because we have a regime in iran that is openly calling for our destruction. and so when people put the threat of nuclear proliferation as the number one concern, i'm a little puzzled. i'm a little concerned that they're not fully determined to prevent this threat. because when my neighbor across the street says he's going to kill me, my big concern when that ak-47 is being shipped in the mail to him is not that my other neighbors are going to get ak-47s as well, it's this guy. our concern with iran ask unique because -- is unique because iran calls for our destruction. and the nature of the regime matters. remember this as well. if all of what you have in north korea would move 50 miles to the south, no one would lose any sleep over it. all nuclear proliferation is bad, but it makes a difference whether holland has nuclear weapons or whether a country like iran has nuclear weapons. [applause]

>> so a question about domestic issues in israel. what is israel doing to aid and assist its israeli-arab citizens? >> to aid and assist. well, israeli-arab citizens are, i talked about being uniquely blessed. they are uniquely blessed as arabs in the middle east to live in a free country. israeli-arabs enjoy the rights that no other arabss in the region enjoy, and they can be full members of israeli society. and i think israel should not be embarrassed of what has happened in the last 65 years regarding israeli-arabs. we should be proud. because we have built a thriving democracy. it is not perfect. you always have room for improvement, and in all societies on earth you can always improve it. but israel understands something. i say, well, israel should not be judged by the standards of dictatorships. you are democracy, and you should be judged by the towards of democracy -- by the standards

of democracy. that's true. judge israel by the standards of a democracy that is threatened. israel is the most threatened nation a on the face of the earth. the fact that we've opinion able to build this vibrant -- that we've been able to build this vibrant democracy in the face of all these threats is astounding. and the only way that i can explain it in current american terms is remember the feeling in the united states on september 12th, the day after the attacks on september 11th? remember the concern that you had for security, and all societies have a debate. where should you draw the line between security and civil liberties, and over time that's a big change. as you feel more secure, your demand for civil liberties is longer. but it's a debate all the time. understand something. us reit has been in -- israel has been in september 12th for 66 years. for 66 years. so not only will it not apologize for israel's record,

i'm very, very proud of israel's record. and we will continue to work to improve that record. we will continue every day to try to be better, to be a better democracy as the united states always says, to be a more perfect union. but the attacks against israel, the arguments against israel, the wild allegations of israel, against israel are false. they should be challenged, they should be rejected, and we should be very proud of the country we have built. [applause] >> thank you. the question of settlements and construction in israeli settlements on the west bank has an outsized importance in the media. could you comment on the public relations and communications challenges posed by the settlement question? >> well, it's a big challenge, because if you repeat something over and over and over again, you know, it becomes conventional wisdom. for instance, they used to be people that would say that the

reason why you have problems in the middle east is because israelis and palestinians have not resolved their conflict. you remember that? that was the reason. that was the core of the problem of the middle east. there were serious people with very high iqs that would stand before podiums like this and make that type of statement. now, since the events of the last three years in the middle east, there's not a single person on the planet who actually -- well, maybe there's a few people who believe that, i don't know. i haven't encountered many of them. i think there are probably still communists sitting in certain departments in some universities somewhere. so when it comes to the settlements, they are an issue that have to be resolved in the negotiations. but this argument that the settlements are the reason why you do not have peace between israelis and palestinians is an absurdity. the conflict between israel and the palestinians went for 50 years before there was a single

settlement in the west bank. it began in the 1920s. my prime minister has spoken about it over and over again. so what was that all about? the 50 years of conflict before that, before all those settlements? everyone says, well, go back to the lines of june 4, 1967. what happened on june 4, 1967? there was a war. so, obviously, there was a conflict. the heart of the conflict between israel and the palestinians is the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a jewish state in any border. what the conflict is about. that's what the conflict has all been about, and that's why the prime minister insists in a peace agreement not as a precondition to negotiations, but in a peace agreement that the palestinians would have to recognize the right of a jewish people to a nation-state, to recognize the jewish state just as they ask us to recognize the right of the palestinians to a nation-state of their own. they would have to recognize the right of the jewish people to a nation-state. now, we're going to have to

resolve the issue of the settlements. it's going to be part of the negotiations. and i'm sure there'll have to be very, very difficult decisions. and anytime israel was faced with a leader, with an arab leader who wanted peace and who spoke peace, we made difficult decisions. and that was true when reagan -- when begin withdrew from the sinai and had to uproot settlements there. it was through when sharon uprooted the gaza and the west bank. he uprooted them. didn't bring peace. the settlements are an issue that have to be resolved. it's not the core of the conflict. people have made it into the beall and end all because a lot of israel's enemies believe this is the issue where you can defame and besmirch the jewish state. understand, building the jewish people building in these

territories is not a crime. i hear that, and it sort of makes my blood boil that a jew would build an apartment in jerusalem, and this is supposed to be some kind of war crime, is wild. so the fact that people say it doesn't make it true. these territories are disputed territories. they are not occupied palestinian territory no matter how many times they say it. the western wall is not occupied palestinian territory. it doesn't matter how many times they say it on tv or on the bbc. this is a dispute. we have a claim to these territories, they have a claim to the territories. we have to have a border between us. we have a policy of two states for two peoples. we have to work these things out, and we will work themselves out, but let's put things into perspective. let's understand what the true nature of this conflict is and not get lost by a side show. [applause]

>> mr. ambassador, you've been very, very gracious with your time today, and we really appreciate your time here and your service to the state of israel. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> ron, i know miami lost another dermer as its mayor, but i think to the benefit of the jewish people. we are delighted and pleased that you have decided to serve the jewish people not as mayor of miami, but as the representative of the state of israel to the people of the united states. you're a proud, brilliant voice

representing and standing up for israel. and please convey to the prime minister almost on the eve of -- [speaking in native tongue] our support, our best wishes in his efforts to bring the vision of peace that much closer for the jewish people. thank you. [applause] >> as the ambassador leaves the room, we will transition. i'd like to call our national director, abe foxman, for a special presentation. thank you. [applause] >> good good morning. >> good morning. >> it would take more time than we have for me to tell you about

what our honoree has meant for the fight against anti-semitism and intolerance and to protect human rights and israel's security. a long tribute would not sit well on a man of such humility and quiet wisdom can. wisdom. america's ambassador to israel didn't even need the full 140 characters of a tweet. dan shapiro simply said: ace dip diplomat, thinker, men,. i like that. i first met bill when he hosted us in aman, jordan, where he served as america's ambassador. since then during so many tumultuous times, after a day of meetings with leaders all over town, diplomats, analysts, members of congress and politicians, i would have the privilege to sit with bill at

the end of it all, and there i would get the truth. there would crystallize for me what the way forward was. bill's calm demeanor doesn't come from blind optimism. he has soberly led secret talks with iran in recent years and served as ambassador in moscow during very tough times. bill has seen it all, but his calm comes from the clarity of his convictions about what the united states must do to be a force for good in the world. bill is a master statesman. he has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues and his counterparts around world while serving ten secretaries of state. we have a concept in the liturgy

of yom kippur, the most solemn day of pleading for mercy and justice, of an advocate on a high with pure heart of just conviction. for us it is always the wish and the hope that somewheres in the high circles of determining and deciding what is right and what is wrong there be an individual, a human being who would be an advocate for righteousness, for decency, for truth. bill will go down in history as one of america's finest diplomats, and and he will go town if adl's history as a -- [speaking in native tongue] please join me in bestowing the 2014 distinguished statesman award to deputy secretary of state and my friend, bill burns. [applause]

>> well, good morning, everyone, and thank you very much, abe, for those extremely kind words. i'm truly honored to receive this award, and it's a special honor to receive it from you. over the course of my 32 years as a diplomat, i've grown accustomed to turbulence and turnover. abe's extraordinary leadership at adl has been one of the very few things on which i could depend to remain constant and steady. you could depend on abe to speak out to against prejudice and extremism whenever and wherever it occurred. you could depend, you can depend on abe not only to shine a

colleague light on the problem, but also to propose practical and effective ways to address it. and you could always depend on abe to epitomize the spirit of -- [speaking in native tongue] to help heal the wounds of hatred and make humankind more tolerant, more understanding and more empathetic. abe, your legacy lives on in the generations of young people across this country and across the world woman you've inspired to dedicate their life to the pursuit of human dignity. and that includes my colleagues in the foreign service on whose behalf i accept this huge award. i am extraordinarily proud to be a career american diplomat. proud of the people i serve with and proud of the country we serve. in nearly 300 missions in 2000 countries, the -- 200 uncans, the men and women of the foreign service serve our country with honor and distinction. they wake up every day with the

opportunity to work hard at work worth doing; advancing american interests, e are softing conflicts, deepening the bonds between people and promoting universal values in the face of adversity and seemingly intractable dilemmas. our diplomats stay in the dilemma and push rocks uphills. this reminds us that evil and darkness are real and ever present, but it also reminds us that their triumph is not determined. it reminds us that the arc of justice can be bent. it reminds us that our differences can make us stronger, not weaker. and it reminds us that in the words of dr. martin luther king jr., everyone can be great because everybody can serve. you only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love. thank you, abe, for your service and for giving your heart and soul to making our world more just and peaceful. i know that i join everyone in this room in wishing you the

very best in the years ahead. i can't think of anyone who deserves it more. thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> well, we have a pause for a minute or two, and let's everybody just, everybody just take a deep breath and exhale, how about that? that was nice. [laughter] i'm glad everybody brushed this morning. [laughter] one thing we didn't get to do but we can do for the legions of

our fans on c-span is identify some more glass participants, and we've been identifying different regions who are here and noting the interest drawn when i announce that particular region. so let's see how we do this morning. do we have the atlanta and southeast region in the house? [applause] >> adl! adl! [laughter] >> that was pretty good. >> how about detroit? [cheers and applause] >> i apologize that the first round of the playoffs didn't work out so well for you guys. [laughter] do we have san francisco? >> yeah! [applause] [laughter] >> very mellow west coast this morning. [laughter] how about houston? [cheers and applause] >> excellent. and finally -- or finally at this time but certainly not least, las vegas. [cheers and applause]

we love las vegas. thank you, march -- marvin. [inaudible conversations] panelists, if the panelists, those panelists who are here, if they would mind coming up here to get mic'd, and we'll have a two-minute kibbutz and then we'll resume. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

[inaudible conversations] >> live coverage of the anti-defamation league national leadership summit taking place today, and there's a short break as they're preparing for a panel discussion that is about to get underway on u.s. policy challenges in the middle east. is taking place as israel

suspended talks with palestine over the weekend after its announcement of the reconciliation deal with hamas. mahmoud hamas called the holocaust a heinous crime. this panel discussion is about to get underway. >> a reminder that questions can be e-mailed to summit at adl.org, and to introduce our panel i have the pleasure of calling up tracy grossman from boca raton, florida, national commissioner and a terrific co-chair of our 2020 program. tracy. [applause] >> good morning. i am tracy grossman, co-chair of leadership at 2020.

leadership 2020 is a dynamic young leadership program available to gli grads. introduce you to adl leadership on a national level. there are many active participants in this room and i apologize in advance if i forget to name you. but please stand when i call your name. david, george, michael, karen, jonathan, marjorie. please stand so they can see who you are. [applause] >> if you're interested in learning more about 2020 and how you can get involved please come by me or one of the people who just stood up after this winner in the program and we can tell you more about the program. i am very honored to be able to reduce this panel, very impressive group of people up here and it's a great honor to be able to do the introduction.

most of us wake up in the morning and turned first thing to see the almost daily news of our governments intensive efforts in both israeli-palestinian peace efforts and in talks with iran aimed at ending its nuclear weapons program. both are facing impending deadlines and outcome of both will shape the region as well as america's understanding in the region and in the world. we are privileged to have with us for of washington most effective an in theaters an anat on u.s. policies in the region. tamara cofman wittes served under secretary of state clinton, deputy assistant secretary of state for near east where she was central to organizing the u.s. government's response to the arab spring. she is the author of the

freedoms unsteady march, america's role in building arab democracy, and editor of how israelis and palestinians negotiate a cross-cultural analysis of the peace process. robert sattler is the executive director of the washington institute and also holds -- robert stout off, the berkowitz chair in u.s. middle east policy. an expert on arab and islamic politics, as well as u.s. middle east policy. he has written and spoken widely on the arab-israeli peace process, the challenge of political islam and the need to revamp u.s. public diplomacy in the middle east. he is the author and editor of numerous books, including the battle of ideas in the war on terrorists, essays on u.s. public diplomacy in the middle east. elliott abrams, senior fellow for middle asian studies at the

council on foreign relations, served in the george w. bush white house in several important positions, including as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor. where he supervised the policy in the middle east. elliott was also an assistant secretary of state and the reagan administration and is the offer of four books come including a due process, security, sacrifice. jeffrey goldberg has covered the middle east for bloomberg, the atlantic and a staff writer at "the new yorker" and "new york times" magazine. his coverage is taken into afghanistan and pakistan where he lived for a month. he has traveled in upper egypt, syria and in lebanon to israel, congo and the west bank. here perhaps an equally conflict create in washington is into the

president obama on many policies numerous times. most recently in a widely read to our interview published on the eve of prime minister netanyahu's recent visit to washington. we're also delighted to have with us washington bureau chief of the jewish telegraphic agency, you can sign up for today, ron kampeas or to moderate the discussion. ron covered issues in the hall of government day in and day out. his blog is a must read for washington insiders. thank you all for being with us today. ron, i turn it over to you. >> thank you. [applause] thank you. this is working. i appreciated the idea of starting things with a deep breath earlier because it gave me a startup idea, yoga. something we can go for. speaking of places i could use a

few downward facing dog will go to the middle east now. the theme of our talks today was going to be, i talked about this with stacy, stacy burdett who runs the washington office here in washington, why is iran seemingly working? one of the talks between the united states and iran seemingly -- while the talks between the isis, the palestinians and israel's are in crisis? i wanted to start with that. i want to start with the israeli-palestinian talks with the panelists. it seems to me there's a pattern we saw in 2000 cents camp david ii saw it in 2008 where the sides get to the point in the talks where becomes clear what the agreement is going to look like, and that's precisely the moment where the sides retreat from the agreement. it's interesting because over the last couple of weeks we've had these incredible expressions

of frustration from all sides. yesterday you had john kerry reportedly saying that israel could be headed towards an apartheid state if he doesn't advanced toward a two state solution. and it's becoming more of a -- so what structurally is frustrating this process what is it perhaps not a solvable process? i thought i would start with elliott abrams who actually has been tested. make sense for him to address it. >> i think, first, thank you. the question, thank you for inviting me today. yeah, there is a structural problem. i'll tell you what the structural problem is. the palestinians won't sign. that's the structural problem. they got a very significant offer from ehud barak when arafat was the leader. they got a more generous offer

at the end of 2008 when president abbas was already the leader. and they can't get to yes. that's the structural problem and i would say to you that it is not a matter of the details disagreement. i do not think that president abbas is ever going to sign anything. what you're seeing now i think is that he is more attentive for all sorts of pretty obvious reasons, to his internal political situation, the strength or weakness, the question of hamas, the question of election and we make this joke about peace in the ninth year of his four-year term. this is also probably the 10th time they've announced elections and jeff to bet against that, too. so i think, i can sum this up, i'll stop now. i think the problem is that we have continued under three

presidents over the last 20 years to go for the agreement on the white house lawn instead of doing very hard work trying to build palestinians to do things from the ground. we're not going to get that agreement on the white house lawn so we should stop pushing so hard and turn to the very hard work of building a palestinian state that someday could be worth having. >> tamara, you worked for president without the palestinians could get there. in a famous speech before leaving office, that it was impossible at that time. what do you think? can we get the palestinians? >> well, first again thanks for the invitation. i have worked with stacy and with jeff since i came to d.c. 20 plus years ago so it's really a treat to be with you.

i think elliott is right to focus on the domestic politics as the obstacle. but i think that doesn't necessarily lead us to the conclusion that they will never sign or they simply can't. you started out with iran and that's a good example. we've had several failed rounds of negotiations with iran. we have worked very hard over a period of many years in multiple administrations to shift the incentive structure. for iran and for ultimately as we saw this year, to shift iran's domestic politics and the way that made these negotiations much more fruitful, although we still have a long way to go, than half ground. i think we have to look at here is how the domestic politics might shift. elliott mentioned palestinian institutions. he's right. i actually think a lot of work has been done to build those structures. some of it i think has suffered

in the last year or so since salam fayyad left the ministry. but part of the reason that is rolled back is because along with the institutions, you need a political horizon. the premise of the institution building paradigm is that is going to prepare palestinians for statehood and that there was going to be a political process alongside the institution building. instead what's happened is that we have all somehow let palestinian politics be frozen in place, politics within, the presidency inhabited by mahmoud abbas. this is all been frozen. and so if this reconciliation is going to go forward it would be in the way a restarting of domestic politics that i think to some extent is going to be necessary in order to make israeli-palestinian negotiations more fruitful.

>> robert, tamara talks about the reconciliation, perhaps paving the way creating again change within the palestinian policy. but the reconciliation also one as we see cannot be accommodated on the arab-israeli side. and you've actually, your institute has written a lot about the horizon but also about institution building. you've had some institution builders over to talk. and those two things be reconciled? can you have a p.a. hamas reconciliation on the one hand with the peace process going on the other? >> first of all, ron, like elliott and tamara, let me think everybody here for the work you do at adl. i'm an enormous fan of adl. adl does remarkable work here and abroad. congratulations to everybody here. i think jeff and i have both been honored by adl in the past four or work.

you asked two different questions. first, about the reconciliation agreement, secondly about -- first about the reconciliation agreement. my view on this for many, many years is it is a choice. is race make a choice, palestinians make a choice. the choice is between unity on one hand our progress on the other. you can't have it both ways. you cannot both want internal political unity within your nationally defense,. [inaudible] you cannot have that. and also have progress towards peace. you can have one or the other. look at the israeli example. begin made peace with egypt. ribena push through the oslo to accord by one vote.

61-59 in ashington a choice. you can like it or don't like about what it was a choice and get involved leadership. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot be, you cannot be the leader who leads to peace and the leader leads to reconciliation. now wakeup will never happen. on the american side i think if you look at that 20 years elliott just spoke about, we never quite got it right. elliotts experience was we did bottom up very well and tell the one, the big blip of the hamas election which was a huge blip and then in the second part of the second we decide to go top down which he recounts brilliantly in his book, and we lost the bottom up. and then his successor was all top down no bottom up. so we've never quite gotten this makes right. the people who suffer for it are israelis and palestinians.

so it's never too late to do the right thing. i still think we can do it. we just have to get the mix right. >> jeffrey, is it possible, can prime minister benjamin netanyahu if he does right wing? can mahmoud abbas defeat his islamist wing? and separately, how much longer is this administration going to be beat up on this? you talk to the president. you talk to people inside the administration. how much longer are they going to put up with the battering they are taking? >> first of all, let me not thank the adl. [laughter] enough already. [laughter] on your last question there's obviously a blip. they paper over this publicly,

but the nsc staff believes a couple of things. one, they believe that it's too accommodating to bibi netanyahu. they also believe that there's really no point for any number of reasons but on the fact that they doubt netanyahu's ability or willingness to move forward, so there's a lot of doubt about time in the process. john kerry as we know is the most optimistic man in the world. and i start in the traditional, the posture of being very cynical about his efforts. i'm still cynical about some of the tactics and some of the ideas but i'm not going to go about if he wants to do this and he'is working very hard, and god bless him for it. but i can say without saying

that i know that as of this weekend even he still believes there's just some hurdles that you have to get over and we're going to get over them. the president i think is somewhere in the middle, between some of what the people in the white house think and what john kerry thinks. indulgent is the wrong word, but he really wants to let john kerry run with this. that said, this last week has been a moment where i think he's getting ready to john kerry or tell him and he understands this, john kerry is leaving for africa tomorrow and that's good from their perspective. go do something else for a while. and very quickly under two other points, i don't disagree with this. i've heard this inside the u.s. government,.

[inaudible] he has an effective veto over what and netanyahu does. netanyahu is in a tougher position than sharon was in the lateral engagements in gaza, because sharon understood that he could bring about the people with him to form a new party. i don't think bibi is under any illusion about who will follow him if he has to leave his party. right now he is holding on the left flank of his party. i don't see any willingness or desire to actually do what rob is talking about witches to lay down -- which is to lay down a marker, this is how we're moving forward, and if you want to get on the train get on the train. if you don't want to get on the train your off the train. he wants to retire as the unifier of the palestinian people. he doesn't have such a want to

retire as a peacemaker. >> okay. i will note john kerry does have a bit of a realist in him because he got himself a dog as all these processes were under way. as you know, washington, if you don't have any friends you don't always -- it's called diploma, the dog. rob, in that sense, in the absence of -- [inaudible] >> no, no, no. [laughter] i'm connecting your faithfulne faithfulness. in the sense of having horizon in which he talked about building from the bottom up, what are, what can be done?

what are the modalities of building from the bottom up right now? >> spent i think right now the most curious near term challenge that both abbas face dealings with this reconciliation and the death of the apparent impasse death or new debt expense is how do they keep together? the really remarkable security cooperation and slightly less but still significant economic cooperation between israelis and palestinians, when they are fighting in a totally dysfunctional local relationship, but everybody in this room i think will take a little bit for granted the fact that by and large it's five years now since almost, i'm not going to say zero but almost no terror in the west bank.

and we forget what it used to be like, and there's a reason. actually there are three reasons why. one, the idf still operates, right? let's not forget that. number two, because hamas is not in the west bank, openly and actively. and three, israeli-palestinian security cooperation israel. it's substantive. it's the fact. we shouldn't think that everything is black or white. either they are talking and they are working together from the political level down to the street, or they are not talking and not working together your desktop the way the world works. so can they keep this together? can they find a way to continue to build on what exists? when will that fall apart? if that falls apart and that's much bigger than not -- if you

need for cup of coffee with king david. this is serious. >> i think rob has hit on something very important, which is both israelis and palestinians, and americans and the region, now have to look at an environment on the ground with no ongoing political process and ask what's going to happen next. security cooperation i would certainly agree is a central to camping down. we have daily things happening, daily attempts at violence, and daily acts of violence. and numerous provocations, any one of which in an environment without a political process might call a broader conflagration. we have now escalating statements back and forth, and

that also creates an environment where it's more difficult to keep the peace in a way that rob is describing. the president said the other day, this is the time to take a pause but i think it's a time to take a cause from judgments and statements about what comes next. i think it's a moment when israelis and palestinians have to look at what their future looks like without a negotiated peace. and that's not something we can do for them. but i fully expect this coming period will be one where there's palestinian reconciliation or not, whether they stay in government or not, this would be a period of ferment and debate i hope within both of these societies because, because now they really are facing that future. my colleague did a poll late

last year of israelis and palestinians, asking in detail what they hoped for but also what they expected in this negotiating process and what they expected might happen if the negotiations fail. we saw in this poll as we've seen in poll after poll but israelis and palestinians by majority, not huge majorities, still support a two-state solution. they didn't think it was going to happen. they are extremely skeptical and on both sides large majorities accepted that if the negotiations broke down, they would be facing violence. and so i think this is, this is a moment when it's important to focus on the nitty-gritty of preventing violence but it's also a moment when these two

people and their leaders have to think about their alternatives, what the future looks like and what they want to do about it. and it's a very, very tough moment. i don't think it's helped by, you know, my punditry or any other snap judgment about what is and isn't possible because i think this is a moment when things might change a lot. >> eliott? >> punt intrigue speakers i know there's a market for it. >> you know, there were no negotiations for four years for the obama first true. there was an outbreak of violence and i think violence tends to break out when the palestinian leaders -- broke out after camp david. it didn't come from the ground. arafat gave orders. we know they were from hamas.

so i'm less afraid of a huge outbreak of violence. i do think nothing can be done in the next two months because they got to work with hamas. they've done it before. there was an agreement in 2007 at effort of coalition government. it has always failed. i think this will fail, too, because really neither side wants it, frankly. they want to be seen to be for unity because the palestinian people in every poll wants to go towards you did it but it's not good for hamas or flat top. they're both afraid what an election outcom of the might be. i don't think they'll be any useful negotiations this year. i do certainly agree that they have to get back to some kind of political process. if i'm right about the process isn't going anywhere either that is the negotiating process between visual and the palestinians.

i think what the israelis need to think about is this year in particular is whether they want to do anything unilateral in the west bank. you have this proposal from michael oren. you've had this proposal from the general to take you back innocents to what won the election in 2006. that is what israel should make some moves with respect to stopping settlement activities beyond the fence. that really becomes israel setting its border for what could be a year, could be 50 years. but i think israelis we need to think very hard about the question, if it isn't going to be a successful negotiation what do they want to do? you know, working with the palestinians i guess we call them parallel unilateral steps to try to make the situation

better if you assume, as i do, that a final status agreement is beyond reach. [inaudible] >> absence of palestinian violence it doesn't seem likely that the israelis will be focused enough on these unilateral steps, or in the absence of anything dramatic like as you pointed out, has been pretty good in israel because of the absence of terrorism. it just seems as if there's no particular incident within israeli society that could have that conversation that michael oren and others want the israelis to have. so i don't see much of anything happening over the next few years unless you have information about the desire of israelis to set those borders now. >> there was no violence then either. >> i don't know but i don't see especially given -- that was in

the pre-arab spring reality, and i don't see many israelis saying, looking around the region and sang now is a good time to seed more territory that will inevitably be ruled. and heavily will be taken by the most radical faction. so that's in the new syria reality, new sinai reality, new gaza reality spent let me just say i don't think, i think you come back to us. that is, think how different the world be it for 20 of the united states have not been going, pushing, pushing, pushing for a final status, comprehensive final status, handshake on the white house lawn. if instead we had been pushing the israelis to think through what they can do in the west bank. to make the situation better. >> i don't think your views are necessarily contradictory.

>> that's problematic. >> i know, i'm sorry. because the idea of a unilateralism is i think deeply connected to success or failure of the hamas-fatah reconciliation. there are no ways these rates are going to give one more inch of territory to hezbollah in the making in ramallah. that's not going to happen. but if it can be, if abbas that if they can work with the palestinians in the way you implied through parallel unilateral as fact which means we are going to get out, you cut with hamas and we work out arrangements, then that's a possibility. it would require, however, two things which i regrettably a bit lacking. one, creativity and true leadership.

and i don't say that as throwaway lines to regrettably if you look at israeli and palestinians both creativity and leadership, it means taking risks in your own public opinion, we don't have an over abundance. >> tamara? >> i think what's underlying a lot of what we've had to say over the last few minutes is the idea that for a long time the united states and the parties have been focus on a negotiated process, and what we have to do now is shift in focus tightly on outcomes, on ideally the outcome that has been the established goal of the united states since elliott was last in office which is a two-state solution. now, negotiations are probably the best in terms of sustainability and so on way to get there. but if negotiations can't succeed in this environment,

what are other things that could be done? should we advance the ball parks and also this i think is important for the united states to think about, what are things the two sides might do what others might do that would move it backwards and that should be avoided? and if the united states can focus and in its engagement with the parties can focus on that outcome, how do you preserve the possibilities for a two state? how do you advance the ball and a variety of ways in terms of the relationship between these two actors? and what do you do to avoid setting things back? then i think, you know, then i think this theory did can be a fruitful period and we can avoid some of the worst potential consequences of a breakdown in negotiations. but if over think about how to get everybody back to the table, what's the shape of the table and was the deadline for the table, then i think we're going

to be in a position that elliott was describing we have been in. >> just one thing and i were probably change the topic here, but in my view the single most useful thing the united states can do to advance israeli-palestinian peace is the effective elsewhere in the region. get a really good iran deal, get into a serious conflict, the effective, be a leader of around the region. that will change the context of this entire discussion in a much more positive way. >> okay. so not to use the word linkage, but next topic which is iran. you have a very pronounced talk by the israeli ambassador this morning in which he said that the p5+1, the major powers led by the united states, should settle for nothing less than no nuclear enrichment no uranium enrichment on iranian soil.

and the conventional wisdom at least, actually i think that president obama has been much said this a couple months ago, is that there will likely be capacity for enrichment as an outcome of these talks. they talk about civilian level of enrichment around 5%. how do you reconcile that? why don't we start with jeffrey. what happens if there is such an agreement? what does israel do? does israel remain, do you think israel will remain or accelerate its aggressive posture towards iran? >> i don't get that question much thought because i don't think it's going anywhere even though it's a facsimile of progress, but i don't, i'd like to be proven wrong and i like to see a situation in which iran is kept perpetually a year or more away from nuclear breakout posture, i don't think that's

going, i don't think that's going to happen. i think that -- the reason i don't think it's going to happen is i haven't seen any proof that the iranian leadership -- the supreme leader matters, not the man who was allowed to become president. i don't see any substantial rollback in his plans. it doesn't make him if he were the supreme leader of iran you wouldn't rollback. they are feeling a list is now in the economy that they haven't before. not as much as the critics will say that more than -- would like. on the netanyahu question, you know i mean, p5+1 agreement, the six months that we're in right now, achieved half of president obama's goals. the first goal is to prevent iran from going nuclear.

the second goal was to keep them from attacking iran to be achieved the second not the first. he has boxed out netanyahu. there's something to be said about, there's a link between the peace process in a logical sense, benjamin netanyahu is not image was very action oriented. that has a good site. he doesn't sort of run into reckless wars with hezbollah or hamas. it has a bad site. i've written before that joe biden in particular but kerry is also, you know, joe biden and a wonderful way joe biden has said to netanyahu wants that my mother always said, he's always coding his mother, said that you will nail yourself to across, nail yourself to a really big cross, not a thousand many crosses. he said that in jerusalem. but since then it's

grandstanding netanyahu is found that that quite interesting and uses that. defense i'm ready to nail myself to a big cross but not yet. he got a set of preconditions. he's not a big cross kind of guy. metaphor beyond the breaking point. and so you don't see him taken a lot of action. the truth of the matter is that obama won initial round of the contest, netanyahu was threatened and threatened and threatenethreatened to attack a. obama came in with this plan, and is it possible that netanyahu returns to a more aggressive posture? yes, but i think the administration, and this is not a commentary, the common purpose is to get early 2017 where the situation is likely where it is today, where iran is a latent or

something close to a nuclear state but not close enough that obama couldn't do anything about it. this'll be the next president's problem and i think right now netanyahu is still boxed up from doing anything. >> is sound like when you spoke earlier you suspected there are -- that it might not be all up to the supreme leader. what do you think? >> well, let me clarify then because i think that's important. this is an authoritarian dictatorship but this isn't about iranian society. when i say we shifted domestic politics in iran, i mean we should give incentives for the supreme leader such that he allowed a man to run for president that he might not otherwise have allowed, on a platform that he might not otherwise encountered. that's what i mean. that's significant but it did

allow these talks to take place, the discussions have been very substantive. they are making lots of nice noises but they're also making some noises that are less encouraging. and we will see where it goes. let me be clear about what i think the limits are on the shift inside iran. my sense is that the administration and the p5+1 have a pretty clear idea of what idea looks like that is acceptable to them that will do what jeffrey was describing, that would keep iran at least a year away from breaking out. and day, and the premise of this negotiating, the premise of the signal of such a grim is that would give the p5+1 time to respond or would give the u.s. time to respond militarily if necessary. that's the premise. whether the deal is achievable i

think is a very open question because as jeffrey said there are reasons to be skeptical about what the iranians are prepared to give up. think about it from the perspective of president obama looking across the middle east at a region that is in turmoil, where major allies and partners of the united states that we have relied on for decades in our regional policy, like egypt, are deeply unstable, and our relationships are afraid. where our regional allies are anxious about us, and our role there, because of the changes, the end of the war in iraq, the drawdown from afghanistan, the tapering down of historically large american military presence and engagement in this region. our growing energy independence, all of these factors are underlying the discussions over

the iran issue, the discussion with the saudis and other friends in the gulf over the iran issue. so it's about, it's about the nuclear negotiations, but what will keep our allies feeling comfortable and secure is not just specific terms in that deal if it's ever achieved. what will keep them feeling comfortable and secured is our manifesting a commitment to stability in that region, and putting ourselves at risk in the region in ways that they feel they can rely on. that's what's missing right now. >> robert? >> two points. first, just maybe right. in fact, my general assessment is that, as usual, i think jeff is right in that president obama articulated a policy from the first day in office which was, no bomb on my watch, and the

iranians may oblige. the iranians may make a calculus which is, you know what? we can make inroads in syria, we can win that war, we can make inroads in iraq. we can do all sorts of nasty things, and we don't quite go over a line on the nukes, and that's how we can get through the rest of the obama administration. the administration they say okay, because it would meet the president's first principle, no bomb on my watch. but we have the least entertain the possibility that they do reach a deal because there's an awful lot of enthusiasm in the administration to try to reach a deal if they could. everybody in this room should be on guard because the day after they reach a deal, you know which two names will be in the exact same sentence as the people out there that we have to work against who will try to undermine us and bring us to war in the middle east? one, will be the supreme would end of will be abe foxman and

the other leaders of the broader community of people who will say wait a minute, this deal stinks. this deal stinks. this is a deal which gives them enrichment, this is a deal which keeps that facility. at gibson research is for the eye can see to it doesn't stop the missile development. this is due which blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. and people advocates for this deal will taint, critics not as loyal citizens angry at or opposed to a diplomatic achievement that they feel the administration sort of snuck in, but rather as warmongers. the first sign of which we saw just a few months ago.

now, you can decide whether you like this do or you don't like this deal but there if there is a deal, that scenario is coming. be prepared spent that's way aid is retiring. definitely. the first is that i think unlike rob, i don't believe that the administration is going to go for an ostentatiously lousy deal. the second point, it just struck me that maybe rob was talking about our long relationship with adl, maybe for abe's i hear they can change his title to the supreme leader. give him more juice internationally. [laughter] >> alley, i want to put his you this question from the audience which takes a route which we've been talking about what is the snare the p5+1 talks break down, enhance international action or retrenchment? >> if the talks break down, if there is no deal, you will

obviously see more sanctions. that's to be expected. the more fateful question is whether the talks break down, israel will strike iran your the boxing in that jeff spoke about is a boxing in by a diplomatic process in sanctions. but if all that disappears, that is, the negotiations fail, the sanctions a pure to be failing. after all, the sanctions were meant to force them to sign a deal. if the sanctions fail to do that and iran continues its nuclear weapons program, then you have a very fateful decision in the hands of the israeli prime minister, and i'm not, i guess i would give the percentage that israel will strike, i would say hi that i think jeff thinks it

is. i think that netanyahu came very close to ordering this in the summer of 2012, but he did not have, he had american opposition but he also did not have a consensus in the israeli security establishment. if the talks break down under the current situation, you know iran is making progress in its missile program. it now has 19,000 centrifuges. it is making progress on the master and the second generation of centrifuges. it is making progress in these various sites. it is pursuing a plutonium -- if talks break down i think you will see that consensus grow and, indeed, they were public statements this week actually in the last couple days, both of which said we may have to act. these are responsible guys.

these are two guys who are not viewed in israel as supremists hotheads. and they were not in favor a couple years ago of an israeli strike. so to me the problem that is more likely is that they do reach a deal, and it's a crummy deal. and i want to say i think rob is exactly right because we've seen it already. we heard the word, we've heard the word thrown around. we know what you're going to get, but you're going to get it much more broadly. you're going to get it from parts of the jewish community, which is the most disgusting piece of this, you are. if you american jewish leaders saying this is a really bad deal and it is a deal that is not really going to prevent iran from getting closer and closer

and closer to being able to turn around and announce a bomb. and i would just announce one other thing. are numbered, how poor our intelligence record is. you know, on the russian bomb, on the chinese bomb, on the pakistani, renewed with the d. -- the ci ca discovered about te syrian nuclear reactor. nothing. >> tamara, to you want -- >> well, i just was going to say on what if negotiations collapse. i think it matters very much how they fall apart. and i think part of the gain for the united states is managing that but if it looks like the negotiations have come to a standstill. because it's important to maintain sanctions and to be able to strengthen sanctions, and we know that the sanctions that are most effective on the multilateral sanctions, and particularly those that engage

countries that deal financially with energy iran. ever have to do that we need those guys on side, and we want those negotiations that it clears the intended party, iran, and that's part of the challenge for the united states as it plays this out. i think that actually what we've got so far is the u.s. working very hard to keep israel, to keep its allies very closely informed at every stage of the talks, with the goals that if the talks break down there will not be delay. so i understand the scenario that rob and elliott are painting but actually expect that it's not going to be nearly as polarized as that but i also don't think it would be as polarized in american politics, although we are facing, let's be

honest, historically high levels of reluctance by the american public to engage in foreign affairs in any way and that's just something will have to write with as a foreign policy professional i find it troubling. but it's real. but on iran american public opinion is actually outside of that general reticence or isolationism, or whatever you want to call it. the american public has been indicated on iran over a long period of time. they have no warm feelings about this country dating all the way back to the revolution and the ayatollah dartboards and all that. i just don't think, i think the american public understands that this is a country that not only on the nuclear issue but on a range of other issues is a problem for international security, it's a problem for american security. so i just don't see it playing out quite the way the rob and elliott are describing.

it's not serious. it's different. >> get a, took a hit for suggesting that -- jeffrey. this present would go to a military solution if that's what akin to. do you still think that? >> yes, i do. i think there are two conditions the president would use military force on iran. the first is if we discover as we discovered twice before that iran is building a secret nuclear facilities. in other words, if we discover, and again i endorse -- by the way, elliott is one of those people have given me hits for suggesting, but i endorse nevertheless what elliott said, which is that when the administration says that we will know come will know what that means are doing. no, we won't. it's only by luck that we know anything. so if we discover that they're

doing something in the subtree and fashion like they did at fordow, and i can't imagine a situation which the president wouldn't order a strike on that new facility, possibly of the facility. they are also too smart to do the other thing that would prompt and obama strike in which is to go to overt breakout, to kick out inspectors, after let's say the collapse of these talks, kick out inspectors and to rush towards a bomb. i can't imagine a situation in which the administration would not respond with military force. this is what i think both, i think both parties, the ministers and the iranians, have a sound interest in perpetuatine a sound interest in perpetuating these talks because i think the iranians to understand, this goes to the broader question of does obama's word mean anything? to have a deterrent? i think the iranians to believe that that is plausible which is

why they're engaging in this process in the first place, and they think that's what they'll be engage in this process as long as possible because both parties still want to get to the point. if for some reason the iranians -- they are capable of new speculation and did something crazy, then i see no reason why obama would hesitate to launch a limited strike on those facilities. >> i think there is a possibility of miscalculation. there's a series won by the iranians to the general view that people in the middle east have taken what happened last summer on syria is that the president just walk away at the last minute and without informing our allies. the saudi sound out on cnn. it is subject to interpretation by the iranians or others that he will do a drone strike but he won't do much more than that. he won't attack us, because that

would be a more serious thing. i tend to think you may be right, that is, the president has said it so many times, so forcefully that it just looks as if the iranians are really heading towards a bomb on his watch, he has to stop them. although there's an alternate way of stopping them which is to say, maybe it's time for the israelis to act. but i think it's quite possible that the iranians -- god knows what you come what information they have about us and what they think of us. we know the ayatollah hates us. it's possible i think that they might draw the conclusion that they are safe, and that they can cheat. and look at the chlorine gas incident. what's the american reaction? they are back using chemical weapons. what's our reaction? nothing. i think the chance of

miscalculation on the iranian part is quite serious. >> okay. in terms of a breakdown, what's also interesting, the question asked whether go to enhanced action against iran, enhanced action against iran when talks started means, meant something quite different than it does not because it changes with russia and other geopolitical factors. the obama administration has always -- i will open this up to the panel but the obama administration has always said that the value is taking its time to come to the stages it is building international consensus. does consensus matter? to have a consensus in light of everything else? >> i don't think we have seen in practical terms the russian shopping engagement in the p5+1 process or the stance within that process. ..

player. they've engaged with iranians as we know and at times, they've also pulled back or put constraints on the cooperation. they want to be at the table.

they want to be involved. they want to be seen as the player and i don't anticipate they are going to take themselves out of the process despite us. >> i will go to some questions. if there are questions bring them up to me. these were asked apparently during the palestinian israeli part of our talk. we have one question for each panelist. if it were up to you and i'm presuming this relates to israel and palestine what is the next actionable step in other words what does one do next. >> did you mean from the american perspective? from the american perspective.

>> i don't know how other people feel that i don't have the same phobia about the unilateralism and i like the ideas about the unilateralism just taking faith into their own hands and not waiting for someone else to tell them this is what we think the border should look like. it's an interesting question. is it better to have a peace process or not have a peace process. i think it's better to have a level of engagement than to have no engagement. so i worry about president obama's move on this. he doesn't feel he can do -- i don't know if he said it because of this id leave so he would use more overt pressure on its ideology to get him to shut down

the settlements. he doesn't want to spend that kind of political capital either before november or after november. and so, because of his frustration and inability to maneuver remember the first term they thought okay all we have to do is tell them to do x. y. and z.. i think that his tendency from the statements and the white house tends to walk away from this and i don't think that is a healthy thing. he said of the ideas are good. he just has an overly rosy view of the palestinian willing in this debate could -- willingness to move forward and a huge

amount of effort making sure it is a place to live as possible because that will obviate some bad things from happening. >> i wanted to say something different. >> 30 seconds before the time because i made a promise to myself i wouldn't let it go without at least 30 seconds on the urgency of the community speaking up and speaking more actively and urgently on the need for action on syria. our community tends to look at this conflict as a great war. isn't this wonderful. for the last man standing. this is so wrong.

today after we recognized not to make any comparison belief but we shouldn't recognize that there is a path to genocide in syria. and it is being governed as long as bishara al-assad is able to use gas against citizens and kids, then we do nothing about it which i regret to say the policy is to feed, clothe and take care of refugees when they get out of the country but to do very little to actually stop the death inside syria. we of all people have a responsibility to speak up. there are thousands of kids in this area today. this shouldn't be happening when we have the power to stop it. without one single american

soldier getting involved on the grounds on syria. so do not believe the lies about the false choice between an activity or having to send the 82nd airborne into sold it. that is wrong. do not believe it. we can go on if you would like but i apologize we haven't talked about syria. [applause] tamara, can you top that? >> know i will just say when i first started working the town i was working for aj -- it's okay. thanks for that. [laughter] >> we put together an incredible coalition of muslims and jews to support american engagement and the genocide.

it was powerful, and it pushed back on a lot of the same ideas. so these people that have been killing each other for centuries, there's nothing we can do about it or it is a slippery slope. so, i wanted to endorse what was just said. on these issues we talk about unilateralism and i'm a little more skeptical that it represents something viable and in terms of creating a sustainable situation between israelis and palestinians t andi understand the attraction of the idea of establishing the borders of the state. but i think it would be very painful as both cause it would involve uprooting people and

that comes at a cost and we have talked a lot about why those costs are unpalatable for at least this political constellation. but i also think there is a big question about it in terms of if you are withdrawing what is being withdrawn if it is just to civilians that are being withdrawn and they are going to continue to operate on what is drawn, then we have to ask a lot of questions about whether this could be a positive step in the israeli palestinian dynamic. i think it's a challenge but i also think it's important to note that this isn't the only alternative to driving for a comprehensive final status agreement. it's possible to think about something less another interim agreement although i would argue that it's also very difficult.

you could look at ad hoc agreements on specific issues where israel and the palestinians do have strong incentives to cooperate on things like water and energy that deeply affect the quality of life for people in their economic viability. so i don't think that one should exclude any agreement if one gives up on a comprehensive final status agreement. >> i'm just a little surprised about what you said because it seems to me that the settlements in israel to a greater degree than the activity on the ground much of which is designed to protect those far-flung isolated settlements. they are operating in the areas just to protect those guys on

the hill so any steps you can take to disentangle was to pull out the settlements into the soldiers aand to thesoldiers atf you pull out the settlers and collect the soldiers we wouldn't have had quite the level of hatred. i just see -- >> [inaudible] the rockets which came out after the withdraw would be a threat if you pull back behind the security. the defense itself -- with the civilians first and then work your way. we have all of the israelis from gaza.

a couple thousand, 5,000 troops protecting. so the search and destroy missions west bank is different but i do want to turn to the settlements. the obama administration has mishandled the settlements issue from the beginning of george mitchell who was a disaster. obsessing about the issue of the settlement. >> we are trying to get eliot out of the show. something like 80% think that building in jerusalem in the

major block that israel is obviously going to keep is a sensible thing to do and about 8% have very mixed views or negative views about doping in those far-flung settlements that are hard to protect. we believe construction should be limited to the major block in jerusalem we would have extremely wide support in israel and we would make it easier for any paymaster whether it is nothing yahoo! to do that, too free strain the settlement construction beyond the fence. the position that we have taken is that all is the same. with 80 or 90% or 100% unity among israelis that they should

be building in jerusalem. so what we did was create what the administration didn't want to create that we are wrong, american policy is foolish and we helped to settle the movement a very great deal. something that is a great thing to do and something gets bad. we help them. that isn't what the administration meant to do and it wasn't doing anything. i do think that restraining the settlement construction beyond the fence. i would like to see those settlements pulled back inside the fence. and again i think that is not possible for this coalition. the problem that we have created

frankly remember both negotiated when there was lots of settlements. we were the people that treat and he said it in a "newsweek" interview. he said what was i supposed to do next i'm supposed to say i don't care about its? so, this was a crisis in a sense over the settlement construction. it didn't need to happen that this government, the american government created. now we have put up both netanyahu and abaas in a difficult situation. if you look at the numbers, and you listen to the complaints, there are lots of complaints to people from the settler movement and from people living beyond the fence who want to build a new base and that if we can't get the permission. everything is slow.

so what he is doing without announcing it would be very damaging for him and very difficult. he is in fact not free streaming construction in the major bus in jerusalem, but the government is slowing down beyond the fence. so that is the policy that you think is right i would say that is the policy of the israeli government today. >> only because you anticipated return to power. how has the role changed in the past year? robert? >> in the past year a year ago egypt was governed by mohammed morsi and they are on the verge. they are as different.

they are extraordinarily different like night and day. so egypt has changed dramatically. the question -- there are many questions about egypt but in terms of our discussion, will egypt become a constructive regional player, egypt is totally concerned domestically. with its politics in the fight against sinai etc., it hasn't paid positively or negatively the role outside in quite a long time. will that change? if it changes for the better i certainly hope so. it would be a positive development if egypt for the plate to constructive role that would be great.

turkey has gone the other direction. turkey tried to play a regional role and got slapped in every corner largely because they were led by the megalomaniac prime minister. but the people in turkey, they didn't like his policy towards syria. they don't like the idea that this grand vision that involves the huge cost internationally for turkey but they wanted the turkey to be close to the west. the local elections had enormous cost of politically and i expect there to be a reasonable chance to pursue another realm of civil violence in turkey through the

presidential election in which the primitive church was to become president and exerts his authority in more authoritarian ways. >> there is another good question. two people have asked. what is the significance of the president mahmoud abbas's statement yesterday? is there a significance to it? the >> do you want to take a word at this? >> it's interesting in the context agreement that i think is i take it as a kind of sensitivity on the political predicament in the u.s.. it's not useful to him and that's why we denounce from the u.s. for making deals with hamas so what we suggested to him is that it differentiates you from

the iranians. he did. that was a smart thing to do and it might even do some good in the sense that when you all may remember this the palestinian group recently visited with a lot of negative reaction at home. we use the word excitement alive. we talk about this issue. unfortunately it's never been a serious matter for the united states. we have never been serious about it and we have never pushed hard and penalize. so, the glorification of terrorism goes on. and in this sense that we shouldn't even talk about the holocaust continues. if the statement means can -- henceforth in the broadcasting it would have a more intelligent

view of the holocaust that would be a good thing. i think we need to see whether this is a one-time prop or if it is a serious change in the way that they are going to address the issue. this is in the last time he's made the statement. >> he's not a holocaust deniers. he's never been a holocaust denier. what he has been coming into there is no contradiction, he recognizes the enormity of the holocaust and thinks the movement played a big role in collaborating with the nazis. it's not holocaust the denial it

is a skewed view in history it is grotesque but you cannot label him. it's a different phenomenon. and it would be nice if beyond recognition what he is really doing is changing the discussion about the entire issue. the fact we have yet to see. >> i was disappointed that they were so dismissive of this. one of the underlining issues in the peace process is an unwillingness on the part of many palestinians to try to understand the basic jewish narrative. i think in this sense they've

made more progress on this issue and the understand that palestinians are from there. the basic arafat neocolonialism. so, any attempt by any palestinian leader says look this is jewish history. this is reality. we are going to try to understand it. it can't possibly hurt especially given the incredibly powerful things that are said about jews in much of the discourse. so, whatever political motivation is behind it, i can't see that as anything but a good thing. >> here's another good question and it's one i've been asking. that's why i think it's a good question. regarding the flyers that were distributed outside of the synagogue even if both sides said that it was a hoax, how concerning is the fact

statements are being made in such an area of political instability and strife? in other words, what do the jews have to worry about in terms of being used as a kind of football or raised in this context? tamara? >> i do think by the way that this is a political move as you are suggesting. not an effort to drum up huge amounts of activity. what this shows is the jewish question as it were still exists. all of these years after the holocaust scenario, very few jews this is a very sensitive issue and people think when there is a crisis what can i do to unsettle things and attract attention? what can i do to change the politics of the region?

still in 2014 is very discouraging in the regions of the world where in crimea there are a lot more russian jews. in other areas that are now under, being fought over what to say, there are many left, but i guess i don't know if one is supposed to say this, but the jews who were there should not in my view be there and we should make whatever effort we can and associate of the israelis to get those people to another place where it will be safe so there is no future for them.

the first optimistic view of the anti-semitism pointed out it's interesting when hundred years ago it was overt in the political platform on the part of many people in that part of the rookie became popular as a leader by advocating the policies. now that both sides are confusing the anti-semitism it is part the opposite side. in other words, don't support the russians because alternatively don't support the ukrainians because they are anti-semitic because they saw that as a progress in the fight against anti-semitism. >> i wish i could agree with that, but what you said, what he said is right. i'm not so sure that it targets the other side.

>> that is why the suitcases are coming out of the closet. so it is a question of whether it is more funding. >> as we wind down, one thing that has come out with talk about the peace process and the next step for israel what about the next steps for the palestinians and ask what happens tom friedman talked about 70 years ago it was building institutions on the ground. is there an outlook that is all tangible?

>> empathy is a better word. he looks around him and he sees that it's moving not just sideways but backwards and my understanding is the day will come he will retire or pass away and there will be a moment of leadership change and we are already seeing them. we are seeing the security around the current ones and the old ones. they are back out of the woodwork. you know what he did, he invited the team to play because he

knows this lovely human being that is coming out of the woodwork and all sorts of guys are coming out because they can spell the sense of the change. will there be the party of progress and not complicated regression. you can't do it alone. will they stand up, will they come up and get out and do something? elliott spoke about it in june of 2002 the palestinian government open and transparent democratic but we start using the language again which has disappeared from public

discourse. so if we don't say it, they don't need to do it. >> if any of the panelists want to conclude -- >> i would just say we talked a lot this morning within the palestinian society both of the parties are in a downward trajectory and none of them are viewed as the advancement of the future or prosperity of the palestinian people. that begs the question where is the alternative and how might they emerge and i go back to the point i made earlier. palestinian politics have been frozen for years and partly the united states has proceeded to

that and it's been more comfortable for all of us. but if we want to see the alternatives emerge, there has to be an environment with which they have some incentives to do so and that gets to the israeli-palestinian political levels and also to the domestic level. elections for what? what am i accountable for and what can i achieve? these are the questions people with leadership skills are going to ask themselves before they decide whether to try to form an alternative party or put themselves forward and what happened with reconciliation

matters for term matters for the environment and for the creation of alternatives in for progressive palestinian politics and this is the time for the united states to be actively engaged to shape what's happening in a positive direction. it's not enough to cross our fingers and hope for the best. >> i agree with that, but we are not so good at that. you and i have been trying and many other officials. there's been an american project for years. i would just say it's part of a question that we are seeing in the aftermath.

the liberal moderate centrist democratic forces in society exist and they've been unable to create political parties that appeal throughout egypt. the only place we have seen progress in the rest of the arab world it is still the case the only mass movement you have regimes to the mass movement and what we have not seen is the emergence of more moderate mass movements that can create moderate political parties. i wish we could help but i'm not sure that we know how to help very much. >> at least we can not get in the way. >> we can not get in the way.

it is in cairo or ramallah we should speak out against that. when there is corruption again whether it is in cairo or ramallah we have to talk about that and we have the right to do that. so, i think this question of what comes after -- i can't answer what comes after. it's going to raise questions about the palestinian political system and what the palestinian people want but it is a part of this broader crisis of the politics where the bad guys are organized and the good guys are not. >> the smartest person on the panel already expressed my views, so i don't have to. [laughter]

>> if we are closing can i say another thing that i want to say which is i've been watching foxman for 22 years -- >> what happened to the first 15 years? [laughter] it's just always struck me jewish people can sometimes be an annoying and exasperating but i've never known anyone that has loved like foxman. [applause] >> i want to thank the panel this is the advantage of having funded. [applause]

as the panelists make their way out i want to give a little table setting before we take a few minutes break. let me do a few table setting thesis. we did a lot of foreign policy this morning. we are shifting back to domestic policy before those of you that signed up for the trips go overseas to the foreign soil and then come back for more domestic policy issues. i want to remind you to use your social networking to share with friends and family.

if you have taken pictures please feel free to e-mail them to socialmedia@adl.org, and our staff will publish them on twitter and facebook. shh. i forgot to do that last time. anyway we will get the social media engines revving. i was remiss in not recognizing that we have friends on the balcony so i want to acknowledge you all on the overflow with the premium seats and thank you very much for joining us. [applause] we are going to have a very tight timeline not right this

second because i'm going to tell you where we are heading next in terms of launch and workshops but following the workshops for the fbi director it will be very tight. 12:45 on the button we need to be here in the room so that we can be prepared for the fbi director to address us. there are lunches outside. when you leave please pick up your boxed lunch. it's a little early but just assumed you can eat whatever you want in a box lunch. and please, try to go to the workshop that you signed up for. if you get to a room and it's full there are other workshops that are outstanding. let me remind you where they are. strategies to prevent terror and violent extremism is in chinese. turning up the heat on immigration reform, that is on the second floor.

safeguarding religious liberty while fighting discrimination, that is this floor in the senate. u.s. leadership against global anti-semitism is in georgia. that's the second floor. >> we believe this event at this point with a quick reminder you can watch the discussion you just saw from the adl panel on u.s. policy in the middle east and remarks earlier from the israeli ambassador to the u.s. wrong dermer at any time on at c-span.org. >> you may have heard fbi director james will be discussing the adl later on today at 12:45. his remarks on hate crimes in the aftermath of the shooting spree in kansas outside of the jewish community buildings. c-span2 will have live coverage of 12:45 eastern. >> the house and the senate returned from their recess on an day and for a look at the week

ahead we are joined by billy house of the national journal. he's the congressional leadership correspondent. the house getting to work almost right away on a couple of 2015 appropriation bills to take up the $3.3 billion legislative branch spending bill. and that is an extension of the pay freeze from the members of congress. do you expect to hear opposition of the amber being debated? panic some voices have said it may be the time for the pay raise since 2010. and that maybe it's time to alter back. but know this is a midterm election and one of the positions a lot of members might take on the trail is that they need more money. >> one of the pieces was the house republicans see the opportunity of the appropriations bills about some of the possibility adding the policy to the spending bills. what are some of the policies we will see in the next couple of?

>> the spending levels have been sent there are other battles to be fought within the appropriation bills themselves. they are done every year and they are called policy writers. they are technically temporary one-year pieces of language that limit the administration from spending on certain things even often this is a procedure taken to do things that can't get done in a stand-alone bill so for instance lawmakers in a recent memo that chief deputy of illinois in the house bragged to the fellow lawmakers that the success in the past blocking such things as funding for some of bush programs and so blocking the united nations funding, keeping the epa regulations from extending as far as they were

intended or not funding some environmental positions. but they go on both sides of the aisle. the majority always has the advantage. >> the other spending bill was in the house in the coming week and deals with the construction and better than programs. veteran programs. any roadblocks that are expected to come up? panic that just this one will be third. friday afternoon we received a copy of an internal memo that the majority leader sent to members laying out the agenda for the spring and it is a sparse agenda. he likens what republicans are doing to jeffersonian type of history but anyway, to the point that you're making, these bills are the least controversial bills so therefore they are being taken up. there is little desire to from the lawmakers to wrestle some of

the issues in the later bills such as health and human services, homeland security, that sort of thing so what is more likely to have been if they will do a handful of the bills in the summer of great perhaps we should fold of the remainder into a continuing resolution that would allow existing funding levels to continue past and then let's take up the goals after the election. >> one of the bills came up a couple of weeks ago that deals with a piece of the healthcare law. why it was defeated and why is it coming up again? >> there have long been questions about the ability of the house republicans. of course that is by kevin mccarthy who may or may not be

blamed for a lot of things by the majority leader has decided that this is one of those cases they put the bill on april 9 on the floor under a procedure where it's generally left for noncontroversial items so as a part of that process you have to give two thirds of them voting to approve it. this bill got the majority but it didn't reach the two thirds. it was a miscalculation on the part of republicans said they are coming back to put it on the regular process and it will pass because it did get a majority vote this time but this is another example of how sometimes you scratch your head wondering who's counting the votes. >> was turned to the senate. during the last week majority leader harry reid said about the minimum wage he said when the senate returns i look forward to the d-day is raising the minimum wand