MR. KOJO NNAMDIFrom WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. Later in the broadcast, young filmmakers learn life as a collage the hard way. But first, the Palestinian president says he's not backing down. Later this week, Mahmoud Abbas plans to ask the United Nations to accept a new member, a Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIThe statehood bid is likely to go to the UN Security Council where passage would require 9 of the 15 nations to vote yes and none of the five permanent Security Council members to exercise their veto. A so-called two-state solution has long been on the table and many observers say it remains the only viable way to end decades of conflict in the Middle East.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIBut Israelis and Palestinians can't agree on the details. The Palestinians' unilateral UN bid is stirring up a host of what ifs, including what happens if statehood passes, but the United States vetoes it. Joining us to have this conversation is Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, Shibley Telhami, thank you very much for joining us.

PROFESSOR SHIBLEY TELHAMIMy pleasure.

NNAMDIHe joins us from studios at his office. Also joining us is Daniel Levy, senior research fellow with the New America Foundation, a founder of the J Street organization. He joins us from studios at the New America Foundation. Daniel Levy, thank you for joining us.

MR. DANIEL LEVYThank you, Kojo.

NNAMDIShibley Telhami, I'll start with you. The so-called quartet of Middle East mediators, the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, are reportedly pressuring the Palestinians to abandon their statehood bid in favor of restarting peace talks with Israel. Why are those countries so eager to avoid a showdown at the UN?

TELHAMIWell, of course, no one really wants to have a crisis particularly with the United States. They know how central the U.S. is. One reason why the quartet is, you know, playing in this game is understanding that ultimately, what happens when the Israel/Palestine question matters to Europe, matters to the rest of the world, but everybody understands the limits of what they can do without the United States.

TELHAMISo if the U.S. is on the wrong side of this issue, it's going to lead to a crisis, they're going to have to pick up the pieces. There could be violence, they pay a price. No one wants to see that. The problem is, of course, that at this point, the mere going back to negotiations is simply not going to be a big enough fig leaf for the Palestinian Authority to back down.

TELHAMIThis is a popular move. It's popular in the Arab world for sure. It's even popular globally. There's a poll that was released today by the BBC, I believe, that showed even in America more people support the move than oppose it. So I think they would stand to lose a lot in terms of public opinion and I think unless there is something bigger than that, like an alternative Security Council resolution that they could put forth, it's very hard to see how the Palestinians can back down.

NNAMDIDaniel Levy, you've said that, at this point, voluntarily renouncing the statehood bid without getting something dramatic in return would, in fact, be political suicide for Abbas. Why is that?

LEVYWell, I think the Palestinian president is not in a strong position, domestically, politically and that's very easy to understand. His strategy for his people to achieve their freedom, their self-determination, their rights has been to rely on negotiating with Israeli, has been to rely on a close relationship with the West, a close relationship with the United States and the jury is in Kojo. It was 18 years ago that Fatah, the PLO signed the Oslo Accords, 18 years ago this month with Israeli.

LEVYEighteen years later, the number of settlers has now gone up dramatically to well over half a million. Israeli control is more entrenched. There's no Palestinian state. Abbas inherited this. He didn't create it, but he continued that same process. So his approach has not delivered and I think that's the point of departure for this exercise that the Palestinians might undertake at the United Nations. He is trying to demonstrate, albeit in ways that are largely symbolic, He is trying to demonstrate that there are alternatives and that he does at least have international, diplomatic support for what he is trying to do.

LEVYIt's a move borne of a understandable degree of frustration and so I think were President Abbas in this constellation of circumstances to step back at the last minute and be seen to be capitulating to pressure from Israeli and America, then he really has no Palestinian territories or constituency to return to.

LEVYHowever, the approach that it seems he might take which is to go to the Security Council only without going into the General Assembly and we might get into the minutiae of that later, to go to the Security Council where this may get stuck in committee and it's very likely to get stuck in committee. That approach may also leave him returning home empty-handed. And I think those that have been supportive of Abbas' leadership are scratching their heads and wondering whether he's really on to a winning move here or quite the opposite.

NNAMDILet's hear what our listeners think about this. You can call us at 800-433-8850. Why do you think Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas has decided to take his statehood bid to the United Nations? 800-433-8850, what do you think the Arab world's reaction will be if the United States ends up vetoing Palestinian statehood in the Security Council? You can also go to our website kojoshow.org to join the conversation. You can send us a tweet at kojoshow or e-mail to kojo@wamu.org The number again 800-433-8850.

NNAMDIShibley Telhami, there's been a lot of discussion about Abbas' decision to take this statehood request to the United Nations, but you've said that the UN may be just the place to re-invigorate stalled peace talks. Why?

TELHAMIYeah, I think it's really an important point to contemplate here because I think we have a crisis not because Palestinians are taking the issue to the UN One can argue with that one way or the other. We have a crisis because there's been no progress whatsoever in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians despite rising expectations that the first two years of the Obama mediation was going to produce something to be offered at the UN in this General Assembly.

TELHAMIAnd everyone understood from, you know, I think most analysts many actually believe the two state solution is no longer an option. Most of us who think it's still an option believe time is running out. The reality on the ground is changing every day. Regardless of what the Israeli government wants or the Palestinian government wants let's put that aside for now. It's debatable but you have a reality on the ground where every Israeli government will be sensitive to the Israeli settlers in the West Bank because they vote in Israeli elections.

TELHAMIPalestinians in the West Bank and Gaza do not so every time there's a challenge it's going to be won on the settlers' side and that means that in the meantime it's not that you're not only making progress but you're delaying the occupation and you're making it more difficult to have a viable Palestinian state and so if you look back Israel's obligation to withdraw from those territories it is not a matter of negotiation, it is a matter of principle, just like Arabs are obligated to accept Israel.

TELHAMIThose are based on international resolutions of the United Nations and we have to come back to that legitimacy because frankly unless you have some international position and clarity in the norms and rules of the game both Israelis and Palestinians are going to lose faith in the two-state solution as they have been and I think this could invigorate it if it's done right. And by being done right, I mean instead of going on the defensive, being frightened by the UN, it strikes me that the notion the UN is a unilateral move is almost laughable.

TELHAMII mean, the UN is the international organization that represents the most anonymity to the extent that that's possible in international politics but to take the lead instead of going on the defensive, to put forth an America that has the backing of the European allies and Arabs and Israelis, through the Security Council that has, that defines the parameters, that will then send them back to the negotiation table instead of going on the defensive.

NNAMDIGlad you raised the issue of legitimacy because Daniel Levy, Israel is charging that the Palestinians are going to the UN not to make peace, but to challenge Israeli's legitimacy in the international arena and to undermine the peace process.

LEVYIt's a very bizarre claim. If that's what the Palestinians were doing, the Palestinians would be going to the UN to demand the Palestinian state on all of historic Palestine. What the Palestinians are doing is going to the UN to try and entrench the idea of there being a Palestinian state alongside Israel, that's the whole point of the '67 lines. The '67 lines mean that you have an Israel and you have a Palestine next door.

LEVYHow on earth that equates with the de-legitimization of the existence of Israel is beyond me. I understand that it's a nice talking point and I understand that people use this as a way of attacking what is being done but I have to tell you the mood in Israel is that many senior figures in the Israel security establishment, in the Israeli parliament, the head of the Israeli opposition, they all see this as a consequence of the mismanagement of Israeli's international affairs and the sheer stubbornness and obstructionism of the Israeli government of the day.

LEVYAnd I think this claim that we are in the throes of a huge, de-legitimization campaign against Israel, it really doesn't stand the test of reality. What this is about is Israeli policies. What people oppose are Israeli policies. What contravenes international law are Israeli policies. When people rightly suggested that Guantanamo Bay should be shut as a detention facility, that this was illegitimate, were people questioning the existence of America? Or were they questioning a set of policies that were in contravention of what America claims to stand for? And I think people have to apply those same standards and principles to Israel.

NNAMDIWe're talking with Daniel Levy, he is senior research fellow with the New America Foundation and a founder of the J Street organization and Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution and taking your calls at 800-433-8850 on the quest for Palestinian statehood by way of the UN Security Council and the implications of the U.S. vote in that arena. 800-433-8850, how do you think the Arab Spring's ouster of long-term autocrats in the Middle East is affecting people's views there about Israel and Palestine, 800-433-8850. Here is Ann in Washington, D.C. Ann, you're on the air, go ahead please.

ANNI think without question the Palestinians ought to have their right to a state recognized. I think we also have to recognize, however, that the '67 borders actually gave the Palestinians only 22 percent of the land mass of the historic Palestine and even under the mandate that divided the land in '48. I mean there were, in the '40s, they were given half of the land. That was not a particularly legal mandate considering that they were the occupants of the land but the '67 borders are far less and now the Palestinians are occupying well less than 13 percent of the land. They've been shoved back so far and I think it's really critical to recognize that this is a symbolic gesture. It will have value in that sense but in terms of really changing facts on the ground we need a stronger grassroots movement here.

ANNThe U.S. is the critical element in the mix in terms of its funding of Israel. It's not a neutral arbiter in the conflict and unless people are willing to speak up here and put up strong sanctions and boycott on Israel unfortunately facts on the ground are not going to change.

NNAMDIWell Ann, the U.S. is also funder, in part, of the Palestinian Authority. Is that not correct, Shibley Telhami?

ANNWell...

TELHAMIYes, yes, yes.

ANN...don't forget that Hamas was elected as the legal -- you know, the U.S. is always going to go with the force that will seem less militantly opposed. So it's interest, I mean, the U.S. and Israel funded fundamentalist movements throughout the Middle East as alternatives to the democratic secular movements of earlier decades. Because they saw the power of pan-Arabist movement that would take control of the resources away from the imperialist West. So they've always -- the U.S. and Israel have always funded, you know, movements that were more moderate, shall we say.

TELHAMIWell, you know, on the...

NNAMDIShibley...

TELHAMI...on the -- just quickly. On the funding issue, obviously, yes. The U.S. does back the Palestinian authority but I think it's clear the Palestinian authority has been in the interest of the U.S., and for that matter, Israel. Israel, themselves worried about actually cutting off the aid to the Palestinian authority and some Palestinians believe that, you know, in the absence of any movement, dissolution of the authority may actually put the ball back in the Israeli court because they were under occupation and yet there was this authority that many see as a fig leaf.

TELHAMISo that actually works both ways in the debate. But I want to say something about our -- the suggestion of grassroots politics in America. I think, in part, it sounds like a good one for anybody, obviously, whether your pros are all (word?) or whatever activism is good in America. But the reality of it is, there has actually been a shift that is decidedly more in favor of Israel according the to the polling that we've been doing. And I've done one just recently.

TELHAMIWhat's interesting is actually...

NNAMDIJust reading an article about former New York Mayor Ed Koch who has been running a campaign because President Obama invoked the 1967 borders, making the argument that this is an anti-Israel argument. And it does seem to be getting some traction.

TELHAMIWell, Koch has his own followers, but he -- obviously, he's not particular representative of the mainstream American political view. But none the less, he does represent a view that has taken hold, particularly in the religious light, in America. When we ask, in our poll that we conducted, just last month here in the U.S., whether the U.S. should take Israel's side, the Palestinian side or lean toward neither side.

TELHAMIWell, the majority of American is actually, roughly, two-thirds over the years. Say, lean toward neither side. Actually, the American people don't want the U.S. to take positions. But among those who say the U.S. should take a position, far more say, it should take Israel's side then the Palestinian side. And what's interesting, it's become a partisan issue. Among democrats and independents, the ratio of who want to take Israel's side over the Palestinians, is roughly, two to one.

TELHAMIAmong republicans, it's almost 50 to one. Fifty percent of republicans want the U.S. to take Israel's side and that's become part of the religious right rhetoric of elevation of the issues. So you can have all the discourse you want on the liberal side. It might have an impact. It looks like it's been having an impact. But there has been, really, something going on in American, particularly the divided nation, republicans on the one hand, democrats and independents on this issue. And I think discourse is not likely to change that traumatically.

NNAMDIAnn, thank you very much for your call. Daniel Levy, we've got to take a short break. When we come back, we will resume this conversation and talk about Europe's role in a possible UN vote. You can still call us at 800-433-8850. But if the lines are busy, simply go to our website kojoshow.org and join the conversation there. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIWe're discussing the President of the Palestinian authorities intention or plan to ask the United Nations to accept a Palestinian state as a new member. We're talking with Daniel Levy, senior research fellow with the New America foundation and a founder of the J Street Organization.

NNAMDIAnd Shibley Telhami, Adwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. Daniel Levy, talk about Europe's role in a possible UN vote on Palestinian statehood. Do we know which countries would likely support statehood and which would not?

LEVYWell, I think, the distinction has to be drawn, Kojo, between the security council where, of course, you have the two European countries permanently on the security council and two member states of the EU, Germany and Portugal who are temporary members for now and the general assembly, where, of course, everyone is represented, all 193 men -- the states of the UN

LEVYIf it's -- if things stay in the security council and, without boring people too much with the details of the Palestinians, a plight to become a member state in the UN, then it's just those four EU states that will vote and now I don’t -- Europe will have influence but I don't think Europe will have such a debate over whether to support or not. I think, by and large, they will be abstaining.

LEVYIt's in the general assembly, it's if the Palestinians decide that they want to take a resolution to the general assembly, that Europe could have an influence. And why Europe could have an influence is perhaps most interesting for American listeners, which is because America has dealt itself off of that table by deciding in advance that it will oppose whatever the Palestinians do at the UN

LEVYAmerica has marginalized itself and is essentially left Europe in the position of being the potential key negotiator, the potential key mediator. Europe has tried to play that role, it's unclear that Europe will be able to play that role. There are divisions within Europe, the French have taken a position, more support of the Palestinian statehood bit. The Germans, on the other side, others line up somewhere in the middle, some on one side, some on the other.

LEVYBut I think it's that American role that is perhaps most defining here. And you've referred to it a couple of times in your comments, Kojo. And I think what we're seeing is, the -- when the Arab world gets more democratic, the willingness to tolerate Palestinian disenfranchisement, the absence of Palestinian freedom becomes far less then when the Arab world was under more autocratic regimes.

LEVYDemocracy is going to mean greater active support for Palestinian rights, then when things could be controlled by and autocracy. And that leaves hard choices for America. Because if America wants to line up and assert its values and say we support people's freedoms and rights and self determination and democracy, oh, there's one exception, not the Palestinians, then I think Americas standing and credibility in the region will further suffer Shibley's polls, bear this out, very strongly. And that's bad for American interests and bad for American security. Of course, I would also argue, it's bad for Israel.

NNAMDIShibley Telhami, only the security council can grant full UN membership, but Abbas could decide to go to the UN general assembly and ask for the lesser approval of Palestine as a non-member observer state. Are his chances for success higher in the general assembly and would that be seen by his supporters as just way too much of a compromise?

TELHAMIWell, I -- he's almost certain to get what he puts forth in the general assembly, approved. I mean, overwhelming majority of states around the world support Palestinian statehood and I don't -- you know, I think UN -- even with all the pressure and the politics, he still can get it. His initial problem, really, is more logistical because if he takes it to the security council first, which obviously, you know, where he's quote -- he's seeking full membership, the initial thing that any state can do, certainly the U.S. and other permanent members of security council, is delay the vote.

TELHAMIAnd if its delayed the vote beyond the general assembly meeting, then what would happen, is in the meanwhile, he's not going to go to the general assembly and take a lesser, you know, status where he would be calling for an observer stay status as opposed to a full membership in the UN, you can't do that while the other issue is spending. So this delay tactic, that is most likely -- actually the security council will make it harder for him to go to the general assembly, if he actually goes to the security council, certainly for now.

TELHAMIBut if he does decide to do that, then he's likely to get a -- certainly the Palestinians already have an observer status at the UN but not a state observer status, not like the Vatican has, which not only, at least it's a morally defines it as a state but also has legal implications that then would give the Palestinians membership in a national legal for, such the international criminal court where they can pursue certain legal issues with Israel.

TELHAMIThat's certainly, technically possible. You know, complicated but technically possible. And that would be a moral victory but it wouldn’t have the immediate consequences on the ground that, obviously, a full membership at the UN, granted by the security council would have.

NNAMDIWe have callers...

LEVYIf I may...

NNAMDI...we have callers on both sides of this issue but before I get to them, I was about to get back to you first, Daniel Levy, to ask you continue what the response you were about to give and to say that you've said that no matter how the Palestinian statehood bit plays out, the big loser will be the United States, why? But go ahead, please, Daniel.

LEVYBecause I finally found something to disagree with Shibley on. I would just make the following point. It's a little technical. There is, actually, nothing to prevent the Palestinians going to the security council and, at the same time, going to the general assembly. They could even try to encourage support for their membership at the general assembly. They could have a simple resolution upgrading their status and encouraging the security council in its deliberations.

LEVYI make that point because there is a degree of speculation in the Palestinian-Arab press and elsewhere that, perhaps, it's actually more convenient for America and Israel, for President Abbas and perhaps this is what is going on, for President Abbas to sound very defiant by saying, I'm going to the security council, nothing less than full membership. But by doing that, he basically could guarantee, if he doesn’t go to the general assembly as well, that nothing really happens or is put to a vote in the coming days and months.

NNAMDIBecause they're going to be stuck in lengthy committee deliberations.

LEVYBecause they're going to be stuck. And the reason, to answer your question, Kojo, where I say America is the loser is something I eluded to just previously. Against the backdrop of the Arab Spring, against the backdrop of America, having the opportunity to turn over a new page, America did have a close relationship with non-democratic regimes in the Middle East. There was an opportunity here to reset that relationship.

LEVYBut if American positions itself on the wrong side of Palestinian freedom, then I'm afraid America is going to be positioning itself on the wrong side of Arab democracy and of the Arab Spring. And this may, in the margins of the margins, have some influence on the Jewish vote although it's quite clear that the American-Jewish public does not vote on Israel as a priority issue. But more to the point, the Israeli Prime Minister has demonstrated time and again, that he is not going to show gratitude for this.

LEVYWe have a quote now in a recent article that Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, when he was still in office, described Prime Minister Netanyahu as ungrateful. And I think what we see is a very close relationship between the republican right and the Israeli right and the Israeli Prime Minister and I don't want to be too blunt but I think it's clear that the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has thrown his lot in with the republicans and we know who he'll be supporting in 2012.

LEVYSo the President will not even get any boost in that respect at home because he's continue to have an Israeli Prime Minister set against him.

NNAMDIShibley Telhami, it's a no-win situation, Daniel Levy argues, for the U.S. because if, in the security council, the U.S. leads the veto of this, then it loses credibility, not only with Palestinians but with all of those Arabs in support of the Arab Spring.

TELHAMIThere's no question. And as Daniel pointed to my polling over the past decade, you know, for a decade prior to these Arab revolutions, I've been arguing in every poll that we have done that the Arab public sees America largely through the prism of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And that was even true in the early days after 9/11, through the Iraq war, that this issue remained the prism through which Arab made evaluations of the U.S.

TELHAMIThe difference was, that then you had governments would then would be persuaded by the U.S. through the leverage that the U.S. had with them to take positions that were favorable to the U.S. and angered the public even more. No government can do that now, not even ones that are remaining in office because they're all frightened by their public opinion, unlikely to go against it.

TELHAMIThey don't want to add fuel to the fire. So I think this complicates the American position very much. And I think the first arena where we're going to see this in full force is the Egyptian elections that are supposed to be taking place in November. And you're going to have -- we've seen what happened in the demonstrations, particularly the attack on the Israeli embassy.

TELHAMIBut when you see what might happen in the discourse, particularly if the U.S. does take a position to veto the resolution, even if U.S. doesn't veto and persuade the Palestinians not to move forward, a best case scenario for American diplomacy, then people will be very angry in the Arab world with the U.S. for dissuading Palestinians from doing what most Arab public wants them to do.

TELHAMISo it's very difficult and I think the only way to do it in a way credible way is for the U.S. to put forth its own security council resolution. The Obama administration may be, in principal, open to it but they're terrified by our domestic politics, particularly the strong opposition in Congress and also the election that happened in New York and I think these politics clearly is a major factor -- a big headache, I should say, for the Obama administration as it considers alternatives.

NNAMDIWe have several callers on the line. I'm going to give you a sampling of what they have to say. I'm going to ask each of these callers to keep his or her remarks as brief as possible because we are running out of time. But I will start with Irene in Kensington, Md. Irene, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

IRENEI wanted, first, to correct something that I believe Mr. Levy said early on. He mentioned that 18 years ago was the Oslo agreements and his quote was "Since then, Israeli control has become more entrenched." In fact, since Oslo, there has been a great deal of progress in negotiations, the existence of the Palestinian authority, elections. There's a great deal of autonomy in the areas in which the Palestinian authority operates.

IRENEThere's been a great deal of economic progress. And I think it's wrong to characterize the last 18 years as if nothing had happened. The second point I wanted to make is that the guests are discussing this as if it were an ordinary territorial dispute, as if the problem was that Israel occupies the West Bank and there are settlements there.

IRENEAnd, in fact, the problem, from the beginning, has been the unwillingness of the Palestinians and their Arab league allies to accept a Jewish state in any borders. Had the Palestinians wanted to have a (unintelligible) ...

NNAMDIOkay, Irene, I do have to move on. You've made that point.

IRENEThey could've had one in 19...

NNAMDII have to move onto another caller. Here is Alex in Winchester, Va. Alex, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ALEXThank you, Kojo, for taking my call. I have, just a quick, two questions for the panel. The first one is, what would draw the line on our policies overseas? Because we cannot apply two set of standards or different standards, only where we see fit. That's number one. And number two, why would the United States or any country reject any group of people trying to have their own state? I mean, unless otherwise we can prove that they don't belong there, why should we deny them having their own state?

NNAMDIOkay. Thank you very much for your questions. We move on now to Renee in Washington, D.C. Renee, your turn.

RENEEYes, thank you, Kojo. Just last week, President Abbas announced that Jews would not be welcomed to live in a Palestinian state. We know, of course, that the Gaza is dedicated to the violent destruction of Israel and its population. How can any decent country vote for the establishment of a new racist state?

NNAMDIOkay. Renee, thank you very much for your call. We move on now to Larissa in Washington D.C. Larissa, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

LARISSAHi Kojo and guests. Thank you for taking my call. I'm just wondering that of all countries, Israel, the Jewish state as they call them, are against some people who want to have their own state. This is absolutely unimaginable. And of course they say that the Palestinians use all kinds of terrorism and all that stuff, but that's what the Jews did when they tried to fight for their homeland. So how could we understand that?

NNAMDIOkay.

LARISSAAnd also, the situation in the UN, if the majority of the countries are for the Palestinian state then, you know, it's the majority.

NNAMDIOkay, Larissa. Thank you very much for your call. Daniel Levy and Shibley Telhami, we are almost out of time, but I would like to hear your take on that brief sampling of opinion that I just had. First you, Daniel Levy.

LEVYWell, I really appreciate people's questions. To be brief, Irene, I think it's fair to say as you have suggested that immediately after 1993 there was a degree of Palestinian autonomy set up. That reached its maximum in '98, which is 13 years ago, and since then, we still have an inability for the Palestinians to assert any control over the vast majority of the West Bank, and there is far less freedom of movement today than there was even in 1993.

LEVYThere are far more settlers, control of resources by Israel is far deeper, the economic progress according to the latest World Bank report is extremely precarious and on the point of collapsing. So the sad truth, and I'd encourage you to visit the occupied Palestinian territories if you do have the chance to visit Israel and the territories. The sad truth is, this is not a success story, and this is a situation of Israeli control

LEVYI would add that the Palestinians in 1988 accepted a two-state solution. In '93, they explicitly, explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist, and in 2002 they Arab league put forward its peace initiative. That's not to say that everything is on one side and all the problems are on the other side, but let's get ourselves out of this mindset that they've never accepted, they never will accept, it's true.

LEVYThe issue of a Jewish is a sensitive issue because there are Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel, and they need to have full equality and democracy, and of course there was the dispossession of the Palestinians in '48, which is an issue that has to historically be come to terms with. The last point I'd make is, first let's not have two racist states, and I don't think there should be a racist Palestine, and I don't there should be a racist Israel, and I think both should be full democracies.

LEVYAnd Larissa, while you're right that of course there were Jewish underground movements that undertook terror activities against the British, I would not take Palestinian terror lightly, and I would not take Israel's security lightly, and I do think all sides should adhere to international law, should not target civilians, and if we started applying international law and basic international rights to this issue we may progress a lot further.

NNAMDIDaniel Levy, thank you so much for joining us. Daniel Levy is senior research fellow with the New American Foundation. Shibley Telhami, your brief responses to the sampling of phone calls that we took that we...

TELHAMILet me just make two points. One about the first called, you know, finger pointing both sides do that all the time, you know, the Arabs are the ones who are to blame, the Israelis are the ones to blame, and some of it of course always has some element of truth to it. The reality of it is, it's been decades of negotiations now with a lot of intense international mediation, and the past two decades, part of its serious negotiations with major American mediation, they haven't succeeded.

TELHAMIPalestinians have been under occupation for 44 years. Israelis have not know full security since they've become independent. Now is the time to actually have a reference point of legitimacy. The Israeli obligation to withdraw from the occupied territories is a legal one. It's under international UN resolutions. The Arabs obligation to accept to secure Israel is because Israeli is accepted by the UN as a member state with its own rights.

TELHAMIThose are sort of reference points that we need to revive to move forward, rather than to run away from and leave the parties to finger point. One final point on President Abbas and, quote, "no Jews in Palestine." I don't believe that's accurate actually. I have not seen such a statement, but my own view is that Palestine like in Israel, both should have minorities with full rights, and no reason why Palestinians they shouldn't have a Jewish minority.

TELHAMIIn the past, however, it was really the Israelis who actually thought that would not be acceptable, that the Israeli public would not be accepting of the idea of a small Jewish settlement let's say in a Palestinian state under full Palestinian sovereignties. So the issue is far more complicated, but in principle, no reason why, you know, a Palestinian state should not have a Jewish minority.

NNAMDIShibley Telhami is Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. Shibley, thank you so much for joining us.

TELHAMIMy pleasure.

NNAMDIGot to take a short break. When we come back, young filmmakers learn life as a collage the hard way. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.