Russian President Vladimir Putin made his first foreign visit to China since leaving office. “These two men seem to be inseparable” (Le temps) and “Moscow and Beijing underline their common goal of reforming the global order” (Der Spiegel).

Meanwhile, the headlines are dominated by the “peace conference” to be hosted by Switzerland, while the Russian armed forces continue their offensive to create a “sanitary zone” in Kharkiv to protect the border regions of Belgorod and Kursk from Ukrainian long-range rocket and artillery attacks.

Dr. Pascal Lottaz is an Associate Professor for Neutrality Studies at Kyoto University’s Faculty of Law. He received his MA and PhD from the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (Japan) and specializes on neutral actors in international relations, especially on neutrality during the two World Wars and during the Cold War.

Let’s start with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s first foreign visit since his re-election. In Beijing, Putin and Xi signed a declaration on deepening comprehensive partnership. What do you think about the nature of relations between Russia and China?

The relationship is now definitely deepening even further but the relationship is very much one of economic nature, not military as it is sometimes portrayed in western media. Russia and China are not in an alliance, but they are partnering to enhance each other’s economic, technological, trade, etc. fortunes and build an alternative trade system from what we have known over the past 30 years after the end of the Cold War when all trade was essentially tethered to the US Dollar and US-led trade institutions. The fact that Vladimir Putin brought almost his entire government with him to China and especially the governor of the Russian central bank as well as the finance minister tells us that the talks are strategic and go very deep. My best guess is that they are working on financial mechanisms that would smoothen trade and probably function as preparatory steps towards mechanisms in the larger BRICS club.

A peace conference is being held in Switzerland without Russia’s participation. What does it mean that heads of state are meeting to discuss peace in Ukraine when one of the two main actors is not at the table?

I’m very skeptical toward this “peace summit” since it obviously can’t achieve peace. If they called it “peace process summit”, that would make more sense, because that’s even what the president of Switzerland’s federal council said what it is, a step in the process toward a peace. So, while I think the approach for a proper peace summit is wrong–which would obviously need Russia at the table, something might come out of it. And we see that some nations that are very skeptical of the West’s approach, like Hungary, also see it that way because they are willing to participate while still criticizing the approach. I think the summit was originally planned as another step in the pressure game that had been going on of naming and shaming Russia (adding in sanctions) to increase diplomatic pressure on it, since the summit is an outcome of these “Zelensky Peace Formula” meetings that had been going on several times and the rhetoric is still the same from the West at the moment, that the Zelensky Peace Formula has to be the backbone of a peace agreement.

However, what this might morph into is kind of the West’s consolidated starting point of a real peace negotiation and hence the outcome of the summit might still be useful in some sense as it might open avenues for actual negotiations. I’m not sure this is what it will be but in the most optimistic scenario, the outcome document might be something that the Russians (and some third-party mediator like China) might actually be able to work with in some sense. But maybe that’s just my hopeless optimism speaking. It’s very well possible that the entire affair will go down as simply another Western PR stunt to make it seem as if though “the whole world is against Russia” which is neither true, nor will it move the Russian’s even an inch from their course. We have seen many, many such moments in the past, and this one might become another one.

Today, the global South is back. It is a geopolitical phenomenon rather than a coherent, organized grouping. Do you think these countries represent a new pole in the world?

Absolutely. The way the Global South, as it is now called, has come to the fore is really unprecedented. This is often compared to the Nonaligned Movement of the Cold War, but what we are seeing is much bigger and stronger than that. We are seeing independent poles emerge, China and India first and foremost, but others, too, like Iran and Brazil that used to be pretty constrained by the rules of the game that the US and Europe forged, but by now they are much less constrained and are able not only to coordinate but to act in ways we haven’t seen before. The way in which Iran just was able to assert itself vis-a-vis Israel and the US would have been impossible just a few years ago. But now the US actively tries to avert yet another war because it has reached the limits of its power-projection capabilities and that is also true in the economic realm where US and EU policy is now confined to ever more sanctions (that backfire rather than coerce others) and to pleading and threatening other states, since they lack actual methods of implementation of their demands. We saw this recently with Janet Yellen going to China to beg them to export less to third markets in which the US wants to compete and then by Tony Blinken going over to demand the same but backed up with threats of even more sanctions. And sure enough, now the sanctions are coming but they won’t be able to achieve the goals since the real issue is not Chinese vehicle exports to the US, it’s that US vehicles are not competitive in 3rd markets and that’s something that’s simply out of the realm of US sanctions. So, we are seeing the US sanction system coming apart. It still carries weight but less and less so in the Global South which is now for the first time emancipating these states to go alternative routes. This is very new and the US as well as the EU are utterly unprepared for it. 500 years of Western dominance are coming to a close.

I’d also like to mention the phenomenon of Javier Milei in Argentina. What does the rise of right-wing populist or even outright fascist movements around the world have to do with the financialization of the global economy? Is this rise an anomaly or is it part of a process deliberately orchestrated by the ruling classes?

Well, Milei was able to tap into economic grievances in Argentina, of which there were plenty. I would be careful with the word “fascist” as it is not clear to me that he is aiming for that kind of state organization. To me, Milei is just an outrageous form of Margret Thatcher, who won over people with a lunatic discourse of what the economy is about—an utterly distorted view of economic reality, as I see it. Ironically enough for Argentina, his policies will most likely produce the exact opposite of what he is promising, and drive the country even deeper into financial crisis from which then only the US will be able to save it (since most of Argentina’s external debt is in USD), which, in turn, will hand over the Argentinian economy to the US (even more than before). That is very similar to what happened in Russia after 1990. But to be fair, we have to wait and see if that’s the case. I just can’t see any scenario in which ditching Argentina’s sovereign currency and “dollarizing” (or some softer form of that) is going to be beneficial to Argentina. You need a sovereign and working currency to have any kind of hold over your economy, so Milei’s policies are in my view suicidal for the political economy of Argentina. But you are right, the process will benefit a relatively small elite in Argentina that is already hard-wired into corporate US, and will profit from being the ones who sell out Argentina’s remaining national assets, or function as the middle men to control them. We see this with examples in Guatemala or even Haiti, in which very, very small elites live, work, and have their kids in Florida but still control large parts of wealth in their home countries and they are the first ones to cheer up any kind of economic coercion against their countries as long as they might produce more profits on the top. It’s capitalism at its ugliest but this is still how it works in weak, western economies.

Nemanja Starović, Minister of Labor, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy of the Government of Serbia, spoke to Harici. Emphasizing that the focus of Xi Jinping and Aleksandar Vucic’s talks was on economic cooperation, Starović said Xi’s second visit to Serbia since the beginning of his term in office is “proof of the iron-clad friendship”.

Chinese President Xi Jinping concluded his five-day European tour after visits to France, Serbia and Hungary, where he held talks on trade, investment and the Ukraine war.

Journalist Dr. Esra Karahindiba has done a just-in interview with Nemanja Starović who has newly been appointed as the Minister of Labor, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy of Serbian Government. Starovic was the State Secretary of Minister of Defense of Serbia previously and replied to Harici’s questions last year.

‘Since the possibility of EU membership is distant, we make an effort to not to neglect Russia and China’

How do you comment on the current bilateral relationship between China and Serbia? What stands out the most in the process of the development of the bilateral relationship over the past years? What policy matters were prioritized in the two leaders’ discussion agenda this time? What new outcomes do you expect there to be after President Xi’s trip?

First and foremost, the visit of President Xi to Serbia, the second one since the beginning of his tenure, served as proof of the iron-clad friendship our two nations have established in the previous decade. It was also a springboard for further enhancement of our cooperation in various fields, as 29 different agreements have been signed. We are especially proud of the fact that among them was our endorsement of the Community for the Shared Future in the New Era, the new platform initiated by China, which Serbia was the first to endorse. Apart from discussing all outstanding issues on a global scale, which is a necessity whenever two experienced leaders meet, the focus of the talks was naturally on bilateral economic cooperation.

China and Serbia have strong and deep cooperation on infrastructure projects, from stadiums, to bridges, highways and railways. But would there be any room for improvement of the bilateral cooperation if there is any or say, if there is anything expected beyond from a Serbian government perspective?

Our strategic partnership substantially grew in the previous decade and that is the most visible in the field of economy. Only 12 years ago, our overall exports to China were below 10 million USD, but in the meantime they increased to beyond 1.2 billion USD. That means we managed to multiply our exports by the factor of 140 in just ten or so years. Our total trade exchange today exceeds 6 billion USD, but when the newly signed free trade agreement between Serbia and China comes into effect on July 1st, we will increase it to 10 billion USD in a very short time. For the country the size of Serbia, those figures are really significant. The People’s Republic of China is the single largest foreign investor in Serbia, with more than 5 billion USD of direct investments, on top of various infrastructure projects we jointly develop. Chinese-owned companies are among the largest exporters of our country. Looking into the future, we are very interested in the application of new, sophisticated technologies in Serbia, involving artificial intelligence, leading to the production of Chinese electrical vehicles in our country and even flying taxi-cabs.

For the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and 16+1 framework, what are the possible perspectives of the EU and Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) on them and if there has been any evolution of the views, how have they evolved? What are some of the biggest challenges faced by BRI and 16+1 in Europe broadly and CEEC specifically?

Having in mind our geographical location in the middle of the Balkans peninsula, which has served as a natural “highway” connecting Asia Minor with Central Europe since the dawn of time, it is both natural and rational for us to participate in BRI, which aims for increased connectivity across Euro-Asia. Part of that large initiative is infrastructure which enhances connections between ports in the Aegean and Panonian basin through Serbia and North Macedonia. Those types of projects bring huge benefits to our people. To give you just one example – by constructing a new railway between Belgrade and Budapest, we have already connected our two most populous cities, Belgrade and Novi Sad, with a high-speed railway, transforming the travel between the two cities to a pleasant 35-minute commute. We are aware that some countries have left the China-CEEC framework, mostly due to pressures coming from the outside, but we don’t have any intention of making such a move. To quote the two leaders: president Vučić, who said that “we will never turn our backs to China”; and President Xi, who stated that “for China, Serbia is the first strategic partner in Central and Eastern Europe”.

On this trip, on the day of arrival of President Xi in Serbia, it was the 25th anniversary of NATO’s bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. How does Serbia see today’s NATO? And how are the US and its allies trying to still exert influence on either Serbia or CEEC regionally?

It was not a coincidence that President Xi decided to come to Serbia on that very date, when we remember innocent victims, three Chinese journalists, who were killed by NATO bombs on May 7th 1999, during the course of NATO aggression against Serbia. Our joint remembrance binds us even stronger. President Xi emphasized that by saying that “our friendship is forged with blood and lives”. We will never forget those dark days, but we need to forgive. Today, the NATO alliance represents our immediate neighborhood. We are bordering 8 different countries and, except for Bosnia and Herzegovina, all of them are part of NATO. We have an active role within the NATO Partnership for Peace program, but our principal position is that we are not going to become a NATO member country. Military neutrality is one of two main pillars of our foreign policy, next to political independence, and we are very proud of both. It is common knowledge that many western countries are dissatisfied concerning our sovereign path in foreign policy, and certain pressure points are being activated all the time, one being the issue of our break-away province of Kosovo and Metohija, and another one related to our rejection to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation, but we manage to stay on the course that the vast majority of our people support nevertheless.

From a Serbian perspective, how do you see the relationship between China and Serbia? How does Serbia see China’s visit to Serbia? What does it mean to Serbia?

There are strong sentiments of pride and joy regarding the visit of President Xi to Serbia. Although Serbia is not nearly as big and important on a global scale as China, our Chinese friends are always showing great respect to our country. This is the second visit of President Xi to Serbia, while the heads of certain western countries have not visited Belgrade for decades.

What are some of the policy recommendations you would have for China-Serbia relationship and beyond?

I can only say that we have taken the right approach in our relations with China, and the results we have achieved so far are tremendous. With the new Free trade agreement, we will definitely upgrade our cooperation even more. Yet, all these achievements in economic cooperation are catalyzed by excellent political cooperation. Both China and Serbia are guided by the same principles in the international arena, such as sovereign equality, peaceful co-existence and non-interference in domestic affairs. We strongly endorse the One-China policy and Beijing strongly supports our political struggle to maintain our territorial integrity.

How do you thing the fact that Serbia being a European country is one of countries having top level relationship with China? How do you think this may affect any potential partnership with the West, including the EU? Can you say that Serbia places itself among Eastern Alliance?

Our cooperation and iron-clad friendship with China is not directed against anyone, and definitely not against the European Union. Our strategic goal is to join the European Union, and we are in the advanced stage of membership negotiations. However, the end game to that process is not in sight and the goal still resembles a moving target. We fully understand that once we become an EU member state, we will need to align with the common foreign and security policy of the EU, but we are not willing to give up on our traditional friends along that long and wriggly path.

Vis-à-vis France’s position and role in the EU, NATO and the West, what joint efforts could and should be done by China. Serbia and France in addressing common challenges, from climate change to conflict resolution? How to possibly decrease the impact and interference by the West led by the US?

As I have mentioned before, we consider China an iron-clad friend. At the same time, France is one of the most prominent partners Serbia has within the EU. We are always glad to see increased cooperation between the two, but we do not interfere in their relations. Both China and France have significantly increased their investments in Serbia in previous years. One good example is our mega-project concerning the long-awaited construction of the Belgrade metro, in which both Chinese and French companies are taking part.

How you look at the Russia-Ukraine conflict? What possible scenarios do you expect for it to end? What sort of conflict resolutions could be?

If history taught us something, it is that all wars end either by a peace treaty or total annihilation of one warring side. This tragic war in Ukraine will eventually end with some kind of peace treaty, and we strongly believe that sooner it happens, the better. We consider both Russians and Ukrainians brotherly peoples and feel great pain for any loss of life on the battlefield, especially for the civilian casualties. Serbia has condemned the violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but we refuse to take any part in that tragic war. If there is a role for us in the peacemaking efforts, supported by both sides, we will always be glad to provide our good services.

⁠What is your stance in Israeli massacre in Gaza? There are several news that Serbia might be secretly sending weapons to Israel. Can you confirm or deny those allegations? And in general, why is Serbia is moderately silent on Israel-Hamas conflict?

We have strongly condemned the barbarous Hamas attack on Israeli civilians on October 7th 2023, but also share the concerns regarding the suffering of civilians in the Gaza Strip. That is yet another war in which we do not intend to participate, but are always ready to help with peacemaking efforts if asked for. On the issue of weapons, we have never engaged in secret exports of any sort to anyone. We have a long tradition of manufacturing weapons and ammunition, primarily for our own needs, but also for exports. However, we strictly abide by international regulations in that field and always tend to be very transparent. Our cooperation with Israel in that area is a long-standing one, but the overall volume of our trade in arms and ammunition with Israel cannot even be compared with the volume of trade certain countries accomplish.

Wadah Khanfar, Founder President of Al Sharq Forum spoke to Harici: “The current reality in the region is shameful. Because the regional states have decided to work within the ceiling that the Americans actually decide for them. And the Americans, as you know, favor the Israelis more than they favor anyone else.”

 Wadah Khanfar answered our questions on key debates such as the position of regional countries in the Gaza conflict, plans for a two-state solution, the attitude of the international community and the resolution of the Palestinian conflict.

I did a few interviews about Gaza, but one was very harsh. Daniel Levy, a senior adviser in former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s government and a former Israeli peace negotiator, told me it was a shame for the Arabs that it was South Africa that sued Israel at the International Court of Justice. Let’s start with this comment. You are also Arab, but I am sure you will take an objective approach.

I think it is shameful, no doubt about that. Because the regional states have decided to work within the ceiling that the Americans actually decide for them. And the Americans, as you know, favor the Israelis more than they favor anyone else. So, at this stage, we are stuck in a situation whereby no one is taking proper initiative and everyone is trying to maneuver while he is standing on his own one square meter. The best they could do sometimes is make speeches which are irrelevant to the reality on the ground.

The situation in Gaza has gone beyond any conflict from 1945 until now. We have never seen starvation to death in front of the eyes of the public as it is happening today, while countries are in a state of paralysis and they only could deliver some talks in a shy way without confronting the Israelis or try to do something that breaks the norm. We are in a situation where you need something new, something challenging, something to stop the current aggression.

Unfortunately, I agree that the current reality in the region is shameful and generation after another will look back at this moment and feel ashamed of the response of our governments to the current crisis.

Several times underlined the hypocrisy issue. Are you referring to the West or actually the Saudis being hypocrite or the ones who signed Abraham Accords being hypocrite? Because they knew that when they are signing this deal with Israel, they knew which power that is going to give to Israel that Gazans and Palestinians will be backless.

I do believe that the West has advocated for the last, maybe, three centuries the values of liberalism, rule of law and justice and equality and human rights. Because of that, they were trying to introduce a global philosophy which they think that it should rule the world basically.

But we noticed that these ideals, these values have been utilized in the hand of the power in order to create some hegemony rather than actual justice and equality and rule of law. Gaza has basically uncovered that deep racism within the Western mind of how to deal with us. So there are two categories of humans in the eyes of the Western Powers; the Europeans, themselves and the Westerners, including the Americans, of course, and then the rest of the world. The rest of the world not necessarily should enjoy the same fruits of liberalism that the West should have. This is one aspect of hypocrisy. The second aspect of hypocrisy is that our governments, as you mentioned rightly, who have been trying to appease the Israelis in order to appease the Americans or to secure their thrones and to secure their regimes, have been in a way or another for also decades now following the recipes that the Americans have introduced to us.

So when the Americans lead with Abraham Accords, governments in this region applaud and follow without any assurance that this will achieve any justice to the Palestinians or national security for the region itself. So, this is why this region is in turmoil. This is why our governments are not capable of gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the public. This is why we have civil wars everywhere in this region. This is why we cannot achieve security and prosperity if we continue to follow the Western-centric approach to our own interests, to our own cases, like the case or the cause of Palestine.

Do you think that if Israel is not declared a war criminal and a genocidal state for these acts, it will not pave the way for greater disasters in the international community?

The international community is going through one of the worst tests since 1945 because in 1945 they have decided that the world should be established on new foundations. There is a United Nations and Security Council to guarantee security in the world. There is international law to guarantee that the states do not go against each other and achieve another war. Now the current reality has demolished all of that. There is no United Nations at this moment in time. It is irrelevant because at the Security Council, the Americans are vetoing every ceasefire decision, proposal. And on the other hand, the Israelis are attacking the United Nations, accusing the Secretary General of anti-Semitism. The same United Nations that in 1947 decided the partition of Palestine by a majority of 33 votes only. And at that time the United Nations had only 57 members. 33 of them voted for the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel. Now that particular institution is attacked now as anti-Semitic. While today we have almost 200 states, 154 of them voted against Israel. So, you see how the double standards are achieving.

The international law is attacked. There is nothing called international law anymore at this stage because Israel has actually broken every paragraph in every convention and every international law without anyone holding them to account, especially the Americans who are giving them a cover. So what kind of world order do we have? This is a world order of chaos. This is a world order that will lead to much more conflicts in the future and everyone can do whatever he wants to do without regard to anyone.

Regarding the world order, some of the analysts are saying that the U.S. is no longer in the position to mediate any of the crises anywhere in the world, including the Israel-Palestine crisis or the two-state solution. There are some voices who say that China could be a good advocate for this. I’m not sure why, but maybe they just want to bring another country which is confronting the U.S.. Do you think that the power of Asia can come closer to the Middle East to solve some problems?

Not necessarily, actually. I don’t trust hegemonic powers in any way. At this moment in time, I do welcome the rise of China simply because the centrality of the American foreign policy and American hegemony in the world has led us to the current horrible reality we are in. So, this is why the challenge that China poses to the Americans is welcomed, in my opinion. But the replacement of that is not also a unipolar system where China is on top of it. What we should aspire for, as people in this region, is to have our own geopolitical center through integration amongst our nations in the Middle East where we could sit together with the Chinese and the Americans and the Russians and could negotiate a much better world order that could preserve our right.

We should not be under the mercy of the Americans or the Chinese. This is bad politics. We should look inside. We have nations like the Arabs, the Turks, the Iranians, the Kurds. In this part of the world, we have been living together for thousands of years. And we could establish a center whereby that center, politically and economically, and that could be through integration; governmental, political integration, economic integration; we could become a powerful actor in the international order like what Europe is doing. Because Europe is the most fragmented continent in the world. And after the Second World War, they realized that they need to go for integration. And now we have a European Union which could present itself as a major actor in the economic world and in the political world.

Two-state solution… There is no side who is accepting it at Israeli side. And it’s also discussed within Israeli, let’s say, intellectuals who want to defend the rights of Gazan civilians who are leftists. They also say that while there is a big fact of increasing settlements, it’s impossible to have a two-state solution because it’s a problem for Palestinians. Where are you going to have a two-state solution? Is it really realistic? What are we discussing for dozens of years now?

I think the current situation whereby the international society, especially the Americans, are resurrecting the two-state solution after 30 years of negotiations in Oslo, which we couldn’t achieve anything out of it, is only just to end the current conflict in a way that makes Israel much more relevant to the future because Israel strategically has lost in this war. The image of Israel internationally is horrible. Israel is a country that is accused of genocide. Israel is a country that is starving people to death. So, they would like to replace that image of a process where Israel is negotiating with the Palestinians. Again, another myth called the two-state solution… So, the current situation is basically trying to bring us back to where the Palestinian issue was before 7^th of October. I do believe that the two-state solution will be rejected by the Israelis, as it has been rejected for the last 30 years since Oslo. You should remember that by this year, we could have been celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Palestinian state, based on the Oslo agreement, where the Israelis signed it. But nothing happened. So what kind of two-state solutions are we going to talk about? The Americans are talking about a state without sovereignty as it existed in South Africa, a state without control over borders or water or its own resources or security. So, to a large extent, they would like us to declare something called a state, which does not exist in any lexicon of international politics. It does not exist in reality at all, just to save the image of Israel.

You say that the US cannot manage this crisis anymore, and you say that you do not trust other hegemonic powers like China or Russia. Who, according to you, can solve this crisis or can hold the position of mediation?

If there is a bold regional initiative, then we could put the Americans and the international powers under the following choice. Either you stop the Israelis, or this region is going to react to you in a harsh way. The Americans are comfortable that most of our leaders… This is why the conflict will continue for now. Most likely, it will continue in different ways and shapes. We might have a truce for a few days, for a few weeks, then another conflict will arise. Even if they succeed to destroy Hamas in Gaza, there will be another generation that is going to fight for the Palestinian right, because Hamas did not exist before 1987. Before 1987, we had PLO, Palestinian Liberation Organization, and PLO found exactly the same track, that they were destroyed, but then another generation of people rose up in Palestine to defend their rights. So, it’s not an issue of Hamas. It is an issue of the rights of the Palestinians and the rights of this region to feel free, not to be under the custodianship and basically colonialism of the American and Israeli interests.

How do you see the future of Gaza? Let’s talk about the new post-war administration, how it’s going to take shape. Do you think a formula, as the US desires, a formula without Hamas is possible?

It is impossible to have a formula without Hamas in Gaza. It’s impossible to have a formula without Hamas in the Palestinian territories in Gaza and West Bank altogether. In my opinion, Hamas should join the Palestinian organization, PLO.

But PLO doesn’t like this idea.

PLO would love that if they are permitted to do so. The current balance of power internationally and maybe regionally is not pushing for that. But Hamas declared that they are willing to join PLO, and I think PLO eventually, in order to resurrect itself would do it. because PLO today is a dead body. PLO does not exist, you know. So, I’m not speaking about PNA, Palestinian National Authority, in West Bank. I’m speaking about PLO which existed as the representative of the struggle of Palestinians from the early 1960’s. This PLO should become the umbrella where all Palestinians struggle to end the occupation. And it should be reformed where it could become representative of all Palestinian sectors inside Palestine and outside Palestine. Because we have 7 million or 8 million Palestinians living in diaspora. And they have the right to be represented in PLO as well.

So, if there is a representative PLO body, Hamas would be a member of it. Then we could say as Palestinians, we have a united front that could, in the future, find a way either to establish a Palestinian state or to negotiate or to struggle or whatever. But this is a Palestinian decision, not American or Israeli decision.

And what is your opinion about post-war Gaza administration?

I think the Americans and a lot of powers in the region are pushing for technocrat government formed in West Bank and Gaza with a prime minister delegated more powers than the president of PNA, which is Mahmoud Abbas. And this technocrat government will be able to work on reconstructing Gaza and creating a period where later on elections could be held.

Unfortunately, this plan, which is bought by the Americans to a lot of actors in the region, does not answer major questions about the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Gaza or the future of the Palestinian struggle, in a sense. Because it is actually a proposal meant to end the conflict without committing Israel to a lasting solution. And this is the problem of it. If there are serious commitments coming from the Americans, forcing the Israelis to accept total withdrawal from Gaza, total end of the blockade and proper rebuilding of Gaza, then I think we will have a good deal and that could become sustainable.