>> okay. go ahead. >> air of america. we can identify with you in your statement about lieberman because with the guy in the trinity that is running for president that's very similar to lieberman. but my question is, you are talking about after the obama legacy. how does the presidential election, what do you think is the future as result of the two people who are by for president as source of the establishment of palestinian state in the future? how do you feel the election is going to affect that? >> perhaps -- long time ago result of the american election do not have any impact on us. and perhaps this time the difference between the two candidates, not vis-à-vis the palestinian issue, no, but vis-à-vis internal issues, make

it somehow of interest just to, you know, seek immediate in order, because it is like a performance going on, theater performances. but i don't foresee really any impact. you know, yesterday we were meeting in state department with deputy director of the palestine israel desk, and one of the dispense introduced herself as being working with u.s. envoy to the middle east. still something like that. not to insult anybody of course, i didn't know really his name. we remember martin and dick

thing but now even this function -- martin indyk -- doing what? if in that game for that theater that was called in the last few years peace process or peace negotiation. netanyahu doesn't care even now to look like as even negotiating. he doesn't want that because if it's some sort importance in the past, now he sees he doesn't have to pay that tax for the war, pretending being engaged in peace process or in any kind of negotiation. the other theory of those who think that -- perhaps, to you or any americans consideration,

elect clinton or trump, but if trump, perhaps the worst of it, i mean worse than the situation that we could have increased. >> could you pass the microphone over here, please? >> i'm with americans for peace now, says the organization of the israeli peace movement. mike krzyzewski about a scenario in which palestinians, citizens of issue may disengage from electoral politics. my question is whether they do or not, particularly if they do, what are the other avenues that they have to engage with a jewish majority in israel choose to play this citizen the game in israel to maximize their footprint, the citizen footprint, citizen had footprint initial demo to maximize the

impact, so when is the fourth? in other words, still play the game if you don't participate in that poorly in the election. >> well, you know, i come from a party that had built its political project which very much became the whole arabic unity project. less than two measure anchors. one is fighting and struggling for the sake of israel to become a state for all of its existence. this is something that we convey as a solution for the choose macs and arabs in israel. because it's a civil democracy state that separates religion from the state. for the best interest of all of us. not for the arabs. sometimes we forget that. in the second anchor is to

organize the arab palestinian minority and build our own institutions. i mean national institutions. and be recognized as ethnic minority and having self rule and all things that differentiate us, what's in our political lexicon, the political autonomy. and, unfortunately, we didn't engage enough in the second part of the project of real started as one. we are one and a half million. we have the resources, human and economic resources to be much better to perform much better in

our own interests. if i compare ourselves with the west bank economically speaking every average palestinian come has three times income on average more than palestinian family in the west bank and gaza. out the economy is much weaker. we like industries. we lack factories. we lack any kind of organizati organization. you will find unions for almost everything, and they are much capable of working together as a society. we don't have that. we have only one thing, back in 1980 when we created what's called arab -- which is great.

that symbolize something, that we have a roof or an umbrella that unify us. but doesn't have money. the coffee in the office we bring. there are no resources, not financial nor human. it's really pity that in 2016 we have this. we have a huge mission to build our own institution, total institution, a medical institution. we have the demand development for many years. not just part of it but really to represent, reclaim your representative minority. okay, '02 election. very simple election. but with the potential of becoming a parliament, parliament for this autonomy, ultra autonomy. i believe that this is the way

for equal citizenship. it is not the place or to replace citizenship. but what the, you know, those who are left zionists want us to assembly, how to say, you know, assimilate society. this is the way to be equal and to the equal and to practice as equal. once you're satisfied with your national aspirations and you build your own society, this is not, because normally we are accused, we go this way as you are superiority. you want to separate from the state. we are not talking not about geographic or political or any kind of autonomy. we are talking about cultural autonomy. why shall my children live

whatever in their schools, whatever the education ministry decides, report on programs, you know, intelligence, israeli intelligence for entire people. we don't live up to now -- we don't know recent history. we have to have the right to control or to practice our economy on such issues. even religious issues. even religious issues. we now relate to a jewish department in the religion ministry. so i see it this way. we are going stronger building our own institutions, demanding from the state a fair share of resources and fair share in the power.

we are now the third party, okay? what does this give me? real impact on the division of resources of the country. nothing. nothing. this last five your economic plan that not non-jew government decided on -- netanyahu government decided on, and i can say that there is such a plan with 10 or 15 billion, okay, it was done not because of the arabs. it was done because of the jews. and i said years ago, i believe no, they want to develop the economy not because it's good for the arabs but rather because it's good for the jews. because israel but no is member of oecd and has to live up to certain standards of gdp, of poverty line, et cetera. this is the only way to do it.

not because suddenly this right wing fanatic government wants to make the life of arabs better. know, this is the only way to integrate. i want to integrate but as equal with my strong society organization you're not as individuals on the margins. >> thank you, doctor, for your comments. two quick questions. can you speak a little bit about specific about the states increasincreased targeting of pe who are involved with bds related activity? he made some comments recently in montréal they got a lot of critical coverage in the israeli press about bds. and given the sort of increased attacks on knesset members and people involving bds activity, how do you see that developing down the line? we know some the things that

were said by the intelligence minister earlier this year about targeted civil assassinations or other nations, referring to people who are involving bds type work. the other question i have for you is, last year, you were part of one party that ran on this joint list which was an unprecedented experiment. now a year and a half after that, how do you perceive the success of the experiment, and how are things working out with the parties in the joint list? >> thank you, dr. ghattas. i have also two quick questions. first, you know, in the middle east now we see the our allegations about the jewish state.

there are shared states and iran, practical in iraq. do you think this is an area where the sectarian state are prevailing? second question, which followed this, after resolutions 181, 194 and the subsequent resolutions, duties and resolutions consider israel as a jewish state per se, or a state for citizens? you know, 181 in 194, and the other resolutions. do these resolutions consider israel a state of israel as a jewish state? because i division wants to states, arab state and jewish state. or israel is a state for its citizens? thank you.

>> hello? >> it's on. >> thank you, dr. ghattas. i've ambassador of the arab league in washington. i came 2015 december. so very glad to be here today. i would like to thank you for your invitation. dr. ghattas, we had -- osha called indiana bleak and he talked to same thing some of what we are saying now. and he believed the -- about this bad situation on the palestine and what is, how they're being treated in the knesset. and he had good feedback from in of ambassador. today, i'm asking again, i'm asking again maybe simple question. don't you think that israelis

taking advantage again of that environment surrounding palestine's people? i mean, the division between the two, hamas -- don't you think are taking advantage of this? the way they treat arab members of the knesset in such way. plus the competition between the presidential candidates. two of them are competing in their statement for running up to protect and posturing israel. into, dr. ghattas. >> thank you all for the questions. especially happy about the question about bds. i mention the beginning how much i see now that's what back to washington in the importance of the international activism, i

call it, for palestine. i would say that perhaps in the west you undermine the impact of international activity on israel. i tell you that it is very much important, much beyond its impact. there's something psychological. .. there are almost 2 million people under siege. once of year, i joined last year

one small ship, small, 15 people we were. we were supposed to be five ships but then only one ship was sailing. i was sailing together and the only two arabs on the ship and other international activists. we have a strong international activists with palestine. israel was, for a week, in the newspaper as if the warships of the fifth fleet are coming. [inaudible] this is how they now conceive it and truly they should conceive it.

once you really express israel and all the time you do not respect human life and comply with international decision. there were listening to us. [inaudible] and not because of the substance but because of the mechanism. this mechanism, i told them you will test this mechanism at certain time. i know that it's not easy to put sanctions on israel but this is the way. i think this is the way.

that's why this work is very important. i know it has some substance. i know it has challenges in the laws that tried to criminalize such work but we have to overcome and protect yourself and be prepared. about other issues i was asked, i have been told i have only one minute of course i will talk about hamas and the disaster this is what happened to us and i see it. [inaudible] we have to face it by reviving the national project of the palestinians. egypt tried, others tried and there are agreements between the two but there's absence of

political will among the two parties. in order to create and impose on them this political will, we have to strike it in all areas and revive the palestinian movement. we have to revive fear. [inaudible] and they are playing a very important role in that. thank you very much. [applause] thank you for including us on this very busy trip to north america and we wish you the best and safe trip back home and continued service of the civil rights in people of palestine in general. thank you all for being here and we invite you to stay connected with us in the center with our

future events or to gilly on october 14 which will be a full day conference on democracy in the middle east. it in conjunction with the university of denver and our friends at stanford university. thank you for being here again. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> as this event comes to a close you can watch it later again on our website cspan.org. the bbc is reporting today that turkey has threatened further intervention in northern syria unless kurdish led forces withdraw in less than a week. they said the operation had two goals, to secure the border area and ensure the kurds are not there. it was not immediately clear if it was aimed at securing a border town or helping the pre-syrian army push further into isis held territory. book tv on c-span2, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some featured rooms this weekend.

saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, on "after words", the president candidacy of donald trump is the subject of syndicated columnist and coulter's book in trump we trust. it argues that moderates, conservatives and democrats should support him. she is interviewed by carlson, cofounder and editor-in-chief of the daily caller. >> i think he is a genuine patriot and loves the country. i think he looked around and saw so many things going wrong that he can fix. in that opening speech, he said something to the effect of if we don't stop this now it's going to be too late. it's going to be unsalvageable. >> on sunday at 730 eastern, april ryan moderates race in america, a panel discussion on race in relation to the news, politics and american culture. including an examining of the rise in racial incident, their origins and possible solution.

then at ten eastern, antonio martinez, former twitter advisor and facebook product manager talks about his book chaos monkeys which gives an insider's perspective on the silicon valley tech world and examines the future and impact of online marketing and social media. also this weekend, the washington post reports on america's nuclear arsenal, former army sniper were counts his missions in iraq and afghanistan. also the movement of the mission to increase workers wages. go to cspan.org for the complete schedule. >> today marks the 100 anniversary of the national park service with president wood woodrow wilson signed a bill to protect it and provide the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as leave them unimpaired for the

enjoyment of future generation. there was a video released on the park service on the centennial. >> the parks as you know, you on them. remember last year, the year before, maybe the year before that but remember, you were there and if you haven't been, you should go enjoy what is yours. protecting keep this great heritage. your grandparents enjoyed some of them and your grandchildren will enjoy more of them for these are the national parks.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> i'm congressman fred schill and i represent arkansas. i'm at the high school museum in little rock, a centerpiece of the civil rights trail around the south. here in 1957, was the biggest school integration crisis following the brown versus board of education decision. the national park service has this memorial right here at central high school, one of the most beautiful high schools in our country. i'm an avid outdoorsman and the national park site in our cassava has the most meaning to me is the first national river in our country, the buffalo national river. i have been going there literally for about 55 years and

so i have many miles on the river and wonderful happy memories of floating the first national river, the buffalo national river. kenny roosevelt led the charge to protect america's wild places and special laces. he believed in the strenuous life and now, more than than ever, our young people and families need to get outdoors and enjoy america and that is why you are watching this show and i'm in acadia, mean in the national park in the northeast participating in the 100-mile challenge. i urge everyone in america this fall to support our centennial for the national park and get outside america. >> my first introduction of the park service was at the gettysburg battlefield. i was 15, and it was love at first sight. i was taken both i the extraordinary nature of our park service and how important of a

role they play in american history and an education but also the civil war. i have made it my lifelong goal to visit every chance i get from gettysburg to bull run and more. it is an extraordinary service that the park service provides in that piece of our history is so critical and so pivotal to changing the country. efforts were made to preserve the land historical sites starting with ulysses s grant and through president roosevelt

and president obama. that is an investment for future generations. it's not only in advancement investment in ourselves, but it is the future generations. i can say i'm grateful for the decisions that were made in the early part of the 20th century with respect to the grand canyon, badlands and so many other extraordinary places. when people come to america and the experience that, their jaw drops in their eyes widened because they can't imagine the great vastness of america. >> 100 years ago woodrow wilson signed the bill creating the

national park service. today we look back on the past century of these caretakers of america's natural and historic treasures. at seven pm eastern we are live from the national park service most visited historic home, the arlington house at arlington national cemetery. join us as we talk with robert stanton and brandon buys, the former site manager will oversee the upcoming year-round restoration of the mansion, its headquarters and grounds. today, the 100th anniversary of the national park service live from arlington house at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span three. a discussion now on u.s. israeli relations with former middle east representative and prof. kent's time. they talk about its history since the truman presidency, how relations have involved and how it could change again after november. they also talk about the

fortunes of the israeli-palestinian peace process in the appropriate role to the united states in those negotiations. good afternoon my name is jonathan and i'm vice president for research here a foundation for defense of democracy. i would like to welcome everyone to the conference room. i would also like to welcome those of you watching today's event on c-span. today's panel discussion is titled from truman to obama, the past, present and future of palestinian and israeli relations. in the spirit of the olympics, this is is the dream team for an event of this kind. it's my pleasure to welcome ken stein who is among the country's foremost important scholars on the conflicts.

he's the founder for education and he was my professor back in the early '90s at emory university where he has taught since 1977 and where he still teaches today. he. he is a friend and a mentor and i learned a great deal from him and i am sure that you will too. i'm also pleased to welcome ambassador who has watched u.s. israel relation of all as an official cross several administrations. i was honored to call him a college when i worked at the washington institute a little more than a decade ago. he recently wrote a terrific book called doom to succeed which documents the history of the alliance. moderating today's discussion is senior counselor john haner. he is a veteran senior official and has watched this alliance of all over several administrations. this is a moment where i ask you to turn off your cell phone or set them to vibrate. we want to make sure today's event is not interrupted and

that includes the palace. once again, welcome and thank you all for joining us today. john over to you. >> thank you jonathan and thanks to all of you for coming and especially to ken and dennis for being here. jonathan referred to his long relationship with can and as you know, maybe this this is like bring your mentor to work day because dennis and i actually go back a very long way as well to my time as a graduate student at stanford in the early 1980s and i think he may regret this today, he actually got me my very first job in washington which was also at the washington institute as well is my first job in government working for him at the state department on the policy planning staff. i actually blame all of that is the reason why i never actually finished my phd. now back then, the world was a much simpler place when all we

had to do was deal with saddam and the clash of the soviet union and germany, it was was all very easy stuff in the good old days but anyway, through all all the years dennis has really been a good friend and a source of a lot of advice and wisdom and it's great have both him and ken here today. now as jonathan mentioned, the purpose of the discussion is to try and take stock of the u.s. israel relationship but as we look back and look forward, we want to provide some sense of historical context for what is certainly among the most important and i think people can make an argument that it may be the most important bilateral relationship in american foreign policy. there is an opportune time to do so given the fact that we are approaching the end of one administration and in just a little more than five months time, it's hard to believe we will be watching the inauguration of a new and different president of the united states and who knows, maybe a very different president of the united states.

we will see. although the polls are the polls. for many of us who have solid relationships between the united states and israel, the past seven and a half years under president obama have certainly felt like a very stressful and mulch list time. it's also a paradoxical time in many ways. on the one hand is the president frequently tells us, and not without good cause, security and intelligence cooperation between the two countries have never been stronger. indeed it appears were on the verge of successfully completing a new tenure and ou that will include very significant increases in u.s. military assistance to israel. yet at the same time, the more visible, political relationship between our government has distantly seemed like it's lurching from crisis of confidence to another crisis of

confidence, filled filled with degrees of venom and insult and mistrust that have really left supporters for israel kind of a gas and stunned. more portly, there have been real and fundamental policy differences as well and most strikingly of course and the clash over the iranian nuclear deal. that's an issue that many in israel saw as existential in terms of their security and survival. where is israel's interest and concern that the end of the day they appeared to tend end up taking a backseat. adding to the growing sense of gloom i think has been a lot of public statements like the one attributed to ben rhodes, the president's assistant and his profile in the new york times magazine last may where he explained that the iran deal was intended to create the space for america to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like

saudi arabia, egypt come a turkey and israel. with one bold move the article went on that the administration would begin large-scale disentanglement from the middle east. in light of all of this apparent , i wanted to start with both of them to assess just where you think we are in a relationship today, how should we think about these past seven and half years, how do they fit in the historical evolution of the relationship that both of you have spent so much time studying and explaining. has all this tension that we've seen just been another temporary hick up in an over wall upward trajectory of deeper cooperation between our country or something more fundamental at work in the world, in the u.s., in israel that suggest that the recent tensions and differences more reflect something more long-lasting or maybe even for

the worst. ken, when you kick us off. >> in the context of 70 years, i think it's fair to say that this is one of the most difficult times the u.s. is really relationship has lived through that there have been others as well over the past 70 years, carter was pretty bad, we've had times when secretary of state's have been pretty angry and virulent in their anger against prime ministers, 11 of the reasons that the relationship sustains itself is the premise upon which it is based which is the values and the common identity but also one of the reasons israel seems to stay as a primary objective american friendship is the middle east is a region continues to change and

turn them back in the 50s one of the reasons united states found itself attached israel was because of the cold war, not because necessarily the state department or people in the 40s liked it, and as the region continues to change in israel continues to remain stable, israel remains in a aircraft carrier but even with all of the stuff that goes on beneath the surface, how many times can a secretary of state in the past 30 years say we oppose settlements or settlements are the obstacle of peace or settlements don't to anyone anyone good and yet there is this incredible strategic relationship that sustains itself. i think the fact that if israel

were not the only reliable friend that the united states had in the united states on a regular basis, it might be a little bit more difficult for israel but at the present time, given for the middle east is headed, i think the relationship is pretty strong and prime ministers and presidents go and they don't stay forever. >> obviously having written the book doomed to succeed, we know the ending. the thrust of the book is that you have a sin down some is going to be differences but there's something fundamental that has drawn us together in the essence of that is pretty much what ken was saying, it's not unique to have presidents and prime ministers not get along. ken talked about carter and reagan. actually reagan and he were in many ways in the end, a a worst fit at certain points, notwithstanding reagan's image, he wrote in the diary, don't

abandon the best friend we ever had. there are personality clashes in that that has been the case in this administration. there are other parallels. in the book one of parallels eyesight is actually between bush 41 and the obama administration where there is a kind of public dissonance between the administration and the president and the prime minister as there certainly was between george hw bush in the election here and as there was even then over the settlements issue and you've seen a kind of parallel here with president obama. president obama is, as i've known, he prides himself on his commitment to israeli security which is genuine and what he has done and the level of cooperation on security and on intelligence really is above and beyond what we've seen before. in some ways it's driven exactly by what ken said, the reality in the region have created that.

it's not just that we are going through. of the region that appears unprecedented. we've had individual crises in the region before but we haven't had this many crises at the same time. i used to say back in 2011, it was just egypt, that would be enough, but we are looking at syria which is a humanitarian catastrophe, we are dealing with the struggle within iraq, there is a proxy war in yemen, there is, what we see going on in libya, there is libya and all these things take place at the same time, and they reflect the reality that is unlikely to change in the near term. there's a struggle over identity and who's going to control and define it in for the next ten or 20 years, the middle east may well look like this. whatever those problems are,

israel has a rule of law and separation of powers it means that whatever it's difficulties it's going to find a way to manage and it will be fundamentally stable at a time when the region is not. when the united states needs someone it can count on in the region. yes, there are differences and there are some interesting signs that we should talk about in terms of what i think are some of the demographic changes in the political attitudes that are changing as wellin some respect, but if you look at israel what israel represents in the not eights is going to need someone it can rely upon in the middle east, someone who can count on in terms of stability and that will be israel.

>> you mention briefly in the united states, i wonder if i can get both of you to comment on what you think is the significance or the lack thereof on things like boycott, the sanctions movement or whatever currents of anti- israeli sentiment that we saw in the democratic primaries and amongst very enthusiastic supporters of bernie sanders and then just the overall cultural and generational shift that at least some people see happening, particularly in the american jewish communities. do any of those things, do you see them potentially having a long-term impact on the future of the relationship and can it be a guide for us in this regard? >> they will if the u.s. government doesn't take a firm attitude of position on the particular issue.

i don't know how many times susan set it at the un, she has also been the national security advisor and we are not.allow israel to be isolated by the united nations. academy speeches you read, the same phrases over and over again. i assume they mean what they say, if the united states backs away and allows an issue to go through and something to be passed, then it becomes troublesome so the united states still has to do a job at the un in not allowing unilateralism by the palestinians to come to the floor and become part of the political process. the obama administration has been consistent with that. as have other administrations. yet very will be more than happy to be angry with israel about issues that matter, disagreement

with iran and weapons procurement and how much and how soon, those things seem to be a part of the norm in the relationship that has gone on for 25 - 50 years. just look for example how many times the israelis and israelis americans have disagreed over the use of words. dozens of times in dozens of situations and the arguments continue and they come back and you have defense ministers and chief of staff's coming in and out of washington on a once a month basis. it does matter what the united states does. it does matter what the united states says. it's really important i think israel takes that has part of the relationship with united states but i don't think think it takes it for granted.

>> i think there's a couple dimensions to this. one is a dimension that can was talking about, it is a nation, one of the reasons that we're going have differences with israel, the question is how we manage the differences with israel. if we highlight the differences, it gives faith and licensed to others who feel they have to be even more antagonistic or tougher. when the u.s. takes a certain kind of tough position on an issue, europeans feel we have to be even stronger on that. that can feed things like media even if that's not the intent to have that consequence. i do think there are currents here. they've grown up in an atmosphere. [inaudible]

the palestinians have been very good at making themselves the victim. the problem with making being a victim is a strategy is one thing it guarantees is that you always be a victim. that narrative has taken hold and you definitely syria in europe where there is a symbol of a sentence that this is a total explanation of the conflict. the palestinians are victim and the israelis are somehow the victimizers. you see it on some of the campuses here. on a number of campuses, they have acquired a kind of a saliency, you you see it increasingly with efforts to identify with others and you will see that they will go to

every other group and the will say look, were all part of this broader coalition and there's a kind of instinctive support for that without looking at what's the character of this conflict. i look took part in the debate almost two years ago and it was actually with norm and the premise of the debate which was the annual question was, in this particular case of the debate do americans support peace and for a lot of people there, that was taken as a given. what i did as i went through every proposal from 1937 until today and asked who was accepted and who rejected it. by doing that, obviously i demonstrated that in almost every case the israelis for the

case before the time of the regime, it was this israelis who actually excepted the proposals and it was arabs and later the palestinians who rejected it. i wasn't doing that to say that tells you the whole story of this conflict but if you're going to try to suggest that somehow the israelis are the reason there's no peace, the historical reality suggest the opposite. part of what needs to happen is we who are actually committed to trying to resolve a conflict need to tell a story about it. we who believe in a strong u.s. israeli relationship have just hell a story about it but the israelis to have to present themselves in a way that also says, here's what were doing to promote peace. one of the things, and this get back to an issue, the settlements had been an issue and it turns out.

[inaudible] they've been around a long time. one of the things i would like to see the israelis do is make their policy consistent with a two state outcome. when they say our position is two states or two people that make your policy consistent with that. that is a good way to again remove the one issue that creates a vulnerability and makes it easy for the palestinians to present themselves as victims and makes it easy to deflect attention away from what are they doing to promote two states. what are they doing to consistently do the two state? the point is there is something here you can't wish away. there is something here you can't just deny exist but it also. [inaudible] can i say something about the comment about ben rhodes, i've never met him, i've just read the article. the comment made by someone in

the white house that they're not particular pleased about the way israel supporters behaved in the general public is not new. during the debate in 1978, he touted out a bunch of people trying to make the case that the f team sales were a defensive weapon in a couple people who went across the country knew how to do so and complained that just wasn't the case that it was anything but a defensive weapon. >> it was the saudi's, egyptians and israelis. it was a trilateral agreement. it was a conversation that went on in the white house in which some members of the american jewish community showed up and members of the carter administration and finally a couple of jewish leaders stood up and said this is not a defensive weapon.

he stood up and pointed his finger at whoever stood up and said you have to decide, argue jews or all are you americans. he was quite angry, not so much at someone disagreeing with him but somebody was interfering in the process of making foreign affairs and foreign policy. he did not particularly enjoy that. henry kissinger didn't particularly enjoy that there were people making policy that favored immigration, russian and immigration that might have an impact on his ability to make foreign affairs. i'm not surprised that ben rhodes said it. i'm not apprised the bureaucrats bureaucrat said. no one likes a speedbump or an obstacle put in their way. it's natural. maybe you're not supposed to say it in an interview. maybe you're not supposed to it that way, but it's the normal behavior when someone gets in the way. you would love to throw a pass 100 yards down the line and not have a defensive back. that's not the case. >> october 1, 1981, 1981, ronald

reagan is giving a press conference and this is during the time and he says it is not the business of a foreign country to make american foreign policy. that's a quote. now, that's a statement that was made in public and people don't remember ronald reagan being tough against israelis because in fact it was a transformative administration but they're saying there have been differences over these kinds of issues. it is interesting every time an american president decides a particular issue is really important from the standpoint of american national security and the israelis or the jewish committee has been on the other side every single time the administration has succeeded. it wasn't the f-16 or the long guarantees or the bush ministration and it wasn't just a rainy and sections without a plan of action. we've seen this repeatedly over

time. there can be differences. what is striking and what i know in the book, every single time will we've had one of these fundamental differences for what appears to be a fundamental difference, "after words" the relationship is actually improved. it tells you something. it's very easy for everybody to look at the difference of the moments and say oh my gosh, that's it, the relationship will never be the same and yet every time in the aftermath of that it improves so you have to ask yourself the question, why is that the case. so many say it's just politics. it's not just politics. it's because there is something fundamental about having shared values and shared interests and where in the end israel is the one country you can count on in the region. >> so in 1969 they set our interest in the middle east are more than practical commitment to israel at no means everything israel wants or does. if our friendship with israel,

the only thing that's left within united states it would be catastrophic setback for american policy. that was 1969. >> i haven't gotten out some of secretary baker's traces you referred to them. i do want to talk about something that has struck me because i feel personally involved in this in the first time he brought me to washington in the early '80s. >> at a time when there really was no u.s. israel strategic relationship to really speak of, i'll get that history of what the conversation in this town was like, both when you dealt in terms of the think tank community, the policymaking community and inside the government, you can run across a vast majority of people working on issues in the state department and the defense department and the intelligence

community who had almost no relationship to israel in their entire careers. at that time they were saying nobody talks about this anymore. have dominated the debate in washington about middle east affairs and relationships in particular and people genuinely, just the notion that israel was a strategic liability around america's neck as we try to advance them was the currency of the day and it seems to me the last 30 years, thanks in large part to dennis who is one of the original people working to advance this during the reagan administration, the idea of the relationship but now i think you find amongst the military, the intelligence community, people at the defense department and in fact some of the strongest defenders of this relationship

precisely because you know the region is so volatile and they know there is so much there they can rely on in terms of stress and instability. the relationships had just been completely transformed. >> let me say one thing about that. cooperation began in the reagan administration. the first few years and that administration were among the lowest point of the american israeli relationship from the time of israel's founding. it was because there were a series of surprises, reagan comes back and george becomes the secretary of state and he was out and scholz comes in. the combination of scholz and reagan in the aftermath of our

embassy being blown up, they come back to what they think and they want to know who they can count on and who is a threat to us. what emerges from that, in fact, is an architecture for cooperation militarily and intelligence wise and even economically. that instead of a set of personal relationships, over time the reason it exists this way is that service to service relationships have been developed. individuals who are looking at a particular threat to the problem and they say who are the counterparts that can help them, they create a nexus and they can

have differences at the political level they can have some potential effect but they don't shape what is the underpinning that has emerged. no las vegas rules don't apply in middle east. you're dealing with these threats and who is in a position to help you identify it it creates this array of cooperative relationships and it has grown out of that. >> personalities really matter and it really matters whose president and whose prime minister and who the immediate three and four people are and their advisors. it really matters a heck of a lot. >> it certainly colors the atmosphere of the relationship, that's for sure.

when i compare this administration to the one that and out which was 41. yet bush 41 done. sometimes. [inaudible] let me turn to the peace process and the role that it has, the role that it has played in the israel u.s. relationship and in kissinger's time, the issue kind of waxed and waned in terms of what else was going on but

almost every single administration at some point really feels the need to reach for the brass ring, trying to hatch some breakthrough breakthrough on the peace process. i experienced it in the last day of the bush administration when sec. rice made such a big effort to do it. it really made of its top priority at a time when iraq was completely hanging in the balance and the only thing our arab friends when it's talk about was iran and yet the peace process, in this administration i was struck back, and you will remember this well because you write about it, in may 2011, the middle east is coming apart, dictators are falling left and right and conservative monarchies are worried they'll be next in the nuclear threat as well out there in the present goes in may 2011 in all of this

to give a speech at the state department and had a speech about the arab spring, i think it's called thing like the rings of change and lo and behold, what are the headlines the next day, there about the president making new demands on the israeli-palestinian issues that israel needs to return to the 67 lines with some adjustment and whatnot but it was really kind of striking with everything else happening in the region, the region kind of unraveled with no possible connection to the palestinian issue and yet the president felt compelled to return to this issue at a time when nobody thought any real progress could be made and did so in a way that actually caused the degree of friction with the israeli prime minister and i think there's been some of that as well with sec. carey's

initiative in 2013, he comes in as a new secretary of state and serious melting down, chemical weapons are being used, isis is just about to emerge and breakthrough in iraq and he spent the first year in office really devoted. [inaudible] it's all quite shocking and it makes you wonder, why is this the case? what explains explains this, can it be changed, should be changed. >> so you covered a lot there, it was actually may 19, 2011 and then he gives a speech three days later on may 22 to the aipac conference which reinforces what he said in his first beach, the key parameters is. [inaudible] he explains what that means. the interesting thing was it was

his arab spring speech and i want to come back to a larger question but i want to touch on this because i do write about in the book and i lived at the time what's striking is that for about four months we had been talking about giving the speech and we have a lot of discussion with the president and before he finally makes the decision to do the speech, there's two things that come into play. several of us make the case you need to give to speeches one about the peace issue but if you introduce the peace issue. [inaudible] the point is to give a speech, if you go back and read the speech, 90% of the speech is about what's going on in the region.

the last 10% is on the peace issue and there were several of us who said book, it doesn't matter if you give three sentences on the peace issue, that's that's way to be the headline of the speech and not what you want to say about the arab spring. diane buys them, go back and take a look because because it's a very strong speech on the arab spring. we worked very hard and we discussed this for three or four months and sure enough, the reason they gave the one speech is because all of the domestic political advisers are saying the country doesn't care about what's going on over there, it's only about the economy here and so the argument is you can't give to speeches on this because you need to be focused on domestic issues. it's one speech because basically the side of the house says he can't give to speeches and it tends to unfortunately drowned out what was actually a very good speech on how we were

going to respond to the changes taking place in the arab world. the second party were question and the essence of your question, why is there this need to address this issue? one of the things i said is that there are assumptions that have been embedded for a long time. one is that if you cooperate in a show through multiple administrations where it's not the case and another one is you will damage it and it never happens and the third is that the only thing that can change the american position on religion. [inaudible] someone who spent the last few years of his life trying to solve this problem, it seems odd that i'm the one saying, you really don't have to look at this issue as a game changer in

the region. i believe you should try to do it for a lot of different reasons, not because it's going to change the region. it's it's not going to change the region but it's embedded in the psychology of every administration from truman on that if you can solve this issue [inaudible] you still hear people say that today. it's not going to stop one more bomb in syria or suddenly make isis' appear or make iraq hole, it's not going to and the yemen war or suddenly make all of egypt's threats go away, it's not going to do any of those things. it would be great if you could demonstrate that it can be resolved and the standpoint that you really do need to have two state outcome.

it's worth it for the right reasons but not because it will transform the region. it's very hard to change that psychology. there's a sense that somehow. [inaudible] the most interesting thing that demonstrates how that comes true, if this was the case, how come they don't look at this in the region. >> sovereignty. >> that's the issue that dominates every other issue is syria and tobacco. if they had a solution, they would be addressing it. it doesn't mean this issue doesn't strike a chord, it does, but it does mean this built-in sense, it's a game changer and

removes from the psychology of almost every administration that has been there from truman until today. >> two points, and the palestinian issue. everyone takes a look at the newspapers if you take a look at the last four months, what you found is palestine is criticizing themselves for not being able to step forward and have any say whatsoever in shaping their own destiny. they are angry at their own leaders and angry of the strategic advantage that it's been able to glean from cyprus and greece and now going to africa. there's a whole litany of writing that's gone on in the last four months which is a complete disconnect of what people think sometimes.

>> the second thing is obama's choices of dates for this 2011 presentation was rather unique. if you look at camp david, it was a great first chapter. details on the four years of a president and they say presidents to best when they talk about conflict and try and put forth ideas during the second year of their term. never in the third and fourth. it's just not done. obama did. they are generally done in the first year or the first months

trying to get something going forward. because they had to put this paragraph on it indicated just how deeply motivated he was to make something happen. it eats at him. that is the third point. presidents who were left with one point of view, easily during the four years change that point of view before they leave. just because someone is elected on this or that platform for this or that principle, they want to go into office and see what the reality is in there much likely to change and shift, sometimes in very dramatic fashion. >> can i just say, i know were supposed to go to q&a. i want to add one thing on the timing of the speech. one of the reasons they feel he has to give this speech because he's about to go to the g20 on

may 22. he gives a speech and then he flies up to the g20. at the time, sir cozy is determined to present an initiative on the middle east and they have to give this speech before it dies out as a way of preempting what they're going to do at the g20. a lot of times you have the unique set of circumstances that will explain the timing. in this case, as i said, it can be us that are shaping it as opposed to having the french do it. >> we are going to do q&a but i want to get one question in and it does touch on obama and what we expect in these next few months. :

and then just going forward, both of you, a quick top line of what that memo looks like to the next president when you were advising him, what needs to happen in terms of putting the u.s.-israel relationship in a good place. how do you talk about iran in that mix? >> first, look, i don't think the president has been great interest in wanting to launch any big new diplomatic initiative. his preoccupation between now and the end of the administration is national security, the middle east will be isis. i do think that sometime in the

interim before the next administration comes in, he may well give a speech where he might choose to lay out parameters. i do know he has decided to do that but i think, i think he feels that, he doesn't think the israelis or the palestinians at this point are either willing or capable of doing anything. but i think he feels that if he could lay out a set of principles for how you could resolve the conflict, even if neither side can accept it, over time the rest of the international community and the israelis and palestinians will come to realize these are the only parameters that will actually work and it would be a legacy that he can leave and will have a certain benefit. i do think there's a potential for that. >> do you recommend that or not? >> president is giving speeches at the end of the term frankly don't have a very big impact on anybody. i think the original idea was good you have that become a

security council resolution with those parameters? if he were to give such a speech, it would be balanced in terms of the parameters, meaning he would address israelis needs as well as palestinian needs in those parameters. i don't think he can produce a security council resolution that can address both sides needs. you can produce a resolution that would be specific on what the palestinians feel the need, being able be precise when it comes to borders, precisely comes to the capital meaning 67 and agreed swaps. it would save two capitals for two states in jerusalem. when it comes, that's what the palestinians want the when it comes refugees, there should be a resolution for the refugees. when it comes to security, there should be security arrangements. if you can get something for precise on what the palestinians need an something completely vague on what the israelis need. that will make things worse. that will not make things

better. i don't think the administration is going to make a big effort at the security council because i think they realize that's the likely affect. in terms of your question on what should be i think the key, i think the key points to the next president of the u.s.-israeli relationship could be on the substance. you will immediately address something that is important to israelis but he also came with almost all of our traditional arab friends, if you would make it very clear that you are going to focus very heavily on making sure that the joint comprehensive plan of action is enforced, you will make it very clear that if there's any violations you want to work out now, what the price will be, you would like to create a joint implementation committee with israelis to watch very carefully what's going on with equipment. i think israel may oppose this

agreement but now it has a greater stake than anybody else in making sure it is fully completed so at least you by the 15 years you could buy, and you can take advantage of, if you buy 15 years what do you do to take advantage of that? make a suggestion on producing a set of contingency plan discussions on how to contend with iranian threats in the region, and make it clear this is something you're prepared to do not only with israelis but quietly with the israelis and a number of arab states. send the message you get the nature of the iranian threat, which will be important not only to the israelis but also to assess our traditional arab friends as well. in addition to that i would say, today you don't actually have a back channel between the president and the prime minister. i don't remember the last time that has been the case. reestablish that. i think there will be a strong

impulse on prime minister netanyahu societies so is the tensions in the relationship it wasn't because of him so he will want the relationship to get off on a good footing. i suspect the next president will want to show things are also on a sound footing as well spent i wonder who that could be, that back channel. i can't think of anybody offhand. what are you doing the next few years? >> i think if hillary becomes president, she'll be at least among the most experienced individuals who was taken position since maybe nixon or lbj in terms of washington experience. i would imagine she also knows the use of language. she will be on a more careful about what words she uses in terms which uses. i would suspect private communications is going to matter a lot, particularly in

the u.s.-israeli relationship not being caribou public has some presidents have been. i think any president who's going to be elected knows the middle east can come bite them. and is going after react to it. which means you'll have to appoint people who are not loyalists are actually smart people. so people of each elected are not necessarily the people who should be serving. >> we are going to go to the audience. i think we've got a mic, you could just identify yourself. if you want to direct a question to give of the panelists, that would be great. >> reporter with cq roll call. thank you for this panel. my question is for both panelists. can you talk about your predictions over the next 48 years -- four to eight years for his relationship to the democratic party, mentioning that in late june senate appropriations committee

advanced their annual fund that include an amendment brought forth by mark kirk that would authorize local governments to disengage from entities that engaged in bds. the amendment was adopted by the majority of democrats, nine democrats voted against that amendment that was supported by a back. tim kaine is associated closely with j street and he did not attend netanyahu's speech last march. and, of course, hillary clinton, president bill clinton is not known for having close ties with netanyahu. in the late 90s listening to of been not so subtly campaigning for them not to be reelected. with all those notes in mind what you think will happen? in focusing this on pbs generally, not the broader security relationship.

>> first i would urge you to rebut but because you might learn a little more about bill clinton if you did. i think that, i would be surprised if you didn't see more, if you wouldn't see a general support to do with the bds issue. and support more general legislation to counter boycott. i think, you know, you have to e governor of new york who was talking very loudly and proudly about what new york is doing with regard to that. i think you'll find, i think this is the kind of bipartisan issue. i don't see it as a kind of partisan issue, and it shouldn't be. it should be a nonpartisan issue. as i say, look, you know, one of the most important things for israel is to be sure that it remains a nonpartisan issue.

israel can't be a republican or democratic issue. israel needs to be a nonpartisan issue and i suspect you'll see more of an effort made on israel's part to be reaching out more to democrats. and i think also more to some of the communities that historically don't necessarily have any kind of real historical ties to israel. >> let me say this about bds. i think the u.s. congress will take a stand. i don't think it's something that will just be, just go away. second, bill clinton is not running for president. hillary clinton is. and i think it's a terribly important distinction that we make. if one takes a look at hillary clinton's speeches, which has been given in the last six or seven years, both as secretary of state and afterwards, one

sees a distinctly positive attitude towards the state of israel and towards a two-state solution and towards israel as a jewish day, two states living alongside one another. very apparent in her speeches even when she was secretary of state, to a certification she said that united states will not impose arbitrary will not pressure israel. she said that. granted, you can say that when you are outside of office at what you do inside of office are two different things. but i think it's most important for us to understand that hillary clinton if elected, she is president of the united states. >> right here. >> i'm a former executive director of aipac and i was struck by dennis ross' statement that every time there has been a

crisis in u.s.-israel relations, afterwards relationships have gotten better. it's been about a year now since the jcp a, and the think that since that time when israel objected to it, you know, in a very public way with netanyahu coming are speaking to congress that there's been any improvement in the relationship? >> i don't think fundamentally the personal relations between the president and the prime minister are not, i don't think they have changed. but john started off by saying and i think it's true, we are very likely going to see a 10 year m.o.u. concluded between the united states and israel. that will become it would be significant more than what was in the last 10 year m.o.u., and that follows the pattern. you look at, after, project camp

david and all of it after the f-15 in the carter administration, then you get what is, you get the assistance israel, institutionalized really for the first time of 3 billion a year. after the awacs debate, which is very tough one in 81, then you end up seeing the joint political military group established under reagan the strategic cooperation done. if you look at bush 41, after the differences on the loan guarantee issue, you still get the loan guarantee provided and you will look at was done within the administration to ensure that diplomatic relations are established with countries that had never existed before, on the one hand, and also it's done just in terms of the effort that

is made to ensure that soviet jewry ends up going to israel. so in every administration where we've seen these big fights them what we've seen in the aftermath is we've seen a change for the better. and i would say, the m.o.u. being concluded, which is going to be as i said, it's going to very significant resources, will also be another indicator of that. it's not a personal relations always change but the fundamentals of the relationship seemed to become more rigid. >> yes, this gentleman right here. >> seems to be on, good. i'm with cbs. this is directed at dennis. hello, turn one. dennis, by any chance of you minimize or understand the importance that an israeli-palestinian deal would have if it really were a great deal of wealth and permitted with the u.s. and eu and maybe arab gulf states correct routing to an investment fund,

et cetera? what a big wind with the answer to change the u.s. image in the area that we are involved in something positive. secondly, with the unprecedented step of crises going on, in a bizarre way maybe the israeli-palestinian deal would be the easiest thing to do. it's like a structural if one already knows the framework and to just kind of have to screw in the last screw. >> man, i wish it were just the last screw. [laughter] >> that didn't sound right, david? >> no. >> i don't know that, first let me agree with, yes. and would have a lot of positives affects? absolutely. do i think it would make a lot of what's going on privately -- today one of the things we haven't talked about, below the radar screen this level of israeli cooperation with the sunni arab states that never existed before.

my colleague said it's the first jewish sunni state. it reflects there's a strategic convergence of interest in terms of the threats and he can be seen as helping to counter those threats. so there is no doubt that if you had a piece, you could make all those, the private cooperation, that is mostly only limited to security, you could take it and apply it to the water problems in the area. there's one country in the region that solstice water problems come israel. what they could do for others that are going to face increasing problems because of climate change, likely to be an additional contribute to conflict, it would be a very positive think it would change the american image in the region? it would help the would fundamentally transform it? it would be other reasons that we would see that there would be problems that would still exist. but what it improved? for sure.

weighted help the israelis in your? absolutely. it would have a lot of positive effects for sure, including in the region as i said. would it make all the problems in the middle east go away? no. and the question that john was asking me is, why is because such an enduring hold for president who felt they need to make this a kind of priority. the answer is because there was this embedded belief that this was the core of all the problems in the region. leaders have heard this over and over and over again. so all i'm saying is it's not the core of the problems in the region, but it could make a major contribution. one of the things i said was not just in the region but even beyond, to take something that is seen as something in tractable, joe that it's not could have a huge psychological benefit. it's not going to make every problem in this region go away.

>> come right here to decide of the front row. >> thank you. my name is amanda and then with the israel project. thank you so much for speaking at spd for hosting the summit question is after john kerry's negotiations you have the unity that with some people would say negotiations backfired and actually produced a dangerous outcome. looking from the future, if going for a negotiation isn't something that concerns you that just by having negotiations in general we can create a worse situation? >> you know, i don't know that, let me put it this way. when there's no process, the situation gets worse. when you have negotiations that failed, there tends to be a reaction to that. i think there's a lesson for diplomacy. a lesson for diplomacy is to

reduce your choices to only to the don't make your choices, if we canceled everything, we are going to do nothing. that's a guarantee for doing nothing. and what we've seen in the middle east generally is whenever there's a vacuum, the worst forces deliver there should be diplomacy on this issue, but the diplomacy should be guided by a focus on what you can practically get done. and it's fine to an ambitious set of objectives, but don't highlight the ambitious set of objectives and make that and create a set of expectations around them because if you can't achieve them, then you do create a kind of situation that is worse. but don't let, i'm worried that some could interpret the premise of your question, negotiations, since they're not going to work out they will make the situation worse. what has happened when there's nothing going on is a degree of hopelessness. right now what you want the site

is a complete loss of belief. israelis and palestinians today don't believe anything can happen. that has contributed to making it harder to do anything, on the one hand, and making the situation far worse on the other. >> dennis i think used to work in another book called statecraft. it's what you get in between your negotiating processes, whatever that might be. i think it's also terribly important for the next president to understand that just because the white house or the oval office gets involved in negotiations doesn't necessarily mean there's a conclusion at hand. you still need respect on both sides that will encourage and exercise it and be willing to take chances and risk. if you don't have it doesn't matter what happens in washington. it really doesn't. >> my own experience with this

is not being a primary player advocate in the peace process, but i think there is a tendency to believe that if you don't have either the oval for the 74 of the state department engaged in this, the process is hopeless and nobody takes it seriously anyway. then when you do get those people engaged, i've got to say, it sucks up all of the oxygen in the room and makes it very difficult for anybody else working on really big strategic issues and might lend themselves more to the application of american power and diplomacy, makes it difficult to get the time and resources that you might need. this gentleman right here your. >> channel 10 come israel. we are more interested in the bottom line. so for both of you, can we expect any peace initiative under two scenarios, one is

president trump and the other is with president clinton. >> first, i could honest i know idea what a president trump would do. [inaudible] >> i just have no idea. i think if there were a president clinton, i think that she would commit your administration to working on the issue. there's a big difference between working on the issue and suddenly raising expectations that peace is just around the corner. this gets back to what i was saying. i think the key here is we have to address this issue. the question is how do you address this issue? there's a big, range of activity between doing nothing and saying you're going to solve it. what needs to be done now, my on plan since announcing this what the next administration will do but i will give you my own since what needs to be done. need to work on several

different levels. he got to find a way to begin to restore belief. can you change some realities on the ground so that both sides begin to feel that something can change and there's a sense of possibility? today neither side believes there's any sense of possibility. so you start i what can you be doing to reestablish a sense of possibility. if both sides say they're committed to two states, maybe work with each doesn't take some steps that would demonstrate policies that would manifest a commitment to two states. you also i think have to bring the arab states into this. today the palestinians are too weak, too divided, to position themselves for succession to even think about a few negotiations today as a concession. what you have to do in negotiations, they forget or on their own it's difficult to do anything but they still need to be involved. unitas into the way to create

some arab involvement, some arab state coverage. you need arab state cover also for the israelis. i don't need to tell you this. the arab -- if you bring the arab state in, the arab states need to say all right, what will the israelis to, vis-à-vis the palestinians? what kind of concession stand and make? they need to know, israelis leaders need to know what will we get? they can fight a cover from the palestinians so that they could even negotiate much less make adjustments or concession. but they also rationalize with the israelis if they're going to make these moves towards the palestinians what they can get in return. to the arab states at this point have enough bandwidth to be involved in this good all of the threats in the region? i don't know the answer to that but i think again they don't know that any publicly because you'll drive everybody into the most natural position in a way they can't do anything. program in a private way in to

work to see all right, what would it take to get you involved with which the need from israelis? in some arab states you say what would you be prepared to give to the israelis? we need to sort think at different levels what to do on the ground and what you can do to bring the arab states into this. now, that's not the stuff of launching a big public initiative, doing something that makes it clear you're going to be involved is different of launching a big public initiative but that's what i would suggest. >> small steps will get you to the big one. i have no clue. [laughter] whatever it is i can't say it in 140 characters anyway. >> he said he heard that this is the great deal of all times, with the difficulty knows but boy, would be terrific to get it done.

we do tend to try and soften that instinct? >> send them all to atlantic city. >> what he said is he would be neutral. because that's like you have to address, i do know, he said you have to be neutral because that's how you have to be. it is true that, look, there is a conventional wisdom after that media just have to be neutral. like most conventional wisdom he suggested something that most conventional wisdom are wrong. the training has been immediate and almost any conflict that we'vwehave never been neutral iy of those conflict. when we are active in ireland, there was a perception that george mitchell going in wasn't neutral because he had a historic relationship with holbrooke in bosnia. he was seen as being close to the muslims. the point is when you're a

mediator, by definition you can't give it up if you don't address the needs of both sides. but the idea that we are going to be neutral, i gave a speech in gaza in 2005 just afford the israelis withdrew, the several hundred palestinians. and i said look, i know you don't like to hear this but the united states is was going to have a special relationship with israel. that's a fact. that doesn't mean it has to come at your expense. in fact, when i gave a speech it was just at the beginning of a second bush term. i said, for the last four years the trend has been a mediator at all. are you better off? at a time the palestinians lost about 4000 people. i can take this group, no one was shot and said they were better off when the u.s. wasn't involved at all. i said at the time, nothing

preventeprevented the europeansn israel or the russians from playing this role but they didn't play the role and they couldn't because they really didn't have the kind of relationship with israel that made it possible. so having a special relationship with israel is not inconsistent with producing peace. it may be a prerequisite for producing peace. in any case it does exclude the fact he after just the needs of both sides, not the only one side. >> if you build this, statecraft requires quiet movement on the ground. ending success in arab israeli negotiations always requires a measure of negotiations. narrowing of differences, an agreement, a declaration of principles, our whatever the framework happens to be. you can't just run right into it. because that creates what 15-20 years ago was called confidence-building measures, or tension reducing initiatives, whether gratis. so things are interlocked. so people see what they get, see

what they're receiving. there's a certain degree of movement. it also simmers down, calls down people's attention. at some point if you say we reached a certain point, let's now move to another level. but that has to do with how do you find to knit as you move forward. >> one more question. we are almost over time but let's did it in and see if we can get some quick responses. >> i had a question for either speakers. broadening the scope a little bit, i was wondering what your thoughts were regarding the level of aid america gets wrote to the overall level of u.s. foreign aid. summit said given the flood level of overall foreign aid, israel increasing aid, outside influence or as i'm sure others a few years from now will say for the next m.o.u. we need to be increasing, that the current

one will not be enough. i was wondering what your thoughts were in that regard. >> look, i would simply say there's a great irony. it is true that we obviously provide a lot of aid to israel and it takes up a significant share of the overall budget but the irony is that it's precisely because there is support for israel that it ends up helping to contribute to the overall foreign assistance budget. ..

[applause] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> throughout this month we are showing booktv programs during the week in prime time. in case you are not familiar, here is booktv on c-span2 taking our public affairs programming and focuses on the latest non-fiction book releases through author interviews and book discussions. in-depth is a live three hour

look at one author's work with questions from viewers via phone, e-mail and social media. it airs the first sunday of every month at noon eastern. after ward is a discussion between a newly released book and an interview lowho is familr with the topic and often an opposing viewpoint. and we go across the country and dwi -- go -- to book events. booktv, on c-span2, television for serious readers. earlier this year, defense secretary, ashton carter named eric schmidt the share of a new defense innovation advisory board. he is the executive chair of alphabet and former ceo of

google talked live to a crowd in june with charlie rose. >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the 453rd meeting of the economic club of new york in our 109th year. i am chairman and president of the federal reserve bank in new york. we are the leading non-partisan forum for speeches on economic, social and political issues. more than a thousand prominent speakers have appeared before this club over the last century and we have established a tradition of excellence. i want to recognize the members that insure the financial stability of the club. their names are in our programs. i would like to welcome students that are here today from columbia university, hunter

college, nyu school observation business, university of pennsylvania, and southern me methodist university. we are honored to have our guest speaker, eric schmidts, the executive chairman of alphabet inc. in this role he is the firm's global ambassador with responsibility for the external matters pertaining to all its businesses including google. his responsibilities have taken him to all coners of the world including cuba, north korea, and saudi arabia to promote open internet access. he advises on seener issues for google as well. he helped grow the company from a silicone start up to a global

leader. he was ceo of google and then went on to be chairman from 2011-2015. he hold as bachelor's of electrical engineering from princeton university as well as a master and ph.d frin computer science at the university of berkeley. he is a writer and serves on the board of the mayo clinic and broad institute. he is a gulf stream pilot and has fill efforts that focus on climate change. we are luckily to have interviewing him charlie rose. the anchor of the one-hour program and the newly launched

charlie rose the week. he co-anchors cbs morning. let the discussion begin. charlie, the floor is yours. >> thank you, it is an honor to be here and with my friend, eric schmidt, who i have known a long long time. back when he was a chief technologist and trying to explain what java was about. remember those days? >> i do. >> bill said well about what eric represents. there is a story in the paper about google in europe, the saud saudi arabian investment in uber. we did a program this morning about artificial intelligence and virtual assistance. great companies are becoming

great technology companies everywhere we go and eric has been central to that evolution. i don't know. now that google is the second richest company in the world and what he and his partners have done is help us understand the power of technology. he feels strongly and so do i about how essential it is for this country to make sure it treats are -- with urgency and sense of commitment for all technology can do for us and i know that is a central concern for his. let me begin with a couple questions. when you went to google they said to you we need an adult in the room? because it was a good day for you. >> it was a good day for me. it is an honor to be here and thank you guys, very much, for inviting me and charlie thank you for doing this as well.

they decided they needed someone to run things. they had spent 16 months interviewing people and made them do things. to become ceo you had to go skiing with them or you had to go to burning man with them. very few people met the test apparently but i was fortunate enough. i told them i wasn't spending a weekend with them but made a long list of things to do. >> ten years as ceo. what was the most important thing that happened in those ten years for the company as you see it? >> my world is full of brilliant ideas that are not able to be monetized in the sense people have amazing ideas. in order to build a company of success like google, facebook and uber you need a technological idea but also a significant change in the way the revenue comes in. we invented targeted advertising in our case which is much better

than on target advertising and we road that hard. that give us this engine. in the same sense microsoft had the engine from windows we have had this engine that allows us to build these cysystems. we have been able to fill at big projects without much issue from shareholders. we can take risks, invests in ideas, crazy ideas and things i don't think will work but it is part of the culture. i learned that is not normal. most companies are lost in these quarterly cycles, debt structures and so forth which give them very few degrees of operating freedom. it is very tough for them. >> and today what is the role you have? >> i am mostly working on public

policy trying to understand how the world really works and trying to make sure frankly the governments wouldn't screw this sort of amazing thing that is happening up. >> is there a risk of that? >> of course. whenever you are affecting communication and information governments have a role to play. we had this significant battle, if you will, with china. the democracies are normally okay as long as you have on the side of informing people. >> will google be back in china? >> i hope so. we left in 2010 because they had strict rules about censorship and couldn't operate morally under those rules but it sign-up to the chinese government at this point. >> i want to talk about the issue i touched on that is very strong to you. we want to talk a lot about the

future here. the notion of the moon shot. we are looking at that in cancer by example of joe biden heading that up. what are the possibilities are a moon shine could do for us? >> maybe i should say i an obnoxious few view we are ropitting on assumptions and if we are not asking enough of our people and what we can do and not trying to build things that are transformative. go back to the interstate highway system that was justified to move missiles around. the lack of the system would cause america not to grow at all. it is from interconnected and connection. interconnectedness comes from making the world closer intellectually and distributions networks and all the things companies represented in this room do.

and new inventions come along. and there are things which we have a consensus and if we could just get behind it we call these moon shots. the president did a cancer -- vice president -- moon shoot. sean parker just donated $250 million to a set of doctors that figure out how to promote white blood cells in a way that might be a cancer breakthrough. these things come along but we don't talk about them. we spend time arguing political issues instead of how do we solve these massive problems. the two biggest things going on are this incredibly revolution in medicine and this incredible revolution going on in knowledge and the two of them are the basis for many things we can do.

the cancer moon shot is powered because we have breakthroughs and are able to marry the world of cancer and biology. >> is there a consensus in the country to do that? on the leadership or is the problem politics and washington? >> we say the criticism as precise as i can is that we have gone from an era where we thought about solving problems that were very big and now we define them as special interests of one kind or another. everyone is guilty. i am not making a particular political point here. everyone has their own issue. let's dream bigger, right? give you an example right. 3d printing of buildings. we think we can start to bring whole buildings with 3d printers lowing the cost of housing. does that matter? no, we have all houses. of course it matters enormously to all of the people.

another example, synthetic foods. so we have lots of food here we don't need to work on that. of course not. intact, 10% of the global warming contributions come essentially out of cows. cattle are wonderful animals but they are a significant source of pollution. even if you don't care about the cost of food which many do it looks like we can do synthetic food generation out of plants. it taste good and works. i go on. >> in terms of the essential philosophy is for government to provide an investment in the future by investing in the research and science? or somehow to unleash the private sector to be able to do this? >> it is more of a consensus. the country is full of smart people. shocking. and furthermore when you compare to euran