through. so that's my answer to you. do we know that the settlements are an annoyance for the palestinians? we do. do we think they're the ultimate obstacle for peace? we don't. we think the ultimate obstacle for peace is that the palestinian leadership going back to 1947 has been unwilling to pay the price for a palestinian state. and the price for creating a palestinian state is recognizing the jewish state. >> i'm sorry, but you just mentioned -- >> other people are going to have questions. >> if you want to wait until the very end and we have time, please. i'll be happy. . >> hi. i'm not going to address the issue of u.s./israel relationship. that's not what interests me here and i'm also not going to talk about the -- i do want to take issue as an historian with

something that you said at the beginning of your talk which is israel was born as a democracy and never known a second in which it was not a democracy. a few years ago a professor from the interdisciplinary center, wrote a very long paper with the declaration of independence and he looked specifically at the writing, the drafting of that document. >> israel's declaration of independence? >> kregt. and he shows in great detail that in fact not only as people usually forget, democracy doesn't exist anywhere in the declaration of independence but the word democracy was explicitly taken out of the language so as to prevent -- or to make sure there would be no question of sharing power either with orthodox jews or with the palestinians who were projected to be nearly 50% of the jewish state. >> does the word democracy appear in the american declaration of independence? >> i want to raise one more point. >> please. is it a point or a question. >> question. between 1948 and 1966, israel

imposed a military regime using military laws that jewish lawyers refer to as worse an nazi laws. >> i'm sorry, i'm sorry. >> that's not a question. >> i would just like to ask you how you can reconcile these facts and the fact that the chief policy maker at this time referred to this as separate development, invoking apartheid so as to prevent democracy -- >> thank you. thank you. >> i'll try to make a question out of the statement, okay? the fact that israel's declaration of independence doesn't mention democracy, here i have to confess that i don't know whether america's declaration of independence mentions the word democracy either, but i do know that america's declaration of independence was the model for israel's declaration of independence and the lawyers who worked on it were experts on america's declaration of independence. some of the language in our declaration of independence directly evoked america's declaration of independence and

what israel's declaration of independence does do, it employs the language of the bill of rights and guarantees all of israel's citizens equal rights without discrimination, free of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity or sex. it actually takes it a step further on the sexual issue. and it is true that between 1948 and 1964, parts of the arab community in the north were under a military administration. at that time it was felt essential because that part of the country had waged war against israel. this was not -- in 1948, this was not a neutral population. and every democracy, including this democracy over the course of its history during war time has taken extraordinary, and at times controversial measures to preserve itself as a democracy. and that is true of abraham link un, who did things including throwing journalists in jail,

which president truman did. we did not do by putting people in concentration camps. and even under the patriot act, we actually have a more liberal policy on issues relating to torture. we're the first country in the world to take up the legal aspects of torture and we just had a more liberal policy. with that, we are a country that has never been without the threat of destruction. i can't think of any other country in all modern history that has had to grapple with that type of daily threat. it's not just a threat, we're talking about attempts to destroy us, whether by conventional mean, unconventional means, to delegitimatize us. the fact israel has remained democratic and even in the first election held in 1949, when after over a thousand israelis were killed, after 6,000 israelis were killed out of a population of 600,000, that's 1% of the population, can you imagine if 1% of americans were

killed in a war? it's never happened. after that the prime minister at that time specifically granted full voting rights to all of israel's arab population and said we will not begin with that type of discrimination. and it has held. is israel a perfect democracy? excuse me, is america a perfect democracy? is there such a thing -- is the perfect democracy not an oxymoron? we're a work in progress, but we're also a work of progress. and today israel is more democratic, has more equal rights than at any time in its history. i'm very, very proud of it. if you ask me, it's israel's singular achievement. singular achievement is that democracy. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> i'd like to thank you so much for takening the time to spend with us. you recently had a "60 minutes"

story about the holy land and i was a little disappointed in the story because i didn't show enough of your interview. >> my interview was an hour and a half. they showed about 40 seconds. >> and so obviously in the interview they concentrated on you defending the biases that the story showed, so i am wondering, is israel doing anything or wanting to do anything about the mass christian exodus from the holy land because israel is such a tolerant country and based in religious ideals from all three religions in a sense. >> one of the great problems we had with the piece was that there is no mass exodus of christians from the holy land. what there is, is a very rapidly growing muslim population. and so, you know, they were trying to make a case that because of the occupation, christian population was shrinking. how do you square that the muslim population is tripling.

it's under the same situation, vis-a-vis israel. and in fact what looks like a fleeing population in fact is a population which is shrinking in terms of its percentage. that's what's happened, particularly in bethlehem. now, before 1995, israel controlled bethlehem up to 1995. it also depicted bethlehem as israeli occupied. bethlehem is not occupied by israel, there is no israeli noer forces in bethlehem. the christian population there went from 90% to 30%. not because christians are leaving bethlehem, but because the muslim population is growing very, very, very fast. and the points i made in the interview that weren't broadcast, first of all, cbs had defined the holy land as basically the west bank and even more narrowly as bethlehem and jerusalem. of course the holy land was israel and they were surprised to find christian holy places in israel and the holy land also includes gaza. how can you not talk about hamas and the total devastation.

there the christian population has fled under threat of death from gaza. israel has the middle east's only growing christian population. in fact the christian population of israel has grown by 1,000%, actually more since 1948. arab christians in israel are better educated and more affluent per capita than israeli jews. their kids do better on s.a.t. scores than jewish kids. there have been -- i know, it's a big blow. and they -- thousands of them have volunteered for service in our army, so much so that a couple of years ago the idf had to printout new testaments in hebrew so the christian soldiers could swear in. they're in every branch of our government. that arab judge i mentioned earlier who passed judgment on the former president of israel is a christian. they're in our parliament, in our academic world, in our scientific community. they are valued, they are deeply cherished and of course -- but that didn't make -- that didn't

make the cut for "60 minutes" and it was an important point, we feel. we'll go left, right, and keep it bipartisan. >> thank you, ambassador, for coming. what role do you think that the israeli possession of nuclear weapons has had on the reaming nal sort of aspiration for nuclear weapons. >> i'm going to go -- our position for well over 50 years is israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the middle east. not only will i reiterate that as many times as you want to hear it, but the important thing to remember is that israel is not threatening to wipe another country off the map. and the country that is trying to acquire nuclear weaponry is a country that is trying to destroy another people. it's denying a holocaust while plotting to perpetrate a second holocaust. that's a very substantive difference, i think you'll

agree. [ applause ] >> thanks so much, ambassador, for sharing about the u.s. and israel relationship. you discussed how the role is important that the israel -- they have direct talks with one another and the relation. so i was wondering if you could tell us or discuss more the components about why the united states and israel is so important as opposed to using an intermediary such as the u.n. is it just israel feels like because it's a sovereign nation that it requires the right to have direct talks? what is the importance in terms of using the u.n. >> that's a very interesting question.

there are several reasons. one, traditionally israel has going back to 1948 always preferred direct negotiations, because direct negotiations confer in us an element of recognition. by sitting with us, you recognize us and that should cut two ways with the palestinians as well. there was a time when israel wouldn't sit with the plo. now we to sit with the plo and by that we confer recognition, in writing but also in fact. functionally, practically, mediation has rarely worked. it has worked on occasion but at the end of the day there's no substitute for the two sides sitting directly. help rekissinger could shuttle between egypt and israel but at the end of the day it took sitting together face to face to conclude the camp david accords. it helps to have an american presence at the table helping you along but at the end of the day there's no substitute for us. and the last point for us most poignantly, is in creating a palestinian state in particular, and this state will be adjacent

to our most populated areas, we saw what happened in gaza when we pulled out. actually we saw what happened in lebanon when we pulled out and we got rockets there too. we cannot create a situation where a vacuum ensues in a palestinian state and is filled by iran the way the vacuum in lebanon was filled in iran. i mean 100,000 rockets pointed at our neighborhoods. that for us would be an ex10 shal threat. so we are taking an incalculable risk. we're willing to take it. it's extraordinary to think about israel, that still after everything we've been through in the last 10, 11 years with all the rockets, all the suicide bombing and all the rejected peace offers, the majority of the population supports a two-state resolution. they also doubt whether there's someone on the other side who's willing or capable of doing it. everyone agrees if we do get somebody on the other side it has to be direct talks. it has to be direct talks

because only through direct talks can we build the type of trust and build in the security precautions that will be necessary in case the peace unravels. and that is absolutely essential to us. essential to our survival, not just to our sense of self. >> hi. first i'll thank you so much for coming to talk to us. my question is regarding a two-state solution. a big sticking point between the palestinians and the israelis has been the refugees, specifically the right to return. so what is israel prepared to do for them and prepared or not willing to do for the refugees in order to create a two-state solution? >> there's two refugee problems. one is a palestinian/arab problem and jewish refugee problems. more jews were expelled after the 1948 war and the six-day war than palestinian arabs left under duress or otherwise under

the 1948 and '67 wars. so they also have claims. there's a lot of claims back and forth. according to one statistic, the jews left arab lands, they were land holders that were larger than the state of israel altogether, so there's going to be a lot at the table to discuss. what we're willing to do is look at ways in which arab refugees can be resettled the way our refugees would be resettled in our national homeland, in the nation's state of the jewish people, the land of israel and palestinian refugees should be resettled in the nation state of the palestinians, palestine. to do otherwise would transform israel from a jewish state that's called israel into a palestinian state because today the descendants, we're talking about grandchildren, great grandchildren of the refugees from 1948 number anywhere between six and eight million, so their return to pre-'67 israel would mean the end of the jewish state. it would be another ex10 shal threat to us.

but we feel through the help of the international community that both of these refugee issues can be resolved in a way where the jews resettle in their state, the arabs in their state and we could begin the process of learning to live side by side with one another with mutual recognition an security. >> i think we have time for about one more question. i think it goes to the left. >> i also want to thank you very much for speaking. i had a question, a further question on direct talks. what representatives of the palestinian people and plo does israel see as legitimate leaders of the palestinian people? is there any concern that because you could say -- because elections haven't occurred for a very long time, is there any concern that none of these bodies really have a legitimate mandate for the palestinian people? >> good questions here, i tell you. smart kids.

it's a hard one. under the exchange of letters between yasser arafat in september of 1993, israel recognized the plo as the soul legitimate representatives of the palestinian people. recognized the palestinian people and recognized the plo. unfortunately, the plo didn't recognize the jewish people, it was a mistake. but we're still working on that mistake. but that is the situation. we have committed to that. so the plo is the interlocuter. now according to the oslo courts, there were supposed to be elections there. for two and a half years the palestinian authority has refrained from holding elections because they think they might lose. the last time they held elections, they lost. they lost to an organization, hamas, which is recognized as a terrorist organization not just by the united states but by the quartet. you read its covenant, it calls not only for the destruction of israel but destruction of the jewish people worldwide. it's a genocidal organization

and they are not a partner for peace. there's three conditions laid down by the quartet for hamas participation. they have to recognize israel, they have to disavow terror, they have to accept all previous agreements signed by the palestinian authority. they will do none of the above. so they are not viable. so we are willing to sit with the palestinian authority, irrespective of whether they held elections, but the palestinian authority most of the last three years has balked at direct talks, for many reasons, but certainly since the outbreak of the upheaval, the arab spring, whatever you want to call it, they have been increasingly reluctant because their major -- the mainstay of the pa was mubarak's egypt. it is no more. the islamic brotherhood has ascendinged there. the muslim brotherhood and the salifas are the ideological partners, extensions of hamas. so hamas has been greatly

strengthened and they're very reluctant to hold those elections. it's going to be a problem because largely secular, unelected regimes in the middle east have not fared well for the last year and a half. and believe me, they're aware of it. and it helps to come to negotiating table from the sense of legitimacy and credibility and strength, and right now that's not particularly there, so that's one of the reasons they're balking. it's unfortunate because we are committed to the two-state solution. we are committed to reaching a conclusion within one year. netanyahu said if he would sit down with him, he would conclude it within one year. we know the price. we know as netanyahu told congress that there will be settlements beyond our borders. we know that there has to be a solution for jerusalem. he said that too. we said all we need is the palestinians to sit down and negotiate with us very, very

seriously. we had some preliminary talks in jordan recently. we hope they'll be renewed. we hope the palestinians will have unilateral movements in the 81 that won't get them anywhere, an attempt to get a state without making peace. on this, the united states an israel agree completely, completely. there's no daylight between us on any of those issue. we hope they will. we hope we can look forward to a time when the u.s./israel relationship can be much more about the spiritual ties, democratic ties, the commercial ties and much less about the military ties. value them though we do. thank you. thank you all. [ applause ] >> i'd like to invite -- [ applause ] >> before you leave, i'd like -- thank you. i'm going to give you another chance to thank the ambassador, but i wanted to invite up to the podium here, rabbi bluette, and

jeremy, president of the international affairs. for everyone that had a part, i know everyone wants to get out of here, you do on a daily basis championing the relationship between us and israel. thank you so much for spending time here. we thank you. [ applause ] >> so we want to present ambassador oren a gift. thank you for coming tonight. i know for me personally my family is from teheran, iran. what you stand for and what israel stands for is a light of hope for the jewish people and for tolerance in the middle east. for me this is a great honor to present this gift to you. thank you so much.

[ applause ] >> you can give him another round of applause. [ applause ] >> i would ask you all to please stay in the room for just one moment. for security reasons we need to let the party go out the door. the libertarian party will select their presidential nominee this weekend at their 2012 flashl convention in las vegas. this year's theme is the party celebrates its 40th anniversary is liberty will win. our live coverage of the convention begins tonight at 9:00 eastern with a two-hour debate between the libertarian presidential candidates

including former new mexico governor and former republican presidential candidate gary johnson. live coverage continues saturday at noon eastern with the presidential selection process, convention delegates will hear speeches by the presidential candidates and then vote for the party's nominee. all of that live on krshs span. also this weekend president obama and first lady michelle obama will be on the campaign trail speaking at rallies many the battle ground states of ohio and virginia. live coverage of the first obama for america campaign rally begins at 12:55 p.m. eastern on cspan.org. it's taking place on the campus of ohio state university in columbus. the president's second campaign rally is on the campus of virginia commonwealth university in richmond. that will be live at 4 .35 eastern on c-span, c-span radio and cspan.org. >> here is the flat iron building going up in 1903. it was not the first and it was

not the tallest. we see this all the time. steel frame skyscrapers. stop and think what is the technology. basically back in the 1890s when they were introduced they were explained a as a railroad bridge on its end. how else do you explain this? northeast people were afraid of this thing. as a matter of fact you might think we were all loving it. we love innovation, we're new yorkers, we're americans. this thing looked scary. the poor guy who had this building was not too happy. he couldn't rent it out. he couldn't sell it. nobody wanted to be in this build. they figured any moment the building was going to topple over. >> this weekend lectures in history. architectural historian barry lewis in new york city on the late 19th and 20th century. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> sunday on q and a.

>> i don't regard it as just the biography of lyndon johnson. i want each book to examine the kind of political power in america. i'm saying this is a kind of political power. see what a president can do in a moment of great -- in a time of great crisis. great crisis. how he gathers -- what does he do to get legislation moving to take the man to washington? what's the way of examining power in a time of crisis. i want to do this in full. it takes 300 pages. so i couldn't -- that's why i just said let's examine this. >> robert caro on the passage of power. his multivolume biography to have 36th president this sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q and a. look for our second hour of conversation with robert caro sunday, may 20th. now a forum on u.s. policy in the mideast brought the anti-defamation league's

national leadership conference. speakers include steven simon the national security council's middle east and north africa senior director. after his half-hour remarks, we'll hear a panel that includes a discussion of iran's nuclear program. >> good morning. a very good morning to everyone. welcome back to the monday session of the national leadership conference of the anti-defamation league. one of the nation's premier civil rights and human relations agencies. we are very proud of our 100-year record of fighting bigotry and hate and building bridges of understanding between all people.

we'd like to welcome our honored guests from the diplomatic and political community from the embassies of egypt and israel and others. [ applause ] i also would like to welcome the ambassador from norway. welcome, thank you for being here. [ applause ] before we start our session, i want to take a few moments to recognize our glass leadership classes. i know it's early, but i hear the buzz so i want to hear from you. let's start with atlanta and the southeast. [ applause ] how about detroit? [ applause ] houston and the southwest. [ applause ] las vegas [ applause ] they're used to staying up all night. we have an interesting program this morning on u.s. policy in a

dynamic and dangerous middle east. to introduce our first speaker i'd like to call upon steved aler member of our national commission from austin, texas. [ applause ] >> morning. this morning session is focused on the dramatic upheavals in the middle east and the policy challenges that they pose for the united states the obama administration entered office expecting to face a full plate of issues to manage while pursuing mideast policy goals. countering iran's march to nuclear weapons capability. promoting palestinian negotiations. reducing the u.s. military presence in iraq and managing volatile situations in pakistan and afghanistan that makes for a full agenda. and then if you add to that the

stunning political upheaval in the region that no one could have predicted. as these events have shown and as our next speaker the likely to remind us, the only thing predictable about this region is the ability to predict events and the repercussions. today we are fortunate to have with us steve simon special assistant to the president obama and the senior director for middle east and north africa at the national security council. mr. simon has had a distinguished career as author, scholar and one of washington's most insightful analysts on mideast terrorism and the broader regional directors. adl first encountered him when he firsted with president clinton's security council as director for global issues and senior director for transnational threats. during that period he advised

president clinton on counterterrorism policy issues and operations as well as security policy in the near east and south asia. during a service in the obama white house, his door has always been open to us and he has been generous in sharing his time, his we'll of understanding and his insights. please join me in welcoming white house senior director for middle east and north africa, steve simon. [ applause ] >> steve's introduction remind me of something i used to say before i came into government when i was asked about the arab spring which was -- since i didn't see it coming, how do i know where it's going? i still feel like that a lot