>> well, we didn't need this particular case in order to prove once again that the iranians have been involved in terrorist activities against persons and against a finnegans countries for a long period of time. iran uses terrorism as a major tool of international relations. it's a simple as all that. ..

of the state of sudan as an area through which they could send equipment through sudan to egypt to the gaza strip. as i said, the case itself is a case it shows the audacity of certain iranians and i think it shows the iranians are -- in addition to talking to them, must be told in no uncertain terms by actions taken by like the action of the u.s. government that the certain times of conduct will never be tolerated. >> dianne from -- [inaudible] wants to know what your assessment is of prime minister netanyahu's public announcement or desire for redlines respect

to iraq? i was hoping i wouldn't be asked that question, actually. [laughter] i must admit that understand the desire of the prime minister to draw a line both substantiatively and figuratively. i think his appearance in the united nations was successful in terms of the quality of his delivery and also i'd say the convincing arguments he made. >> generally speaking, we have a very bad experience with redlines. -- drawn red lines as you can imagine over the years. we have drawn red lines on our

relations with the palestinian, we have drawn redlines on our relation with other countries and after wards we had a problem of reconciling our decisions with the red lines we have replaced. so i think the use of a red line creates clarity on the one hand, and also it creates a commitment that not always can be made. and therefore, i personally felt that the use of a red line is not conducive to the ultimate aid. as i said previously in the opening remarks, i don't think that we will benefit from bringing iran publicly to its

knees. i think we need to find a way in which we can obtain the desired results and enable them also to feel in certain areas they have gained something just beyond a simple removal of sanctions. i don't think that ultimately drawing the redline will convince the iranians. what will convince the iranians, a mixture as i said a use of practical means in order to make it clear to them beyond any doubt whatsoever that the world will not accept a nuclear military capability, that's number one. and on the other hand, that the world is willing to address some

of the concerns of iran in one way or another. iran is going to have a difficult problem, i don't commiserate with the iranians. don't misunderstand me. i'm not here to plead their cause in any way what cor. there are two things, two things, not one thing, the iranians will have to terms with. a., the absence of nuclear military capability, and b., they will have to come to terms with the existence of the state of israel. their refusal to accept the right of a sovereign state, a member of the united nations as a viable state, a state which is legitimate, is unacceptable from any point of view. from any aspect and angle whatsoever. we cannot accept the iranians will be allowed to legitimize

another state whatever it is. and certainly not from our point of view not israel. they will have swallow two bitter pills not one. one pill will be the pill of the threat nuclear threat and the other will be the threat of accepting israel right to exist. despite the rhetoric we are hearing from teheran, i believe that many iranians in places of power understand that israel is here to stay. they realize that israel not going disappear as it will not disappear. and therefore, they will have to come terms with this reality. and these two elements means to say in order to achieve the aim, you have to find ways of giving them what did i say a few minutes ago?

to resort to the use of dignity. it's a different good thing to do. it's very difficult. i'm not saying it's going to be easy. i think it's something we have to do. because we have to lock at these things positive i havely. we have to find a positive way of dealing with a situation the way it is. and i had a teacher very many years ago used to say to me think positivively. i didn't understand what he meant. i begin to understand in the latter years what it's all about. >> i think we have time for one more question, sir. >> yes. >> [inaudible] >> actually. you're the last questioner. >> thank you. lie. my name is whitney and i'm with fox news. i was wondering in your assessment, what is the current

relationship between the administration and the israeli government? and do you think israel could militarily strike iran's nuclear program, and would there be support for unilateral m action? >> it's a three-part. >> yes. that's true. >> what i was afraid you were going to ask me for a list of targets and then a problem -- [inaudible] [laughter] i think that the relationship between the administration and israel has been a very good one. i said it despite the various bumps along the road. we never had perfect relations between israel and the united states that i can tell you. we had times when we were faced with severe actions taken against us by american

administrations. in 1956, the russia and the america teamed up to israel joined up -- to israel to withdraw from the sinai after the campaign. it was the heist of the cold war. maybe it was an israeli achievement we brought khrushchev together with eisenhower. never the less, it was a painful experience. i don't want to cite advocates now now that the particular point. i don't want to ruffle feelings around this table with in the middle of the american election. but the fact of the matter is, we have had all kinds of relationships and i judge this by the facts. i think in the years we had a relationship with the united states on the practical issues which are important to israel likely which we have never had with almost any other administration. i say almost. i don't want to compare this, that or the other. get in to too much trouble as i already have this morning. now, you asked me about a

strike. okay. i'm on record to say that i think the stick should not only be the last resort. but we should realize what would be the possible result of a strike. there's a morning after. not only in terms of how long how far this strike will achieve the -- let's imagine for argument's purposes that we will strike and we will obliterate the entire iranian capability. okay. what does it this mean the morning after? that suddenly the sun will shine and everybody will be happy and the iranians will say, we got the message now. now we're going sit in peace and drink iranian tea together? no. i don't think so.

so i believe the strike is the last resort. now the greatest achievement in any war as an ancient china strategies sun disiew is said -- and i think our aim should be to win the war without firing the shot. how to do it, sanctions, more sanctions, more sanctions, and many other things. the fact of the matter is, the fact of the matter is, the sanctions have not brought the end to the program. the sanctions are hurting very much. and the fact of the matter is that many of the people will say the sanctions will not succeed are also those who are demanding there be more and more sanctions. and those that contraction if you don't believe the sanctions are going to be successful.

why press for more sanctions? so i believe sanctions are effective not effective not -- [inaudible] so there has to be a combination, as i said, a combination of two things. now i don't believe ultimately that whatever is going happen in the end it will be a clear cut decision which will merge, it will be a blurred situation. just as after the cue bin missile crisis, i've been reading about this in recent weeks, the expect -- [inaudible] what what was agreed to resolve the crisis only emerged after some time. key element of the story even just begin to emerge thirty or forty years. and i would settle for all kinds

of arrangement in which the ultimate -- the ultimate solution was a solution which was reached, and yes, we are -- [inaudible] apparently the iranians no longer are pursuing it. what exactly what happens will merge after some time. there are ways of doing this. if you deal with the cuban missile crisis -- [inaudible] i'm not saying you can. i'm saying it should be tried. i think there many things that should not be tried nap is my confession. i believe in the months to come, it has to be tried and has to be tried with an immense, immense investment of good will of trying, getting trying the solution. i think it has to be done. and it has to be done by people who are solution-oriented and not war-oriented. >> thank you. and please join me in thanking him for the wonderful

presentation. [applause] [inaudible conversations] it's a movie theater i write about in "instant city" i've visited it. it's been there since the 1947. it showed films from all over the tbrorld the united states from england, from india and to me it symbolized the resilience of the country inspite of the violence people have suffered in many decades in pakistan. u during one of the protest against a video that insulted the prophet mohammad. it had a negative image. during one of the protest people turned against the movie theater and burnt them. i adopt see that as a protest against the west. i don't see that as a protest

against the united states even though avatar was one of the movies you could have gone to see at the theater. you had islamist act victs who had not liked these movies theaters for decades. way before in prophet mohammad fell which was never shown in them anyway. and so they grabbed an opportunity to attack. and they whipped up a bunch of young people. there were teens involved who stole soda from the snack bar on the way to burn this movie theater to just torch it. and i argue in that piece what they were really attacking was the nature of their own country, which perhaps they did not understand. and i try to say that with a greatest perspective. who am i as a foreigner to say what your country is about. i know, from having studied the history and listening to pakistan itself. it's a diverse place. it was born as an even more diverse place than it is today.

lots of different cultures, lots of different traditions, lots of different ways to be that movie theater symbolized pakistan. and that is what people burned when they set it on fire. more with "instant city author." sunday at 8:00 at c-span q & a. you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest non-fiction authors and book on booktv. you can see past programs and see our schedule on the website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. see the final presidential debate monday night live on c-span, c-span radio and onlike at c-span.org. watch and engage. in a few moments, a discussion on the middle east with a palestinian historian and scholar. after that, a debate between the

candidates for arizona's ninth congressional district. later secretary of state hillary clinton on energy and foreign policy. then we'll reair the event with the former head of israel intelligence agency. on washington journal tomorrow morning, we'll focus on the presidential candidates foreign policy with the associated press and gay tailor with the washington times. they will be in the studio to discuss his recent piece questioning the real sense of the former wyoming senator alan simpson will join us by phone to defend the college. we'll look at trends in wages and benefits from the bureau of labor statistics. and christopher a policy analyst with bloomberg government. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. more now about middle east

politics with palestinian historian and scholar. he was at the middle east substitute for an hour and a half. thank you for making possible this special occasion we have the honor and privilege of hearing from walid khalidi. this is conflict which you know has often been clouted with prop propaganda, false history, and partisanship. walid khalidi's books and articles are distinguished by the integrity of his scholarship, his deep capacity

for research, and he has helped promote the whole profession of palestinian history. and has helped to make it better understood in the united states and the western world. he was born in jerusalem in 1925, he was educate at objection ford, where he taught until he resigned in protest when the british invaded sinai in 1956. he is -- he then taught at american university of beirut, at princeton and for many years he's been a visiting professor and senior research fellow at the harvard substitute for middle east affairs. i think no one who has done more

to nurture the field of palestinian scholarship in palestinian history affairs. and one institution which he created is the substitute for palestinian studies. long aago in beirut in 1963 within i think many of you are familiar with the journal of palestinian studies which is published by the substitute. it is based in washington four times a year. a very serious publication, which i think is unmatched anywhere in the world. dr. walid khalidi's presence here, i don't have to tell you, is very timely at the time of deepening concern and even despair about a resolution of the israel palestinian conflict and at the time when the middle east is undergoing new and unprecedented turmoil for better or worse.

he will address, i hope, the events in the region but especially how he views the israel-palestinian conflict, and the possibility about which there is growing skepticism. i have to admit in u.s. and elsewhere about the future of a two-state peace between israel and palestinian. dr. walid khalidi, it's great to have you with us. would you speak for 40 or 45 minutes or so and we'll have time for some questions. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you, ambassador, for your very, very, kind, generous words.

i have the great honor of and privilege of addressing this very distinguished audience which happily contains so many friendly faces too. i have the greatest respect for the middle east institute. middle east institute is a -- a very special species -- [inaudible] can you hear me? as i was saying, -- i have greatest respect for the middle east institute, and the middle east institute it's not working? [inaudible]

[laughter] i'm surprised that despite the warm welcome, the acoustics seem to be -- [laughter] i think so. [laughter] the thought crossed my mind. can you hear me? okay. so i i thank the ambassador wilcox for his kind and generous and very e fusive and friendly remarkings. i thank the middle east institute for this honor and privilege of addressing you. and i'm very delighted to see so many friendly faces from the past. i have the greatest respect for the institute, which to me is a

-- [inaudible] of a special species in this forest of belief tanks -- [inaudible] in the metropolis since the establishment in 1940, the middle east institute devoted itself to the education of american public opinion in a balanced, nonpartisan, nonpan lem call mode. based on the field experience of jen generations of americans from all walks of life, and under extensive human relations with the peoples of the region and on their understanding of the hopes and the flaws and the grievances of these peoples all in the service service the

national interest to the united states. in 1963, when some colleagues and i were considering the establishment of the institute for palestinian studies in beirut, we had two models in mind. [inaudible] in london and the middle east institute in washington. ladies and gentlemen, to somewhat at my age, time seems to be in quite a hurry. it is swifter than a weaver's shuttle. it's extraordinary what a -- facts it is in the speedy passage. i was born within seven years of about -- [inaudible]

consider just how many just how much this happened in the middle east in this single lifetime. consider two of too [inaudible] of the united states in the middle east during the [inaudible] in 1919 to 9/11. for my own perspective, shared by millions, three major water sheds in the 20th century created the middle east of today. one declaration -- and three, the june war of 1967.

[inaudible] there was a marginal benediction of wilson. in 1948, there was the significant relentless pressure of truman on a war weary and bankrupt britain that lead to the termination of the mandate in palestine, and the way that it happened. or the consequent -- [inaudible] and in 1967, the lbj's role was

formative and decisive in his endorsement of the israeli strategy of facing the negotiations for [inaudible] settlement on the ceasefire lines that were created by the pearl harbor of june the 5th. i'm going distribute my remarks in four sections. one about the arabs, arab world, one about israel, one about the palestinian, and one about the united states. as far as the arab world is concerned, never has the arab world been in the state of flux that it is in today.

much of this is to the good, particularly the revolutionary change and the relationship between [inaudible] ruler and ruled. may this spread farther afield. but since [inaudible] there has been no modern or political center of gravity in the arab world. no north star, no come pass, and no dr the arab country which inherently vast spirit yule potential in in addition to at affluence has not and is not rising to the indication. while its junior coaffluent many

city states continue their jen -- to the golden cuff. in the present, the the world war i echo system is crumbling. this is not -- [inaudible] except that it is being replaced by a reversal to the -- sectarian, ethnic blocks with the -- [inaudible] with all of the benches.

.. and the steady decline of pin arabism which is fast approaching and they have already reached its terminal state. and two, the steady rise of political islam fast on the heels of its predecessor.

secular pan arabism does not have many fans in the western world because of its -- to israel and western colonialism. what is forgotten in the west is the major, major role that secular pan arabism has in blocking the tide of communism and preventing it from spreading throughout the middle east and via the middle east into africa. air for shame which dealt with the soviet union particularly in the arms field, brutally crushed their communist parties.

the failure of pan arabism has many causes. one cause which i don't think is received much attention in the west is theoretical organizational. at the time of the collapse, of the egyptian syrian union in 1961, there wasn't one single piece of serious writing in arabic about union confederation. nothing, not one single piece. i vividly remember how stunned we were at the collapse of the union.

why did this happen? and then it struck us, there was nothing in writing, nothing approximating anywhere near the federal newspapers. the founders of this great country since i don't know how many hundreds of hours thinking through the mechanics, the mechanics of federation, how to get there and how to keep it going. absolutely nothing of the sort in the air for. actually what happened was we looked at a massive comparative study of federation compiled five carl friedrich. it was a comparative study that defines federal systems in the

west, canada, the united states, switzerland, federal germany, australia and we translated this best volume into three volumes in arabic. soon after 1961 the breakdown of the egyptian union. at the same time some of you may know the much much lamented and great sudanese who actually translated the federalist papers in full into superb arabic just after the 1961 break down. era political theory concentrated and to a very large extent still concentrates on the

objective, objective at the expense of the means. there are voluminous writings on objectives, writings on how you get there, what you do once you get there, writing of these is very very slender. the contrast with the site's thought is absolutely remarkable. i have spent hundreds of hours reading the resolutions of the zionist congresses which started in 1897 with the first zionist congress and continues to this day. the last congress was -- these congresses took resolutions. these resolutions are to be found in at least 2000 pages

since 1897 and publicly more. i don't know how many times i've read these resolutions. in these resolutions you see the same thing. the objective is very briefly stated and the bulk of the resolution is about instrumentality, the modality, the mechanics and how to get there. another reason for the failure of pin errors -- mike arabism is the himalayan ethos of the status of the dictators. part of an effort of saddam hussein wasted in conflict. they belong to the same baath

party. of course the best to secular pan arabism was the brilliant, ruthless, humiliating, devastating israeli victory in 1967. the last stronghold of secular pan arabism is assad in syria. despite assad's dictatorship, syria was exemplary throughout the air of and afro-asian countries in the treatment of minorities and women. it is ironic that some arab countries championing the downfall of assad are doing it in the name of reform, which is

not quite superabundant in the department of women and minorities within their own frontiers. and the membership in the muslim brotherhood is punishable by death. so that use the muslim brotherhood as the conduit to the secular opponents. israel initially encouraged hamas. the 1967 is really -- of the holy places in jerusalem had profound reverberations within

the three monotheistic religions. for different reasons. judaism everywhere, christian millionaire and it -- million area andism in the united states and throughout the muslim world. with regard to -- and judaism i was a member of the iraqi delegation to the united nations after the war. it wasn't saddam hussein. it was the pan arab list before saddam. saddam fought to the death. and in new york, there seemed

just a little more than usual people with black eye patches. and of course, the jubilation, triumphalism, the israeli song and they are not very good on song, reverberated throughout the city. it was as if the historian i recalled the jubilation imprisoned them after the defeat of the ottoman in 1751 where church bells throughout europe reached scotland in celebration. for islam, this was the first time since the crusade that the

muslim holy places themselves were under non-muslim military occupation. and they say wait, what about the british mandate? actually the brits, because their empire had so many muslims and since the british empire was the muslim empire, they were extremely scrupulous with regard to the holy places. jerusalem itself, they were scrupulous and maintaining the religious status quo. for example, as he remember there was the 37 to 239 rebellion of palestine against the british rule, against the massive jewish immigration and against the policy.

they hired political authorities and the chief of the arab committee was -- the brits decided to dismantle it from the supreme council and had issued a warrant for his arrest and were determined to get him. they arrested his colleagues, sent them off. he lived in the house next to the sharif. what he did was to slip into his house. the british did not send a policeman to get him. that is how he subsequently ended up in the countries during world war ii. compare that with sharon

invading the harem with 1000 troops in the year 2000, the triggering of the secularist atop. compare it to the furious beginning -- digging of tunnels under the sharif by bibi netanyahu. as far as israel's concerns and this is my next stop. parallel to the decline of secular pan arabism, there has been a steady decline of labor zionism in israel. it is as if labor zionism had historical roles, specific historical roles with the establishment of the infrastructure of the jewish

state under that mandate and once that was completed it had become superfluous. this is particularly tragic because labor zionism seemed to be going through a learning process under the leadership of rabin, the very personification of submilitarism. the assassination of rabin was not an isolated event. jewish fundamentalism had come to israel, and had come into its own. there had always been a religious presence, a religious presence along beside labor zionism. indeed that is a deeper level.

labor zionism was in itself a form of secular messiah is some but labor zionism had its own way of dealing with the religious groups. take ben-gurion for example. he was the boss of the bosses from the mid-hardees onwards with the jewish agency and subsequently in israel well into the 50s. all the cabinets that he formed had the mizrahi, a religious zionist component. he never had a majority. it had plurality in what ben-gurion did was to use that plurality to build a coalition not with the secular right-wing, not the revisionists, not the group who subsequently became the elitist group, the allies

themselves, the religious group, there was a covenant between them. he would give them a free hand as far as the sabbath is concerned, as far as the description of religious, the young jewish are concerned. as far as the issue of the personal status was concerned. as long as they left him strategy and foreign-policy. but the floodgates of fundamental religious zionism again opened with the conquest of east jerusalem in 1967. why? because this is the first time since titus and hadrian, the jewish soldiers, were walking on the temple mount.

zionist religious triumphalism took off at that point. and episode will illustrate this. as soon as the temple mount had fallen, the chief rabbi of the israeli army, the chief rabbi of the israeli army, rushed to the site and took the israeli commander on the spot by his lapels. do it now, do it now. he was saying do what now? and the man said blow up the two mosques. blow them up. this is the time to do it.

it can be done with 100 pounds of tnt. he had actually threatened to put the chief rabbi in jail if he did not stop this nonsense. such was the feeling of triumphalism. it is not a coincidence, it is not the coincidence the likud and the mujahideen appeared after 1967. the first in 1973 and the second in 1974. and it is not a coincidence that the first right-wing government since the beginning of zionist colonization was after 1967 led by bacon in 1977. bacon himself was no secularist. bacon as you know basically

deserted the youth movement in warsaw and ended up via russia after the german invasion of russia, ended up by russia and palestine. in 1944, february 1944, during the second world war, before hitler was defeated, bacon had become the leader of the terrorist organization. and in his declaration of war in february 1944, he invokes god of israel, god of moses. in may 194048 at the end of the british mandate, he again rallied his strips by invoking

god of israel, keep thy soldiers and bless their swords. if rabin was the personification of militarism, bebe is the personification of right-wing zionist triumphalism. he is in competition not only with his contemporaries, bacon, olmert, barak, but he is also in competition for entry into the zionist pantheon with his predecessors. weisman obtained a declaration.

ben-gurion obtained the state. -- cold conquered east jerusalem including the temple. big and neutralized egypt under sadat. shamir, thanks to the presidential ambitions of andrew jackson, obtained 1 million russians. how was he going to join this very distinguished group in the zionist pantheon? for rabin, the answer to the pantheon was a peace settlement. for bebe, it was the consolidation of israel's stranglehold on western air of

israel the side of the jordan. his major asset being perfect american accent and his american football the cavalry. bv did not see himself only as an israeli leader. his self-perception is of a israeli-american political maestro with a single constituency, divided into two parts, one on the shores of the -- and one between the two shining sees of this hemisphere. i doubt if the vcs and the

limits to his bipartisan plausibility in this country. why should he? considering how often and how easily he has outmaneuvered and outmatched first clinton and now obama. iran's nuclear program does pose a threat to israel's nuclear monopoly. it does pose a threat to israel's superpower, regional superpower status. what is this not to is pose an existential threat to israel. that it does not do and that

military and intelligence establishments of israel know this. bp bebe's focus on iran's nuclear program is a monstrous red herring. he needs to divert attention from his top priority. what is his top priority? his top priority is his unfinished scientists business and palestine. it is unfinished. that is why out of 3300 words in his u.n. speech, recent one, 70 are dedicated to the 4 million

palestinians living under islam. an additional bonus for bebe in focusing on iran is the fueling of the shiite-sunni divide and the cooing signals that sense to some arab zionist. so far, bebe has succeeded brilliantly but he is probably the most dangerous leader in the world today. i now turn to the most obvious aspect of palestinian-israeli relations is the kosovo ace -- colossal asymmetry between the two in power. the palestinians in the west bank and gaza are de facto

prisoners. he can travel to new york because bebe travels -- allows him to travel to new york. a bus can return to its headquarters but he can only return to his headquarters in because the nine allowed him to return to his quarters in. how can there be direct negotiations between the jailer and the jailed? one possible partial symbolic counter is in the international community, some kind of membership for the palestine in

the united nations, but bebe does not want that and of course because bebe does not want that, neither does washington. i have personally known abbas ford three decades and i have also known his previous three predecessors, -- and hosseini despite the disparity in our ages. the strategic thinking of a boss

is antithetical he and radically, completely different, the polar opposite of the strategic thinking of his three predecessors. i know this. he is not a pacifist. he is not a d&d and -- gandhian. for him it is a matter deep conviction based on field experience, self-criticism, introspection and deep reflection. diplomacy for a boss is the one

and only sesame to ap settled the. and he was willing to stick to this, despite provocation from the israelis and despite vitter, bitter criticism from his own people. in many respects abbas is a tragic figure. the last of the founding fathers, he stood fast. his troops defend israel against the palestinians instead of defending the palestinians against israel. to me as a historian, i see some resemblances with the jewish patriots and historians and his relationship in titus in the sixth century a.d..

de facto, abbas is a collaborationist and he knows it. his american israili jordanian trained troops are in a good old victorian native tradition, native troops hold on in the service of the occupier. abbas is not a traitor and he is no fool. but he is a trifle naïve. his sincere -- he sincerely, authentically, generally -- genuinely believed that he unambiguously proved his exclusive vindication to diplomacy, israel and the united

states would reciprocate. very recent contacts with him indicate that he is reaching the end of his tether, and he is probably on the threshold of the knowledge meant of the bankruptcy of his strategy. as far as the united states is concerned, and this is my last last -- to the political discourse on the middle east and the congress in the electoral debates and even in statements by the executive, one is struck by the centrality of the concept of no

daylight between tel aviv and washington. this of course is directly related to what the role of the united states in the conflict should be, an outside observer boris albright coyly put it,. [inaudible] it is also related to whether it is permissible to raise an eyebrow, criticized or god forbid pressure israel. it is obvious from ongoing discourse that the concept of no

daylight has acquired in the united states the status of a moral imperative which totally precludes any such steps as i have mentioned. concurrently, the concept of no daylight requires the constant repetitive celebration of the value of our ally. indeed, the word allied has become by itself synonymous with israel, without the need to mention israel specifically. this idealization of israel has led to a peculiar outcome. israel is almost by definition

the palestinians, arabs and the muslims are the god of evil. ladies and gentlemen i am a palestinian, but i have been an american citizen too since 1996. when i took off my turbine and put on my red sox cap -- [laughter] to point out that a policy of no daylight has very practical consequences for the united states, it utterly enhances israel's sense of license, license on the ground. but also of leverage, entitlements and purchase in

washington. more to the point, it inevitably reinforces the notion of american complicity with israel in arab and muslim minds. i would like to conclude my remarks by quoting, you may have guessed, from george washington's farewell address. a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a four i-80 of evils. sympathy for the favorite nation of, it infusing into the one the

enmities of the other betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and the wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. end of quote. thank you for your patience. [applause] >> walid thank you for that early and commentary. we have got plenty of time for questions. asks questions and identify yourselves first, please.

>> walid. >> professor khalidi should abu mazen take your advice and tomorrow morning skipped town? what are the options for the palestinians? your advice and you know you say he might have breached the end of his career and he might accept kind of the end of his, the failure of the strategy. should he announce that tomorrow morning? your assessment? we take you report at face value. should he decide to do that, but with the your suggested options for the palestinians to come out of the current predicament?

>> hamas must -- [inaudible] the left would be radically changed on the ground. that is my answer. >> thank you very much for your talk. [inaudible] following mr. khalidi's answer and your question i detected in your talk a pessimism about essentially anything the palestinians could do that would

be material and changing the status on the ground given the policies of the the netanyahu administration, so if abbas did leave and the palestinian did join ranks for what that practically do to change the situation vis-à-vis the israelis? [inaudible] >> the look of the right-wing is the source of my pessimism. as far as you staying on the ground and closing ranks, the important thing is remaining on the land and fighting with your two fists.

that is how i see it at this stage. >> i just want to remind you and the audience that as we are speaking here, u.s. troops and israeli troops are meeting in israel in joint exercises how to stop the alleged iranian invasion of israel. that being the case, this is an extreme position the government has taken in my opinion. what do we do to try to change this in the united states? why have we failed to do that in the last few years? >> the arab failure on the

united states is a very complex phenomenon and to presently answer your question, one of the biggest failures is the lack of seriousness on the part of the arab rulers with washington with their dealings and as someone who came to this country with a view trying to somehow have some kind of input, we, as you know, established a branch of the ips in washington and we established

a relationship with the university of california press for the ability count outrage and similarly a publishing relationship with -- who we co-published a series of looks on the palestinian revolution. we feel that we have made some impact on academia. we feel we have made some impact on the main churches. we feel we have made some impact with the leadership of the minorities, where we have failed totally is with the political elite. we do not have -- we have made absolutely no impression on the

political elite. if anything, since i came here in 1976, the situation has actually deteriorated dramatically, much worse, much worse. and i think the reason is, you have a very powerful coalition now. it is not the lobby alone. the lobby is just part of it. i mean, the jewish community is a tremendously gifted community. the faculty of harvard is at least 35% jewish. whether the percentage of the population, jewish is 2.2%. this is an extraordinarily gifted people, extraordinarily

gifted. the connection between judaism and the west goes all the way back to the translation of the bible, 300 b.c.. greek was the common language of the western world. 300 b.c.. the koran was first translated into the western language in 1600 a.d.. we have a long way to go. [laughter] a long way to go. sometimes the thought occurs to me that, if we can get, in fact, i did mention this to some of my millionaire friends and i do have millionaire friends.

not that it matters much to me. [laughter] but i have said to them look, if you want to influence this country, come here and become an american citizen. if we have 10 arab -- you could make a difference. now we have made inputs in academia but we have not made inputs in the political realm. the fact that we made important academia indicates that the american -- in academia you are supposed to listen to argument, to right and wrong. you are supposed to acknowledge the evidence or give weight to the evidence. churches, morality is their business.

morality is not the clinical profession's highest value, let's face it. so we have a problem here, a big problem and if the arab leaders spend as much time as they spend on their bilateral relations on this issue, which has affected them and will affect them, it could make some difference. if there is another issue here, which we do not have an arab voice in the political discourse in the united states. there are ambassadors -- 22.

22 in new york, 22 in washington, 22 in new york. we have i think something like 30 muslim ambassadors. that is 100 ambassadors. how many -- is really plausible that you see in the mainstream media from these 100 ambassadors? the plo office has not really a done a very good job to put it very mildly.

i hope the arab league representative is not attending this, but i don't think they have done as good a job as they could have done. after all the arab league represents 20 countries. there is no policy that is clear on these issues except the more standard redundant repetition of positions. you do not yourself dissipate in the political discourse. you don't. you can't because your guidelines are not clear. there is no voice in the political discourse. this country is seething with ideas and if you can inject an idea into the bloodstream of

thinking about what is happening, it helps. i'm not saying this is the solution but the total absence of an arab voice in terms of intelligence -- intelligent contribution to the political discourse is also a tremendous die ability. with all these -- it is no wonder we are where we are today. >> what is wrong with the arab-american community? we have many arab-american educators. why don't they contribute to the paper's? papers? as you know i work on several american newspapers including the shock of sun-times, the st.

louis loeb democrat. it's not that difficult to have a column. >> this is a misconception that community has. and fundraising, we have to do some fundraising if not among the arab-american community, the golf. the people have to be approached >> you are point about op-eds, each has his own special career and specialty. you need a center for full-time fellows who have a sophisticated

understanding of the american political scene as well as a sophisticated understanding of the back round in the middle east as well as the capacity to express themselves articulately, intelligently, persuasively. this can be done i agree entirely and there is a failure. but even if and when, it is not going to solve the problem. the problem is much bigger. the problem is something i have had to mention. in this country in particular. i don't want to repeat what i said, but we do have a big, big problem for the reasons i stated.

is there a failure by the arab-american community? of course. >> professor, thank you very much. i would like to ask you a bout the islamaphobia in this country and how can this institute is a think-tank in the united states and many of the think-tanks show the dangerous -- of this trend of islamaphobia? >> i agree with you. i think this is extremely dangerous phenomenon and it's getting worse and worse. and it's based upon a total misunderstanding of islam. again, i mention these

ambassadors and the islamic conference, i think there are 57 members, 57 members and they contain some of the richest countries in the world. there are some very good islamic scholars, not just muslim countries but also some muslim scholars who are western scholars. there is a failure, there is no doubt about that, but there is a much deeper cause for the islamaphobia. there is a total misunderstanding of the relationship between the three religions. assume for example that the west

is based on the so-called judeo-christian tradition as if the two religions on the basic values somehow differ radically from islam for example. [inaudible] it does not accept the concept that judaism does not accept the concept either. so, we do have a big problem here of education, and there are parties that are interested in

fanning the flames of islamaphobia. unfortunately, historically, the coalition between right-wing -- and right-wing zionism is a phenomenon of relatively recent origin. i can even trace it back to possibly the 70's in the wake of the 1967 war. that was a major, major watershed because it inspired the millenarian movement in this country into thinking that the second coming is imminent, now that israel has conquered the entire west bank and the whole

of palestine including -- this is one of the pretty normal signs of the second coming. this is very powerful, a very powerful death in evangelical christianity in the united states particularly and the look who does have actually consciously tried to establish a political alliance. bacon made a point of doing this. whereas labor zionism would not deal with evangelicals. very interesting. labor zionism would not even talk to them, but bacon -- begin talk to him i think because of

his polish record because it was a poll and because of his experience as a minority in a catholic majority country. begin saw, realized the importance of the religious dimension and went out of his way to establish links with evangelicals here and bebe is doing the same thing. >> the gentleman on the aisle toward the rear. >> i am from the institute for policy studies. there are people who write off bits and i'm of them. it is not in the interest of israel at this juncture of history really to seek a peace agreement with the palestinians.

they are conquering more and more land. they are establishing realities on the ground and i don't see anything mahmoud apostate do including flying, becoming superman, to change that narrative narrative because within the next decade in the united states, i don't see any change in policy of the united states towards israel and that influence will remain even more than a decade or two, sorry to say. >> because you said mahmoud abbas may give up and hamas and the plo and sadat would come together. that was the first step. i am saying they could do whatever they want and nothing would happen so despair is the only really path we are going to see for the next decade. >> i am not sure i agree with that at all. i don't agree with that at all.

no, this is your country. you defend it first of all by getting together and by staying there, and by first -- your own people in the arab capitals to your cause and one of the aspects of the arab spring, one of the aspects of the emergence of the political islam, of the assumption of power by the muslim brotherhood in egypt, despite the constraints on

anchor -- action i think you are going to see more interest by the arab capitals with the muslim brotherhood leadership showing more interest in this case and i'm pinching on the united states and other western capitals. ..

there's a lot of talk as if in the arab world, especially after syria after the crumbling in the accusation by the regime and others. and the current situation, or as you said the death of arabism, lack of leadership in the arab world, what kind of system are we going to see? are we going to the a new division within the arab world? i mean, small state, sectarian state, expansion of the kurdish state in area. what do you see out of this? is there any role that the arab world can play now, or are they not going to be positioned to play any role as it had been during the times of facts be coral. >> as i said, the reversion to

the building blocks to taking place and that is what is being on the ground. and iraq, it's now broken into clearly kurdish shiite sunni. as far as iraq is concerned, i think the shiites being the plurality and maybe even the majority, are surely entitled to their role in government, which was suppressed by centuries of sunni predominance. i am not in any way upset by the fact that the shiite are, for the first time in iraq,

exercising power in proportion to their numbers. but at the same time, the country has clearly broken into three major issue that you had. the kurds are to all intents and purposes independent. in syria, the country breaks down totally unlike that of the cities on the way to breaking down totally. i personally don't see the isle of wight -- alawite military and political giving up easily. i can see that establishing an enclave in the northwest and possibly in damascus, too.

i can see that. iris in syria and actually not a shower just before the third spring. and i had a long meeting with him, about an hour and a half. december 2010. what is interesting is is that i said to have, mr. president, i think your top, top priority should be to improve your relations with the united states because i think this president, he's young, and because of his background, would probably very

much like to find out what he can do. this is just entirely my own initiative. the first thing he said when i first came in that doubt, he said, tell me about america. tommy was happening. describe the political map. and when i brought up the subject of improving the relationship, he said yes, he agrees with that. another subject i brought up with him associate tonight being. i said, the most dangerous thing in the arab world today, within the arab world is this divide. let us try and do something about it.

and he said what? first of all you said yes, i agree. i agree. then, when i set the dissenting companies said well what can we do about it but i said maybe if we start with something very symbolic, then we can take it from there. he said like what? said liking it all the as saudi arabia meeting how many in the summer. that maybe, just maybe could be the beginning of something. i said do you agree with the president? he said yes. i agree. i discussed the same points as

chief of intelligence who was killed. same reaction. same reaction. so you say, what do i think it's going to take place? it's impossible to prophesies. no one can tell it's going to take place. things go on as they are going on, and it's going to be fragmentation. and unless you have a fragmentation come in the model you go by is mana. a weak central government, kind of a federal not, kind of

arrangement. that seems to be the prospects in syria. lebanon station in syria. unless itself explodes, which could happen. so it's an extremely dangerous situation. >> do you mind telling us what she thought of the shower, which are rating of him? >> i had not met him before. i was extremely struck by how accessible he was, how attentive he was, how relax.

i mean, you wanted to learn about america. he really wanted to learn. and instantly -- [inaudible] i'm not sure that i'm doing him a favor. >> i think our time is trying to a close. we have time for just one more question. the gentleman right here, please. >> thank you. from georgetown university. i was struck or the fact that you didn't mention the air in until now. do you think that the arab spring had native repercussions of the arab-israeli conflict? i grew up not believing the so-called central case, sipping from a generation who is still a

major issue, and do you think that the so-called arab spring negatively affected the palestinian issue? second, how could you sit across the table from a shower al-assad and not thinking about the aside regime and don't you think it would have repercussions on whatever happens in the area, be it the arab-israeli conflict or lebanon or anything else? thank you. >> i'm sorry, i don't understand the last question. >> doesn't have repercussions, especially the assad senior prosecuting hunted him down and created people and so on. given the fact that area as syria and plo controversy over who holds the card.

will it be on the palestinian issue or not? >> there are two questions, two aspects of the problem. what is happening to the palestinians per se, and there's the fact that you have a superpower in the middle east, a superpower. a superpower that says iran cannot have nuclear weapons. syria can't have nuclear weapons the whole superpower, this is a problem for each arab country.

isn't geostrategic problem. it is the central geographic nexus. considered superior technology, culturally even. i mean, in the scientific field. economically, it dominates the region. the united states worries about cuba for goodness sake. and the arab countries shouldn't worry about this dominant superpower. this is not the palestinian problem. their so-called solutions to the

problem. now, i did mention the arab spring and i said one of the most important things is to have a revolutionary change with rulers and ruled and i thought this was an excellent thing and i pray to god that it might spread elsewhere. >> thanks for a wonderful lecture. are all very grateful to you. please come back. [applause] >> i mean, he's got to come up with that over this weekend

because there's only one debate left on monday. >> so that recap what we learned last night. the jobs plan doesn't create jobs. the deficit reduction plan adds to the deficit. so everybody here has heard of the new deal. you've heard of the fair deal. you've heard of the square deal. that romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. [cheers and applause] who we are not buying it.

>> i watch two programs on c-span. every presidential election

year, when you show your old conventions beaches in your debates, and that's a great service you guys offer. i thought the memory of being eight years old and watching the old conventions. for a political junkie like me, that's great. the fact he do that with debates is wonderful. the fact you focus on a wide range of public policy issues, there's something for everybody, whether interested in national security, housing policy comes something that the economy. i like that you guys cover topsoil that is covered. >> now, debate between the candidates for arizona's ninth congressional district. former democratic state senator, kyrsten sinema and vernon parker, the city council

approved the ninth district resided in arizona after the 2010th insists. it includes 10:00 p.m. part of phoenix, scottsdale, mesa and chandler. my mod back to >> good evening and welcome to the special about 2012 edition of errors on the horizon. tonight show is the debate from candidates running to represent arizona's ninth congressional district in the u.s. house of representatives. as a father harassers today congress is not not a formal exercise it is an exchange of ideas come opportunity for give-and-take between candidates who won the state's most important -- come interjection, even interactions are a lot

provided all this and what do you get a chance to respond to do her best to that happens. a new congressional district located entirely maricopa county was tempi and parts of phoenix, chandler, mesa, scottsdale and paradise valley. three candidates in the race to represent cd nine. there is libertarian, a retired microbiologist is making his fifth run for congress. each candidate will have the opportunity for one minute opening statement. reach her numbers to see you go first. >> i differ because i'm not here to rule over you, but advocate for personal freedom. as if a single principle, but his front to initiate force or fraud on others. and expect everyone else to live by the same standard. that is what the founding father was trying to us, a system that maximizes purse of liberty and

profit and minimizes the cost of optimize our life by providing the freedom to keep and enjoy the fruits of the labors. and not to let a bunch of thugs and sciences, long and steal from those labors by roland confiscation. so tonight is really about the only two choices you have. you choosing who rules over you or your choosing not to participate in that process. it is hard to initiate force or fraud in others. >> moderator: thank you very much. next we turn to kyrsten sinema. sinema: thanks much for having us here this evening. i'm running for congress because i believe congress is no longer serving with the people. all across this great country, folks are struggling, especially right here in arizona to get jobs and keep jobs and take care of their family. mistretta congress more interested in political bickering and taking partisan ideologies swipes at each other and solving real problems.

i believe across the state folks who don't have jobs are trying hard to get them and make it to the metaclass revokes who have jobs are struggling to keep them and take care of their kids future. we need folks are willing to work across data to solve problems. i've got a record of doing just that. in the seven years i served in the arizona state legislature, a reputation of working across the aisle with folks on both edges of the political spec trim to solve problems. folks like eric goldwater provided great opportunity for us to save those roles and kerry in the great tradition in arizona. >> moderator: thank you very much. our final opening statement from vernon parker. parker: thank you offer tuning in. our countries goes through some difficult times. we have out-of-control spending. we have unacceptable unemployment. when i served as mayor, i had to make some very difficult decisions to either raise taxes or cut our spending.

the republicans, and democrats and cut spending by 30% and our town was better. if you send to congress, and promised to work across the aisle to work with republicans and democrats to make sure we get america back to work, so they get the metaclass back to work in that we have a health care system that is second to none, an education system that is second to none and that we restore the 716 billion that have been rated for medicare. i promise to work and put the american people first and do not put republicans or democrats in front of the american people. >> moderator: thank you very much. let's get to it. how best to re-create jobs in arizona, and america? sinema: as an important question. i put on a 12-point jobs and attacks about specific ways that congress cannot create a better

job climate in arizona and throw the country. we don't have time to talk about this all points, but i'll mention a few. first, right now companies get tax euros for shipping jobs overseas, which these americans out of jobs and shortchanged. i'm going to switch the tax cut amount to provide tax incentives for businesses that hire folks right here in america. number two, i support businesses and give them tax credits and incentives to hire veterans who have served our country and when they come home have great skills so they can put to use radio arizona. a third example, the research and to build the tax credit. when i served in the state legislature i hope grocery credit that brings high-tech, highly jobs to arizona. we need to do that federally in the long term to bring those jobs right here to america. parker: either six-point plan, the first thing we should do is we should free the current tax

rate. if we do that, would put $4000 in the pockets of middle-class americans. the second thing, we must become more competitive on the global scene. we can no longer have the highest corporate income tax in the world. right now we are in the high 30s and if we lower our corporate income tax to 22% and we will create 2 million jobs here in america. and also, if we reinvest that the research and development if they are extended by 25%, another 500,000 jobs. the very next point is built in ireland and from las vegas because that will keep luke air force base open. 17,500 jobs seven adjusted as a conduit economy was $2.2 billion, which i propose that we shot. >> moderator: respond to that

place. sinema: do something i found pretty offensive. my grandpa is an army veteran and served in world war ii and got a purple heart. my dad served in vietnam in every big brother served in the marines and another brother is currently serving in the states navy. so, lots of guys in my family or a military family. i've got a strong record supporting military families and veterans. and in fact, i'm the only candidate at the table to see the news got a record on luke air force base it over the course of seven years in the state legislature i went eight times to protect and preserve luke air force base. it's another piece -- >> moderator: did you ever advocates oppose luke air force base? sinema: 2002 as an independent to republican family took me a while to become a democrat. independent. when i was younger, based on information i've been told it's

a different idea. but i'll tell you, my brother todd is the most important thing we can do is keep those jobs open. and that's why pass legislation to protect military families and veterans throughout the state. >> moderator: i went to issue an on base. gammill: seriously, seriously, this is how you reduce the debt that we are red is keeping an air force base open. come on. now jobs, how do you get jobs into the state? jobs are created and businesses have surplus money he needs. there must always have needs. how do they get surplus money? but the federal government ripping them off left and right with high taxes on the back to basically go went and got that. my personal opinion is we eliminate all federal taxes and corporate taxes at the federal level and see how good the baking skills of one of these who are now. before you jump on that, the other thing i'd like to jump on escape at about the all the regulations and mandates that puts on businesses that crushes

the life out of them. and you do that in the suddenly have surplus money and they'll start to hire people. >> moderator: the idea supply-side economics, some might argue, why would return to that particular ideology philosophy? when some see that as one of the reasons that the recession in the first place. how do you respond to that? parker: what must be very competitive on the global sense. we cannot have the highest corporate income tax in the world. we must reduce our corporate income tax because our number one ask for right now, we are exporting jobs to china, exporting jobs to india. and i firmly believe that in order for us to be more can edit it, that we must take a look at our current tax structure. >> moderator: for detained about the idea that cutting taxes is the best way to stimulate the economy and that the idea that tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves?

sinema: i support the bush tax cuts continuing from the class families. their families are supporting to put food on the table, get gas in the tank and prepare kids for the future. we have a fundamentally different idea for help in the classiness q-quebec on back on their feet. he suggests an important way to do that is to cut corporate taxes. i think the number one ways to support the class families. i believe that we should stop the bush tax cuts for the richest 2% in our country. you know ted conover continued tax cuts for the richest 2%, it will add $1 trillion to our country's deficit over the next 10 years. and i don't think we can leave that for kids and grandkids. that's not the legacy to create for them. parker: let me respond. ms. sinema has proposed in the past that we raise taxes on middle-class families to make $75,000 or more. she has also proposed that we tax services such as barbershops, hairdressers. and she's proposed we tax

plastic bags 25 cents per bag that will put an enormous burden on middle-class families. now look, when people talk about let's not cut taxes, when you cut taxes on people who are making $200,000, those are small-business owners. those are out of phase. those are escorts and they pay the individual rate, hiring americans. so the notion that someone who makes 200,000 or $250,000 but are rich and wealthy and they should not receive tax breaks. that's unimaginable. >> i'd like to just clarify my record. and the seven years in the state legislature come i never went tried to put a tax increase on middle-class families. so the record is very clear here. but again, there's a real difference between us. he wants to give tax breaks wealthiest americans and i think we need to get those breaks to

middle-class families and folks struggling to make it to the middle class. when i was a kid, my dad lost his job and we ended up homeless for a few years. we worked hard to make it back to the middle-class. if it hadn't been for programs like this that help folks like me with pal grants get back on her feet, we wouldn't have made it. >> moderator: dirty seconds. parker: the reason she did not raise taxes is because the legislature was and is controlled by republicans, so she never had the opportunity. she had advocated tax increases, so that's a little unfair to say she didn't vote for tax increases because she never had the opportunity to. sinema: should pay their fair share. most americans agree with that. >> moderator: the idea of a $200,000 by 60 to pay their fair share, should pay more of their fair share.

parker: those are individuals -- you must understand this, those are small business owners who are escorts and policies impaired individual braids. they hire people comes with are taxed at a rate, they must have resources to reinvest into our community. they won't have the resources to create our jobs. so it is unfair to tax is individuals who supplied 90% of the jobs in this country. sinema: trickle-down economics just doesn't work. teachers, nurses, doctors and millionaires and billionaires. i don't think $50,000 across this country can consider to be a millionaire. that is totally incorrect. gammill: one come i never got a job from a poor person. so don't take away their money, rich people's money and expect jobs to go up, expected to go the opposite way. secondly, no corporation a business pays any tax.

all those taxes out there, sticking it to the rich can sicken or corporations. guess what? that gets passed on to the products that company manufactures. so effectively, you're basically taxing yourself and use it daily and cheer the businessman getting hammered. someone on right, moving to health care. would you vote for the affordable care act? sinema: i would've voted. i worked hard to shape that led to arizona state. i'm the first to say the law is not perfect. there's a lot of stinkers and legislation. there's a lot that must be protected. protection for kids or existing health conditions like autism or down syndrome. protection for folks diagnose diseases like cancer so they don't get kicked off their diagnoses disease. but we need is not a repeal. first of all, it's not practical, not likely to happen.

but what we need is bipartisan action to come together and set the price of other don't work for small businesses and families. gammill: would not hurt. but come on this topic is very personal for me. my wife had her stage breast cancer. premaster insurance because we could not afford it. but she recovered and she recovered because we're the best doctors in the world, the best health care system in the world, but it's not affordable. there's several things that i believe went too far. for example, it's too expensive. it will cost us $2.6 billion. but the one provision that is just reprehensible is that it robs medicare of 716 william dollars. and when i get to congress, i will fight to make sure those cuts are restored. and third, we are going have bureaucrats in washington d.c.

destroying the doctor patient relationship, telling us when we can see doctors, how we can see them. and forth, it will destroy small business because never before in american history have read that if you hired more than 450 people may worked with in 39 hours per week that should be penalized. sinema: the small business does it have been. but it's not practical norbury of the state. o'grady to do is work together to create more affordability for small businesses. businesses between 50 and 200 employees. one thing i do want to point out, i was concerned mr. parker said it's a story repeated over and over in the media and been debunked from the beginning. that is the cuts to medicare. the truth is that the affordable care act cuts out waste, fraud and abuse. i think we can all agree what to get rid of that in our system. the concerning thing is mr. parker supports an obama by and budget. he recently said that he

supports their approach to entitlement. now that i've should would cost seniors like my grandma's $6400 more each year and my grandma can't afford that kind of an increase. parker: i'm on record. i've never said i supported the ronnie ryan budget. now let's get back to this health care. look, i grew certain aspects. one, that we should be a lot of purchase insurance for children up until the age of 26 and god knows we need it now because these kids do not have jobs. and two, we must address preexisting conditions. in order to drive down those costs, we must be able to purchase across state lines. but this is a very important point. doctors, they practice defensive medicine. when my wife would third stage breast cancer, we had to pay for testaments we told the doctor in the doctor said you need this

test, test test in test. i set out to pay for their spirit he said you don't need to spend on this one. i said why did you prescribe it? i'm afraid i will be served. that is not medicine. someone health care, is there any greater example for why the constitution and the federal government are completely at odds with one another? the constitution as it was to limit the federal government. there's nothing about health care or permitting congress to pass laws, but they do all over the place. so i would've voted against it. and i think this shows more of a difference between myself and the other two candidates than any other issue because i completely oppose the federal government having any say in any aspect of people's mandate provisions. >> moderator: social security, should we privatize? medicaid commission to be turned over to states? should not be a radical relocate these programs?

sinema: does a great question. earlier this year he told the tea party add-ins he was interested in the ronnie ryan edgbaston relates to entitlement. parker: that's not true. sinema: nursery areas, medicaid block payment, what process to loosen up and have definitely get to pay for health care in arizona. that hurts arizona's case and also means those tax dollars are in other states. if they're paying taxes, we should get dollars back. it's true for social security and medicare. is her personal issues to me. my grandmother was widowed and she was an early 20s in tucson. she raised three kids on her own, working minimum-wage at the cafeteria south tucson and she retired, all she had to social security and medicare. so republicans in congress are supposing to privatize social security to end medicare as we

know it. those are dangerous programs, dangerous ideas. parker: absolutely. i've never advocated privatizing social security. i am on record for continuing saying that we must uphold our commitment to our seniors. we must preserve medicare. we must preserve social security. now, the system is broken and so were going to have to do something to fix the system. when i get to congress, i will sit down with republicans and democrats to make sure that in the future that we resolve the issues surrounding social security and medicare. >> moderator: but what about returning medicaid to the states? parker: i have no problem with that. i think it's a good idea. sinema: this is a real difference because of medicaid returns the state of the block grant, with this over 50% of the funds are currently dead.

this means low-income workers, people with disabilities and seniors. seniors make up 65% of folks who benefit. so making those cuts would mean that my grandma wouldn't take her, kids with disabilities when daycare. >> moderator: someone argued the season government can't afford what's going on right now with access. sinema: we can't afford to not do it. it has only to assure sure folks have access to affordable health care, and a show for health care anyway and they had emergency room. it costs four times as much. >> moderator: last word on that. you parker: glass produces a clear difference because ms. sinema will throughout the night believe that the government says should be in control. i believe citizens should be made at the state level. a lot of decision should be made at the state level because we are here. we don't need washington d.c.

telling us how to do business in the state of arizona. gammill: i'm appalled to test her grandmother in the street simply because she does not health insurance, which is what i just heard you say. i think you'd come up with body and help her out. but i guess you said you'd rather put a gun to every american in the country and for some of their hard-earned wages. parker: there's people who simply don't have the means -- gammill: used to happen up until the 1950s was that we had charities, et cetera that would take care of such people. church groups, et cetera. the federal government has basically come in and run them out of the business of doing that and take it over on its own. anyway, as gascony social security, medicare, medicaid comiskey are all the way across the board of a tax, nothing more. someone is man-made climate change brill? to believe or not?

parker: i don't believe al gore invented the internet either. man-made climate change must be good stewards of our environment. we must make sure that we protect our environment. sinema: climate change is real. there's overwhelming evidence that it impacted me the difference. that's why i support planes to help create solar energy and improve alternative energy here in arizona as part of my job's plane. it's not all their part to help us address the issue of climate change carousels import from a national security perspective. the faster we become more dependent renewable sources right here in arizona like solar energy complex likely will be dependent on volatile markets in the middle east. >> moderator: how hard you push for renewables in arizona? parker: very hard, but here's the problem we have right now. we have the largest oil reserve in the world. and if we tapped into that reserve, believe me, our economy

would take off. so we have to make sure that as someone said, that our president does not bow down to a saudi king. we have the reserves. we must utilize reserves. i'm in favor of new year. i'm in favor of clean coal, solar. so whatever it is they give this away and full independence, we need to pursue it. >> moderator: quickly, trelleborg, find the resources in america. sinema: is important to keep options on the table. we can make a lot maclean on her cheese and solar technology at an even cheaper rate than in the past without endangering some of our greatest wildlife resources. parker: we have to stop you right there. >> moderator: each candidate will now give it one minute closing. we start with vernon parker.

parker: thank you, ted here this is a lot of fun. i am asking you today to support me, send me to congress. we must get our economy going. we must upper-middle-class back to work and we must protect our seniors, protect medicare, protect social security and we must have an education system that is second to none. you have my commitment that i will work with republicans and democrats because right now we have a congress that gets nothing done because they are more concerned about pinning the tail on the donkey were trying to lasso the elephant. i can tell you right now the american people have been lost. i will work hard to make sure that we keep the prosperity of this country and that we work to ensure for future generations that they have a future. to submit to congress, i will work for you. >> moderator: our next closing

statement from kyrsten sinema. sinema: thanks, ted. i mention i'm running for congress because they can do better. as i mentioned earlier, but my dad lost his job, we lost everything. but as i was, take it for two years, things to good public education system, was able to get back on my feet and make it to the middle class. i want that same opportunity for every kid in every family in this country. i'm on it for congress because i believe we can keep the doors of opportunity open. when you combine hard work and assistance to help each other make it through, we can create a country that we are all proud of every single day. you know, back in the day, arizona was done for us pragmatic common sense solutions and that can be known for that again. without a history of working across field to solve problems and i promise to do the same thing for you if you send me to washington d.c. tanks so much.

>> moderator: and our final closing statement is from powell gammill. gammill: another two years in yet another opportunity to go for a whole bunch of offices or candidate or one candidate is obviously going to win it there for vote doesn't count. or where it are in the are both unacceptable, were once again you get to choose between the lesser of two evils. choosing evil is still evil. the only alternative is to choose not to participate in what is a voluntary process. don't vote. you have better things to do than reaffirm the process were a bunch of thugs get annoyed to divvy up your soul and labor in the 6040 split. the washington party does not feature choice because either candidate is acceptable to them. what they need is your participation in your consent in the anointing. tonight on both assigning better things to do this election. >> moderator: thank you very much. sinemet for joining us in a special edition of arizona horizon.

i'm ted simons. as for now, you have a great evening. >> i've made mistakes in my personal finances. i'm not perfect, but i made this and fix them. the fact is that everybody sues looking into these allegations have said that they are completely false. everyone from the connecticut post and the danbury news times, ever independent financial expert. and what makes a lot of these attack ads that we've seen from linda mcmahon especially troubling is the fact that during the exact same time, linda mcmahon still hadn't paid back the $1 million to creditors during bankruptcy 36 years ago. >> congressman murphy, i agree with you to talk about issues in the state. an occasional financial but this novel were talking about here. but you absolutely need to be honest with the people of connecticut. you need to be honest about your special interest loans. you need to be honest about your tenants in washington.

those are issues important to the folks of connecticut because they want to know, can i trust the congressmen they are sending of the senator they are sending to washington to represent them and to work and fight for them. i have had a career of creating jobs contributing here to the economy and connecticut.

>> now, i have to be honest with you. i love these debates. you know, these things are great. [cheers and applause] and i think it's interesting that the president still doesn't have an agenda for a second term. don't you think that it's time for him to finally put together a vision of what he do in the next four years if he were elected? i mean, he's got to, but that over the weekend because there's only one debate left on monday. >> so let's recap what we learned last night. his jobs plan doesn't create jobs. his deficit reduction plan is to deficit. so iowa, everyone here has heard of the new deal. you've heard of the fair deal, you've heard of the square deal. mitt romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. [cheers and applause] we are not buying it.

chirac >> back of a secretary of state who acquainted on energy and foreign policy. at georgetown university qureshi spoke about the u.s. role in

shenk sends iran's oil industry in efforts to increase domestic and international oil productions. this is the littlest of an hour. >> i don't think i've ever more noise in this room than right now. good afternoon and welcome. i am carol lancaster, dean of the admin walsh school service here at georgetown university. it's my great privilege and not to welcome back the hilltop i'm a secretary of state, hillary rodham clinton. we are very proud to think of her as a holier by marriage. [laughter] i knows only to welcome ambassador carlos pascual. nice to see you again. the state department special envoy coordinator for international energy affairs. and as always that they too will come our students, faculty and staff with us in the audience today in case you didn't hear them.

secretary clinton has come to embody the georgetown spirit of public service. in her nearly 40 years as a public servant. first lady, senator, not the nation's chief diplomat. as many of you know, in this last welcome secretary clinton has traveled to over 100 countries and flown over 900,000 miles, making her the most traveled secretary of state in history. indeed, if he does speak for all of us when i say it's a pleasure to welcome her back to georgetown. since taking office, secretary clinton has tackled some of the most pressing issues facing our country come including the future of energy diplomacy. at the conclusion of her remarks today on this topic, secretary clinton will take questions from the audience. now, please join me unwelcoming the 67 secretary of state of the united states, the honorable hillary rodham clinton. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. well, it is wonderful to be back here at georgetown and in one of the most beautiful venues, not only in washington, but anywhere, to have this chance to talk with you about an issue that will definitely shape your future and to share with you some thoughts about what that actually means. as dean van castor said, i am a holier by marriage. i am so proud to be back. and so grateful for the extraordinary contribution that

the school of foreign service makes to the state department. we are enriched every single day, dean lancaster, but the work of scholarship that goes on here at this great university. so i came here because it's not only that young people have a great stake in our policies at home and abroad about energy, but because we all have to work together to find answers to some of the challenges it poses. energy cuts across the entirety of u.s. foreign policy. it's a matter of national security and global stability. it's at the heart of the global economy. it's also an issue of democracy and human rights. and it's been a top concern mine for years, but certainly these last four years as secretary of

state and it is sure to be the same for the next secretary. so here today i want to talk about the vast changes taking place regarding energy worldwide and what they will mean for us. america's objectives for our energy security and our progress in other places is critical. and the steps that we are taking to try to achieve the subject is are ones that i want briefly to outline to you. but let me start with the basics. energy matters to america's foreign policy for three fundamental reasons. first, a brass at the core of geopolitics because fundamentally, energy is an issue of wealth and power, which means it can be both a source of conflict and cooperation. the united states has an interest in resolving disputes over energy, keeping energy

supplies and markets stable for all manner of mobile crises, ensuring that countries don't use their energy resources or proximity to shipping routes to force others to gun to their well or forget their bad behavior. and above all, making sure that the american people's access to energy securer, reliable, affordable and sustainable. second, energy is essential to how we will power our economy and manage our environment in the 21st century. we therefore have an interest in promoting new tech knowledge eason sources of energy, especially including renewables to reduce pollution, to diversify the global energy supply, to create jobs and to address a very real threat of

climate change. and third, energy is key to economic development and political stability. and we have an interest in health and the 1.3 billion people worldwide who don't have access to energy. we believe the more they can accept power, the better their chances of starting businesses, educating children, increasing and come, join in the global economy, all of which is good for them and for us. and because corruption is often a factor in energy poverty as well as political instability, we have an interest in supporting leaders who invest their nation's energy wealth back into their economies instead of hoarding it for themselves. so these are the issues that i want to talk with you about today. but before i do, i will quickly

add that many of you, especially students of history note that these challenges are not new. countries have been fighting over resources for a century. human kind has always been on the hunt for new and better sources of energy. and yet, this is a moment of profound change and one that raises complex questions about the direction we are heading. right now, for example, in a dramatic reversal, developing countries are consuming more of the world's energy in developed countries. china and india's energy needs are growing rapidly along with their economies. demand is also rising across central asia and south america, too. there has been a surge in the global supply of natural gas, creating new opportunities for gas producers and lessening the world's dependence on oil.

and technology has developed to the point where we can drill for oil in god in places like the arctic in the south china sea, opening up new opportunities, but also raising passions about our environment and catalyzing sources of tension. now, who will benefit from these changes? where will we get the energy to make the world's growing needs? how can remake short that the institutions that kept global energy markets that the institutions that kept global energy markets that the institutions that kept global energy markets in the 20th century, like the international energy agency, which the united states helped to create after the oil crises of the 1970s continue to be relevant and effective in the 21st century. and then of course there are changes here at home that affect the international energy outlook many americans don't yet realize the gains that the united states

have made. our use of renewable windows taller power has doubled in the past four years. our oil and natural gas production is surging. new auto standards will double how far we drive on a gallon of gas. and for the first time, we've introduced fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks, vans and buses, all of which will cut costs. ..

>> the state department opened a new bureau called the bureau of energy resources being led by my special envoy and coordinators'.

the bureau is charged with leading good diplomatic efforts on energy. in the coming weeks i will send policy guidance worldwide instructing them to elevate reporting and energy issues pursuing more of reach to private sector energy partners. make no mistake the state department had energy related diplomacy when a specific crisis arose. but we are dedicated full time to think creatively how to seize opportunities. that is a signal of a broader commitment to lead to shape the global energy future.

six members of the state department energy team are graduates of georgetown university. they are here today as well. thank you georgetown. [applause] that is the shameless bit to [laughter] -- pitch. we are working with the department of energy to help shape domestic energy policies around the road. of the energy department is at the cutting edge of innovation with a great deal of expertise. the stronger the domestic energy policies to deliver technical help the battery are as a government the role

the state department plays to chart a path to stability and prosperity and peace. the meese speak briefly of the global energy strategy. with the geopolitics of energy we are focused on energy diplomacy. it is related to issues of the headlines. you may have read of territorial claims. there are a significant quantities of gas resources of fast-growing energy needs. and you can see why this situation becomes tense. to adopt the clear code of conduct to manage your resources without conflict.

some is focused on the arctic a frontier of unexplored gas deposits and a potential environmental catastrophe. of the melting ice caps open new drilling opportunities. it is critical react to set the rules of the road to protect the arctic fragile ecosystem. we work to strengthen the council that includes united states to promote to effective cooperation. i was in norway last year to where the new arctic can also will be based to discuss these issues.

today is seen as increasingly important. another focus is helping to promote competition and prevent monopoly is. decades many european nations recede natural-gas by pipeline from russia. views sources were available. that has changed because of the increased production in the united states there is more natural gas looking for a home. also the caspian and central asia upper crow they would like to sell it and europe like to buy a. that is called the southern corridor. the united states has been active participant to help

move the project to fruition. by? we want to see countries grow to have stronger economy is energy monopoly creates a risk. anywhere where one nation is overly dependent port energy can jeopardize its independence to make a country vulnerable to threats and coercion and. why nato has identified energy security as a -- as a key issue of our time. also with the european energy council to do deepen our cooperation. not just a matter of economic competition but international security.

at the heart of the diplomacy of the heart of the gabbana administrations. the united states and european union as well as the united nations have impose sanctions on iran to persuade iran to stop the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. of major target is iran's oil industry. what you may not know the painstaking diplomacy when into making the sanctions first adopted then the effective. we need to convince consumers to stop wars significantly reduce

purchases. many countries were worried reducing purchases would put them in a very difficult position. we reach out to other oil producers to encourage them to increase production to find alternative sources of oil for their help to that here in the united states we increased oil production by 700,000 barrels per day. weekdays countries as a national security matter. the approach has worked. we have certified every single one of iran's oil importers have cut or completely ended the purchase of iranian oil.

and put increasing pressure while minimize the burden on the rest of the world. this strategy influence our engagement like sudan or the will stop flowing to get it going again matter to both of them and to us. both the economies depend on oil. in order to export the oil south sudan these pipelines that sudan controls. fighting over how the south would pay for the bears structure. of compromise seemed impossible. united states stepped up the engagement to a boy a return

to war at a critical moment for the oil supply. i flew to cuba -- said capital loathsome sedan to recognize the percentage of something is better than a percentage of nothing. they signed a cooperation agreement and ratified this week. the situation is still fragile. this was a step forward i went to commend them for their leadership and courage. in 2010 iraq produced 2. 3 million barrels of oil each day to day that is 3.2

million. now it is the number two oil producer in opec. this is a major iraqi success story held by the department of state and energy. we work with them to identify bottlenecks with energy appears structure to improve the investment plan to get more will to the market. no question the increase production help stabilize oil markets at this moment to provide a foundation for a stronger economy to benefit the iraqi people. how to manas resources across national boundaries. they're not always clearly delineated. if oil or erred gas is

discovered how will they develop it? after a long negotiation deny this season mexico reached a ground-breaking agreement with gas and oil resources in the gulf of mexico and we will send it to congress reaction. it lays out how the united states and mexico will manage the resources that transcend the maritime boundaries. with energy diplomacy we're focused on the second area of the engagement from helping to promote and new energy solutions including energy efficiency to meet demand and diversified and address climate change. the transformation is

central to control carbon emissions. it is strong 21st century economy. we know energy transformation cannot be accomplished from government alone. fable made $15 trillion of investment to transmit electricity. governments will provide some of it it comes from the private sector which is a huge opportunity as well as a challenge. i want to make sure american workers and companies are competing for those projects. there leaders across the field of energy renewable, high tech, energy of restructure, and in the

coming decades american companies should do more business worldwide to create american jobs. governments can do several things like educate our citizens about the value of energy efficiency. the most important thing is enact policies to attract investment paving the way for a large scale infrastructure. is angela merkel at africa and india and pakistan u.s. aid has training programs to the power utilities on a sound commercial footing. the millennium challenge corporation has new contacts with several countries to undertake wholesale systemic

energy reform. with the right climate import/export bank and overseas private investment corporation can help seal the deal to let the exports flow. what we're doing with their neighbors in latin america of at the summit of americas, colombia launched a new initiative it is leading with united states called connecting the americas 2020 to. to achieve universal access universal allegis said the through electrical interconnection in the hemisphere. linking electrical grids canada through chile. all the way through the caribbean. the inter-american development bank, they have

a job lined in this project stemming provide a broader effort to from the project launched in 2010 sparking a wave of innovative projects it will help us to get the most of the region's resources. of one country has excess power it can sell it to a neighbor. means if it has a strong season it can export hydropower. to expand the size we can create the economies of scale and attract more private investment, lower capital cost for the consumer. another goal is 31 million people lack access to

affordable and reliable electricity. that holds them back from making progress in some many areas. one aim is to make sure those 31 million people do have power. with this single project we promote energy efficiency fight poverty, create opportunity including u.s. businesses in really is a win and win/when in our opinion. to achieve the levels of private sector involvement, it takes a level playing field. you know, very well the

playing field is hardly level. some dictate how much national content to must be used with energy production for give subsidies to their nation companies to give them an edge in that can be challenging for american businesses to break through. our diplomats are out there fighting taking aim at economic barriers and unfair practices. we achieved a major breakthrough when the members of the asia pacific community agreed to cut tariffs on 54 key environmental goods to clear the way for eric technology. at the same time we have to take on the issue and of energy poverty. the third area i will mention.

for the 1.3 billion people worldwide that do not have access, it is a daily challenge and struggled and runs counter to energy transformation. they burn firewood, med cool comment charcoal, whenever they can get their hands on. diesel generators, no electricity is more expensive than that. there dirty forms of energy bad for people's health and the environment. we have the technology and know-how that people can be prague to energy not only reliable and affordable but clean and efficient. energy transformation and ending poverty go hand in hand.

the united nations have sustainable energy for all to do three things. achieve universal access, ed double the rate of improvement and the share of renewable energy this year development agencies have committed more than $50 billion of financing for sustainable energy. if government creates the right to environment. more than 60 countries have begun action plans to bring energy investors to their market. they will were the high prices many for people pay today as well as increase access to open new markets.

venice states has another initiative. cookstoves. nearly 3 billion people at almost half of the world's population don't have access to modern cooking technology. they just have buyers which causes toxic air pollution killing 2 million people every year. millions dying because of something as simple and ordinary and by no to their survival as a stove. we're calling on the world to help us solve. i watched the global alliance to get clean and

affordable stowe's into 100 million homes worldwide by the end of the decade. with political instability history tells a frustrating tale. countries that are rich with resources have less democracy, more economic instability, and more frequent civil wars. far more likely to be ruled by dictators will can embolden them to start complex with other countries. called the resource curse. but they are not the problem. it is agreed. resources can transform for the better but only if used the right way. we need to undo the resource

curse that more will become exporters of oil. some discovered oil reserves mozambique common not long ago all embroiled in deadly conflicts. the political situation is still fragile they need support to make sure that it does not have more suffering and trouble. the united states is working with eight new wielding gas producing countries to put into place the building blocks of good governance and effective laws and regulation. your help in the government adopt strong environmental protection laws and regulations because will and gas development is happening

in fragile areas. we increase our support for the transparency initiative and promotes accountability and the lael gas and mining industries and obama announced the united states to join the organization as a signal of our commitment to be your only the second developed country to do so. and now the united states is the first country in the world to require our extracted industries companies disclose any payments they make to any government worldwide and importance step in the fight against corruption. the message we're sending with disputes to cooperating with our neighbors is this. the united states is convinced energy and all its

complexity will continue to be a defining issue of the 21st century and we're reshaping of foreign policy to reflect that. it is a moment of profound change. countries that used to depend on others better now producers. how will the shape world events? who will benefit? how will that affect the climate? the strength of young democracy and is all still unknown. the answers are being written right now. we have to be involved. the future prosperity of our nation and the rest of the

world hangs in the balance. all of us, especially all of you today have a stake in the outcome. would you are steadying here at georgetown and help you follow this issue and consider becoming engaged. the allied will only grow more urgent in the years ahead and we need the smart people we could muster to solve them. this will take the most talented public-service innovative on entrepreneurs and dedicated citizens. i believe we're up to the challenge to secure a better future with energy supply and sustainability. by meeting those two

objectives provides greater dignity and opportunity for all to protect the planet we share at the same time. thank you very much. [applause] >> the secretary can take a couple of questions. i like to invite our students to ask those questions. lineup that the microphone.

i said a couple. please introduce yourself. >> afternoon. i am a first year here and with the understanding with the initiative of american independence was still a critical part of foreign policy. with increasing interaction between russia and iraq and oil contracts and weapons deals to lose iraq to other parts of the world specifically and including russia as an energy source? >> an excellent question. i think the answer is no. iraqs will will enter the global marketplace. when in the nation's oil in tears there are deals made where it will go, the conditions of contracts.