More Elucidation from Lavrov
Yet again, we get schooled by the dominant diplomatic teacher of our Era via Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with the Belarusian News Agency that took place in Minsk on 28 October. The additional background context to the Palestinian crisis alone makes this read essential with all the additional insights becoming bonuses. Again, the failure to implement the initial 1923 Mandate for two states is why the issue still existed in 1948. Some think the Soviets made a mistake to be promoters of the Zionist state as well as first to recognize it presumably because Stalin was unaware of the Zionist’s Imperialist plans. It would be educational to learn of the internal Soviet discussions on that topic based on the actual documents produced. The read isn’t too long and now follows:
Question: Mr Lavrov, all the most acute conflicts that we are witnessing and experiencing now are taking place on the Eurasian continent in one way or another. As the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, which of these conflicts do you consider to be the most dangerous?
Sergey Lavrov: I think that all of them are dangerous in their own way. Out of each of them can grow a great war. Especially what is happening now in the Middle East. There are several hot spots: Syria, Yemen, Libya. All this spills over to the African continent.
Libya was destroyed only because Muammar Gaddafi pursued an independent policy. Then, when he was persuaded to give up nuclear weapons, he got what the West had been preparing for a long time and in advance. He himself was destroyed. They violated UN Security Council resolutions. They carried out aggression against Libya. Through this country, which has lost its statehood, huge flows of illegal migrants flowed upwards, to the north, to Europe. And down to the south, through Libya, went the militants who overthrew Muammar Gaddafi, and with European, in particular, French weapons. And they then began to threaten a huge number of African countries with their terrorist actions and continue to do so to this day. There are many to list.
Recently, the question of Palestine has come to the fore. President Vladimir Putin has made it very clear: we categorically reject and condemn any terrorist acts. We express our condolences to all those who have lost their loved ones in Israel, Palestine and other countries. There were a lot of foreigners in the region, including Russian citizens. Unfortunately, there are also those killed among them.
But, while condemning terrorism, we categorically disagree that terrorism can be responded to by violating the norms of international humanitarian law, including the indiscriminate use of force against targets (where civilians are known to be present), including hostage-taking, and other actions that do not fit, as I have already said, with international humanitarian law.
I saw that the Israeli leadership was very offended by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who, while condemning all terrorist and other prohibited actions, said that this was not happening in a vacuum and recalled the failure to implement the long-standing decisions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly on the need to create two states from the late 1940s: Israel and Palestine.
Israel was created immediately. The Soviet Union was one of the main initiators of the formation of the Jewish state, while the British, leaving the region in chaos, did not care much about this topic. We were in favor of the foundation of the Jewish state. The Soviet Union was also the first to recognize it.
The Palestinian state, for various reasons, has not yet been established. And with each historical period, it became more and more illusory. The territory allotted to the Palestinians at the time of Israel's creation has been reduced several times in succession. Just by the fact of actions "on the ground". We can talk about the reasons. There were wars started by the Arab countries against Israel, which ended sadly for the Arabs with the loss of land. The result, however, remains negative. We do not have a Palestinian state now.
In calmer times, we discussed the situation in the Middle East and the prospects for direct dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians. For a long time, I have been expressing my position to my Israeli colleagues in response to emotional stories about Israel's right to defend itself and the unacceptability of everything that happens when extremists organize actions against Israel or against Israelis in a particular region. They believed that extremism should be destroyed by any means.
No one wants to encourage extremism, much less terrorism. But I explained a simple thing to them. Leaving aside the immediate, momentary processes associated with manifestations of extremist sentiments, it is impossible not to admit from a historical point of view that the unresolved issue of the creation of a Palestinian state is, in my opinion, the most serious factor used to fuel extremism and terrorism in this region. Most of the population there (except for the Arabian monarchies) is not very prosperous. Many children are born into poor families.
It is explained to them (there are "experienced" teachers there) that all this is happening because they have been deprived of a legitimate independent state promised by the UN, they have been occupied, there is a UN decision that Israel is an occupying power.
Therefore, when you are brought up from the cradle, from a young age, you are "indoctrinated", then two generations over the past 75 years have grown up in such an extremist spirit, up to and including suicide bombers. This is well known.
Question: Do you think that appeasement based on the principles proclaimed back in the 1940s, that not only an Israeli state, but also a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, is an achievable goal at the moment?
Sergey Lavrov: Right now, they are unlikely to sit down at the negotiating table. The Israelis are particularly bitter. This is manifested in numerous official statements by the leadership – the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Economy, and other members of the Cabinet.
The Palestinians, too, are in a very frustrated state, given the thousands of civilians who have been killed or injured as a result of Israel's response.
Having lost a huge number of people in Israel and Palestine, including foreigners, it is now unrealistic to say that let's sit down at the negotiating table tomorrow.
We saw that journalists asked the representative of the UN Secretary-General how many UN employees were killed. And he didn't know what to say. It's astounding. Maybe they are afraid to show the real figures...
Question: A lot?
Sergey Lavrov: Of course, a lot. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) alone employed hundreds of citizens. Most of them are hired locally. But that doesn't change the matter. UN personnel should be protected by special immunity. It is strange that the UN does not care about the fate of its employees.
But let's get back to the topic of when this state will get a chance to be created. We keep saying that we condemn terrorism, that we do not respond to terrorism that harms innocent civilians, and that when this hot phase is over, we call for an immediate cessation of hostilities. This is the difference between our resolution, which we have twice proposed to the UN Security Council, and the American one, which does not speak of any cessation of hostilities, but only condemns Hamas. Because Hamas is doing what it is doing, Israel has every right to defend itself by any means necessary.
Clearly, this approach is also disastrous: if Gaza is destroyed, 2 million people are expelled from it (as some politicians in Israel and abroad claim), it will create a catastrophe for many decades (if not centuries).
We need to stop and announce humanitarian programs to rescue the blockaded population: there is no water, no electricity, no food, no heat. Our draft resolution, which we promoted at the UN Security Council together with China and Arab countries, was aimed at achieving these goals. But the Americans vetoed it and thereby confirmed that it was their task to support Israel in every possible way in any of its actions.
We have repeatedly told our Israeli colleagues that this situation will not calm down without the creation of a Palestinian state (through negotiations). They will live permanently surrounded by unstable Palestinian territories. In the absence of a state, Israel will be a constant threat from there.
The overwhelming majority of the Israeli administration, including all the governments headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, paid lip service to the talks, but invented many excuses not to start them. Either the Palestinians are not united, they say that it is not clear with whom to talk (Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which does not recognise him), or some other explanations as to why it is impossible to negotiate at that particular moment in history.
Back in the days of Yasser Arafat, Hamas was seen as a counterweight to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). At the time, the PLO was considered a terrorist organization, and Hamas was even encouraged as a counterweight. That was until the PLO changed its charter, recognized Israel's right to exist, Yasser Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize, and so on.
When Hamas was already a well-established political structure (around 2006), everyone was in favor of organizing elections and unifying Gaza and the West Bank politically and administratively. At that time, it was still possible to do it "on the ground". The construction of an overpass, railway and road communication was discussed. But to do this, it was necessary to wait for the results of the elections in Gaza. I was already a minister, and Condoleezza Rice was the US secretary of state. The Americans have made it their main task to hold elections in the Gaza Strip because "there must be democracy" there.
Analysing the situation on the ground and the balance of power, we warned that the mood in society was radical and the result could be unfavorable for direct negotiations with Israel. Condoleezza Rice categorically refused to accept these arguments. Like, since elections have been announced, then they need to be held. Spent. Hamas won, and the Americans did not immediately recognize the results.
Such recklessness is in their policy, unless it is a cold calculation, which consists in creating irritants and provoking instability by any means, and then coming and "sorting" at their own discretion how and what will look there.
We maintain full contact with Israel, and our Ambassador is in regular contact with them. We are sending signals about the need to look for a peaceful solution, and not to complete the declared "scorched earth" strategy.
Question: For us, the closest conflict, for which we are most worried, is in Ukraine. My reasoning may seem cynical to some, but do you think that the shift of attention, including the world media, to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can somehow speed up the resolution of the situation in Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: I hear about such assessments. They come naturally. We have even been accused of "pitting" Hamas against Israel in order to divert attention from Ukraine. We are always blamed for everything, including what is happening in Africa and many other things.
It is a sin to use the tragedy taking place in Israel and Palestine to say that we were right and that the West needs to end its aggressive policy of supporting the Kiev regime as soon as possible. Tensions in the Taiwan Strait have also been noted by many observers. In other parts of the world, the situation is not sustainable, especially in Africa.
It just shows one obvious fact: the international community is one. The West promoted its selfish interests in relation to Ukraine, turning it into an instrument of aggression against Russia in violation of all obligations related to the non-expansion of NATO, ensuring equal and indivisible security within the OSCE, so that no one strengthens their security at the expense of others. In the end, this line could not but lead to the fact that our patience ran out.
We endured for many years. We twice proposed (in 2009 and 2021) to conclude legally binding agreements that no one would expand military blocs and would ensure security in other ways, including with regard to Ukraine. They categorically refused to talk seriously.
Even abstracting from the rest. They have encroached on everything Russian: our history (we are accused of being almost more guilty than Adolf Hitler of unleashing World War II), language, education, the media, and culture. Monuments to those who created and developed Odessa and other cities in Novorossiya are being destroyed. The monument to Catherine the Great and Grigory Potemkin was removed from the central part of Odessa. Exactly a week later, we went to UNESCO and registered this part of the city as a cultural heritage of humanity. To the shame of this Organization, none of those who reviewed the application even drew their attention to the fact that monuments are not treated in such a barbaric manner. This Western "action" against Russia through the extermination of everything Russian in Ukraine, turning it into a neo-Nazi obedient tool, was in itself doomed to failure.
The West is even beginning to be a little afraid of what kind of monster it has raised, given that Vladimir Zelensky and his associates are no longer listening. More and more, they are making claims to the West: "not enough money", "not enough weapons", "what do they think there?" That in itself is annoying.
A conflict broke out in the Middle East, and a totally unacceptable terrorist attack was carried out against Israel, which, not entirely in accordance with international humanitarian law, publicly announced that its response would be ruthless and that it would destroy Hamas. And it is impossible to destroy this Organization without destroying Gaza, with its majority of civilians.
This sent a signal to the West that it is necessary to think about what to do not only in Ukraine, where they want to inflict a "strategic defeat on Russia" on the "battlefield", but how to ensure interest and security in general. Moreover, the United States has always stated and continues to state that its national security directly depends on the situation in the Middle East. If this is the case, then the negotiations we are talking about should have been stimulated long ago. After all, they should lead to the creation of a Palestinian state in accordance with the decisions of the UN. And they have a maniacal global reach of their dreams and plans. If there were only dreams, then God be with him, but plans...
NATO is no longer a defensive bloc for the defense of the territory of member states. They have proclaimed at the last two summits that they are an alliance with global responsibility and that security in the Euro-Atlantic is inextricably linked to security in the "Indo-Pacific" (as they now call the Asia-Pacific area). It is a bid to rule the world. But if you rule the world, then correlate your strengths with your priorities, otherwise you can overdo it. I'm not gloating now. This once again shows that all problems must be resolved honestly and without double standards.
Question: About ruling the world. People who are interested in geopolitics are familiar with the idea or formula developed in Great Britain at the beginning of the 20th century: "who rules the Heartland, rules the world." The borders of the Heartland and the Axis are drawn and somehow coincide with the borders of the Soviet Union (now the post-Soviet space). In other words, this is happening now? Do they really want it, and people are not needed here?
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, the West's actions are influenced by Anglo-Saxon aggressive and selfish ideas. Moreover, the entire West has now taken over Washington. London, in its Anglo-Saxon solidarity and in its patronizing attitude towards the Americans (taking into account historical factors), always plays into the hands of the United States. What is happening in Eurasia is a confirmation of this.
Look at how Central Asia is being courted. A dozen formats have already been created: "Central Asia Plus" with the Americans, the EU and Japan. In addition to the "Central Asia plus EU" format, the Germans have already created their own format. The French won't wait long and will do the same. Such a framework for meetings is proliferating, during which, of course, they are trying to drag our Central Asian neighbours, friends and allies towards the West, promising some economic and trade benefits and preferences, purposefully transferring to them some assistance programmes that are not so impressive. If we take them in absolute figures, they are incomparable with the benefits that the Central Asian countries have from cooperation with Russia within the framework of the CIS and the EAEU. Now we are witnessing a purposeful injection of money into equipment and technology in such sensitive areas as border protection, training of law enforcement officers and traditional security. We are honestly talking about this with our Central Asian brothers.
We also have the Central Asia plus Russia mechanism. It would be strange if it didn't exist. Central Asia and China have the same mechanism. We, as direct neighbours of Central Asia, and not people who came from overseas or from the other end of the Eurasian continent, are interested in ensuring that the Central Asian region does not become a bridgehead (as it was created from Ukraine) in order to create threats not only to Russia, but also to the People's Republic of China. Our Western colleagues have many such plans.
In the same logic of the Heartland, which reaches the Taiwan Strait, and the ASEAN countries, most of which are located on the Eurasian mainland and on the islands. We have a process that we are actively promoting through the SCO, EAEU, CSTO and ASEAN. In addition, there are the processes being implemented within the framework of the Chinese project "One Belt, One Road". In order to align its economic and logistical plans with those in the EAEU, China has signed intergovernmental agreements with members of the association. The Organization itself cooperates, and this is enshrined in documents with the SCO (in addition to the economic spheres, there is cooperation in the field of strengthening security), and also has stable relations with the CSTO. A network of regional structures is being formed here that want to benefit from cooperation on a God-given common continent.
No one forbids choosing partners, but when non-regional countries come here with unscrupulous intentions, we pay attention to this. We will do everything to ensure that Central Asia does not suffer from such plans.
I’m sure China shares much the same analysis of events as Lavrov. Wang Yi is currently in the heart of the Beast visiting Team Biden in preparation for the upcoming APEC meeting in San Francisco. Global Times has reported on Wang’s visit.