hurt badly, perhaps irreparably some argue well -- "the washington post" did today, that it won't have much of an effect because the industry of china has to revalue its currency, these industries will go to places like bangladesh. they're making an argument that's ten years old, five years old and stale. we're not arguing about labor-intensive industries like clothing or shoes or toys. those are going to bangladesh already with the cost of chinese labor going up. china uses its currency manipulation against our topnotch manufacturers. the large companies say nothing because most of them have plants in china so they can get around it. but middle and small-sized manufacturers are up against this wall and are desperate for

our help. one manufacturer in upstate new york makes a very advanced product that deals with cleaning pollutants as they go through a power system. it's a topnotch product. and this manufacturer employs a couple of hundred people in upstate new york. said to me china is stealing my stuff even though i have patents and other things on it. they're stealing the method biby we do that. i could live with that if they just sold the stuff in china. we're not big enough to export all around the world. but what they do is not only do they steal our intellectual property on this, but then they come back and sell it in america at a 30% discount because of currency manipulation. he said how am i going to compete with that? there's story after story after story just like that,

mr. president. and when american companies are fighting for their survival, battling subsidized chinese exports, high-end exports, this is no longer an argument about labor-intensive industries alone, i for one am not prepared to raise the white flag on american manufacturing and on american jobs. and neither should anybody else. i know that american manufacturing can compete successfully against chinese competition at home and in china and around the world but only if the playing field is level and our bill helps to level that playing field. critics of our bill say that while currency manipulation is an important issue, legislation to address it would ignore the many and growing challenges that we face in china. the critics are wrong. we have no intention of ignoring the range of china's market-disporting practices, the ones i've mentioned before.

but in fact because china was emboldened on currency which the whole world -- brazil just a week or two ago asked china to stop manipulating its currency, the european union feels the same way we do. but because nobody does anything, china is emboldened to pursue mercantilist policies in other areas recently in rare earths where they tell manufacturers, if you want rare earths, you'd be better off sending your plant to china. it's just unheard of. critics of our bill say it's unlikely to create incentive for china to modify its exchange policies. the experience senator graham and i have had is when china thinks something might be done they begin to let their currency rise. because nothing permanent is done, they go right back to their old habits as soon as the pressure is off. this idea that if we pressure

the chinese, they won't do it, makes no sense because if we pressure them, they do nothing and if we don't pressure them, they do nothing. the only answer is concrete legislation. what would those who oppose this bill have us do? what is their suggestion? they don't really have one. should we continue to sit back and watch -- watch while american jobs and american manufacturers and even large chunks of american wealth just drift away? should we continue to, as one of my constituents put it, be not uncle sam but uncle sap? well, there are too many of us in this chamber on both sides of the aisle who will not sit back and continue to let mercantilist trade practices continue to decimate american manufacturing and american jobs.

middle, low, and high. nor will my colleagues here in the senate, democrats and republicans, are united on this issue. we must take decisive action against china's currency manipulation and other economically injurious behavior. the fact that they manipulate their currency imbalances the whole world trading system. many economists list it as one of the reasons we had the decline in global trade and the worldwide recession that we've had. we simply have no choice. but to right the wrong that china is committing. any retaliation by china would be further evidence of their unwillingness to meet their obligations under the w.t.o. and the global trade community. and by the way,, china has a lot more to lose with retaliation than we do because if there is one country that

gains the most by exporting to the u.s., by international trade, it's china. and they are very, very smart and they're not going to cut their nose to spite their face. i whole heartedly support the president's goal of doubling u.s. exports over the next five years. but that cannot be done if we don't take concrete action to address the protectionist practices of foreign governments who concede tariff reductions only to replace tariffs with currency manipulation, border taxes and a variety of state subsidies. we will not do it unless we get to the root cause. china's currency manipulation would be unacceptable even if good economic times. at times of high unemployment we can no longer stand for it. there is no bigger step to create american jobs that we can take than to confront china's currency manipulation.

it's not a democratic or republican issue, mr. president. every one of us has manufacturers, companies that are struggling to compete at home and abroad with chinese exports with a built-in price advantage. it's not about china bashing. it's about fairness and defending american jobs. mr. president, many of us and most americans are worried. what will things be like 10 and 20 years from now? will america stay the leading economic power of the world? will our children have a better life than we do? the number-one thing we have to do is change things at home to make that better. there is no question about it. but very high up on the list as well is making sure that china no longer unfairly sucks millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of american

wealth to its shores. what china does will make our job of keeping america strong, of having the next generation live a better life than this generation far more difficult unless we force them to change because they won't change on their own. passage of this legislation will lead to real consequences for countries that unfairly manipulate their currency. we've waited a long time. we've declined to move the legislation at the request of two administrations. but patience, not of us, but of the american people, has worn out. i ask my colleagues to stand up with us on s. 1619, to stand up for american manufacturing, for american jobs, for american wealth, to stand up so that our children can have a brighter future than we have.

i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i've enjoyed the remarks of my distinguished friend from new york. as we begin the debate today on the important issue of exchange rate misalignment it is an important debate though i seriously question its timing. let's step back for a moment. at the end of last month the u.s. senate approved legislation renewing and expanding trade adjustment assistance. we need to be clear about what this program is, a big governmenten spending program of dubious value but one that is important to proox president obama's union allies. given the, this country's spending program is top trade priority. so much so that he was even willing to abandon our allies in colombia, panama and south

korea unless he secured this additional spending. to get more government spending for big labor, the president was willing to hold up the three free trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea everyone negotiation will grow this economy and create jobs. i was happy to chat with the trade representative just a few minutes ago, and he told me that they are going to send those three trade agreements up to today, and they should be here between 4:00 and 5:00. i'm really happy about that. it's way beyond time to get them here. but americans need to remember this episode when they hear the president talk about his commitment to job creation. put aside all the talk, it is clear where the rubber hits the road. the president will prioritize government spending over private sector job growth. still, because of the president's insistence on this spending program, the t.a.a. bill is likely to pass the house and become law. here's my question: given that we just debated a trade bill we knew would likely become law,

why was this currency bill not considered in that context? i can only conclude either that the administration opposes the currency bill and therefore asked that it not become part of t.a.a. or that consideration of this bill was merely a political exercise with little expectation that it ever will become law. with millions of americans out of work and the economy stagnant, the people of utah and all of america's citizens deserve more than political grandstanding. regarding the substance of the issue, the manipulation of currency values by major trading partners to gain unfair trade advantage represents a genuine threat to u.s. jobs and rebalancing of the global, financial, and economic system. for many years and continuing into the present that threat is a reality. there isvirtually no unanimous t among international analysts that there exists large-scale

one-way intervention in exchange markets by some of our important trading partners in order to limit our preclude currency appreciation. primarily in china but also in some of the other economies as well. there senior senator seems to be little question that china manipulates its currency in order to subsidize its exports. the bill before us seeks to address exchange rate misalignments specifically and global imbalances generally. by sharpening the tools available to counter currency manipulation by a trading pan. of course any additional tools that we construct must be crafted to line all of our international trade agreements and global rules of trade. the issue of china's currency has been with us for far too many years. we have repeated discussions about how to address the lack of appreciation of china's currency followed by diplomatic bilateral

discussions, assurances of moves from china to allow appreciation, some modest subsequent appreciation while the political heat is on, and little change thereafter once the heat subsides. this approach does not seem to be working. we've had large and persistent bilateral trade deficits with china and those deficits continue. we have relied on china's massive excess savings to finance our growing debt, and we have worsened that reliance given the debt-fueled spending spree of the current president. china's dollar denominated reserve holdings which have grown, ballooned to over $3 trillion according to some recent estimates -- this is a 50% increase. the currency misalignment by china is not the only source of global financial and economic

imbalances. if the president looked in the mirror, he would see his own responsibility for global economic uncertainty. our budget deficits have far exceeded $1 trillion for the past three fiscal years. for 2011, the deficit is expected to be around $1.3 trillion, which is an unsustainable 8.5% of g.d.p. and the third-largest deficit in the last 65 years. exceeded only by deficits in 2009 and 2010. deficits of this magnitude have not been seen since the years surrounding world war i i, when virtually the entire economy was being directed by the federal government. given our budget deficits and the china currency issue, the important question is, what is being done? let's look at what is being done with a bit of recent history for

context. back in 2008, then-candidate obama wrote the following to textile organizations: "the massive current account surpluses accumulated by china are directly related to its manipulation of its currency's value. the result is not good for the united states, not good for the global economy, and likely to create problems in china itself." now, he went on to promise that, if elected, he would use all diplomatic means at his dispose poll to induce china to change its foreign exchange policies. he promised to beef up u.s. enforcement efforts against unfair trade practices. also back in 2509 during the treasury secretary's confirmation hearing before the senate finance committee, now-secretary geithner stated that "president obama backed by the conclusions of a broad ravening economisrankof economit china is manipulating its

currency." those are strong word. yet once in office the president and secretary geithner a failed to follow up those words with action. the administration promised tosher in an era of change but failed to change the way the u.s. deals with the china currency issue. the act of 1988 requires that the treasury secretary report on exchange rate policies of major u.s. trading partners. under the act, treasury must consider whether countries manipulate exchange rates for purposes of preventing balance of payments adjustments or gaining unfair trade advantage. the evidence clearly seems to show that china's current policies amount to manipulation leading to an unfair advantage in international trade. candidate obama agreed during his campaign. treasury secretary geithner agreed during his confirmation

testimony. yet as treasury secretary and as president, the two have refused to afnlgt secretary geithner has issued five foreign exchange reports but has refused to label china as a country that manipulates its exchange rate for the purpose of gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade. let me repeat that. despite many bold claims about using all the tools at their disposal to counteract china's trade policies, the administration refuses to designate china's policies as being consistent with currency manipulation for trade advantage. now, the question that i and most of moi colleagues from both sides of the aisle have is, why? clearly, the administration must recognize the consequences of china's manipulation for american workers and manufacturers and for the stability of the global financial and economic system. why then is the administration

protecting china by refusing to designate it as a currency manipulator? under the omnibus trade and competitiveness act, once a country is so designated, there are no draconian actions required. the immediate repurr cogs are merely stepped up conmering and greater vigilance and dialogue. those don't seem to be things that would lead to cren sawyer trade wars. so why does the administration act? after all, american jobs are at stake. american workers are compete with any workers in the world, but our workers should not have to compete against foreign firms that receive massive subsidies. if the president is as intent on focusing on job creation in america as his campaigning suggests, then why has he refused to take such a simple step as designating known existing currency manipulation?

there's a severe mismatch here between political action and rhetoric. overseas funding in particular from funding from china to finance their sploadzing deficits is preventing the president and his officers from acting on behalf of the competitive but struggle american workforce. it is well past time for the administration to recognize the negative consequences of china's manipulations for american workers and manufacturers and for global stability. even though there has been only tepid support even on the democratic side of the aisle for the president's much-towbted jobs plan, there is agreement that congress needs to address the massive jobs deficit this nation is facing. we face a national crisis in having unemployment persisting at over 9% with elevated numbers

of the unemployed suffering from long-term bouts of joblessness and with many american workers having become so discouraged that they have simply dropped out of the labor force. according to statements by the majority leader of the senate, the focus on jobs is precisely why we are considering the bill before us. according to one of those statements, the majority leader is reported as having said that -- quote -- "i don't think there's anything more important for a jobs measure than china trade." unquote. i'm staforting to think that my -- i'm starting to think that my friends on the other side of the aisle are like the gang that couldn't shoot straight. the majority leader thinks that addressing china trade is essential to job creation but based on its failure to use existing tools available to designate china as a currency manipulator, the administration apparently disagrees or it would have long ago used its authority to make such a designation under the omnibus trade and

competitiveness act and then acted on the problem. the president's focus seems to be elsewhere. he seems to think that at least as important -- he seems to think that at least as important for jobs as the issue of china trade identified by the majority leader is his so-called american jobs act. advertisements by the democratic national committee and campaign speeches by the president since he announced it in a joint session of congress last month calls quite clearly that "we should meet our responsibilities" and consider that act "right away. " yet my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that a political debate over china and its currency policies are more important for job creation than the president's american jobs act. if the president's act is, as advertised, so crucial for job creation in the facing of our national unemployment crisis, why is democratic -- senate

democratic leadership delaying its consideration? why not consider the legislation right away as demand by the president in his campaign speeches and democratic national committee advertisements? we are told by the president that americans who are out of work cannot wait until the next election for us to act boldly for job creation. so why are we not considering this american jobs act unless my democratic friends disagree with the president that the act would be the most important job creator available to us today. i really don't believe anybody believes that. i suspect that they know that the $447 billion in new stimulus spending included in the president's jobs bill and the accompanying proposals to impose $1.5 trillion in new taxes on a sluggish economy is economically counterproductive and a sure-fire political loser. i must say that the president's jobs act looks like more of the same debt-fueled stimulus spending cloaked under the guise

of "investment" along with higher taxes, under the label "tax reform. qulings "while i may disagree on the particulars of the present proposal, i do not disagree with his premise that we face a national crisis in our labor markets and that we should be debating measures that will promote american job creation now without delay. we are also told by the president that we must pass our pending trade agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea. jobs are at stake, he says, and with the political campaign rhetoric exhorting congress to pass the president's american jobs act which the majority leader has opted to shelf until some unspecified future day. the president delayed the action required to get these matters passed for much too long. pass the americans jobs act the president scolds but we can't because the majority leader has not brought the act to the floor. the currency bill which is

unlike will you to lead to any job creation before the next election has come first, perhaps to allow more time for campaign speeches and ads by the democratic national committee. pass the free trade agreements, the president lectures. but they were delayed, as they have set idly on his desk. i'm pleased that the trade leader in the administration called me a few minutes ago to tell me they are on their way up here today. this currency bill is coming first. but what needs to come first is job creation, not electioneering and politics. and i hope before this week is over we'll turn to those three trade agreements and pass them through both houses of congress, as according to the administration they will be responsible for creating as many as 250,000 jobs. i doubt it'll be that much, but

nevertheless that's what the administration says. that's their estimate. our jobs deficit ask is a full-blown national crisis. the unemployment rate has been persistently above 9% since april of this year. it has averaged 9.4% since the president took office. it has been about 9% in 26 of the last 31 months since the president took -- well, 26 out of the 31 months sing the president took office, despite promises by administration economists that the massive debt-fueled stimulus which will cost over $1 trillion when all costs are included would keep unemployment contained below 8%. and the unemployment rate is even higher. the underemployment rate is even higher at over 16%. once you include, for example, people who want to work but have become so discouraged that they no longer look for work. nearly 14 million workers are unemployed and the number grows

when you include discouraged workers. the number of long-term unemployed workers has been at record highs. according to census data released last month, those in their 20's and 30*rs are suffering from the highest unemployment rate since world ward ii. the enthusiasm of young citizens in 2008 long ago gave way to disappointment and disaffection. our joblessness crisis is nothing short of a crisis for liberty. when american men and women do not have jobs and opportunity, their freedom to make lives for themselves is eroded. yet we are to understand that in the face of this crisis there ts no more important issue regarding jobs than our bilateral trade with china. again, agree that we need to address the issue of exrency manipulation in our sustained and large trade deficits with china. however, let us be clear that

dealing with issues related to china involves only one bilateral trade relationship. the trade and current account problems facing the united states and the global financial trade and economic imbalances that everyone faces are not solved by addressing this one trading relationship. that is one reason i will be offering an amendment to this bill calling for multilateral and plural lateral negotiations to address currency misalignment. if we are going to succeed, we need to look at the big picture and work with our allies to counter china's current practices. i will discuss my amendment in more detail soon but hope it will receive strong bipartisan support. our trade imbalances are not with china alone. rather, as part of the problem of saving too little, the u.s. has multilateral trade imbalances which require more action than focusing solely on one bilateral relationship. according to recent data from the united states international trade commission, the u.s. has trade deficits with nearly 100

countries. the u.s. saves too little, and that problem will not be solved solely by passing the bill before us. make no mistake, the legislation we are considering can provide useful tools for addressing concerns about china if the administration actually uses the tools. those tools alone are not sufficient. if we try to address our multilateral problems by putting pressure on china alone without attending to our lack of saving and our own role in generating trade deficits with nearly 100 countries, the chinese piece of the u.s. imbalance will migrate somewhere else. this bill is not a magic bullet to solve our problems or problems arising from global imbalances and it almost surely is not the highest priority piece of legislation if job creation is to be our focus, is truly our focus. the u.s. for its part contributes to global imbalances

by persistently saving too little. following the financial crisis which was precipitated partly by large run-ups in household indebtedness, american families have tightened their belts to save more and repair their own balance sheets. it is the u.s. federal government that has been missing in action to restore national savings, reduce our federal debt and promote global balance. rather than repair the federal balance sheet, the administration has chosen to run trillions of dollars of debt fueled deficits and borrow ever increasing sums from abroad, including china. and rather than facing the fact that the federal government has a spending problem, the president is advertising and campaigning on a new american jobs act stimulus and tax hike platform containing even more spending and short-term debt accumulation. we are told that it will be in the interest of the american people to borrow more today in order to spend more on

infrastructure, for example. the stimulus proponents say interest rates are low, so let's ramp up borrowing right now. that's the same approach the senate took when it voted to extend and expand trade adjustment assistance. they ignore that piling trillions more on to our national credit card issued by china and our other creditors moves us that much faster into the company of the euro zone countries who now face default and elevated interest costs. while federal borrowing rates are low today, what happens when global factors tire of our profligacy and debt-financed spending and begin to demand higher interest compensation? as spain and italy have seen, low interest rates are not guaranteed and the interest rate environment you fake faze canopy srot on a -- can pivot on a dime

and escalate rapidly. borrowing on low rates today sounds great unless you're forceed to finance at more punitive rates. more government spending is sthaourl drag us down -- surely to drag us down the road we are seeing in europe. the president claims his new stimulus and tax hike proposals are all paid for, but the payments are largely promises of future austerity, and anyone who has paid attention knows that federal government promises to go on a spending diet later never lead to fiscal weight loss because future congresses are not bound by today's promises. it is interesting to hear the president's persistent calls for more debt-fueled infrastructure spending. presumably given his interest in job creation, quote right now, unquote, the projects he has in mind will be more shovel-ready than the readiness of the

previous stimulus projects which turned into something that the president found so funny that he joked about it. of course it is no joke to jobless americans who are stuck with the stimulus debt bill. we heard in early september from the chairman of the president's council on jobs and competitiveness that the council identified -- quote -- "ten high-priority infrastructure projects based on their potential to put americans to work right away. projects that have already been funded that are being held up by regulations." the jobs council says it will work with the administration to try and get the project moving. let me repeat that the projects -- quote -- "are being held up by regulations." this comes from the chairman of the president's own jobs council. yet, when some on the other side of the aisle are reminded that the regulations are holding back job creation they recoil in disbelief. if there are ten large-scale

infrastructure projects ready to go and are only being held up by regulatory review lag, i urge the president to act -- quote -- "right now." to get those projects underway in the interest of job creation. make one fewer campaign appearance and use that time to expedite regulatory review and get those projects going if, as should be the case, he believes that job creation is more important than politics and wishes to act on that belief. we've also heard the president remarking on how from a global competitiveness perspective the u.s. should borrow more today and spend on what he generically calls -- quote -- "infrastructure" which as it turns out can be anything from painting a traod lending out money -- to lending out money to solar panel makers. the president decided a set of global rankings on infrastructure from the world economic forum's global competitiveness report. the president seemed to read the

report and its ranking of the u.s. as 23rd out of 139 countries for transportation infrastructure competitiveness as a call for more spending on whatever it is he thinks of as infrastructure. it appears, however, that he did not read the report in its entirety. if he did, he would have noticed that the ranking is for only one of nine factors in the report's overall infrastructure assessment. more importantly, if he had read the report, he would have noticed the overriding area identified as the weakest one for the u.s. in terms of eroding our global competitiveness. to quote the report directly -- quote -- "a lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be the united states greatest area of weakness, ranked 87th, prior to the crisis the united states had been building up large macroeconomic imbalances with repeated fiscal deficits leading

the burgeoning levels of public indebtedness. this has been exacerbated by significant stimulus spending. in this context it is clear mapping out a clear exit strategy would be an important step in the country's competitiveness." there you have it. the report that the president data mine to support stimulus quite clearly says that declining global u.s. competitiveness has come from fiscal deficits exacerbated by fiscal spending. that means reining in runaway debt-fueled spending. not more spending. before turning to the legislative process on the bill before us, let me post a trail mark for our deliberations. the currency bill we are considering includes reliance on exchange rate models used by the

international monetary fund. those models allow for macroeconomic effects on currency evaluations of fundamental changes in policies of trade partner countries. for example, if the united states engages in fundamental tax reform, that would lead to improved growth and reduced deficits and debt. the models considered in the legislation before us have the ability to capture those effects. the marker i wish to set here is a reminder that we should be similarly so inclined to use economic models that allow for macroeconomic effects of policy changes when we choose to make fundamental changes to tax and spending policies. we should be as willing to have our budget scorekeepers use economic models that allow for long-run growth and macroeconomic effects of fundamental tax and spending reform policies as we seem to be here in this legislation to use models that incorporate such effects when evaluating currency

alignments. it is good to use economic models that allow for an accounting of growth effects here than it should be good elsewhere. we have the need to process the currency bill before us. the bill garnered bipartisan support. in the interest of promoting a truly bipartisan effort which the american people would love to see, it is my hope that there will be balance in amendments that are allowed to be considered. this bill has sound objectives, but it is not perfect. i believe that amendments from both sides of the aisle can improve the final product and, as i mentioned earlier, i have an amendment that i believe will improve this bill significantly and help us devise a long-term approach to dealing with currency misalignment. i hope there will be an opportunity for it and others to be considered. i thoep they're not -- i hope they're not going to lock up the tree again, which is the standard practice around here, by the majority. this bill is an important bill

and we ought to be able to amend it with important amendments. the overriding objective of the legislation, job creation, is shared by republicans and democrats alike. therefore, it is my hope that amendments from my side of the aisle designed to improve job growth today and in the future will be duly considered, allowed and duly debated. now, mr. president, i look forward to consideration of the currency bill before us and a robust bipartisan process which includes consideration of amendments from both sides to promote job creation. as i've said, our nation faces a crisis of unemployment and joblessness that is filled with pain today and threatens erosion of human capital and skills which will negatively impact families in the overall economy for years and years to follow. let us not have politics and special interests dictate what we consider to promote job

creation and economic growth. american workers and families, many of them struggling and in pain, cannot wait until the next presidential election is resolved for the federal government to act to promote job creation. mr. president,

>> the need to trim spending, which has raised the possibility at least of perhaps significant

reductions in u.s. force levels in europe in the future. is that something that is going to be discussed this week at all? and how much of the concern is it to you? specifically, you mentioned missile defense, one of the areas which people who want to see cuts have been looking at is missile defense and the other is the tactical nuclear weapons in europe and the whole programs to refurbish those. how much of the concern is this debate for nato and what are the consequences if there should be significant reductions in troop levels? >> first of all, let me stress that the u.s. commitment to european and north atlantic security remains as strong as ever. and long ago the u.s. announced

its plan for future troop presence in europe; plans that were welcomed by allies. and, in fact, i consider the decision to develop a nato-based missile defense system a clear testament to a general commitment within our alliance to our common security. the fact is that the united states provides an input to the nato-based missile defense system, namely the american missile defense system. european allies provide input. some of them have already announced input. further announcement can be

expected in the coming month. so all in all, i consider missile defense a very, very strong signal, and more than that, a strong commitment to our alliance. but let me add to this, that in general, of course, we will discuss resources and capabilities at this defense ministers' meeting. i have put it on the agenda because all defense ministers are faced with the challenge that they are forced to make deep cuts on their defense budgets, and we have to find ways and means to acquire the necessary capabilities in the coming years, and this is the reason why i have launched the concept smart defense. >> nick fiorenza, defense

technology international. i haven't heard the term transformation used recently. i mean, you didn't mention it in the speech on friday and you didn't mention it today. has the concept of transformation, has that been replaced by smart defense, and if so, it seems to me as if it's only one element? i mean, a couple of years ago you mentioned eight points in the transformation agenda, so first of all, has smart defense replaced transformation? and second, the eighth point of your transformation agenda a couple of years ago was alliance reform. i mean, headquarters or military headquarters at least, seemed to be being reduced, but i understand there are certain problems with the actual nato headquarters here, the reform of this headquarters. >> first of all, let me stress that we have no problems at this headquarters. and actually i have launched reforms of this headquarters as

well. we are in the process of reforming this headquarters and further reforms will follow. but more broadly, transformation is actually an integrated part of smart defense. we need to transform our armed forces in the direction of more flexibility and more mobility and that's part of the smart defense agenda. and at the upcoming defense ministers' meeting we will discuss not only how we ensure necessary resources to acquire necessary military capabilities, how to spend money more efficiently, but also how to ensure that input is followed by appropriate output. so and that's actually the

essence of transformation. so it's still on the agenda as an integrated part of smart defense. >> mr. secretary general, it is reported that 10,000 missiles were lost in libya? do you have any detailed information on that? and what does nato plan to do to lessen the possible damage? >> well, first of all, we do not comment on specific intelligence matters, but of course, in general, it is a matter of concern if stockpiles of weapons are not appropriately controlled and monitored. but first of all, this is a him responsibility for the new authorities in libya, for the national transitional council. and according to the un security council resolution 2009, it is the responsibility of the

national transitional council to ensure that stocks of weapons in libya are appropriately controlled and ensured. as you know, nato has no troops on the ground in libya. we conduct our operations from air, from the air and at sea, but individual allies are in contact with the national transitional council to ensure that they address this issue effectively. >> beta news agency from serbia.

[inaudible] first question to you said that nato will, k. four we is always minimum force, but also right to self-defense. the president of serbia stated that he talk to you, he asked special investigation on the violence on the crossings in northern kosovo, invoking the fact that. [inaudible] if the hospital, live ammunition was extracted from the wounded serbs who were shot by k. four. so is it also that self-defense needed, that was needed really to shoot with live ammunition, live bullets, not only rubber bullets? and the second question, do you think that kfor can, would continue to be some kind of de facto police on the border, because now on the crossings the situation is tense, is not as bad, but not there is no more

violence. normally that must be the role of police; eulex or kosovo police. thank you. >> first of all, kfor troops acted clearly in self-defense. i have received detailed information and i have full confidence in our commanders, our troops and the way they have acted. in general, i think they have really done a lot during recent months to calm down the situation and keeping a status neutral and impartial way of handling the situation. and i would like to stress that. it is important for us; that we are there to protect all people in kosovo.

according to our mandate, we are there to maintain a safe and secure environment and ensure the freedom of movement. in that respect we assist eulex and we have an agreement that the point of departure is that kfor is only what we call third responder. first responder is kosovo police. second responder eulex, and kfor acts as, so to speak, a back-up as the third responder. during a crisis like the one we have seen kfor, it has been necessary for kfor to take action and actually act as a first responder. but we want, as soon as possible, to return to a more

normal situation. so it's not our ambition to be the first responder. that's for other authorities. but of course we will stay and maintain a safe and secure environment. [inaudible] i don't see a need for further investigation. i have received information. i have offered the serbs information through the usual military channels. klaus hecking, ft deutschland. sir, two questions on smart defense. the first question is, you know, smart defense touches national serenity and national... these questions always tend to be very difficult, as you know from your time as danish prime minister. would you be happy if in chicago at the summit if the heads of the government, if they at least agreed on one, let's say, showcase project, or would there

have to be more? and the second question, who would have the command of what these common capabilities? would it be common nato capability under the command of the saceur, for example, or would it be, i don't know, under national command and then somehow being distributed or whatever? thanks. >> yes, of course, as far as the command structure is concerned it's very much dependent on how each arrangement is organized, so to speak. if we have a 28 arrangement, so to speak, if it's common funded, it's really a common nato project then there's no doubt it will, of course, follow the usual chain of command. you may have a multinational

project, where a number of countries pool and share resources in order to acquire a specific capability. and then, of course, it will be based on a memorandum of understanding or another document how exactly the command structure will be organized. but if such a capability is offered to nato during a nato operation, then, of course, it will be a part of the nato command structure. so i think basically as long as you are speaking about capabilities at the disposal of nato during operations then there's no doubt it will be handled within the nato command structure.

as far as your first question is concerned, yes, you're right that if we embark on specialization where not all allies necessarily have all capabilities at their disposal, then it may touch upon the question of national, maybe not national sovereignty, but at least it raises a number of questions. and we should realize that it is a specific challenge to address this. but having said that i think the economic realities will move this agenda forward, because in

the future it will simply not be possible from an economic point of view for all allies to have all military assets at thei wil disposal. the only way forward is to cooperate and specialize. it's not a handover of sovereignty. let me stress that when it comes to defense and security policy i think nations will safeguard their national sovereignty for many good reasons. but it is about cooperation. it's about helping each other. and i think that should be possible within an alliance of friends that we can help each other without considering it giving up national sovereignty.

>> so just a quick follow-up. so a symbolic gesture as to say we - (inaudible) you have to wait, klaus. >> sorry. so a symbolic gesture such as if the heads of government said at chicago, okay, we will agree at least to build up one common capability, might it be, i don't know, drones or whatever, that would make you happy already because that would be a start. >> yes, but actually we are preparing a package of concrete proposals. i don't know yet whether we can reach an agreement, but that's at least the process we have initiated. the first start has been a report from our allied command transformation. as i mentioned, a task force has elaborated in a report with a number of very concrete proposals. building on that we will try to identify further projects that could be elements in a comprehensive package to be endorsed at the nato summit in

chicago. and to further facilitate that process, i have asked the allied commander transformation, general abrial, the french general, abrial, together with our deputy secretary general bisogniero, act as special envoys. they will engage with capitals in allied nations from now until the nato summit in chicago, discuss with our allies how we can develop such multinational projects. so i will not hide the fact that it is a challenging mission, but personally i do believe that it

is the only way forward if we are to acquire the necessary capabilities in the future. not only during a period of economic austerity, but also taking into account that there is a clear tendency that prices of, in particular, sophisticated military equipment, rise more rapidly than inflation and our gdp. so taking all that into considering we have to find new ways and means to acquire, in particular, expensive military equipment in the coming years. >> one final question to marisa from ansa. >> yes, hi. marisa ostolani, from ansa italian news agency. if i understood correctly, it seems that you are pretty cold

about the letter that the five member states, including italy, but not only, france, germany, spain and poland, wrote just three weeks ago proposing some project common for a common defense. that is true, my feeling that you are opposed to this initiative? and can you explain why exactly? what is the main reason that you are not so, well, so easy about this project? thanks. >> first of all, let me stress that i am not going to interfere whatsoever with eu business. it's for the eu to make such decisions. but i have been asked whether i think we need new headquarters in europe and i don't think it can be a big surprise that taking into account that we are reforming nato with the aim to reduce headquarters, to reduce the number of headquarters, to reduce the number of posts within headquarters, that my

answer when i'm asked is that i don't think we need more headquarters. and then i have added, i think we need more hardware. and that's exactly my point, speaking about smart defense. that we need to find ways and means to use our sparse resources better in the coming years, to acquire necessary military capabilities. and on a final note, our mission in, our operation in libya has been a great, great success. but it has also revealed that we need some critical military capabilities, in particular the european allies when it comes to intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, air-to-air refuelling. it's not a secret. it's obvious. still, it was, and it is, a

great success, but it has also been a lesson learned on the capability side. so in the coming years we have to focus investment on acquiring these necessary assets, and it is in that context that i stated that i think it's more necessary to spend sparse resources on acquiring these assets than building new headquarters and new bureaucracies. thank you. >> thank you very much. hope to see you all on wednesday at the defense ministers' meeting. thank you.

>> a forum on u.s.-israel relations.

>> more now from a hudson institute forum on relations between the u.s. and israel. one panel focus on the strategic relationship between the two countries and the role of the congressional israel caucus. this is a little more than an hour. >> please, gentlemen, i -- i

have a difficult job of calling you back to work or after a full morning, and lunchtime, but it's important that we try to start soon, especially as a couple of our participants would have to leave a little bit early. this is, well, first of all, good afternoon. and i should begin by saying my name is hillel fradkin, i'm a senior fellow of the hudson institute and its program on the future of the muslim world, one of his activities is to publish a journal on radical islam called current trends in islam ideology. today it is my privilege and pleasure to serve as a moderator

on this, our third panel and our fourth session. this panel is devoted, i might say, in a way the overall subjects of this conference. the subject of the strategic relationship between the united states and israel. we have come to the subject in a certain way by various steps and my somewhat indirect route. but we are finally there. and the subject, the questions we are posing our what is the basis and value of this relationship? by way of introduction to our subject and comments that our panelists may offer, let me cite the often repeated claim that america does domestic policy that stops at the water's edge. what this means, or is alleged to mean come is that we americans when venturing forth

in the world put aside our domestic disagreements and put on a common face to other countries. both friends and adversaries. well, we are here in washington, and even if we were not, if we were not inside the beltway, we know that this is not always true. but in the case of the state of israel it has been remarkably true. and over a remarkably long time. that is to say, that israel has enjoyed support from a very broad sector of the american public your and its elected representatives. moreover, the character of this relationship has been very broad. it has involved political and military factors, but also cultural and increasingly as we heard from our new speaker, economic ones. as result of this relationship,

it has come to be seen as called strategic, as distinguished from transactional. that is, a relationship that goes beyond temporary communities of interest. we have grown very used to this relationship and its depths such as to take it very much for granted. but it is in a way curiosity given the disproportion between these two countries, the state of israel and the united states. the united states is now an old country. israel is still a very young one. the united states is a very large and powerful country, with worldwide interest and influence. israel is a very small one, and necessary more restricted in its influence as well as its interests.

of course, israel's primary interest today and throughout most of its life has been injuring its contingent existence, a most serious interest that the u.s., i'm happy to say for the time being, does not have to worry about on its own behalf. we know from history that it is not uncommon for large countries to distinct interests of small ones, especially ones far away. i use this expression advisedly because it was an expression used by some 70 years ago, by neville chamberlain, prime minister of great britain when he used it in reference to the importance that czechoslovakia might have to the interest of great britain. czechoslovakia being a country not bigger and not much smaller than israel.

one thing explains the strength of the relationship between the u.s. and israel? why is there this relationship between such a large and influential country and such a small one? moreover, that's i think an important question to raise. it's especially important to raise because despite the present depth of that relationship, it was not always so and we tend to forget that. during the period 1940-1967, there was broad american sympathy for israel, and some political support. but it was variable and there was very little of a military relationship. it was only after the six-day war that military relationship between the united states and israel became in any way really substantial. so this relationship has not

been of this depth and been of this breath from the beginning. it has grown, but it also might decay. showed it, we know that there are today people who argued that it should, that this relationship exceeds what is in the interest of the united states. so it's important to ask, what are the basis of the strategic relationships? what are its ground, and our the abiding or will they change? to address these questions we are privileged to have three very distinguished people, speakers. i will announce all three of them at the moment and then call on them to speak in that order. congressman peter roskam of illinois who is co-chair of the republican israel caucus your

gary bauer his director of the organization known as american values, and formerly undersecretary of educating for very long time, eight years i think. that probably set some record for people in that office. >> they couldn't find anyone. [laughter] >> and ilan berman who is vice president of the american foreign policy council. we've asked our panelists each speak for about eight minutes. and i understand my collett scooter libby has announced the means by which we have to enforce this. thereafter, we will do some follow-up questions with our panelists, and between them, and then open up for questions. >> thank you. well, i must say the enforcement mechanism was not disclosed to these panelists.

[laughter] so we need a buzzer or something but we will find out. if i go eight minutes and five seconds, we will find out. my name is peter roskam and i serve, i'm serving in my third term in the house of representatives. i represent the western suburbs of chicago, and i'm really pleased to be here as co-chairman of the house of how's republican israel caucus. i thought what i would try to do is give a perspective over the past several months what it's like to be inside the house of representatives and dealing with these themes about the u.s. and israeli relationship. i wouldn't presume to give a strategic talk or the weapon stock or the economic talk, but let me give you talk and that is insight for what it's like to deal in the house of representatives right now. now, interesting thing. the 2010 election cycle was about what? it wasn't about israel. it wasn't about foreign policy.

it was about largely spending and economic themes, and the role of the government in domestic life. that was the prelude to the 2010 election and that was the national conversation that we had. so how is it that israel has become a front and center in house operations within the past several months? it's largely based i think on the approach that the administration has chosen to take, and it's an interesting thing because inside the house of representatives israel has had an impact. let me give you an example. he had 87 new republicans coming to this congress, many of whom have never served in a public life and the first requirement, their first task is to figure out how to fund the government to the end of the fiscal year. it turns out it's going to be a continuing task for them, that it was their first task. so they come in and was a strong movement at the beginning to say

the best way to do this is let's do across the board cut and call it a day. it's the most straightforward thing. you know, you're not quote picking winners and losers, and then the more people began to understand the reality of that, the more they add, taking to the conclusion that he didn't want to do that. in large part why was that? because they knew it would have an adverse impact on the u.s.-israeli relationship. they knew that it meant they're going to cut military support to israel. and i had members of congress tell me nobody sent me here to cut support to israel. interesting little thing, but that was a decision that was a threshold decision inside the house strategy on moving forward. in other words, to do an across the board cut, and adverse relationship, or adverse support to israel, let's not go that

route. why? because israel is important to us. israel needs our support. and let's come up with a different pathway. another level observation, and that is the decision by speaker boehner to indict prime minister netanyahu for a joint session speech. it needs no repeating here, but the amount of worldwide and national attention and focus on a joint session speech is something that money just can't buy, right? the ability to come in to convene antistate to literally to the who's who of america's public life, there to be welcomed and to be celebrated as a thing to behold. now, this is an opportunity that was available to the previous speaker, and for whatever reason she made a decision not to do that. i don't have any insight as to that thinking, that i do know that speaker boehner was intentional about inviting prime

minister netanyahu here. that sort of focal point create a great deal of energy around the u.s.-israeli relationship. another interesting thing, and it's just an anecdote, when i became chairman of the house of how's republican israel caucus, the first thing i asked for, i said where is the list of members? well, you have five members on your israel caucus. really? that's helpful. that's fabulous in a place of 435 members. you have 240 republicans, i have five people on the list and probably their staff you suggest, we're going to move the needle. i started just working the floor, going up to numbers and i would say, hey, george, do you want to be in the how's republican israel caucus? and they would say, i thought i was in the house republicans israel caucus. [laughter] after i signed up 80 people, i gave up. it's like i wasn't playing fair.

in other words, esteem with which israel is felt was something that was very easy to get people to get around. the purpose of the caucus then is to highlight the relationship to advance the relationship, to educate folks about the relationship. but i almost felt like i wasn't playing fair. do you know what i mean? that maybe o.j.'s lawyer, or getting a hard job here. i'm advocating for israel among people that basically feel great about israel. i'm happy to do that, and it was an easy thing to do. the last thing that i think each and insight into that issue is perceived is there was a large amount of new members who took the opportunity to accept an invitation to travel to israel in august. i myself will be going on a sixth trip to israel next month,

and it goes without saying, to see it is to believe it, and to come away from that experience is really formative. just want to give you one last personal experience. i was involved in a competitive race or congress in 2006, and it was one of those ones where you did know you did know, i had no idea we were going to win or lose, those larger-than-life sort of situations. and during the fall my wife and i decided well, win or lose let's go do something fun, you know? if you win, great, it's always fun. but if you lose you want to have something to look forward to. so we decided that we are going to go to israel, and we hadn't been there as a family. we have four children, and what, what i can only describe to you was a formative experience and israel for my children i'm a christian. i'm not going to israel as a jew. i'm going to israel as a christian with my wife and four

children. and it was something that is a touchstone in our family life. a touchstone experience in our family life. and i think that i'm here to bring encouragement today, and encouragement have says within the house of representatives israel enjoys a unique status, a status that is based on the premise of shared values, shared interests, and, obviously, a tumultuous part of the world. and it's one that i think most americans as they reflect back and they said all the politics aside, they recognize that a close relationship with israel is in the best interest of the united states. it is in the best interest of the united states for israel to be strong, for its understand its relationship with the united states. and that's why didn't the administration is in some ways

run into difficulties. so, i see the words of time. i am moving back carefully. i'm not touching anything. [laughter] and i'll be happy to stick around for questions. [applause] >> it's a pleasure to be with you all today. i thought it was 80 minutes, by the way. [laughter] i get my remarks cut down a bit. it is a pleasure to be on such an important subject, to talk about the strategic relationship and why it is so strong. for about the last 10 years, ashley since 9/11 i've had the opportunity among other things that i do to work on the project of trying to build grassroots support for israel and for the alliance between the united states and israel. and it really has been very easy

work to do. because there is at the grassroots of the united states, and all kinds of people and stride and economic roots, et cetera, a natural affinity for the nation of israel that dries deletes crazy. now, over the last 10 years because of that work, i've been able to do it for better or worse, a lot of interviews with the media, not only the u.s. media but media from europe, from latin america, from europe, from around the world. the interviews are almost identical. they come up to my office. they said at the camera, everything gets ready, and then they lean in and asked the question. and usually it's mr. bauer, why do americans support israel? or maybe they will take a more narrow ditch, why are christians so pro-israel? and the question is always asked with an air of hostility and

almost disdained. because the media elite, as you know, certainly in europe and increasingly here in the united states, are very hostile to the cause of israel. they think it's a very bad thing that the united states predictably places itself on the side of israel. we see that over and over again in twisted news coverage, et cetera. but for me, experiencing these interviews it seems fairly evident pretty early into the interviews that these reporters are all probably graduates of helen thomas school of journalism. you know, to come into the interview with a set of assumption that no decent, honorable, educated person could possibly be siding on the oppressive israeli regime against the poor palestinians who are being put upon, et cetera, et cetera. well, as i said i have found it's a pretty easy job to get people to support israel.

and certainly it's never been hard for me to look at the middle east and be able to tell the difference between the murdered or the murderers. and the difference between those who stand for freedom and those who stand for something quite different from that. it's been alluded to a number of times already today that the two nations have very strong military ties. we share intelligence, et cetera. but i'd like to suggest to you that one of the reasons, in fact i would argue the main reason there's such an infinity among the american people for the nation of israel, and also among the people of israel, and infinity for the people of the united states for the nation of the united states, is that our bonds go a lot deeper than military arrangements, or even normal strategic relationships as one would understand those. the two nations love and honor the same things. to cite one obvious thing, we

worship the same god, the god of abraham, isaac and jacob, judaism and christianity are obviously joined in a very important way. i would argue that our hearts are entwined as a result, that is this sort of tapestry of values, of shared values that's been woven between the two nations. i think we will thrive together, or we will expire together. and not to be too melodramatic about it, if by some terrible set of circumstances our nation's fail, then i don't believe it's that arguable that the world would sink into another dark age. the two nations, i guess i would put it they are, i see the two nations as the pillars of

judeo-christian civilization. that's a concept that there is such a thing called judeo-christian civilization is something that will get you great scorn at the universities of many u.s. campuses and certainly israeli campuses, too. but there is such a thing. and as i said, i think the nation's are connected at the arch. you can see that after 9/11. i remember, well, first of all i know we can go around this room and everyone can tell me exactly where you work that morning, right? it is burned into memory. i was stuck in a traffic jam on an exit off of 395 about 75 yards away from the pentagon when that hijacked plane went into the side of the. i find out later that at that very shocking moment, friends of mine died at the desk in the pentagon and died on that flight so i will certainly remember the

moment. i also remember something else. i remember turning the tv on in the days that followed and seeing celebrations in some precincts of the middle east. palestinians running into the streets shooting guns into the air, dancing, handing candy out to the children, celebrating the pain that we were feeling. we hadn't even pull bodies out of the rubble yet, and they were engaged in this. and i remember seeing in israel people weeping with us. the israeli government declaring a day of mourning with us, lowering their flag as we lowered our flag. and so when a reporter says to me, why are americans so pro-israel, really? army, is this really a close call for anybody is paying attention? the israelis of course knew exactly what we were expecting that morning because they have

been subjected periodically to these grinding campaigns of terror. the two nations are together because we have the same enemies. visa death worshipers who can't even as we are meeting here this afternoon are still doing everything they can to bring us greater sorrows and sorrows we've already experienced. they don't want 3000 to be dead on the next day like 9/11, they want 300,000 to be dead. i said that our two nations agree on certain essential philosophical ideas. one of those is the whole dignity and value and worth of every human being. you see, judaism and christianity both believe that man is made in the image of god your and so if you believe that every man has a divine spark, regardless of handicapped or age or where you are in life, or color of your skin, et cetera,

each person has value and worth. that is a central idea of judeo-christian civilization and of western civilization. it's why every place we go we can to promote these ideas of individual liberty that goes with the idea that men are made in the image of god. the central idea of america, as i'm sure we all know, is in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence written by the founders off easy. the founders were students of the hebrew bible, of the old testament, and of the christian new testament. and they took their ideas about man and about liberty out of the bible, old and new testament, which led them to write in second paragraph, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator. that's a revolutionary idea. it's the most revolutionary idea of judeo-christian civilization.

and the creator that is being referred to in paragraph, that the founders were very well familiar with was the god of abraham. the same guide us into a book and he who blesses you i will bless, he who curses you i will curse. and this is why christians in the united states tend to be, because of that bible verse, instinctively very pro israel. either way, our esteemed moderator said that a strong relationship is relatively new. among the american people generally, this goes back a long way. the american founders were restoration us. they believe god intended for the jewish people to be restored to their ancient homeland. and they also believe that america would play a role in that. jefferson and franklin thought that the seal of in the states ought to be a depiction of moses leading the people of israel out of captivity to the promised

land. this goes through a long part of american history. in fact, the israeli ambassador to the united states michael warren has written about this quite eloquently. by the way, harry truman, went against all the advice of his advisers, recognize israel almost immediately after the new nation was declared, he was reflecting what he was taught at a southern that this church. and the years that followed, people would stop by to the oval office and talk to him about this, he would compare himself to king cyrus who allowed that used to be liberated out of babylon. so again, these routes between israel and the united states go back very deeply. my time is up. let me make one final point. i believe as we nurture this relationship, and as we tried to defend western civilization, that we not going need to work on military cooperation, intelligence sharing and all the rest of it, i think both israel and the united states need to be

sure that we are teaching children that they are part of a great civilization. western civilization. today of christian civilization. they are being told by the popular culture, by accident scenes, but also to people in the elites that this is a civilization that is oppressed people, that it's not worth defending, that everywhere it's gone, misery has followed. the exact opposite of the truth. so i believe israeli children, american children, indeed the children of free men and women everywhere need to know that whatever western civilization has gone, freedom, human dignity, self government has followed. and that indeed is the civilization, represented by israel and the united states, well worth defending. thank you. [applause] >> well, thanks very much.

i'm delighted that secretary barr took some of my time so i don't have to bore you as long as they would otherwise. i thought this is actually a very useful introduction to the topic of the u.s. is ready strategic relationship because when we think about israel, a couple things tend to be self-evident. the first is that the strategic partnership is historic and its broad, and the second is that support is a given. almost a given. in the context of congress, the context of a lot of key constituencies. what we don't have a lot of understanding of is why the strategic partnership makes sense from a political level. and so that's where you have that tension between the mainstream media and the questioning of the durability of the allied. so let me spend a few minutes talking about the relationship, sort of in a geopolitical context why this makes sense. and i think was mentioned, the current vibrancy of the

relationship is very much a modern phenomenon. in the early days of the jewish state israel is chose him as a liability, seen as a liability under the care the administration, under johnson administration. they were deviations and politically the american public were supported in the main of israel. in terms of a strong alliance it had yet to develop. this began to change during the six day war, during israel's military victory and the logic of partnership that began to emerge in washington as a result. it didn't truly become a partnership, a strategic proportionate until the reagan era. and in the reagan era the relationship that washington built with jerusalem was driven by essentially fourth main considerations. the first was as mr. bauer said, that there are common values that israel is, was is and still is despite the arab spring i would argue the only western-style democracy in the

region. this gives israel something that is culturally and politically understandable and relatable in a way that israel's neighbors on not. and this is israel's enduring competitive advantage when it comes to talking with the united states, when it comes to interacting with washington. it's one that israel has managed to level i think very effectively and it stands as one of the building blocks for the partnership moving forward. the second is that israel is a reliable military partner. there was a u.s. general at the time that turned israel a land-based battle carrier. that is how israel came to be seen in the context of what the united states was looking at in the middle east. israel was seen as a country where u.s. forces could train, from which they could deploy and cooperation followed. so the poor became a port of call for the u.s. sixth fleet and all sorts of ancillary relationship began to be built.

the third was the issue began to be seen as a defense industrial partner. israeli technological advances on everything from missile defense to unmanned aerial vehicles came to be seen as a potential asset for the united states. an asset that we could leverage. and as a result the web of defense industrial relationship that you see now began. and the fourth and probably the most important is that israel was seen broadly as a strategic force multiplier for the united states. because of the items above, because a military partnership, defense and just partnership and most of all common values issue came to be seen as a country that was mainly congruent in attitudes and objectives to the united states, and could be expected to act in a way that would be beneficial to us. great and enduring example of this is -- in which israel acted to eliminate the nuclear program

of saddam hussein. it was an act that was publicly vilified, privately congratulated on the part of many in this town because it was seen as being congruent in the name of what the united states saw as a threat and what the united states saw in response. so the the result of this was israel came to be seen as a security producer in the region, not a consumer but a country that the u.s. could part with in order to produce security for a very unstable region. from that flowed the foreign aid that we give israel, the idea of quality edge which is the promise that was given to israel under the reagan administration that israel would be provided with the type of military equipment that would allow it to stand and fight against the quantitatively more numerous adversaries in the region, that the weaponry was qualitatively better. there's been tremendous changes in the relationship since the end of the cold war. the peace process has entered

into the mix in a very dramatic way. the security environment in the region has become very fluid, and in the first gulf war israel has taken a backseat in terms of coalition building in a way it would have during the cold war. and then 9/11 injected new closeness in the relationship, but only temporarily. because as a practical matter the war on terror allowed americans to understand better into a template in terms of what israel was suffering through in terms of terrorism, threats it faces but qualitatively the threat from groups like hamas, hezbollah and from state-sponsored tears like al qaeda. so this sort of very, very fast forward summary brings us to where we are today. the relationship between the united states and israel is clearly wasn't a period of

turbine speed from the israeli perspective there is a challenging environment. a regional environment that is more challenging than anything faced since the early tumultuous days of the post-cold war era. we're talking about the air spring, talking about the realignment with turkey, talking here about an uncertain future with the palestinians given the u.s. statehood did the. and the obama administration at least politically is not seen as being very supportive in this context. but all of this needs to be put through the lens of a relationship that is both historic and broad. the logic that is undergirding the israeli u.s. relationship is still sound. israel still shares, societal values, strategic objectives in a broad sense and very congruent views of regional threats and other opportunities. in other words, israeli-american cooperation is terrible because it makes strategic sense. and so that's why you see this sort of mixed picture of the

relationship that is emerging under the obama administration. politically the relationship is turbulent because there's been in the sense to much greater extent under this administration than under the last one on issues regarding settlements, regarding palestinians, regarding starting, reinvigorate the peace process in a way that creates tension between jerusalem and washington. strategically, however, the partner you don't see much of this sort of on the surface, the partnership is driving. -- thriving. and the reason for this is that in the main, the pillars, are apolitical. that's what it enjoy so much support across the administration a respective of political orientation, and

that's why the relationship enjoys so much bipartisan support in congress in terms of generating both the consensus, broad consensus politically speaking, and also generating the fuel, legislative fuel to keep the relationship coming. so as we look forward we should be thinking about the issues that are relevant both to the united states, the united states and israel. over the last of years we've seen a number of them including more than anything else a topic where talked about before lunch which is iran. a, but between the united states and israel on the subject of iran is one of the most enduring issues of the years ahead. this is the good news. the bad news is that the political friction that you see between washington and jerusalem could lead to the perception that israel is isolated and israel is vulnerable. apperception serves neither the israelis nor the united states. the united states needs a

partner that is as reliable as israel and willing to compound american policy, american objectives in the region. israel, when it's a viable, when it's working, is a driving force in terms of u.s. policy in the middle east. i'll stop there. thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks very much. i that we begin, begin by posting a couple of questions, that arise from what's been said so far. it seems to me that there have been two things that have been mentioned as powerful forces in the relationship. part of that is, say, shared principles, shared sentiments,

mr. bowers spoke eloquently about entwined hearts and so forth. that's been a very powerful, remains a very powerful thing. and even more so as congressman ross, pointed out very powerfully, it is very concrete experience of israel itself. and in a way it is remarkable since very few americans can even very few american jews actually have expensive israel but that sort of essentially personal relationship is felt by large numbers of americans. and if i may offer an observation of my own, i think some of it has obviously to do with a shared heritage that israel and the united states draw upon, summit being historic

above so that also being frankly the experience of democratic life. one of the things that has been very striking i think over the years of people who have seen the introduction of americans and israelis is that a certain sense that americans and israelis are really democratic and really calgarian. the pluses and minuses of that, that semi-tories rudeness of americans, that there's something about the national character of each country that is shared. on the other hand, and these are very powerful general things, you know, about 35 years ago i had a year to do research in israel, and in jerusalem, and they used to say to israel, very

concerned about the relationship, but these are really powerful, and things. and they said yes, what about specific interests arise. they're constantly trying to come up with a very hard concrete argument for why it's absolutely necessary for israel and the united states to be in strategic partnership. because they felt in a certain way that the other things are powerful and good, but it's sort of in times won't be the determining force. and that i think is important to, i wanted to raise the question, how that works in your opinion, the relationship between these general shared things which are there all the time and the specific issues

that arise. and in a way is a very natural occasion for posing that which is i think as are then referred today, the comments are secretary of defense, leon panetta, this morning who was quoted by everyone as saying, so he must have said, the following thing, that israel is more isolated today. now, the first response one might think to that is, gee, you think? i can deliver it as well as people do on tv, especially mark harmon in ncis. but that's obvious. and when he refers specifically to the relationship between israel and turkey, and israel and egypt, the immediate question is well, obviously what are they supposed to do about

it? but okay, maybe secretary of defense would admit that there's nothing they can do about it. but then the question is what does it mean for us? for the united states, and how are we supposed to approach these kinds of tensions, or is there a tension? is there no real tension? should there not be really daylight in the circumstances going to united states and israel? if so, why? and if not, if there is some daylight, how is that supposed to be managed? i invite you, feel free to comment on the other things people have said, but i throw that out for discussion. >> i think that anytime there's tension in a relationship or ambiguity in a relationship,

people in the relationship are well served by dealing with it quickly, speaking to it forthrightly, and attending to it. when i was practicing law by analogy, nothing good happened when i got a file and i let it sit on my desk for a while. nothing good happens, right? you blow the statute limitations, you run into some of the hassle. nothing good happens the longer you wait. i believe that there's consequences to leadership decisions, and that we're in part in this period of israeli isolation in part based on how the administration has been leading and how the administration, in my view, has created a great deal of ambiguity about the relationship. ambiguity in this context is not helpful. so, i served in the house leadership as the chief deputy whip which is an obscure title

which meets nothing to anybody, but what it really means is a whip, kevin mccarthy and i, are talking to more rank-and-file members than probably anybody else in the house of representatives. and when you need to with a vote, i'll tell you this, you don't start the morning of the vote. you don't start the week before the vote. you give it a lot of time, and i think what the administration has done in terms of how it has approached the human situation, for example, is to pretend that it was able to sort of give, or speak teenager, you speak teenage way to go hey, how you doing? just like that. right at the end of a thing is like, we didn't expect you to vote a certain way because we are telling you to vote a certain way. no, no, no. you have something that is as consequential as a stated question and the vote hasn't been with for months in advance, it creates a great deal of ambiguity, a great deal of tension, and i would suggest

nothing good happens. now, the good news is issue enjoys a very strong relationship here in the house, in the senate obviously. but i'm not surprised that now there is a sense of israeli isolationism. this is the consequence of leadership that i think has not served that relationship well. and i don't think it's in the best interest of the united states. and as a remedy for that, and that is akin to the relationship, create clarity about what the united states relationship is with israel, that it's in the u.s. best interest for israel to feel strong in the region, and then ultimately i think good things can happen from the. but in a nutshell ambiguity creates a lot of tension, and tension creates isolation and it's not helpful. >> the statement by lay up ahead

today is just the latest in a series of statements by officials of the administration. it seems to me to just be the manifestation of another round of pressure on israel to make certain concessions under very bad circumstances. so, i don't see it as a natural tension that is between the united states and israel. i see it as a tension between israel and the current administration that announced very early on that they intended to reorient american foreign policy away from israel and toward the islamic world. they made that announcement, the president made the announcement in cairo to raise certain expectations. and it seems to me after three years of trying this, all that's accomplish is the polling data shows we are going, we are well-liked in the islamic world and we were before this program islamic new foreign policy was initiated by the president. and israel is under even greater pressure, and the extent that

they are under pressure i do think anybody in washington should be taking any lessons out of that other than we are being isolated, too. middle east is increasingly hostile to israel. if the middle east by definition is increasingly hostile to the united states. as mr. panetta, did anyone think israel was suddenly drawn or make major concessions that weakens itself and strengthens its enemies, some of the position of the united states would be stronger in the middle east or internationally would be the exact opposite. so i think this is one of those cases where our shared values brings us together. but almost always those shared values should put us on the same side when confronted with the drift of turkey or the situation in egypt, or whatever other headline happens to be grabbing our attention at the time. >> that's action sort of a perfect segue because there's actually a moment to talk about

where shared values actually pull you apart. good example of this is what i ended my talk with because i saw the high sign. i didn't get a chance to flesh out my thoughts. so here goes. the iranian portfolio is enormously disruptive in terms of how the relationship can work really well and how it can work really poorly. when i was israel a few weeks ago i had a conversation with an israeli expert on iran who said if i had only one advice to give to the israeli government it would be to stop talking about iran. and the reason why is not because iraq isn't a threat. it is a threat but because the more you talk about, the more you an issue. so in his contacts with the united states israel have a shared perception of the threat, it's a perception that has become almost entirely israeli in focus to israel talks about a lot so israel is presumed in this town to be the solution to the problem. that i think is an erroneous presumption. iran is not only a threat to israel, it's a threat to the

international community, a threat in terms of how it positions itself, how talks about regional hegemony is a threat to the immediate neighbors but also to the united states, to the west. and the more we talk about the idea that israel as more of the issue that we are, the more we have, spend less time thinking about what we do about it. in the context of shared values sometimes it's useful to understand that these chair guys could drive us to inertia if we assume the israelis are the different spirit in dealing with iran. israel is obvious in a large portion of the and, indeed, with iran but it shouldn't be the only one. >> yeah, i'm -- sorry. we need a microphone. i have to keep track. yes, sir. >> thank you. this administration is kind of

uniquely, to my memory, been trying to dictate terms of negotiations, in terms of policy to an independent country. and i'm wondering, is this directly from president obama, or from his advisers? where did he get this idea he can start dictating these conditions to an independent country? >> it may not be that anyone onn the panel can answer that specific question. they might answer the question of whether, you know, whether your characterization is correct and what's the appropriate -- >> i have no inside information but i do think it's particularly ironic that this is a president who, when he campaigned, had as one of his critiques of bush's

foreign policy that we're trying to run the world, we're trying to dictate too many things. and then he takes office and promptly stops dictating a whole group of countries, but does get very specific and very committed to dictate to israel on everything from zoning policy in jerusalem to how they should appropriate approach negotiations. look, having worked in an administration for eight years, i don't believe that advisers talk a president into doing something that he wasn't naturally inclined to do. so if there were advisers urging him to do this, i suspect it was a very short conversation. >> we have a question back here. not yet. the one on, there's a man on the aisle there, please. >> thank you. frank fletcher. there's been a movement within, certainly within the united states of, i don't know, but

among intellectuals for decades to disparage western civilization, attacking the teaching of the western canon. there's been -- >> we need questions. >> okay. the use of the term the christian west and the status of christianity's indigenous to the middle east. i see the absence of the jewish communities in the middle east have been retreating almost nonexistent since 1948. ..

where judaeo-christian civilization advances religious tolerance and freedom of religion tends to grow. with islam can still advance right now the freedom of religion and religious tolerance shrinks. it seems to me the dispute about israel should be a matter of concern to anybody in the world that believed in one of the fundamental rights of human beings is to worship as they see fit.

>> if i could ask a follow-on question to that, there was a story in the papers yesterday and our own papers today that substantial number of christian egyptian cops have left egypt since the revolution of february. i forget the exact number. something like 60,000. and that this number is likely to continue on the basis of a anxiety about what they have suffered. my question is what your expectation is about the american community generally in regard to something like that. whether that will come to be an issue in american foreign policy, especially a large

number of these are going to arrive in the united states in established communities of copts and the eastern seaboard and what your emphasis will come to with this issue. >> you would think in a country -- significant majority still say they are christian this would be a huge issue but it is an interesting thing to watch, how often the attitude particularly of conservative christian churches and persecution is promised by the scriptures so they are upset about it but don't rail about as much as you expect them to and it is frustrating to many of us who would like to see churches speak more strenuously and consistently about this pattern that is happening in quite a few

places around world. >> could you wait for the microphone? right here. >> you were talking about shared values. they don't share the same values as the united states as the israeli government. is not their fault or the fault of their people but what should be done to have the same value? >> you want to give a shot at it? >> thanks for the easy one. there is an opportunity here and the opportunity is born of a good foundation. what is real is able to do is communicate time and again that it is willing to enter into a

relationship with the palestinians and i am sure there are as many opinions on the path forward as there are people in this room today. there is an opportunity to negotiate and live in relationship but it is based on the premise that you understand one another and you value one another and am sure that that is the great challenge. i characterize it jokingly as an easy question because you get the sense that there are people in the leadership among the palestinians that don't want to live in a relationship. they don't want to live in peace and ultimately they approach this as a zero some game. you succeed at my demise or i succeed at your demise and there's not a way that we can be in relationship community together.

and that is part of the great frustration that americans have as they look at the middle east and say why can't this come to some sense of fruition? why can't people come and sit down and negotiate with one another? if you are operating where you don't share a premise, where one does not acknowledge the right of the other to exist is impossible to come to a remedy so the question to the palestinian people is how long do you put up with this? how long do you accept leadership that runs around like a show pony and doesn't create an opportunity for you to live in relationship? [inaudible] >> how they impose the same --

israelis who have never seen a palestinian and what they have against palestinians so it is mutual. like you were talking -- the israeli government, a lot that they can do or a lot they don't do. >> i don't know if there are palestinians who have not met jews but no israelis that have not met palestinians. the relationship is 63 years old. something like 1/7 of the population within the green line are palestinians so that

relationship and others exist. it is not simply a question of relationship. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would really dispute your statement. in israel there is a lively political debate about how much should be given for the peace. there are strong political forces in israel that do very well in elections arguing that israel needs to take another step to concede something for peace. i have never met an israeli consumed with hate for the palestinians. you can regularly see it in palestinian communities and i am not aware of any strong movement in the palestinian territories

willing to debate publicly or take on at all the idea that if israel is making reasonable concessions they need to also. [applause] >> let me add one thing. it is important to understand this discussion is happening in a vacuum. is happening in the context of a fluid palestinian policy. earlier this spring you had a deal between the ruling palestinian authority and hamas and its opposition to creating that government which would create a hybrid government in which arguably the senior partner would be a movement dedicated to the eradication of israel and the islamic states of palestine as part of the covenant. the question is how much responsibility there is on a grass roots level on the part of the palestinians themselves. there are things we can do to empower them to make the right

choices. one of the most important is happening in the context of the united nations. the bid on the part of the palestinian authority to go to the un to get an up or down vote on palestinian statehood is dangerous and pernicious for the reason that it towards bad behavior. if you look at what the palestinian authority has done in the last five years with the aid we have given them it would be a challenge to find a lot of positive advances in transparency and anti-corruption and grassroots development. creating a state on those foundations is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior. what you have to have is a dialogue which is best done in a bilateral dialogue in which the palestinians come to understand there is no such thing as moving the goalposts.

the resolution, lasting resolution of jerusalem happens a negotiated framework rather than one declared by political fiat. >> mr bauer, you talked about grassroots support of israel in the united states which is backed up poll after poll. the congressman spoke about the strong support in congress that is not reflected on university campuseses throughout this country and some other quarters as well. can you -- because of your background in education, you had some experience in university, can you give us an idea where this is coming from? >> if somebody doesn't like america they won't like israel.

in the 60s and 70s there were a lot of people chanting and marching western civilization have got to go and arguing against courses the university campus that upheld western civilization. a lot of those folks marching in the streets are now professors on these university campuses and the disdain they bring to the west and for american institutions they bring by extension to israel. you are a professor and believe history of america is a history of genocide and colonialism and occupation and you look at israel you see is real as an extension of that. it plays itself out and it is a very pernicious thing and something that has got to be confronted by those in the united states that care about this relationship and what

americans think about israel. one final comment is the saudis are funding schools of middle eastern studies all over the united states from the largest university to the smallest university and those centers have text books and study material and professors who know who the hand is that feeds them and teach a version of middle eastern history and middle eastern conflict resolution and inevitably pictures the nation of israel as the only thing standing in the middle east against peace. >> i tried to conceal my academic background. especially with people like mr.

bauer. that is a big and complicated subject but it is striking that the principal source of hostility to israel in this country in particular comes from what we roughly called elites. as mr. bauer explained -- one thing that does strike me about this is the following. after 9/11 there came to be a phrase that was extremely popular in our discourse and that is nuance. that became a quite important accouterments of cultivation of

distinction and so forth. as a recovering academic i know the value of nuance but one of the things it came to be seen as was a mark of pride which allowed you to ignore the forest for the trees and it is between people who look at things fairly straightforward, the average american and they see a forest. maybe they see it more crudely about who our friends are or our enemies are. where as that distinction gets lost with a certain sophistication which has some justification but has become self indulgent be personally mark of superiority to people who are regarded as simple and

ordinary souls. one more question but let's make it a question. >> make a comment. >> questions are required. >> you talked about judaism and christianity values. as an egyptian muslim american i would like to see -- looked at the abrahamic tradition we believe in the same god and values. some extra reason that -- extremist muslims in saudi arabia -- that is not the real muslim. i want you to add islam to the list of the abrahamic tradition. thank you.

>> all due respect, i believe there's a civil war in islam about what it is you are going to embrace and i will add islam to judeo-christian values when i see those like yourself who do believe in these values prevail. right now i think it is a very open question who is going to win the battle for the heart of islam. >> the answer is not satisfactory. airtime -- our time is up. [applause] >> our next -- >> another panel from the hudson institute. this one focused on palestine. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> could i invite everybody to take a seat? we would like to get going. good afternoon. i am douglas fife, senior fellow at hudson institute. i am please to welcome you here to the final panel of today's conference which will be followed by ambassador michael warren's keynote speech to the conference. this panel is called the way forward, threat and opportunities. i would like to thank the foundation for the defense of democracy and hudson for sponsoring the contest. i would like to start this

discussion which is focusing on the future with a few comments about the present. when charles dickens wrote of a moment of history being the best of times and the worst of times he was making a point that the world is not simple. there has never been a time regarding the u.s./is really a relationship when all the major features of that relationship were positive for negative. it has often been the case that the net was fairly clear. the relationship in the eisenhower years was not very substantial and was not warm. in contrast in the george w. bush years the relationship was multifaceted with a lot of

private sector ties and in general was extraordinarily friendly but there were problems. now the picture is unusually mixed. consider the following points, most of which have been touched on by the various panels today. the relationship between the obama administration and israel has not been friendly. the obama administration came into office apparently with the intent to downgrade the u.s. relationship with israel and intensify issues to push concessions to resolve the arab/israeli conflict.

the administration became known for a visible and unprecedented snow of the israeli prime minister when he came to a visitor and president obama refused to be photographed with him. there was a it unprecedented call for a settlement freeze and the united states agreed to basically allow the palestinians to move away from direct talks with the israelis and as the united states to play a role of an intermediary so the talks would be indirect rather than direct. the united states went along with that. there was public criticism referred to by number of previous panelists by defense department, c i a and state department and white house officials of israel blaming israel for lack of peace in the middle east. as unfriendly as the administration has been toward

peace negotiations there are aspects of the u.s./israel relationship that have been cooperative and valuable. at the same time congress remains in favor of close u.s./israel relations perhaps more so than ever before. public opinion polls continue to show strong sympathy with israel and since 9/11 there is a widely held view that america and israel stand together in the world. we are defending ourselves against the same enemies. as it happens, elite opinion, the views prevailing in most american universities, most leading american newspapers is overwhelmingly unfriendly to israel. the situation with regard to, and u.s. and israeli interest in the u.s. is mixed.

israel enjoys military preponderant over its arab enemies but iran's nuclear weapons potential is a serious threat to israel's existence and rocket missile threats not just from iran but from gaza and south lebanon are making all of israel's cities vulnerable. israel's economy astonishingly successful. its unemployment is around 5.7%. one of the lowest unemployment rates in the industrial world. on for norship is the envy of the developed world. the so-called boycott divestiture and sanctions movement remains active especially in europe. israel's enemies are working to be legitimate israel so they can

put it in the position apartheid south africa found itself. the military threat to israel remains but many of israel's enemies in the arab world and beyond are focused mainly on using diplomatic and legal methods to destroy or damage israel. the so-called arab spring creates a mixed picture. we heard about the excitement and positive feeling that inevitably comes from americans in particular when they see hypocrisy overthrown. there is the possibility, the happy possibility of democratic progress in the region with all the potential that has to drain

muslim extremism support. it seems in the initial overthrow of these autocratic regimes the forces that are moving forward and capitalizing on the turmoil are islamist forces. israel is said by many to be increasingly isolated in the middle east and this is partly the result of the loss of connections with governments like the hosni mubarak government in egypt and the downturn in its relationship with turkey. it is worth asking increasingly isolated compared to when? if one goes back 20 years or 30

years, is israel more isolated now than it was 20 or 30 years ago? the picture in a thoroughgoing fashion is mixed and perplexing. lots of people are making simplistic assertions around the world in commenting that israel's situation is particularly good or particularly bad. as we have this panel discussion on the future of the interests the united states and israel have been, and the future of the u.s./is really relationship it is important to understand how difficult it is to gauge the present level on project the future but we will do the best we can and we have an excellent panel to tackle the subject.

the panelists -- i will give you a quick introduction, you have a more thorough biography of all the speakers that have been handed out. first we will hear from peter e berkowi berkowitz, the senior fellow at the hoover institution and professor robert leiber who is professor at georgetown. he has a book coming out in the spring and titled power and will power in the american future, why the u.s. is not destined to declined to be published by cambridge university press. our third panelist is just what --josjua moravczek. then we will hear from my head

institute colleagues, abe schulzski, senior fellow at hudson. it is my pleasure to call on peter berkowicz. please welcome him and to the our first speaker. [applause] >> i would like to add my thanks to tom, from the hudson institute. in the 1830s, democratic america, a tendency to transform big political questions into legal questions. in our age this democratic dynamic has broadened. questions about national security and foreign affairs are turned into legal questions. no two countries are more affected than israel or the

united states. no two countries have devoted more resources to respect the laws of war. the two states have been more subject, more concerted efforts to use the laws of war as weapons against them. the bold stalin report is a case in point with significant implications for the united states. on april 1st, 2011, in the washington post justice richard goldstone reversed himself. this was commissioned by the human rights council. the mission was to investigate the facts surrounding war crimes allegations, arising out of operational costs. in january of 2009, gaza operation. the three week campaign sought to stop hamas's firing of mortar shells and rockets and missiles at israel's civilian population. following publication in 2009

the goldstone report became the protest for those determined to denounce israel's as a criminal nation. writing for the post goldstone withdrew the gravest charge which was presented as a legal finding that israel adopted a strategy of humiliating and killing palestinian civilians in gaza and deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure. it was well established that, quote, civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy by israel. there never was evidence to support that grotesque charge. goldstone acknowledged nothing more than an endorsed report to promulgate the slander that israel adopted a criminal strategy. the report went beyond asserting moral equivalence between israel

and the terrorists pledged to its destruction and implied israel was worse than hamas and use state of the art weaponry and since the death and destruction it inflicted on civilians in gaza was greater than the harm to civilians in southern israel caused by eight years of hamas bombardment. goldstone's reconstruction withdrew the accusation that the israeli legal system fell short of international standards and israel investigated 400 allegations of criminal conduct while noting the strange surprise that hamas conducted no investigations. some distinguished israelis argue that important lesson to be learned from bold stone's reconsideration is israel cooperated with the goldstone report and should cooperate in the future even if the investigation the biased, better for israel to make its case and

get it on record before the official conclusions. that is the wrong listened for israel and the united states. israel should not acquiesce to one set of rules for itself and another for all other states. under international humanitarian law the obligation to investigate and prosecute war crimes falls on nations accused. only when a country has shown itself unable or unwilling to discharge its obligations are international bodies authorized to pursue war crimes investigations. israel's devotion to law armed conflict is of its soldiers and citizens should be proud and not cooperate in the abrogation of rights and responsibilities as a sovereign nation. the saga of the goldstone report provides an opportunity to reoriented public discussion of the laws of war not only for

israel but the united states. like its only liberal and democratic ally in the middle east the u.s. is locked in a war against transnational terrorism and the u.s. is subject to the abuse of international law of war by those who wish to criminalize the exercise of the u. s's right of self-defense. at the end of its reconsideration goldstone observed quote makes the laws of armed conflict of finalist in a state actors such as hamas than national armies. it is high time to recognize the chief threat to international law and order comes not as so many diplomats and intellectuals and human rights lawyers are inclined to believe from israel and the united states whose military is the vote and told and unprecedented hours to studying and enforcing the laws of armed conflict, rather the chief threat comes from

transnational terrorists who reject that law and it is time to recognize in our age the struggle over the international law has become a critical part of the defense of liberal democracy and central to the u.s./is real partnership. thank you. [applause] >> i am taller than peter so i will raise the microphone. thank you to the hudson institute and foundation for defense of democracy for organizing these important panels and meetings. let me cut to the chase. in any consideration of future threats and opportunities it is critical to keep in mind the

underlying realities. newspapers and discourse and narrative focus on short run issues and questions. it is fundamental to keep in mind several central realities. i want to pick up on four of those and briefly talk about the implications. one of them is it takes strong leaders to make peace. you need leaders who represent authoritatively their own people, capable of enduring tough legal -- land -- who are convincing to their adversary that they are capable of entering into such agreements and convincing to their own people that they have the authority and capacity to make those things stick. in 1979, rabin and king hussein

met that standard. the crux is an authoritative representation on each side and that is lacking on the palestinian side. second, not much of a stretch to say every successful national and self-determination movement that succeeds has at some point had a situation where the pragmatists prevailed. was true in the case of ireland and israel and the confrontation between ben gurian and the al l altalena affair. it is a problem on the palestinian side. there was a confrontation in

gaza in 2006. the tragedy is hamas prevailed over fatah and there's no doubt where hamas stand. they're not a partner to peace. they are committed not only to the destruction of israel but genocidal attitudes and views about jews. thirdly, there is a matter of palestinian strategy. defect that -- the fact that a abas has got to the united nations is not surprising. on the part of many arab states, the israeli/palestinian conflict in which they seek outsiders to impose an agreement that suits their interests rather than being willing to negotiate a meaningful settlement on state

issues and in the conflict. there is no prospect in the short-term and probably the medium term of a successful final status agreement. there are two palestines, west bank and gaza, fatah and hamas. abbas cannot negotiate successfully if he were to reach such an agreement, hamas would assassinate him and he knows that. those are four key realities and part of the last one about no real prospect, you have the cumulative effect of incitement on the palestinian and arab side. one of the speakers in the previous panel noted there is no major public dialogue on the

palestinian side about the necessary compromises and agreements whether it is right of return war borders or security or jerusalem that would be prerequisite for reaching a final status agreement. that debate is rich and very vocal on the israeli side. if those other four principal realities what is next? first, u.s. needs in its policy tour of the region to emphasize not only democracy in terms of the arab spring but liberty and of the rule of law which are essential rather than democracy leading to mob rule and the kinds of things you see in some of the post arab spring situations evolving in egypt and elsewhere.

not only directed against israel but christians in egypt. secondly, you need to earn the realities. i just spoke of the reality. after two years doing the wrong thing president obama finally at his recent speech at the united nations opening the general assembly finally spoke some assembly finally spoke some sense about the underlying realities in the israeli/palestinian conflict and the types of things that need to be addressed and more attention has to be focused on incitement. finally to wrapup since my time is up, conflict management rather than a successful peace process is what needs to be focused upon. that means trying to use economic aid, the palestinians

and others and this is the most paradoxical and debatable conclusion. it also suggests the necessity of being seen to be searching for a peace agreement and foster negotiations even thoand dh the is no immediate short-term or medium term prospects of success. there is lively debate about this but there is a necessity to show the u.s. is seeking to foster this process even thoand the prospect of achieving results are minimal at this time. thanks for listening. [applause] >> josh moravczek. tim thank you. thanks to the sponsors.

i am the 20th speaker today. everything that needs to be said has been said that not everybody has said it yet. the subtitle of this conference is threats and opportunities and i want to speak about one of red and one opportunity. the threat is iran which has been spoken of and the prospect of iran becoming a nuclear weapon state. that is a threat to the survival of israel and regional stability and a ta nueat to touch off a me intense and full scale regional cold war. it may be a ta nueat to the uth made more serious by reports of

connections between iran and al qaeda. the possibility for stopping the iranian nuclear drive by means of sanctions or d diplomacy seems to me to be exacyby zero. i am racking my brains to see any state acquiring a nuclear weapon has been turned away from that course by any combination of sanctions and diplomacy. states have given up nuclear-weapons or pushed off of that course. i can think of nazi germany. or iraq in the case of syria by a military action. i can think of other states that have gotten off of the nuclear plane. ukraine and south africa by

means of regime change. the historibe those of the ways that states heading for nuclearlomeapons ma end up without nuclear weapons. on the other hand we had sanctions against india and pakistan and a very elaborate program of sanctions and diplomacy with north korea. the results are self-evident. if the iraqi nuclear program has to end by nuclear means far better for that to be done by the united states than by israel because the united states has far greater military assets which it can bring to the