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 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, for many years in order to establish a state for thejewish 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 isa determination. And in israel, israel is ajewish 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 ourjewish 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 wont 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 give equal rights to those living between Thejordan 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 truejewish israel in which it would stop being a true Jewish Democratic state. Israel in which it would stop being a trueJewish Democratic state. We could have one state with everybody living there, but i dont 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 ajewish 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 system. Is that something you fear, to . Israelwould not be an 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. 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 land into two different states. Frankly, iam not 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 . 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, 01 any president of the United States, ora 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 thatis 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 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 colleague has accused him of being a serial refuser and willjudge on that failure. But with Benjamin Netanyahu that failure. But with Benjamin Neta nyahu as 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 01 something that would not lead to peace or the end of conflict, and more and more voices within this coalition, led like Benjamin Netanyahu coalition, led like Benjamin Neta nyahu are talking 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 ido 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. U nfortu nately, the israel palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, Benjamin Neta nyahu was not willing, couldnt, didnt wa nt was not willing, couldnt, didnt want to, it was less important, to say yes to all of these offers that we re 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 excuse. This is the coalition that Benjamin Neta nyahu fought. 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 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 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 tojoin the government 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 peace initiative. When the answer was no, isaid no 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 lets 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. 0k. 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 01 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. 0k, 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 notjust in which between the settlement blocs and the outposts. Iam familiarwith i am familiar with this, U Nfortu Nately 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 make your priority, 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 asa 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 few percentage is, we are all talking about1 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, jewish people coming back to the land of theirforefathers, we 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. Ican to think you can reach an agreement. I can assure you, to think you can reach an agreement. I can assure you, as 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 Tojerusalem from tel aviv and that is something you would support . 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 westjerusalem. American decision. Even if it were in west jerusalem. This is an American Decision and, as i said before, as an israelijerusalem is oui before, as an israelijerusalem 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 settle m e nts 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 step doing okay we are taking the Embassy Tojerusalem and that is it 01 Embassy Tojerusalem 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 directorgeneral said that that would be the end of 2 states . Said that that would be the end of 2 states . As i said before i am sure the american, the new administration andi 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 t