and house judiciary committee is weighing in. i don't think -- basically the two committees in both chambers have jurisdiction and will pay attention and with commerce and judiciary so i think they schedule these back-to-back since the executives are in town. maybe ino's better but i have a feeling there will be holding committees. >> guest: i think they are planning on scheduling but we don't have the dates. >> host: what is next for both of use, the next up in this process? >> guest: the hearings of the next half. it's going to be a law review. comcast said this will take nine months to a year. they filed their paperwork with the doj and the public interest a man with the fcc last week so i think that was going on here this weekend at capitol hill lawmakers wanted to get ahead of this and try to influence what issues and the regulators take a look at as they examine the deal. they want to shape the debate, that's the influence congress

has come on not making the decision but they can influence the discussion. so the hearings are going to be critical and you'll probably see letters coming out of the committees. going to speed up one and fcc in looking at an issue laura another. but i think that this is going to be a long process and probably be up to a year before this is over. >> guest: on the doj sign they won't buy that much of anything because they keep these things really tight across but from the fcc signed in the next big thing as she said will be months away, when the the fcc chairman/staff decide to put forth items to the rest of the commissioners are they say whether they think this should be approved or not a prude and that's probably going to be months away. that starts the final round of debates on what the conditions are going to look like on testing. >> host: amy schatz on wall street journal and joelle tessler of associated press, thank you for being on "the

communicators". i would simply mentioned both the house hearing and the senate hearing are available to watch in their entirety at c-span did work. >> guest: thank you. ..

>> this is mission control houston. it is no and the heads down position on track to its flight to the international space station. 28 seconds into the flight flying at 1100 miles per hour. 1.3 miles an altitude and 7 miles down range from the kennedy space center according to onboard computers. endeavor's engines are throttling down as the orbiter passes to the area of maximum pressure on the vehicle. >> endeavor, go ahead, throttle

up. >> copy, go ahead, throttle up. >> the free men engines are throttling back up ten seconds into the flight. endeavor flying it 1800 miles an hour, 10 miles an altitude, 11.5 miles down range. at liftoff the foley field shuttle boosters and tank played 4.5 million pounds and total frets that lunch was 6,425,000 pounds. all systems continue to function well. three good main engines, three good power generating fuel sectors and power units for the hydraulic system. the next couple bp burnout and separation of the solid rocket boosters. combined the twin boosters provide 5.3 million pounds of thrust propounder portered towards space.

endeavor performance is as expected thus far. two minutes in 19 seconds into the flight, endeavor flying at 3,007 dench miles an hour, 49 miles down range.

>> now an event with former homeland security secretary michael chertoff on international security cooperation. the hudson institute in

"washington post" this event. it is about 90 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone and welcome to the hudson institute. my name is christopher sands pan am senior fellow hudson and it is my great pleasure today to introduce michael chertoff, who was the main speaker and also anne mclellan who was on her way, still coming down from canada. she says it is the americans' fault that they want the land, not so much the canadian's fault because they wouldn't let her leave despite the weather but hopefully she will have-- joyner's mitt program. michael chertoff is among many of you know. he is today chairman and managing principle of the chertoff group a security risk management advisory firm with offices in washington d.c. and new york for good judge chertoff is senior counsel at covington

llp washington d.c. office and a member of the white-collar defense in investigations practice group. most recently mr. chertoff served as secretary of the department of homeland security as secretary he led a 218,000 person department with a budget of $50 billion. mr. chertoff's developed into month security promulgated homeland security regulation and spearheaded in national cybersecurity. he also served on the national security in homeland security councils and the committee on foreign investment in the united states. bridges appointment to the cabinet mr. chertoff served from 2003 to 2005 on the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. before becoming a federal judge mr. chertoff was the assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the u.s. department justice pirg oneth position ubersauve investigation of 9/11 terrorist attacks in pharm.d enron task force which produce more than 20 convictions including those of ceo's jeffrey

skilling and kenneth flight. mr. chertoff's career includes a federal prosecutor including district attorney first assistant attorney for the district of new jersey and assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of near. as a prosecutor mr. true-up investigated and personally prosecuted significant cases of corruption organized crime in corporate fraud and some of you may have notice on the way and he has a new book, "homeland security: assessing the first five years" which he will talk about. with no further ado let me turn this over to secretary chertoff. [applause] >> i am very impressed by the turnout on a day of i think what is a record, perhaps, since the 1880s, a record snowfall in that jurisdiction of colombia so it is either a tribute to the intrepid this of the people in the audience for the fact there is nothing else to do. the super bowls over nuf got tired of watching television and you are getting cabin fever

alitha rayann delighted to be able to address you today and i want to thank christopher sands for the introduction and the hudson institute for hosting me for this talk. anne mclellan who i think is delayed by the exigencies of travel as many of you may know, is a former counterpart of mine in the canadian government. she was the head of the republics say the ministry and in fact had had the pleasure of working together during the first year that i was homeland security secretary here in the united states. actually in many ways this know we have experienced over the last couple of days is a theory good reminder of that least one of the sets of challenges we dealt with that the department of homeland security which was natural disasters. because as people rapidly found out when the warning of snow became a reality, how comfortable you are and how safe and secure you are during any

kind of natural event of that kind is a function of how prepared you are. people who have water, who have the battery operated radio, who had food, it had filled up their gas tanks were in a better circumstance than those who hadn't done any of those things and we'll certainly a big snowfall isn't comparable to the disasters we have seen here in the united states or that we saw in haiti recently, each of these events is a moment to reflect upon the importance of preparedness which really lies at the heart of pretty much everything you do in the area of common security whether it is dealing with terrorist acts or whether it is dealing with natural disasters. the more prepared you are the better able you are to deal with an event when it actually happens. that is actually one of the themes of a book that i have written, which is entitled "homeland security: assessing the first five years." and it was an effort on my part really over a period of about a year in 2008 to write a series

of articles, looking back on where we were in 2001 and where we had come in 2008 as a way of both judging the progress that we make but also trying to draw some important lessons for the future. as it happens we are in a period of time of renewed focus on terrorism. in 2008 and much of 2009, perhaps understandably the public was preoccupied with the economic crisis. there was a lot of discussion about an overhaul of our health care system and comparatively little public attention paid to terrorism. but of course that is not because terrorism wasn't in existence or had disappeared or even diminish. it was merely because the vagaries of the media prioritizing was driven by what was the latest new thing in washington. that change however in the autumn and winter of 2009. first we had a series of arrests

that were carried out by the authorities here in the united states, including the arrest of an individual from afghanistan it was a cabdriver who has been charged with plotting a terrorist attack, the rest of david headley in chicago who was are originally from, thought to be with respect to carry out terrorist attacks in denmark but more recently was tied to the 2008 mumbai attacks, the fort hood shootings which tragically ended with the death of over a dozen people and wounding of over three others and of course the christmas day bombing plot which resulted in a great deal of controversy. all of these things seemed once again to focus the attention and the media and the public on the issue of terrorism and as a consequence there has been a lot of discussion in the media about terrorism and the appropriateness of our response and they think it is a good opportunity to look back on what we did during the first seven hour eight years after 9/11 and

what we face now and 2010 as we enter the second decade of the world in which terrorism remains one of the most potent in serious threats to our well-being. that me begin by talking about the kinds of threats we face, because frankly it is not terribly different from what we faced in 2001 but we have seen some evolution both in terms of the threat and in terms of our capability to deal with that threat. in many ways evolution and dynamic adaptation is the story of terrorism. terrorism isn't about astatic fret that remains the same over time that we can simply address and resolve once we of put together a comprehensive strategy. instead what terror of-- terrorism is an adaptive strategy. ... to see how we respond and then it takes account of the lessons that the terrorist learn in order to change the strategy and the tactics. and it is incumbent upon us to

both recognize what is consistent and the way terrorist the hague, but also to recognize what has changed and i think as we look at what we have seen in the last year and compare it to what we saw five, six, seven are even ten years ago you will see underlying consistencies but he was also sea change and evolution. first, it remains a case in 2010 as i believe it was in 2001, that the underlying the kind of international terrorism which is what we principally focus upon when we talk about terrorism, is an ideology that is extreme and its outlook, that purports to use the language of islam but that in fact is a distortion or a perversion of islam, but nevertheless an ideology that has an appeal in recruiting people who are disaffected, whether they are disaffected because of a personal psychological issue, because of

their sense of political alienation from society in which they find themselves or because there's some larger grievance based on the circumstances in a particular part of the world. that ideology is not necessarily consistent lateef pollitt bin laden's statements over a period of years, they have a little bit of the characteristic of a person who tries to see where the parade is headed and then runs to get to the head of the parade. those of you think back to the earliest statements of bin laden in the '90s will recognize lot of this book is at that time had to do with the presence of american military forces in islamic lance like saudi arabia. views uwe for example of the israel palestine dispute was not a very high issue on his agenda. but that change more recently when it became evident to bin laden into al qaeda that that was particular grievance that applied at least to a subset of the potential pool of recruits.

more recently we have seen bin laden, zawahiri his number two talk about the intersection between al qaeda and said globalization to try to draw connections between the economic crisis in the west and the ideology of the al qaeda and what it's agenda is. in fact, i wouldn't be surprised to see bin laden take credit for the earthquake and the snowstorm in his neck statement. and i say this not to mock and, but to recognize that at the core of what al qaeda is about is not so much a coherent ideology of what they are in favor of as it is an ideology of what they oppose. and they are prepared to modify their message in order to retract a greater number of people into their orbit. as a consequence, as we think about the ideology we face it is important not to confuse it with a religion which is different and which has a very coherent

and obviously admirable world view, not to confuse their religion with the ideology which is much more tactical and much more driven by the desire to make sure the latest fashion has been incorporated into the doctrine. in 2001 when we look at the threat from al qaeda, moving from the ideology to the physical, we saw that the central area of planning, recruiting, training in launching at tax was in south asia, particularly in afghanistan. that of course change dramatically after the american invasion in 2001. in fact i think that's invasion was significant in a number of ways. not merely because it a lot-- this lot in enormous national safe-haven in which terrorists were able to train coming keep people in safehouses and actually also set up laboratories to experiment with

various kinds of chemical and biological weapons. it was not only significant because it dislodge them from the physical space but because they think it was a shock to the system. bin prior to 2001 that americans would react to an attack on american soil the way the americans reacted to the blackhawk down episode in samole yet in the early 1990's, by withdrawing, by appeasing him by running away from the fight and i think that, when america responded with many multiples of force in afghanistan, that not only shook the confidence of bin laden but it actually caused some of the people who had been in the adherents of al qaeda to question the wisdom of bin laden's leadership. at the same time, before we congratulate ourselves on the immediate effects of afghanistan we have to recognize that the characteristic of the al qaeda and similar organizations, and

that perhaps their greatest strength is their resilience in their persistence. whereas people on the west sometimes requires that backs is an opportunity to engage of a crisis of self-confidence. for people to hear-- here to the ideology, setbacks are merely turning the wheel that they expect will turn again in their favor. and fact as their confidence in their ultimate success, as misguided as that may be is one of the strongest components of their ideology and therefore something we need to pay close attention to as reformulate our own strategy. in the case of al qaeda, what they did is they retreated into the frontier areas of pakistan and over the next several years there was a back and forth. at times, the use of american power coupled with pakistani power was able to press with a great deal of vigor upon the capability of al qaeda to function in the frontier area that lies between pakistan and

afghanistan. during that period of time and number of plots were disrupted or destroyed because people who were the plotters were eliminated, but it is also the case that particularly in the period of time from 2000 to-- 2007 to 2008 is the pakistani government began to pursue the prospect of various kinds of truces or accommodations with the taliban in the frontier area, a safe haven, a greater say haven began to be treated in the frontier area and in fact that is something we spoke about in 2007 and 2008 when we talked about a heightened period of ferrette, a recognition that within that geographic area is sufficient so that safety had been created that we began to become increasingly worried about the pipeline of recruits who would be moved into the area of pakistan, would be trained, would be indoctrinated and then be returned to their home

countries in order to carry out plot. indeed if you look at some of the western plots that we uncovered during that period of time in sense, i dare say you will find that many of them, not all of them but many of them to have their roots in the frontier area. neligan, in the last year it appears that the cycle that turned again and this time some for the better part of the pakistani government after considerable amount of prodding as move forward with greater energy and even perhaps aggressiveness again certainly some of the taliban in the frontier area and that has caused a shrinkage of the safe haven and has returned the leadership they are to become more concerned about their own safety perhaps then about striking at the west. at the same time it is not surprising that the greater pressure on the frontier areas from pakistan has resulted in a tax on pakistan itself. one of the hallmarks of the

terrorist is there an immediate reaction to pressure is counterpressure in the hope is to wear down the will of the public that supports government pressure so that they will eventually be a roll back and client in their own domain. but what we have seen is not only pressure back in the struggle over waziristan. we have now seen that al qaeda is increasingly a franchise. it is broaden itself not only in south asia but in parts of africa and the middle east and encourages other groups to form at least a network kind of alliance. in many ways this is in fact what 21st century terrorism is. does not about a unitary organization with a command and control system. is about it network of organizations that enable each other, that support each other, that may not necessarily always be 100% aligned, but will certainly be closer in their world view and closer in their

efforts than makes it comfortable for the west. so we have seen for example the somalia, another area that is poorly governed, has become a save covin for al-shabaab, and al qaeda linked group that has in one way become very successful as a recruiter of westerners to come and and train and actually carry out terrorist attacks. we have seen a greater presence of al qaeda in yemen although this again has been a feature now for a couple of years. and even in democrat, north africa, we now have the phenomenon of al qaeda in maghreb which is the successor to some of the terrorist organizations in north africa and there's some evidence we have seen that they are forging links with drug traffickers coming from south america and providing safety and security for drug shipments that are being transmitted from south america through north africa ultimately to be sold in europe.

this of course is an economic arrangement that is beneficial to the terrorists and much the same way the taliban in afghanistan benefited from the ability to make money off of the cultivation of opium in that part of the world. finally we have to look at the issue of homegrown terrorism. this topic is then much discussed certainly for the last for five years and it has been manifest in many countries around the world and particularly countries in europe. it has not been a big problem in the united states until recently but certainly the recruitment of somali young people into the fight in somalia and what we saw most recently with the fort hood shootings and with the zazi investigation suggests a homegrown terrorism would now be a greater problem here in the united states. that is not to say at this point in time we have anything like that dimension of homegrown

terrorism that we see in for example parts of western europe but it is to suggest that again, in keeping with this theme of dynamic change, we can't simply assume because we haven't had the problem in a significant way in the past that we are not going to have it in the future. this means we need to ask ourselves what it is that is allowing al qaeda or similar groups to begin to recruit somalians to go to somalia, or a u.s. army medical doctor and with medical training. what is it that enables them to convert this individual who comes after all from the elite of american society and turn him into a terrorist assassin. and that is going to require us to think hard about not only what we do socially in order to try to assimilate all of our communities in the country. is going to require risk to think about how to deal with the process of using the internet as a recruiting tool and as a

training tool in an environment where the capability may trigger an train lone wolves may become an increasing problem. so in many ways, what we have seen is the threats we face now are different than if threats we face five or six years ago in specific application but not in terms of their fundamental core. in fact many of the things that had been set in the last year could have been said five or six years ago about the prospects of what we face but there are some things that are different. one thing that is different as we have got much better at preventing attacks. our intelligence is better, our infrastructure for protection and preventing attacks is better and while this is by no means the suggestion that we are to pat ourselves on the backs and say the job is done it doesn't just that we have progress, it doesn't do us any good to say that nothing has gotten better but at the same time we have to recognize the progress we have made has prompted the enemy to

change its approach in that need to remake further progress. one of the major elements of our success and strategy. we have to begin by saying, and i alluded to this earlier, that the battle begins not here, but begins overseas. obviously if you can eliminate safe havens, and he can eliminate those people who are leading the effort to carry out terrorist attacks in the west, that is the best way to eliminate the threat. connecticut activity we have taken overseas in places like afghanistan, pakistan and iraq have served to reduce the threat and have served to disrupt those who want to carry out the threat. it is not to say it and forces them to give up or eliminates them but it does push them on the run, particularly in those instances where we are able to work with our allies to keep the pressure on them. a second element of the strategy, and again it is not a

total solution but it is certainly an important ingredient in the solution, is enhanced use of intelligence, better integration of intelligence and better use of some of the screening and scanning tools that we built up over the last several years that make it more difficult although not impossible, for bad people and that things to get into the country. let me just give you an illustration of this point. in 2001, if someone wanted to come into the country by flying into an airport, if they had a passport and if they had a visa that was pretty much all they needed to get into the country in the last line of defense was the border patrol, i am sorry, the border inspector the came face-to-face with the person seeking it mission looked at the papers, had a conversation or an interview and then made a judgment on the spot with the to it met the person or not. much has changed in the last 89 years.

first of all the process of getting people begins much earlier. not only do we have pieces in place that but we have the ability to correct commercial information from the airlines that tells us a surprising amount about the connections that travelers have with the people who fund them, the people who communicate with them and perhaps even common addresses. ..

years ago that we only intermittently took fingerprints from my and americans coming to the united states. now every nine american who comes into the united states gives his or her fingerprints of the border or if they get a visa degette his or her fingerprints when they get the fee set to be the value of this is not only that it better enables us to determine whether someone is using a false identity because we compare their fingerprints over a period what time with their travel documents, but we are now able to compare fingerprints with a latent fingerprints. that's to say the fingerprint residue we are able to pick up

unsafe hazards or battlefields all over the world. that means if someone has been in a safe house or has built a bomb and has put a finger print some place they have some risk that we will have lifted that fingerprint and reviewed to a database and we will be able to identify them even though we don't know their name. again, none of these is foolproof or perfect but the addition of each of these layers of security has dramatically decreased the threat from where it was. what has been the terrorist response? again it is to react and that is why you see increasing emphasis on the part of al qaeda and similar groups to recruit westerners, people without a prior record, people who are citizens of the country to which they are going to return. people who as far as the terrorists are able to determine haven't left traces around the world and that's why we increasingly need to not only update our capabilities but to

do a better job of sharing with our allies overseas to make sure that our information collection and analysis capability keeps track with the effort of the adversary to continue to avoid the various traps we have laid. in the area of protection we've also done a lot more than we've used to do. we have air marshal's now to a greater degree than we had before although not as many as we need. one area where i think we have simply not been as successful as we should be and not have the urgency we need is in the area of cybersecurity. only recently there was dramatized, series of intrusions into american companies that captured the attention of the public and the media but i want to tell you that the issue of interest in and to our secure systems and commercial systems has been a problem for years. we've talked about it for years. in 2007 and 2008, we launched a

comprehensive national cybersecurity initiative which was designed for the first time to bring together all the capabilities the american government and private sector to build a comprehensive way to deal with these cyber threats. president obama recognized the importance of this in one of his early speeches but it seems this effort has been somewhat becalmed and this is an area of we're failing to keep pace with the threat will result or could result in the virtual world to the kind of catastrophic loss we saw in the physical world on september 11th. finally i would like to know about the area of response which is the author of the three legs we typically talk about when we deal with the issue of homeland security. we talk about response because we recognize we can't prevent everything and we can't reduce or a eliminate every vulnerability and if we fail to prevent an attack and if an

attack in fact is successfully carried out the consequences that are felt will be a direct result of the amount of preparation we've put into response and mitigation. simply put if we can sustain an attack because we've mitigated the damage because we are reserving it to my basically blunted the attack and while it isn't as good as of right it is the best we can do. it was a good sample of this is the area of bio threats. we see a lot of discussion of biological threats that occur in nature whether it is avian flu or the h1n1 pandemic we saw began last year. but those that work in the area know that as troubling if not more troubling is the possibility of a biological attack. the wmd commission which is jointly chaired by senator gramm and talent recently issued a report in which they were quite critical of the status of our

preparation for dealing with a biological attack in this country. and if you look at this issue closely what you will see is that prevention is only one part of the strategy of dealing with a biological attack. unfortunately, the ingredients of a biowebinar in nature. the difference between the ability to launch an attack and an ability to launch an attack lies in the know-how of the person he was trying to carry out the attack. if you have the know-how and the capability you can get the ingredients relatively quickly. not only that, if you get the ingredients it is virtually impossible to prevent you from bringing into the country. you can fabricate the weapon negative version of a biological attack mechanism and small vial which we will be year unlikely to catch of the border. in fact you could affect somebody and send an infectious person across the border so how we deal with biological weapons

requires not only better detection the ability to respond with countermeasures effectively and quickly. if you look for an example of the possibility of an anthrax attack which this country did suffered in 2001 be it in a very small scale but he will recognize is we do have countermeasures that are effective against anthrax but they are only effective if you get them to people and a very short period of time. now we stockpiled the countermeasures, we know how to make them work so what is the obstacle to would be in my view a very important step in mitigation and response namely the ability to get people remedy or countermeasure quickly. the problem is we have ended build a delivery system that can move the countermeasures from the stock pile into the hands of people as quickly as possible. this is one of those examples of a problem which actually has a very easy solution if we have

the willingness to accept the solution. the solution is this. you simply take the counter measures we currently have and to distribute them in advance. you put them in schools, and fire hoses, and other public buildings. you may actually distribute them in advance to first responders, to people who are critical to the response eckert to public health officials and tell them to hold on to the countermeasures and if and when the time comes they have to be used you will communicate and people will use the countermeasures. that would in a fairly short order fashion eliminate the distribution problem for a large majority of the people that we worry about. the question is why haven't we done it? the answer is not because we haven't tried. we ran a pilot program a couple of years ago actually three years ago in the u.s. government to see whether this kind of advanced distribution but work,

whether people would respect the need to keep the countermeasures without using for some other purpose whether they would -- not whether they would lose the countermeasures or somehow misplaced them, and what we discovered after we in the pilot and checked back in about a year is much better than 90% of the people knew where the countermeasure was, had and misused in some fashion, hadn't lost it and in fact followed the instructions they were given. this ought to have been desperate for beginning a more widespread process of advanced distribution. unfortunately, some people in the medical community disagree with advanced distribution. they have a medical model which operates in ordinary times that says that you should not give prescription drugs to people unless the people have been seen by a doctor first and that is obviously a very good rule in ordinary cases.

it is not practical however in between the time that we learn of an anthrax attack and the time that within which we have to distribute the countermeasures to tell everybody to go see a doctor. that isn't going to happen. and so this is one of the areas i think we need to look at the traditional ordinary medical model and ask ourselves whether that works in the context of preparing for an emergency. this is something we urged pretty much literally through the last day of the bush administration and i hope it is something the current administration is taking it very hard look at the because the time that it will take before someone learns to what the negative anthrax or a similar type of biological weapon is much less than people would like to think and when that happens and i believe it will happen some point, if we have not taken the steps in advance and will be very unhappy day for the people who face what will be a catastrophic terrorist incident.

life me close by saying that i have no doubt that after the defense of the last couple of months, which have spiked interest in terrorism, that other issues will come on the public radar and the media will move on to different topics and in two or three or four months if we've been lucky enough not to have another effort to attack us, the issue of homeland security and terrorism will once again begin to recede from the public view. but in many ways it is that phenomenon, the waxing and waning of public interest that is the greatest challenge we face and homeland security. the kinds of responses and defenses we need requires sustained investment over a long period of time. it's not a matter of a flash in the pan response. it's a matter of building capability, training countermeasures and systems that take months if not years to put in place. if we keep our eye on the need

to have that sustained investment, i believe we can keep ahead of the enemy. but if our ability to sustain the investment depends upon whether somebody happens to be in news headline or not, and if our strategy is reactive, rather than anticipatory, then i fear there will come a point we will have an attack and our response will not be adequate. we have lived through that. it was called september 11th. nobody who was involved on that day in the government and had responsibility for dealing with terrorism will ever forget that feeling of frustration that occurred when the attack came and we didn't have the appropriate response in place, and i think everybody that lived through that understands the importance of not letting that happen again. thank you. [applause]

>> while we are waiting for the minister the circuitry has agreed to take questions and offer it answers. there is amana back with a microphone and i'm going to call people out and then have to bring the microphone to you. it's important because otherwise people can't hear you on the recording. we have a number of questions appear. let me start with the gentleman in the front row and then move over to this side. >> thanks for a much. my name is stephan auge. i had the pleasure of working for you with the dhs office of intelligence for awhile and subsequently a place in the state department called the counterterrorism communications center, which brings me to the point he made earlier in your speech about the recruitment of american citizens, like the fort hood attacked and so forth. the key to that appears to be willingness of muslims to accept

the al qaeda narrative, which is the united states is making more and killing muslims as a part of that. the counterterrorism communications center at state was designed to respond to that narrative and rebutted in significant ways, but i'm not sure i am seeing that kind of activity going on right now although i'm sure there is some within the intelligence community and the cia in particular. what i'm interested in your comment on that particular issue. >> it is a very important issue. i know people of the state park and have their heart in the right place. here's what my concern is. i think the most effective counter narrative comes from within the communities, within which terrorists tried to recruit. when people in the community pushback that actually has resonance and there are some positive developments. for example, a couple of years

ago, as our hearing held a town hall meeting on the internet and in the town hall meeting, he got quite a bit of negative reaction muslims and among others those who had seen the bombing in algeria of the school bus and asked him how it could be the killing innocent muslim school children advanced the cause of islam. likewise there had been some scholars who have supported the ideology of al qaeda have renounced it and ironically often renounced it because as one said when we see the reaction and the devastation caused in the muslim land there's a consequence of what we did baby it was a failed strategy. so within the community is where you want to build that capability. unfortunately, when the government doesn't it tends to have an inherently, create inherent skepticism in the part of the target audience. so to me i think the right

answer is to use our financial ability and assistance to seed the capability to the message out but we also have to engage with the community and say look, it is your sons and daughters getting pulled into this. it's up to you to make sure you give that counter meredith and counter the education. spec there's a gentleman over here in the corner. raise your hand again, sir, what you? >> i'm from the israel center. what i wanted to know from your experience about the dilemma between civil liberties and the need for security for the homeland because it's something i think you didn't address in

your speech and in israel it is a very big issue if we speak about the biometric database we start to implement and israel. how do you address when was the limit between the need for security and the need for civil liberties? >> welcome you know, this is an issue that is raised pretty frequently, and there's no question there are times you have to make some judgments about the trade-off between security and civil liberties. but i have to say a lot of times what is presented as a false choice. in other words what is viewed as a trade-off actually isn't much of a trade-off and i will use the example biometrics or fingerprints. i think the use of biometrics is a way to identify people or the use of secure identification, which some people view as an infringement on civil liberties. i actually think aníbal civil

liberties. anything that allows me to be confident that nobody can pretend to use my identity or masquerade as me. not only increases my security that actually increases my privacy because when people steal my identity they not only create a security risk but they actually invade my personal privacy and civil liberties. that's not to say that everything we do can be resolved by saying that it ferber's of the goal of security and civil liberties but in many cases civil liberties objections on closer inspection i think are not well-founded. now there are clearly times that we are required to put up with inconvenience and trouble in order to do with security issues for example nobody loves going through the magnetometer at the airport and taking your shoes off and having to a right to 30 minutes earlier than you would if you could just stroll into the terminal and walk onto the plane. i think we all recognize we

would rather get to our destination safely and make that minor sacrifice of 30 minutes. there's also clearly a point which you wouldn't sacrifice your civil liberties for security. but that is an issue that ought to be debated and of the public decides for the simple but there is some civil liberties they are not prepared to sacrifice that is well and good provided that we accept the consequences of that and often the debate doesn't involve that but involves people simply trying to assume a way or argue away the security benefit of a particular measure as a way of avoiding the tough choice. so i guess my bottom line is this: in many places what is perceived as a civil liberties threat actually on closer inspection i think it arguably enhances privacy and individual freedom. in those cases where it does we ought to have a serious discussion about how important it is to protect ourselves in

this particular respect. and if the public decides they don't want the protection, it's not worth it, that is well and good and we accept the consequences. what we can't do is assume away the problem or say it is never going to happen or try to pretend the security measure doesn't work because it's not perfect and it's those false arguments i think often plowed our ability to resolve these kind of the de lummis. >> there's a gentleman here. yes. keep your hand up so he can find you. >> my name is charlie, the council with the senate homeland security and michael chertoff, i want to thank you for your years of service in the capacities with our government. i want to first make an offer and then ask a question. one of the things we as a committee are looking at is how to deny access to firearms and explosives to terrorist suspects and how the watch lists might be married up to the attempted

purchases just to snuff out plots like some of the ones you've talked about and may be offline if you have time i would like to talk to about what your views are on that and whether we could work together on that. my question goes to your experience as a prosecutor and a judge and then as a secretary of homeland security or are your views about that the data that is going on now about how to detained and interrogated and prosecute terrorist suspects. >> well you know, i think what i'm going to say now was consistent with what i said when i was at the department of justice from to doesn't want 2003 and at the department of homeland security from 2005 to 2008. i believe first of all we are at war. i believe that means we use all of the tools in the toolbox. we don't use only military tools, we don't use only law enforcement tools. some tools are better served the because you did in certain circumstances and others other circumstances. if you look at what we did

during the years i was in the the bush administration we did use all the tools. sometimes we prosecuted people in court. sometimes we put people in the military system. sometimes we moved them from one to the other. it depended upon a lot of circumstances how serious the threat was, how efficacious one system was or another for various purposes. whether the person was a u.s. citizen or not tends to make a legal difference, and of course what the state of the law was because the law [chanting] free period of time and that required us to make adjustments. generally speaking, my view is you should never take any of these possibilities of the table. what needs to happen is the people making the decision to look carefully at the tools and assess what is the right set of tools and the right circumstance and then use them. i don't have a cookie cutter one-size-fits-all answer for each particular possibility. >> we understand that the

minister has landed so she hopefully will join soon. there's a gentleman here in the road if you can keep your hand, sir. come over to the front and then over to the site. >> i have around 37 students hear from israel as you heard from one and we've been debating with a variety of different people about the issue of the sources of the terrorist inspiration. the question has arisen to what extent will a settlement in israel and palestinians affect the central message. i'm allin lowden changes his message but his recent concern about global warming doesn't seem to designate quite as much as perhaps the anti-israeli message would be. in terms of the importance of a cylinder of that issue -- settlement of that issue how do you drink it? is it feasible? partial solution say exempting

the gazzo strip diplomatically hell do you view this issue as a big issue in fighting terrorism with the terms of this message? sprick the settlement of the middle east and passed between israel and palestinians would be a good thing and it would certainly remove some of the grievance for some people. but i think it is a mistake to believe there is any solution the screen to take this issue off the table, and again i return to the audiology in question. the source of grievances that have been cited by people counting on terrorist attacks is very long. we've had a number of cases where people put together plots to carry out bombings in denmark spurred by the fact that cartoonists in denmark had cartoons you to be insulting. so, you are never going to find enough things to give away to believe seagate the grievance is that some people are going to

have read that doesn't mean that it's not worth having a settlement. it will obviously eliminate a certain number of terrorist attacks in israel as well as a certain amount and grievance on the world. it would be a good thing for a whole lot of reasons. but i think we would be kidding ourselves if we believe that even a settlement between israel and palestinians would eliminate terrorist acts by some palestinian in hezbollah or hamas who nevertheless believe it is not enough. and likewise, we have had a rough settlement and cashmere for a period of time for decades now and never the less other groups continue to carry out terrorist attacks in india so unfortunately there is no magic bullet. nevertheless there is always value in reducing tension and there for as long as you are realistic about what the expectation is on the other side of that process is certainly worth pursuing. >> another question from the gentleman in the front row.

>> im mike levine with fox news. two questions. one is sort of jumping off a year earlier question. what is your overall is as much of the date itself about the current handling of terrorism cases? [inaudible] >> well, i mean i think it is worth discussing the the debate and issues like he's a good thing to close guantanamo? what are you going to do with the people there? what is that going to mean in terms of our ability to hold them? what would happen if they get released? those are all important and worthwhile things to be paid. sometimes the discussion degenerates into a i told you this, no, you didn't tell me that and that becomes a little bit more heat than light. but i think underlining this is a fundamental set of issues that hasn't been fully discussed. what is the vision about what do you do with guantanamo?

why should it be shut? what would you do with the people there if they were not able to be returned to their home country? how much risk are you prepared in taking them back to their home country? if you bring them to the u.s., where do you put them? what does that mean for the local community? we just saw an instance where initially there was a decision to send khalid sheikh mohammed to new york to be tried and all of a sudden the authorities said we were not consulted. this is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. so what this tells me is we need to have a serious discussion and debate before the week before some of the decisions are made and the second thing he tells me is that congress needs to do some work laying out the legal framework for how you deal with terrorism and the 21st century. some of that work has been done in some of the legislation that was passed. but for the simple we still don't have a set of procedures for dealing with detainees who

want to challenge their detention. the supreme court held a couple of years ago they are entitled to do it but the supreme court didn't set any rules up. recently judge janis of the d.c. circuit wrote a very powerful opinion saying it is time for the congress to tell us what role is as opposed to making the district judges fabricate rules or fashion the rules on a case by case basis. so to me there is a blog opportunity but obligation on the part of congress to put together a set of legal rules and legal framework that is going to sustain for the next ten, 20, 30 years. >> a follow-up to the question raised about the 9/11 trial for other quote, should stay open, questions like that. what are your thoughts on that? >> will the bush at ministration looked at the possibility of closing guantanamo. it is very hard life. there are a significant number of people there who are dangerous and still regard

themselves as at war with the united states in the west. some of them perhaps can be sent to home countries you can be confident will make sure the are incapacitated. sometimes aware for the raise legal objections to going back and you can't send them back. our position was and i believe it to be true you don't want to bring them into the united states. once to bring them to the united states soil they will have a series of flights were set of rights under the immigration laws that could put you in a very difficult position of being ordered to release somebody had not be able to deport them and i think the last thing we want to do is in port terrorism into the u.s.. again there is a solution for this. congress could step up to the plate and say here are the rules about what we are going to do with these detainees and we get a fair carefully thought out plan and strategy for how to deal with it. i haven't seen that yet and so under the circumstances i think

it is public good news the administration has put the brakes on closing guantanamo. but in the end we are still going to have to have this debate and we haven't had a debt. >> why do they need to step to the plate? why you think that hasn't happened yet? >> i remember attorney general mukasey sent a proposal to congress in 2008 to start to deal with some of these issues and it went nowhere. it is the hard issue to talk about because there's a lot of strong feelings on different sides of the debate but i will say this in the early part of the decade there was a lot -- commerce did step past the patriot act which was a good thing and maybe some of the appetite for getting involved in controversy diminished. that is to meet why we have elected officials. it's not to take easy decisions. it is to look at heart problems. there are members of congress

who are active in pushing of the congress to take this issue up. i know senter lindsey graham tried to get this on the agenda. senator mccain and people on the other sides of the aisle. but i haven't seen enough willpower yet and i am not enough of a student of congress to explain exactly why that is what i can tell you the clock is ticking and not making a decision in this case is going to be making a decision in the problem of a very good one -- probably not a very good one. >> a gentleman here in the front row. >> good afternoon, psychiatry chertoff. my name is todd wiggins operating under this eminem revival media which is a blog id one youtube. i would like to thank for the opportunity and i heard you were here and try to make to the last minute. i have first question followed by complementary sidebar. the question has to do with consolidation of the department of homeland security headquarters in southeast d.c.

of the west campus of st. elizabeth's. i have a colleague who is vehemently against that consolidation because he believes is not necessary because of the virtual technology that we now have that can spread resources around a region and perhaps cover from the security aspect of the organization more completely. he also does not believe that consolidating is good for the community although i disagree. but he doesn't believe also from the security standpoint that it's a good idea to have. all of your eggs in one basket so to speak. i wanted to ask you to speak to that and also before you answer i would like to compliment you in an abstract way. i attended an inauguration party and in january georgetown for dr. gallo and when you walked in and was equivalent to a los angeles opening or hollywood party to see with your friends and so on so i felt like i was arrived being the same party

that were there. thank you for a thrilling me in some ways. >> i'm glad to oblige. let me take the second issue first. we don't put all of our eggs in one basket. there will be a redundancy element built into the process of pulling headquarters to get there. there is redundancy in terms of our servers and cyber capabilities without getting into the classified matters there are redundancies in terms of key personnel and that is part of our continuity operations plan at the dhs. i do think there is enormous value in bringing the headquarters together. i can tell you the community by and large is very supportive of this leadership for the district. and frankly we looked at the possibility of building headquarters out in virginia or maryland and district really wanted to have that because they felt it could be the cornerstone of economic revival in the area including some additional transportation and additional

enhancement of the subway as well as the economic activity of the merchants in the surrounding area. i think in terms of security it has to be a very good location and as to the point that out whether you could have a virtual headquarters, i've been involved in a number of large institutions over the last ten or 15 years and i've always heard people talk about you don't need to be one place. everybody can communicate by e-mail or telephone and therefore we can be widely distributed. and it is true that to some extent e-mail and telephone to allow for a certain amount of virtual come yaki but i have to tell you with all of my experience i've never seen a substitute for face-to-face interaction. when you are in the room with people it is when you are on the telephone or video conference and human beings being what they are and maybe this is going to change in 50 years and we will all have avatars and everything

will take place in the second life the world in which we currently live, i found a real impediment not to have the leadership in one place to build a set of come realty and allow the kind of informal interaction that is part of building up a spirit of community in any organization. so, i am a very strong believer in the need to bring the headquartered components of the dhs into one place. i think it will be good for dhs and will build a unity of spirit and of eckert and i think it is going to build the local community quite a bit. >> all right. now i have a question in the corner and one next to the camera.

>> richard white, hudson institute. a question to you about the way the u.s. government is restructuring how would deals with the cybersecurity threats. as you know the administration did an extensive review and had to deal with several competing models about how you would distribute the roles and the missions for cyber defense especially on the civilian side in the united states. i wasn't sure how you assess the results and a brother you had any thoughts about which agencies should be most in trouble. >> i'm not sure we know exactly what the results are. i can tell you where we were as of 2008 when we put together the national labor secure strategy. it recognized there were different functions in cybersecurity. some are appropriate to the defense and intelligence community in terms of the domestic government what we call .gov. dhs had the authority and we thought should build the capability to manage that

process for the .gov domain. and also to interface with the private sector. the big challenge in the answer to your question is how to deal with said as a drain the private sector and i will offer a private opinion. i don't believe the u.s. government ought to sit on the internet and from the private-sector security except in a limited number of cases where certain private entities seek to have that kind of protection and because the government contractors are operating than in the military domain it is appropriate for the government to play that role. i do think we need to find a way i hate to use the word interface but happens to sit here, interface with a private sectors of the benefit of the government capabilities can be shared with private sector but without having the government actually operating in the private sector's domain directly. and i think that raises to use

-- make reference to the earlier discussion a civil liberties versus security trade-off which need to be probably not the best one. one model that i've suggested it's not the only model is to create trusted third parties, entities in the private sector that have proper classification levels and security clearances that can be the interchange between the government and the private sector in terms of come the necessary information and skills but not necessarily giving the government direct control over the levers of the private-sector. the architecture of how this is going to be developed is very complicated and could give rise to a lot of controversy. so again, i think it's something we would do well to debate and get out in the open. if there are people who believe the government should directly sit on the internet we ought to hear what that case is and maybe it's persuasive.

what i don't think is an option is to ignore its. it is a hard problem. one of the things i say in the book, and unfortunately it remains true when of the ways we deal with our problems in the government is to avoid them. it is the musical chairs pherae of government which is i know the music is going to stop some day and i hope i'm out of the room when a bus stops why don't fall down because i don't have a chair. that is a good model for a child's game and bad model for government. the hardest problems are the ones built be tackled. i think we took a good running start tackling cybersecurity in 2007 and 2008. i think the administration currently recognizes the problem and i know a lot of good work is being done. i do think though that we have got an increased tempo dealing with this problem because time is not on our side. >> we have a gentleman here by the camera.

>> are used be an intern. my question regarding cybersecurity and also the government can improve the power to deal with it. with cybersecurity it seems with dhs i always become a reactionary agency. now it becomes a bigger issue and you need more people to start doing the job. going forward what do you think of a good idea of the dhs being a head? it is something with the fbi or the justice department -- issues you wouldn't need a linguistic people than you go forward looking for people what are they, good things are powers technique they can put forward kind of how people -- sprick deride there's a tendency in the government for people to be reactive and my original point

when i was speaking was all too often it seems our strategy is driven by what is in the head line last week. in the area of cybersecurity i will say in 2007 and 2008 we began the process of taking a hard look at where we were and where we ought to go. we had done things before 2007 that we had a sense there was a lot more that could be done. i always get asked the question or used to get asked the question who is in charge and it is a complicated question to answer because at one level in the federal government the president is in charge of the white think presidents are often surprised to find there are limits on their power not only within the federal branch but also dealing with state and local government and private sector. in the civilian domain where you deal with a lot of divided authority among different agencies, what we find generally works is a degree of

coordination with someone standing as a coordinator but not necessarily being the commander of all of the assets and that is because the legal framework tends to divide power and all kind of good reasons to do that as opposed to centralizing. that being said, i think the conclusion we've reached a in 2008 was that it was worth having a court later in the civilian side. dhs had authority and relationship with private sector to be the appropriate place to put that. i think the intelligence community and military were quite happy to have the dhs be the interface with a private sector but at the same time there was a period commission that we needed to bring together all of the elements of the community. intelligence, military and dhs and the department of justice so they could coordinate their activities together and that we would do that through a cybersecurity center which what kind of be the focal point for

this kind of effort. it's an architecture that is designed to give you a unity of effort will you do not have unity of command. i still do not fear is the right model. some people suggest the white house ought to be the operator of all of this all the writing of the white house is appropriate as a policy-making location. experience has shown that when the white house, and this is not specific to any particular administration. when the white house becomes an operator that's usually a rescue for some serious kind of problem and you don't want the white house being in operator particularly in the area of cyber where you're dealing with issues very delicate from the political standpoint that is my suggestion we stick with basic architecture and put together in 2007 and in 2008. it seems to me from what i've observed of the current administration that they are more or less in the same place.

they have a sidebar coordinator in the white house but it seems to me this is somebody who is going to be a policy-making coordinator and not an actual operator which i think is probably the right decision. >> the gentleman of the we in the back with his hand up. >> [inaudible] mr. chertoff, it's good we had this opportunity to talk to you more than just a one-way lecture because another speaker hasn't come in so i congratulate hudson and the moderator for his not taking a public and ask new questions. you've mentioned that one of your first top priorities of the solution is abroad in a foreign country which means more war

which in my opinion i've been in this country since 1970 and this country has always been somewhere or the other in terms of military operations and my opinion is a lot of that does cause a source of terrorism or has a germination of feelings that lead to the confines of the terrorist. given that and you're putting the high priority that the u.s. would continue to be in some kind of a war for ever and not go into isolation my personal feeling after watching this country from 1970 to today it is better if the united states went into isolation for some decades maybe 20, 30 years. >> welcome to know here is the lesson of 9/11. it was the time of may 50, 60, 70 years ago people argued that the two oceans protect the united states and we could isolate ourselves. in 9/11 of the reasons it was a

pivotal event in american history is the first time of american history maybe since the war 1812 fi enemy came on to our shores and found us and the was it very vivid lesson that isolationism is not an option. you can't retreat far enough to isolate yourself. let's look at the historical fact. 9/11 occurred before we were in afghanistan, before we were in iraq. there wasn't guantanamo. all of the things which are sometimes cited as being spurs to recruitment or inflaming people against us, those things didn't exist prior to 9/11 with the embassy bombings in east africa. they didn't exist prior to the u.s. siskel. in the 1990's, we were basically minding our own business. you know, and bin laden's original grievance is we went to saudi arabia to help defend kuwait against invasion by

saddam hussein. for those who believe that we somehow cause these things we would have to pull out of the entire world and even then if you look at the plot against the cartoonists in denmark we have to start to sense your work television, since your our books and newspapers. we will never be able to appease enough to satisfy the people who want to strike us. so, i have to say the experience we have seen in either having ourselves or allies strike against safe havens has been that has produced very positive results, and frankly again if i go back to even some of the ideologues who have now turned against al qaeda even though the original the support of the ideology, one of the things they cite as a cause for their turning against al qaeda has been a strong reaction that came to afghanistan and the fact that

the community al qaeda is operating actually suffered and they launched an attack in against the u.s.. so i'm a believer soft power is important. i also believe hard power is important as well. and you cannot expect the commander with respect of the world if you are not prepared to defend yourself. against others to come looking for trouble. >> i know i compliment for being quiet but let me ask one question of the chair if i might. mr. secretary, when you were in office one of the big issues that came up was immigration reform. your president was in favor of it into a strong congressional leadership that was in favor of it and it was difficult to get done. now the current ad ministration with its strong democratic leadership said the one to take this on and your successor is charged with trying to carry this forward. do you have any advice on tackling immigration reform, just sort of your perspective on what might be done to move this forward and why it is important

or perhaps why we shouldn't talk with at this time? >> this is a question of the legislative process than it is homeland security. i would say the lesson i learned from our experience in 2007 his first of all there is a comprehensive bill that i think would satisfy most people on both sides of the oil but not everybody and certainly significant minorities on either side object for diametrically different reasons. the one lesson i take away from our experience or a couple of lessons which i think are reinforced by what i've seen the last year parties, first of all i think it was very important to push with enforcement notwithstanding the failure of the comprehensive approach because i think what enforcement was designed to do and has done to a significant extent is to demonstrate to the american people we come to you and ask you to allow us to find a way to

accommodate some of the people who are here illegally or some of the temporary worker program. we better convince you we are prepared to enforce the law we the way it is now. in other words we are not going to simply come up with some kind of a proposal and then failed to enforce the parts that are hard and just go with parts that are easy. so i think the down payment on credibility which came with enforcement is hugely important in setting the table for this. that's one of the reasons why i think it was remarkably important to finish building that cents. we said we wanted to build 650 miles of the fence along the southern border. i believe there are now 643 miles that have been built. and it was very hard to get that done. there was a lot of the legal objection, a lot of complaining from the local communities on a kind of not in my backyard pherae and there was frankly a

lot of ideological position. but the fact is congress voted for it, congress funded, and by getting it done we demonstrated to the american public that when we commit to something we can live for up to the command and. this the first lesson. you've got to show you are prepared to live up to your commitments. the second lesson is on the other side of the spectrum on the reform side we did think it was important to deal with a problem comprehensively but it strikes me we may be better off in the future dealing with in stages in other words one slice of reform first. see what goes and then go to the next slice of reform. one of the things i think even the current health care debate demonstrates is that although in theory a big problem needs a comprehensive solution is very hard to persuade people who are naturally and perhaps appropriately skeptical about government to do everything all at once. sometimes a big meal is best

digested byte by byte and so i might suggest taking a look at the proposal and beginning for example with a couple of slices, temporary worker program, some kind of a temporary visa program for people who are here illegally but whose mother was committed a violation. but instead of immediate pathway to citizenship, give them a three or four year temporary visa, have a temporary worker program and see what works and then it to go back to the american public and say this has worked three or four years now that's extended or modified perhaps you get a better audience. >> excellent. there is a young lady here. >> my name is nina, second used in israel. i also serve in reserves for the medical corps but the home front command. and you mentioned before handing out medicine for civilians, for

citizens. we actually do something most of the citizens get a gas mask and syringe that has adrenaline but you can't distribute any medicine to any disease out there and my question to do is of the measurements we are taking in the airport's some of my professors claim and i agree it only escalates the terror because the moment you are achieving -- when you stop that they find another way. >> two questions. the first is the happens to be a relatively small number of countermeasures that address most of the things we worry about a biological threat. saddam door right you don't have an infinite number of medicines, but we could eliminate 80 to 90%

of the problem pretty easily with a small number of countermeasures which would be very easy to distribute and for those who are uncomfortable putting it in the hands of each family at a minimum you could put it in firehouses and schools and local town halls. this is an issue which i have to say it astounds me we haven't been able to do this. there's a lot of interest in the last administration in doing it. the medical and public health, and he was strongly opposed. it's one of the great lessons when you learn that sometimes presidents can't do what they want to do because there's institutional brakes on it. but in this case it is so important to do and the argument against it is so well-founded -- bill founded in my view. we have the countermeasures enough to invent them, the stockpiles. you literally just have to distribute them. we could do within a month or two and would take a huge burden

off of the response capability. on the issue of what we devote to aviation your right, we can't do it in the area of the subway what we do in aviation. we can't do it in the area of the shopping mall what we do in aviation. it's true aviation is a particularly high-value target. all we can do is try to balance by putting in the appropriate level of countermeasure for what we think the threat is based upon a consequence of an attack and based upon how likely we think it is someone wants to carry out the attack. as technology increases we will have better ways of dealing with explosives and subways or explosives in shopping malls. what we are not there yet. so all we can do in the meantime is use whatever countermeasures' we have in those areas. but in bidding to the argument is a common argument that we face in homeland security which

is the perfect enemy of the good. because you're countermeasure isn't perfect it isn't worth doing it at all and a great example is the christmas day bombing which obviously was a failure in the sense that someone got on a plan with a bomb that was concealed in their underwear but recognized in many ways it was a forced error on the tourists because the countermeasures and the security we have enough police force the terrorists to put together a device that is in fact difficult to get the lead could detonate, not impossible. if we didn't have anything we have in place now they would have wallsten with a pre-made bomb very simple to operate and it would have blown the plan up, so even though the dustin of december 25th this we have more to do there's also a lesson we've already done quite a bit and i think it is that balance we have to keep in mind when we look at the issue how much security is enough.

>> excellent. let me also in the hopes the next speaker will a arrive sometime one of the things i know she has looked at and you had experience with the olympics coming up at the end of the week we in vancouver on the order you were experienced with the super bowl in detroit right on the border also. what would you say is the extent of cooperation in these big yvette corydon security alleges? are we getting better than and do you have any hope that the olympics will be coming off pretty well this time? >> we've had phenomenal cooperation with the canadians across the board, not just in sporting defense but also day-to-day security across the border. when you have these large sporting events we have various levels of security ranging up to what they call a national security especially that which is the highest level of

security. enormous amount of work is done in advance in preparing the infrastructure for security in those kind of the events. there's intelligence collection, there is planning with respect to how do you monitor who comes into the sports press. they put an air cap on to make sure people are not flying planes and accounted for in the aerospace. there are biological and radiological response capabilities in place. there's a huge amount of stuff done behind the scenes and deliberately obscured because you don't want to spoil the eve and by making it into a technology chauffeur security devices. so we do in all of lot of work redundant for each of the u.n. general assembly's. we've done that for each of the super bowls and we did for the inauguration which was a huge security effort out of the planning which began three or four months in advance. and when we have these cross border defense we work closely

with the canadians in order to make sure we've covered both sides of the border. >> other questions, comments? there's a gentleman here in the front row. >> george washington university. mr. secretary, thank you for your time and service. recently the president's choice to head tsa with the nomination amid controversy about his position on the unionization of the tsa workers i'm wondering what your view is on the effective unionization on homeland security personnel as somebody that has obviously had the top job. >> the administration's position was a post under president bush was to oppose unionization of tsa. in particular because typically if a work force is unionized any changes conditions have to be dealt with negotiated and often

we saw this in 2006 when we had the airline bombing plot in london or to change things quickly. and so the need to bargain or get to the grievance process becomes an impediment. we did work hard to try to elevate morality in tsa and create mechanisms for feedback because the point of avoiding unionization isn't because we don't care about them are -- moral of the officers because we do what we want to operate in a nimble matter. it isn't unionized because you don't want to have marines going in grievance when they get sent overseas. i know the current administration has a different view on this. i don't know that the tsa nominees withdraw was related to that. i think other issues cannot. the one thing i would say is we have had a delay in filling these spots, not only the head of the tsa but the head of

customs and border protection. we are now over a year into the new administration. again, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. within reason any president is entitled to have his or her own people in the top spots. and i would encourage everybody involved in this process to get these jobs filled as quickly as possible. ..

the fbi presides over a the process of the terrorist screening database of the every agency gets to have some participation through decisions made about who gets on to what listen terms of how dangerous they are and than that becomes the database on which everybody else dross. but it is important to say also that dhs and generates its own intelligence. for example for our border process we have retargeting center that uses information from the intelligence community as well as information we collected the border ourselves and integrates that in order to determine who comes into the country. and notwithstanding the fact that again no system is perfect if i went back on where we were

in 2001 and see where we are now, we are hugely better. not only collectively but integrated lee and our analysis is better, our stovepipes have been largely eliminated. and human error remains as with any endeavor, still part of what we have to deal with so any time there is a failure as there was on december 25th, it is an opportunity to go back and look again at all the layers of security and that that is i think appropriately with the current secretary is doing in the administration is doing. >> i currently work for dhs and i thank you for your contribution. how do we defend against supporting or adding our support to countries like yemeni and

others to help train them and help defend our issues with terrorists when they are a developing country? hogue bartee you go and how much do you depend that they won't use this against the? >> that is a great challenge and one of the problems we have traditionally come and you see it in pakistan nuc and other parts of the world, it is you have to work with the countries in the government's and the country's that are the locations where the problems arise. those countries may have ambivalent attitudes to the u.s.. notch as the government but the population, so there's always a concern about blowback, are you giving capabilities to countries that could turn on us? i think that is where building a deep set of relationships with the countries you are working with matters a great deal. it is not fashionable to say that personal relationships matter but they do and i think

when we are able to build up a deep understanding of the countries we are working with because we put people in place, they build up a sense of trust. i think then we are better situated to calibrate the amount of help and the kind of help we give. i think in many ways that is the strategy general petraeus used in iraq is getting people in the local population connected up with the military in an ongoing basis, not that the military sorted out of an outpost interactive for a few minutes and went back but you literally have that back and forth and change that in many ways builds the kind of trust that allows to understand how to tailor the strategies of the locals. there is an old piece of advice that in many parts of the world, what people value most when you come by for a cup of tea and you don't want something and over that process to develop a trust that enables you and the and to

do some kind of business and i think that is really what we have to do in places like yemen and other parts of not only the region but the world at large. >> we have the gentleman in the back. it will take a minute to get there. >> thank you mr. chertoff. i respect your answer that you gave to my question. however i disagree with that on one ground. recently i heard a little interview of gore vidal who may not be one of your favorites. he defined u.s.a. as the united states of amnesia, so your historical perspective that you gave to justify foreign intervention in my opinion is part of that, you know. basically there were lots of

problems in 1991 in 92 when he said there was an attack. some of the old problems with the israeli-palestinian problems were festering for could there were other interventions in this afghanistan problem that we are talking about now, the whole incubation of the terrorist in that area was funded thanks to the united states and the cia. then the russians were in afghanistan, so those are the elements that have now turned on the united states, so i guess i don't know what to elaborate on it too much but there is a history there. >> well, i guess really, this is my recollection one that gore vidal is not even sure we should've been in world war ii so they are people who have a very different view of world history. i don't share that view. >> we really appreciate you up been so kind and so generous in sharing so many of your views with us here today. this has been a tremendous opportunity for change and also to get a preview of what is

available in your book which we hope everyone will go out and purchase for a low price available to all this booksellers. >> and amazon.com. [laughter] >> thank you secretary chertoff very much for coming and thank you all for coming as well. [applause] for those of you who would like to have your book signed, the secretary is available if you are interested. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> last week palestinian and israeli journalists discuss the israeli-palestinian conflict with members of the knesset. the event was hosted by the mideast press club and speakers included the israeli deputy foreign minister and the speaker of the knesset. some of the questions and answers are in arabic and hebrew and translated into english. this is an hour and ten minutes. >> alright. greetings, shalom and welcome to this very special session of the mideast press club. i am the president and ceo of the media vine and nonprofit american news agency and i just want to say that it is wonderful

to have each and every one of you here despite how difficult it was this morning in getting into the knesset. i am proud to open this section of the mideast press club. please turn off your cell phones and want to take a moment to just acknowledge their board members that are here today. many are sick. you can hear from my voice unfortunately. can you please stand up? david rube binger. these are some of the distinguished board members that are on the board of the mideast press club. the mideast press club brings local israeli and palestinian journalist together. we invite members of the foreign press to our session to observe and to chronicle and so i would like to a knowledge the chairman

of the foreign press association. please stand up. connie, thank you for coming today. it is really an honor to have the. i also want to thank our distinguished guest will be addressing this today. and offer my special thanks and the impressive array of editors and pierre rajiv sedar here today, thank you very much for being here. it is about democracy, folks in be in the media profession there an awesome responsibility. no institution is more a real relationship with democracy than the press and all of its modern, with all of its modern manifestations from blogs to anemia. being here today unsighted israel's knesset is testimony to its democracy. actually i don't think we could have accidentally made 500 phonecalls and send the hundreds of e-mails that it took to pull this all together.

but if democracy is in any part judged by press freedom, that freedom demands access and today the palestinian participants of the mideast press club are being granted the access so necessary in order to fulfill their journalistic rules and so necessary for israel's own sense of a democratic process. and for this i thank and i applaud speaker rivlin hill i hope will still join us today, a member of knesset who did so much to make this happen and all of our participants to clear their calendars to be here today because they do indeed realize how important today's event is. when we created the mideast press club in 2005, we were concerned that interaction and cooperation for casualties of the intifada. reporters on both sides were denied access by the other and

without access complete stories could not be told. committees press club began to rebuild communication by reintroducing members of israel's press corps and to their palestinian colleagues, palestinian rioters to their israeli colleagues. we held advance, we chartered buses to bring colleagues together in tel aviv and ramallah. today with the help of the knesset speaker rivlin, minister of minorities, deputy foreign minister, deputy speaker and member of knesset, chairman of the foreign affairs and defense committee for taking a giant step forward as palestinian participants of committees press club bar here is invited guests free to interface with a cross-section of political thought. this is a very key point today. our palestinian members are being welcomed by a single lawmaker but by the speaker who carries with him the imprimatur

of the state and representatives of the major parties. ladies and gentleman you can't be more official in this. yet some will no doubt see a glass that is half-empty and a sign blame for the fact that palestinian journalists have not been regular participants among press covering events here. but this historic inevitable need to push and we are delighted to do the pushing. as an american organization, the media bonus precht once again offer its good offices in support of democracy. and that is the theme of today's session. symbols of democracy, speaking for the record. we are meeting today in the most visible and tangible manifestation of the israeli democracy, the knesset. we are joined by the most necessary and irreplaceable figure of nascent palestinian democracy, the free and independent force of state. this is dave is going to accompany the palestinian people

into statehood and we want to welcome speaker rivlin. thank you for being with us. in all honesty, the first session of the mideast press club for marked by apprehension and caution as attendees from both sides openly question what was to be gained by their participation. it was only after several sessions and a whole lot of exchanging business cards and cell phone numbers that be of realized how productive it is to have a colleague strategically placed to answer questions. rendell mcceachin evin supply sources all in time to meet a deadline and i am sure we all can relate to that. the mideast is an amazing laboratory for the study of democracy and even the most cursory of valuation can be quickly accomplished by looking at the nation's press freedom and that degree to which its media infrastructure creates a

system of checks and balances on its political leadership. at this time i want to call upon knesset member to offer his greetings but before i do, i just have to take a moment to thank minister for being here. i know something came up then you are not going to be able to stay so let's take one moment for you to say a couple of words. >> mr. speaker, my distinguished colleagues, deputy foreign minister and the one and only one, one of our most influential and when i used to go and visit when i was there, i knew i had protection because i was together with mr. kibbe. i apologize because in the five minutes that director-general of the oecd, the finance minister

gathered in the cabinet for a meeting which i didn't know yesterday i had to participate. i will just say two words. yes israel's democracy is a vibrant democracy. yes we have to fight for democracy every day, the way the speaker is fighting, the way we all are and that will say one piece about the israeli-- i feel that while the israeli, 20% of the population voting and the standard of living in palestine and the neighboring countries, this government, which i hope my intention and the prime minister talked to me that by the end of this month we shall see also in the meeting of the oecd, a meeting with decisions of the

government to change essentially the location for the israeli arabs-- only at beared of the to a large extent because government did not give the same allocation of resources. i believe if you are for what we call the order, people from the liberal right or if you are from the left or the center, this is something that should be done. it is not only just, it is not only bold to prove that we are practicing what we preach but it also is good for the and good for the economy because the growth of israel and the future will be based not only on some democratic system but based on to populations that are essentially have to be moved, but the arab population of 20% is eager to participate fully in

the labor force and all the power and by all my intention, and i believe all of the members here believe in that, and i do only my power that indeed is the prime minister by generally when the meeting will come in the meeting should only be a declaration because declaration -- only by location of resources and my last point, the prime minister and myself and is seriously businessmen to days before the president went to the netherlands. many of the leaders, i say all of the meters-- leaders say we have to commit ourselves in israel to a new deal concerning the israeli arab population. this ces of the large corporations it meant that they didn't do in the past which should be done and again 2010 is a critical year.

i believe it is a historical paradox and dye said you have to follow the path. divide the holy land into two states, that is required. palestinian leadership and equality of partnership will lead to the israeli arabs not only-- i apologize and if you continue i will come to answer questions after the meeting with the finance minister and secretary general. [applause] >> thank you mr.. he is a professor as well. he was a president of ben gurion university and minister of minorities. at this time i want to call upon the member of the knesset to offer his greetings and we

decided the time is right for this session. he immediately saw the important then did what they could to make this happen. let's just shirky words about him. and member of knesset he has served in the knesset for more than 20 years during which time he has held numerous senior positions in governments including several ministerial portfolios. he currently chairs the foreign affairs committee and holds degrees in international relations and law. thank you very much. >> thank you. i like to welcome the chairman and now the speaker of the house and made a special effort to be here with us today and want to welcome all of my colleagues and

of course all of the journalists that are here today. talese the fine me as the host of today's event. it is true and we have hosts and we have guests and muslims and christians and jewish people. we have parliamentarians from both the coalition in their position, but put aside the distinctions and the differences and you will find all of us here share a common vision. we are all really united. we are united because we have a common commitment to preserve and enhance the palestinian is really dialogue. this is what unites us all and we are not presumptuous to take the role of the negotiators.

we don't have the authority nor the skills for that, but our decision to initiate this unprecedented even today marks our recognition that israeli and palestinian media can have a huge importance and influence on the peace process and on the future of both peoples. millions of israelis and palestinians would not personally sit in the negotiation rooms and don't sit at the negotiation table but they read the newspapers and they listen to the radio and they watch television and the surf the net, so with israeli and palestinian journalists will get to know each other better, consumers will gain a better understanding of our two societies. once in his really pelham-- reporter can communicate in an

open matter, they will be able to describe the fears and frustrations and hopes of those people in the most genuine spirit. the way to peace and reconciliation passes through a fair and objective media. one that can serve as an honest mediator of facts ideas and emotions. this is why the work of mideast club and the media line is so crucial. this is why i accepted this challenge and agreed to host today's meeting and this is why i encourage you all to proceed relentlessly in your vital activities and eventually they will they are historic frishe. i wish us all a very fruitful and successful deliberations. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. you are unbeatable. >> i actually have a gift for you. >> thank you of very much. >> mr. speaker allow me. first of all, speaker rivlin is one of israel's most senior political leaders and i would venture to say one of the most respected. his determent speaker of the knesset has been marked by the commitment to the democratic process and we really thank you. i have here a letter for you, and i hope that you will recognize this today as a historic day and i'm going to read to you what it says. to the honorable rivlin on the professional pies report i am membership of the mideast press club it is my privilege to extend our gratitude and appreciation for hosting this historic session at the knesset.

the press club initiative of the media blind news agency was created out of the need to foster communication and cooperation among professional journalists regardless of and in spite of the political climate. based on the axiom that the complete story cannot be written lse rusheed this eaks to write that story has access to all sides. committees press club was created at a time when israeli and palestinian journalists had no opportunity to chase down any leave conduct an interview or even uphold the men and women on the opposite street because of the unbridled violence. mr. speaker although barriers to complete reporting are not as great as they once were obstacles to continue along with tensions in napper hanson's they said they remain. your unhesitating willingness to oppose this historic meeting complete with the presence of the leading palestinian journalist alongside their israeli counterparts pays tribute to this body and to its

speaker. realizing the in exorable when between democracy and free press, you have to date taken a significant step towards the enhancement of the media coverage of this region and a better global understanding of the complicated issues by virtue of the resulting enhancement of the journalism practiced here. in appreciation of their efforts i am and your commitment to a democratic process on the 19th day of january, 2010, we thank you. >> thank you very much. >> chairman of the defense and foreign affairs committee, the deputy minister, deputy speaker of the knesset, dear guess i welcome you to the shrine of the israel democracy, the israeli parliament, the knesset, and i must say that most of the

compliments that were addressed to me to this letter i think it is a very important one. israel is the jewish democratic state and by this very definition we have a conflict. a conflict that we stand behind, the conflict between between the idea of the jewish state with the right of return to the jewish state only to braverman well we have here among those people who were born in the historic land that believe there is the homeland and we have to find a way in order to breach between the idea of israel as the jewish state and israel as a democratic state. sometimes, it is almost unreachable, and we have a

debate. we have the debate between jews and arabs, between jews and muslims. we have a debate between the jews and the jews because the definition of the jewish state, what does that mean? jewish state according to the bible, according to the judicial ideas of the orthodox people on the jewish side, and the same idea, how come we can say that it is a jewish democratic state not one of the members of the knesset can change this division to define israel as a jewish state and at the same time to say that no one can change the nature of israel as a democratic one. and that this what i say to a lot of confrontations, a lot of

debates, a lot of differences of opinion but nevertheless everyone of us. also those who are not socialists because i have no ability to patronize any one because i was brought up as a non-socialist. that caused me a lot of-- because i could see that everyone is a human being and although i believe in the right of the jews to create their own state, and to return back to the homeland, we have a lot of thoughts, because of that conflict because this is a conflict between two people. both of them are absolutely believing they are on the right side. and, i would like to say one thing. here in my family came to israel 200 years ago, only because my

ancestors believed they should not operate to jerusalem three times a day but they should go and live in jerusalem. and they have left the diaspora, at the time russia and they have come to jerusalem only because they say why should we pray every day three times? we have returned back and we have found all of our friends, all of our neighbors, very good neighbors and very good friends here in jerusalem although we had some ups and downs. and we learned to understand that we are not doomed to live together, not in the middle east and not in israel. were sent to live together and we have to find a way to live together. sometimes we have differences of opinion about the way. i have a very good relationship with all the palestinian israelis who are serving in the

knesset, but at the same time, our ideas almost unbridgeable. nevertheless, we know very well that there is no way to depart us, that there is no way for us but to learn how to live with the conflict or to find a way in order to live with that. i will-- unfortunately this is a day that we have our annual meeting with all the high court judges in israel and i apologize that i will have to leave this forum although i would be delighted to hear what you have to say. welcome once again to the knesset, a shrine of israel democracy. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much speaker ruvin rivlin and thank you for

your time and very important thoughts that you shared. step before the minister danny ayalon was elected ambassador to the united states but before that he advised prime minister of foreign policy. deputy minister ayalon detering twip political career, it's a good leadership as chairman of the international organization and is well-known in his current position. member knesset danny ayalon, plea shahri few words. thank you. >> thank you felice. good morning. the honorable chairman of the defense and committee of the knesset, the honorable tibi and deputy speaker of the house, felice and michael ferguson, media line i want to congratulate you for this great initiative and for all your work

that you are doing every day. i also welcome the board of media line and member of the press, the israeli press, arab palestinian press and international press. i think that such events are the most significant in really achieving what we are trying to achieve here, which is peaceful reconciliation, which is really coexistence, dignity among everybody, and justice among everybody infinite duest on a people-to-people leval it is much more significance. it is longer lasting, hopefully everlasting, then just protocols or agreements between rovers or governments. as the speaker of the house said here, we are destines the live here together and they think that living here to get there will be much better for all of us in terms of sharing

resources, in terms of the building a future together, in terms of in a way burying the past without forgetting it, that burying it would be much better if we all believed that this is not a zero-sum game and unfortunately, at this point, i am not sure that all of us, and i am not blaming anyone side here because this is not the idea here but i'm not sure people understand that this is not a zero-sum game. i think that by reconciliations, by working together, everybody will understand-- stands to gain. now, let me tell you one thing which may be a little bit provocative but it is not. when i hear that the goal, everybody says the goal now is a

two-state solution. i am sorry to say this does not really speak to me. it does not really speak to me because it is so narrowly defined. it is so narrowly defined because a two-state solution could be anywhere and everywhere and if you don't but the real content to it, this is meaningless. i say that their real definition of our objective should be peace, should be historic reconciliation between palestinians and israelis, between arabs and jews. throughout the middle east, this should be their real goal, the goal should be peaceful coexistence, dignity, justice and security to all, which will bring prosperity to all. now, if, if the way to the school of real peace is through

a two-state solution, let it be a two-state solution, which is fine. but don't put this as the panacea to all the problems, because the panacea to all the problems is once respect each other, and i to understand that at this point, because emotions may be are too high, we cannot really discuss effectively the past. palestinians have their narrative. they have the right for their own narratives justice juice and israelis have the right for their own narratives. i do say to many of my palestinian friends at this point, there's really no point to argue about the past. we will never agree. let's deal with the future together. we can build a future together and if you look at what this government did from day one, april 1st of last year, nine

months, we went a long way. first by realizing that two-state solution is the way to achieve the peace that we all want. congressman netanyahu started with the historic speech i may say it because it comes from a the could prime minister about it to states solution. then it went on by reiterating this and by trying to move forward in terms of bringing the palestinian to the table and sit and discuss everything, but everything together all the tough issues of refugees, of jerusalem, of territories, of everything else without any preconditions with open minds and open heart. let me tell you hear that the leadership roles, the leadership

world today is to really bridge the gap between the national dreams and visions of their people and reality. these goals for palestinian leader as well as-- leaders. i will not speak for palestinian leaders and i would be happy to later discuss it, but of course i am not authorized to speak about it so let me just tell you about the israeli leadership in the last 16 years. the last 16 years of the peace process that started in 1993. if you recall, it started with the joint declaration of recognition between the plo signed by arafat and by then israeli government signed by the then late prime minister, yitzhak rabin. it was a mutual recognition and also a commitment by both sides to solve all the differences in a peaceful way, a dignified way.

no more terrorism, no more violence. this was the initial recognition of each other and this was the cornerstone for the entire political process which was to ensue later on. now, if you look at the israeli position from day one, 16 years ago until now, there was an evolution, almost on a daily basis because it is quite customary. it is natural. it is understandable that when two sides sit together, there are very, very tough opening positions. this goes for business. this goes for politics. this goes for diplomacy. almost everything in life. you want to buy an apartment, the seller wants to put the highest price in the buyer wants to put the minimum price and then somehow they bridge to get there and they meet halfway.

if you look at the israeli position from 1993 on, when there was a consensus in '93, and if you took pols and 93 about a palestinian state, i would submit to you that probably 75% of israelis would deny the possibility or with very much object a palestinian state. this was back in 93. if you fast-forward to where we are today, i would say that 75, maybe even more, if the security and the right terms are achieved , 75 and more percent of israelis believe and accept a palestinian state. this is an enormous enormous change that did not happen just by chance. it happened because successive

israeli governments from the right or from the left educated the people, worked at a solution which again would be a real reconciliation, an historic peace between arabs and jews here in this really very small piece of land for all of us. so, we did some real steps, and they take some pain in elaborating it because i think there's a chance here to explain to our palestinian friends to see how it is from our perspective. the more we share this commodore perspective and our perspective without filters of noise from all kinds, i think this is the better so if you look from '93, as i said, to now, israel first

signed in 94 n95, creating the palestinian authority who gained control over more than 50% of the land. certainly all of the populated areas, the six major towns in somalia or the west bank with almost full authority. later on, we signed more agreements, which we also carried out, and there were talks about an agreement, a two-state solution, evacuation of settlements. is it time to go? i just guarded now. >> we have to leave time for questions and answers. this is a start. >> you heard it here. >> yes. i would also like to greet

mr. tibi about other things. israel is trying to do a lot of things including the settlement of the declaration in gaza, including talking about sharing the land, including a settlement freeze. maybe it is not perfect as you like it but i always say, as you say in washington the enemy of the good is the perfect. let's settle for the good here and as we say now we are moving to discuss everything. i wish also that we would see the same kind of a preparation of the public in terms of acceptance of the other side possibility, legitimacy, rights to be here and they think this is the key. if we agree on that and if we agree that this is not a zero-sum game, then this guy is a limit. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you debt bb4 minister danny ayalon.

mr. tibi was born in-- in studied medicine in jerusalem. dr. tibi is one of the knesset's most recognizable figures as a leading voice among arab intellectuals. he has participated in international negotiations and had suggestions of finding israel as a multiculture country. mr. tibi, a member of the set and also the deputy speaker. please. >> thank you felice. i would like to thank you a lot about this unique gathering of the israelis and palestinians, journalist and palestinians here at the knesset. all this raises journalists were able to arrive but not all palestinian journalists were able to arrive.

one from gaza is here. no one from gaza was permitted. part of this from the west bank were also prevented from arriving here. only one representative was allowed, and the editor-in-chief is european i think. i hope he will be-- american. he is at the airport, for more than four days, more than that. >> five days. >> i hope he will be released. this is the place in order to call in a loud voice to soon release him and to allow his free access, whatever he wants as a journalist.

i can't start this gathering, this meeting without, to say that i feel euphoric, sitting much more higher than you then with your desk and by podium, but i think you can feel-- >> at least nobody throws shoes said us. >> not here. it is very unique to be in israel. it is much more guinea and tough experience to be an arab mk in the knesset. it is a very interesting place but it is a daily struggle. at it is a daily struggle in order to try to bridge the gap. it is a daily struggle in order to be equal. it is almost impossible.

especially in this knesset, where a lot of emotions were proposed, which is mainly focusing in the equal rights for arab citizens and trying to push us as legislators to the corner. this is the way that i can tackle the speech of mr. rivlin and mr. ayalon, deputy foreign minister, which is demanding from us, trying to enforce arab and k's to declare reality do

jewish end zionist states. demanding from arab members of the knesset to. it is almost black and white. it is obvious and a total contradiction. because, there are two narratives, which are almost as speaker rivlin said, cannot be bridged. this zionist narrative in the arab palestinian narrative. equal know what happened in 1948, and there's the zionist narrative. palestinians were in 1948 and from then to now, victims of the zionist ideology. no one can impose the victim to be loyal to those who acted

against them. i am talking about deportation, the destruction of the whole nation, but we to believe that arabs are citizens in the same state of israel should be equal. before penner 15 years, there were no motions, no loss mainly talking about discrimination between jews and arabs. this was broken and now there are many talking about discrimination, especially under the title of israel and its definition as a jewish state. israel defining itself as a jewish and democratic state. jewish before democratic. is not just like that.

we to believe that there's a contradiction between the teufel use. being defined as a democratic, you should lead many equal rights for all citizens. but, you cannot deal in equal terms between ahmed and danny if you are defining yourself as a jewish state, because according to his definition, danny will be superior to ahmed just because he is jewish and because i am eric. i cannot in any case, we will not accept any kind of this discrimination based on ethnic background. to be a democratic state, it is to be coming to deal in equal weight.

last week, last week i issued a motion in the knesset. i proposed the equal value in a location of land between all citizens. i asked for modification of the law to say that israel will allocate land to all of its citizens in equal terms. at the ministerial special committee for legislation, no one minister is supporting my motion. no one minister. at the knesset, there was a vast majority who voted against my motion and again it was not supported by the knesset. i would like to tell you that,

in the basic laws of the knesset, of israel, there is no one basic law talking about the quality as a value. and, if i will ask to have a motion, talking about equal rights, the basic law, demanding equal rights for all citizens, not jews and arabs, for all common man and woman, a secular and religious, and the arabs and jews, it will not pass. it will not pass. we tried it. i demand equal rights. [laughter] >> so you are saying we are democratic state, you see? >> i am being intimidated by the time. >> so was i.?

>> i would like to-- minister braverman top about his meeting with the oecd. it is time to say that according to the oecd rules, israel should deal with equal rights with all citizens, jews and arabs. israel is not. there is no one level, aspect in the life of this real that there is equal rights dealing with jews and others. allocation of lance, education, housing, islamic properties, infrastructure. that is why i do appeal from here to secretary general of the oecd, not to approve the membership of israel unless

there are equal rights and equal budgets for arab citizens exactly like the jewish citizens in israel. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much member of knesset tibi and that brings us full circle, no pun intended as we sit and look at the editor circle. we want to call upon you the journalist to ask the questions. i just as do we don't make statements, that we are able to address do we are, what outlet we are speaking for and to whom you are going to address the question. i am going to bring in the translator and a lovely translator is going to come and join us, so many questions that are asked in arabic are going to be translated immediately into english for this audience. so, if we can please by reza pants began from the circle of who was interested. if you can please go up to the mic.

>> i would like to ask dr. tibi exactly what loyalty would be prepared to take and i would like to ask my eric colleagues here, my palestinian colleagues what have you received out of this meeting and was it worth coming? >> yes and you can answer from your mic. they are open. >> i don't like it because i am equal to them. [laughter] >> i am not going to really say what is going on here. >> not only arab members of the knesset or not of ready to

declare as a scientist in jewish state. religious members of the knesset are with us in this position. not all the laws which were passed here are holy. that is why i am trying to change some of these laws, but i will not declare any idea or ideology which is totally against my belief and my narrative. we did, in every beginning, before one year, we did declare a relative to the laws of the state. given that, i am trying to change some of these laws,

because they are not-- >> rus sullivan and michael fresen is the cofounder other going to be taking a much to rent to see who else would like to ask a question. i think it will make a little bit easier. by rates of hand. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] ..