we will have this convergence between external entities and the europeans and us that have this historic sense that this is the moment. we have got to figure out what ever that solution is to force it to its logical conclusion. unfortunately, logic does not play a big role in this. if you talk to both sides, they both logically say we want to do this. but they will not let us. we have to find a way -- a >> day of meeting the population? >> the other side. it's always about the other guy. we simply have to find the right formula to take that step. once you take that step, you might be into a whole new world that might be irreversible and

very good. >> i agree and i think the way around it is if you wait until you have negotiated to close all the final status issues, you will never get there. it is just too hard. what i think the ad ministration has said that as you have a free market agreement that sets up the basic principles of these issues, but you don't stop there. with that agreement, give some restaurants about how it's going to come out. let's focus on border and securities. that's the issue where there is the most convergence. let's see if we can nail that down. and you may have an option to see if you can convince the parties to stand up to the state and that would be transformative. i think it will buy you some time to then turn to the issues

of the final terms of the refugee issues and the jerusalem issues and then you can put it altogether in a final status agreement. but i think you're going to have to do this in a couple of bites. waiting for the grant agreement, i think that's just too hard. the administration is setting up the potential for a different kind of approach. >> i think so. waiting until everything is agreed to is what we have been trying to do for a long time. [crosstalk] i don't know if the ambassador will let me do this, but the next question logically is whether there is a syrian track.

do you have any thoughts? i know they have been trying to get a syria track going. do you want to say something about whether there is time for a syrian track? >> if you want me to ask a question, i would like to hear comments -- the obama administration his has been telling us that they believe, and this is a major difference compared to previous administrations, that peace in our region cannot be achieved unless it is comprehensive and on all tracks. they do not believe it can happen on one track and they don't believe in the game of playing one track against the other. i would love to hear some comments on that. >> if you would, talk about whether you think it would be good in our level and sequence

for syria. >> where the bush administration was, president bush had a conversation and urge him to go after a comprehensive peace, including syria and also will not. that was the goal -- as -- also allow the non. -- also lebanon. we authorized the turks and the israelis to tell the syrians that it improve -- that improved relationships with the ad states went through a syrian- israeli agreement. we tried to be as supportive as we could of that track. it made some progress and, at the end, it got overwhelmed by a

whole series of things that everybody knows about. general jones will speak and by cents is the administration has tried in good faith to get a syria track going. >> i think that is correct. obviously, it would be to everyone's advantage, the peace we have extended to a broader area included syria and lebanon and i think the -- i know the administration has been working quietly to see what the potential is to do that on several fronts. i think work on the comprehensive nature of it can do it and there is reason for some optimism there.

the players we have talked to on this issue, it is certainly something that would be in everybody's interest. >> how would this help on iran? if you are able to achieve consensus and results in obtaining a piece that is foundational for the region and you build upon, it serves to isolate iran a little more than perhaps it is right now. the combination of peaceful negotiations plus the sanctions we know are having a major fact , it will send a very strong message to iran that perhaps it

is time to return to the table and start negotiating seriously. >> if you see syria andld lebanon are serious, does that send a message to iran? >> it does send a message of what the middle east is going to be. but there are fundamental issues with iran. one is the nuclear program but another is the nature of that regime. the unhappiness many people in iran are showing. >> do you think the sanctions are helping a lot? >> there may be comments from people here, but i have been surprised and pleased with how well the administration did getting the people around the table to impose sanctions.

they did better than i expected they would and i expect a lot of other folks. i need to talk to people to get a better feel for it, but the theory of sanctions is you are putting a lot of pressure on business class is that middle- class is to in turn put pressure on their regime. the iranian president and a date regime is putting pressure on the middle-class. that's the center of the opposition and i wonder if we don't have a perverse alliance between our sanctions activity and a regime policy, everybody squeezing the middle-class. so i worry about that. sanctions are right and i worry they are not going to be enough. i think you need to marry sanctions with major support in a way that does not discredit them for the forces of change in

iran because i think it is domestic pressure for change that's more likely to convince the regime that they don't want a domestic confrontation and in international confrontation at the same time and may be more willing to deal. finally, we have to start thinking very seriously about what happens if it does not work. we have a lot of false debates on iran. this debate about can iran be deterred is a false debate. can they be deterred from using nuclear weapons against the united states? of course. can we deter the adverse effects that come once it's clear they have a clear path to a nuclear weapon? i don't think so. what are those things? and empowered iran called willing to interfere with its neighbors, its neighbors going after their own nuclear programs with processing so that

egypt, jordan, turkey, saudi have the same options that iran does. we need to think seriously about the problems of iran with a clear path to declare weapons and we have had another false argument about this issue of the do you go to war against iran? it's easy to demonstrate that would be a leap in the dark, but that's not the right question. the question is, is there some way we can visibly set aside and setback there and ticket the -- their activity, which is the route for a clear weapon capability. can we visibly set that back in some way? diplomatically, but some other means to set back. president obama has said not just that a nuclear iran is unacceptable, but we will prevent iran from getting a clear weapon. >> how do you stop them other

than striking it if sanctions don't work? >> what is diplomatically, hoping the sanctions work. the other thing they need to do is think of other options. >> like cyber? the worm or other virus? >> it is that an option? i don't know. it is difficult, but look at what the israelis did it taking out the syrian nuclear reactor. it was done covertly and not acknowledge and syria decided to let it go. by ali point is i think we had a big public debate of whether or not to go to war with iran and we need a more sophisticated public debate about what do we do if we are faced with a stark choice of either going to war which nobody wants to do or accepting iran with a clear

path to nuclear-weapons, which i think is acceptable. >> that's a great summation. i would add a couple of things. one is i think the president's thinking of this has been consistent all along. the idea from the outgo was to see if iraq was willing to negotiate reasonably, but to always leave the door open, even as we move toward sanctions. the sanctions results, at least the process, was a foreign policy achievement that has not received its just due because of how hard it was. the fact that the end of the day, even russia and china came to the sanctions protocol, the

close relationship with the european union that followed on the heels of the un sanctions was also very, very welcome. that's something that did not happen automatically. the united states participated rigorously. i think we are still six-eight months away from having the full effect of the sanctions. >> so what happens if they don't work in eight months? >> obviously we are not just betting on that and nothing else. there's an awful lot of dialogue with other countries. the israelis and particular. i think this has had a calming effect in terms of the hype about eve got to do something now. steve is right. there are three reasons why a nuclear iran is a bad idea.

first is the fact you have another nuclear capable state. but you can deter that. secondly, the fact that it would probably trigger a nuclear arms race in the middle east is something that is pretty well a foregone conclusion. that would be very bad. thirdly, and the one that is the nightmare scenario because, without trying to overstate things, it might change the world we live happily, a country like iran exported that kind of technology to a terrorist organization. >> with a joint israeli-military -- joint israeli-u.s. military action likely if we have a israeli-palestinian peace? does it help solve iran if we get a israeli-palestinian peace? >> i think it peace process that

is ongoing in movingly the right direction is probably one of the best things we could do to show iran that it passed is the wrong path. i think it's extremely important to leave the door open, as we have, on official and unofficial channels with iran. they have shown a certain willingness to come back, at least to the conference table. we will wait and see whether that happens or not. but i wouldn't necessarily believe that all right now and say sanctions are not going to work. i would not go too far the other way and talk about what we might do if the sanctions don't work. one of the things that has happened between us and the russians and israelis and others is we have arrived at a kind of sense of what that timing is. we know more about their program and it's having difficulty.

we generally have a more common view as opposed to 18 months ago. >> what is your knowledge [unintelligible] talk aboutgoing to that. >> i think we ought to let the sanctions go forward. you have to look forward to where we might be a year from now and be doing some careful planning about it. second, i think one of the impact of the election as there will probably be more support for president obama and what ever decisions he makes should we get to that point. i noted particularly the comments at halifax security council where there were

talking about regime change. >> i think there is support for him to do something, but if we get to that point and the sanctions don't work, -- i would say if there is some difficult work, it needs to be done by the united states and not israel. >> either military or covert action? >> something needs to be at the end of the day. >> real quickly and we will open up. four or five times you have mentioned how helpful russia has been in this situation. how harmful would it be to this process if the start treaty is not ratified by the senate? >> i think it would be extremely harmful. i think it would be a blow to the prestige of the united

states. it certainly would be a blow to the president, which is not a good thing in terms of his clout around the world as an influence. especially at a time when i think the united states has reasserted its leadership with regard to nuclear issues. the things that have been done working toward the start treaty, which i think was done in consultation with both sides of the hill, on a regular basis, there was a clear understanding of what the red lines were from some of the would-be opponents. i think we work really hard to try to meet those red lines. there are all kinds of reasons for passage of this start treaty

and i shudder to think well happen if we did not get it. >> i'm probably a little and the metal. i think russia has been quite cooperative for the bush administration and the obama administration. in terms of how they handle the negotiations, the bush administration got for security sanctions resolution and that russia supported them. i don't think russia will stop that, but it's an unnecessary argument. there are problems with the start agreement, they can and should be addressed in the ratification and that is being done. we need to get agreement on the modernization program, so as long as we have a clear programs which will be for a considerable time, they are monitored. there is a way forward that early on in the new congress we

can get. >> not in the lame-duck? >> early on in the new congress. we can get a good number of republicans joining democrats in ratifying. >> you think senator >> i think there is a modernization program that he and a lot of other people -- we both talked about the need for a modernization program. i think that it can be done. i would like to see it done that way. i think it would be a good start for the new congress, working with the president to be bullish show the week ended the nation's business done on a bipartisan basis.

after they have addressed these concerns. >> i agree with gm and with steve partly. i did not see the objections to the treaty. none of them are really the defense to -- really advanced. that is my problem. some of them need to be fixed, but they need to be fixed by fall lot negotiations with the russians. that can only happen if we ratified the treaty. i think that psychologically, it will hurt -- they are not going to make decisions based on that, but the whole progress that we have with russia, not only iran, supply lines to

afghanistan, there is a gradual -- we ought to encourage it. i think it would be [inaudible] >> >> thank you very much. thank you for sponsoring this meeting. i think it is a great idea. the arab league has its peace initiative. it is a comprehensive framework.

looking from my experience, when i was involved in that the egyptian-israeli peace negotiations, i think if president carter had not presented his own proposals and ideas to both sides, we would not have reached an agreement. i did not think that what israelis fear sometimes that there should be imposed on the process. it is just a proposal put on paper. but israel is trying to now to get from the united states, to veto any attempt from the palestinians and octane endorsements. i think this is a very on helpful development if this happens. the united states should be perceived throughout as an

honest broker who takes no sides. on the question of erotic and nuclear weapons, -- on the question of iran and nuclear weapons, it should apply to everyone, including the arabs, israel, and should have a zone that is free of proposed threats. thank you. >> do you want to comment on that? >> add some bridging proposals will be how you get the peace. at some point, you may want to lay down a comprehensive proposal.

if we are talking about a framework agreement. timing is everything. we have seen a lot of things get played. second, you in resolution -- it is a complicated question, i think. the best thing to do is to try to get these negotiations back. we have a lot of discussion about nuclear free zone in the middle east. once you have a middle east peace, there are other threats other than nuclear weapons. when to get a comprehensive middle east peace, then we can talk about how to build on that. >> [inaudible] was subject that has not, is

the 1.5 palestinians live. a lot of the focus of the administration is on making some sort of peace agreement. what should be done with gauze that? how do you ultimately incorporates that part of the palestinian territory and is there a point at which you begin to reach out to hamas? >> why am i entering the question? if we begin to make progress on palestinian peace, hamas can not afford to be left out.

we take away some of the leverage they have now to say no by beginning to move. they will feel compelled to participate. >> i think the west bank is where we start. what this state will look like at some point. that does not mean that you cannot make progress. trying to fix this now will only impede progress of getting the to stitch together in the future. >> if you get a peace deal that involves the establishment of a palestinian state of the west bank, you are in a position to go to hamas and said, are you in

or are you out? if you are in, you have to give up terror. if you can get that piece, and show that a palestinian state is coming to the west bank, it will be -- a double shuffle the deck. >> [inaudible] is a hopeful sign when president obama extends its $3 million inducement to israel in return for simply it 90 days of a

settlement freeze? >> this is the matter of the table as to what is the -- what makes it worthwhile. in exchange for a 90 day settlement freeze. the israelis, to my knowledge, have now responded to that yet. the will to talk to wait and see what happens. the discussions between the u.s. and israel on israel's security have been ongoing with some tremendous detail for the last year. the united states and the a ministration has spent extremely generous, even ride up to this point -- even right up to this

point in providing assurances to israel that security is something that we pay a lot of attention to. i also want to come back to the point that is extremely important. the united states should be perceived as being an honest broker. we have to be careful that the skills tool tip to 41 way or the other. -- that the scales do not take one or the other. >> the worry i have is that i think the settlement freeze has not done with the destruction hoped it would do. at some point, if you are a whole, you stop digging. i am not sure going another 90 days is maybe the best outcome. again, i am not party to these discussions.

we need to get some other understandings. that address palestinian concerns, five -- we have to get on with it. >> thank you. thank you, everybody, for being there. i have had the privilege to work closely at the aspen and institute has done a phenomenal

work for many years in support of the palestinian people. it has made a tangible difference. furthermore, i would like to draw our attention what maritime -- a to state solution has jeopardized at this point and continues the result of pessimism on the grounds to continue to be jeopardized. and what state do you reach a point where it becomes an option anymore? are we close to that or not? >> what is the alternative? >> i do not think we're close to that. because of the synergy that exists between the arab world and the europeans and the u.s. the outside watching is more to gather on the necessity to be

successful than at any time in my memory. i think that the prize is still on the table and it is achievable. we have not figured out the right combination yet. i am impressed by the fact that everybody who has -- to place in this game really passionately believes that there has to be a solution. it is not just a regional problem. it has global dimensions. solving this will solve -- will help the world in many different ways. >> [inaudible] most of my concerns addressed. i am very much concerned that this offer has been made by the united states in the terms of already been discussed. the question is -- you are

dealing with the palestinian authority. it is an occupied area which has its own unique problems. what concerns me is that we talk about having to be an honest broker. and we talk about the timing problem as being crucial. if you are in the palestinian west bank right now how comfortable would you be i would think that it would drive them away. that is what concerns me greatly. you look at the end of the 90-

day period and while there is some optimism expressed in the long run as a matter of necessity, what is going to happen? let's assume that it does not work and for various reasons of politics, the palestinians do not feel comfortable coming back to the table. what happens then? >> i would simply say that really want to make things conditional on progress. if, in fact, we did x, then why would be the result. and if y fails, x is off the table. you have to tie some of these

things to good faith. and they demonstrated will to be courageous and to make some of these decisions so that we can move in the right direction. >> the $3 billion in security ordinance -- >> the president would expect that there would be some momentum that would lead to follow along progress. i do not know that for a fact. i left the administration before they made this proposal. i think you cannot simply keep putting down payments on things that do not work out. >> i see many hands. i am trying to keep them in order. >> just to get back to the issue of sanctions, if i were the adviser to the iranian

government, i would see something like, a steady as you go. it is working pretty good. the sanctions have not heard that much. -- kurt not much. the government -- the u.s. and redid the un sanctions are pressing the same group. i cannot allow imagine that sanctions are going to work. all right, in business you deal with a lot of probabilities and there must be a plan b and a plan seat. but i am always kind of surprised, we are talking about sanctions. i know you have to try. but when it becomes accepted, not obvious, that they are not going to work, something is going to happen. it has to. did i say that robb? >> that was pretty clear. this is an open forum.

i think that one has to have faith that responsive -- responsible people are thinking about these things as well. we hope the sanctions work. we hope the sanctions create a sense of logic and reason in the rodney and leadership to bring them back to the table. -- the karate and leadership -- the iranian the leadership. we will prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. >> were you raising your hand way back there? >> i was not. i just got back -- i saw

president's next week and a lot of this people. i was more optimistic that even with this are rumored package that they will come to the table and the key is what happens when they get there. steve knows that i very much share his view of borders. the wild thing they did the convergences are possible. it was striking to me, all the jerusalem part of the trip, was the opposition that this idea was hitting because they feel that their cards are all territorial. they have to move forward on all issues. in theory, that is what we all watch. we all want progress on all issues. i am skeptical that they have conditions of societal landscape on jerusalem refugees.

all of a sudden, borders and security is almost a dirty word of it there. i think it is a mistake. that is my personal view. i do not think we can solve these issues in 90 days. i think you can make progress, but i think you are coming up with some of the more moderate elements against this approach. i think there is still some work to be done. >> thank you for your commitment to peace but they cannot the government. i was in cairo in 1995 negotiating the final details of the creation of the palestinian authority. that was to be able in that year temporary status. that was 15 years ago. we are in the same legal limbo where the palestinians do not

have sovereignty, they do not have borders, they do not have access. everybody thinks that we have about six months to negotiate, they grow progress on the two- state solution. because of our political process here. a conservative number of us have is that the conditions that are being sent by the israelis for the extension of the moratorium are going to be so great that the ultimate achievement of a two-state solution will be potentially nullified. it will be certainly severely diminished. three months is not a very long time to negotiate something as important as borders. if you have a border agreement that does not encompass jerusalem, it is a nonstarter.

the best mechanism other than a negotiation for an independent palestinian state is the u.n. part. the prime minister is working very diligently on it. that will be presented in to douse 11. if there is a u.s. veto threat and, that will severely undercut that option. you'll be led to a one-state solution, which i think the majority of the people in palestine today are leaning toward. particularly the yacht. they do not have much faith in the honest broker as some of the united states or americans are the ability of the israelis to give up land that they have been colonizing and occupying since 1967. all this is a way of asking if

we do not get it done in three months, what? >> you have the wrong witness is up here. i indicated my skepticism of this approach. but i do not really know the general -- the details. italy, the questions you raise are serious questions. -- in a way, the questions you raise are serious questions, but they have to go to the administration. it sounds like a dodge, but i think i share a lot of those concerns. there are questions that have to be put to the administration. >> do you think it would be useful if the demonstration said, it this approach does not go very far, at some point, we

will have to recognize a palestinian state. >> these are hypothetical. it is a hypothetical that may come our way. i think i will pass on that one. >> his formulation is i want to get to the point after two years with the only thing wrong with the palestinian state is occupation. he wants to cut -- >> maximum pressure to get these issues resolved. >> is a good strategy. >> we will see what happens. >> but we will leave open that option? >> i do not know. >> david? >> thank you.

i think that is the least attractive way out of this problem. the negotiating outcome would everybody agreeing -- there is much to be learned. sorry. >> [inaudible] i want to sell the cautionary notes a framework agreement and focus in on borders and security. first of all, i just do not see the palestinian -- the israelis be willing to endorse jerusalem as the capital. this government simply would not do that. if you set that aside and simply start to negotiate on borders, you run into the question of jerusalem. even if you carted out as something to be worked on later, then you get it immediately the question of settlement. we are right back where we are

today. >> what i would like to do -- i am going to let a few people make comments or ask questions and that 1:30, allow you to enter the ones you want and ignore the ones you want. >> what is president said to the united states, fine. i will come back to the table -- the palestinians want east jerusalem as their capital. we are giving the nod to netanyahu to go ahead and build your settlement in east jerusalem. i will go back to the table if the u.s. agrees to pay for dismantling every single settlement and to pay for relocating all the individuals who were sitting in the settlement illegally right now.

>> thank you. having three national security but this is with us, i would like to ask the question, since 1979, the u.s. has been very poor -- but we have not achieved very much. the big things were done by the parties themselves. the fact that everybody know what the final solution looks like, why is it so hard for a president -- what is the impediment for a president who really wanted to get this done? every american who understands something about israel knows that the support for israel runs

the the blood of the body politics. it is not a jewish issue in the u.s. the safety, security, the fulfillment of the zionist dream, will not be done until the israelis draw a line with the palestinians. it is only the palestinians that can legitimize the israeli state. why can we get this done? >> please see if there is anybody in our peanut gallery that did not get a seat at the table. >> final thoughts? >> general, do you mind giving us your final comments.

>> and now to london for prime minister question time. of every wednesday while parliament is in session, prime minister david cameron takes questions from members of the house of commons. prior to question time, the house is wrapping up other business.