it. and it is behind glass and you can't hear directly what is going on in the courtroom. there is a 42nd delay and it is supposed to be there so that if something is inadvertently disclosed that the government believes is secret, they can cut off the audio feed. i will say it's interesting to sit there and see people who are talking 40 seconds ahead of you. and it is very odd. because the sound is not line up with their voices and you end up looking at the monitor. but the three or four times were a government censor has hit that button and every time the judge has ordered that information could be closed. the first time thought was just the word torture and then the

judge was annoyed by that. and it was disclosed that it's not just a security officer in the courtroom but the cia off base that also can be part of this. and whatever they have said has been able to come out. when we get further into this for the defense wants to bring up the treatment of the defendants and the government hands and they have indicated that they are not at all excited about getting into that. and we will see what happens along with transparency. at the other point, in the sense that it is scripted and we know how it will end. so far, no. that is something that i think is an important part of the story. in this project was conceived in the bush administration there was an expectation by the political officials.

many of them well carry out our expectations that these people be convicted and dispatched in a relatively short order. and that is not what happened. not only did they explain us, they raise real objections, but once cases did go to the trial to the extent that they have, the military officers did not act purely as rubber stamps of the government's objectives and the best example is this individual whose case led to the supreme court once and was possibly set to be discussed again. you had a guy with the driver of terrorism. he was osama bin laden's driver.

because the people like this man and the other people who are suspected of more serious crimes, they preferred to keep them away and they charged him with these offenses and the prosecutor who argued the case, he was going for a life term they acquitted him of conspiracy , which is a more serious charge and they convicted him of material support for terrorism. he convicted him of that and the prosecutor said, do not let him support terrorism ever again. send a message to anyone who might think that they may give him 30 years, not one day less

than 30 years. possibly more come he might deserve more. that is what the prosecutor said. the jury deliberated for an hour and they asked if he would be credited for his time in custody and they came back with five months plus served. and that is not what the government expected and one of the surprises that i think is worth noting that the military courts do not behave the way one might expect in some ways and you can compare similar charges and just look at the track record and you would be way better off be prosecuted than in a federal court where they don't have any existential crisis about the legitimacy.

>> one of the astonishing things that i learned was the assumptions about the way that this work was upside down. and basically that is true. but over the years it has been the military officers who have been the rock that have protected the basic boundaries and the civilians. that are trying to push them into avoiding making waves. i saw them all the way through

until now. so the point about this importance of these officers is terribly important. and it's turned into a kind of attack on a military officials and not a structural question that we are trying to raise about the courts themselves and i'm so glad that you made that point. and i have two basic questions. and what is going to happen and what's your impression about what is going to happen to the effect to prosecute and include conspiracy in and the military commissions. one of the ways that we should ourselves in the foot is that we may lose the ability to prosecute conspiracy because it may not be a crime like a law of war. and that is now going to be litigated all the way up. but it would be a useful mechanism and we had a choice.

but we have been better off building this? that would have been tailor-made to do this job? staffed by judges and who could have built a system that would've gone nuts. we are 12 years into the process and we've been to the supreme court for times and nothing like the actual prosecution with significant numbers of people. >> those are great questions. when he first addressed the conspiracy point. early on after the u.s. started taking prisoners and getting them from various means, getting them turned over by allies or what have you. the question arose about how

would you prosecute them and committing specific acts was a problem. and it was discussed to make membership in al qaeda or the taliban itself a crime. and that was rejected because they thought the idea was seen as it had very bad optics. and it would be a problem. but they did decide to port this against military law and this is a crime because it's very easy to prove as opposed to the things that individuals have decided to do or have done. and the number of tribunal

rejected conspiracy conditions for the most part. i think the nature of the conflict is doing things in a group. and so that is part of this coordinated violence, making one participant guilty of the acts of all the other participants, it is just too broad and i think that is the rationale. but what happened with this 21st century military commission project was several civilian crimes such as conspiracy were imported into this military code and it raised problems from the get-go because these military officers kneeled that that is not a war crime you know, or the other things that traditionally have been war crimes. but what has happened more recently is this man has been back home in yemen and his

conviction was appealed because he was officially a war criminal and the dc circuit court throughout his conviction founded a material support for terrorism and it was not a war crime at the time that he did that. congress has since declared it and they probably can do that. the one they did that, it wasn't. so let that be a fact of this. the same issue applies to conspiracy in the u.s. government conceded that another detainee who was convicted of conspiracy, that the same rationale would mean that his conviction would have to be vacated and it was. the justice department now reportedly is planning to appeal that over the objection of general martin's, the chief

prosecutor who doesn't believe in conspiracy theory, believing that the supreme court can be inferred in the public position they would end up with a decision that would undermine their flexibility and the department of justice still has time, so a conspiracy is not a legitimate crime. but the government could seek further review. the other question that you had was what? >> oh, yes. okay. [inaudible question] >> i guess one question is what is the problem that military commissions were designed to

solve and what is it that they could do that could not be done through other mechanisms that the united states already had at its disposal. by late september, for instance, the department of justice had drafted a memo they thought had been committed in the 9/11 attacks and once they figured out that they all were especially. there were no complaints from other departments, the department of defense and the cia or anyone all said that plan was problematic. and in fact, what the cia people told me was they were perfectly happy with that because they were very experienced working with the department of justice and they have confidence in the prosecutors and the security clearance. so there wasn't any -- there

wasn't anyone in the operational end of the government but said that our justice system has constituted this and cannot handle this problem and we need to create a new justice system that can handle this problem. including the demonstration that the executive believe that they had in responding to an attack -- the 9/11 attack. it was not like we have a problem. let's get some people together and figure out the best way to solve it. it's like this means we need to have such a gigantic earth of discretion without any outside review just to show that we can do it and once they had made that claim and set up the marker, and kind of forgot about it. because as you say, they were holding people accountable and

in wartime detention powers and other things. and so they kind of let it go and it kind of left it to these military guys to set this up without support or help or interest. so my question is what would the article be and i guess it would be a statutory court that is not a ten-year court. and what would it do that the existing courts don't do. >> to the extent i am trying to think what the administration was thinking. they believe that the courts would make it impossible to get a conviction because of confrontation clause rules that would not have admitted hearsay and lawyers would come in and tell them not to talk in the

interrogations would have to stop and you could have a whole set of traditional criminal norms dropped upon to the process. to the extent the one a make those norms. and we had due process, but not by every john to what was going on the we insisted upon. and my sense is that you could have built this that was tailor-made to do this. and this includes senator stevens and it was a culmination about how you can't trust the military. so it seems that we went down

and unnecessarily difficult path. and never thought about the option in the middle. >> there is another option raised as well. >> i think that some advocates, what appealed about them is that they are military and these are guys who are tough and salute individuals and they wear uniforms and other things like fatigues. and they can also try the enemy prisoners and they have occasionally. and it looks like a military trial already using the

rulebook. and there are so many questions that have come up and creating a system is a huge enterprise and that means lots of additional litigation and delays. so had they decided to go this route, they would've had the precedents to follow. but yes, there are lots of ways that they could have done and you have to balance what are you getting in exchange for the complexity of setting up something brand-new. >> if you had to predict, do you believe that any of these issues, and if so, what kind of

issues would be the most likely want to go to the court in the future? >> it's interesting. they have not taken any since 2008. but i think that the odds are high that the government appeals the decision of the dc circuit, they will have to take that in the way that this is issued with this case is that a reporter, the justices said that conspiracy is not a war crime. and the fifth member of the case left that issue open and that is justice kennedy and now that issue is presented quite squarely and i think that they have, they have to resolve that clearly. and i think another question is one that they have jagged an anticipated right away.

and this includes u.s. citizens and noncitizens. due process problems as well, suggesting the prisoners to this system and not making it available for u.s. citizens. as was pointed out in the click. ♪ ♪ ..

so general martins tried to dismiss the solicitor general wanted to keep the issue alive. general martins having control of the military commissions wants to dismiss the conspiracy charges and i wonder if he could say something, and because he wants a clean prosecution. the holder justice department announced that they would prosecute in criminal court and not use tainted evidence then when they were forced to bring in the military commission they said and we are not going to use any evidence that would not be admissible in a civilian court.

and so martins is trying to dismiss the problematic charges. the convening authority refuses to dismiss the charges. can you say something about what you think is going on and attention of why all these various people within the administration seem to be pulling in different directions? >> yes. first, to start with the question of you know an appeal from the d.c. circuit and should the supreme court taketh? it's true the supreme court has turned down all the deals of the habeas cases from the d.c. circuit. those appeals were filed by the prisoners and against the government seeking to get released over the adverse ruling from the d.c. circuit. when the government appeals particularly when they appeal on an issue involving the constitutionality of the military commissions statute, i think the supreme court is going to find it much more difficult to ignore. i think the government says

something these lower court judges have thrown a part of our statutes, we disagree and we wanted definitive ruling. you expressed barely left open in 2006. i think the higher they will take it. secondly, the fascinating drama involved here is this. once it was clear from the d.c. circuit that conspiracy in their view was not a legitimate crime as we say general martins slots to, wanted to concede that point and throughout all the conspiracy charges in his case and let that one go and focus on the case on the charges he thought he could prove substantive crimes. he filed paperwork with an entity called the convening authority which is sort of a unique official for military commissions, sort of the quasi-administrator or quasi-grand jury entity. the current occupant of that office is a retired vice admiral

named ruse mcdonald. clearly general martins expected that would be rubberstamped and the dismiss the charges. instead, the convening authority admiral mcdonald refused to dismiss those charges and issueo were kept secret. they did not actually released a document explaining that he did send out a press release announcing that he had did the prosecutor's request to dismiss the charges. basically his rationale was the government thinks they are right and they have indicated they may appeal so i don't think it's prudent to dismiss these charges yet. that's what he said in the press release. however that may not be the end of the story because the defense lawyers for these defendants have themselves moved to dismiss the conspiracy charges citing the d.c. circuit opinion so they

have made that motion before the military judge. the prosecutor, general martins has joined or if he hasn't yet formally has indicated he will join the defense and asking the judges presiding over the actual trial to dismiss the charges. so here you have a lot of conflicts between these different parts of this apparatus. now i wrote, when i wrote a story about that event i referred to it as an indication of continuing disarray in the military commissions whenever and martins took exception to that. he said it's not disarray. that's implying that a military organization everyone has to be lined up together. i said okay that's fair to say it in a traditional kind of case, a traditional normal sort of case but here come the here you are talking about this fundamental legal point.

you're not talking about the kinds of things that are rise in ordinary cases. here we are seeing a complete disagreement within different arms of the administration about what the law actually is, which body of law applies, whether it even the crime exists. things like that which are the kinds of things that normally are not up for debate even in very serious criminal trials. and why? it's because there is in the governing law. there is in some place to turn to have the answers so you could possibly come up with many different answers to these questions. >> so what's the, what's the import of this? do the prosecutors feel they need conspiracy to get the sense that they are looking for for

most of these people or is it a classic example of we are going to charge them with everything we can or alternatively i don't know how the evidence rules conspiracy there so you can introduce testimony of a co-conspirator. >> well, at present, everyone who is charged with conspiracy was also charged the something else so therefore the prosecution believes they can lose that charge and not have any real problem. interestingly enough there are however about 10 or 11 detainees who are only charged with material support which the government is not appealing. cycle that. the d.c. circuit throughout the material support crimes and is not a war crime or was it when it was committed by mr. hamdan and all the people in guantánamo for 10 years. that's not a valid charge.

there are some people who are only charged with that. those charges all disappeared because the government declined to appeal that ruling by the d.c. circuit. the prosecution can try to find something else to charge them with but the odds are if that is what they were charge was so far that's probably the best that they had. but yeah i mean if you look at the charging documents for military commissions, not a typically they tend to really pile on throwing in everything they possibly can and one of several surreal moments of the perceived and khalid sheikh mohammed. this happened last year. it was this long day of her seedings at the arraignment and then the judge said wave the reading of charges which normally happens at these proceedings where the defendant generally doesn't want to hear

the prosecutor recite all the evil deeds that he committed without having a chance to rebut them or whatever. so they are the defendants refused to waive their right at arraignment to have the charges read in the prosecutors who have written this war and peace type lengthy thing naming every single victim of 9/11 and going into enormous detail had to read the whole thing in court and it went on for three hours. it was like performance art. no one prosecutor could do it. they took turns going up there and reading, so-and-so and so, it's clearly one of many moments done with the defendants have tried to irritate the government and try to sort of make clear what goes on in the courtroom.

>> i think we have come to the end of our time. thank you very much and i would like to suggest that we give a round of applause to our guests for a very stimulating presentation. thank you. [applause] >> thanks again and just to show you one thing in the military culture is that military organizations always have coins. maybe some of you know that the different units of the military will have these commemorative coins made up in when they meet each other they will tend to exchange them. if you want to see what the military commissions klein looks like, this is it right here. each event has a motto. does anyone know that one in latin? that is latin is still required here, isn't it? it's made by a general martins,

that motto justice at the breech is what he tells me it means. in fact the english translation says that. and then finally i wish i had thought of it but our friend gene fidel had a bunch of these great a skull and books. you can get our schedules at her our website, you can join in the conversation on social media websites. >> next on booktv, a discussion with scott anderson. the author of "the making of the modern middle east." and ari shavit in his book, my

promised land. >> good evening, everyone. it is drying up and it is getting nice outside. this is going to be a very interesting to authors and you'll hear from tonight. can you hear me in the back? >> thank you. >> scott anderson and ari shavit both wrote a book about the middle east. and we are going to hear from scott and also from ari shavit. the more things change, the more they remain almost exactly the same.

and so i'm i am going to introduce both of the authors tonight and then each will. ryan: about 10 minutes. and i will moderate a conversation with them and take questions from the audience. so write down your questions. when you ask them, just directed to the two of them and that will be fine. if you want to address it to one of them, then just let us know. let me first introduce ari shavit. he is the author of "my promised land: the triumph and tragedy of israel" and a commentator in one of the most powerful voices in his really thought today and he started off as a paratrooper and ended up studying philosophy is a major and that is what living in israel does. he has won the 2013 book award

in his great grandfather came to israel at the end of the 19th century and he was a british lawyer. you will hear him speak with the inflection with his voice, and he is a founding father and his father was a chemist who worked on building the alleged nuclear program. from his perch in his corner of the world, he has moved like many of us, i know like me, to the political center from the left. he asks in his book, is there anyone to talk to as he goes through the issues. and as a friend of mine says, we have a beautiful house in a beautiful neighborhood. "my promised land: the triumph

and tragedy of israel" is about his personal and family story in the history. the end of the book is his prophecy and that is also what i will ask him to spend time talking about, his vision of where he sees israel in the future. and our other speaker is scott anderson and his book, or come in to see, imperial and the making of the modern middle east is fascinating. the story not only of mr. laurence, which you already know, but he was a complicated man whose knowledge of military history and the military was unprecedented for the time. scott anderson grew up in east asia and his father worked in agriculture as an advisor for the american government and he

is a novelist and war correspondent in the places that he has corresponded from include sudan and northern ireland and i went online to see a list of places that the state department that you shouldn't go. and those are the places you shouldn't go. [laughter] >> the movie triage with colin farrell is based upon his novel and richard gere and his story was based on his work in bosnia. but what you don't know and what you won't read is that he is part owner of the half king bar. he owns that with sebastian jan, it's in chelsea on 23rd and 10th, which is the hottest area of new york and asked him i asked him how long ago he opened it and he said 14 years. like my grandfather used to say,

it is much better to be lucky than smart. [laughter] >> i would like to introduce our first speaker, ari shavit. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. it is really a pleasure to be here and it was worth writing the book and i have been several times in florida and from the moment i landed, i was only thinking about this on the plane and it's something warm and sensual, which i recognize and i also love. so i'm looking forward to

getting to know the city. but i know that i already like it very much. and so why did i write "my promised land: the triumph and tragedy of israel"? and there have been so many books written about israel. very good books. biographies, histories, and academics. and my feeling was that for a long time that there has not been a book written that was a personal and deep and soul-searching is really book, trying to understand what this nation is about. where is that coming from, and where is it going? and i think that's no accident.

and i think that the reason this book has not been written is because we israelis have lost our narrative. not only we have lost the narrative, but they people caring about israel and criticizing israel and the people he israel lost a narrative. we are bogged down to the details to the attention of the events and we are in a sense of corruption with tribalism and hate and all the venom that goes along with the discussion that all of us have lost sight of the

big picture. my book deals with history, but it is not a history book. it deals with politics, but it's not a political book. in my book has strategic insights and it deals with the economy and social matters, but i am no sociologist and no strategists were general. but a thought needs to be done to write a story and it brings down everything that we are dealing with back to the human level, enabling us all to have a fresh look so that we have a better understanding that is both reasonable and realistic and also more fair. i think that this is either that

israel can do no wrong or israel can do no right and it is ridiculous. it is flawed intellectually and morally as well. and in a sense, i wanted to write a book that takes israel the cliché and makes it into a real entity. a book that enables one to love israel again with a realistic and moral way and so what did i do? i have begun with the arrival of my great-grandfather in april of 1897, coming from london and i basically asked myself why did

he come? eyelids and prosperous comfortable victorian london where he was a self-made lawyer. especially in a desolate and remote wasteland how thin was at the time. and my conclusion, is that there were three striking features of his journey there. there were two brilliant ideas there that were shared with his friend and other founders as well. and what did they understand? what was so remarkable about this? well, in 1897, these remarkable jews and individuals realized that the 1940s are going to

happen and they tried to preempt it. they did not know that there would be an off switch. they did not know. but they realized that europe was going mad against the jewish population. and so when you think about their insight, we saw a problem that was decades away. and they tried to create a dramatic revolution that one can imagine of transferring it from one land to another, creating a nation, reviving language, all to save the people there in an attempt to save the jewish people in danger. the partially succeeded. the real problem is that they were too late and they can save all of the europeans. but their endeavor was a

remarkable one. their other insight was relevant with individuals today. and they realized that post-ghetto and postreligious judaism is at stake. the brilliant jewish idea that worked was to live with an intimate relationship with regard to the walls laws of the ghetto. and once these two great areas were weakening, the relationship with god changed and the rules of the ghetto's failed and the jewish existence, non-orthodox existence became in danger. and they did not know there would be this kind of situation, but they tried to transit.

there is a need for a jewish homeland in these two ways, these motivations, it brought my great-grandfather to the land and it was remarkable. and they created a great and successful nation that needed to be established and how had to be established. in many ways it was ingenious. but there was a flaw. and the thought was that my great-grandfather and his peers and his colleagues did not see that there was another people there. they did not see the half million palestinians and i am a zionist and i believe in our right to the ancient homeland and this is no colonial project. in the need of my

great-grandfather in that land was so deep and that line is that began from that very first moment when he and his friends set foot in palestine, that oneness is -- what you see is two pillars of israeli existence. on one hand, the billions and the need to create that nation and on the other hand, what is built into the project. it is not only about sentiments, it is not just about something that happened yesterday and tomorrow. the conflict is built in because of the tragic flaw that is there from the very beginning. and so fast-forward.

i go from all of the developments by telling the dramatic and amazing stories of individuals and the great drama that arrived in every generation. and so what we see today, my last chapter, which i like very much, is a journey that i am taking in the footsteps of my great-grandfather. and i go throughout the country and look at what was achieved and what did this create and so what i see is on the one hand a nation that is threatened like no other nation is threatened. and i plead and i ask all the critics of israel and its government and its policies who

have a lot of justified criticism always remember the context of the existence of that country and our nation and we are intimidated because many do not accept the existence of a jewish state and they are intimidated because many arabs have a problem with having a non-arab state in that region and they were intimidated because many palestinians did not acknowledge that we have a right to be here. we have many internal threats, so it's not only iran that is talked about, which is a major threat for the palestinian issue, but there are elements that are basically part of the israeli condition.

and so with this and within that situation, that semi-tragic situation and not endangered nation, we have a multiple viable society and there is something to be very proud of what was achieved there. and we have this state and society. and what was achieved is a robust vital society and one that i know. it is vital in so many ways. this includes the culture and we have more babies than any other country and tel aviv is one of the sexy cities sexiest cities in the world. it is a passionate and sensual

city. and so when you think of the people that survive before or after the holocaust, some of them, many of them who are the ultimate victims of europe in the 20th century who did not become suicide bombers and to did not go into a kind of violent revenge and did not adopt it as their way of life, but rather turned life into their life, they turned a celebration of life into their greatest victory and that is what we see. this is what makes israel so unique. because it is a nation on the edge and a people that lives dangerously. in this life did not bring about pessimism on the country.

it is one of the most amazing spectacles of life. when you see the people that have come from nice and are surrounded by vast, celebrating life in such an intensive way. there is much to be admired. and i am very proud to be one of the nation that is so criticized and so very -- that it brings about such harsh feelings were so many people. my one hope is we would bring this in every way needed and we will see a and i do hope that that is result will be creating a new kind of conversation that is loving and caring and critical and moral and realistic

and i think you very much. [applause] [applause] >> our next speaker is the author of maker of the modern needs. it is scott anderson. [applause] >> thank you so much. i have been around the world and covering more for about 25 years. and from my time in the middle east, very early on, i discovered that whenever i had a serious conversation about the problems of the region,

invariably this is part of what was imposed on the region in world war i. and it was always on my mind to explore this period of history. the desire was piqued further by knowing that once played a central role in that time. i saw him as a kid and i was very enamored of him. and i knew there was a great deal of controversy over what was true and what was a legend. and this includes who was exploring this period of history. and what do you say that his new and there have been 70 or 80

biographies written on him. three movies, one considered a classic. and the answer came to me after the central romantic riddle of lines, which is essentially how did he do it? including without a single day of military training and how to back i go off to this, not just a rebel, but a muslim on that level. and the answer came to me. obviously it was a touch of genius. and it really came down to that no one was really paying much attention. this was a time during world war i for the british and the french and their treasure is focus on

the front. and this is part of going to it. and so when i had that realization about a, i thought that what was true about britain , it must've been true about the other powers as well. and so what i found after quite a bit of digging is a small cast of characters and with those very similar with american intelligence. and this is a man in his late 20s who was also secretly on the table of standard oil and some things never change. [applause] >> a jewish settler from romania who settled with his family in palestine who was at the time a great agronomist and at the

beginning of the war he worked for the turkish regime. he came to the realization that the jewish settlers in palestine and he set up what consisted 2000 jewish settlers throughout palestine following information for the british in egypt. and then finally, a german scholar who came back to the region and a chief agent for the war. and within this small consolation of characters, we are still at center stage for the very good reason in the british are by far the biggest players in the also dictated

this with what happened at the end of world war i and the peace that was created. there was so much to come later at the paris peace conference and the balfour declaration which encouraged jewish immigration in palestine, which then tried to walk away from this to the state of israel. and lawrence with the british army in cairo was pretty to this, which was the secret carving up between the british and the french in the region and leading up to the balfour declaration. and at the same time he was aware to the arab rebels and

those promises were part of this with enclaves as part of a reserve. and this was part of the divided and this was part of the divided loyalty. and they are fighting and dying alongside for a promise that he increasingly new as the war went on, almost certain to be betrayed in the end. and so while you have this cast of characters that is most remarkable for the minimal amount that they have at the time, it indicates the consideration that the european powers were giving to this region and what was going to come after. the british foreign office, he

referred to this because they imagine they were going to do, if they defeated the ottoman empire, it was going to be a great carving up of the region. and i think that think that lawrence was aware of this and was trying to subvert with his own government was doing as the essential tragedy of lawrence of life. and i am often asked once what safety came back today, almost a hundred years later. and they answer that always occurs to me is that he would say that i told you so. and he was incredibly precedent about so many things in his warnings of what was coming in the middle east if the british and french in the colonial empires tried to impose their will. and i think that what you're seeing today in the region is

that it's something along the lines what he was hoping for 100 years ago. and that was what he was hoping for, united arab nation and i think instead what we are seeing is the exact opposite of that. and i don't even know if i would've felt so firmly than six months ago, but it's clear to me now that what we are seeing playing out in the middle east is a disintegration back to the borders that existed under the ottoman empire and we are seeing a final collapse of this and so these three states almost exactly follow the line of what is going on of mesopotamia that existed at the time.

so i think ultimately my story is sort of -- it is the story of what happened and i think they work together in some way. so i thank you. [applause] [applause] >> having a conversation with the two authors. i think your questions will be better than mine. if you'd like to line up at the microphone, and you can start to take questions. i would really like to hear from people in the audience. >> thank you. could you say something contrasting with the criticism of israel on the one hand and

the states where nature of anti-semitism and how those two things overlap, and how they should be distinguished. also, what is your vision going forward, and is it just the status quo in of israel and the west bank? and what kind of situation may be eventually possible? >> this is really incredible and the agronomist that you're talking about was my other one that was torn over this and instead it seems a coincidence here. and also my great uncle worked with this as well.

and one thing about the comparison is something in defense of israel for many years, the claim was that zionism was an artificial movement creating an artificial state. in the arab national movement was supposed to be authentic and real and we were like the western construction, and what you see now is the arab nationalism and arab nation and probably the only one that will remain is egypt.

there are others and sunnis, and there are no libyans, as you said. and the movement that was the trade, when you look at israel you see that there's there is a need. and if this thing exists and is part of all of the difficult circumstances and all this way, it is no mistake. this is something that the people need it. and some of them are very wealthy and are disintegrating. and i say this with sadness because i want peace with them and ironically right now we are becoming very close. never were we so close to a sunni alliance and a jewish

alliance as we are in these days. and there is something troubling about the fact that while the entire world is moving forward. not just europe and north america, but south america, east asia, large parts of africa, everyone is moving forward and this is bogged down to fanaticism. and it -- i don't have any explanation. but it saddens me very much. so quickly to answer your question. and it's very convenient for israelis and jews to attribute everything to anti-semitism. and being israeli born in one of the advantages, the many advantages, is that you are a bit free of that complex. we are so sure of our identity

that we don't live in constant friction with others. in the sense this sense i was naïve about it for many years. in later life i discovered how serious anti-semitism is, even in the country of britain that i love and i go back there often. but yet i suggest not for plainness and i think that there are deeper reasons. i think that israel is treated unfairly in a very short wave. israel should not be doing a lot of things. they are claiming the hands of their enemies. and second, there is this thing with the jews, but there is this expectation that they should be sense and if they are not saints, they are demons. and that kind of -- you know, holding israel of to this. when we are doing on operations,

we were nearly dragged through the hay. one other service, that was fine. and so, there is some unfairness in that respect. but i think there was a deeper thing. the deeper reason is that much of the western world including europe and parts of america. the conclusion is that people came out of auschwitz with the renewed human rights religion and peace above everything and individual rights and human rights and that was the big conclusion. and we came out of auschwitz with the determination not to be powerless again. we were so righteous for centuries we've used nobody and we have no power and we only cared about morality and we ended up going up in smoke. in this the conclusion is in

contrast from europe in world war ii. and so the tension there is a fascinating one. but they would not produce a to be just simple anti-semitism. and i definitely don't support the status quo on the west bank. probably due to the opportunities that do about. >> okay, ari shavit, i would like to ask you about another division in israel. we happen to have a daughter. we have nine grandchildren. and so we go to israel law. over the last 20 years we've gone there a lot. and i'm very disturbed about the deep division between the secular jews and the orthodox jews, there is the sexy tel aviv and the religious tel aviv. and as it was getting maybe a

little easier for israel, given giving away that all of the arab enemies are fighting amongst themselves, what about this internally with the animosity that is caused by a? >> you're absolutely right, i relate to that in the book. and i didn't have the time to deal with this now. the internal challenges, and one of the more important ones is really the growing ultra- orthodox minority. and i am a secular person. but on the other hand, i am not an orthodox hater. i've seen it amongst some of my friends and i think there is a complex with a jewish history and my grandfather was such that his religion was so beautiful and romantic and moral that

everything was beautiful and i have no resentment to anyone. but i try not to resent in general. and what troubles me is that israeli politics works in this bipolar way. we either surrender to the orthodox are we hate them or both. and i think that we should develop a different approach because basically the challenge is very simple. as the ultra- orthodox minority is growing, on the one hand we have to offer our hearts and minds and accept them as individuals and we should even recognize their special needs as a community and minority within israel and her two things we should not allow in any way. we should not allow them to impose their values on our state and society and we want the

progressive and moral and democratic israel and we cannot accept anything like segregation of women or anything disgusting like that. so on these issues we have to fight really hard for no compromises whatsoever in the other issue is to generally let them join our society. the economy and the society, taking political responsibility and we have to offer them a kind of deal. you have grown up. you are too big. you have to live and you have to work and pay taxes. and we have to do it in a kind of gradual process and not push them back. and so why is this so important beyond just being needed in this way? well, my main concern, and for talk and share perhaps we talk about iran and palestine. but i think that a wrong is very dramatic and i think that palestine is as well. but this third existence of

challenge for israel is a relationship between many of you in the audience that happen to be jewish. and there is a drift and a gap between the progressive parts of the community and the younger part of the community. and they are an extension existential threat both between here and there. and if israel survives and him succeed, it needs the help of american jews and it means young american jews to like it and love it. if they are embarrassed by this or see it as a dark rheological entity occupying most of it is embarrassing him, if we lose him, you will lose them and then we will be in jeopardy. on the other hand we have to create -- israel has to create this and this is one of my hopes

as i publish the book and began talking but the book will be a kind of launching pad not only about israel as i described, but i would like the new fresh discussion with young american jews and i would like to tell them ensure that they have not heard so they would be at attracted to israel. and i see it as a journalist and a citizen to fight any darker sides of israeli life that alienate young american jews. it is for our own society to maintain the relationship with a liberal and progressive part that is a vital part of the american jewish community. [applause] [applause] >> before you ask your question, you just raised a good point and

i would like to know what your ancestors would think a number one, syria. and the whole nationalism issue. also, iran, and also the fact that israel is a democracy and we spoke about this in the middle east, and this includes others with a vibrant democracy in that area was israel. i would really like to know historically whether that would be a surprise. >> i'm not sure that would be a surprise to one. he had an interesting take on israel. the balfour declaration came a

year and half later in 1917. and so when he first started hearing that the balfour declaration was coming, lawrence just felt like this was a double whammy. that the arabs would would have to reconcile themselves the idea or fight were fight against it that they would be divided up by the colonial powers. and then second of all, the balfour declaration and what he said, when he was first had heard about this declaration, when he heard about it coming, he said that a jewish presence in palestine, he didn't say a state. but the control of palestine can only be maintained by the force of arms. and yet, as the world progress, certainly what he saw as an existential threat to the middle east was the french and british colonial rule and he also recognized that this was a fait

accompli. and so what he did on the eve of this press conference, he was working with the sun whose individual as part of the peace conference and he got him and they made together the fisa weitzman agreement and that was in return for a very large jewish and ultimately control of pakistan. and once was very, he was a tactician and he recognize that palestine was a fait accompli. so we can use that for control of syria. and i think that if he looks

today at syria, he really understood the clan and tribal structure of the arab world, as well as any western european individual of the time. and this was always his clearing call and warning to the imperial powers. but you cannot go into this area and just carve them up and come across this is tribal and ethnic lines as they did in africa, for example. so i think that he might have looked at syria today and possibly have said that this was -- was kind of guaranteed to come. and iraq is agreed example. the impose the rule on iraq in 1920. tenderloins predicted almost a

month of wonderful skill level of british rule would link out there. and he was off only by a couple of months. so i really think that -- and i think what you're seeing now is playing out. as was said. the region is falling back into the sectarian and tribal clan affiliations. and i think what he was trying to do is figure out if there was some way -- it's not a european nationstate concept. but is there a way that you create a state where these areas have a great deal of autonomy, but somehow in a larger and cohesive way. and i think that any transfer that was destroyed with this after the war. >> okay. i don't quite know about my

great-grandfather. like grandfather and my great grandfather and uncle, they were all peacemakers of different kinds that were very colorful figures in many ways and some more local and in many respects they were part of this because they didn't see what was part of the blindness. and it did not endanger their

values. and there was a prediction between the progressive end moral values. but you mentioned them and don't tell anyone, but this is one of the situations and not just because of this. and there is unprecedented opportunity, and i really hope that the people navigating the policy in washington and elsewhere would possibly look at this.

because in my mind the always are trying to make peace in the middle east have failed in heaven for bid will fail in the future. there are great opportunities to make different kinds of situations for peace and order. the fact that the sunnis now see the remains of such a threat and they see the islamic brotherhood and the extremist sunnis as a threat, and the disappointment, justified or not about american and european leadership and support, it leads them to a kind of intimate relationship with israel that we have never known in the past. and if we will work wisely, i think that we can go back to the faisal-weizmann agreement agreement that never materialized. and i think there is actually an opportunity. but you have to understand what that means. there is no way that the king --

the saudi king, that he can agree to the division of jerusalem is to make all kinds of ideological and theological conceptions with the jewish designs. he doesn't have the legitimacy to do that and it will risk this. he will make a thousand under the table deals. so if we approach and under the table piece, it might be a much more sound piece than some of the declared pieces that we have tried before. from 1970s through the 1994 year, 24 years. we had all intensive purposes and the best piece possible with the king. and i think that we can go into that kind of relationship with the egyptians and the saudi indefinitely with the jordanians and others in the region. so ironically, while in the past

my grandparents and this is a new realistic approach. >> okay. thank you. you have mentioned where this nation came from. my question is this nation has composed this in egypt.

from this includes what we have taken captive and now the u.s. is about to turn these affinities to be weaker. >> what is the question? >> my question is whether these people taken captive. >> can you repeat the question? it didn't make sense. >> you ask where this nation came from. >> well, where did the nation come from? remapped that was your initial statement when you opened.

>> at the nation with a very long history written in the bible. >> excuse me, ma'am come at the question-and-answer not a statement and answer. so let me answer your question. because their people behind you and also i want to tell everybody that this session is supposed to end at 6:00 p.m. it is on c-span. they are taking a lie. they are going to cut it at 6:00 p.m. the both of the authors have agreed to continue to answer question. and if you want to get your books autographed, we will have to cut it off in about another 10 minutes or so. so thank you. >> thank you. >> yes? >> yes, this question is for ari. the secular population amongst

the arabs as time goes on. this is the population decreasing among the arabs and is being replaced by more valid populations. and this is part of the leaders of israel that are coming to the peace agreement as soon as possible. and i think that we should always do this, we should always do the right thing.

the middle middle east is the land of the unexpected. >> when things seem desperate, and i don't think that being worried about what will happen in 10 years we should look at things as they are and do the right thing. i have always considered myself i have never had blinders on and just from a realistic point of view, i don't understand the

last 20 years have been harder and harder for me to defend and why there hasn't been more outreach from the israeli side, i just don't know. and this is to strengthen hama%. and eventually as jerusalem and the jews know better than anyone else, they know that as well. and the question is what is the plan? >> okay, so why is there no

reach? and this is the question. .. question? so let me answer. it's a very simple answer. first of all of course as you can understand i want us to reach an agreement but i think we have to reach out in a sensible realistic way. one of the problems is that the piece thinking and peace concept will not renew in 20 years. this is what i think we need fresh thinking. you will not trite to -- a 25-year-old chevy. so i think it's time to thank fresh and to describe it in just a sentence. when israelis open their hearts and decided to go to peace in 1993 the result was a waive of

terror and buses exploding in central jerusalem. when israelis took a giant step forward and the peace agreement in 2000 the result was the worst suicide bombing terror offensive ever. when the israelis opened their hearts the third time and we withdrew from the gaza strip and the result was rockets coming in in southern jerusalem must awful. it is understandable why middle-of-the-road realistic well-meaning israelis are afraid their fears are somewhat justified. yet i say let's not surrender to fear but let's think and bring out the new creative idea of how we move forward and learn from the lessons of the past and do not underestimate or do not ignore the fact that there are legitimate fears on the other side within israel.

[applause] i would just add one thing to that which is also the creation of the wall that has had this effect of removing any sense of urgency to make a deal. i think with a heightened sense of security inside of israel that day of reckoning of the palestinian question can be put off seemingly forever. >> that is part part of it but that came after the trauma. to this day we did it not acknowledge these traumas in their paralyzing israeli public opinion so we have to address them. by the way i think the war was part of the solution but that's another discussion. >> i hope you don't mind if i asked scott a question. i wanted to ask you if you couldn't recall and summarize, i think it's a bit of a funny story of what lawrence had to do

to actually conscript or sign-up you had to get a uniform and do a wild move. i remember faintly but maybe you can reveal that story because i think it's pretty funny. >> it's a great story. when the war started in august of 1914 lawrence, he has been a great deal of time at the archaeological site and was in northern london and there was such a rush of people to enlist that the british government raised its height standards. lawrence is only 5 feet 4 inches and i believe there is a height of 5 feet 6 inches so he could not enlist and what happened was he got a job working for the mapping department of the british military headquarters in london. he was then that job for about six weeks and a british general who was about to go off to the western front to belgium wanted

to look at the up-to-date battlefield maps of the sector he was going to be going to and walking in this room he was so offended that he was going to be reefed by this five-foot four-inch civilian. he said i want to be briefed by an officer. there were no officers left. everyone had been sent to the front so lawrence was hustled off to the army-navy store to get a second lieutenant's uniform and they made him a second lieutenant. that is how lawrence became a british officer. [laughter] >> you are going to be the last question. the rumor is that he was maybe the only person ever. >> that's right. it was not a rumor. actually happened.

it was right at the end of the war. the world was two weeks away from finishing. lawrence has helped in damascus and the tovar 1919 and he rushed back to london to start putting putting -- trying to put his influence into the post-war division of the region and on the morning of october 30 he was summons to buckingham palace and he thought he was going there to brief the king on these deliberations, these geopolitical to liberations. the king and the queen, queen mary walked in and there was a raised platform. lawrence realized he was about to be knighted and two things unusual about this, over the previous four years of the war there were some an invest teachers and metals. investors were always done en masse at this point so private

that searcher was almost unheard of and queen mary had heard about lawrence's exploits in arabia so she made an exception to come. lord chamberlain is sitting there with his pillow with all these metal sonic and the king turns to lawrence and says i have some gifts for you and he goes to put the first metal on lawrence and lawrence refuses to be knighted. the british monarchy is all about protocol. there is protocol for absolutely everything but there was no protocol for someone refusing knighted to the king's face. it never happened before. apparently the king just stood there awkwardly for a minute and put the metal back down on lord chamberlain's pillow and lawrence turned and walked out. [laughter] >> why did he do it? i think he did it because he knew that the trail was coming. what really motivated lawrence

and what he really risked his life over and over again was in trying to, to try to uphold the promises the british government had made to britain and i think by the end of the war it was very clear that they were going to be sold out and the betrayal of the british and french was a forgone conclusion. >> my question is for ari. this may sound like a simple question and maybe it is. i'm not so sure if it is though. you mentioned in israel what israel should be doing to reach out to the diaspora to and americans so forth. my question is the inverse. what should americans ,-com,-com ma jewish in america who love israel but don't blindly love israel but still love israel, what should we be doing to further the dialogue for the situation as you see it? what is our role in this?

>> i have an unusual answer for journalists. i think pretty much you are doing what you should. i think in this sense american jewry is doing what it should in supporting israel and maintaining itself. where i'm actually worried and this is unusual for an israeli to say. i'm more worried about your own communities and therefore my vision is -- i want to come to israel to bring israel there. each one if you like science, if you like politics, whatever part of israel you can relate to work with it in a whatever we decide that i think it is our role

really and i will give an example. i am really troubled by the lack of affordable jewish education in this country. i think this is the heart, if there is a future in the jewish community. i don't expect israel to send shekels to fund jewish-american schools but for instance if we would have some sort of jewish peace corps that is going around and sending our youngsters to help with the jewish schools or jewish summer camps and a million ideas. my fear is of internal jewish isolations. i don't want your community to turn its back on israel and they don't want israel to turn its back on you. i want you to do whatever. do your thing. whatever part of israel you have a right to work with but i want israel to work with you.

i think the problem there is that we have to do as much deeper. i see it is my role and is my hope this book is to launch a new, -- conversation about israel but when i go back there it's my duty to try to launch a new diaspora of discussion within israel. this is the last question and i would end with the following. i prescribe what i so much believe in which is the energy of a retaliated society in every respect that our role in their mission is to take a vitality and move it to the political sphere so we will have a much more effective government, much more effective policy. it's not enough that there is great individuals and a great society and great startup companies. we have to take that vitality, transform our system and our state and reach out to you people so we can have a meaningful dialogue because we

really need it and it can actually be a real celebration. thank you. [applause] >> scott anderson and ari thank you very much. >> we do have books available for sale outside and authors will be available across the hall to gn them u. ank >> this program is part of the 30th annual miami book fairair i international. to find out more visit miami book fair.com. >> my education expires 5% a year. there's no cloud, no twitter, no google. historically what we've done is we've sliced human life into

four slices, five slices. a resting phase afterwards. what i think we should be doing is we should have them all at the same time. we should play, learn, work and rest at the same time. we can't afford having a single education anymore. we have to stay up-to-date. >> new year's day on c-span just before 1 p.m. eastern and throughout the afternoon, the future of higher education, robotics and they the on c-span2's booktv. on c-span3's american history tv, daughters of civil rights leader and segregationist share their memories of the civil rights era at 8:30 p.m. >> with a few weeks left in

2013, many publications are putting out their year-end list of notable books. these titles were included in "the new york times" 100 notable books of 2013.

>> for an extended list visit booktv.org. >> on your screen is a familiar face, ray suarez, former senior correspondent and now with al-jazeera america. before we talk about the book, when did you make the move over to al-jazeera? >> just a couple of days ago. my first day on the air was november 11. so far so good. >> why the move? >> it was time. sometimes you get into place for while while and you done everything you could do their, and there were new opportunities and some great chances for sense that at al-jazeera america and get the start up with everything

that it applies. fresh, energetic, forward-looking. my staff keeps me up as everyone is like 27. >> ray suarez, we want to talk to you about this, "latino americans: the 500-year legacy that shaped a nation." what sparked you to write the? >> the publishers approached me and pbs was about to launch a big documentary series on the same subject anyone is something that would be a handbook that would both be for a general audience so americans who are not leaking those are kind of wondered what's the difference between a mexican and puerto rican and cuban and the dominican? when did they come and why are they here and what's the background? how is this changing the country? and then latinos aren't really taught their own history will if they go to public schools. so in the introduction in the book i say i haven't done my job if at least once a chapter you

don't say, i didn't know that. how come i didn't know that? i think i hit both assignments pretty well, for the general audience for giving them an idea of how these one at a six of their fellow citizens came to be here, and for the latino audience, some affirmation, a little history they didn't know both proud and not so proud history, and a leaning forward to the next 20, 30, 40 years when we're going to become an even eager part of the american home spend why did you start 500 years ago? >> well, the first european settlement in what became the united states, not in the western hemisphere, not in north america but in what became the united states was a column of soldiers, priests and settlers came up from mexico city into what's now new mexico, and settled santa fe.

i started there because to me that's where the united states is really born. before jamestown, before plymouth, before st. augustine, florida, these people tried to make away in a very dry, scrubby southwest. they were looking for salt, looking for gold, they were looking for a place to herd cattle so they could sell hides down in mexico city. that's really where that entrepreneurial, mercantile, restless moving united states begins for me. so i started in new mexico. >> ray suarez, what's one thing that we're going to learn reading "latino americans"? >> that 23 states of the current united states were once all or part of, in the spanish empire. empire. all the way from vancouver island in what's