opening for political engagement between the government and those seeking change. let me say clearly this is a difficult mission at a difficult moment. this is even very dangerous mission. we know the risk to our brave u.n. observers. we know that civilians could face punishment for even speaking with them. and we know the nature of the regime which could very well use the presence of the mission to prepare for further violence. the efforts of our joint special envoy, kofi annan embodied a hard-headed strategy to deal with these challenges. once again, i call on the syrian government to uphold its responsibilities under the

six-point plan fully and without further delay. as ever, strenuous partnership is indispensable. the united nations and original organizations such as the league of arab states, the u.n. and nations represented here tonight. we cannot predict how this will end, but we do know there can be no compromise on fundamental principles of justice and human rights in syria or elsewhere. no amount of force -- [ applause ] no amount of force can squash people's aspirations to live in integrity and decency. 12 days ago, charles taylor, former president of liberia was

found by our special tribunal. today i say no leader anywhere, any time should imagine that he or she enjoys impunity for crimes of atrocity. [ applause ] those responsible for such acts in syria or elsewhere must be held accountable by the international community. ladies and gentlemen, i began this remarks with a call for global collective leadership that puts people first. we need to create a more human world, a world of real solutions for ordinary people, a world of greater justice with more robust

and proactive protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms with greater security and equity for all. as i see it, justice and dignity are not projections. they're not mere aspirations. they are rights of people. they are the responsibilities of governments to deliver. none of these ideals are alien to anyone here this evening. they are core american values. they are core transatlantic values. increasingly, widely shared around the world. our challenge is to continue to spread these principles all around the world, and this universal point, and that takes leadership, your leadership. if i could leave you with just

one thought, it could be this. the atlantic council has always stood firm for justice and equal rights and larger freedom. now is not the moment to lose heart or change course. and thank you very much for this honor, and thank you for your leadership and commitment. let us work together. [ applause ] to make this world better for all. thank you very much. thank you. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, the

great anne-sophie mutter. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ [ applause ] >> thank you, anne-sophie mutter. what a brilliant performance. this now ends the 50th anniversary celebration of the atlantic council. thank you so much for attending. we'll see you all next year. [ applause ]

coming up this evening, in a few moments, the debate between massachusetts congressman barney frank and the weekly standard's william kristol. then remarks from world bank president robert zoellick, and the discussion on the future of relief work. after that former chairman michael powell take part in a panel discussion about narrowing the digital divide between minorities and white americans. some live coverage tuesday on c-span 3 to tell you about. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, a house subcommittee holds a hearing to examine several legislative

proposals for overhauling the federal reserve. one of the measures introduced by texas congressman and republican presidential candidate ron paul would abolish the federal reserve system. other proposals being considered would seek to reform the central bank. and at 3:00 eastern, a senate house conference committee will work on a bill to extend funding for highway and surface transportation programs for another two years. congress passed a temporary extension earlier this year, which expires at the end of june. you can watch live coverage here on c-span 3. this week, live from london, the ceremony and pageantry of the state opening of parliament. until recently, parliament's official opening was usually held towards the end of the year. with changes to their election rules, it's now been moved to

the spring. and wednesday queen elizabeth will formally outline the government's priorities for the upcoming year. live coverage starts at 5:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. massachusetts congressman barney frank and "the weekly standard's" william kristol squared off in a debate friday focusing on the upcoming presidential election. hosted by the american jewish committee, both men also addressed relations between the u.s. and israel and iran's nuclear program. earlier this year, barney frank announce head would be retiring at the end of his term after representing massachusetts's fourth district for over three decades. this event is an hour and 15 minutes. >> and john shapiro. [ applause ] >> good morning. john and i are delighted to welcome you to today's great debate of 2012 for ajc global

forum. this has become an anchor event for the global forum, and the great debate can really be a -- is always a place where you can hear first the important issues. two years ago, many of us were here for the memorable debate on iran. and as we heard yesterday, this continues to be a very pressing issue for the community. and last year, the event covered israeli relations with diaspora jews, another major issue that can be hold in the corridors of all major jewish organization. most importantly, this year the debate will be on the american presidential elections, an issue that will impact us all and have great implications for the state of israel.

and of course ajc can be counted on to present all sides of the story in depth. >> thank you very much, linda. welcome to all of you. it's a delight to be here this morning. i think it's not going to be too far of a stretch to suggest that our debaters, william kristol and barney frank will have some disagreements this morning about the election. and in fact i think on many political issues we mind find they have disagreements. but what they don't disagree on is the importance of being here with us today at the ajc, because what i believe what they do believe is in the value of the ajc, the respect of the ajc, the intellectualism, and the nonpartisan approach to the challenges that we face in this world, and the great success of our quiet diplomacy.

so for that i thank them for being here today. i think it will be fun. and i would like to encourage you now to sit back, watch a brief introductory video, and then let the good times roll. so thank you all. [ applause ] >> when we talk about a strategically important weekend, i have yet to find a region -- >> in the blue corner, veteran democratic congressman barney frank, famous for his quick tongue and an illustrious political career that has spanned the big issues from civil rights to financial regulation to foreign policy. >> in 2005/2006, people in the hillary clinton, bill clinton machine saying barack obama? are you kidding? >> in the red corner bill kristol, one of america's most

celebrated political commentators and a thorn in the side of the obama administration on everything from health care to u.s./israel relations. the coming presidential election in november is one in which ajc's priorities will be center stage. what is the best approach to iran, given the regime's continuing drive to obtain nuclear weapons capability? is the grand prize of an israeli/palestinian peace settlement something that has eluded successive presidents for more than half a century, any closer? and against the continued debate about homeland security, how close is the united states towards reducing its dependence on energy supplies from hostile states? over the next hour, these and other issues will be in the spotlight. so don't forget to submit your questions as we welcome you to ajc's great debate on election 2012.

[ applause ] >> thank you. and thank you to linda and john. and welcome to this year's ajc great debate. i especially want to welcome our viewers who are watching on c-span across the country and around the world. our subject is the 2012 american election. its implications for domestic and foreign policy, its specific implications for developments in the middle east and for the security of our democratic ally israel, its meaning as a yardstick of political attitudes and loyalties in the american jewish community. ajc, it must be clearly stated at the outset is strictly nonpartisan. we do not and we cannot support

any particular candidate in any election. but nonpartisan does not mean nonpolitical. the policies that we advocate in the united states and around the world, policies to promote peace and security and human rights are policies that succeed or fail in the political arena. our engagement in the political process could not be more intense. it is because of our active political interest that ajc regularly convenes election year debates and discussions on a slightly smaller scale than this in cities across the country. it's the reason that we publish candidates' responses to ajc policy questionnaires, conduct issue forums at the two parties' political conventions, and regularly and scientifically survey american jewish political opinion. in fact, the latest ajc opinion survey was released at the beginning of this week. and we will be discussing it shortly. before we begin our debate with

congressman barney frank and "weekly standard" editor bill kristol, a word about our format. we'll begin with opening statements. each debater will have five minutes for his statement, and then two minutes to respond to his counterpart. we'll then move to the question and answer portion of the debate in which each speaker will again have up to five minutes to respond. finally, each debater will have the opportunity to offer two-minute concluding remarks. these time limits will be strictly enforced. now, i'll ask bill to kick off this year's ajc great debate. bill, thank you. >> thanks, jason. it's good to be here. i have a long association -- i don't personally have a long association. my family has a long association with the ajc, and i've always had a high regard, of course, for the organization. my father worked commentary way back in 1947 to 1952 when commentary was part of the ajc, and before the ajc moved into their fancy building.

it was thought to be a fancy building in the mid-'50s when they moved in. i think they were further downtown originally in some even dumpier place. and then my uncle worked at the ajc for many, many years i remember visiting him often and editing the year book. when i was chief of staff, i think i was the only person in the bush white house who had several editions of the ajc year book in my bookcase in the old executive office building. it's good to be here to make the case, i guess that's what i'm supposed to do for mitt romney and the republicans against president obama. every four years i dutifully accept invitations to debate prominent intelligent liberals and democrats on behalf of the republican candidate before jewish audiences. it's always a pathetic scene. i have an unmatched record of failures at this effort from 1984 on. i won't even reigh really try. you're all adults.

98% of you. i'm sure there are very few undecided voters in this audience. i this will not be as bad as 1996, two times i did this. in 96 i debated a journalist, at the jts, jewish theology society in new york. the woman, a moderator. i said, probably a pretty liberal crowd, clinton/dole, height of oslo, president rabin assassinated. dole had no particular affiliation, pro-israel. he wasn't close to the jewish community. i remember saying before he walked out on stage. i imagine this audience is probably a little bit pro-clinton. the moderator cheerfully said, i don't know. there are about 500 people a bout 480 of them are

pro-clinton. 20 are undecided. i think i lost most of the undecided in the course of the evening, in the course of the evening. make my case for conservatism. in 2000, another true story, i debated, at northern virginia jewish community center where we live in northern virginia, months before the election, early in 2000, i said, they were setting up an october brunch. sunday brunches at the jcc to debate the election. i debated a political operative from this area. we didn't know who the, the nominees were going to be at that event or if we did, we didn't know the ticket. i remember thinking this will be tough again. maybe i have a chance. because george w. bush was very pro-israel, it wasn't clear, clinton wouldn't be running for re-election, we would have a chance for a fresh look. then i remember the day al gore announced joe lieberman was joining the ticket. i'm like, joe lieberman

personally has, spent a lot of time with every person in the audience at the northern virginia, jewish community center, that was really a wonderful moment, defending, defending, making the case for bush/cheney against gore/lieberman. turns out there were relatives, joe lieberman there, people in his daughters' wedding. a nightmare. i told the stories to the lieberman a year later. i've thought it was amazing i made the case against them. joe thought it was funny. she was a little shocked that i actually hadn't voted for her husband in 2000. i mean, look the differences between the parties are pretty evident. i don't know they're as much specifically youisha^ bojewish. we have a center right republican party. and a center left democratic party. with pretty clear divisions. i very much hope, honest sly that this election is a policy

heavy issue heavy election. i am worried it won't be. of course the campaign operatives take over in both parties. and we end up with idiotic side shows and little debates. the country deserves a serious debate about entitlement reform, tax policy, best way to stop iran, supreme court appointments about the whole spectrum of issues. i am somewhat optimistic now that once the republicans are through the primaries and president obama didn't have a primary. another thing i'm unhappy about. i'm sorry barney is here instead of doing what he should have done and run against president obama in the primaries to give liberalism. here obama sells out the liberals on so many things and they let him sail to renomination, very fortunate. more unfortunate, because incumbent president whose don't have primary challenges have a belt better chance of winning. i spent a week trying to get people like barney frank and

ru russ feingold. look, we'll have a serious debate, argument about foreign policy, national security, which i think is very important. should not be put aside simply on behalf of all the economic issues, entitlement reform, obama care and everything else. i think the ajc poll shows romney doing better among jewish voters than mccain. obama beat mccain in the era of hope and change. 3 1/2 years ago. 72-28 among jewish voters if you allocate undecideds, in the ajc poll it looks like 68-32, 69-31 split among jews this time. if romney can do much better among the country as he looks like he will do among jewish voters he will beat president obama which i think will be a good thing for the country. >> barney. you will have extra time.

>> thank you. let me acknowledge the -- the rueful compliment that bill paid me, regretting that i wasn't dumb enough to challenge the p it is only, my refusal to run against the president that would endanger the chances of the public policy i want being accepted. i guess that is just one more case where i try not to live up to the stereotype people use regarding me. with regard to the election. there are some very important issues here. we have got to reduce the deficit. and the question is what mix of policies do you do? and there are real differences between the parties. i have one clear difference with the way bill shaped it when he said there is a center left democratic party and center right republican party. used to be. there has been a center right republican party. unfortunately, the republican party has moved much further to the right. and as thomas mann and norm

ornstein just documented, political science has documented there has been some movement apart. the republicans have moved further right than democrats moved further left. bill just testified to that by his dig at those of us s who are sensible liberal for not attacking our president because he has not been able to get done everything we want. but the fact is that, the republican party has moved entirely to the right so we now have as major debate in foreign policy on the republican side, whether or not the fact that you are gay disables you from being a foreign policy adviser. that has taken us s beyond the realm of rationality. if you look at the republican party in the house, you sadly no longer have a center right republican party if i hope you will. i have been proud to work with a lot of republicans. but i find it much harder to do in the current congress. and i hope there will be a resurgence of the -- of the more responsible, main sfroostream republicans. as to the election.

obviously on most of the issues -- i say, just statistical fact, given the way american jews have been in terms of the political spectrum, we start out with a -- a notion that they're going to vote democratic in the majority. again that's been confirmed, when a 68-32, democratic margin is considered an erosion, as it would be. but the, the issue that i think has to be framed as this. given the fact that most jewish americans, given their views on economics on the environment, on civil liberties on a woman's right to choose on a whole range of, use would be likeooikely to democratic. should they instead vote republican because president obama is weaker on israel? and i think the answer is no. one of the questions should this be a referendum on obama's approximately see towards israel, and american jooews. the most important reason there are not significant differences. in fact this notion that somehow president obama has been

anti-israel -- i served with the president who did take some steps that were blocking israel in congress. george h.w. bush. the only time in my 31 years in congress when israel was frustrated trying to get a policy through the congress when president george h.w. bush or w.h., whatever. i don't mean to denigrate it, i think it is h.w. he brought loan guarantees. israel sought loan guarantees to assimilate the immigrants. he blocked it, yitzhak shamir said this land will remain jewish for as far as the eye can see forever. i try to ameliorate that by pointing out shamir at that point was very short and very old and probably couldn't see that far. the fact is that push was able to block us from getting the

loan guarantees. damaging israel. you also had the famous, i don't remember anybody in the obama administration being as openly negative about israel as secretary of state james baker. when he said -- here is my phone number. if israel wants to make peace. call me on television. in fact there was one example in which the obama administration delivered for israel as well as any president ever has. you go back to about a year ago. you go book and look at the papers. there was this notion there was going to be at the u.n. a successful move by the palestinians to got their statehood recognized. and there was a fear that, the assumption was that was likely to happen. the fear was that americans would have to veto a resolution in the security council. clearly going to veto it. america and israel against the world and isolate israel in a way that was negative. the obama administration went to work. one of the most successful examples of diplomacy i have seen, the obama administration pulled out all its lobbying, we