 Hello and welcome to NewsClicks International Roundup. Last week, Israel passed its controversial nation-state law, which mandates that the right to self-determination is available only for its Jewish citizens. This basically disenfranchises a large part of its population of Arab citizens. This is the latest in Israel's provocations along with its ally the United States, which include the shifting of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem as well as the horrific attacks on Gaza. To talk more about this, we have with us Prabir Purghais, Founding and International NewsClick. Hello, Prabir. Prabir, let's start with the law. What exactly is the reason for such a blatant provocation in the face of international condemnation? I think we have to see the larger context that is operating here. There has been a pressure for quite some time that what Israel is doing is not right, that the two-state solution is in danger. There have been different kinds of sanctions, if you will, at least if not direct sanctions, but not allowing goods from occupied territories to come in as granted as Israeli goods. So a lot of issues have been coming up on that. I think this is Israel's way of letting the world know that they don't really care and the two-state solution is finally dead because what they're saying is the Jewish community is the only one with the right to self-determination. Israel, as you know, has never declared its borders. So essentially what it is saying is this is their historical land. What the extent of this historical land, we don't know. But whichever community is there, they don't have any right of a nationality here and only the Jewish nationality. And again, the question is can we have a religious identity used as a nationality, which is what they have done in this case, that they are the only ones who have the right to decide the borders of this state. This is really what I think that the lying issue really is. We must also remember this is not the first anti-apartheid law that Israel has on its books. There are a huge number of laws which essentially disenfranchise in different ways. The Arab population, or shall we say the non-Jewish identity-based population, because Arabs are not Muslims alone, they're also Christians. So this is the second part of it that already disenfranchisement was in the process. They have not only passed this law, they have also made Arabic, which was an official language in Israel, no longer an official language. All of this really is the sort of seal, the final seal, that the two-state solution is dead, and now there'll be only one state and that will be only a Jewish state. So this is the declaration that this particular law really signals. And I think it's a part of a larger process, which Trump and Netanyahu have set in process with what you mentioned earlier, Israel shifting its capital, Jerusalem, and the U.S. accepting it. So you mentioned the two-state solution, for instance. Along with all these developments, there's been also a massive increase in the violence in Gaza, the firing on the protesters, or the Great Return March, for instance. At the same time, for instance, you have Trump's so-called leader of the century, which is basically being done without even the involvement of the Palestinian authority. So do we also see basically an attempt to encircle and basically crush the Palestinian, even the small possibility of a Palestinian state? I think what Trump is signaling, along with the Netanyahu's this particular law, is the end of the two-state solution. So therefore, the two-state solution is essentially of the books. This is what Trump and Netanyahu are signaling. What is the consequence of this? This means that in the final negotiations for Israel, and please remember, it is Israel that we are discussing, not the Palestinians. Palestinian people will not even be represented at the table. So the discussion is about Israel's boundaries, about Israel's security, and how this can be secured in consultation with Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, of course with the United States, and possibly Russia being also involved in these negotiations. This is the attempt. If this has to succeed, two of the things have to happen. One is they have to make Gaza go away in some form. Therefore, they have to bully the Hamas to a point where they, like Yasser Arafat did with the PLO, proceed to a peace process which will involve Gaza being held by Egypt under some kind of arrangement, where the Israelis and the Americans will put in money to have industries, not in Gaza, but maybe in Sinai and under Egypt's jurisdiction. And then Gaza will be asked that you start being an autonomous region, and you start building a relationship with Egypt. So Egypt essentially takes over from Israel as the protector of Gaza. Now, will Egypt agree to it? Because after all, Gaza has one million people, and Hamas are quite strong over there. They are aligned to the Islamic Muslim Brotherhood. And therefore, this increases the strength of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. So will Egypt agree to that? That is a big question. Can there be, quote, unquote, bribed by Saudi Arabia and the United States and Israelis? Of course, Israelis don't have to spend the money. The other two countries will spend the money to a solution like this. So this also explains why this repeated attacks on Hamas right now, not only in the border protests that we saw earlier, where sniper fire was used against unarmed protesters, but regular now attacks on Gaza, airstrikes, almost every week that this is happening. So I think you cannot understand it unless you look at the larger picture of what Israel and the United States are trying to get as a solution. And the solution minus Palestinians, who today are actually, as you know, probably more than the Jewish population in what counts for the greater Israel. So taking one million out of there would leave that with the minority of Palestinians, but a small minority. And then if they can also range for some of the deals with Jordan, it's possible. That they will then talk about the solution. We reached the deal of the century, what you called it. And this will then permanently in their books take the Palestinians out of the equation. Of course, it's disenfranchised and in an apathetic state. But how would you, for instance, see the global shifts that brought us to this point? Like even, for instance, say, four or five years ago when the Obama administration was in power, there was at least a pretence of carrying some sort of a peace agreement and even if you look at the states in the region themselves, Saudi Arabia or Egypt for that matter. So how did we reach a position today when everyone else is basically in agreement that this is actually the best way to go ahead? I don't think there is an agreement on this as yet. I don't think Egypt has agreed to it. I don't know whether Saudi Arabia will be publicly willing to accept it unless there is a larger consensus on the ground. I think what Israel and the United States are dealing with is the fact that there is a weakening of American hegemony on West Asia. And if you see that weakening, then the paramount issue for Israel as well as the United States is how to protect Israel under conditions for when United States is in the state of withdrawal. State of withdrawal doesn't mean Israel or America's military power is declined. What has happened, it's geostrategic influence in the area, particularly United States has weakened. And this weakened in the face of the developments in Iran, where Iran is the, of course, it's 80 billion people. It has a big economy. It has a huge oil and gas reserve. And you have also the coming back of Russia to West Asia with Syria. So you have a state where United States at one point had complete dominance of West Asia, partly because Iran had been weakened and the fact that Russia had withdrawn essentially. And under Yeltsin was willing to throw the American line. I think this changes that have taken place means that now Israel is concerned that how does it guarantees long-term superior of existence. Under conditions where it is no longer the preeminent military power and the United States is not the global hegemon and certainly not the West Asian hegemon. Under these conditions now, what is seen to be offensive is actually a defensive maneuver. So I don't think it expresses the strength of United States or Israel. It really exposes that it feels it's weak. So it needs at this point to get some kind of an agreement by which can says it has solved the problem. Of course, long-term issue is it's now only 6 million people in the region which is about 250 to 300 million people. Is that a long-term viable position for a state acting as a garrison state on behalf of the West to survive in this form without an accommodation with any of the states bordering it? Is it possible for it to survive in this fashion as an apartheid state? These are questions historically I think which Israel does face. It's an existential issue for Zionism and let's face it. This can survive in the short term, but in the long term, its future does not appear to be very bright. So I think they are facing a bleak future in the long term. They know it. Therefore, they're trying to show it up today by these kind of measures. And if internationally they can get away with it for the time being, this is the juncture for them to try it. Egypt, I guess Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt, military dictatorship. Saudi Arabia on their sides because it's trying to contain Iran. So all of this may give it a window of opportunity it feels by which they can reach this particular agreement and then hope that the Palestinian problem will be considered a salt by the world and therefore it will no longer be seen to be a divisive issue. But at the same time, we've also seen a lot of resistance building up on the ground both in Palestine as well as internationally, for instance, where with the success of the BDS movement in multiple areas in recent times. So like you said, it is difficult for them to sustain in the wrong and especially in terms of both international opinion as well as regional developments as it is. Well, the regional developments at the moment do not augur well for Israel. Immediately, Syria has certainly merged as a military power. And like Hezbollah, today it is battle-hearted. The Syrian troops are battle-hearted. Therefore, it's not going to be easy for Israel to attack Syria. Like it could have dominated over Syria in the earlier period. It cannot enter after 2006, 11 on again. At the same time, it is also true that the Arab world has never been as divided as it is today, particularly with Saudi Arabia on one side and Qatar fighting against its Emirates, lining with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and passing to different kinds of destruction of their state vis-a-vis the kind of wars that the US has launched or the proxy war US has launched. So these are the countervailing features. Why Israel thinks this may be an opportunity time for it to get the settlement? But yes, I would say that long-term, as I said, the prospects of a state surviving as an apartheid state and Israel has openly declared itself to be an apartheid state, I think is bleak. The geopolitically, Israel's biggest backer, as you know, is the United States. And the United States internal politics has yet not shifted. Don't forget, the Vietnam War was not won only in Vietnam. It had to be also won back home in the United States. So unless the United States shifts or it declines dramatically, both of which is not an immediate prospect, I think we are going to see a continuation of the Palestinian agony. And this is going to be, for the future, a hot spot that is not going to go away in spite of what Israel and the United States may proclaim. But a short-term solution without the Palestinians negotiating only with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Israelis, and the United States, trying to reach a so-called agreement, is possibly on the cards. Thank you, Prabir. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching this link.