Settling in: Israel-Palestine policy

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half the price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day.

Yeah.

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow. 135 gigabytes of network busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes. If network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com. Hello and welcome to the Intelligence on Economist Radio. I'm your host Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. Ahead of Britain's general election next month. The two main parties leaders met for a televised debate last night. The format left room for little more than canned phrases and the question of trust in the prime minister became literally a laughing matter. And the world's bars and supermarkets are bursting with new brands of gin, many of which tout inspiration from India. But until recently, only the rotgut stuff was made there. Now some upmarket brands are proving to be a tonic to the country's booze industry. First up though, On Monday, America's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a major policy reversal.

The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the west bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.

This could have big consequences for Israel's conflict with the Palestinians.

The hard truth is there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict. And arguments about who is right and wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace.

Over the past half century, Israel has built hundreds of settlements or Jewish enclaves on the land it captured from Jordan in the Six Day War of 1967. This land is claimed by Palestinians for their future state, which is why settlements are seen by many as an obstacle to peace.

The presence of of over 400,000 Israeli settlers living in the west bank basically means that a Palestinian state cannot come into being.

Anshul Pfeffer is our Israel correspondent, based in Jerusalem.

Many of those settlements are stuck in between the main Palestinian cities and towns. So a contiguous state cannot exist as long as they're there. And their presence also means that Israel's army is there. So, in effect, they ensure that the military occupation of the west bank continues.

The announcement came just ahead of a key date in Israel. Today is the deadline for opposition leader Benny Gantz to build coalition following September's inconclusive election. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already failed to form a government. Both candidates praised the Trump administration's change in policy. But the decision puts America at odds with much of the international community.

The international consensus regarding the settlements has been that they're in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which basically says that transfer or settlement of an occupied territory, territory by the occupying power is against international law. And that's been the interpretation of the Geneva Convention regarding the Israeli settlements by most of the leading legal experts. There are some dissenting views. Obviously, Israel clings to those dissenting views in building the settlements, but that's been the broad consensus for decades now.

And so in that sense, Mike Pompeo's announcement came as something of a surprise.

Well, the Pompeo's announcement didn't come as a surprise because certain elements within the administration were very pro Israel and pro the settlement lobby. Chief among them, the US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who, before becoming ambassador, was both Trump's bankruptcy lawyer and financial backer of the settlements. They have been trying for the past three years to get a clear statement out of the administration saying that America doesn't see the settlements as being illegal. And it has to be noted that in the past also, the Reagan administration made similar statements. So it hasn't always been 100% clear what the American position on this has been.

US public statements on settlement activities in the west bank have been inconsistent over decades. In 1978, the Carter administration categorically concluded that Israel's establishment of civilian settlements was inconsistent with international law. However, in 1981, President Reagan disagreed with that conclusion and stated that he didn't believe that the settlements were inherently illegal.

Actually, most of the American administrations haven't even talked about the legality. They've called the settlements an obstacle to peace, instead of diving into this rather controversial legal question.

So, in a sense, this announcement kind of puts a finer point on kind of formalizes something that, from the American standpoint, had been kind of informally the case.

Well, it's certainly been informally the case over the past three years because the Trump administration had been very ambivalent towards any Israeli settlement activity. Previous administrations had condemned settlements, especially the first Bush administration had try to limit funding to Israel while the settlement building was going on. The Trump administration and some of its representatives have been much more friendly towards this. So for the past two years, the Trump administration has made a series of statements and actions regarding the Israel Palestine conflict. Back in December 17, they announced that they recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and a few months later moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. A few months ago, we had the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights. And in between these, we've had a number of steps towards the Palestinians. We had cutting off of aid to various Palestinian agencies, to the United nations agency, which works with Palestinian refugees, the closure of the Palestinian mission in Washington. All these things have put out a very clear signal on where the Trump administration stands in the conflict.

And given the timing of this announcement, just a couple of days before the deadline for Benny Gantz to form a government, do you think it's connected to the current political turmoil in Israel?

I think it's not directly connected to the current situation for two reasons. First of all, it hasn't been timed, as some of the previous gestures were, to help Netanyahu out on the eve of an election or other convenient junctures. It doesn't seem to have been closely coordinating with the Israeli government. There seems to have been something which was very much an internal decision of the administration.

And do you think it's significant that it was Mr. Pompeo who made the announcement?

Well, that's probably more about American politics. Pompeo is trying to show that he's loyal to Trump in many ways and loyal to some of Trump's closest advisors. I think Pompeo is also looking beyond the horizon of the Trump administration and shoring up his own political base, perhaps for his own run for the White House. And this is a popular move among the evangelical voters, who he would also be relying upon one day if he ever runs for the candidacy and for the White House himself.

And now that Mr. Pompeo has made this policy reversal, what do you think the immediate impact will be?

Well, from speaking both to Israeli officials and to Palestinians, no one's expecting an immediate impact. Even though there have been promises by Netanyahu before, before the last two election campaigns, of going even further and annexing parts of the West Bank. All those plans are now on hold because it wasn't a political deadlock. There's no coalition in Israel. We have Netanyahu and the leader of opposition, Benny Gantz, both failing to gain a majority. Israel has been building settlements for the past 50 years, regardless of what their administration position has been. And on the Palestinian side, they've lost hope in anything good for them coming out of the Trump administration long ago. So for them, this wasn't a surprise. And they're facing their daily challenges. Whatever someone is saying in Washington is immaterial to them.

But what about the prospects for grander scale change, for the notion of annexation or in the other direction, a meaningful peace process?

So the impact is perhaps long term. It won't change anything in the next few weeks and months. But when finally a new government is formed in Israel, if it's a right wing government, then the impetus to go ahead and annex parts of the west bank will increase because now they seem to have a green light from the administration. And even if the new government will be a more centrist government under Benny Gantz or some other centrist leader, it'll be much more difficult for them to justify to the Israeli public making any kind of changes on the ground, perhaps dismantling some of the settlements, because people will say to them, but the Americans don't care, so why make any of these changes? If the settlements, especially the ones which are deep within the west bank, are allowed to continue to grow, that means the military occupation won't end either. And any prospect of Palestinian statehood will be non existent and it will leave Israel basically in charge of one state with millions of Palestinians without political rights. And that's not the democratic state that Israel claims and takes pride in being. So it's a situation which really Israelis don't have a solution right now. And if anything, the Pompeo announcement has made a solution for that even more remote.

Anshul, thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you for having me, Jason.

Last night, Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson went head to head in a televised debate on ITV with his main rival, Jeremy Corbyn. There will be an election in just over three weeks called by Mr. Johnson in an effort to resolve an impasse after he failed to persuade Parliament to approve his Brexit deal. Mr. Corbyn's Labour Party is pitching itself as an agent of change.

Labour will put wealth and power in the hands of the many. Boris Johnson's Conservatives who think they're born to rule will only ever look after the privileged few.

Mr. Johnson has promised to leave the European Union as quickly as possible, appealing to a British public that's keen to move past the divisive issue of Brexit.

If I come back here with a working majority in Parliament, then I will get Parliament working again for you. On day one of the new Parliament in December, we will start getting our deal through so we can get Brexit done in January and unleash this country's potential.

Neither man is especially popular, but Mr. Johnson's Conservative Party is leading in the polls. That's despite questions over his personal life, which were raised again this week when businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri spoke to ITV about her relationship with him.

And I don't understand why you've blocked me and ignored me.

An investigation is ongoing related to Mr. Johnson's relationship with Ms. Arcurie when he was mayor of London. He's denied wrongdoing. This week, Ms. Arcurie alleged that Mr. Johnson had a child whom he's kept secret, but the debate steered largely clear of those choppy waters.

British people have had some great TV recently. Not just the Crown, but Prince Andrew's extraordinary interview with the BBC. This was not drama in that class.

Emma Duncan is on our Britain team and was somewhat less than transfixed by last night's debates.

The format wasn't great. The participants were given such a short time that basically they mostly strung together a few stock phrases. So nobody was on the edge of their seats during this debate.

Well, how did it start? How did each of these candidates sort of set out their stall?

They did opening statements. So Corbyn essentially was saying, I'm the vote for change. And Johnson essentially was saying, corbyn is the vote for continued horrific, long drawn out uncertainty about Brexit and I am the get Brexit done vote. It was slightly weird in the sense that Corbyn did a very competently learned statement straight to Cameron. Johnson was reading from a piece of paper, and given that he's got a reputation for laziness and disorganization, that probably wasn't a great move.

And the defining issue for this election is inevitably Brexit. Do you think that either one of the candidates performed better than the other?

Yeah, on that one, Johnson clearly performed better. He has got a very, very clear line, which is, vote for me and you will get Brexit done. Get Brexit done. Which is what he kept saying during the debate. Somewhat to the audience's Irrit. Corbyn did very badly on that, in the sense that Labour's policy is to renegotiate the deal. It's already been negotiated twice.

We will have a referendum, we will have negotiations and we will abide by that result.

And after that, to put the resulting deal back to the country to another referendum. And that firstly sounds a bit exhausting to a country that is already fed up with this process. Secondly, he won't say how he would campaign in that referendum.

Mr. Corbyn is trying to conceal the void at the heart of his Brexit policy and refusing to answer the question of which side. Which side he would take.

So, as Johnson pointed out, he's leaving open the possibility that he negotiates a deal with the European Union and then campaigns against it.

It.

Which does sound faintly ridiculous. There's another referendum issue too, which, again, Johnson successfully prodded him on, which is that nobody thinks that Labour is going to get an overall majority. One way that Corbyn could get into Downing street is by doing a deal with the Scottish Nationalist Party. But the price of that deal would be the promise of another referendum on Scottish independence, and Corbyn refused to rule that out. So he sounded a bit shifty on both counts.

Well, Mr. Johnson has a very well known controversial personal life and career. And in fact, this week there have been stories coming out about a relationship he had with an American businesswoman when he was a mayor of London. Were any of those scurrilous details explored during the debate?

Not really. I mean, it could have been worse for Johnson, in the sense that some people were expecting a bald question. Mr. Johnson, how many children do you have? Because nobody really knows. But no specifics were brought up. And there was quite a good moment which did demonstrate what the audience and the nation at large feels about its willingness to trust Mr. Johnson, when he said something along the lines of truth matters to me, and the audience just laughed.

And on Mr. Corbyn's part, did he score any sort of direct hits?

Yeah, he did on the National Health Service, but really, he had to. I mean, that is Labour's home turf. Labour created the National Health Service. The Tories have been in power long enough to have to take responsibility for the strains that it's under at the moment through underfunding. Mr. Corbyn brought with him a document which he waved around, which had lots and lots of black lines on it because it had been so redacted, which he said was an account of British negotiations with the Americans. And there's a particularly sensitive point as far as the NHS and the USA is concerned. The left is Convinced that Britain, if it's run by the Tories, will basically open the NHS to private American health companies and thus destroy the system the country so loves.

So all told, what's your view? Did anyone win this debate? Will this debate make a difference to the election, do you think?

Well, Johnson just won it as far as the a snap opinion poll afterwards is concerned. It was 51, 49 to him, I would say, as a viewer. Yeah, he just about won it by a nose. And he will be pleased with the event because he's on top in the race and he really just had to hold his own. Corbyn will be disappointed because Corbyn needed to do something to regain a foothold, really, because the number numbers are so solidly in the Tories favor at the moment.

Thank you very much for joining us, Emma.

You're very welcome.

During the colonial rule of the Indian subcontinent, the British came to love lots of Indian cuisine. Foods such as chutney and keri were adapted for Victorian tastes. But perhaps one of the most impactful concoctions of the time developed without any Indian culinary influence.

The Brits were in India, they were suffering from malaria. Their response, and it was pretty primitive, was to drink a lot of tonic. And tonic had a quite bitter taste to it. And one way to cut it was to put in gin.

Tom Easton is the Economist's Mumbai bureau chief.

There are so many gins now that have an Indian name to them. There's Bombay Sapphire is very, very popular. There's Sikkim, there's even one called Jindia. I mean, any province of India probably has their name attached to a jin. But of course, there's a great irony in everybody using an Indian name to somehow affect an Indianesqueness of their jinn. Because the one thing that's missing from all these jinns, really, is that none of them are made in India. In fact, the gin that is made in India is very, very cheap. And it's rumored that most of it goes off to Africa in barrels.

So the rotgut end of the market is the only market actually in India.

That'S almost all of the market. There's some a little bit above that, but it's still just a little bit above that. I mean, given a choice, I would say, as of 36 months ago, no one in India would actually choose, as a question of taste or flavor, to order any gin that was associated with being made in India. But a couple years ago, some entrepreneurs, several of whom had spent time overseas and seen the real boom in India, came back to India and decided to create gin here. And to distill it, one of the most prominent which had its year anniversary is called Stranger and Sons.

Do you think the trend towards the high end of the market will kind of reverse the overall national trend as Indians give up on the cheap stuff?

I think what they've discovered in India is that they can make a product that they really, really like here. And so yeah, I think demand is going to be very, very strong. Why not? I mean, the rest of the world wanting something is probably indicative of an affection for a certain taste. And there are many Indians who travel everywhere and come back here liking the same things that people do in Europe and in America. The big gin markets have been Barcelona and New York and maybe London. And it's hard to find a bar in any of those places that doesn't have a multitude of gins. There's no reason to expect that that won't be here as well. We haven't seen in these new gins any sense that the market is in any way satiated. So India gin for India, at least for a while, seems like one of the most can't miss things. And at a time where the rest of the Indian economy is struggling, it may be the one product that has, at least at the moment, not only real products for growth, but actually can make people maybe feel good during a very difficult time.

What about beyond India's borders though? You say the popular brands that we see outside India, that kind of trade on India's name and history and so on, aren't actually Indian. Am I going to start going into bars and seeing a rich variety of Indian gin?

You will see a couple India gins they're beginning to. Stranger and Sons is beginning to export, starting with Singapore and London. And I think that at least one other Indian brand has begun to do that as well. So amidst the multitude of Indian s gins there actually will be real Indian gins. And to the extent that many of these gins do honestly have an India component, the so called botanicals, the herbs and the spices and that go into gin, much of that does come from India anyway. It's just exported in a kind of a wholesale form. But this fully formed India gin, you'll be able to find it and whether people like it, who knows. But I think the success that this gin has had, they charge roughly the same price here for Stranger and Sons bottle as they do for a bottle of any premium imported gin. And it seems to have found an audience regardless of price. So there's no reason to believe it won't find some sort of audience elsewhere in the world.

Tom, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. If you like us, give us a rating on Apple podcasts and you can subscribe to the economist@exterator.com radio. Offer 12 issues for $12 or 12 pounds. See you back here tomorrow.