it's like a plane that is on the runway. it takes off either successfully or it crashes. why is that so? if a woman presents with windows possible is, the doctors are there, the government has built a nice all our. the doctors there, the nurses are there. the medicines are there. but there's no anesthesia. we introduced delay and have to take it to another hospital. and along the way we lose her, we lose the baby. so that's why in our program we did an analysis. there is a huge gap in rural africa. you see people telling you that the human, there's a huge problem in africa. the way you break it down, --

[inaudible] there's only one that can administer anesthesia. so we developed a program from the ge foundation and with collaboration with the u.s. university, university intensity, to train doctors to be able to administer anesthesia. and we hope that this program can increase the number of health workers that can administer anesthesia to solve that problem in most of the rural places. just this week, the same problem, just going back to the republic of south sudan, having completed that training in kenya. and you might wonder what is that? it sounds like such a small number are believe it or not the country has only three for the 10 million people before this program started. so it's a huge increase based on what they had before.

but then there's another big problem that we face in the hospitals, whether it's from the government, for the technologies that i introduce there are whether they're coming in -- more than two years. they break down so frequently, that power syste systems that w. the health workers don't know how to use them. they're probably not very well designed for most places. so we also are supporting biomedical training program that looks at the local people that can be empowered to really learn how to use most of the medical equipment within their local area. so that we gain more from the. just so you see the variation. typically the medical equipment, new and come into public facility, will work for two years. trouble-free. in a private facility, seven

years. we want to fill the gap. >> that's faceting and very important point you make about understand the environment you're working in. deborah, let me bring you into this critical juncture. we know the research. we know the impact these partnerships can have. for women and the advancement of the health and livelihood. what is ge doing in this space of health and agriculture? talk to me about that and what -- >> sure. thanks, tricky. i think bernard has laid out the problem. let me talk to you for a second, and for the first ladies in particular and the first spouses about how we think about the solution because that may help the friend as you think about your platform. so the problem is lack of anesthesia or someone to administer it. the problem is lack of someone to maintain the equipment. from a ge standpoint we have been on the continent of africa for many, many years. but the more recent bush has truly been a journey of

diversity and inclusion because of the african-american employee group, our own employees who focused on the promise of africa, focus on the prosperity and the opportunity in africa to look at addressing some of these issues. the question asked around the company was what do we do that will make a difference with what can we do that will have impact? so our goal as we joined africa from a philanthropic standpoinstandpoin t was three for. out of we have capacity building, capacity building is there. hyperlocal is impact and how can we have sustainable health for sustainable outcomes? so the two programs bernarda talks about we have funded. we think basically allowing people on the continent to learn how to operate the machines, to learn how to repair the machine really helps to develop skills and helps to keep them running more effectively without registered the anesthesia issue

you heard about issued. we funded a program. we just graduates first class of 10 african students will go out to their home country and be able to administer anesthesia. you can have a great surgery. if the surgery is great but the anesthesia is wrong, you are going to lose the child, and lose the mom. that's huge. that's what we called, not a huge, huge, huge dollar commitment to get something you can do. it has taken a lot of people but it's significant. >> my final question to you both, bernard, you pick it up first. is what can these first spouses due to promote child health in their respective countries? we talked about, my previous question to you, i think about effectiveness. talk to me about sustainability. so if you can talk about how first spouses can promote the issue but also be part of sustainable programs. >> thank you. i think this story about the

child tends to be hidden among the whole general statistics of the country. so what the first ladies could do is to tease out the problem that we've just identified and bring them to the front. i think the solutions are there. we have not really brought them to their to help these people. so if we can start talking about these areas where we are not making progress in putting together the local part is, international partners, the foundations, to develop stimuli and initiatives, then i see progress and they can be progress which we can achieve in a very short time. so advocacy for this initiative i think would be a big help for the agenda. >> i agree and i think it doesn't have to be perfect. you can highlight, pilot summer, try it, see what works, learn from it, tweak it, expand, try

it again, don't be afraid to lose your voice. i guess i was a as i think about it, it's got to be about capacity but it's got to be about sustainability. it's got to be about using some the things that we have done. ge estimate over the last 10 years over $120 million on the continent of africa. largely focus on millennial goals four and five, women's health, maternal health. we just committed an additional 20 million this week because we think this is important we think it makes sense and we think it's something that can scale. i guess if i were to close, agree with that bernard said and to make a civil, i think most of us, bernard is the man on the benefit of the most of us have heard the saying if you give a man a fish, he can feed his family. if you teach him to fish, et cetera how saw change that today for our purposes. if you give a woman a fish, she can feed her family. if you teach a woman to fish,

she can feed her village. but if you inspire her, empower, the clipper, expand your capacity to fish, she will feed the world. [applause] >> wonderfully said. i will add some close remarks. and first of all thank you to all of you for such great insight and being specific about what is working, what isn't working, and just speaking directly to the first spouses about how they can put a role. and i think of are shocked by what you said, deborah, about it doesn't have to be perfect. you can tweak it but you have to get involved. you got to get involved and the solutions are there to pick up on what bernard said. the solutions are there, but also what i think what from what all of you said is also the using local talent, by using the people on the ground.

we have the talent on the continent. where the people on the ground. it's about giving them that capacity. it's about them. toxic shock by that but another thing i want to leverage is the point you made, a good public private partnership is not just about the perks. it goes beyond that. it goes way beyond that. it goes to true engagement and it also comes down to truly understanding the space you are operating in so that you do make wise decisions and that you do engage the people that you're trying to help. mutually beneficial for everyone is also what cables out that it was for both sides but i think there's a lot for you to take away and think about. and i think that hopefully we have inspired you to get involved, no matter how small. because again, going to close with deb line. it is have to be perfect reject to get involved, never multiply together very special platform and engaging with the private sector and varies other groups, organizations can really make a

huge difference on the ground. my thanks to the benefit to been fantastic. my thanks to you. that brings it to a close. i just want to say thank you for sharing this important conversation with us. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, please now welcome ms. maggie said, vice president of international corporate affairs at wal-mart. [applause] >> hello. thank you. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. at the honor to be among so many leaders that are making a difference across the african continent. i'll start with a statistic that assembly or to you.

it's been mentioned today already, and it bears repeating because it's so important to the context of today's event. more than 130 people live in poverty worldwide, of which 70% are women -- 130 million people. the wal-mart foundation pledged $100 million to further develop our women's economic empowerment initiative. initiative aims to improve the lives of women around the world through work in three key areas. sourcing, training, and diversity and inclusion. for wal-mart, empowering women isn't just about being the right thing to do. it's also smart business. the majority of our 200 million customers are women, and women control $20 trillion worth of annual consumer spending globally. add to this fact that women in

emerging markets invest 90% of the income back to families and kennedys, and it's clear why empowering women economically builds stronger communities and helps us better understand and serve our customers. one area of wal-mart economic department initiative that's relevant for many of you in this room today is our focus on women farmers in africa. last year we accelerated the pace of training for farmers by partnering with leading ngos and organizations like usaid. in uganda come we funded a project that will reach 33,000 women a vegetable growers through a partnership with mercy corps. and by leveraging the gates foundation project with the world cocoa foundation, we are reaching 50,000 women farmers in cameroon, ghana, ivory coast and nigeria. outside of farming were helping african women succeed in the workplace that demands new digital skills. our e-commerce business links

up to train 10,000 women in kenya, in uganda, digital skills i will increase their ability to compete in a global economy. none of this would be possible as in collaboration with ngos on the ground. we know that doing this together is the best way. today i'd like to share with you a further commitment to workers in africa. i'm pleased to announce that wal-mart and wal-mart foundation will fund training for 135,000 farmers, 80,000 of which you are women, in africa by 2016. [applause] thank you. we will work in march with the u.s. aid a leading ngos to deliver three projects. first, the wal-mart foundation, funding and will help support the expansion of u.s. aid program in rwanda to provide training to 50,000 farmers on

agricultural techniques. trade and the production of corn, beans, dairy farming and other crops. second, in zambia, the wal-mart foundation fund will support the expansion of women's improved marketing and asset control to reach 45,000 farmers. we empower women farmers by building skills and leadership in agriculture. through training and approve production and post harvest practices, by helping link them to suppliers, buyers, and service providers, and through training and business fundamentals. and, finally, wal-mart foundation support the expansion of the one acre fund, programmed in kenya to upscale 40,000 farmers. the fund will enable these canyons, farmers to improve agricultural practices and increase market access, and it is expected to double farm incomes in one planting season. the farmers will receive high

quality farm inputs such as seed and fertilizer, and credit and post harvest support allowing them to more fully and fairly compete in the rural agricultural value chain. and they will receive appropriate prices for their surplus produce which will save lives. through these grants we continue to express wal-mart's commitment to africa and to empowering africa's women. so to our partners, thank you for your collaboration of your guidance and your support. wal-mart is excited and hopeful about the difference we can make. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please now welcome ms. michelle sullivan, president of caterpillar foundation, global director of corporate social innovation. [applause [applause]

>> thank you, everyone. i'd also like to thank the first lady michelle obama and laura bush and president bush and all the first ladies of africa. thank you so much. it's an honor to be here. and id represent the caterpillar foundation and caterpillar and all of our employees around the world. our mission is to alleviate poverty by investing in those yield the best results. and that is girls and women and we learned a lot about that these last few days. we also believe that the perfect partnership is when you can mix and collaborate with private, the government and ngos to bring the holistic approach to an issue like poverty. and we know that we can't alleviate poverty ourselves. so we are very happy to announce our partnership with the state department for $1 million to open the first ever african center for women's entrepreneurship through the

implementing partner of startup cop. with the entrepreneurial centers can it's going to give these women the entrepreneurial tools and resources, leadership and mentorship that they need to create and grow their businesses. and as their businesses and grow their economies are going to grow. and, of course, that's going to impact the country and the continent. so we truly believe in the women, we believe that collaboration is the way to go. we couldn't do it without the state department and we're thrilled with that partnership. and so when you think about lifting of the continent, together we can do it for her. and we believe we can get her stronger. so we believe in the continent. we will be there to support them and we're very excited with the partnership, with the state department. so thank you. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please now welcome heather higginbotham, debbie suggested for management and resources, and jayme cooper, funder, the children's investor fund a foundation. >> good afternoon -- [applause] >> today i am very pleased to announce a full new partnership that will save hundreds of thousands of children living with hiv/aids. last year 3.2 and children under the age of 15 were living with hiv/aids globally. 91% of them were in sub-saharan africa. and yet only 24% of these children were receiving life-saving antiretroviral therapy. this must change. without treatment, half of all children live with hiv will die before their second birthday, and 80% will die before their fifth birthday.

that's why the u.s. president's emergency plan for aids relief, begun by president george w. bush, and partnership with the children's investment fund foundation, is launching the exhilarating children's hiv/aids treatment initiative. we will double the total number of children receiving life-saving antiretroviral therapy in 10 prior to african countries over the next two years. together, pepfar will invest $209 in action one at $59 in pepfar and $50 million. disinvest it will enable 300,000 more children living with hiv to receive treatment over the next two years. act is the right thing to do. it will save children's lives. and it is also the smart thing to do because healthy children can pursue their dreams are africa's future. they will help grow economies, create jobs, and contribute to

the families and communities for decades to come. and act will continue to realizing president obama and secretary kerry's vision for achieving an aids-free generation. pepfar are extreme proud to take this bold step together. we very much hope that other partners including many of you in this room will join us in the fight to make pediatric aids history, and invest in the next generation. [applause] >> thank you, heather. i am truly honored to be here with you today. it has been almost a decade since the children's investment fund foundation began its campaign to make antiretrovirals treatments available globally to hiv-positive children. at that time there were fewer than 10,000 children on treatment outside the u.s., europe, and brazil. the cost of treatment could be as much as $1500 per child per

year. and we have little knowledge of what treatment would mean in terms of life expectancy and life quality. today, over a half million children are on treatment in africa. the drugs now cost as little as $100 to keep a child alive for a year. and we now know that once on treatment, children can lead full and revitalize -- vital lies. we also believe we are in reach of eliminating transmission of hiv/aids her mother to child. we have come a long, long way, and while this is great progress, we still have more to do. because we are only reaching a quarter of children who need treatment.

adolescent children are also the only democratic where the prevalence of aids deaths is increasing. we are incredibly proud to be partnering with pepfar, the u.s. government and african governments today in this initiative. we are committing to double, close to double within two years the number of children reached with life-saving treatment. and i implore you, not only in your role as first lady's, but as a mother to mother, to join us. because we don't only need to reach children in 10 countries, we can reach children to cross the continent if we work together. let's help our babies thrive. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please now welcome back margaret

spellings followed by very special musical performance. >> what a day. what a trifecta and we're about to have a fabulous closing act as well. thank you all again for being here. and i think it's appropriate before we close to pols and reflect on the amazing work of the partnership today. just with today's announcement we heard over $200 million of support for programs that help in education, health, economic opportunities for more than 1 million african citizens across the continent. as well as new partnerships with ink ribbon red ribbon. really a tremendous aggregation of punishments and work. we have made so much progress and the first ladies convene together last year in tanzania attack i was telling tina, somebody asked me if this is an annual event -- >> we are not making news here with that.

>> but anyway, what is an annual event is the work we will do together and a weekly event. thank you very much to our generous sponsors, exxon mobil, bank of america, the ford foundation, ge, convoy of hope, dowagrosciences, and intel. thank you all for being here. we are thrilled to be partnering with you. we commend this inspiring day for your consideration, and look forward to working with you. >> thank you, mark a. i want to once again really, thank you. [applause] >> i want to really once again thank our wonderful african first ladies. you are the reason we got this altogether. and put this all together and it was a great opportunity for us all to come together. i didn't across public and private sectors, governments, foundations, experts, to really consider the issues that are of great importance that we share.

one of the things that mrs. obama freak we talked about is how our stories here resonate across continents, across oceans come across borders and boundaries. i think we saw that today and it was just inspiring. especially noting the young people that we saw both in the videos which we saw, and our two wonderful young african leaders initiative fellows from the mandella fellowship. who so courageously told their stories and their experiences which just for myself i was the only redoubled my personal commitment to making sure that we can follow through on their tremendous possibilities and promises in front of us of the incredible progress that has been made, that's damaged by the commitments that margaret just laid out. what we have here a think as the president has been talking about throughout this summit is an opportunity here in africa, as

africa rises. a moment in time where if we all read double our efforts together, that we can really see a tremendous growth, tremendous opportunity for all the children, tremendous growth in our girls in particular. we as the executive director of the white house counsel women and girls in addition to my chief of staff for the first lady role, i am particularly personally passionate about what we can do and what the world will then see when we unleash the true potential and the true talent of women and girls around the globe. i want to really once again thank the bush institute, to market, to charity, to mrs. bush's entire team. this is not possible without this partnership, between the two of us. and we are ever so grateful for their leadership in africa, for their great work with us on this

but i also want to give a final shot up to the kennedy center which is such an incredible building, and was just perfect for our venue tonight. and it looks like i think we are just about ready. as you can tell i've been talking to make sure. get our band set a. on them are thankful that you all are in for a treat, for staying here. because one of the things we really did want to close out after of the soul children of chicago after all the great energy we had about live a richer last not it's been a great musical week as well. is mrs. obama and mrs. bush wanted to be able to close out our session here with that same kind of energy and excitement. and -- just about ready and we are. right. so it is my great pleasure and really we are so delighted that

i can introduce to you sooner, songwriter, anthony hamilton. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪. ..

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ one. ♪ and be. ♪ and. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ and. ♪ ♪ nine. ♪ ♪ >> thank you. [applause] ♪

>> thank you. my name is anthony hamilton. thank-you all for inviting me. women, spouses doormat in the time it is involved that is important. that is right. and we know that. reflect on it all. a lot of times we do things for love or like a lot. a peaceful house. but it is a beautiful song. i hope you guys enjoy it. we are actually on our way to africa tuesday to a johannesburg. we go a lot. it is a beautiful place. [applause] namibia, my first time there. carry-on. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ and. ♪ ♪ and. ♪ and non. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ the book tv. ♪ ♪ book tv. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> also old school with little

news cool. >> coming up this afternoon in just under an hour president obama will be wrapping up the three day u.s. africa summit with a closing news conference scheduled for 5:00 p.m. eastern time to every will have that live on our companion network. on our facebook page today we have been asking you whether you think private u.s. investment in africa is better than government aid. brian wright says stop investing in other countries. someone needs to take the car keys to the country away from president obama. michele posts, i don't think age should ever be on the table. economic and political partnership public and private debt the answer. share your thoughts and join the conversation had facebook stuff com / c-span. members of congress are on their five week summer recess. some are active on twitter. we mourn the loss of major general harold greene. upstate new york native who served our country bravely and may do you're proud.

killed yesterday during the attack in afghanistan. congressman kevin yoder of kansas tweed's enjoyed speaking with fellow rotarians at rotary club of shawnee mission, kan. today. forty-nine years ago today, the voting rights act was signed into law. president johnson gave me one of the pen see used. in prime time on c-span tonight part of the nation's annual conference with discussion on income inequality, gay-rights, and sexual assault. also a look on campaign finance and the super -- super pac "ready for hillary" >> one of the things that is unique about this organization is we are not so -- it would be presumptuous to think that "ready for hillary" could dictate what hillary sentence message will be. this is not a campaign that is focused on building grass-roots army in building grass-roots

infrastructure. for every time that hillary goes out and gives a speech about her recent things that have happened in voter suppression we are accurate -- echoing that. giving people opportunities to really join the efforts that she is promoting. really using her as a force of personality. a lot of what you see as things that we have done a lot of testing on and that people respond to. she is an inspiring figure. >> wants more from this year's annual conference tonight on c-span beginning at 8:00 eastern. meanwhile tonight here on c-span2 watched book tv in prime time with a focus on marijuana beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

dispatches from the front lines of the next era of revolution. angela auction on her book. >> well, good afternoon, everyone. i am the director of the center

for middle east policy at brookings. i would like to thank you for joining us, particularly those of you who have proved willing to stand. and i am glad you are all here. we are gathering on a day that offers the first small glimmer of hope that the current round about idea after several per your beliefs. there are a lot of factors that one could point to in explaining how we got here, why the conflict, this round of conflict erupted when it did. there are now of proximate causes, broader structural causes underlying all of these is an unresolved conflict between israelis and palestinians. that means that however this round and is there is a larger question that we need to delve into about where things go from here.

questioning are setting aside its previously @booktv clear support. what kind of future it wants for its people and its relationship. for palestinians and the palestinian leaders there are questions as well. the palestinian leaders that was shunted aside as this violent conflict began central to the cease-fire. what alternative it can offer. question is for governments in the region where divisions within the arab world help to contribute to the confrontation

and to the bill leg. so they face the question of whether resolving the palestinian issue is a priority or whether it is this longstanding conflict that has now become just another iran between contending regional actors. and i think there are questions here for the united states as well. the essential mediator in israeli affairs, but diplomacy has been roundly criticized. its advice to the closest partner and ally met with the new york times termed this morning dismissal. so the question of whether a bilateral israeli-palestinian negotiations mediated by the estate's driving toward a two-stage solution, whether that is the best thing to resolve this long standing in terrible

conflict. now, those of you may speak on this topic. for a long time the primary obstacles lie in the domestic politics of the two sides. i think there is no doubt that where we sit today after four weeks of violence, there has been a rallying around the fly on both sides. to some extent we have seen harder line voices strengthen over this time. but i would see that as a temporary development. the question is what happens after that? so we are at a moment where i think we can hope that each of the parties involved in this conflict and interested in this conflict will engage in some self criticism and some internal reflection. and as i was preparing for our even today i thought this is a fitting during to talk about that because today on the jewish

calendar. the destruction of the temple in jerusalem and it's a day when they read the book which is of critical. he's somewhat hopeful on the destruction of the temple. so perhaps with that as a bed of a backdrop we can tell that to some of these questions that need to be answered about where we go from here, questions that we hope leaders on all sides will be asking themselves. i am delighted to be joined by an kaythree and terrific to be part of this conversation. of course vice president for foreign policy at brookings. my colleague in the center for middle east policy.

another fantastic colleague in the center for middle east policy. and all of these gentlemen have been during some great work throughout the last month talking in the media, very perceptive analyses and foreign affairs of foreign policy on our website helping us all understand the crisis as it unfolded. thank you for being here and let me begin with a look at the united states. going back to this article in the new york times this morning saying that israel dismissed american diplomacy during the concept and suggesting that u.s.-israel relations are under unprecedented strain. now, the article points out, to be fair, that there have been previous instances and significant tension between israeli prime ministers and u.s. presidents of both parties. how does this current time rank? is this truly an unprecedented

times during? what does it mean. >> thank you thank you very much for coming out sorry that we are not in the auditorium. they are renovating at the moment. i am happy to be back home. grateful for the opportunity to speak today the circumstances could not be perfect after a 12 month in jensenism by the united states. secretary of state which i was involved in, of course, to try to get peace which when israelis and palestinians. the whole thing blow up again

and again, you know, another round of chronic and terrific violence will profoundly depressing and it is precisely depressing because the secretary of state has offered zero warning time and time again that the status quo was unsustainable . and yet again we saw how it exploded. and yet even though the status quo is obviously unsustainable, we are heading right back to the status quo. that makes the nature more depressing. you asked about the new york times story. the u.s.-israeli relationship as

manifest in this crisis. as with the story itself pointed out, the one hand language used, the united states on the record criticizing his room. and israeli governments, the israeli press with a vitriolic language of the united states to achieve a cease-fire. also, i think, attacking the israeli press secretary so on the one side as the article pointed out, the president signs a bill.

security assistance to his traditional capabilities. >> singing each other's presence so take your pick. i go back to 1982. when i first came to washington another round of conflict in which the defense minister was prosecuting a war in lebanon. injured and killed months like we have seen in the last couple of weeks. ronald reagan got very upset and used some very harsh words.

in a sense, we have seen this movie before. so i'll each time the relationship survives, moves on. and that is partly because it has deep roots and they're is a strong popular support for his role. i am sure it has been damaged to some extent. probably will rebound. in a sense, but i do think there is something else going on here that i also felt in the negotiating arm. and that is that israel today is a different country to what it was back in 1982. and for most of its history. today it is strong economically, strong militarily and has a range of relationships across the world with other powers

beyond the united states. and those of the powers of china , israel. unprecedented. a testament not just to different politics of the prime minister but also the strategic relationship being built. but china and india and countries in southeast asia, and eastern europe and russia. the extension or the absence in the united nations general assembly condemning the takeover of chromium by russia was something that was a really

raising eyebrows in washington. he never experienced that before. >> they don't need us anymore. >> i am not saying that. what i am saying is that they feel more independent of the united states than they have in the past four that they can stand on there own 2 feet. and a pointer was trying to get to is that they also feel that they had relationships with the arab world that than ever before been in that manifested itself very clearly in no way that israel and egypt seem to have a common interest in taking how moscow backed by saudi arabia and the other gulf states with the exception of gosar. end the monarchs. to some extent the palestinian

authority which has long been a rival. so, this interesting kind ever arrived with interest that israel feels it was able to play on in this crisis of conflict in a way that it has not. so i think that there is something a bit more structural in nature, shifting if you like and the relationship. it is too early to say what it will actually mean, but i do think it is involved in this crisis. >> israel and egypt together could essentially say at the beginning of this conflict three or four weeks ago, okay, we don't want the u.s. to be the architect of the cease-fire arrangement. york and ourselves. does that say something broader about the traditional american

roles and the piece process? >> i think it is possible, but it is a little early to say. certainly how up until now any arab leader who sought to make peace with looked to washington. and they looked to washington to , in effect, the liver is real , deliver concessions from. starting with on marce a dot in the 1973 world famously said the united states gives israel everything from a loaf of bread to a phantom jet. therefore i am going to washington. kicked up the soviet union and turned to washington. that was the best example and the most important because some that certainly has been the view of the palestinian leaders starting with our mind.

so they do think that he reached the point during the negotiations were ian? about whether we could deliver the kinds of concessions he was looking for to achieve a 2-state solution. and, indeed, you saw it in the conditions that he said for extending the negotiations by another five months. he insisted, not just on the release of the fourth prisoners, but also on a construction-free -- construction freeze and the west bank and jerusalem. and the construction fee, which is something that is impossible for this israeli government to do, i think he said it was a test of the government and test of the united states government. if we cannot deliver that, you know, then out are we going to

deliver what he needs on jerusalem or the end of the occupation or the evacuation of settlements and so on. so i do think that the length of time that it has taken since the parameters of 2000 now 14 years later or 20 years from the beginning, the failure to achieve and breakthrough, which we have been responsible for ever since bill clinton stood there at the white house lawn with his arms symbolically, i do believe that has been affected. >> not only on the israeli side of the palestinian side and on the broader outlook as well. and finally with that let me turn to you. many of the critics of secretary

-- secretary carries initial attempt at a cease-fire says that the danger is that it would have been violent in its rejection of israel. the recognized interlocutor for israeli negotiations and to has embraced the to-state solution. now, clearly the delayed in getting to a cease-fire, but this delay has come at a terrific human cost. now, as it successfully avoided a situation whereby the moss is empowered at the expense of the plo? what is a cease-fire if they get to terms on a lasting cease-fire , what to those terms need to include in order to insure that a boss remains a central player for palestinians in any future negotiations?

>> as to your first question i would say no. the simple answer is no. basically because i think the fundamental calculation, this is not -- palestinians make -- draw conclusions on an entirely different set of factors. that may come as a shock to a lot of people. i think this is a very washingtonian and is really sort of calculation that somehow the longer the war goes on it will weaken the moss and strengthen. the third such conflict and the last six years. each and every time the longer

it goes on. it is not about military victories. it is about casualties. it is about the two programs reliant, security coordination, committed to peaceful resolutions of the conflict. and so what that has gotten him is largely ignored. how moss on the other hand, suicide bombings and other forms of violence, what that has gone them actually is attention. and it has produced some results i mean, the prisoner exchange issue is a notable example where there were a thousand prisoners. we all know the failure to release the last batch of prisoners in the latest negotiation has led to the collapse of that process.

so i think there is a real sense among palestinians that hamas, as painful as it is, it produces more results. that is true, i think even more so in this conflict because it is not coming on the heels of the failed negotiations and because we have been down this road so many times before. what we have actually seen is that they have moved closer to rather than the other way around . so in previous conflicts i think he was reluctant to -- of course he cannot side with israel against another group of palestinians, but he was reluctant to openly embrace. this time around the plo, the pta, the entire palestinian group has openly and i think enthusiastically embraced hamas

and the resistance. >> this is also in the context of a reconciliation agreement that has not been reached a month or two prior. >> right. this was a real test for the reconciliation agreement. that ankle was barely dry when this conflict started. so it could easily have but it did not it actually worked in the opposite direction consolidating the palestinian unity. and as far as the -- i think this cuts to a sort of underlying, you know, one of the key assumptions of u.s. and israeli policy that has been a real failure the last eight years, to the extent that the u.s. has had a policy over the last eight years on gaza which i don't think it pass. but we have been pursuing the policy of separating gaza from the west bank, keeping palestinians divided, play this

guy off of that guy. this is not really what diplomacy is made of. frankly, this is out colonials operates, not how diplomacy works cannot help peacemaking marks. you make peace with a group carries it is. palestinians as such. the notion that we could make peace with one group of palestinians and support war against another was never going to work. that has now played itself out. it was either going to draw into the piece camp our time into the position. >> this reconciliation agreement as to some extent on its back feet joining but in a much weaker position. so where do that to sit today? what is the power differential today?

three. >> i think they went into this reconciliation agreement very much as a junior partner which is on like where we were two years ago. they went in. they come out of this very much as an equal partner. and and i think one of the positives, probably the only positive to come out of this is the consolidation of palestinian unity. in fact, you have a unified palestinian group negotiating in cairo as a practical matter, not simply a matter of show or expedia c. it is a practical matter. hamas needs as much. i think they understand that there is no chance for them to open the border without a role for the palestinian authority command at the same time the palestinian authority has been desperately looking for role.

and he has been trying to reassure his relevance. so there is a win-win situation in terms of the relevance of both sides. i think the position now is very firmly embedded into the palestinian landscape. a month ago it was not. it was much more precarious. but now there -- you have this broader palestinian safety net that has cushioned it in a way. >> okay. perhaps that presents an opportunity for later negotiations if labor negotiations are an option. and with that, i think we should probably take a look at the israeli side of the situation as well. i think if we look at the israeli position three weeks ago and away the cease-fire came about, it seems as though the israeli government that everything that is said it

wanted, and opportunity to go in and destroy the tunnel now works on the ground. it got and degradation of the hamas weapons capability. now it was able to withdraw ground forces and get a cease-fire without preconditions . so a couple of questions. first, you know, within the israeli debate we saw and surgeons support for the government. is there any questioning in israel today about whether the gains were worth of those additional three weeks of conflict and the lives lost and the international censure and everything else that came along with it. and how do you expect to this experience to shape the political dynamics, particularly for this israeli government going for?

>> well, the israeli position going in from the start was to avoid the conflict. really very eager to avoid the conflict. even the simple one in the gaza strip. so the first move just as we did and to try and reach some kind before there was an official name. the early operation. it looked a lot more like 2012. of the third, another offered by the egyptians. then it became much more similar to 2008. so all of these confrontations. the israeli public in the political scene, basically the same. a warrant that is a very

difficult dilemma. what do you do with this territory? certainly the center of israel. makes no qualms about its position about his role, u.s. peace. put on the best face so the position is clear. what do you do with that kind of territory? you have a political cause a military organization effectively ruling and waging war from it. and those are three very bad options. one is to be taken over completely. debate, there is. going much further. he suffered politically. not even bringing in their

reservists. and so can we finish the job? and her wrote kindle lot is just then criticizing of this. that kind of argument. the second possibility perhaps is to just let hamas rearm trend of the best. given their experience the chance of that happening is no. the extent to makes it much less likely tsk. the third option, the reality where we see small things, inadvertently perhaps causing this huge propagation.

so there were many in the israeli political system who liked netanyahu said take down hamas. this is our chance to do it. prime minister. brokerage chance. the beginning as well and notably the minister of education. but the people really in charge, most of the members of the small security cabinet which is legally the commander in chief, the security cabinet and the special minister, very hawkish on these issues, but very hawkish. compared to this government on these issues, but this is part

dividend their position was not. on the one hand, i very heavy hand it thing in terms of confronting and, of course, the horrific human cost that we are seeing. but on the other hand, also an honor a willingness to go completely and try and change the reality from the ground. i think there is one silver lining. we have seen a dramatic shift, a small shift, but it is quite important. on the role. the israelis have seen the palestinian authority has quite reliable. and now people are talking about bringing enforcement which would allow the egyptians to allow the opening of the gaza strip.

and it would give a victory to egypt, mutual position, the aged is well-positioned in this regard. backing down somewhat from a very staunch israeli position. of course even just today or yesterday the prime minister of criticizing this ibm. we cannot trust. today we saw the israeli public was split down the middle. 45 percent for success. it's quite high. israeli position, being very cautious. not going after the exchange right away. the flip side of that on the critical site, and a sense the tunnels were not the goal.

yet they wanted a cease-fire. they tried to get one before. and the towels were not the main goal. this assistance and. it's conditions were met. but from the israeli perspective they were wrong. very cautious. they were also suggesting something wrong about how they approach this whole thing. that is a dramatic change in position and will really draft along. >> and i think your description of how the government viewed this longstanding standoff with hamas and the dilemma reinforces the point about really seeing this as two separate problems.

two separate problems. as net matter now rediscovered? >> that is the latest. rediscovered in the small sense. it is taking care of the border. but throughout this conflict even when we saw a conflict in jerusalem we saw a conflict there. they have taken responsibility. a dramatic moment. backup forces. and throughout he noted that the forces that remain a peaceful one, not getting involved. and so in that regard yes. has it changed dramatically, no. but it has reinforced to very strong pangs. the first is the feeling that they cannot win.

the fundamental question that they ask, of very famous author and very, very famous vocal voice he posed this question, what would you do. if there was a firing of rockets and put it in terms. someone holding a baby on his last. and this is very strong, especially given credit is gaza. i moss on the other side. secondly, from the israeli perspective. so the perception of gaza was central. may weaken this associations, but it very much strengthened the israeli view of what happened unilaterally and be in the west bank. but also, these are very

germanic. the hardening of positions has been a very dramatic. has been a very strong consensus. they shut down the sewer are not supporting the troops. >> and as you do, i would like you to respond to this idea that the united states has treated the west bank and gaza as two distinct issues. >> advocating plan being witches unilateral withdrawal. but it makes a charter for plan a. before the latest round in gaza had already begun to articulate

a position that the fear of gaza and the west bank into israel proper meant that israel would have said take the israeli defense forces in the west bank, not just on the jordan river but in the west bank for a long time. that position articulated before, articulated during, correct me if i am wrong, but i think that resonates a lot as a result of this conflict with the israeli public. and the whole conflict, the two-stage solution which requires an end to israeli occupation and the west bank, the actual withdrawal of the idea. if that becomes really questionable. if the prime minister is saying we have to stay there for a long

time, he says 30 years, it used to be during negotiations. now he says as well so into the occupation. and that is a big question. the minds of those palestinians who have justified security coordination with his round on the basis that there will eventually be an occupation, not in 30 years but five years. that becomes justification. that is not the case. the israeli view now, for 30 years which is the equivalent to forever, that puts another nail into the coffin of the solution. and those like me have always

managed to look. >> that is a diplomatic term of art. >> you know, that hope of that israelis will now see his much better. because of the way that he behaved during kidnapping crisis and the way that hamas has behaved since so that maybe they will be supporting israel to help and eventually take control of gaza which would unite the palestinians. the basis for resuming negotiations. it just seems to me that the right wing in israel is now going after hamas four recent. that is why they have come out

against him. i think also they came out against doing anything because than they can sense it. to build up means to strengthen the andean of a two-stage solution. >> it is very true. we should remember that this is the gut reaction but even among them there is a big difference. keno better than nine. it is true. i am not sure necessarily has longstanding as the lessons that the israelis have learned. >> okay. so it might be more dynamic.

>> sell there. i want to get your thoughts on this and also on the idea. there is something he wants and needs. he was a policeman and a border guard basically which are precisely the role that have generated. but how does this calculate for him? >> i don't think it plays out very well for him. in fact going to remain his role i think we have to make a distinction between the expense which is a failed policy. that has been the policy of the last few years and as stilled the israeli approach. that sort of a zero sum, i think, is just a few job and self-defeating. the other way to do it is to empower by including under his umbrella, the umbrella of the plo to have a share and

empowerment to have a stake in the political process so that it is less inclined to torpedo it all of this points to another, i think, fundamental failure in u.s. policy which is on the enough very much on like the previous administrations may we have an administration that is focused almost exclusively on conflict resolution, negotiation . that is it. to it that total neglect of any sense of conflict management see and any real viable peace process has to have both. george w. bush gets criticized for doing too much conflict management and not enough conflict resolution. think that we can criticize this of ministration for focusing exclusively on conflict resolution and ignoring conflict management so that, you know, and part of that disconnect

relates to gaza. the policy. we just have to wait for that conflict to play itself out. obviously squirrel lot of people in washington say it was only 1800. they see it as 1800 of their brothers and sisters who were killed. in that think this raises another issue. i think in terms of how israel conducts warfare, the whole -- if we come out of this with anything other than why it is important to avoid these kinds of violent confrontations in the first place, when they do start a think there has to be rules of the game. the notion that israel military doctrine of an overwhelming disproportionate force many ted really considered that. i don't think this is a legitimate way to conduct a

military amerasian by deliberately inflicting as much pain on the other side. after all, that is a central tenet of the doctrine, to be disproportionate. and they're is a reason that proportionality is a basic principle and international humanitarian law. so when you have something that flies in the face of that and to see the kind of death and destruction that you have in gaza strip, you know, out of all the threat, this has real consequences, human consequences , moral consequences , political consequences. clearly he is not going to be in a hurry to embrace any israeli leaders or even to do his security bidding, is real security bidding in the west bank. it makes his position much more precarious, but there are also

security ramifications. when you have that much human misery -- and gaza was not happy place to begin with. but you throw on top of that, you know, 400 children were killed. 10,000 destroyed. 400,000 displaced. it is just really outrageous. and this is where american leaders come in. and, you know, there was once upon a time something called a road map. and the logic of the road map, not that i am a huge fan of that particular document, but it had a certain logic in terms of conflict resolution. when there is death on one side it embitters that side and makes them want to inflict death upon the other side. and that is just, i think a basic common sense. the notion that you can have a deterrent for his room and that somehow palestinians will just be deterred, go idly into the

night, israeli just not a sound idea. we need to think about how to prevent these conflicts in the first place. and when they do happen to make sure that there is degree of reasonableness to how they are conducted. otherwise you completely destroyed our credibility. >> i think part of what you are getting at is the area of nature of the confrontation, the dilemma will, the fact that this has recurred three times in the last six years generates an ongoing impact and ultimately conflict resolution will eliminate the prospect for

another round. there are things that must be done in the meantime. >> since they're probably going into a time when we are not likely to see renewed permanence of a negotiation we are in a long-term conflict management situation. >> i think it is a good point and i want to give you a chance on weighing in. but i also want to make a plug on this question we had a very good discussion on foreign policy a couple of weeks ago that i recommend all of you. criticism and his passionate and

conviction on this matter. .. where some of the intention to protect whatsoever. instead, we all know that.

but i think you can't just go on this site without putting in to prospect the circumstances that they expect. now, the administration to ask you a question, the effort to resolve the president and to talk i have not been involved in was taken out of the belief that we needed to find a way to break out and try to resolve them. it is not as this the resolution with any great history. it was trying to find a way to get both sides to break out of

this and make the difficult, gutwrenching decisions that would make it possible to resolve conflict. now resolved and gaza was an issue that was to be addressed in the final stage negotiations. that was an issue that would be addressed once the whole agreement had been struck, then it would obviously have to involve the opening of gaza. there was the territorial initiative and the control as part of the final deal.

and gaza, the opportunity to have freedom in iran and that would put immense pressure on mass to go along with it. so that was essentially the theory. so to say it would have been better off engaging in conflict, and is essentially to say we are not going to be able to resolve this conflict, so mismanage it and keep it contained. but there is a fundamental decision made that was only going to lead to a more complex situation than we've seen here. >> the israeli delegation said that you could push resolution of gaza down in real-time. >> we didn't have any choice.

why? because hamas tells gaza were more interested in peace with israel. it is an inconvenient truth. but therefore you can't have a complete negotiation with hamas. maybe as a result of this, it becomes possible that the palestinian leadership of abu mazen was somehow convince hamas that it should go along to a state solution and acceptance of israel. but this is no indication of how much it's actually done. it's fine to say we should have conflict, but it doesn't insure us we are going to have outbreaks with conflicts. there is nothing we can do to prevent that from happening. >> you have been a very patient

audience. i want to give khaled one minute to read font. >> less than that. just to clarify, it's not an either or that we have conflict management, but that we conduct together so there is a safety net for when the negotiations overlap, rather than simply distance this as we often do whenever negotiations blob. there needs to be some thought put into conflict management when negotiations are not happening are possible. >> you know -- >> you know, there is extremism on the palestinian side. >> compared to what we have today, which is basically a roadmap. [laughter] because they're missing

mutuality, yes hamas has horrible things in its charter, but there were horrible things that the speaker says about ethnically -- there are horrible things that both sides say and teach to each other. that is the definition of a conflict. you can't resolve the conflict before we resolve the conflict. >> the fact of the matter against the face to if israel had a conflict management strategy for gaza. whether the united states acknowledged it are now blessed to have a close alliance with the egyptians to keep hamas and go after them and that is exactly what we saw play out. so at this point i am going to open it up for your questions. i am going to request an enforcement baby questions and that you get one of them.

so, if you would please; you come only for the microphone to get to you. identify yourself and then ask your single question. and why don't we start actually with the gentleman right next to the microphone. >> thank you very much. my question to ambassador elgindy. >> what is your opinion on which initiative? >> the two sides are the israelis and the palestinians and now in cairo. >> so what do they expect to come out of that? >> let's take a couple more if that is okay with you. young men in the back of the white shirt. yes. >> my question is about the humanitarian situation in gaza. basing themselves pretty pessimistic about the current status: given the humanitarian situation now, do you see any potential for movement either in the israeli position on ch or perhaps the american political

will to force some sort of change either in what appears to be an expanded buffer zone for the coastal waters, anything relating to the humanitarian. >> okay, so how might these negotiations in cairo play out in terms of the closure of gaza. and i eat, i'll give you the last of this section. >> my name is naïve and i'm a palestinian journalist. >> hold that right next to you. my question to ambassador indyk. how does the failed negotiation that you just concluded and second, are these talks forever? >> now you've already violated my role. so i'm going to stop you there. thank you, said. >> you knew that one was coming. >> just quickly, the egyptian

initiative, from the outset there has been i think almost universal support or the egyptian initiative, which was a ceasefire and play for a limited period of time. now to 72 hours. during which time the issues of concern would be negotiated. the issues since the egyptians bursting on to the initiative, what are the issues on the agenda? and the cease-fire proposal that secretary kerry put in place essentially was kind of an awful realization of the initiative of what needed to be addressed, which were coming to the second question, and issues of freedom of movement, of people and goods in and out of gaza, whether they could use the 12-mile limit and

whether the farmers could cooperate in what the second question referred to. i believe that all of those questions are on the agenda in cairo together ways, although it is not mentioned in this situation is the general reference. but i believe the israelis will bring to the table they are demands that in return for conceding studies issues, by the way the egyptians are going to have to agree. their path has been much strict to her in terms of what the israelis have, that the israeli demand is the palestinian militias and terrorist organizations, not just hamas and jihad and various other

groups disarm. and so, i think that is the agenda. those are the issues that will have to be assessed one way or another on whether they can do it in 72 hours am very skeptical. in 72 days or 72 months. i'm also skeptical about seeing the negotiations are. but it is necessary in particular in my view to take advantage of the fact that hamas agreed in its reconciliation agreement to resign in gaza, which is bad, to have the palestinian authority take control. that was all agreed before this conflict broke out and that should be the basis upon which the issues are resolved.

that is to say the palestinian authority should take control that it should start in the past 10, which i think everybody is ready to increase, but it should also been to gaza proper and that starts with what is at the u.n. and the international community on the emergency humanitarian agencies than working with the international community on all of the construction material that has to go into reconstruction. and i might legitimize the palestinian authority, which has argued that much of them made it politically in the file tab hamas negotiation. finally, as part of that process to uphold, abu mazen has repeatedly advocated which is

one government, one law and can only be in the hands of the palestinian authority. can not be aware malicious terrorist groups are. that was the idea and one in which israel should be able to accept that process of disarmament, there is fallout of the past. finally, two sides question. look, if i compare it to be and that the administration would try to get a comprehensive deal and failed and not let to use disappointment, to the circumstances which caused the outbreak, i don't think that is a comparable solution. our body on either side can

agree that it it was possible in the first place and the other side is to reinforce that opinion. so there is no sense of right down. everybody is now accepted that they couldn't do it anymore. but more importantly, hamas believed it was doing the work and hamas did not try to disrupt, neither did hezbollah nor air ran. it always took terrorism to prevent the breakthrough to israel. they did not defeat at this time because they didn't believe there was possible. i think that the dynamics that led to the outbreak are unrelated to what we were trained to do you. that was the dynamic that i find

of morrissey, the pressure of the muslim brotherhood and egyptian government on the cc and the blessed child of the muslim brotherhood, which put it in a desperate situation, which led to the reconciliation agreement with fata and the israeli government to suspend the negotiation. so that dynamic independent of anything we can do basically i've been at the table and that is what is in the after in the west bank, which i think contributed to the explosion. >> okay, of course israel was not at all sorry to see the

egyptian government cut off the smuggling and repeatedly declared over the last month that the relationship at this egyptian government and security issues, the best they have had in years, all of this is begging the question of how ready are the israelis and we can talk about the egyptians, two, to the closure of gaza under the circumstances marcus is describing to my command on the borders and given that this is a very weak, even if it manages to police the border, the idea of the disarmament, the other militias in the gaza strip seems like a long way down that road. >> that's optimistic. when the monopoly is forced in the mission of the state.

they don't control the area. they don't have an army. they don't engage in water. they don't have a second state. it's not when they took over the gaza strip. hamas has been in the center of the peace process since involved way back in the 90s. the assassination by the israeli extremists was more than anything mostly by the hamas bombing. the refusal of what to do at the israelis consider to be the extremely controversial means i'm a major opposition with rwanda. ben gurion and the office open weapons fire on a pivot out of

it, i am very pessimistic that the israelis on the gaza strip is not the population surveying. and so we must know now it is unrealistic. >> even if there is international monitoring come egyptians on their side of the border. >> that would help tremendously and i think would help tremendously on the gaza strip. even today, the gaza strip even during the war transferred. it could go the wrong way. but it's not a speech that we certainly believe the egyptians in particulaparticula r could touch on the palestinian side. when it's fundamental, on the

palestinian side it is very unlikely but especially not israel will be able to deal credibly and i think this touches on a deeper ratio because israel is a strong power and superpower in it's worth remembering the last decade has not just been a system for other people's merits. when they make political choices, the clinical choice for the power of resisting is a choice. it is true that abu mazen position has taken a reduction. the resistance in the past seven decades that the palestinian choice to go with seemingly no other options.

it does mean that the choice to engage in this round and many others repeatedly to avoid the same egyptian cease-fire, the same thing in the middle of the operation and now later in the gaza strip. this is hamas is tracing a should be discussing palestinians and political races as well. >> banks. i want to give your chance to win on that. and what this egyptian government trusts mahmoud abbas on the borders, certainly in terms of the political alignment martin was talking about, they would like to support mahmoud abbas, but they stress the capability of the pa to manage this order. >> i'm not even convinced they would like to support. i think there is a great deal

towards mahmoud abbas. think about weaknesses it is self-perpetuating. so mahmoud abbas come everyone thinks he is weak because he is weak and he is weak because everyone thinks he is weak. these are self-fulfilling kind of a dynamic. mahmoud abbas into power with two objectives. one was to unify all palestinian sanctions, bring them under one umbrella, at which they had neglected duties and 1988. you had the vision groups operating outside of the context. so you had the foresight to understand this is a bad idea. 2005 cairo declaration was the first palestinian agreement designed to bring not just one gun, but one set of political decision-making, which is essential for ending the neck of a nation or government. so the second goal was to reach a common and named india with

israel. both of those were dashed and i think they are interconnected. yes, palestinians and there have been a number of decisions that are highly personable by both the palestinian authority and hamas, one of which is firing rockets when you know the sort of response that it is going to have. but from hamas' standpoint, i think they are dead either way. so rather than go quietly into the night, this is how i interpret their rationale. they at least were able to reassert their bellavance. but on the other side of the equation, if somebody is hiding and are completely reckless, you have other options. you have many choices.

anyway, put that aside. the question of disarming, i agree with martin 100% that there has to be an opening of the blockade. if what happens next is simply to go back to 1800 people, that there will be a very serious disaster. i have never understood the power of having a hungry, frustrated population on israel's border at her. much less -- sorry for the obliteration. the notion of disarming is not

realistic. we have to look at incentives. there is a reason why hamas disarmed after the so-called current. the deterrence isn't a deterrent if we suggest the occupation. so simply address the mess is not going to be possible. but look at it from a conflict resolution standpoint. if hamas has to recognize and disarmed and go along with everything, essentially they've given israel everything they want to stop the palestinians in the homeland. there are things that would be

very difficult to do. if recognition and disarming as a standard, then they are never going to get them. there's simply no intention for palestinian to want to go along because farming is the counterpart to the occupation. israel has a great deal of blood rich and it's only logical that the actors will seek leverage. it's not a matter of choice. it is a matter of same you want to. it's simply the reality and you have no other choice. even when it is self-defeating. >> all right. let's take three of four more questions from the audience. we will start right here in the front row. we will take a couple questions down for a period for the sake

of the camera. her head. >> i've so questions it is hard to just ask one. but i guess i would like to ask khaled about the people themselves, and again so terrible. i am aware of what the new days. clearly, god sends will have suffered in use hamas and are paying a terrible price. we also have seen how my manipulating the international media to create one inmate coming out of gaza. you don't see images of hamas fighters except what little the israeli media or the army whisper training. and that doesn't have an effect on world training on who is

doing what you have. you don't see images of example, rockets that go by and hit a target. but my question is this, are they assuming god willing that there is a ceasefire and maybe even goes beyond 72 hours and that there is movement and disavow the conflict. do you have any hope that the gods and people themselves will realize that to continue their own status quo is untenable for them, that it doesn't allow -- that it could be the palestinians. so what do you think about the gods and -- gobs the people running the show and hamas? >> is my next question or can be very disciplined, we can get and

one more. i am going to put that challenge to you. >> that is a several part question. [laughter] i want to ask ambassador indyk if he could stretch his remarks about the extent to which israel has built a stronger set of relationships around the globe, is that -- is that a function is deemed the u.s. as less important in his ability to develop relationships? and secondly, assuming that -- >> i'm going to stop your pursley. >> and does that enhance the prospects for israel being successful in doing this with

less american hawk? >> thank you. a final question here. very briefly, please. >> a number of things that would not satisfy hamas. quick question. what confession would satisfy hamas? >> good. thank you for that short, sharp question. martin, and maybe i will start with you the global politics here in the contrary trend because israel has developed relationships with other major powers and yet it is basing in the wake of this operation, tremendous international interest. can you balance this out? and is it american to find? >> i wouldn't use the word declined. i would use the word withdraw. ..

so you do see in that broad context