What Independence Day Means for Israel
Israel's Independence Day: the root causes of the war and where the keys to peace lie
(video in Russian, transcript in English)
Transcript:
[00:00:05] Elena Prigova: Hello, friends! We have April 30th on the calendar today. We meet with Viktor Ageyev, who is an international lawyer, an attorney with extensive experience in international law. I will remind you that Viktor and I met a few years ago and discussed UN problems and, in particular, the exclusion of the Russian Federation from the UN Security Council. Viktor, good day.
[00:00:34] Viktor Ageyev: Good day! And we're having an evening already.
[00:00:37] Elena Prigova: Good evening, good day.
[00:00:38] Viktor Ageyev: For those watching from Israel, then happy holiday. We have Independence Day coming up.
[00:00:43] Elena Prigova: It's just that we've had a change and Viktor is now speaking under the Israeli flag. He lives in Israel, works in Israel. And I congratulate you on Independence Day. This is a very important holiday. Explain to me what independence means for Israel? I can explain all about American independence. I can tell you about Ukrainian independent addiction. But, what is independence for Israel (Yom Atzmaut)?
[00:01:19] Viktor Ageyev: It's not just for Israel, really. There is a concept that a certain cycle of world history was set in motion at the time of the destruction of the Israeli state. That is, that at the beginning of the first century A.D. the Temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the people of Israel went into exile for 2,000 years. It set in motion a fundamental reformatting of the world, because Christianity came into being because of it, Islam came into being because of it. This could not have come about if Israel and its culture, its religion, its civilizational content was and remains simply the work of one Middle Eastern nation. And thanks to the very fact that Israel went into exile, a lot of things changed in the world in principle. That is, if we travel the world, in the Western world at least - you will find a book in any bedside table that tells the history of the people of Israel and the worldview of Israel people. In fact, it was a worldwide event. And what is Israel's independence? So it's not that Israel was dependent and then it got independence. In our case, it is the moment of the creation of the state. Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948, it declared that the state of Israel was being established in the land - after 2,000 years. There has never been anything like this in world history. That is, there is no nation that, not having its own state, would have survived for 2000 years, preserved historical memory as it happened here. And there is such an opinion that this is the start of a new cycle of world history.
[00:03:34] Viktor Ageyev: And, in fact, that is why Israel is at the center of the world conflicts, of the world processes. So, let's say we see a global conflict between right and left in the West - and it's very clearly now tied to what's happening in Israel. For Israel or against it? That is, there are other wars in the world. There is a war going on there, let's say, in Syria. In Israel, in fact, there is a civil war in Israel now, to some extent, because we are, well, not counting, let's say, Lebanon, Iran and the Houthis, - the main hot part is on the territory of Israel, in Gaza. But no other war is attracting so much attention right now, and no other nation in the history of the UN has been so high on the agenda. Well, for example - it's kind of the antithesis: there is a "United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People". No other nation in the world has such a committee, nor has it ever had one. But we know that this is not a committee struggling for inalienable rights of the (bogus) "Palestinian people," it is a committee struggling for State of Israel to cease to exist. Thus this is actually a very important event for the world agenda - that the state of Israel has been established. We are indeed in the midst of a historical process that is comparable to what happened in the first century A.D. when the state of Israel was destroyed. It's a new cycle.
[00:05:29] Elena Prigova: I've talked a lot about the importance of Oslo. We were discussing the importance of Oslo. 1993, and then Israel had to give up territories in return for peace. And - no peace, no territories now
[00:05:46] Viktor Ageyev: I don't agree as a lawyer that Israel gave away the territories.
[00:05:50] Elena Prigova: What happened in Oslo then?
[00:05:54] Viktor Ageyev: What happened in Oslo? In Oslo, agreements were signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization to establish a self-government for a national minority, the Arabs, within Israel. And this is a very important issue, but it's probably worth a separate broadcast: (legally) Israel has not lost any of its territories. What was Oslo's mistake? It's in what was in her preamble. The biggest mistake was in the preamble. It said that Israel recognizes the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the "Palestinian people." Anti-Israel activity and rhetoric rides atop three great whales of myth. The first 🐋 is the allegation of Israeli occupation of land. The second 🐋 is the assertion of the existence of a "Palestinian people" as a separate subject of the right to self-determination, distinct from the Arab people as a whole. And the third 🐋 is the myth of the existence of a "Palestinian state." These three whales - they are very serious. And here is one of those whales - the existence of the "Palestinian people". That is, the main mistake of Oslo was in the official recognition that there was a certain separate "Palestinian people", and it not only existed, but it was also represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which in fact was a creation of the KGB of the USSR. That is, Yasser Arafat was reportedly trained at a KGB school. Mahmoud Abbas, the current head of the organization ...
[00:07:45] Elena Prigova: He had another school in Moscow.
[00:07:47] Viktor Ageyev: He studied at the "Peoples' Friendship University", so called, named after Patrice Lumumba. And there are documents that he worked for the KGB under the nickname "Krotov." That document is there, and as we know, the KGB, it hasn't gone anywhere. He took over the power in Russia. Here, so that's a thing, too. You have to remember that there's actually some very strange connection between Marxism and Islamism there, seemingly completely contradictory. But here we have Mahmoud Dervish, a poet, a Muslim, a communist.
[00:08:28] Elena Prigova: And I have a question like this, the simplest question that comes up when you get the gist of it. They, the Israelis, sat down at the negotiating table with an organization that does not recognize the state of Israel, which is a terrorist enclave within the state of Israel itself, the Palestine Liberation Organization. I don't understand how you could sit down at the negotiating table with Yasser Arafat - thinking back to '93, with Mahmoud Abbas, who is his follower, and continue to have some kind of negotiations. But the international community within the UN continues this narrative: one land, two states. And that's pretty much what happens to our international community. They keep nodding at Israel, bashing Israel.
[00:09:37] Viktor Ageyev: That's a good question: how was it possible to have an agreement with them? There are actually two fundamental underlying concepts here, in understanding what's going on in Israel, in understanding the causes of the conflict. Conventionally speaking, it's kind of like "right" and "left." Our leftists tend to be proponents of a materialistic and even atheistic view of the world. This is why, as I have written and said many times before, that the left is fundamentally incapable of understanding our enemies, because the motivation that drives our enemies - in the world of the left, it doesn't exist. Why are they at war with Israel? What are they fighting for? I mean, that's what they're kind of talking about. What is the name of the war - Gaza's attack on Israel? This is the "Al-Aqsa Flood". So its purpose is to wash away the Israelites, to cleanse the holy city of Al-Quds (the holy city of Jerusalem) from us. They're not fighting over territory, they're not fighting over resources. They are fighting to make sure that there will be no Jews here in the Holy Land. Why it's important. Because the hottest wars are not about money or territory, they are about worldviews. That is, for centuries, the Muslim worldview has treated the "yahud," the Jews, as damned and rejected. These are the despicable people. So it is like this: they have lost, they have fallen away from the Most High. And what we have now... Many Israelis do not understand this: the fact that now the Israelis have regained the holy city of Jerusalem, in the understanding of many Muslims means that now it turns out like: "they may be now with the Almighty, and now we are like them then" That is, they are fighting to prove that the Almighty has not abandoned them. This is a very, very serious thing. And they're willing to die for it. Our leftists are incapable of understanding this. In the world of our leftists, how do they explain why they are at war with us? "I guess we've been oppressing them. I guess they don't have much land. I guess they've got something right there - they're out there trying to do something for themselves."
[00:12:15] Viktor Ageyev: "Let us let them live the way they want to live. We won't touch them, then they won't touch us." That straight up sounded official. When we had the unilateral disengagement process in 2005, when we withdrew from Gaza. It sounded in the Knesset that "they won't be able to say that we're occupying them now - we're not in Gaza anymore." But they're not fighting for Gaza, they're fighting for Jerusalem. And it's written right on their banners. So it's not because life was bad in Gaza, but because Israel's presence in Jerusalem gives them a sense of detachment from God. That's why they were willing to invade Israel despite our clear military advantage. So it's a desperate move entirely. This should not be underestimated either. A completely desperate step: this is self-sacrifice, this is asceticism. Yes. I mean, these are people who have been there their whole lives, sitting in tunnels, fighting. It's not like they're doing it for a comfortable life. And our leftists think that they are leading for a comfortable life, that they just want to have wealthy life, to have self-government. That was the idea in Oslo: let's give them self-government. Then in 2005, "Maybe they don't have enough self-government there? Let us withdraw our troops, let us leave altogether" They liquidated our settlements there, so that there would be no Israelis left at all. "Then they won't touch us" is a completely false concept, a misunderstanding of what drives that side. And the misunderstanding is due to the fact that in the world of our leftists all this doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. "It's stupid to fight for some ancient ruins" So this is a very serious point, yes, which shows two opposite approaches.
[00:14:15] Elena Prigova: There are some very serious points about terminology. When the West Bank of Jordan sounds constantly, "occupied West Bank." It is thrown out that it is Judea and Shomron, the original Israeli territories, which were taken and named so. Is it a misunderstanding of what's going on, an unwillingness to figure it out? we now have this intense conflict. I'll quote, on April 22 of this year, there was a turning point in Israeli diplomacy, and Israel's official account on "X.com," issued a powerful statement, verbatim: "The Palestinian Authority doesn't educate children, it indoctrinates them: maps without Israel; teachers praising martyrdom; textbooks that glorify terror. As long as they teach hate, there is no hope for peace. Stop ignoring it. Stop funding education that leads to terror." That's the message Israel is sending right now. And what message is being sent, what message, by a world that is worried about the poor "Palestinians" that Israel is not letting live. By the way, I had a very unpleasant conversation yesterday as well. I noticed a car outside my house, a big car like this - transportation, and they have the name of the company Al-Aqsa. That's the name of the company. And I just walked up to the driver and asked, where is he from? He looked at me with hatred. And from there, of course, the conversation went in a different direction, and we will never agree. But I got the license plate number. And I feel it is my duty to inform, our distinguished service, that these are people who support terrorism. But I realize this will be a voice crying out in the wilderness.
[00:16:34] Viktor Ageyev: Actually, indirectly. Indirectly.
[00:16:36] Elena Prigova: It's circumstantial - it's not circumstantial. Because these people who go around with banners "From the River to the Sea", they eventually materialize the words into pogroms. Now, I'm talking about international law. About Israel not even being allowed to close UNRWA on its territory.
[00:17:00] Viktor Ageyev: Why not? Very much so.
[00:17:03] Elena Prigova: Yeah, well, they shut it down, and rightly so. The Trump administration has done the same by cutting off funding. But, how, then, does what happens within the U.N. happen? With what Israel's foreign minister specifically said: that Gutterish was personally responsible for UNRWA's crimes.
[00:17:30] Viktor Ageyev: See, there's this interesting thing here that also has to do with the conflict between the right and the left. So there's this organization called the Socialist International. It was created by the characters we know: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Actually, Karl Marx was the author of the idea of the International. This organization, it has a website, it has policy documents, a list of those who are part of it. And it is written in their program documents that their goal is the destruction of "capitalism," that is, the destruction of modern Western society. The member of this organization is the party that is the core of the Israeli protests. It's the so-called "Democrats" party. It was formed by the merger of remnants of the Avodah and Meretz parties. Prior to that, the Meretz Party was a member of the Socialist International. And a member of that very same socialist international is the Fatah party, led by KGB agent Mahmoud Abbas. Yes, and its previous head was Antonio Gutteres.
[00:19:00] Elena Prigova: I knew he was a socialist. I understood all that, but to have him so indoctrinated into this whole structure .... When the spectre, the spectre of communism is haunting Europe ...
[00:19:14] Viktor Ageyev: is haunting ...
[00:19:15] Elena Prigova: Across Europe
[00:19:15] Viktor Ageyev: There's a spectre out there. And it is not just "haunting", but in fact it is a very serious, influential force. Socialist International has, I believe, either the second or the first largest faction in the European Parliament. And the representative of that faction was also the socialist Josep Borrell, who you've obviously also heard of, who was very vocal in his position. I mean, really, what do these all have in common? It is this fusion of Marxism and Islamism that we talked about, which actually created the very idea of the "Palestinian people" and the "Palestine Liberation Organization". I mean, we have, for example, well, here's the leader of the Democrats, Yair Golan. He is very active there now. So that's the core of these protests in Israel. And they are gaining votes in Israel. But we have him in Israel being silent about the fact that they are one-party with Abbas. And, in fact, they are one-party. That is, they are part of the same structure.
[00:20:26] Elena Prigova: And we're talking about counter propaganda. Where are these posters that here they are together. This you and I, let's say, know, and our viewers already know. It should be loudly talked about that these people work for Abbas, together with Abbas, together with the enemies of Israel. I want one more little remark, Sarah Huckabee, who is the governor of Arkansas, is the daughter of her daddy, who is America's representative to Israel. I can say that I adore this woman. She is the only one, so far, who has stated that Arkansas forbids the use of the "West Bank" name, only - "Judea and Samaria."
[00:21:21] Viktor Ageyev: Well, look, here actually, I don't think it's that scary, because, indeed, the Jordan has two banks (there used to be a Zionist song: "and both are ours"...) Both banks are territory of Palestine. That is, both the east bank and the west bank. In the West Bank is the district of Judea and Samaria. And that's where the Palestinian Authority is. One more remark: I wouldn't say Golan is working for Abbas. It's just that both he and Abbas are working on the same subject, the same concept. That is, they don't work for each other, they just serve the same idea.
[00:22:01] Elena Prigova: But if people serve the same idea, they are called associates.
[00:22:05] Viktor Ageyev: Yeah, yeah. That's right. That's the thing to say, they're associates, they're one-party. They are what's called ... "comrades."
[00:22:14] Elena Prigova: And do you think that this internal anti-Semitism among Jews who are communists, socialists and other destructivists, why is it so developed? That's the whole thing... I look at 28 members of our Congress, Jewish, they are all leftists, they will all vote against Israel, they will all support "Palestine".
[00:22:43] Viktor Ageyev: And,
[00:22:43] Elena Prigova: Support
[00:22:45] Viktor Ageyev: There is an explanation for this. In fact, the reason - it's very very very serious. Because, as I was saying, the traditional historical conflict between the Right and the Left has now become so vivid, because another conflict has been superimposed on it - between materialists, supporters of the anthropocentric view of the world, or, as it is sometimes called, "humanism" - that is, where human is the supreme value, and there is nothing else in the world. And between, the proponents of, let's say, the theocentric, "idealistic" (what Marxist philosophy called idealism) - religious view of the world. This is a very serious conflict. And why do so many Jews side with the left? On the side of the anti-religious, on the left, which now aligns itself with the anti-religious. For example, we have the "Haredim" (ultra-Orthodox), they are actually leftists too, but it turns out that because they are religious, they have fallen into the right-wing camp, even though they don't really belong there (except for Chabad, which has a completely separate story). Is that why? Because if one recognizes that the atheistic materialistic idea of the world is wrong, then it turns out that if the Torah and the Bible are right, then this places a very great responsibility on the Jew. And upon the people of Israel - a very great responsibility. We have this notion of "Holocaust philosophy." This is a very painful question: why did the Holocaust happen? Did it just happen by chance, or were the people of Israel somehow punished for something, or were they led to something? Because if it's accidental, well, it's like we don't owe anyone anything then. What if it didn't happen by accident? And if, in fact, by belonging to this nation, you bear the burden of responsibility, it is something that not everyone wants to realize. You were born, and you already have a burden of responsibility. And in fact, that's why there's a very big rejection of it among many Jews, especially intellectuals, people who want to feel like a completely independent, "atomic" being in this world. This is how the religious idea, and by extension the right-wing idea associated with it, causes such rejection. And now the conflict between the left and the right, it's becoming a religious conflict. A conflict between religious and anti-religious views.
[00:25:44] Elena Prigova: That's how we got to the conflict. I will still mention UNRWA. Israel's Foreign Minister says: we will not appear before the International Criminal Court at the hearings. That is, Israel will not participate in the upcoming hearings of the international court. And do you think non-participation, refusal to participate, is the right decision? Is ignoring it the right thing to do? Or is it still more correct to use the tribune of this international court to condemn anti-Semitism?
[00:26:24] Viktor Ageyev: This, of course, is a big mistake, because...
[00:26:27] Elena Prigova: Explain the legal details then, please, and why this is a big mistake?
[00:26:33] Viktor Ageyev: Because, it's very important to articulate your position. That is, first of all, why is Israel losing the information war? Because on the one hand, Netanyahu is very diplomatic, on the other hand (and my main complaint with him is this), he sometimes does the right thing, but he doesn't articulate it. So Israel is afraid to announce something.... And this is about again what's going on. Because if we don't articulate our position, we can't win the information war if we adjust to them. Here I'll give you an example. Let's say the International Criminal Court, the case against Netanyahu and Galant for war crimes. And here's the accusation, "you're not supplying enough humanitarian aid." What are Israel's representatives saying in response? "Yeah no, we try, we try to provide it as much as we can." And what they hear in response is, "it's still not enough." This is the wrong position because the correct position is to open the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 23. To point the finger and say, "look, it says here that we have to let in: we have to let in, objects necessary for religious worship; as well as medicines; and food for children under 15, expectant mothers and maternity cases, and that - provided that we have no doubt that these items will not get to other people, that is, for example, to children over 15 years old, or to women who are not pregnant and not in labor". This is what international law obliges us to do. And that is why the correct position is to say that since we are obliged to supply only this, and in a situation where we have no mechanisms to ensure that no one else gets it, and even the Geneva Convention provides for a mechanism - that a third independent state is appointed.
[00:28:56] Viktor Ageyev: And so we can, Israel would have to say that until representatives of a third state, which we trust, are appointed, because it cannot be appointed without us, there will be no deliveries at all. It would be the right thing to do, it would be under international law. Instead of making excuses about: "no, we're trying." So the problem is that leftists have substituted international law with myths - leftist myths that are passed off as international law. Here you go. And even our government in Israel, unfortunately, goes along with these myths, trying to, well, to match the sentiments of the masses. As they used to say in the Soviet Union, "the broad masses of working people". Instead of coming out and saying that: in fact, it is like this, and our position is like this. And even though you might lose in court. I've had a lot of that in my practice. I worked in Ukraine, where it was much more difficult to work with the courts than it is now with an international court. Simply because we were there - just lawyers with nothing behind them. And if you have the state behind you, it's different. But we have achieved in high-profile cases, even when we lost in court, we achieved that public opinion was on our side. I had a story like this when I was walking down the hallway of the court .... Here I am walking down the hallway of the court, and the chief justice of the court, who is presiding over the case, walks towards me. He is ashamed to meet with me, he turns around and runs away, because we are there ... I don't want to say the word "hounded", but we showed them step by step: "we know that you are under pressure, but look, two times two is still four...".
[00:30:44] Elena Prigova: you have dirt on them.
[00:30:46] Viktor Ageyev: I have a real case in point as well. So we're looking at a case. This is the Luhansk Oblast Court of Appeals. Here you go. And I say, "look, theft is when there is a victim, there is a defendant, there is an object of theft, and the object of theft must move from the victim to the possession of the defendant". That's what I say once, second time, third time. And one of the judges... And, so, the president of the court was like that, more intelligent, she tilted her head there, looking down and did not say anything, and one of the judges, who is dumber, he could not stand it and said: "Yes, we have already understood". I said, "Okay, then I have a question, why is my client in a cage?" I mean, that's the way it works. And that's with a full house of people. I mean, they (the judges), they understand what it looks like, too. And before that, they have to be staged. Because, as one great judge said, "not only must Justice be done, it must also be seen to be done," so, in the case where justice is not done, it must also be shown that it is not justice done. We can't just stand back and let, say, an institution called the International Criminal Court or even the International Court of Justice pretend that they are doing justice. We shouldn't let them do that.
[00:32:23] Elena Prigova: Israel does not recognize the international ...
[00:32:27] Viktor Ageyev: There are two courts in The Hague. It's a complicated issue there. In fact, there is the International Court of Justice - Israel recognizes it as a member of the UN because all UN members recognize it - and there is the International Criminal Court, neither the United States nor Israel recognizes it.
[00:32:49] Elena Prigova: Neither does Russia, by the way.
[00:32:53] Viktor Ageyev: Yeah, and Russia doesn't recognize it either. But there's a reason for that there, naturally. But, again, let's say Israel may not recognize the International Criminal Court, but there are Israeli citizens, Yoav Galant and Benjamin Netanyahu, they can simply as persons accused say, "we have the right to defend ourselves, our state does not recognize your court, but we have the right to present our position." After all, if you work smart. The way our opposite side actually works. Hamas bought South Africa's representatives. Well, like, we all realize that he just bought it, because - why is South Africa suddenly "fighting for human rights in Gaza"? Well, simply because South Africa is one of the most corrupt state on the planet. And we could just use some of our allies. I mean, after all, we have states that support us and that have not yet withdrawn from the International Criminal Court. They, too, can present their position.
[00:33:57] Elena Prigova: Here's a question I absolutely have... I heard: South Africa is the most corrupt country in the world.
[00:34:04] Viktor Ageyev: One of the most. I don't have a tape measure or a yardstick to measure exactly..
[00:34:09] Elena Prigova: There is no corruption rating. But at the same time, I'm a little off-topic right now. But here is President Zelensky going exactly there, exactly to South Africa, and by doing so, he throws this - it's a message, he sends a message. What do you think of Ukraine, which sends out messages like this?
[00:34:29] Viktor Ageyev: Well, I honestly don't understand why Zelensky is going there. But Ukraine, I tell you, here's the fact that we continue our theme of UN reform, perhaps Ukraine, unfortunately, until recently, until now, has not had the ability to take its own position, to play its own game. I mean, Israel doesn't always succeed, but still Israel is a fairly independent state. We don't celebrate Independence Day for nothing. Ukraine does not have its own position at the moment, because even now, let's say, even if it is in conflict with the United States, to some extent (because we have all seen this altercation between Zelensky and Trump), Zelensky was basically right, when he said: "we tried to negotiate with Putin, it still won't work" But to formulate it, to convey it - they have neither the ability nor people with the appropriate qualifications.
[00:35:46] Elena Prigova: Let's leave this topic for now. I'm just saying. Back to our Israel. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy received Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa in London. There's an interesting point going on there next. They signed a memorandum of understanding on Monday pledging to advance Palestinian statehood as part of a two-state solution. I emphasize, the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has a veto, has a very serious voice. And that's the kind of message the UK administration is sending. How can this end?
[00:36:38] Viktor Ageyev: Look, where I would start analyzing this situation here is with the Oslo Treaty. In the Oslo Treaty, I don't remember the article number, it says very clearly that the Palestinian National Authority will have only those powers that the state of Israel will transfer to it. And it specifically emphasizes there that it has no right to open diplomatic missions, no right to any foreign relations. And so, it can't have a foreign minister, it can't open a diplomatic mission, it can't have representation at the UN, it can't have embassies, consulates. This is all clearly spelled out in the Oslo Accords. That is, the Palestinian Authority has no right to foreign relations. It's illegal.
[00:37:38] Elena Prigova: Then, in that case, if it's illegal and there are these Oslo Accords, how did 154 or how many states of the United Nations recognize a "Palestinian state"?
[00:37:53] Viktor Ageyev: This is actually probably a topic for maybe a separate discussion. The thing is, there is such a.... So in Latin it would be equivocation, in English it would be fraud, and in Russian it would be deception. Equivocation is such a logical device, a fallacy, consisting in using the same word for different things. So what's the problem here? It's that the Palestinian National Authority was established under the Oslo Treaty in 1994, and it has nothing to do with the "State of Palestine", which has all these recognitions. "The State of Palestine" was proclaimed in Algeria in 1988 by the same Palestine Liberation Organization. It was late 1988. And practically there in two or three months they got most of the recognitions they have now. This included recognizing, first and foremost, the Soviet Union and its satellites. So let's remember that Zelensky said that "we recognize both Israel and Palestine," and that's because they (the Ukrainian SSR) recognized the state of Palestine together with the Soviet Union in 1988, when they did not recognize Israel. That is 1988, all those states that did not recognize Israel, they are Arab states, most of them, except some, are Arab states, and they are socialist camp states. Here they recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization's proclamation in Algeria, the "State of Palestine." But those recognitions have nothing to do with that autonomy. These are different institution. This autonomy has a clear stipulation in the Oslo treaty that they have no right to foreign relations. These are different institutions.
[00:39:52] Elena Prigova: Does Israel have the right to break those relationships and the Oslo Accords? And how?
[00:39:56] Viktor Ageyev: Yes, of course he has the right. Well, first of all, there are general general rules of thumb. This is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states that, with certain exceptions, treaties may be terminated due to changes in circumstances, even if the treaty itself does not spell out a clear procedure for its termination, denunciation, in principle treaties are not concluded forever, except for some treaties, in particular treaties on borders. That's if the situation has changed, then you can get out of the agreement. I will give such a new example, of the latest one is the ceasefire agreement. ... This is sound here... fireworks, probably.
[00:40:44] Elena Prigova: Fireworks...
[00:40:47] Viktor Ageyev: We're already so...
[00:40:48] Elena Prigova: Used to others.
[00:40:49] Viktor Ageyev: Here you go. I mean, there was an agreement between Syria and Israel for a cease-fire and a withdrawal. By which, actually, the Golan was (the Golan Heights), it was Israeli because that was stipulated in the agreement with Syria. And because of what has now happened in Syria, Israel has violated that agreement. But in principle, it is justified in view of the fact that, well, here's how we could withdraw from the agreement if the situation has changed dramatically. It's exactly the same with Oslo. So, we can say that the Oslo treaty has been violated by the other side, it has indeed been violated. That is, the idea behind the Oslo Treaty was to achieve peace. It was a false idea, as we've said, meaning it was built on the left's misperception of our enemies, fundamentally flawed, but it's there nonetheless. I mean, there was some positive idea that "let's give them self-government and there will be peace". But that idea didn't work. Obviously, it didn't work. After October seventh, it became clear to everyone that Oslo was not securing peace, that the fact that we had done disengagement was not securing peace. Of course, this is a formal basis for, say, our Knesset to decide to denounce the Oslo Treaty.
[00:42:23] Elena Prigova: The last thing that struck me, outraged me with its cynicism, was when Abbas said that according to the Koran, the Jewish temple stood in Yemen. His predecessor, the organizer and spiritual leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat, said this. And we're talking about this now as a substitution of all concepts, a substitution of what was, a substitution of history, a leveling of history, a rewriting of history and indoctrinating millions, hundreds of millions of the Arab world that "we now, we (here's this so-called "Palestine" that's not really theirs), we're entitled to Jerusalem (al-Quds, as you said at the beginning) and the temple and everything that Israel wants to have." That's how you fight it?
[00:43:32] Viktor Ageyev: There's a very interesting topic, actually, but I don't know, it probably deserves a separate program too.
[00:43:37] Elena Prigova: Look how many topics we have for separate programs.
[00:43:39] Viktor Ageyev: Yes. That is, I was saying that anti-Israel propaganda stands on three pillars. This is 1) the existence of the Palestinian people and their separate right to self-determination, different from that of the Arab people. It is 2) the myth of the "Palestinian state", something we have just touched on, because in fact the "Palestinian state" is also such a myth. And this is 3) the issue of occupation. Those are the three great whales of myth, that the Anti-Israel rhetoric rides atop. And we need a whaling ship to harpoon it. And we have our own kind of icebreaker that ... In fact, that's where I believe the path to peace is. This is Al-Aqsa. I mean, it's the same problem that we're being fought over. In a nutshell... Well, I've been talking to Muslims a lot lately about this topic, and it's very interesting to me. Because I believe that ... This, so to speak, is sometimes or not always understood by my international lawyer colleagues. I believe that in those matters, when we talk about the conflict in the Middle East, we should use not only the norms of international conventions of modern times, but also the norms of what was originally law, that is, the norms of religious law. Because in principle law was born as religious law. That is, the basic concepts, there "do not kill", "do not steal" - these are religious norms. So here's the question: what is Al-Aqsa really? This is the key, it seems to me, to resolving this conflict in principle.
[00:45:26] Viktor Ageyev: We were just recently on the Temple Mount... If you've been to Jerusalem, there's a slope down on one side, and that's where our excavations were done at the Wall. There are huge rocks there. An idea of how grand a building it was is given by the fact that in all of history the largest stone used in construction is the stone that - right there in the Wall. In the entire history of mankind. This gives an idea of how majestic this ancient Temple was. It's we haven't started digging in the middle yet, it's just around - around, because we're not digging in the middle yet, just around. That is, how majestic this temple of the ancient world is. And what is now called the Al-Aqsa Mosque - and this is a historical fact - was started to be built by Caliph Umar after he conquered Jerusalem in 638. Muslims prayed toward Al Aqsa, toward the "Distant Temple" back in Muhammad's time. And when Omar conquered Jerusalem, Muhammad was gone. I mean, it wasn't anymore. So, in the beginning under Muhammad, Muslims prayed toward the temple that stands in Jerusalem. The word for "mosque" is "masjid" in Arabic, which means "temple". "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is "the Farthest Temple" So here's a question: toward which temple in Jerusalem did Muslims pray before they started building a mosque there? What was the temple in Jerusalem?
[00:47:25] Elena Prigova: This is an interesting topic.
[00:47:27] Viktor Ageyev: And there's a perfectly unambiguous answer to the question here. You understand, don't you? There can only be one answer here: it is Solomon's Temple (well, rebuilt and destroyed, respectively). That is, Muslims under Mohammed prayed toward this Temple. Here in a discussion with Muslims, they say, "Well, OK, well, so Umar kind of rebuilt." I say: well, let's look at even what we see now - is it the "Al-Aqsa Mosque"? Under Umar, in general, excuse me, it was a small house of worship altogether. But even now (now you can go up to the mountain, you can go to see it) - it is not even a pathetic semblance of the majestic Temple that was there. Because this whole mountain was walled, it was a temple complex. It was a temple complex, the greatest in the history of mankind. Even just there, the stone blocks are the largest in the history of mankind. There were no such blocks in the Egyptian pyramids.... In St. Petersburg, under the Bronze Horseman, there is one, I think, even the biggest stone ever moved - it is bigger than the stones of the Temple Mount, but it was the 18th century, under Catherine the Great, and it's not a building, it's just a single stone, and there is a wall made of such stones.
[00:48:56] Elena Prigova: Look, you and I have just brought up topics without which you cannot understand the essence of conflict.
[00:49:04] Viktor Ageyev: Yes. And if we don't understand the real reasons of conflict, we can't resolve it.
[00:49:08] Elena Prigova: That's right. So, we are now saying with you that the side that claims to be the truth, the temple, everything, has based it on lies and the substitution of all concepts. I'm not even mentioning that their most important feast of sacrifice is again a substitution of biblical concepts. I am grateful to you for starting our meetings and conversations on this topic. I really want to talk to you about Israeli diplomacy. Or rather, why Israel is really losing the information war, why Israel is ignoring meetings that could be ignored and, on the contrary, coming with its agenda and telling the world about it. These are very important topics. They are topics related to war and peace. Tomorrow will be a new countdown for the new year after Independence Day. I wish you and all Israelis to remember what this day is about and less politics should be in it, more the essence, the true essence of the freedom and independence of the Jewish state, which has returned to its walls, to its homes, to its land, its historic land. Thank you again. We had Viktor Ageyev with us, an international lawyer who knows those details - and we always say that not only the devil is in the details, the truth is in the details too. Thank you, Viktor. You're on the Continent Channel. Please subscribe, spread the video. If anything is unclear to you, ask questions. We will be answering those questions. Thank you for being with us. All the best. Am Yisrael hai!
This post on social networks:
Facebook (in Russian)