Amit Segal (7:16)

Good morning. Good afternoon.

Dan Senor (7:17)

Good afternoon. In Israel. How are you?

Amit Segal (7:20)

Great, not too bad.

Dan Senor (7:21)

Good. All right, I want to start with you, Amit. How would you. Just at a high level, and I know this is going to be sort of generalizing, but let's just start with this. How would you describe the way Israelis Israeli society has been processing Trump's Very unexpected, I think, unexpected for everyone, including the Israeli delegation led by the prime minister in Washington this past week. Dramatic announcement.

Amit Segal (7:45)

I think it was the rare moment in which overtone window shifts, in which topics that were illegitimate even to discuss become not only legitimate, but consensus in a few seconds. You know, a week ago, it was perceived. I mean, offering transfer or immigration from Gaza seemed illogical, immoral. And all of a sudden, the President of the United States offers it. I think President Trump threw a stone on Overton window. He just smashed it. It smashed everything that was perceived as inconsceuous, legitimate. And all of a sudden, mass immigration from Gaza is on the table.

Dan Senor (8:23)

And before we go to Nadav, the conversation in Israel in response to that.

Amit Segal (8:29)

Press conference, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once said that had he could, he would have thrown Gaza to the sea. But unfortunately, as he said, Gaza will not just move to the Mediterranean. And so we have to negotiate with the Palestinians. So what, President Trump basically offers to throw Gaza to the sea or empty it from Palestinians. So, of course, the vast majority of Israelis are for it. The main debate is about the feasibility of the thing. I don't think there is a single Zionist party leader who deliberately opposed President Trump's plan. Gantz supported Yair Golan and Yair Lapid tried to change the subject. And the only politician in Israel to actually come out against it was Mansoor Abbas, the head of the Muslim Arab Party.

Dan Senor (9:17)

So I just want to stay on this for a moment because it's interesting. So Yair Lapid, the formal head of the opposition, Benny Gantz, obviously not in the government, so not a leader of the opposition, but is effectively part of the opposition. And Yair Golan, who's leader of the far left, what was formerly the Labor Party or a merger of labor and Merits Party, what they call the Democrats, obviously only a handful of Knesset seats he has. But you just collectively there summarized the center left to, let's say, call it what we would normally call historically the hard left in Israel. And we just take for granted. By the way, when I was reading their statements in response, they weren't as euphoric as Israelis on the right were, but they were cautiously open to it. And certainly, as you said, not shutting it down and coming back to your overton window point, I mean, that really, to me, that was the biggest sign.

Amit Segal (10:07)

Sure.

Dan Senor (10:07)

Could you imagine the Israeli left of Shimon Peres or Yossi Bailin or. I mean, their reaction to something like this would have been to call it Kahaneism.

Amit Segal (10:16)

I'll give you example. Rehaban Zevi, a former general in the Israeli army, was the only Kinestead member who supported mass emigrations of Palestinians from Gaza and in his case, Judea and Samaria as well. He was branded and tagged as fascist, racist, etc. Nowadays, the vast majority of Israel is supported, but it's not the first time extreme ideas actually emerge from the far right or from the far left. At the end of the 60s, at the beginning of the 70s, there was only one Knesset member from the left, Uri Avneri, who supported the two state solution. 25 years passed and all the presidents and all the prime ministers supported the same plan. So ideas who actually planted by the far right and far left in Israel become more popular as time passes.

Dan Senor (11:03)

Nadav, what is your response added to what Amit said or just generally to my question about how do you think Israelis are processing all of this?

Nadav Eyel (11:12)

Well, I think that most Israelis feel like Prime Minister Netanyahu has felt, and you could see this in the Oval Office, like they won the lottery. Here you have a president that has a fix for everything. You know, you don't need to actually handle Hamas. You can just empty the strip from its residence and you can do it voluntarily. This is really important that at no point at Trump's plan did he talk about mass expulsion of forced expulsion of the Palestinians, but actually offering them to go to this happy place. I think he used the term happy and nice and where they will have better housing and then to have an American ownership who doesn't want America as its neighbor in the Middle East. You know, not only will we not have the Palestinians responsible for the mass murder of October 7th, but we will also have American troops. The president wasn't ruling it out, of course, 24 hours later. Everything was different then.

Dan Senor (12:19)

Well, not everything, but certain aspects, certainly the American troops part.

Nadav Eyel (12:22)

I think that everything was different because the White House was walking back on this. And I'm not just talking about American troops. I'm also talking about American U.S. tax dollars. So president was talking about developing the Gaza Strip, about having a different future there. And I think it was the Witkoff with Republican senators that made clear that the US has absolutely no intention to invest in the Gaza Strip. I don't know what is the fine details of plan. And as time went by, it was also clear, and this is the reason I'm talking about walking back, that for the US Everything can happen after you win. And basically the Israelis take care of Hamas. So Israel has been trying to win against Hamas in the last year. Hamas is not going to allow voluntarily immigration from the Gaza Strip. Hamas has been preventing this kind of immigration before the war. It's something I think that people back home in America don't know. Hamas has been very vigilant about the number of people it allows to leave the Gaza Strip. It's actually something that Palestinians could do, unlike the massive deception and propaganda machine of presenting Gaza as the biggest open prison in the world. The truth is that Palestinians could and did leave the Gaza Strip, but Hamas had a lot of ways to limit even them just going for a quick phase in Turkey, which many Palestinians did. So you have polls showing that 30% of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip with pollsters. Palestinian pollsters are saying if we could immigrate, we would, but they don't want to immigrate to Somaliland. But life expectancy in Somaliland is 50 something. Life expectancy in Gaza before October 7th was much over 70. It was actually higher than it is unfortunately, in Alabama or Mississippi. So if you want to actually implement the President's plan, according to the White House, this is not me sort of giving my commentary. You need to take control of the entire Gaza Strip, you need to win against Hamas. And then you need to voluntarily persuade the Palestinians, who have a strong national and historical affinity to Gaza and a resolve that this is their homeland, that they need to emigrate en masse. This seems 24 hours later after the plan or 48 hours later after the plan was presented as quite a big mission. This is not to say that Israelis are not going to be, you know, supportive theoretically of it, but I'm not hearing any details from DC Right now about how this is going to happen. What I am hearing is the White House slowly Walking back from commitment. Having said that, I know that if President Trump is resolved about something and I see you smiling, Dan.

Dan Senor (15:27)

I'm just smiling. Yeah, because you are describing a very predictable pattern of how Trump operates, which is he puts out a provocative idea. His staff. Well, it's not exactly how he says it. And then he follows up by correcting his staff.

Nadav Eyel (15:45)

Exactly.

Dan Senor (15:46)

You're describing the walk back. And I can quote now for you, his walk back of their walk back, of course. So in other words, he's saying to his staff, not so quick, guys. So he put out a post on his Truth Social on Thursday morning. I'll just read from it. He said the Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel, meaning at the end of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. And he says the Palestinians would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities with new and modern homes in the region. They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe and free. The US Working with great development teams from all over the world, would slowly and carefully begin the reconstruction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth. No soldiers by the US Would be needed. That's the point.

Nadav Eyel (16:31)

This post is walking back. He's saying it's Israel that's going to take care of it. The Israelis are going to take care of it. And when we get the strip, we're not going to get it with Palestinians. It's not on us. And secondly, there are not going to be U.S. troops there.

Dan Senor (16:45)

But, Nadav, the big idea. What's the big idea here?

Nadav Eyel (16:49)

The big idea is changing the concept in the Middle east, thinking outside the books. And I think that to that extent, I credit the president, and I have in this show so many times for the ultimatum he gave Hamas that initiated this deal. I credit the president, of course, for the Abraham Accords and for opening the door for annexation in the west bank that was used as leverage in order to get agreements with the uae. I think that the fact that the president is able to rethink everything and sort of break conventions is a great energy of this administration and could lead to good places. Having said that, I think Israelis are not aware that 72 hours before he made these statements, the entire American media and world economy was very much focused on 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, something that disappeared with a promise for thousands of troops on the border with Mexico and Canada. And 24 hours before that, there was the Panama Canal. And I think three days before that was this bickering with Denmark. As to Greenland, and again, I don't know, maybe the US Will initiate a new agreement in Panama in a week.

Dan Senor (18:04)

Before that, he reacted to Colombia not taking these migrants with an imposition of tariffs. And within 24 hours, Colombia completely reversed.

Nadav Eyel (18:14)

Its policy and he might take the Panama Canal and the US Might own Greenland. All I'm saying is that in essence, and as to Gaza, the problem here, and I want to refocus this not on Trump, the problem is really simple for this to happen, according to the president, and it's not my analysis, it's what he says. Israel needs to take full control of the Gaza Strip, which basically means occupy it, clear it house to house, then convince the Palestinians without expelling them by force that they can immigrate to Albania that doesn't want to hear about this or Somaliland. I'm saying, you know, the obvious. This sounds incredibly hard to me right now in Israel, if you ask the Israelis this question, do you want Israel to have a military rule over the Gaza ship and clear the Gaza ship house to house and take full military occupation of the Gaza ship in order to implement the Trump plan? I'm not sure that the answer is more than 50%. Yes. I don't know.

Dan Senor (19:20)

You're right. A few days ago, we were all talking about new tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and then poof, like it's gone or at least delayed. But the reality is that most of these leaders around the world are taking Trump seriously, meaning they know he could do it. So in that sense, back to Amit's Overton window shift. In that sense, this is what he's changed the conversation. So we could say he talked about terrorists and they're gone. But the point is, a previous administration, non Trump administration, would never even believe that the US with the flip of a switch, would be imposing these massive tariffs. But it's where the whole discussion has shifted. And I think what he's doing is shifting the conversation in another part of the world, which is the Israeli Palestinian conflict. My sense, both watching from afar and talking to some of the people who've been involved in the president's orbit, is they're just on this issue, they're just looking at the trajectory, the White House, they're looking where things are going. And they're like, wait a minute. So we're in the ceasefire deal, which they like because they think it's gonna quiet things down and it's gonna get the Israeli hostages back. So the US Is for the ceasefire deal, but they're Also saying, but at the end of it, on the trajectory we're on, Israel's going to be out of Gaza. Hamas is basically going to still be there and kind of in charge. And then the international community in Europe and the Arab world are all going to come in and fund reconstruction of Gaza with no real displacement of Hamas as either an official objective or a practical reality. The only idea being really thrown around is the Palestinian Authority having some role, who's been chased out of Gaza by Hamas in the past and who seems incredibly weak and actually is quietly, not so quietly blessed. What happened on October 7. So the administration is, people around Trump are looking at this and saying, we're headed for the same old, same old again. And so what he's trying to do, I think, is just shake things up and tell all these stakeholders, guys, we're not doing this again. So I've got some ideas. You don't like my ideas? You come up with your ideas, but I want new ideas.

Nadav Eyel (21:23)

But this is you, Dan, already talking. You're analyzing Trump.

Dan Senor (21:28)

Not just analyzing, but yes, I think.

Nadav Eyel (21:31)

That he's to an extent serious. I agree with you completely that this can lead to any several of consequences. One of them could be that Trump goes to Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia, again, like the UAE credit itself for saving the Palestinians from mass displacement.

Dan Senor (21:48)

Right. Just for our listeners, because I want them to understand the context you're referring to, because it's important. In the lead up to the Abraham Accords, there was talk about some kind of annexation of the west bank. And the UAE had not fully committed to the Abraham Accords. And the UAE made as a condition for them signing the Abraham Accords that Israel would pull back from annexation of the west bank, which Israel did. Abraham Accords signed UAE claim credit that they prevented Israel from annexing the West Bank. And so I think what you're referring to here is this is a version of that where the US can go to the Saudis and say, if you normalize with Israel, you get to say the win is you headed off the Trump plan.

Nadav Eyel (22:23)

I want to say I think the President was serious when he said that, but I think he was also serious when he said the 25% tariffs. I really think that people walked into his office and told him what's going to happen in terms of prices in the US and he was asked questions about this. And the president never goes against his base, as far as I remember. And then he managed to get a deal, which is what the President is really very much about. So I absolutely agree this shakes things up. I want to say something that is realistic. What is realistic? Because of what you said about the second phase of the deal is for Israel to have another war phase in Gaza, possibly thinking about taking the entire Gaza Strip. But even if it does take the entire Gaza Strip, going house to house, which I have to say, I don't know, maybe Amit could chip in. If this is politically viable in Israel today, I'm not sure. But even if it does that, I don't think that we will see this massive immigration unless people will be somehow forced. And I don't think that the country is going to cooperate with massive forced expulsion of Palestinians. This goes against any Zionist narrative, including Zev Jabotinsky, that made the commitment at the beginning of the Wall of Iron, that neither me nor my descendants will ever drive the Palestinians out of these. He said the Arabs of this country, sort of massive forced expulsion is something very much off the table, as far as I want to argue or want to know. Yeah.

Dan Senor (23:54)

I mean, yeah.

Amit Segal (23:55)

So first of all, there is something general that we have to understand about political leaders, both presidents and prime ministers. And this is the shake the coconut tree policy. You want to change something? Okay. Canada refuses to bring soldiers to the border. China refuses to stop bringing drugs into the United States. Governments insist on fighting Israel and having hostages. So you shake the coconut tree, you just throw an idea and something will happen because they are worried you might really take this coconut tree down. So this is one thing. And here we have three things, three implementations. One is the hostages. Under President Biden, the Gaza question gradually focused into the single hostages question. That is to say that the most important things was the asset that Hamas possesses, which is the hostages. The entire world danced to the sounds of Hamas. First Yikya Sinwar and then his brother Mohammed Sinwar. And Trump says, no, the question is no longer merely about the hostages. The question is way wider than this is the very existence of Gaza as an entity. So this is one thing. Second, there is no longer guarantee for Israel's enemies that they can try to destroy Israel and get away with it. There was a guarantee over the last 50 years, since the Yom Kippur War, when Israel occupied more territories than it lost, that Israel couldn't keep those territories, both in Syria and in Egypt, because the international community said, yes, we know you didn't provoke the war, and we know you paid a high price, a huge price, for not attacking first, but you will not be able to take territory. So the aggressor knows that he can get away with it, he can try again and again and again. So President Trump says no. If you invade Israel, if you massacre, if you rape, if you burn, if you kill, if you kid the babies, you will pay price, a territorial price, and your population will have to live. And the third is that when Israel is back in war, and I fully agree with Nadav, that we will see yet another round of war, Palestinians will not be able to say they kill innocents because now the international community would tell them, yes, you can live, you can live and prevent all this suffering.

Nadav Eyel (26:21)

The international community, Amit is not going to tell them anything like that. President Trump might tell them, but that's it.

Amit Segal (26:27)

I mean, the part on the Capitol Hill or Pennsylvania Avenue, 1600, that would.

Nadav Eyel (26:32)

Say that that's very possible and that the president will say that. Having said that, I think, and I already said and wrote this, that unfortunately we have another phase in this war in Gaza. But having said that, I don't understand what the phase would be. I see that the prime minister needs it because the right wing in Israel is incredibly angry at him because of this deal. But if this is not taking the Gaza Strip again, house to house and installing a military occupation, I don't see what would be the purpose. Now, I listened to what the prime minister is saying, first of all, during the press conference. Of course, the prime minister did not commit to the president's plan at all. I don't know if it was because he was surprised by the level of commitment made by the President. I know that the prime minister knew that the president is going to talk about immigration of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. He knew. But I don't think that he understood the issue of ownership and he didn't see this as a compelling commitment by the United States. So the only thing that the prime minister himself spoke about and then he corrected 24 hours later in sort of supporting the plan was about getting the hostages back and mainly not having a Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip. Now, the only way you're not going to have a Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip is, factually speaking, is by getting the PA or the Fatah, in which the right wing in Israel considers as Hamas without the rifles or something like that. I don't agree.

Dan Senor (27:57)

But in Nadav, there are some in the Trump team who are very skeptical of the pa, too. The skepticism is not just among the Israeli right.

Nadav Eyel (28:03)

I'm skeptical about the pa. You know, it's a corrupt, very unpopular, illegitimate to an extent, and weak. Yeah. But the other possibility in the Gaza Strip is Hamas. And there's another possibility, and this was just put out by the President. It's Israeli military rule, which is exactly what the chief of staff told the Cabinet, like a few months ago.

Amit Segal (28:23)

Yes, but something has to change in the way Israel handles the war. And I'll explain. Israel is the only country on earth that actually fighting the enemy and at the very same time funding it. I don't know how many people know, as we spoke, about the price that Israel pays and the revenues by Hamas. Hamas got over a billion shekels, $300 million over the last months only from this humanitarian aid. Hamas is no longer a government, it's a terrorist organization with a supermarket providing cigarettes, toilet paper and food. Of course, now I think that the moment this war continues, I don't think, I'm sure, I know that it would stop the humanitarian aid, at least for a few months. By the way, there is enough supply in Gaza now only from those 600 trucks a day during the ceasefire for Gazans for yet another three, four months. But the situation in which we actually provide Hamas with the means to recruit new terrorists and to pay salaries that prevent mass protests would stop. And there are many, many other options. For instance, you can decide that in the city of Gaza, for instance, after you clean it up, you provide food and there is no weapon there, you can decide that an American company might do it. You can decide that you open the Rafah crossing in order to let people live. But I fully agree with you that the war that we actually have had over the last 15 months prevail, cannot defeat Hamas.

Dan Senor (29:57)

Okay, I want to ask you, Amit, about the impact all of this has on this current government, its longevity parties. On the hard right, Ben GVIR leaves the government because of the hostage deal and then says, well, maybe now I'm more open to coming back in. After he watched the Trump press conference. Walk us through how this all impacts the geometry of Israeli politics.

Amit Segal (30:22)

So Israel and Netanyahu's coalition consisted of 68 Knesset members. When you have 60, you fall.

Dan Senor (30:29)

So if you only have 60, the government falls.

Amit Segal (30:32)

Exactly right.

Dan Senor (30:33)

60 or less. Right.

Amit Segal (30:34)

Ben Gavriel left with his five Knesset members following the signing of the hostage deal. So Netanyahu's coalition is 63, which is a very narrow coalition. So is one party far from falling, be it Smotrich, if a second hostage deal is signed next month.

Dan Senor (30:53)

And Smoltric, just again for our listeners, he's the finance minister. But salad Smotrich, who, like Ben gvir, he leads one of these hard right national religious parties. So one of the two parties, Amit is saying, has already left. Moltritch has agreed to stay under the condition that Israel does not proceed to the second phase of the deal. And now those second phase negotiations have.

Amit Segal (31:12)

Commenced, and the second phase is due in March. In March, 8 March are very complicated for Netanyahu because this is exactly the month in which he must pass the budget. If the budget doesn't pass by the end of March, the government automatically falls and we're going to the polls.

Dan Senor (31:31)

Right? So, and this is how governments have fallen in the past, where the Knesset cannot agree on it.

Amit Segal (31:35)

90% of the time, 90% of the.

Dan Senor (31:36)

Time, governments fall in Israel not because the government dissolves the Knesset to go to elections, but because the government can't pass a budget. And if they can't pass a budget, then the government automatically falls and they go to elections. And that's the danger zone for Netanyahu.

Amit Segal (31:49)

And why the budget won't be proved, because the ultra orthodox parties want yet another bill that will exempt their millennials from going to the army. So he has two ticking bombs, Netanyahu and I think Trump's declaration neutralized at the very same time those two ticking bombs. One, because the right wing no longer has to fear about Israel stopping the war, because he has, I have to explain, President Trump articulated something more hawkish than Ben gvir. Ben GVIR never spoke about emigration of all Gazans. He spoke about a few hundreds of thousands, not more than that. And the ultra orthodox would not dare to leave the government when they see that Netanyahu is strong. So I think he actually Trump helped Netanyahu to set the date of the election by the end of 2026, give or take the formal date for the election.

Dan Senor (32:46)

Nadav, what do you think all of this has on the implementation of the rest of the phase one of the hostage deal and going into the negotiations for the second phase?

Nadav Eyel (32:57)

First of all, the fact that Hamas is right now continuing as we speak, I don't know if this is going to change. I really hope that we're going to see the first part of the deal finalized. But the fact that Hamas continues with it is a testimony that they don't think that Trump is serious, which might be a big mistake. And they did miscalculate massively on October 7th by attacking Israel. And they do not understand, I think, the American mindset or the Israeli mindset, but they don't think he's serious, because if they would have.

Dan Senor (33:28)

And by the way, Nadav, I Think you're right. And I think they also. I remember hearing this from someone in the US Intelligence community, based on the intelligence they were getting in, like, the spring of 24, that the intelligence they were getting was showing that Sinwar was following Arab media coverage and international media coverage of the protests on US College campuses. And Sinwar was thinking, wow, like, the west is with me, America's with me. Why should I negotiate? The pressure's mounting on Israel. And they were like, he completely does not understand the US And American politics and American public opinion.

Nadav Eyel (34:00)

I know this from Israeli intelligence, too, that Sinwar was very much. And I think we spoke about this, was very much encouraged by what was happening on American campuses. And I don't know what they were really thinking, if they would have understood American politics. But on the other hand, I have to say there was a major party in this country that didn't understand American politics.

Dan Senor (34:22)

That's true. It's true. There was a major party in the United States that didn't understand that 77 million Americans were going to vote.

Nadav Eyel (34:28)

Yeah. No, but basically that it might be a good idea to actually distance yourself and alienate yourself from radicals and not try to somehow mitigate through this entire thing. And it's a point I made before the elections, by the way, on this.

Dan Senor (34:42)

Show, we have the receipts. We know you were there. Nadav, you're articulating it before, it was cool.

Nadav Eyel (34:47)

So at any rate, Mohamed Sinwar this time doesn't think that the Americans are serious. For them, they're going, yeah, this is Trump saying what Trump is saying. But look at what also Steve Witkoff is saying. Look at what the President is saying about being committed to return all the hostages, including the young men, which are at the phase two of the deal. Now, in terms of politics, I'm gonna be very cynical right now, okay? And I don't know how Amit is gonna handle this because, so, you know, I'll try. I'll do my not cynical.

Dan Senor (35:21)

Most importantly, the call me back audience can handle a little bit of cynicism. So let it rip.

Nadav Eyel (35:26)

But I'm going to say something just with a pure political calculus, and it isn't funny. For Netanyahu, the best thing to do after the first phase of the deal is to resume the war one way or another. Before he went to the deal, I thought that Netanyahu has an interest in the first phase of the deal from several reasons, and then he'll resume the war. And when resuming the war, this is a huge opportunity for him to go to an election. Right, because he will have the law of exemption either passed or not passed. With the ultra orthodox, if the law isn't passed, it doesn't have the votes, then sure thing, he needs to go to an election and he doesn't want to go to an election when the Israeli hard right goes, hey, actually it's Hamas that controls the Gaza Strip and this is the condition right now. Dan, let's make clear this situation that we have right now. In these 42 days, Hamas is the ruler of the Gaza Strip. After more than a year and after so much sacrifice and so many people who have died sacrificing their lives for the war aims, one of which was getting the hostages back, sure, but one of which was to make sure that Hamas doesn't control the strip. Netanyahu has been warned by President Biden. He has been warned by his former defense minister, interviewed by Amit and by myself this weekend, again and again and again, that if Israel doesn't have a day after plan and by a day after plan, no, they didn't think about massive immigration of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, then Hamas will continue to rule the Gaza Strip. Now, whether or not this is going to happen, the Trump plan is going to happen. Right now, one thing is for sure, first phase is Hamas not controlling the Gaza Strip. So we're back to square one.

Amit Segal (37:11)

I don't think Netanyahu wants new election. He has nothing to earn from new election. The best case scenario would be at the same very situation again with yet the inability to pass a new military exemption bill, etc.

Nadav Eyel (37:26)

Well, my point is that if he needs to go to an election, Amit.

Amit Segal (37:28)

If he needs, yes, he must go.

Nadav Eyel (37:31)

To an election while fighting in Gaza or at least having no Hamas rule just peacefully in Gaza during a deal. That's my point.

Amit Segal (37:39)

So we are on the same page. As for this thing, it's not about politics, it's about the promise. The pledge Netanyahu has made to his public following October 7th. A total victory. It's not because of Smotrich and Ben gvir. It's because if Netanyahu ends the war without Hamas being defeated. Not a war like catch 22, you know, an ongoing war, A never ending war. No, a war with a certain purpose, to defeat Hamas. By the way, what Trump really did is offering a new path to defeat Hamas without a single shot fired. So it's not that people are addicted to the smell of the gunpowder first thing in the morning. No. Or the Naples first thing in the morning. They are committed to the idea of preventing a terrorist pro Nazi regime to be one mile from the borders of Israel. And if it's Trump's path, so be it. If it's Netanyahu's path, so be it, et cetera.

Dan Senor (38:35)

Okay, I want to ask you both about what you're seeing and interpreting in the Palestinian and kind of Arab world. Media about Arab satellite channels, Arab press, about coverage of how Palestinians have been processing Trump's announcement. Nadav said that, that Hamas doesn't take the Trump announcement seriously. But do you have any insights just based on what you're reading and seeing in terms of how Palestinians are responding to the extent that we can gain some understanding of that with any clarity?

Amit Segal (39:07)

According to the polls, even prior to October 7, when Gaza looked way better than now, one third of Gaza population wanted to emigrate. One third, by the way, it makes sense because many of the Gazans define themselves as refugees, refugees from old Palestine today is Israel. So if you are a refugee, so Gaza is not necessarily your home. Now after the war, I don't think polls make any sense in Gaza, but 1/2 would be. I think your guess is as good as mine, But I think 50% would emigrate if they have an opportunity.

Dan Senor (39:46)

Nadav?

Nadav Eyel (39:47)

Yeah, I spoke with two sources and my impression is that this, to an extent, at least on the first level, breathes new air to the Palestinian cause. And I want to say something there that is very much Zev Jabotinsky's ideology. It was the labor movement historically that ployed with the idea of massive population transfer more than the revisionist and the right wing side or traditionally the right wing side. And this was the point made by Gandhi, by Chavam Zevi, that Israeli far right politician at the time. He was quoting Yitzhak Rabi from 1973, talking about the possibility of moving Gazans to Jordan. And Rabin did say that, these things, but it wasn't only Rabin and it was actually the Zhabotinsky folks and ideology that said, no, we respect the Arabs and we see that. It's not about economics. If you actually read what he's saying, it's not about economics. It's about their national self determination and forever we will have two people in this land. Now, of course, the right wing today is not like Zev Jabotinsky and quoting Jabotinsky to the right wing today is seen to them as an abomination. And they will immediately answer where were you when Jabotinsky was hunted down? And this is just. You're just using words here, but I need to say this, knowing what I know and speaking with Palestinians, I think that this plan for them really enhances a notion called tsumud, which is, it's also in the Hebrew hitsamdut, which means.

Amit Segal (41:35)

Sticking to the ground.

Nadav Eyel (41:37)

Sticking to the ground, staying in the ground with all the hardships. And it breathes this into the national narrative. Having said that, Dan, there was a way for mass immigration of Palestinians from Gaza, and here's the way. And I, I actually thought that it's a good idea at the beginning of the war if all the countries that are so critical official would have said, you know what? We understand there is a war in Gaza. Countries like, I don't know, Sweden and Holland and Canada. And we are willing to accept, for a temporary time and only if the Israeli government commits to their return hundreds of thousands of Palestinians so that they will not be hurt with the fighting in the Gaza Strip. And we'll vet them to make sure that they're not Hamas people or only women and children. Right. And I actually aired that idea and I thought this could be. And I'm serious about this idea. I'm not using this as kind of, oh, no. And then we Israelis shouldn't allow them to return. No, I'm serious that Israel would have committed with guarantees that they will return. And I didn't see this, you know, the international sphere. I didn't see people saying, oh yeah, let's get no. And I think that many Palestinians in Gaza, from my conversation, from what I'm reading from a journalist like Shlomi Eldar, who's not suspected to be a far rightist, right. Shlomi Eldar is a very respected, much better connections with the Palestinian society than I do, and specifically with Gaza. He's saying everyone I spoke with would have emigrated because of the future of his kids, but he needs to immigrate to a country that has a future in it, for instance, like Western Europe or countries that are good places to live in. And that's the truth, by the way, that was also the truth about the Jewish people when they needed to leave Eastern and Central Europe, because they were, and I'm not comparing. Because they were persecuted there, and I am not comparing, but people want to live in places in which their children can have a future, not in, I don't know, some places in Africa that nobody even recognizes as a state. And I think that would have been much more plausible if there would be an agreement. Of course, I don't think that any Western country would have accepted a large number of Palestinians, even for a temporary measure because immigration Canada has been.

Dan Senor (43:58)

The Trudeau government has been accepting 5,000 families.

Amit Segal (44:01)

I'm not sure Prime Minister Trudeau is fully aware how big an average Gazan family is. It's not the 1.7 children per family and a dog. So he might have a surprise in the months to come. I think I agree with Nadav, and I'll add to this that those who stay, those who are more extreme. So we'll stick.

Nadav Eyel (44:23)

Or Amit love their land more. Right? You know, okay, I'll go for it. I attached more to their land.

Amit Segal (44:29)

Yes. Okay. Potato, potato. But at the end of the day, I think it sends a message. In 1948, there was what the Arabs called the Nakba, the forced. I'm not sure if forced or not. There is a dispute the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the state of Israel. Now, I just read prior to this podcast the numbers only 50% left, 50% stayed. There are citizens in Israel today. But the traumatic experience of 50% of a population leaving their homeland shaped the Middle east for 50, 60, 70 years. It prevented many, many enemies of Israel from attacking it because they knew there is a price tag that comes with trying to eliminate Israel. So Even if only 200,000 and Palestinians would live, I think it's gonna make the difference.

Dan Senor (45:22)

Okay, we're just gonna wrap up here in a minute. Before we do, what do you guys think? I'll ask each of you quickly the next phase of this story. If the three of us are getting together. Well, we will be physically together in a few days. But if we're getting together on a podcast in a couple weeks, what do you think we'll be talking about? Where is this going?

Amit Segal (45:41)

There is a difference from the sovereignty plan, the annexation plan by President Trump in 2020. Then it was Trump's last year, and two months later, the COVID crisis broke out. Now Trump has four years. And even if this immigration scheme.

Dan Senor (45:55)

I just want for our listeners to understand that the whole debate about annexation of the west bank was late 2020, when Trump was running for re election. And you're saying now Israel's having or Trump is having this conversation about another controversial plan on his second week in office. Second week in office. Right.

Amit Segal (46:11)

Yeah. So now he has four years. So, okay, so even if this immigration doesn't work, so we know that that ideas out of the box emerge on a weekly basis when it comes to the Middle East. And I'll tell you something that has nothing to do with what we spoke, but might be Connected. I'm surprised if the tactics of President Trump that you both described is to carry a huge stick and threaten and then get an incremental achievement. I just doubt. I don't have the answer why, when it comes to Iran, President Trump doesn't use this tactic. Why doesn't he threaten Iran? Listen, in two weeks from now, we are going to bomb you. Right. Interesting. Maybe he's worried he might have to actually make it happen.

Dan Senor (46:57)

Yeah. This is what we talked about with Rich Goldberg in our last episode, was how when Trump issued that executive order on Iran, maximum pressure, he kept caveating it with, I hope I don't have to use this. I hate that I have to sign this. So it was on the one hand he. He was putting the screws on Iran and yet not speaking as aggressively as he does, or he has been on Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza. I mean, the tools he's employing are pretty aggressive, but the rhetoric is different.

Nadav Eyel (47:23)

I just want to say something about this, which I think is important. Look, I'm all for shaking the coconut tree, specifically in the Middle east. And we got the Abraham Accords as a result of that, and we got this deal as a result of that. And it's to the credit of. Of the president's team and the President himself. And after saying that, I want to say something important. We're dealing with really serious things. If there is a change, that's one thing. If Israel goes the wrong path, people, you know, Israeli soldiers and families and hostages will die. And this is a crucial moment. And I'm getting these signals from the US From DC I'm also getting a signal that the President wants to maybe pull out the American forces from Syria. That's a bad omen, and that's really bad for the region, and that's really bad for Israel. I'm also seeing that the President is downplaying the possibility of a strike against Iran. Referring to what Amit said, If you want to have a robust agreement with Iran, you need to keep the pressure on and give them an impression that deterrence is real and that all options are on the table. It's really important. So, as an Israeli, I would really, really not want us to get a plan that will only manifest itself after we beat Hamas on the one hand and on the other hand. So to get blown off with the issues at hand. Now, I'm not sure that when the President speaks like this on Iran, this isn't a ploy to an extent that he's not trying to. While the administration is Already considering maybe striking or allowing Israel to strike or assisting Israel. So the jury's still out on this. But it's really important, strategically speaking, Iran is the threat. The opportunity to act is in this year. There would be no other opportunity, most probably. And these are really crucial moments. And that's a real threat to Israel's existence. And we need to keep our eyes on the ball. And by the way, the argument I'm just making is the Prime Minister's argument towards his DC trip and the argument that he's making with Smotrich and Ben GVIR think about Iran, not that they're too interested, by the way.

Dan Senor (49:32)

Before we wrap, Nadav, I want to briefly touch on an unrelated story that you tweeted about yesterday. And I'm referring to the story about a top Hamas official, Khalil Al Khayya, who, according to you, met with a senior Iranian official or military officer before October 7th. And I mean, I don't want to speak for your reporting, so you speak to your own reporting. What can you tell us about this story?

Nadav Eyel (49:59)

So this is part of the Gallant interview. And Gallant refused to.

Dan Senor (50:03)

So this is former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, that Nadav just had a long interview with that's been published in the Israeli press. And Amit and Yonit Levy interviewed on Channel 12 news, which is also getting a lot of attention in.

Nadav Eyel (50:14)

Yeah. So Gallant wouldn't say anything on the record or of the record as to this issue. But here's the story. It turns out that there was a middleman, there was an Iranian middleman who was responsible for coordinating the so called Axis of Resistance or Axis of Terror. This man was part of the Al Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard. And by the way, he's still alive. Israel didn't manage to kill him yet. And this man was carrying messages across the axis of resistance. And one thing is for sure, it is absolutely the fact that a plan to destroy Israel, to destroy Israel, to annihilate its existence physically, okay, not only lead to its collapse, was presented to Hassan Nasrallah. And Hassan Nasrallah said, yeah, I believe this is plausible and we can go for it. And this didn't happen like years ago. It happened in negotiations that were held since 2021 through 2022 do. It's also the fact, and on this, Gallant says on the record that this is the fact that in the morning of October 7, Yahya Sinwar presented three scenarios to Hamas officials. The first scenario is that they will occupy parts of the Western Negev in Israel. The southern parts of Israel, parts of the southern parts of Israel, and they will hold onto them. So Hamas believed that they'll be able to hold to these areas and negotiate with Israel for some arrangements in Jerusalem, for instance. Second scenario, he said, was that Hezbollah will join in and will invade Israel from the north and will occupy parts of the Western Galilee and will hold to them too, which will give us even more leverage. Third option, and this is a quote by Gallant, okay, this is not an assessment now, is that Iran will join in to us and to Hezbollah, and then we'll meet in the middle, meaning in the middle of Israel, meaning a total annihilation of Israel. This is what Hamas had in mind on the morning of October 7th. My story is that it turns out that Hamas is sending an official to Beirut to tell Hassan Nasrallah we are going to attack Israel. With the big project comes the holidays, the high holidays in Israel, Rosh Hashanah and the rest, meaning September. September, October. Now, the reason Khalil Al Haya, who's a close associate of Sinwar, went there was because there was an idea floated at the time during negotiations with Israel as to release of the hostages held by Hamas. I remind our listeners that there are two Israeli civilians that entered the Gaza Strip, at least one of them with a mental illness, that entered the Gaza Strip. And there are also bodies that Hamas was holding, for instance, the Goldin family, Oron Shaul and others. So there were negotiations right up to October 7th with Hamas, and Hamas was using this to deceive the Israelis as to their intentions. And then one of the countries involved said, hey, we have a suggestion from Hamas. Hamas is willing to go for this deal with these and these conditions. And one of these conditions is that you allow Yahir Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, to leave the Gaza Strip and go abroad for some meetings. And this goes to the table of Yoav Gallant, who's the Defense minister. And I'm not talking a year before, I'm talking really a couple of months before October 7th. And Yoav Gallant is faced with the decision whether or not to allow Sinwar. And these are the days that, you know, we're talking about understanding there are daily workers coming from Gaza. The assessment of the Israeli intelligence division is that Hamas wants long standing stability in Gaza. They're saying, just allow him to go abroad. Yeah, he's going to meet Hassan Nasrallah and others, you know, the leader of Hezbollah, but then he's gonna go back to Gaza. You need to, of course, assure him that he'll be able to return. Gallant says, hell, no. I'm not going to allow this. You know, it's off the table. It wasn't recommended by the Israeli Shabak or the Branch Intelligence Division. It was a demand made. And now we know that instead of Sinwar, Hamas sent Halil Al Haya to Nasrallah in Beirut to tell him that they are going to attack Israel. But Nasrallah refused to see Halil Al Hayye. He was not as senior, and he simply ignored that visit. The only person to meet him was that Iranian attache. And Nasrallah never heard from a Hamas official that it's actually gonna happen at these dates. Hamas sent that message that as far as we know now, I'm speculating, Hezbollah never got the message. And just imagine, Dan, what would have happened to Israel and to history if Yahya Sinwar would have been allowed to leave the Gaza Strip and would have met Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut. Now, there are two options. First option is that Israel would have been surprised, attacked that morning from north and south. And I don't know where it would have ended. I asked Gallant about this in the interview. Do you think that Israel's existence was at stake? And he said, absolutely not. Well, I don't know. That's my answer as a journalist. I don't know because I saw what happened on October 7th. I don't know what would have happened. I know that as an Israeli citizen, we definitely felt in the first hours, not knowing if Hezbollah is going to attack us, we felt an existential threat in the center of Israel. At least I felt an existential threat in the center of Israel because I didn't know if Hezbollah is going to join in, if Iran is going to join in. But the defense minister is saying it's out of the question. But there's another possibility which is much more realistic. It's possible, knowing what we know about the infiltration of the Israeli intelligence into Hezbollah, that if Sinwar would have told Hassan Nasrallah this is gonna happen, Israel would have known about this. Because knowing what we know today about the level of infiltration, meaning the level.

Dan Senor (56:45)

Of Israeli infiltration into Hezbollah, into Hezbollah. Right.

Nadav Eyel (56:48)

It was Hezbollah that was leaking. As far as the Israeli intelligence was leaking.

Dan Senor (56:54)

It had leakage. Yeah, yeah. Israel had penetrated the Hezbollah network.

Nadav Eyel (56:58)

Incredible story of a what if.

Dan Senor (57:00)

Yeah. Yeah. Wow. Before we go, guys, I just want to. We talked a lot about the controversy around President Trump's proposal and the impact it's having in the US and the impact it's having in Israel and Gaza. There was one set of comments he made that got much less attention and I just want to play it. Over the past 16 months, Israel has endured a sustained, aggressive and murderous assault on every front. But they fought back bravely. You see that and you know that what we have witnessed is an all out attack on, on the very existence of a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. The Israelis have stood strong and united in the face of an enemy that has kidnapped, tortured, raped and slaughtered innocent men, women, children and even little babies. I want to salute the Israeli people for meeting this trial with courage and determination and unflinching resolve. They have been strong. President Trump praises the young men and women of the IDF. He says, for the last 15, 16 months, we've been hearing the only time people talk about the IDF and the people who serve in it is like they're basically Nazis. And to hear a president, even President Biden, who obviously at various points of the last 15, 16 months has, has been rhetorically very supportive of Israel. And I do believe President Biden is a Zionist, but even he, I don't think ever really talked about the heroism of Israel's soldiers. And as someone who has family members in and out of the IDF and know a lot of young people who are serving or who have served, and I know you guys have deep connections, I do think that having an American president say that, and I wish more American politicians would say it, we do have people like Senator John Fetterman and Richie Torres who say these things too. So it's not just President Trump, but it was an important reminder. I'm curious if that got any attention or was noticed in Israel.

Amit Segal (59:12)

Not enough. President Trump gave very powerful statement about the idea of soldiers and about what it means to be Israel. But since it was not controversial, it wasn't covered in the Israeli media. You know, for people, no news is good news. In the Israeli media, good news is no news.

Dan Senor (59:34)

Gentlemen, I will see you soon. And until then, thank you for doing this. As always.

Amit Segal (59:39)

Thank you so much. Shabbat Shalom.

Nadav Eyel (59:40)

Thanks very much. Shabbat Shalom.

Dan Senor (59:42)

Shabbat Shalom. That's our show for today. You can head to our website, ark media.org that's ark. Ark media.org to sign up for updates. Get in touch with us. Access our transcripts, all of which have been hyperlinked to resources that we hope will enrich your understanding of the topics covered in the episodes on this podcast. Call Me Back is produced and edited by Elon Benatar. Additional editing by Martin Juergo, Rebecca Strom is our operations director. Research by Stav Slama and Gabe Silverstein. And our music was composed by Yuval Semo. Until next time, I'm your host, Dan. Senor.