the segment,
but you know, the as part of like the now
approved God's Occupation Plan in whatever format will take.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
Are we are we are we diverty?

Speaker 1 (26:34):
That's now you himself said that there's now going to
be like security of aid routes, which is great. That
also means that like if that's new, then that means
that up until that hasn't been happening.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
Yeah, yeah, I know, it's.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
We have been doing more.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
It's a mess. I'm sure we could have been doing more.
I'm sure we could have been doing more. And listen,
like what you gotta. I think what needs to be
said is that the damage, the image damage that we
have from this. And I don't think this is only
as a re's fault. I think we can't forget that
Hamas has the best PR campaign in this in this war.

(27:06):
This doesn't help us correct and going and pointing out, oh,
actually this this one article that the New York Times
front page was wrong, Like, yes, the New k Times
from page is wrong, but you're not saying what you
actually need for saying first.

Speaker 1 (27:19):
They responded after like that that photo was on like
every international media for a week. They point Cogd pointed out,
like to a different kid, it was like evacuated to
take the pre and well.

Speaker 2 (27:27):
We're not here to rip on Cogd. I think they
do a lot of good work, but it's not and
I don't think it's just them. I think it's I
think it's a broader diplomatic approach that that's missing.

Speaker 1 (27:36):
The hard level. I think that the idea of like
Israel's image is just kind of like on the back
burn and it's not really that important.

Speaker 2 (27:42):
Which which I think is is I don't know, by
my perspective, that's kind of dumb because because that's completely
discrediting and not giving the right weight to softer things
like image, like reputation, and and the approach says like, ah,
that doesn't matter as long as you know, technically, we

(28:04):
are doing everything we need to do and we're that's
that's then like we're fine, No, we're not fine, Like
we're not fine.

Speaker 1 (28:09):
Any everyone else is upset with us, and like yeah,
then we're surprised. Oh I haven't upset with this, no one.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
Also, let's let's not forget the ripple effects that this has.
This has ripple effects and everything from academia to culture
to sorry that this is this is the first thing
Jews around the world are the first to kind of
experience those attacked like a few days not our fault,
it's not our It's not only on us obviously, right,
primarily ours, but there is a part that is replaced.

Speaker 1 (28:33):
Also sorry, but like diplomatically, like a few days after
this is when they like all the statements about recognition
started coming out, like we can't you know what I mean, Like,
no one can divorce sitting watching this and just like
not doing anything. So like I you know, I do
hope that going forward, because that's be real. We don't
know how much long this is going to last. I
don't think it's gonna wrap up in the next few
months if we're looking to escalate. But I hope that

(28:54):
this would be a bigger factor for Israel to consider.

Speaker 2 (28:56):
I I really hope so too. And I think it's
going to take us such a long time to recover
any good image that we had.

Speaker 1 (29:04):
And now for our deepest dive. A development that kind
of flew under the raidar in Israel but affects us
all here like massively, is that Trump brokeer the peace
treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We have you all here
with us who talked to somebody Zebaijani's about the details
of the peace treaty. What really like the spheres of influence?
Has this gon to affect Armenia, has ton affect as
a Baijan, How it affects a bunch of global players Us, Iran, Russia, Israel?

(29:26):
It has it all? You've all thank you so much
for joining us, Thank you for having Met's let's talk
about it first of all, like what is this deal
actually in tail? Let's just talk about like the hard facts.
What is in the deal?

Speaker 6 (29:36):
Okay, So the basics of the deal are mutual recognition,
recognition of borders, and effectively a lot of it is
what you'd call the very basic diplomacy, you know, stuff
that because you have to remember Oarmenia and Azerbaijan here
are in a I've been in a basically don't recognize
each other. They don't like to recognize each other. They've
been constantly fighting for constantly fighting. Maybe not so ruch,

(29:57):
but they've been in a continuous rivalry. Let's cool it
that basically since they both got independence from this uss
are so we're not talking about familiar Yeah, I think
very much from here will will recognize the situation.

Speaker 1 (30:10):
So that talking like basic recognition, cessation of hostilities, yes,
stuff like that.

Speaker 6 (30:15):
And also importantly they said that they would try and
prevent sort of anyone in their own countries doing hostilities,
which is another interesting thing. So they're also talking about
trying like mutual security cooperation. So so I'm imagining we
don't see a situation where some Armenian terrorist organization attacks
someone in Azerbaijan.

Speaker 4 (30:33):
They've effectively also prevented that sort of situation occurring.

Speaker 1 (30:36):
Does this also includes stuff like internal education, like now
that's being spread about the other countries or is that
maybe that's.

Speaker 6 (30:42):
Not been specified. But they have said that they were
gonna work together to try and end racial hatred or
I'm not gonna I don't remember the exact words that
we turn my notes quickly.

Speaker 4 (30:52):
Yeah, they basically they basically tried to say.

Speaker 6 (30:54):
That they're not gonna they're gonna try and tone down
how bad before this, Let's put it this way, they
did not try to hamper down racial hatred and things
like that. Okay, so they're now I'm gonna actually try
and put an effort into doing this. It's it's a
similar anyone who's been in this conflict, anyone who's been
in also the Cypriot conflict, any of these ethnic conflicts,

(31:15):
it's a similar kind of situation.

Speaker 1 (31:17):
Before we going to the the corridor, which is the
US aspect of this, right because you know, you can't
do idea with Trump without having some business. But before
we going to this physics of that I think let's
talk a little bit about like other players who are
kind of involved. We'll actually going to like the spheres
of influence a bit later, but it's just like, you know,
who else does this really effect because we're talking that's like,
why are we talking about this?

Speaker 4 (31:36):
Right?

Speaker 1 (31:36):
So, like obviously Armania as by genre involved here, but
there's some Russia, there's some Iran, like who's so.

Speaker 6 (31:41):
Let me let me let me give a breakdown of
Now some of this stuff goes back further, and there's
a lot of like longstanding ethnic relations. For example, azer
by Jan is a country that I would say has
largely been not antisemitic in a in a general sense,
it's not a very anti semitic play. So there's been

(32:01):
a lot of there were a lot of good relations
between Jews and as a Baiani's for a long time.

Speaker 4 (32:05):
But what I'm gonna be talking about here.

Speaker 6 (32:07):
Is very specifically how the politics went down in the
nineteen nineties that led to the situation that we're in effectively.

Speaker 4 (32:17):
We'll start like this. Stalin is responsible for a lot
of this.

Speaker 6 (32:21):
He intentionally mixed up the ethnic areas in a sense
of to cause these problems so that he could be
the power broker. So a lot of what happened was
in the nineties is I'm not gonna get into the details.

Speaker 4 (32:34):
Effectively were the ethnic riots.

Speaker 6 (32:35):
As the Soviet Union was collapsing, and that led to
the Armenians who were living in as a Baijani controlled
territory and what would become internationally recognized parts of Azerbaijan
to not feel comfortable with the Azeri government and effectively
go into a revolt. Now I don't want to start
playing a blame game. A war breaks out and the

(32:56):
Armenians win the war. Basically they seize the territory which
had majority ethnic Armenians, and if I remember correctly again,
with all these ethnic conflicts, a lot of people got clans,
a lot of people got killed, very racist, a lot
of rapes. If I remember correctly, it was not a
good situation all around. Basically, no one supports Azerbaijan except

(33:16):
for US and Turkey because at the time Ustin Turkey
were still really good friends. The nineteen nineties were a
very different period. So we actually sent a lot of
weapons to Azerbaijan in return for their oil.

Speaker 4 (33:29):
Great deal for both of us, right.

Speaker 6 (33:32):
However, that you then also have that the Russians are
the traditional let's say, protectors of Armenia, which meant they
funded the Armenians. And with Armenia being a Christian, you know,
European state, the Armenians are seen as Europeans by a
lot of the Europeans. That meant that they also got
support from the West. So for the first time you
had the Russians and the West supporting the same side

(33:53):
in a war, and no one was supporting Azerbaian except
for basically US in Turkey and actually Pakistan. Azerbaijan's the
only place in the world you'll see the Israeli and
the Pakistani flag right next.

Speaker 4 (34:02):
To each Other's very strange.

Speaker 6 (34:03):
That basically goes down. Azerbaijan loses the war, there's no
way to say it. They lose a huge chunk of territory,
but they hold on. The Aliev government holds on and
they survive. But from that point on, Azerbaijan basically understood
it had three real friends Turkey, Israel, and Pakistan. Those
are the only three people that could rely on, three
countries that could rely on. Through the nineties, that's when

(34:25):
we really start seeing around really developing as this anti
Israel figure in the Middle East.

Speaker 4 (34:30):
So it's during that period that.

Speaker 6 (34:34):
Israel and Asbraim become closer and closer over time, the
oil and military connection, this is basically the basis of
the of the relationship, and that slowly evolves. Because most
ethnic Azaris, who are the ethnicity of Azerbaijan, most of
them live, actually the majority of them live in Iran.

Speaker 4 (34:52):
Now that is mostly due to some.

Speaker 6 (34:57):
You know, imperialism from the nineteenthentury when we go into
a lot of borders changed hands, the Russians took stuff
from Iran. It was a very but for Aziris are
not an alien part of the Uranian society, let's say so,
they're a very normal part. I mean, the supreme leader
is Aziri, he's not actually Persian. So Iran has always
been somewhat nervous that they'll try and reclaim this territory
or cause uprisings, and so Iran naturally supported Armenia against Azebagiant. Now,

(35:22):
despite the fact that the Aziris are Shia, that they
speak and that they're very similar culture.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
The thing that Iran and Pakistan are alianed on a
lot of things. Pakistan really said that you know, like
if you know, if stuff it's the fan that they
will support Iran and it's nuclear you know, ambitions, and
then in this side they find themselves on opposite side.
So it's just really funny to like.

Speaker 6 (35:40):
I don't know, it's it's to me, that's just such
a classic Middle East and thing on this conflict on
the same side, on that conflicts worlds sides. So so
that's that's basically where Iran comes in. And now Asbajhan
has been accused for years of harboring Mossad and Israeli
intelligence baces, so I couldn't.

Speaker 4 (35:56):
Gess well, clearly we said, yeah.

Speaker 6 (36:01):
So, so the relationship has been really bad, and because
Armenia naturally turned to Iran as one of its protectors,
well that put Israeli Armenia relationships relationship in a very
bad place, right, And then you get even worse when
you're talking about the fact Russia was also supporting Syria.
So you're now getting that Russia was supporting largely anti

(36:22):
israel like country.

Speaker 1 (36:23):
Now we have a lot of hands and a whole
lot of pies and yeah, OK, so that we can
probably go on to this more, but I want to
get more into that actual rest of the conversation, so
not really quickly. Let's just gloss over like the actual
details of the corridor and the business deal that the
US has cemented, and if that, I promise we'll get
into some very interesting stuff. We just have to, you know, like.

Speaker 6 (36:41):
One of the core problems that's been going on between
Armenia and Azbaijan is that there's a small area of
Azerbaijan called Nakhachevan that that basically is completely cut off
from the rest of Azerbaijan by Armenia. Again, as I said,
Stalin did these things on purpose, right, this has basically
one of the big points of contention. We should think
about it, maybe a little bit like the West Bank
can go, as you know the Pastunians aren't going to
be really happy unless there's some sort of connector between

(37:04):
the two areas. However, in this case, what seems to
be happening is that they've decided. Now I'm not sure
about the route. I saw the economists, and I'm going
to source them because I've not seen anyone else saying
the route. The economists had a map showing that the
route will be running along the border.

Speaker 4 (37:20):
I don't I don't know how realistic that is.

Speaker 6 (37:22):
But if that is what it's going to be, that
will be the least disruptive to Armenia. And the Americans
basically are offering to lease this territory. It will remain
Armenian sovereign territory, but it will be run by American companies,
I believe, and they will develop railway lines, gas power plants,
electricity lines and eruptedalized or is this remain These will

(37:45):
be owned by US companies.

Speaker 1 (37:47):
It's very built in road adjacent.

Speaker 6 (37:49):
Yeah, very much so. And actually you bring that up
this we can talk about this, but we can make
this up a bit later. But I did see some
analysis as saying that this could also be part of
essentially a counter Belton road in the sense that now
you can ship in from Central Asia Vias C Two Azerbaijan,
through Azerbaijan and Armenia to Turkey and straight onto you.

Speaker 1 (38:10):
It might be a bit too early to claim this
is a counter Belton road. I don't think the scale
is i'm i'm I saw mammal. It's just very interesting. Indeed,
it's very clear what Armina Azerbaijan are gaining from this. Yes,
plus I mean like a from the ceasefire because it's
not even ceasire, so they stop, you know, killing each other,
less racism, and you're also getting better infrastructure, like yeah, like,

(38:32):
so we'll.

Speaker 6 (38:33):
Start from the flare ups in twenty twenty. In twenty twenty,
there was a full on war when Azerbaijan reclaimed the
territory Armenia took back. Following that, there was another bit
of fighting in twenty twenty three, and after that nearly
one hundred thousand Armenians left that territory and went back
to Armenia. And if you're looking at the time twenty
twenty three, it happened in September, right before the seventh

(38:54):
of October, and that's already after we had the Ukraine
War start, right, so you're looking at twenty twenty two,
Armenia loses its its main protector because they're now fully
focused on Ukraine. So then Azerbanan takes its chance to
force the issue and has a bit more fighting.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
And since the seventh of October, we've been giving all
of Iran's proxies exactly, so now Auran's kind of preccupied
with us, especially in our attacks in June. So like Iran, Syria,
Russia all have bigger fish to fry. I can't really
come to their aid.

Speaker 6 (39:28):
And if you're Armenia, you're looking around, you're saying, I'm
now surrounded on one side by Azerbaijan, who just you know,
we just lost one hundred thousand people just got expelled
from what expelled. I don't want to say expelled, because
it wasn't expelled. They left voluntarily. However, if ninety nine
percent of the people are leaving voluntarily, one has to
ask how voluntary?

Speaker 4 (39:46):
Yes, So.

Speaker 6 (39:50):
After all of this and you've got Iran being deteriorated,
you really have to look at Armenia and say, who's
going to help them?

Speaker 4 (39:57):
Right now?

Speaker 6 (39:57):
Surrounded by Turkey and Azerbaijian too, all style country, they're
basically forced into a position where they need Trump to
help them make peace. Now, this this is gonna be
really huge for the West.

Speaker 4 (40:11):
This is like a.

Speaker 6 (40:12):
Key chunk, like I want to say, it's like a
key outpost of Russian influence in the Middle East.

Speaker 4 (40:20):
So we lost Syria, right, Syria also disappeared. The Russians
lost Syria.

Speaker 6 (40:24):
Lost Syria, Yeah, and then now they lost Armenia.

Speaker 4 (40:28):
So if you're actually looking at it.

Speaker 6 (40:30):
All the Russian influence south of the Caucus Mountains is well,
it's purely hard military occupation of Georgia, right, that's it.
They don't have anything south of it. So in one sense,
this peace treaty is one of one can say is
probably one of the biggest things Trump might do. It's
it's effectively locked Russia out of the Middle East. Now,
maybe they'll get back in with Syria. I don't know,

(40:51):
but it doesn't seem it doesn't seem like to mean
that they'll get anywhere near the same level.

Speaker 1 (40:56):
And also just any like in any capacity like trade
routes and just being able to it's like is always
like useful for like that. It's it's very interesting how
much all this isn't connected. So obviously Russia's sphere of
influences now mass like massively diminished, and it's it's like
in this awkward position where it's even hard for it
to kind of fight back and reclaim because now that

(41:18):
this now that this treaty is made, it's not just
like Russia is against the US here, it's like they're
meddling in a whole bunch of other affairs.

Speaker 4 (41:26):
Bunching.

Speaker 1 (41:27):
You know. Now they're weddling as the modeling in kind
of Israeli interest the kind of medling in even more
NATO interests, because like they kind of want this to stick.
So it's like it's not so, it's not so easy.
Who like you.

Speaker 6 (41:38):
Well, there's another interesting aspect here which I forgot. I
did forget to mention, which is that in the peace
treaty it does say that old foreign forces will be expelled,
which we should read as exclusively Russian Russia. Yeah, because
the Russians they were pretending, pretending movies is the wrong way.

Speaker 4 (41:52):
They were supposed to be peacekeepers.

Speaker 6 (41:54):
However, in the end they ended up only really defending
a key Armenian apt the Stolic Church monastery, which is
a UNESCO anyway, It's a very important historical and religious site.
So their troops were staying there to defend it, and
if I remember, they're still there.

Speaker 4 (42:09):
So that's that's part of it. So we really like.

Speaker 6 (42:14):
This is really diaming for Russia basically, but in the
sense that it's so damning for Russia that it may
end up.

Speaker 4 (42:20):
Being good for Israel.

Speaker 6 (42:22):
Right, because the Russian influence has largely been to support
anti Israel actors in the.

Speaker 1 (42:26):
Region correct and also by that by the same prospects.
So like now Iran's influence influence has diminished massively as well.
And again like I think that's what you know, it's
like more relevant to US than Russia, like not from
a global perspective, for like from US in Israel's who
do we care about? So Iran's influence is like it's
been a bad year for Iran's influence. If you had
stock in Iran, the market will be very low, right

(42:48):
for sure, kasbala is it's not dismantled yet, but Lebanon
is really pushing right now for a complete and toll
disarmament and like monopoly on arms and force. Yeah, maybe
they'll still retain some kind of political power, as helpful
and unhelpful as that may be. I think, like you know,

(43:08):
you can argue that that doesn't have the influence there,
but if this monopoly in arms goes through, then Hazbal
is essentially decapitated because what matter anymore? Yeah, Syria not
only has Alshaa really like expelled Iranian influence in Lebanese
influence like Kazbal influence, sorry not Lebanese because well is
strictly influenced like openly states, like we're having none of
that anymore. So, like it's the indication is that you know,

(43:30):
they will not be welcome back anytime soon. Maybe if
Russia finds it in somehow, then like they'll be able
through Russia to be able to influence. But I also
highly doubt that because you know, they don't really like
Russia so much. Assad is in Russia. They hate a soad.
They really don't wan to think do with Russia either.

Speaker 6 (43:45):
From what I understand, they have said they're open to
allowing the Russians to keep a military base, but like
that would be yeah, yeah, you're right, Yeah, it would
be nowhere near the same before the Russian military place
base in Syria should be sort of so somewhat as
their outpost for influence over Syria, whereas I think in
this scenario it would be it would be a.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
It's just a station post.

Speaker 6 (44:08):
Yeah, more more like how you have American military bases
in Germany.

Speaker 4 (44:13):
Right, they're not right, they're not there to influence the God,
They're just right.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
They're just there their mobility purposes. Yeah, So there's that,
and there's also the obvious which is that they around
themselves got absolutely decimated. You know, they have to rebuild
their defenses, they have to rebuild the stockpiles that to
re build their ballistic missile like it's all just well
not one uh.

Speaker 6 (44:31):
One of the proxy you forgot to mention, actually is
that the Iraqi proxies. We heard from their Prime Minister
Asiani who directly said that we didn't want Israel to
destroy Baghdad and Basra, so we stopped them from firing missiles,
which kind of is telling you that here doctrine is working,
and that in a sense that the way Israel has

(44:54):
responded to to October seventh has deterred other countries from
allowing Iran to continue using their countries at.

Speaker 1 (45:01):
All today, and it's especially timely, so like in this
in this time, so Iran is obviously going to try
to like scoop influence from wherever it can, and this
treaty essentially minimizes the Armenia angle, which is like also
good for Israel. You know, alternative oil like trade and
like routes to like export oil obviously good for Israel.
So like all in all, I would say this is

(45:21):
like a net positive for Israel. Like we'll wait and
see what We'll have to see how things play out.
But like this, you know, this sounds like a rather
good development. You know, credit where credit is due. Like
good job to to Trump. You know, I don't know
if he really had anything to do with this or
he had to be certain selff into there, but like
good that he did and now it's being done.

Speaker 6 (45:38):
You know what I will say, I think it's something
that's maybe a little bit overlooked in in diplomacy globally
and maybe by by Western countries or Western analysts sometimes,
is how much of a factor American money is in
getting peace treaties in this region and maybe all over
the world. It often does require America to pay one

(45:59):
or both of the sides level of money to go
to people.

Speaker 4 (46:01):
I mean, we have that.

Speaker 6 (46:02):
We still most of the money we get from the
States is still coming from the seventy nine peace treaty
so that we don't invade the Suez again. Yeah, you know,
it's it's it's it's somewhat underrated. And I think in particular,
Trump is one of those people who probably does understand
that to some level, like pay them to make peace
in them, like peace versus I think we had a
lot of I don't know what the right word is,

(46:22):
but maybe a little bit too ideological idea or idealistic
view that oh well, it will just take the negotiations
and we don't have to pay anybody.

Speaker 1 (46:31):
It's also the thing like I think people kind of
get stuck on this idea, like like treaties and ceasefires
are deal like any kind of diplomacy. They have to
be done for like the right reasons. But like at
the end of the day, like you know, you could
argue that Trump did this because he really wants that
Nobel Peace Prize, or like he did this because I
don't know, like he thinks it'll.

Speaker 4 (46:50):
Be lucrative to American business or something to.

Speaker 1 (46:55):
Industrialize their route whatever. But like, like you know, the
bottom line here is that like it is being done,
so like you know, it's not even if it's not
coming from like let's say the purest of places. I
think like the end result is like all sides really
beneficial for sure, you know.

Speaker 6 (47:08):
And that also makes me wonder, what can we learn
about that here, because there's certain elements of that of
their treaty that we could for sure bring over to
what's going on here and stuff we can certainly learn
from them.

Speaker 1 (47:21):
So yeah, I mean listen, like I wouldn't.

Speaker 4 (47:24):
I'm not saying we're gonna get anywhere near that any time.

Speaker 1 (47:26):
No, no, no, of course. Also, like I don't think anyone
really has the epistemic knowledge to measure the animosity between
Israelis and Palestinians versus our Meeanians are as by Johnny,
but like one would argue that both there's a lot
of a like animosity in both of these cases, and
yet they're still able to come to an agreement. So
like I think the takeaway here, like I think any
Israeli or Palestinian diplomatsu, you know, academics, just anyone interested

(47:53):
in like possibly like moving these piece processes forward. Maybe
maybe even like foreign players, Like now a bunch of
countries are recognizing Paladinians is trying to think that's the
next thing that whatever. I think, when they look at
this agreement, they should see, Okay, you have, you know,
two players who are very like just straight up atrocious
towards each other. Doesn't seem like a deal could be reached.

(48:13):
I think, you know, like really put ideals aside, which
is really just think like what is like a unilateral
thing that will improve all sides. I know a lot
of times we think of like any kind of resolution
to this conflict as like a compromise, and so I
think we've just completely thrown out the window of any
possibility of like a win win win. And you know,
obviously this this deal of Azerbajona Armenia really screws over

(48:36):
Russia and Iran, But in terms of all the players
involved directly, which is the Usaminia, it really does seem
like a win win win. They get protection, they get nationalization,
they get of infrastructure, they get you know, a reducing animosity.
They have piece and quiet. They have assurances, which is
especially assurances is something that like you know, for decades,

(48:56):
Israel and you know, Passline have been trying to trying
to get like aurance is like the one thing we
can ever really sign of get to and like people
keep saying, ah, it doesn't matter, we have to know,
but like assurance, it really gives you the piece of
quiet and the space to actually like work in this
in this environment of like, okay, now we can move
forward now that we know for a fact that like
at least this is going to happen and we're protected.
So I hope maybe now is not specifically where we're

(49:17):
going to see a change, because we're still in a war,
right and we're still dealing with a whole bunch of
other different proxies. But like, maybe when things settle down
and we figure out, you know, how are we going
to eventually end this, we can look at this as
an example of like, you don't have to feel bad
about it, you could actually gain a lot from it
and assurances there's something that can actually be reached and
don't discard it. I don't know what are your thoughts.

Speaker 6 (49:38):
I have to be honest, I'm I think in this
case specifically, part of the problem we have is that
when you look at the Armenian government, they're part of
the issue here, and I think it's one that that's
going to be hard.

Speaker 4 (49:53):
To deal with, is that this is just a very
subjective opinion.

Speaker 6 (49:57):
It doesn't seem to me that the Palestinian governments either
hamassd or care as much about their own people as
the Armenian government cares about its own people. And I
think that's a key difference. I think for the Armenians,
they really sold what happened in twenty twenty three, and
they said, Okay, we have to make peace now because
otherwise we're gonna lose we might lose everything, and that
can't be allowed to happen, right, And I think there

(50:19):
is an element of.

Speaker 4 (50:21):
Actual panic there. Now. I don't know, I couldn't tell you, but.

Speaker 6 (50:26):
It doesn't seem at oll to me that the Palestinian
governments have the same amount of.

Speaker 4 (50:29):
It like care for their own people.

Speaker 1 (50:31):
I would be inclined.

Speaker 6 (50:32):
And I think part of that is partially because they're
not democratic. I mean, you've got Armenia in itself is
a semi it's a hybrid democracy, but it is a democracy.

Speaker 1 (50:40):
So I would be inclined to agree with you. And
that's definitely a big roadblock to making peace. But you know,
I would just kind of like close off here is
that I would say that, I think not within the governments,
but even with people who academics or former diplomats or
anyone who's like involving these processes, like on both sides,
a lot of them are also quick to just off

(51:00):
the idea of the idea of assurances like this is
not a sticking point to do. Sticking points in other
areas and they just kind of dismiss it. And so
I hope in some sense this at least changes that
view on it. Uh, you know, but uh, I guess.

Speaker 4 (51:13):
Time will tell, Time will tell.

Speaker 1 (51:15):
Yeah, thank you so much for joining us. You know,
this was something that really flew under the radar in Israel.
So I'm glad that we got to explain a lot,
like you know, even more really explore the implications.

Speaker 4 (51:24):
Thank you, Thank you.

Speaker 6 (51:25):
And I want to thank my friend Hassan for giving
me a lot of pointers about where to research.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
Yes, thank you very much, Hassa. All right, that's all
we have. Thank you for turning into this week's episode.
I've been your host, Jacob Lasnik. For more information on
any of those stories discussed today, or the latest news
about Israel and the diaspora, please visit Jpost dot com.