>> one of the primary factors for the increase in tuition at least in state-funded institutions i'm not saying it's the only factor, but a primary factor has been the progressive this investment on the part of states on behalf of

their state university systems police that's been the phenomenon in california and i know that has been true in other states as well. how would a federal matching program work in terms of your proposal, and how does that yield increase investment on the part of the state? >> so the way we would envision it is that we would create a pot of money at the federal level that states would be eligible to access if they spent at least as much per student on a pell grants if their overall state investment in the public college is equal to least as much as the pell grant pursuit of so $5700. right now running the numbers we looked at it at 37 states are already over this bar and another 10 states are within a couple hundred dollars of this bar. so we thought it was a bar that kind of pushed people, pushed states a little bit but wasn't

outside the realm of what seems reasonable. and what we would say is if you participated in this program you'd be eligible for this extra funding for any money that you put back into the system, the federal government would match you. we thought, we want to make sure that the matching supported students from backgrounds that we wanted to see succeed, and so we thought enrollment of pell eligible students and g.i. bill eligible students would be good measures to sort of redistribute this equity. >> may i add to my statement? you asked me a question. we give, the federal government gives $50,000 per pupil, or student, or more aid to the elite private universities, the harvard's, for instance. we take endowment -- when you

take into account endowment subsidy, special privileges for people who make donations and so forth, these are schools with low pell participation, these are schools that of legacy admissions standards that often discriminate against minorities. i don't know why you people -- you people. is probably a wrong term to use. the commission does a look into something, and it's something that by the way people in the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum might find some agreement on. just a thought. >> commissioner narasaki followed by commissioner heriot. >> thank you. swipe a couple of questions. one is mr. vedder said the college degree is not a guarantee of employment. and so but what i want to understand it is from all of you is, it seems to me that

increasingly though it's become a prerequisite for many jobs. so is it correct to say that you will have many more opportunities for sufficient employment, paying a living wage or getting into the middle class if you have a college degree versus if you don't? >> well, since you mentioned my name first i would agree with that statement. college degrees, other things equal, and that's an important qualification, are a ticket or a better ticket to success than not having a college degree. so of course we want people to get college degrees. either way, i'm the only one here who has actually, except for some commissioners and actually teaches students. i'm in my 51st year of teaching. i've been teaching for 51 years. so i'm a great believer in pushing college education.

there is a payoff, but there is also a huge amount of risk associated with getting that degree. that was my point. we don't point that out. my wife is a high school guidance counselor and we are the worst offenders but we do it will go to college go to college, go to college. >> not everyone. >> i think that's actually what the commission is exploring, is we are concerned that our institutions who seem to be gaining students at the expense of students and not really concerned within graduating and being able to use education. so i'm glad you clarified that. that's very helpful. the very helpful. because they think i've been concerned about ready the last two days, there's been a lot of focus on sort of a private good, right, what's in it for the student to get a college education which i think most of us agree either to get college

or some kind of advanced degree whether it's vocational or something else. that these days in this global economy, a high school degree just really isn't going to cut it for most people i think is the case. at least that's my personal observation. and i said that if someone was has a brother who became an actor and defied all of the asian-american culture and said he wasn't going to college. and is one of the smartest people i know. so obviously you can succeed without a college degree, but it just makes it easier i believe if you have one. so what i'd like is some observations. we have some in a written testimony. what's the public good? aside from the hope that you will become someone who is making enough money to pay into the tax system and help drive the economy, what are some of

the other coaches that are associated with college degrees? >> so one of the first thing i think of this greater participation in our society right? you see people with more education beyond high school being better at civic engagement engagement, and to think we would like to see that across the board. i think that because our economy, we talk about the global economy and the 21st century economy and to close it is, it makes our country more competitive with other countries. that's not just the consumer angle that i have more tax dollars or i have more income to consume. it just makes, because job creators can move their jobs anywhere around the world, it's easy for them to do their jobs around the world if we have the type of workers that they want to employ. they will move their jobs to our shores. >> i would add to that as well. i think engaged citizenry is a

huge part of it and national competitiveness. but also these might be more generalized as kind of the softer skills, but just a general tendency of college going folks and graduates to be more open-minded and delete having known what it's like to work with other people into working groups, everything really does a great thing for society as a whole. spin we actually interfering in new york on use of force, i asked one of the panel the question of what's the biggest link, what can we do to help law enforcement be able to make better judgments with use of force, and one of the responses was the thing that correlated most with appropriate use of force was a college education, which i thought was really fascinating. the other thing i wanted -- >> mr. vedder i think wanted to answer your first question as well. >> can i finish?

i'll let him answer. >> okay. i asking a second question. >> no, no, no. i just wanted to finish together observation is there's a lot of testimony that the most likely predictor for kids to be able to successfully go to college and graduate is having parents who went to college. i get concerned about the lack of value of having educated parents, and partly because windows going to college i went to yale and my uncle said to my dad, why are you bothering spending all this money to help her go to yale because she's only going to get married and you're wasting investment. so i feel like there is an investment having educated moms and dads who can better than help the kids not just because not just have a better income but because they have bigger vocabularies and are able to be more supportive of the kids going out. i just want to say that.

mr. vedder. >> you asking for the public good dark couple of studies. i don't know why proponents of higher ed to look at more research that show where you have more presence of college graduates in a work environment you get great greater productivity out of your noncollege arben. that would be a pure public good kind of thinking there is, however, some evidence that there may be as the late milton friedman wrote in an e-mail to me shortly before he died that there are also some negative externalities perhaps associate with college in some cases. so it's very difficult to measure the pot. that's an economic term. another one was often used is smoking. college graduates smoke less. so that causes less secondhand smoke problems. they claim there is help -- although actually people who

smoke die earlier and it lowers the medicare cost. you can -- i'm sorry. >> somewhat grim view. i'm not sure what to explore that when any for the. i think i will shift to the trio programs. >> segue. >> i'm a little sensitive on that one because my father died of emphysema. on this issue of trio so some of the stakeholders have suggested that there's not enough data to show the all of the programs are working as effectively as we would want to give and investment. some have said therefore we should defend them. sunset perhaps we should remake them, maybe into more general grant program with a lot more accountability. so i'm just wondering what your

recommendations, if you have any, on that? >> very top level i would say don't get rid of them, right? it is any programs we have that are supporting students in school, whether or not i think the idea that the idea of accountability is incredibly attractive in higher ed. it's something people are talking about a lot but i think you can take accountability to every tiny, to the point where you have very few returns. editing the trio programs are designed to support students in college. more recently i worked for the senate h.e.l.p. committee where we did work on for-profit colleges, and one of the things we looked at was the fact when students came in the door they were not getting support. and so one of the most important question is what to you giving this person access to? are you getting access to going through a door and not getting any help on the other side? that's what the trio program is there to do and so i think that

measuring sort of interventions that work and saying, hey, you should do this, is an effective way of calling for improved within the trio program, but sort of measuring every tree program -- trio program and demanding them. you end up spending more time trying to like satisfied the accountability than you do supporting the student. >> i would agree with those remarks. i think the programs are so valuable because of the support they provide and the their unique in that way in terms of a federal program. so perhaps there's ways we can look at reforming them are make a better. we can always do that in public policy, but certainly eliminating the programs is not something that we would be in support of. >> okay, commissioner heriot? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you're welcome. >> i do have a question so much as a request. perhaps i should've mentioned

this to some of the earlier panelists as well because they also brought up the topic, but i forgot. to let me try it on you, especially you ms. mcclean because you're the one that mentioned this. i have been teaching quite as long as doctor better but i have been teaching for 26 years because of my university. i love my colleagues. i love my colleagues at other institutions but i also know they have a funny habit of arguing that things that really good for them are also good for students. and so you've got to account for there. i'm a little bit leery of this claim that works and is especially great because i know that work-study benefits me because i get free labor out of it and my colleagues in free labor out of the. but an other hand the arguments that they made make a lot of sense to me the notion that keeping students on campus help rather than having them work at the pizza parlor trick the feeling like they're part of the community, you mentioned there some empirical evidence on this.

could you send it to me when you get a chance? >> i'd be happy to. >> great. >> any other questions? emissions? commissioner kirsanow? >> is mr. chairman. thanks to the painless. dr. vedder you mentioned you had mentioned that because of great sources of duke power the value of a college diploma has been for lack of a better term a credential that's almost a must-have credential because of the fact that in griggs versus and duke power a high school diploma was essentially used to bar certain people from employment even though it didn't have any job related news. the title of this hearing is the effect of access to persistence and became a college degree and socioeconomic movement of minorities. do you see the credential -ism that seems to be pervasive among colleges, grade inflation, the

explosion of remediation courses as something that first of all not all college degrees are the same. not all disciplines are the same. not all colleges are the same. do you see there being a dilution of the college degree and/or a reduction in socioeconomic mobility as the result of this kind of devaluing of the college degree? >> i do. i think it's the college degree at one time was an important screening device. it still is an important screening device but for employers provide a relatively low-cost way of them differentiating what is on average a bright discipline potential workforce, those with degrees as opposed to those who are without who on average, on average are less bright, less motivated, less knowledgeable, less skillful and so forth, may

be less cognitive skills. i don't know about that. and as more and more difficult to college, and many of them are getting degrees to pick up on an earlier panel discussion, with the amount of actual learning outcomes that have occurred are pretty dubious, that no longer is about your degree, it's starting to lose its cachet, except, except at the elite schools. because the elite schools are still thought of as being the best and the brightest. so if you look at the earnings come in my testimony i took of the earnings of 22 elite schools. i don't know if michigan made the list. northwestern did, commissioner. but the yuppie schools. action i took all the private once i think. 22 private schools at the top using pay scaled.com, and 22

schools from the forbes ranking of colleges and universities which i, by the way, do in the bottom, randomly selected. i added a couple hbcus in the list to make sure there was a good minority requisitioned among the schools. the earnings were right out of the box, 35% higher. in elite schools. so we continue, we can send you a college where we continue to a real college. and it made clear that differential widened to well over 50%. so the kids that go to the elite schools not only make more to begin with, they get larger percentage advances. and i think that's part -- partly a consequence of his huge expansion of the system that has devalued the degree to its lead to credential inflation. now we have one 50,000 janitors with bachelor degrees.

i from a university to put a masters and gentler sides degree program in any day now. we've got to more and more credentials. for what purpose? wants its rethink what have we got greater income equality in the united states? what have we achieved from this? you know, and i'd love to talk to you privately because i thought the questions you asked at the last them were particularly poignant with regards to what are the outcomes? what is it we are trying to achieve? and we don't have good information. do we know, the united states government does not publish data on the graduation rates of pell grant recipients. now, we spend $35 billion a year on pell grants. we don't publish the data. if you call of arne duncan tomorrow and said we want the data, he won't give it to you.

now, maybe you can't use the civil rights commission. maybe you've got power, i don't know, but you don't have it. it is a cry. that is an absolute -- >> is a collected or do they just not publish? >> the collected data on pell grants, they do publish data by colleges, l. brent percent but they don't publish it by they published what percentage at uva our college pell grant. we know that but we don't know it by as a general statistic. >> any other questions? commissioner narasaki. >> yes. i forgot this. i hope it would be someone from an hbc testifying, and apparently they were able to come. so my understanding in pockets of some hbcu down i think was in alabama or mississippi, they were telling me that actually hbcus these days have a large

percentage of non-african-american students attending. and the hbcus into doing a lot of remediation support. so i'm just wondering if any of you have expertise to comment on the hbcu system? >> there is a general truth to what you say. there has been an expansion in the non-african-american component in hbcu enrollments. there's a broader problem with hbcus which is there has been a very significant decline in enrollments at a large number of schools in recent years. and this is you know it's getting to the very serious point and some institutions. i giving specific examples but it probably wouldn't be appropriate. >> i don't have a lot of information. what is your exact question i'm sorry, could you repeat the?

>> i'm interested in the percentage of non-african-americans spee-1 i don't have that number off the top of my head but i would imagine that it has grown, you know, from a really tiny percent to a small percent right? i don't think we are seeing is a change of perhaps making can -- >> i don't have information that we do but that's something we can look up for you and get you. >> thank you. >> that brings us to the end of the panel. i say no to questions from our commissioners. i want to thank you all for participating today and remind folks of the threat remains open for the next 30 days. so any of you can supplement and members of the public and also do that. i would remind you how you can do. you can either mail it by regular milk of u.s. commission on civil rights office of civil rights evaluation, 1331 pennsylvania avenue northwest washington, d.c. 20425 that's

sweet 1150 or you can send it via e-mail to public comments at usac r..gov. i want to thank my commissioners for participating so well today and engaging this topic and again thanks to our staff for organizing today and thanks for c-span for being here all day. thank you so much. meeting has now adjourned and 3:45 eastern time. >> the scottish national party gained 50 states and the british parliament after the elections on may 7. this morning scotland's first minister discusses the elections and what's next with scotland. >> the today the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee hears the stories of whistleblowers from different federal agencies.

you can see it at 1038 eastern on c-span3. >> next a debate on the prospect of a two-state solution in individual palestine conflict. from the american jewish community this is one hour. >> good afternoon. we come now to my favorite parts of the global forum the great debate. we choose -- we jews are famous for artistry abraham and moses argued with god. even today there is little consensus in the jewish community on topics such as what

judaism should look like in contemporary times. the israeli-palestinian peace process, and he was truly personal issues like whether it's better to doctors or lawyers in the family are which woody allen movie is better. annie hall manhattan or take the money and run? it is these essential questions of course just the first of which which are speakers have wrestled in previous iterations of the great debate. laughter we had from bret stephens of "the wall street journal" and roger cohen of "the new york times" who debated whether it is still emerging iran deal with the path to progress or a road to ruin. before that we hosted josie klein and peter on the nature of modern zionism. the great debate is given a podium to bill kristol and congressman barney frank and other luminaries giving voice to the positions across the political spectrum. today's debate is no different. in a moment when ari shavit,

senior correspondent and caroline glick, deputy managing editor of the truce imposed come on stage we will continue this to continue that debate. they will take up the question of the two-state solution, long treated as gospel and policy circles come increasingly being challenged from both the right and the left. it is no secret that ajc place in the two state solution as a better more practical solution for any of the others that have been proposed. more than that we have advocated for it. we also believe it is not a sign of weakness to engage varying points of view, to engage in debate discussion and to constantly revisit long held assumptions that is assigned a strength. before our debate kicks off please turn your attention to the screen for short video to set the stage and over a bit of

background. thank you. [applause] >> the struggle to find a permanent solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict has plagued the two peoples, and absorb the attention of the world or merely -- many american and israeli administrations have tried to forge peace in the middle east. in the summer of 2013 israeli-palestinian peace talks resumed at the behest of the secretary of state john kerry. >> the best way to truly ensure israel's security is by ending the conflict of the palestinians by summoning the courage to achieve peace. and by reaching a negotiated resolution that results in two states for two peoples. >> a few months later israel make sacrifices for peace include a 10 month settlement freeze. but in the spring of 2014 the

peace process ground to a halt with some merger of a palestinian government. this was soon followed by the kidnap and murder of three israeli teenagers. and after hamas loss of thousands of rockets -- launched thousands of rockets at israel, putting millions of civilians at danger, the idf responded with operation protective edge. for some there is no alternative to the two-state solution. >> the only way to keep -- if you enter the negotiations from an end to conflict with the palestinians in accordance two states for two peoples. >> about for others the two-state solution is a gamble that israel can't afford. >> this is the. we are not giving up more land, that this approach we will would not commit damage to ourselves because the world thinks that's the right thing to do. >> after the march elections, prime minister netanyahu

declared his vision. >> my position is i don't support a one state solution but i don't believe that's a solution at all. i support the vision of two states for two people peoples. >> from syria to iraq to yemen, chaos has engulfed the middle east vending machines, states, and the status quo and making israel's neighborhood more dangerous and more unstable than ever. nearly 70 years after the u.n. partition plan first endorsed the creation of independent arab and jewish states, is the two-state solution still viable, or is it an illusion? >> ladies and gentlemen, these welcome our moderator and debaters. [applause]

>> good afternoon. winston churchill once said, you have enemies good, that means you've stood for something sometime. our to debaters did they have stood debaters did they have stood for something and have the scars to prove it. today we are honored to have to opinion makers, to thought leaders, to individuals who love their nation and have fought for its defense, yet two distinct and different visions of how israel can live in peace and security, and two distinctly different answers to the question of whether a two-state solution is viable and whether indeed is it desirable. my honor and my privilege to introduce, we introduce our ship the, author of my promised land and caroline glick, senior correspondent are contributing

editor of the jerusalem post author of the israeli solution a one state plan for peace in the middle east. before beginning it is also my privilege and with many lawyers in the room to introduce the rules. [laughter] each speaker will be given the chance to make an opening statement. there will be five minutes for opening remarks. they would then have the opportunity to respond to each other which they will have three minutes to do so. at that point i will give certain questions to them. some point we with an open it up to the audience for questions. in order to ask a question please fill out one of the comment cards. you can tweak your question to that ajc global using the global hashtag. that is also for people following online and on c-span today that they don't understand what i just said that ajc

global -- [laughter] if you were here you can pull out the sheets. or ask somebody younger work on the phone right now. [laughter] at the conclusion each debate will have three minutes to give concluding remarks. finally, as i said before, this follows in the great tradition that ajc. we value the notion of bringing different sides here to express their views. both these individuals have tremendous respect for each other and we have tremendous respect for them. i would ask the audience to do this thing. please hold applause despite the temptation until the end. the debaters know and i were that although they will strike hard blows, they will strike there once. at this point ari will go first. >> thank you so much. let me begin before we address the issue with three personal

remarks. i hope they will be taken off my time. [laughter] first of all thank you so much. i am so privileged i think we are both, to be here with the ajc. i want to thank the remarkable david harris. for me i've learned to admire the american jewish committee in the last year, and organizations like yours are so needed. i'm so grateful for you being here and for also having this discussion. the second person remark that i really hope, while we should have a serious debate, we should have a respectable one. with all the challenges facing us, i think we should have a spirit of -- and as much as possible -- and caroline let me shake your hand.

[applause] i think that it will manage to prove that we can have a respectful civilized debate among us we will be doing something for people. >> i would just interrupt you and say i agree. [laughter] >> the third person remark is just about myself. before we address the issue. i am a zionist. a part of my beloved wife children, their family, friends. there is nothing more sacred in my life in a jewish democratic state. so whatever i believe in and whatever might approach is because of that. because i think it is so essential to preserve and say this miraculous state of issue that we managed to establish and sustain. [applause]

now i shall begin. before we address the two-state solution, i think we must address the alternative. the one state solution. and i have to agree things to say about that. one, i wonder how is it that i go around american campuses fighting bds which promotes a one state solution, and then i go back home and find have diminishes in my government support the one state solution. our enemy and caroline is rightly so concerned about our enemy, they are not encouraging a to pull out now. our enemies want a one state solution, and they know why. the second point, when i go to these campuses for one reason i

used to win the debate regarding these enemies of ours i say see the one answer to the one state option, and a one word answer is syria. we tried the one state solution in the middle east. we put sunnis, alawites and druze in one country. what happened? as long as there was a strong decatur commits him to work. it wasn't denmark put us on the work. the moment a good week we have seen the worst human catastrophe in the region, the worst human catastrophe as we speak and the world is helpless. so if this is what happens to sunnis and alawites andrews in syria, what would happen to jews and arabs in israel with all the terrible conflict we went through with all the differences, with all these multidimensional differences? the third argument is that in

my mind this endangers the zionist project. what was zionism all about? having a massive jewish majority so we will have jewish serenity within a democratic country or throughout the years we were a minority even in this great country we are a minority. we wanted one place what it would be so quick we are a massive majority. in my mind, the one state option endangers, in the most dramatic way, the zionist vision and the zionist dream. but i am not a starry eyed dreamer. i knew, and i wrote about this that many of the thames to bring a quick final solution are

flawed. we failed in 1993 failed in 2000, failed in 2008 failed in 2004. so i asked with friends on the left who learned from this experience, you run into the wall once you run into the wall twice can up to five times run into the wall. it's time to understand there is a wall there. but that does something with it but then million more settlers in this today in america. that does not mean we have to kill the option, the hope. so what is my vision? i think we need a new creative approach. we israelis are about thinking outside of the box. what i believe is because i know there isn't a two-state solution that can be implemented tomorrow we need a two state vision, two state option, and two state dynamic. vision, this is throughout our history. we were stronger when we were

moderate and generous. we accepted the partition plan in 37. that when we won the terrible war of the '30s. we went to bill clinton's camp david summit. we did not achieve peace better come up with because of that we had the credibility and legitimacy of the unity it went against the terrible suicide bombing of the second -- we need the three, that vision, the two state vision a two-state solution to keep it open, and we need the two state dynamic. want to talk about when i talk about the two state option? that's why settlement building beyond the barrier is so dangerous. because it kills the possibility of doing anything in the past. i am not naïve. i understand the danger.

i want security, security, security. i think that but building beyond the block weakens israel doesn't strengthen issue. so if we tried a settlement freeze be on the barrier, he on the blog come in my mind we are not endangering ourselves in any way but we are keeping the two state option other. >> thank you. if i could ask you -- even with the extra time spent in just last one. the two state dynamic. let's have a marshall plan for gaza. let's work with those constructive palestinians on giving some future to our neighbors while controlling our destiny and maintain our security. thank you very much. [applause] >> caroline, you seven minutes and 52 seconds to respond. [laughter] spent that's including the

personal time? >> in one interruption by you. [laughter] so good morning, everybody. thank you so much for hosting us in this important debate. and thank you, ari for being a very esteemed debating partner or opponent. it's a pleasure and interest and challenge really to debate you ari. i think ari is the example shining example of what's best on the left. from a policy prescription he remains entirely true to his tribe, but he represents the best of that tried because from time to time he can make room for facts that are uncomfortable to his tribe. for instance, a very important article that he wrote in 1997 he describes the original bds. that would be the dd derangement

syndrome of the pathological hatred the left harbors from prime minister netanyahu which are written during his first tenure as prime minister but and he showed that hatred is tribal, just as a policy is tribal that the left wishes to advance on israel for israel. and i think, you know, as far policies and how we're supposed to look at the two state solution and its continued viability, or lack thereof, i think it's important for us to understand the nature of the debate on this policy today in israel. on the one hand, 20 years ago the left won the ideological debate in issue. today and but for the past 20 years or so if you had about a three-fifths majority consistent partner support among israelis for the establishment of a palestinian state under certain

conditions. on the other hand, the left cannot win an election. they cannot win an election as leftists at least when the let's go to elections indeed, it seeks to hide the fact that it is left. and the question is what explains this seeming contradiction? how can you have won the ideological debate and yet you fail to win elections? the reason that the left failed to win elections is because most israelis have come to understand on our backs through our horrific experience over the past 22 years since israel embraced and adopted a two-state solution as a court of its national strategy we have come to understand that these conditions, a certain conditions under which we would support the establishment of a palestinian state will never ever be met.

and it is silly to argue about how to make this happen. it is silly it is a waste of time and, indeed, it is irrational to argue about how to make this happen. this is mainly because the palestinians do not now and never have wanted primarily to establish a palestinian state west of the jordan river. it is irrational to continue to discuss how to advance the two state solution. because a two-state solution is founded on the premise that the palestinian conflict with israel is about land and it is not about land. the palestinian conflict with israel is about their failed and the greater arab and islamic got a to come to terms and accept that justice of the continued existence of the state of the jewish people, the jewish state, the state of israel. that is the core and the cause of the conflict and that is why

it is enduring and that is why we will never reach a two-state solution in our lifetimes. so partitioning or questioning how to partition -- partition and under what conditions we should petition -- partition plan was to the jordan river is similarly irrational. the real question that we ask in israel and that i think should become the question that guides our discussion about how to contend with the palestinian conflict with israel is given, to understand that it is a given that israel will be at odds with the palestinians for the foreseeable future. the question, the policy question that we should be considering at all levels in our societies is how she would manage the situation? how to manage the situation that we cannot resolve to a peace accord based upon the partition

of the land based on the assumption that the way to reach peace is to give away land? in my book i make the case for matching our democracy with our security requirements by extending israel's democratic rule of law our liberal legal code that you didn't and samaria. i argued this not because it will bring peace. i argued is because it is just and it is right. it reflects the rights of the jewish people to the land of israel and to justice of our state by extending our democracy throughout judea and samaria tick it also shows that our democratic value go hand in hand with our security concerns. moreover, and finally come it answers the existential question about israel is to handle the

palestinian security threats that will not disappear in our lifetime. and because she took extra time and i am a woman, i will take less time. i am done. [applause] >> ari come before allowing you to respond i want to remind the crowd to fill up your q-card and hand them to ajc staff so if questions. >> so versatile i told every with caroline that the reason israelis don't go vote for the moderate option is the israeli left and the international community has failed in producing a realistic peace concept that addresses the failure of the previous attempt and they violate. this is why i promote a new kind of approach that would be much more realistic. as i said going for the two

state vision and keeping the two state option, knowing there is no solution, there's no two-state solution to by the way their staff would not a one state solution in the coming years. no quick fixes. it's a complicated, difficult situation. we have to deal with the complexities. but if i may, i'd like to challenge the option that caroline is promoting. i have mainly to concerned one is that if we go on for the one state solution or option, we are endangering ourselves as jews twice. once we are endangering the jewish majority. it was a great democratic controversy i don't want to get into it that caroline writes about, go to school fostered about the west bank demographics but let me speak about where we know the numbers for israel itself, sovereign israel.

right now we are already down to 75% jewish majority in israel. in 2025 we are talking about 70%. if you were to add even a million, i think 3 million but even if he had a million arabs into that fragile formula we will either stop being jewish or we will stop being democratic. if it will were not give full rights to all these palestinians we will not be democratic. and if we do we will go down to levels of a jewish majority that is so fragile. and if we insist within the context on our right to live in pashtun they want to live. if we build around, they were pulled around my hometown. where does it lead us? either we commit suicide as a national hope to recoup to older

banter of the early '50s. this is not an option. the second problem, and i have little time, is my fear for the impact of this on your younger generation here. this kind of ethic will continue to build a young american jews to stand by israel and identify with it. the only way to win jewish minds and hearts is to prove that israel is a benign israel that it is fully democratic. that it is america's small endangered sister. that we are a pure democracy supported by your great democracy. if we in danger that we endanger everything. [applause] >> all right there first of all as a product of the american jewish community i think that

you are vastly underestimating the ability of this community to understand what is good and right. i do not believe, not even for a moment, that the way to win the hearts and minds of young american jews is to say that we are sorry and we're desperate and we are pathetic and we need you to that is not exactly an inspiring message, and it is certainly not to the it is not true that israel is pathetic. it is not true that israel is a poor weak democracy that is an absolute need of the american jewish community in order to continue to exist, with all due respect to our partners in the american jewish community. that is not the kind of message that people need to hear anywhere, not only and to try to come not an issue, not in france, not in belgium, not in south america, know what. we are not a pathetic.

to the content we go from strength to strength. because we are just come we are right and and we are created, where exciting we believe in who we are and what we do in this world. now, you know the whole idea that i'm not going to discuss demographics i wish we could not discuss demographics because i'm not a numbers person. but the numbers you gave quite frankly are incorrect, but unwanted israel has a 78 jewish majority inside the 1949 armistice lines. moreover, our fertility rates are higher than the arabs. we surpass in 2012 in israel and as well in judea samaria. we add to that, the safeguard of the passengers majority in the state issue, you understand that what you think is simply untrue. now, as to the whole issue of whether or not extending israeli democracy to judea and samaria is going to be a viable option or not in my book i set out all the problems involved in this

plan. and they are many and they are mighty and they are intimidating. but what they are the problems that can be solved when bright people when committee people when people who love issue as much as you and i do and the vast overwhelming 99.5% of israelis do and the vast overwhelming majority of american jews do then we can solve these issues. but we cannot solve, what we cannot contend with is the challenge that the two-state solution presents to israel. because the real demographic threat in the real demographic threat, my friends for an american jewish community is the threat of a palestinian state everybody talks sophisticated security a so-called right of return of the children come to the great-great-grandchildren of arabs who left issue between 1947-1949. the fact of the matter is that

every cent they can go to palestine but they cannot move to palestine because as a look at the borders of what is happening in the arab world surrounded as we understand that the two -- the true demographic threat to israel, would be the establishment of a palestinian state which would be overwhelmed, overwhelmed by militants and millions of people he would become not only the so-called refugees but all of the triumphant jihadists it would be marge of palestine and we have a situation -- would be killed and his children would be killed, they would all meet this same fate of moammar gadhafi and we would see a jihadists enclave the likes of which we never imagined on the outskirts of jerusalem and, indeed, in control of parts of jerusalem that would be partitioned under the two state formula. so i think with all due respect to the heinous problem in one state solution and one state formula so-called presents to

israel, it is a possibility. on the other hand, a two-state solution is a recipe for disaster as we've seen over the past 22 years. thank you. [applause] >> and so first question, and before the debate began we heard prime minister netanyahu speak about his belief in a two-state solution reaffirming that police. of course, we did not include a clip of him speak before the election. [laughter] ari come to believe the prime minister to support a two-state solution? if he doesn't come is that a possibility? >> is an enigma has been out for 20 years but i've been following it closely myself and i don't know if there's a clear solution for. i went to you what comfortable i really appreciate what prime minister netanyahu did

everything he does not get enough credit. it's not fair for the heads of the israeli right to accept a two state idea in his own version. and to go for stuff like him something that was not done -- so netanyahu did have his contribution. again, do what i talk about which is to capture the moral high ground. zionism succeeded because we had a combination of realism and morality. we always understood we are a small, lonely people, and many people hate us. we are not china. we cannot -- we are not russia. we cannot do the ukraine. we have to act in a very sophisticated way i'm the one had being tough being stronger

we will not survive in the region for a date if we are not very powerful. but our power has to be combined with morality. and what netanyahu understood is yet to do that and capture the moral high ground. i think he didn't go he wasn't committed enough. again i don't think it was a possibility to reach. i think it was a mistake in going for the final state option. i said that in real time when second a state kerry came and i admire his vision, his idealism, his commitment. i said this won't work that i can't say i hope, i pray there is a secret thing in the secret state department seller that is planning plan b. because it was so obvious that what happened is a decent american comes to town and the israelis and palestinians sing in the peace songs he wants to do. no one is listening to i thought the practical approach would've been much more successful under which netanyahu would have gone for the. i don't think that within the

leadership we have and the circumstances we have we can have any new peace deals signed on the white house lawn. there will not be nobel prize is but we have to go for the alternative approach. if rather than go to the diplomatic piece we will try to bring water to gaza to combine israel's amazing water technology with the saudi money under american leadership so we will prevent a terrible human catastrophe might happen in gaza in two years when they don't have drinking water. think of that will change the dynamics. we will be offering something positive, water in the desert, in the middle east. it will be such the right kind thing to do. if we build this amazing city, this is something to work with it if we go to work in such projects so palestinians go on every long and gradual process of nationbuilding, barry slocumb it will take a long time, but we have to be very cautious we

have to learn from all the mistakes in the past including in gaza. but to leave things as they are with no israeli initiative, with no hope of with not projecting anything positive this endangers our unity because if god forbid we will have to use forces, and we might we don't have enough legitimacy now in the world because settlements have caused such damage to our fight, i just fight against central groups. it took so much energy out of the room. if we go back to this spirit that i talk about, which is to know what our come to understand the conflict will not end, i do understand we are jews we are jews, we must have the real commitment to democracy. and the search for peace, even when peace is not there, that kind of attitude will make us stronger, will make us more

just. [applause] >> caroline, the same question. you worked for the prime minister and if i could ask you as he read your book? if they agree with your sentiments speak with in all fairness to prime minister netanyahu he made very clear that the position of his government is that a continue to support the establishment of a palestinian state and that is not the position i argue in my book, and that's fine. ari supports as well. i completely respect his right to do so. i personally think it's very dangerous but that doesn't mean it isn't a reasonable and perfectly legitimate position to either for an individual or the government of israel. i do think that it's important you praised netanyahu for coming out, and he did. he made significant statements and significant concessions in order to convince, mainly president obama of his

seriousness in moving forward in negotiations. and we see that he has done nothing. you see that not only did he get nothing, obama pocketed that concession and asked for more intimate did more. and when israel didn't give more israel was condemned. ..