people who helped create this opportunity. .. >> to push us into a regulated retl outlet and a regulated production model. and during that time even the building departments didn't know what to do, so a lot of these

groves even up until the last couple years have existed outside of traditional building codes and requirements, and that level of exposure to the regulatory bodies for the marijuana industry is what's defining the go forward path. we're really regulatory management companies here in colorado. we do produce a product, and we sell it, but we have to manage and provide data to these regulatory bodies to give comfort to the federal government that we're accomplishing is it the eight bullet points on their memo. the politics are extremely local because your local hue mispalties and your -- municipalities and your state regulatory agencies, those are the people answering to the goth saying -- government saying, hey, we're doing our best to

prevent child consumption. you'll see also that's where the biggest foot dragging is coming from. bureaucracies are not going to want to readily assume the burden for, you know, playing interference with the federal government for you. and it's a big request to say, hey, let these guys produce, guys and gals produce a schedule i substance in the middle of what the federal government still considers active prohibition. and so it behooves you to know who your local entities are so that you can have comfort with them, that your investments and opportunities are going to be stable and that you're making good business decisions. and as in colorado, we've learned once the rules get rolling, plan for three to six month incremental changes legislatively or regulatorily. i've come to be excited when legislation is no longer in session and nothing can change there, so -- but the regulatory

bodies can issue emergency warnings and change rules on the fly, ask all of a sudden you could be with caught, you know, buying something that's not available, doesn't exist on the market. so my answer to the challenge of what could derail this is if we don't develop good business-to-government relations with our regulators, we'll slow ourselves down. there's probably never going back, but it's our turn to show that we can run a business and work with the goth, because the government with is already there. you're trying to become a business, and you need their permission to do so. so you're going to have to -- the activism is important, but the business relationship is really where we're making big changes. you know, we at pink house have always sought to have a strong relationship with our city, with our licensing department because

that's the person that inspects you. that's the person that tells you yes or no right away. and it's -- you can be upset that there's a regulatory body, or you can figure out how to be participatory and work through the regulation system. so like i said, the successes that we're doing, we're selling recreational marijuana. the rules change regularly and the taxes are high, but here we are doing it. and those -- it's going to change. so be prepared to, be prepared for change continuously. [applause] >> thanks so much, eliott, excellent to hear there a producer and distribute's ear perspective. and for our final speaker, we're excited to have andrew freedman. andrew, just kind of brief

background, he's a harvard law grad, and he was the chief of staff for the lieutenant governor of colorado, and now he is the first-ever director of marijuana coordination for the state. so i'll let him speak a bit about challenges and successes from his vantage point. give a hand to andrew. [applause] >> thank you. it's a real pleasure to be here, and i want to thank brian be, christian and brian. for those of you who don't though, really big thought leaders in colorado not only for the amendment 64 work that they did, but also ongoing are kind of the people who see around corners better than anybody else, and so they're not fighting the tests -- the challenges that we have today, they're seeing the challenges they're going to have in three years. so it's that kind of thought process and thought partners that made me want to come here today, because my hope is that we are going to be cultivating that spirit a lot here because we have a big challenge. and so i am the governor's

director of marijuana coordination which is a title that all my law school friends are very jealous of -- [laughter] which makes up for the pay cut. [laughter] the job really came around, this is less to do with the debate over marijuana legalization and more to do with we can have the debate as much as we want. i tend to not enter into that debate because the other thing we have to do is implement a system that no one's implemented yet. so we are in this incredibly new territory which requires a lot of good government work. and so i consider my role to be a good government role and have very little to do with marijuana and more to do with, as eliott was talking about, the kind of business relationships and the kind of forward thinking relationships that can get us to a place where we have equitable and fair regulatory systems that really do protect our youth, protect public safety and protect public health. so it's the kind of

conversations that we have to have. what's not going to strangle the industry, but what is going to work here. it is, like everyone has said to this point, going to be an ongoing conversation because we've never done this before. not only have we never done it for marijuana, but nobody's ever regulated an industry just on a state level without it also being a federal conversation. so what have we done well? i would say the amendment 64 task force, a year's worth of work after amendment 64 was passed to put together hundreds of people working on what are all the places that need to be regulated, and that was business interests mixed with people who are marijuana proponents and opponents, also legal and public safety people, public health people all getting together in this a room and saying what do we need to do to get this up and running creating the kind of omnibus package that says, here you go, here's what we need to do to be ready to go on january

1st, and surprisingly enough, western ready to go -- we were ready to go on january 1st. i think that is the biggest miracle so far. the skeleton of that entire thing and what really allowed for a lot of people to calm down is that we have an inventory tracking system that was ready to go on day one and just barely on day one as i think a lot of retailers know. that we can track every single clone all the way to maturity and to the point of sale and though that this is how much you're throwing away, this is how much is going to fruition, that kind of information ends up to be such a crucial part of the skeleton of us being able to regulate and enforce this and know where the legitimate marijuana is being sold to help us regulate the gray market and the black market. that is the department of revenue's work on that and getting that all up and working in such a short time frame is really the home run hit we've

had so far. so everything that we do on a regulatory basis will really build off that model. the other thing that i would say that we continue to do is while we monitor anecdotes, we monitor data, we're hypervigilant at trying to get on top of things because we don't want things to have to escalate out of control and come back to it. we're reaching out to industry, we're reaching out to concerned people, to public health. so i think we're doing a good job of not being overly reaction their. i think the edible task force is a good way of showing it, and brian's partner, christian, is on that with us. again, we see anecdotes, we see things going wrong, we're hearing about out-of-state users indulging a lot of new people into the market, and everybody's working together for it. that's what we've done well so far. how are we doing? obviously, the sky hasn't fallen, and i think that is the

most we'd ever be able to say at this point. so i always caution both sides. i get a lot of this is the worse thing that's ever happened, and i say there's no data to support that. okay, well, nothing bad is ever going to happen. there's no data to support that either. it's going to take five, ten years to work out the public health, the public education. it's going to take a long time. all that being said, we haven't seen a significant increase in crime, we haven't seen a significant increase in usage. you know, the world did not end january 1st when the first recreational spot opened up. it's all data we want to get ahold of to get a better picture, and and we are. we're moving, for government, at a speed unseen before. we've so far brought in about $18 million in marijuana revenue through april which, i think, is maybe a little bit lower than we initially forecasted but in the

ballpark of where we thought we would be. obviously to, there's been thousands of jobs created from the market, and we are still just working on taking in initial data. and then i'm going to end with because i really want us to get to questions and have time for that what we're working on. so we're working on edibles pretty hard right now, and there's been a task force that has been put together for that again with representatives from industry and from public health and from concerned citizens. the basic premise of that, there's kind of two standards in there. one, like always, how do we try to prevent accidental ingestion by young people, and the second one being how do we make it without any, taking in mind the consumer who's walking in without any sort of culture, public education on this without knowing anything about it, how do we make it intuitive when they're having one survey so they should know how much they're eating absent anybody

telling them how much they should split it into. i think you'll see emergency rulemaking that will come out that says a serving size should probably line up in some way, either a demarcation or stamp or physical product separation between what is a serving and what is a product size. on banking, we're as concerned as anyone. i actually am very jealous of washington that had a credit union that had enough fite just come out and say -- faith just to come out and say we'll do it because that's not something we've had this colorado. we've been actually working with washington state and governor inslee to find a federal solution to this, because i think every other solution will be on shaky territory, and i think that's what the bankers are saying as well. however, we're going to do everything we can, so we passed a bill last session that allows for the formation of, basically, a credit union-style co-op that can go straight to the federal reserve and ask for access without having to get federal insurance which seems to be a real roadblock.

we're pushing forward for credit unions to create marijuana-only credit unions. any solution's a good solution to us. we want to cash off the streets, we want to -- we want a banking solution. and the final thing we're working really hard on is youth prevention. over the coming month, i hope we will come out with our youth prevention campaign which will really be closer to -- again, it won't be about the legalization debate, it'll be about teenage use and what it does for teenage youth. we've been working closely with the industry to get their feedback on where it goes. everyone can understand one of the things that would really stop legalization in its tracks is if we see a dramatic increase in youth use for it. not to see that is where we see the data going, but it's beholden on all of us to make sure it stays out of the hands of people under age 21. so those are the big things we're working on, and, again,

it's an incredibly fascinating field day to day. so thank you for having me here. [applause] >> well, thanks so much, andrew. you know, it's really nice to see the governor of colorado take sort of thoughtful and clap rahive a-- collaborative approach to marijuana reform. he campaigned against us, so now that the colorado voters have endorsed this, it's nice to find some common ground. i'm going to take my broad discretion as moderator and ask one or two questions. we have a bunch of good questions. i just wanted to hit on what we talked about at the beginning, i'm going to ask each speaker to just briefly address this which is is there an existential threat to legalization, and is there a policy issue that you're seeing related to this, and how can we kind of grapple with it? so let's maybe jump, andrew, are you prepared for this? >> sure. can you describe a little bit what you mean by the existential

threat? >> sure. you know, the fact that marijuana has really only been legal for about 18 months, is there a chance that marijuana, the pendulum will swing back, and legalization will be overturned. and if so, what's the issue that would make that happen? is it edibles? is it labeling? is it banking? is it business-to-government relations not being good enough? thoughts on that, andrew? >> so i take it the second i got this job, my awesome girlfriend picked up the book "smoke signals" which is a history of the legalization effort, and i'll tell you that we -- this might be a new place we are, but it's certainly similar to places we have been before. and so i will always say, yes, there's a complete chance that a year from now everybody says, well, that was nice, but that's done now. that's a politics question i don't have a good read on where

the politics will go nationally, so i wouldn't come in there. i would say the shakiness that we have is tied up almost completely in banking, that that is the last bastion of making sure that this is a legitimate industry, and it is really where i see the most kind of nefarious influences coming in at this point. if we can prove, as i think it has been proved that regulation helps and that regulation can be smart and it can be part of the system and we can do this as far as best practices, that's all great. but if it becomes a big money laundering operation, i think there's a whole separate ground for shutting this whole thing down. >> thanks. [inaudible] >> yeah. the machine that is prohi decision didn't just go away at the vote. there's industries that rely on

this. there are areas of the country where the law enforcement really sees marijuana as a tool to except whale with a lot. -- get away with a lot. there's a lot of people really invested in the status quo. the pendulum is clearly swinging in the direction of legalization. but if you don't think that those people on the other side are gonna try to no matter what happens spin it as failure, you're wrong. be -- they will try to spin it as failure. so what can we do to help them spin it as failure? we can be lackadaisical about our messaging, our advertising, do artistic depictions that would tend to target children, be an irresponsible industry. the banking is a challenge, you know? right now a lot of the people are working in an all-cash environment.

there can with issues with that, issues with organized crime getting into the market. for those that were here for the keynote, the words that were written by steve deangelo about this industry needing to have a soul and thesing to have a social con -- needing to have a social conscience. well, that is because that's the right thing to do but also because the downside risk in this industry is not just losing your investment money, but it's also federal prison. [laughter] >> by the way, it's funny, because whenever i sit with clients, i'm obligated to say, oh, and by the way, what you're doing is an unambiguous violation of federal law, and then we smile, and we move on with our business. [laughter] but i wouldn't be a competent lawyer if i didn't warn them every time. so the pendulum swung sharply

from the 1970s to the 1980s. there's a major distinction today. in the last -- since the 1980s, 30 years, the grass roots has taken hold, and the people have been heard, and a statutory and constitutional this colorado framework has been established. so it wasn't just sort of cultural and personal references. it's finish we've really established sort of an infrastructure now that's going to be very, very difficult to dismantle. it's also based on rationality which isn't necessarily i what drives politics, but i do not think we're going back. we will certainly have you bumpn the road for economic reasons, for reasons of lick safety. reduced alcohol consumption, teens reporting it's hard to get, teen use down from what i understand is colorado. so, yeah, we'll have some incidences, and it's good, but

this rapid response, for instance, on the edible issue here in colorado, good example of addressing an issue to show that we're responsible. and just to echo what john said, if the industry isn't responsible, you'll fashion your own demise. and so i've been encouraging cannabis businesses to distinguish themselves from alcohol and tobacco and really actively not market to children and say so. say that we are a responsible industry, and we're going to protect public safety and promote health and provide fact-based education. >> the existential threat -- [inaudible] the attorney general may have violated --

[inaudible] public health and safety. so public health and safety is our job as an industry to prove we can do it before that regime changes hands, and we get to somewhere the next wave of legislative bat. battle. >> thanks a lot. is i've got a whole bunch of excellent questions here, and i guess i would add my two quick cents on the existential issue, and i'd pontificate for a moment here. the edible issue is a tough one, you know? as someone that wrote the legalization measure here and codirected the campaign, we didn't necessarily foresee the edible industry, you know with, leading to some of these high profile incidents as we've seen in the paper. people are consuming marijuana, they're eating a cookie that's this big and has ten doses and maybe they don't realize that,

maybe they do, and they're having very bad experiences and in some cases tragic experiences. so i think really bringing a thoughtful dialogue and solutions that perhaps even err on the side of overregulation in the short term for edibles. i just think if we want to have a long-term industry, we've got to think hard about how it looks right now. the other thing i would say in terms of how to keep your business functioning at least for right now is follow the cole memo that gave the direct guy dance on this industry from the federal government laid out the eight sort of principles, do these eight things -- excuse me, if you don't do these eight things, then the federal government's not interested in shutting down your business. always taking time to look back an that. we did have an audience member share their thoughts. i thought this was sort of interesting. you know, we have an individual who says, you know, i'm concerned about these cannabis businesses going public, a lot of them have had sort of stop

trade orders by the sec. they seem to be, there seem to be a lot of pump and dump scams that are fleecing investors, and that could really have a major backlash on the industry. i think that's a very good point, and i would note tomorrow there's a panel on particularly this sort of going public, how public companies can operate in this space. andy kelsey is going to be seeking on that, so please check that out tomorrow. hammering through some of these questions for our speakers, and maybe we can hit this one pretty quick. we'll do a machine gun round. how many states will have to legalize cannabis in some form for the federal government to start to act, right? to perhaps reschedule marijuana or move to legalize? so, basically, what's your prediction upon how soon we see action at the federal level, and we'll just start with andrew and move on down. >> i have no great insight into this one, so i actually will take a pass except somebody asked me how to spell my last name which, i hope, is not for

nefarious purposes. andrew freedman, so there you go. >> i think there's going to be serious discussion about it in 2016. 2016 is the next time the world convenes and discusses international treaty, and a lot of what you're seeing now is that the federal government of the united states can't just say. you, and colorado, we're behind ya. it's a violation of treaty, and this has got to be handled on an international level. so i think that you're going to see the conversation start there and, hopefully, we'll make some progress. but my prediction is it doesn't matter how many states, it's about the international treaty. >> i'll stick with my totally seat of the pants prediction that five years from now the federal wall of prohibition will come down. i can't believe it's possible,

but look where we are now, and the change that's happened. there's no movement in congress, so it really is going to be up to the executive, and the executive does have the power to reschedule, and so to introduce enough policy issues so that the controlled substances act becomes sort of meaningless. >> it's anybody's guess. i'm going to say that the power is where you want to follow, so the big states and the people that have the votes at that treaty level, they're going to be the people that'll make the shift. my vote is thy and florida -- new york and florida will make it happen. >> thanks. and i would note, too, and i apologize if i do not get to your question. i'm kind of taking them as they come in, a bunch. but there's a whole panel tomorrow on which states are primed to legalize or move forward with medical marijuana

including rob campia who's been an i inspiration alleyeder here, so do not miss that panel. what changes do the legalization law do you hope to see in the 2015 washington legislative session? >> so i actually killed a bill at the end of this last session this year -- [laughter] which was not going to save patients well and was just premature. so we will be amending both initiatives in the next legislative session, the medical marijuana initiative which was enacted in 1998 and then the initiative 502, the legalization nichive. as i was talking about sort of aligning them so that patients will be able to go, patients will probably have a card, a state card that will allow them to purchase significantly more than a general adult use

consumer, and retail outlets will need special training if they're going to be providing to medical and just trying to think of some of the other, basically trying to accommodate those who are truly medically needy. as far as the general market, you know, there's some little tweaks as far as giving the liquor control board certain authorities and so forth. but in general, the system's in place, and we're watching it roll out. >> what i think that we're going to need is, first, we're going to need to address washington's taxation, and you're going to see that there'll be two, three stores open up on july 1st. the liquor control board really wants that. they want to show some progress. but the prices that you're going to see, you people in colorado are going to chuckle and say, my god, i'm glad i'm in colorado, because the prices in washington

are insane. so we're going to have to come back. our taxation is too aggressive, and the initiativinge being wrin more by academics made some assumptions about how easy it was going to make marijuana, that it was just going to be pennies a gram to produce which is not the case. we're also going to have to go in, and we're going to have to deal with distance relationships. the distance relationships in the initiative have to do with daycares, child certains, that sort of -- centers, that sort of thing. and the federal government of the u.s. attorneys came out and said when the liquor control board said, yeah, we're going to make that champion path to travel, ie, kids don't fly. if you're trying to keep something away from kids, they have to walk there. so you measure a thousand feet that way. the federal government said, no, we measure rot line to property

line -- property line to property line. if you look at any federal letter that closes a dispensary, it references title 21, and that doesn't mention anything about daycares, child centers, arcades, any of that. so i want to change the distance relationship to that. we need some sort of regulation for medical, and we need to figure out how medical and recreational are going to survive together in the near term until we can get this notion of legalization up. the adult use, general adult use market needs to, first, be able to supply the general adult use market before it can be assumed that it would be be able to serve patients. >> i just want to comment on the distances, you know, a thousand feet from whatever. the state requires that liquor establishments be 500 feet from

a school. that's a possible change. but i have to say that politically that's tough, and the legislature to get up and say we want pot shops to be closer to your school, i don't know what legislator's going to step out and propose that. so we might actually be stuck with our, for the moment, with our buffer zones. >> i have high hopes. i'm going to build a coalition. >> okay. we'll work on it. [laughter] >> thanks, roger and john. a couple of colorado questions. andrew, this is, i think, a point of clarification. you said that through april the state has brought in about $18 million in heroin taxes -- in marijuana taxes. is that, does that include medical marijuana? is that our adult use? licensing fees? can you clarify that, please? >> that's just from proposition 8 taxes, so the 15 president excise tax -- 15% excise tax and 10% sales tack. >> gotcha. and this is for eliott.

what are the pros and cons of integrating medical dispensaries with adult use facilities? >> for us, the pros are being able to serve a wider customer base. the restrictions of the medical market also give you advantages, but there's a lot of consumers that don't really want to go through the medical licensing process. so the pros of combining them are a wider customer base. the cons are that it costs more. you're paying for, essentially, two licenses at both state and city level which puts your licensing in the range of 20k a store, 40k a store. so it's not cheap. every year. but cheaper than illinois which is 100k a year, so -- >> thanks, eliott. question concerning hemp, what is the status of industrial hemp in colorado, and maybe we'll ask our washington colleagues as well. i can speak to colorado.

sort of the forgotten issue of the legalization measure in 2012 is we actually did legalize hemp smugglesly, our voters did -- simultaneously, and i felt it was one of those things where, you know, hemp became very mainstream oversight. everyone was like what's the big deal with hemp, and our state department of agriculture has thrown themselves into regulating this. there are people growing acres and acres of hemp in colorado right now, it's a really phenomenal cultural change, and i think that brings up some possible business opportunities as well. here we are at the ncia event and, we have, you know, hemp is a viable crop for all sorts of things. but also with these new laws passing, they're like cbd-only laws in florida, and you hear about that in alabama and other places, you know, is there an opportunity to grow, you know, very low thc hemp? or very low thc marijuana and have a lot of cbd, and, in fact,

we believe that could be grown via a hemp crop in colorado as opposed to entering the broader recreational market. a lot of benefits to that side. roger, can you speak about hemp in washington, please? >> there was a bill introduced and made it through the house that didn't make it through the senate to create a hemp, industrial hemp market. hemp is legal but unregulated, basically, in washington. so we need to put it in place. the republicans in particular are very excited about the hemp market because they represent the eastern art of washington state -- eastern art of washington state which is more economically hard hit. so it was a republican bill, and it's very interesting to see, by the way. years ago, of course, republicans tended to be against this, but now they see tremendous economic opportunities in their communities. we were going to vote on a

marijuana-related bill, and there was a weather problem, and a number of republicans couldn't make it to the chamber. i just thought it was interesting that we had to put on hold the vote on a marijuana bill in the legislature to wait for the republicans to get to the chamber. i thought that was an interesting concern. [laughter] but we'll get certain done. >> thank you. and sort of a follow up on that, i've got a couple questions from the audience concerning just what -- [inaudible] speaking about this cbd-specific medical marijuana bills where, you know, that are being passed in numerous states and my guess is will continue to be passed. thought on the cbd-only bills. throw that out, maybe eliott or john could address that. there's some thought that this could be a box canyon and if a place like florida passes a cwd bill, they've done enough, and they're not going to do anything else. they've already helped the sickest of the sick, but it is helping people. could you guys give us some

thoughts? >> it is exactly that. you're seeing these used as tools, as a haas -- when you read the polls, medical marijuana in the united states actually polls slightedly, the people that have a favorable impression of it, it actually polls slightly higher than apple pie. that's a fact. [laughter] and the, and the republicans and democrats are seeing this, and all people involved -- even those people that don't, that are invested heavily in the status quo as many politicians are, they've been propping this up for 30 years. they have their financial backers, our people that like the status quo. they're using the cbd-only thing to do exactly what brian was saying, saying, oh, you don't need marijuana. we've got cbd. and then they're saying, oh,

yeah, but only the strain charlotte's web which is, for those that grow, we all know that's kind of interesting in itself. but i don't see it -- marijuana in itself is not just cbd, and it's not just thc. and lots of research has to do, has to be done on it, but the cbd bills are similarly ways to -- simply ways to prevent the inevitable which is medical marijuana. >> i guess the short reason i'd say is we're trying to free the plant, not one teeny fraction of the plant. if we continue to allow cbd only, you're really talking about big pharma and no be lek lahr grade -- molecular grade science versus legalizing a plant, so -- >> a question concerning, i

guess the sort of back door threats to legalization. by that i mean, you know, we see things like water, the water reclamation board, not allowing state legal marijuana growth to have water because the water itself is being held in federal facilities. we have some threats of prosecution against power companies because power companies are providing marijuana for these businesses. so thoughts, roger, john, others, about kind of -- >> yeah. i have a number of clients in the columbia river basin who are freaking out about the bureau of reclamation's position that water cannot be used for, to grow a federally-prohibited product. bureau of reclamation, this is just one example of it, but it is not a enforcement body, so they can say all they want, that they're going to take your water rights away but, in fact, it's the u.s. justice department that initiates those actions. there's a pissing match,

basically, going on within the federal government now between bureaucrats who don't like this stuff, and i'm not as concerned about the bureau of reclamation threatening to limit water or to take water rights away, because it would with up to the justice department to take action, and the justice department's already given us guidance that as long as we're doing what we're doing, they're going to let it go ahead. trying to think of some other back door threats. did you mention any others? >> well, certainly there's banking and tax, and a hoot of federal agents -- lot of federal agencies. >> yeah. for instance, we have quite a number in colorado too of native, you know, indian nations, and the yakima tribe has filed suit to prevent any cannabis businesses on not only yakima reservation, but all of its trust lands which includes about a third of all of washington state. it's not going to be successful.

and so we hear some griping and some crying. ultimate hi, if problems -- ultimately, if problems do arise, i know that our governor who's a friend of mine and our attorney general who's a friend of mine will go straight to the federal government, i'll be with them, and say come on, whatever the problem is, let's iron it out. it might be back door threats, but i don't see it bringing down the system. >> the real cutting edge of the war right now and if you ask sam patrick kennedy's group what they're working on, what their focus is, banks. period. they, that is their, they've got their heels dug into that, and they don't want to give on banks, because once they have -- we have banks, we have legitimacy. so that's really what a lot of their strategy is. and if you look at it, there's been many statements that have been made to that effect.

>> so final question i'd like all the speakers to speak on this briefly, you know, if you look at the talking points of the opposition to marijuana reform, it's interesting to see how they shift over time. for a long time it was this is your brain on drugs, and marijuana makes you kill people back in the '30s, what have you. now the real talking point is this is big marijuana, right? it's just like big tobacco. they're trying to hike up the thc rates to get your kids addicted, and they're marketing this in gummy bears, and they're trying to destroy the fabric of hearn society. is my -- of american society. so my question for the panel is, you know, how do we as an industry and folks here today, how do we avoid this sort of casting of this net that's calling this industry big tobacco -- or big marijuana. how do we get around that? how do we act responsibly? maybe start with eliott. >> unfortunately, some of the legislation has driven it to be bigger money. finish so i don't know about the

big per se, but we have to keep pushing for, as individuals, normalization. we are people who choose cannabis over wine or maybe with wine, but we're choosing something. it's adult choice, adult use. medical is one aspect of that. this is about freedom of choice to use a plant as part of your lifestyle, and that normalization is what's going to push back, showing that you can show up and do your job every day and still consume cannabis is going to help chip this fear, you know? we're not be, we're not bad people, we just like cannabis. [laughter] >> that should be on your gravestone. [laughter] we're not bad people, we just like cannabis. so i think messaging is really important. and citing evidence. so i'm assuming that beer consumption will go down, as it

has in colorado, that duis will go down, that kids find it harder to get, that kids use it less, that people have access to medical treatment that they didn't have before. so reporting that good news, i think, is -- and this is what i'm doing. i'm running for re-election now, and people are challenging me what about this, you know, this marijuana legalization? and i say, well, so far it's working out pretty well, plus we're bringing in revenue. so reporting that good news really helps to dampen concern over -- i'll talk about again when i was with jimmy carter, patrick kennedy and finish. [inaudible] were at that meeting too in atlanta. they invited washington state and colorado folks to, they were sort of takes us to -- taking us to task for destroying america's children, and i kept saying this is not, this is about regulating a market. don't you want to regulate the market to protect public safety, to protect children? and they really got uncomfortable because they knew

it was a rational argument. and the other thing is to say, is to put the burden on you as industry members not to market to children and to message properly yourselves. and not to be big marijuana. in washington state we've legislated intentionally not to allow for big marijuana. be so we don't have vertical integration. you can only have a certain number of licenses, and you can only grow a certain amount. and that's actually the legacy of the liquor control system in washington state back from 1933. a three-tier system, the tidehouse system where we encourage small hiss rather than large businesses -- businesses rather than large businesses. >> big marijuana, coming to get your children. let's talk a little bit about big prohibition. 1937 when we got into this mess, cannabis preparations alongside with bare heroin were available

without prescription at pharmacies without any age restrictions whatsoever. smoked cannabis was almost unheard of in the united states. however, at the time citing homicidal mania, marijuana was head illegal, and prohibition begun. in that time from a time where cannabis was almost unheard of and widely available actually, we now have grown to a society which we are a little less than 5% of the population, and we use 25% of the world's marijuana sly. supply. how's prohibition doing? this countries like holland that have taken approaches where adults can get a regulated supply you know what their youth rates are compared to ours? much less. portugal as well.

when they decriminalized all drugs, the usage rates for children went down. and that's in itself a good thing. but let's look at what else went down. youth use of other drugs went down a lot. youth availability of other drugs went down a lot. addiction rates, overdose rates, you name it, they went down because we regulate it. businesses' regulation. you want to talk to me about big marijuana? let's talk about big prohibition, and let's talk about what hasn't worked and what we're going to do to put some regulation in, because we're actually going to decrease youth use. thank you. [applause] >> we have a very nice woman in the back who's been waving a stop sign for about the last 30

minutes, so i'm going to be quick hereful we have in the governor's office something called wildly important goals, and ours on this one is youth prevention which we measure by healthy kids colorado, and the last 30-day use we have public safety which we're going to measure by hospital room mentions accidents, and we have preventing substance abuse, people losing their jobs from alcohol, tobacco, marijuana substance abuse. and so those are the things that we're going to measure, and we don't have to call it anything. we just have to win the statistics with that. >> okay. let's give a round of applause. this was a really fantastic panel. great way to start the two-day conference, and i'm sure some of our speakers will be around if you have further questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> just a quick announcement for everyone, we have a half an hour break right now, and then we're moving into our track sessions. tracks 2-4 on the other side of the expo hall in rooms breakouts

4a through 4f. in. ♪ ♪ >> coming up live at 7:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span2, and we invite you to join the conversation about the va on facebook and twitter. >> now you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital using any phone anytime with c-span radio on audio now. simply call 202-626-8888 to hear congressional coverage, public affairs forums and today's "washington journal" program, and every weekday listen to a recap at five p.m. eastern on "washington today."

you can also hear audio of the public affairs programs beginning sundays at noon eastern. c-span radio on add owe now. 202-626-8888. long distance or phone chargesr may apply. >> now, former state department officials from the obama and bush administrations talk about the israeli/palestinian conflict. hosted by the wilson center, this is an hour, ten minutes. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> all right. very good, class. good afternoon and welcome to wl the wilson center. it is enormously impressive toms me, jane harman, the president and ceo, that we have this high-level crowd on the day after major federal holiday.fede congratulations to all of you. be it speaks well, obviously, of the wilson center, it speaks very well of our participants, and it speaks extremely well of you, that you are here to

explore what is an incredibly timely and troubling topic for the palestinians. me, someone we middle east carefully for 17 years in congress and who made 25 trips to the region during that time, there is reason to worry that we could be on the cusp of a third intifada. that is something we will explore. >> most observers think the egyptians are in the best hea position to play that role, bute as yet at least to my knowledge they are not playing that role. so today's conversation comes atsv a crucial moment.pl

foray starters, who are themome palestinians?e pa and who -- what government governs all the palestinians, comma, if any? does the integration of the technical side of hamas into the palestinian authority reflect the inte grace of hamas? is the rest of hamas operating separately, and he is that part of hamas contributing to the problem or solution? the wilson center has invested attention to the development in the neighborhood. this year we hosted an israeli minister of intelligence, justice, and the palestinian chief negotiator. close to half of our ground truth briefings, something you know about which are telephonic conversations about hot spots, close to half of our nearly 30 briefings have been devoted to the region.

our guests will be introduced by aaron miller. we have hussein ibish, a senior fellow at the wilson center, a close friend of the wilson center, shibley telhami is professor at university of maryland, and rob danin is the former secretary of state on near east affairs. our moderator is aaron miller. the show begins right now. >> thank you very much, and for your leadership in the wilson center. i want to acknowledge three people who are not here. they may be watching.

a wonderful person, who is having cataract surgery today. i know you are watching, and thanks for everything. when i drafted the invitation for this event, it read something like syria-iraq may be dominating the headlines, but the israeli-palestinian issue remains. none of us who have watched this issue and followed this seriously include my colleagues would reject the idea that violence and terror has been a handmaiden of this process for over a century. what we are witnessing may or may not be new, but it is a reminder of the costs and implications of no resolution of the conflict. since 1967, i would argue you had a different iteration, a sort of perverse dance with its own perverse intimacy between

israel as the occupier and palestinians as the occupied. it took the conflict to a different level. israeli power is strong. palestinian power is weak, which is also terrifyingly formidable in its own right. together this interaction guaranteed and continues to guarantee real dysfunction, tragedy, and of violence in this content. the answer to this, we know what it is, a two-state solution, the least bad option, but that is not happening right now, may not happen in the future. we have chosen to focus on the palestinians and their politics, because i believe the two peoples may be focused in the months to come. i would like and i can influence the research -- to a certain

degree my colleagues' presentations -- by arguing they should stay away the peace process. i cannot control your questions. it is not a problem of one hand clapping. reality is influenced by israel, but we want to drill down now on the palestinian guy mentioned. i want to close by saying one other thing. it is important to focus on the palestinians. the years i was working we did not. we focused far more on trying to understand the israeli reality, which is necessary, but by no means sufficient if in fact we really want to produce an equitable and durable solution to this conflict. the rules are simple.

five minutes each them and we will start with you. i may ask a question or two. then we will go to your questions. again, one last comment. questions, not station identification. we really want to get in as many questions as we can. there's only one way to do that -- no comments, just questions. thank you so much, and thank you for coming. >> thank you. the first thing i think that ought to be noted about what is happening at the moment, in the context of this flareup of tensions to the palestinian polity and what it says about where politics are, is that it is inescapably connected to its broader regional context. what has happened to palestinians and within the palestinian polity and what is going to result is reflective of and dependent on broader changes in the arab world. there's no way to separate the palestinians out from the broader regional context in which they participate.

while we look at this, remember that a whole series of questions are being asked of the arab world, which are not resolved yet, and it is reflected in iraq and syria, lebanon, kuwait, and libya, among other places. i can mention those because they are all experiencing their own crises. i think there are related and analogous questions being asked in all of those crises as well. in this context, one of the most difficult aspects, not only for palestinians, but also for israelis and others, is nobody is in clear control of the situation partly because of where it is flaring up and partly because most of the entities, including palestinians, are in their own form of crisis. for one thing, a lot of this has been focused on east jerusalem and other parts of jerusalem as well. in jerusalem, really, the palestinian security forces cannot maintain order because they do not operate there.

they just do not have that -- to do it there or the manpower. president abbas' ability to influence what is happening in jerusalem is limited, even that is being greatly undermined, so that is one thing. even further, this is being manifested in arab parts of israel as well, and there i think the ability of traditional palestinian leadership to exercise any kind of control is perhaps even less. and so in a certain sense it is very hard to lay the consequences of things that happen outside of their area of purview at the doorstep of say the plo or the pla because they do not control the situation. and their ability to control what happens in areas that they do have authority in is being very much undermined. in addition to which, obviously they do not have control over the people in gaza.

it is fair to say that hamas is experiencing a very serious identity crisis and leadership crisis as well. and the ability of its political wing, particularly the politburo, but even others within the political leadership to control all its factions is certain the questionable. the extent to which anyone is could in control of the situation as it is unfolding in terms of creating a real break on it or imposing a political solution is quite limited and it is very important. this is particularly the case given the level of anger that has been brooding over the years, that has driven the situation to the point that people can target children, knowingly, deliberately, callously, and call for revenge as a substitute for politics and

policy. and that i think is the fruit of some very seriousness by all parties, and there it is, for all to see. it is driving things. in addition, those calls for revenge only increase the cycle of incitement, and obviously, just behind the scenes, settlers are taking advantage of the situation to create more robust attacks on the ground than before, that are much more robust than that, and it is very worrying. the other thing going on is that realities on the ground have been allowed to slide by a concatenation of certain things of which everybody has the share

of the blame. particularly since the state and institution building program that was bringing deliverables to the ordinary palestinian people, particularly in the west bank, was defunded and allowed to fizzle. we have not had a political safety net to catch that fought at all. and no obviously peace process to back it up. so in that context, you have to ask where political momentum for sustaining and unsustainable status quo might come from. it has not, and everything that defines the status quo who is in crisis, influx, and may not survive the president's duration. i am inclined not to prognosticate, although i may be asked to, but to be analytical and rather than prescriptive, i would say you can see all of the .. this current situation in almost with the dark inevitability of greek tragedy, and where it is going to go from here could be

very grim or it could be attenuated, depending on how responsibly it will behave in the situation. and it is hard to evaluate how that is going to work out because as i say it is not always clear what the ultimate address is, and with that i will stop because i've used up my five minutes. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to make a couple of points. the first point is that the current situation reminds me of 1987, the advent of the first intifada. the car situation reminds me of 1987. i will tell you why i think that. i happened to be visiting in jerusalem three and israelis were abducted. and when to run mola right after the operations led to the deaths of a palestinian and it was pretty much shot down and my reflection is based on a couple things. just before the abduction and met with a prominent israeli journalist who is frustrated

that there is an absence of hope in part because of the absence of urgency that is really is live in what appears to be normal lives and no sense of urgency, no cost, she was hoping for a follow-up to the european action against settlements as something of urgency, and these tragic events create a sense of urgency but when i look at it i am reminded of 1987 for two reasons that you contactor in the mood. one reason is you the the the advent of the policy, it was a marginal location of the palestinian cause internationally. 1980s were characterized by the iran/iraq war which took eyes away from the palestinian issue and that mood is very similar now where clearly the egyptian and the saudis and the syrians,

everyone is preoccupied with their own problems that are not just being paid to what happens in the west bank and gaza and that is part of the problem for the palestinians. the second comparison is if you look at 1987 it was in the mark generalization of the palestinian leadership from the people because what we had seen beginning with the israeli invasion of lebanon was pows pecan exiled in remote and ineffective catering to the palestinians. the palestinians left alone. of course we don't have palestinian leadership in exile in vermont and gaza but you have a sense when you talked to almost everybody including moderates who want to work with the palestinian authority that were disconnected from the public. the public doesn't take them seriously. one reason we had the national

labor government is both risk totally being irrelevant and each individual came together to become more relevant. that is the context in which it takes place. add to this perfect that there is the creeping realization that the days of the two states are number if they are not gone already and there is the sense of kind of reconciling themselves to a reality that is not happy. only a matter of time before you see something take place. i do think that we do risk of problem from this circumstance. the second point i want to make is when you witness the limits of the death we have witnessed, those were horrific murders of young people, cold-blooded on both sides and you would hope and we all have questioned people and then people start asking themselves is this what i want to be? is this going to lead to a line

that breaks on violence? i have the unfortunate feeling that it was. this is not just a feeling because of research i have been doing on empathy over the past ten years where i ask is really and palestinians and arabs about empathizing with the civilian casualties when they witness a them. and what liberals and some of them feel empathy and they will feel pain but the majority unfortunately will not, and they will feel more resentment and they will say they brought it upon themselves. the first reaction from israelis and arabs is when they witness civilian casualties is they say they brought it upon themselves. and that appears to be very much a function of one thing. their assessment whether there is going to be peace or there is going to be war. when they ss there's going to be war, not peace, they have to harden their hard to prepare for

conflict and when there is peace they empathize. when there is a prospect for peace they empathize. we see that in the 1990s and we are at the moment where people are assuming we are headed for conflict and they don't want their hearts to empathize. they want their hearts hardened to fight a bloody war and that is the reality we face. >> as we speak this afternoon is really troops are massing on the gaza border, hundreds of rockets of rain down southern israel and we may be heading for another confrontation that i would argue need this side wants but neither side may be able to avoid. i will focus on the israeli side. what we have today is the utter despair of policy and politics. tweet to major forces in palestinian politics are both reacting to events, not leading

them. neither of them have a strategy for attaining national goals right now. what it means is they are locked in the politics of survival. one of the most significant problems is real absence of political legitimacy. policies since 2008, no presidential legislative elections since 2006. palestinian institutions do not meet, and the fog todd dominated p a and gaza controlled by -- it is against that backdrop, the agreement reached in april between the two sides. any vision doesn't agree on politics, or how to reconcile their competing security services. and to address the absence of

legitimacy, that was elections. and the response with the populace, the unity on the ground. hamas was controlling gaza, did not produce anything. they were being squeezed by gaza by egypt especially since july 3rd and likewise thought, was not producing anything through negotiations and all the while, brenda trader, and spray-painted graffiti, for cooperating with israelis against the backdrop of the recent violence. and since april, they can't hurt the parties, particularly hamas where 50,000 palestinians in gaza under hamas have not received their salary payments

since the agreement was reached. hamas was under the pressure at the same time, to rein in radicals but at the same time it needs to show that it is not from israel. what you have now is i think either israel, neither side in politics, and the government to survive but neither of them wanting to be blamed for bringing it down and both having a sense that it will atrophy by its self. are we on the verge of a new intifada? i agree there are real and angela -- analogies to the situation in 1987 and 2,000. in both cases, there was popular discontent with the official leadership, and hard chips of people on the grounds. in that situation you had palestinian leadership play

catch up with developments on the ground and that situation is right today for a similar type of situation given the absence of leadership within palestinian politics. what is brewing beneath the surface? we don't know yet. and aaron's question. what we do know is the leadership is reacting and not leading. this is not a strategy forward. short of an intifada there are things that can unravel quite quickly. tomorrow there was to be a conference sponsored by the left being israeli newspaper, palestinians were unable to go and pull out. what this shows is any kind of seen cooperating with israel

will get down. and security corp. the one major attainment we have seen in the last decade between israelis and palestinians, the third thing i must note is the price for returning to negotiations is going to go up, not down and is already pretty high. with that i will end. >> i never thought the three of you could be more knowingly negative than the but you really manage. i will pose to each of you a question. societies at some point take a long look in the mirror. whether or not we took a long look in the mirror in the wake of jack kennedy's assassination i don't know. not sure about that at all. is it possible, conceivable, you seem to suggest you are worried that it couldn't happen that in effect privatisation, personalization of this kind of

violence could in any way haven't ameliorating effect on the situation and what would it require from an external party? forget the peace process, to liberate, break the as, to recycle? >> let me tell you -- to give a little bit more optimism, i know my research is pretty negative on this. when people assume conflict is not on its way to resolutions they find it hard to empathize or questions themselves, but one thing that works for israel and palestinians having more reflection. one thing that is happening in the region, people are terrified, they know how ugly it can get. it is ugly. we witnessed the death of several people over the past couple weeks, horrific.

when you compare it to what is happening in syria or iraq people don't want that. you can see the backlash in the polling about people rallying behind the state when they seize this anarchy. it doesn't see an explosion. it can get a lot worse for all of them. beat second, i think perhaps on the israeli side, more than any other time there's a real in fertilization that it will happen now, it is never going to happen. there was always a sense that there was more time. nobody believes there is any more time. they have to figure out a way, or come to grips with it, the reality of swallowing them and doing what they have to do.

and they are the only elements providing some restraint at the moment. when you get benjamin netanyahu looking like a moderate in the israeli government, the restrained person in the reaction to this, it gives you a flavor where things are so that is a point. whether that is going to be enough, it does require leadership. in this end events on the ground can preempt leaders. and they really want an escalation doesn't serve them for a moment. and leaders can make a difference and we don't see that. >> rather than being an adversary, might actually be an ally including what happened in the first and second intifada.

as i am looking for hopeful fans here. >> i agree the majority of palestinians in the occupied territories and events that happened, we don't have one, suggests they don't want to go that route. doesn't mean things can spiral of control but that is an important factor. you asked about third parties. and there are two ways you look a little beyond the immediate crisis. the question is what can be done by third parties weather regional or international. to help change this dynamic, and external supporters and budget

support. both regional and international players have more of us say in the with the palestinian political scene evolve than usually occurs. there has been a great construction of palestinian politics, into this hamas binary and much smaller groups than before. the inputs are restricted. there has to be an opening up of palestinian political space. this is absolutely crucial land i think third parties can play a big role in that. the other thing is the frustration on the palestinian sidesn't only have to do with the political frustration that could be explained nicely in this political context but also a shutting down of the space that opened up, society and economic growth that was there during the era of institution building and state

building. it goes to st. forward things the israelis can influence on mobility, and economic growth. there are things that all kinds of things can do in terms of large amounts of shameful projects, small projects that can't be hijacked, small projects that can't be big political gains for small groups of people but lot of little projects throughout the occupied territories that can transform the mood. it is very possible. it hasn't been tried but i don't see why it shouldn't succeed if people want it. >> on the question of violence, what we have seen the last few days is a convergence in violence in for three testing areas, when israel itself with the israeli arab communities erecting. the second is the west bank and the third is gaza. i am more sanguine about is real violence and the west bank, in gaza i see an exculpatory cycle

that is very worrisome so may be possible to keep it from erupting although i am skeptical that this point. that seems to be the best one can hope for an short term is an absence of violence. in terms of a political breakthrough, until there is the real fundamental change within the israeli and palestinian politics need aside will be right for the kind of political movement that is needed to make political progress. >> one white round question and that concerns john kerry. not the broader issue of his comprehensive agreement. what it should the u.s. response be now? in the bad old days when there were only two sides to this conflict, right now there are three. ease to the our side and israeli prime minister and no hamas. we would have been preparing to

pack our bags by now. the has known internally erupted in september of '96 and the spin three months, we actually got in february of 1997. may be saved a few lives in the process in the end that proved to be more or less worthless but the question is should john kerry, given his commitment and the dianas of the situation that exists right now should john kerry package bags? >> packed his bags? no. the u.s. has a role to play whether it is john kerry personally going there at this moment. whether we want to or not this administration believes it has one more shot at trying to get them back to the negotiating table. 5 in their place i would say this is an opportunity.

their business sense of urgency before. now there's a sense of urgency. i can try to turn the sense of urgency into a way to get them back to the negotiating table and therefore real escalation might take us away from it and we need to figure out a way to prevent escalation and figure out how to stop and have a role to play. where is the influence going to come from? it is interesting if you look back at the measure of confrontation between israel and hamas in the last two years when morrissey was in power, he was a big ally and that brought him closer to in the u.s. because president obama worked with him to apply restraint on hamas. ring recently there is not such

a player on the hamas side. it might be away for hamas to get closer to the u.s. government. it might be an opportunity to do so. the u.s. will be working to figure something out but it will be in is really decision because frankly i don't think hamas is interested in escalation. may be some groups want to drag it that way but there are strategic decisions to escalate. will come from the israeli side and i am wondering if there is anything the u.s. can do to stop the israelis from carrying out an attack if they want to. and whether this will be an internal operation. i don't see the u.s. having particularly strong hand in stopping the israelis from doing

what they are doing. >> it is an unhappy experience but a more limited set of strikes. >> that is self restraint on the israelis. some people think it is a bad idea, some people think it is a good idea to escalate. there are lessons that have not been happy lessons from the past. i don't think the american side of it will be part of the decision whether to launch the attack or not. >> right now the objective for american diplomacy has to be conflict management, not crisis resolution for crisis management, not conflict resolution. let's be clear what the goals of american diplomacy can or should be. we got trapped into a way of thinking either john kerry does it or it doesn't get done.

there is the acute stage department that if this, thousands of diplomats. now is the time for active american diplomacy at a level below john kerry. to be engaged, two small anecdotes in the region a week ago, in jordan and israel and palestine and turkey, where are you guys? you are missing, you are not here. i got a call from a palestinian minister who said the administration is going to send anyone? there is a yearning for american visibility that is not there. it may not end the conflict but could save a few lives. that is a worthy price. one point of clarification, if israel doesn't go in and i don't think it will go in israel has a dilemma and is not about its

willingness to sustain a ground in derision or the casualties, it has to do with its strategy or its objective in gaza. israel looks to hamas as the address to enforce order in gaza. its concern is not so much about hamas but the more radical forces in gaza and it is looking to hamas to be the enforcer. it seems hamas is willing to play this role but to have a political lauch or face-saving out. right now to stand down, it wants to show that it got something for it and that needs to potential for this calculation but israel's reluctance to go into gaza is a fear not for its uncashed welty's but rather that in the absence of hamas able get something even worse which they might get any way which is the tragedy and dilemma of the absence of a real strategy on

either side, the israeli/palestinian side so this is a tactical objective to keep quiet, but it is a strategic cul-de-sac because there is no way out for reconciling the two sides of palestine that are divided or ending the political division that exists today. >> we will go to -- >> i am not convinced this is about is really self restraint. i do think there are factions of hamas that are happy to escalate. that is clear and it is clear today. not only have you had a few irresponsible indefensible rockets coming from gaza into southern israel you have hamas taking responsibility for those for the first time in a long time so there are factions of hamas that are interested in escalating. who they are aligned with, who is promoting them, pushing forward. that is anybody's guess.

the point is there's space for several parties to choose escalation. i wouldn't have john kerry talked about that if he asked me but i would say this conflagration we are witnessing shows again how and why the united states should not stop its engagement with this issue. back to the point fat it seems to be a question of benign negl >> wait for the mic which hopefully is coming. please identify yourself and ask a question.

>> it is coming. >> it will be here in the second. >> i am a reporter with the daily beast. thanks for doing this event today. you talked -- i would like you to put a final point on this question. what exactly was the relationship of the failure of the peace talks to this new round of violence? john kerry said publicly, there would be chaos. was the right? did the failure of the talks contribute to the violence? and raising expectations pushing a process that the parties were necessarily buy into and what some critics say was the wrong way at the wrong time. >> first of all the beginning of the violence, the objection of the israelis and killing of the

palestinians could have happened any time without regard to any peace process. i don't think that itself is connected to it, less connected is the mobilization that we see that is unbelievable. it is resonating, generating all that, that would not have happened of the environment is right. will flight up the match? it doesn't always catch in that it is ready to catch fire? that is in part a function of many things, including the collapse of the peace process, increasing realization that it is too late for a two state solution. i don't push that to say they raised expectation too high and that is what happened. frankly expectations were incredibly low before. we have seen that.

if anything, john kerry succeeded on extending the period of hope for a longer. what we were doing two years ago, three years ago, we were a majority of israelis and palestinians thinking is too late for a two state solution. it is not like here comes this administration, it is coming and collapses. that is wrong and there ought to be commended for trying. whatever mistakes they made or failure i don't think that itself is a problem. >> it is not linear. you could look back to july of 2000 where you had a full-fledged presidential summit to. expectations at that point my three colleagues know were running dangerously high. there was a sense of drifting in the wake of the failure of that summit even though the united states followed up to the best

of its capacity, part of the problem is the absence of a monopoly over the forces of violence. clearly when it comes to the palestinian authority but increasingly you see even on the israeli side, and that in fact goes a long way to explain this as, tory cycle. >> no one is in control. >> i wouldn't draw its linear leak either and i agree the secretary deserves to be commended rather than criticized for trying. but the minute that the kind of granular level of palestinian politics got pushed aside in favor of big picture palestinian negotiations, the reality on the ground got sort of dumped in favor of big picture stuff.

there's a certain loss, not just the united states but the whole international community. all the third parties that exist and there are quite a few of them combined to drop the ball and let the state institution building program become secondary dispensable project when it wasn't that at all and if there was any progression i would draw it is between the collapse of that entire approach to palestinian politics and promoting a better politics among palestinians allowing politics to constrict like this and allowing hope to dry up on the ground and this sort of out of control situation. there is a much more direct cause and effect between those factors than anything to do with diplomacy, with big picture

diplomacy. >> over here. >> real quick. one thing to keep in mind didn't come out of nowhere. significantly there has been an uptick in price tag violence taking place in the west bank over a period of time. .. none of it had come to the point it had come to recently. but the violence is part of the landscape, unfortunately. what we have seen is a village is rendition in diminution and violence. not an absolute wants. but i do not think it is fair to blame john kerry for the violence. but we do have a diplomatic vacuum. what is of concern is the way the violence culminated in april. there was no plan b. there should be some diplomatic fallback short of an all or nothing type of approach. and that is what we are trying to allude to in the previous. >> but there was no coveted to

plan a. -- no alluded to plan a. there was no need for a to go to the rest of plan a. it was a perfect a viable part of plan a and it should have continued to thrive. >> there has been a lot of -- firstn of intifada intifada, second, and third. conditions have changed in a major way. now there is a new focus by the posting in -- by the palestinian leadership on the long struggle of leadership and international agencies mobilizing supporters

to put clinical and economic rusher on israel, specifically through the boycott and the sanction movement. yet while this is happening -- >> we need a question. >> yes, and the u.s. has restricted these new efforts. isn't it time for a new shift? or a more nuanced position on the u.s. -- by the u.s. on these nonviolent oppositionists? >> i think the american position has been consistent. one of the biggest obstacles to progress and why the two-state solution is dying as a solution is opposition to settlement. there have been no teeth in the policy. israelis are frustrated with the fact that there is no pressure to stop that from happening,

even though it is eating up the two state solution every day. you can even argue, and i think probably credibly, that one of the reasons israelis agreed to get back to the negotiating table when john kerry started the negotiating process was this pressure from europe to boycott products from israeli settlements, expanding as we speak. just in the past week, up to 17 european countries have they have warned against dealing with israeli settlements. the administration itself, i think, actually looked at that. and one option on the table was, if they are not going to do it, if they are going to do, clearer allies in europe to do it. the settlements are something very specific as a poised to

board cutting israel. boycotting israel in europe and name the u.s., how do you do this you? you you oppose the policy of israel and support israel at the same time? how do you do it? europe -- ased action as opposed it relates to settlements matters. u.s.or opinion poll in the about american attitudes toward the israeli-american -- israeli-palestinian conflict, i asked people whether they supported -- if a two state solution was no longer a possibility, would they support occupation indefinitely, or israeli annexation of the territories, without full citizenship? those people who said initially

that they would support a two state solution, the majority of aem said they would support one state solution with the full citizenship. americans have a problem with the idea that you have an indefinite occupation or a relationship with -- relationship of inequality. any peace process, then maybe it's going to come. if you do not have a peace process, then you have a resignation and it took like it's not going to happen and you look like you have a permanent situation. people do not want to accept it. including people who care a lot about israel. we see that in the perl -- in the polling. something you see moving in that direction if you have a lot of violence. if you have a lot of violence, violence created completely different environment. it becomes a zero-sum. it's about survival. it's about a narrative. it takes you in a different direction, and that is what we

see potentially happening if there is an escalation. >> next question. >> my name is herbert grossman, i'm a retired judge. mr. danin, why would you think that the state department officials could contribute to a peaceful solution there when you have no credibility with the israeli side? going back to lloyd henderson in breckenridge/johnson, whatever. the working officials in the state department have always been antagonistic towards israel. maybe you've had leadership, political leadership that is not, you know, appointed secretaries of state. but as far as the working people in the state department, they've always been anti-israel. so you have no credibility there. >> got it. >> i have a comment on this one too. >> please. >> no, no, you first. >> sir, you're speaking to two

people between us probably have 50 or 60 years of state department experience as these so-called anti-israel people. i'd say if that at all has historic resonance, it doesn't reflect the way the state department is today. things have changed significantly, i would argue. and, you know, so as a result, you know, yes, there may be tension right now between the prime minister's office and the white house at the highest levels, but across the broad spectrum of u.s./israel relations, there is a close and intimate working relationship here between the two countries at all levels of the relationship. so i think this kind of, if you will, facile sort of, you know, those state department arabists who hate israel so israel will never listen to us don't correlate to the reality in which we live today. >> i mean, i could create a pick decisional counterpart -- pick decisional counterpart to you that would stand up here and say that is reicely the opposite --

precisely the opposite. that over the last 30 years that state department, as well as the white house, has been consistently fundamentally and avowedly pro-israel to a degree that it basically tends to look at israeli needs requirements as the point of departure for any american policy. and i would argue that's, frankly, more correct than incorrect. so i don't think that's the case. yes. here. >> hi, my name's zack grossman, and i'm a research assistant at the eurasia center, and my question is with netanyahu coming out last week saying he's in favor on an independent kurdistan, what is your take on that? isn't it kind of ironic that he's pro-kurdistan but not so

pro-two-state solution? what's your take on that? >> well, i think the israelis have had a long-term relationship with the kurds dating back decades, not. >> just really after the dissolution, after the 2003 war anyway. and i think in recent years they obviously have built a very close, cooperative relationship with kurdistan. kurdistan looks like it's emerging as a strong region regardless. so from the israeli point of view, they see it as a strategic asset in the middle of that region. and be so it's not surprising to me that they would call for that. the problem for them that is -- [inaudible] is that they actually have a lot of common interests with other arabs who don't agree with them. >> yeah. >> i mean, look at the new egyptian government, for example, who's been cooperating militarily with the israelis. he wants to see calm across the -- the relationship is

strong. but just call this a calamity if it were to happen, kurdish independence. so i think they're going to have a lot of pushback from a lot of countries that they're trying to get close to. they've had this strategic picture of trying to get closer to sunni arabs versus the iranian influence in the region. i don't see that fitting very well because most sunni arabs are opposed to, you know, independent kurdistan. so i see it as not a particularly meaningful call and probably more problematic for israel in terms of its relationship with some arab countries than is helpful. >> i think it's also problematic for the others who are probably trying to engineer this over the long run. it's not helpful to have the israelis as one of the few middle eastern powers that have come out in favor of an independent kurdish republic in northern iraq and perhaps beyond before the kurds themselves have made that, you know, a public

goal. i think it's entirely unhelpful, frankly. >> we have an overflow room filled with at least 50 people, and there are several questions, so i'll take that, and we'll go to -- then we'll go to you, jane, okay? would there be a peace process between israel and palestine if religion was taken off the table? >> would there be a peace process? >> yeah. well, presumably, would it be any more successful than it has been if the religious component and dimension were somehow eliminated? i mean -- >> i -- >> just one of you take this. >> well, as you know, i have argued for a long time that the minute you start adopting religious language to justify conflict, the minute you're in trouble. essentially, ultimately, you're allowing the most fanatical religious groups to claim the upper hand because they will always be more, have more

legitimacy to speak in the name of religion than you will be as a nationalist. and i think the only reason why the israeli/palestinian conflict lent itself to a resolution over the years from 1948 was that it moved into a nationalist conflict in which, you know, people would be satisfied with a nation of their own on part of the territory rather than assuming some religious claims. and that is undoubtedly the case that the intrusion of religious symbols and meanings in the struggle have made it harder to resolve the conflict, undoubtedly. >> and jerusalem from the beginning. >> everything. >> jane. >> fascinating panel. aaron, you started by saying this was not a panel about the two-state solution, it was a panel about palestinian politics, so here's a palestinian political question. salam fayyad was in aspen last week. most people know he was prime minister of the palestinian authority before that finance

minister, still lives in the region, drafted a two-year plan for palestinians to earn statehood, enormously popular with the west. the rap on him before was that he didn't have a lot of street credibility, but he's obviously still interested, very, in palestinian developments. my question is, could a guy idea come back, and would -- fayyad come back and would it make a difference? >> fascinating question. these two, i'm sure, have strong views on this. >> these ideas that he has propounded and which he has enacted when he was in power are not his soul possession. they could be put into practice by others. so the concept of having accountable, responsible government that looks to meet the needs of the people as they exist today and to build the state from the bottom up as well as the top down, this can be

enacted by anybody. and so i don't want to link it specifically only to mr. fayyad, who i respect enormously. but, i mean, the ideas are sort of universal. that approach could and should be enacted, you know, immediately. and i think the international community with the thrust of a lot of what i've said today to kind of suggest that the donor community and other third parties try to promote that, exactly that kind of thinking among palestinians. i think it was a terrible pity that the space for that project was shut down in a kind of fit of not understanding at all the consequences of international policies on palestinian political life in the aftermath of the first unsuccessful and even more the second and successful u.n. bid by the palestinians. and the main consequence of that effort to kind of create a cost

for the plo, doing things diplomatically, was to constrict the ability of the p. a. to govern and, ultimately, the prime minister to stay in office and, therefore, that whole approach to proceed. but as i talk about the need to open up palestinian political space, that's what i have in mind. as i talk about lots of little projects all over the occupied territories, financed in a way that renders them nonhijackable by, let's say, the usual suspects if we may put it that way, and not only financially, but politically as well. that's exactly what i have in mind. i think that not only is there a future for that, i think there has to and will be a future for that no matter who is putting it into place. so, yes, in a very big way to all of that. >> i think what we've seen in the last few years as hussein rightly pointed out has been a real backsliding of the sort of

fayyadist approach, the bottom-up approach be, the state-building approach, and we've seen the constriction of palestinian politics of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, all sorts of things. and part of that is contributed by the sort of top-down focus. the thing about fayyad is the degree to which his popularity still adheres, though it's still hard to measure just anecdotally. sadly, his father passed away recently, and the mourning call for islam -- the morning call for islam turned into popular demonstrations in support of the approach he had adopted. that's the good news for those of us who support fayyadism. the bad news is there's no mechanism within palestinian politics to translate third party efforts given the fact that fatah is still, sort of has a lock hold on palestinian politics. that's why i've been advocating throughout my comments here kind of a real political change. elections maybe, i think is, the major vehicle but not the only

one. we've talked a lot about the need for fatah to reform since his loss in 2006. it just hasn't happened, and i think most people on the west bank are skeptical that it's ever going to happen. the good news, again, a mixed blessing. the good news is the majority of palestinians are sick of fatah as much as they're sick of hamas. both poll very poorly. the majority support for third way approaches, there's still no mechanism to translate it. maybe even contributes to why we have violence in the streets today. >> uh-huh. >> well, you know, i have a lot of respect for salam fayyad, and we all do, and he's capable and proved that and could again. but let's face it, no matter how good he is, economically and in management, the problem right now is a political problem. no one can transform be it as long as occupancy -- transform it as long as occupation comets. and that's not -- continues. and that's not something fayyad with can deliver. >> yes, on the aisle.

>> i'm -- [inaudible] news network in kurdistan. my question is similar to his question, why is there so much more international support for palestine as opposed to the kurds? is it because they are just kurdish people, they're not arabs? because they are predominantly sunni muslim as well? >> well, i'd actually challenge you on that. i think that from maybe at an emotional level you can find more people are interested in the palestinian cause precisely because of the israeli/palestinian conflict and because it's such a large international issue. but if i think grow look at the way in which the krg has been moving steadily towards kurdish independence -- and i believe, my personal opinion, unconnected from anybody else i'm connected to -- is inevitable. and i think the rubicon was crossed at least earlier this year, if not before. it's particularly inevitable

with kirkuk which is not going to change hands again, in my opinion. it's a question of when and not if. and while certainly there are a lot of players in the region that don't want it, i think that the key ones either do or will, and i think that by dint or perhaps a very good strategic sense has a willingness by those who might have opposed this movement towards kurdish independence to start to act acquiesce to it, to start to smile on it, to start to cooperate with it. whether it's in ankara, baghdad or elsewhere, i think you see that. i actually think kurds are much closer to their independence than palestinians are. and that's my view. >> just a brief comment. unrequited kurdish nationalism hay well be the largest -- may well be the largest single movement in the world.

>> yeah. >> but and here's where geography is important be, israelis and palestinians walked on the stage of history at an extraordinary place. a place that is not only resonant with symbol, but remarkably transparent. coverage of this conflict is easy. it's accessible. western media understands that, which is why it is disproportionately covered to an extreme degree given the other conflicts in this world which are far more barbaric, far more costly. three key religions, all focused and concentrated in one place, the center of the world so to speak. kurds didn't have that. >> well, i think there's also, there are a couple of things that are, you know, differences that are important in the attitude of the international community. the international community broadly has really opposed disintegration of states. and so, and in this particular case the consequences are not

just for one state precisely because you've got roughly 30 million kurds, most of them in turkey, iran, iraq, syria. there had has been an aversion o redrawing the boundaries in the international system. with the palestinians, it's a completely different conflict. you're talking about territories under occupation and not break of a state. huge difference. >> [inaudible] >> well, the boundaries are determined by what the u.n. accepts -- >> [inaudible] >> well -- >> well, generally, i mean, the international community perspective on borders is really as it is accepted and legitimized through the united nations. it's not about the history. you know, the history of every country can be questioned. nationalism is relatively new. if you looked at the, you know, pre-modern states in the middle

east, you can raise questions about the legitimacy of any of the states. but that's not the way the international community is set up. it's set up based on a club that is legit maized through u.n. resolutions that defines what boundaries are. >> it is fascinating, the question is asked in reverse, why are the kurds closer than we are? that gets to us all the time. >> that in itself is intriguing. >> yeah. >> okay. well, i vowed i would not do this, but we have one additional, final question from the be overflow room. i shouldn't do this, but i will. [laughter] you all implicitly agree that it may be too late for a two-state solution, all right? may. if that's the case, gentlemen, then what is the solution? now, just briefly, all right? close your eyes and imagine the worst.

that there cannot be a two-state solution. not one that is conflict-ending in character. what is the solution? shibley? >> well, let's differentiate what is likely to happen from what we would like to happen. if you ask -- if i were to reach the conclusion two states is impossible, i would support one state with equal citizenship. that's the moral thing to do. that is the only one i can take that's in harmony with justice. is that likely to happen? probably not. in fact, the only reason that's keeping the two-state solution alive is that a majority of israelis and a majority of palestinians think that if the two-state solution is no longer possible, don't believe there would be one state. there would be violence for years to come. and so the question then is how do you manage it from exploding. and so if you're looking at it from not a moral point of view or something that i might

advocate as an individual with moral views, but from an american foreign policy point of view, how do i manage the conflict, we're in trouble. one problem -- possible reason is annexation. that doesn't solve the problem of palestinian refugees outside, and it doesn't address a lot of the questions that palestinians would have on the west bank. that's not a prescription for stability. you're going to have violence for years to come. >> it's a proximity problem. >> yeah. >> in essence. >> first of all, i don't think it's too late. secondly, since at least

1930s, if not earlier, everyone who's looked at this rob has come to the same conclusion in one form or another which is that the only solution is partition in some form or another. third, i don't think there's such a thing as a one-state solution. there could be a one-state outcome, but that is a prescription for continued intracommunal violence at best. and so we come back to the two-state solution. one outcome or as a different approach that i could envisage is pursuing recognition of israel and palestine within the security council now so that you enshrine the idea of two states between us rail and -- israel and palestine, but that's a diplomatic answer. the short answer is i just don't think there's such a thing as a one-state solution. >> yeah, i agree with that. there are two outcomes. it's not a smorgasbord of fascinating choices we have here. we can have a workable solution, and there is only one for the

reasons that have just been outlined. a two-state solution would meet the minimum needs of both parties, and i think it could be, it can it can be done. it can be done in theory. i mean, the big problem is can it be done between two parties of this degree of -- [inaudible] power. is it possible for palestinians to extract the concessions from the israelis that would make it possible for israeli political leaders to make those concessions and force them and take the political cost? that's the question. but the other outcomes are all only that, they're outcomes, and they all involve further conflict. so there's one solution versus a whole series of problems and, therefore, it's not dead. >> yeah. i'll end on an uplifting note by saying if, like rock and roll, the peace process will never die -- [laughter] and by the end of this administration, there will be another serious effort in a changed environment. and because on the israeli side the history of peacemaking is the history of transformed

hawks, i think there may well be an opportunity for an outcome, perhaps on the road to a two-state solution that's certainly better than the one we see right now. please join me this thanking our terrific panel -- in thanking our terrific panel, and thank you all of you for coming. [applause] >> the u.s. senate is about to meet on this tuesday. c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span be, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow be us on twitter. the u.s. senate is about to meet on this tuesday morning. senators are going to begin the

day with general speeches, and in about an hour will turn to debate on a bill to expand hunting and fishing on federal lands. amendment negotiations are underway off the floor. no votes have been scheduled in the senate so far. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. be exalted, o god, above the highest heavens, for we look to you each day for our protection and peace.